Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Governments start wars, not people.
    :yep:

    Governments are hidden dictators the issue is not obama
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    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:
    ... Right - "No matter the economic system" - so the growth of the standard of living between 1917-1991 was the same for the United States as it was for the Soviet Union? Are you actually claiming that Soviet citizens were as well off as American citizens in 1991?
    "Stopped/slowed by limitations" yes, i.e., GOVERNMENT.

    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    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.
    The British Empire was not the great 'profit gaining' establishment people believe it to be. The cost of keeping it consistently outweighed the advantages to owning it over the other possibilities, i.e., trade and foreign investment. Economic liberalism is true because it runs off basic rules, rules that don't change throughout time - Production is still superior to consumption, demand is still impossible without supply, etc etc. These rules don't change because time changes; and in fact progression is only possible because these rules are followed. While we are fantastically wealthy today compared to the 19th C, we would be even wealthier than we are now if we had followed the economic liberalism of the late 19th Century (the early 19th Century was no free market, to be sure.)

    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    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.
    OK... go back and read what I said again.

    Planning to provide humanitarianism via government projects rarely if ever works to its intended effect. Which is the richest post-colonial country in Africa? The one with the free-est market. Which is the poorest? Guess.

    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    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.
    And I fight against pensions and welfare, and see that as a justified cause - how you can possibly believe this to be objective I really do not understand.

    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    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.
    As you may have noticed I did misquote it; it maintains its relevance. I would rather have the incoveniences of too much liberty than not enough liberty.

    "restricted by others due to a lack of regulations": read this and think about what you said. Restricted by others due to a lack of regulation... regulation restricts. That is its aim.

    If you prefer security to liberty that is fine but you have no mandate to impose your preferences over me.

    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    "What Libertarians don't get is that there are no absolute, natural human rights. Such rights are established and ideally upheld by the state."
    Oh ok - humans don't have natural rights because X says they don't. That isn't empirical proof in the slightest.

    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    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.
    The supply of goods is met by the demand for goods which is a result of quality and ethics. Whateaver corporations stand for, subservience to them is always voluntary. Subservience to the state is never voluntary. You haven't yet explained why; you have just said that occasionally under our system (which is nowhere near a free market) some corporations may have done some bad things and therefore everything requires regulation. You haven't made any economic argument that shows that regulation is beneficial.

    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    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.
    Is there a problem with more goods and services faster and cheaper? As long as monopolies are not in bed with Governments they cannot legally restrict any business; they can only use their market power to put them out of business which is in all cases beneficial to the consumer, i.e., the overwhelmingly vast majority of people. The more free-market a country is the wealthier its population is. Even the lowest 10% of the population in the USA have a higher standard of living than the lowest 10% of the population in Sweden.

    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    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.
    I think all hope is lost if you are claiming that what followed the USSR was actually regression.

    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    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.
    Poor resource management IS command economics. Without an effective system of prices to signal supply and demand and therefore how resources ought to be allocated there will always be poor resource management. You know that the USA gave foreign aid to the USSR, right?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    ... Right - "No matter the economic system" - so the growth of the standard of living between 1917-1991 was the same for the United States as it was for the Soviet Union? Are you actually claiming that Soviet citizens were as well off as American citizens in 1991?
    "Stopped/slowed by limitations" yes, i.e., GOVERNMENT.
    No, not in terms of freedom and GDP, but I am saying that there was growth. Means of production improved, technology improved, the USSR just couldn't keep up with the US in terms of GDP and economic growth. The system failed because of mismanagement, not because it was a command economy. Conditions were actually improving, Theoretically, if circumstances and management were better(don't equate command economics with mismanagement, but rather a different type of management) for the Soviet economy, it could have stayed intact.

    The Soviet population also did not have to suffer from the boom and bust cycle, and face unemployment every five years.

    The British Empire was not the great 'profit gaining' establishment people believe it to be. The cost of keeping it consistently outweighed the advantages to owning it over the other possibilities, i.e., trade and foreign investment. Economic liberalism is true because it runs off basic rules, rules that don't change throughout time - Production is still superior to consumption, demand is still impossible without supply, etc etc. These rules don't change because time changes; and in fact progression is only possible because these rules are followed. While we are fantastically wealthy today compared to the 19th C, we would be even wealthier than we are now if we had followed the economic liberalism of the late 19th Century (the early 19th Century was no free market, to be sure.)
    Then why was the British Empire such an economic powerhouse? Surely it would have collapsed in on itself sooner?

    Also, don't be so sure of your so-called "absolute" economic rules.

    Planning to provide humanitarianism via government projects rarely if ever works to its intended effect. Which is the richest post-colonial country in Africa? The one with the free-est market. Which is the poorest? Guess.
    In your opinion. State pensions and welfare help the poor directly.

    And I fight against pensions and welfare, and see that as a justified cause - how you can possibly believe this to be objective I really do not understand.

    As you may have noticed I did misquote it; it maintains its relevance. I would rather have the incoveniences of too much liberty than not enough liberty.
    You would, but would others?

    "restricted by others due to a lack of regulations": read this and think about what you said. Restricted by others due to a lack of regulation... regulation restricts. That is its aim.
    Again, take my statement into context. Governments impose restrictions (laws and regulations) in order to institute freedoms. Ban guns in order to reduce the likelihood that people will kill each other. Restrict companies from irresponsible practises which infringe upon the state-established rights of others.


    If you prefer security to liberty that is fine but you have no mandate to impose your preferences over me.
    Actually, I could, if I had the means to do so. There is no such thing as an absolute mandate. Actually, are you sure you're not an anarcho-capitalist?

    Oh ok - humans don't have natural rights because X says they don't. That isn't empirical proof in the slightest.
    If the state was dissolved, would you have any mandated, inalienable "rights" that I could not forcefully take away from you without punishment, bar free thought?(even free thought can be crushed) What are human rights without the law or some other social consensus? "Freedom" isn't free.

    Only in anarchy would you have such "liberties", which would soon be taken away from you by a group of people, or some murderer. Understand, that anarchy only exists in the ecosystem. And look how much progress there is there.


    The supply of goods is met by the demand for goods which is a result of quality and ethics. Whatever corporations stand for, subservience to them is always voluntary. Subservience to the state is never voluntary. You haven't yet explained why; you have just said that occasionally under our system (which is nowhere near a free market) some corporations may have done some bad things and therefore everything requires regulation. You haven't made any economic argument that shows that regulation is beneficial.
    Yeah, because quality and ethics bring about themselves, right? Because everyone is f**king informed about everything! Businesses can't hide anything from their customers, can they?
    Also, what would we do without intellectual property rights, which prevent people from stealing ideas & franchises and branding them as their own? :rolleyes:
    That would be really beneficial, right?
    Is there a problem with more goods and services faster and cheaper? As long as monopolies are not in bed with Governments they cannot legally restrict any business; they can only use their market power to put them out of business which is in all cases beneficial to the consumer, i.e., the overwhelmingly vast majority of people. The more free-market a country is the wealthier its population is.
    Wrong wrong wrong.

    Businesses can gain monopolies because of economies of scale, stronger brand images and customer bases, and the power to buy out smaller competitors. What're you gonna do if a company buys out all the energy sources in the world, because the government didn't intervene to stop them? Take them by force? But that infringes their non-existent natural liberties!

    Even the lowest 10% of the population in the USA have a higher standard of living than the lowest 10% of the population in Sweden.
    I call ********! Have you ever been to Sweden or the USA? Because I don't see the poorest 10%, or even 20%, of Americans being better off than the poorest 20% of Swedes.

    I think all hope is lost if you are claiming that what followed the USSR was actually regression.
    Too bad that you took my statement out of context. I said that it WAS worse for a time, as major transitions tend to be. The ex-Soviet bloc was in political and economic turmoil for years.

    Poor resource management IS command economics. Without an effective system of prices to signal supply and demand and therefore how resources ought to be allocated there will always be poor resource management. You know that the USA gave foreign aid to the USSR, right?
    No it isn't, not in absolute terms. It depends on where your priorities lie. There are various types of command economies, also. I don't see the world in black and white. Materialism and economic growth aren't the only ideals. Don't for a second think that's all the world is about, because it isn't. Some people value money, some people value tradition. Others value equality, others value great achievements. Different cultures and nations may require different economic systems, different sorts of government, and so on. It is foolish to think that there is one perfect system above all others, because there isn't. Circumstances change. Needs change.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    No, not in terms of freedom and GDP, but I am saying that there was growth. Means of production improved, technology improved, the USSR just couldn't keep up with the US in terms of GDP and economic growth. The system failed because of mismanagement, not because it was a command economy. Conditions were actually improving, Theoretically, if circumstances and management were better(don't equate command economics with mismanagement, but rather a different type of management) for the Soviet economy, it could have stayed intact.
    No. It failed because command economics as was practiced by the USSR did not have an adequate mechanism for providing signals for production and therefore had no chance of competing with the US model.

    The Soviet population also did not have to suffer from the boom and bust cycle, and face unemployment every five years.[/quote] No, instead, they faced poverty, shortages, and horrific quality of consumer goods. In any case the boom and bust cycle is artificially caused by Government inflation in the money supply.


    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    Then why was the British Empire such an economic powerhouse? Surely it would have collapsed in on itself sooner?
    It was an economic powerhouse because it was economically liberal. Historically, it got less profitable as time went on because the new resources began to be developed at a slower growth rate because of mercantilist policies.

    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    Also, don't be so sure of your so-called "absolute" economic rules.
    In every historical case ignoring them has led to disaster.

    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    In your opinion. State pensions and welfare help the poor directly.
    Or so you may think.

    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    Again, take my statement into context. Governments impose restrictions (laws and regulations) in order to institute freedoms. Ban guns in order to reduce the likelihood that people will kill each other. Restrict companies from irresponsible practises which infringe upon the state-established rights of others.
    Something is only a right if the state says so? So the people of the USSR did not have a right to freedom of speech? The Jews of Nazi Germany did not have a right to live?

    As much as you may like to be, I am not a serf to the state. Neither ought you to be. We all are human beings and have the natural right to direct our own life without a bureaucrat directing orders from a central office. The people who misunderstood this the most were overthrown and executed by their own people.

    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    Actually, I could, if I had the means to do so. There is no such thing as an absolute mandate. Actually, are you sure you're not an anarcho-capitalist?
    History disagrees with you.

    I am quite sure. I believe in Anarcho-Capitalism, but I believe Classical Liberalism to be more desirable. I don't know whether you consider that makes me an Anarcho Capitalist or not, but I don't self-classify.

    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    If the state was dissolved, would you have any mandated, inalienable "rights" that I could not forcefully take away from you without punishment, bar free thought?(even free thought can be crushed) What are human rights without the law or some other social consensus? "Freedom" isn't free.
    If you think you have the means to take my freedom from me, then go ahead, but you better know how to shoot straight.

    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    Only in anarchy would you have such "liberties", which would soon be taken away from you by a group of people, or some murderer. Understand, that anarchy only exists in the ecosystem. And look how much progress there is there.
    O rly? What do you call Anarchist Catalonia then? Or Free Ukraine?

    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    Yeah, because quality and ethics bring about themselves, right? Because everyone is f**king informed about everything! Businesses can't hide anything from their customers, can they?
    Also, what would we do without intellectual property rights, which prevent people from stealing ideas & franchises and branding them as their own? :rolleyes:
    That would be really beneficial, right?
    People are generally better at informing themselves than regulatory boards are at regulating things. Information about consumer goods spreads by word of mouth from person to person and it is impossible for a central regulatory board to know everything about the entire economy.

    Intellectual property rights are theft in their own way. You want education? You want information? Abolish intellectual property, the law that creates more monopolies every year than the free market ever has in its entire history.

    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    Businesses can gain monopolies because of economies of scale, stronger brand images and customer bases, and the power to buy out smaller competitors. What're you gonna do if a company buys out all the energy sources in the world, because the government didn't intervene to stop them? Take them by force? But that infringes their non-existent natural liberties!
    If you know about economies of scale you know surely about diseconomies of scale and in any case it is quite ridiculous to suggest that one company could buy out all the other energy companies in the entire world.

    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    I call ********! Have you ever been to Sweden or the USA? Because I don't see the poorest 10%, or even 20%, of Americans being better off than the poorest 20% of Swedes.
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&postcount=119
    http://mises.org/story/2259
    http://mises.org/story/2190
    http://mises.org/story/955 <- the most important one

    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    No it isn't, not in absolute terms. It depends on where your priorities lie. There are various types of command economies, also. I don't see the world in black and white. Materialism and economic growth aren't the only ideals. Don't for a second think that's all the world is about, because it isn't. Some people value money, some people value tradition. Others value equality, others value great achievements. Different cultures and nations may require different economic systems, different sorts of government, and so on. It is foolish to think that there is one perfect system above all others, because there isn't. Circumstances change. Needs change.
    Ultimately it is a grayscale between black and white, or, tyranny and liberty. Money, tradition, equality, great achievements, can all be balanced into this grayscale. Cultures sure can operate on a tyrannical basis; but there is no argument for their success or their moral justification. The state is the ultimate embodiment of theft, murder, and slavery. That these things are part of cultures that you claim to require statist economics is subjectively bad and not objectively bad. Clearly we disagree on the very basis of Libertarian vs Statist thought. If you favour Tyranny (presumably not)or Equality over Liberty that, however, still does not give you any moral justification in mandating the state to impose certain "rights" which in reality is just legalised theft. Or at least it means you oughtn't to be surprised when people rise in open rebellion.

    Circumstances may change but 1+1 is always 2. The free market is the best method of allocating scarce resources. It may not be the fairest or the most equal but it is always the most efficient.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by burninginme)
    I'm afraid it wouldn't work. No country has ever successfully functioned without an effective government. Countries that go into anarchy go into chaos, groups of thugs claim "territory" and rule by fear. The leader becomes the guy with the biggest guns.
    Before there were countries there were no countries to be governed. Guns are a result of the development of countries and governments. The human race is a complete joke.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nempozpag)
    Before there were countries there were no countries to be governed. Guns are a result of the development of countries and governments. The human race is a complete joke.
    A gun can easily be a tool for putting food on the table in hunting communities, not just for shooting people in violent shoot outs as many on the left emphasise.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'll take the fact that nobody commented on my post as a victory then, excellent.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    No, instead, they faced poverty, shortages, and horrific quality of consumer goods. In any case the boom and bust cycle is artificially caused by Government inflation in the money supply.
    Inflation is always bad. Currency probably needs to be allocated in a different way.

    It was an economic powerhouse because it was economically liberal. Historically, it got less profitable as time went on because the new resources began to be developed at a slower growth rate because of mercantilist policies.
    I actually agree. Protectionism is bad.


    Or so you may think.
    So I know.

    Something is only a right if the state says so? So the people of the USSR did not have a right to freedom of speech? The Jews of Nazi Germany did not have a right to live?
    People without states and laws have no official rights? It depends on the government. Don't put all governments under one tyrannical category.
    As much as you may like to be, I am not a serf to the state. Neither ought you to be. We all are human beings and have the natural right to direct our own life without a bureaucrat directing orders from a central office. The people who misunderstood this the most were overthrown and executed by their own people.

    History disagrees with you.
    Neither should we be corporate serfs.


    I am quite sure. I believe in Anarcho-Capitalism, but I believe Classical Liberalism to be more desirable. I don't know whether you consider that makes me an Anarcho Capitalist or not, but I don't self-classify.
    So, you do believe in some form of government.

    If you think you have the means to take my freedom from me, then go ahead, but you better know how to shoot straight.
    FIGHT THE POWER!!

    I wouldn't even need to fire one bullet. I'd get a bunch of lackeys to arrest you in the night and lock you in a padded cell.

    O rly? What do you call Anarchist Catalonia then? Or Free Ukraine?
    Failed states which would have collapsed by themselves anyway. That, and they flew the banner of Anarcho-Marxism.

    People are generally better at informing themselves than regulatory boards are at regulating things. Information about consumer goods spreads by word of mouth from person to person and it is impossible for a central regulatory board to know everything about the entire economy.
    Just as it is impossible for individuals to know about the entire economy. Consumer activism tends to be limited, and the companies won't be punished for their irresponsible actions.

    Intellectual property rights are theft in their own way. You want education? You want information? Abolish intellectual property, the law that creates more monopolies every year than the free market ever has in its entire history.
    Maybe we should abolish tangible property rights, too. Finders keepers!

    How is it theft if I created it anyway? Intellectual property rights should have a more limited duration though, that much I will agree with. 10 years at most. However, the original creator must be credited.

    If you know about economies of scale you know surely about diseconomies of scale and in any case it is quite ridiculous to suggest that one company could buy out all the other energy companies in the entire world.
    They could, with efficient management practises. Diseconomies of scale apply when the weight of a huge organisation is greater than the capital which supports it.

    Ultimately it is a grayscale between black and white, or, tyranny and liberty. Money, tradition, equality, great achievements, can all be balanced into this grayscale. Cultures sure can operate on a tyrannical basis; but there is no argument for their success or their moral justification. The state is the ultimate embodiment of theft, murder, and slavery. That these things are part of cultures that you claim to require statist economics is subjectively bad and not objectively bad. Clearly we disagree on the very basis of Libertarian vs Statist thought. If you favour Tyranny (presumably not)or Equality over Liberty that, however, still does not give you any moral justification in mandating the state to impose certain "rights" which in reality is just legalised theft. Or at least it means you oughtn't to be surprised when people rise in open rebellion.
    Sources noted. Some good points, especially on the last link, but I have reservations.

    Yeah, too much tax is bad. That's pretty much obvious. And the more tax, the less free economic activity there is. Too much socialism is economically destructive.

    Different cultures may endorse economically less efficient systems in the name of tradition.

    Circumstances may change but 1+1 is always 2. The free market is the best method of allocating scarce resources. It may not be the fairest or the most equal but it is always the most efficient.
    I agree. I am not against market economics, and contrary to what you might think, I mostly support free trade, but like all things, you can have too much economic freedom. The free market has its own shortcomings. So, we need various degrees of regulation and welfare to provide stability. Pensions and healthcare can be pretty much sorted out by nationalised pension pots and healthcare schemes.

    Companies must also be bound to observe established rights, just as consumers and labour should. Regulations are the best way to restrict people and organisations from exercising negative liberties.

    However, I believe that we will need to see radical changes in economics in the long-term to solve many of the problems presented. How do we create a balance between economic and social needs in a mostly materialistic culture?
    There are still shortfalls in long-term sustainability which must be addressed.

    The most important issue, above all else, is keeping the economy intact and ensuring that everyone has bread and water. The most important purpose of welfare is to provide such commodities to everyone, and also cut crime in the process. That can be provided with minimal reduction in productivity.

    Ultimately, it falls upon the government to intervene when the market fails. Also, there may be beneficial long-term projects into which resources can be wisely invested. Not a penny wasted.

    It is important to ensure a basic standard of living for all citizens, even if it means soup kitchens and camps for the homeless. However, welfare must not be overly generous, except in the case of the disabled. That is not negotiable, and economic growth should not be put before established human needs.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Politics is the turf war between gangs vying to control the local protection racket.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The West Wing)
    Who would build roads and bridges?
    This reminds me of a funny stories in economics. You know when you're doing A level economics, and they introduce the concept of a public good (non-rivalrous, non-excludable, etc), they always seem to use the example of lighthouses. Lighthouses are apparently the perfect example of a good which simply would not be provided properly and to a large enough degree on the free market.

    Except, one day, Ronald Coase (a Nobel prize winning economist) thought it might be a good idea to actually look at the historical provision of lighthouses. What did he find? What actually happened was a large time period where lighthouses were financed by private people, built by private people, operated by the people who had the rights to the lighthouses, which they could bequeath to others and sell.

    What people don't realize is that although the market does sometimes fail, governments fail for what are exactly the same reasons. The best intro to this idea, I think, is a talk by David Friedman (Milton's son) you can get here http://oxlib.blogspot.com/2008/11/wr...good-trap.html.

    Oh, and as for roads - just look at history. There used to be private roads in the US and the UK (http://www.fee.org/publications/the-...e.asp?aid=2471 for instance, and look up turnpike trusts in the UK)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    This reminds me of a funny stories in economics. You know when you're doing A level economics, and they introduce the concept of a public good (non-rivalrous, non-excludable, etc), they always seem to use the example of lighthouses. Lighthouses are apparently the perfect example of a good which simply would not be provided properly and to a large enough degree on the free market.

    Except, one day, Ronald Coase (a Nobel prize winning economist) thought it might be a good idea to actually look at the historical provision of lighthouses. What did he find? What actually happened was a large time period where lighthouses were financed by private people, built by private people, operated by the people who had the rights to the lighthouses, which they could bequeath to others and sell.

    What people don't realize is that although the market does sometimes fail, governments fail for what are exactly the same reasons. The best intro to this idea, I think, is a talk by David Friedman (Milton's son) you can get here http://oxlib.blogspot.com/2008/11/wr...good-trap.html.

    Oh, and as for roads - just look at history. There used to be private roads in the US and the UK (http://www.fee.org/publications/the-...e.asp?aid=2471 for instance, and look up turnpike trusts in the UK)
    The exception proves the rule.

