How long would it take for Anarchy to start working?

[deisik]

Oh noes! I can't possibly imagine living in a world with no government where certain bad people would no doubt try to steal from me and hurt me to help themselves! So therefore, it's necessary to submit to certain bad people who are the government who steal from me and hurt me to help themselves!

Statism = Logical failure

It's you who logically failed here. You pay some bad guys and they defend you from other bad guys out there. Because of the economy of scale, you actually end up paying much less than you would have to pay without a state behind you. So your imagination wasn't actually deceiving you...

[Anon136]

Oh noes! I can't possibly imagine living in a world with no government where certain bad people would no doubt try to steal from me and hurt me to help themselves! So therefore, it's necessary to submit to certain bad people who are the government who steal from me and hurt me to help themselves!

Statism = Logical failure

It's you who logically failed here. You pay some bad guys and they defend you from other bad guys out there. Because of the economy of scale, you actually end up paying much less than you would have to pay without a state behind you. So your imagination wasn't actually deceiving you...

David Friedman makes a pretty good argument against this. If you look at the police in big cities where they have many more officers and much larger budgets you actually see less satisfactory service than police in smaller cities. According to what emperical evidence is available on this subject, it would appear to have INVERSE economies of scale, i.e. smaller police forces provide more satisfactory service than larger police forces.

[Ekaros]

Oh noes! I can't possibly imagine living in a world with no government where certain bad people would no doubt try to steal from me and hurt me to help themselves! So therefore, it's necessary to submit to certain bad people who are the government who steal from me and hurt me to help themselves!

Statism = Logical failure

It's you who logically failed here. You pay some bad guys and they defend you from other bad guys out there. Because of the economy of scale, you actually end up paying much less than you would have to pay without a state behind you. So your imagination wasn't actually deceiving you...

David Friedman makes a pretty good argument against this. If you look at the police in big cities where they have many more officers and much larger budgets you actually see less satisfactory service than police in smaller cities. According to what emperical evidence is available on this subject, it would appear to have INVERSE economies of scale, i.e. smaller police forces provide more satisfactory service than larger police forces.

Or maybe larger communities make people worse? And on other hand size of community increase production... Don't know if there is any large cities with many smaller police forces.

[deisik]

David Friedman makes a pretty good argument against this. If you look at the police in big cities where they have many more officers and much larger budgets you actually see less satisfactory service than police in smaller cities. According to what emperical evidence is available on this subject, it would appear to have INVERSE economies of scale, i.e. smaller police forces provide more satisfactory service than larger police forces.

What you say, well, what David Friedman (who is him?) says may very well be true. I didn't say that every state would be perfect, but, firstly, you can't deny there is such a notion as economies of scale or that they actually work. Secondly, there is a law of diminishing returns which further complicates things. And thirdly, big cities require more officers and larger budgets not only because they are bigger (this is beyond discussion for obvious reasons) but primarily due to a wider range of specialized services they demand (i.e. more fine-grained division of labor)...

[hawkeye]

The entire problem with the police as it currently exists is all to do with incentives.

The facts are that the government is the police's customers, not us.  The government are the ones that pay the bills and give the orders.  That means it's in the best interests of the police to serve the government.  And this is exactly what you see.   The police are far more concerned with protecting government officials than protecting citizens.  They are more concerned with handing out fines than solving crimes.

The police as an organisation cannot be sacked by us, because we aren't the ones directly paying the bills.   Taxes go into general revenue, and of course are compulsory, and the police are then paid out of that.

The police have the same problems as any other forced monopoly.  There's just no real incentive to supply good service because they don't have any competitors.

That's why you get some officers that want to do a good job and serve the public, but it's like any other public service organisation where they are overwhelmed by those who don't want to make much effort and at some point they get sick of doing more work than most of their colleagues and/or get frustrated.

[deisik]

The facts are that the government is the police's customers, not us.  The government are the ones that pay the bills and give the orders.  That means it's in the best interests of the police to serve the government.  And this is exactly what you see.   The police are far more concerned with protecting government officials than protecting citizens.  They are more concerned with handing out fines than solving crimes.

Such logic is primitive (don't take it personal or as an offense)

Even if government is police only customer, this doesn't change anything really. Government is interested in defending its citizens, otherwise they won't be able to collect taxes just because citizens will not have the money to pay them with. Police is just a tool among many others that government has at its disposal. We can debate endlessly whether they are good at their work or not, but this doesn't change the lay of the land...

[Anon136]

Government is interested in defending its citizens, otherwise they won't be able to collect taxes

Wow thats a mind fucking paradox right there. How can it defend you AND tax you? Isn't protecting you from people who would take your property away from you against your will part of defending you?

[deisik]

Government is interested in defending its citizens, otherwise they won't be able to collect taxes

Wow thats a mind fucking paradox right there. How can it defend you AND tax you? Isn't protecting you from people who would take your property away from you against your will part of defending you?

You would have to pay something to somebody for defending you, even the most impenitent among anarchists admit it. Why would they want to defend you for free actually? If you have never thought about this, think about it now, it doesn't require much effort to understand such things...

To hope for something out of nothing is the most popular form of hope

[Anon136]

Government is interested in defending its citizens, otherwise they won't be able to collect taxes

Wow thats a mind fucking paradox right there. How can it defend you AND tax you? Isn't protecting you from people who would take your property away from you against your will part of defending you?

You would have to pay something to somebody for defending you, even impenitent anarchists admit it. Why would they want to defend you for free actually? If you have never thought about this, think about it now, it doesn't require much effort to understand such things...

To hope for something out of nothing is most popular form of hope

By this logic rape is the same as consensual sex because they both involve the transfer of semen for the purpose of procreation...

you have to pick someone to provide you with defense but it can be anyone in the whole world != you have to pay organization X or else organization X is the one you will need to be defended from.

[deisik]

You would have to pay something to somebody for defending you, even impenitent anarchists admit it. Why would they want to defend you for free actually? If you have never thought about this, think about it now, it doesn't require much effort to understand such things...

To hope for something out of nothing is most popular form of hope

By this logic rape is the same as consensual sex because they both involve the transfer of semen for the purpose of procreation...

Often you don't have choice at all. At other times you have to choose between two or even more evils. And only sometimes you are free to refuse from making your choice altogether... In short, stop trolling

[Anon136]

You would have to pay something to somebody for defending you, even impenitent anarchists admit it. Why would they want to defend you for free actually? If you have never thought about this, think about it now, it doesn't require much effort to understand such things...

To hope for something out of nothing is most popular form of hope

By this logic rape is the same as consensual sex because they both involve the transfer of semen for the purpose of procreation...

Often you don't have choice at all. At other times you have to choose between two or even more evils. And only sometimes you are free to refuse from making your choice altogether... In short, stop trolling

with the state you have no choice, you either pay the state or you get locked in a rape dungeon to be sexually tortured for years. in a free society you can chose to purchase defense from anyone in the world who is providing that service. saying these are the same thing is like saying the ADT home security is just another mafia protection racket.

Im going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you are are the troll because the alternative of you being legitimately unable to understand the difference between these two arrangements has even less pleasant implications.

[deisik]

Often you don't have choice at all. At other times you have to choose between two or even more evils. And only sometimes you are free to refuse from making your choice altogether... In short, stop trolling

with the state you have no choice, you either pay the state or you get locked in a rape dungeon to be sexually tortured for years. in a free society you can chose to purchase defense from anyone in the world who is providing that service. saying these are the same thing, is like saying the ADT home security is just another mafia protection racket.

You may call it various vile names, but to me, it is all six of one and half a dozen of the other (as I said earlier). Now, as I can see, you successfully got rid of that mental paradox that had been chasing you. So why would you, in a free society, need to purchase defense in the first place?

[niothor]

Government is interested in defending its citizens, otherwise they won't be able to collect taxes

Wow thats a mind fucking paradox right there. How can it defend you AND tax you? Isn't protecting you from people who would take your property away from you against your will part of defending you?

You would have to pay something to somebody for defending you, even impenitent anarchists admit it. Why would they want to defend you for free actually? If you have never thought about this, think about it now, it doesn't require much effort to understand such things...

To hope for something out of nothing is most popular form of hope

By this logic rape is the same as consensual sex because they both involve the transfer of semen for the purpose of procreation...

you have to pick someone to provide you with defense but it can be anyone in the whole world != you have to pay organization X or else organization X is the one you will need to be defended from.

I will have to quote this for future reference , and I promise I will try understanding it in the morning , when I will be able to think clearly about sex.

[Anon136]

Often you don't have choice at all. At other times you have to choose between two or even more evils. And only sometimes you are free to refuse from making your choice altogether... In short, stop trolling

with the state you have no choice, you either pay the state or you get locked in a rape dungeon to be sexually tortured for years. in a free society you can chose to purchase defense from anyone in the world who is providing that service. saying these are the same thing, is like saying the ADT home security is just another mafia protection racket.

You may call it various vile names, but to me, it is all six of one and half a dozen of the other (as I said earlier). Now, as I can see, you successfully got rid of that mental paradox that had been chasing you. So why would you, in a free society, need to purchase defense in the first place?

So if its all "all six of one and half a dozen of the other" than would you agree with the statement that ADT home security is just a particular brand of mafia protection rack

For protection against people with dangerously high time preference.

[deisik]

You may call it various vile names, but to me, it is all six of one and half a dozen of the other (as I said earlier). Now, as I can see, you successfully got rid of that mental paradox that had been chasing you. So why would you, in a free society, need to purchase defense in the first place?

For protection against people with extraordinarily low time preference.

Didn't quite get what you mean here, but aren't these wicked people the same bad guys that the state should protect us, good boys, from?

[Anon136]

You may call it various vile names, but to me, it is all six of one and half a dozen of the other (as I said earlier). Now, as I can see, you successfully got rid of that mental paradox that had been chasing you. So why would you, in a free society, need to purchase defense in the first place?

For protection against people with extraordinarily low time preference.

Didn't quite get what you mean here, but aren't these wicked people the same bad guys that the state should protect us, good boys, from?

The state cant protect you from "bad guys" because "bad guys" just infiltrate the state and use it as a force multiplier.

But no im not talking about run of the mill "bad guys". most bad guys are self interested and care about the future. in a free society you wouldnt need to purchase protection from them because they can be controlled through threats of social ostracism.

who you need physical protection from are people who are both "bad guys" but also live only in the moment and dont care at all about the future. these people can not be controlled through threats of ostracism. these people have to be physically subdued while they are in the process of rampaging. fortunately this is a relatively small cross section so protecting yourself from such a small group of people would be relatively inexpensive, also you could just chose to carry a firearm instead of buying protection.

[Anon136]

all six of one and half a dozen of the other

also i just cant let this slide. what you are saying here is that a situation where you have no choice of who to pay and the person you pay says "either pay us Y amount of money or else we will hurt you" is exactly the same situation as being able to chose to pay any one of a thousand agencies where the agency you chose says "either pay us amount Y or else someone other than us may hurt you." Is what i quoted up there is you claiming that these are functionally identical situations? i just want to be clear on that point.

[Biomech]

Lets do an exercise: name your top 5 laws you'd like to live by.  I'll list mine:

1. No murder
2. No thievery
3. No rape
4. No physical abuse, aside from defense
5. In other words, no acts of aggression

Why should I bind myself in any way by listing any laws? When you interact with people you rely primarily on your instincts, not on however short a list of laws. Our social nature has already given us everything to talk or do things with other people. In fact, these laws you refer to are nothing more than just a formal expression of that social nature of humans...

Thanks. You just agreed with me.

codified law is unnecessary in non defective humans. Not much you can do about psychopaths except to avoid them and defend yourself where the need arises.

But governments absolutely NEED psychopaths in order to function. Thus the need for laws.

[Biomech]

There is nobody who "didn't agree on the laws in the first place" since there's no single law-system to agree upon; you have your beliefs in justice, other people have theirs, and if your beliefs clash with other people's, either they or you must adjust.

Now you confirm in your own words that anarchy as you see it doesn't in fact differ very much from what state actually is all about. If we clear away the verbal husks of what you say here, we necessarily come to a system where majority would suppress minority in any possible way... How's that different from what state does?

An undisputed right of exit. No anarchist, whether in a commune or walking the earth, would claim you as his property. No government, ever, has failed to do so.

[Biomech]

...
Because of the abstract nature of government, people don't realise what they are really saying is "what can we force people to do, and pay for, to solve x".  
...

This really makes me think twice about reporting potholes.  Thanks.

And there is somekind of penalty probably involved if you go and fix it yourself... Atleast on paved roads...

yeah
they have paid professionals to do so, so a sloppy job from a guy who never did this before wouldn't be very helpful

In Pennsylvania, they wait till it's big enough to swallow a car whole. Then they call it fixed.