Free markets seem admirable, but they aren't important to me...

[Starks]

I believe that free markets are the best solution for monopoly/duopoly corporate situations.

However, I am a bit skeptic as to how free markets would function in a situation where the public assumes control of an industry or facet of national infrastructure that was once controlled in an absolute monopoly by the government. Can someone explain this to me?

Is it wrong to assume that there are certain things that the government can and will do better at than a free market could ever hope to do?

[kylejack]

I believe that free markets are the best solution for monopoly/duopoly corporate situations.

However, I am a bit skeptic as to how free markets would function in a situation where the public assumes control of an industry or facet of national infrastructure that was once controlled in an absolute monopoly by the government. Can someone explain this to me?

Is it wrong to assume that there are certain things that the government can and will do better at than a free market could ever hope to do?

Its better to talk about specifics with things like this. Some things are going to work a lot better than others.

Air Traffic Control: Will work good.
Police: Not so good.

[angelatc]

The government has no incentive to be efficient.

When you work for the government, your sucess is defined by how big of a budget you can blow through.

When you work for a corporation, your sucess is defined by how arge your profit margin is.

I can't think of a single thing the government can do better. There are people that argue, for example, utilities in rural areas, but I think that if tlhe government hadn't subsidized it, the rural areas would have develop alternative methods of production and power.

Look at roads and the interstate highways. Yes, they are convenient. But they were largely a result of the lobbying efforts of the automobile industry, and practically killed trains and other public transportation.

[Starks]

I'm not convinced because I don't think it's as simple as the "govt is evil and can't do anything right".

It just can't be that black and white...

[murrayrothbard]

I'm not convinced because I don't think it's as simple as the "govt is evil and can't do anything right".

It's not a slogan it's a conclusion.

Try, "my" text: Man, Economy, and State (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp). ;)

[nexalacer]

I look at this as a question of morality, not efficiency. Not to say the free market would not be more efficient in every way, but it's been talked about and written about ad nauseam by the Austrian school authors, Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard.

But we have to look at the government as an immoral institution for the following reasons:
1) Any moral system must apply to all individuals at all times, past and present, and in all situations. If a moral system does not fit such a criteria, then it is just a subjective opinion, not an objective moral case based on preferable human behavior.
2) Groups are simply names applied to individuals. That is, you cannot show me a picture of your "family" without showing me a picture of individuals. The same can be said for the government.
3) There are generally preferred human behaviors, that is, it is generally accepted, in all human societies, that murder and theft are bad.
4) If we combine the first three points, then we must come to the conclusion that the individuals who make up government must not be allowed to steal because theft is considered universally bad, and what is bad for one individual must be bad for all others.

The question is not, "can the government function better than the free market?", rather, the question is, "should the government be allowed to steal (tax) in order to pay for services it provides for society?"

If you want explanations of how it would all work, I recommend studying at http://mises.org/ , especially anything by Murray Rothbard, but I really recommend you ask yourself the more important question, the moral one... should government provide services if they are paid for by means of theft?

[sky21448]

limited corporation and free market is the best solution.
limited corperation means when they reach a current point of total profit they have to dismiss the corporation
big government can be a good thing, but when the politican doesnt abuse their power to abuse the people..
free market encourage the people in business to get more competitive, that brings the majority of consumers better quality product or service and a lower price.

[murrayrothbard]

I look at this as a question of morality, not efficiency. Not to say the free market would not be more efficient in every way, but it's been talked about and written about ad nauseam by the Austrian school authors, Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard.

But we have to look at the government as an immoral institution for the following reasons:
1) Any moral system must apply to all individuals at all times, past and present, and in all situations. If a moral system does not fit such a criteria, then it is just a subjective opinion, not an objective moral case based on preferable human behavior.
2) Groups are simply names applied to individuals. That is, you cannot show me a picture of your "family" without showing me a picture of individuals. The same can be said for the government.
3) There are generally preferred human behaviors, that is, it is generally accepted, in all human societies, that murder and theft are bad.
4) If we combine the first three points, then we must come to the conclusion that the individuals who make up government must not be allowed to steal because theft is considered universally bad, and what is bad for one individual must be bad for all others.

The question is not, "can the government function better than the free market?", rather, the question is, "should the government be allowed to steal (tax) in order to pay for services it provides for society?"

If you want explanations of how it would all work, I recommend studying at http://mises.org/ , especially anything by Murray Rothbard, but I really recommend you ask yourself the more important question, the moral one... should government provide services if they are paid for by means of theft?

This is exacly right. The economic efficiency argument for a free society is sound, however extremely complicated and requires familiarity with a large body of economic theory and other fields.

