John Stossel: "I Was Brainwashed"

Anarcho-capitalism is a joke.

Any arguments to the contrary amount to nothing more than propaganda.

The economic collapse alarmists have been caught red handed manipulating economic models, using bad data, and out-right lying about the cause and effects of hyperinflation.

I'm not going to get into a man-made economic collapse debate because its so full of crap that it doesn't even need me to bother refuting it.

Sorry, you were saying something?
 
TubbaBlubba said:
Anarcho-capitalism is a joke.

Any arguments to the contrary amount to nothing more than propaganda.

The economic collapse alarmists have been caught red handed manipulating economic models, using bad data, and out-right lying about the cause and effects of hyperinflation.

I'm not going to get into a man-made economic collapse debate because its so full of crap that it doesn't even need me to bother refuting it.

Sorry, you were saying something?
Click to expand...

If you think the use of coercive force against innocent people, which can be empirically demonstrated, is a joke, then I guess you're one of the people I'm not concerned about with this post.
 
michaelsuede said:
The billionaire would never be able to afford the manpower tens of thousands of subscribers would generate.

Ever.

Further, it would cost the billionaire a fortune to maintain a private army, which is why we don't see private armies today. It takes the coercive power of the State to fund an army.

We know insurance companies would never out-right attack people because they are voluntarily funded and would lose all of their customers if they did engage in such nonsense. Further, they would have to convince their armed force that they should initiate violence against innocent people. This takes a massive amount of propaganda to accomplish. Something only the State is capable of today.
Click to expand...

So your operating model is that everyone will be able to afford security forces of the exact same size and strength?

You're wrong. One is going to be stronger. It will defeat the other. That's the whole point in competing security forces isn't it? Now what happens after that?

They do not need propaganda to convince their armed forces to initiate violence. It's what they pay them for. It's quite literally their job.

And to say that only the state is capable of a massive propaganda campaign is offensive to the advertising department at Coca-Cola.
 
michaelsuede said:
(unsubstantiated opinion stated in authoritative tone)
Click to expand...

Here's a little scenario you apparently haven't imagined.

A bunch of big security forces get together and decide to kill all the customers of the smaller security forces and take all their money. The smaller security forces can choose to die for their customers or accept a bribe of twice whatever their customers were paying (the customers won't need it, they will be dead). Very profitable.
 
PGH said:
So your operating model is that everyone will be able to afford security forces of the exact same size and strength?

You're wrong. One is going to be stronger. It will defeat the other. That's the whole point in competing security forces isn't it? Now what happens after that?

They do not need propaganda to convince their armed forces to initiate violence. It's what they pay them for. It's quite literally their job.

And to say that only the state is capable of a massive propaganda campaign is offensive to the ad men at Coca-Cola.
Click to expand...

No, some insurance companies would be bigger, some would be smaller, but it wouldn't matter in the slightest.

Insurance companies have zero incentive to attack each other and a massive incentive not to.
 
michaelsuede said:
If you think the use of coercive force against innocent people, which can be empirically demonstrated, is a joke, then I guess you're one of the people I'm not concerned about with this post.
Click to expand...

This would, of course, be true were it not for the widely accepted axiom that I am right and you are wrong.
 
ideogram said:
Here's a little scenario you apparently haven't imagined.

A bunch of big security forces get together and decide to kill all the customers of the smaller security forces and take all their money. The smaller security forces can choose to die for their customers or accept a bribe of twice whatever their customers were paying (the customers won't need it, they will be dead). Very profitable.
Click to expand...

profitable until they lose all of their customers.

You keep forgetting about that part.
 
michaelsuede said:
No, some insurance companies would be bigger, some would be smaller, but it wouldn't matter in the slightest.

Insurance companies have zero incentive to attack each other and a massive incentive not to.
Click to expand...

Does the phrase 'eliminating the competition' mean anything to you?
 
michaelsuede said:
No, some insurance companies would be bigger, some would be smaller, but it wouldn't matter in the slightest.

Insurance companies have zero incentive to attack each other and a massive incentive not to.
Click to expand...

No, see, you have it the wrong way - insurance companies have massive incentive to attack each other, and zero not to.
 
Twiler said:
Does the phrase 'eliminating the competition' mean anything to you?
Click to expand...

So you think the customer base of the big security firm would continue holding policies with a company that just went and looted people?

I would drop them immediately, and so would 99.9% of the public.
 
michaelsuede said:
So you think the customer base of the big security firm would continue holding policies with a company that just went and looted people?

I would drop them immediately, and so would 99.9% of the public.
Click to expand...

They would drop them, and then turn to who for insurance?
 
michaelsuede said:
So you think the customer base of the big security firm would continue holding policies with a company that just went and looted people?

I would drop them immediately, and so would 99.9% of the public.
Click to expand...

This, of course, is why so many people are dropping their association with that big security firm known as the United States.

Including you.
 
michaelsuede said:
So you think the customer base of the big security firm would continue holding policies with a company that just went and looted people?

I would drop them immediately, and so would 99.9% of the public.
Click to expand...

I doubt they'd be more than one company left after the terrible insurance wars.
 
ideogram said:
So, these warlords in Somalia, how exactly are they different from private security forces?
Click to expand...

Private security services operate on a market model based on voluntary payments by customers seeking their services.

You tell me how they might differ.
 
Right now I'm picturing a world where exactly what they're proposing is reality.

It's a battlefield with the corpses of men, women and children. Fires rage uncontrolled and all the other horrors you could imagine.

michael and Avalon are standing there going "Hey guys? It's not supposed to work this way!"
 
ideogram said:
You keep forgetting the part where the smaller security force gets killed.

They can die and lose their business, or live and find another business. Maybe working for the bigger security forces.
Click to expand...

no one is going to buy insurance from a company that is running around looting people.

they would go out of business immediately - AND other insurance companies would gang up on them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom