|
On March 10 2008 15:05 Plutonium wrote:
What happens to the people who can't afford to pay the "Private Defense Agency?" Is it OK to kill them? What happens if I break my leg and can't work for three months, and have to choose between paying for food and paying for protection?
Well, I hope I didn't interfere with your fun in your crackpipe Ayn Rand fantasy where we let the poor and the disabled all die because they're a drain on society. Let's not forget the elderly who had their pensions stolen, and god forbid if you get seriously ill and have to choose between paying between not only medicine and food, but also protection from being killed.
Arguing here can come to no good. I can only hope you can one day become a productive member of society.
This line of argument is idiotic. What if I die because I had a tumor and my socialized medicine had me waiting too long (a scenario which almost happened until the person came down to the U.S to use our healthcare)? What if police inefficiency couldn't stop a bad guy from killing me, where a private defense agency (who has more economic incentive to protect its clients) would've stopped him? Bringing up stupid hypotheticals doesn't help either of our arguments. Try actually poking a hole in the logic of my argument. Demonstrate why the state is better suited to provide certain goods then the private sector.
|
Imagine I'm an industrialist - what's to stop me from hiring child laborers, and making them work sweatshop-style, paying them the bare minimum to survive. What else would they do - they don't have any education and can't get any because they don't have any money to hire teachers. They can't go anywhere else to work for more money, because they don't have any skills, and there's no minimum wage.
They wouldn't be able to strike, because I could just shoot the leaders, with no repercussions.
Hell, why even pay my workers, when I can hire guards with guns for a fraction of the cost, and make them slaves.
You are a fucking idiot who doesn't understand or realize even the smallest things democracy and government has brought you. Be grateful that you have them, because they're the only reason you're not right now a wage slave in a Nike-Adidas conglomerate factory.
|
On March 10 2008 15:01 CaptainMurphy wrote:Show nested quote +that's a rather silly angle to take, since the contention is not over productive or distributive efficiency of goods but over private and public domain and the associated rights and obligations.
if you are talking about just public goods, these are defined by access exclusivity, a politically contingent question. Did you read the post? The whole point of the excerpt was to demonstrate that exclusivity is not an objective distinction, but exists on a spectrum, even down to the most seemingly private goods such as deodorant or house development. You can't objectively define what constitutes a public good and what constitutes a private good because every good has externalities, the positives or negatives of which are entirely subjective. That is why it nonsensical to argue that certain goods could be more efficiently provided by the state than by the free market.
Sure you can. There are plenty of grey areas but enough black and white for governments to exist. True, with advances in the ability for people to raise capital over time, certain goods and services originally considered public (such as postal system) can now be privatized. It would be highly unreasonable, however, to think that market failures would not occur naturally when it comes to many things other things that we take for granted: pollution regulation, military forces, public transit, education, monopolies, etc.
Where each government draws the line specifically between private and public depends on the government (and in a democracy, the people who vote on it). For example, the US is the only rich developed country that considers health care a private good. The distinction between private and public is inherently a subjective one, but why does that matter? A certain balance is required when it comes to government size and what goods are considered public. History has tried various different amounts of government, and I'm pretty sure that having none at all is simply not optimal.
Simply put, certain economies to scale are just so large that market failures are certain to exist in a private system. History has certainly shown it to be the case.
Let's take an obvious example: education. In the current system, the government provides free education for every child. This is widely to be considered to be economically optimal, since this will give a chance for poor children to contribute more to the economy. In an anarchical system, who would pay for this education? Should private companies educate poor children in the hopes that they will grow up to be able to contribute to the company? Or maybe, you would suggest that some company spontaneously pop up and take up the task of educating every child in the country and then take a part of the student's future wages. If you noticed, before universal education was implemented by national governments, this simply didn't happen. There are just so many practical limitations that while in theory governments are inefficient, history demonstrates that they are necessary in reality.
