# Where ever the Government has a monopoly on a service, the Free Market can do better



## Makalakumu (Oct 28, 2013)

http://freepatriot.org/2013/10/26/houston-neighborhood-goes-private-security-cuts-crime/



> He looks like a cop, he dresses like a cop, but he is actual a member of S.E.A.L. security.  A Houston neighborhood decided to go with private security and cuts crime in half.
> When Sharpstown, a small suburb in Houston, Texas, received their last bill from Harris County sheriff department, they thought they could go cheaper. Harris County told them to put their money where their mouth is. So they did. Not only have they gained a presence of three patrol cars at any given hour, but saved the suburb about $200,000 a year.
> They dont pull people over, they dont stop traffic, but they do stop crime. The city said crime is down in fact by over 50%. Not bad from just increasing visibility of law enforcement. The private security company is armed and does have the power to make arrests. The funny aspect is that they take them to Harris County lock up.
> The S.E.A.L. company has its own academy.  All patrol officers are licensed. They have K-9 units trained and at their disposal. While they specialize in business and residential security in the state of Texas, when they were contacted by the suburb in need of help, they were all too happy to provide them with the best package deal for the town. The suburb is happy with the arrangement along with the S.E.A.L. Security Solutions Firm.
> So one must ask what is the downside to this? So far the only people saying anything negative is Harris County that lost out on the contract due to over charging the suburb. Even the news finds this strange but seems interested in the arrangement.



Private police!  Say it ain't so, socialists!

Seriously though, what do you all think of this?  I just had a discussion with a forum member about how this arrangement would never work and that it would basically suck and probably be the end of the world.  Well?


----------



## granfire (Oct 28, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> http://freepatriot.org/2013/10/26/houston-neighborhood-goes-private-security-cuts-crime/
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.

it starts off with 'small suburb' and ends with 'taking the suspects to Harris County Lockup'


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 28, 2013)

granfire said:


> If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.
> 
> it starts off with 'small suburb' and ends with 'taking the suspects to Harris County Lockup'



I'd like to know more of the details as well, but I suspect the reason why the private security is more effective is because they aren't enforcing laws against  non-violent and peaceful activities.


----------



## granfire (Oct 28, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I'd like to know more of the details as well, but I suspect the reason why the private security is more effective is because they aren't enforcing laws against  non-violent and peaceful activities.



They leave those to the regular cops, and they don't run a jail, that's savings right there.
But you can't pick and chose what you want to enforce as police.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 28, 2013)

granfire said:


> They leave those to the regular cops, and they don't run a jail, that's savings right there.
> But you can't pick and chose what you want to enforce as police.



The sort of the point of private police.  People pay directly for what they want protected.  The way society works now, people make a law against something they don't like and then expect other people to pay for it.  It doesn't work very well because you eventually run out of other people's money...and lose your freedom.


----------



## granfire (Oct 28, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> The sort of the point of private police.  People pay directly for what they want protected.  The way society works now, people make a law against something they don't like and then expect other people to pay for it.  It doesn't work very well because you eventually run out of other people's money...and lose your freedom.



But that is cherry picking.
Sure, sounds good on paper, but when the manure hits the fan, you can bet your bottom dollar, the good citizens of said suburb will be screaming at the top of their lungs. 
But then again, nothing probably ever happened there to begin with.

I wonder if the real police will just shrug and keep eating doughnuts when those other laws are broken and the private force won't touch it....


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 28, 2013)

granfire said:


> But that is cherry picking.
> Sure, sounds good on paper, but when the manure hits the fan, you can bet your bottom dollar, the good citizens of said suburb will be screaming at the top of their lungs.
> But then again, nothing probably ever happened there to begin with.
> 
> I wonder if the real police will just shrug and keep eating doughnuts when those other laws are broken and the private force won't touch it....



A couple of questions.

1.  What do you mean when you say "Manure hitting the fans"?  
2.  What exactly will the citizens of said suburb be screaming over?
3.  Which other laws will the police not enforce that the private security company won't touch?

One thing that becomes apparent to me is that all "laws" have a hidden price tag in our socialized system.  When people actually have to pay for private security, that price tag is suddenly revealed.  Another thing that becomes apparent is that the difference between what people will vote to ban and what they will actually pay for is often quite distinct.  People will pay for protection from violence and protection of property, but they probably won't pay for the enforcement of various non-violent and peaceful activities that are against the law.  
This looks like the Free Market tailoring itself to exactly what the community wants for security purposes.


----------



## Carol (Oct 28, 2013)

How about cleaning up the highways?  



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## granfire (Oct 28, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> A couple of questions.
> 
> 1.  What do you mean when you say "Manure hitting the fans"?
> 2.  What exactly will the citizens of said suburb be screaming over?
> ...



'The Price Tag' will be revealed, no doubt when somebody complains about the cherry picked laws the rent-a-cops enforce. the 'non-violent' ones, the ones they didn't know they wanted enforced.
Or the city gets tired of housing their crooks and sends them the bill.
200k is not a whole lot when you toss more than 10 fellows in the brick. 


On the other hand, maybe you have a point....our LEOs always tell us we can't pick and choose which laws we follow, they do pick and choose which they enforce. hmm.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 29, 2013)

Funny there is a small apartment complex that is gated and has private armed police in my jurisdiction.  They had a double shooting and running gun battle last night aabout  50 yards from 3 private armed guards.  The guards ran out of the community and called 911 and refused to go back in until we showed up.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 29, 2013)

> [h=2]Where ever the Government has a monopoly on a service, the Free Market can do better[/h]


To wit, the USPS vs UPS and/or FedEx...


----------



## granfire (Oct 29, 2013)

Big Don said:


> To wit, the USPS vs UPS and/or FedEx...



Prime example for cherry picking.
The post office does not get to pick and choose where they deliver to, UPS and Fed-Ex do it all the time. 
So the private sector gets to skim the gravy, USPS is stuck with the lumps.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2013)

Carol said:


> How about cleaning up the highways?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2



There might be a few people who volunteer to do that in a free society.  LOL


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2013)

granfire said:


> Prime example for cherry picking.
> The post office does not get to pick and choose where they deliver to, UPS and Fed-Ex do it all the time.
> So the private sector gets to skim the gravy, USPS is stuck with the lumps.



Unless you have multiple, specialized companies, that each skim a portion of the market.  If they can't compete, another company provides the service.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Funny there is a small apartment complex that is gated and has private armed police in my jurisdiction.  They had a double shooting and running gun battle last night aabout  50 yards from 3 private armed guards.  The guards ran out of the community and called 911 and refused to go back in until we showed up.



Years ago, I had a student from the South Side of Chicago.  He told me that the cops wouldn't even come into his neighborhood because they were afraid of getting shot at from the tops of buildings.  The difference between this case and the one that you brought up is that the company that refuses to do it's job can be replaced through competition.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 29, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Years ago, I had a student from the South Side of Chicago.  He told me that the cops wouldn't even come into his neighborhood because they were afraid of getting shot at from the tops of buildings.  The difference between this case and the one that you brought up is that the company that refuses to do it's job can be replaced through competition.


If thats even true which I doubt because I hear that same story about every major city in the US Cops are affraid to go into my neighborhood because its so dangerous, How many security guards do you think would go into that same south side neighborhood?

The difference is mindset.  A security guard takes a job for a pay check because he needs a job, a police officer takes a job because they want to help their community.  3 armed guards ran away (ran on foot as fast as they could didnt even take their cars) because they dont care about that community its just a security job.  1 armed cop (me) and a trainee (who had no choice he was just along for the ride) drove right into the mix and started rendering aid to one victim because its not just a job to me.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2013)

granfire said:


> 'The Price Tag' will be revealed, no doubt when somebody complains about the cherry picked laws the rent-a-cops enforce. the 'non-violent' ones, the ones they didn't know they wanted enforced.
> Or the city gets tired of housing their crooks and sends them the bill.
> 200k is not a whole lot when you toss more than 10 fellows in the brick.
> 
> ...



On the whole, the private system we see here is definitely propped up by the public system.  However, that doesn't need to be the case.  It is completely possible for private agencies to band together to run their own jails.  They could even contract with companies that run private courts of law.  All of this is going to vastly reduce the number of laws that people want enforced.

There are a number of reasons for this.

1.  Certain laws are expensive to enforce and they don't really contribute much in terms of public safety.  
2.  Certain laws that are currently enforced are too expensive to enforce, but could be cheaper if they were taken care of in a different way.  Speeding, for example, could easily be dealt with if all roads were private.  No cops involved.
3.  Certain laws are not just too expensive to enforce, they have too much liability overhead for the private police force to ever want to contract to do that.

All of this points to the fact that our current system is inherently socialist.  People can decide they don't like something and then use government to enforce that restriction, but the reality is that the actual price of enforcement isn't being paid by the citizens.  They are spending other people's money to get what they want in their communities.  In a private system, people only pay for what they want protected in their communities.  No more, no less.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> If thats even true which I doubt because I hear that same story about every major city in the US Cops are affraid to go into my neighborhood because its so dangerous, How many security guards do you think would go into that same south side neighborhood?
> 
> The difference is mindset.  A security guard takes a job for a pay check because he needs a job, a police officer takes a job because they want to help their community.  3 armed guards ran away (ran on foot as fast as they could didnt even take their cars) because they dont care about that community its just a security job.  1 armed cop (me) and a trainee (who had no choice he was just along for the ride) drove right into the mix and started rendering aid to one victim because its not just a job to me.



Believe it or not, it's good information for a community and a company to have it's employees quit when the going get's tough.  It means that the company needs to make a new contract or train it's employees better to face what they will face.  This kind of feedback is largely absent from government monopolies because so much of the training is agenda driven from places far away from where the action is.  

