Anarcho-Capitalism

[SOCALHUSKER]

Honestly, I don't think that an anarchist society would last for that long. As soon as a person is born he is taught to obey. Without government people would be lost and would form a government as soon as they could.

 

You are quite correct about this and it's quite detrimental to the advancement of a free society. This travesty can be unlearned though. It's as simple as thinking for yourself, educating yourself and questioning that which you think is wrong. Instead of allowing each individual to make decidions we have parents, judges, lawmakers, etc.. making decisions based on their feelings/beliefs/etc. This creates a society in which no one is responsible for themselves and no one is accountable for their actions. It is for this very reason the countless problems we face today, even exist.

 

A good book on this very subject is called On Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion. Check it out!! Or you can listen to it HERE

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

1. Try not to complicate this: We have A. the grievances against England as listed in the Declaration, and B. the outline of the purposes for our new government as listed in the Constitution. A is not the same as B.

 

2. Why would I leave the US? I am satisfied with our governmental system. You are the one on the crusade against it, hence why I suggested that if you are so dissatisfied maybe you could find a place more in line with your personal beliefs.

 

3. You say that only a few people chose which personal freedoms were the most important. You also state that A/C will rely on a rule of law...but who creates this rule of law? People...and if those people create a rule of law they are de facto rulers. As in....this is not anarchy. It just means our rules are enforced by a different group of people.

 

4. The police aren't held accountable?! Since when? Every time they are caught with good evidence they are punished by the same justice system.

 

5. Again, why would I (someone reasonably satisfied with our government) move. YOU are the one who is apparently unhappy.

 

6. No offense, I don't need to read your post on the judicial system. I'm guessing I'm a little more familiar with it than yourself.

 

7. Seriously? You don't think someone would have invaded the US in the last 230 odd years if we didn't have a military? We are rich in natural resources...all of history suggests that people are willing to fight to conquer land. (hell our own history suggests that.) I really don't think I need to provide a link for that...if you insist I think I could find one or two . . .

 

8. I don't carry a .45. I have one in my house. I don't have it because I don't feel safe. I own it because I enjoy shooting it. If the police don't stop a criminal from entering my house, I will do so. How does this show that I don't trust the police?

 

9. Absolutely not. Our system has remained largely the same while our society has fluctuated.

 

10. How does your "rule of laws" not rule you? How is that any different than a person "ruling" you? (as in who makes the rule of laws, and how do they make it?)

 

11. Laws ARE rulers, sir. Enforcers of laws likewise.

 

12. Yes, I do trust our court system to do the right things more than I trust business to do the right things.

 

13. SOCAL: "Free to do as he pleases as long as he doesn't infringe upon the life and property of others. Free to live without the threat of coercion or force." - So you are willing to give up some rights (the right to steal, kill, pillage, etc.) to ensure the freedom of others, eh? So you are giving up freedoms to ensure other freedoms?! Gasp! That sounds terrible! Oh wait . . . that is the exact same thing as provided for in our current system. Hmmm....

 

Your arguments are getting absolutely absurd because nobody is arguing for "absolute freedom." It doesn't exist, can't exist and never will exist. For even if you believed that the freedom to kill, steal and any other heinous violation of life and property were to make you free, you would still be held accountable to the laws of nature. They have no rulers other than the absolute forces of the universe. One cannot disregard gravity because one feels like floating, just as one one cannot change the rainy weather because he only likes the sun. We all have preferred behavior and that is all that we "can" control.

 

In order for life to exist, there has to be universally preferred behaviors that exist. One doesn't kill because he doesn't wish to be killed and one doesn't steal because he doesn't wish to be stolen from. You say that theft would occur more in an anarcho-capitalist society, but you are basing your opinion on the assumption that preferred behaviors don't exist. For if I was able to steal something that rightfully belonged to someone else, couldn't someone else just as easily take it from me. It is human nature to look out for our best interest, for if we didn't, we would not exist. We all know that stealing someone else's property is not preferred because we don't prefer to have someone steal our property. This thinking is not something that requires a ruler, only the ability of an individual to look out for their best interest, which all humans do.

 

This discussion is in no way an attempt to change the way you choose to live your life. Rather, it's about stopping those, who wish to rule how I live mine. If you want to continue to live in slavery, having a government that steals "your" money to further "their" own interests, creating laws "you" must follow so "they" can more easily run "your" life, so be it. I prefer to to run my own life. Unlike the preferences of others, I can guarantee you 100 times out of 100 that I "know" what is best for me. Just as I'm sure 100 times out of 100, you "know" what is best for you. Does it take government to figure that out? Yes, sometimes we make mistakes and we pay the consequences for those mistakes, that's how we learn. Who wouldn't want to live that way?

[caveman99]

i just do not understand how you don't believe in god and yet believe in the infallibility of something that is basically a figment of imagination.

 

Since it is in the best interest of those in the punishment business to mete out the fairest punishment possible, you wouldn't see the insane punishment or lack thereof that we see with the judicial system today.

 

i just imagine a McDonald's type franchiser in the punishment business. People would always go to the McDonald's type franchiser because it was cheap, easy, and convenient, not because it gave out good, quality "punishments".

 

Next thing you know, in society's terms, the McDonald's justice system would become the standard and everyone would either have to live up to that standard or carve out a niche.

 

"oh, someone raped my daughter. mcdonalds gives out too soft punishments for that, i'll go to burger king. their slogan is have it your way, and we kill rapists."

 

isn't taking away the criminals freedom if he actually didn't commit the crime, or he gets an unjust sentence for a crime he did commit all because the plaintiff went to burger king instead of mcdonalds?

 

It's easy to believe in something when the logic of it makes so much sense and the proof is staring you right in the face, punching you squarely in the nose. A figment of imagination, I doubt it!! Belief in god requires faith, nothing more than a feeling, and no proof whatsoever. This blind and illogical viewpoint is something that I will never comprehend nor sanction, but to each his own!!

 

As for your scenario, just two more reasons why you'll never be successful in the punishment business. As is the case with any business wishing to succeed in the free market, they must provide the best possible service for the best possible price. Therefore, it is in the best interest of those in the punishment business to give out the most fair punishment at the most fair price, if they didn't they would never have any business and would eventually go broke.

 

In both your scenarios, you speak as if those accused of a crime would have absolutely no say in how they are tried or punished. The markets of the justice and punishment businesses always includes the business itself, the consumers and those accused of a crime. As it should be with any fair judicial system, the accused in an anarcho-capitalist system is also entitled to testify, cross-exam and appeal to any other punishment business, for that's the only way a fair and just punishment could ever be handed down. Of course, when all is sorted out either those convicted of a crime or those who falsely accuse someone of a crime, either is held accountable for the cost of the precedings and any damages/fines/punishment/reparation/confinement.

Ok I have read countless posts of this topic, by the way carlfense I think you did an eloquent job proving your points, but I still don't see an answer to one of carlfense's main questions. He asked simply how the doling out of justice would work. All I see are your vague answers about how the free market determines that companies will have to dish out justice fairly and cheaply, which is a slight contradiction in business (generally the cheaper the cost, the cheaper the product), but I don't see any specifics. Exactly who will govern the areas? Are you assuming that individual "security" companies will spring up to fill the void? Does the population get to choose who they want to maintain the peace for them, how about individuals? What if two individuals have a dispute but they both use different services to dole out justice? Do the companies fight each other until one wins? I think you over estimate the good will of men and business in general in this system. Your ideal state relies on the population and businesses to make sacrifices for the betterment of society, yet the free market is almost the opposite of that. Businesses today will make a decision that hurts you or I if they feel the cost savings or earnings are worth it. Walmart is a prime example of this. Their actions don't so adversely affect them that they change their ways though.

[caveman99]

Your arguments are getting absolutely absurd because nobody is arguing for "absolute freedom." It doesn't exist, can't exist and never will exist. For even if you believed that the freedom to kill, steal and any other heinous violation of life and property were to make you free, you would still be held accountable to the laws of nature. They have no rulers other than the absolute forces of the universe. One cannot disregard gravity because one feels like floating, just as one one cannot change the rainy weather because he only likes the sun. We all have preferred behavior and that is all that we "can" control.

 

In order for life to exist, there has to be universally preferred behaviors that exist. One doesn't kill because he doesn't wish to be killed and one doesn't steal because he doesn't wish to be stolen from. You say that theft would occur more in an anarcho-capitalist society, but you are basing your opinion on the assumption that preferred behaviors don't exist. For if I was able to steal something that rightfully belonged to someone else, couldn't someone else just as easily take it from me. It is human nature to look out for our best interest, for if we didn't, we would not exist. We all know that stealing someone else's property is not preferred because we don't prefer to have someone steal our property. This thinking is not something that requires a ruler, only the ability of an individual to look out for their best interest, which all humans do.