The argument from morality is far more direct and easily comprehended, yet makes some uncomfortable because they don't like the spot that is puts them in.

Thanks for the plug nexalacer ;)

[murrayrothbard]

limited corporation and free market is the best solution.
limited corperation means when they reach a current point of total profit they have to dismiss the corporation
big government can be a good thing, but when the politican doesnt abuse their power to abuse the people..
free market encourage the people in business to get more competitive, that brings the majority of consumers better quality product or service and a lower price.

What a mishmash...

"limited corperation means when they reach a current point of total profit they have to dismiss the corporation"

How much? Why?
Who decides? Why?
What if the owner's of the corporation refuse? Shoot them?

"big government can be a good thing, but when the politican doesnt abuse their power to abuse the people.."

Governments abuse the 'people' by definition. The existence of the State depends on the use of aggressive force.

[murrayrothbard]

nexalacer,

You sound like you have been listening to Molyneux... Heard of him?

[nullvalu]

I watched a special last night about railroads, and they talked about how due to competition of the early raillines, there was no standardization, and the federal government was forced to step in during WW1 and take control of the lines.. After the war, the control of the lines were returned to the corporations and when WWII rolled about they had gotten their act together and there was no need for the gov't to step in that time around..

So it could be argued that had the gov't not stepped in during WW1, we could have lost the war due to decreased production and non-standardization of the railways..

But I think these are rare circumstances..

[nexalacer]

nexalacer,

You sound like you have been listening to Molyneux... Heard of him?

:D ;)

[nexalacer]

I watched a special last night about railroads, and they talked about how due to competition of the early raillines, there was no standardization, and the federal government was forced to step in during WW1 and take control of the lines.. After the war, the control of the lines were returned to the corporations and when WWII rolled about they had gotten their act together and there was no need for the gov't to step in that time around..

So it could be argued that had the gov't not stepped in during WW1, we could have lost the war due to decreased production and non-standardization of the railways..

But I think these are rare circumstances..

The railways and robber barons are among the most propagandized aspects of American History. It is always said that the increases of government power were "necessary" for the good of the country, meanwhile the facts about the industries are obfuscated by the state-run education system and state-sponsored media. What channel did you see the special on? What were its sources? What any other materials say of what this TV special claimed as fact?

[murrayrothbard]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK3xcFvnEI0

[constituent]

The government has no incentive to be efficient.

When you work for the government, your sucess is defined by how big of a budget you can blow through.

When you work for a corporation, your sucess is defined by how arge your profit margin is.



This is an absolute fallacy that drives me insane about libertarian philosophy.

The government would have incentive to be efficient if they had to be.
In profit-sector business there is not motivation other than profit, particularly
those publicly traded companies who are legally bound to do what is best
for the corporation even at the expense of everyone else....

don't believe me? wanna write it off? come drive up the texas coast
again... when you get to Point Comfort let me know.

Corporations succeed or fail based solely on the whims of the fed. and
their ability to exploit their employees for wages under their market
value (cuttin' costs). At the bargaining table, management's success
is judged on how low they can keep their labor costs (amongst other
considerations, but you bet your ass that's the major one... why
else would all the big wig investment class douche bags be blaming
it all on the unions?). Everyone expects insurance, and the cost
of insurance just keeps shooting through the roof.

Worst part, those douche bags are the same
people who have their money invested in the hedge-funds and every
other twisted layer of mess we call free markets, that own the
insurance companies. The same douchebags that have been
advocation the TTC. The same doubchebags that wanna vaccinate
your kids [see Rick Perry, MERCK (and this ain't even conspiracy
theory folks, we could get into Old Europe if we so desired, but
let us keep it simple for the time being)].

The problem is that government is not now, nor can it ever be
expected to function w/ our best interest at heart... just too
many notions of "best interest (pun intended)" out there.

Same goes w/ the profit-sector, publicly traded corps. out there.

The small business man myth and innovation and all that are really
nice little notions, but in fact these days the small business no longer
exists as the king of thier respective castles, but rather as a pawn at the disposal
of his/her financiers.

Small family farms, same story.

The problem is consolidated power (and we need to hammer this home if
we are to sway "liberals" or progressives or whatever). That's why free
markets are the best, most viable option... b/c attempting to control
anything is just a bad idea, and requires the use of force... this of course
provokes anger and encourages more force on and on and on...

Also, if we are actually a movement that is about change, love, prosperity,
stability, then we really need to start acting more like a movement and
less like a campaign.

The people w/ the ability to help fund and form non-profit sector, charitable
organizations with high degrees of efficiency and accountability we
can all work together to PROVE that our way of thinking about economics,
charity, and our humanity in general... then we can really crush some
of the serious authoritarian problems that are currently plagueing
our families, our nations, and the world at large.


if you took the time too read all of that... thanks.

[kylejack]

Thanks for the copy/paste job.

[nexalacer]

This is an absolute fallacy that drives me insane about libertarian philosophy.

The government would have incentive to be efficient if they had to be.
In profit-sector business there is not motivation other than profit, particularly
those publicly traded companies who are legally bound to do what is best
for the corporation even at the expense of everyone else....

don't believe me? wanna write it off? come drive up the texas coast
again... when you get to Point Comfort let me know.

Corporations succeed or fail based solely on the whims of the fed. and
their ability to exploit their employees for wages under their market
value (cuttin' costs). At the bargaining table, management's success
is judged on how low they can keep their labor costs (amongst other
considerations, but you bet your ass that's the major one... why
else would all the big wig investment class douche bags be blaming
it all on the unions?). Everyone expects insurance, and the cost
of insurance just keeps shooting through the roof.

Worst part, those douche bags are the same
people who have their money invested in the hedge-funds and every
other twisted layer of mess we call free markets, that own the
insurance companies. The same douchebags that have been
advocation the TTC. The same doubchebags that wanna vaccinate
your kids [see Rick Perry, MERCK (and this ain't even conspiracy
theory folks, we could get into Old Europe if we so desired, but
let us keep it simple for the time being)].

The problem is that government is not now, nor can it ever be
expected to function w/ our best interest at heart... just too
many notions of "best interest (pun intended)" out there.

Same goes w/ the profit-sector, publicly traded corps. out there.

The small business man myth and innovation and all that are really
nice little notions, but in fact these days the small business no longer
exists as the king of thier respective castles, but rather as a pawn at the disposal
of his/her financiers.

Small family farms, same story.

The problem is consolidated power (and we need to hammer this home if
we are to sway "liberals" or progressives or whatever). That's why free
markets are the best, most viable option... b/c attempting to control
anything is just a bad idea, and requires the use of force... this of course
provokes anger and encourages more force on and on and on...

Also, if we are actually a movement that is about change, love, prosperity,
stability, then we really need to start acting more like a movement and
less like a campaign.

The people w/ the ability to help fund and form non-profit sector, charitable
organizations with high degrees of efficiency and accountability we
can all work together to PROVE that our way of thinking about economics,
charity, and our humanity in general... then we can really crush some
of the serious authoritarian problems that are currently plagueing
our families, our nations, and the world at large.


if you took the time too read all of that... thanks.

You're so close... yet so far. I think you need to break your thoughts down to basic principles... start from scratch and rebuild, see where you end up.

[Kregener]

Is it wrong to assume that there are certain things that the government can and will do better at than a free market could ever hope to do?

Yes.

Governments only do two things better than private citizens:

Wage war

Oppress people

End of story.

[klamath]

A good example of a government job that needs to stay that way is the military. There has been a push to farm out some of the militarys missions to private firms ie Blackwater and others. A good example is that there are private companies in Iraq doing helicopter maintenance work. I know for a fact that they don't do a better job than the military maintenance crews for all their repairmen are ex military that got tired of receiving one third of the pay and far less benefits than the private contractors. And before I hear about Cheney giving the money to his company, I will point out that this was happeneing in Bosnia under Clinton.

[nexalacer]

A good example of a government job that needs to stay that way is the military. There has been a push to farm out some of the militarys missions to private firms ie Blackwater and others. A good example is that there are private companies in Iraq doing helicopter maintenance work. I know for a fact that they don't do a better job than the military maintenance crews for all their repairmen are ex military that got tired of receiving one third of the pay and far less benefits than the private contractors. And before I hear about Cheney giving the money to his company, I will point out that this was happeneing in Bosnia under Clinton.

I again refer you to my argument for morality. If it is universally accepted that killing is bad, is it moral to encourage governmental sponsored killing through a standing army? Not to say there is anything wrong with self-defense, but how do a standing army and self-defense mesh in a moral world?

[kylejack]

A good example of a government job that needs to stay that way is the military. There has been a push to farm out some of the militarys missions to private firms ie Blackwater and others. A good example is that there are private companies in Iraq doing helicopter maintenance work. I know for a fact that they don't do a better job than the military maintenance crews for all their repairmen are ex military that got tired of receiving one third of the pay and far less benefits than the private contractors. And before I hear about Cheney giving the money to his company, I will point out that this was happeneing in Bosnia under Clinton.
Ahem, marque and reprisal....

[constituent]

Thanks for the copy/paste job.

Yea, not a copy and paste job

THANKS FOR BEING A JACKASS THOUGH:D

[Original_Intent]

I like the example of the Dept of Education.

We give the government millions of dollars to tell us what can or cannot be taught to our kids, whether our kids can pray in school, etc. and if we do not comply they withhold the money that we paid to them in the first place.

Why are we paying millions for the extra bureacracy? Local funding, local control. Get the Ministry of Truth out of the schools.

Also, getting government out of schools and letting education dollars be attached to the student puts public and private schools in competition and improves education for all.

[klamath]

You run into a very big problem with private companies doing business with tax payers money. There you get get the profit motive competing to get the highest profits from the taxpayers. If people bought into a private fire department for protection as individuals this would be great but not when they are being funded by taxpayers as a whole.

[kylejack]

Yea, not a copy and paste job

THANKS FOR BEING A JACKASS THOUGH:D

Well then you're a weirdo for hitting enter every ten words or so.

I provide my jackass service free of charge! :cool:

[constituent]

You're so close... yet so far. I think you need to break your thoughts down to basic principles... start from scratch and rebuild, see where you end up.

Thank You. Can you help me understand what you mean?

[nullvalu]

The railways and robber barons are among the most propagandized aspects of American History. It is always said that the increases of government power were "necessary" for the good of the country, meanwhile the facts about the industries are obfuscated by the state-run education system and state-sponsored media. What channel did you see the special on? What were its sources? What any other materials say of what this TV special claimed as fact?

This was an episode of Modern Marvels on the History Channel, generally a good series.

[nexalacer]

Thank You. Can you help me understand what you mean?

I gotta crash and it will take some time. I'll do my best in the next couple of days to help you out here.

[constituent]

I like the example of the Dept of Education.

We give the government millions of dollars to tell us what can or cannot be taught to our kids, whether our kids can pray in school, etc. and if we do not comply they withhold the money that we paid to them in the first place.

Why are we paying millions for the extra bureacracy? Local funding, local control. Get the Ministry of Truth out of the schools.

Also, getting government out of schools and letting education dollars be attached to the student puts public and private schools in competition and improves education for all.

AMEN! But i like the idea of not having "education" dollars... we should
be attacking the programming that's been going on in public schools...

not the fact that they exist or simply that they cost money or something else
like that... we need to hit people w/ what makes sense to them.
what frightens them b/c they see it every day anyway, and
they depend on the ministry convincing them
it isn't there.
Whether or not you agree/disagree w/ abstinence only education,
drug programs, etc. etc. does not matter. We all can disagree
on the government using our money to program our children,
setting them in tune w/ the day's popular political agendas
and sloganeering.

[nexalacer]

This was an episode of Modern Marvels on the History Channel, generally a good series.

The History Channel is consistently the most factually deficient slop I've ever seen. It's owned by A&E Television Networks, which is a dual-venture between Sky News Corp and ABC-Disney. Does that not SCREAM statist propaganda? I think I need to write a book completely discrediting that crap so people stop believing it's real history.

[murrayrothbard]

constituent,


The government would have incentive to be efficient if they had to be.

As long as by "government" you mean a group of individuals that use aggressive force to maintain control over a given region, then no, there is no possible way for a government to be efficient. But I think you realize this when you go on to say:


The problem is that government is not now, nor can it ever be
expected to function w/ our best interest at heart... just too
many notions of "best interest (pun intended)" out there.

and


The problem is consolidated power (and we need to hammer this home if
we are to sway "liberals" or progressives or whatever). That's why free
markets are the best, most viable option... b/c attempting to control
anything is just a bad idea, and requires the use of force... this of course
provokes anger and encourages more force on and on and on...

You do recognize that everything you decry in your post is the result of government intervention in society, and government backed consilidation right? I think you do, but just checking.


The people w/ the ability to help fund and form non-profit sector, charitable
organizations with high degrees of efficiency and accountability we
can all work together to PROVE that our way of thinking about economics,
charity, and our humanity in general... then we can really crush some
of the serious authoritarian problems that are currently plagueing
our families, our nations, and the world at large.

What do you mean by "our way of thinking about economics", etc.? Economics, as properly understood is not about money. It is about people and the logical implications of the fact that they make choices. In the general sense of the term, there is no such thing as a non-profit organization. ALL action by individuals is directed towards an expected profit. This does NOT mean monetary profit. Just an increase in utility/happiness/etc for the individual.

[kylejack]

This was an episode of Modern Marvels on the History Channel, generally a good series.

