NationStates Jolt Archive

Conversation* with a Soviet shopper, 1988

Boy, this bread line sure is long.

Yes.

I hope there's still some left this afternoon when I get to the front.

I hope so, too. You never know with the government, though.

Yes, but if the government didn't run the stores, we would all starve.

Really? Don't you think that if there were a free market in food, entrepreneurs would find a way to sell it to you?

Well... possibly, but can you guarantee it? Food is too important to be left to chance like that.

Since food is so important to people, that means the food market would be very profitable.

That doesn't guarantee me access to food. The problem right now is not that the government provides food, it's that the farmers are having a bad year, and so there is only so much to go around. At least the government can figure out how to distribute it all fairly.

You don't think that in a free market farmers would have more incentive to grow food, and food sellers would have more incentive than your local party official to make sure it gets to you?

That kind of makes sense. Sometimes I here rumors of corruption. But, can you guarantee that there would be a bread store near me? And a fruit store? And where would they get the food? From the government, of course! So there wouldn't be any more to go around.

Maybe there would be stores that would sell all those things in one place, and different stores would compete for your business. I'm just speculating here, but perhaps farmers would sell to wholesalers and manufacturers, who would then sell to the grocery stores.

Now, that's just crazy talk. All those layers of profit would make everything too expensive. Besides, how can you guarantee that in your "free market" grocery system, there would be such a store near me? If you can't guarantee it, there's too much risk.

So under the present system, you're guaranteed groceries? What's this line you're in again?

...
...
But wouldn't these grocery stores just cater to the rich party officials? Why should they bother carrying bread when they could make more money selling caviar and wine?

There are only so many people who can buy caviar all the time. There's a lot more money to be made selling bread and milk to millions of people than caviar and wine to hundreds. Besides, the caviar and wine people sometimes need bread and milk, too.

You're just speculating, again. Besides, why sell me good, fresh food when they can sell me old spoilt food, which they buy cheap? How can you guarantee the food would be safe?

If you heard of a store doing that, would you shop there again, or go to their competitor?

There you go again with your pie-in-the-sky competitor again. Even if I believe someone would build grocery stores, it would be way too inefficient to have two stores close enough together for me to have a choice. I would just have to take what I can get and hope I live.

As opposed to today...

And so what if there were two stores? They could make more money if they got together and set prices really high. Milk would cost two thousand rubles a jug, bread five hundred rubles a loaf, and we would all starve to death.

If the local market were priced too high, competitors would have an incentive to move in and sell at a lower price. The same if the local stores had poor service or a poor selection.

Hmmm... it's starting to sound good. But, you still can't guarantee me that the system would work like that, or that I would be better off under it?

Well, the incentives are there for people to provide you lots of quality groceries at low cost, unlike the government system where...

Stop. You're still just speculating, and can't guarantee it.

You're right, I can't guarantee it would work that way.

So I might be worse off?

That's not likely, given how markets work. You might be much better off.

"Not likely" is not a guarantee. No thanks. Now, if you don't mind my turn is nearly up. This day is really turning out well. I realize how lucky we are that the government provides our food, and if I hurry, I might have time to get some cheese before the cheese store runs out.

* Fictional. Duh.



And yet most people make the same arguments when I say we should have a free market in healthcare, education and police. Why must we always learn the hard way that freedom is better than coercion?

Because an unregulated free market always--and I do mean always--leads to economic slavery, with a very few controlling the means of creating wealth and the rest of us living at their mercies. The closest thing the US ever had to a completely unregulated free market was the Gilded Age--from about 1890 until the Depression--which was great if you were a member of the wealthy elite, and shit-bad if you weren't. Some of us learn from history.

What's the point again?
Oh yeah, free market is the Uber system you NO0OB 1!1!!!

I didn't understand the argument. Was it an argument?

Some of us learn from history.
Like the history of the USSR? We still provide schooling (as opposed to education, I correct my previous statement), hospitals and police the way they provided food.

If you want to learn from history, and not just parrot what the govt told you in school, try "Capitalism and the Historians" by Nobel Prize winner F.A. Hayek et al.

What's the point again?
Oh yeah, free market is the Uber system you NO0OB 1!1!!!

I didn't understand the argument. Was it an argument?
It was a story. And it was easy to understand.

Like the history of the USSR? We still provide schooling (as opposed to education, I correct my previous statement), hospitals and police the way they provided food.

If you want to learn from history, and not just parrot what the govt told you in school, try "Capitalism and the Historians" by Nobel Prize winner F.A. Hayek et al.
Someone who understands the history of the USSR will tell you that the problem of the USSR has never been the lack of free market.
Now that the USSR has the fee market, things have not improved, on the contrary, they have worsened.

It was a story. And it was easy to understand.
I understood it was a discussion between a free market supporter and another man.
I don't understand your conclusions. They both made some points, but in the end, I don't see free market as the superior side.

Someone who understands the history of the USSR will tell you that the problem of the USSR has never been the lack of free market.
Now that the USSR has the fee market, things have not improved, on the contrary, they have worsened.
It has no such thing. It has mercantilism.

I understood it was a discussion between a free market supporter and another man.
I don't understand your conclusions. They both made some points, but in the end, I don't see free market as the superior side.
The idea was supposed to be that the free market supporter was obviously right and the other guy was making silly points that have been refuted in practice. Of course, you've buried yourself in Marxist propaganda so that you actually look at him and go, "yeah, I suppose so."

Like the history of the USSR? We still provide schooling (as opposed to education, I correct my previous statement), hospitals and police the way they provided food.

If you want to learn from history, and not just parrot what the govt told you in school, try "Capitalism and the Historians" by Nobel Prize winner F.A. Hayek et al.
Yeah, because there are only the two extremes to choose from when it comes to economic systems. [/sarcasm] Capitalism has its strong points, but it's not the be-all end-all system. It needs regulation or it oscillates out of control.

It has no such thing. It has mercantilism.The market is freer now than it was under USSR.
Especially the weapon market.

The idea was supposed to be that the free market supporter was obviously right and the other guy was making silly points that have been refuted in practice. Of course, you've buried yourself in Marxist propaganda so that you actually look at him and go, "yeah, I suppose so."
I think the other one's points were silly.

Yeah, because there are only the two extremes to choose from when it comes to economic systems. [/sarcasm] Capitalism has its strong points, but it's not the be-all end-all system. It needs regulation or it oscillates out of control.
Ah ha! A Keynesian. I thought you guys were all dead (this is the long run, after all), or did someone clone you with some blood from a dead mosquito Jurassic Park style? The ability of customers to switch to another supplier as well as holding corporations responsible if they violate rights is regulation enough.

"Besides, why sell me good, fresh food when they can sell me old spoilt food, which they buy cheap? How can you guarantee the food would be safe?

