Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Seems like he found out exactly what would happen; the use of force would be wielded more readily by private actors instead.



What do you mean by "more readily"?


The monopoly on the use of force by Government agents keeps private actors (or at least it attempts to) from employing violence on their own terms. Absent that monopoly, private agents will fill the void.


You wouldn't be able to build up the necessary military force without expending massive amounts of money and drawing negative attention to yourself. Investors would not want to be involved with a company creating a PR nightmare and wasting their money on evil. Customers would boycott, the company's stock price would drop, and they wouldn't be able to carry out their plans anyway.


This is a happy supposition, but I don't think it's borne out by historical evidence.






Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: