Total Posts:69|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

An-Cap Property dispute?

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 5:52:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
No one seemed able to awnser my question on the An-Cap Q&A thread so I'll try again here.

I have a property dispute with my neighbour. We each have overlapping land claims. My neigbour proceeds to trim a hedge in the disputed zone. I phone my security company who turn up and ask him to stop, he phones his security company. He continues to trim the hedge.

If my security detail does not physically prevent him from trimming the hedge then why should I pay them? If his security detail does not protect him then why should he pay them?

Both opposing security details have a vested interest in resorting to violence in this situation.

How is the dispute resolved without resort to third coercive power, such as a Government, a central land registry or the imposition of a non-contracted court. (If any of these methods are used then it's not an-cap).

How is this superior to the state?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 6:07:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
When I was an Ancap I never actually had a problem with this even though I recognized that it would not be easily resolved. The way I saw, it was an evolutionary process(which is a view I have carried on), there will be mis-haps but those mis-haps end up causing less of them in the future through adaptation.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 6:09:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 6:07:12 AM, FREEDO wrote:
When I was an Ancap I never actually had a problem with this even though I recognized that it would not be easily resolved. The way I saw, it was an evolutionary process(which is a view I have carried on), there will be mis-haps but those mis-haps end up causing less of them in the future through adaptation.

How is it resolved at all whilst still being an-cap?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PrimoVictoria
Posts: 38
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 6:24:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I have been having some problems figuring this out as well, the only solution seems to be violent retaliation and in my eyes a governing system is far better than incessant violence. They could hire a mediator with a greater military capacity than them but wouldn't that more or less lead to a new governing system?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 6:51:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Neither sides want to fight one another since it would be costly, especially over a small dispute. They'll solve the dispute peacefully, at worst they can have a contract court that has a reputation to be impartial. It would be in both security firms best interest to agree with the courts, or else cause aggression, which is costly.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 7:30:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 6:51:09 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Neither sides want to fight one another since it would be costly, especially over a small dispute.

Why can't this be factored into the costs like everything else?

They'll solve the dispute peacefully

How, my neighbour refuses to co-operate.

at worst they can have a contract court that has a reputation to be impartial. It would be in both security firms best interest to agree with the courts, or else cause aggression, which is costly.

Again, why can't this be factored into the price?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 8:27:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 5:52:37 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
No one seemed able to awnser my question on the An-Cap Q&A thread so I'll try again here.

I have a property dispute with my neighbour. We each have overlapping land claims. My neigbour proceeds to trim a hedge in the disputed zone. I phone my security company who turn up and ask him to stop, he phones his security company. He continues to trim the hedge.

If my security detail does not physically prevent him from trimming the hedge then why should I pay them? If his security detail does not protect him then why should he pay them?

Both opposing security details have a vested interest in resorting to violence in this situation.

How is the dispute resolved without resort to third coercive power, such as a Government, a central land registry or the imposition of a non-contracted court. (If any of these methods are used then it's not an-cap).

How is this superior to the state?:

I don't believe it is superior. I think An-Cap's have an excellent starting point, but that it's not well thought out. Your criticisms are some of my own, to which I have not heard a good excuse for.

"Robert Nozick argued in 'Anarchy, State and Utopia' that anarcho-capitalism would inevitably transform into a minarchist state, even without violating any of its own nonaggression principles, through the eventual emergence of a single locally dominant private defense and judicial agency that it is in everyone's interests to align with, because other agencies are unable to effectively compete against the advantages of the agency with majority coverage. Therefore, he felt that, even to the extent that the anarcho-capitalist theory is correct, it results in an unstable system that would not endure in the real world. Paul Birch argues that as in the world today, legal disputes involving several jurisdictions and different legal system will be many times more complex and costly to resolve than disputes involving only one legal system. Thus, the largest private protection business in a territory will have lower costs since it will have more internal disputes and will outcompete those private protection business with more external disputes in the territory. In effect, according to Birch, protection business in territory is a natural monopoly.

A criticism of Rothbard's version of anarcho-capitalism, in which certain fundamental natural rights will be followed, is that in the absence of a state which guarantee such rights, this idea is merely wishful thinking. Critics argue that one can observe private protection organizations in practice in gang wars, where different gangs compete with each other on the same "turf" to "protect" their interests, causing high violence. Another problem is that of externalities, such as pollution."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

There is a reasonable and logical function of government in its proper context. Military, courts, police, fire, and critical infrastructure highlight a limited government that serve the interests of the people without bias. The problem that An-Cap's have is that they've noticed that government tends towards statism eventually, such as has been seen in the United States.