 

This discussion is in no way an attempt to change the way you choose to live your life. Rather, it's about stopping those, who wish to rule how I live mine. If you want to continue to live in slavery, having a government that steals "your" money to further "their" own interests, creating laws "you" must follow so "they" can more easily run "your" life, so be it. I prefer to to run my own life. Unlike the preferences of others, I can guarantee you 100 times out of 100 that I "know" what is best for me. Just as I'm sure 100 times out of 100, you "know" what is best for you. Does it take government to figure that out? Yes, sometimes we make mistakes and we pay the consequences for those mistakes, that's how we learn. Who wouldn't want to live that way?

You are making a very broad leap there socal. You are assuming that all individuals will interpret things as the golden rule tells them. History has proven time and time again that the human race can't act that way as a whole. Greed, the root of all capitalism, is a more powerful force than the want for collective peace. It isn't human nature to look out for your best interest in the way that you describe it, it is human nature to look out for the immediate best interest. Humans are by nature short sighted individuals. It is in my best interest right now to steal that bread from him/her. Later it will be, it is in my best interest to steal weapons or make weapons to protect my wealth. Later it will be a group without food that decides it is in their best interest to band together to defeat the defenses of previous said stealer and take his/her food for the group. Eventually the group becomes a clan and hence forms a rudimentary system of governance. Even the most primitave of societies follow this model, which is why I think you are really over estimating what is the "root" of mankind.

[carlfense]

i just do not understand how you don't believe in god and yet believe in the infallibility of something that is basically a figment of imagination.

 

Since it is in the best interest of those in the punishment business to mete out the fairest punishment possible, you wouldn't see the insane punishment or lack thereof that we see with the judicial system today.

 

i just imagine a McDonald's type franchiser in the punishment business. People would always go to the McDonald's type franchiser because it was cheap, easy, and convenient, not because it gave out good, quality "punishments".

 

Next thing you know, in society's terms, the McDonald's justice system would become the standard and everyone would either have to live up to that standard or carve out a niche.

 

"oh, someone raped my daughter. mcdonalds gives out too soft punishments for that, i'll go to burger king. their slogan is have it your way, and we kill rapists."

 

isn't taking away the criminals freedom if he actually didn't commit the crime, or he gets an unjust sentence for a crime he did commit all because the plaintiff went to burger king instead of mcdonalds?

 

It's easy to believe in something when the logic of it makes so much sense and the proof is staring you right in the face, punching you squarely in the nose. A figment of imagination, I doubt it!! Belief in god requires faith, nothing more than a feeling, and no proof whatsoever. This blind and illogical viewpoint is something that I will never comprehend nor sanction, but to each his own!!

 

As for your scenario, just two more reasons why you'll never be successful in the punishment business. As is the case with any business wishing to succeed in the free market, they must provide the best possible service for the best possible price. Therefore, it is in the best interest of those in the punishment business to give out the most fair punishment at the most fair price, if they didn't they would never have any business and would eventually go broke.

 

In both your scenarios, you speak as if those accused of a crime would have absolutely no say in how they are tried or punished. The markets of the justice and punishment businesses always includes the business itself, the consumers and those accused of a crime. As it should be with any fair judicial system, the accused in an anarcho-capitalist system is also entitled to testify, cross-exam and appeal to any other punishment business, for that's the only way a fair and just punishment could ever be handed down. Of course, when all is sorted out either those convicted of a crime or those who falsely accuse someone of a crime, either is held accountable for the cost of the precedings and any damages/fines/punishment/reparation/confinement.

Ok I have read countless posts of this topic, by the way carlfense I think you did an eloquent job proving your points, but I still don't see an answer to one of carlfense's main questions. He asked simply how the doling out of justice would work. All I see are your vague answers about how the free market determines that companies will have to dish out justice fairly and cheaply, which is a slight contradiction in business (generally the cheaper the cost, the cheaper the product), but I don't see any specifics. Exactly who will govern the areas? Are you assuming that individual "security" companies will spring up to fill the void? Does the population get to choose who they want to maintain the peace for them, how about individuals? What if two individuals have a dispute but they both use different services to dole out justice? Do the companies fight each other until one wins? I think you over estimate the good will of men and business in general in this system. Your ideal state relies on the population and businesses to make sacrifices for the betterment of society, yet the free market is almost the opposite of that. Businesses today will make a decision that hurts you or I if they feel the cost savings or earnings are worth it. Walmart is a prime example of this. Their actions don't so adversely affect them that they change their ways though.

 

Thank you sir. If I had more time to think out my posts I think they would be a bit clearer. Unfortunately, time is an issue at the moment so I have to type off the top of my head. I think this argument is winding down. I'm no longer getting answers to my questions, just accusations of absurdity. It was fun while it lasted. Thanks for your clarification about my question, I think you phrased it better than I.

[huskerjack23]

i just do not understand how you don't believe in god and yet believe in the infallibility of something that is basically a figment of imagination.

 

Since it is in the best interest of those in the punishment business to mete out the fairest punishment possible, you wouldn't see the insane punishment or lack thereof that we see with the judicial system today.

 

i just imagine a McDonald's type franchiser in the punishment business. People would always go to the McDonald's type franchiser because it was cheap, easy, and convenient, not because it gave out good, quality "punishments".

 

Next thing you know, in society's terms, the McDonald's justice system would become the standard and everyone would either have to live up to that standard or carve out a niche.

 

"oh, someone raped my daughter. mcdonalds gives out too soft punishments for that, i'll go to burger king. their slogan is have it your way, and we kill rapists."

 

isn't taking away the criminals freedom if he actually didn't commit the crime, or he gets an unjust sentence for a crime he did commit all because the plaintiff went to burger king instead of mcdonalds?

 

It's easy to believe in something when the logic of it makes so much sense and the proof is staring you right in the face, punching you squarely in the nose. A figment of imagination, I doubt it!! Belief in god requires faith, nothing more than a feeling, and no proof whatsoever. This blind and illogical viewpoint is something that I will never comprehend nor sanction, but to each his own!!

 

As for your scenario, just two more reasons why you'll never be successful in the punishment business. As is the case with any business wishing to succeed in the free market, they must provide the best possible service for the best possible price. Therefore, it is in the best interest of those in the punishment business to give out the most fair punishment at the most fair price, if they didn't they would never have any business and would eventually go broke.

 

In both your scenarios, you speak as if those accused of a crime would have absolutely no say in how they are tried or punished. The markets of the justice and punishment businesses always includes the business itself, the consumers and those accused of a crime. As it should be with any fair judicial system, the accused in an anarcho-capitalist system is also entitled to testify, cross-exam and appeal to any other punishment business, for that's the only way a fair and just punishment could ever be handed down. Of course, when all is sorted out either those convicted of a crime or those who falsely accuse someone of a crime, either is held accountable for the cost of the precedings and any damages/fines/punishment/reparation/confinement.

again, you can't really disprove that the mcdonalds model wouldn't work in A/C. i don't know how you'd think that that wouldn't survive because it's surviving now. and kicking everyone's asses. "you have to have the best quality and most fair prices or you won't survive." hogwash.

 

your model is derivative of absolutely no coercion. but, coercion will never not exist. never. that's why it's a figment of your imagination. it's blindly following the infallibility of an invisible hand and not taking into account the fallibility of man.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Ok I have read countless posts of this topic, 1. by the way carlfense I think you did an eloquent job proving your points, but I still don't see an answer to one of carlfense's main questions. He asked simply how the doling out of justice would work. All I see are your vague answers about how the free market determines that companies will have to dish out justice fairly and cheaply, which is a slight contradiction in business (generally the cheaper the cost, the cheaper the product), but I don't see any specifics. Exactly who will govern the areas? Are you assuming that individual "security" companies will spring up to fill the void? Does the population get to choose who they want to maintain the peace for them, how about individuals? What if two individuals have a dispute but they both use different services to dole out justice? Do the companies fight each other until one wins? I think you over estimate the good will of men and business in general in this system. Your ideal state relies on the population and businesses to make sacrifices for the betterment of society, yet the free market is almost the opposite of that. Businesses today will make a decision that hurts you or I if they feel the cost savings or earnings are worth it. Walmart is a prime example of this. Their actions don't so adversely affect them that they change their ways though.

 

What points has he proven? Because you and him share an opinion that the government is great and should be able to steal money from individuals to prop up their authority, he's somehow proven something? I guess evidence or anything that resembles logic is not needed to actually prove a point. He has eloquently expressed his opinion, the opposite of mine, but he has hardly proven that anarcho-capitalism is contradictory, unlike the system he supports, or that the system he supports can even works to begin with. If anything, his opinions prove that government cannot achieve its purpose, to preserve or protect liberty, because rights must be given up in order for any government to function. How can a government protect or preserve that which is not there to protect?

 

Secondly, he can never prove that consent was given for the implementation of government. Sure, he throws around "we" consented, but who is "we"? It definitely wasn't myself. It wasn't any women, children, or slaves who had absolutely no voice during the time of implementation. No Native Americans consented or were even asked. So how can he say "we" consented? More like "they" decided what was the best for the rest of us and "we" got stuck paying for it. Now that's what I call freedom, liberty, and good ol' American spirit!!

 

I've mentioned a few books in an earlier about justice in an anarcho-capitalist system. Here's a couple in case you want to check them out.

