You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: A practical problem for the Anarchist and New Age Voluntarists (and any other starry-eyed idealist). (featuring @vuyusile as author)
The answer has been covered many times.... I like this one.
Things to note:
Paying for security would be a lower price than paying the Taxes most nations charge.
Security via multiple agencies would protect those who are not subscribers to a security agency do to the fact criminals do not know who is a subscriber.
A great system where only the rich can afford not to be raped and there's no chance of it forming a mafia!
The rich are bad, and the poor are good; is a far too common excuse for the need of government.
Why was the government forced to use "tax evasion" as the accusation to bring down the mafia?
Because the mafia has underlings to cover them on matters, since justice has, and needs, burden of proof. However, legalization of non violent criminal acts may create enough competition to destroy larger entities or influence their transition to considering themselves honest men. https://steemit.com/anarchy/@zev/a-practical-solution-for-the-anarchist-and-new-age-voluntarists
Not even remotely close to what I said.
The government was forced to use tax evasion because the mafia were smart about their crimes, getting underlings to do the work (and get caught all the time!) so the bosses could never be proven to have committed a crime. It's funny how our legal system actually wants proof of a crime before sending someone to prison. Do you think that would hold up as an ideal when you could get paid to send someone to prison?
You'r probably not reading me and Nathan Brown's discussion, so I have no idea what your point is. "Government is great because it finds ways to catch the bosses"?
"People would stop reviewing evidence because businesses are allowed to cut deals"?
Thank you - I took the time to listen to this video. Its an interesting idea. In South Africa, economic participators, like myself, are taxed at a marginal rate of 40%, and still have to contract for private security, health, education, etc because the state provision is so poor.
But have you considered how many debatable predicates there are to the success of the free market security provision in this proposal? Are you happy with the use of force in compulsion? how does that marry with some of the other tenets of the new age voluntarism I have been reading about on this platform?
What if the free market does not work in a particular location for example urban over rural, etc. What will be used in the transition period to get it working?
In the end, I think this is a decidedly poor answer to the question that has been posed. We will have to do better than this.
The opening question is under the assumption that high amounts of crime do occur. On land that does have a notable probability of crime, simple insurance business will not be capable of providing sufficient compensation, and may bankrupt themselves if they do not hire a protective force. I do not think such high crime areas are likely in a free system, but assuming they exist, this is a solid solution to the alternative.
No one would be required to enter areas managed by such businesses. But, for the people who do they could enter with confidence that competition and reputation maintenance would keep such businesses from framing them for crimes, or committing other wrong acts against them. Insurance alone would give people more reason to do nothing to stop theft, and would encourage staged activities to obtain payout.
So I see wholesale corruption in all levels of government; and this drives a great many vices that are visited on citizens. thats a given; and I don't need persuasion that government is weak and failing.
But I also see corruption and interest seeking in the private sphere that will break the market's invisible hand. A great deal more harm may be done while the market and market actors try to sort it out.
As much as I would like to believe, I have not been won over to this set of proposals.
Your "error," in assuming all things must be considered prior to implementation where agility would be most essential for progress. https://steemit.com/anarchy/@zev/a-practical-solution-for-the-anarchist-and-new-age-voluntarists
Only people with wealth will be able to pay for security. How are the poorest people in society going to be able to protect themselves?
I already said "Security via multiple agencies would protect those who are not subscribers to a security agency do to the fact criminals do not know who is a subscriber."
So your real question is "How are the poorest people in society going to be able to get 'justice' for the wrongs done to them?"
As a poor person who's parked car was hit, I would officially state: "I'm not looking for 'justice' I forgive them."
In the same way: I forgive people who think they need a "State" so they can get their precious "Justice" served and I can go bankrupt trying to pay for healthcare I will never get to use.
It is the people who look for "Justice" all the time, who become the rich snobs that want perfection from everyone they see.
One should not seek justice so much as one should seek solutions for impetus of crime on case by case basis. In that there is potential for innovations, which may be profitable.
I think I disagree with you on the effectiveness of deterrence from state intervention. My thinking on this is based on the book Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker. Have you heard of it? It is an amazing analysis of why violence has drastically declined throughout human history and state deterrence is a significant part of the decline by Pinker's analysis.
Violence could have declined because people are becoming better, or it could just be a desire to not get caught by cameras that are so cheap and planted everywhere by private entities. Caring for the poor is a nice gesture, but if you don't believe the average person will do all they can to help the poor; The only option you will be left with is to form a government that will care for the poor(Provide Justice). As a poor person, I can assure you that the organizations to help the poor are far less helpful than the individuals who help us out.
You are just making guesses about why people might be less violent. Guesses are not very helpful. Stephen Pinker goes into in depth scientific analysis via statistics to try and make the best determination of what has reduced violence. I think depending on science, rather than guesses, is a far better approach for decisions making.
As for your comment about caring people doing you to help you than the government as a poor person, are you poor enough to qualify for government assistance such as food stamps or section 8 housing?
I have numerous friends who are poor enough to qualify for government assistance, and my girlfriend depends on government assistance due to her disability. There is no way in hell that all the people who love and care about her could provide her with $12k a year to help her make ends meet, which is about how much she gets in government assistance for her disability.
"I have numerous friends who are poor enough to qualify for government assistance, and my girlfriend depends on government assistance due to her disability. " and that is why you love government so much. Because you love the things it can get for you/friends/family; over the option to have a true personal care for others.
The rich are bad, and the poor are good; is a far too common excuse for the need of government.
How do they protect themselves now?
By not having things to steal. Other than that, gang affiliations provide some feelings of security in the roughest areas.
I don't think the Rich are bad and the poor are good. I also agree the poor don't have great ways to protect themselves now either. I don't see how private security will do a better job for the poor than a functional state government.
If you think government does a better job than private security, then you must think private security bad when compared to government. So if security does worse of a job as a private organization than as a public government, what market sector would do a better job than government?
Let me put it to you this way; A private security car following me from work to the rest stop where I sleep, is a lot less threatening than a government car of any kind.
I'm not saying private security isn't effective for the person hiring the security firm. My point s that I don't think private security will help those who don't have the funds to hire them.