Re: The World's Fastest Political Quiz

From: Mike Lorrey (
Date: Mon Aug 13 2001 - 10:48:57 MDT

Felix Ungman wrote:
> On söndag 12 augusti 2001 02.07, Mike Lorrey <> 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.

Who adjudicates your anti-trust laws? You'd need even larger
organizations to enforce them, whereupon you've violated your anti-trust
law in attempting to enforce them. In the market of force, beyond aiding
those not physically able to defend themselves, any delegation to others
is a monopolistic concentration.

> >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?

I say that unless you are physically unable to defend yourself,
delegating or exerting force on behalf of others is a monopolistic use
of force. Parents can defend children, oldsters, and the disabled.
Grouping in defensive reaction to the improper concentration of force by
others is fine, but only for a limited period to take action to
eliminate the concentration. All concentrations that occur must have
stated purposes and expiration dates.

> 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?

A defence system that is oriented in what direction?

The protection agency is located elsewhere and is mobile, it can project
force at a distance in an offensive manner. A defence system based on
the property of the owner can only defend that property.

> >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.

Only because they are permitted, and those who are weak are forcibly
kept weak by those with large force assets (gun control, weapons
proliferations laws, etc)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:08 MDT