A picture of AnCapistan

[ascent]

As for the rest, I don't see any private competition for the Fire dept, do you?

A county in Tennessee has fire services which are opt in. This is obviously what you want. One guy opted out and the fire department did not save his house. This raises two interesting questions:

1. Why aren't more people opting out? If they are, then where are the high quality fire services to take the place of the fire department?

2. Is the opt in solution really better? There are enough people out there that would be willing to opt out, and then they lose their house in the event of a fire. And it's not clear that insurance covered it - I'm sure they had a clause which stated that the insured's property would not be covered if the insured chose to opt out of fire services.

[myrkul]

Tell me, when on someone else's property, and you see security personnel (or the home owner with a gun), do you feel a jolt of adrenaline?

See... here's the thing. I have indeed encountered a a strapped homeowner. And because I trusted said homeowner, I was glad to see that he was carrying. My ex-fiance's father had more guns than the average Branch Davidian, and was never more than a few steps from one (not due to paranoia, Just had a lot of guns) And I felt safer in his house than I ever do on the road, despite the fact that I was not high on his favorite person list.

The one time I have felt uncomfortable with a homeowner and his firearm, said homeowner was, you guessed it, a cop, and viewed his guns as toys. I did not feel particularly happy that he was allowed to have them in the same house as his two daughters, let alone me.

A county in Tennessee has fire services which are opt in. This is obviously what you want. One guy opted out and the fire department did not save his house. This raises two interesting questions:

Opt in doesn't mean this choice or nothing. It means this choice, or that, choice, or that choice, or nothing. Options... of which there were none. They also refused to provide services unless he paid back-pay, up front. That, my friend, is extortion. Done by any other group, they'd call it by it's name.

[NghtRppr]

There are enough people out there that would be willing to opt out, and then they lose their house in the event of a fire.

So I'm supposed to feel sorry for someone that had a $200,000 house and wouldn't protect it for $100 a year (or whatever the dues were)? A fool and his money...

[ascent]

For crying out loud. You totally avoided the situation where the umbrella of existing laws are removed.

[ascent]

So I'm supposed to feel sorry for someone that had a $200,000 house and wouldn't protect it for $100 a year (or whatever the dues were)? A fool and his money...

And I'm supposed to feel sorry for you for having to pay some taxes to get fire services?

[Rassah]

In AnCapistan, I suspect things like fire and burglary protection would be provided by your home owner's insurance, who would in turn outsource it to whomever they think is best. Since an insurance company's incentive is to not have to pay out any claims, they would have to make sure to hire the best security and fire teams on the market. And you get the service of having a business with lots of connections in that area doing the shopping for service and contracts for you.

Though, that MAY end up in them insisting to cover your pretty house with some not-so pretty fire-retardant coating, but it may also result in really cool security laser cannons around your roof top

[myrkul]

For crying out loud. You totally avoided the situation where the umbrella of existing laws are removed.

I assume that is to me?

I ignored the "umbrella of existing laws" because I live my life as though they do not exist. (except in risk/reward calculations)

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
Robert A. Heinlein

[ascent]

I ignored the "umbrella of existing laws" because I live my life as though they do not exist. (except in risk/reward calculations)

This is an example of why your method of discussion and debate is of no value. You have not answered the question. Whether you live as though the laws exist or not has nothing to do with the scenario. It is pathetic that I have to point this out to you. In the scenario outlined, the existence of the umbrella of laws applies to the behavior of the individual(s) you encounter, not you.

Either you're stupid for not recognizing the distinction, or you think others won't notice your obfuscation. I contend that it's about 60 percent the former, and about 40 percent the latter.

[myrkul]

This is an example of why your method of discussion and debate is of no value. You have not answered the question. Whether you live as though the laws exist or not has nothing to do with the scenario. It is pathetic that I have to point this out to you. In the scenario outlined, the existence of the umbrella of laws applies to the behavior of the individual(s) you encounter, not you.

I say again, I ignore the "umbrella of laws" because I did not take them into account in my initial calculations. In other words, I ignored them because I always have, and assume that others will, as well. I judge people by their actions, not by the society.

