The problem is that the problem you describe is not an "absurd hypothetical" it is exactly the sort of problem that would occur constantly. Just last night someone decided to park in the parking space I had cleared out for my wife, luckily they moved their car when asked, what if they hadn't? What if they had responded with violence? I was certainly prepared to do violence. I don't own that parking space but I cleared it out, not as a public service. So I feel like it is mine, right?
So then of course the parents come to kill whoever killed their kid, where does it end?
It wouldn't really be better to have the cops come pick that kid up and take him home and tell his parents he was stealing?
Nature is constant violence, and of course it is often parasitic, there are thousands of species of parasites.
If the state of Japan was dissolved then it would soon be called "China".
The problem is, as you yourself made clear, the spot’s ownership wasn’t clearly established. This is the problem with the oxy moronic concept of “public property.” Who owns the parking lot? It sounds like your definition of “property” wasn’t clear here. Your instinct was right, though. You put in the work to claim the “unowned” spot, so it should be yours.
Addressed this at the end of the video.
You should read some material on Voluntaryism. Then at least you could critique its tenets accurately.
And yes, what I described with the boy and the apple tree is an absurd hypothetical. If you or anyone you know would shoot that kid then you/they are a psychopath.
These psychopaths do the same shit now under current systems of governance. The current systems simply add to the .01% of psychopath violence by systematizing, normalizing, and legitimizing violence, increasing it 10,000 fold.
we have examples of societies where security is provided by competing firms, Mexico for example.
Or Bill and his crew just decides to go kill everyone at dawn defense, right?
When dawn defense does not honor its contract with Alice what is her recourse?
What if Alice cannot afford to pay, she can be victimized by anyone right?
In America people get shot over less. Violence of all types has trended down significantly under a statist model over time. There are a lot more than 300,000 violent people in America, we have 1.5 million gang members, those are just the organized violent people.
So random corporations are able to arbitrarily enslave people in this utopia, sounds great. As a consumer I would choose the most violent security agency to protect me, as would anyone with any sense, because that one would always win. Dawn and Turner would totally go to war and one would won, then they would have a monopoly on force.
Firms typically use as much violence as is economical. A company that uses excessive force would incur high costs and have little cooperation from the community and competitors. Reputation would be a factor as a firm that becomes a crime syndicate would have to deal with a hostile public. An oligopoly by a cartel is more likely than a monopoly but even they would have a hard time competing with innovators and voluntary militias. Another benefit to polycentric law (which has much better historical examples than Mexico) would be less incentive for people to be incarcerated for victim-less crimes, that alone would mean most of today's prison population would be free and those resources would be used to protect property rights instead of enriching drug cartels and gangs.
Bullets are cheap. If Bill isn't a mighty productive slave the agency would probably be best off killing Bill. All the "firms" are essentially crime syndicates. We have examples in real life called the Crips and the Bloods.
Reputation would be a factor, I would want the most violent firm to put fear into the hearts of my enemies and prevent anyone from even considering victimizing me.
We can legalize drugs without dissolving the state and resorting to competing protection agencies. Why not start there?
give me some examples of polycentric law, how about the Crips and Bloods?
Lol. Mexico is nowhere near a free market, private law society. Cartels work within the protection of the corrupt state.
Court.
You mean like they do now? Try again, Fun Bobby.
The cartels are the state in Mexico, when there is one main cartel (which is usually or always the result of the CIA supporting that cartel) then the violent crime in Mexico is much less. When Carlos Guzman, a man who at one time had 500,000 employees, loses control then a bunch of cartels all compete for market share and the violence goes way up.
We see the same thing anywhere the state loses control, violent gangs always arise. Places in America where we can see exactly how competing security firms operate in real life include neighborhoods in Baltimore and Chicago and St. Louis. These firms are called the Crips and the Bloods and many others. Chicago has something like 100 competing security firms and it is a bloodbath.
LOL Court? there was no court, only private mediators, but why would dawn defense even bother to engage with the mediator Alice hires, assuming Alice has the money?
No, I don't mean like they do now, the solution offered in your video was actual slavery not the tax slavery that we hear so much crying about. Real slavery, if you don't pay AT&T they shut your phone off and send you a bill, dawn defense was going to enslave Bill in a workhouse.
Of course if I was dawn defense I would always find bill guilty, in fact I might find everyone who can't afford their private security bill guilty of some crime and then enslave them, and there wouldn't be a damned thing they could do about it. But of course Bill didn't turn out to be a productive slave, a shitty worker not worth his salt, so in that case we just decapitate bill and use him as fertilizer, right?
You yourself just admitted the cartel is supported by the state.
No, I said "the cartels are the state in Mexico", it's the opposite, the state is supported by the cartel.
We could go on like this for days.
Do you think stealing is wrong?
If so, we agree foundationally.