The legitimate purpose of military...

[wdmw]

Have you thought about what kinds of incentives exist for a powerful monopolist?
The US government is probably a bit too broad of an example, but why not have a go at it? Or maybe choose a different monopoly.
What does the US gov (or X whatever department) really want as a monopoly?

If you have an enforced monopoly, you don't have any competition.  Competition drives prices lower and quality higher.

The basic incentive for being granted an enforced monopoly is a reduced need to supply lower prices and higher quality.

[TomUnderSea]

I can write this story forever but the gist is security is territory based just as much as prostitutes "own" street corners.

The story included arson, sabotage, and vandalism. Would these not be crimes?

Of course.  Do you expect everyone to be honorable, respectable and fair in their dealings with each other?  I don't.

I expect that everyone will act in the most venal, selfish and indulgent fashion that they think they can get away with.  I expect that more power will bring with it more corruption.  I expect that people will lie, cheat and steal if they have a reasonable expectation of it being ignored or approved by their peers and supervisors.

And I expect that the "opposing team" as it were, would have a vested interest in discovering the culprits, and seeing them brought to justice, including such supervisors that turned a blind eye or tacitly - or explicitly - approved. I expect that a security force revealed to have been guilty of such dirty dealings to lose customers thereby. And I expect that knowledge of both of those facts will keep most agencies from going too far out of bounds.

I suspect that the situation would be much more similar to the one in the US Senate.  As a whole, the US public gives the US congress an 8% approval rating and yet, Sen Dianne Feinstein has just reached a record low approval of 44%.  People will tend to support their local crook Senator even when they have a low approval of crooks Senators in general.

I fail to see the validity of that analogy.

If the person you pay to watch your house at night were instead expending efforts to break into your neighbor's house, or to burn it down, or to sabotage your neighbor's security, would you continue to pay for such poor service?

Is my house safe?  If so, why should I complain?

Heck, I might even receive a gift or two if I don't ask too many questions.

[myrkul]

Actually, I used to think that monopolies were pure evil, and that Capitalism sounds great and really efficient. Now I'm not so sure.

Well, of course. I have convinced you that governments are a monopoly. Your conditioning, therefore, forces you to reverse your prior thinking, casting other monopolies in the same glorious light as the State.

Have you thought about what kinds of incentives exist for a powerful monopolist?
The US government is probably a bit too broad of an example, but why not have a go at it? Or maybe choose a different monopoly.
What does the US gov (or X whatever department) really want as a monopoly?

What does any monopoly want? To maintain it's monopoly. What's the highest crime in the lawbooks of every nation?

If the person you pay to watch your house at night were instead expending efforts to break into your neighbor's house, or to burn it down, or to sabotage your neighbor's security, would you continue to pay for such poor service?

Is my house safe?  If so, why should I complain?

Because you're paying for things you're not getting. Either he is charging you enough to cover his costs for watching your house - and instead of doing that, he's sabotaging your neighbor, or he's charging you enough to cover his costs for watching your house and for sabotaging your neighbor. Either way, you're paying him to sabotage your neighbor, when he signed up to watch your house.

[TomUnderSea]

[

If the person you pay to watch your house at night were instead expending efforts to break into your neighbor's house, or to burn it down, or to sabotage your neighbor's security, would you continue to pay for such poor service?

Is my house safe?  If so, why should I complain?

Because you're paying for things you're not getting. Either he is charging you enough to cover his costs for watching your house - and instead of doing that, he's sabotaging your neighbor, or he's charging you enough to cover his costs for watching your house and for sabotaging your neighbor. Either way, you're paying him to sabotage your neighbor, when he signed up to watch your house.
[/quote]

And if I don't like my neighbor, this works for me.  Even better if the newly empty lot next door becomes available for me to annex as a garden.

I might as well do it first before my neighbor does it to me, right?

[myrkul]

If the person you pay to watch your house at night were instead expending efforts to break into your neighbor's house, or to burn it down, or to sabotage your neighbor's security, would you continue to pay for such poor service?

Is my house safe?  If so, why should I complain?

Because you're paying for things you're not getting. Either he is charging you enough to cover his costs for watching your house - and instead of doing that, he's sabotaging your neighbor, or he's charging you enough to cover his costs for watching your house and for sabotaging your neighbor. Either way, you're paying him to sabotage your neighbor, when he signed up to watch your house.

