why would they afford nothing? Why wouldnt competition between PDA-s lower prices to a competitive level,
Okay. lets assume that competition in violence lorwers the cost of violence.
It owuld means that the rich can purchase even more weapons and military. The market serves the highest bidder over others.
The ends of the rich is to get even richer, right?
There's always a reason to go to war, to oppress your fellow man. That much is obvious.
Using violence is a poor means to achieve it,
Not historically. Remember Rome, the British Empire, etc. The Roman Empire was basically a mafia state run by rich people for their own enrichment.
due to resistance having a high probability to destroy capital anyway,
Well, um capital destruction is not always a bad thing. Sometimes you want to destroy your competitors capital so that you can take over their markets. This is what the British Empire did.
especially in a modern highly specialized society in which all sides are heavily dependent on a well functioning business freedom.
The modern "highly specialized society" isn't anymore dependent on business freedom than in the previous decades.
As for rich being able to afford a strong centralised control army to oppress poor people, you gotta be kidding me man.
No I'm not.
Even the US with a defense budget 1000 times bigger than their guerilla enemies like iraqi and afghan private troops is unable to destroy resistance,
Yes,
abroad, which is a whole other issue.
how the hell would the rich be able to without having such a hughe resource overhead(ie with US only being able to use tax collected in iraq against iraqi rebels)
They can establish tax regimes (worked so far!). They can establish their own private state. The US military budget is roughly 515 billion: the rich people's proto-state might not even need that much, perhaps 200 billion or less would do fine. A regime could raise that sort of money easily through reasonable tariffs and income taxes or they could obtain it through loans from shady private institutions (which would of course be much larger now) in exchange for loot or produces from their enslaved industries. They would have no need for any welfare programs for the broader population, which means that they wouldn't even need to grow large debts like the US does now.
How is arbitration tied to violence?
Because you cannot have law without violence.
Arbitrators that offer poor services and favour the aggressors go bankrupt due to vast majority of their clients being peaceful people(due to all people demanding defense services while only few want to initiate force).
Haven't you been to business collage. I have. We learn something called the 20/80 rule. It basically means that your (firm's) main customer base is largely the core 20 %, which generate 80 % of your income and overall business activity. The rest 80 % produce 20 % of your income and business activity. A private arbitrator will probably focus on its vital customers, the 20 %, while most of the 80 % can be sidelined (i.e. it doesn't matter if some of them are lost). The 20 % can be very tolerant of wrong doing or violence committed against "the others" (i.e. people of different sympahties).
A mercenary army or a private court that wants to remain secure in an extremely political business environment (such as anarcho-capitalism) will only serve the groups that are sympathetic to one side, further narrowing the core customer base to one faction and culture. Serving a diverse pool of customers is risky. So, no. The courts would be increasingly specialized, politicized and focused to provide services for one group only, instead of providing arbitration or security for a broad customer base (which brings extreme political risks).
If clients of arbitrators dont agree on the decision then surely their pda-s can sort it out.
Yes, which probably means war or skirmish.
the key part in all of this is that VIOLENCE is an irrational choice to make by any side
Let's assume people are rational.
It is still nonsense. Aggression is irrational only for the weaker side. If a suffiecently strong and supported faction emerges, it can attack weaker factions. It may have its risks, but all business does, and it can be extremely profitable. Why do you think wars are fought in the first place?
For example, if a private regime wants to attack another private regime, it will first form alliances with others. It could very well find business partners that are willing to collaborate. The aggressing private regime, call it firm A, could promise that 50 % of the loot from the annexed territory will be promised for a supporting firm B. So company B's participation will be short and less risky. Another supporting company could be tied into the project through trade privileges in the territory: the supporting company's participation would be more risky and long term, but it would have monopoly on the trade of certain goods in the annexed region. In turn, these collaborators would locate their own allies and benefactors.
, as it decreases the wealth of those that choose it
No, war is theft largely. Theft increases the wealth of the thief.
Which is a strategic assumption. The aggressor would of course consider this, but course he'd form the political alliances necessary to counter such attacks. This is how every Empire has done it in the past. Also, if war is so unprofitable, it is moronic to then next turn suggest that all the allies of the victimized group will suddenly go to war. If there was a defensive contract, they might think it is no longer worthy to respect, since the business decision of defending a defeated or a weaker side is very risky. Instead, perhaps they might even ally with the aggressor.
When the political groups form, and acquire arms, members and funds, they also spur others to do the same in response. Thus cartels form like black holes that suck in the remaining unregulated free capitalism.
, insurance agencies suing the aggressors for inflicted trouble
Unless the insurance agencies have divisions, their papers are not going to do anything.
guerillas > centralised army working in the interests of whoever. the latter is just not economical, especially with complete freedom in gun markets
Uh, organized and standing armies perform much better in almost all circuimstances than guerillas. Organized armies can also develop technologies that are simply beyond the operational scale of guerillas.
(lol trillion dollar navy having trouble against a few kalashnikov-armed bandits cruising the coast in a cruddy motorboat)
Well, actually, the pirates are in for a trouble. Probably the only real reason why they could thrive was because of (in addition to lawlessness in the mainland of Somalia) the lack of attention they received. This is first time in over a hundred years that US citizen has been victimized by pirates, so it's not suprising that the US is little unprepared. The US practically controls all of the major oceans in the world: they've done a pretty good job or erradicating piracy. Also, the fleets were, after all, designed for the cold war after all, not for hunting speed boats.
. i feel i dont need to address your medieval speculations,cartel armies, which while interesting, could perhaps be ignored with the guerilla-argument
Well, cartel state and a military is the likely outcome of anarcho-capitalist world. Of course, they'd emerge under an ideological cloak, perhaps monarchy or something else.
yes democracy sucks with its socialist tendencies and all that.
So, I think it is a much better alternative to private totalitarianism whether communist or anarcho-capitalist.
not only would widespread civilian use of guns make it risky and probably uneconomic for pda-s to terrorise them
No. Civilians are pretty easy targets. And you don't have to kill them (preferably), you can do sabotage in their properties, perhaps kidnapping, or something.
, but the intertwined relationships of insurances and defence alliances
No. This would not happen in a political business enviroirment. Firms would be focused on providing insurance or services for one side primarily, because it reduces risks.
guerillas > centralised army working in the interests of whoever. and if you say guerillas cant form because the lack of freedom and inability to organise and arm themselves, then thats a circular argument.
Not necessarily. Again, how could guerillas resist an organized army? Guerillas are not an argument.
Guerillas are a strategy which both sides can, if resourceful enough, use. For example, the United States effectively organized a guerilla force with little local support in Nicaragua and used it to murder tens of thousands. They simply paid them a hundred dollars or so (a lot of money ... and a good example of how cheap it can be for a more powerful side to manipulate poor people) and armed them lavishly.
Why couldn't a private regime do the same? In fact, they'd do so more often because they wouldn't have a scandal.
it would require a terror state already be at effect and for the terror state's army to have the support of the people.
No. A regime doesn't need the support of its people. Do you seriously think North Korea has genuine support of its people? It doesnt, with the exception of a narrow indoctornated or/and privileged minority.
Interesting wording there.