 

The Market For Liberty

 

The Myth of National Defense

 

Maybe you won't read them, but if you do it'll give you a more clearer understanding of the point I was trying to make. I guess I don't understand how more specific I can get about letting the market work.

 

You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying in several areas relating to economics. I never once mentioned cheap products/services, I said those that are fair and fairly priced. This in no way insinuates the products/services would be cheap, rather that they are cheaper than those of similar value. Where do you come up with the theory that because a product costs less, it must be a cheaper product? I'd liek to see the proof of that.

 

Secondly, if you think sacrifice must be made for the betterment of society in order for a free market to function, you need to study up on your economics. Sure, those who wish to be successful would be required to produce fair valued goods/services, but they would also receive fair profits in return. This is compensation, not sacrifice. If you see that transaction any other way, you need to open your eyes. Only those products and services which satisfy the customer are sucessful. So, any business that wishes to be successful had better ensure they are satisfying their customers. You mention Wal-Mart, but what decision have they made that has hurt you? I can guarantee you that if they made business/product/policy decisions that hurt people and stopped them from buying or working for them, they would change their policies immediately. That's how business should work and would work in a free market.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

again, you can't really disprove that the mcdonalds model wouldn't work in A/C. i don't know how you'd think that that wouldn't survive because it's surviving now. and kicking everyone's asses. "you have to have the best quality and most fair prices or you won't survive." hogwash.

 

you're model is derivative of absolutely no coercion. but, coercion will never not exist. never. that's why it's a figment of your imagination. it's blindly following the infallibility of an invisible hand and not taking into account the fallibility of man.

 

What do you mean hogwash? You're forgetting that today's McDonald's produces fair burgers for a fair price, and satisfies many more customers than their competitor's. This is exactly why they are kicking ass!! If in and A/C system they were in the punishment business and didn't punish fairly, they wouldn't satisfy customers and therefore wouldn't be successful. (Below my 2nd paragraph is an excerpt, about resolving disputes which is just a small portion of justice, taken from the book Market for Liberty, linked in a post above. It touches on many of the points I probably haven't explained too well in my posts)

 

Nobody ever said coecion wouldn't exist. Yes, you're right. It might always exist, maybe one day it won't, but individuals must also be held accountable for their actions. Coercion it is a violation of property right and therefore would be punishable. Think of any "what-if" scenario you wish, but if it violates the rights of another individuals life or property it is punishable. You need to realize that in an anarcho-capitalist society accountability and responsiblity a key, those who disregard either will suffer the consequences.

 

 

Market For Liberty - By: Morris and Linda Tannehill

 

"Whenever men have dealings with one another, there is always a chance for disagreements and disputes to arise. Even when therehas been no initiation of force, two persons can disagree over such matters as the terms and fulfillment of a contract or the true title to a piece of property. Whether one party to the dispute is trying to cheat the other(s) or whether both (or all) are completely honest and sincere in their contentions, the dispute may reach a point where it can't be settled without binding arbitration by a disinterested arbiter.

If no mechanism for such arbitration existed within a society, disputes could only be resolved by violence in every situation in which at least one person abandoned reason—man's only satisfactory means of communication. Then, that society would disintegrate into strife, suspicion, and social and economic breakdown, as human relationships became too dangerous to tolerate on any but the most

limited scale.

 

Advocates of "limited government" contend that government is necessary to maintain social order because disputes could never be satisfactorily settled without a single, final court of appeal for everyone and without the force of legal rules to compel disputants to submit to that court and to abide by its decision(s). They also seem to feel that government officials and judges are somehow more impartial than other men because they are set apart from ordinary market relations and, therefore, have no vested interests to interfere with

their judgments.

 

It is interesting to note that the advocates of government see initiated force (the legal force of government) as the only solution to social disputes. According to them, if everyone in society were not forced to use the same court system, and particularly the same final court of appeal, disputes would be insoluble. Apparently it doesn't occur to them that disputing parties are capable of freely choosing their own arbiters, including the final arbiter, and that this final arbiter wouldn't need to be the same agency for all disputes which occur in the society. They have not realized that disputants would, in fact, be far better off if they could choose among competing arbitration agencies so that they could reap the benefits of competition and specialization.

It should be obvious that a court system which has a monopoly guaranteed by the force of statutory law will not give as good quality service as will free-market arbitration agencies which must compete for their customers. Also, a multiplicity of agencies facilitates specialization, so that people with a dispute in some specialized field can hire arbitration by experts in that field . . . instead of being compelled to submit to the judgment of men who have little or no background in the matter.

 

But, the government advocates argue, there must be an agency of legal force to compel disputants (particularly those who are negligent or dishonest) to submit to arbitration and abide by the decision of the arbiter, or the whole arbitration process would be futile. It is true that the whole process would be meaningless if one or both disputants could avoid arbitration or ignore the decision of the arbiter. But it doesn't follow that an institution of initiated force is necessary to compel the disputants to treat the arbitration as binding. The principle of rational self-interest, on which the whole free-market system is built, would accomplish this end quite effectively. Men who contract to abide by the decision of a neutral arbiter and then break that contract are obviously unreliable and too risky to do business with. Honest men, acting in their rational self-interest, would check the records of those they did business with and would avoid having any dealings with such individuals. This kind of informal business boycott would be extremely effective in a govemmentless society where a man could acquire nothing except what he could produce himself or get in trade with others.

 

Even in cases where the pressure of business ostracism was insufficient to insure compliance with arbiters' decisions, it doesn't follow that government would be necessary to bring the contract-breaker to

justice. As will be shown in Chapters 9 and 10, free men, acting in a free market, are quite capable of dealing justly with those few who harm their fellowmen by any form of coercion, including contract-

breaking. It's hardly necessary to institutionalize aggressive violence in order to deal with aggressive violence!

 

Perhaps the least tenable argument for government arbitration of disputes is the one which holds that governmental judges are more impartial because they operate outside the market and so have no vested interests. In the first place, it's impossible for anyone except a self-sufficient hermit to operate completely outside the market. The market is simply a system of trade, and even Federal judges trade with other men in order to improve their standard of living (if they didn't, we would have to pay them in consumable goods instead of money). In the second place, owing political allegiance to government is certainly no guarantee of impartiality! A governmental judge is always impelled to be partial . . . in favor of the government, from whom he gets his pay and his power! On the other hand, an arbiter who sells his services in a free market knows that he must be as scrupulously honest, fair, and impartial as possible or no pair of disputants will buy his services to arbitrate their dispute. A free-market arbiter depends for his livelihood on his skill and fairness at settling disputes. A governmental judge depends on political pull.

 

Excluding cases of initiated force and fraud (which will be dealt with in later chapters), there are two main categories of disputes between men—disputes which arise out of a contractual situation between the disputing parties (as disagreements over the meaning and application of the contract, or allegations of willful or negligent breach of contract) and disputes in which there was no contractual relationship between the disputants. Because of the importance of contractual relationships in a laissez-faire society, this type of dispute will be discussed first.

 

A free society, and particularly an industrialized one, is a contractual society. Contracts are such a basic part of all business dealings that even the smallest business would soon collapse if the integrity of its contracts were not protected. (Not only million dollar deals between industrial giants, but your job, the apartment

you lease, and the car you buy on time represent contractual situations.) This creates a large market for the service of contract protection, a market which is at present pre-empted by government. In a laissez-faire society, this market would be best served by professional arbitration agencies in conjunction with insurance companies.

 

In a free-market society, individuals or firms which had a contractual dispute which they found themselves unable to resolve would find it in their interest to take their problem before an arbitration agency for binding arbitration. In order to eliminate possible disputes over which arbitration agency to patronize, the contracting

parties would usually designate an agency at the time the contract was written. This agency would judge in any dispute between them, and they would bind themselves contractually to abide by its decisions. If the disputing parties had lacked the foresight to choose an arbitration agency at the time their original contract was made, they would still be able to hire one when the dispute arose, provided they could agree on which agency to patronize. Obviously, any arbitration agency would insist that all parties involved consent to its arbitration so that none of them would have a basis for bringing any action against it later if dissatisfied with its decision(s).

 

It would be more economical and in most cases quite sufficient to have only one arbitration agency to hear the case. But if the parties felt that a further appeal might be necessary and were willing to risk the extra expense, they could provide for a succession of two or or even more arbitration agencies. The names of these agencies would be written into the contract, in order from the "first court of appeal" to the "last court of appeal." It would be neither necessary nor desirable to have one single, final court of appeal for every

person in the society, as we have today in the United States Supreme Court. Such forced uniformity always promotes injustice. Since the arbitration agencies for any particular contract would be designated in that contract, every contracting party would choose his own arbitration agency or agencies (including the one to whom final appeal was to be made if more than one was wanted). Those who needed arbitration would thus be able to reap the benefits of specialization and competition among the various arbitration agencies.

And, since companies must compete on the basis of lower prices and/or better service, competition among arbitration agencies would lead to scrupulously honest decisions reached at the greatest speed and lowest cost which were feasible (quite a contrast to the traditional governmental court system, where justice is often a matter of clever lawyers and lucky accident).