The mindset part is not going to be a problem when security companies get started in local communities and people see their jobs as an important part of the community.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 29, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> On the whole, the private system we see here is definitely propped up by the public system.  However, that doesn't need to be the case.  It is completely possible for private agencies to band together to run their own jails.  They could even contract with companies that run private courts of law.


So get rid of the constitution then since the judicial system is specifically spelled out as a power of the Govt 



> 2.  Certain laws that are currently enforced are too expensive to enforce, but could be cheaper if they were taken care of in a different way.  Speeding, for example, could easily be dealt with if all roads were private.  No cops involved.


How is enforcing speeding laws expensive?  and how would private roads and no cops slow people down?


> 3.  Certain laws are not just too expensive to enforce, they have too much liability overhead for the private police force to ever want to contract to do that.


So screw the will of the people that wanted these laws in the first place? Rape is a very expensive law to enforce between medical exams DNA testing and prosecution so we should just stop enforcing that one right?


> All of this points to the fact that our current system is inherently socialist.  People can decide they don't like something and then use government to enforce that restriction, but the reality is that the actual price of enforcement isn't being paid by the citizens.  They are spending other people's money to get what they want in their communities.  In a private system, people only pay for what they want protected in their communities.  No more, no less.



Its also the way the Constitution was set up.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 29, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Believe it or not, it's good information for a community and a company to have it's employees quit when the going get's tough.  It means that the company needs to make a new contract or train it's employees better to face what they will face.  This kind of feedback is largely absent from government monopolies because so much of the training is agenda driven from places far away from where the action is.


Oh so in your world its perfectly ok for the guards to run away when the crap hits the fan as Gran said because that means they can renegotiate the contracts to charge more money. In the mean time people are having an shoot out in the street.  Cops cant strike, they cant not respond to calls for emergencies.  Some jobs just dont get to walk away when crap gets hard.


> The mindset part is not going to be a problem when security companies get started in local communities and people see their jobs as an important part of the community.


Id love to see the relationship between a community and its securty force every time they run away and then demand more money to act.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Oh so in your world its perfectly ok for the guards to run away when the crap hits the fan as Gran said because that means they can renegotiate the contracts to charge more money. In the mean time people are having an shoot out in the street.  Cops cant strike, they cant not respond to calls for emergencies.  Some jobs just dont get to walk away when crap gets hard.
> 
> Id love to see the relationship between a community and its securty force every time they run away and then demand more money to act.



If the community is so messed up that they can't get a security company to contract with them or stay in there, the community itself needs to do some soul searching and figure out how to change that.  This is one of things that is missing from our socialized system now.  Ghettos have absolutely no incentive to change.  The people can be completely dysfunctional and the government will support them on every level.  In a privatized system, a two way relationship is built based on the communication between the company and the conditions of the community.  These are the basic market signals that are absent because of the socialized system.

The thing that MUST be remembered is that our communities didn't just get the way they did in a vacuum.  They are a product of generations of socialism.  The violence and dysfunction we see now is a product of the generational removal of the market signals that tell people to change.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So get rid of the constitution then since the judicial system is specifically spelled out as a power of the Govt.



I don't have to get rid of the Constitution.  The government is doing that already.  The Judicial System is pretty much a rubber stamp plea bargain machine.  Justice be damned.  Private courts would only have to figure out how to actually try cases on evidence to be better that what we have now.




ballen0351 said:


> How is enforcing speeding laws expensive?  and how would private roads and no cops slow people down?



You would sign a contract with a private road and if you violated the terms of the contract, you would not be allowed to traverse that road.  All kinds of monitoring equipment could be employed to monitor this voluntary contract.  You could monitor this all electronically.  And if you don't like it, you could find some other company to contract with.



ballen0351 said:


> So screw the will of the people that wanted these laws in the first place? Rape is a very expensive law to enforce between medical exams DNA testing and prosecution so we should just stop enforcing that one right?



No doubt people would pay to investigate and bring rapists to justice.  However, if they don't have to pay for all of the other stupid laws on the books that wouldn't exist in a free market, this would actually be far cheaper than it is now.  It would also be far cheaper because companies would specialize in this service and would compete for your money.



ballen0351 said:


> Its also the way the Constitution was set up.



This may come as a surprise, but even the Founding Fathers had significant doubts about the Constitution.  I don't think we need to think of it as the perfect system.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 29, 2013)

By the way do you know what the guards response was after we calmed down the community.  They locked it down.  No one was allowed on the property that didn't live there.  So if you mom wanted to come over for dinner she wasn't allowed you boy friend was coming over not allowed.  If you did live in the community your vehicle and person was searched prior to entering.  So they threw out your 4th amendment rights because they are private security on private property there was nothing I could do.  If you lived there you were not allowed outside at all so no going out front of your building to smoke a cigarette or chat with neighbors.

Yeah that's the world  I want


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> By the way do you know what the guards response was after we calmed down the community.  They locked it down.  No one was allowed on the property that didn't live there.  So if you mom wanted to come over for dinner she wasn't allowed you boy friend was coming over not allowed.  If you did live in the community your vehicle and person was searched prior to entering.  So they threw out your 4th amendment rights because they are private security on private property there was nothing I could do.  If you lived there you were not allowed outside at all so no going out front of your building to smoke a cigarette or chat with neighbors.
> 
> Yeah that's the world  I want



If the residents of the community don't like it, they can fire the company and hire another.  If the residents don't like the cops...screw them.

That's the socialized world we currently live in.


----------



## Carol (Oct 29, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> There might be a few people who volunteer to do that in a free society.  LOL



That was only half our crew, and one of two events in the state.   The other event further north was well attended as well.  It was a blast to do...looking forward to the next event.  Even though dayglo orange is so not my color


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 29, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> If the residents of the community don't like it, they can fire the company and hire another.  If the residents don't like the cops...screw them.
> 
> That's the socialized world we currently live in.


The residents that don't like the cops can file lawsuits and get the officer fired or even sent to jail.  You have no rights on private property with private security.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 29, 2013)

"I ,do solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of (Insert your State here) against all enemies, foreign and domestic;"


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> The residents that don't like the cops can file lawsuits and get the officer fired or even sent to jail.  You have no rights on private property with private security.



The residents that don't like cops can file lawsuits against individual cops and perhaps get something done, but against the police force themselves?  It a private company, you can get results immediately if you cancel your contract with your private police.  There is no need to get lawyer or anything fancy.  You just fulfill your obligation and find someone new.

Your second point about not having rights on private property makes no sense at all to me.  Of course you have rights on private property.  In fact, you would have more rights of redress with private security than you would against socialized cops.  If the private security home invaded the wrong house because they thought you might be doing X and were wrong, they could be held responsible for this action.  If someone got hurt, the private company would likely get sued out of business.  

All of this would force a higher standard of evidence, would force a real customer service attitude among the police, and would act as a check against corruption...because now the cops are not the products of a socialized system.  They need to conform to the market reality and read the market signs or go out of business.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2013)

Tgace said:


> "I ,do solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of (Insert your State here) against all enemies, foreign and domestic;"



Why aren't you heading to DC?  There are plenty of threats to Constitution there!

Ok, seriously, any private company could have their members swear that. Except that once they swore that and promised it in their contractual service, they would be immediately held accountable for violating that oath.  They would be held accountable through the market if they were "perceived" to violate that oath.  

It's a higher level of accountability.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 29, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Your second point about not having rights on private property makes no sense at all to me.  Of course you have rights on private property.  In fact, you would have more rights of redress with private security than you would against socialized cops.  If the private security home invaded the wrong house because they thought you might be doing X and were wrong, they could be held responsible for this action.  If someone got hurt, the private company would likely get sued out of business.


Your wrong.  When your on private property the property owners can do whatever they want.  For example the apartment complex I was talking about in my example.  They set up a road block and refused entry to everyone that didnt have an ID issued from the rental office.  That included people that may actually live there but were not on the rental agreement.  That includes your friends and family.  I as a police officer cant do that.  People that did live there as they entered the property had their cars and pockets searched.  I as a police officer cant do that.  People inside the neighborhood that live there were not allowed outside their apartments they were ordered to go inside.  I as a police officer cant do that.  I know for a fact these guards go into and search peoples apartments all the time with out warrants of permission.  I as a police officer cant do that.  They can ban people from the property permanently with out a reason.  I as a police officer was able to do that until we were sued and the city lost NOW I as a police officer cannot do that.  See a pattern here.  I have to follow the rules of the Constitution.  They dont apply to private property.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 29, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Why aren't you heading to DC?  There are plenty of threats to Constitution there!
> 
> Ok, seriously, any private company could have their members swear that. Except that once they swore that and promised it in their contractual service, they would be immediately held accountable for violating that oath.  They would be held accountable through the market if they were "perceived" to violate that oath.
> 
> It's a higher level of accountability.


Except you dont want them to swear to that.  You dont want them to mess around with laws that you dont like.  Laws that were passed using a process spelled out in the constitution.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Your wrong.  When your on private property the property owners can do whatever they want.  For example the apartment complex I was talking about in my example.  They set up a road block and refused entry to everyone that didnt have an ID issued from the rental office.  That included people that may actually live there but were not on the rental agreement.  That includes your friends and family.  I as a police officer cant do that.  People that did live there as they entered the property had their cars and pockets searched.  I as a police officer cant do that.  People inside the neighborhood that live there were not allowed outside their apartments they were ordered to go inside.  I as a police officer cant do that.  I know for a fact these guards go into and search peoples apartments all the time with out warrants of permission.  I as a police officer cant do that.  They can ban people from the property permanently with out a reason.  I as a police officer was able to do that until we were sued and the city lost NOW I as a police officer cannot do that.  See a pattern here.  I have to follow the rules of the Constitution.  They dont apply to private property.



That company can be sued by any of those residents for violating the terms of their contract.  The property owner can be sued for allowing this company to violate the terms of the contract.  If that company violated the residents private property, it can be sued.  There is still more accountability here than would be the case with any governmental monopoly.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Except you dont want them to swear to that.  You dont want them to mess around with laws that you dont like.  Laws that were passed using a process spelled out in the constitution.



It doesn't matter what I want.  It matters what the customer wants.  That is the whole point of this thread.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 29, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> It doesn't matter what I want.  It matters what the customer wants.  That is the whole point of this thread.



And other then you, criminals and a few people with an axe to grind most people are OK with the way things work now


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> And other then you, criminals and a few people with an axe to grind most people are OK with the way things work now



Is this an argument? Lol!


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 29, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Is this an argument? Lol!



No its a fact.   You said it only mattered what the people want.  Well most people want things how they are now


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> No its a fact.   You said it only mattered what the people want.  Well most people want things how they are now



I don't think you know that for a fact.

At any rate, so what. People in socialist countries seem to love their crappy socialized medicine. Lol

In fact, the irony here is that any argument made against socialized medicine can be made in principle against socialized policing. Also, any argument made for socialized policing could be made in principle for socialized medicine.

So funny....


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 29, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I don't think you know that for a fact.
> 
> At any rate, so what. People in socialist countries seem to love their crappy socialized medicine. Lol
> 
> ...


So it only matters what the people want if they want what you want? People couldnt possibly see the benefits of not having a for profit police force thats only goal is higher profit margins.  

Difference between socialized medicine vs Policing is we don't have national police forces.  State LVL medical plans are Constitutional, Federal run health care is not.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So it only matters what the people want if they want what you want? People couldnt possibly see the benefits of not having a for profit police force thats only goal is higher profit margins.
> 
> Difference between socialized medicine vs Policing is we don't have national police forces.  State LVL medical plans are Constitutional, Federal run health care is not.



Did you know we used to have totally private health care and policing in this country? What happened?

The point of this thread is to make arguments for or against government monopolies, whether in policing or anything. By appealing to the people, you've committed a logical fallacy. By appealing to the Constitution, you've committed another fallacy. These aren't arguments.

Oh, and btw, we have a few federalized alphabet soup police forces that I can think of. It's only a matter of time before all cops get federalized...aka completely socialized.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 29, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> The point of this thread is to make arguments for or against government monopolies, whether in policing or anything. By appealing to the people, you've committed a logical fallacy. By appealing to the Constitution, you've committed another fallacy. These aren't arguments.


They are arguments they are arguments against why private police forces wont work.  They are arguments why we cant have private courts and judges


> Oh, and btw, we have a few federalized alphabet soup police forces that I can think of. It's only a matter of time before all cops get federalized...aka completely socialized.


Fed police forces have limited jurisdictions and specific ob descriptions.  They do not answer 911 calls, or preform normal police functions


----------



## Tgace (Oct 29, 2013)

An expert in LE matters now too eh?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> They are arguments they are arguments against why private police forces wont work.  They are arguments why we cant have private courts and judges.



No, they are fallacies. 

In every sector where the Free Market is allowed to flourish it out performs the government sector. This is because the Free Market reflects what people actually want. The reason this occurs is because the free market is nothing but the voluntary exchange of goods and services. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that a private police force will out perform it's public counter part. The article I posted is evidence supporting that case. The arguments regarding private property, contracts and economics support that case. 

You are left with fallacies at the end of the discussion in the exact same way that people who argue for universal health care are left with fallacies. The evidence and supporting arguments completely destroy both position despite the Constitution says or what people may or may not appear to vote for.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2013)

Tgace said:


> An expert in LE matters now too eh?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2



If a phenomenon repeats itself with 100% regularity when allowed to occur! does it take an expert to predict that it would occur in other areas?


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 29, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> No, they are fallacies.
> 
> In every sector where the Free Market is allowed to flourish it out performs the government sector. This is because the Free Market reflects what people actually want. The reason this occurs is because the free market is nothing but the voluntary exchange of goods and services. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that a private police force will out perform it's public counter part. The article I posted is evidence supporting that case. The arguments regarding private property, contracts and economics support that case.
> 
> You are left with fallacies at the end of the discussion in the exact same way that people who argue for universal health care are left with fallacies. The evidence and supporting arguments completely destroy both position despite the Constitution says or what people may or may not appear to vote for.


Except the judicial and executive branches of the Govt are clearly spelled out in the Constitution.  The Constitution gives the Govt a set of tasks.  Making, enforcing, and judging laws is one of the tasks.  There is no free market for judges because the Constitution doesn't allow it.  There is no free market for law enforcement because that's spelled out as a task for the Govt to do.  So your argument to replace them is impossible without totally changing our entire form of Govt. 
We can have free market house buiding or lettuce production or car manufactures because they are not tasks the Constitution says the Govt is required to do.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Except the judicial and executive branches of the Govt are clearly spelled out in the Constitution.  The Constitution gives the Govt a set of tasks.  Making, enforcing, and judging laws is one of the tasks.  There is no free market for judges because the Constitution doesn't allow it.  There is no free market for law enforcement because that's spelled out as a task for the Govt to do.  So your argument to replace them is impossible without totally changing our entire form of Govt.
> We can have free market house buiding or lettuce production or car manufactures because they are not tasks the Constitution says the Govt is required to do.



Does the Constitution say that the government is supposed to provide law enforcement as a service?


----------



## granfire (Oct 30, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Does the Constitution say that the government is supposed to provide law enforcement as a service?



why don't you point out where the executive branch is excluded in the constitution.
I am pretty sure it is mentioned in a few places how they operate together, yet separate to provide some means of checks and balances.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 30, 2013)

granfire said:


> why don't you point out where the executive branch is excluded in the constitution.
> I am pretty sure it is mentioned in a few places how they operate together, yet separate to provide some means of checks and balances.


Why don't you point out where the Constitution says Post Offices have to exist, and/or deserve a monopoly...
[h=3]Section 8[/h]1:  The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


7:  To establish Post Offices and post Roads;


----------



## Tgace (Oct 30, 2013)

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Police+Power

*Police Power*



> The authority conferred upon the states by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and which the states delegate to their political subdivisions to enact measures to preserve and protect the safety, health, Welfare, and morals of the community.





> Police power does not specifically refer to the right of state and local government to create police forces, although the police power does include that right.


----------



## granfire (Oct 30, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Why don't you point out where the Constitution says Post Offices have to exist, and/or deserve a monopoly...
> *Section 8*
> 
> 1:  The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> ...



LOL I did not say that the post office is a constitutional thing, I said that by it's mandate it cannot refuse to deliver to places the private competitors opt to avoid. Big difference.
Otherwise the private services would not exist. Just an example how the cherry picking works, leaving the crumbs and lumps for the public services, while the private sector reaps the profits. Smart, eh?


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 30, 2013)

Tgace said:


> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Police+Power
> 
> *Police Power*



That's what I thought. Also, this doesn't imply that police necessarily be a public service. It could, theoretically, be privatized.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 30, 2013)

granfire said:


> LOL I did not say that the post office is a constitutional thing, I said that by it's mandate it cannot refuse to deliver to places the private competitors opt to avoid. Big difference.
> Otherwise the private services would not exist. Just an example how the cherry picking works, leaving the crumbs and lumps for the public services, while the private sector reaps the profits. Smart, eh?



I'm pretty sure mail would get delivered. It just might be more expensive.

That said, there should be some places where mail, or any service, should not be provided and paid for. The Free Market will determine that through assessment of price and risk.


----------



## granfire (Oct 30, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I'm pretty sure mail would get delivered. It just might be more expensive.
> 
> That said, there should be some places where mail, or any service, should not be provided and paid for. The Free Market will determine that through assessment of price and risk.



pretty sure is no guarantee.

I am pretty sure FedEx and UPS do not deliver parcels everywhere, and they are not cheap by any means!


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 30, 2013)

granfire said:


> pretty sure is no guarantee.
> 
> I am pretty sure FedEx and UPS do not deliver parcels everywhere, and they are not cheap by any means!



There is no guarentee that the government will deliver your mail either. Lol! 

How many parcels have you lost to the Postal Gods over the years?


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 30, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> There is no guarentee that the government will deliver your mail either. Lol!
> 
> How many parcels have you lost to the Postal Gods over the years?



Loosing something is alot different then refusing to deliver in that area.  UPS wont deliver to my area where I live because there is not enough houses here.  Fed Ex and USPS are the only games in town


----------



## granfire (Oct 30, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> How many parcels have you lost to the Postal Gods over the years?




Collectively?
1 letter.

However, as ballen said, that is a far cry from not getting the service! 
You know: Private, for profit model....

But to get back to your cop model....driving around in a fancy car with a big dog in the back seat to deter would-be crooks is a far cry from actually facing bad guys. 

Sure, there might be room for both, why not, but praising it as the next best thing is rather short sighted. I am no cop, by any means (I don't like people enough to take that job) but it seems to me there is a lot more to policing a community than what a private crew can/will do. (so they got their own academy...Academy Sports and Outdoors?)


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 30, 2013)

granfire said:


> Collectively?
> 1 letter.
> 
> However, as ballen said, that is a far cry from not getting the service!
> ...



Thats the whole reason right now private police can have a positive impact on a community because they know when the crap hits the fan or when there is real work to be done they jut call the real police and we mop up the mess.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Loosing something is alot different then refusing to deliver in that area.  UPS wont deliver to my area where I live because there is not enough houses here.  Fed Ex and USPS are the only games in town



I think something that is completely under rated in people's minds is the ability of the Free Market to allocate where resources should go. If private business won't provide service, there is a valid reason that is usually measured in money. 

One thing the government does when it get's involved is that it interferes with the market signals. Their subsidies make something that isn't economical possible and this is one way the government wastes money. If the government never stepped in, a more creative solution could be found. When the government does step in, it prevents more creative and more efficient solutions.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Thats the whole reason right now private police can have a positive impact on a community because they know when the crap hits the fan or when there is real work to be done they jut call the real police and we mop up the mess.



Or, it simply might not be legal for them to deal with certain issues. The regulatory framework hemming in private security contractors is immense. Government always does this to hinder it's competition.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 30, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I think something that is completely under rated in people's minds is the ability of the Free Market to allocate where resources should go. If private business won't provide service, there is a valid reason that is usually measured in money.


True I dont begrudge UPS, We dont have alot of services where I live.  No food delivery, certain cable and internet providers, trash pick up, ect.  Its all about money but there are reasons why all areas needed postal service regardless of profit margins.  Civic duty like voting, jury duty, and taxes come to mind.


> One thing the government does when it get's involved is that it interferes with the market signals. Their subsidies make something that isn't economical possible and this is one way the government wastes money. If the government never stepped in, a more creative solution could be found. When the government does step in, it prevents more creative and more efficient solutions.


Again you seem to forget or Ignore some things are required by law for the Govt to do. Postal service, military, judges, ect That pesky Constitution again


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 30, 2013)

granfire said:


> Collectively?
> 1 letter.
> 
> However, as ballen said, that is a far cry from not getting the service!
> ...



When it comes to the question of whether or not something is efficient, cheap, and ultimately immediately accountable, the free market wins. Sure, the cops as the stand now provide a service, but not many people consider the real price.

Which goes back to resource allocation.

When the government passes laws, often the real price of those laws and the ultimate feasibility of enforcing them isn't known. Government police are then saddled with all kinds of laws that are effectively unenforceable. In a Free Market, private police would enforce the things that were economical, because people would pay for them directly. For things that are not economical, like speeding or drug use, creative solutions will appear.

This question of resource allocation and the lack of the price mechanism will always hinder socialized services from providing the best quality services.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 30, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> When it comes to the question of whether or not something is efficient, cheap, and ultimately immediately accountable, the free market wins. Sure, the cops as the stand now provide a service, but not many people consider the real price.
> 
> Which goes back to resource allocation.
> 
> ...


And again it goes back to the Constitution Which give Congress the power to make laws.  Yes even laws we dont want or like or that will not make a profit.  The Constitution also provides a means of enforcement of those laws and that task is given to the executive branch.  AND yes even These laws that cost too much are still required to be enforced


----------



## Tgace (Oct 30, 2013)

Since this free market society will also be using unicorn farts for power I can hardly wait to get started.....

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 30, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Since this free market society will also be using unicorn farts for power I can hardly wait to get started.....
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2



Actually, I think it will be using the fossilized remains of algae and other biological matter...until a cheaper and more effective solution comes along....aka unicorn farts. Lol.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> And again it goes back to the Constitution Which give Congress the power to make laws.  Yes even laws we dont want or like or that will not make a profit.  The Constitution also provides a means of enforcement of those laws and that task is given to the executive branch.  AND yes even These laws that cost too much are still required to be enforced



This whole scenario is one giant hippy dippy "what if" discussion. This may or may not apply to a lot of the topics I like to talk about.

That said, governments come and governments go. There will even come a time when the Constitution is no more. Who knows what the future will be like when that happens? At the very least, discussions like this hold the imagination open.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> True I dont begrudge UPS, We dont have alot of services where I live.  No food delivery, certain cable and internet providers, trash pick up, ect.  Its all about money but there are reasons why all areas needed postal service regardless of profit margins.  Civic duty like voting, jury duty, and taxes come to mind.
> 
> Again you seem to forget or Ignore some things are required by law for the Govt to do. Postal service, military, judges, ect That pesky Constitution again


The Constitution says Congress MAY establish post offices, not that it MUST...


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 30, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> This whole scenario is one giant hippy dippy "what if" discussion. This may or may not apply to a lot of the topics I like to talk about.
> 
> That said, governments come and governments go. There will even come a time when the Constitution is no more. Who knows what the future will be like when that happens? At the very least, discussions like this hold the imagination open.



OHHHH so we are talking what if fairy tails.  See I didnt know that.  Well in that case how about everyone just behave and we wont need cops at all.  Problem solved end of discussion


----------



## granfire (Oct 30, 2013)

Big Don said:


> The Constitution says Congress MAY establish post offices, not that it MUST...



the job description of the post office says it must deliver the mail, no cherry picking.


----------



## granfire (Oct 30, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> When it comes to the question of whether or not something is efficient, cheap, and ultimately immediately accountable, the free market wins. Sure, the cops as the stand now provide a service, but not many people consider the real price.
> 
> Which goes back to resource allocation.
> 
> ...





Makalakumu said:


> This whole scenario is one giant hippy dippy "what if" discussion. This may or may not apply to a lot of the topics I like to talk about.
> 
> That said, governments come and governments go. There will even come a time when the Constitution is no more. Who knows what the future will be like when that happens? At the very least, discussions like this hold the imagination open.




If the free market was so sufficient we would not have police department largely independent of the monetary nobilities of the locality.

There are things that don't make profit, but still need to be enforced.

If the hippie dippie isn't what you want to talk about, why do you?


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 30, 2013)

Big Don said:


> The Constitution says Congress MAY establish post offices, not that it MUST...



AND?  last I checked MAY= within its right to do so
So Congress is allowed to and has made the postal service.  This power has been confirmed several times in the Supreme Court over the last few hundred years


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 31, 2013)

granfire said:


> If the free market was so sufficient we would not have police department largely independent of the monetary nobilities of the locality.
> 
> There are things that don't make profit, but still need to be enforced.
> 
> If the hippie dippie isn't what you want to talk about, why do you?



I was attempting self deprecation? Fail.

Have you ever considered that perhaps the weight of history is the main driver of historical trends? Not logic, reason or evidence?


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 18, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Years ago, I had a student from the South Side of Chicago.  He told me that the cops wouldn't even come into his neighborhood because they were afraid of getting shot at from the tops of buildings.  The difference between this case and the one that you brought up is that the company that refuses to do it's job can be replaced through competition.



In matters of the policing the public good, is a competitive free market the best option? Well, America has had history with private policing and fire protection. A good book on the topic is Michael Feldberg's Turbulent Era. Private police ended up becoming militias or labor union busters, serving at the whim of those who could afford to pay. So, if the cops are directly up for sale, where does that put the fate of the common good? Fire protection was similar. There were documented cases of fire companies in shootouts over who had the right to put out a fire and collect the fee. The buildings, as you can guess, burned down. Philadelphia formed a municipal fire service. New York ended the competition between the "city police" and "metropolitan police" to the chagrin of political machines. Pinkerton's private army was forced to change direction after the murder of numerous union leaders and shooting strikers. 

You know, public and private endeavors both have a place. This notion that competition is inherently superior to public administration of a service is just as asinine as the communist paradigm that forbade private markets.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 18, 2013)

UPS made money while in competition with a competitor, the US Postal Service, which has a monopoly on first class mail, who lost, nearly SIXTEEN BILLION DOLLARS.
Fed Ex managed to earn money while in competition with UPS and the US Postal Service.
Even in 1997, when President Clinton refused to intervene in the Teamsters' strike against UPS, when just 2 years earlier he implored ML Baseball players not to strike for "The good of the country" UPS earned money, and USPS LOST BILLIONS.
Even with an unfair advantage, government fails in business. How wonderful the Democrats gave one sixth of the US Economy to government...


----------



## granfire (Dec 19, 2013)

Big Don said:


> UPS made money while in competition with a competitor, the US Postal Service, which has a monopoly on first class mail, who lost, nearly SIXTEEN BILLION DOLLARS.
> Fed Ex managed to earn money while in competition with UPS and the US Postal Service.
> Even in 1997, when President Clinton refused to intervene in the Teamsters' strike against UPS, when just 2 years earlier he implored ML Baseball players not to strike for "The good of the country" UPS earned money, and USPS LOST BILLIONS.
> Even with an unfair advantage, government fails in business. How wonderful the Democrats gave one sixth of the US Economy to government...



yeah, you forget that the postal service is mandated to serve where Fed-Ex and UPS can cherry pick, as well as having to pay a huge chunk of money up front, on guestimates with no refund.

Comparing apples to oranges again, aren't we.

And as you noted, there is competition for mail delivery, so the teamsters can strike all they want, the mail will be delivered, one way or another. 

And there is no 'monopoly' on first class mail when you can overnight stuff with the private carriers...


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> In matters of the policing the public good, is a competitive free market the best option? Well, America has had history with private policing and fire protection. A good book on the topic is Michael Feldberg's Turbulent Era. Private police ended up becoming militias or labor union busters, serving at the whim of those who could afford to pay. So, if the cops are directly up for sale, where does that put the fate of the common good? Fire protection was similar. There were documented cases of fire companies in shootouts over who had the right to put out a fire and collect the fee. The buildings, as you can guess, burned down. Philadelphia formed a municipal fire service. New York ended the competition between the "city police" and "metropolitan police" to the chagrin of political machines. Pinkerton's private army was forced to change direction after the murder of numerous union leaders and shooting strikers.
> 
> You know, public and private endeavors both have a place. This notion that competition is inherently superior to public administration of a service is just as asinine as the communist paradigm that forbade private markets.



There is a difference in scale that I think you are missing. There will always be corruption, even in a free market, but that corruption is local and it does not become institutional without government help. In areas where corruption develops, it's still small enough for local people to actually do something. Compare this to what happens when large governments go corrupt. How much do you think you can really do against a national police force that has unlimited authority and the ability to know the intimate details of your life? You can't even run without them knowing. At least when corruption is localized and limited by the free market, you can move.

