From: galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt)
Subject: Re: The Anarchy Paradox
Date: 26 Sep 92 04:57:34 MDT
Followup-To: alt.society.anarchy 
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Distribution: world 

In article <1992Sep24.193447.9552@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry) writes:
>>Privately subscribed security companies?  How is that different from
>>lynch mobs (besides being paid?)
>
>Groups of guys in blue uniforms? Gangs of men calling themselves "the
>government"? How is that different from lynch mobs (besides being
>paid?)

Ok, so private security companies, lynch mobs, and governments are all the
same thing.  Now why would you want private security companies if you are 
supposedly an anarchist that hates governments?

>>What we need is an anarchy with checks and balances... but I guess that's
>>not anarchy.
>
>Anarchy doesn't mean chaos. Market forces can be used to check the
>power of organizations under an anarchist system. All anarchy means is
>no monopoly on the legitimized use of force.

So coercive force is ok as long as there is competition?  As someone else
posted, a inner city poor kid has better chances with cops than these
"private security companies".  At least he can vote to try to limit 
the violence of the police.  What does he do if he gets unjustly beaten 
by a security company?  Since he doesn't have enough money to be a customer,
there is nothing to prevent the security companies from dividing up the
cities and acting as governments.  But they would be worse than just 
governments.  The only ones that would have any say in what they do would
be the rich customers, and without any control over them, what would stop
them from smashing into homeless shelters and killing everyone for being
a suspected criminal.  If you think these security companies would bring
law and order, think again.  They would bring war.   


Also, what sorts of contracts would people have with these security
companies?  Would the contracts be the same as contracts that corporations
have us sign now?  For example, let's say they were as friendly as credit
card companies are now.  I am pretty certain that most companies have 
nearly identical agreements; here's some interesting bits from the one
that I just signed:

On the card it says "By accepting, signing, or using this card, you agree
to Bank's present and future rules and regulations."  Theoretically, they
could at any time change the bank's rules to be that every customer owes
them $1000.  If I refuse to pay, then they would sue me for breaking the
contract.  Since we have a government that protects the rights of 
individuals every once in a while, they can't get away with that.  Imagine
signing a contract with a "security company" when there is no government
to protect your rights.  And if you decided that you would boycott any
company with a similar agreement, you might just end up without a security
company protecting you.

And here is a similar statement on the agreement that came along with the
card:  "Ammendments.  We can change the terms of this Agreement at any time.
To the extent permitted by law, the new terms will apply to both new
purchases and cash advances and to the outstanding balance on your Account
unless we tell you otherwise."

---
"If it walks like a pig, oinks like a pig, and bashes heads like a pig,
it's STILL a pig."
----
"Dwayne Dibly?!" - The Cat (I've seen 5th season.  Have you?)
----
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy