You keep repeating this as though you think it makes any kind of sense. It doesn't.

cite the data please.

i would naturally define a stateless society as one that internalizes, rather than socializes, costs. This obviously includes violent acts. This creates a natural tendency for state driven society to justify the costs of violence more than stateless societies, all else equal. We dont need data to know that 72 will have a greater tendency to provide less winnings hands than AA. This situation is no different. The point being made is not empirical so an empirical evaluation is actually irrelevant. Still want to see something from you regarding steven pinker giving strong evidence to the notion that stateless societies were more violence driven than states, all else qual.

They use violence to gain and protect profit. Just like some itt claim the government does. Except they actually come into your home, shoot you in the face, rape your wife, and stab your kids. Never had an IRS agent act that way at my house, have you? or anyone else?

What makes you think that without anything to stop them, corporations won't seek to do the same? Your naive notions are predicated on two things, both of which are patently false:

1. That any respondant/defendant would ever show up to a privatized court arbitration without being coerced by some form of

2. That the capitalism "profit motive" can just be turned off somehow once a corporation or individual reaches some arbitrary amount of $$$. "Oh, well, I've got plenty of cash now...I guess I'll just let Target go ahead and take some of my market share, they deserve it." - Sam Walton VI, 2120 ACmerica CEO of Walmart

How much does it cost American corn farmers to violently expropriate $6 billion a year before its received in the form of ethanol subsidies?

That's right, it doesn't cost them anything to steal that $6 billion.

Does it make sense now?

Private courts advertising against each other and competing in a free market for profit? What will hold these courts accountable to objectivity and the upholding of human rights? oooooh, I forgot. The Market. lol.

"Use AcmeCourt, we have lower fees, and nearly always side with the petitioner!"

besides, what happens when there is a dispute between two parties about which court to use? hire a third arbitration body to decide that? and if there is a dispute about which third party to use? hire another firm to decide who decides which court will be used? and what if there is a dispute about that....

Are you allowed to call taxation theft if you use any of the services paid for by said taxation? If so, where is the line drawn?

Sounds like violence is tremendously profitable. Doesn't sound like companies will stop being violent in AC land.

State driven society sounds better imho

Herp bad reputation derp.
Thats why no one uses government services ldo

EDIT= i miss tom collins. he responded to questions and didn't rage about ethanol subsidies.

oh you've got me

he employed some crazy made up definition of violence so he could focus on stuff like homicide and war while completely ignoring the commonly accepted definition of the word, ie collecting taxes

the idea that capitalists would have this mentality that they could become so much wealthier, and even trillionares!, if they could just beat people over the head with a stick to buy their products is a misunderstanding of how economies work.
I think the idea of the invisible hand, is still applicable to AC society. Why should walmart beat you on the head with a stick to purchase a $20 t shirt if they could avoid that overhead and have you voluntarily walk in their store and pay $15. I dont even see what kind of logistics you have in mind where a person would be completely cut off from purchasing a t shirt at a lower price, because somehow walmart has intimidated the living **** out of all t shirt vendors in the world.
How could a company become so large that it would start to consider gaining monopoly power in the market via hostile takeover or vertical or horizontal integration. First they would have to raise funds by non violent means, by being everday cooperating players in the market- it could reach a point where their corporation attains blue chip status, but thats because they have proven to have the best prices, the best service, and the most effective cost cutting strategy. This is the easiest path to success in the market. Not some mustache twirling scheme, of gaining influence in the market, then becoming a psychopathic tychoon bent on being a trillionaire.
The other strategy of attaining a socially un-optimal monopoly thru buyout is not practical in free markets. It has to do with the fact that with every company you buyout, the higher the bidding price for the next company. It's the hold out problem.

You missed the whole part where we are assuming no government in AC land.

Without government, the costs of violently acquiring that $6 billion would...oh, wait, nevermind, I'm being trolled. Dammit.

Violence isn't profitable. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Im not saying he has a made up definition of violence.

What I'm asking you is did he isolate a few types of physical violence and then contend that violence has been declining?

I'm also asking, for a third time, for a logical explanation of causation behind Pinker's correlation.

What questions have I not responded to? I can only see one and I'm working on it while I watch UFC tapes.