So, the free market still wins here.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 19, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> There is a difference in scale that I think you are missing. There will always be corruption, even in a free market, but that corruption is local and it does not become institutional without government help. In areas where corruption develops, it's still small enough for local people to actually do something. Compare this to what happens when large governments go corrupt. How much do you think you can really do against a national police force that has unlimited authority and the ability to know the intimate details of your life? You can't even run without them knowing. At least when corruption is localized and limited by the free market, you can move.
> 
> So, the free market still wins here.


Good thing we don't have national police force then huh


----------



## WaterGal (Dec 19, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Seriously though, what do you all think of this?  I just had a discussion with a forum member about how this arrangement would never work and that it would basically suck and probably be the end of the world.  Well?



Who, exactly, is paying these guys?  Is it an equal amount per household, or based on how much tax you pay?  If the former, what if someone can't afford to pay?  Do they still get police protection?  And if it's the latter.... it seems to me that these (presumably) poorly paid security officers would be basically the private police force of the richest members of town (since if those guys get arrested, the town can't pay them and won't renew their contract), which would make me extremely uncomfortable.

Also.... if the town isn't paying anything to the county law enforcement, how are they still getting services from the county jail or court?  It doesn't seem fair that they get that for free when other towns have to pay.


----------



## WaterGal (Dec 19, 2013)

granfire said:


> yeah, you forget that the postal service is mandated to serve where Fed-Ex and UPS can cherry pick



Right, if UPS was required by law to airlift mail to snow-bound towns in Alaska for 46 cents I don't think they'd be making as much money.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Good thing we don't have national police force then huh



LOL.  Yet.

And you really know how to miss the point.  

#truthfumble


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2013)

WaterGal said:


> Who, exactly, is paying these guys?  Is it an equal amount per household, or based on how much tax you pay?  If the former, what if someone can't afford to pay?  Do they still get police protection?  And if it's the latter.... it seems to me that these (presumably) poorly paid security officers would be basically the private police force of the richest members of town (since if those guys get arrested, the town can't pay them and won't renew their contract), which would make me extremely uncomfortable.
> 
> Also.... if the town isn't paying anything to the county law enforcement, how are they still getting services from the county jail or court?  It doesn't seem fair that they get that for free when other towns have to pay.



People pay for the security they need, not the kind that is mandated by fiat.  Other arrangements to provide security in cheaper and more efficient ways will appear.  Laws that are too expensive to enforce and do not result in any economical change in public safety will be ignored.  Everyone will be able to pay for some kind of security and there will be lots of avenues to get it.  

The one size fits all government approach cannot out compete the voluntary, local, grassroots, needs-based approach.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 19, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> LOL.  Yet.
> 
> And you really know how to miss the point.
> 
> #truthfumble


Newsflash your not on twitter 

And your crying about corrupt national police forces well we don't have one of those so quit crying


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Newsflash your not on twitter
> 
> And your crying about corrupt national police forces well we don't have one of those so quit crying



:seppuku:

http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...7-reids-push-to-nationalize-police-unions.htm



> In an effort to please union backers ahead of the 2010 midterm elections, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is quietly trying to nationalize rules governing every police, fire and first responder union in the nation.
> Through the benignly named Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act (H.R.413), Reid wants all first responders represented by collective bargaining rules emanating from Washington D.C. Naturally this legislation is being pushed as a matter of "national security."
> Democrats' union supporters will greatly benefit from nationalized rules for police and fire unions. This plan would replace with federal rules state laws on collective bargaining between state and local governments and their first responder unions and would greatly empower unions to dictate pay scales and benefits on a national level.
> While a boon to unions, this law would seriously damage our federalist system by taking away a large measure of local control over police and firefighters unions and lead to higher costs to local governments and taxpayers, costs that neither will be able to affect at the ballot box.



It's only a matter of time.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 19, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> :seppuku:
> 
> http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...7-reids-push-to-nationalize-police-unions.htm


That's not a national police force.  That just deals with salary and benefits.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> That's not a national police force.  That just deals with salary and benefits.



It's another step toward a nationalized force.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Federal_Protective_Service


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 19, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> It's another step toward a nationalized force.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Federal_Protective_Service



Again not a national police force.  Its a security guards for federal government building and court houses.  They havebeen around since 1971 . That's one slow step


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Again not a national police force.  Its a security guards for federal government building and court houses.  They havebeen around since 1971 . That's one slow step



http://www.westernjournalism.com/obamas-civilian-national-security-force-by-executive-order/



> On July 2nd, 2008, Obama delivered a speech in Boulder, Colorado in which he promised the creation and establishment of a &#8220;Civilian National Security Force.&#8221; He further promised it would be &#8220;just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded as the US Military.&#8221;


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 19, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> There is a difference in scale that I think you are missing. There will always be corruption, even in a free market, but that corruption is local and it does not become institutional without government help. In areas where corruption develops, it's still small enough for local people to actually do something. Compare this to what happens when large governments go corrupt. How much do you think you can really do against a national police force that has unlimited authority and the ability to know the intimate details of your life? You can't even run without them knowing. At least when corruption is localized and limited by the free market, you can move.
> 
> So, the free market still wins here.



Ok. Lets outsource the military and save big.


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 19, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> Ok. Lets outsource the military and save big.



You could not be more wrong. All politics is local. Oppression can and is carried out locally, and in many was worse when done by private entities. Alas you ignored the book I cited. In the USA there are layers of government -- federal, state and local -- and in each different branches that provide checks and balances. Civics 101, son.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> Ok. Lets outsource the military and save big.



Not outsource.  Home grown, free market protection.  Make it part of what a community does together.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> You could not be more wrong. All politics is local. Oppression can and is carried out locally, and in many was worse when done by private entities. Alas you ignored the book I cited. In the USA there are layers of government -- federal, state and local -- and in each different branches that provide checks and balances. Civics 101, son.



Not ignored, it's on my reading list.  That said, I should warn you that there are all kinds of misrepresentations and half truths that are told about the Progressive Era in order to justify the growth of the centralized state.  These justifications were all given ex post facto in government school history lessons concocted by the very people who wanted to grow the state...ie Banksters, multinational corporations, political organizations.

Here are a couple of books for you that might dispel some of this propaganda.

From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967, by Dr. David Beito

The Not so Wild Wild West, by Dr. PJ Hill

These two books tell a very different and well sourced version of American History than what is offered in the typical government school text book.  Namely, people were actually capable of making decisions, taking care of each other, and organizing for the common good without government holding their hands.  

That said, this statement that oppression is local and worse when carried out by private entities is patently wrong.  It is so wrong in fact that I wonder if you've ever cracked a history book.  There is NO way the typical Boss Hog type of corruption found in 19th century America can ever compete with the huge centralized oppressive government regimes that terrorized people in the 20th century.  No corporation ever built a gulag.  No business ever made gas chambers for people who didn't like their products or who wanted to compete for them.  This is not local oppression.  In fact, the only thing local about it was the spies that the government employed and the people who came to throw you into prison.  Those people might have been your neighbors.  

So, forgive me if I'd rather deal with Boss Hog instead of the SS or the Stasi when it comes to corruption.


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 19, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Not ignored, it's on my reading list.  That said, I should warn you that there are all kinds of misrepresentations and half truths that are told about the Progressive Era in order to justify the growth of the centralized state.  These justifications were all given ex post facto in government school history lessons concocted by the very people who wanted to grow the state...ie Banksters, multinational corporations, political organizations.
> 
> Here are a couple of books for you that might dispel some of this propaganda.
> 
> ...



Ok, sorry, but you are simple minded. You can only think in the extreme. Nuance and common sense eludes you. I stated once and will state again that history shows that a balance between public and private control offers the best model for a society. In cases of total state control or general laissez-faire systems, the public is put at the mercy of a few. In those settings, for example, one sees gestapo like tactics or reckless Union Carbide accidents rear their heads. Recourse is only found in insurrection, if that is even possible. 

Your thesis that private sector is always better than public is plain dumb. The profit motive (aka greed) does not necessarily orient a person or entity to behave ethically. During the industrialization of America, companies dumped pollutants with blatant disregard, and had workers in unsafe conditions, such as locking doors, which prevented escape during a fire.  We can find all kinds of horrible examples of private sector behavior that resulted in the death or maiming of people. 


Clearly, human nature seems to be the best managed in a check-and-balance type system. So get off your soapbox and get on board the clue train.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2013)

Nearly everything you've stated has been refuted by scholarly research.  Again, I must point to the two sources I posted above.  Most of what you parrot is based on myths that have been propagated about the Progressive Era and the supposed problems with "free market capitalism".  For example, did you know that Upton Sinclair's book, The Jungle, is fiction?  Yet, this book is portrayed as an example of muckraking journalism to millions of High School students.  

Now, on to the meat of what you are saying...



Rumy73 said:


> I stated once and will state again that history shows that a balance between public and private control offers the best model for a society.



History does not show this.  History shows that civilizations rise and fall.  Civilizations start with very little restrictions on human actions and they grow incredibly prosperous.  Then, an entrenched oligarchy develops and they use the power of the State to protect and expand their position.  As the level of central control increases, the level of productive capacity in the society decreases.  Eventually, a tipping point is reached and the power structure crumbles.  This happens because the parasites kill the Golden Goose of the Free Market.  If there ever is a balance between public and private control, it is a transitory moment in time on an arch of ever increasing control.  

The Founding Fathers of the United States realized this pattern in history and attempted to institute a system that would limit this progression by limiting government.  Unfortunately, America's experiment with limited government failed.



Rumy73 said:


> In cases of total state control or general laissez-faire systems, the public is put at the mercy of a few. In those settings, for example, one sees gestapo like tactics or reckless Union Carbide accidents rear their heads. Recourse is only found in insurrection, if that is even possible.



