C) why work for the 12 hr contract if you can make the same working 8 somewhere else?
D) and you are presuming the only way to provide respect for contracts is by coercion. Ostricisation is also a thing you know.
F1) what kind of militia are we talking about. A bunch of guys with rifles, or a battalion from the us army? If so, it's not really a militia anymore, so how is it funded so well?

See the private army argument is really weak once you get into the economic weeds. Army's are *expensive*. It takes a lot to train a man to kill another without thinking.

That costs a lot of money and time. Then there is the means, which are literally firing burning money in lead and depleted uranium forms.

Then there is the reputation costs. This militia is now a one client company.

It can't afford to try other customers because their agents will likely be shot immediately for killing others without any cause.

So now the company is employing an army.

So every dead agent is a huge loss. You can forget getting any investment as a company. Then there is the company's reputation, which like its customers is gonna get shot to hell. People will stop buying those products in favour of others, and then the company has no means to pay their men.

At that point the army kills the company.

So yeah, bit of a shit business model in capitalism. But if you can take people's money without them being allowed to say no, you already have taxes and a state, mate.

And that's the only way to fund an aggressive army. Only taxes make it work.

A), sorry, but I don't know anything about Bournville Factory. However I can tell you that since all of the schools will be private, only the wealthiest will be able to afford them. And who are the wealthiest? The high-ranking members of the companies.
B) Could you elaborate on the concept of negative rights? I honestly never heard of them.
C) but why would there be 8 hour contracts?
D) megacorporations like Facebook are almost universally hated, but they are still extremely wealthy and stupidly powerful.
F1) refer to the megacorporations, training an armored battalion is financially basically nothing to Google, Facebook (which is developing it's own currency), and space-x.
About the "it can't afford to shoot customers" argument Yes, but threat is often more than necessary.
Honestly, your arguments would be valid if it wasn't for the absolutely massive corporations which exist in this day and age.

A) if the schools are all private they have to compete. You can get a lot of custom by cutting your prices in that market.
B) you have, just not called that. First ten articles of the constitution of the USA. Read the phrasing. It's always "shall not be infringed", not "has the right to do x". That's because of negative rights.

The idea is that you are capable of doing things in isolation which people should not stop you from being able to do out of isolation. It's based at the core on the concept of property rights, and starts with an axiom of "you own yourself".

The second component is they have to be reciprocal. If you believe they exist in you, they must also exist in others like you. Ergo, if someone doesn't reciprocate your rights, you don't have to reciprocate them back.

This then brings us to perhaps the most neglected right to day, the right of association, which also is protected by the first amendment in the USA. This right allows us to choose whom we associate with and whom we won't. If someone doesn't reciprocate your rights your first action is to not associate.

C) why wouldn't there be? If people don't want to spend half their life working, they won't work for 12 hrs and look to work for someone asking less of them.
D) and? MySpace had the entire social network ecosystem locked down well before Facebook came along. I see no reason to presume Facebook is not susceptible to the same fate. All things die eventually, and tech companies are not know for their longevity usually.
F (catch all) so a) corporations can't exist easily without a state. The problem is liability. The state provides them a limited liability state by the incorporation process that absolves it of responsibility for many ills, and also its *shareholders*.

Now imagine being able to sue both the company and its investors for yeeting you of youtube in breach of ToS?

F(cont) again armies costs a lot. Us defense budget is in the trillions. Goggle's profit margin today is no where near that.

I'm not aware of any entity that turns a trillion dollar profit actually. Oh and the US military also has a 20t dollar defense spending *hole*, so a trillion in budget is a drop in the bucket mate.

Billion is the "unicorn" point

A) yes, but knowledge comes with a price, and high quality teachers come with a steep one.
B) Oh, ok. I don't live in the USA, but here in Italy there is a kind of opposite attitude towards rights, basically the constitution says that: the people are capable of everything except x, y and z.
About non-reciprocation: Yes, but the fact is that nothing guarantees that it will be feasible, as the corporations are more powerful than the workers.
C) because with no regulations, there is nobody actually defending your rights.
D MySpace was infinitesimal smaller back then than modern day Facebook.
F) why couldn't they?
Even today, with all of the regulations they still are vastly more powerful than many countries.
F2) that is because the US have the most bloated military budget in the world.
Italy doesn't come close to the USA's, but it still has some of the world's best aircraft.

A) only because the public sector has most of the market share. Make them all compete privately, watch the prices fit the needs of all markets.
B) its a hard way of conceptualising it. America came at it from declaring what its government was not allowed to do, (which originally was basically almost anything)
C) you only have no regulations whatsoever with a state, not without it. Markets are regulated by the consumer, other markets, and competition natively, and can be actively regulated by other companies. Examples abound again in the USA with private testing firms like UL and ieee setting standards and watermarks.

D) same principle applies. There are already upstart companies, and serious issues with the policies in play. Fb acts as if it can exist and own all its content without the users creating its content. The younger generations already dislike it because their parents are there.

F) because the shareholders can get sued without the state, so they won't risk their investments in that company if that company starts literally fucking over customers.

F2) is it actually italy's aircraft, or the eu's? EU army ont the books mate, mind your back before Brussels stabs you in it.

I don't see the economic arguments for waging a war. I see the econ arguments for how to use a war to make money by selling to the people waging war, but making war is a pure cost exercise.

Your argument is "big companies will just wage war". On an armed populace. Who knows their territory better than you. And might be bloody paranoid too and have it mined.

Just in case that thief of a neighbour tries to scrum apples again.

The "McDonald's death squads" meme is a trope, but a funny one.

For the EU to thrive, we need a true leader. Deb8 me!
https://prabook.com/web/show-photo.jpg?id=1502539

A) good point, but education still comes at a pretty high price.
C) that's some pretty huge mental gymnastics right there.
How in the world are there less regulations with a state than without?
D) guess who owns messanger and whatsapp...
F) yes, but the absolute vast majority of the revenue that megacorps make does not derive from investors.
F2) yes, yes they are. The EU does not have a standing army. Although all of it's countries are military allies.
They will not wage war. They will simply use their absolute military superiority to force the populace into serving them.
You assume that the populace is armed and trained.

I also do find it somewhat amusing you seem to thing that, without a state, we will have a state @mikimof2 It's a non sequitur phrased as such, and that's why I question that inevitability. The state is an anachronistic anathema to me, and it is on a trajectory to become irrelevant due to being unable to adapt with sufficient speed.

A) and wages have risen by factors of God knows what over time. Also, some education is made freely available. Check out Royal institution on YouTube, fascinating science channel.

@Lupinate it's the fact that most of the things that you say will regulate companies, like judges and courts physically cannot exist without some kind of governing body.
About divulgation channels, good. Point, but they are not enough to ensure the desired level of instruction for the populace.

C) think about it. States being the de facto monopoly regulator are deferred to for the rules. If they don't make them *then the companies have no rules to follow*. If the state isn't there, the consumers make the rules, as they did with eBay. Everyone thought eBay would flop because seller a would provide buyer b with a crap product, which would be paid for with a bounced check.

D) and? Guess who lost the core people behind WhatsApp? Guess who has proper competing companies who found niches from their and Google's errors?

@mikimof2 there are such things as private courts and Polycentric law. Look up the brehon system.

Why do you need to tell society what to do? We're mostly all adults here in body at least.

Surely we can work that out without some guy in a throne ordering you about?

Is the worry that bad people exist, Ergo you need people to stop the bad people making life worse?

Ah... So you treat the state like a corporation, interesting point of view.
However the economy is regulated by the consumers even now, and the state provides further bounds.
D) the wast majority of the population still uses WhatsApp.

Bingo. All states are companies, they just work by different rules.

About the last argument, basically yes

@Lupinate no they aren't. They work in a completely different way and do cometely different things.

@mikimof2 they really are, but you just don't see it yet. That's fine, but the markets don't treat them as if they are anything but a form of regional monopoly.

As to the "bad people exist ergo state must too" argument there are two relevant quotes I'll start with. The first is plato: *Good people don't need laws to tell them to act responsibly, and bad people will find a way around laws*.

The second I know well but can never remember the source. I think his name was LeFareve : *if people are inherently good, you don't need a state. If people are inherently ambivalent or bad, you dare not have one*.

Your argument, in order to work with consistency, implies that government, a group of people, must prevent bad people from acting badly. But what stops bad people from running the system itself? You've created a focal point of control by centralising the power in the state. Power corrupts, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely, so why would creating a means to game all other power sources reduce the risks caused by bad people.