The greater the number of firms, the more probable it is that one of those firms is a maverick firm; that is, a firm known for pursuing aggressive and independent pricing strategy. Even in the case of a concentrated market, with few firms, the existence of such a firm may undermine the collusive behaviour of the cartel. How likely do you think it will be that a maverick will pop up, in a market with no barriers to entry save overhead? how fast do you think that the cartel companies are to take out a maverick? 10 against 1, is really no fair chance. |
|
|
|
They're using SQL transactions in their trade engine. That brings an awful lot of speed limitations.
transactions are important, unless you wants to lose data. |
|
|
|
Then answer his question. Why would they make war?
To gain market share. it is strategy 101: take out your competition, and be rich. Except that when you "take out" a competitor, you: Lose men, either directly through combat losses, or indirectly from quitting. Lose customers to other defense firms who aren't going to waste money attacking when they should be defending. Don't gain the customers of the defeated rival. They're much more likely to go to one of the other firms which don't waste their money. So how is that going to make anyone rich? but collaboration would be a much more likely way they would take, to push the prices and gain power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel#Long-term_unsustainability_of_cartelsGame theory suggests that cartels are inherently unstable, as the behaviour of members of a cartel is an example of a prisoner's dilemma. Each member of a cartel would be able to make more profit by breaking the agreement (producing a greater quantity or selling at a lower price than that agreed) than it could make by abiding by it. also from the article: The incentive to cheat explains why cartels are generally difficult to sustain in the long run. Empirical studies of 20th century cartels have determined that the mean duration of discovered cartels is from 5 to 8 years. However, one private cartel operated peacefully for 134 years before disbanding.[7] There is a danger that once a cartel is broken, the incentives to form the cartel return and the cartel may be re-formed. |
|
|
|
i see that start of a war(take out the competition), or the collaboration between 'voluntary' security firms.
Under the rule of free competition, war between the producers of security entirely loses its justification. Why would they make war? To conquer consumers? But the consumers would not allow themselves to be conquered. They would be careful not to allow themselves to be protected by men who would unscrupulously attack the persons and property of their rivals. If some audacious conqueror tried to become dictator, they would immediately call to their aid all the free consumers menaced by this aggression, and they would treat him as he deserved. Just as war is the natural consequence of monopoly, peace is the natural consequence of liberty. that quote is shit and you know it. Then answer his question. Why would they make war? To gain market share. it is strategy 101: take out your competition, and be rich. but collaboration would be a much more likely way they would take, to push the prices and gain power. |
|
|
|
i see that start of a war(take out the competition), or the collaboration between 'voluntary' security firms.
Under the rule of free competition, war between the producers of security entirely loses its justification. Why would they make war? To conquer consumers? But the consumers would not allow themselves to be conquered. They would be careful not to allow themselves to be protected by men who would unscrupulously attack the persons and property of their rivals. If some audacious conqueror tried to become dictator, they would immediately call to their aid all the free consumers menaced by this aggression, and they would treat him as he deserved. Just as war is the natural consequence of monopoly, peace is the natural consequence of liberty. that quote is shit and you know it. |
|
|
|
but your private security firms would also be protection rackets.
Nope. Protection rackets need monopoly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racketA protection racketeer cannot tolerate competition within his sphere of influence from another racketeer. i see that start of a war(take out the competition), or the collaboration between 'voluntary' security firms. |
|
|
|
no way to enforce it. but you people would be a bunch of hypocrites too, if you did not respected it to the letter.
The vast majority of people respect it now. The only institution that allows for the initiation of aggression and calls it OK is the government. Without the government it would be perfectly obvious to everyone that the initiation of aggression is wrong, just as it is now for everyone but govt. And people would not directly rob from their neighbours. In fact, that's the reason why they don't want to get rid of the government. Because they know they can't get away with it themselves. i would say that people are forced the respect the NAP, because of the government threat. if there was no police, people would be taking what they wanted if they have the necessary force. (yes yes, go on talk about pseudo-police private security firm) Some would, there is no doubt. I have never doubted nor claimed that security wouldn't be needed. People should have the choice though and not be forced to pay a monopoly protection racket. but your private security firms would also be protection rackets. |
|
|
|
no way to enforce it. but you people would be a bunch of hypocrites too, if you did not respected it to the letter.
The vast majority of people respect it now. The only institution that allows for the initiation of aggression and calls it OK is the government. Without the government it would be perfectly obvious to everyone that the initiation of aggression is wrong, just as it is now for everyone but govt. And people would not directly rob from their neighbours. In fact, that's the reason why they don't want to get rid of the government. Because they know they can't get away with it themselves. i would say that people are forced the respect the NAP, because of the government threat. if there was no police, people would be taking what they wanted if they have the necessary force. (yes yes, go on talk about pseudo-police private security firm) |
|
|
|
We do not believe that using violence to acquire just compensation from an aggressor is a form of aggression. In the same way that not all violence is aggression because some violence is defensive. Using violence to uphold justice is similarly not aggression.
oh, justice, you mean enforcement of arbitrary rules? who's rules? |
|
|
|
Except for one tiny little thing: By not respecting the NAP, you're not protected under it.
