Government's Contribution

[SOCALHUSKER]

Government's Contribution: Immoral Violence

By Larken Rose

 

It's inefficient, it's corrupt, it's horrendously expensive, and it's bad at almost everything it does, not only failing to solve problems, but constantly making them worse, and making new problems at the same time. Yet so many people still insist that this thing called "government" is needed, even if only for a few particular tasks.

 

So what, exactly, does "government" add to society? What CAN it add? If we start with lots and lots of PEOPLE, living on a big piece of dirt, what does "government" have to contribute to the equation? Well, it contributes no talent or skill, no knowledge or ingenuity--things which come only from individual human beings. "Government" is merely an organization of people, imagined to have the right to rule everyone else. It can't have any abilities or productivity to offer that could not already be found in the PEOPLE of whom it consists. Calling a group of people something different (i.e., "government") can't possibly ADD any talents or qualities that the PEOPLE in the group didn't already possess.

 

Every "law" and "program" administered by "government" is administered by people. Since organization, cooperation, ingenuity and creativity are all possible without "government"--since those all come from PEOPLE--how could we possibly need "government" for anything? Since it's just a group of PEOPLE, how could there be anything which people could do as "government," which those SAME people, with all the same talents and know-how, couldn't do WITHOUT it?

 

There is one thing, and only one thing, that "government" adds to society: immoral violence. Because people imagine it to have the RIGHT to rule, and the right to use force in situations where you and I would have no such right, all it does is add UNJUST VIOLENCE to society. (And how many people, looking around, say, "Ya know, what this country needs is more unjust violence!")

 

Yes, some things are more convenient if you are allowed to ignore morality. For example, a supermarket would have an easier time if it could COERCE its customers to show up and pay whatever the store wants them to pay, instead of having to compete for voluntary customers. (The result, of course, would be really expensive, worthless products and services--which is what "government" specializes in.) It's easier to get your way if everyone thinks you have the right to send men with guns to make everyone else behave the way you want. But is that ADDING something to society, or taking something away?

 

Every time someone initiates force against someone else, whether they do it on their own or in the name of "government," they are SUBTRACTING something from society. They are REMOVING options and choices from people who should be free. They are LIMITING what people can do, what they can create, and what they can accomplish.

 

We can easily see this with a common crook. The guy who steals the old lady's purse adds nothing of value to society, and deprives the lady of all the possibilities of what she could have done with that money. In the case of a kidnapper or a murderer, the example is even more significant: to steal some or all of a person's life is to deprive not only that person, but the rest of the world, of whatever that person could have created or produced. whether in terms of physical wealth, emotional support, or anything else.

 

The same is true of the state. Every "law" is a threat of violence, and the vast majority of them target people who have committed no force or fraud. As a result, the vast majority of "laws" do nothing but LIMIT what people can accomplish and REMOVE options and choices. How can drastically LIMITING possibilities, with the use of force, contribute to society?

 

(Before you try to use the example of police stopping a murderer, think carefully. Defensive force is justified without any "law" or special "authority," so the protection of the innocent requires no "government." What makes them "police" is that people imagine them to have the right to use violence in situations where "normal" people don't. What "law enforcement" adds to society is, therefore, not safety, but robbery, assault, kidnapping and murder, all done in the name of the "law." In other words, by definition "government" does NOT add any right or ability to PROTECT rights-- which the people already had; it adds only the ability to VIOLATE rights.)

 

To put it bluntly, the reason statists really want "government" is because they aren't content to allow people to solve problems through voluntary interaction and cooperation; they want to FORCE everyone to do things their way. If the statists are scared of foreign invaders, they want to FORCE everyone else to pay for an army (even those who don't think it's necessary, or who morally oppose it). If statists think the poor might go hungry, they want to FORCE everyone to be "charitable." If they are concerned about kids not being educated, they want to FORCE everyone to pay for schools, whether the people want them or not.

 

"Government" is always a cop-out, advocated by people who don't want to let people be free, but want to COERCE them into making the "right" choices and funding the "right" things. Then, not surprisingly, it turns into a giant political free-for-all, fighting over the question of WHO gets to decide what everyone else should pay for and how everyone else should behave. An honest statist would have to sum up his position thusly: "We need government because otherwise some people wouldn't support what I want them to support, and wouldn't make the choices I want them to make." That is the ONLY reason anyone ever advocates "government," and that's why the ONLY thing that "government" "adds" to society is limited choices, fewer possibilities, and lots of unjust violence.

 

Allow me to be blunt to the point of rudeness: It's true that, if the whole world isn't forced to do things the way YOU think it should, you might not always get your way. But don't pretend you have some noble, altruistic motive for wanting "government." You want it so it can do what you know that YOU have no right to do: FORCE all your neighbors to conform to YOUR beliefs and ideas. Don't pretend you want "government" to "protect" people, or to contribute something to society that free people couldn't create-- you want it because you want CONTROL over everyone and everything else; you want to FORCE your ideas and "solutions" upon everyone else.

 

Well, the rest of the world has no obligation to think what you think, or to fund your ideas (whether they're brilliant or stupid), or to bow to your will. You own yourself, but you don't own anyone else. If that's not enough for you, go jump in a lake. Stop advocating violence in the name of humanity.

 

See more at TMDS Blog

[In the Deed the Glory]

Government's Contribution: Immoral Violence

By Larken Rose

 

It's inefficient, it's corrupt, it's horrendously expensive, and it's bad at almost everything it does, not only failing to solve problems, but constantly making them worse, and making new problems at the same time. Yet so many people still insist that this thing called "government" is needed, even if only for a few particular tasks.

 

So what, exactly, does "government" add to society? What CAN it add? If we start with lots and lots of PEOPLE, living on a big piece of dirt, what does "government" have to contribute to the equation? Well, it contributes no talent or skill, no knowledge or ingenuity--things which come only from individual human beings. "Government" is merely an organization of people, imagined to have the right to rule everyone else. It can't have any abilities or productivity to offer that could not already be found in the PEOPLE of whom it consists. Calling a group of people something different (i.e., "government") can't possibly ADD any talents or qualities that the PEOPLE in the group didn't already possess.

 

Every "law" and "program" administered by "government" is administered by people. Since organization, cooperation, ingenuity and creativity are all possible without "government"--since those all come from PEOPLE--how could we possibly need "government" for anything? Since it's just a group of PEOPLE, how could there be anything which people could do as "government," which those SAME people, with all the same talents and know-how, couldn't do WITHOUT it?

 

There is one thing, and only one thing, that "government" adds to society: immoral violence. Because people imagine it to have the RIGHT to rule, and the right to use force in situations where you and I would have no such right, all it does is add UNJUST VIOLENCE to society. (And how many people, looking around, say, "Ya know, what this country needs is more unjust violence!")

 

Yes, some things are more convenient if you are allowed to ignore morality. For example, a supermarket would have an easier time if it could COERCE its customers to show up and pay whatever the store wants them to pay, instead of having to compete for voluntary customers. (The result, of course, would be really expensive, worthless products and services--which is what "government" specializes in.) It's easier to get your way if everyone thinks you have the right to send men with guns to make everyone else behave the way you want. But is that ADDING something to society, or taking something away?

 

Every time someone initiates force against someone else, whether they do it on their own or in the name of "government," they are SUBTRACTING something from society. They are REMOVING options and choices from people who should be free. They are LIMITING what people can do, what they can create, and what they can accomplish.

 

We can easily see this with a common crook. The guy who steals the old lady's purse adds nothing of value to society, and deprives the lady of all the possibilities of what she could have done with that money. In the case of a kidnapper or a murderer, the example is even more significant: to steal some or all of a person's life is to deprive not only that person, but the rest of the world, of whatever that person could have created or produced. whether in terms of physical wealth, emotional support, or anything else.

 

The same is true of the state. Every "law" is a threat of violence, and the vast majority of them target people who have committed no force or fraud. As a result, the vast majority of "laws" do nothing but LIMIT what people can accomplish and REMOVE options and choices. How can drastically LIMITING possibilities, with the use of force, contribute to society?

 

(Before you try to use the example of police stopping a murderer, think carefully. Defensive force is justified without any "law" or special "authority," so the protection of the innocent requires no "government." What makes them "police" is that people imagine them to have the right to use violence in situations where "normal" people don't. What "law enforcement" adds to society is, therefore, not safety, but robbery, assault, kidnapping and murder, all done in the name of the "law." In other words, by definition "government" does NOT add any right or ability to PROTECT rights-- which the people already had; it adds only the ability to VIOLATE rights.)

 

To put it bluntly, the reason statists really want "government" is because they aren't content to allow people to solve problems through voluntary interaction and cooperation; they want to FORCE everyone to do things their way. If the statists are scared of foreign invaders, they want to FORCE everyone else to pay for an army (even those who don't think it's necessary, or who morally oppose it). If statists think the poor might go hungry, they want to FORCE everyone to be "charitable." If they are concerned about kids not being educated, they want to FORCE everyone to pay for schools, whether the people want them or not.

 

"Government" is always a cop-out, advocated by people who don't want to let people be free, but want to COERCE them into making the "right" choices and funding the "right" things. Then, not surprisingly, it turns into a giant political free-for-all, fighting over the question of WHO gets to decide what everyone else should pay for and how everyone else should behave. An honest statist would have to sum up his position thusly: "We need government because otherwise some people wouldn't support what I want them to support, and wouldn't make the choices I want them to make." That is the ONLY reason anyone ever advocates "government," and that's why the ONLY thing that "government" "adds" to society is limited choices, fewer possibilities, and lots of unjust violence.

 

Allow me to be blunt to the point of rudeness: It's true that, if the whole world isn't forced to do things the way YOU think it should, you might not always get your way. But don't pretend you have some noble, altruistic motive for wanting "government." You want it so it can do what you know that YOU have no right to do: FORCE all your neighbors to conform to YOUR beliefs and ideas. Don't pretend you want "government" to "protect" people, or to contribute something to society that free people couldn't create-- you want it because you want CONTROL over everyone and everything else; you want to FORCE your ideas and "solutions" upon everyone else.

 

Well, the rest of the world has no obligation to think what you think, or to fund your ideas (whether they're brilliant or stupid), or to bow to your will. You own yourself, but you don't own anyone else. If that's not enough for you, go jump in a lake. Stop advocating violence in the name of humanity.

 

See more at TMDS Blog

 

Ok, great in theory. The bold part.....Who pays these people? How do we educate children? How do we build roads? How do we field a military to protect our citizens from all the other "governments" in the world? How do we make sure there isn't hate crime? How do we punish murderers and rapists? How do we verify that medicines are safe? How do we do our best to have safe food that doesn't kill people or make them sick?

 

You see the fundamental flaw with this argument is that people want to be led. It will never change. Some are leaders, and someone will always come and lead a group of people. All those things listed above, those things have to be done. If we have no government, do you know who would take over those parts of society? Corporations. You can't honestly want that, can you?

 

The best thing about America, it is a lot of people leading our country instead of the ideas of one person. You could have a facist dictator killing you because you were born in an area he doesn't like in his own country. Does that sound better.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Ok, great in theory. The bold part.....Who pays these people? How do we educate children? How do we build roads? How do we field a military to protect our citizens from all the other "governments" in the world? How do we make sure there isn't hate crime? How do we punish murderers and rapists? How do we verify that medicines are safe? How do we do our best to have safe food that doesn't kill people or make them sick?

 

You see the fundamental flaw with this argument is that people want to be led. It will never change. Some are leaders, and someone will always come and lead a group of people. All those things listed above, those things have to be done. If we have no government, do you know who would take over those parts of society? Corporations. You can't honestly want that, can you?

 

The best thing about America, it is a lot of people leading our country instead of the ideas of one person. You could have a facist dictator killing you because you were born in an area he doesn't like in his own country. Does that sound better.

 

A better question is how does government pay for any of the goods and services you claim would not exist if not for the government bringing them into existence? Do they not pay for everything with money stolen through taxation? If a government did not exist to steal money from individuals, wouldn't the individuals still have money to pay for those same goods and services? Do you believe money and wealth would not exist without government? Do you have any historical evidence for that claim? Of course you don’t. Money, as a medium of exchange, has been around since men have ever wished to exchange goods and services and will continue to be so long after government is abolished. As long as men have the ability to value, which they always will, there will always be money.

 

The fact is that government steals from the productive members of society in order to fund any and all of their ventures. Since government is not a living entity it cannot think, it has no wealth (except that which is stolen), nor does it have anyway of creating anything that individuals themselves do not create. What it claims to produce, and takes credit for producing, is actually the work of creative individuals that could, and would no doubt create those very same things without the government’s interference. Supply, demand and the basics of a functioning free market ensure that would happen. If anything, government is what prevents the free market from functioning and actually hinders the creation of goods and services. Without the government, we'd actually have better services and products and people would actually pay for products that they actually want and agree to pay for.

 

Since that is the case, do you really believe that without government society would become uneducated? Would individuals suddenly forget how to think? Would a construction company that creates roads suddenly forget how to grade and lay asphalt? Would those who manufacture and use weapons suddenly forget how to build or shoot? Does the idea of justice cease to exist without the government having a monopoly over it? Would a demand for medicine that works cease without a government? Do natural laws suddenly become undone? Simple logic and a little bit of economic education prove the answer to all these questions is NO.

 

And regardless of your point whether or not some individuals want to be led, that still does not give those that do the right to force their ideas, thoughts, laws or any other means of suppressing individual freedom upon anybody else. If they wish to live as slaves so be it, but leave myself and the rest of the individuals that can think, live and rule ourselves alone. I don’t need anybody, let alone a lot of people as you suggest, running my life. How could that, in anyway, make it better?

[SOCALHUSKER]

You also direct these questions as if government prevents crime, prevents war, prevents bad medicine, and prevents bad food from making people sick. Are you serious??????

[bennychico11]

Since that is the case, do you really believe that without government society would become uneducated? Would individuals suddenly forget how to think? Would a construction company that creates roads suddenly forget how to grade and lay asphalt? Would those who manufacture and use weapons suddenly forget how to build or shoot? Does the idea of justice cease to exist without the government having a monopoly over it? Would a demand for medicine that works cease without a government? Do natural laws suddenly become undone? Simple logic and a little bit of economic education prove the answer to all these questions is NO.

 

 

again, good in theory...but you still haven't answered his questions.

No, a construction company that creates roads won't forget how to do so...but who is going to pay for them to build these roads. Who's going to instruct that they build an interstate across the whole country? A highway through the rural areas of the country?

No one is going to forget how to shoot guns...but who is to stop those who take these guns into a bank to rob it?

Justice doesn't cease to exist...but who decides what justice is? Everyone will have their own idea on what should be done.

Medicine doesn't cease...but who is to say Bayer Pharma has put out a drug that is safe? Bayer Pharma may just say it's safe to get you to buy it. How are you going to know?

 

Natural laws don't suddenly become undone...but I think inherently man is tempted by greed and power. And the second they get the chance to control something for themselves, they will. Whether it's good for me/you/society or not. But I don't think a free market where corporations have the power in the country to do whatever they want to make a profit is going to be what we need. It's a balancing act. You need someone to push the envelope just as you need someone to watch that the envelope doesn't get pushed too far.

 

If I'm wrong, name an example of somewhere in our world where things have worked out with a completely free market with no government intervention at all. A country or society government by no one...where people are happy with everything that has been given to them and something that can almost be called a utopian society.

In theory, a utopia works. But in theory...so does communism.

[SOCALHUSKER]

again, good in theory...but you still haven't answered his questions.

No, a construction company that creates roads won't forget how to do so...but who is going to pay for them to build these roads. Who's going to instruct that they build an interstate across the whole country? A highway through the rural areas of the country?

No one is going to forget how to shoot guns...but who is to stop those who take these guns into a bank to rob it?

Justice doesn't cease to exist...but who decides what justice is? Everyone will have their own idea on what should be done.

Medicine doesn't cease...but who is to say Bayer Pharma has put out a drug that is safe? Bayer Pharma may just say it's safe to get you to buy it. How are you going to know?

 

Natural laws don't suddenly become undone...but I think inherently man is tempted by greed and power. And the second they get the chance to control something for themselves, they will. Whether it's good for me/you/society or not. But I don't think a free market where corporations have the power in the country to do whatever they want to make a profit is going to be what we need. It's a balancing act. You need someone to push the envelope just as you need someone to watch that the envelope doesn't get pushed too far.

 

If I'm wrong, name an example of somewhere in our world where things have worked out with a completely free market with no government intervention at all. A country or society government by no one...where people are happy with everything that has been given to them and something that can almost be called a utopian society.

In theory, a utopia works. But in theory...so does communism.

 

Actually no, communism does not work in theory. It does not take into consideration prices, subjective value or time preference. Therefore, even without the evidence of history to prove that it fails and that free markets and free people are the only road to a peaceful and prosperous society; we can know that communism, socialism or any other means of collective governance will not ever work.

 

You are quite correct that there really isn’t a perfect example of the free markets being fully employed, but a quick look through history shows that areas with the most freedom and the least restrictive economic regulations have flourished the most. Early America, Medieval Iceland, Celtic Ireland (p.3) and even the state of Michigan (though now it is a cess pool of government regulation) are good examples if you care to read about them. And this in spite of government intervention, just imagine what would happen if the people were left completely free to pursue any voluntary transaction they wished.

 

And to answer your and In the Deeds question, the consumers are who demand or instruct different businesses to build, shoot, cultivate, administer or whatever other services or goods they demand. The consumer is who holds the power in any voluntary transaction. If the consumer does not want the product, he merely doesn’t pay for it. That is how businesses are successful; they produce products that the consumers value and are willing to pay for.

 

When you go to the grocery store are you forced to buy certain items or do you pick what you want? How can the grocer possibly keep his stocks shelved without having the government regulate, though they try with all their might to, what each person can purchase? According to your thought process he couldn’t. But in reality, the answer is that he relies on the consumer preferences, reflected in his profits and losses, to stock his shelves. Why should any other goods or services be held to a different standard?

 

A common fallacy is that the government and its regulation protect the consumers, whether it is for medicine, food or justice. In reality all that government regulation does is limit the consumer choices. By regulating consumer choice the government forces individuals to accept certain goods and services and the result of this is higher prices, a decrease in innovation and the very opposite effect of what the regulation was created for. How can the government ever ensure that the products they approve of are the safest, the best and the most efficient?

 

You keep pointing out the evils of corporations, but do you even know what a corporation is? Corporations only exist because governments exist. A corporation is a government creation that allows it to control industry. Through licensing and other regulation, the government controls the number of businesses, the products they produce, taxes they pay and by this they also control consumer choice. As was mentioned above, limits on consumer choice only hurt the consumer.

 

A corporation would not exist in a free market, because whether or not a business was successful would rely solely on consumer satisfaction and not the whims and wishes of bureaucrats or those with political pull. Since that is the case, do you really believe that companies in a free market would risk their profits trying to defraud the consumer? In the short run that might seem like a good idea but if someone truly wanted to be successful, that would be a very poor decision. Tag that along with the fact that consumers would demand defense and justice services, and remember only the ones that satisfied the consumers would be successful, and with free competition each and every business would strive to produce the best consumer satisfaction lest the lose out on the profits you deem as “greedy.”

 

Here’s a good read about the Free Market vs. Government

 

And since you bring it up that men are tempted by greed and power, what sense does it then make to employ a monopoly of limitless greed and power for those very same people to use? Or are those in government somehow above all the greed and power?

[SOCALHUSKER]

In theory, a utopia works. But in theory...so does communism.

 

What's utopian about allowing individuals to make their own choices? Are you that much of an authoritarian that you believe you have the right to rule others?

[bennychico11]

I'm not at all saying that government is above the greed/power. That's pretty much what makes up 100% of our government. At the same time, you can't really say that government is the ONLY greedy bunch of people out there. You do away with government...someone else will just step up and try and take control.

 

Your examples of un-regulated societies are great...but where are they now? The Icelandic Commonwealth collapsed on itself and they went back to being ruled by a king. Celtic Ireland eventually established a King to rule over the country too. Early America...well, we know where it is today. If an economic situation without government intervention is so great...why haven't they lasted? Because either people preferred something else or other factors fell into play. I don't think it's just as easy as saying "okay, no government...life is perfect!"

 

And to answer your and In the Deeds question, the consumers are who demand or instruct different businesses to build, shoot, cultivate, administer or whatever other services or goods they demand. The consumer is who holds the power in any voluntary transaction. If the consumer does not want the product, he merely doesn’t pay for it. That is how businesses are successful; they produce products that the consumers value and are willing to pay for.

 

This works for a lot of things, yes. But what about roads? How do we decide who pays for a road? Obviously you can't force an entire town to pay for the road since that's basically taxation. I guess you could go door to door and see if people would like to pitch in money if they want to...but what if I don't want to. Heck, I'm lazy. I'd prefer to spend my money on food or a new flat screen TV. Why the heck do I care about a road that I'll probably only drive on a couple times a year?

What about law enforcement? Or the judicial system as a whole? If everyone is going to be equal then there shouldn't be any hierarchy in society at all (assuming you're still for laws/the judicial system). No one person should be above another. Therefore, a police officer shouldn't have say over what I can and cannot do. As a judge shouldn't have say that I should go to prison for stealing someone's car or driving drunk.

Now, if you're saying I'm right...there should be no laws at all...then how do we keep order in our community. I know you have said that there can be anarchy without chaos, but are we just to assume that everyone will cooperate and live happily?

 

I'm not saying government is perfect. Far from it. But there are lots of people and companies who love to take advantage of the system now as it is (Bernie Madoff, Enron, housing market crash, etc.) and I don't see a free market fixing those things.

http://www.naturalnews.com/026108_free_mar...ket_nature.html

Free market theorists merely assume that consumers are rational, that companies are honest and that people have a reasonable capacity to intelligently evaluate the products and services they choose to purchase. All those assumptions, however, quickly fall apart in the real world. Consumers are irrational, companies are dishonest and the people have virtually no evaluative skills necessary for making informed purchasing decisions.

[SOCALHUSKER]

I'm not at all saying that government is above the greed/power. That's pretty much what makes up 100% of our government. At the same time, you can't really say that government is the ONLY greedy bunch of people out there. You do away with government...someone else will just step up and try and take control.

 

I didn’t say that government is the ONLY greedy people out there. I said that because there are greedy people, it doesn’t make sense to give those same people a tool, which government is, to legitimize their activities and allow them to push their greed and hunger for power upon others. The only reason that the criminals in government are allowed to get away with the crimes they commit is because many, through elections, public education and other propaganda, see the government as legitimate.

 

Do you really mean to tell me that in the absence of government, if a common criminal came and stole money from you, just as the government does today, that you would just let him do it and continue to do so? Hell no you wouldn’t. You would probably take steps to ensure that it didn’t happen again, wouldn’t you? So, how then would someone, without having a perceived legitimacy, seize control of the entire population as you suggest?

 

Once again, I’m not saying that complete liberty can happen overnight. Many people are extremely dependent upon government and would definitely have to learn to think, make their own choices and accept the responsibility that comes with freedom. But when enough people are educated on liberty, there will be no turning back and freedom will prevail. Or are you going to suggest that free people will give up and voluntarily elect to become slaves again? Read The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude

 

Your examples of un-regulated societies are great...but where are they now? The Icelandic Commonwealth collapsed on itself and they went back to being ruled by a king. Celtic Ireland eventually established a King to rule over the country too. Early America...well, we know where it is today. If an economic situation without government intervention is so great...why haven't they lasted? Because either people preferred something else or other factors fell into play. I don't think it's just as easy as saying "okay, no government...life is perfect!"

 

First of all they weren’t un-regulated societies. Secondly, they were taken over by tyrants, which I’d hardly call that collapsing on one’s self. And lastly I do believe, as I’m sure you’ll agree, that technology has developed enough in the last few centuries that it would be nearly impossible for any man, without the legitimacy of a government, to conquer and enslave others, as was the case in both Iceland and Ireland.

 

As for America, yeah just look at where we are now; astronomical debt, soaring unemployment, and deteriorating civil liberties. Are you really going to say that those are things people prefer or is the government metastasizing one of the other factors that somehow fell into play as you suggest? How you can attribute any of the US’s problems to the free market is beyond me, in reality it’s more like a prime example of the disastrous effects of government intervention. And if anything, creative individuals and the free (black) market are what is keeping this country afloat, not the government policies.

 

Seriously though, what I find most difficult to understand is how you claim that if freedom is so great, how come the situations without government intervention didn’t last? But, in order for that claim to be anywhere near relevant it first must have been tried and disproved. If freedom has never been tried, how can you claim that it didn’t last? As I mentioned before, none of the examples were completely free of government intervention. So for you to say that freedom has failed is just not true. If anything, don’t the examples show us how powerful freedom really is? I mean really, despite the enormous obstacle of government look at the improvements in society that have occurred. Can you imagine the prosperity, competition and innovation that would arise if freedom were fully employed? And just because something hasn’t been tried doesn’t mean it will fail, or do you believe that’s the case?

 

So, why didn’t any of those situations last? Was freedom ever an option? You remember what happened to those who tried to buck the system in the Whiskey Rebellion don’t you? When government is perceived as legitimate it has the power to do just about anything it pleases. So why give it the power? Nobody said that without government life would be perfect. I have no clue where that came from, only that it will be up to each individual what he or she makes of it. As long as government exists that choice doesn’t exist. What about that do you think is a bad thing?

 

And to answer your and In the Deeds question, the consumers are who demand or instruct different businesses to build, shoot, cultivate, administer or whatever other services or goods they demand. The consumer is who holds the power in any voluntary transaction. If the consumer does not want the product, he merely doesn’t pay for it. That is how businesses are successful; they produce products that the consumers value and are willing to pay for.

 

This works for a lot of things, yes. But what about roads? How do we decide who pays for a road? Obviously you can't force an entire town to pay for the road since that's basically taxation. I guess you could go door to door and see if people would like to pitch in money if they want to...but what if I don't want to. Heck, I'm lazy. I'd prefer to spend my money on food or a new flat screen TV. Why the heck do I care about a road that I'll probably only drive on a couple times a year?

 

What about the roads? Why are they any different? Don’t you think that maybe transportation, logistics, automotive, or insurance company could fund the initial building? Would it not make a good investment based on the demand? Maybe a road company could purchase property and build? Would it not be in any business’s best interest to have suitable transportation routes for their business? Why would they not be willing to fund it then? The ways of funding it are endless, only depending on the extent of human creativeness and yes they could go door to door to look for payment. Only guess what, if you didn’t feel like paying for it, then you wouldn’t. But you also wouldn’t be driving on the roads either. Since they would all be private property you would be in violation of another’s rights if you did. If you felt like you only wanted to drive a few days a year, then maybe you select a payment plan that fits your needs.

 

Like I’ve said before, the options are limitless, merely depending upon what the demand for the market calls for. Sorry if I don’t go way in depth on the roads issue, but I really don’t have all the answers because I’m not in the road business, but there are plenty of people, including Walter Block who have completely analyzed the road market who could better answer that question. That’s the beauty of a free society, you only pay for what you use and only use what you pay for.

 

Regardless of all the economics and funding questions, you act as if the roads that we drive on today are free or something. Did it ever occur to you that every person who drives pays for the roads? We pay taxes for nearly every transaction that occurs, and the gas tax, registration and car sales tax supposedly pay for roads. What does the person say who doesn’t drive much, wants a TV instead and doesn’t feel like paying any of those? Can a person opt out? Not if they wish to live their life they can’t. Do you consider the roads of today to be spectacular and efficient? Is that why you find it so hard to imagine somebody besides the government regulating them? Can you imagine if we had competing road companies, just imagine how spectacular and efficient those roads would be?

 

What about law enforcement? Or the judicial system as a whole? If everyone is going to be equal then there shouldn't be any hierarchy in society at all (assuming you're still for laws/the judicial system). No one person should be above another. Therefore, a police officer shouldn't have say over what I can and cannot do. As a judge shouldn't have say that I should go to prison for stealing someone's car or driving drunk.

Now, if you're saying I'm right...there should be no laws at all...then how do we keep order in our community. I know you have said that there can be anarchy without chaos, but are we just to assume that everyone will cooperate and live happily?

 

I don’t know where you got the idea that everyone will be equal but that definitely could never happen. Nor do I say that everyone will get along perfectly and the world will be some type of utopian wonderland. We are humans and humans make mistakes, but there is a far more efficient and fair way to administer justice and protect individuals then the archaic, brutal and completely arbitrary forms that are employed today.

 

Every human is born different and it will always be that way, no law can ever change it and the only way to bring about more prosperity, or “equality” as you say, of any type is to ensure that everyone has an equal choice to make his or her own decisions. In that case, the only law enforcement or justice would be is to ensure that any individual can do as they please as long as you do not violate the property rights of other’s.

 

Do you really need volumes of laws to ensure that a person or their property is not violated? If natural law was enforced could a private defense company not protect individuals, neighborhoods, towns, or cities? Could there not be competing arbiters and defense companies to ensure that the consumer was getting the best possible justice and defense service? If not couldn’t the consumer merely hire another company or appeal to a more reputable one? I’m sure some sort of Consumer Reports of defense or arbitration companies would arise and who could risk the chance of being unfair or unjust and losing business or worse, ostracized? I’m not an expert on contracts either, but I’m sure many companies would have contracts with their customers that pre-selected dispute resolution organizations to solve issues, would that not be sufficient to solving many of civil dilemma’s faced today? Could the consumer not sign or take his business elsewhere? Can you do that today?

 

I'm not saying government is perfect. Far from it. But there are lots of people and companies who love to take advantage of the system now as it is (Bernie Madoff, Enron, housing market crash, etc.) and I don't see a free market fixing those things.

http://www.naturalnews.com/026108_free_mar...ket_nature.html

Free market theorists merely assume that consumers are rational, that companies are honest and that people have a reasonable capacity to intelligently evaluate the products and services they choose to purchase. All those assumptions, however, quickly fall apart in the real world. Consumers are irrational, companies are dishonest and the people have virtually no evaluative skills necessary for making informed purchasing decisions.

 

What is it the entity that licensed Madoff and Enron and allowed them to exploit consumers? Why is it do you suppose that consumers cannot make informed purchasing decisions? The housing crash, are you kidding me? Are you really going to blame that on the free market? As if the realtors, “greedy” homeowners/flippers and the construction industry are responsible for the Federal Reserve inflating the money supply, artificially lowering interest rates and creating the housing bubble. Tag that along with Congress passing bills to grant everyone the right to a home, which is just a recipe for disaster and you want to blame the result on the market? Really? Maybe if you took the time to understand the market you would see that it’s the only way to fix things. No amount of regulating can solve the problem; it will only further distort the market and make the problems worse in the end.

 

And as for your article, it definitely doesn’t bring any credit to your cause when you post an essay that contains just about every untutored fallacy about the free market that the author could type. First of all, I’ve never heard any free market proponent assume that all consumers are rational, which as far as I can tell is the same as having a reasonable capacity to intelligently evaluate products and services. In fact, most free market individuals will tell you that humans are all different, with different values, abilities and preferences. And because of this truth, the idea of a planned and regulated economy is even more insane. Market actors make choices to maximize their profits and curb their losses thereby showing an inherent act or rationalization, so while they might not always be right in their decisions it doesn’t mean that the market is irrational, but that actors are not always CORRECT in their valuations

 

If as the author suggests, that consumers are not rational it is a tremendous logical leap to assert that we should then leave all economic decisions in the hands of state-enforced bureaucrats WHO HAVE NO BASIS TO BE RATIONAL AT ALL. Are they, the individuals that make up government, somehow more rational than everybody else? Do you really believe that someone with the title government is just magically somehow so rational and psychic that they are able to make the millions and billions of decisions and choices that make up and affect the market? Do those that favor regulation really believe that each individual is the same, with the same values, choices, opinions and time preferences?

 

And as far as the market being made up of honest companies, really??? Did it ever occur to the author that maybe in the free market, where government subsidies and bailouts do not occur, that maybe honesty is needed to be successful? Since success in the free market is based upon profits, and profits upon customer satisfaction, where does the author think that profits for a dishonest company come from? I hardly doubt he would suggest dissatisfied customers. And while I’m sure that some companies will be dishonest, for we are humans and humans make mistakes, would the author then suggest that consumers are so naïve that that they wouldn’t look out for their own best interest and would willingly return to give the business more service? Do we even need to mention the idea of competition? Since this author seems lost in his reality, I would suggest he go to his nearest Wal-mart or Target and check out the return/customer service line to see how sharp and full of self interest some of the customers really are?

 

He then delves into the idea of corporate marketing except that he fails to realize that a corporation is a government created entity and would have no place in the free market. And I hate to cut this post short, HA HA, but its actually taking a little bit more time than I had planned, so I’ll finish up later with a more thorough review of the article you posted.

[SOCALHUSKER]

bump

[huskerjack23]

I know of an example of a market type enforcement business. The mafia.

 

But hey, just as long as government isn't taking money from you, the mafia has a right to exist.

 

There's a market for organized crime after all.

[T_O_Bull]

Seems to me that the Native American inhabitated North America and then one day the English, the French and the Spanish showed up. The Native American was nomadic and had no central Government and the rest is history. We've been through two World Wars in the last 100 years and I'm inclined to believe that if we didn't have a central government we'd be either speaking German or Japanese.

T_O_B

[SOCALHUSKER]

I know of an example of a market type enforcement business. The mafia.

 

But hey, just as long as government isn't taking money from you, the mafia has a right to exist.

 

There's a market for organized crime after all.

Is paying the mafia voluntary? It would have to be in order to constitute an actual market business wouldn't it? How would the mafia keep any customers, or keep competition from arising, if they treated their customers as you are no doubt suggesting? How does the mafia, along with the government, get any of their funds without violating the rights of others? Isn't using force or fraud against another a punishable and defendable offense? In a free market could you not pay a competing defense organization, or buy enough weapons to defend yourself, to combat the mafia? Can you do that with your local PD/IRS/DEA/FBI/DHS or any of the other monopolistic government enforcers? Not without ending your life, you can't!!

 

And you mention that the mafia arises from the market for organized crime, but how is that market created? Would you not agree that the reason organized crime is a market is because the government outlaws certains goods/services/industry? Could the markets the mafia dabbles in exist in an entirely different form if the government was not there to outlaw them? Also, in our current system, the one you suggest as fine and dandy, how do you combat the mafia if they bribe the person, as they usually do, who has a monopoly on justice and enforcement?

[SOCALHUSKER]

Seems to me that the Native American inhabitated North America and then one day the English, the French and the Spanish showed up. The Native American was nomadic and had no central Government and the rest is history. We've been through two World Wars in the last 100 years and I'm inclined to believe that if we didn't have a central government we'd be either speaking German or Japanese.

T_O_B

 

So because you have a gut feeling that we MIGHT be speaking German or Japanese if we didn’t have a central government, you feel like that somehow gives you the right to dictate how others live their lives? Remember, nobody’s advocating that you cannot purchase, create or support whatever amount of defense you deem necessary, in fact I highly encourage it, but that doesn’t mean you have the right to force other’s to pay for or be subject to any of your ideas, whims, notions, inclinations or fears? Or does it? Do you have any rational for the argument you claim or is it simply your preference to subject others to your beckon call, as if you are the slave owner and all others your slaves?

 

Does this gut feeling you have include any evidence whatsoever? What civilian attack on America might lead you to believe that your inclination was even a remote possibility? And even if an attack had occurred, was it directed towards a peaceful nation or people? In fact, was the US involvement in both World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, both Iraq conflicts, Afghanistan, Somalia, Panama, 9/11, and numerous other conflicts not entirely due to our government meddling in other countries affairs? Whether it was covert meddling or not, it does not matter. Both still results in deadly consequences that affect everyone, even the innocent!! Would you worry about a society with no government employing such strategies? If so, how?

 

You bring up the Native American plight, which I’m sure you’ll agree is an obscene, historical embarrassment in every sense, as an example of why we currently have a need for a central government, or any government for that matter, but has technology and the human way of life not improved since that time? Not only in weapons but also in the dissemination of information, healthcare, transportation, and nearly every other aspect in life. I suppose you could say that all or any advancements are due to government’s intervention, but I think you know the truth and even if you didn’t you would no doubt have a difficult time proving your case. Seeing as how that is the case, would you care to venture and guess the total number of guns or how many different types of weapons exist today? For starters there’s over 200 million registered guns, and who knows how many guns and other weapons are held illegally. That equates to arming almost 70% of the population. Do you think abolishing gun regulations will lead to an increase in production, distribution and purchase of more weapons? What government is going to wage war against a free society armed to the teeth?

 

Also, was the death and destruction the Natives endured, done at the hands of government and its policy? If you believe it wasn’t, who then directed and funded it? Does violence not begat more violence?

[SOCALHUSKER]

I'm not saying government is perfect. Far from it. But there are lots of people and companies who love to take advantage of the system now as it is (Bernie Madoff, Enron, housing market crash, etc.) and I don't see a free market fixing those things.

Could it possibly be that the monopoly system in place is what produces, empowers and rewards the greedy individuals who take advantage of it? How could a free market not correct those things?