European Right Wing

[Montmorency]

such as very high prices that make some businessses not viable anymore at all.

If you keep an economy similar to what we have, the problem is not really solved IMO.

Yes, as I said it would be a totally different system with heavy management from the center(s). Business viability for consumers won't be part of the picture.

Yes, it goes against all incentives.

One possible scenario: something like it would emerge by new incentives if the current economies break down and can't sustain their own characteristics any longer. A relatively-small centers of population and administration from which authority and force emanate, then areas around the cores for populations receiving a variety of security accommodations and organized more flexibly than the cores - where much of the production will go on, in some cases toward self-sustainability. Beyond these would be the periphery wherein large-scale organization does not exist, and where the cores perform their resource extraction. The global situation would remain in flux partly due to the fact that these assemblages won't form a OWG and will continue to compete against each other. In fact, it might even make imperialism or neo-feudalism more sustainable.

[Husar]

One possible scenario: something like it would emerge by new incentives if the current economies break down and can't sustain their own characteristics any longer. A relatively-small centers of population and administration from which authority and force emanate, then areas around the cores for populations receiving a variety of security accommodations and organized more flexibly than the cores - where much of the production will go on, in some cases toward self-sustainability. Beyond these would be the periphery wherein large-scale organization does not exist, and where the cores perform their resource extraction. The global situation would remain in flux partly due to the fact that these assemblages won't form a OWG and will continue to compete against each other. In fact, it might even make imperialism or neo-feudalism more sustainable.

And you had to come up with that idea just after I thought we could also privatise personal rights so that everyone can buy the package of personal rights that they can afford from the local private security firm of their choice.

[Montmorency]

privatise personal rights

?

Well, a "right" would be something that is given as a given(!). We have had rights based on cultural values and enforced among family and status-peers. We have had rights based on philosophy and nominally guaranteed or provided for by governments and between their citizens. You can't really privatize rights in those terms, they would just be services. The common thread is still of course that rights are evaluated in some way based on status and therefore on political considerations, so, for example, there isn't an impetus to set up a "freedom of speech" product as how you feel the need to regulate that speech is fluid and relational, and some fixed payments won't cover that, unless you devalue them by stipulating that the terms can be adjusted or voided in many circumstances - so again, why set it up as a product at all if the product doesn't make useful or viable specifications? What would be the difference between subscribing and not subscribing?

[Husar]

?

Well, a "right" would be something that is given as a given(!). We have had rights based on cultural values and enforced among family and status-peers. We have had rights based on philosophy and nominally guaranteed or provided for by governments and between their citizens. You can't really privatize rights in those terms, they would just be services. The common thread is still of course that rights are evaluated in some way based on status and therefore on political considerations, so, for example, there isn't an impetus to set up a "freedom of speech" product as how you feel the need to regulate that speech is fluid and relational, and some fixed payments won't cover that, unless you devalue them by stipulating that the terms can be adjusted or voided in many circumstances - so again, why set it up as a product at all if the product doesn't make useful or viable specifications? What would be the difference between subscribing and not subscribing?

Well, I hope that you would agree that the government protects our rights, for example when our "fellow" citizens try to take them away. If you lock someone up in a cellar, the police come, set them free and punish you for violating their rights. By privatising the rights I essentially mean privatising this function, so if you do not pay the security form for the right to walk free, anyone can lock you up and they won't act on it and so on. That doesn't mean you have to get locked up, it's just no more a punishable violation of your right if you did not pay to have this sort of protection of that right. The idea came to me because people say the private sector is always better than the government at running things and therefore we should privatise our entire infrastructure such as roads, the water system, and so on. The next step would be privatising the police and judiciary and then maybe even politics themselves, but I haven't thought about how the latter could be done exactly.
I guess voting rights could be traded on the stock market for example.

[Montmorency]

so if you do not pay the security form for the right to walk free, anyone can lock you up and they won't act on it and so on.

So the difference from "3rd-world" countries where this is typical (bribery to acquit duties) is that it would be formalized? That would be undesirable, because then those who cant get the services will be certain to mobilize informally on a small-scale - a very dangerous thing for a relatively-small society with still many vulnerable parts and means of coercion available. More likely that there would be strict "citizenship" rights, and penalties based on curtailment of those rights (beyond incarceration). Unsure how or if sippenhaft would apply.

[Husar]

So the difference from "3rd-world" countries where this is typical (bribery to acquit duties) is that it would be formalized? That would be undesirable, because then those who cant get the services will be certain to mobilize informally on a small-scale - a very dangerous thing for a relatively-small society with still many vulnerable parts and means of coercion available. More likely that there would be strict "citizenship" rights, and penalties based on curtailment of those rights (beyond incarceration). Unsure how or if sippenhaft would apply.

And that would be fundamentally different from privatizing the entire infrastructure how exactly? Note that I deliberately left out any comments on how desireable I find this, I merely thought about the option.

[Montmorency]

And that would be fundamentally different from privatizing the entire infrastructure how exactly?

In what sense would it be privatized? The states themselves and their instruments in this world would typically be some sort of evolution of hybrid government, like in Russia and China, state-governed organizations with private administration and buy-in, except rather than being a subset of the economy this would be the form of government itself.