If you heard of a store doing that, would you shop there again, or go to their competitor?"

Why not choose between the extremes? Why would socialism be worse for some things but not others?

The market is freer now than it was under USSR.

Not that free when you look at the tight control the government has established over various sectors of the economy [media, energy, etc.] and the stakes it continues to hold in other firms..

The Russian version of capitalism has been entirely built on the 90's handover of economic power to a group of monopolists and cartels; and the 2000's conflict between them and the government. How is this a free market?

I think the other one's points were silly.
It wasn't aimed at you anyway. I'm willing to take a little time to educate those who don't understand freedom. I don't have time to un-teach you all the flawed Marxist B.s. you've absorbed. Go start your commune, I won't stop you so long as you don't do it on my land.

Ah ha! A Keynesian. I thought you guys were all dead (this is the long run, after all), or did someone clone you with some blood from a dead mosquito Jurassic Park style? The ability of customers to switch to another supplier as well as holding corporations responsible if they violate rights is regulation enough.

"Besides, why sell me good, fresh food when they can sell me old spoilt food, which they buy cheap? How can you guarantee the food would be safe?

If you heard of a store doing that, would you shop there again, or go to their competitor?"

Why not choose between the extremes? Why would socialism be worse for some things but not others?This is silly. You wouldn't know how they make food and if the food is safe. Why would they tell that to you?

Not that free when you look at the tight control the government has established over various sectors of the economy [media, energy, etc.] and the stakes it continues to hold in other firms..

The Russian version of capitalism has been entirely built on the 90's handover of economic power to a group of monopolists and cartels; and the 2000's conflict between them and the government. How is this a free market?
There are McDonalds where you can buy food.

It wasn't aimed at you anyway. I'm willing to take a little time to educate those who don't understand freedom. I don't have time to un-teach you all the flawed Marxist B.s. you've absorbed. Go start your commune, I won't stop you so long as you don't do it on my land.
If I don't need your land, I'll try to let you have it.

It has no such thing. It has mercantilism.

It has a market that is as free as armed gangs can make it. And some people are growing food in the contaminated dirt of closed-down chemical plants in order to eat anything at all.

It's ridiculous to say that bread queues in communist USSR mean that there shouldn't be public education or public healthcare. bread and education aren't the same thing. the misconceptions of someone (even a fictional someone) who hasn't lived in a free market economy about free market economies aren't arguments against state provision of education.

And if you are saying that the Russian market is mercantile rather than capitalist, you are defining a free market as a market that isn't free, ie your free market is a capitalist market with rules and regulations rather than the russian market which can do pretty much what it likes as long as it greases the right palms (ie the free market in political power - it can be bought).

Actually, the market is freer in Russia than in the US. Russia doesn't subsidize it's agriculture as much.

Amazing! We understand the basic principles of supply and demand in a market economy! Since people need food there is a high demand for it and supplying it is very profitable and will therefore, in a free market be abundant!

Exactly how would a free-market police force work? Would a woman being raped be expected pay the policeman who rescues her? And if she can't pay, what then? Would the Police do a financial check first to see if it's profitable saving the woman?
I can just imagine the 911 call:
Operator: "Please state your name, address, incident you wish to report and bank account details."
or would it be along the lines of a recorded message:
"If you have a Platinum credit card, press 1 and our officers will respond within 5 minutes;
"If you have a Gold credit card, press 2 and our officers will respond within 15 minutes;
"If you have a plain credit card, press 3 and our officers will respond within 45 minutes;
"If you have been refused a credit card, hang-up now."
Also who pays for the prison operating costs? The criminal? What if they have no money (pretty likely which is why they're committing crimes). Are they let go, cause it's unprofitable to keep them? Or is the victim expected to pay to keep the crim away from them?
"I know you were sentenced for 20 years to life, but good news! The person you attacked has just gone bankrupt and so can't pay for your cell anymore. We're giving it to someone who attacked a millionaire. You free to go."

Free markets do not work for things which serve a social good. You can't use free market ideas on Education, the fire dept, the police dept or Health care. It's asinine to compare them to a supermarket. Using your example, would a grocery manager let ppl who have no money take the food they need without paying?
Of course not.
Yet that what happens when the police respond to calls. They will at times help ppl who don't pay taxes, have no money. Under free market, what then? Using your supermarket analogy, the Police wouldn't get involved.

And a wee story for you about free market fire depts. Unlike yours, this is true:
In Britain in Victorian times Fire depts were just getting established. At that time, they were owned by Insurance companies. To show that you were insured, you would get a large metal badge to affix to the outside of your house/office to let your Insurance company's Fire dept know. The Fire dept earned their money by putting out the fires.
What happened, inevitably, was that some Fire depts upon reaching a fire would only put it out if their company's badge was there. Other times, even if it was an insured building, they would sit back and let the fire spread to other buildings which were also insured, so they could claim more.
When this became known they were ignoring fires, the Insurance companies canged their policies, so any fire dept from any company would get the bonus regardless of who had insured the building. So of course this led to fights amongst competing Fire depts as to who would put the fire out. It could come to blows and sabotaging of the other depts equipment. Also they would sometimes not bother attending fires that were for cheap buildings as they wouldn't get much recompense from the Insurance company. It was found that some depts actually started some fires just to put them out and claim the reward.
These major problems eventually led to the formation of a state owned and controlled Fire dept. This solved all the problems that were happening above.
So free market ideas have been tried on Fire depts. They failed miserably.

Actually, the market is freer in Russia than in the US. Russia doesn't subsidize it's agriculture as much.

Agriculture subsidies can hardly be used as a measure for the freeness of a market. The primary indicators are the number of firms and their uniformity.

It has a market that is as free as armed gangs can make it. And some people are growing food in the contaminated dirt of closed-down chemical plants in order to eat anything at all.

Even if this made sense it is irrelevant to the debate.

It's ridiculous to say that bread queues in communist USSR mean that there shouldn't be public education or public healthcare. bread and education aren't the same thing. the misconceptions of someone (even a fictional someone) who hasn't lived in a free market economy about free market economies aren't arguments against state provision of education.

It was a parable. You're supposed to read the arguments from between the lines. Our schools are cack for the same reason socialist agriculture was.

And if you are saying that the Russian market is mercantile rather than capitalist, you are defining a free market as a market that isn't free, ie your free market is a capitalist market with rules and regulations rather than the russian market which can do pretty much what it likes as long as it greases the right palms (ie the free market in political power - it can be bought).
There is no such thing as capitalism. The word just breeds confusion as you amply demonstrate. "free market is a capitalist market with rules and regulations.." er, no.

