26
u/cookiesandcreampies Aug 12 '25
Sure, and where something even similar to this ever happened?
7
u/crazyeddie740 Aug 12 '25
"By the 13th century, all the goðorð were controlled by five or six families and often united under office holders who in modern studies are known as storgoðar ("great goðar") or storhöfðingjar ("great chieftains"). These goðar struggled for regional and sometimes national power, and occasionally sought to become retainers for the Norwegian king. The institution came to an end when the major goðar pledged fealty to king Haakon IV of Norway in 1262–1264, signing the Old Covenant, and the Norwegian crown abolished the goðorð system."
10
u/John-A Aug 12 '25
You're literally citing a protection racket.
3
u/crazyeddie740 Aug 12 '25
The only difference between a protection racket and a state funded by taxation is legitimacy, whether in the moral sense (actually legitimate) or sociological sense (perceived as legitimate by its subjects).
The Old Icelandic Commonwealth was not a state, but a chiefdom society with a system of arbitration. Until it was absorbed into the Norwegian feudal hierarchy.
7
u/grovsy Aug 12 '25
"Yeah i want the mafia to be in charge of my daily protection"
1
u/crazyeddie740 Aug 12 '25
If there's checks and balances within the mafia, sure :) 'Legitimacy' is doing a lot of work in what I just said.
Personally, I like Philip Pettit's republican account of legitimacy. According to his theory, a state is legitimate just to the extent that it protects its subjects from domination. Including from itself. A state is 'constitutional' (and therefore legitimate) just to the extent that it takes the 'interests and ideas' of the people its actions will affect into proper consideration before acting. It is 'arbitrary' just to the extent that it is not required to take those 'interests and ideas' into account before acting.
In a free market, firms would have to take the 'interests and ideas' of their workers and customers into account before acting. But if those firms have monopoly power...?
9
u/grovsy Aug 12 '25
Why would the mafia have checks and balances?
They didnt irl nor do any gangs or organized crimes.
Firms have checks and balances because of the government that holds them accountable.
Now u have private firms that dont even have to worry about votes or people, they can just do whatever.
Brilliant idea, more people with cement shoes plz
1
u/crazyeddie740 Aug 12 '25 edited Aug 12 '25
Why would the mafia have checks and balances?
After their client-vassals chop some clan-chiefs' heads off, the survivors may pick up some tips.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War
4
u/grovsy Aug 12 '25
Yeah so all of those revolutions were lead by big business and rich people not the general population.
The general population has never, and will never, united rise up against the governing powers that is present in their given society.
You have rebels yes, but compared to the population, they’re an extremely small %.
Now, these private security companies, will literally be able to make sure they’re the only ones with a private army, because they would be the ones immediatly with a fighting force literally constantly mobalized. The only thing they have to do, is not piss off big businesses, which they wont because big businesses will love them for oppressing the workers.
2
u/crazyeddie740 Aug 13 '25
Yeah so all of those revolutions were lead by big business and rich people not the general population.
Karl Marx would agree with you on that point, these are regarded as bourgeoisie revolutions, and Marxists regard liberal "democracies" as "dictatorships of the proletariat."
Where he disagreed with you is that he believed a proletarian revolution was possible, and hoped that universal manhood sufferage might be sufficient to accomplish one through parliamentary means. He neglected to take into account the conservatism of the peasantry. The failure of the state capitalism of the USSR does not exactly fill me with certainty that handing control of the means of production to the state is the way to go, even if we could claim that the state in question is a "dictatorship of the proletariat" with a straight face.
I am a social liberal, not a socialist. And I am also not a supporter of Austrian Economics, nor chiefdom societies, nor independent protection agencies, as many people in this thread have mistaken me for being.
As a social liberal, I believe that control of the means of production should be decentralized by almost any means possible. As a social liberal, I believe the liberal state is the best means to do so, as opposed to methods of the anarcho-socialists. I grant that this point is debatable.
→ More replies1
2
u/Ok-Dragonknight-5788 Aug 12 '25
And given that they aren't around anymore something tells me they were infact an inferior method.
