Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lex]

In a free society one would be highly compelled to subscribe to some DRO or protection organization, etc; I can't see a scenario where you could avoid being a member in some DRO or protection organization, unless of course you've found some remote piece of land where nobody will find you...

So, given the assumption that you have to join some DRO or protection agency, how would that be any different than becoming a citizen of one country or another?

[gibson042]

Even if market forces work out such that almost everyone contracts with one (or more) protection agencies, the situation would still differ from citizenship (read: serfdom) because one could terminate the contracts and/or form new ones without uprooting one's life.

By analogy, people are now free to choose a religion without regard to geographic location. This was not true in centuries past, when church and state were practically indistinguishable. And the consequences have been world-changing.

[gibson042]

Because I have no reason to believe that every such agency would both hold an exclusive geographic monopoly and remain confined to it. Monopoly status essentially serves as a key differentiator between states and DROs.

[gibson042]

Your hypothetical is conceptually possible, but runs counter to all evidence I have ever encountered about what happens in free markets, even those with high barriers to entry.

It seems like you want to assume that DROs will inevitably become states and enforce voluntarily-acquired geographic monopolies with aggression, which I reject on both historical and theoretical grounds. Why do you think that?

[CurtHowland]

It's not like this kind of objection has not been raised before.

The Mises Circle: An Informal Talk on Anarchism [Roderick T. Long]

[ShortyLong]

In a free society one would be highly compelled to subscribe to some DRO or protection organization, etc; I can't see a scenario where you could avoid being a member in some DRO or protection organization, unless of course you've found some remote piece of land where nobody will find you...

So, given the assumption that you have to join some DRO or protection agency, how would that be any different than becoming a citizen of one country or another?

Just a quick thought, Lex. What if your DRO, as you put it, were your family, friends and neighbors?

Shorty Long

[KBCraig]

"Sole provider of a service" is perfectly compatible with a free market. It happens all the time where there are niche or narrowly focused small markets, where there is not enough potential profit for multiple providers to exist long-term.

"Monopolies" can only exist through force, usually government force.

Example: I grew up in rural Arkansas, when Wal-Mart was just a regional chain retailer starting to spread its wings. Wal-Mart numbers their stores in the order they opened; they currently have ~8,500 stores, but up through college (graduated 1985) I never shopped in a Wal-Mart with a three-digit store number.

Even back then, people screamed about "Wal-Mart is killing the local mom-and-pop stores! Wal-Mart is killing local pharmacies!"

Truth? Local stores that don't try to compete, but instead offer added value or unique merchandise, actually do very well when Wal-Mart comes to town. People naturally miss that local touch, and are willing to pay more for personal service, and sometimes they just want to wear clothes that obviously didn't come from Wal-Mart, like everyone else is wearing.

This is in a highly regulated market, not a free market. Why would you expect an actual free market to provide less diversity?

Oh, and let me point out that the threat of competition is just as real as actual competition: in the late 1970s to early 1980s, when Wal-Mart first got into the pharmacy business, we heard tales of woe about how the Waltons would kill local pharmacists by undercutting their prices, then raising prices as soon as the local pharmacies closed.

Funny thing about retail pharmacy: it's a highly competitive business. As soon as one pharmacy closed because of "Wal-Mart's predatory pricing", another popped up, so that Wal-Mart couldn't "jack up their prices", as had been predicted.  Wherever local clothiers were "run out of business by Wal-Mart", others either modified and thrived, or popped up to fill the demand for clothing that wasn't cheap crap from Indonesia.

Why would private security be any different absent a state monopoly? Especially when you consider that Wal-Mart fails to be a monopoly with government assistance?

[MaineShark]

"Monopolies" can only exist through force, usually government force.

Exactly.  It's absolutely impossible for a monopoly to exist in the free market.

We only have one general store here in Grafton.  But they don't have a monopoly, because I can come right along and open another one, if I like.  If the general store were to raise their prices substantially, I would take a look at that and say, "hey, I want me some of that there profit margin!," and open a competing store.  The only way the general store can remain the only store in town, is by behaving as if there were a second store, and setting their prices and service accordingly.  They are still subject to the competitive influence of the free market, because the artificial barriers to entry are low, here.

Compare that with the fire department, which has a monopoly.  I can't open a competing fire department, because it would be a crime to do so without being approved by the State.  Nor could I compete with their tax-funded status; all my potential customers are required to hire the official government fire department.  Same goes for the police department, the highway department, and all other theft-funded "services."  Why would they also hire me, when they've already paid for the service, and nothing I can do can make them switch to my offerings, no matter how much they might want to?  My freedom to open a business is restricted, and my potential customers' freedom choose whom they will hire is also restricted.  The artificial barriers to entry prevent competition, and create a monopoly.

None of this would exist in a free-market.  If some provider raises their prices or lowers their service, someone else will step up and offer lower prices, or higher service.

Joe

[MaineShark]

The barrier to entry for a protection agency, on the other hand, could be rather dangerous or even deadly.

No, that's the current model.  If I start a protection agency, the cops will murder me.  No ifs, ands, or buts about that one.  Starting a protection agency to compete with the State's official enforcers carries a guaranteed death sentence.

Anything less than that is an improvement.

It could also be financially impractical.

Only if they are behaving competitively, offering services of such a quality and so cheaply, that no one else can manage it.  In which case, why would anyone want to?  If everyone is getting extraordinary service for low prices, that sounds pretty darn good!

For example, if the prevailing protection agency invests in other high stakes infrastructure like roads and requires travelers to subscribe to their service in order to use the particular roads. To break into this market you would need a lot of start up capital to provide competing road infrastructure and it may not be that profitable in the long run.

The roads already exist.  What, are they going to buy every road into town?  Let's not be silly.  If you buy one major road, the price is going to be substantial.  As soon as you try to buy another, the price will go up (supply and demand).  Since the demand for the last road into town is obviously high (given that you've been buying up the rest of that item) and the supply is low (it's the last one left), the price will be astronomical.

Business are always trying to get more customers or maintain their customer base and when the business is also the provider of force, it's very hard to believe that they will avoid using their expertise in force to maintain their power. I think they will do it judiciously to keep good PR but I don't think they will avoid it completely. Even if they do it once in their life time, that is enough to not think of them as functioning under the same principles as a Walmart.

So, what you're saying is that, absolute worst-case scenario, private protection agencies are less than perfect, but are about a million times better than the best-case for Statism?  I think I can live with an imperfect world having imperfections in it.  C'est la vie.  The important thing is to make it the best possible world.  And any honest comparison (ie, none of this double-standard nonsense) says that private is better in every measurable way.

Joe

[MaineShark]

Private armies and private security exist today.

Private ambulances and private fire departments also exist today.

I think you're over exaggerating your point. Let's not be silly ;-)

No, I'm actually downplaying my point.  They'll probably murder my family, attack and/or murder my friends, steal loads of property, etc.

But, by all means, start up a protection agency and, when some goon with a badge shows up to kidnap someone you've been hired to protect, you go ahead and tell him, "no," and see what happens...

They only have to buy the major road. Or, how about this, a major bridge if a city is split by a river. My point was not that they will have a complete monopoly on roads or bridges, just that it would be very inconvenient for people to have to avoid the particular road or bridge. If paying $50 a month for Company X will allow you to use the major road that gets you to work in 20 minutes or pay another company with better standards or protection service $40 but have to drive on another road it takes 40 minutes to get to work. A wealthy person may just subscribe to both agencies one they will use for the actual protection and the other just for road access. But a lot of people will chose Company X purely for the time savings of using their road.

Wait, now they won't have a monopoly, but they'll just have convenience to offer?  How is that a problem?  Folks pay for convenience, all the time.

But it's unlikely they could get the owners of a given road or bridge to sell.  Why would they?  What benefit would they possibly derive from selling something they use, to someone who is going to charge them to access it?

This is somewhat analogous to the smart phone industry. Look at how many people switch to AT&T which is arguably a much crappier cell service just because they wanted the iPhone. People make compromises all the time to reflect their desires.

Yeah, it's horrible when folks exercise their freedom to make their own choices...

A shady protection company could acquire some resources that everyone wants and then require people to subscribe to their protection service in order to use that resource.

Really?  How?  I mean, without government to steal it for them...

My point is that government isn't that much different from a protection service that manages to gain or maintain "sole service provider" status by using it's own tools of violence.

Your point fails.  You have not established it with any sort of evidence, at all.  Every argument you've raised has been refuted.

I didn't say it was just an "absolute worst-case scenario". I'm thinking that it could be a common scenario.

No, what you described is pretty much the worst case that can exist in a private system.  It would require an extremely complex series of events in which nearly everyone failed to act in their own rational interest.

The purpose of my original post is to discuss these "million" reasons why a protection agency is better than a government.

Philosophically I agree that government doesn't compute, but practically speaking is the protection service idea that's currently understood a better alternative? I would like to discuss the practical implications of DROs vs States.

Your question was already addressed.  The worst case you can come up with, is better than the best-case that your monopoly government offers.

Joe

[gibson042]

Business are always trying to get more customers or maintain their customer base and when the business is also the provider of force, it's very hard to believe that they will avoid using their expertise in force to maintain their power. I think they will do it judiciously to keep good PR but I don't think they will avoid it completely. Even if they do it once in their life time, that is enough to not think of them as functioning under the same principles as a Walmart.

Since you are interested in practical implications, I think it's worth noting that the "expertise in force" likely doesn't amount to much. For example, my household will have small arms for personal defense, an insurance provider (against theft, vandalism, injury, accidents, natural disasters, etc.), a neighborhood watch membership (possibly affiliated with a larger-scale militia in case of foreign invasion), and an alarm system to alert on-duty responders in case of incident. Where in this mix do you see the biggest risk of incipient statehood?

[gibson042]

A business which has paid employees on the clock prepared to carry out violence against aggressors 24/7 is a whole different thing.

What is the target market for such a business? Almost all of the aggression in society is perpetrated by the state, and (as I've pointed out, at least for myself) the remainder can be handled with little more than watchfulness. How much business do you expect there to be for bounty hunters and high-profile bodyguards? How many serial killers and rapists are you worried about?

I don't foresee any need for that kind of organization in my life. Do you?

[MaineShark]

People fail to act in their own rational self interest all the time. Which is why I maintain that the worst case scenario would be much more common than you hope.

No, it's actually quite rare.  If they did it "all the time," humanity would have gone extinct, long ago.

The same people that complacently allow government to get big will allow businesses to become entrenched "sole service providers".

You're presenting the worst possible case.  Which is still better than the best-case scenario with Statism.

Again, I don't see how privatizing the use of force will be any different from government force given that people will still be people, with faults and all.

Again, you clearly either lack the ability to comprehend what is being discussed, or are simply unwilling to accept that you've been supporting a horrible, corrupt system all this time.  Your questions were addressed.

I think there is quite a big difference between what you describe and a Blackwater like firm.

Yup.  I'm fighting to protect myself.  They're fighting for money.  Who's more motivated?

You have a life and other occupations beyond the firearm hobby and maintaining an alarm system.

A business which has paid employees on the clock prepared to carry out violence against aggressors 24/7 is a whole different thing.

Like the police?  Who are so blindingly incompetent that I can take someone who's never touched a gun before, and have her shooting better than 99% of cops, in a single, one-day class?

Joe