Exactly how would a free-market police force work? Would a woman being raped be expected pay the policeman who rescues her? And if she can't pay, what then? Would the Police do a financial check first to see if it's profitable saving the woman?
I can just imagine the 911 call:
Operator: "Please state your name, address, incident you wish to report and bank account details."
or would it be along the lines of a recorded message:
"If you have a Platinum credit card, press 1 and our officers will respond within 5 minutes;
"If you have a Gold credit card, press 2 and our officers will respond within 15 minutes;
"If you have a plain credit card, press 3 and our officers will respond within 45 minutes;
"If you have been refused a credit card, hang-up now."
Also who pays for the prison operating costs? The criminal? What if they have no money (pretty likely which is why they're committing crimes). Are they let go, cause it's unprofitable to keep them? Or is the victim expected to pay to keep the crim away from them?
"I know you were sentenced for 20 years to life, but good news! The person you attacked has just gone bankrupt and so can't pay for your cell anymore. We're giving it to someone who attacked a millionaire. You free to go."

Free markets do not work for things which serve a social good. You can't use free market ideas on Education, the fire dept, the police dept or Health care. It's asinine to compare them to a supermarket. Using your example, would a grocery manager let ppl who have no money take the food they need without paying?
Of course not.
Yet that what happens when the police respond to calls. They will at times help ppl who don't pay taxes, have no money. Under free market, what then? Using your supermarket analogy, the Police wouldn't get involved.

And a wee story for you about free market fire depts. Unlike yours, this is true:
In Britain in Victorian times Fire depts were just getting established. At that time, they were owned by Insurance companies. To show that you were insured, you would get a large metal badge to affix to the outside of your house/office to let your Insurance company's Fire dept know. The Fire dept earned their money by putting out the fires.
What happened, inevitably, was that some Fire depts upon reaching a fire would only put it out if their company's badge was there. Other times, even if it was an insured building, they would sit back and let the fire spread to other buildings which were also insured, so they could claim more.
When this became known they were ignoring fires, the Insurance companies canged their policies, so any fire dept from any company would get the bonus regardless of who had insured the building. So of course this led to fights amongst competing Fire depts as to who would put the fire out. It could come to blows and sabotaging of the other depts equipment. Also they would sometimes not bother attending fires that were for cheap buildings as they wouldn't get much recompense from the Insurance company. It was found that some depts actually started some fires just to put them out and claim the reward.
These major problems eventually led to the formation of a state owned and controlled Fire dept. This solved all the problems that were happening above.
So free market ideas have been tried on Fire depts. They failed miserably.

And that is why a government is necessary for the proper working of the marke style economy. Only a government can collect money from everyone and use it to pay for things like police and fire departments that protect everyone. There are criteria for a submarket which much be met for that market to be effective in an entirely free system. One of those criteria is that there are no significant externalities from the sale of the product. That is to say that only the buyer and seller can be involved in the transaction. In the case of a fireman the person whose house is on fire is the buyer but that person's neighbors are not expected to pay even though they experienced the positive externality of not having a burning house next to theirs. Essentially a government makes everyone pay equally for fire protection so that those who have fires are not made to carry all the burden while others profit.

Exactly how would a free-market police force work?
Glad you asked, and your guess was way off.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html

Free markets do not work for things which serve a social good. You can't use free market ideas on Education, the fire dept, the police dept or Health care.

Schooling, fire protection, police and healthcare are private goods.

And a wee story for you about free market fire depts. Unlike yours, this is true:
In Britain in Victorian times Fire depts were just getting established. At that time, they were owned by Insurance companies. To show that you were insured, you would get a large metal badge to affix to the outside of your house/office to let your Insurance company's Fire dept know. The Fire dept earned their money by putting out the fires.
What happened, inevitably, was that some Fire depts upon reaching a fire would only put it out if their company's badge was there. Other times, even if it was an insured building, they would sit back and let the fire spread to other buildings which were also insured, so they could claim more.
When this became known they were ignoring fires, the Insurance companies canged their policies, so any fire dept from any company would get the bonus regardless of who had insured the building. So of course this led to fights amongst competing Fire depts as to who would put the fire out. It could come to blows and sabotaging of the other depts equipment. Also they would sometimes not bother attending fires that were for cheap buildings as they wouldn't get much recompense from the Insurance company. It was found that some depts actually started some fires just to put them out and claim the reward.
These major problems eventually led to the formation of a state owned and controlled Fire dept. This solved all the problems that were happening above.
So free market ideas have been tried on Fire depts. They failed miserably.
Free markets aren't utopian. However, I'd wager if the system had remained private it would now be better than the current one. These problems could easily have been solved.

Also, even if a perfectly wise and good govt could do some things better allowing any real govt to decide when it's needed leads to disaster.

Another free market failure close to you is the UK train system.

Essentially a government makes everyone pay equally....
!

Another free market failure close to you is the UK train system.
Congratulations! You've picked possibly the most un-free part of the UK market. Have you any idea how much the govt meddles in the train system? Just because it is privately owned doesn't make it anything near a free market.

Private fire protection impossible?

http://www.ruralmetro.com/

Free markets aren't utopian. However, I'd wager if the system had remained private it would now be better than the current one. These problems could easily have been solved.

Also, even if a perfectly wise and good govt could do some things better allowing any real govt to decide when it's needed leads to disaster.
What a great answer! You just naturally assume a private Fire dept would be better than what we have now, with no actual fats or arguments to back you up. Can't argue with that logic. I mean I really can't. There is none. It's like having an argument with a Jovie about evolution. It's all completely based on Faith, not logic.
FYI the problems weren't easily solved. The Insurance company Fire depts carried on like this for years, before Govt intervention made it necessary to take over and start the state Fire dept. The Govt ignored the problem for a long time, because of the power of the Insurance companies.
As an aside, how could the Fire dept be better? If there's a fire, I can guarante they'll be there within 1/2 hour or less. I know that they're highly trained, they have excellent equipment and that they'll risk their lives to save me. I can't ask for more than that. What do you expect?

Agriculture subsidies can hardly be used as a measure for the freeness of a market. The primary indicators are the number of firms and their uniformity.
According to Libertovania, freedom equals to no government.

!

Proportionally may have been a better word.

Are you familiar with the concept of marginal propensity to spend? It is represented by a graph that has two diagonal lines on it. One of them represents income and the other is the mps. At first the mps is higher than the income and then as income increases the mps eventually drops below income. For a person with low income their needs and wants are greater than their income and so it is unreasonable to expect them to pay taxes. For a person with high income their needs and wants are below their income so it is reasonable for them to be expected to pay taxes to pay for universal coverage. Arguments about fairness are silly because each person's idea of how the world should be run are different, some people think that it is fair that a person inherit a fortune and never work while others think it is fair that everyone start life on an even playing field. Neither can be called "perfect" so arguments between them are meaningless.

According to Libertovania, freedom equals to no government.

And you feel the need to repeat his ignorance, why?

And you feel the need to repeat his ignorance, why?
It's not ignorance, it is how he defines freedom.
I'm just trying to argue with his own words.

it is how he defines freedom.

No it isn't.

It's not ignorance, it is how he defines freedom.

That's fine in the spirit of letting each person approach the world in his own way, but quite simply, the government is not an instrument of tyranny. Tyranny, the opposite of freedom, is often associated with governments but need not necessarily be. A government, if voluntarily accepted by its subjects is in no way infringing on the freedoms of said subjects. What's more, it may provide protections against the tyranny of others, thus ensuring the freedom of its subjects.

What a great answer! You just naturally assume a private Fire dept would be better than what we have now, with no actual fats or arguments to back you up. Can't argue with that logic. I mean I really can't. There is none. It's like having an argument with a Jovie about evolution. It's all completely based on Faith, not logic.
Oops. Except for the link right below it.

There is also evidence from other industries proving the superiority of economic freedom to economic coercion. The reasons are the same accross the board. It's not faith any more than applying the same physics to the muon that worked for the electron is "faith".

How could fire provision be better? It could be cheaper for a start, and maybe not go on strike leaving pensioners to burn to death. That would be nice.

That's fine in the spirit of letting each person approach the world in his own way, but quite simply, the government is not an instrument of tyranny. Tyranny, the opposite of freedom, is often associated with governments but need not necessarily be. A government, if voluntarily accepted by its subjects is in no way infringing on the freedoms of said subjects. What's more, it may provide protections against the tyranny of others, thus ensuring the freedom of its subjects.
If it is voluntarily accepted it is not a govt but a private police company (and possibly more), exactly like I'm proposing. No govt is voluntarily accepted.

Arguments about fairness are silly because each person's idea of how the world should be run are different
That's why we argue, to convince.

As an aside, how could the Fire dept be better? If there's a fire, I can guarante they'll be there within 1/2 hour or less. I know that they're highly trained, they have excellent equipment and that they'll risk their lives to save me. I can't ask for more than that. What do you expect?
How can anyone argue with this? Fire Dept works PERFECTLY and you're nagging it's under government control. SO WHAT? Disadvantage is at "best" that we all have to pay a bit too much because of govs' bureaucracy. Private fire depts would not work. There would be no one (this is not a fact, this is an opinion) to put out the fires in "poor" parts of the cities (they would not get much money for their work), or in area's with a low population density (they would not have much work and therefor not much money).

No it isn't.
Freedom is where all interactions, trades etc are voluntary.

If it is voluntarily accepted it is not a govt but a private police company (and possibly more), exactly like I'm proposing. No govt is voluntarily accepted.
-> Freedom is no govt.

How can anyone argue with this? Fire Dept works PERFECTLY and you're nagging it's under government control. SO WHAT? Disadvantage is at "best" that we all have to pay a bit too much because of govs' bureaucracy. Private fire depts would not work. There would be no one (this is not a fact, this is an opinion) to put out the fires in "poor" parts of the cities (they would not get much money for their work), or in area's with a low population density (they would not have much work and therefor not much money).
Except for the one on the previous page, you mean? And it is silly to have a govt just for fire services. Such a govt would grow and grow and eventually balls everything up. You can't just build any old attributes into a govt. They have their own internal logic which is to screw up. It makes more sense just to have a rule that bans any govt from interefering because this will be better than allowing it to interfere at will.

-> Freedom is no govt.
Does French logic work differently from ours?

Does French logic work differently from ours?
I don't know. Maybe...
Our cultures are quite different indeed. Hence the problems our two countries have had in the past.

I don't know. Maybe...
Our cultures are quite different indeed. Hence the problems our two countries have had in the past.
Scotland and France? What about the "auld alliance" against England?

Scotland and France? What about the "auld alliance" against England?
Yes indeed. Scotland and France are allies. I hope it will stay like that for the years to come. Actually, France and the UK should be allies too.
Off topic though. Sorry.

Brave, Libertovania. Very brave.

While I applaud your efforts in education, I can't help but feel a hopelessness associated with them. People are just stupid. They refuse to take care of themselves in a free market system, and insist on 'taking care' of their neighbour. The myths of a free market have been embedded so deeply that most people would jump off a cliff before bothering to try and understand.

I don't mean to discourage you, and I wanted to show a litle support amidst all this damn socialist rhetoric. Know that we are out there, even if we're silent. But... I do believe that you've just set yourself up for a fifty-page thread with no support against a barrage of irrationality.

The trenches of debate are tough. I wish you well.

Ha ha. Thanks. But I wouldn't have been any better had Milton Friedman not written "capitalism and freedom" which started me on the road. If enough people move to the same place and lead by example the sheep will follow, so it isn't hopeless.

Except for the one on the previous page, you mean? And it is silly to have a govt just for fire services. Such a govt would grow and grow and eventually balls everything up. You can't just build any old attributes into a govt. They have their own internal logic which is to screw up. It makes more sense just to have a rule that bans any govt from interefering because this will be better than allowing it to interfere at will.
OK, I've read the entire page and it has real good points, but I'm not totally convinced.

Why would I want Fire Dept Coverage when my insurance pays me wether or not my neighbours house burns down. So if I were not to be in ANY fire dept at all, I'd be posing a threat to society. If my house were to burn, I'd let it burn, get my insurance check and be done with it. The fire dept can either wait till my (fire dept covered) neighbour call calls them, or start putting out my fire so my neighbours house will not burn. If my neighbour(hood) is not covered, there is a problem.

Another problem: My entire street of 20 houses are all in different fire depts. Who is to put out which fire if the street was burning? Could one lazy fire dept come in last put out a paper that was burning on the street and say they've been there all along (no one would notice, they might as well be backup from another dept)?

Yet another problem: One fire dept is so good everyone is in on it. Who will be there to ensure a low price? No one!

Brave, Libertovania. Very brave.

While I applaud your efforts in education, I can't help but feel a hopelessness associated with them. People are just stupid. They refuse to take care of themselves in a free market system, and insist on 'taking care' of their neighbour. The myths of a free market have been embedded so deeply that most people would jump off a cliff before bothering to try and understand.

I don't mean to discourage you, and I wanted to show a litle support amidst all this damn socialist rhetoric. Know that we are out there, even if we're silent. But... I do believe that you've just set yourself up for a fifty-page thread with no support against a barrage of irrationality.

The trenches of debate are tough. I wish you well.Damn capitalists. At least try to help him a little. Isn't that in your own interest to help him?

I've got this idea. If I was running a big fire dept company, I could as well burn some of the houses who didn't hire me.

OK, I've read the entire page and it has real good points, but I'm not totally convinced.
Note the fire department is just one issue. A govt for fire services would expand and mess up everything else too. No govt interference would be better than any actual govt interference even if an ideal govt could do better. Even if fire protection weren't so good, (a big if) its a better deal over all.

Why would I want Fire Dept Coverage when my insurance pays me wether or not my neighbours house burns down. So if I were not to be in ANY fire dept at all, I'd be posing a threat to society. If my house were to burn, I'd let it burn, get my insurance check and be done with it. The fire dept can either wait till my (fire dept covered) neighbour call calls them, or start putting out my fire so my neighbours house will not burn. If my neighbour(hood) is not covered, there is a problem.

The market would find a way round this. E.g. contracts between connected house owners. Solving problems is what the market does best. Also, how would your neighbours extract compensation if you damaged their property, after all this would be a criminal offence? Perhaps a court would put a "tax" on you to make good the damages, perhaps you'd be forced to work in a factory prison? There is incentive to make sure you're insured.

The best advice is make sure you move somewhere where fire insurance is universal (backed by contract).

Another problem: My entire street of 20 houses are all in different fire depts. Who is to put out which fire if the street was burning? Could one lazy fire dept come in last put out a paper that was burning on the street and say they've been there all along (no one would notice, they might as well be backup from another dept)?
Maybe fire deparments would offer discounts for group subscription. We don't know what the market would look like but from experience we can say it will find the optimal solution.

Yet another problem: One fire dept is so good everyone is in on it. Who will be there to ensure a low price? No one!
You are assuming there is one dept that is so good everyone wants it and then assuming it has outrageously high prices. Your assumptions are contradictory. If they raise the prices another firm will do it cheaper.

Voluntary institutions (charities and businesses) are more moral than govt ones which are based on threats of agressive violence (jail for not paying taxes). They also work better. Why wouldn't you want this?

I've got this idea. If I was running a big fire dept company, I could as well burn some of the houses who didn't hire me.
Yeah. Cool. Then the police will make you pay compensation and probably lock you up too. I suppose the private doctors will release viruses into the population too?

Yeah. Cool. Then the police will make you pay compensation and probably lock you up too. I suppose the private doctors will release viruses into the population too?What if I have more guns than the police?

What if I have more guns than the police?
Then you could do what you like under any system, not just a free market.

It's a ridiculous scenario. It's like saying on a free market one person might own the whole world. It's logically possible but so unlikely we can ignore it. The richer and more powerful the criminal the greater the incentive to punish him (more compensation to be gained).

Then you could do what you like under any system, not just a free market.

It's a ridiculous scenario. It's like saying on a free market one person might own the whole world. It's logically possible but so unlikely we can ignore it. The richer and more powerful the criminal the greater the incentive to punish him (more compensation to be gained).No because if there was no market of weapons, I wouldn't have any gun.

No because if there was no market of weapons, I wouldn't have any gun.
Why is that relevant to our current debate?

Why is that relevant to our current debate?The debate is about free market.
Free market is nice for tooth brushes, it is not OK for police, guns, school, roads, trains, fire dept and many other things.
Sometimes, the government needs to regulate in order to ensure freedom.

I have really enjoyed reading this thread. I have a few questions. What about the social contract theory of government? The people band together that shares like ideas allowing the government to provide the goods and services that the people cannot or will not provide for themselves. We would still be free because we choose to be in the government and still have government.
Second- Free markets are not free without competion. Historically all free markets without some regulation end up with a monopoly and therefore higher costs to the consumer (US Steel, Standard Oil, East India Company, etc.). Free markets have to be limited in some way.
Third- the argument about fire protection privatized. Insurance companies are about limiting risk not taking on more of it. If you had 1 good fire company in your geographic region then the insurance companies would make you hire them to try to limit their risk. This would again limit competion and raise prices. Higher prices would then force the insurance companies to stop writing insurance policies for your area limiting your ability to pay for the fire protection. If you could not pay for it then fire company would have no customers and eventually go out of business.
I support free market economy but with competion.

The market would find a way round this. E.g. contracts between connected house owners. Solving problems is what the market does best. Also, how would your neighbours extract compensation if you damaged their property, after all this would be a criminal offence? Perhaps a court would put a "tax" on you to make good the damages, perhaps you'd be forced to work in a factory prison? There is incentive to make sure you're insured.


The best advice is make sure you move somewhere where fire insurance is universal (backed by contract).
Now you're assuming. There are people who are anti-social. They would NOT want any agreement with their neighbours. If it was a criminal offence, I'd just go to a Police Firm that would not think of it as a criminal offence, or better yet, create my own Police Firm.

Maybe fire deparments would offer discounts for group subscription. We don't know what the market would look like but from experience we can say it will find the optimal solution.
Assuming again. And it will not fnd the optimal solution, it would find the most profitable solution.


You are assuming there is one dept that is so good everyone wants it and then assuming it has outrageously high prices. Your assumptions are contradictory. If they raise the prices another firm will do it cheaper.

Like the multitude of software companies today? Or the many railway companies? And how high are their prices? Dutch Railway services increase their prices every year, but I see no other companies doing it cheaper. And Microsoft is well known for its low prices OR NOT.

I have really enjoyed reading this thread. I have a few questions. What about the social contract theory of government? The people band together that shares like ideas allowing the government to provide the goods and services that the people cannot or will not provide for themselves. We would still be free because we choose to be in the government and still have government.

That's exactly what a free market in police would be. The social contract sans excellence. You join associations and pay the dues voluntarily. Your police company, negotiating on behalf of you and other like minded people, would negotiate contracts with other voluntary groups to find mutually acceptable compromises and these contracts would be enforceable by pre-agreed courts. Any other system is NOT a social contract since some will be forced to go along with it when they don't agree.

Second- Free markets are not free without competion. Historically all free markets without some regulation end up with a monopoly and therefore higher costs to the consumer (US Steel, Standard Oil, East India Company, etc.). Free markets have to be limited in some way.

These businessmen originally tried to corner a free market and failed. They then turned to govt to introduce expensive regulations, they ASKED for the regulation and PAYED to have it enacted, ostensibly for public safety but actually to drive out smaller, more efficient, competition. The regulations CAUSED the monopoly which failed to happen on the free market. This has been well established by Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman and others, noteably Murray Rothbard. The limitation on the free market is the ability of consumers to switch to another supplier if theirs is unacceptable.

Third- the argument about fire protection privatized. Insurance companies are about limiting risk not taking on more of it. If you had 1 good fire company in your geographic region then the insurance companies would make you hire them to try to limit their risk. This would again limit competion and raise prices. Higher prices would then force the insurance companies to stop writing insurance policies for your area limiting your ability to pay for the fire protection. If you could not pay for it then fire company would have no customers and eventually go out of business.
I support free market economy but with competion.
There is a form of competition called potential competition. If the fire company is so good everone has it then that, by the hypothesis that it is really good, is not a problem. If they misbehave a competitor will step in and take all the business. This sort of competition is almost as potent as if there were actually another business there.

