> At 04:15 AM 4/3/98 +1000, you wrote:
> >That depends on the size of the PPA. You could say that the nation state
> >is not in a monopoly position since there are, approximately, another 200
> >nations "available". If the PPA hits some critical size level, it could
> >be just as controlling as a nation state
> What that says to me is that even in its worst case scenario,
> anarcho-capitalism would result in a nation state. I conclude that we have
> little to lose, in that case.
What you have to lose is whatever the cost of converting the current
system into an anarcho-capitalist system is. Don't get me wrong, if you
found this magical way of making the world an anarcho-capitalist arena,
i'm right behind you, but i don't see the point in striving for some
almost-unatainable system which i think is likely to naturally degrade to
the present system.
> >And that ability, or right, is backed by who but your own PPA?
> Other PPAs, as I said elsewhere. Moreover, they will back your ability to
> choose, not because it is morally right, but because this ability is
> valuable to customers; they will therefore be willing to pay for it.
> >They would do this if 1) they can get you out of your own PPA's control,
> >and 2) It is profitable for them to do so.
> And why would either of these be false?
They are both likely to be false due the same reason: you prefer the other
PPA because you are going to pay less than you do now, which means that
the potential profit for that other PPA is lower than the current profit
of your current PPA, which means that your current PPA will spend more
money keeping you than the other PPA will in trying to "free" you.