To all of those who would feel oppressed in a Libertarian society...

[myrkul]

Not a monopoly agency, a market agency that has competitors.

So, not THE army, a bunch of little armies, each competing for customers.

By competing you mean they kill anyone who enters their territory?  By customers you mean the people they tax in order to pay for their gear?  Or had you imagined a world where Bob's little army sets up shop next door to Bubba's little army and they compete on price and on nice uniforms?

'Price and nice uniforms', as you said. Think armed security guards, but with military training and entrance requirements.

[Hawker]

Not a monopoly agency, a market agency that has competitors.

So, not THE army, a bunch of little armies, each competing for customers.

By competing you mean they kill anyone who enters their territory?  By customers you mean the people they tax in order to pay for their gear?  Or had you imagined a world where Bob's little army sets up shop next door to Bubba's little army and they compete on price and on nice uniforms?

'Price and nice uniforms', as you said. Think armed security guards, but with military training and entrance requirements.

So if I have Bob's little army and you have Bubba's little army, can we have a little war?  The winner gets to tax everyone in town.

[myrkul]

Not a monopoly agency, a market agency that has competitors.

So, not THE army, a bunch of little armies, each competing for customers.

By competing you mean they kill anyone who enters their territory?  By customers you mean the people they tax in order to pay for their gear?  Or had you imagined a world where Bob's little army sets up shop next door to Bubba's little army and they compete on price and on nice uniforms?

'Price and nice uniforms', as you said. Think armed security guards, but with military training and entrance requirements.

So if I have Bob's little army and you have Bubba's little army, can we have a little war?  The winner gets to tax everyone in town.

If you tell Bob's army to attack me (or Bubba's Army), Or I do the opposite, they'll look at you (or me) and say, 'No.' They're defense agencies, not assault agencies. Assuming one of us raised the price enough, we'd also have to beat Amy's army, and Joe's, etc. Not to mention the other customers of our army, who would, no doubt,be very upset with us.

[Hawker]

Not a monopoly agency, a market agency that has competitors.

So, not THE army, a bunch of little armies, each competing for customers.

By competing you mean they kill anyone who enters their territory?  By customers you mean the people they tax in order to pay for their gear?  Or had you imagined a world where Bob's little army sets up shop next door to Bubba's little army and they compete on price and on nice uniforms?

'Price and nice uniforms', as you said. Think armed security guards, but with military training and entrance requirements.

So if I have Bob's little army and you have Bubba's little army, can we have a little war?  The winner gets to tax everyone in town.

If you tell Bob's army to attack me (or Bubba's Army), Or I do the opposite, they'll look at you (or me) and say, 'No.' They're defense agencies, not assault agencies. Assuming one of us raised the price enough, we'd also have to beat Amy's army, and Joe's, etc. Not to mention the other customers of our army, who would, no doubt,be very upset with us.

"defense agencies, not assault agencies"

Really?  So when one of them starts taking money to kill people, is there a "boss" army that can bring them back into line?  If not, I am paying Bob to kill you, you are dead and I want all your stuff. 

[myrkul]

"defense agencies, not assault agencies"

Really?  So when one of them starts taking money to kill people, is there a "boss" army that can bring them back into line?  If not, I am paying Bob to kill you, you are dead and I want all your stuff. 

Yeah... Not how it works.

If you tell Bob's army to attack me (or Bubba's Army), Or I do the opposite, they'll look at you (or me) and say, 'No.' They're defense agencies, not assault agencies. Assuming one of us raised the price enough, we'd also have to beat Amy's army, and Joe's, etc. Not to mention the other customers of our army, who would, no doubt, be very upset with us.

They're not paid to kill other people, they're paid to protect your stuff. They also have all those other customers to think about, so, most likely if you asked them to attack me (or I you), they'd probably just drop the contract.

[Hawker]

"defense agencies, not assault agencies"

Really?  So when one of them starts taking money to kill people, is there a "boss" army that can bring them back into line?  If not, I am paying Bob to kill you, you are dead and I want all your stuff. 

Yeah... Not how it works.

If you tell Bob's army to attack me (or Bubba's Army), Or I do the opposite, they'll look at you (or me) and say, 'No.' They're defense agencies, not assault agencies. Assuming one of us raised the price enough, we'd also have to beat Amy's army, and Joe's, etc. Not to mention the other customers of our army, who would, no doubt, be very upset with us.

They're not paid to kill other people, they're paid to protect your stuff. They also have all those other customers to think about, so, most likely if you asked them to attack me (or I you), they'd probably just drop the contract.

Sorry but I can't believe you are happy with the notion that I can have you killed and its only a commercial decision as to whether or not Bob's Army does it.  The whole concept of armies that compete for business is far fetched enough but to say that your right to life is down to whether or not its profitable to kill you takes this beyond parody.