 

Arbitration agencies would employ professional arbiters, instead of using citizen-jurors as governmental courts do. A board of professional arbiters would have great advantages over the present citizen-jury system of "ignorance times twelve." Professional arbiters would be highly trained specialists who made a career of hearing disputes and settling them justly. They would be educated for their profession as rigorously as engineers or doctors, probably taking their basic training in such fields as logic, ethics, and psychology, and further specialization in any field likely to come under dispute. While professional arbiters would still make errors, they would make far fewer than do the amateur jurors and political judges of today. Not only would professional arbiters be far better qualified to hear, analyze, and evaluate evidence for the purpose of coming to an objective judgment than are our present citizen-jurors, they would also be

much more difficult to bribe. A professional arbiter who tried to "throw" a case would be easily detected by his trained and experienced colleagues, and few men would be so foolish as to jeopardize a remunerative

and highly respected career, even for a very large sum of money.

 

Justice, after all, is an economic good, just as are education and medical care. The ability to dispense justice depends on knowledge and on skill in assessing people and situations. This knowledge and skill must be acquired, just as medical knowledge must be acquired before medical advice can be dispensed. Some people are willing to expend the effort to get this knowledge and skill so that they can sell their services as professional arbiters. Other people need their services and are willing to buy them. Justice, like any other good or service, has economic value.

 

The reason for the superiority of professional arbiters over citizen-juries can be readily seen by an examination of the moral basis for each system. The citizen-juror's "service" is based on the concept

of performing a duty to the state or to his fellow citizens—another variation of the irrational and immoral belief that the individual belongs to the collective. The professional arbiter, on the other hand,

is a trader, selling his specialized services on the free market and profiting to the degree of his excellence.

 

Because arbitration agencies would be doing business in a free market, they would have to attract customers in order to make profits. This means that they would find it in their interest to treat all disputants

who came to them with every courtesy and consideration possible. Instead of taking the authoritarian stand of a governmental judge and handing down arbitrary rulings with little or no regard for the interests and feelings of the disputants, they would make every effort to find a solution which was, as nearly as possible, satisfactory to both of the conflicting parties. If a disputant disagreed with the arbiters' proposed solution, they would first attempt to sell him on it by reasoning with him (which means that it would have to be a reasonable solution to begin with). Only as a last resort would they invoke the clause in the contract between disputants and arbitration agency which made the arbitration binding. Arbitration agencies, because they would obtain their customers by excellence of service rather than by coercion, would have to act like

arbiters helping to settle a dispute . . . rather than like judges handing down a sentence.

 

Insurance companies, looking for new fields of business, would offer contract insurance, and most individuals and firms would probably take advantage of this service. (In fact, insuring the monetary value of contracts is common practice today. Nearly all instalment contracts carry insurance against the debtor's failure to pay because of death or some default.) This insurance would be sold to the contracting parties at the time the contract was ratified. Before an insurance company would indemnify its insured for loss in a case of broken contract, the matter would have to be submitted to arbitration as provided in the contract. For this reason there would be a close link between the business of contract insurance and the business

of arbitration. Some arbitration agencies would probably develop as auxiliary functions of insurance companies, while others would arise as independent firms.

 

Suppose the inventor of a Handy-Dandy Kitchen Gadget entered into a contract with a small-time factory owner concerning the manufacture of the Kitchen Gadget, and they had the contract insured. Suppose that the factory owner then changed the design of the Kitchen Gadget and began making and selling it as his own invention, in order to avoid paying royalties to the inventor. After appealing to the manufacturer unsuccessfully, the inventor would take his complaint to the company insuring the contract. The insurance company would then arrange a hearing before the arbitration agency named in the contract as "first court of appeal." Here the dispute would be submitted to one or more professional arbiters for a judgment to resolve it. (The number and general composition of the arbiters, if more than one arbiter were called for, would have been specified in the original contract.)

 

If the decision reached by the professional arbiters was satisfactory to both the Kitchen Gadget inventor and the manufacturer, their ruling would be observed and the disputed matter would be settled. If the ruling were not satisfactory to either the inventor or the manufacturer and the dissatisfied party felt he had a chance of obtaining a reversal, he could appeal the decision to the next arbitration agency named in the contract. This agency would consent to hear the case if it felt the dissatisfied party had presented enough

evidence to warrant a possible reversal. . . . And so on, up through the arbitration agency named as "final court of appeal."

 

When a contract is willfully or carelessly broken, the principle of justice involved is that the party who broke the contract owes all other contracted parties reparations in the amount of whatever his breach of contract has cost them (such amount to be determined by the arbitration agency previously specified by the parties to the contract) plus the cost of the arbitration proceedings.

 

If the arbiters of the final arbitration agency to whom appeal was made decided that the factory owner had, in fact, breached his contract with the inventor, they would set the reparations payment as close as humanly possible to the amount which the facts warranted —i.e., they would attempt to be as objective as possible. If the manufacturer were either unable or unwilling to make the payment, or to make it immediately, the insurance company would indemnify the inventor for the amount in question (within the terms of the policy).

With the inventor paid according to the terms of the insurance policy, the insurance company would then have the right of subrogation— that is, the insurance company would have the right to collect the reparations in the inventor's place and the manufacturer would now owe the insurance company rather than the inventor (except for any valid claim for damages the inventor might have for an amount in excess of what the insurance company had paid him). If the inventor didn't have insurance on his contract with the manufacturer, he would take much the same steps as those described above, with two exceptions. First, he, himself, would have to make all arrangements for a hearing before the arbitration agency and for the collection of the debt, and he would have to stand the cost of these services until the manufacturer paid him back. Second, he would not be immediately indemnified for his loss but would have to wait until the manufacturer could pay him, which might be a matter of months or even years if, for example, the manufacturer had gone broke because of his shady dealings and had to make payment on an installment basis.

 

Because those who were guilty of breaches of contract would pay the major costs occasioned by their negligent or improper behavior, the insurance companies would not have to absorb large losses on

contract insurance claims, as they do on fire or accident claims. With only minimal losses to spread among their policyholders, insurance companies could afford to charge very low premiums for contract insurance. Low cost, plus the great convenience afforded by contract insurance, would make such insurance standard for almost all important contracts.

 

Before examining what steps an insurance company (or the original offended party if the contract were uninsured) could morally and practically take in the collection of a debt, it is necessary to examine the concept of "debt" itself. A debt is a value owed by one individual to another individual, with consequent obligation to make payment. A condition of debt arises when:

 

1—an individual comes into possession of a value which rightfully belongs to another individual, either by voluntary agreement, as in a purchase made on credit, or by theft or fraud;

 

2—an individual destroys a value which rightfully belongs to another individual.

 

A debt is the result of an action willingly or negligently taken by the debtor. That is, even though he may not have purposed to assume a debt, he has willingly taken some action or failed to take some action which he should have taken (as in the case of what is now termed "criminal negligence") which has directly resulted in the loss of some value belonging to another individual. A debt does not arise from an unforeseeable or unpreventable circumstance, such as an accident or natural disaster. (In such cases, insurance companies

would act just as they do now, indemnifying the insured and spreading the loss among all their policyholders.)

 

When a debt is owed, the debtor is in either actual or potential possession of a value (or of values) which is the rightful property of the creditor. That is, the debtor is in possession of either:

 

1—the original value-item(s), e.g., a refrigerator which he bought on time and for which he has defaulted on the payments, or

 

2—an amount of money equal in value to the original item if he has disposed of or destroyed that item, or

 

3—the ability to earn the money with which to make payment (or at least partial payment) for the item.

 

Since the debtor is in actual or potential possession of a value (s) which rightfully belongs to the creditor, the creditor has the right to repossess his property . . . because it is his property. And he has the right to repossess it by any means that will not take or destroy values which are the rightful property of the debtor. If the creditor, in the process of collecting his property, does deprive the debtor of values which rightfully belong to the debtor, the creditor may well find that he has reversed their roles, that he is now the one in debt.

 

To return to the insurance company and its collection of the debt owed by the manufacturer in the Handy-Dandy Kitchen Gadget case, the insurance company would have the right to repossess the amount of the debt, which was now its property due to the right of subrogation. It could do so by making arrangements with the manufacturer for repayment, either immediately or in instalments, as he was able to afford. If, however, the manufacturer refused to make payment, the insurance company would have the right to make whatever arrangements it could with other individuals or companies who had financial dealings with him, in order to expedite collection of the debt. For example, the insurance company might arrange with the

manufacturer's bank to attach an appropriate amount of his bank account, provided the bank was willing to make such an arrangement.

 

In the case of a man who was employed, the insurance company might arrange with his employer to deduct payment(s) for the debt from the man's wages, if the employer was willing. Practically speaking, most banks would no doubt have a policy of cooperating with insurance companies in such matters, since a policy of protecting bank accounts from just claims would tend to attract customers who were undependable, thus increasing the cost of banking and forcing the bank to raise its charges. The same would be true of

employers, only more so. Most employers would hesitate to attract undependable labor by inserting a clause in their employment contracts guaranteeing protection from just claims against them.