As I recall, railroads that were entirely privately funded and managed were extremely efficient. The one up North, that ran North-South, for example....I don't recall the name. The ones where the government provided an exclusive contract and sometimes directly funded railroad expansion were a disaster.

I could imagine there being problems with standardization (gauge of the rail, weight of cars, etc) between different companies. Drastic measures might be required for war-time. Generally, though, we shouldn't need to go to war, and the free market can work these things out in due course.

Things like railroads and roads have always been problematic for libertarian philosophy, in my opinion, as well as environmental issues.

[constituent]

Well then you're a weirdo for hitting enter every ten words or so.

I provide my jackass service free of charge! :cool:

if that's the only reason you
must not be paying attention.

did you by chance vote twice for the president?

what district do you live in? what kinda
garbage has your rep. been getting
away with? i bet you haven't been
paying attention to that either...


please, prove me wrong...
give me some hope for america...

or just be a troll. wtfever.

[klamath]

I again refer you to my argument for morality. If it is universally accepted that killing is bad, is it moral to encourage governmental sponsored killing through a standing army? Not to say there is anything wrong with self-defense, but how do a standing army and self-defense mesh in a moral world?

Unfortunately it is not universally accepted that killing is bad. The one law of the world, and the universe for that matter, is force and counterforce. Whoever applies the most force wins. This law applies in nature and physics as well. We can talk about rights and morality all we want be in the end it is the law of force that wins.

[kylejack]

if that's the only reason you
must not be paying attention.

did you by chance vote twice for the president?
Harry Browne
Michael Badnarik


what district do you live in? what kinda
garbage has your rep. been getting
away with? i bet you haven't been
paying attention to that either...
The gentleman's name is Ron Paul, perhaps you've heard of him.

[nexalacer]

Unfortunately it is not universally accepted that killing is bad. The one law of the world, and the universe for that matter, is force and counterforce. Whoever applies the most force wins. This law applies in nature and physics as well. We can talk about rights and morality all we want be in the end it is the law of force that wins.

Is this how you operate in your daily life? Do you use force to get a job? Do you use force to get your home? Do you use force when you are shopping for groceries? Do you know anyone who does such things? Would force exist to the extent that it does if we did not give government the moral go ahead to use state-run force?

Edit: By universally accepted, I mean every society on the planet has laws against killing other people. I mean individuals, apart from sociopaths and government agents, do not use force in order to accomplish their ends. The law of force and counterforce in human society is a direct result of state power.

[constituent]

well good... me too... glad to bump into another local


murray rothbard did the right thing. i hope that you
will learn from his example. it is hard not to be abrasive,
i know how you feel.

but take a look at the number of members on this forum,
take a look at the number of reads these threads get...

those are individuals. people with friends, families, churches,
schools, on and on...

we can win them, or we can loose them. the decision is yours
friend, the ball is in our court.

please thimnk about that.

or don't, who knows, maybe your shit don't stink.

[Original_Intent]

AMEN! But i like the idea of not having "education" dollars... we should
be attacking the programming that's been going on in public schools...

not the fact that they exist or simply that they cost money or something else
like that... we need to hit people w/ what makes sense to them.
what frightens them b/c they see it every day anyway, and
they depend on the ministry convincing them
it isn't there.
Whether or not you agree/disagree w/ abstinence only education,
drug programs, etc. etc. does not matter. We all can disagree
on the government using our money to program our children,
setting them in tune w/ the day's popular political agendas
and sloganeering.

Yeah the job of the schools should be basically the three "r's and from there how to use logic, devlop artistic ability, etc.

Teach them to think. Do not teach them WHAT to think. Nowadays they don't care if a kid graduates high school being able to read or not as long as he knows that Heather can have two mommies, humanity is a scourge upon the earth who rapes the environment, and that the government will take care of you. Oh and don't listen to your mom and dad, and please let us know if they say bad things about Big Brother....

If we could win back education, in a generation all of our other problems would solve themselves.

[constituent]

Gargantua and Pantagruel.

[klamath]

Is this how you operate in your daily life? Do you use force to get a job? Do you use force to get your home? Do you use force when you are shopping for groceries? Do you know anyone who does such things? Would force exist to the extent that it does if we did not give government the moral go ahead to use state-run force?

Edit: By universally accepted, I mean every society on the planet has laws against killing other people. I mean individuals, apart from sociopaths and government agents, do not use force in order to accomplish their ends. The law of force and counterforce in human society is a direct result of state power.

