Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teebs)
    Well no, not because I say they are, because the vast majority of economists say they are.
    The vast majority of economists said that mercantilism was the best operation of an economy. They were proven wrong. The vast majority of economists said that central planning would bring us prosperity. They were proven wrong. The vast majority of economists said that savings and production took a secondary role to spending and consumption. And look where we are today.

    (Original post by Teebs)
    Let's use the example of street lighting, since it's already come up. Ok, you say a community can come together and get a private company to run it for them. Fantastic wonderful. What about the people who don't want to pay for it? Again, not a problem, in the libertarian paradise they don't have to because no one is forced to contribute.
    Of course, because I obviously said that a community would pay for everyone else. Just because one street has lighting doesn't mean that street is going to pay for the rest of the town. If one street does pay for lighting it will soon become evident that that street is much safer; people will begin to use it more often and may very well persuade their neighbours that street lighting is a good thing to pay for. True, some people will not pay for it. Just like some people don't pay taxes. But there are enough people concerned with their own safety to pay for public lighting.

    There is also reason for businesses, churches, pubs etc to provide public lighting in streets where they operate. I don't think I need to explain that one.

    (Original post by Teebs)
    Unfortunately street lights are pretty much a non-excludable good - you can't prevent other people from using them. So then you have a rather nice incentive for people to pretend not to want them so that they can free-ride off others. This has been shown empirically repeatedly. People don't free-ride as much as might be expected based on pure self interest, but they do to a degree, and the larger the community the more they do.
    Street lighting is a form of non excludable good that doesn't damage you if anyone else uses it. Furthermore it will become cheaper in nature as more people begin to use it. Firstly it is not exactly that expensive anyway; it is expensive for a Government because they have no particular incentive to improve it, and because they light everywhere up, even places that don't need lighting. Hell, you could even solar-power a battery at some place during the day that would provide a good amount of power at night. That may be particularly effective in summer, or it may not be; that is an addition to my argument and not a critical part of it, in any case.

    (Original post by Teebs)
    I suppose you could prevent people from living in your community if they don't want to pay for the street lights, but then how do you prevent them from living there without some kind of government? This becomes even more of a problem if you have many non-excludable goods.
    Here you are trying to find a solution to something I didn't suggest.

    (Original post by Teebs)
    Are you going to pull the 'lol A-level economics' on me now?
    I didn't pull it on you at all, but that is by the by.

    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    Every man for himself doesn't work. I thought that Victorian Britain established that?
    By 'established' you mean offering a standard of living that changed so rapidly for the greater under total economic liberalism, then yes, ok. There is no contention that living standards in the 19th Century were horrific. But compared to the 18th and 17th Century they were fantastic; amazing. Compared to the statist economies of the 19th Century, Britain was a paradise. Economic conditions naturally improve over time. Economic liberalism only speeds up the rate at which they improve.

    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    Anyway, I have alot of doubts about Libertarianism. It's going back to an old failed ideology which takes away many positive rights established in the early 20th century. Why should we reverse them?
    Why should they have been initiated in the first place? I don't take your computer and go "why should I give it back." Failed logic.

    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    Don't get me wrong, personal freedoms are good, but there are costs which come with them. Tobacco has a social cost, alcohol has a social cost, economic freedoms have social costs and so many things which could go wrong. Thus, there needs to be a strong establishment to maintain order and personal security, and to keep progress going.

    I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much libertytoo small a degree of it. than to those attending not enough of it - Thomas Jefferson

    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    You don't get that as a result of gross irresponsibility by some unchecked, rampant organisation which is given free roam by a weak government; progress is not born from fragmentation and chaos on all fronts. Organisations and structures band together one way or another. Progress is built upon social, economic, and cultural developments, which are enshrined by the state and its laws. The current system is the result of hard labour of generations past. Would cutting down the government to basic functions not be regression?
    An unchecked, rampant, organisation? Free markets are checked by the price mechanism. Corporations are not evil groups of people who are destined to control our lives simply because that is not how the operation of a market works.

    'Regression' means nothing. Was the fall of the USSR a 'regression' just because social, economic, and cultural developments were totally changed around?

