I appreciate your profund reply for a fruitful discussion. As much as I wish it was that easy, I think there still are certain areas where self-governance does not (yet?) work.
When businesses have to earn customer loyalty, it keeps them honest. A company that treats people fairly and offers good value will thrive, while those that overcharge or cut corners will see customers walk away to better options.
Similarly, through networks of private mediators, insurers, and review systems, communities can handle conflicts smoothly without a central authority. Think of how online marketplaces use buyer ratings and dispute resolution to keep millions of transactions running smoothly.
Ok, let's take frodo92. This guy is about to ripp off you unsuspecting mother, daughter, wife or girl friend:
Hi everyone,
I'm looking for a card payment processor for a subscription-based site (like first charge is €1, followed by €49 after 3 days).
I need a processor that accepts individuals (not just businesses) and startup clients with no transaction history, as I plan to create multiple accounts to manage a higher chargeback rate (3-5%).
It’s also preferred if the payout can be in cryptocurrencies, to avoid the need for creating bank accounts for each processing account.
I'm willing to pay for a good solution.
Any recommendations?
Thank you!
Who told him to go and get lost? Nobody. Yes, I understand that we are not here to tell him this. But if it was 1900 and there was no internet, he could have asked anybody and 100% of them would have told him to get lost.
Also, I totally understand that it is not the place where reviews happen, there is of course trutpilot for this:
https://www.trustpilot.com/review/offshorecorptalk.com
Could we maybe ask you a favour and place a review for OCT there?
And honestly, I personally do not think that consumers do have the power, they are ought to have:
- It was not because of consumer pressure but because of the EU that phones and computers now have USB-C (I wish it was Mark Zuckerberg who made this but unfortunately not)
- I always fear new EU regulations. But because they would harm my business, but because they force competitors to spend $10 more on their production, making their products much better.
- It was not because of consumer pressure that fridges have magnetic closures. but governments banning anything that cannot be opened from inside after deaths of kids in a trash jard.
- You actually can electrocute youself with South American shower heads https://43bluedoors.com/2018/01/21/south-american-travel/ They are banned almost anywhere else for good reason, yet still they are cheaper to produce and pretty much anywhere. Yes, it saves a couple of dollars. But unless you ban it, people won't value their live more than just $10.
While I wish that consumers did have more power, my experience does not entirely reflect this. Let's hope for changes to the better, making the EU obsolete!
Market forces naturally push back against exclusive control by any single group. Take security services: the moment one company starts overcharging or mistreating customers, people simply take their business elsewhere. Contrary to government-mandated systems, where citizens face penalties for non-compliance, much like victims of the pizzo. Success in the security industry depends on reputation and reliability, and forces companies to maintain high standards.
I do not want to get political, but if you look at the Spotify-Google-Apple battle over app fees, I would state that there is a third dimension (supplier and customer beeing only 2, the third one being platforms). And platform are like governments, once they have power, the tend to abuse it. In 1900 without the internet, there were no platforms and I would have agreed with you 100%.
Looking at historical examples, decentralized systems have proven stable when allowed to develop freely. Medieval traders created their own framework of rules and dispute resolution that worked across borders, adapting over time to handle increasingly complex deals without central oversight. Modern equivalents exist in organizations like the BBB and credit monitoring services, which address business conduct through market incentives rather than legal force.
See my point above, without today's possibilities, I would agree. But we are not 1900, we have airplanes, high speed trains and all of that needs universities and research. And then comes this:
https://www.nzz.ch/wirtschaft/ehemaliger-nestle-chef-als-ceo-dem-politischen-druck-nachgeben-ist-am-einfachsten-dann-hast-du-deine-ruhe-ld.1762612 said:
Ein Unternehmen sollte nichts machen, was nicht für sein langfristiges Überleben wichtig ist. Ich glaube zum Beispiel nicht, dass es die Aufgabe einer multinationalen Firma ist, sich um das Bildungssystem in einem Land zu kümmern. Das liegt in der Verantwortung der Politik.
A company should not do anything that is not important for its long-term survival. For example, I do not believe that it is the job of a multinational company to take care of the education system in a country. That is the responsibility of politics.
(This was taken from an interview with ex-CEO of Nestlé, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe)
The structure of
blockchain is a perfect modern example of how to enforce contracts without a central authority.
Yes, but only as long as the big players have no possibity to harm smaller players (see my last post). It is like in Gold Rush, if you can kill you competitor, you will.
Bitcoin does not offer this option. That's why it works,. If you have a bitcoin for law enforcement, the winner will take all.
History shows that states, as monopolistic holders of force, always misuse power, both in authoritarian and in so called democratic regimes.
I agree 100%. But how do you want to ensure any private party does not start to exploit the rest of the population? If you were the head of a company offering X that everybody needs, what would prevent you from buying/eliminating/killing all competitors to rule the supply alone? There have been plenty of exaple in history, from the British supplying opium to Chinese citizens "at their own will" to Rockefeller flooding
China with underprices oil to wipe out competitors, etc.
Cartels cannot last long in a competitive market, as members have incentives to break ranks to capture a larger share of the market by offering better services at lower prices. Market forces alone, without state intervention, destroy cartels, as each entity has an interest in maximizing profit by undercutting competitors.
Again, you are missing the marketplaces. They are like governments taking advantage of both customers and suppliers. In 1900 with small scale economies, this problem did not exist and neither did the problems of governments and citizenships exists. Everybody with will and money was free to move.
Market forces, along with people's ability to freely choose services and new technologies, naturally prevent any one group from gaining too much control in a system without central authority. Unlike dealing with organized crime, people can simply walk away from bad actors and find better options.
If you look at the current market of countries to live in, I would say that it worked pretty well until the UN came and started to act as a "
marketplace" of countries imposing rules onto the countries in an act to undermine interest of all individuals.
I do understand all those theories and I totally agree that up until like 1950, it would have worked. But at the cost of not having the latest technology (airplanes, internet, mobile phones, etc.). But with todays techonogy, I see two problems for which I am not entirely convinced (even if I wish so) that private actors would solve:
- Certain technological advances require infrastructure and education which requires large scale coordination (nobody will invest in an airport/road/etc. if he cannot control demand, in other words only if you are in close relation with city planners, you will invest).
- We need to bear in mind that the reason why governments have so much power is the cartel/marketplace of the UN. Let's replace all countries with private actors, sooner or later, they will stop the battle and form a cartel/marketplace like the UN. There still is a need for a higher democtratic institution which prevents such things from happening. Countries are meant to in competition with each other for lowering taxes and better services. (And why we praise Switzerland so often here: All 26 cantons are in fierce competition for lower taxes, while federal taxes are fairly low.)
please don't take this personally, I'm tired and sometimes frustrated, what
@JohnnyDoe tried to explain in couple of last posts in this thread I did for years and it leads nowhere... this is not something to be discussed in a forum thread - all your questions were asked and answered thousands of times, all this proven and decided decades ago, there is ton of theory from Mises and Rothbard to HHH and many current authors, cryptoanarchy is just the last piece of puzzle - you simply have to do your homework or let it go
I am not taking it personally. I am here for a fruitful discussion and would appreciate if you could contribute a bit more profund than profanity.
