The legitimate purpose of military...

[blablahblah]

Escrow to protect international trade and co-operation.

In our Anarchic globe where governments only have domestic oversight, but no supreme leader "brutally coercing" them to obey some heinous international laws, there must be some way to ensure that voluntary trade is predominantly honest. The Potential losses provoked by breaches of trust must outweigh any [potential] 'gains' from cheating one's customer or supplier.

Up until now, the Anarcho-Capitalists always had one argument up their sleeve with which they could criticise governments (that they support violent military and that military serves no useful purpose...), and for which I had no answer. But escrow is that answer. So, if any An-Cap or Libertarian supporters want to dispute that, I invite them to present alternative, non-violent/non-threatening, decentralised/non-authoritarian ideas for escrow that would ensure co-operative trade between isolated communities.

[1715013714]

1715013714

[1715013714]

1715013714

[blablahblah]

Where are all the An-Caps? Where's Myrkul? Defend thy honour!

[coqui33]

I am not sure that I understand your point. Are you saying that whoever holds the escrow (arbiter) must possess overwhelming military force compared to his clients?

[hawkeye]

Definition of 'Escrow'
A financial instrument held by a third party on behalf of the other two parties in a transaction. The funds are held by the escrow service until it receives the appropriate written or oral instructions or until obligations have been fulfilled. Securities, funds and other assets can be held in escrow.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/escrow.asp

I don't see military mentioned anywhere.

Since An-Caps and Libertarians are against military, yet strongly in favour of a Capitalist-style system with free trade, how would they prevent large-scale scamming in the "millions of people" range?

Can you give me an example of "scamming in the millions of people range"?  Either historical or hypothetical, whichever you prefer.  Because I don't know what you mean.

[blablahblah]

Definition of 'Escrow'
A financial instrument held by a third party on behalf of the other two parties in a transaction. The funds are held by the escrow service until it receives the appropriate written or oral instructions or until obligations have been fulfilled. Securities, funds and other assets can be held in escrow.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/escrow.asp

I don't see military mentioned anywhere.

I'm talking about the assurance/guarantee. It could also be a 2-party lock and key thing, as in the case of some Bitcoin transactions where the network substitutes for the third party and either side can threaten to burn the coins if the deal goes sour.

Since An-Caps and Libertarians are against military, yet strongly in favour of a Capitalist-style system with free trade, how would they prevent large-scale scamming in the "millions of people" range?

Can you give me an example of "scamming in the millions of people range"?  Either historical or hypothetical, whichever you prefer.  Because I don't know what you mean.

E.g.: Currency debasement.

[hawkeye]

Definition of 'Escrow'
A financial instrument held by a third party on behalf of the other two parties in a transaction. The funds are held by the escrow service until it receives the appropriate written or oral instructions or until obligations have been fulfilled. Securities, funds and other assets can be held in escrow.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/escrow.asp

I don't see military mentioned anywhere.

I'm talking about the assurance/guarantee. It could also be a 2-party lock and key thing, as in the case of some Bitcoin transactions where the network substitutes for the third party and either side can threaten to burn the coins if the deal goes sour.

Not a valid analogy.  The military is not the network on which the transactions are being performed.
 

Since An-Caps and Libertarians are against military, yet strongly in favour of a Capitalist-style system with free trade, how would they prevent large-scale scamming in the "millions of people" range?

Can you give me an example of "scamming in the millions of people range"?  Either historical or hypothetical, whichever you prefer.  Because I don't know what you mean.

E.g.: Currency debasement.

Currency debasement is only possible in a world where you have a forced monopoly currency.  The reason people go to Gold and Silver is because it is really the only escape from CD.   Bitcoin is now another option, but only because unlike other currencies that have been setup privately, it has no central point of control for the govt to attack.

Without the govt, it's a moot point.  Competing currencies would always offer ways out and no-one would be able to get away with CD.

[Mike Christ]

Fuck you, I've had enough of this thread and your arrogant An-Cap preaching. Good bye.

You have some kind of odd obsession with this thing, despite the fact you seem to hate it; I believe this is a symptom of Asperger's, a purported form of autism.

I don't know if you've answered this already, but are you autistic?  If not, are you willing to get tested for it?  I know it makes little logical sense how it would apply in an argument such as this, but it makes a whole lot of sense to people who aren't autistic.

[myrkul]

Fuck you, I've had enough of this thread and your arrogant An-Cap preaching. Good bye.

You have some kind of odd obsession with this thing, despite the fact you seem to hate it; I believe this is a symptom of Asperger's, a purported form of autism.

I don't know if you've answered this already, but are you autistic?  If not, are you willing to get tested for it?  I know it makes little logical sense how it would apply in an argument such as this, but it makes a whole lot of sense to people who aren't autistic.

Hey, I'm not super-human. 20+ pages of Myrkul being asinine takes it's toll. Meanwhile, I thought of a new topic to discuss, so I started my own thread. So if you can contribute, then discuss! But don't be a bitch sheesh.

So, given that you then requested my presence in this thread, is that a yes?

[myrkul]

Myrkul seems to be watching this thread, but he hasn't disagreed with the OP claim...

Because nothing you've said so far wouldn't apply to a private military force as well.

Well, that, and the fact that this is patently false...

Up until now, the Anarcho-Capitalists always had one argument up their sleeve with which they could criticise governments (that they support violent military and that military serves no useful purpose...)

[myrkul]

Myrkul seems to be watching this thread, but he hasn't disagreed with the OP claim...

Because nothing you've said so far wouldn't apply to a private military force as well.

Interesting concept. Who would a private military serve?

Who does a restaurant serve?
Who does a security company like Brinks serve?
Who does any private industry serve?

[blablahblah]

Myrkul seems to be watching this thread, but he hasn't disagreed with the OP claim...

Because nothing you've said so far wouldn't apply to a private military force as well.

Interesting concept. Who would a private military serve?

Who does a restaurant serve?
Who does a security company like Brinks serve?
Who does any private industry serve?

Yeah, I'm beginning to understand how some people might fight to the death for their clients' money. No "king and country" required.
But what if this "Acme Mercenaries Inc." group discovers that offensive (rather than defensive) opportunities could bring in more profit if they go for soft targets? Wouldn't that be a lot like the US military?

[myrkul]

Myrkul seems to be watching this thread, but he hasn't disagreed with the OP claim...

Because nothing you've said so far wouldn't apply to a private military force as well.

Interesting concept. Who would a private military serve?

Who does a restaurant serve?
Who does a security company like Brinks serve?
Who does any private industry serve?

Yeah, I'm beginning to understand how some people might fight to the death for their clients' money. No "king and country" required.
But what if this "Acme Mercenaries Inc." group discovers that offensive (rather than defensive) opportunities could bring in more profit if they go for soft targets? Wouldn't that be a lot like the US military?

It would. The US military is a cash-bloated behemoth, though. "Acme" would find that it's employees preferred less dangerous jobs, it's customers preferred less offensive-minded "protectors," and that those soft targets rapidly started getting harder, right about the time that they also discovered that the other companies preferred less offensive-minded competitors.

For reference on that last point, see Germany's attempted acquisition of Poland, and extrapolate that to why the US doesn't try to annex Canada.

[myrkul]

Since they seem so similar, how do you know that the US military is not really a private institution?

Simple. Means of funding. Means of acquiring customers. Enforcement of regional monopoly. All the earmarks of a government institution.

[myrkul]

Since they seem so similar, how do you know that the US military is not really a private institution?

Simple. Means of funding.

Who funds whom? Maybe they're just getting taxed?

Means of acquiring customers. Enforcement of regional monopoly. All the earmarks of a government institution.

Nah, those sound like they would be the same with a private institution. Lots of men with guns... and you wondered how a private army would enforce its regional monopoly or acquire new recruits?

Private defense companies don't enforce monopolies, are funded voluntarily by their customers, and acquire employees and customers through market competition.

Government militaries enforce territorial monopolies, are funded by taxation, acquire customers by conquest, and frequently use conscription to gain their soldiers.

There is very little similarity, except that both are groups of armed men.

[myrkul]

Private defense companies don't enforce monopolies, are funded voluntarily by their customers, and acquire employees and customers through market competition.

Come now Myrkul. You're reciting things by rote again.

Do you dispute anything I said?

To which I say: no they could not because they would be instantly corrupted by profit motives.

What profit would one hope to gain by making an offensive strike?

They would expend materiel and manpower, lose customers, and gain enemies. For what purpose?

[blablahblah]

Private defense companies don't enforce monopolies, are funded voluntarily by their customers, and acquire employees and customers through market competition.

Come now Myrkul. You're reciting things by rote again.

Do you dispute anything I said?

Nothing that I can be bothered arguing about specifically. You seem to discount natural monopolies as a matter of course.

To which I say: no they could not because they would be instantly corrupted by profit motives.

What profit would one hope to gain by making an offensive strike?

Jewels! Oil! Gas! Various ores, drugs, food, fresh water...

They would expend materiel and manpower, lose customers, and gain enemies. For what purpose?

It's called project management: do it once, do it right,
...
10. Profit!

[myrkul]

Private defense companies don't enforce monopolies, are funded voluntarily by their customers, and acquire employees and customers through market competition.

Come now Myrkul. You're reciting things by rote again.

Do you dispute anything I said?

Nothing that I can be bothered arguing about specifically. You seem to discount natural monopolies as a matter of course.

Do you know the difference between a natural monopoly and an enforced one?

To which I say: no they could not because they would be instantly corrupted by profit motives.

What profit would one hope to gain by making an offensive strike?

Jewels! Oil! Gas! Various ores, drugs, food, fresh water...

All of which can be purchased on the open market, without risking your life, pissing off your customers, or becoming a criminal organization.

[Elwar]

Sounds like the idea of contract insurance.

Where every transaction and contract which wants assurance that it will be executed correctly can pay into the contract insurance.

If the contract is not fulfilled, private police and courts can execute the enforcement of the contract.

I suppose the larger the contracts the larger the police and court system, thus a private "military".

[FirstAscent]

Myrkul seems to be watching this thread, but he hasn't disagreed with the OP claim...

Because nothing you've said so far wouldn't apply to a private military force as well.

Interesting concept. Who would a private military serve?

Who does a restaurant serve?
Who does a security company like Brinks serve?
Who does any private industry serve?

In general, only those who can pay for it.

[myrkul]

Who does any private industry serve?

In general, only those who can pay for it.

Yes, yes, we've established that you care enough to spend other people's money. Run along, and hug a badger or something.