ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (12/12/84)
Suppose I owe you $1,000 and refuse to pay. You decide to use force to collect your debt, so you send your police to my house to force me to pay up. They are met by a squad of MY police who say that they do not recognize the legitimacy of your claim. Result: gang warfare.
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (12/14/84)
> Suppose I owe you $1,000 and refuse to pay. You decide to use > force to collect your debt, so you send your police to my house to > force me to pay up. They are met by a squad of MY police who > say that they do not recognize the legitimacy of your claim. > > Result: gang warfare. Not likely. Protection agencies are in business to make money. Fighting each other is not a good way to make money. It would be more profitable if the agencies submitted the dispute to an arbitration agency. Your contract would specify that your agency will not protect you from the other guy (in this particular matter) should you lose the arbitration. Market forces win again! Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (12/15/84)
> > Suppose I owe you $1,000 and refuse to pay. You decide to use > > force to collect your debt, so you send your police to my house to > > force me to pay up. They are met by a squad of MY police who > > say that they do not recognize the legitimacy of your claim. > > > > Result: gang warfare. > > Not likely. Protection agencies are in business to make money. Fighting > each other is not a good way to make money. It would be more profitable if > the agencies submitted the dispute to an arbitration agency. Your contract > would specify that your agency will not protect you from the other guy > (in this particular matter) should you lose the arbitration. > > Market forces win again! If you have to submit to binding arbitration, what's the point of having your own mercenaries? Marcel Simon ..!mhuxr!mfs
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (12/16/84)
> > Result: gang warfare. > > Not likely. Protection agencies are in business to make money. Fighting > each other is not a good way to make money. Precisely. And extortion *is* profitable. The "protection" agencies that exist today certainly find it more profitable to divide up territories and shake down their customers than to fight one another. Baba
ee161anm@sdcc13.UUCP (12/17/84)
> > > Result: gang warfare. > > > > Not likely. Protection agencies are in business to make money. Fighting > > each other is not a good way to make money. > > Precisely. And extortion *is* profitable. The "protection" agencies that > exist today certainly find it more profitable to divide up territories and > shake down their customers than to fight one another. > Which is where an enterprising individual comes along and offers to protect you from extortion for a fee. Again, a private police force. I personally see nothing wrong with private protection, but it must be remembered that governments are characterized by a monopoly of legitimate force in an area, and one of the (few) legitimate functions of government is to provide a police force to protect the rights of its citizenry. However, the ultimate guarantor of an individual's rights is the individual.
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (12/18/84)
> > Suppose I owe you $1,000 and refuse to pay. You decide to use > > force to collect your debt, so you send your police to my house to > > force me to pay up. They are met by a squad of MY police who > > say that they do not recognize the legitimacy of your claim. > > > > Result: gang warfare. > > Not likely. Protection agencies are in business to make money. Fighting > each other is not a good way to make money. It would be more profitable if > the agencies submitted the dispute to an arbitration agency. Your contract > would specify that your agency will not protect you from the other guy > (in this particular matter) should you lose the arbitration. > > Market forces win again! > > Scott Renner > {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner In the unreal world of the invisible and magical, mystical hand of the marketplace, one can postulate anything. However the fact remains that even when gangs were illegal during the 30's they made quite a LOT of money fighting each other. Why should they trust an arbitrator? Unless that arbitrator has some authority beyond the private police forces. Once the arbitrator has authority beyond the private police forces it is beginning to approach (egads!!)a government (HORRRORRRRR!!!) One begins to recall that the situation in the Middle Ages was very much a matter of little nobles with their "police forces" fighting each other for profits and territory. But then over time a higher authority (the king) came to decide more and more disputes and acquiring more authority until the European nation-state emerged. Whatever level it attains, some degree of government is always necessary. tim sevener whuxl!orb
mwm@ea.UUCP (12/20/84)
/***** ea:net.politics / spar!baba / 10:13 am Dec 18, 1984 */ > > Result: gang warfare. > > Not likely. Protection agencies are in business to make money. Fighting > each other is not a good way to make money. Precisely. And extortion *is* profitable. The "protection" agencies that exist today certainly find it more profitable to divide up territories and shake down their customers than to fight one another. Baba /* ---------- */ But that doesn't stop them from fighting each other, or preparing to fight each other. Witness the arms race. <mike