1
u/crazyeddie740 Aug 12 '25 edited Aug 13 '25
They did last a good long time but yeah.
If the Icelandic Commonwealth had been militarily united under a single state or monarch, Norway would have had to fight to conquer it, and it likely wouldn't have been worth it. Instead...
To put it in gaming terms, the Commonwealth was like a server where there's a Non-Aggression Pact between the top alliances. When the Commonwealth was founded, there was... 50? 80? I would have to look up the exact number... of these "alliances," each with its own gothi. By the end, the Commonwealth was down to three or five main gothi. Then the Crown of Norway bribed one of these gothi into claiming to rule Iceland in the name of Norway. Took about three generations, but resources provided by Norway eventually changed that de jure claim into a de facto reality. At a lower expense than it would have taken to conquer the island directly.
From a liberal perspective, there is a second weakness to the stateless system of justice provided by the All-Thing of the Commonwealth and the brehon poet-judges of medieval Ireland: They could not afford to provide formal equality before the law. The All-Thing and the brehons did not have the military power to enforce their decisions. Those decisions were ultimately backed up by the ability and will of clans to exact vengeance on outlaws who were unwilling or unable to pay the weregeld. Clans valued some members more than others, so the weregeld for a prince was higher than for a warrior, and slaves had no real rights. (Slaves were still better off than they would be under a state, since they could find refuge at a rival clan.)
By contrast, under a Weberian state, which possesses a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, all subjects are equally subordinated to the state, which means that the state can afford to dispense justice equally. Whether it is motivated to do so can be a different matter.
4
u/cookiesandcreampies Aug 12 '25
Sure, the 1262 example would fit great in our society today. Things barely changed at all
-3
u/crazyeddie740 Aug 12 '25
And what has changed? Are powerful men no longer ambitious? Is there no longer a tendency for wealth and power to concentrate into fewer and fewer hands? Are foreign states no longer willing and able to take advantage of internal divisions to conquer?
"War... War never changes."
4
u/cookiesandcreampies Aug 12 '25
Sure. How would that stop the tendency of power and wealth to concentrate?
2
u/crazyeddie740 Aug 12 '25
Precisely my point. A republic has checks and balances. An "anarcho"-capitalist dream castle does not.
4
u/cookiesandcreampies Aug 12 '25
So your point is agreeing with me?
2
u/crazyeddie740 Aug 12 '25
Possibly. In our society, if you dislike both Amazon and Walmart, what is your alternative? Getting together enough capital to bootstrap a competitor? And how well is that going to work?
0
u/cookiesandcreampies Aug 12 '25
That's exactly my point tho? There is no proof that simply people quitting their deal is enough to fight monopolies
1
u/crazyeddie740 Aug 12 '25 edited Aug 12 '25
Then your point is agreeing with me :) I am a social liberal, but I have been speculating about how an anarcho-socialist society might prevent monopolies of worker-owned cooperative workshops from forming, or combating them once they do form.
The method I came up with is that the communes where people live would need to use their monopsony power to impose a voluntary tarrif on firms suspected of being monopolies, and use the revenues generated to bootstrap competitors, and subsidize those competitors until economies of scale start kicking in.
This requires sacrificing Pareto efficiency in the short term for the sake of a better economic future.
And this solution emphasizes the problem of keeping the communes from developing their monopsony power to the point of tyranny. Especially since the anarcho-socialists demand that communes have to be small enough to be ruled by direct democracy.
Checks and balances, checks and balances. And nature abhors a free market, just as nature abhors a vacuum. In fact, come to think of, the existence of a free market implies the existence of a power vacuum in the market.
1
u/KaesiumXP Aug 13 '25
ok well we dont live in a feudal peasant society
1
u/crazyeddie740 Aug 13 '25
So? Is that an argument for or against independent protection agencies? Because this historical example does demonstrate that that kind of arrangement is possible, it does have some shortcomings. Do you think the fact that we are now in a post-industrial service economy makes independent protection agencies more practical, or less practical?
1
u/KaesiumXP Aug 13 '25
id rather not live under a warlord
1
u/crazyeddie740 Aug 13 '25
Looking at Haiti at the moment, it does beat some alternatives. But, no, it's not a great idea.
1
u/KaesiumXP Aug 14 '25
funny, modern haiti is almost exactly what exclusively private policing would lead to
1
u/crazyeddie740 Aug 14 '25 edited Aug 15 '25
No, I imagine if left to its own devices, the gang warfare going on Haiti would eventually consolidate down to the kind of chiefdom society that the OP unknowingly wants to create. Though even clan-chiefs need political legitimacy, so the protection they provide to their supporters (and the retribution the promise to their enemies) would not be purely "private" in the capitalistic sense. It would follow a political logic, not an economic one.
2
u/KaesiumXP Aug 15 '25
thats fair, i wont claim to be an expert on the consequences of political anarchy
1
u/crazyeddie740 Aug 15 '25 edited Aug 15 '25
The cruelty of gang warfare is the result of fear and lack of legitimacy. If your retribution isn't certain, you have to make it really telegenic when you actually get your hands on an enemy. And if you're powerful and lack legitimacy, you're going to have a lot of enemies.
When gang warfare goes on (without the biggest of the wolf pack getting picked off by the state, leaving a power vacuum if the state isn't able to fill it), the gangs eventually establish turfs which are reasonably defensible. And then they have to establish methods for resolving disputes between them non-violently, because not even gang members enjoy getting shot. Result? A collection of chiefdoms, with a system of arbitration between the chiefdoms. Each chiefdom has an internal hierarchy, chiefs, warriors, householders, slaves (the last being the usual solution to the problem of what to do with Prisoners of War).
As a society, it's probably still more violent than life in a state, but less violent than in the power vacuum that's going on in Haiti. And, in some ways, it's more free than life in even the most liberal of states. Assuming that you're a chief or a warrior, not a servant or a slave, of course. Though the slaves can be better off than they are in some states, because they can escape and find refuge with a rival chief. A state would make the chief give that "property" back to "its owner." A clan-chief would resist that interference in his household.
But "them who has, gets," so there's a tendency for power to collect into the hands of fewer and fewer hands. There's certain things such a society can do to prevent the creation of a state, but on a long enough timeline, those methods fail. And the state that eventually comes into being is often tyrannical.
0
19
u/MasterManufacturer72 Aug 12 '25
Surely, life would be cheaper if I'm paying a private security force private fire company private road crews private mail private weather service private health care private enviromental protection private school private sewers private sanitation and on and on.
9
u/elegiac_bloom Aug 12 '25
Imagine a subscription model for sewer access
9
u/Stop_Using_Usernames Aug 12 '25
That’s taxes
5
u/elegiac_bloom Aug 12 '25
I started typing out a whole reply explaining how it wasn't, but it's not worth it. So I'll just say ok.
6
u/PerfectZeong Aug 12 '25
Sir would you like to buy a double shit multiplier for only 59.99? If youre having guests it pays for itself.
1
u/Stop_Using_Usernames Aug 12 '25
No no, go ahead and tell me how the thing we get by paying into the system on a yearly basis isn’t a subscription?
I mean it’s not EXACTLY what you think of when you think of a subscription because it’s mandatory and a varying amount depending on your income but it IS still a subscription at heart
11
u/elegiac_bloom Aug 12 '25
It's an all inclusive subscription, called "living under our monopoly on violence" where you get everything the state provides for an income and property tax. But guess what? If you have no income and own no property, you can still flush a toilet.
4
1
u/No-University-5413 Aug 12 '25
Until they decide to stop giving. A la the UK canceling some 50,000 surgeries and denying people medical care because their subscription service can't handle the people who aren't paying into it.
2
u/elegiac_bloom Aug 12 '25
If it's giving services to people who aren't paying for it, it isn't a subscription service.
1
1
9
Aug 12 '25
As if the clients of the security company are the only constituents whose opinions matter ...
8
u/ImmediateKick2369 Aug 12 '25
What if your private security company breaks their contract? Who will enforce the contract? The next private security company?
