We need to get back to constitutional govt instead of a controlling govt.  This is not the way it was designed to be in the USA.  It's "The United States of America".  The autonomy of the States is under attack by this administration.

josé david wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2012 at 3:23pm:


Please excuse TL. He can go off the rails sometimes.

Genesee wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2012 at 3:25pm:


Off the rails of popular discourse on these issues? Always!

But hopefully never off the rails of logical thought!

josé david wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2012 at 3:57pm:

I suspect our disagreement probably arises most on the issue of the nature of government and the question of whether or not any government is necessary for social cooperation and individual liberty.

Or are there other areas of my thinking that you see serious flaws in?

josé david wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2012 at 4:13pm:


Yes. We agree here.

In order for society to function there needs to be some production of essential goods. So the production of law is necessary. The production of arbitration or legal services is necessary. So is the production of security and insurance.

I wholly agree that these things are valuable and necessary.

Where we most likely diverge is in our views in which these goods are produced.

I maintain that these things can be produced on the market. And better.

In my view, just as the government fails to provide education and health care services better than the free market, so too do they fail to provide quality laws, protection of liberty and defense services.

Quote:


I submit that this is but an assumption. That when you trace the thought out to its implications the opposite holds true.

A private market for security would not leave some consumers without protection. If we have but one firm and they ignore the lower end of the market they are leaving money on the table. They will adapt their services to be cheaper and will target poor people. They are profit seeking.

Now under a private market for security no firm could be employed by criminals and do criminal acts for they would be jeopardizing their profits. No insurance firm is going to compensate the patrons of the criminal agency, for they are outlaws. The outlaw agency has to rely on the voluntary payments for its services. The second that word gets around that security agency x has turned outlaw you can bet that people are going to rush to switch to a new security firm- one with a reputation for acting legally.

For no one wants to wonder if and when they need security services if they will be robbed by the very people they are looking to for protection.

And lets think about this logically for a moment.

How expensive would it be to go "outlaw?" Well we know that the cost is great in terms of bullets, bombs and the other tools of war, but labor costs will greatly increase.

The amount of money you need to pay a man to protect his community is tiny compared to how much you would need to pay him to make war on it. I submit that very few people would be willing to work for the outlaw- and those who did would have to be totally without conscience.

And consider that war disrupts commerce. There are loses not only for the waring agencies but for all the large and small businesses that close down.

The losses would be astronomical and the gains illusory.

Even if one agency did survive the battle and come out on top, there is no way to compel payment and the profits would be enormous to the first outside firm that came in and challenged the outlaw. This would draw investment in from foreign lands until the outlaw was put down and the profit rate accruing to the production of security in this market can return back to normal.

In all markets reputation is everything. Profits can be made or lost on it. And for this reason going outlaw is the last thing a profit seeking firm would ever want to do.

If you would like to read a short essay on this outlining these arguments in a better form let me know. I have a pdf file!