An Anarchist's Police Force

bornnraisedoffCMR
bornnraisedoffCMR Members Posts: 1,073 ✭✭
edited March 2010 in The Social Lounge
Police Forces


From The Mises Institute

[This article is excerpted from Society Without Coercion.]

Today there is the commonly accepted, but completely fallacious idea that somehow police protection, access to courts, and even legal counsel is a “right” of citizenship in the United States. However, there is no more justification for such services being provided “free” (i.e., through taxation) than there is for color TV sets to be provided for each and every person in America at “public expense.” Either a person has a right to his own life, liberty, and property, or he does not. If he does, nothing can justify forcing him to subsidize another person for any purpose, including for the purpose of police protection.

Either a person has the responsibility of maintaining his own life, or he does not. If he does, then he must earn the necessary funds himself to pay for the necessities and luxuries of his own existence.

In a free society, police protection, like every other service, would be available on a contractual basis, only to those who were willing and able to pay for it. There are four main ways in which an anarchocapitalist police force could be financed:

1. through service contracts (similar to insurance);
2. through specific investigatory fees;
3. through special contracts; and
4. through fines.

We will now discuss each in turn.

Service contracts would be the major source of revenue for a laissez-faire police department. A service contract would simply consist of a contractual agreement between a police department and an individual, whereby the police department would agree to provide the individual with certain services (e.g., investigation, physical defense of his property, etc.), should he need them, in exchange for a yearly premium.

These policies would work essentially like insurance. Virtually everyone in a given society would subscribe and pay the yearly premium in order to be assured that, should the need arise, police protection would be available. Nonetheless, during any given year, only a small fraction of the total number of policyholders would actually need major police services. Therefore, the cost of police protection would be effectively spread over a large number of subscribers.

Let us take a concrete example. Suppose the cost of an average police investigation in Brandenberg was $5,000. If an individual needing police protection had to pay this cost all at once, he probably could not afford it. However, instead of paying such a large “specific investigatory fee,” the individual will almost certainly be a subscriber to police protection, as will millions of others. Say there are one thousand subscribers in Brandenberg paying $100 a year each, making the total income for this small, local police department $100,000 per year.

During the course of any given year, it is unlikely that more than four or five persons out of this thousand will need police protection. If their investigations cost $5,000 each, this makes a total investigatory cost of $25,000 per year, leaving $75,000 for other police functions. Since the individual only pays $100 a year, he has in fact received $5,000 worth of benefits (so to speak) for his comparatively nominal fee. This is exactly how insurance works: on the principle that only a fraction of policy holders will ever collect at a given time, while many more are paying premiums.

The second form of police income is even simpler to explain. In the rare case that an individual needed police protection, but had not entered into, and did not now want to enter into, a long-term contract, or in the case of an individual requesting special services (such as, perhaps hunting for a missing person), there would be specific investigatory fees. Again, these fees would be rather high, compared to the normal contractual agreement, but in some cases persons would find them worth paying.

The third form of police income would be special contracts. Thus, for example, a company owning a major turnpike would probably contract with a private police force to patrol their highway, since it is to their rational self-interest to prevent reckless driving and other acts that would discourage use of their road and thus decrease their profits.[1] Or similarly, a private factory might hire police to guard their facilities.

Finally, police forces in a free society could be financed through receipts from fines. As a contractual condition of procuring police protection, individuals could empower police departments to collect fines for misdemeanors committed. This would also save costly court expenses for both the justice company and for the private individual.

Let us now consider how anarchocapitalist police forces might operate. There are two basic operational types of crimes: those reported (or discovered by police) after the fact, and those reported (or discovered by police) during the fact.

In the former case, police procedure would be quite clear. A family, upon returning from an outing, who discovered that their house had been robbed, would call the police and report the fact, as they would today.

Then (unlike today) the police would first check to see if the family was signed up with them and entitled to this form of assistance by their contract. This could be done virtually instantaneously through electronic information-retrieval systems. If the family was signed up and entitled to this type of assistance, a policeman would be dispatched and would proceed with his investigation. If the family was not signed up, or not entitled to this type of protection by their contract, a police-force salesman would probably be sent out along with an investigator.

The salesman would explain to the family, which has now become a high risk, how they could extend their contract to cover this situation if they were already signed up, or he could explain to them the forms of contract now available to them if they were not signed up, or he could simply tell them the cost of the specific investigation that they were requesting if that is all they wished to pay for. Naturally, if they had not already contracted for the type of police service they were now requesting, they would have to pay more for it at this time than they would have had to pay if they had been covered by a service contract; just as a person must pay more for auto insurance after he has had an accident than before. However, the important point is that in after the fact cases it is clearly possible to verify whether or not a family had signed up with the police, and if not, to assess the appropriate fees.

Crimes discovered during the fact by police present a somewhat different situation. If a policeman comes upon a person being assaulted by a mugger, he does not, of course, have time to verify whether or not the person attacked is signed up for police protection, even if this would only take a few minutes. If the person were signed up, he would probably be somewhat annoyed that the policeman stood around checking his identity while he was sustaining mortal injuries. If he were not signed up, the police force might be losing a good prospect. For these reasons, among others, a policeman encountering such a situation would as a matter of course immediately come to the apparent victim’s aid.

Of course, the person being attacked does not have any “right” to demand that he be protected, any more than he has a right to demand that he be fed when he is hungry. Both police protection and food are commodities one has to purchase in a free market. The fact that a person may be an innocent victim does not alter his obligation of providing for his own life.

There are, however, a number of reasons why a policeman would automatically come to a person’s aid in such a situation. First, as mentioned above, the victim might be a present client. Second, the victim would be a good potential client. Third, it is to the policeman’s self-interest to see that criminals are countered, since this increases the profits of the police department, or more directly might increase his own salary. (Conceivably raises and promotions would be based on how well a policeman performed his function of protecting men from criminals.)

Now what happens if the victim is not in fact a client of this or of any other police department? Again, there are two possibilities. First, the person might have called “Help, police!” If he did so, he has then in fact made a verbal contract for police assistance, just as you make an implicit contract to pay the check when you walk into a restaurant and order a meal. In this case, the policeman would send the victim a bill and expect him to pay.

In the second case, the person does not call “Help, police!” but is simply lying there, bleeding while the mugger is beating on him. In this case no verbal contract exists. However, for the reasons mentioned above, the policeman would come to the person’s aid.

Being rational, the police force would also send this person a bill, which he would be requested but not obligated to pay. Since the police have just saved his life, there is a good chance that he would pay. Or, if the police force was smart, they would send out a salesman and attempt to sign him up. Since he had just benefited from their services, it would seem quite likely that he would at least take the “special budget protection package.” If he did not, the small expense of saving his life could be easily financed out of general police receipts, and surely no one in Brandenberg would complain about the policeman spending a few minutes of his time to save an innocent victim’s life.

.

.............................................................

Comments

  • bornnraisedoffCMR
    bornnraisedoffCMR Members Posts: 1,073 ✭✭
    edited March 2010
    There is, finally, at least one other way in which police protection might be financed. Since the investigation of crimes, the protection of property, and other such activities are actions necessitated by criminals, it would seem logical to make them pay at least part of the cost of such operations. Thus, one of the debts of the criminal to “society” in a free community might be to pay back the cost of the investigation he necessitated.

    In this manner, police protection for the poor might be financed.[2] It will be interesting to see, if we ever create a free society, just which method of financing — service fees or criminal payment — would work out best

    I will consider one more issue connected with police departments: arrests. Some libertarians assert that arrest is inherently immoral because it is in fact the initiation of force against persons whose guilt has not been proven “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” There is, however, a very simple epistemological justification for arrest in a free society. It is as follows:

    Necessarily, man acts on the basis of his knowledge. At best man can be epistemologically certain, that is, certain in a given context of knowledge. Man can seldom, if ever, be metaphysically certain, that is, certain that there exists no alternative in the universe to his judgment. To be metaphysically certain, in most cases, requires omniscience, which man clearly does not possess. Man can generally only be certain that he has examined all relevant facts available to him, and integrated them without contradiction; what is relevant is again dictated by his state of knowledge.