[ascent]

I say again, I ignore the "umbrella of laws" because I did not take them into account in my initial calculations. In other words, I ignored them because I always have, and assume that others will, as well. I judge people by their actions, not by the society.

Stupid answer. We're not talking about people you know. We're talking about security service personnel and other individuals who you've never seen until two seconds ago - like the cop in your rear-view mirror. Duh! Once again, either you're demonstrating stupidity or obfuscation in your responses.

Remember what the analogy was? Hello? The cop in the rear-view mirror? Not your friend of five years.

[vector76]

They also refused to provide services unless he paid back-pay, up front. That, my friend, is extortion. Done by any other group, they'd call it by it's name.

Refusing to provide services that haven't been paid for is extortion?

For which other group would this be called extortion?  Doctors?

[myrkul]

I say again, I ignore the "umbrella of laws" because I did not take them into account in my initial calculations. In other words, I ignored them because I always have, and assume that others will, as well. I judge people by their actions, not by the society.

Stupid answer. We're not talking about people you know. We're talking about security service personnel and other individuals who you've never seen until two seconds ago - like the cop in your rear-view mirror. Duh! Once again, either you're demonstrating stupidity or obfuscation in your responses.

Remember what the analogy was? Hello? The cop in the rear-view mirror? Not your friend of five years.

Then why did you include homeowner? Do you think I would enter the home of someone I didn't trust?

And similarly, would I go on to the private property of a business that I didn't believe had my best interests at heart? (Or at east wanted to keep me as a customer)

I would not. Armed security guards do not frighten me in the same way a police officer frightens you. (and, admittedly, myself as well, perhaps even more so in my case, because I know they do not have my best interests at heart) Armed guards are there to stop me from fucking with whatever their guarding. Since I know I'm not going to, I don't have to worry. The Police are there to make sure I comply with the laws. Since I can do something on accident to violate a law, even if it doesn't violate my rights (such as seatbelt laws), I am understandably nervous when I see a black and white car.

[myrkul]

They also refused to provide services unless he paid back-pay, up front. That, my friend, is extortion. Done by any other group, they'd call it by it's name.

Refusing to provide services that haven't been paid for is extortion?

For which other group would this be called extortion?  Doctors?

They demanded he pay for all the time he had not been protected. That would be like a doctor demanding payment for all the time you were not insured.

[ascent]

And similarly, would I go on to the private property of a business that I didn't believe had my best interests at heart? (Or at east wanted to keep me as a customer)

Are you serious? Every time you go out in the world in your fabled land, you'll have to go onto private property. And if you want to go anywhere new, it will be some place you've never been before. Furthermore, when that road you access to get from A to B is no longer owned by XYZ company, but is now owned by ABC company, well, all the rules can change. You'll have the burden of learning the new rules, and if you don't like them, well, how is it that you can just decide not to use that road?

And before you start with your lame and predictable response that no company would change the rules, have you ever had a different cell provider buy your cell provider? Did you bank at WaMu and then experience Chase buying them? This goes on and on all the time. You're naive.

I would not. Armed security guards do not frighten me in the same way a police officer frightens you.

Again, you're being either stupid or obfuscating. Which is it? Armed security guards are acting under the umbrella of laws provided by the nation. When that umbrella is gone (the point of this discussion), then your prior experience of not being frightened ceases to have the same relevancy you are according it, something which is apparently lost on you.

[myrkul]

And similarly, would I go on to the private property of a business that I didn't believe had my best interests at heart? (Or at east wanted to keep me as a customer)

Are you serious? Every time you go out in the world in your fabled land, you'll have to go onto private property. And if you want to go anywhere new, it will be some place you've never been before. Furthermore, when that road you access to get from A to B is no longer owned by XYZ company, but is now owned by ABC company, well, all the rules can change. You'll have the burden of learning the new rules, and if you don't like them, well, how is it that you can just decide not to use that road?

And before you start with your lame and predictable response that no company would change the rules, have you ever had a different cell provider buy your cell provider? Did you bank at WaMu and then experience Chase buying them? This goes on and on all the time. You're naive.

First, I can be assured, that wherever I go as a customer, the proprietor is not going to shoot me. They value my continued business. Second, arguing that the rules of a road might change when under new ownership is similar to stating that the size of a light bulb might change because somebody bought Sylvania. Once something is standardized, there's not much reason to change. Further, If they DO change, There's nothing stopping me from taking a different route.

I would not. Armed security guards do not frighten me in the same way a police officer frightens you.

Again, you're being either stupid or obfuscating. Which is it? Armed security guards are acting under the umbrella of laws provided by the nation. When that umbrella is gone (the point of this discussion), then your prior experience of not being frightened ceases to have the same relevancy you are according it, something which is apparently lost on you.

Again, why do you assume that the only thing stopping the security guard from going on a murder rampage is the law? Do you honestly think, he's stewing away, saying to himself, "Oh, man, if it weren't illegal, I'd so shoot that guy right now!"? If so, then that tells me a great deal about your psyche that you probably didn't want to reveal. I suggest therapy to help curb those homicidal tendencies.

[ascent]

Again, why do you assume that the only thing stopping the security guard from going on a murder rampage is the law? Do you honestly think, he's stewing away, saying to himself, "Oh, man, if it weren't illegal, I'd so shoot that guy right now!"? If so, then that tells me a great deal about your psyche that you probably didn't want to reveal. I suggest therapy to help curb those homicidal tendencies.

You're now engaging in misdirection. Who is discussing murder? We were discussing adrenaline rushes. Go back and review the discussion, beginning with the premise that one gets an adrenaline rush when seeing a cop.

[myrkul]

Again, why do you assume that the only thing stopping the security guard from going on a murder rampage is the law? Do you honestly think, he's stewing away, saying to himself, "Oh, man, if it weren't illegal, I'd so shoot that guy right now!"? If so, then that tells me a great deal about your psyche that you probably didn't want to reveal. I suggest therapy to help curb those homicidal tendencies.

You're now engaging in misdirection. Who is discussing murder? We were discussing adrenaline rushes. Go back and review the discussion, beginning with the premise that one gets an adrenaline rush when seeing a cop.

I have explained why I do not get an adrenaline rush when I see an armed security guard. Do you? Do uniforms scare you?

Uniforms don't scare me. the man in the uniform, his motivations, that's what scares or does not scare me.

[ascent]

I have explained why I do not get an adrenaline rush when I see an armed security guard.

I know you think you've explained it. You explained it by referencing your past experiences, which have always been in a nation which have an umbrella of laws protecting you from, shall we say, excess thuggery by security forces. In your "fantasy-world", there is no umbrella of laws, so that road you're driving on, and its security forces in black and white cars - you know, the one you see in your rear-view mirror - will induce feelings you've never experienced before.

I absolutely know you will have a little adrenaline rush when you see him in your rear-view mirror.

[myrkul]

I have explained why I do not get an adrenaline rush when I see an armed security guard.

I know you think you've explained it. You explained it by referencing your past experiences, which have always been in a nation which have an umbrella of laws protecting you from, shall we say, excess thuggery by security forces. In your "fantasy-world", there is no umbrella of laws, so that road you're driving on, and its security forces in black and white cars - you know, the one you see in your rear-view mirror - will induce feelings you've never experienced before.

I absolutely know you will have a little adrenaline rush when you see him in your rear-view mirror.

Uhh... No. See, In the rational world, if I'm not harming anyone, there's no need to fear the security guard.

Here in government land, I can be beaten and caged for owning a plant. I'd say that's pretty fucking scary, wouldn't you?

[LastBattle]

1. Why aren't more people opting out? If they are, then where are the high quality fire services to take the place of the fire department?

The vast majority of firefighters are unpaid volunteers. Furthermore, there is no particular reason to compete with the government when it has a blank check and the power to find a reason to arrest you for attempting to compete. Look no farther than the postal service: A man by the name of Lysander Spooner once set up a competing postal company which was soon much cheaper and of higher quality than that of the federal government; the postal service then had the government shut down his operation. Thus, it was demonstrated that attempting to create alternatives to government monopolies will, if successful, result in being shut down and your profits stolen. Something similar happened to the Liberty Dollar guys, who were arrested, had all of their assets seized by the FBI, and were accused of terrorism by the prosecution. Hell, if bitcoin had a central server, the owners would probably have long since been arrested as "terrorists", too.

2. Is the opt in solution really better? There are enough people out there that would be willing to opt out, and then they lose their house in the event of a fire. And it's not clear that insurance covered it - I'm sure they had a clause which stated that the insured's property would not be covered if the insured chose to opt out of fire services.

Wow, talk about "straw men".

The fire department is already paid with taxes. Being allowed to opt out does not an ideal market anarchist society make, seeing as how you are still paying the thugs in charge, except this time you get nothing for your money.

Cops are better than security guys (paraphrased, original post was lost)

Well, lets see.

Police:

-Are given many special privileges that ordinary citizens are not (Examples below)
-Even cops who are not abusive in the slightest have to enforce laws against victimless crimes. For example, if I am not wearing a seatbelt in most of the US and other countries, they will steal my money. If I have marijuana or, worse, a "dangerous" drug in my car or on my person (even if it is a trace amount), I will be kidnapped, tossed into a small room with bars (possibly for days, weeks, months, or years) as other police ransack my house for "evidence of the crime", during which time the more unscrupulous of them will steal my more valuable possessions and will get, at worst, a stern warning if caught.
-If they have "suspicion", they may burst the door down, steal my stuff as "evidence", and shoot my dog. If they don't find anything, I will be unlikely to get any form of compensation for being raided. If they find something (and it could be something utterly inconsequential), they can use it as an excuse to, again, steal my things and kidnap me.
-If I defend myself against the police, either plainclothes or in uniform, I will be considered to be at fault. Even if they are, say, bursting through the door with weapons and no warrant, if I use a gun to protect myself and my property, I will be considered a criminal. In fact, it will be considered to be worse than had I just walked into a mall and shot a regular guy. Even if the police were blatantly violating their own laws, I would be at fault. Keep in mind, many clever and enterprising criminals actually pretend to be the police to rob people, some even bribing cops to provide uniforms for them.
-Assuming the cops are abusive, chances are very high that they will get away with far more than a regular citizen. If they murder me, they can claim I was resisting arrest (something that isn't too uncommon, and is very hard to prove to the contrary). They can excuse just about any of their own crimes and are highly unlikely to ever be prosecuted because there is no alternative to the police. You can call the police against criminals (though police don't really stop crimes, they just catch criminals after the fact unless they are robbing a bank or something), but who do you call against the police?
-This isn't even considering that if I am unfortunate to be, say, a black man in southern California, I will be pulled over for no good reason repeatedly by cops engaging in "racial profiling", and there isn't a damn thing I can do about it. Again, who do you call against the police?

Security guards:

-Are equal to everyone else. This would apply in a Market Anarchist society, so don't give me the "that is because of the police" garbage.
-Have no special privileges and aren't able to rob me or kidnap me in the way police are.
-Are highly unlikely to burst the door down, unless they are regular criminals. If they attempted to do the things the police get away with, they would be in big trouble. Again, this would apply in a market anarchist society too.
-Furthermore, the only things a security guard could do would come down to "restraint/physical force" and "using a gun". Unlike a cop, he wouldn't be able to hide behind his authority and would be prosecuted if he just up and shot me.
-Also, a guard has no motivation to attack me. A policeman might gain status or other advantages by trying to arrest people since he might get lucky and get someone actually breaking the law, and he is unlikely to ever suffer if he is wrong (especially if he goes after the poor, blacks, hispanics, and others who probably aren't willing to go through the process of attempting to get the man in trouble for abusing his authority). Furthermore, he might be looking for an excuse to steal things secretly or to resell drugs he captures. A guard has no more motivation than a regular guy, except that he wouldn't be a guard for very long if he just up and mugged me.
-If the guard scared away people from, say, a store he was supposed to guard, he would be fired pretty fast. Thus, another reason to be reasonably polite and reasonable.

Yeah, it is pretty obvious which is preferable.