In a NAP based society, a person that did not respect the NAP would be an outlaw.
So im forced to respect the NAP? or get buttfucked by some "freedom" loving crazies? No, You're free to not respect the NAP. Just don't expect protection under it if you don't. If you're going to be acting antisocially, why should society keep you around? in other words: respect the NAP or die. i feel the gun to my head now, but sure sure its my choice. Either the NAP was more stupid, hipocritic and inconsistent then i expected. or the US was allowed, by NAP, to kill Bin Laden.
See, The US is not a NAP based society. It's based instead on the Constitution, which guarantees criminals a swift and fair trial. yeah we all know that the US is a bunch of hypocrites, but you should be like: Hey man lets kill the fucker that took down WTC.
Except for one tiny little thing: By not respecting the NAP, you're not protected under it.
In a NAP based society, a person that did not respect the NAP would be an outlaw.
Just to clarify this, there is obviously no way to enforce the NAP in a free society, right? Obviously, there is no central authority and thus no central law as such. People would be free to agree with it or not. no way to enforce it. but you people would be a bunch of hypocrites too, if you did not respected it to the letter. |
|
|
|
|
Either the NAP was more stupid, hipocritic and inconsistent then i expected. or the US was allowed, by NAP, to kill Bin Laden.
|
|
|
|
That means nobody would come to your aid in the event you were attacked.
LOL!!!!!! The aid can't do anything. I have no idea what you're talking about. As soon that the aggressor stops aggressing, no one can do him anything according to the NAP. so any aid i could have got is useless. also the guy i beat up, would break the NAP by aggressing against me, after i have aggresed against him and stopped again. in a NAP based society, a person that did not respect the NAP would be god like! WIN! if someone damages you or your property than its not aggression to demand just compensation. No, but i could ignore your polite request for compensation. and when you aggress against me to force me to pay, you would be breaking the NAP. |
|
|
|
Except for one tiny little thing: By not respecting the NAP, you're not protected under it.
In a NAP based society, a person that did not respect the NAP would be an outlaw.
So im forced to respect the NAP? or get buttfucked by some "freedom" loving crazies? |
|
|
|
That means nobody would come to your aid in the event you were attacked.
LOL!!!!!! The aid can't do anything. I have no idea what you're talking about. As soon that the aggressor stops aggressing, no one can do him anything according to the NAP. so any aid i could have got is useless. also the guy i beat up, would break the NAP by aggressing against me, after i have aggresed against him and stopped again. in a NAP based society, a person that did not respect the NAP would be god like! WIN! |
|
|
|
That means nobody would come to your aid in the event you were attacked.
LOL!!!!!! The aid can't do anything. |
|
|
|
I like your point OP, sadly this community is full of a lot of crazies right now and this type of thread just attracts them.
+1 |
|
|
|
in this case, self defense and aggressing is the same thing.
I'm afraid that's a straight-up impossibility. You cannot be defending yourself from the initiation of force and at the same time initiating force. no, it depends on the point of view. Bin Laden initiated force first, with 2 airplanes. and the US initiated force first too, by invading his home. perfectly simple. so it is okay to beat someone up, and then stop aggressing when someone is about to stop you, so that they can't do you anything?
No, that's not OK. You were beating someone up, causing them harm. You'll need to repay that harm. But any force applied to you after you stop isn't repelling force with force, it's retaliation. The NAP is silent on retaliatory force, but logic dictates that it's counterproductive. It's hard to extract restitution from a man you put into the hospital, even harder from a dead man. are you saying that im forced to repay him? No, obligated. so i could just refuse to pay him, and beat him up again? NICE  im beginning to like this NAP stuff. |
|
|
|
i don't think so, no(but "they" said that he was reaching for a gun). Well, if a bunch of armed men burst into your house wouldn't you reach for a gun (assuming you had one, which, as a good Dane, I know you don't)? And if you did reach for a gun, would you be aggressing, or acting in self-defense? [/quote] in this case, self defense and aggressing is the same thing. so it is okay to beat someone up, and then stop aggressing when someone is about to stop you, so that they can't do you anything?
No, that's not OK. You were beating someone up, causing them harm. You'll need to repay that harm. But any force applied to you after you stop isn't repelling force with force, it's retaliation. The NAP is silent on retaliatory force, but logic dictates that it's counterproductive. It's hard to extract restitution from a man you put into the hospital, even harder from a dead man. are you saying that im forced to repay him? |
|
|
|
so it was okay to shoot Bin Laden?
Was he aggressing? he put airplanes into buildings. But was he aggressing? trowing two large buildings with people in them into the ground, seems like a pretty aggressive move. Don't you think? It does. But you've still not answered me. Was he aggressing when he was killed? i don't think so, no(but "they" said that he was reaching for a gun). so it is okay to beat someone up, and then stop aggressing when someone is about to stop you, so that they can't do you anything? |
|
|
|
so it was okay to shoot Bin Laden?
Was he aggressing? he put airplanes into buildings. But was he aggressing? trowing two large buildings with people in them into the ground, seems like a pretty aggressive move. Don't you think? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