I believe if provisions are taken by specifically enumerating rights in the Constitution, it defines a legal basis for a limited government.

Before fire departments were run by the State, they were entirely privatised. What happened, especially in New York in the late 1800's, were that they were run by competing thugs who were corrupt. They cared nothing about helping people save their property. Each gang would attempt to monopolize the fire mains so that their crew would get to the fire first. Often it would devolve in to a street fight as these competing gangs would fight in the middle of the street while homes burned to the ground.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 8:36:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 8:27:42 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Before fire departments were run by the State, they were entirely privatised. What happened, especially in New York in the late 1800's, were that they were run by competing thugs who were corrupt. They cared nothing about helping people save their property. Each gang would attempt to monopolize the fire mains so that their crew would get to the fire first. Often it would devolve in to a street fight as these competing gangs would fight in the middle of the street while homes burned to the ground.

Private fire protection seems to be working pretty well in California.
http://www.bloomberg.com...
http://www.boston.com...

Whoa! You mean insurance companies will protect their clients assets to avoid having to reimburse them? That sounds suspiciously like anarcho-capitalism...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 8:57:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 8:27:42 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 3/2/2011 5:52:37 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
No one seemed able to awnser my question on the An-Cap Q&A thread so I'll try again here.

I have a property dispute with my neighbour. We each have overlapping land claims. My neigbour proceeds to trim a hedge in the disputed zone. I phone my security company who turn up and ask him to stop, he phones his security company. He continues to trim the hedge.

If my security detail does not physically prevent him from trimming the hedge then why should I pay them? If his security detail does not protect him then why should he pay them?

Both opposing security details have a vested interest in resorting to violence in this situation.

How is the dispute resolved without resort to third coercive power, such as a Government, a central land registry or the imposition of a non-contracted court. (If any of these methods are used then it's not an-cap).

How is this superior to the state?:

I don't believe it is superior. I think An-Cap's have an excellent starting point, but that it's not well thought out. Your criticisms are some of my own, to which I have not heard a good excuse for.

"Robert Nozick argued in 'Anarchy, State and Utopia' that anarcho-capitalism would inevitably transform into a minarchist state, even without violating any of its own nonaggression principles, through the eventual emergence of a single locally dominant private defense and judicial agency that it is in everyone's interests to align with, because other agencies are unable to effectively compete against the advantages of the agency with majority coverage. Therefore, he felt that, even to the extent that the anarcho-capitalist theory is correct, it results in an unstable system that would not endure in the real world. Paul Birch argues that as in the world today, legal disputes involving several jurisdictions and different legal system will be many times more complex and costly to resolve than disputes involving only one legal system. Thus, the largest private protection business in a territory will have lower costs since it will have more internal disputes and will outcompete those private protection business with more external disputes in the territory. In effect, according to Birch, protection business in territory is a natural monopoly.

A criticism of Rothbard's version of anarcho-capitalism, in which certain fundamental natural rights will be followed, is that in the absence of a state which guarantee such rights, this idea is merely wishful thinking. Critics argue that one can observe private protection organizations in practice in gang wars, where different gangs compete with each other on the same "turf" to "protect" their interests, causing high violence. Another problem is that of externalities, such as pollution."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

There is a reasonable and logical function of government in its proper context. Military, courts, police, fire, and critical infrastructure highlight a limited government that serve the interests of the people without bias. The problem that An-Cap's have is that they've noticed that government tends towards statism eventually, such as has been seen in the United States.

I believe if provisions are taken by specifically enumerating rights in the Constitution, it defines a legal basis for a limited government.

Before fire departments were run by the State, they were entirely privatised. What happened, especially in New York in the late 1800's, were that they were run by competing thugs who were corrupt. They cared nothing about helping people save their property. Each gang would attempt to monopolize the fire mains so that their crew would get to the fire first. Often it would devolve in to a street fight as these competing gangs would fight in the middle of the street while homes burned to the ground.

Thanks for that man.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 9:26:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 8:36:19 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 3/2/2011 8:27:42 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Before fire departments were run by the State, they were entirely privatised. What happened, especially in New York in the late 1800's, were that they were run by competing thugs who were corrupt. They cared nothing about helping people save their property. Each gang would attempt to monopolize the fire mains so that their crew would get to the fire first. Often it would devolve in to a street fight as these competing gangs would fight in the middle of the street while homes burned to the ground.