Also, how would you deal with the most obvious form of market failure? Monopolies.
|
Note: I will no longer, in this blog entry, be entertaining questions that fall under the the format "how would good so-and-so be provided if not by the state?" My answer to all these is simply that the private sector can provide it more efficiently. The burden of proof is on you to argue why a particular good should be taken off the free market and given to a coercive monopoly. You cannot take this as a premise unless you are advocating communism. If people do want to bring up these questions, I would point them to my first blog entry, where all conceivable situations of the aforementioned type have already been raised. For the anarchist perspective on the provision of the most commonly disputed points, I direct you to this link:
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp#p215
See Chapter 12 on police, the law, and the courts.
|
You don't deserve to live in a country where people have given their lives for the freedoms you have now, if you simply want to give them away.
Let's see how much you like anarcho-capitalism when you're in one - Why don't you move to the poorest, most polluted, urban slums of China and try out something close to it. Have fun stitching together Air Jordans for half-a-handful of rice a day.
|
On March 10 2008 15:26 Plutonium wrote:
Imagine I'm an industrialist - what's to stop me from hiring child laborers, and making them work sweatshop-style, paying them the bare minimum to survive. What else would they do - they don't have any education and can't get any because they don't have any money to hire teachers. They can't go anywhere else to work for more money, because they don't have any skills, and there's no minimum wage.
They wouldn't be able to strike, because I could just shoot the leaders, with no repercussions.
Hell, why even pay my workers, when I can hire guards with guns for a fraction of the cost, and make them slaves.
You are a fucking idiot who doesn't understand or realize even the smallest things democracy and government has brought you. Be grateful that you have them, because they're the only reason you're not right now a wage slave in a Nike-Adidas conglomerate factory.
Massively stupid and insulting posts like this will not be tolerated. The idea that all people are really evil and the only thing holding them back from exercising their evil will is government, is profoundly stupid. Government does not create morality. People create morality. The fact that there is enough public support to enact laws against things like shooting people, as well as the thousands of charitable organizations demonstrates that most people aren't this evil. Pointing to one possible situation that might arise in anarcho-capitalistic society is an extremely poor refutation. I could just as easily provide you with countless examples of state-created violence or oppression. As I said before, argue against the theory of it or GTFO.
|
Let's imagine that I had no morals, and I open my shoe factory.
Who would stop me from doing exactly what I detailed above? Why, if anybody tried to oppose me militarily, I could just hire even more men with guns to kill them with my massive industrial profits.
Hey, they could try to boycott me, and everyone would have to go around barefoot. If somebody tried to sell shoes elsewhere, I would just buy them up or kill them.
You're not arguing against us or debating, you're just plugging your ears and screaming about Ayn Rand and Ron Paul.
|
Alright, try this line of reasoning. Current systems of government exist because they are superior. Certain goods exist because they ultimately increase the economic power of a country: education for human capital, military and police forces for security, etc. You want to argue that competition is better than government for providing these services. My point is very very very simple: why hasn't this happened yet if anarchy supposedly better? And the way I see it, the answer is also very straightforward: anarchy not actually better in practice. Where do you draw the line? It's impossible to say objectively, but it's something that's tried and tested. Example: People's health with respect to alcohol was once considered a public good, leading to the prohibition in the US. A few years later, it was turned back into a private good.
Again, I'm operating under the premise that what works the best is what survives. Governments work better than no government in practice, and that's why we have them. If you wish to debate, start from here.
And finally, where these lines are drawn are decided by the people themselves. We call it democracy. In theory democracy should optimal since it tries to maximize everyone's utility function equally, and in a perfect system where everything is decided by democracy, it would maximize the overall utility of a country's inhabitants.
Also, you still haven't addressed the issue of monopolies.
|
Sure you can. There are plenty of grey areas but enough black and white for governments to exist.
It is either black and white or exists on a grey scale. You can't have it both ways. It exists either on a dichotomy or a spectrum. You need to demonstrate why a certain point on that spectrum makes government production the best option.
True, with advances in the ability for people to raise capital over time, certain goods and services originally considered public (such as postal system) can now be privatized. It would be highly unreasonable, however, to think that market failures would not occur naturally when it comes to many things other things that we take for granted: pollution regulation, military forces, public transit, education, monopolies, etc.
Again, I have debated these at length in my first blog post which you're welcome to post in (providing you read the whole thing first, since otherwise you will likely bring up a topic already covered, as are all the ones you raise here), but the focus of this entry is on the theoretical model. I maintain that no market failure does have to occur in the industries you mention, and that market failure is created from government intervention (artificial price fixing).
Where each government draws the line specifically between private and public depends on the government (and in a democracy, the people who vote on it). For example, the US is the only rich developed country that considers health care a private good. The distinction between private and public is inherently a subjective one, but why does that matter? A certain balance is required when it comes to government size and what goods are considered public. History has tried various different amounts of government, and I'm pretty sure that having none at all is simply not optimal.
There is no point in just flatly stating that a certain amount of balance is required, since my whole argument is that goernment is *not* required. The burden of proof is on you to explain why government intervention is necessary.
Simply put, certain economies to scale are just so large that market failures are certain to exist in a private system. History has certainly shown it to be the case.
Show me how this supposed market failure comes about. Don't just make flat assertions, give evidence.
Let's take an obvious example: education. In the current system, the government provides free education for every child. This is widely to be considered to be economically optimal, since this will give a chance for poor children to contribute more to the economy. In an anarchical system, who would pay for this education? Should private companies educate poor children in the hopes that they will grow up to be able to contribute to the company? Or maybe, you would suggest that some company spontaneously pop up and take up the task of educating every child in the country and then take a part of the student's future wages. If you noticed, before universal education was implemented by national governments, this simply didn't happen. There are just so many practical limitations that while in theory governments are inefficient, history demonstrates that they are necessary in reality.
Explain to me why education is better provided by the state then the free market. Most economists who subscribe to the public goods theory wouldn't even consider education to be a public good. So even if I grant you that there is a distinction between public and private goods, you are saying that this private good is more efficiently provided by the state then by the free market. If private goods can be better provided by the state, why even have a market at all? Why not have all industry be centrally planned?
Also, how would you deal with the most obvious form of market failure? Monopolies.
There are two types of monopolies. The first type is a natural monopoly. A natural monopoly exists when one firm provides the best quality product at the lowest price and all attracts all the consumers from competitors firms. There is not, in this case, an absence of competition, only of competitors due to the firms efficiency. You would be hard pressed to argue that this is market failure.
The second type of monopoly is a coercive monopoly. This is a monopoly that exists because it uses aggression to bar competing firms from entering the market. This type of monopoly can only exist with the aid of government. This type of monopoly must lead to market failure, and is one of the central anarcho-capitalist arguments against government.
|
On March 10 2008 15:39 Plutonium wrote:
You don't deserve to live in a country where people have given their lives for the freedoms you have now, if you simply want to give them away.
Quite the opposite, dipshit. Freedom involves freedom from government oppression. Freedom is constantly at odds with government.
Let's see how much you like anarcho-capitalism when you're in one - Why don't you move to the poorest, most polluted, urban slums of China and try out something close to it. Have fun stitching together Air Jordans for half-a-handful of rice a day.
Yeah, China is totally anarcho-capitalist. Sorry, no room for retards here.
|
i agree w/ azndsh's first post, but not so much the "only superior forms of government" line of reasoning.
in your scenario where everything is privatized, kid X's family is too poor to afford private school. should he not go to school then? there's a big difference from a government providing the basic necessities and communism. also, education is much more than literacy. you could say that people are literate after the 3rd grade. =/. also, i would argue that 10% illiteracy is very bad. that means 1/10 people in your country can't read and write, which probably means they're poor and are going to be poor for the rest of their lives.
and i guess private owned roads and bridges would go under the monopoly problem.
|
obviously, private education is going to be better than public. but for those who can't afford it, there has to be something!
edit, also: coercive monopolies can exist without the help of government. like one company (standard oil) becomes big. a 2nd company seeing their success wants to start too. first company sees that 2nd company will hurt its monopoly power so they decide to temporarily sell their stuff cheaper so that the 2nd company can't compete. 2nd company goes out of business. then 1st company increases prices again. oh no.
|
Plutonium -- Ayn Rand is not an anarcho-capitalist....in fact, she is a TARGET of anarcho-capitalists' arguments (she argues that the military, police and courts should be government run)....At least target the right people (rothbard would be a good start) -- that is, inform yourself.
|
Alright, try this line of reasoning. Current systems of government exist because they are superior. Certain goods exist because they ultimately increase the economic power of a country: education for human capital, military and police forces for security, etc. You want to argue that competition is better than government for providing these services. My point is very very very simple: why hasn't this happened yet if anarchy supposedly better? And the way I see it, the answer is also very straightforward: anarchy not actually better in practice. Where do you draw the line? It's impossible to say objectively, but it's something that's tried and tested.
I assume you think liberal democracies are the best form of government? There was a time before them. Imagine if we lived in the 1400s and you were trying to argue in favor of liberal democracies, and I countered with "well if it's so great, why haven't we had it yet?" The answer of course is that just because a certain political philosophy has not been successfully implemented in the past, doesn't mean it can't be in the future.
Example: People's health with respect to alcohol was once considered a public good, leading to the prohibition in the US. A few years later, it was turned back into a private good.
My point exactly; the distinction is arbitrary, and it is immoral to force your judgment on someone else in these types of situations.
Again, I'm operating under the premise that what works the best is what survives. Governments work better than no government in practice, and that's why we have them. If you wish to debate, start from here.
For any political system to be successful, it needs public support. Anarcho-capitalism, if enough people accept it, very well could change the political landscape for the better in the future and then it would survive. The fact that it has not been implemented on any long term basis so far does not mean that it can't be.
And finally, where these lines are drawn are decided by the people themselves. We call it democracy. In theory democracy should optimal since it tries to maximize everyone's utility function equally, and in a perfect system where everything is decided by democracy, it would maximize the overall utility of a country's inhabitants.
I think the consumer should be allowed to draw these lines. When you bring in government to make these decisions for people, you're taking the judgment out of the consumers hands; you're saying that your subjective judgment qualifies you to use other peoples money in ways they otherwise wouldn't use that money (and if they would spend the money the same way you would, there is no need to force them to).
Also, you still haven't addressed the issue of monopolies.
Check a couple posts up.
|
On March 10 2008 16:04 geometryb wrote:
obviously, private education is going to be better than public. but for those who can't afford it, there has to be something!
You have not answered why education, clearly a private good under anyones criteria, is better provided by the state then by the market. I could use this same argument you're making to argue in favor of socialized everything. If I can't afford a swimming pool on the market, there has to be some state mechanism to provide it...
edit, also: coercive monopolies can exist without the help of government. like one company (standard oil) becomes big. a 2nd company seeing their success wants to start too. first company sees that 2nd company will hurt its monopoly power so they decide to temporarily sell their stuff cheaper so that the 2nd company can't compete. 2nd company goes out of business. then 1st company increases prices again. oh no.
First, what you are describing is not coercion. One firm lowering their prices is not initiating aggression against another firm. Second, you're assuming that if a company raises its prices it's automatically a bad thing. Third, when the company raises their prices again, another competitor will, if possible, offer the same services at a lower price, so the monopoly would again have to lower their prices. They would perpetually have to keep their prices low to maintain their monopoly. But say they were able to raise their prices somewhat, but not enough for other firms to think it worthy to invest in the market. Then that is the market price. You're essentially arguing that it's bad for firms to make profit, or arbitrarily deciding when a firm makes "too much" profit and thus feel its okay to come in and set a price ceiling, which creates market failure through surplus and dead weight loss
|
|
|
Interesting article, arguing that government does not replace anarchy, but merely substitutes market anarchy for political anarchy:
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_3.pdf
I also have another question for any statist brave enough to answer: If you believe government is acceptable at the state level, why not at the international level? If government is good, why isn't it good at all levels? Will any statist explain why they are not in favor of one world government, and extreme consolidation of power?