    Knowledge of the truth of propositions is not an either-or condition, a dichotomous function. Knowledge is a continuous function, varying from, at one end, complete ignorance to, at the other end, complete (epistemological) certainty.

    In assessing the guilt or innocence of a man accused of committing a crime there exists, accordingly, an epistemological evidential continuum, varying from possibility of such guilt, to certainty of such guilt. At different levels on the evidential continuum, different actions are appropriate.

    Thus, when one suspects that a man might possibly be guilty of a crime, it is proper to question him. When one has evidence that a man is probably guilty of a crime, it is proper to arrest him. And when one is convinced that a man is certainly guilty of a crime, it is proper to punish him. In general, the appropriate action with respect to suspected criminals depends upon the amount of evidence one has. Arrest is then justified when guilt is probable.

    Now this does not of course mean that the morality of one’s actions finally depends upon the contextual validity of one’s judgment. Whether one was right or wrong in questioning, arresting, or imprisoning a man depends upon whether he had in fact committed a crime. If in a free society the police arrest or the courts convict a person who later turns out to be innocent, they would be required to make restitution for their errors equal to the damages and inconvenience they caused him (unless the person had contractually freed them of this obligation).

    There are two ways in which an anarchocapitalist justice system could deal with police and judicial error. Either the police force of a free society could have its clients contractually agree to be subject to arrest when the police (or a magistrate) judged the evidence to be sufficient (thus freeing them from the obligation of making restitution if they arrested a person who later turned out to be innocent); or they would agree to make restitution if they made a mistake.

    Of the two possibilities, I prefer the latter. If the police or courts make a mistake, they should pay for it. In a free market of justice, police making many errors would thus quickly be eliminated by bankruptcy.

    Thoughts?

    I don't totally agree with the method, but I do like the idea of privatized police forces. Govt Police have obviously failed us and I believe a free market police force would be much more effective and productive than government police we have now who dont give a ? about their jobs, impossible to get fired, and has no motivation to provide a good service. The good thing about a free market police force is the best method and the best police force providers will succeed and spread while the bad ones will just go out of business. Thing about government police is, they never go out of business, they just take you money and do what they want. How dat work?
  • phanatron
    phanatron Members Posts: 121 ✭✭
    edited March 2010
    Thoughts?

    I don't totally agree with the method, but I do like the idea of privatized police forces. Govt Police have obviously failed us and I believe a free market police force would be much more effective and productive than government police we have now who dont give a ? about their jobs, impossible to get fired, and has no motivation to provide a good service. The good thing about a free market police force is the best method and the best police force providers will succeed and spread while the bad ones will just go out of business. Thing about government police is, they never go out of business, they just take you money and do what they want. How dat work?

    It's tough to take articles like this one seriously when the premises of the article are so obviously false. Whoever wrote the article clearly has no legal training and hasn't read the US Constitution in a while. The 5th and 7th amendment provide access to courts. The 6th amendment provides a right to counsel. Police power is a power that is inherent to the individual states and almost all state constitutions detail and spell out the exact nature of how that power is to be used. This article is just a big rambling bunch of foolishness.
  • bornnraisedoffCMR
    bornnraisedoffCMR Members Posts: 1,073 ✭✭
    edited March 2010
    phanatron wrote: »
    It's tough to take articles like this one seriously when the premises of the article are so obviously false. Whoever wrote the article clearly has no legal training and hasn't read the US Constitution in a while. The 5th and 7th amendment provide access to courts. The 6th amendment provides a right to counsel. Police power is a power that is inherent to the individual states and almost all state constitutions detail and spell out the exact nature of how that power is to be used. This article is just a big rambling bunch of foolishness.

    This article has nothing to do with the Constitution, States, etc. It's from an Anarchist's perspective (no government at all).
  • phanatron
    phanatron Members Posts: 121 ✭✭
    edited March 2010
    This article has nothing to do with the Constitution, States, etc. It's from an Anarchist's perspective (no government at all).


    "Today there is the commonly accepted, but completely fallacious idea that somehow police protection, access to courts, and even legal counsel is a “right” of citizenship in the United States."


    That's the first line of the article and the premise for the rest of the article. His conclusion is from an Anarchist perspective and he's entitled to think whatever an anarchist thinks. However, his starting premise is completely wrong.
  • ckfree
    ckfree Members Posts: 9,659 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2010
    the government needs to do something similiar to some of these communities in the U.S

    declare martial law, and send in some combat troops
  • getchamoneyrigh
    getchamoneyrigh Members Posts: 506
    edited March 2010
    My question is how it is paid for? Because if it is fines and everything else, whos to say they will not just run up in your house for no reason and try to bust you with some violation like everyday? A benefit of having an incompentent gov't police force is that, not caring about profits so much in some cases they may let you slide on many issues. If I were to get pulled over for speeding I might be able to not get a ticket, if they even pull me over!. If I were pulled over by a private force I would get pulled over for speeding everytime, and they would ticket me for everything. Instead of qoutas would probably work on commission. What would happen with a private police force is the total opposite of what it would seem, because greed and 10x more curroption would take place. ? people think health insurance agents are bad, think about a dude with a gun getting paid off of you.
  • bornnraisedoffCMR
    bornnraisedoffCMR Members Posts: 1,073 ✭✭
    edited March 2010
    My question is how it is paid for? Because if it is fines and everything else, whos to say they will not just run up in your house for no reason and try to bust you with some violation like everyday? A benefit of having an incompentent gov't police force is that, not caring about profits so much in some cases they may let you slide on many issues. If I were to get pulled over for speeding I might be able to not get a ticket, if they even pull me over!. If I were pulled over by a private force I would get pulled over for speeding everytime, and they would ticket me for everything. Instead of qoutas would probably work on commission. What would happen with a private police force is the total opposite of what it would seem, because greed and 10x more curroption would take place. ? people think health insurance agents are bad, think about a dude with a gun getting paid off of you.

    The difference is you and other would have the power to change it.

    I would rather have it go like this:

    Lets take for example the area I live. I live in a subdivision called Broadmoor. It's about 5 square miles if that. There would be neighborhood commitee where everybody gets involved and different police companies bid their services. Everybody gets involved and analyze each proposal for each company (i.e. policing tactics, staff size, cost, services provided, etc) and people would make the decision on which police force they like the best by a 3/4ths vote by everybody that lives in the neighborhood. Once the contract is given each household pays a yearly rate, lets say $400 a year. There primary job? Protect your property and your life and uphold the laws you set within the parameters of maximum freedom. You would actually have less of a problem with speeding fines, etc because as you said, there is a profit motive. They do not want to lose the contract with that specific neighborhood. If people got excessive fines you can bet there wont be any renewed contracts with that specific organizations. The police departments main profit creator is contracts. The more neighborhoods or districts they get contracts with the more money they make, if word gets around that they fine excessively they would lose out and no one would acquire their services. Free market at work. Fines would got to pay for the cost of the court system. If you committed a misdemeanor crime and it has been proven, you pay the cost of the court proceeding, if you prove that in fact you are innocent, the policing company must foot the bill. This puts the burden of proof on the police, where as now they really dont give a ? if the case goes through or not, they just want to get as many tickets as possible to meet their quotas. Now the way it goes, taxpayers lose either way. Also, people would have more power over their neighborhoods so say, you can tell the policing company, that the speed limits are 35, but you would like a 5-10 mile per hour cushion. You would have the power to set that. Now anybody driving faster than that in a residential neighborhood deserves a ticket.

    This would put more power in your hands rather than the governments, which is supposed to represent the people, but you go and try to get a policeman fired and see how successful you are.

    Just to throw out there, Im not totally one board this "PRIVATIZE EVERYTHING!!!" wagon, but I thought it was interesting.
  • phanatron
    phanatron Members Posts: 121 ✭✭
    edited March 2010
    The difference is you and other would have the power to change it.

