Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Abolish the Police

Expand Messages
  • Nathan Byrd
    RL: All I said was that when the price of rough justice goes up while the benefits remain the same, customers will buy less of it, and so we should expect
    Message 1 of 1692 , Jun 30, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      RL: "All I said was that when the price of "rough justice" goes up while the benefits remain the same, customers will buy less of it, and so we should expect less of it under anarchy than under government."

      MH: "Why does the "price" of rough justice go up? Your other arguments in this line talk about the "costs" which customers must bear."

      If you have a business in a competitive industry, and you price your product/service close to your competitors, then having extra costs that your competitors do not have is a competitive disadvantage. Agree or disagree? Your customers may have no idea that you're struggling, but your competitors will be able to figure it out when they lower their price, and you cannot. Or you do, but you have to start cutting back in other ways. You're focusing only on what the end consumer sees. If that's all that mattered, then you could just charge whatever you thought customers wanted to pay and completely ignore your costs because, after all, customers never see that, so it must be irrelevant to staying in business.

      MH: "What you have failed to demonstrate is that a) rough justice will in fact always be more costly than fair justice,"

      'Often' is sufficient to establish the claim, which is that providing adequate process is more competitive long-term than not doing so. If you've ever done SWOT or VRIO analysis, it's never based on anything like "this will mean our costs are always lower." You may find a short-term circumstance where your rough justice is cheaper, but the argument is that it is not as sustainable over the long-term for a variety of reasons.

      Let's look at two possibilities: 1) that rough justice style agencies are very common; 2) that they are fairly uncommon

      1) If rough justice is common, then it's likely for any single rough justice agency to come into conflict with another rough justice agency, just by probability. Since neither agency engages in normal due process or negotiations (it doesn't matter why), conflicts of this nature tend to be extremely difficult to weather. Your employees will have huge hospital bills (or funeral expenses). By comparison, the agencies that do not go that route can take advantage of network effects, lower insurance rates, and better reputation with their suppliers and financiers. They also do not have as much exposure to media because they are less likely to be involved in violent disputes that would attract the attention of scandal-hunting reporters. This cuts down on their PR budget and counter-marketing expenses. In SWOT terms, the rough justice style agencies have far greater weaknesses and threats than the alternative, and their strengths and opportunities do not compensate for that. In VRIO terms, they offer something of value, but it's neither rare, nor inimitable, nor unique to their organizational structure. Thus, they have no genuinely sustainable competitive advantage in their industry.

      2) Now the TJSA-style agency is less likely to run into one of its own, but now all the non-TJSA-style agencies have an easier time leveraging the network effects. So TJSAs cut down on costs in one area but lose out on cost-savings in a lot of other areas. Again, it's unclear what their competitive advantage is in the long-term.

      MH: "b) that these costs will be prohibitive, creating bankruptcy,"

      You're saying that business plans work in a competitive market as long as they don't incur massive costs? How fortunate. I had no idea it was so easy. Apparently all the stuff they teach in business school is a waste of time. Just make sure you take out enough insurance to cover any major costs and don't do anything incredibly stupid that insurance won't cover, and you can't possibly fail.

      MH: "and c) if not catastrophically large (as in b)) why any such costs would necessarily affect consumer prices in any manner whatsoever (if you reject the "cost determines price" theory)."

      It's competitive advantage that is affected. You do extremely well against strawmen. Flawless technique. But the issue is sustainable competitive advantage. If you've got higher costs than your competitors, and nothing else to overcome that disadvantage, then you won't last. It doesn't matter what the customer knows or doesn't know in terms of whether you'll be able to stick around.

    • Dan
      Some professed ideology of equality of authority doesn t guarantee equality of emotional responses or of character. I fear, too, that in any society, the
      Message 1692 of 1692 , Dec 14, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Some professed ideology of equality of authority doesn't guarantee equality of emotional responses or of character.

        I fear, too, that in any society, the willingness to abdicate authority or responsibility will always be there and always a threat to that society. Some forms of anarchist society will, hopefully, be more resistant to this, but I don't think any will be completely free from it.



        From: Nathan Byrd <nfactor13@...>
        To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2011 5:23 PM
        Subject: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Prison in a free society?

        And that's certainly an open possibility. I don't know how a system of anarchism could ever provide assurance or guarantees of any kind that a particular result would not occur. But I think that to the degree that people see themselves as equal in authority in society, that there is not a presumption of acquiescence to a select few in authority or to an external system of authority, and that we are not able to force the cost of our preferred solution onto others who disagree means that we are forced to be more actively aware and to more actively participate in the working out of justice rather than just absolve ourselves and let the anointed ones (police, judges, etc.) take care of it.


        --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote:
        > Okay, then I misunderstood you. I think we should distinguish -- and I believe you actually made this distinction, though, IIRC, Nozick is probably one who goes over it in his _Anarchy, State, and Utopia_ -- between punishment, deterrence, and restitution. I'd focus all on merely rights violations and their correction. To me, that would be the whole or at least the greatest part of justice.
        > Of course, I can see someone making an argument along the lines of that punishment is just because it's the normative causal outcome of given action. I believe Nathaniel Branden alludes to that in his discussion of capital punishment: murderers should die because they have murdered. (I'm not saying I agree with this argument, but one should note that Branden still came out against capital punishment in that piece.*)
        > These distinctions in hand, however, doesn't really resolve the issue of whether market anarchism will be better than government. It does mean, however, that market anarchists, in so far as they are libertarians, are limited to certain kinds of reactions. Presumably, minarchists would have similar limitations. (Mike's fear, if I understand him, is that market anarchism will result in worse ways of dealing with criminals, such as violating procedural rights or meting out cruel punishments. Hence, his constant refrain of "Mad Max.")
        > Regards,
        > Dan
        > * An except is online here:
        > http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/capital.html
        > ________________________________
        > From: Nathan Byrd <nfactor13@...>
        > To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2011 8:24 PM
        > Subject: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Prison in a free society?
        > Dan: "As for the kind of sociopathic types you seem to be focusing on, I'm not in agreement with Nathan here. Exile or something worse would probably be in store for them in an anarchist society. Why would that be bad or not an improvement? It's also likely that someone who violently preys on others would, in a society where others can use lethal defense, likely eventually be killed. I'm not going to weep for that or even think it an injustice."
        > I don't know that we're really in disagreement here. When I say I'm against punishment, that is not restricting the right to use violence in defense of property, especially someone who is known not to be deterred by any other means. To me, punishment is inflicting violence because of past actions that has no connection to present, imminent threat and no connection to restitution.
        > Nathan

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.