For example, my dad has a pharmacy that more or less monopolises business for about half the island of Arran. His stuff is cheaper than large pharmacies in mainland cities. Why? Because of potential competition.

Now you're assuming. There are people who are anti-social. They would NOT want any agreement with their neighbours. If it was a criminal offence, I'd just go to a Police Firm that would not think of it as a criminal offence, or better yet, create my own Police Firm.

Well don't live there then. Did you read the article on private police? I don't think you grasp the proposal.

Assuming again. And it will not fnd the optimal solution, it would find the most profitable solution.

Adam Smith's great insight was that these are the same thing IF the market is free. The reason is that the optimal suppliers get the most business.

Like the multitude of software companies today? Or the many railway companies? And how high are their prices? Dutch Railway services increase their prices every year, but I see no other companies doing it cheaper. And Microsoft is well known for its low prices OR NOT.
Have you heard of Linux? I don't know about the Dutch railways but I know the British and American ones are catastrophically overregulated. Anyway, there might (in theory, again I don't know the specifics) be good reasons for the price rise, e.g. price of a factor of production (labour, rails, electricity etc) might have increased, people are willing to pay more for a better service (like people today are willing to spend more for a car rather than a scooter). Price rises are not necessarily a bad thing, they can reflect market demand either on the supply or demand side.

There is a form of competition called potential competition. If the fire company is so good everone has it then that, by the hypothesis that it is really good, is not a problem. If they misbehave a competitor will step in and take all the business. This sort of competition is almost as potent as if there were actually another business there.

For example, my dad has a pharmacy that more or less monopolises business for about half the island of Arran. His stuff is cheaper than large pharmacies in mainland cities. Why? Because of potential competition.
Except that it is not potential competition, but real competition from the mainland.

Congratulations: you just defined a term and right after used it the absolute wrong way!! *hands over flowers*

That's exactly what a free market in police would be. The social contract sans excellence. You join associations and pay the dues voluntarily. Your police company, negotiating on behalf of you and other like minded people, would negotiate contracts with other voluntary groups to find mutually acceptable compromises and these contracts would be enforceable by pre-agreed courts. Any other system is NOT a social contract since some will be forced to go along with it when they don't agree.What the hell was happening in Afghanistan, why didn't they have a contract between the taleban and the northern alliance?

Have you heard of Linux? I don't know about the Dutch railways but I know the British and American ones are catastrophically overregulated. Anyway, there might (in theory, again I don't know the specifics) be good reasons for the price rise, e.g. price of a factor of production (labour, rails, electricity etc) might have increased, people are willing to pay more for a better service (like people today are willing to spend more for a car rather than a scooter). Price rises are not necessarily a bad thing, they can reflect market demand either on the supply or demand side.Linux is developped by people working for free because the damn market doesn't work.

In France, the train is operated by the government. It's fast, reliable and cheap. Due to pressure from the capitalists, the government is slowly privatizing it and I predict it will all fall appart.

Well don't live there then. Did you read the article on private police? I don't think you grasp the proposal.
I did and I do. Where do people live who are anti-social? All alone in the desert?

Have you heard of Linux? I don't know about the Dutch railways but I know the British and American ones are catastrophically overregulated. Anyway, there might (in theory, again I don't know the specifics) be good reasons for the price rise, e.g. price of a factor of production (labour, rails, electricity etc) might have increased, people are willing to pay more for a better service (like people today are willing to spend more for a car rather than a scooter). Price rises are not necessarily a bad thing, they can reflect market demand either on the supply or demand side.
Linux is not even NEAR the greatness of Microsoft. Dutch Railway has in fact not improved (It's not bad compared to the Brits or the US btw), but has only gotten more expensive. So why is there no competition? There should be according to you. The market's free. Wait I'll tell you why: IT DOES NOT WORK!!!

Except that it is not potential competition, but real competition from the mainland.
Noooooooooo it isn't!!!!!!!!

AAAaaaarrrrgggghhhhhhh.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/03/wrail03.xml&sSheet
=/portal/2004/03/03/ixportal.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=34532

"French rail system 'hostage to unions'
By Philip Delves Broughton in Paris
(Filed: 03/03/2004)

The French railway system, long the envy of British travellers, is badly maintained, deeply in the red and a hostage to self-interested trade unions, says a book to be published tomorrow in Paris.....

French railways, the authors argue, survive only because of £7 billion annual taxpayer subsidies and politicians terrified of confronting a deeply rotten system."

ANYTHING can be cheap if it has a £7 billion subsidy!!!

Linux was invented because microsoft sucks. This is one market institution (voluntary labour is part of a free market) replacing an overblown one. If you don't want microsoft use linux or apple (are they still around?)

What the hell was happening in Afghanistan, why didn't they have a contract between the taleban and the northern alliance?
What the hell are you babbling about? I don't understand your dribble.

AAAaaaarrrrgggghhhhhhh.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/03/wrail03.xml&sSheet
=/portal/2004/03/03/ixportal.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=34532

"French rail system 'hostage to unions'
By Philip Delves Broughton in Paris
(Filed: 03/03/2004)

The French railway system, long the envy of British travellers, is badly maintained, deeply in the red and a hostage to self-interested trade unions, says a book to be published tomorrow in Paris.....

French railways, the authors argue, survive only because of £7 billion annual taxpayer subsidies and politicians terrified of confronting a deeply rotten system."

ANYTHING can be cheap if it has a £7 billion subsidy!!!


I was talking dutch railway who are NOT SUBSIDIZED!

AAAaaaarrrrgggghhhhhhh.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/03/wrail03.xml&sSheet
=/portal/2004/03/03/ixportal.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=34532

"French rail system 'hostage to unions'
By Philip Delves Broughton in Paris
(Filed: 03/03/2004)

The French railway system, long the envy of British travellers, is badly maintained, deeply in the red and a hostage to self-interested trade unions, says a book to be published tomorrow in Paris.....

French railways, the authors argue, survive only because of £7 billion annual taxpayer subsidies and politicians terrified of confronting a deeply rotten system."

ANYTHING can be cheap if it has a £7 billion subsidy!!!

Linux was invented because microsoft sucks. This is one market institution (voluntary labour is part of a free market) replacing an overblown one. If you don't want microsoft use linux or apple (are they still around?)Say what you want about the french railways, it is still on top. We don't know what a train accident mean or about a train being late. Most people take the train from Paris to Marseille (800 km) because it is faster, cheaper and more confortable than the plane. Sometimes the unions are on strike because the government is trying to privatize it. Yet even during the strikes it works better than elsewhere.