    I would rather have it go like this:

    Lets take for example the area I live. I live in a subdivision called Broadmoor. It's about 5 square miles if that. There would be neighborhood commitee where everybody gets involved and different police companies bid their services. Everybody gets involved and analyze each proposal for each company (i.e. policing tactics, staff size, cost, services provided, etc) and people would make the decision on which police force they like the best by a 3/4ths vote by everybody that lives in the neighborhood. Once the contract is given each household pays a yearly rate, lets say $400 a year. There primary job? Protect your property and your life and uphold the laws you set within the parameters of maximum freedom. You would actually have less of a problem with speeding fines, etc because as you said, there is a profit motive. They do not want to lose the contract with that specific neighborhood. If people got excessive fines you can bet there wont be any renewed contracts with that specific organizations. The police departments main profit creator is contracts. The more neighborhoods or districts they get contracts with the more money they make, if word gets around that they fine excessively they would lose out and no one would acquire their services. Free market at work. Fines would got to pay for the cost of the court system. If you committed a misdemeanor crime and it has been proven, you pay the cost of the court proceeding, if you prove that in fact you are innocent, the policing company must foot the bill. This puts the burden of proof on the police, where as now they really dont give a ? if the case goes through or not, they just want to get as many tickets as possible to meet their quotas. Now the way it goes, taxpayers lose either way. Also, people would have more power over their neighborhoods so say, you can tell the policing company, that the speed limits are 35, but you would like a 5-10 mile per hour cushion. You would have the power to set that. Now anybody driving faster than that in a residential neighborhood deserves a ticket.

    This would put more power in your hands rather than the governments, which is supposed to represent the people, but you go and try to get a policeman fired and see how successful you are.

    Just to throw out there, Im not totally one board this "PRIVATIZE EVERYTHING!!!" wagon, but I thought it was interesting.

    This isn't 'anarchist' per se. This is simply replacing one form of government with another form of government.
  • bornnraisedoffCMR
    bornnraisedoffCMR Members Posts: 1,073 ✭✭
    edited March 2010
    phanatron wrote: »
    This isn't 'anarchist' per se. This is simply replacing one form of government with another form of government.

    Yeah, that's what I tell anarchists all the time. Their view is that in an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors, versus government where you are forced to pay through taxes and mandates.
  • bornnraisedoffCMR
    bornnraisedoffCMR Members Posts: 1,073 ✭✭
    edited March 2010
    Yeah, that's what I tell anarchists all the time. Their view is that in an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors, versus government where you are forced to pay through taxes and mandates.

    I'm on the fence. I more of a minarchist. But I wouldnt mind seeing a free market policing system put in place some where, to see how well it does.

    Can you atleast admit that the status quo isnt that great, or do you view it as a necessary evil?
  • phanatron
    phanatron Members Posts: 121 ✭✭
    edited March 2010
    Yeah, that's what I tell anarchists all the time. Their view is that in an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors, versus government where you are forced to pay through taxes and mandates.

    What this is closer to, and what I argue the current Republicans and Tea baggers are for, is feaudlism. These people want government to leave the 'wealthy' alone because they believe that they can take care of themselves. This hearkens back to a time where lords had their own knights and protected their own property.
  • getchamoneyrigh
    getchamoneyrigh Members Posts: 506
    edited March 2010
    The difference is you and other would have the power to change it.

    I would rather have it go like this:

    Lets take for example the area I live. I live in a subdivision called Broadmoor. It's about 5 square miles if that. There would be neighborhood commitee where everybody gets involved and different police companies bid their services. Everybody gets involved and analyze each proposal for each company (i.e. policing tactics, staff size, cost, services provided, etc) and people would make the decision on which police force they like the best by a 3/4ths vote by everybody that lives in the neighborhood. Once the contract is given each household pays a yearly rate, lets say $400 a year. There primary job? Protect your property and your life and uphold the laws you set within the parameters of maximum freedom. You would actually have less of a problem with speeding fines, etc because as you said, there is a profit motive. They do not want to lose the contract with that specific neighborhood. If people got excessive fines you can bet there wont be any renewed contracts with that specific organizations. The police departments main profit creator is contracts. The more neighborhoods or districts they get contracts with the more money they make, if word gets around that they fine excessively they would lose out and no one would acquire their services. Free market at work. Fines would got to pay for the cost of the court system. If you committed a misdemeanor crime and it has been proven, you pay the cost of the court proceeding, if you prove that in fact you are innocent, the policing company must foot the bill. This puts the burden of proof on the police, where as now they really dont give a ? if the case goes through or not, they just want to get as many tickets as possible to meet their quotas. Now the way it goes, taxpayers lose either way. Also, people would have more power over their neighborhoods so say, you can tell the policing company, that the speed limits are 35, but you would like a 5-10 mile per hour cushion. You would have the power to set that. Now anybody driving faster than that in a residential neighborhood deserves a ticket.

    This would put more power in your hands rather than the governments, which is supposed to represent the people, but you go and try to get a policeman fired and see how successful you are.

    Just to throw out there, Im not totally one board this "PRIVATIZE EVERYTHING!!!" wagon, but I thought it was interesting.

    Yeah but they already have private security companies that people utilize in subdivisions, malls ect. And as far as "communitys coming together" and all that, very abstract idea in this country. Also if you hiring this company for 400/yr, your only going to pay for 1 patrol cars salary and still get the same level of service you do right now. Im not in favor of the police right now, but I just do not like this idea. I think it would cause mass confusion within the different departments, lesser crimes would be more important because of the increased profit margin, and more curroption.
  • bornnraisedoffCMR
    bornnraisedoffCMR Members Posts: 1,073 ✭✭
    edited March 2010
    phanatron wrote: »
    What this is closer to, and what I argue the current Republicans and Tea baggers are for, is feaudlism. These people want government to leave the 'wealthy' alone because they believe that they can take care of themselves. This hearkens back to a time where lords had their own knights and protected their own property.


    What the hell are you talking about? Show me a Republican or teabagger that advocates no government and very little laws. Conservatives are usually for the police state.
  • bornnraisedoffCMR
    bornnraisedoffCMR Members Posts: 1,073 ✭✭
    edited March 2010
    Yeah but they already have private security companies that people utilize in subdivisions, malls ect.
    Flashlight cops? Nah man, the cats have absolutely no power, ? goes down all they know how to do is dial 911.
    And as far as "communitys coming together" and all that, very abstract idea in this country.
    Well obviously in an anarcho-capitalist society that would have to change. We are so anti-social today because we expect someone else (the govt) to handle ? for us. Which is why we are in so much ? .
    Also if you hiring this company for 400/yr, your only going to pay for 1 patrol cars salary and still get the same level of service you do right now.
    But you gotta realize this mutliplied by each household. So lets say 1000 residences in one district, thats 400k for a 1 year contract. Not bad IMO, especially if its a low crime area.
    Im not in favor of the police right now, but I just do not like this idea. I think it would cause mass confusion within the different departments, lesser crimes would be more important because of the increased profit margin, and more curroption.

    I hear ya, like I said Im not crazy about it either, especially since I've never seen it in practice. But I wouldn't mind seeing it in practice.
  • getchamoneyrigh
    getchamoneyrigh Members Posts: 506
    edited March 2010
    Flashlight cops? Nah man, the cats have absolutely no power, ? goes down all they know how to do is dial 911.
    Well obviously in an anarcho-capitalist society that would have to change. We are so anti-social today because we expect someone else (the govt) to handle ? for us. Which is why we are in so much ? .
    But you gotta realize this mutliplied by each household. So lets say 1000 residences in one district, thats 400k for a 1 year contract. Not bad IMO, especially if its a low crime areas.

    I hear ya, like I said Im not crazy about it either, especially since I've never seen it in practice. But I wouldn't mind seeing it in practice.

    LOL I know right about the flash light cops. Yes 400k for 1000 residences, but thats still only 3-4 cops at the most in a low crime area. But thats the biggest thing right there, what about the high crime areas where people do not have the money to shell out to these private companies. That is where the most crime happens. You would need at least a million alone from the residents of a 1000 person district in a high crime area, still would only give you 3-4 cops as well but the rise in admin fees would be very much higher in a high crime area.