[myrkul]

Where did I say you could pay to have me killed?

I said at several points that you could not.

[Hawker]

Where did I say you could pay to have me killed?

I said at several points that you could not.

You said they wouldn't for commercial reasons.  There is no superior force to the little army I have hired to kill you.

The reason this matters is that in real life, people do pay for killing.  From the day you have rival armies set up, you will have people willing to pay for kills.  I don't see how you propose to control this.

[myrkul]

Where did I say you could pay to have me killed?

I said at several points that you could not.

You said they wouldn't for commercial reasons.  There is no superior force to the little army I have hired to kill you.

The reason this matters is that in real life, people do pay for killing.  From the day you have rival armies set up, you will have people willing to pay for kills.  I don't see how you propose to control this.

No superior force? 3 armies, fighting in defense (which means they could probably call in others via mutual assistance contracts) wouldn't overpower your what, 5 guys you were able to bribe? and what about the other customers of your army? They're not defenseless, either. You'd be stopped, and brought to arbitration. If you succeeded in killing me, you'd likely be handed to my survivors to be dealt with as they please. I should point out at this juncture that my Fiance is strongly in favor of public execution. Messy, violent, public execution.

[Hawker]

Where did I say you could pay to have me killed?

I said at several points that you could not.

You said they wouldn't for commercial reasons.  There is no superior force to the little army I have hired to kill you.

The reason this matters is that in real life, people do pay for killing.  From the day you have rival armies set up, you will have people willing to pay for kills.  I don't see how you propose to control this.

No superior force? 3 armies, fighting in defense (which means they could probably call in others via mutual assistance contracts) wouldn't overpower your what, 5 guys you were able to bribe? and what about the other customers of your army? They're not defenseless, either. You'd be stopped, and brought to arbitration. If you succeeded in killing me, you'd likely be handed to my survivors to be dealt with as they please. I should point out at this juncture that my Fiance is strongly in favor of public execution. Messy, violent, public execution.

I have not bribed anyone.  I have a legitimate reason for wanting to kill myrkul and Bob has freely entered the contract to do it.

Are you saying that in an ideal world, its just a question of whether or not myrkul has enough money to hire a bigger army?  Is that your version of a free market?

[myrkul]

I have not bribed anyone.  I have a legitimate reason for wanting to kill myrkul and Bob has freely entered the contract to do it.

Are you saying that in an ideal world, its just a question of whether or not myrkul has enough money to hire a bigger army?  Is that your version of a free market?

We'll assume you have a 'legitimate' reason. So you've got a contract with Bob. You'll be fighting my defense force with 1 guy, then? Good, it will save them bullets.

And no, it's not who has the most money. We're not operating in a vacuum, a fact you seem to stubbornly ignore, no matter how often I remind you. The aggressor will not be a popular man, no matter what the results of the assault is. at the minimum, you're going to have to pay me back for any damages incurred, to say nothing of the tremendous reputation hit, at most, you'll pay with your life at the hands of my - very vengeful - wife.

[Hawker]

I have not bribed anyone.  I have a legitimate reason for wanting to kill myrkul and Bob has freely entered the contract to do it.

Are you saying that in an ideal world, its just a question of whether or not myrkul has enough money to hire a bigger army?  Is that your version of a free market?

We'll assume you have a 'legitimate' reason. So you've got a contract with Bob. You'll be fighting my defense force with 1 guy, then? Good, it will save them bullets.

And no, it's not who has the most money. We're not operating in a vacuum, a fact you seem to stubbornly ignore, no matter how often I remind you. The aggressor will not be a popular man, no matter what the results of the assault is. at the minimum, you're going to have to pay me back for any damages incurred, to say nothing of the tremendous reputation hit, at most, you'll pay with your life at the hands of my - very vengeful - wife.

Bob has the biggest army and I am richer than you.  I don't care if I am popular as I have a big army defending me.  You are dead.  Your poor widow is even less likely to be able to afford a big army than you, especially now that I own all your stuff.

Maybe we are overworking this.  The point I am trying to make is that in any society, things work better if there is a monopoly of violence in the hands of the state.  The idea of lots of small armies that are literally fighting for business doesn't work unless you are happy to accept lots of extra deaths.

[JA37]

OK, let's assume that the shopkeepers are complete ostriches.

What about their defense agencies? You know, the people they pay to protect them from this? They'll probably want to take action to keep from losing any more clients.

So first it was personal responsibility, now it's the shopkeepers that should take action to protect the populace.
And what about the defence agencies? I doubt they go for an all out war with anyone, and I doubt they will be equipped for it. It doesn't make economical sense. They'd probably just strike a deal, and sacrifice a part of their clients.

[AyeYo]

I have not bribed anyone.  I have a legitimate reason for wanting to kill myrkul and Bob has freely entered the contract to do it.

Are you saying that in an ideal world, its just a question of whether or not myrkul has enough money to hire a bigger army?  Is that your version of a free market?

We'll assume you have a 'legitimate' reason. So you've got a contract with Bob. You'll be fighting my defense force with 1 guy, then? Good, it will save them bullets.

And no, it's not who has the most money. We're not operating in a vacuum, a fact you seem to stubbornly ignore, no matter how often I remind you. The aggressor will not be a popular man, no matter what the results of the assault is. at the minimum, you're going to have to pay me back for any damages incurred, to say nothing of the tremendous reputation hit, at most, you'll pay with your life at the hands of my - very vengeful - wife.

Bob has the biggest army and I am richer than you.  I don't care if I am popular as I have a big army defending me.  You are dead.  Your poor widow is even less likely to be able to afford a big army than you, especially now that I own all your stuff.

Maybe we are overworking this.  The point I am trying to make is that in any society, things work better if there is a monopoly of violence in the hands of the state.  The idea of lots of small armies that are literally fighting for business doesn't work unless you are happy to accept lots of extra deaths.

Read some other threads.  I've been over this scenario with him and a few others MANY times.  They just can't wrap their minds around it.

Sounds like a bad place to live, IMO.  I need a private army to protect me from the endless number of other private armies.  What insane amount of money am I going to have to pay this army to be willing to die to protect me?  Do they stand around my house 24/7?  That's going to get expensive.  If they don't, they better be stationed nearby in case Hawker's private army comes to kill me in the middle of the night.  Do they have that kind of response time?  

Hell, what's saying they even DO protect me when the rubber meets the road?  They've got all the guns AND they've already got my money AND there's no more powerful central authority to force them to follow their contract.  They're likely to tell me to pound sand and fend for myself.


Here's another scenario:

What's stopping these "defense" agencies from realizing that if they band together, THEY have the monoply on force and THEY can rule the world?  There's really no scarier thought than that of a privately own army with zero accountability and no larger force to stop it.


Oh wait... private force, no accoutability, no loyalty to anyone but themselves... I've seen this movie before, I know how it ends: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-10-07-blackwater-investigation_N.htm

[MoonShadow]

There is a glaring example of such a "balanced" (stable is not the right word) state of anarchy that you statists continue to overlook.  There is no such government over the international negotiations of nations, as all nation-states interact in a condition similar to anarchy.  Of course, sometimes they do go to war, and sometimes the biggest dog dominates the others.  Again, I'm not an anarchist, but not because of the reason presented here.  Such security conglomerates can work, because they have in the past.  Call them what you will, but tribes, clans and city states all existed for this exact reason; but they all yielded to such organizations more powerful than themselves.  Humanity seems to have a natural tendency towards self-organization into such social structures.

[AyeYo]

Do you know what tribes, clans, city-states, and nations all have in common?  It's a tough one, think hard.



A form of government and leadership.



Joe Idiot hiring Bob's Army to defend his personal interests against Jane Idiot and Bubba's Army is NOT comparable to US and Russian interactions.

Also, there is a world-wide regulatory body, it's called the UN.  There is such a thing as international law that the UN presides over.  Yes, when it comes down to it, nations fight it out if they can't otherwise agree. However, the major difference is that in order to take an entire nation to war, one must first get public support from hundreds of millions of people or more.  The cost of entry into national sized war is large, the cost of operation is massive, and the cost of defeat is massive.  On the other hand, Joe Idiot doesn't have to do anything other than make a phone call to Bob's Army that he's already got on paid retainer.  Joe never has to put himself in harm's way and he is the only person that needs to be convinced.

[MoonShadow]

Do you know what tribes, clans, city-states, and nations all have in common?  It's a tough one, think hard.


A form of government and leadership.

Which is why I'm not an anarchist.  I consider it an unstable society.  And any unstable society will, more often than not, lead to oppression and tyranny.  The framers of the Constitution built a republic with balance of powers because, as risky as that was, it was the best option available to them.  We may have better options in the age of the Internet, but I'm not any more convinced of that then you seem to be.

Joe Idiot hiring Bob's Army to defend his personal interests against Jane Idiot and Bubba's Army is NOT comparable to US and Russian interactions.

Sure it is, it's just a matter of scale.  The same incentives to avoid conflict, but not at any cost, exist just the same.

Also, there is a world-wide regulatory body, it's called the UN.  There is such a thing as international law that the UN presides over.

No, they don't.  The UN has no power not granted to them by the voluntary actions of the member governments.  At best, the UN is an established system of mediation.  At worst, the UN is a puppet organization that gives legitimacy to the collective aggressions of the largest member states.