No I didn't use force in the violent sense to get what I have. When you break it down to basic survival almost all people will use violence to try and survive. If they lose they don't survive. If you are starving and had no other way to get food would you steal from a grocery store? If you and your family were freezing to death with the only choice to survive was to break into a warm house and kill the current occupants that refused to let you in what would you do? Under the surface of all civilizations that law is present. Even the laws against killing are held in place by the ultimate threat of force.
We are trying to build a better civilization of right and wrong but behind it all the primitive law of force lurks.

So that there is no misunderstanding I am one of the least violent people you would know.

[Rich333]

A good example of a government job that needs to stay that way is the military. There has been a push to farm out some of the militarys missions to private firms ie Blackwater and others.
Those companies are paid by the government to help in an occupation of a foreign land. Actual military defense is a vastly different enterprise.

Let's say the government ceases to exist, and everything is left to the free market. You have the ability to arm yourself, to form vigilance committees with your neighbors, to pay private security, and to insure your person and property. Within all that, you can protect yourself as well without government as you can with government, if not better.

A private insurer covering your home has a direct financial incentive to protect your home, and a private insurer covering your life has a direct financial incentive to protect your life, while the government's only interest is in protecting tax revenue, and to a lesser extent its own agents and leaders. A private insurer can't afford to go invading foreign countries, nor would it have any reason to do so, so all military effort would be concentrated on actual military defense.

As a private business, its goal would be to maximize customer satisfaction while minimizing costs and risks to its assets, which is the perfect set of motives to ensure a high quality defense of your person and property. Blackwater is specialized in offensive operations in foreign lands, and has no real incentive to avoid doing harm to innocents in its area of operations, so it's very different from what you'd find from a private military defense company hired by your insurance company to protect you and your property.

[hard@work]

I can't think of a single thing the government can do better.


Tax?

[Zarxrax]

The way I see it there is a big problem with free markets sometimes.

Now, most of the time, the profit motive aligns the corporations activities with the good of society. You want to make more money than your competitor, so you find ways to make your product cheaper, or of higher quality. This is good.

However, when the free market is supplying a SERVICE, then they are often NOT acting in societies best interest. When you provide a service, the profit motive dictates that a company should try to do as little as possible in order to obtain money from customers. Take the insurance industry for example. There are all kinds of loopholes and things so that they can make sure they pay you as little as possible. They aren't there to help you, they are just there to take your money and then hope they never have to help you. Or how about this one: Ever call customer service? Don't you just love getting directed to someone over in india whom you cant understand, and then have them transfer you to 5 or 10 different people before you get your problem solved? Do you know anyone who has ever taken their car to a mechanic, and then gotten seriously ripped off because they didn't know any better?

Stop and think for a moment if some seriously important jobs weren't handled by the government. How about private firefighters? Would they drive up and then make you engage in a credit card transaction before they put out your fire? Would they allow you to select from different levels of fire extinguishing service depending on how much you want to spend?

So basically, for companies that provide services, the customers interest and the companies interest are often at complete opposite ends of the spectrum. How can privatization possibly be the best solution when this paradox exists?

[ThePieSwindler]

The way I see it there is a big problem with free markets sometimes.

Now, most of the time, the profit motive aligns the corporations activities with the good of society. You want to make more money than your competitor, so you find ways to make your product cheaper, or of higher quality. This is good.

However, when the free market is supplying a SERVICE, then they are often NOT acting in societies best interest. When you provide a service, the profit motive dictates that a company should try to do as little as possible in order to obtain money from customers. Take the insurance industry for example. There are all kinds of loopholes and things so that they can make sure they pay you as little as possible. They aren't there to help you, they are just there to take your money and then hope they never have to help you. Or how about this one: Ever call customer service? Don't you just love getting directed to someone over in india whom you cant understand, and then have them transfer you to 5 or 10 different people before you get your problem solved? Do you know anyone who has ever taken their car to a mechanic, and then gotten seriously ripped off because they didn't know any better?

Stop and think for a moment if some seriously important jobs weren't handled by the government. How about private firefighters? Would they drive up and then make you engage in a credit card transaction before they put out your fire? Would they allow you to select from different levels of fire extinguishing service depending on how much you want to spend?

So basically, for companies that provide services, the customers interest and the companies interest are often at complete opposite ends of the spectrum. How can privatization possibly be the best solution when this paradox exists?

All you're arguing against here is anarchocapitalism. Economic liberalism, or the policies that ROn Paul adheres to, allow for government to provide some basic services, especially since they are dealt with on the local level. I haven't heard Ron Paul once say we should do away with the police departments or firefighters. I think your reasoning overall is slightly off here, but in terms of your alignment with Ron Paul's economic policies, its about spot on.