    It could work no doubt, but you have to consider which social class would it work for. Now, if you are talking about having high-class resident pay for private police, while the rest of the country gets public. That would be socialism. Make rich people pay for their own security and give more resources to the less fortunate. That sounds good to me. lol :)

    Edit: Nevermind police force is already socialism. Ehh. And if the private companies work out better there goes that whole equality thing. Whatever someone smart needs to come up with a new system altogether. I mean Democracy was new, communism was new at one point, socialism ect. Why can't we come up with something better and solve all these problems.
  • bornnraisedoffCMR
    bornnraisedoffCMR Members Posts: 1,073 ✭✭
    edited March 2010
    Why can't we come up with something better and solve all these problems.

    How about Commucapititofacistechnocrasocialocracy?
  • getchamoneyrigh
    getchamoneyrigh Members Posts: 506
    edited March 2010
    How about Commucapititofacistechnocrasocialocracy?

    lol. Each have their own benefits. Not too many with fascism tho. But America has always had many Fascist philosphies like laissez-faire capitalism.
  • bornnraisedoffCMR
    bornnraisedoffCMR Members Posts: 1,073 ✭✭
    edited March 2010
    lol. Each have their own benefits. Not too many with fascism tho. But America has always had many Fascist philosphies like laissez-faire capitalism.


    laissez-faire and facism are to total opposites.

    Facism is what we pretty much have now.

    I wish we had laissez faire.
  • Swiffness!
    Swiffness! Members Posts: 10,128 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2010
    laissez-faire and facism are to total opposites.

    Facism is what we pretty much have now.

    I wish we had laissez faire.

    Yeah, I wish corporations had more power. Like Weyland-Yutani from Aliens or Ultratech from Killer Instinct.
  • bornnraisedoffCMR
    bornnraisedoffCMR Members Posts: 1,073 ✭✭
    edited March 2010
    Swiffness! wrote: »
    Yeah, I wish corporations had more power. Like Weyland-Yutani from Aliens or Ultratech from Killer Instinct.

    Corporations wouldnt be nearly as huge in this country without the government's help.

    You can look at the company I work for, Northrop Grumman. Imagine if government said, "Oh yeah, you know that military industrial complex thing.....yeah....its over" Next day, share down 98%.

    Same goes for all those big banks we are propping up. Small banks like the black owned bank I deal with (Dryades Savings and Loans) cant even afford the ridiculous amount of regulation put on him, but trust me Chase can. Chase is eatin off ? eatin (food stamp cards). If Dryades ? up they go out of business, if Goldman, Chase, BofA or whoever ? up, they get tax paid bonuses and their accounts leveraged 100%.

    ? get Free Markets confused. Governments are Corporations best friend.
  • getchamoneyrigh
    getchamoneyrigh Members Posts: 506
    edited March 2010
    Corporations wouldnt be nearly as huge in this country without the government's help.

    You can look at the company I work for, Northrop Grumman. Imagine if government said, "Oh yeah, you know that military industrial complex thing.....yeah....its over" Next day, share down 98%.

    Same goes for all those big banks we are propping up. Small banks like the black owned bank I deal with (Dryades Savings and Loans) cant even afford the ridiculous amount of regulation put on him, but trust me Chase can. Chase is eatin off ? eatin (food stamp cards). If Dryades ? up they go out of business, if Goldman, Chase, BofA or whoever ? up, they get tax paid bonuses and their accounts leveraged 100%.

    ? get Free Markets confused. Governments are Corporations best friend.

    Sorry, I been drinkin its Thursday. I tried to mean that sarcasticly. Yes it is the opposite and unfortunatly the current system is like fascism. As WIKI states.

    They believe that economic classes are not capable of properly running a nation, and that a merit-based aristocracy of experienced military persons must rule through regimenting a nation's forces of production and securing the nation's independence.

    Instead of military (although somewhat) it is mostly as you were saying the bigs (chase ect.) .
  • Ounceman
    Ounceman Members Posts: 6,702 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2010
    Yeah, that's what I tell anarchists all the time. Their view is that in an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors, versus government where you are forced to pay through taxes and mandates.




    Well the people your talking to arent true anarchists because anarcho-capitalism is not really anarchism. its just some austrian school of economic spinoff that eveolved from ideas of indvidual anarchism by prodhoun. they took out mutualism and replaced it with the free market. its funny because the same ideas they borrowed from also believed laissez-faire capitalism was detrimental