 Yes, when it comes down to it, nations fight it out if they can't otherwise agree. However, the major difference is that in order to take an entire nation to war, one must first get public support from hundreds of millions of people or more.

I'd love to live in the world that you think that you live in.  Even the most progressive democracies of the modern world do not require the consent of the governed to engage in war.  The United States has not declared war in the constitutionally described manner since WWII, and even that would not have required the public support from even a simple majority of voters.

 The cost of entry into national sized war is large, the cost of operation is massive, and the cost of defeat is massive.  On the other hand, Joe Idiot doesn't have to do anything other than make a phone call to Bob's Army that he's already got on paid retainer.  Joe never has to put himself in harm's way and he is the only person that needs to be convinced.

Joe isn't the commander of Bob's Army.  Bob is.  Once Joe makes that phone call, Bob is the one that has to weight the options toward resolution.  Bob faces, not just the prospect of defeat (and his own death) if he should choose to ignore mediation as a solution; but also (more likely) the expense of combat exceeding the perceived losses of his client, the desertion of his manpower, and the depletion of his resources.  Depending on the injustice that Joe has suffered, it can quickly become in the best interests of Bob to compensate Joe himself, and either seek restitution from the offender (or offender's own private security force) using the evidence available to him, or drop Bob as a covered client should the evidence favor that Bob is a fraud.  No one here can really say whether actual combat would be more or less rare in a anarchist society with any certainty.  The answer would be highly dependent upon unforeseeable factors and matters of culture.  That said, I find it unlikely that combat in the streets would be any more likely than such combat between rival mafia families or street gangs are in some areas today.  There is no formal mediation process between such criminal organizations, and by definition, these organizations are filled with violent criminals; yet, these kind of conflicts between such organizations are relatively rare for all the same reasons as it would be rare between private security forces that are (presumedly) comprised mostly of legitimate forces representing a broader and less violent cross section of society.  I can't even imagine how this could lead to a 'Mad Max' scenario of a constant state of low level warfare, as you seem to imagine.  But I won't argue that such a condition is possible.

Again, I'm a libertarian, but not an anarchist.  Like so many statists, you seem to confuse the ideologies.

[LastBattle]

I have not bribed anyone.  I have a legitimate reason for wanting to kill myrkul and Bob has freely entered the contract to do it.

Are you saying that in an ideal world, its just a question of whether or not myrkul has enough money to hire a bigger army?  Is that your version of a free market?

We'll assume you have a 'legitimate' reason. So you've got a contract with Bob. You'll be fighting my defense force with 1 guy, then? Good, it will save them bullets.

And no, it's not who has the most money. We're not operating in a vacuum, a fact you seem to stubbornly ignore, no matter how often I remind you. The aggressor will not be a popular man, no matter what the results of the assault is. at the minimum, you're going to have to pay me back for any damages incurred, to say nothing of the tremendous reputation hit, at most, you'll pay with your life at the hands of my - very vengeful - wife.

Bob has the biggest army and I am richer than you.  I don't care if I am popular as I have a big army defending me.  You are dead.  Your poor widow is even less likely to be able to afford a big army than you, especially now that I own all your stuff.

Maybe we are overworking this.  The point I am trying to make is that in any society, things work better if there is a monopoly of violence in the hands of the state.  The idea of lots of small armies that are literally fighting for business doesn't work unless you are happy to accept lots of extra deaths.

How did you become rich, though? No government grants, no government protections: you would have to either be a great worker of some kind (say, an actor or a neurosurgeon) or a businessman. How much business do you think you will get after you do hire a "big army" to oppress people? You won't be able to fund that big army the instant you blow all of your reputation on a petty attack.

Meanwhile, you would have to look far and wide to find a "big army" of thugs to oppress people, too. Who would hire them afterwards? How would they supply themselves (unless the rich person personally supplies them, in which case the above problem applies to the big army, too)? Attacking someone on the rich man's behalf would alienate any future customers.

[ascent]

Genghis Khan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan

[myrkul]

Maybe we are overworking this.  The point I am trying to make is that in any society, things work better if there is a monopoly of violence in the hands of the state.  The idea of lots of small armies that are literally fighting for business doesn't work unless you are happy to accept lots of extra deaths.

uh... No.

Monopolies are never good. Especially monopolies on Violence. Even Moonshadow will agree that the people need to be able to defend against the aggressions of the state, should their 'long train of abuses' become too much.

What's stopping these "defense" agencies from realizing that if they band together, THEY have the monoply on force and THEY can rule the world?  There's really no scarier thought than that of a privately own army with zero accountability and no larger force to stop it.

They STILL don't have a monopoly on force. The populace is armed. Any conquering force, within or without, would lose a lot of people. Most people would consider that not worth it. Especially when they can have almost as much profit, with much less chance of losing their lives.