 

Such drastic means of collection as these would rarely be necessary, however. In the great majority of cases, the debtor would make payment without direct, retaliatory action on the part of the insurance company, because if he failed to do so he would be inviting business ostracism. Obviously, a man who refused to pay his debts is a poor business risk, and insurance companies would undoubtedly cooperate in keeping central files listing all poor risks, just as credit associations do today. So if the manufacturer refused to pay his debts, he would find all insurance companies he wanted to deal with either rating his premiums up or refusing to do business with him altogether. In a free society, whose members depended on the insurance industry for protection of their values from all types of threat (fire, accident, aggressive violence, etc.) and where, furthermore, insurance companies were the force guaranteeing the integrity of contracts, how well could a man live if he couldn't get insurance (or couldn't get it at a rate he could afford)? If the insurance companies refused to do business with him, he would be unable to buy any protection for his values, nor would he be able to enter into any meaningful contract—he couldn't even buy a car on time. Furthermore, other businesses would find it in their interest to check the information in the insurance companies' central files, just as they check credit ratings today, and so the manufacturer's bad reputation

would spread. If his default were serious enough, no one would want to risk doing business with him. He would be driven out of business, and then he might even find it difficult to get and keep a good job or to rent a decent apartment. Even the poorest and most irresponsible man would think twice before putting himself in such a position. Even the richest and most powerful man would find it destructive of his interests to so cut himself off from all business dealings. In a free society, men would soon discover that honesty with others is a selfish, moral necessity!

 

If, in the face of all this, the manufacturer still remained adamant in his refusal to pay the debt, the insurance company would have the right to treat him in the same manner as a man would be treated who had taken another man's property by aggressive force. That is, the insurance company would have the right to use retaliatory force against the manufacturer, since he would be in wrongful possession of property which actually belonged to the insurance company. But, since this problem falls into the area of aggression and the rectification of injustices, which is covered in subsequent chapters, the manufacturer's case will be dropped at this point.

 

The moral principle underlying the insurance company's actions to collect from the manufacturer is this: When a man is willfully or negligently responsible for the loss of value(s) belonging to another individual, no one should gain from the default or aggression, but the party responsible for the loss should bear the major burden of the loss, as it was the result of his own dishonest and irrational behavior.

 

Neither the inventor nor the insurance company should profit from the manufacturer's dishonesty, as this would be to encourage dishonesty. And neither does profit. While the inventor is not forced to bear the financial burden of the manufacturer's default, he does suffer some inconvenience and probably also the frustration of some of his plans. The insurance company loses to some degree because it indemnifies the inventor immediately but must usually wait some time and perhaps even go to the expense of exerting some force to collect from the manufacturer. This principle is the same one which causes present day insurance companies to write deductible clauses into their coverage of automobiles, in order that none of the parties involved will profit from irrationality and carelessness and so be tempted to make a practice of such actions.

 

Neither the inventor nor the insurance company was responsible for the manufacturer's default, however, so neither the inventor nor the insurance company should bear the burden of paying for it. Especially should the insurance company not be left holding the bag if it is at all possible to collect from the guilty party, as the insurance company will simply be forced to pass the loss on to its other policyholders who are innocent of the whole affair. The manufacturer is guilty of the default, and the manufacturer should pay for it—in accordance with the moral law that each man should reap the reward or suffer the consequence of his own actions. Actions do have consequences.

 

It will be argued by statists that the free-market system of contract insurance would leave helpless individuals at the mercy of the predatory greed of huge and unscrupulous insurance companies. Such an argument, however, only demonstrates the statists' ignorance of the functioning of the free market. Insurance companies would be forced to be scrupulously just in all their dealings by the same forces which keep all businesses in a free market honest—competition and the value of a good reputation. Any insurance company which failed to defend the just interests of its policyholders would soon lose those policyholders to other, more reputable firms. And any insurance company which defended the interests of its policyholders at

the expense of doing injustice to non-policyholders with whom they had dealings would soon lose its policyholders. No one would want to risk dealing with the policyholders of such a company as long as they held that brand of insurance, thus forcing them to change companies. Business ostracism would work as well against dishonest insurance companies as it would against a dishonest individual, and plentiful competition, plus the alertness of news media looking for a scoop on business news, would keep shady dealers well weeded out.

 

Disputes which did not involve a contractual situation (but which didn't arise out of the initiation of force or fraud) would be much rarer than contractual disputes in a laissez-faire society. Examples of such disputes would be conflict over a land boundary or the refusal of a patient to pay for emergency medical care administered while he was unconscious—on the grounds that he hadn't ordered that particular kind of care. Non-contractual disputes would usually not involve insurance, but they would be submitted to arbitration in

much the same manner as would contractual disputes.

 

In a non-contractual dispute, as in a contractual one, both parties would have to agree on the arbitration agency they wanted to employ, and they would have to bind themselves, contractually with the agency, to abide by its decision. If the disputants couldn't settle the matter themselves, it is unlikely that either one would refuse to submit to arbitration because of the powerful market forces impelling toward dispute-settlement. Disputed goods, such as the land in the boundary conflict, are less useful to their owners because of the lack of clear title (for example, the land couldn't be sold until the dispute was settled). But, more important than the reduced usefulness of disputed goods, the reputation of a man who refused arbitration without good reasons would suffer. People would hesitate to risk doing business with him for fear that they, too, would be involved in a protracted dispute.

 

As in the case of contractual disputes, the threat of business ostracism would usually be enough pressure to get the dispute submitted to arbitration. But occasionally, the accused might want to refuse arbitration; and he could be guilty, or he could be innocent. If an accused man were innocent, he would be very foolish to refuse to submit evidence of his innocence to representatives of the arbitration agency and, if necessary, defend himself at an arbitration hearing. Only by showing that his accuser was wrong could he protect his

good reputation and avoid being saddled with a debt he didn't deserve. Also, if he could prove that he had been falsely accused, he would stand a very good chance of collecting damages from his accuser. If, however, the accused man were guilty, he might refuse arbitration because he feared that the arbiters would rule against him. If the accused did refuse arbitration and the injured party had good grounds for his case, he could treat this recalcitrant disputant just as he would treat a man who had stolen something from him—he could demand repayment (for details of how he would go about this and how repayment would be made, see Chapters 9 and 10).

 

In the matter of arbitration, as in any other salable service, the free-market system of voluntary choice will always be superior to government's enforcement of standardized and arbitrary rules. When consumers are free to choose, they will naturally choose the companies which they believe will give them the best service and/or the lowest prices. The profit and loss signals which consumer-buying practices send businesses guide these businesses into providing the goods and services which satisfy customers most. Profit/loss is the "error signal" which guides businessmen in their decisions. It is a continuous signal and, with the accurate and sophisticated methods of modern accounting, a very sensitive one.

 

But government is an extra-market institution—its purpose is not to make profits but to gain power and exercise it. Government officials have no profit and loss data. Even if they wanted to satisfy their

forced "customers," they have no reliable "error signal" to guide their decisions. Aside from sporadic mail from the small minority of his constituents who are politically conscious, the only "error signal" a

politician gets is the outcome of his re-election bids. One small bit of data every two to six yearsl And even this tidbit is hardly a clear signal, since individual voters may have voted the way they did because of any one of a number of issues, or even because they liked the candidate's sexy appearance or fatherly image. Appointed bureaucrats and judges, of course, don't even get this one small and usually confusing data signal; they have to operate completely in the dark.

 

This means that even the best intentioned government officials can't possibly match the free market in generating consumer satisfaction in any area. Government doesn't have, and by its nature can't have, the only signal system—profit and loss—which can accurately tell an organization whether it is giving consumers what they want. Because he lacks the profit/loss signal, no government official—including a government judge—can tell whether he's pleasing the "customers" by preserving or increasing their values, or whether he's harming them by destroying their values.

 

The best conceivable government, staffed by the most conscientious politicians, couldn't possibly handle the job of arbitrating disputes (or any other task) as can private enterprise acting in a free market."

[caveman99]

 

Ok I have read countless posts of this topic, 1. by the way carlfense I think you did an eloquent job proving your points, but I still don't see an answer to one of carlfense's main questions. He asked simply how the doling out of justice would work. All I see are your vague answers about how the free market determines that companies will have to dish out justice fairly and cheaply, which is a slight contradiction in business (generally the cheaper the cost, the cheaper the product), but I don't see any specifics. Exactly who will govern the areas? Are you assuming that individual "security" companies will spring up to fill the void? Does the population get to choose who they want to maintain the peace for them, how about individuals? What if two individuals have a dispute but they both use different services to dole out justice? Do the companies fight each other until one wins? I think you over estimate the good will of men and business in general in this system. Your ideal state relies on the population and businesses to make sacrifices for the betterment of society, yet the free market is almost the opposite of that. Businesses today will make a decision that hurts you or I if they feel the cost savings or earnings are worth it. Walmart is a prime example of this. Their actions don't so adversely affect them that they change their ways though.

