Military defense and free riders.

[Pizzly]

This individual attempts to address the free rider problem of military defense in anarchy.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1ON-L9UR-o&feature=feedu[/youtube]

I don't really see a free rider problem. I expect the places under the most threat of some violent act would be under some specialized insurance, places like airports, sea ports, borders to dangerous areas, nuclear facilities, etc.

The main difference I see is that I don't see a need for maintaining an army. The market allows for firms to quickly change production to meet demands. If an area under ground invasion, or under immediate threat, the local law enforcement agencies would respond. I expect the property owners to have some form of law insurance, so to maintain the safety the insurance companies would buy the services of law enforcement from other areas not under immediate threat (price signals would allocate the soldiers/police to where needed).

The same with military equipment. Most military technology can be produced easily by most firms, factories that make non-military goods could shift their production to equivalent military goods. War is costly, and instead of a state, the market would ensure the capital goods and individuals would allocate most efficiently to meet individuals demand.

There's also the fact that I imagine the sky will be owned by the homesteading principle, airplane industries will own the legal rights to airspace. Given the threat to their planes, planes contracted from other firms to fly in that airspace, and the individuals on the planes (who will most likely be assures some level of safety), an air firm would probably want some sort of safety precaution. There's also the fact that planes create pollution and noise pollution, so to prevent any legal threats from land owners against the sky owners, trespassers would have to be dealt with. I imagine some companies that respond to foreign trespassers by shooting them down. But given the benefits of other air firms using this airspace to travel, there is an incentive to be very sure before shooting anything down.

So basically, I don't see a free rider problem. Not all individuals in a society are under the same threats. If troops invade my half of Pennsylvania, individuals on the other half of PA would not be in as much harm, so I don't see how they are really a free rider. I assume my direct neighbors already pay for some form of law insurance, and I imagine their law insurance would react similar to mine. Instead of a strong static blanket of protection, I see military defense as more of a smart net, responding to the areas of intrusion. The areas under the most threat of invasion would have a greater demand for military defense, so capital would naturally allocate to where it's most profitable.

Sound about right?

[Turd Ferguson]

Prob with this guy, and others of his ilk, is that he assumes we would still be fucked with if we just had a strong defense, yet never fucked with another country or state. Bullies, megalomaniacs and terrorists only mess with easy targets whos politicians take the power to protect themselves away from their own citizenry, and countries that go around poking sticks in bee-hives (US....right now).

Even if my perfect voluntary world were invaded by a serious threat, you could bet your sweet titties anyone with half a brain would volunteer to pony up whatever they could to contribute to the cost of protection from said threat. The ones who dont, well, they would probably die as the rest of the population fought off the invaders, which in the end is a good thing........ thins out the weak overly-passive stupid ones and leaves the strong ones to live. Its a self-maintaining system with self preservation at the root of its incentive.

I didn't even watch this guys vid, but I bet he doesn't even bring up that possibility. They never do.

Hard to take a guy like this seriously.  

[LTKoblinsky]

Just so I can understand you logic:j the people who don't go fend off the invaders die?

[Turd Ferguson]

Just so I can understand you logic:j the people who don't go fend off the invaders die?

Possibly, yeah. Ok, a guy with a gun just came and kicked down your front door during the war/invasion. You gonna try killing him back, or suck your thumb in the corner, waiting for help?

Thats my logic.

[Pizzly]

One of my biggest problems with the guy is he's a nationalist market anarchist. It seems he believes that any military protecting the United States would protect the entire United States. He also comes across as thinking that any military conflict would be two sided. Our force versus their force. I would expect our side, with the many police and insurance companies, would manage to raise a large number of separate forces with a common market goal. Every company will want credit for sending off the invaders though, so they will compete with each other to see who best does it.

If the insurance company I have manages to fund the defense and save our area, wouldn't the others in my area be "free riders?" Not necessarily, I bet many of them would be impressed enough to switch their company to this new one. And given the failure on part of the other businesses, the customers not part of mine will be paid hefty sums of money by their companies. So the "free rider problem" hardly even exists.

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

One of my biggest problems with the guy is he's a nationalist market anarchist. It seems he believes that any military protecting the United States would protect the entire United States.

Sounds like me.  Except I am only an anarcho-sympathising-fence-sitter

[Andy]

One of my biggest problems with the guy is he's a nationalist market anarchist. It seems he believes that any military protecting the United States would protect the entire United States. He also comes across as thinking that any military conflict would be two sided. Our force versus their force. I would expect our side, with the many police and insurance companies, would manage to raise a large number of separate forces with a common market goal. Every company will want credit for sending off the invaders though, so they will compete with each other to see who best does it.

Do you have any idea how terrible that sounds?

If the insurance company I have manages to fund the defense and save our area, wouldn't the others in my area be "free riders?" Not necessarily, I bet many of them would be impressed enough to switch their company to this new one. And given the failure on part of the other businesses, the customers not part of mine will be paid hefty sums of money by their companies. So the "free rider problem" hardly even exists.

Why? Why would anyone want to pay for a "defence company"when they will get the benefit of the defence company anyway?

[Pizzly]

Why? Why would anyone want to pay for a "defence company"when they will get the benefit of the defence company anyway?

I imagine military defense as the responsibilities of the police/insurance companies, and I figure people at more risk will pay more anyway.

I also predict that areas under the most threat will already have some precautions in place. All property will be owned, so the borders to dangerous states, oceans, waterways, roads, and even skies will be under control. To safeguard their property, these property owners will install forces. An airline industry with fly rights to an area of the sky will not want foreign trespass, the same goes with coastal areas used by fishermen with fishing rights.

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

Why? Why would anyone want to pay for a "defence company"when they will get the benefit of the defence company anyway?

I imagine military defense as the responsibilities of the police/insurance companies, and I figure people at more risk will pay more anyway.

I also predict that areas under the most threat will already have some precautions in place. All property will be owned, so the borders to dangerous states, oceans, waterways, roads, and even skies will be under control. To safeguard their property, these property owners will install forces. An airline industry with fly rights to an area of the sky will not want foreign trespass, the same goes with coastal areas used by fishermen with fishing rights.

And that sounds even more horrible.

[Turd Ferguson]

Ya know, thats the trouble with all this. Here we are, just TALKING about it, yet cant even come up with an answer that satisfies everyone or even come up with a coherent plan. Yet in the same breath, somehow, these ideas are supposed to translate into something real? Something workable in the physical world?

Bah!

Free for all!!!


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c2OM7HEfrs[/youtube]

[Bill Brasky]

An airline industry with fly rights to an area of the sky will not want foreign trespass, the same goes with coastal areas used by fishermen with fishing rights.

Who'd they buy the rights from?

[Turd Ferguson]

An airline industry with fly rights to an area of the sky will not want foreign trespass, the same goes with coastal areas used by fishermen with fishing rights.

Who'd they buy the rights from?

1. Sky Fairies

2. Mermaids

[Pizzly]

An airline industry with fly rights to an area of the sky will not want foreign trespass, the same goes with coastal areas used by fishermen with fishing rights.

Who'd they buy the rights from?

Homesteading principle. The first individuals to make regular use of an area of the sky would have ownership rights I suppose.

[Turd Ferguson]

An airline industry with fly rights to an area of the sky will not want foreign trespass, the same goes with coastal areas used by fishermen with fishing rights.

Who'd they buy the rights from?

Homesteading principle. The first individuals to make regular use of an area of the sky would have ownership rights I suppose.

Thats a pretty sweet deal for the entrenched "big money" that already owns pretty much everything already.

Walmart would own the sky, Comcast would own the seas. I think that would be a terrible idea. Now I have to pay Comcast just to have the prveledge of taking my boat out to catch some fish for dinner, unless of course, I buy their triple play package and they give me a sweet discount on their hourly water time.

[Bill Brasky]

An airline industry with fly rights to an area of the sky will not want foreign trespass, the same goes with coastal areas used by fishermen with fishing rights.

Who'd they buy the rights from?

Homesteading principle. The first individuals to make regular use of an area of the sky would have ownership rights I suppose.

Have you ever seen an international flight path map?