Again, you miss the idea of scale.  No corporation ever had a Gestapo.  No corporation ever created a Stasi.  No robber baron ever created the NKVD.  This doesn't excuse the things that did happen.  It simply points out that the effects were limited to local areas.  So, when it comes to corruption, governments are far worse than the free market.  The free market actually limits corruption by limiting the scope of resources that can be poured into corruption.

Also, I think you better study up on some of those incidents.  You'd be surprised at how much influence the Robber Barons exerted on government to get people to look the other way or to actually use government employees to do their dirty work.  



Rumy73 said:


> Your thesis that private sector is always better than public is plain dumb. The profit motive (aka greed) does not necessarily orient a person or entity to behave ethically. During the industrialization of America, companies dumped pollutants with blatant disregard, and had workers in unsafe conditions, such as locking doors, which prevented escape during a fire. We can find all kinds of horrible examples of private sector behavior that resulted in the death or maiming of people.



Yes, you can find examples of people in the Free Market behaving poorly, but again it's matter of scale.  For example, none of these horrible things even come close to causing the amount of human suffering that the first World War caused.  This is because the Free Market limits the amount of resources that can be gobbled up and shoveled toward policies that cause human suffering.  I bring up the WWI as a counter example because this is occurring in the middle of the Progressive Era, an era with a mythological story that claims that government had to limit human freedom in order to limit human suffering.  At the same time, the the very government who are claiming that they can limit human suffering are causing it on scale that the world has never seen before at any point in history.  That contradiction drives a stake through the heart of the propaganda you were fed in government school.



Rumy73 said:


> Clearly, human nature seems to be the best managed in a check-and-balance type system.



The Free Market has a check and balance system.  It's called competition.  Governments form monopolies.  There is no competition and this is why they get out of control and fail.  This is why all government programs degrade and all services provided soley by the Free Market get better.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2013)

Here is a little history lecture for you by the great Murray Rothbard.  

http://mises.org/media/4495

Why did the Laissez-Faire era end?


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 19, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Nearly everything you've stated has been refuted by scholarly research.  Again, I must point to the two sources I posted above.  Most of what you parrot is based on myths that have been propagated about the Progressive Era and the supposed problems with "free market capitalism".  For example, did you know that Upton Sinclair's book, The Jungle, is fiction?  Yet, this book is portrayed as an example of muckraking journalism to millions of High School students.
> 
> Now, on to the meat of what you are saying...
> 
> ...



You argue in the extreme and cannot handle nuance. Your understanding of the Progressive Era is inaccurate at best. As professional in the field of history, I can assure that the general understanding of the time period separates between positive reform efforts, like child labor laws, and attempts at social control by white anglo-protestants over new immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe, such as through the anti-saloon league. 

Now time to smell the coffee: Governments can and do have competition, it is called voting. If the people do not like policy, they can vote to change it. 

Your example of WWI is inaccurate as well. The scale of destruction was made possible by the cooperation of government and market. Eisenhower famously termed it the military-industrial complex. 

I hope your Taekwondo is better than your sense of history.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> You argue in the extreme and cannot handle nuance. Your understanding of the Progressive Era is inaccurate at best. As professional in the field of history, I can assure that the general understanding of the time period separates between positive reform efforts, like child labor laws, and attempts at social control by white anglo-protestants over new immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe, such as through the anti-saloon league.



You aren't really making an argument here.  This is a fallacy with an assumption spread on top of it.  LOL.

If you are a history professional, I suggest you hit the books.  I've got some more for you if you like... 

https://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=511



> Capitalistic competition is also why "child labor" has all but disappeared, despite unionist claims to the contrary. Young people originally left the farms to work in harsh factory conditions because it was a matter of survival for them and their families. But as workers became better paid&#8212;thanks to capital investment and subsequent productivity improvements&#8212;more and more people could afford to keep their children at home and in school.Union-backed legislation prohibiting child labor came after the decline in child labor had already begun. Moreover, child labor laws have always been protectionist and aimed at depriving young people of the opportunity to work. Since child labor sometimes competes with unionized labor, unions have long sought to use the power of the state to deprive young people of the right to work.
> In the Third World today, the alternative to "child labor" is all too often begging, prostitution, crime, or starvation. Unions absurdly proclaim to be taking the moral high road by advocating protectionist policies that inevitably lead to these consequences.





Rumy73 said:


> Now time to smell the coffee: Governments can and do have competition, it is called voting. If the people do not like policy, they can vote to change it.



That is how it works in theory, but in practice, how it really works is that the major parties are taken over by entrenched oligarchies, they buy off party leaders and get them to agree to not change anything important.  Then, they market themselves as different even though 95% of what they want is exactly the same.  A good example of this is the Bipartisan Consensus on Foreign Policy.  

Politics is pro wrestling.  



Rumy73 said:


> Your example of WWI is inaccurate as well. The scale of destruction was made possible by the cooperation of government and market. Eisenhower famously termed it the military-industrial complex.



This isn't the Free Market.  This is Crony Capitalism...or Corporatism.  Most people conflate these because of the propaganda they've been fed in government schools.  

I'm afraid my example still stands and your thesis has drowned like Grover Norquist's baby.



Rumy73 said:


> I hope your Taekwondo is better than your sense of history.



My TKD sucks, but it's better than your history! LOL.  That's a joke, btw, check my profile, I don't study TKD.


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 19, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> You aren't really making an argument here.  This is a fallacy with an assumption spread on top of it.  LOL.
> 
> If you are a history professional, I suggest you hit the books.  I've got some more for you if you like...
> 
> ...



Ok, it was crony capitalism lol and in the Soviet Union, they did not have communism, they had a police state. Ninja, please.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 19, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> http://www.westernjournalism.com/obamas-civilian-national-security-force-by-executive-order/


2008 huh?  Obama says alot of things none of which has happened so AGAIN not a national police force


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> 2008 huh?  Obama says alot of things none of which has happened so AGAIN not a national police force



Do you understand the word incremental?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> Ok, it was crony capitalism lol and in the Soviet Union, they did not have communism, they had a police state. Ninja, please.



Fascism, Corporatism, and Communism all led to Police States. Free market capitalism led to the greatest expansion of human prosperity that the world has ever known....when elements of it were allowed to flourish by the overlords.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 19, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Do you understand the word incremental?


You understand the words WE DONT HAVE A NATIONAL POLICE FORCE?


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 19, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> You understand the words WE DONT HAVE A NATIONAL POLICE FORCE?



He is a fantasist. Only he knows "real history" and anytime his views are challenged, he inserts "but that does not apply." Save your energy. He can make his claims, but there is not one example of a system where there is no government and the free market handles everything.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> He is a fantasist. Only he knows "real history" and anytime his views are challenged, he inserts "but that does not apply." Save your energy. He can make his claims, but there is not one example of a system where there is no government and the free market handles everything.



Did many societies exist that we're completely free of slavery before it was abolished in the West? The answer is a few, but most people couldn't imagine it until it happened. The same argument applies to the Free Market. We have some examples and you can find out about them if you are curious, but most people are simply willing to go with the status quo... even if it's fundamentally immoral.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 20, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Did many societies exist that we're completely free of slavery before it was abolished in the West? The answer is a few, but most people couldn't imagine it until it happened. The same argument applies to the Free Market. We have some examples and you can find out about them if you are curious, but most people are simply willing to go with the status quo... even if it's fundamentally immoral.


So the Constitution is immoral?


----------



## billc (Dec 20, 2013)

> History does not show this.  History shows that civilizations rise and  fall.  Civilizations start with very little restrictions on human  actions and they grow incredibly prosperous.  Then, an entrenched  oligarchy develops and they use the power of the State to protect and  expand their position.  As the level of central control increases, the  level of productive capacity in the society decreases.  Eventually, a  tipping point is reached and the power structure crumbles.  This happens  because the parasites kill the Golden Goose of the Free Market.  If  there ever is a balance between public and private control, it is a  transitory moment in time on an arch of ever increasing control.
> 
> The Founding Fathers of the United States realized this pattern in  history and attempted to institute a system that would limit this  progression by limiting government.  Unfortunately, America's experiment  with limited government failed.



Pretty good summary...


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 21, 2013)

billc said:


> Pretty good summary...



This summary is inaccurate. The so-called free market only has a short lifespan when left to its own devices. Human nature, largely the desire for wealth and status, lead to a variety of abuses. Markets are eventually monopolized or control by oligarchies who agree to cut up the pie. The free market, in effect, eats itself. Along the way, conflicts arise and people are harmed. It is purely asinine, polyannish thinking to to stake a position that people do no behave this way: history proves the point. Therefore, Government regulation actually helps the market thrive. It allows for peaceful resolution of dispute, protects and helps give redress to those who are harmed and prevents monopolization. Now if regulation is going too far, and that is a case by case basis, then the market can be suffocated. Ideally, the market and government strike a balance.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 21, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> This summary is inaccurate. The so-called free market only has a short lifespan when left to its own devices. Human nature, largely the desire for wealth and status, lead to a variety of abuses. Markets are eventually monopolized or control by oligarchies who agree to cut up the pie. The free market, in effect, eats itself. Along the way, conflicts arise and people are harmed. It is purely asinine, polyannish thinking to to stake a position that people do no behave this way: history proves the point. Therefore, Government regulation actually helps the market thrive. It allows for peaceful resolution of dispute, protects and helps give redress to those who are harmed and prevents monopolization. Now if regulation is going too far, and that is a case by case basis, then the market can be suffocated. Ideally, the market and government strike a balance.



I think you do have a point here. Historically, freer markets only last for as long as it takes oligarchies to form and then use their accumulated position to protect their interests. What needs to be understood here though is that the same oligarchy that we both agree destroys the free market, does so by using the power of government. People in the past knew this because the oligarchies were very naked about using the power of the State for their own benefit. With the invention of democracy. They can foist an illusion of control on people and trick them into believing that they control the power of the state.