Private fire protection seems to be working pretty well in California.:

That's only in tandem with specific, codified laws. A lot of EMT's are also privatised, which is great. But it only works because there are guidelines that are adhered to by law. If pure An-Cap were implemented, there would be no legal basis for anything, only the law of reciprocity.

Whoa! You mean insurance companies will protect their clients assets to avoid having to reimburse them? That sounds suspiciously like anarcho-capitalism.:

Insurance companies have to follow federal guidelines. If there were no legal recourse against them, there would be no reason for them to pay out except the fear of vigilante justice or negative publicity.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 9:40:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 5:52:37 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
No one seemed able to awnser my question on the An-Cap Q&A thread so I'll try again here.

I have a property dispute with my neighbour. We each have overlapping land claims. My neigbour proceeds to trim a hedge in the disputed zone. I phone my security company who turn up and ask him to stop, he phones his security company. He continues to trim the hedge.

If my security detail does not physically prevent him from trimming the hedge then why should I pay them? If his security detail does not protect him then why should he pay them?

This is really simple. I don't know why you want to over-complicate things. First, the two security firms would probably try to determine who is at fault. In the meantime, it would be wise for him to stop cutting the hedge, since if he is found to be at fault, he will be liable for any damages. If he was committing a more serious property violation, like building a swimming pool in my backyard, his security firm might even require him to stop. No security firm wants to represent some sociopath who's constantly causing trouble.

My security firm is probably not going to assault him and throw him in jail without first determining who is at fault. I might be upset about this and I might want to go to some competing firm, but realistically, not many companies are going to be willing to do battle over a damn hedge. Those that are willing to incur massive financial and human losses over trivialities are going to have to charge a lot more for their services.

"Which is likelier to settle its disputes through violence: a government or a private protection agency? Well, the difference is that private protection agencies have to bear the costs of their own decisions to go to war. Going to war is expensive. If you have a choice between two protection agencies, and one solves its disputes through violence most of the time, and the other one solves its disputes through arbitration most of the time — now, you might think, 'I want the one that solves its disputes through violence — that sounds really cool!' But then you look at your monthly premiums. And you think, well, how committed are you to this Viking mentality? Now, you might be so committed to the Viking mentality that you're willing to pay for it; but still, it is more expensive. A lot of customers are going to say, 'I want to go to one that doesn't charge all this extra amount for the violence.'" - Roderick T. Long

Both opposing security details have a vested interest in resorting to violence in this situation.

No they don't. It's much easier and less expensive to just determine who is as fault and deal with it peacefully. Again, I might want to enlist the services of Hagar the Horrible's Violent Protective Services, but realistically, that's going to cost a lot more money.

How is the dispute resolved without resort to third coercive power, such as a Government, a central land registry or the imposition of a non-contracted court. (If any of these methods are used then it's not an-cap).

How would a central land registry be incompatible with anarchism? Churches used to take care of that sort of thing all the time. In cases like this, going to court wouldn't even be necessary. The two protective agencies would probably be able to sort out who is at fault and take care of it on their own.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 10:00:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I really can't see anything good coming from competing entities of force. Say you're relying on Jimmy no thumbs personal security company, and the Gambino Security Enterprises moves into the area. They have a very convincing sales force explaining that it's in your best interest to go with them and that Jimmy no thumbs will soon be an irrelevance. Eventually the Gambino Security Enterprise becomes a monopoly and is demanding premiums that grow, but you are compelled to pay their rates because there is no alternative, and not paying them is not an alternative.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 10:10:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 10:00:59 AM, innomen wrote:
I really can't see anything good coming from competing entities of force. Say you're relying on Jimmy no thumbs personal security company, and the Gambino Security Enterprises moves into the area. They have a very convincing sales force explaining that it's in your best interest to go with them and that Jimmy no thumbs will soon be an irrelevance. Eventually the Gambino Security Enterprise becomes a monopoly and is demanding premiums that grow, but you are compelled to pay their rates because there is no alternative, and not paying them is not an alternative.

It does not seem to be a system that holds up to any form of scrutiny.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 10:10:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 10:00:59 AM, innomen wrote:
Eventually the Gambino Security Enterprise becomes a monopoly and is demanding premiums that grow

Non sequitur.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 10:13:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 10:10:58 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 3/2/2011 10:00:59 AM, innomen wrote:
Eventually the Gambino Security Enterprise becomes a monopoly and is demanding premiums that grow

Non sequitur.

How so? What is to prevent it from becoming a monopoly?

But anyway that is a tangent, how is the orginal dispute resolved assuming that it is a functioning free market an-cap society?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 10:15:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 9:40:40 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:

No they don't. It's much easier and less expensive to just determine who is as fault and deal with it peacefully. Again, I might want to enlist the services of Hagar the Horrible's Violent Protective Services, but realistically, that's going to cost a lot more money.

Why do you assume that lengthy mediation and arbitration would cost less than a swift display of violence? As someone said in the other thread, lawyers are expensive, thugs are cheap.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 10:16:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
First, the two security firms would probably try to determine who is at fault.:

But why would either company side against the people who pay them? There's no incentive to being objective. 1 land owner could simply bribe the rival security firm. There would be no incentive not to.

My security firm is probably not going to assault him and throw him in jail without first determining who is at fault.:

In an An-Cap society who determines what is lawful?

How would a central land registry be incompatible with anarchism?:

Who runs it? Who has the authority to say, no, this is not your land... it's actually, my land.

The whole system would seem to operate most effectively through bribery.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 10:17:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 10:15:29 AM, feverish wrote:
Why do you assume that lengthy mediation and arbitration would cost less than a swift display of violence? As someone said in the other thread, lawyers are expensive, thugs are cheap.

This. It's a lot easier to simply line up your men and attack than it is to sit down and work something out, especially with enemies.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 10:19:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 10:16:06 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
First, the two security firms would probably try to determine who is at fault.:

But why would either company side against the people who pay them? There's no incentive to being objective.

Exactly, I've asked this several times.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 10:26:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's assumptions in behavior like that, which have created nothing but problems in practical application of theoretical societies
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 10:26:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 10:16:06 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
First, the two security firms would probably try to determine who is at fault.:

But why would either company side against the people who pay them? There's no incentive to being objective. 1 land owner could simply bribe the rival security firm. There would be no incentive not to.

If they want future business, it would be in their best interest to be objective. Would you go to an agency which is easily bought out by bribes and promises? No, they could forfeit your case if your opponent paid them or something along those lines. Being an equal arbitrator will create trust while increasing the number of customers. Profit is an incentive -- a very strong one.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 10:32:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 10:26:15 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/2/2011 10:16:06 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
First, the two security firms would probably try to determine who is at fault.:

But why would either company side against the people who pay them? There's no incentive to being objective. 1 land owner could simply bribe the rival security firm. There would be no incentive not to.

If they want future business, it would be in their best interest to be objective. Would you go to an agency which is easily bought out by bribes and promises? No, they could forfeit your case if your opponent paid them or something along those lines. Being an equal arbitrator will create trust while increasing the number of customers. Profit is an incentive -- a very strong one.

I would side with the company most likely to protect my interests, and in an an-cap society all such security firms will be entirely mercenary in character.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 10:35:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
If they want future business, it would be in their best interest to be objective. Would you go to an agency which is easily bought out by bribes and promises? No, they could forfeit your case if your opponent paid them or something along those lines. Being an equal arbitrator will create trust while increasing the number of customers. Profit is an incentive -- a very strong one.:

Exactly my point, though. Profit is a strong incentive. So why not always side with the very wealthy?

Secondly, the first argument was never addressed. You have two security firms to settle a dispute. Who arbitrates objectively in a case like this? What incentive does the either security firm have to go against their respective employers.

The whole point of hiring the security firm was for them to settle the dispute in his favor. Why is he paying people to side against him so that he's now lost property and lost money in the process?

It makes no sense without an objective mediator.

Why wouldn't these competing security firms be tantamount to rival cartels vying for power and control?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 10:42:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 10:26:15 AM, annhasle wrote:

If they want future business, it would be in their best interest to be objective. Would you go to an agency which is easily bought out by bribes and promises?

If I was in a position to offer a bribe, then yes, that's exactly the kind of company I'd go for.
No, they could forfeit your case if your opponent paid them or something along those lines. Being an equal arbitrator will create trust while increasing the number of customers.

The number of poor customers may increase but that's not really going to increase profits, especially if the big deals from wealthy clients go to companies who have a reputation for winning by any means necessary.

Profit is an incentive -- a very strong one.

