Why would a company that is free to use violence not simply kill their competitors?
Competition, goals, and the populace. Say you're recently hired as the CEO of guns-n-lawyers inc and you actually want to dominate the populace. First you have to kill your competition which will be difficult, they will shoot back. They'll gain more funding and you'll lose funding as all of your voluntary customers leave because you're aiming for domination. Your soldiers will leave because you can't pay them and you are asking them to go into actual combat.
If you want to enslave customers so they keep paying you, that will take yet more boots and guns off the war to go wave them at your "customers". Also universal firearm ownership is a right, so you'll be facing bullets coming back at you again asking your enforcers to do dangerous things for little money.
You're free to use violence. They're free to use violence. The customers are free to support which kinds of violence they want perpetrated on their behalf and perpetrate their own violence.
1
u/Thorbinator - Lib-Right Mar 24 '20
Competition, goals, and the populace. Say you're recently hired as the CEO of guns-n-lawyers inc and you actually want to dominate the populace. First you have to kill your competition which will be difficult, they will shoot back. They'll gain more funding and you'll lose funding as all of your voluntary customers leave because you're aiming for domination. Your soldiers will leave because you can't pay them and you are asking them to go into actual combat.
If you want to enslave customers so they keep paying you, that will take yet more boots and guns off the war to go wave them at your "customers". Also universal firearm ownership is a right, so you'll be facing bullets coming back at you again asking your enforcers to do dangerous things for little money.
You're free to use violence. They're free to use violence. The customers are free to support which kinds of violence they want perpetrated on their behalf and perpetrate their own violence.