|
| Thread: The Liberal Club |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV |
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
posted April 22, 2009 11:14 PM |
|
|
Well, there are still laws and law enforcement that would try to track the murderer down or at least give people the pretense that such injustice doesn't work here. It quite saddens me to be honest.
Anyway, anarcho-capitalism sounds great as a global thing, but can it work in smaller areas? Since maybe some global powers would try to exploit lawless nations (occupy them or buy weeapons from them or well just plain illegal goods)
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 12:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, now we're discussing economics. And anyone who talks about "selling out the environment" is clearly not a liberal.
ROFL.
This starts to sound more like "The 'I agree with Mvass' club"
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 01:16 AM |
|
|
Well if you don't like it, you're free to go start a Political Philosophies that Make No Sense Club. 
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 01:21 AM |
|
|
Not exactly about politics but I had something similar already.
Sorry for off topic
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 01:48 AM |
|
|
Dagoth:
Quote:
Well, there are still laws and law enforcement that would try to track the murderer down or at least give people the pretense that such injustice doesn't work here.
Because people in the ghetto are so well-protected, right?
Quote:
Since maybe some global powers would try to exploit lawless nations
Replace "exploit" with "conquer" and you will have found one of the four reasons I disagree with anarcho-capitalism. Let's see if you can find the other three. David Friedman[1] argues that anarcho-capitalists could defend themselves with a combination of the efforts of their security agencies and guerrilla warfare, but that is a rather weak argument. Also, he suggests that the "public good" issue of national defense would be solved through the practice of tipping - but I don't think that'd work.
[1]David D. Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a radical capitalism, 2nd ed.
TheDeath:
It's far from an "I agree with Mvass" club. Blizzardboy and I have had significant disagreements about monetary policy; Corribus and I have debated about Pigovian taxes; Lexxan opposes drug legalization; and I think Dagoth and I have some kind of philosophical differences.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 02:06 AM |
|
|
Well, that's because I am a light catholic and a Romantic
and, well, Belgium is pretty small and has really no ghettos... No gangs... Just the occasional psychopathic murder by the like of Dutrou, Kim de Gelder and Van Themse, but we don't have cities that some people would describe as "war zones!" by others...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 02:22 AM |
|
|
What's there to prevent a protection agency to at one point claim a monopoly? I mean, the protection agency would actually be more or less a private army, no? (Well, since they're supposed to drive off invading forces and motor cycle gangs, I think it has fair grounds) And don't military leaders tend to... Try to seize control? (I'm just thinking of what I know of Idi Amin, Caesar, Napoleon...)
I know it's unprofitable to fight with the other agencies, but isn't it possible that one agency, at one point, may have the possibly to seize control and have a very profitable monopoly?
I know that it isn't anarcho-capitalism, but more of a capitalist dictatorship, but still... How could something like that be avoided?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 03:16 AM |
|
|
That is my second reason. Good job.  Two more to go! (Hint: The first two you mentioned are problems that might result in the system's collapse. The second two are not.)
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 04:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What's there to prevent a protection agency to at one point claim a monopoly? I mean, the protection agency would actually be more or less a private army, no? (Well, since they're supposed to drive off invading forces and motor cycle gangs, I think it has fair grounds) And don't military leaders tend to... Try to seize control? (I'm just thinking of what I know of Idi Amin, Caesar, Napoleon...)
I know it's unprofitable to fight with the other agencies, but isn't it possible that one agency, at one point, may have the possibly to seize control and have a very profitable monopoly?
I know that it isn't anarcho-capitalism, but more of a capitalist dictatorship, but still... How could something like that be avoided?
Lets se: If 1 company reached about 41% or higher of the protection marked, the none of the other companys got over 20%(all is under that mark), then the big one got a chance for the highjacking.
Since this is anarchy, if one of the smaller attempts to assasinate out the others it would get downright killed in a gang war since there is no law
____________
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 06:00 PM |
|
|
Yes, but gang wars are unprofitable, so the protection agencies wouldn't want to fight. They'd rather cooperate. If the agencies conflict, then it will be settled by a third party. (like a court, but a bit commercialised to suit capitalist needs)
The companies would avoid fighting nearly all the time, mind that, because if a company engages in a fight with another company, then they'd be unstable and get a bad reputation and lose customers. Now, it isn't unimaginable that one company would have over 50% and would eoither buy other companies or do hostile (in the truest meaning of the word) takeover.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 06:30 PM |
|
|
I think you should think more in ways like CIA and KGB.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 06:39 PM |
|
|
Or the US army... or heavily armed police force.
CIA is a spy agency. they do not have the required force to enforce the law (unless you want to do it big brother style, but that's not really anarcho-capitalist, now, is it?)
Those companies are big guys, like bouncers, or just the average officer, but most likely they will be people with automatic rifles and body armor, if you'd ask me.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 08:06 PM |
|
|
*Sigh*
I mean, in terms of fights corps against corps: infiltration and sabotage instead of open war. Security isn't police force. Security is computers, hacking, electronic devices, espionage, assassination (and counter) and so on.
Any if I may add a private opinion, in all friendliness, for that avatar of yours you definitly lack in chaotic, destructive imagination, Dagoth!
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 08:12 PM |
|
|
Haha you got me there 
Though, a war in anarcho-capitalism is won with money and able-bodied men, since everything can come at a price.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 09:45 PM |
|
|
|
That's the question. There are not so many DIFFERENT corps. It would be a bit like now, ecxept that there would be no countries but conglomerates. That would mean no war in the conventional sense, but the whole covered operations catalogue.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 10:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Lets se: If 1 company reached about 41% or higher of the protection marked, the none of the other companys got over 20%(all is under that mark), then the big one got a chance for the highjacking.
Not if the other ones team up against it. 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 24, 2009 08:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Not if the other ones team up against it.
Actually, i calculated in that.
If 1 got 42%, and the rest split the remaining 58% and none of them got over 20%.
If there is 4 companys total, the chance of stopping the bigger is still to low since the big one will have more power than 2 combined small companys. By the time they will allie the big one has taken out 1 of the small ones and, so their still to strong.
Pure numbers, calculated.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 24, 2009 09:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Not if the other ones team up against it.
Oh yeah definitely, that's why people could always team up against the oppressive governments too. 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 24, 2009 11:12 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
