«12. . .3,4863,4873,4883,4893,4903,4913,492. . .3,6073,608»
It's not good business IF it is out in the open. But a few firm golden handshakes never hurt anyone, yes?
Bribes are mostly black market attempts at getting something you would not otherwise get. They happen most often when some person has access to money that is not theirs. If I am the CEO of Massive Weapons for War, L.L.C., I have a very strong incentive to spend, say a million dollars on a bribe to Senator Lindsey Graham, so he in turn pushes for my company to get that huge government contract, worth $50 billion.
Graham gets a million. I get $49.999 billion. The taxpayers get a worse deal than they otherwise would have.
How would this work in the private sector? Who would be there to bribe? Whose property rights would be violated?
You assume a high prison population. I just don't see that. Jailing people is not productive. It is not profitable.
How would it NOT be out in the open? If there's a law, a change in firm policy, where anybody with the pseudonym "Tony the Gangster" is given a magical exception to enforcement of property rights and the NAP, people WILL realise.
Maybe organizations with extra money could be bribed, such as charities and governments?
It might not be the best solution in the long term, who knows.
What government?
Charities could be bribed for what? To spend their own money on the person bribing them? How would this work?
A company can give preferential treatment to a particular customer, yes? I don't see what is keeping corporation to make a deal with a DRO behind the counter in exchange for a particular service. It doesn't have to be money.
The government won't be made up of incompetent senators. It'll be made up of very competent firms. If MWW LLC makes a contract with a DRO to cover their war crimes, what is stopping them? MWW has the money, OR they could just simply threaten to bomb anyone who leaks their corruption while continuing to pay the DRO get out of jail free vouchers. Fvck the market, we got guns and money.
And of course if they merge, then are they not just a state by another name?
How is this unethical, or has third party losers, in the exchange?
What government?
What war crimes? Why would they even be engaging, in anything but defensive wars? As has been shown to you, countless times, aggressive wars are only started by states. War is not profitable. Even the winners of wars are losers.
There will be others.
Governments in anarchist society.
Yeah, maybe not.
How about the law system? Could it be bribed?
How about corruption on civilian level aka extortion? It might exist as well. For example the police could ask for money from criminals to avoid them being charged. How abouy waste management corruption?
There is no government.
Law would be for profit. How would you bribe it? For what?
Who would keep employing the PDA, if their cops do not do any actual work? In any case, the cops would be violating their employer's and their customers' property rights. They would not remain employed for long.
Waste management corruption?
Extortion is a violation of property rights. It is a crime in libertarian law.
It's the perversion of justice. The party who loses is the one that signed up for a security firm or any contract enforcing entity, or more likely the competitors, who will be at the mercy of the corporation with the most influence.
The bordello of PDAs and DROs. Or I thought AnCap had a government? Just no state?
A corporation will be willing to sacrifice profit if it meant retaining their customers (and thus financial security for them in the long term.) In fact, they'd be more willing to strike preemptively until the point where the risks of attack are diminished enough to secure long term financial success. Of course it'll be a subscription based model for their customers. Just don't call it a tax, since it's "voluntary."
Plus, the clients of this corporation may "encourage" (buy) preemptive strikes if they feel insecure enough. The best defense is a good offense type of deal. And it's a win for that corporation, since they get paid AND get to destroy their competitors quite literally.
Like feudalism? There were no states in feudalism, either. But there were Princes providing contractual protection (you work for us I'll protect you). And you could always leave, unless you were a serf then fvck you.
Be at the mercy of a business with the most influence? What?
This comment literally has no point.
That's not a government.
Yes, you keep making these claims, despite all the available evidence to the contrary.
More nonsensical claims. Why would their clients pay for destruction?
Nothing like feudalism.
Not necessarily, true. To let out the left-libertarian view: companies are governments. Also, individuals govern themselves, to be the individualist as well. Governments are not necessarily states. Communes, Syndicates, Companies, Individuals, Cooperatives, any organization really is a government, not necessarily a "state", which is a monopoly on the initiation of force.
Companies are not governments. They don't rule states or communities.
Governments are not necessarily rulers of states or communities. That would be either a politician or a state, respectively.
Individuals rule themselves. Companies are ruled by their CEOs or whoever is in charge.
Yes they are. It's the definition of the word.
Individuals, and company executives are not governments. Association with them, is purely voluntary, unlike states. And individuals do not have legitimate, unlimited authority over others.
By legitimate, I meant, the claims. And others perception.
Post self-deleted by Magna libero.
In anarchism, yes, there will be several governments or they might call themselves "governments". There are all the other governments from the leftist ideologies. So, anarchism will most likely be a mixed-market anarchism, kind of.
One example on how they could work according to my random thoughts is that there are a different number of people, who are involved in the organization. Some work, some don't. Everyone get the same benefits from being a member in this government.
There's a "tax rate" by which people who work pay a standard portion of their incomes to the organization in a charitable manner for those, who can't work.
Of course, being a member is entirely voluntary and perhaps you could join several governments at once. One "government" could provide x, y, z and b, while another "government" may provide y and a or different combinations, depending on what the members desire.
Those are not governments.
That negates the facts that they are states, not governments. You are mixing the two. All forms of anarchism are merely against the state, not government. Only political nihilism is against government.
He is?
Yeah, the are very uncommon. The most common forms of anarchism I see are either communism or capitalism.
There's a lot of people in LF that has Milton Friedman as their favorite libertarian philosopher. But was he really a libertarian? Like, personally describing himself as one as well as having all libertarian views.
A government is the system by which a state or community is governed.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government
Yeah, he did. He was a monetarist and a statist. But libertarian nontheless
«12. . .3,4863,4873,4883,4893,4903,4913,492. . .3,6073,608»
Advertisement