It is indeed, so far as I can see iis the only incentive that would exist in the world you advocate. But not an incentive to be fair or just.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 10:46:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 10:26:15 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/2/2011 10:16:06 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
First, the two security firms would probably try to determine who is at fault.:

But why would either company side against the people who pay them? There's no incentive to being objective. 1 land owner could simply bribe the rival security firm. There would be no incentive not to.

If they want future business, it would be in their best interest to be objective. Would you go to an agency which is easily bought out by bribes and promises? No, they could forfeit your case if your opponent paid them or something along those lines. Being an equal arbitrator will create trust while increasing the number of customers. Profit is an incentive -- a very strong one.

Sad thing is, that this is often not the case in competitive arbitration markets now.

Any of you have credit cards? Or appartment leases? (considering your ages, probably not). If you dig through the fine print of pretty much ANY contract, it is written in there that you already accept a particular arbitrator for ANY AND ALL DISPUTES and you already accept any decision made by that arbitrator. It can also legally prevent you from even appealing any claims.

Since the arbitrator was predecided by one person (and it is usually something that gets overlooked by the other person that signs the contract, that's why it's small print), the arbitrator is more likely to side with the person that wrote up the contract (since that is the real "customer," the one that is bringing in business, you don't side with them enough, they go to someone else and you lose money), and even with bribes being legal, the incentive to be bais is only higher.

I don't see how people think that companies are going to act so heavily on their reputation in an ancap society, when they don't even do it now.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 11:20:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 10:00:59 AM, innomen wrote:
I really can't see anything good coming from competing entities of force. Say you're relying on Jimmy no thumbs personal security company, and the Gambino Security Enterprises moves into the area. They have a very convincing sales force explaining that it's in your best interest to go with them and that Jimmy no thumbs will soon be an irrelevance. Eventually the Gambino Security Enterprise becomes a monopoly and is demanding premiums that grow, but you are compelled to pay their rates because there is no alternative, and not paying them is not an alternative.

Ok, worst case scenario: Gambino's security firm becomes a government and we're right back to where we are today. Look, governments tend to become tyrannous after a given period of time. If Ron Paul was elected tomorrow and pushed the reset button, would you argue that it wasn't worthwhile just because it'll all come undone in 50 years? I would hope not. Enjoy liberty while we have it, and fight to maintain it!

But there's no reason to conclude that monopolization is inevitable. There's a better case to be made that insurance, or various utilities are natural monopolies, yet minarchist libertarians are generally unwilling to concede as much. Second, even if a geographically dominant protective agency has been established, what's to stop its neighbors from encroaching on its territory? Gambino is going to have to run an awfully tight ship if he doesn't want that to happen. In other words, Gambino is going to be limited by potential competition in the same way that cable companies and other local monopolies are today. Third, it's going to be much more difficult to establish dominion over a group of people when they are not suffering from the delusion that you have any legitimate right to rule over them.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 11:20:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I am unconvined of being told that competing security firms will act rationally based on economic concerns in the face of a violent dispute. I know any comparison to the real world gets swept away because of the govt/no govt dichotomy, but seriously, I've never seen real people act this way. We're talking about mixing power and authority in the most volatile of ways- mixing capitalism without external restraint. So we have several parties simultaneously vying for their own power, their own authority, and their own wealth, with no concievable boundaries other than rationality concerning profits. Capitalist entities never act rationally; just watch some television commercials to see that.

Anyone who is not exceptionally soft and insulated is going to know that people who mean business are only gonna want one security company- the one that kills everybody else. God bless the troops.
kfc
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 11:31:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 10:15:29 AM, feverish wrote:
At 3/2/2011 9:40:40 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:

No they don't. It's much easier and less expensive to just determine who is as fault and deal with it peacefully. Again, I might want to enlist the services of Hagar the Horrible's Violent Protective Services, but realistically, that's going to cost a lot more money.

Why do you assume that lengthy mediation and arbitration would cost less than a swift display of violence?

Because my neighbor's protection agency would retaliate.

As someone said in the other thread, lawyers are expensive, thugs are cheap.

Who says lawyers would even get involved? Governments tend to settle on the most inefficient ways possible to resolve disputes. If I sideswipe you, are our two insurance companies going to start a war? Are they going to engage in a multi-million dollar court case? No, they're going to determine who is at fault, pay up, and get it over with.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 11:33:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Seriously no one has an awnser?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.