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

[Makalakumu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Makalakumu]

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?

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.

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]

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]

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