 

What points has he proven? Because you and him share an opinion that the government is great and should be able to steal money from individuals to prop up their authority, he's somehow proven something? I guess evidence or anything that resembles logic is not needed to actually prove a point. He has eloquently expressed his opinion, the opposite of mine, but he has hardly proven that anarcho-capitalism is contradictory, unlike the system he supports, or that the system he supports can even works to begin with. If anything, his opinions prove that government cannot achieve its purpose, to preserve or protect liberty, because rights must be given up in order for any government to function. How can a government protect or preserve that which is not there to protect?

 

Secondly, he can never prove that consent was given for the implementation of government. Sure, he throws around "we" consented, but who is "we"? It definitely wasn't myself. It wasn't any women, children, or slaves who had absolutely no voice during the time of implementation. No Native Americans consented or were even asked. So how can he say "we" consented? More like "they" decided what was the best for the rest of us and "we" got stuck paying for it. Now that's what I call freedom, liberty, and good ol' American spirit!!

 

I've mentioned a few books in an earlier about justice in an anarcho-capitalist system. Here's a couple in case you want to check them out.

 

The Market For Liberty

 

The Myth of National Defense

 

Maybe you won't read them, but if you do it'll give you a more clearer understanding of the point I was trying to make. I guess I don't understand how more specific I can get about letting the market work.

 

You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying in several areas relating to economics. I never once mentioned cheap products/services, I said those that are fair and fairly priced. This in no way insinuates the products/services would be cheap, rather that they are cheaper than those of similar value. Where do you come up with the theory that because a product costs less, it must be a cheaper product? I'd liek to see the proof of that.

 

Secondly, if you think sacrifice must be made for the betterment of society in order for a free market to function, you need to study up on your economics. Sure, those who wish to be successful would be required to produce fair valued goods/services, but they would also receive fair profits in return. This is compensation, not sacrifice. If you see that transaction any other way, you need to open your eyes. Only those products and services which satisfy the customer are sucessful. So, any business that wishes to be successful had better ensure they are satisfying their customers. You mention Wal-Mart, but what decision have they made that has hurt you? I can guarantee you that if they made business/product/policy decisions that hurt people and stopped them from buying or working for them, they would change their policies immediately. That's how business should work and would work in a free market.

I won't get into your issues with carlfense's arguement because you are taking it in circles. I guess we agree to disagree on those major points. I will look at the links you provided, but I am still not sure why you can't give a general overview of how the security would work with some detail?

 

1) Regarding cheaper prices generally equaling cheaper product quality, this is a tried and true point of business. While it is true competition will force businesses to lower prices to stay competitive, every business has a breaking point on their margins at which time the only way to make a product cheaper is to take cost out of the product itself. This essentially means they take shortcuts on product quality in order to bring a cheaper product to market. I am in the business of Procurement, I spend all day long negotiating deals for goods and services and negotiating contracts for them. I see this all of the time, which is why in Procurement you always strive for that "apples to apples" bid. Take a look at any popular toy that has been around for a long time. GI Joe is a great example. GI Joes used to be bigger and fabricated at a higher quality. Along the way, the cost point for the toys made them non-competitive. When the cartoons kicked in during the 80's, demand went up but the high prices were too high to allow sales to grow along a similar path of growth. So what they did is sacrificed quality for quantity and price. The toys got smaller using less raw material, prices got cheaper. Sales took off. Now I am not saying the customers were not happier with what they bought, since I know that is what you are going to say, what I am pointing out is that cheaper prices at some point always leads to inferior quality. I will give you another example of this, Snapper vs. Walmat. The Man Who Said No to Walmart In summary the head of Snapper knew that Walmart's plan to create a mass sales plan out of their mowers by dropping the prices ridicuously would result in a serious drop in quality. Unlike GI Joe, Snapper wasn't willing to do that and said no. I could tell you stories all day long about Walmart forcing artificial price decreases from its suppliers, but I will get to Walmart in below since you asked. In the service industry, margins are even tighter. The business cost is disected down to the amount of minutes/hours a worker will spend doing a task. If you want to lower costs, the breaking point in the margins is much lower and soon the only way to get cheaper cost is to cut value. You cut out what you can provide as a service level, corners get cut.

 

2) My economics and business education levels are quite high thank you. You missed my point on the statement about sacrifices. Businesses will do things that make them the most money or cost them the least amount of money. In principle your comments about the Free Market being able to keep everything in check is nice, but business doesn't care one iota about what is good for the individual. They will find ways to enforce their will against yours and they will win if unchecked. In the security scenario, businesses are only worried about the areas that affect them such as office locations and stores. They aren't going to waste time protecting the general area. No businesses care directly about the security of the neighborhoods. The only way in your model that neighborhoods would be protected is if they paid for it themselves. Since most likely individuals and families can't afford a lot, the most efficient way to do this would be to band together as an organization, or basic governmental structure, gasp!, and collect funds for said service. How about environmental protection? I will tell you that if you let them, businesses will dump all over the place. Long term indirect impacts are not a primary concern for any large business. They will keep things a secret until it is too late, this happens all of the time (see Enron). This is what I mean by sacrifices. Somewhere along the line, to keep society orderly some sort of organizational governance is needed to handle these issues and the businesses would have to buy into the authority of the governing body for it to work.

 

3) You ask about Walmart. Walmart is the poster child for why your system most likely would fail. Walmart has a history of going into small towns and dropping their prices to essentially get rid of the competition. With no where else locally to really buy the products they sell, they have a quasi monopoly. They also have the market cornered on available jobs in the retail sector for these towns. They get away with an awful lot and yet they are successful because of the little monopolies they have set up. Here is some information on Walmart if you feel like reading. Walmart - The Facts

[sarge87]

 

Ok I have read countless posts of this topic, 1. by the way carlfense I think you did an eloquent job proving your points, but I still don't see an answer to one of carlfense's main questions. He asked simply how the doling out of justice would work. All I see are your vague answers about how the free market determines that companies will have to dish out justice fairly and cheaply, which is a slight contradiction in business (generally the cheaper the cost, the cheaper the product), but I don't see any specifics. Exactly who will govern the areas? Are you assuming that individual "security" companies will spring up to fill the void? Does the population get to choose who they want to maintain the peace for them, how about individuals? What if two individuals have a dispute but they both use different services to dole out justice? Do the companies fight each other until one wins? I think you over estimate the good will of men and business in general in this system. Your ideal state relies on the population and businesses to make sacrifices for the betterment of society, yet the free market is almost the opposite of that. Businesses today will make a decision that hurts you or I if they feel the cost savings or earnings are worth it. Walmart is a prime example of this. Their actions don't so adversely affect them that they change their ways though.

 

What points has he proven? Because you and him share an opinion that the government is great and should be able to steal money from individuals to prop up their authority, he's somehow proven something? I guess evidence or anything that resembles logic is not needed to actually prove a point. He has eloquently expressed his opinion, the opposite of mine, but he has hardly proven that anarcho-capitalism is contradictory, unlike the system he supports, or that the system he supports can even works to begin with. If anything, his opinions prove that government cannot achieve its purpose, to preserve or protect liberty, because rights must be given up in order for any government to function. How can a government protect or preserve that which is not there to protect?

 

Secondly, he can never prove that consent was given for the implementation of government. Sure, he throws around "we" consented, but who is "we"? It definitely wasn't myself. It wasn't any women, children, or slaves who had absolutely no voice during the time of implementation. No Native Americans consented or were even asked. So how can he say "we" consented? More like "they" decided what was the best for the rest of us and "we" got stuck paying for it. Now that's what I call freedom, liberty, and good ol' American spirit!!

 

I've mentioned a few books in an earlier about justice in an anarcho-capitalist system. Here's a couple in case you want to check them out.

 

The Market For Liberty

 

The Myth of National Defense

 

Maybe you won't read them, but if you do it'll give you a more clearer understanding of the point I was trying to make. I guess I don't understand how more specific I can get about letting the market work.

 

You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying in several areas relating to economics. I never once mentioned cheap products/services, I said those that are fair and fairly priced. This in no way insinuates the products/services would be cheap, rather that they are cheaper than those of similar value. Where do you come up with the theory that because a product costs less, it must be a cheaper product? I'd liek to see the proof of that.

 

Secondly, if you think sacrifice must be made for the betterment of society in order for a free market to function, you need to study up on your economics. Sure, those who wish to be successful would be required to produce fair valued goods/services, but they would also receive fair profits in return. This is compensation, not sacrifice. If you see that transaction any other way, you need to open your eyes. Only those products and services which satisfy the customer are sucessful. So, any business that wishes to be successful had better ensure they are satisfying their customers. You mention Wal-Mart, but what decision have they made that has hurt you? I can guarantee you that if they made business/product/policy decisions that hurt people and stopped them from buying or working for them, they would change their policies immediately. That's how business should work and would work in a free market.

I won't get into your issues with carlfense's arguement because you are taking it in circles. I guess we agree to disagree on those major points. I will look at the links you provided, but I am still not sure why you can't give a general overview of how the security would work with some detail?

 

1) Regarding cheaper prices generally equaling cheaper product quality, this is a tried and true point of business. While it is true competition will force businesses to lower prices to stay competitive, every business has a breaking point on their margins at which time the only way to make a product cheaper is to take cost out of the product itself. This essentially means they take shortcuts on product quality in order to bring a cheaper product to market. I am in the business of Procurement, I spend all day long negotiating deals for goods and services and negotiating contracts for them. I see this all of the time, which is why in Procurement you always strive for that "apples to apples" bid. Take a look at any popular toy that has been around for a long time. GI Joe is a great example. GI Joes used to be bigger and fabricated at a higher quality. Along the way, the cost point for the toys made them non-competitive. When the cartoons kicked in during the 80's, demand went up but the high prices were too high to allow sales to grow along a similar path of growth. So what they did is sacrificed quality for quantity and price. The toys got smaller using less raw material, prices got cheaper. Sales took off. Now I am not saying the customers were not happier with what they bought, since I know that is what you are going to say, what I am pointing out is that cheaper prices at some point always leads to inferior quality. I will give you another example of this, Snapper vs. Walmat. The Man Who Said No to Walmart In summary the head of Snapper knew that Walmart's plan to create a mass sales plan out of their mowers by dropping the prices ridicuously would result in a serious drop in quality. Unlike GI Joe, Snapper wasn't willing to do that and said no. I could tell you stories all day long about Walmart forcing artificial price decreases from its suppliers, but I will get to Walmart in below since you asked. In the service industry, margins are even tighter. The business cost is disected down to the amount of minutes/hours a worker will spend doing a task. If you want to lower costs, the breaking point in the margins is much lower and soon the only way to get cheaper cost is to cut value. You cut out what you can provide as a service level, corners get cut.

 

2) My economics and business education levels are quite high thank you. You missed my point on the statement about sacrifices. Businesses will do things that make them the most money or cost them the least amount of money. In principle your comments about the Free Market being able to keep everything in check is nice, but business doesn't care one iota about what is good for the individual. They will find ways to enforce their will against yours and they will win if unchecked. In the security scenario, businesses are only worried about the areas that affect them such as office locations and stores. They aren't going to waste time protecting the general area. No businesses care directly about the security of the neighborhoods. The only way in your model that neighborhoods would be protected is if they paid for it themselves. Since most likely individuals and families can't afford a lot, the most efficient way to do this would be to band together as an organization, or basic governmental structure, gasp!, and collect funds for said service. How about environmental protection? I will tell you that if you let them, businesses will dump all over the place. Long term indirect impacts are not a primary concern for any large business. They will keep things a secret until it is too late, this happens all of the time (see Enron). This is what I mean by sacrifices. Somewhere along the line, to keep society orderly some sort of organizational governance is needed to handle these issues and the businesses would have to buy into the authority of the governing body for it to work.

 

3) You ask about Walmart. Walmart is the poster child for why your system most likely would fail. Walmart has a history of going into small towns and dropping their prices to essentially get rid of the competition. With no where else locally to really buy the products they sell, they have a quasi monopoly. They also have the market cornered on available jobs in the retail sector for these towns. They get away with an awful lot and yet they are successful because of the little monopolies they have set up. Here is some information on Walmart if you feel like reading. Walmart - The Facts

You post a bought and paid for union propaganda site as a credible source? Might as well post WalMart Watch too.

 

The AARP uses the same tactics to get lower prices for their members. It's called purchasing power.

[caveman99]

 

Ok I have read countless posts of this topic, 1. by the way carlfense I think you did an eloquent job proving your points, but I still don't see an answer to one of carlfense's main questions. He asked simply how the doling out of justice would work. All I see are your vague answers about how the free market determines that companies will have to dish out justice fairly and cheaply, which is a slight contradiction in business (generally the cheaper the cost, the cheaper the product), but I don't see any specifics. Exactly who will govern the areas? Are you assuming that individual "security" companies will spring up to fill the void? Does the population get to choose who they want to maintain the peace for them, how about individuals? What if two individuals have a dispute but they both use different services to dole out justice? Do the companies fight each other until one wins? I think you over estimate the good will of men and business in general in this system. Your ideal state relies on the population and businesses to make sacrifices for the betterment of society, yet the free market is almost the opposite of that. Businesses today will make a decision that hurts you or I if they feel the cost savings or earnings are worth it. Walmart is a prime example of this. Their actions don't so adversely affect them that they change their ways though.

 

What points has he proven? Because you and him share an opinion that the government is great and should be able to steal money from individuals to prop up their authority, he's somehow proven something? I guess evidence or anything that resembles logic is not needed to actually prove a point. He has eloquently expressed his opinion, the opposite of mine, but he has hardly proven that anarcho-capitalism is contradictory, unlike the system he supports, or that the system he supports can even works to begin with. If anything, his opinions prove that government cannot achieve its purpose, to preserve or protect liberty, because rights must be given up in order for any government to function. How can a government protect or preserve that which is not there to protect?

 

Secondly, he can never prove that consent was given for the implementation of government. Sure, he throws around "we" consented, but who is "we"? It definitely wasn't myself. It wasn't any women, children, or slaves who had absolutely no voice during the time of implementation. No Native Americans consented or were even asked. So how can he say "we" consented? More like "they" decided what was the best for the rest of us and "we" got stuck paying for it. Now that's what I call freedom, liberty, and good ol' American spirit!!

 

I've mentioned a few books in an earlier about justice in an anarcho-capitalist system. Here's a couple in case you want to check them out.

 

The Market For Liberty

 

The Myth of National Defense

 

Maybe you won't read them, but if you do it'll give you a more clearer understanding of the point I was trying to make. I guess I don't understand how more specific I can get about letting the market work.

 

You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying in several areas relating to economics. I never once mentioned cheap products/services, I said those that are fair and fairly priced. This in no way insinuates the products/services would be cheap, rather that they are cheaper than those of similar value. Where do you come up with the theory that because a product costs less, it must be a cheaper product? I'd liek to see the proof of that.

 

Secondly, if you think sacrifice must be made for the betterment of society in order for a free market to function, you need to study up on your economics. Sure, those who wish to be successful would be required to produce fair valued goods/services, but they would also receive fair profits in return. This is compensation, not sacrifice. If you see that transaction any other way, you need to open your eyes. Only those products and services which satisfy the customer are sucessful. So, any business that wishes to be successful had better ensure they are satisfying their customers. You mention Wal-Mart, but what decision have they made that has hurt you? I can guarantee you that if they made business/product/policy decisions that hurt people and stopped them from buying or working for them, they would change their policies immediately. That's how business should work and would work in a free market.

I won't get into your issues with carlfense's arguement because you are taking it in circles. I guess we agree to disagree on those major points. I will look at the links you provided, but I am still not sure why you can't give a general overview of how the security would work with some detail?

 

1) Regarding cheaper prices generally equaling cheaper product quality, this is a tried and true point of business. While it is true competition will force businesses to lower prices to stay competitive, every business has a breaking point on their margins at which time the only way to make a product cheaper is to take cost out of the product itself. This essentially means they take shortcuts on product quality in order to bring a cheaper product to market. I am in the business of Procurement, I spend all day long negotiating deals for goods and services and negotiating contracts for them. I see this all of the time, which is why in Procurement you always strive for that "apples to apples" bid. Take a look at any popular toy that has been around for a long time. GI Joe is a great example. GI Joes used to be bigger and fabricated at a higher quality. Along the way, the cost point for the toys made them non-competitive. When the cartoons kicked in during the 80's, demand went up but the high prices were too high to allow sales to grow along a similar path of growth. So what they did is sacrificed quality for quantity and price. The toys got smaller using less raw material, prices got cheaper. Sales took off. Now I am not saying the customers were not happier with what they bought, since I know that is what you are going to say, what I am pointing out is that cheaper prices at some point always leads to inferior quality. I will give you another example of this, Snapper vs. Walmat. The Man Who Said No to Walmart In summary the head of Snapper knew that Walmart's plan to create a mass sales plan out of their mowers by dropping the prices ridicuously would result in a serious drop in quality. Unlike GI Joe, Snapper wasn't willing to do that and said no. I could tell you stories all day long about Walmart forcing artificial price decreases from its suppliers, but I will get to Walmart in below since you asked. In the service industry, margins are even tighter. The business cost is disected down to the amount of minutes/hours a worker will spend doing a task. If you want to lower costs, the breaking point in the margins is much lower and soon the only way to get cheaper cost is to cut value. You cut out what you can provide as a service level, corners get cut.

 

2) My economics and business education levels are quite high thank you. You missed my point on the statement about sacrifices. Businesses will do things that make them the most money or cost them the least amount of money. In principle your comments about the Free Market being able to keep everything in check is nice, but business doesn't care one iota about what is good for the individual. They will find ways to enforce their will against yours and they will win if unchecked. In the security scenario, businesses are only worried about the areas that affect them such as office locations and stores. They aren't going to waste time protecting the general area. No businesses care directly about the security of the neighborhoods. The only way in your model that neighborhoods would be protected is if they paid for it themselves. Since most likely individuals and families can't afford a lot, the most efficient way to do this would be to band together as an organization, or basic governmental structure, gasp!, and collect funds for said service. How about environmental protection? I will tell you that if you let them, businesses will dump all over the place. Long term indirect impacts are not a primary concern for any large business. They will keep things a secret until it is too late, this happens all of the time (see Enron). This is what I mean by sacrifices. Somewhere along the line, to keep society orderly some sort of organizational governance is needed to handle these issues and the businesses would have to buy into the authority of the governing body for it to work.

 

3) You ask about Walmart. Walmart is the poster child for why your system most likely would fail. Walmart has a history of going into small towns and dropping their prices to essentially get rid of the competition. With no where else locally to really buy the products they sell, they have a quasi monopoly. They also have the market cornered on available jobs in the retail sector for these towns. They get away with an awful lot and yet they are successful because of the little monopolies they have set up. Here is some information on Walmart if you feel like reading. Walmart - The Facts

You post a bought and paid for union propaganda site as a credible source? Might as well post WalMart Watch too.

 

The AARP uses the same tactics to get lower prices for their members. It's called purchasing power.

Yeah I did. Frankly because when I went through it, the summary of issues was pretty good biased or not. Most of this is documented by credible news outlets or magazines, I just didn't feel like dregging through all of the newspapers or news sights to pull them out. I don't actively support any of these groups, frankly most days I don't think about Walmart. They are just a good example in this case because of their history of recent issues.

[caveman99]

bump

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

I won't get into your issues with carlfense's arguement because you are taking it in circles. I guess we agree to disagree on those major points. I will look at the links you provided, but I am still not sure why you can't give a general overview of how the security would work with some detail?

 

1) Regarding cheaper prices generally equaling cheaper product quality, this is a tried and true point of business. While it is true competition will force businesses to lower prices to stay competitive, every business has a breaking point on their margins at which time the only way to make a product cheaper is to take cost out of the product itself. This essentially means they take shortcuts on product quality in order to bring a cheaper product to market. I am in the business of Procurement, I spend all day long negotiating deals for goods and services and negotiating contracts for them. I see this all of the time, which is why in Procurement you always strive for that "apples to apples" bid. Take a look at any popular toy that has been around for a long time. GI Joe is a great example. GI Joes used to be bigger and fabricated at a higher quality. Along the way, the cost point for the toys made them non-competitive. When the cartoons kicked in during the 80's, demand went up but the high prices were too high to allow sales to grow along a similar path of growth. So what they did is sacrificed quality for quantity and price. The toys got smaller using less raw material, prices got cheaper. Sales took off. Now I am not saying the customers were not happier with what they bought, since I know that is what you are going to say, what I am pointing out is that cheaper prices at some point always leads to inferior quality. I will give you another example of this, Snapper vs. Walmat. The Man Who Said No to Walmart In summary the head of Snapper knew that Walmart's plan to create a mass sales plan out of their mowers by dropping the prices ridicuously would result in a serious drop in quality. Unlike GI Joe, Snapper wasn't willing to do that and said no. I could tell you stories all day long about Walmart forcing artificial price decreases from its suppliers, but I will get to Walmart in below since you asked. In the service industry, margins are even tighter. The business cost is disected down to the amount of minutes/hours a worker will spend doing a task. If you want to lower costs, the breaking point in the margins is much lower and soon the only way to get cheaper cost is to cut value. You cut out what you can provide as a service level, corners get cut.

 

2) My economics and business education levels are quite high thank you. You missed my point on the statement about sacrifices. Businesses will do things that make them the most money or cost them the least amount of money. In principle your comments about the Free Market being able to keep everything in check is nice, but business doesn't care one iota about what is good for the individual. They will find ways to enforce their will against yours and they will win if unchecked. In the security scenario, businesses are only worried about the areas that affect them such as office locations and stores. They aren't going to waste time protecting the general area. No businesses care directly about the security of the neighborhoods. The only way in your model that neighborhoods would be protected is if they paid for it themselves. Since most likely individuals and families can't afford a lot, the most efficient way to do this would be to band together as an organization, or basic governmental structure, gasp!, and collect funds for said service. How about environmental protection? I will tell you that if you let them, businesses will dump all over the place. Long term indirect impacts are not a primary concern for any large business. They will keep things a secret until it is too late, this happens all of the time (see Enron). This is what I mean by sacrifices. Somewhere along the line, to keep society orderly some sort of organizational governance is needed to handle these issues and the businesses would have to buy into the authority of the governing body for it to work.

 

3) You ask about Walmart. Walmart is the poster child for why your system most likely would fail. Walmart has a history of going into small towns and dropping their prices to essentially get rid of the competition. With no where else locally to really buy the products they sell, they have a quasi monopoly. They also have the market cornered on available jobs in the retail sector for these towns. They get away with an awful lot and yet they are successful because of the little monopolies they have set up. Here is some information on Walmart if you feel like reading. Walmart - The Facts

 

 

Feel free to get into my issues, isn’t that what this discussion is about? What circles am I taking his argument in? The one that proves it and government to be a contradiction, which doesn't benefit your argument so you say you won't get into it.

 

1. What you describe is called efficiency. You call it sacrifice, but it is not. Sacrifice is the act of giving up something of greater value for something of less value. Since humans are rational beings, we have the ability to weigh the value of something as it pertains to us. Therefore, if the customer did not think he was getting a fair value he would not buy a product. It is in the best interest of the customer to receive a fair value for what he is giving up. The same goes for the producer. Did it ever occur to you that maybe the bigger, better quality products were going for a price cheaper than the actual value of them to the producer. And maybe the producers needed to create a more efficient product to ensure the trade was fair to them? So yes, you are right that maybe the product is cheaper, but that doesn't mean it's still not a fair value for both the producer and the consumer. If neither was happy, the transaction would not take place and neither the producer or the consumer would profit from it.

 

2. You are correct about businesses in our current system not caring about the customer, or the long-term impacts they have on anything. This is because of one thing, government intervention. We don't live in a free market society so for you to base your reasoning on that which doesn't currently exists would be false. We live in a fascist, centrally planned economy in which the government controls all business (through regulation, taxes, tariffs, etc) but gives the facade of private ownership. Why do you think every company that has needed to be bailed out has been, because each is essentially owned by the government and the governments "kick-back” would cease if the businesses fail. So they use taxpayer (my, you, our) money to re-inflate a business actually owned by them. Talk about a win-win situation. In a free market society, there is no government intervention and therefore in order for a business to succeed, it had better care about the customer. If not, it would not be in business very long. There is no way to force product on anyone without violating the rights of each individual, so that throws your argument of force out the window. Also, how can a business pollute without violating the property rights of another individual? In a free market society, those who violate the rights of others are held accountable.

 

Secondly, nobody said that individuals couldn't band together and pay for security, only that it must be voluntary. If it was voluntary, that is not government. Government is not voluntary. It uses coercion and force to accomplish its ends. Is that not a violation of each individual’s rights? Do I consent to have my wages stolen to provide so-called "national defense" which includes policing every corner the world except for area I choose to defend? Absolutely not!!! I have no say in the matter and that is what government is, a non-consensual organization that robs from everyone, for the so-called betterment of society, in order to protect the interests of few. There is no such thing as “for the good of society.” It is a concept made up, by government and it’s supporters, to further the interests of government. Since society consists of individuals, it is only the betterment of the individual that will actually better society. If any individual gives up something for the betterment of someone else, without the return of something of equal value, which is sacrifice, how are they bettering themselves? If they are not, how can they better society?

 

3. As for Wal-Mart, see my argument for our current economic system. It should answer any questions you have.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Yeah I did. Frankly because when I went through it, the summary of issues was pretty good biased or not. Most of this is documented by credible news outlets or magazines, I just didn't feel like dregging through all of the newspapers or news sights to pull them out. I don't actively support any of these groups, frankly most days I don't think about Walmart. They are just a good example in this case because of their history of recent issues.

 

So what you are really saying is, I didn't bother to check the credibility of anything in this article but I agreed with it, so it must be true. Nice!!

[caveman99]

 

Yeah I did. Frankly because when I went through it, the summary of issues was pretty good biased or not. Most of this is documented by credible news outlets or magazines, I just didn't feel like dregging through all of the newspapers or news sights to pull them out. I don't actively support any of these groups, frankly most days I don't think about Walmart. They are just a good example in this case because of their history of recent issues.

 

So what you are really saying is, I didn't bother to check the credibility of anything in this article but I agreed with it, so it must be true. Nice!!

No, that isn't what I am saying. Notice I said, "Most of this is documented by credible news outlets or magazines," what part of that don't you understand? I have read about all of this before, I don't need to check the credibility out of the issues. I read through the issues they have posted and for 80%+ of them I have read multiple articles or heard multiple news reports on said issues. Man you have a habit of just jumping off on something and making wild comments. Either take the time to read something for its meaning or don't bother commenting.