Microsoft sucks BIG TIME and still they are the most profitable. I boycott Microsoft and I don't run ay microsoft software. I work for linux on my spare time. But Microsoft is harrassing with its money and adverts. They act like a dictatorship in the computer industry, threatening computer manufacturers and everything -> most people today don't even know there is alternative. Some people think Microsoft invented the computer and people are not given a choice when they buy a computer. It's called : monopoly leveraging.

I was talking dutch railway who are NOT SUBSIDIZED!
I was responding to Psylos who was talking about France, but here's one for you

http://www.transportblog.com/archives/000296.html

It seems the govt made the same mistake that I always said was a mistake in Britain, seperating ownership of the track and the trains. Of course service will suffer! Japan and pre-nationalised US and UK didn't have this and it would never have happened if the govt hadn't caused it.

If you dig deep enough into any of the world's problems you find the same "red thread" running through it. Of course, this won't convince you. Most people never give up their hostility to freedom no matter how many times you refute their nonsense because they have an underlying animus towards the free market brought on by unjust stereotypes which transcend any particular argument. Until you open your mind you will remain a prisoner of your own ignorance.

What the hell are you babbling about? I don't understand your dribble.
In Afghanistan, several polices are operating in several areas. They compete with rocket propelled grenades and tanks.

Say what you want about the french railways, it is still on top. We don't know what a train accident mean or about a train being late. Most people take the train from Paris to Marseille (800 km) because it is faster, cheaper and more confortable than the plane. Sometimes the unions are on strike because the government is trying to privatize it. Yet even during the strikes it works better than elsewhere.

With a £7 billion subsidy stolen at gunpoint via taxation!!!! Says a lot about your moral character. "Under Hitler the railways ran on time". Isn't Japan's private system (where they didn't segregate track and train ownership contrary to all reason) really good?

In Afghanistan, several polices are operating in several areas. They compete with rocket propelled grenades and tanks.
It has too many govts! Not no govt. What's the matter with your brain?

With a £7 billion subsidy stolen at gunpoint via taxation!!!! Says a lot about your moral character. "Under Hitler the railways ran on time". Isn't Japan's private system (where they didn't segregate track and train ownership contrary to all reason) really good?
It does doesn't go to the remote areas and it is damn expensive.
BTW that's what I'm saying. with subsidies from the government it works better than without.

It has too many govts! Not no govt. What's the matter with your brain?
So, what's the difference between a private corporation and a government in your opinion?

So, what's the difference between a private corporation and a government in your opinion?
Voluntary association. The govt gets it's income via armed robbery, the corporation only gets what you choose to give them.

It does doesn't go to the remote areas and it is damn expensive.
BTW that's what I'm saying. with subsidies from the government it works better than without.
Nooooo!!!! In your system people who don't use the system are forced to bail it out.

If it doesn't go to remote areas that means the people there would rather spend their money on something else and take a bus or something. If it's expensive that's because the rail users pay for it instead of shifting the cost onto everyone else.

"Subsidies from govt" aren't free money. It comes from someone and you can't say it is cheap without including the subsidy in the cost. ALL £7 F*****G BILLION OF IT!!!

Voluntary association. The govt gets it's income via armed robbery, the corporation only gets what you choose to give them.
Because the government regulates the corporations.
Let's remove the regulation from the corporations -> you end up in a government.
A corporation without a government is not sustainable, you will get a government in the end.
The only difference, is that this government is starting over from the start. It will be a dictatorship and you will have to fight again for all your social progress from the stone age.
Removing the government equals to going back to chaos, even before antiquity.

Nooooo!!!! In your system people who don't use the system are forced to bail it out.

If it doesn't go to remote areas that means the people there would rather spend their money on something else and take a bus or something. If it's expensive that's because the rail users pay for it instead of shifting the cost onto everyone else.

"Subsidies from govt" aren't free money. It comes from someone and you can't say it is cheap without including the subsidy in the cost. ALL £7 F*****G BILLION OF IT!!!
The bottom line is : everyone can afford it.

Voluntary association. The govt gets it's income via armed robbery, the corporation only gets what you choose to give them.
Really, all you're saying is that we should put everything which is now in the political sphere of life into private hands; what we now consider to be political powers would be held in the hands of the rich. This is the very definition of plutocracy- power tied to wealth.

Moreover, the whole idea of tax as robbery is fundementally unsound, based on principles that have never been satisfactorily established, IMO.

It has too many govts! Not no govt. What's the matter with your brain?

They don't have any government, they have would-be governments but none of them can take root and actually do anything, good or bad, because of the competition between the different groups.

It does doesn't go to the remote areas and it is damn expensive.
BTW that's what I'm saying. with subsidies from the government it works better than without.

The trains in Japan go almost everywhere and are incredibly cheap. For the equivilent of a single train ticket here in the U.S. you can ride all the standard trains to anywhere for a weekend.

The trains in Japan go almost everywhere and are incredibly cheap. For the equivilent of a single train ticket here in the U.S. you can ride all the standard trains to anywhere for a weekend.The train system in the US is the worst in the world (maybe not the worst of the worst, but among the worst ones).
Discaimer : THIS IS NOT US BASHING.

The train system in the US is the worst in the world (maybe not the worst of the worst, but among the worst ones).
Discaimer : THIS IS NOT US BASHING.

I don't think you need the disclaimer, but I understand your concern. You're right that the train system in the U.S. is very bad, but the Japanese train system is still very cheap.

I don't think you need the disclaimer, but I understand your concern. You're right that the train system in the U.S. is very bad, but the Japanese train system is still very cheap.
From what I've heard, the price is different for the foreigners and for the japanese people. I have a friend who went to Japan and she told me the japanese people could not all afford to take it.
Anyway I suspect there are government subsidies for the japanese train system. Am I correct?

Standard Oil, US Steal and many other of thr Robber Baron's fought the Sherman Anti Trust act tooth and nail. They did not want any regulations on their business.
Secondly a business contract ie with a police force is not social contract. A social contract is an agreement the society as a whole comes up with in order to have a lawful community, your right out of it is linked to not living in that area. You have a right to move if you do not like the laws your society use to form its government.

From what I've heard, the price is different for the foreigners and for the japanese people. I have a friend who went to Japan and she told me the japanese people could not all afford to take it.
Anyway I suspect there are government subsidies for the japanese train system. Am I correct?

I'm not sure about the subsidies, but I do know that the price is the same for foreigners and natives, but in the cities many people's finances are so tight they still can't afford rail passes.

I know you all are talking about the AmTrak systme in the US as being bad, but if you look at the commercial freight system in the US you would be very wrong. US commercial freight still works very well and profitable even when you take in all the Government subsidies it received when it was first getting started.

