Public goods. According to professor Kanniainen the economics shows that NATO is the only public good that should be paid by utilizing the joint responsibility in the EU
I detest the "protection agency" idea. It strikes me as the worst kind of collectivist nonsense. Some writer, who liked them, said they should more properly be called "protection rackets" and he was right, whoever it was
What especially annoys me is the idea that they foster "private law". Depending on whose description you read, some have private law per protection agency, some add per private arbitrator.
But, you may ask, how can that work? What if a Mothers Against Drunk Drivers client wants to sue a Drunks Against Mad Mothers client? Whose private law applies, you ask.
Glad you asked, they respond. When agencies can't compromise, the alternative is literal war, dead bodies and grieving mothers and widows. Obviously that's too expensive, so such radical lawsets won't survive, and agencies will standardize on standard lawsets.
But, you ask in puzzlement, isn't that in contradiction to "private law"?
Crickets.
Then you ask what happens to criminals who don't pay their verdict debts. "Oh, their agencies drop them, no other agency will sign up deadbeats, so now they are easy scapegoats for unsolved crimes and can be enslaved to work off their unpaid verdict debt."
Slavery! you yell in suprise. "Of course, but because agencies want their money back, it will be kind and gentle and efficient slavery, and once released, they will be certified as rehabilitated members of society and agencies will sign them up again."
Obviously they are unfamiliar with thousands of years of slavery, and the recidivism rate of modern prisons.
And these guys are serious! Or at least claim to be.
I worked up a real long rant about protection agencies after reading a few descriptions. Probably not worth anybody's time, but just in case someone wants a laugh at someone who gets so worked up about something so ludicrous ... https://chartertopia.substack.com/p/protection-rackets-01
What bothers me the most about the concept, as opposed to the unworkable internal contradictions I listed in my other comment, is this weird idea that insurance companies and police departments are natural allies so well suited for merger. Car insurance companies don't have their own mechanics. Fire insurance companies don't have their own construction crews. Why would crime insurance companies have their own police departments?
And if you ignore that and assume they would, and would all standardize on one set of laws, haven't you just reinvented government, with slavery for coercion? There's nothing at all libertarian about the idea that this is a natural outcome.
The average person never calls police, and most of those that do will only do so once or twice in their lifetime, for unpredictable problems. No one's going to sign up with separate burglary, mugger, and murder agencies, or libel, drunk driving, shoddy home construction, investment fraud, food poisoning, bad pharmaceuticals, and all the other possible agencies. When any of those crimes occur, they will shop around for someone who specializes in that area. Insurance may well foot the bill, but no one is going to buy separate insurance policies for all the private laws they want.
A much more natural outcome to the absence of government laws and police and prosecutors and courts is to fall back on "don't hurt people and don't take their stuff" and hire a prosecutor for the specific harm you have suffered. That's the libertarian individualist spirit, not protection agencies with standardized sets of law who are governments in all but name.
The FBI's violent crime rate (murder, rape, robbery, and assault) in the US for 2017 (the last pre-COVID year) was 395 per 100,000 population; one out of 250 people every year, so 2/3 of the population will never be victims, although they will probably know a few. Property, burglary, and larceny together had a rate of 4500 per 100,000, one person out of 20, or four times in the average life. I don't know the distinction between individuals and businesses, or how many petty crimes were not reported. But it shows the pointlessness of making these protection agencies so central to society. Car insurance is only necessary for drivers. Home insurance is only necessary for home owners. Only 1/3 to 1/2 of renters have renters insurance. Why does everyone have to have insurance against becoming a criminal?
Because that's what this really comes down to. The core idea is that you call your agency, they find the criminal and negotiate with his agency. He pays his agency, his agency pays yours, and your agency pays you. But what if he doesn't have an agency? Then your agency has every incentive to not pay you, or to pay as little as possible.
And since most people will never need an agency, most people won't pay for the insurance, and will get away with it. The primary purpose of paying the insurance is in case someone else has a private law you violate unwittingly (MADD vs DAMM). If you have no agency to foot the bill on your behalf, you can be enslaved to work off the debt.
Your protection agency insurance is not about getting burgled, but about being fingered by some other agancy. Your insurance is against the possibility of being tagged as a criminal and enslaved to pay off the debt.
Insurance against being a criminal. It's about as dumb an idea as there is.
And, and, and ... what if you think your agency stiffed you or dropped you for no good reason? Who do you sue, now that you no longer have an agency acting on your behalf? What prevents your former agency from fingering you as a scapegoat so they can enslave you to shut you up?
Everyone needs insurance against bad protection agencies. Anyone who follows the news knows just how much good that will do. These agencies will cut deals with each other, just as government prosecutors and courts want nothing to do with prosecuting government police, and invented qualified and absolute immunity just for that purpose. It's why illegally obtained evidence is thrown out -- they don't want to prosecute bad cops. Does anyone actually believe that any protection agency would press a claim against another?
All right, no more rants on this. I can get pretty worked up over it.
Public goods. According to professor Kanniainen the economics shows that NATO is the only public good that should be paid by utilizing the joint responsibility in the EU
I detest the "protection agency" idea. It strikes me as the worst kind of collectivist nonsense. Some writer, who liked them, said they should more properly be called "protection rackets" and he was right, whoever it was
What especially annoys me is the idea that they foster "private law". Depending on whose description you read, some have private law per protection agency, some add per private arbitrator.
But, you may ask, how can that work? What if a Mothers Against Drunk Drivers client wants to sue a Drunks Against Mad Mothers client? Whose private law applies, you ask.
Glad you asked, they respond. When agencies can't compromise, the alternative is literal war, dead bodies and grieving mothers and widows. Obviously that's too expensive, so such radical lawsets won't survive, and agencies will standardize on standard lawsets.
But, you ask in puzzlement, isn't that in contradiction to "private law"?
Crickets.
Then you ask what happens to criminals who don't pay their verdict debts. "Oh, their agencies drop them, no other agency will sign up deadbeats, so now they are easy scapegoats for unsolved crimes and can be enslaved to work off their unpaid verdict debt."
Slavery! you yell in suprise. "Of course, but because agencies want their money back, it will be kind and gentle and efficient slavery, and once released, they will be certified as rehabilitated members of society and agencies will sign them up again."
Obviously they are unfamiliar with thousands of years of slavery, and the recidivism rate of modern prisons.
And these guys are serious! Or at least claim to be.
https://mises.org/mises-wire/can-there-be-justice-outside-state-yes
How anyone can propose or swallow any of that justification for private law protection agencies is beyond my ken.
"A common reductio ad absurdum of libertarianism is that it implies anarchism."
Worse, to me, is how many people equate anarchy with chaos. They are not synonyms!
It's this sort of thing that made me feel more friendly toward mafias.
I worked up a real long rant about protection agencies after reading a few descriptions. Probably not worth anybody's time, but just in case someone wants a laugh at someone who gets so worked up about something so ludicrous ... https://chartertopia.substack.com/p/protection-rackets-01
What bothers me the most about the concept, as opposed to the unworkable internal contradictions I listed in my other comment, is this weird idea that insurance companies and police departments are natural allies so well suited for merger. Car insurance companies don't have their own mechanics. Fire insurance companies don't have their own construction crews. Why would crime insurance companies have their own police departments?
And if you ignore that and assume they would, and would all standardize on one set of laws, haven't you just reinvented government, with slavery for coercion? There's nothing at all libertarian about the idea that this is a natural outcome.
The average person never calls police, and most of those that do will only do so once or twice in their lifetime, for unpredictable problems. No one's going to sign up with separate burglary, mugger, and murder agencies, or libel, drunk driving, shoddy home construction, investment fraud, food poisoning, bad pharmaceuticals, and all the other possible agencies. When any of those crimes occur, they will shop around for someone who specializes in that area. Insurance may well foot the bill, but no one is going to buy separate insurance policies for all the private laws they want.
A much more natural outcome to the absence of government laws and police and prosecutors and courts is to fall back on "don't hurt people and don't take their stuff" and hire a prosecutor for the specific harm you have suffered. That's the libertarian individualist spirit, not protection agencies with standardized sets of law who are governments in all but name.
(People don't call cops all that much)
The FBI's violent crime rate (murder, rape, robbery, and assault) in the US for 2017 (the last pre-COVID year) was 395 per 100,000 population; one out of 250 people every year, so 2/3 of the population will never be victims, although they will probably know a few. Property, burglary, and larceny together had a rate of 4500 per 100,000, one person out of 20, or four times in the average life. I don't know the distinction between individuals and businesses, or how many petty crimes were not reported. But it shows the pointlessness of making these protection agencies so central to society. Car insurance is only necessary for drivers. Home insurance is only necessary for home owners. Only 1/3 to 1/2 of renters have renters insurance. Why does everyone have to have insurance against becoming a criminal?
Because that's what this really comes down to. The core idea is that you call your agency, they find the criminal and negotiate with his agency. He pays his agency, his agency pays yours, and your agency pays you. But what if he doesn't have an agency? Then your agency has every incentive to not pay you, or to pay as little as possible.
And since most people will never need an agency, most people won't pay for the insurance, and will get away with it. The primary purpose of paying the insurance is in case someone else has a private law you violate unwittingly (MADD vs DAMM). If you have no agency to foot the bill on your behalf, you can be enslaved to work off the debt.
Your protection agency insurance is not about getting burgled, but about being fingered by some other agancy. Your insurance is against the possibility of being tagged as a criminal and enslaved to pay off the debt.
Insurance against being a criminal. It's about as dumb an idea as there is.
And, and, and ... what if you think your agency stiffed you or dropped you for no good reason? Who do you sue, now that you no longer have an agency acting on your behalf? What prevents your former agency from fingering you as a scapegoat so they can enslave you to shut you up?
Everyone needs insurance against bad protection agencies. Anyone who follows the news knows just how much good that will do. These agencies will cut deals with each other, just as government prosecutors and courts want nothing to do with prosecuting government police, and invented qualified and absolute immunity just for that purpose. It's why illegally obtained evidence is thrown out -- they don't want to prosecute bad cops. Does anyone actually believe that any protection agency would press a claim against another?
All right, no more rants on this. I can get pretty worked up over it.