From: Andrew Clough (aclough@mit.edu)
Date: Sat Mar 22 2003 - 10:16:08 MST
At 01:34 PM 3/21/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>On Fri, 2003-03-21 at 11:39, Andrew Clough wrote:
>
> > >### Reading the "Machinery of freedom" it seems to me that David
> > >Friedman wasn't able to come up with a plausible anarchist solution to
> > >the problem of defense against organized external aggression, and he
> > >admits it.
> > >
> > >Rafal
> >
> >
> > Perhaps you could get something workable if the private security companies
> > gave rebates to people who joined their "national guard" units? I
> > certainly wouldn't want to trust a company that couldn't protect me from
> > even an invasion by Albania. Public mutual defense pacts betwen providers
> > would help if a bigger fish decided to invade.
>
>### Yes, this is correct, although you would still have the free-rider
>problem - people who would sign up with PPO's which had no mutual
>defense contracts, and therefore would be cheaper. The other PPO's would
>need to maintain extra forces, verify to each other and to their
>customers that the forces really exist and are battle-worthy, and this
>would impose additional direct and transaction costs. Making sure that
>your combined PPO army is any good would be pretty tricky without an
>occasional war, too.
>
>One partial solution is for the PPO's to band together to destroy
>competitors unwilling to participate in the general defense fund (but
>this would make them somewhat similar to a territorial state), and to
>pass the names of individuals without PPO contracts to criminals (who
>would gleefully prey on them, discouraging from free-riding). As a
>result you would still have the competition that makes capitalism work,
>since users would choose the best of the PPO's capable of participating
>in the general defense fund (the super-PPO), and the monopolist part of
>the system would be reduced to only one aspect of the society. But it
>wouldn't quite be anarchocapitalism anymore.
>--------------------------
Perhaps the PPO defense alliance could be in the same treaty that lets them
handle inter-jurisdictional conflict, like when a subscriber of one PPO
wrongs the subscriber of another. The isolated PPO would be seen to be at
a huge negotiating disadvantage with the other PPOs, and that PPO will be
at a large business disadvantage.
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. Don't assign
to stupidity what might be due to ignorance. And try not to assume you
opponent is the ignorant one-until you can show it isn't you.
-M.N. Plano
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 22 2003 - 10:27:28 MST