As for starks, damn dude you've evolved a ton since getting on here - first an independant democrat silently rooting for ron paul who was sort of worried about lassez faire capitalism.. to someone who things they are admirable and even moral, and you even dropped the "Democrat" label! Excellent work :-D

[nexalacer]

No I didn't use force in the violent sense to get what I have. When you break it down to basic survival almost all people will use violence to try and survive. If they lose they don't survive. If you are starving and had no other way to get food would you steal from a grocery store? If you and your family were freezing to death with the only choice to survive was to break into a warm house and kill the current occupants that refused to let you in what would you do? Under the surface of all civilizations that law is present. Even the laws against killing are held in place by the ultimate threat of force.
We are trying to build a better civilization of right and wrong but behind it all the primitive law of force lurks.

So that there is no misunderstanding I am one of the least violent people you would know.

This is a serious problem when talking about morals. We can't use extreme situations to argue against moral truths, since morals are what are meant to guide our day to day lives as human beings living together in a society. Of course, in an extreme situation, most people would abandon morals and do whatever it takes to stay alive, but that does not invalidate the morals for regular situations. If you really look closely at the situations you described, they are clearly not relevant in the discussion about whether or not the use of force is right in everyday life. And you say that the primitive law of force lurks behind our civilization, but we've managed to overcome the other primitive instincts. We no longer go accept pummeling our desired mate in order to force them to mate with us. This is part of the growth that comes with having the responsibility of reason. We can abandon the primitive for what is right.

And if you're not violent in your own life, how can you morally commend violence by others?

[nexalacer]

The way I see it there is a big problem with free markets sometimes.

Now, most of the time, the profit motive aligns the corporations activities with the good of society. You want to make more money than your competitor, so you find ways to make your product cheaper, or of higher quality. This is good.

However, when the free market is supplying a SERVICE, then they are often NOT acting in societies best interest. When you provide a service, the profit motive dictates that a company should try to do as little as possible in order to obtain money from customers. Take the insurance industry for example. There are all kinds of loopholes and things so that they can make sure they pay you as little as possible. They aren't there to help you, they are just there to take your money and then hope they never have to help you. Or how about this one: Ever call customer service? Don't you just love getting directed to someone over in india whom you cant understand, and then have them transfer you to 5 or 10 different people before you get your problem solved? Do you know anyone who has ever taken their car to a mechanic, and then gotten seriously ripped off because they didn't know any better?

Stop and think for a moment if some seriously important jobs weren't handled by the government. How about private firefighters? Would they drive up and then make you engage in a credit card transaction before they put out your fire? Would they allow you to select from different levels of fire extinguishing service depending on how much you want to spend?

So basically, for companies that provide services, the customers interest and the companies interest are often at complete opposite ends of the spectrum. How can privatization possibly be the best solution when this paradox exists?

If a company is providing a service, yet not acting in your best interests, would you continue to patronize the company and give them your hard earned dollars? If a waiter gives you crap service, do you tip them?

Of course an insurance company doesn't want to have to pay you, but what would happen to an insurance companies business if it refused to pay out all, or even a significant portion, of its claims? How long would it continue? Assuming the highly unlikely case that it did continue and it didn't pay out its claims, what would be the solution? Should the government take over the insurance business? We've seen what that has done in the HMOs.

The customer service situation you've provided is a new situation, but I've already seen signs that the free market is offering solutions to this problem. I worked at a store that sold computers and printers, and I often had customers asking about where the customer service center was located. I also had customers that refused to buy Hewlett Packard products because they can't understand the customer service reps who were based in India. Yes, it does require a little more work on the part of the consumer, but this has been a fact of life since at least Roman times, likely before. Where does the phrase caveat emptor, let the buyer beware, come from?

The same can be said for the car maintenance industry. If the mechanics are screwing people, why do the people continue to keep that mechanic employed? My grandparents have been going to the same mechanic for 30 years and its next to impossible to get an appointment there because he's known for providing excellent service at an honest price. Would a mechanic who was known for screwing people have such a successful business? Also, remember, it is in our nature to talk about when we get screwed, but to never tell about when we got good service. So for all the times you've heard of someone getting screwed by a mechanic, think about all the times you've never heard a word about a bad mechanic. Which is greater?

Finally, the thing about firefighters is quite funny. How long would a private firefighter business last if they didn't do their job but asked for payment? If they let a house burn down, how much longer would their community support them? Why would you expect that a private firefighting firm would not be held responsible to the same market forces as any other business: namely, you provide your service and you get paid... if you don't you don't?

[Starks]

This is all so confusing...

[nexalacer]

This is all so confusing...

What's confusing? What questions do you have?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I believe that free markets are the best solution for monopoly/duopoly corporate situations.

However, I am a bit skeptic as to how free markets would function in a situation where the public assumes control of an industry or facet of national infrastructure that was once controlled in an absolute monopoly by the government. Can someone explain this to me?

Is it wrong to assume that there are certain things that the government can and will do better at than a free market could ever hope to do?

Who or what creates wealth? The government? Or the people? I'm a free market guy.

Free market>>>Competition>>>Quality>>>Cost effective

Government>>>Micromanagement>>>Lack of innovation>>>High costs

What are you referring to? Transportation, perhaps? Well, how much are bus fees? They go by weird "zones" and they're rising every year. Would we have this in a free market? No. We would have MORE buses, taxis, and trains, not a specified amount. Would it cost cheap? Yeah, why? Competition. You want to beat what your competition charges. Quality? It would affect the costs, you would have more choices, and YOU would be treated hell of a lot nicer than how the typical bus driver treats you. He just treats you as a part of his job, but when it's his BUSINESS, you'll see the attitude change.

My brand of libertarianism meshes a little utilitarianism in there :) so... I'd probably oppose to individuals owning nukes

[BarryDonegan]

Is it wrong to assume that there are certain things that the government can and will do better at than a free market could ever hope to do?

It's intellectually foolish to ever assume anything. however, there is little support for the fact that a general, governmental process is performed better than a private practice done by an individual whose livelihood is connected to its success or failure.

so on a statistical and historic level, a private company provides for services far better than the state. private companies are subject to a check and balance from the market(aka the consumer) which prevents corruption. when a private company becomes corrupt, it fails and dies, or becomes criminal. either one of these takes it out of the game.

with government services this is not true. NOTE: publicly traded corporations are not private companies, so don't judge the performance of the market on those things, those are heavily regulated public institutions much like(and arguably classifiable as) a government process.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

That's the thing about government. Everyone is quick to say "I support vouchers" or "I support this tax system," yet they can't tell you how it would work lol "I don't know." You need to know how it would work before you advocate for something, otherwise, you should let the free market take control.

You need to ask yourself two questions before you advocate government intervention:

1. How would it work?
2. How would it be better than a free market system?

You go from there. You support universal health care? Well, how would it WORK? And how will it be better than a free market health care system? You can also have "mixtures," but that's another matter.

A mixture is:

*a company that works directly with government
*bidding on government contracts

same rules apply, you only turn the question around

1. How would it work?
2. How would it be better than the current government monopoly?

That's how I reason with what 'should' be open to the free market and what should not.

SHOULD: Energy

SHOULD NOT: Government

SHOULD: Agriculture

SHOULD NOT: Law enforcement

That's why you need to find the healthy balance :)

[BarryDonegan]

The way I see it there is a big problem with free markets sometimes.
Now, most of the time, the profit motive aligns the corporations activities with the good of society. You want to make more money than your competitor, so you find ways to make your product cheaper, or of higher quality. This is good.


corporations are not motivated by profits, they are motivated by bottom line. this bottom line takes into account tax bracketing, which oftentimes causes them to intentionally lose certain monies to appeal to a different bracket. corporations are also, although SOME are TECHNICALLY private, the majority of the corrupt ones whose interests are in contradiction with the market are PUBLICLY TRADED(see: not private). ALSO, an important clarification here, is that most free-market, libertarian economic philosophy only honors willing contracts between individuals. corporations are by nature, a limited or no liability entity that not that of a citizen. it is an identity seperate from that, making it illegal in that type of thinking.

very rarely do private companies in a competitive market have interests that fight the consumer. the consumer is their boss, and they can't fight them. this, mind you, is a private company run by a person who owns it, and is liable for its debts and crimes. in this particular case, profitability benefits the person who can do the best work the cheapest.

in fact, in some cases, such as police and fire departments, if they were done privately, they would worry much more about profitability than spending their budgets. for example, it would be much more profitable to increase your police presence to cut down on the amount of crime, as crime prevention is cheaper than criminal apprehension.

like, if you could potentially lose your police contract with your neighborhood, you would stop persecuting the law abiding citizens of the community, and start protecting them. imagine how simple it would be to just park police cars on the side of the road all over the city, and just have some of them at random actually have an officer in it. this alone would cut down dramatically on the amount of people violating traffic laws, as they would constantly see police. right now the emphasis is on apprehension of criminals, not crime prevention or creating a feeling of safety in the community. there are many neighborhoods where the police have an adversarial relationship with the community. this i would see as a failure. the american people are their employer; they should be pleasing the people.