    This is going to be my last post for tonight.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Then there is less public lighting. Think about what you are saying here and whether it is really morally just. Because some people do not walk the streets at night that is an argument for throwing them in jail for refusing to pay for public lighting?

    I actually believe in public lighting and public infrastructure. I have already mentioned I am not an anarcho-capitalist.
    People direct their efforts through the marketplace. That is far more instantaenous than any Government decision. I don't advocate referendums; it has the same moral effect, i.e, 51% choosing how 49% spend a certain proportion of their money.

    Does society come together to decide how to buy consumer goods? No. Lighting is a public good because you; well, the government; say it is. There is no reason whatsoever that it cannot be a consumer good.
    Good, you are not insane then.

    Ahh, but disorganised economic action has its disadvantages too, and must be regulated to preserve order and stability. Governments can also get things done which otherwise would not be due to their massive cost or not-for-profit nature. Granted, so can charities, but they are not exactly able to command huge amounts of labour. They do not have the power to raise money through taxes in order to get things done.

    Say we need a new airport, but due to the economic climate, no companies are willing or able to invest, and neither are charities set up to raise money for such projects. The government, however, can, and will get such things done without concern for economic surplus. £50 in taxes from every working citizen - readily available, if the government is sensible enough to tax more than it spends. It can distribute the cost over a wide area, to deal with future concerns in an organised manner.
    Yeah, I know how much you hate taxes, but like it or not, how else is the government going to raise money other than by nationalising some companies and being in it for profit, or relying on public donations? Laughable.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    Ahh, but disorganised economic action has its disadvantages too, and must be regulated to preserve order and stability. Governments can also get things done which otherwise would not be due to their massive cost or not-for-profit nature. Granted, so can charities, but they are not exactly able to command huge amounts of labour. They do not have the power to raise money through taxes in order to get things done.
    Was it private charity or government charity that raised the most money the fastest during the Tsunami (for example.)?

    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    Say we need a new airport, but due to the economic climate, no companies are willing or able to invest, and neither are charities set up to raise money for such projects.
    Then evidently we don't 'need' an airport. Who decides when we need an airport? You? The Government? Who is to say their decision is right...? If markets cannot provide for it at the present time then it is not necessary.

    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    The government, however, can, and will get such things done without concern for economic surplus. £50 in taxes from every working citizen - readily available, if the government is sensible enough to tax more than it spends.
    Every £50 it takes off the population is money that would be saved and later invested or money that would (less preferably) be spent directly. They are not 'adding on' with a surplus - they are re-allocating, with less efficiency, since a certain % of that £50 will usually be lost due to the nature of Government.

    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    Yeah, I know how much you hate taxes, but like it or not, how else is the government going to raise money other than by nationalising some companies and being in it for profit, or relying on public donations? Laughable.
    You are missing the point. The Government shouldn't raise money because Government spending is a bad thing, not a good thing (according to the ideology.)

    I should really go to bed. :/
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    So what exactly would the advantage be in re-labeling the governing body over oneself from a "government" to "private firms" and giving up the possibility of electing one's governing body?

    Would this not ultimately lead to simply a situation of multiple unelected entities using power on people, fighting wars with each other to raise their own power? Such a situation would not be very different to that of a modern authoritarian tribal society.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HJV)
    So what exactly would the advantage be in re-labeling the governing body over oneself from a "government" to "private firms" and giving up the possibility of electing one's governing body?

    Would this not ultimately lead to simply a situation of multiple unelected entities using power on people?
    Since when would a private firm be a 'Governing body?'
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Since when would a private firm be a 'Governing body?'
    Well ultimately no use of power is carried out by a 'God' or any other such body, but by a group of people.

    I would rather the power is used by a group of people that the society is able to choose (a government), rather than one that we cannot choose (the leaders of a private firm).

    I don't see the particular difference between a monarch (dictator) leading a government and a person who leads a company in an anarcho-capitalist society (inevitably due to absence of any regulation one company would take over the rest the same way as small tribe societies once consolidated into dictatorial monarchies), except for the labels.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HJV)
    Well ultimately no use of power is carried out by a 'God' or any other such body, but by a group of people.

    I would rather the power is used by a group of people that the society is able to choose (a government), rather than one that we cannot choose (the leaders of a private firm).

    I don't see the particular difference between a monarch (dictator) leading a government and a person who owns a company in a anarcho-capitalist society (inevitably due to absence of any regulation one company would take over the rest the same way as small tribe societies once consolidated into dictatorial monarchies), except for the labels.
    lol. No. There are NO Governments. There is no "being ruled" by corporations. How you came to this conclusion is wondrous to me. Nobody is advocating the Government being replaced by Corporations.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    lol. No. There are NO Governments. There is no "being ruled" by corporations. How you came to this conclusion is wondrous to me. Nobody is advocating the Government being replaced by Corporations.
    Eventually (for example) a company owning a housing area and its utility supply network, renting the right to live there to private individuals, would impose a rule such as "you may not make excessive noise between 11pm and 7am".

    How would this differ from a government?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HJV)
    Eventually (for example) a company owning the housing area and its utility supply network would impose a rule such as "you may not make excessive noise between 11pm and 7am".

    How would this differ from a government?
    Companies 'owning' a housing area...? We bought our house from somebody selling it. The only companies involved were the solicitors and whoever we used to move things.

    Assuming that that can and will happen, it's different to a Government because in the very worst case scenario of the Anarcho-Capitalist society, you can still choose not to live under it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Companies 'owning' a housing area...? We bought our house from somebody selling it. The only companies involved were the solicitors and whoever we used to move things.

    Assuming that that can and will happen, it's different to a Government because in the very worst case scenario of the Anarcho-Capitalist society, you can still choose not to live under it.
    Not everyone would magically have money to buy a house, and there would therefore be people renting houses.

    What if the other company providing housing had a "no pets" rule?

    You can (in theory) choose not to live under your government as well. I could quite easily move from Britain to, say, Poland, if I wanted to.

    I still don't particularly see the advantage in having power used on me by Virgin Group rather than the British government.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Do the Iraqi insurgents have a Government? There are 100,000 of them in a country of 20 million. I'd say, for their numbers, they are doing a pretty good job militarily. If there were 250,000 Iraqi insurgents instead of 100,000 and if Bush could choose to invade Iraq again, do you think he would? Do you think any Government would?
    Were not talking about a sane or logical person here. Were talking about bush. He probably would.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HJV)
    Not everyone would magically have money to buy a house, and there would therefore be people renting houses.

    What if the other company providing housing had a "no pets" rule?
    They would have to consider that when people moved there. There are all sorts of restrictions already in place when people move into rented houses whether it's Government or not.

    The fact that it is relatively easy to change houses when renting compared to actually buying actually works in favour of my argument and against yours; if people are really fed up of rules that you have suggested so far they will move to rent where there are no rules like that. The price mechanism signals and indicates this sort of pattern in human behaviour.

    (Original post by HJV)
    You can (in theory) choose not to live under your government as well. I could quite easily move from Britain to, say, Poland, if I wanted to.
    OK - you can move in the EU, which has fairly consistent standards of Government throughout. You can go from one Social Democracy to another; sounds fantastic. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The current monetary and governmental systems we have are outdated in that we're held back from new technologies because the existing old stuff is more profitable. Think about this for example; companies are constantly discovering new 'green' fuels yet we've never actually seen a car that doesn't run completely free of petrol/diesel altogether. Planes and buses have been proven to be extremely outdated and inefficient on many occasions, yet we're told to use them to "save the environment".

    I'm a firm believer that the fact that everything in the world has a monetary value along with limited access to resources is the cause of competition and greed. If everyone had access to anything, do you really think we would see any of the war or conflict we have today?

    Money basically boils down to slavery anyway unless you're at the top, because in the end it's all owed to someone.

    I'm tired, this probably doesn't make sense.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    They would have to consider that when people moved there. There are all sorts of restrictions already in place when people move into rented houses whether it's Government or not.

    The fact that it is relatively easy to change houses when renting compared to actually buying actually works in favour of my argument and against yours; if people are really fed up of rules that you have suggested so far they will move to rent where there are no rules like that. The price mechanism signals and indicates this sort of pattern in human behaviour.

