On söndag 12 augusti 2001 02.07, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey@datamann.com> wrote:
>The problem, of course, is with concentrations of force and dependencies
>on large concentrations feeding a tendency toward monopolization of the
>market of force.
That might be a valid point. But you could fix that with anti-trust laws
for that particular market.
>Governments come about specifically because of this blind spot.
>Individuals too squeamish to do their own dirty work empower
>amalgamations of force through security subcontracting that can
>overwhelm other individuals who are not so inclined.
This seems like utopian thinking, expecting too much of the people.
How would your citizen education program stop members in families,
partners of businesses, groups of families, and so on, from joining
forces?
Another problem is to distinguish between products and services. The
trend that more and more product become services is generally sound.
Gives you more flexibibility and focus on customer value. What's the
difference between a protection agency and an advanced intelligent
defence system?
>As soon as a person hires a large group to exert force for
>them, all parties the person deals with are no longer operating in a
>free market, nor is the person operating in a free market with respect
>to the large group they have hired. If the large group mandates that its
>clients be unarmed, then they are totally at the mercy of the large
>group.
The group vs the individual is irrelevant. The balance of forces is not.
Your requirement for complete indivual balance seems theoretical. In practice
there will always be huge differences in strength.
/felix
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:08 MDT