And Im using roads that were paved by government contractors.

Wait wait wait, seriously, this again?

The bolded makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

In "free market" security I have to constantly fear the people I'm paying to "protect" me?

In "free market" security I have no direct choice in who I pay? WTF are you talking about?

Again, I have an imagination. Everyone can conceive of utopia, where people are just excellent to each other alllllll day.

Naw man this isn't even about that. If LirvA can articulate the breadth and minutiae of the ACist argument while he's really high on whatever offbrand bath salts he's clearly really high on, that ain't a good sign for your views being nuanced.

The focus on 'efficiency' to the exclusion of all other metrics is confusing to me.

Even if we concede that private police are more efficient, many people in society will be far worse off. Private security insurance may be cheap to buy for your summer house in The Hamptons. However, if you are a single mother in west Baltimore with no social safety net, how are you going to be able to pay the market rate?

Cool so lets make it happen.


Except that I strongly disagree with him about the need to fill your house with armed guards or whatever the ****. The AC position is the most nuanced of all. The rules are simple but the application is complex and nuanced. Practically every important question is case by case. When can a child consent to an interaction? Case by case. What is a legitimate enforceable contract? Case by case. When does self defence end and initiation of force begin? Case by case. Government is the one size fits all lack of nuance solution to your societal needs.

Doesn't the modern professional police force only date back to like the 19th century?

tom- With the exception of yelling at racist people on the internet, I try to be as excellent as I can to everyone.* So you've got a deal, assuming I get to be Keanu Reeves in our partnership.

"Who would decide this close complicated issue in ACland?"
"I dunno, probably some dudes."
is not nuance, though. It's kicking the can down the road.

*And even there, I think you could argue that getting yelled at on the internet might be a good way to convince them they are wrong. Or at least make other people laugh at them so they are ashamed.

Plenty of people don't have maids and nannies, and, of those that do, very few have staff that live in their houses 24 hours a day providing round the clock services. I was talking specifically about a situation where one person is trying to hire a personal armed guard (or in LivAs example, 10) and saying that this paricularly service would not be affordable for most people earning a normal salary.


Hold the phone. Security is most likely a bit higher on the marginal utility scale there genius, like at least higher than "entertainment or whatever". Like, someone with property worth protecting probably wouldnt see what they have left over at the end of the month and wonder if they can pay for the securitization and insurance of their property. JUST A GUESS THO RITE [/QUOTE]

Everyone will prioritize their expenses differently, I was simply pointing out that you can't devote ALL of your resources to security... Even if security is your top priority, you still need some money for food and clothes. AM I RITE?


The average salary is high enough for me to buy cheeseburgers at McDonalds LOL Y WOULD ANYONE FLIP BURGERS AT MCDONALDS INSTEAD OF GETTING A MUCH HIGHER PAYING JOB LOL [/QUOTE]

The reason why you can buy a cheap burger at McDonalds is because the guy manning the grill can make burgers for other people when he isn't busy making your burger. If you wanted to hire that guy to make burgers for you and only you, you're burger would be a lot more expensive





Easily the dumbest portion of your post. I can make a lot more robbing a bank tonight than I can doing whatever it is I do, so why don't I? Really?

stopping here for now. [/QUOTE]

Well, presumably you are a good person and you have morals... But, for people who want to reduce everything down to a pure cost benefit analysis, bank robbery or theft would be economically rational for lots of people if they were bigger and stronger than the people they were trying to steal from...

Try reading it???? If you actually read it....not sure what else can be done.

What does nuance look like to you then? How does your philosophy exhibit it? I can tell you my personal response to what I think should happen in any given situation you can come up with and I think my interpretation of the simple rules (don't initiate force or fraud) can be quite nuanced. How is advocating a state solution not "I dunno probably some dudes"?

Edit : Also I see you as a more Laurence Fishburne type not sure why.

???

We have in the world right now many different state solutions. We use democracy, the courts etc to decide these issues. I see the fact that they are working less than optimally as an argument for reform, rather than abolition.

Pretty sure main objective of a company is to make record profits, not perfect service. Best way to make profits is not axiomatically the same as making the best service.
It might be in some businesses, but to act like it always is pretty non-sensical.
Advertising, bullying, monopolising, cartelling, etc., are just as well abused in a purely capitalistic libertartian system.

the state is a bastardization of morality. A bunch of really evil people get together, do things in the name of the state, a pretend separate entity, things that normal, moral people would never do in their life and proclaim them as good when they're anything but.

It might be better to stop painting libertarianism as the be-all-and-end-all of perfection, and anything else as wrong.
I like the state, but accept it does things wrong and worse than if we were completely unrestricted from a state.
Also, the other way round.

What society needs is dependent on the society in question.

Also... how would you define the state? Think many people would say large corporations act like the state in many african "nation states".

Please. Read Rothbard again if you have trouble distinguishing his work from LirvA's.