    OK - you can move in the EU, which has fairly consistent standards of Government throughout. You can go from one Social Democracy to another; sounds fantastic. :rolleyes:
    And how exactly would you provide security? If there were 15 different police-like companies and three military-like companies in a given city, how would this work out in practice?

    My point is, any viable system of such society would in fact be no different to an oligarchy (as meant by Artistotle, etc).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    successfultrollissuccessful.jpg
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Your statement contradicts itself. If a body holds the power to ban something, it can pretty much be defined as a goverment. Therefore, governments cannot be banned...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    By 'established' you mean offering a standard of living that changed so rapidly for the greater under total economic liberalism, then yes, ok. There is no contention that living standards in the 19th Century were horrific. But compared to the 18th and 17th Century they were fantastic; amazing. Compared to the statist economies of the 19th Century, Britain was a paradise. Economic conditions naturally improve over time. Economic liberalism only speeds up the rate at which they improve.
    Technological & scientific advancements and social conditions will progress over time, and as a result, so does the efficiency with which labour and materials are applied. Economies grow, people gain access to more technology in one way or another over time, no matter what the economic system, as long as progress is not lost by some sort of cultural collapse(i.e. The fall of Rome), or stopped/slowed by limitations of various sorts. Say that for traditional and aesthetic reasons, a government limits trains to steam engines. :cool:

    I'm not saying Victorian Britain was bad, not at all, I'm just saying that its classical economic liberalism wouldn't work in the modern world. The world has changed in so many ways. It was good when colonising the empire and industrialising areas was possible.
    There were also problems as a result of no industrial regulations, economically exclusive healthcare & education, and no social security. Those that couldn't make it died sick paupers almost universally throughout history. That should be no more thanks to the labour and innovations of past generations. We can usually ensure that everyone in the developed world has bread and butter. That, at least should be provided for humanitarian, rather than economic reasons.

    Why should they have been initiated in the first place? I don't take your computer and go "why should I give it back." Failed logic.
    They were initiated because many people fought for pensions and welfare, and saw them as a justified cause. Anyhow, the 20th century saw to the universal provision of such things that we now take for granted.


    I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much libertytoo small a degree of it. than to those attending not enough of it - Thomas Jefferson


    *to

    And that quote is relevant how? Circumstances in the 18th century were very different. I find that historical quotes will vary in importance and application to the modern world. Liberty does not mean security. You do not have any freedom to do anything if you are dead or restricted by others due to a lack of regulations. Let me counter with my own quote.

    "What Libertarians don't get is that there are no absolute, natural human rights. Such rights are established and ideally upheld by the state."

    Not sure who said it.

    An unchecked, rampant, organisation? Free markets are checked by the price mechanism. Corporations are not evil groups of people who are destined to control our lives simply because that is not how the operation of a market works.
    The supply of goods is kept in check, not quality or ethics. Corporations, just like governments, can stand for various things, and can be benevolent or malevolent, depending on their leaders.
    Just like governments, all organisations with power, including companies and political organisations, should be kept in check by the rule of law and regulation. No exceptions.

    I also don't agree that free markets are universally good for everyone. With economies of scale and large customer bases, long-running businesses can put newcomers out of business very quickly, and make it hard for newcomers to enter the market. Without government regulation, large corporations can form monopolies or at least oligopolies, as they can pump out more goods and services, faster and cheaper.

    'Regression' means nothing. Was the fall of the USSR a 'regression' just because social, economic, and cultural developments were totally changed around?
    It depends on the system, and the context of developments. It was a regression for a while, due to the chaos during the transitional period. The USSR was unfortunately stagnating due to gross economic irresponsibility and the strain of the Soviet-Afghan war. Not necessarily a result of command economics, but poor resource management as a whole. Now the wheels are turning again, under a new system.
    This is going to be my last post for tonight.
    Goodnight comrade.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The West Wing)
    Who would build roads and bridges?
    The Irish of course
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    disease is the #1 cause of death. let's ban that instead.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Oh, go away, please. I'm yet to meet an anarchist who has thought their argument through for more than about 10 seconds.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.