This is simply not true. 

Normal people do not control the State even through voting. The powerful still use regulation to protect their positions, except now it's only visible if you can navigate the maze of lies they use to mask their intentions. Liberals dream that they can manage the powerful interests that control the State through voting, but this simply does not ever materialize. As ephemeral as freer markets are, actual political control by normal people is even more fleeting. 

Thus, I believe that the only way really be free of this influence is that society must dismantle the power of the State. We need to be independent and voluntary in our interactions as fully responsible human beings. This is the only equality that really matters. 

So, give up your illusion of control and throw the Ring into Orodruin.


----------



## WaterGal (Dec 21, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Civilizations start with very little restrictions on human actions and they grow incredibly prosperous.



Question - are you talking about the agrarian revolution?  Because really, few - if any - societies since the development of agriculture have had "very little restrictions on human actions" for most of the population.  Even ancient Greece was only a free democracy for the elite. Most prosperous civilizations before the end of WWII were monarchies (or some other kind of despot), empires and/or relied on slavery for their prosperity.  And many of those nations did not practice what we would call free market capitalism.



> The Free Market has a check and balance system.  It's called competition.  Governments form monopolies.



Governments are also the only force that can prevent and break up monopolies. Competition is only as good as government anti-trust regulation to prevent collusion.


----------



## WaterGal (Dec 21, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> People pay for the security they need, not the kind that is mandated by fiat.  Other arrangements to provide security in cheaper and more efficient ways will appear.  Laws that are too expensive to enforce and do not result in any economical change in public safety will be ignored.  Everyone will be able to pay for some kind of security and there will be lots of avenues to get it.



If you have to rely on private companies to provide your law enforcement, then you pay for the security you can afford.  I would not want to live in a society where the amount of police protection I get is dependent on how much I can afford to pay the security company. 

 You and I both know that in that kind of society, the police would be owned by the wealthy and be able to get away with any crime, while the poor would get little if any protection because they can't afford to pay for good security.  That's what you see in corrupt third-world countries where cops are paid very little and you have to bribe the police to get your case investigated.


----------



## WaterGal (Dec 21, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Again not a national police force.  Its a security guards for federal government building and court houses.  They havebeen around since 1971 . That's one slow step



I guess Makalakumu would rather have Congress, the Treasury, etc be guarded by the Washington DC city police?  I imagine city residents would rather their police be solving crimes than doing that.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 21, 2013)

WaterGal said:


> Question - are you talking about the agrarian revolution?  Because really, few - if any - societies since the development of agriculture have had "very little restrictions on human actions" for most of the population.  Even ancient Greece was only a free democracy for the elite. Most prosperous civilizations before the end of WWII were monarchies (or some other kind of despot), empires and/or relied on slavery for their prosperity.  And many of those nations did not practice what we would call free market capitalism.



I think the first thing we need to do is define capitalism. Capitalism is nothing more than the system of peaceful and voluntary exchange that develops in communities. This most assuredly existed in every society before power became entrenched. Careful study of economic history also shows that this period of free and peaceful exchange is what generates the initial gains of wealth in the society. What the Left calls "capitalism" is what develops after oligarchies have begun to use the power of the State to protect their own interests. This is predatory, but it's not capitalism.




WaterGal said:


> Governments are also the only force that can prevent and break up monopolies. Competition is only as good as government anti-trust regulation to prevent collusion.



Governments create monopolies through the legal use of force, they don't break them up. Most of the so called Trustbusting that occurred in American history was actually oligarchs using government to wreck their competition.

Competition abhors concentrations of power and influence because new and better ways of doing things are constantly being devised. In the Progressive Era, large entrenched interests called this Overproduction. This was literally the production of too many ideas and the resultant falling of prices. 

Anyway, the idea that governments break up monopolies is easily debunked. Governments create them, not break them.


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 21, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I think you do have a point here. Historically, freer markets only last for as long as it takes oligarchies to form and then use their accumulated position to protect their interests. What needs to be understood here though is that the same oligarchy that we both agree destroys the free market, does so by using the power of government. People in the past knew this because the oligarchies were very naked about using the power of the State for their own benefit. With the invention of democracy. They can foist an illusion of control on people and trick them into believing that they control the power of the state.
> 
> This is simply not true.
> 
> ...



First off, there are no panaceas. Where there are people, you have human nature to deal with, which means conflict and pecking orders. Throughout every system and every age, the wealthiest and strongest have always had the most power and control. However, I do not see evil in every place, like you. I take a balanced view. There are governmental agencies that are staffed by people who care for their community; so are there good businesses, as well. Their efforts make our world a better place, albeit in different ways. At the same time, their people who are out for number one, who believe life is for the taking. They cause much suffering. The world has faced this push and pull from day one. While the American system has its shortcomings, it does have its assets. Democracy has worked to lessen the imbalance between the strong and the weak. It provides legal redress for wrongs and a voice in one's community. It is easy to say everything is corrupt and refuse to make an effort. However, our lives a better when we try. Sometimes the most meaningful change is the efforts that happen in our own community. Although our system cannot cure the evils of humans, it has offered one of better functional paradigms this world has seen. This does not mean that we should not seek to grow. I have never blindly believed that our democracy was pure, always honest and fair, nor do I think that about the market place. I see the good and the bad. I am not a blind flag waiver nor an anti-government nut.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 21, 2013)

WaterGal said:


> If you have to rely on private companies to provide your law enforcement, then you pay for the security you can afford.  I would not want to live in a society where the amount of police protection I get is dependent on how much I can afford to pay the security company.
> 
> You and I both know that in that kind of society, the police would be owned by the wealthy and be able to get away with any crime, while the poor would get little if any protection because they can't afford to pay for good security.  That's what you see in corrupt third-world countries where cops are paid very little and you have to bribe the police to get your case investigated.



Quite the contrary, what you see in Third world countries is a total monopoly on police power where competition is illegal and pay is determined by fiat. This makes cops easily bribable and it wrecks any credibility the cops have.

Real competition would clear this up because it's too hard to buy off all the companies and people will pay for cops who prove that they aren't corrupt.

It would be nice if the Lefts hatred of monopolies would actually take into account the problems of real monopolies.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 21, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> First off, there are no panaceas. Where there are people, you have human nature to deal with, which means conflict and pecking orders. t.



I wonder about this notion. About the only thing we see cross culturally in human nature is an ability to adapt. I don't think violent hierarchy is human nature.


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 21, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Quite the contrary, what you see in Third world countries is a total monopoly on police power where competition is illegal and pay is determined by fiat. This makes cops easily bribable and it wrecks any credibility the cops have.
> 
> Real competition would clear this up because it's too hard to buy off all the companies and people will pay for cops who prove that they aren't corrupt..



You are wrong. Look at Standard Oil. They bought out the competition and became a juggernaut. Why would private police be any better? Private police, if loyal, would be militia. Examine post WWI Germany for how problematic private militia are for democracy and human rights.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 21, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> You are wrong. Look at Standard Oil. They bought out the competition and became a juggernaut. Why would private police be any better? Private police, if loyal, would be militia. Examine post WWI Germany for how problematic private militia are for democracy and human rights.



Rockefellars are great examples of people who use the government to form monopolies. They never would have gotten that powerful without the government connections. 

Private police are not the same political militias in post WWI Europe. Those militias wanted to take control of the government, not sell a service.


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 21, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Rockefellars are great examples of people who use the government to form monopolies. They never would have gotten that powerful without the government connections.
> 
> Private police are not the same political militias in post WWI Europe. Those militias wanted to take control of the government, not sell a service.



Again you fail to appreciate human nature and have a naive love affair with what you think is the free market. 


Rockefeller used his money to buy his oil empire. Certainly he bribed officials, but it was largely the lure of the dollar that got his competitors to sell out. Or in cases where the competition tried to stay in business, he lowered his prices to put competitors out of business. Anyhow, the government is what fought and broke Standard Oil's monopoly. 

So we have only private police, just some honest guys selling the service of protection? Hmmm well Rome decided to outsource its protection to German tribes, who looked around and saw an opportunity to seize control... But what, in your polyannish world, these guys just want to sell a service and won't be tempted to seize power. Got it. ;-)


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 21, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I wonder about this notion. About the only thing we see cross culturally in human nature is an ability to adapt. I don't think violent hierarchy is human nature.



Really?  You ever watched kids play?  They hit steal bite kick scratch.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 21, 2013)

More unicorn fart philosophy....same old same old.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> Again you fail to appreciate human nature and have a naive love affair with what you think is the free market.



The free market is peaceful and voluntary exchange of goods and services.  Could you explain how you define it?  



Rumy73 said:


> Rockefeller used his money to buy his oil empire. Certainly he bribed officials, but it was largely the lure of the dollar that got his competitors to sell out. Or in cases where the competition tried to stay in business, he lowered his prices to put competitors out of business. Anyhow, the government is what fought and broke Standard Oil's monopoly.



http://mises.org/daily/5274



> [T]here has never been a single clear-cut example of a monopoly created by so-called predatory pricing claims of predatory pricing are typically made by competitors who are either unwilling or unable to cut their own prices. Thus, legal restrictions on price cutting, in the name of combating "predation," are inevitably protectionist and anti-consumer"



Imagine if the point of anti-trust laws was actually to protect businesses who couldn't compete?  Ever wonder how we got Too Big to Fail?  There are so many myths about the Progressive Era that it's easy to get stuck in ideological mobius strip.

Standard Oil was a sacrificial lamb that allowed the powerful people who owned companies like it the ability to limit their competition. After 1911,  the problem of Overproduction was neatly and legally handled. If a competitor arose and under cut prices, they could be hit with anti trust lawsuit! 