And if I don't like my neighbor, this works for me.  Even better if the newly empty lot next door becomes available for me to annex as a garden.

I might as well do it first before my neighbor does it to me, right?

Well, I see that the gods have seen fit to provide me with another sociopathic statist to torment.

Good, Welcome to the forums.

I hope you'll understand if I don't want you as a neighbor.

[TomUnderSea]

If the person you pay to watch your house at night were instead expending efforts to break into your neighbor's house, or to burn it down, or to sabotage your neighbor's security, would you continue to pay for such poor service?

Is my house safe?  If so, why should I complain?

Because you're paying for things you're not getting. Either he is charging you enough to cover his costs for watching your house - and instead of doing that, he's sabotaging your neighbor, or he's charging you enough to cover his costs for watching your house and for sabotaging your neighbor. Either way, you're paying him to sabotage your neighbor, when he signed up to watch your house.

And if I don't like my neighbor, this works for me.  Even better if the newly empty lot next door becomes available for me to annex as a garden.

I might as well do it first before my neighbor does it to me, right?

Well, I see that the gods have seen fit to provide me with another sociopathic statist to torment.

Good, Welcome to the forums.

I hope you'll understand if I don't want you as a neighbor.

Does this mean you won't be coming to the BBQ?

[blablahblah]

If the person you pay to watch your house at night were instead expending efforts to break into your neighbor's house, or to burn it down, or to sabotage your neighbor's security, would you continue to pay for such poor service?

Is my house safe?  If so, why should I complain?

Because you're paying for things you're not getting. Either he is charging you enough to cover his costs for watching your house - and instead of doing that, he's sabotaging your neighbor, or he's charging you enough to cover his costs for watching your house and for sabotaging your neighbor. Either way, you're paying him to sabotage your neighbor, when he signed up to watch your house.

And if I don't like my neighbor, this works for me.  Even better if the newly empty lot next door becomes available for me to annex as a garden.

I might as well do it first before my neighbor does it to me, right?

Well, I see that the gods have seen fit to provide me with another sociopathic statist to torment.

Good, Welcome to the forums.

I hope you'll understand if I don't want you as a neighbor.

Does this mean you won't be coming to the BBQ?

Don't worry. Everyone who questions his rosy perma-visions is a "sociopathic Statist", and/or the victim of some nasty conditioning, brainwashing and whatever other state-imposed ill-treatment. He (and a couple of other An-Cap devotees) is the only one who's 'sane' around here. So far I don't think he has accused anyone of being a victim of torture or of suffering PTSD yet, but it's only a matter of time.

[TomUnderSea]

Don't worry. Everyone who questions his rosy perma-visions is a "sociopathic Statist", and/or the victim of some nasty conditioning, brainwashing and whatever other state-imposed ill-treatment. He (and a couple of other An-Cap devotees) is the only one who's 'sane' around here. So far I don't think he has accused anyone of being a victim of torture or of suffering PTSD yet, but it's only a matter of time.

Actually I think someone already offered me that free diagnosis.

Lovely community you have here.

Plenty of free psychological counseling services.

[myrkul]

Don't worry. Everyone who questions his rosy perma-visions is a "sociopathic Statist"

On the contrary. I've had great conversations with people who disagreed with me, but didn't advocate violence against their neighbor, and I didn't call them a sociopath. I call 'em like I see 'em, and Tommy boy here stated he'd be perfectly fine with paying for his security company to burn down his neighbor's house.

[TomUnderSea]

Don't worry. Everyone who questions his rosy perma-visions is a "sociopathic Statist"

On the contrary. I've had great conversations with people who disagreed with me, but didn't advocate violence against their neighbor, and I didn't call them a sociopath. I call 'em like I see 'em, and Tommy boy here stated he'd be perfectly fine with paying for his security company to burn down his neighbor's house.

Nice strawman.  You should work on your reading comprehension.

I asked why should I care what the security forces do in their off hours as long as my house is secure.

If their business model includes burning out people who they view as a security threat is it my concern?

[myrkul]

Don't worry. Everyone who questions his rosy perma-visions is a "sociopathic Statist"

On the contrary. I've had great conversations with people who disagreed with me, but didn't advocate violence against their neighbor, and I didn't call them a sociopath. I call 'em like I see 'em, and Tommy boy here stated he'd be perfectly fine with paying for his security company to burn down his neighbor's house.

Nice strawman.  You should work on your reading comprehension.

Tsk... you need to work on your reading comprehension:

If the person you pay to watch your house at night were instead expending efforts to break into your neighbor's house, or to burn it down, or to sabotage your neighbor's security, would you continue to pay for such poor service?

Is my house safe?  If so, why should I complain?

Because you're paying for things you're not getting. Either he is charging you enough to cover his costs for watching your house - and instead of doing that, he's sabotaging your neighbor, or he's charging you enough to cover his costs for watching your house and for sabotaging your neighbor. Either way, you're paying him to sabotage your neighbor, when he signed up to watch your house.

And if I don't like my neighbor, this works for me.  Even better if the newly empty lot next door becomes available for me to annex as a garden.

I might as well do it first before my neighbor does it to me, right?

This sure looks like you're explicitly saying you'd be OK with it. Ergo, Sociopath.

[FirstAscent]

If the person you pay to watch your house at night were instead expending efforts to break into your neighbor's house, or to burn it down, or to sabotage your neighbor's security, would you continue to pay for such poor service?

Is my house safe?  If so, why should I complain?

Because you're paying for things you're not getting. Either he is charging you enough to cover his costs for watching your house - and instead of doing that, he's sabotaging your neighbor, or he's charging you enough to cover his costs for watching your house and for sabotaging your neighbor. Either way, you're paying him to sabotage your neighbor, when he signed up to watch your house.

And if I don't like my neighbor, this works for me.  Even better if the newly empty lot next door becomes available for me to annex as a garden.

I might as well do it first before my neighbor does it to me, right?

Well, I see that the gods have seen fit to provide me with another sociopathic statist to torment.

Good, Welcome to the forums.

I hope you'll understand if I don't want you as a neighbor.

What about neighbors who engage in badger huggings?

[myrkul]

What about neighbors who engage in badger huggings?

  What you do in your free time, with your own money, is your own business, so long as you're not aggressing against anyone.

[TomUnderSea]

Don't worry. Everyone who questions his rosy perma-visions is a "sociopathic Statist"

On the contrary. I've had great conversations with people who disagreed with me, but didn't advocate violence against their neighbor, and I didn't call them a sociopath. I call 'em like I see 'em, and Tommy boy here stated he'd be perfectly fine with paying for his security company to burn down his neighbor's house.

Nice strawman.  You should work on your reading comprehension.

Tsk... you need to work on your reading comprehension:

If the person you pay to watch your house at night were instead expending efforts to break into your neighbor's house, or to burn it down, or to sabotage your neighbor's security, would you continue to pay for such poor service?

Is my house safe?  If so, why should I complain?

Because you're paying for things you're not getting. Either he is charging you enough to cover his costs for watching your house - and instead of doing that, he's sabotaging your neighbor, or he's charging you enough to cover his costs for watching your house and for sabotaging your neighbor. Either way, you're paying him to sabotage your neighbor, when he signed up to watch your house.

And if I don't like my neighbor, this works for me.  Even better if the newly empty lot next door becomes available for me to annex as a garden.

I might as well do it first before my neighbor does it to me, right?

This sure looks like you're explicitly saying you'd be OK with it. Ergo, Sociopath.

So if I don't want to take care of my neighbor, I am a sociopath?

Seems like there are a lot of sociopaths out there, especially in that big city of yours where all security is privatized.

I'm paying for my house to be secure.  Because this is entirely a financial arrangement between Snarky's Security Company and me, I really don't care what he does to the neighbor's house.  If I did, I would ask Snarky to quote me a rate for my neighbor's house and mine. 

If Snarky ends up burning down the neighbors house as part of the contract negotiations, not my problem.

Isn't this what you wanted?

[myrkul]

So if I don't want to take care of my neighbor, I am a sociopath?

No, If you're OK with paying Snarky to sabotage your neighbor, like you said here:

Either way, you're paying him to sabotage your neighbor, when he signed up to watch your house.

And if I don't like my neighbor, this works for me.  Even better if the newly empty lot next door becomes available for me to annex as a garden.
I might as well do it first before my neighbor does it to me, right?

And here:

Because this is entirely a financial arrangement between Snarky's Security Company and me, I really don't care what he does to the neighbor's house.

If you're OK with supporting an organization that aggresses against innocent people, you're a sociopath.

