Stefan Molyneux: Lymphoma

[kokjo]

but your private security firms would also be protection rackets.

Nope. Protection rackets need monopoly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket

A 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.

[hawkeye]

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.

I would be free to choose which one I pay and which services I get.  And leave and get another provider if I wasn't happy.  It's all my choice.  With the government, I don't have a choice.  It's pay or else.

And I would be free not to have one at all if I didn't want.  But that's like not going with a phone company or electricity company.  I could not do it, but my life would be worse off.

[myrkul]

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.

[kokjo]

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.

[hawkeye]

but your private security firms would also be protection rackets.

Nope. Protection rackets need monopoly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket

A 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.

On the open market, wars are expensive.  Think of all the personnel you lose, healthcare costs, property damage, all the weapons and ammunition.  That would do serious damage to a companies bottom line.  Not to mention having to go constantly into the job market to replace lost personnel.  People would soon get pissed off if they were constantly shooting up their neighbourhoods too.  

The only institution that can fight wars is govt because they can forcibly take money, print war bonds and ultimately print money if necessary.

The smart thing for security companies that have disputes would be to agree to go to arbitration.  

[myrkul]

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?

[kokjo]

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.

[hawkeye]

Could you imagine a society where everyone was talking to each other about what they stole from another person that day?   No, because everyone knows stealing is wrong.  And most people would not want to live in such a society, not to mention it would collapse pretty quick anyway if nobody's possessions were safe.

It's just when you have the state as a middleman, people get to ignore the stealing.  There is no way in a free society, or any society, that most people would think stealing is OK.  Some might but they would be in the minority and that's what you have security for.

[myrkul]

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_cartels

Game 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.

[kokjo]

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_cartels

Game 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.

[myrkul]

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_cartels

Game 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.

That's your best argument? That a single trade cartel managed to stay together for longer than average?

Also from the article:

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?

[kokjo]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

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?

[kokjo]

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.

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?

10:1

[myrkul]

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.

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?

10:1

That doesn't change the fact 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.

[Anon136]

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.

you cant "take out" your competition in a free market. It will be instantly replaced by new competition. The only way you can "take out" the competition is if you can keep out new competition. There is no mechanism that i am aware of for doing this other than the state.

[kokjo]

you cant "take out" your competition in a free market. It will be instantly replaced by new competition. The only way you can "take out" the competition is if you can keep out new competition. There is no mechanism that i am aware of for doing this other than the state.
[/quote
oh! i know a method that can achieve this! its called "a gun to the head"-method, and it work incredible when there is no one that restricts the usage of guns.

[hawkeye]

Disease and The Drive to Hide with Stefan Molyneux and Jeffrey Tucker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbkYg3saQSc

[myrkul]

you cant "take out" your competition in a free market. It will be instantly replaced by new competition. The only way you can "take out" the competition is if you can keep out new competition. There is no mechanism that i am aware of for doing this other than the state.

oh! i know a method that can achieve this! its called "a gun to the head"-method, and it work incredible when there is no one that restricts the usage of guns.

Haven't thought that one through, have you?

[kokjo]

you cant "take out" your competition in a free market. It will be instantly replaced by new competition. The only way you can "take out" the competition is if you can keep out new competition. There is no mechanism that i am aware of for doing this other than the state.

oh! i know a method that can achieve this! its called "a gun to the head"-method, and it work incredible when there is no one that restricts the usage of guns.

Haven't thought that one through, have you?

there is less gun violence here in the stupid and evil state of Denmark. I have less chance of getting shot then you.