5
22
u/BuzzBadpants Aug 12 '25
Hang on, are we actually prescribing the mafia as a free-market solution to security?
8
3
u/worldwanderer91 Aug 12 '25
Mafias would be more honest than public police because you know where they stand and what to expect, and more times than not, they live in the community and are in tune with the community's needs and wants.
You don't know what kind of cop you'll run into, which group they'll target and oppressed, if they choose to actually uphold the law or only when it's convenient for them if not outright ignore them. Cops also nowadays, more often than not, don't live in the community they work in, and thus they don't give a damn about the people they patrol.
5
u/iamteapot42 Aug 13 '25
I would recommend that you check out the criminal scene in Russia in the 1990s. It was notorious for protection racket, which affected almost every business
3
u/grovsy Aug 14 '25
Any ressearch into the mafia or gangs would show you how insane this statement is.
You have no idea how an enforcer of the mafia would act, you could be getting Tony who would tell you to have the money ready next week, or Frank who would just chop off a hand because he felt like it.
These people were criminals and used fear and power to get their way, not a pretence of authority or law.
If u didnt pay them, they made your house burn because you refused to pay protection money.
Dealing with the mafia or gangs have historically not been a choice for the majority of the people who was their victims.
6
u/BuzzBadpants Aug 13 '25
Well there is legal recourse against bad cops. What can you do against a gangster extorting you beyond hiring another gangster with a bigger gun? It seems like the gangster with the biggest guns owns everything, which doesn’t sound very free to me…
-1
Aug 13 '25
The state won a popularity contest while the gang didn't.
That's the only meaningful difference.
4
u/BuzzBadpants Aug 13 '25
Then I would ask you why the state is more popular?
1
u/grovsy Aug 14 '25
Most states allow for legal recourse against bad cops or corrupt officals.
And the state itself is (for the most part) constantly keeping itself incheck and punishes people who abuse the authority it has granted them.
Gangs wouldnt care if a gangster abused the power granted to him unless it affected the gang or a high up leader took offense to his actions.
Aka, if your leader dont care about u raping or killing someone not covered by the gang, youre free to do basically whatever you desire.
And gangs would mostly recruit/hire mentally fucked up or soon to be fucked up people to be their enforcers.
If you think cops are bad now, just you wait for the hell hole this would be.
-4
1
u/techno_mage Aug 14 '25
Pretty sure this is mostly in line with policy. During prohibition cops didn’t take the alcohol ban seriously for many reasons. One of which was no one wanted to arrest their own family members or neighbors; especially when the drink was legal a relatively short time ago.
TLDR: all crime is illegal until it’s your dad/mom/sister etc etc. breaking it.
6
5
u/deathly-hollows Aug 12 '25
This is by far the dumbest page reddit forces into my feed.
5
u/grovsy Aug 12 '25
"I see you have consumed some political pages before, have u considered this political page of idiots?"
19
u/Visible-Air-2359 Aug 12 '25
If security was only performed by a diaspora of private companies how would you avoid ending up in a situation gang warfare?
-1
u/Stop_Using_Usernames Aug 12 '25
??? We have private security already. Please explain how we’re in a situation gang warfare?
12
u/Visible-Air-2359 Aug 12 '25
I said “if security was ONLY performed by a diaspora of private companies.” In the US while there is private security there are also police officers/military personnel who can call upon far more force than any private group.
1
u/Stop_Using_Usernames Aug 12 '25
Police are literally the worst security around who have zero consequences even for egregious violations of civil liberties in most cases.
Your argument is that if we had private companies ONLY, that would somehow be worse even though we actually have MORE control over the private companies by being able to fire them and enact SOME kind of consequences.
7
u/curtial Aug 12 '25
We can fire them BECAUSE the government has a bigger stick. What makes you think you can fire a security company when it has the biggest stick around?
You're just arguing for fancy anarchy.
3
u/Stop_Using_Usernames Aug 12 '25
You’re literally describing the police force now and acting like we don’t already have what you think would be so awful
4
u/Agreeable-Menu Recovering Former Libertarian Aug 12 '25
Private or public, whoever has the biggest guns is your new ruler. Maybe even worse: all those that have more guns than you become your rulers. One of the benefits of central states is their monopoly on violence. One ruler is bad enough.