|
First, what you are describing is not coercion. One firm lowering their prices is not initiating aggression against another firm. Second, you're assuming that if a company raises its prices it's automatically a bad thing. Third, when the company raises their prices again, another competitor will, if possible, offer the same services at a lower price, so the monopoly would again have to lower their prices. They would perpetually have to keep their prices low to maintain their monopoly. But say they were able to raise their prices somewhat, but not enough for other firms to think it worthy to invest in the market. Then that is the market price. You're essentially arguing that it's bad for firms to make profit, or arbitrarily deciding when a firm makes "too much" profit and thus feel its okay to come in and set a price ceiling, which creates market failure through surplus and dead weight loss
i think the economics term for it is "dumping" if you wanted to look it up.
|
On March 10 2008 14:55 CaptainMurphy wrote:
Private Defence Agencies. Security is an economic good, and would naturally be provided under an anarcho-capitalist system.
LOLOLOLOL And if people are poor they dont deserve security ? or health care ?
Your ideas are weird. With such a political system, human life value become the value of the money that they own.
|
Well I have two basic points against anarchy, which I will outline again and try to address some of your responses in the process:
(A) Democracy is better
Premises:
1. Perhaps the only actual objective way to decide what is best is by what gives the highest overall utility. If you can think of a better way to objectively compare two different systems, I surely haven't heard it before.
2. Democracy is the best way to accomplish the highest overall utility. I think the consumer should be allowed to draw these lines. When you bring in government to make these decisions for people, you're taking the judgment out of the consumers hands; you're saying that your subjective judgment qualifies you to use other peoples money in ways they otherwise wouldn't use that money (and if they would spend the money the same way you would, there is no need to force them to). Correct me if I'm wrong, but basically you argue that people should vote with money instead of everyone having an equal vote. Voting with dollars results in a lower overall utility though. Rich people have a bigger vote, so they might be happier, but the poor will be disproportionately less happy.
Although, in fact, it may be advantageous in terms of economic output to have an anarchical system, money and utility have a non-linear relationship, so a more equitable distribution of money and less total can result in higher total utility. On an unrelated note, often times higher utility translates to higher economic output in the long run (on the generation timescale).
Of course, democracy like any system is full of flaws in its implementation, but theoretically, it is the starting point for maximizing overall utility. So yeah, private/public goods is a spectrum, but people decide on the dividing line on that spectrum with votes.
In summary, quoting the person above me, With such a political system, human life value become the value of the money that they own.
(B) Practical limitations of anarchy
Anarchy doesn't work as well as it sounds on paper for several reasons.
1. Economies of scale. While in theory a lot of things work with anarchy, they just don't in practice. Let's take education as an example again. Imagine a nationwide system of boarding schools that provide the best education in the country for free. It takes the students with the most potential, regardless of their financial background. In return, students agree to pay back a small percentage of all their future earnings. This sounds decent in theory, but the problem is the billions and billions in sunk costs required, for something that won't pay for itself for dozens of years.
The same applies to say, a national interstate highway system. People could have instead opened toll roads all over the country. The initial investment is absolutely enormous, and the time it takes before it will pay for itself is on the order of decades or longer. In fact, this investment could very well fail altogether like many previous government policies. Who's going to invest in a project that won't pay off until after their death with also a large degree of uncertainty? The expected return is positive, but the initial investment is huge and/or the payoff is in the far future. Economies of this scale do cause market failures. You can theorize about all these alternative systems for national military, education, courts, etc., but they just simply don't work that well in practice.
2. Monopolies, coercive or natural, are not good. Coercive monopolies can most certainly and have most certainly arisen without the help of government: Standard Oil being the most obvious example. Natural monopolies are the most efficient for production but not for the consumer. Being able to charge arbitrarily high prices maximizes only the company's profit and not the consumer's utility.
To put the practical limitations of anarchy into a more general scope, one word summarizes it well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
