@leprechaun Some enterprising young entrepreneur kills them in their sleep and then markets himself as an accomplished security professional. :P (Note that I personally do not support this solution, but it would be effective, and it will be used if the problem persists)
Alternatively, in the information age, that all happens, and that's fine and good until someone blogs about it, it goes viral, and the thieves can't buy food anymore because no one will sell it to them.
My point was that the number of people who will pay for violence is vastly, vastly outnumbered by the number of people who won't. Thus it was a safe bet that you wouldn't be one of them.
Now at present, we have a nasty system of oppression fueled by fraud-based currency, and until we can do away with that currency, we probably won't see much improvement (hence projects like Steem!)
But if we can do away with the economic fantasy land, violence is too damn expensive to survive in the long run, especially in the information age. That and the fact that defense is inherently cheaper than offense.
The people that would pay is those who want violence carried out against other people.
Imagine some of the people who would pay for violence, they do and then use that violence to steal silver. The silver is used to pay back the violence. These people's business can have a positive net income until they run out of people to prey on and then start attacking each other. That's basically the gist of ancient Roman history.
How can an economy without government prevent an despotism or oligarchy from emerging from within or from attacking from outside? I ponder this.
I'm not sure I see your point. The fact that neither you nor I wouldn't, doesn't detract from the long history of sustained exploitation carried out by those with the means to organise violence.
The problem of government is an interesting problem, but privatisation of violence doesn't solve the problem. It just rearranges it so that instead of an oppressive state you end up with oppressive landlords.
Yes, but you wouldn't. Why was I willing to bet that you wouldn't when we both know there are those who would?
@leprechaun Some enterprising young entrepreneur kills them in their sleep and then markets himself as an accomplished security professional. :P (Note that I personally do not support this solution, but it would be effective, and it will be used if the problem persists)
Alternatively, in the information age, that all happens, and that's fine and good until someone blogs about it, it goes viral, and the thieves can't buy food anymore because no one will sell it to them.
My point was that the number of people who will pay for violence is vastly, vastly outnumbered by the number of people who won't. Thus it was a safe bet that you wouldn't be one of them.
Now at present, we have a nasty system of oppression fueled by fraud-based currency, and until we can do away with that currency, we probably won't see much improvement (hence projects like Steem!)
But if we can do away with the economic fantasy land, violence is too damn expensive to survive in the long run, especially in the information age. That and the fact that defense is inherently cheaper than offense.
The people that would pay is those who want violence carried out against other people.
Imagine some of the people who would pay for violence, they do and then use that violence to steal silver. The silver is used to pay back the violence. These people's business can have a positive net income until they run out of people to prey on and then start attacking each other. That's basically the gist of ancient Roman history.
How can an economy without government prevent an despotism or oligarchy from emerging from within or from attacking from outside? I ponder this.
I'm not sure I see your point. The fact that neither you nor I wouldn't, doesn't detract from the long history of sustained exploitation carried out by those with the means to organise violence.
The problem of government is an interesting problem, but privatisation of violence doesn't solve the problem. It just rearranges it so that instead of an oppressive state you end up with oppressive landlords.