    Just because there are instances where private individuals have chosen to provide these services it doesn't mean it would happen now, and it's not right to assume either way. Why would a private individual provide and maintain roads in remote areas with few people?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The West Wing)
    Just because there are instances where private individuals have chosen to provide these services it doesn't mean it would happen now, and it's not right to assume either way. Why would a private individual provide and maintain roads in remote areas with few people?
    Of course it's not right to assume either way, but the fact that roads really have been provided privately for long periods of time in the past is certainly good prima facie evidence to suggest that ruling private provision out is a knee-jerk reaction. As for not assuming, there has actually been quite a lot of stuff written about the feasibility of private roads:

    Free Market Transportation: Denationalizing the Roads

    A Practical Proposal for Privatizing the Highways (and Other Natural Monopolies)

    The Private Ownership of Public Space: The New Age of Rationally Priced Road Use

    And if you actually think about it, roads are not a public good in the first place! They're certainly not non-excludable, and there's a good case for saying they're actually rivalrous too. Why would a private individual maintain roads in remote areas? For the same reason that private individuals do anything, because they think it's in their best interest.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    How do you ban anything without some form of government? :rolleyes: Government = law
    That is simply not true. An organisation or multiple organisations could enforce common law justice without acquiring arbitrary power or taxing 'subjects' for its funding.

    Governments are social structures, from tribal chiefs. They will always exist in some form or another, whether it is a tribe, a guild, a corporation, a council, etc. Do you suggest that we get rid of all communities, all nations, and all authorities? Go on, destroy society. See how much good it does. Societies and organisations will form again. :rolleyes:
    I didn't propose to ban voluntary collectives, only involuntary ones.

    Rather than blame the government, think... the government is often an expression of the individuals and factions which control it, in one way or another. Blame people and circumstances, not the construct itself. Governments can be a force for "good" or a force for "bad". It depends on who is running them.
    It actually depends on your definition of good and bad. Anything a government does that could not be done by a private citizen is likely to be bad for someone, and for a liberal any such thing it does is bad.

    ----------

    If you still think this is a crazy or unrealistic proposal, imagine the following:

    The UK passes a law allowing anyone and their property to seceed from the country. The UK reserves the right to send police over the new borders in order to arrest people it suspects have assaulted its remaining citizens or their property, but otherwise will leave the new republics alone. The UK itself, then, despite retaining the NHS, state education, price controls, tarrifs and all other socialist and nationalist policies libs don't like, becomes merely a voluntary association like a golf club.

    My question is: how many people do you think would choose to remain in the UK?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    That is simply not true. An organisation or multiple organisations could enforce common law justice without acquiring arbitrary power or taxing 'subjects' for its funding.

    I didn't propose to ban voluntary collectives, only involuntary ones.


    It actually depends on your definition of good and bad. Anything a government does that could not be done by a private citizen is likely to be bad for someone, and for a liberal any such thing it does is bad.
    Right, because a team of ill-equipped and poorly organised private investigators can track down a criminal much better than a high-tech police force.

    You just don't get it. You cannot trust individuals to be universally responsible. You cannot trust individuals to be impartial and rational. You cannot trust to anarchy, not at this stage. Mankind is far from mature or developed enough for anarchy to work.

    Instead, we need to balance civil liberties and government rules and regulations. Neither individuals nor organisations can be trusted entirely.

    If you still think this is a crazy or unrealistic proposal, imagine the following:

    The UK passes a law allowing anyone and their property to seceed from the country. The UK reserves the right to send police over the new borders in order to arrest people it suspects have assaulted its remaining citizens or their property, but otherwise will leave the new republics alone. The UK itself, then, despite retaining the NHS, state education, price controls, tarrifs and all other socialist and nationalist policies libs don't like, becomes merely a voluntary association like a golf club.

    My question is: how many people do you think would choose to remain in the UK?
    That is absurd. What would happen to people who have been wronged in such republics? What will happen when such micronations have conflicts with each other?

    Back to the question, though.. most people would choose to remain UK citizens, because of the law, protection, and services it provides.
    Many businesses would declare their own land independent perhaps, because of the lack of tax, and the whole economy could be sent into turmoil. I don't believe in cultural and moral nihilism, either. You'd probably enjoy the fact that people could do whatever they liked on their own property without consequence. Child molestation and abuse, much? Domestic violence? Counterfeiting money? Slavery?
    The idea would be retarded in the first place. Not going to happen. That, and governments would form eventually between the anarchist republics anyway.

    Law and Order should not be voluntary.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    That is absurd. What would happen to people who have been wronged in such republics? What will happen when such micronations have conflicts with each other?
    What would they wage conflict for?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Ban the government ?
    Don't be silly .. we would have no-one to blame everything on !
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    Right, because a team of ill-equipped and poorly organised private investigators can track down a criminal much better than a high-tech police force.
    Why would a private police force be less well funded or organised? Is Corus Group less well funded and organised than British Steel was...?

    You just don't get it. You cannot trust individuals to be universally responsible. You cannot trust individuals to be impartial and rational. You cannot trust to anarchy, not at this stage. Mankind is far from mature or developed enough for anarchy to work.
    Sure, but government is controlled by individual men as well - not some omnicient, beneficient deity. The difference is that, under a no-state model, the potentially corrupt organisations are far less powerful than under the state model.

    Back to the question, though.. most people would choose to remain UK citizens, because of the law, protection, and services it provides.
    Many businesses would declare their own land independent perhaps, because of the lack of tax, and the whole economy could be sent into turmoil.
    Lack of tax is unlikely to cause the economy to weaken - quite the contrary. But you are right that the UK's client state would be dismantled as the it ran out of money to pay its 'clients'. Why, then, would these people remain with a country that has nothing to offer them? The UK would surely only survive if it adopted a minarchist setup - that's all enough people would consent to fund.

    That is absurd. What would happen to people who have been wronged in such republics? What will happen when such micronations have conflicts with each other?

    I don't believe in cultural and moral nihilism, either. You'd probably enjoy the fact that people could do whatever they liked on their own property without consequence. Child molestation and abuse, much? Domestic violence? Counterfeiting money? Slavery?
    I didn't say anything about micronations or some presumed right of sovereignty that would be enforceable by a suitably powerful body, I said that the people and their property would no longer be part of any state. As such, the legal system would develop along a common law footing and be enforced by private agencies. So if you think people would stand aside and allow people to molest and enslave one another, then sure. But if you believe that this is the case, why haven't these things been legalised through the democratic process? And while I agree this is possible somewhere (ie. we had a state in which people allowed slavery &c.), the outcome of that has already been seen. Slave ships docking at Bristol, the army being used to destroy slave rebellions - how is that preferable?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    Why would a private police force be less well funded or organised? Is Corus Group less well funded and organised than British Steel was...?
    Would such a police force be bound by laws keeping it within a certain code of conduct? Can maximum resources be put into its operations? Would it be run for profit or could you expect something just as good as the police force we have now?

    Sure, but government is controlled by individual men as well - not some omnicient, beneficient deity. The difference is that, under a no-state model, the potentially corrupt organisations are far less powerful than under the state model.
    Individual men in the government are bound by the law. If they are found to break the law, they must pay the consequences.

    Hahaha, because private organisations cannot set up their own nation-states with a nasty governmental setup and their own laws.


    Lack of tax is unlikely to cause the economy to weaken - quite the contrary. But you are right that the UK's client state would be dismantled as the it ran out of money to pay its 'clients'. Why, then, would these people remain with a country that has nothing to offer them? The UK would surely only survive if it adopted a minarchist setup - that's all enough people would consent to fund.
    Why should we adopt such a setup? Would it work better? I think not.

    And I am entirely unconvinced that unregulated free trade is the way forward. It certainly doesn't provide stability.

    I didn't say anything about micronations or some presumed right of sovereignty that would be enforceable by a suitably powerful body, I said that the people and their property would no longer be part of any state. As such, the legal system would develop along a common law footing and be enforced by private agencies. So if you think people would stand aside and allow people to molest and enslave one another, then sure. But if you believe that this is the case, why haven't these things been legalised through the democratic process? And while I agree this is possible somewhere (ie. we had a state in which people allowed slavery &c.), the outcome of that has already been seen. Slave ships docking at Bristol, the army being used to destroy slave rebellions - how is that preferable?
    What about private armies with the capability of invading other territories? What would stop them? What legal system? You said that government would be voluntary. :rolleyes:

    Also, you need to take into account that such events happened hundreds of years ago. Different sensibilities, different times. Don't think for a second that it applies to the Britain of today. Instituted slavery as such only happens in crappy African anarchies and tinpot dictatorships now. Of course, you could call debt slavery too, and I think that we should find an alternative to repossession.
    Take things into context, my friend.

    Total fail.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    "I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help" :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You cannot privatise the police force, becayse of the free rider problem.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

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

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