Even this is just another example of how an oligarchy protects it's position with government power.



Rumy73 said:


> So we have only private police, just some honest guys selling the service of protection? Hmmm well Rome decided to outsource its protection to German tribes, who looked around and saw an opportunity to seize control... But what, in your polyannish world, these guys just want to sell a service and won't be tempted to seize power. Got it. ;-)



Apples to oranges.  Rome was hiring massive armies to protect it's Empire.  Everything went bad for Rome because the State was melting down.  When a community pays private police, the difference in purpose completely changes the nature of the exchange.  Also, the fact that the people who are being hired to do the job are also community members changes things.  It's Bob and Jim's security company.  Their kids go to school with yours.  Your wives get together for a Woman's Book Club.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Really?  You ever watched kids play?  They hit steal bite kick scratch.



Kid's only do that if they are taught this.  Parents who hit, yell, violate property rights, and refuse to reason with their children teach them to do this as adults.  Human nature is adaptable.  In an environment of peaceful and voluntary exchange, they adapt. In an environment of violence, fraud, and force, they adapt.  

IMHO if you believe humans are so bad and that they need to be controlled for their own good, you probably learned this as a child from your parents.  It's not human nature.


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 22, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Kid's only do that if they are taught this.  Parents who hit, yell, violate property rights, and refuse to reason with their children teach them to do this as adults.  Human nature is adaptable.  In an environment of peaceful and voluntary exchange, they adapt. In an environment of violence, fraud, and force, they adapt.
> 
> IMHO if you believe humans are so bad and that they need to be controlled for their own good, you probably learned this as a child from your parents.  It's not human nature.



Oh lord kumbaya


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 22, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Kid's only do that if they are taught this.  Parents who hit, yell, violate property rights, and refuse to reason with their children teach them to do this as adults.  Human nature is adaptable.  In an environment of peaceful and voluntary exchange, they adapt. In an environment of violence, fraud, and force, they adapt.
> 
> IMHO if you believe humans are so bad and that they need to be controlled for their own good, you probably learned this as a child from your parents.  It's not human nature.


My kids don't have property rights they don't own anything.  
But I'm talking about toddlers and babies they hit steal and fight it is human nature.  We eventually learn to control the behavior because as a civilized society we have rules we agree to live by.  Toddlers can't understand civilization yet.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> My kids don't have property rights they don't own anything.
> But I'm talking about toddlers and babies they hit steal and fight it is human nature.  We eventually learn to control the behavior because as a civilized society we have rules we agree to live by.  Toddlers can't understand civilization yet.



It's true, they don't have legal property, but you can teach kids about property rights at a young age.  If you don't you teach children that the only way they can own anything is if they bow down to authority. That behavior translates right into society.

Toddlers have already seen violence at home, on media, or with other children. They don't just start hitting as soon as they can. In fact, the research on this shows that yelling and spanking by parents is the prime initiator of violent behavior in children. 0ver 90% of American families spank. Parents start before a year in age. Hitting fingers, yelling no, etc. Humans adapt to conditions around them. Children raised with peaceful parenting techniques and in calm respectful, loving families aren't violent.


----------



## WaterGal (Dec 22, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I think the first thing we need to do is define capitalism. Capitalism is nothing more than the system of peaceful and voluntary exchange that develops in communities. This most assuredly existed in every society before power became entrenched. Careful study of economic history also shows that this period of free and peaceful exchange is what generates the initial gains of wealth in the society. What the Left calls "capitalism" is what develops after oligarchies have begun to use the power of the State to protect their own interests. This is predatory, but it's not capitalism



If you look in the dictionary, capitalism is "a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make  and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are  owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government".  That's not something that is as universal or simple as your definition. 

And even if we accept your definition.... like I said, the only way your statement works is if you're talking about how things were before agriculture and governments.  Since then, most prosperous societies have not been that way.

Let's take many medieval societies, which relied on feudalism rather than capitalism.  In those days, resources such as farmland, forests, mines, etc were all owned by either the nobility (government) or the Catholic church.  Most of the population were serfs, who weren't much more than slaves.  They were required to spend most of their time working the land owned by their lord, and give the harvested crops (or quarried stone, logged wood, etc) to him. In exchange, they were allowed to live in a cottage on their lord's land and allowed to work a small plot to feed their family.  Yes, if they grew some extra food or whatever they could sell it, but they were not free to devote their time to the work they wanted.

Or let's take the the Incas, South America's most prosperous pre-colonial society. They had a completely centralized economy with essentially no private sector whatsoever.

And even other societies, that had more freedom for private individuals to own land and pursue their own businesses, still did not have a great deal of personal freedom for most members of society.  If your prosperity is based on slavery or serfdom or exploiting colonies, than it's not based on personal freedom.  I know it goes against your libertarian narrative, but the United States in 2013 is one of the freest societies since the development of agriculture.


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 22, 2013)

WaterGal said:


> If you look in the dictionary, capitalism is "a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make  and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are  owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government".  That's not something that is as universal or simple as your definition.
> 
> And even if we accept your definition.... like I said, the only way your statement works is if you're talking about how things were before agriculture and governments.  Since then, most prosperous societies have not been that way.
> 
> ...



Libertarians think remove the "burden" of government and people will all just get along. The reality is that no such paradigm  ever existed. All creatures, including humans, are driven by self-preservation. Perhaps there are exceptions but only a scant few. Driven by the instinct to survive, people are driven into conflict. History shows this to be true.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2013)

WaterGal said:


> If you look in the dictionary, capitalism is "a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make  and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are  owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government".  That's not something that is as universal or simple as your definition.
> 
> And even if we accept your definition.... like I said, the only way your statement works is if you're talking about how things were before agriculture and governments.  Since then, most prosperous societies have not been that way.



In order for an individual to own private property, there has to be a system of peaceful and voluntary trade in place.  This system existed many times in the past.



WaterGal said:


> Let's take many medieval societies, which relied on feudalism rather than capitalism.  In those days, resources such as farmland, forests, mines, etc were all owned by either the nobility (government) or the Catholic church.  Most of the population were serfs, who weren't much more than slaves.  They were required to spend most of their time working the land owned by their lord, and give the harvested crops (or quarried stone, logged wood, etc) to him. In exchange, they were allowed to live in a cottage on their lord's land and allowed to work a small plot to feed their family.  Yes, if they grew some extra food or whatever they could sell it, but they were not free to devote their time to the work they wanted.
> 
> Or let's take the the Incas, South America's most prosperous pre-colonial society. They had a completely centralized economy with essentially no private sector whatsoever.
> 
> And even other societies, that had more freedom for private individuals to own land and pursue their own businesses, still did not have a great deal of personal freedom for most members of society.  If your prosperity is based on slavery or serfdom or exploiting colonies, than it's not based on personal freedom.  I know it goes against your libertarian narrative, but the United States in 2013 is one of the freest societies since the development of agriculture.



All of the periods of social control you are describing were still preceded by periods of much less social control.  You aren't really attacking the narrative I put forward, because you're simply pointing to times when fully fledged hierarchies existed and essentially claiming that they always existed.  This isn't true.  Ossified power structures take time to develop and during that time, people in the society experience a much greater degree of personal and economic freedom.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> Libertarians think remove the "burden" of government and people will all just get along. The reality is that no such paradigm  ever existed. All creatures, including humans, are driven by self-preservation. Perhaps there are exceptions but only a scant few. Driven by the instinct to survive, people are driven into conflict. History shows this to be true.



Thus, society needs to....what?

Ultimately, what you will end up arguing for is the initiation of force against non-violent and peaceful people.  Is that what society needs to do because humans are so bad and need to be controlled?

Here is another thought to consider.  What if society was organized without the initiation of force as it's central principle?  I organize my family in this way.  I maintain my relationships this way.  When I don't use force to get what I want, I must rely on reason and evidence to make a case for what I want instead.  Imagine what society would be like if more people used reason and evidence to make cases for what they wanted.

This is what peaceful and voluntary exchange creates.


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 23, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Thus, society needs to....what?
> 
> Ultimately, what you will end up arguing for is the initiation of force against non-violent and peaceful people.  Is that what society needs to do because humans are so bad and need to be controlled?
> 
> ...



Give examples of existing societies, as described,  you cannot.

You see evil and control in government, I do not nor the rest of the world. Your ideas are just internet fantasy. 

Humans can be both good and bad. Balance... A concept that you cannot accept and/or understand.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 23, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> Give examples of existing societies, as described,  you cannot.
> 
> You see evil and control in government, I do not nor the rest of the world. Your ideas are just internet fantasy.
> 
> Humans can be both good and bad. Balance... A concept that you cannot accept and/or understand.



Balance...hmmmm. Is a little rape okay sometime? How about a little murder? How about theft? The government has the legal authority to initiate force within a given geographic area for what ever cause it deems necessary. Whenever we talk about the government offering a service of any kind, at the very least it has to steal the money for that service from someone. This is the origin the governments inefficiency in service because any form of immediate market signal is removed and anyone who would like to steal money for what the want or need can do so simply by grabbing the reins of power.

Contrast this with the free market. It's a system of peaceful, voluntary exchange where people constantly have to use reason and evidence to get what they want. There are historical examples of this, but they don't last and I think one of the reasons for this is because human society hasn't evolved to that point yet. We live in a Pre-reason society and are gradually moving towards a society where less and less force is involved in our everyday life.

So, where are the examples of this happening? You probably live like this everyday if you're a good person. You don't have to use force to find a girlfriend or get married. You don't have to use force to get your food or shelter. You don't have to use force to raise your children. All I'm really suggesting is that we use force in less and less areas of our lives, that we grow forward into a future of less Statist immorality.


----------