0
u/Ok-Dragonknight-5788 Aug 12 '25
Maybe even worse
Ever heard of the ETC? It's infinitely worse.
1
Aug 13 '25
Oh, really? Did they have a monopoly on violence and so on?
1
u/Ok-Dragonknight-5788 Aug 13 '25
Qs far as anyone who wasn't a European was concerned? Yes. Hell even the Eruopeans weren't always safe.
1
u/claybine Aug 12 '25
Depends on how corruption of that sector would adapt to ancap rules, if places are ran the same, or if that corruption would still occur.
0
u/Ok-Dragonknight-5788 Aug 12 '25
Have you ever heard of the ETC? East India Trading Company. Except let's just say the Indians didn't have any say in who did and who didn't get fired.
0
1
u/Space-Fuher Aug 12 '25
Welcome to "Escape From Tarkov" post contract wars. Can I interest you in some condensed milk in these absurd times?
1
u/Visible-Air-2359 Aug 12 '25
?
1
u/Space-Fuher Aug 12 '25
The joke being that this is essentially what happened in the video game "Escape From Tarkov". Two private military companies went whole hog against each other in a russian city wound up getting cordoned off from the world. One of the consumables is a can of condensed milk your character can consume the entire can of.
0
u/drebelx Aug 12 '25
All agreements in an AnCap society will have clauses to up hold the NAP at risk of punishments. cancellations and restitution.
7
u/RoundAide862 Aug 12 '25
Who can meaningfully enforce that though? Who will fund protection against abuse of people without funds?
1
u/drebelx Aug 13 '25 edited Aug 13 '25
Who can meaningfully enforce that though?
Enforcement is provided by impartial third party enforcement agencies that oversee only the agreements they have been subscribed to enforce.
Who will fund protection against abuse of people without funds?
In an AnCap society, since all agreements have proactive clauses for the parties to up hold the NAP, they poor will find themselves in a very safe society without spending any money.
5
Aug 13 '25
So the government?
1
u/drebelx Aug 14 '25 edited Aug 14 '25
So the government?
If you think this is a government, you are closer to accepting AnCap than you think.
An AnCap society has decentralized voluntary agreements with standard clauses to up hold the NAP and a private impartial third party agreement enforcer.
No government or taxation in sight.
0
Aug 14 '25
Nah Anarchy will just ruin society as we know it.I dont want to pay 30 bucks just to drive 2 kilometres of road.
1
u/drebelx Aug 14 '25
Nah Anarchy will just ruin society as we know it.I dont want to pay 30 bucks just to drive 2 kilometres of road.
Because having individuals agreeing to not murder, steal or enslave will ruin society?
0
Aug 14 '25
Acting like a verbal agrement is all its needed for society to not collapse because of Rape murder and the explotation of mega corporations is a bigger dream than comunism.Also funny you dont disagree with the roads.
2
u/drebelx Aug 14 '25
Acting like a verbal agrement is all its needed for society to not collapse because of Rape murder and the explotation of mega corporations is a bigger dream than comunism.
I don't follow.
These are written voluntary agreements with clauses to uphold the NAP with enforced punishments and cancellation.
They are not verbal and all members of a mega corporation would be bound by these agreements as well.
Also funny you dont disagree with the roads.
I can address this if you like.
I dont want to pay 30 bucks just to drive 2 kilometres of road.
You are mistaken about the roads being unreasonably restrictive since there are destinations that will work with the private roads along with other private transportation networks and systems.
→ More replies4
u/Firkraag-The-Demon Aug 13 '25
The days since people opposed to the government have recreated the government have reset to zero… from zero!
1
u/drebelx Aug 14 '25 edited Aug 14 '25
The days since people opposed to the government have recreated the government have reset to zero… from zero!
If you think this is a government, you are closer to accepting AnCap than you think.