[myrkul]

I guess Myrkul's just frustrated that everyone keeps trying to twist Capitalism around instead of seeing the light!

You're just upset you got pwned in your own thread, after practically begging me to come in and do it.

[TomUnderSea]

What made my neighbor so innocent?

Isn't his dealing with Snarky between him and Snarky?  Why should I interfere?

What's wrong with being prepared to profit from the stupidity and misfortune of others?   Isn't that what capitalism is all about?

I think you are just calling me names because you have realized your Utopian dream depends on everyone playing nuce with each other.  Since that is about as likely as a bull sh1tting china, your dream has faded into oblivion.

People will behave badly.  Any societal system that is dependent on them behaving well will fail.

With luck,  foresight and a lot of planning some really smart folks put together a government that os designed to balance those base designs against each other and thereby protect the governed.

At least mostly,  so far.


If you want to build something better, you need to start with the assumption that _anyone_ who ends up in power is on their way to being corrupted.

Your ANCAP society already exists on earth and you don't want to live there.

[Dabs]

This thread caught me. I haven't had the chance to read through all the posts, but the OP mentioned one purpose of the military. For Escrow.

Now, I do not represent a military (not even mine), but I did offer (or am thinking of offering) escrow for larger transactions that would require physical presence.

Is there a market for large escrow transactions? 10k or 100k BTC?

[myrkul]

What made my neighbor so innocent?

The fact that he hasn't done anything to aggress on another. Unlike Snarky.

Isn't his dealing with Snarky between him and Snarky?  Why should I interfere?

You don't have to interfere. You just shouldn't support Snarky in his crimes.

What's wrong with being prepared to profit from the stupidity and misfortune of others?   Isn't that what capitalism is all about?

I think you grossly misunderstand capitalism. You profit from your own abilities, not the "stupidity and misfortune of others." Incidentally, everyone else benefits, too. It's a positive sum game, not a zero- or negative sum game.

I think you are just calling me names because you have realized your Utopian dream depends on everyone playing nuce with each other.  Since that is about as likely as a bull sh1tting china, your dream has faded into oblivion.

No, I'm calling you a sociopath because your statements have revealed you to be one. I think you're getting a little upset about that, based on your spelling errors.

People will behave badly.  Any societal system that is dependent on them behaving well will fail.

AnCap doesn't depend on people behaving well. It depends on them behaving in their own best interest, which, contrary to your delusions, employing a criminal to watch your house at night runs counter to.

With luck,  foresight and a lot of planning some really smart folks put together a government that os designed to balance those base designs against each other and thereby protect the governed.

At least mostly,  so far.

Which government would you be speaking of? Certainly not the US government. That went off the rails in 1791, and has only gotten worse since. To say nothing of what's happened in the past dozen years or so.

If you want to build something better, you need to start with the assumption that _anyone_ who ends up in power is on their way to being corrupted.

Precisely. Which is why it is imperative that those who purchase security purchase it at the best price, from the best provider, and not from shady characters who overcharge and burn down the neighbors' house. Vigilance is indeed the price of liberty, and it is the very providers of security against whom you must remain vigilant.

Your ANCAP society already exists on earth and you don't want to live there.

Oh, I see you've picked up blablahblah's fallacy.

No, I still live in a world dominated by criminal monopolies. As do you. The difference is, I'm not blinded by the flag waving.

[hawkeye]

I think you are just calling me names because you have realized your Utopian dream depends on everyone playing nuce with each other.  Since that is about as likely as a bull sh1tting china, your dream has faded into oblivion.

Nope, that that's what the current society is about.  Indoctrinating and threatening people so everyone follows whatever laws a small group of, well, quite frankly children for the most part (have you seen the way they behave in parliament?) says.

People are individuals who can make their own choices.  The market system allows for this.  You can see this in any product the market makes, from foods to furniture to computers to internet service etc.  None of that requires the whole of society to play nice with each other to be produced.  The incentives are that people make money by providing products and services.

There's no reason putting out education or money or security on the market, instead of having the govt produce it,  won't produce the same effects as every other product.

Putting a forced monopoly on them basically forces you to be a customer whether you like it or not and closes out alternatives by law.   In such a situation there is no incentive for the people working in these areas to provide good service.  Most just realise they don't need to make much effort and they will get by just fine.  There are those that try to in each of these areas but they eventually burn out from the effort of trying to make headway against an unmoving bueracracy.