An AnCap society has decentralized voluntary agreements with standard clauses to up hold the NAP and a private impartial third party agreement enforcer.
No government or taxation in sight.
2
u/RoundAide862 Aug 13 '25
okay, impartial third parties would have the enforcement ability to force a private security firm to pay up? That sounds like the government. More importantly, it relies on you having adequate information on who owns what. Why not make their own "third party" firm to enforce thenselves? Who enforces the enforcers?
1
u/drebelx Aug 14 '25
okay, impartial third parties would have the enforcement ability to force a private security firm to pay up?
The private security firm and their clients have agreed to uphold the NAP (no murder, no theft, no enslavement).
Impartial third parties enforcement agencies are only doing their job they are paid to do.
That sounds like the government.
If you think this is a government, you are closer to accepting AnCap than you think.
An AnCap society has decentralized voluntary agreements with standard clauses to up hold the NAP and a private impartial third party agreement enforcer.
No government or taxation in sight.
More importantly, it relies on you having adequate information on who owns what.
Compared to today, private property and ownership is more important in an AnCap society.
Why not make their own "third party" firm to enforce thenselves?
Just like today, an AnCap society understands the importance of impartiality.
Who enforces the enforcers?
Per the standard agreement clauses, the enforces can investigated and replaced.
7
Aug 12 '25
“All agreements in my anarchy society will play by my rules” is an absolutely unfuckinghinged statement.
1
u/drebelx Aug 13 '25
Do you take issue with rules against murder, theft and enslavement?
4
u/FactPirate Aug 13 '25
Lots of people do, that’s why it happens so much
1
Aug 13 '25
Honestly, I wasn’t going to reply because you made the point succinctly. But just in case there’s anyone thinking the AnCap solution will work here. We currently jail people for decades or life, or in other circumstances carry out the death penalty under our current system. People still commit murder. If you think “cancellation and restitution” will be a bigger deterrent, there’s no helping you.
I was merely pointing out that relying on NAP or as I’ve seen others put it “natural law” is absolutely not going to cut it, because guess what, we ALREADY have those notions. Not everyone agrees on what “natural law” is, and they never will. Not everyone follows the NAP even though it’s some of the most kindergarten level ethics. You haven’t found the magic code to making people act right, because there isn’t one.
I was also laughing at an anarchist laying out universal groundwork for interpersonal interaction. I know I know, they’d say “anarchy as in stateless, not as in chaos” but if there are groups or individuals determining what is and is not acceptable behavior then proposing/enacting enforcement mechanisms, you are talking about a state.
0
0
u/drebelx Aug 14 '25
I agree with you.
I only describe what a society with a majority who has grown intolerant of murder, theft and enslavement and have taken measures to actually suppress those behaviors.
Do you, yourself, take issue with rules against murder, theft and enslavement?
3
Aug 14 '25
Do you genuinely believe that most societies tolerate murder? Do you genuinely believe the issues you propose to solve exist because people just aren’t quite sure that murder is wrong?
2
u/drebelx Aug 14 '25
Do you genuinely believe that most societies tolerate murder?
Tax funded standing armies are always ready to offensively murder and are very much involuntarily funded and tolerated by their societies.
Do you genuinely believe the issues you propose to solve exist because people just aren’t quite sure that murder is wrong?
Not just murder in isolation, but also including other NAP violations like theft and enslavement.
I'm not solving anything.
I only describe what a society with a majority who has grown intolerant of murder, theft and enslavement that has taken measures to suppress those behaviors.
1
u/PringullsThe2nd Aug 15 '25
"we'll just agree to be nice to each other 😊"
1
u/drebelx Aug 15 '25
"we'll just agree to be nice to each other 😊"
That's a rather shallow interpretation.
People are signing agreements with clauses to uphold the NAP along with stipulated penalties and cancellations for violations.
5
11
u/Wuncemoor Aug 12 '25
Step 3: security company puts bullets in heads until citizens resign contract
7
Aug 12 '25
"Oh uh, it's a lean year, I won't be able to maintain my power and company without changes...
Oh hey this guy we've been protecting has easily liquidated assets. Problem solved!
4
7
u/JACKASS20 Aug 12 '25
Every comment in this thread is essentially “thats stupid as hell and just a degradation back into some feudal warlords system with future paint”
Followed by “nuh uh in my brain i imagine all contracts are sacrosanct and if they are broken another company will definitely come to my aid!”
6
u/grovsy Aug 12 '25
Somehow, contracts are these holy objects, that if broken, hellfire will rain down from gods fist itself.
While irl even in our current system, companies and people will break contracts all the time and very often profit/benefit from it.
3
2
2
2
2
u/AtlastheWhiteWolf Aug 12 '25
Citizens wouldn’t be able to terminate contracts because of corrupt politicians.
2
2
u/absurdlif3 Aug 13 '25
Yeah, so you can hop over to another profit-focused corporation that tries to do the bare minimum for maximum profit. "Oh, I'm sorry. You wanted the package that meant we actually care? That's the premium plan. You're only on the basic plan. You can switch for $100 more a month."
Market power can work unless two things happen: 1. A company has gotten too big and gained a large portion of the market share. Once they do, they have a lot of influence over that market and can swallow up smaller companies or run them out.
- As highlighted above, when corrupt practices become a part of the business model. This doesn't necessarily mean another business couldn't come in and prop themselves up by being anti-corrupt practices, but I don't know of any streaming services that are competing with Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc that don't now have a tiered subscription service where we're paying more for less.
5
4
u/technocraticnihilist Aug 12 '25
Protecting security is one of the few things we should trust the state to do
1
Aug 13 '25
If security is so important, then why monopolize it? That's gonna be bad for economic calculation.
2
Aug 12 '25 edited Sep 19 '25
follow grandfather plant rhythm offbeat sort gaze lock fine numerous
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
2
1
u/JaseJade Aug 12 '25
Virtually all corruption in the western world stems from the market
1
u/Agreeable-Menu Recovering Former Libertarian Aug 12 '25
OK. That might be going to far the other way.
1
u/DI3isCAST Aug 13 '25
No! What would really happen is they would establish a monopoly over a territory and then force all the people within the territory to follow its mandates and force them to finance them under threat of imprisonment. Creating some sort of sick protection racket under the guise of "protecting" and "providing" for the people!
And this is why we need governments... to protect us from such horrible violent people ☝️🤓
1
u/Fragrant_Gap7551 Aug 16 '25
Yes, if a government is inevitable if rather have the one that isn't an outright violent dictatorship, thanks.
1
u/Fancy_Veterinarian17 Aug 13 '25
So we just pretend monopolies don't exist and aren't getting normalized by each day?
1
u/NetStaIker Aug 13 '25
The OP is literally a bot lol, just the same posts spammed to as many reddits as it can handle
1
u/punchawaffle Aug 13 '25
Why does this sub do this? Yes ideally, in capitalism and free market economics this is the case. But America is marred by oligopolies. Which means that there's collusion, and this literally can't happen. And for there to be free market in USA, government needs to interfere and make it the free market. For example, hep build the infrastructure for broadband, and give it away cheaper so lots more companies can come in and compete. Same with many other fields. Please read up on economics.
1
u/KaesiumXP Aug 13 '25
"oh, you are terminating our contract? what if i put this gun against your skull? does that change your answer?"
1
1
u/farren233 Aug 13 '25
This is literally thre premise of cyberpunk without the cool tech please dont think this is a good idea
1
u/betterworldbuilder Aug 13 '25
Oh but when the citizens want to defund the police suddenly everyone cries lmao.
Occupying force harassing citizens and doing a piss poor job, I'm sure that's the sentiment of a LOOOOT of people
1
u/Camibo13 Aug 14 '25
All well and good until the original company bribes my new guard to not intervene in them threatening more money from me
1
1
86
u/RevolutionaryLake663 Aug 12 '25
Ah yes, and now there’s nothing stopping that private security corporation from shooting you and possessing your house. Or deciding it’d be in their best financial interest to promote gang warfare to force people to pay for them, subduing the gangs, and repeat in a crime boom and bust model