I like to keep the market as free as possible - however I do realize that corporations have to be kept in check

Standard Oil, US Steal and many other of thr Robber Baron's fought the Sherman Anti Trust act tooth and nail. They did not want any regulations on their business.


And?

I like to keep the market as free as possible - however I do realize that corporations have to be kept in check

How do you mean? Kept in check from what?

It has no such thing. It has mercantilism.



LOL, are you serious? Do you actually think Russia is Mercantilist? Do you even know what that is?

I am a mercantilistic marxist. And if Russia was a mercantilist country, then they would be self sustaining. The trouble is, they still import massive amounts of manufactured and raw goods, though have not always done so.

I am a mercantilistic marxist.

...wh...what?

Letila suddenly got bumped up a notch

I like to keep the market as free as possible - however I do realize that corporations have to be kept in check
The free market is the thing that *keeps* them in check!!!

Standard Oil, US Steal and many other of thr Robber Baron's fought the Sherman Anti Trust act tooth and nail. They did not want any regulations on their business.
They asked for the regulations. The anti-trust act was the govt intervening to try to solve a problem created by a previous intervention. Just like when they granted privilidges to unions and then passed anti-union laws when they got out of hand. Note they didn't simply repeal the offending legislation, they introduced new rules so now there are laws dragging it both ways.

Secondly a business contract ie with a police force is not social contract. A social contract is an agreement the society as a whole comes up with in order to have a lawful community, your right out of it is linked to not living in that area. You have a right to move if you do not like the laws your society use to form its government.
There is no such thing, that is a sheer fantasy, a sophism to justify mass organised armed robbery. A private police system makes the contract explicit. Please read the link if you don't understand the system. Similar systems have worked before so don't tell me it can't work.

Sure, I have the right to move but surely I ought to be able to secede, after all I own my land and the govt doesn't. I should be allowed to break with the govt AND take my land.

1) The problem in the Soviet Union wasn't that the breadlines were Govt. run, but that they were ill-funded. The same with LBJ's "War on Poverty", as well as some Govt. run health insurance. If something costs X to implement properly and you only give it 1/5X, then of course it's going to fail.

2) I don't know a lot about Japan's train system, but I do know that it's horribly crowded. To have more trains would reduce profit, therefore there is no incentive to have more trains.

3) In the U.S. at least, unions were the most effective in the years before privileges were given to them.

4) Also in the U.S., the railway companies each had their own track width that could only be used by their trains. The system worked horribly until legislation was passed to standardize track width.

5) The only way that there would be a business is if it's profitable enough to have one. The same goes for a competing business.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html
I have a lot of problems with this, but the most serious one is this:

"Several objections may be raised to such free-market courts. The first is that they would sell justice by deciding in favor of the highest bidder. That would be suicidal; unless they maintained a reputation for honesty, they would have no customers."

This is false, they could easily subsidize the protection agencies that the poor use, allowing those agencies to provide even cheaper service. After all, some protection is better than none at all, right?

Also, there was a point at the end brought up about murder, that everyone wants to live in a murder-free society. This is true, and the reason for it is that the most, and the least that you can lose if murdered is one life. This is true for everyone. However, in the case of something like theft, this doesn't follow. A poor person would have no objection to living in a society where theft is acceptable, since the amount that they could gain from stealing from a rich person is much more than the amount that they could lose if someone stole from them. Therefore, a poor person would have a huge incentive to go to an arbitration court that doesn't regard theft as a crime.

There is no such thing as capitalism. The word just breeds confusion as you amply demonstrate. "free market is a capitalist market with rules and regulations.." er, no.

so go on, then, and define a free market please

The linked free market courts document says...

"Several objections may be raised to such free-market courts. The first is that they would sell justice by deciding in favor of the highest bidder. That would be suicidal; unless they maintained a reputation for honesty, they would have no customers."

What? Someone with a lot of money wouldn't want to go to a court where they could buy the decision they wanted? Where would this happen? Very few people are interested in purchasing honesty. I think people like to buy success.

In Afghanistan, several polices are operating in several areas. They compete with rocket propelled grenades and tanks.
It has too many govts! Not no govt. What's the matter with your brain?

What's wrong with your brain Libertovania? So you're going to outlaw government? And who is going to pass this law that outlaws government, if there is no government? And what then is the difference between an armed gang that cannot be controlled by the government (because there isn't a government to control it) and the government that you wish to outlaw? Hopefully the difference is that we have a stake in the government and a stake in the market etc, and we try and make them safe and helpful.

You still haven't defined a free market, but if you are talking about complete freedom from economic interference by anyone, in anything, such that the only transaction is between a vendor and a purchaser, you're going to have an awful lot of murder, robbery and other things which I'm not in favour of. Of course there won't be any crime because there won't be any laws, but that won't be much comfort to me as I lie dying in the street. And if you think that there would be higher production of goods under these circumstances, you are deluded.

I like to keep the market as free as possible - however I do realize that corporations have to be kept in check
The free market is the thing that *keeps* them in check!!!

The free market prevents them from behaving in ways that the free market doesn't *like*. But those aren't the same as the things that I don't like. For instance the free market supports a small but thriving armed robbery industry. I don't feel that this particular industry should be allowed free rein to flourish, as I think I might end up spending a lot more on armed guards, barbed wire and security systems than I currently pay in the small bit of my taxes that goes towards the police.

And yet most people make the same arguments when I say we should have a free market in healthcare, education and police. Why must we always learn the hard way that freedom is better than coercion?

Yes freedom is better.
But why not look at a middle ground.
Have public healthcare, education and police.
Just allow companies to compete equally. There are private hospitals and schools already. so no reason not to a private law enforcement companies as well.
In a free market, both should be able to compete fairly. Let the people choose what they want!

so go on, then, and define a free market please
A market were there are no restrictions on what can be bought or sold.

And no matter what Libertovania says, pure 'Capitalism' is not a synonym for the free market.

Yes freedom is better.
But why not look at a middle ground.
Have public healthcare, education and police.
Just allow companies to compete equally. There are private hospitals and schools already. so no reason not to a private law enforcement companies as well.
In a free market, both should be able to compete fairly. Let the people choose what they want!
So if I have all private I don't pay taxes, right? Then we have exactly a free market. If you want to cling to a leviathan agency to provide many things badly you can.

And no matter what Libertovania says, pure 'Capitalism' is not a synonym for the free market.
That is what I said.

The free market prevents them from behaving in ways that the free market doesn't *like*. But those aren't the same as the things that I don't like. For instance the free market supports a small but thriving armed robbery industry. I don't feel that this particular industry should be allowed free rein to flourish, as I think I might end up spending a lot more on armed guards, barbed wire and security systems than I currently pay in the small bit of my taxes that goes towards the police.
I don't understand this.

A market were there are no restrictions on what can be bought or sold.

And no matter what Libertovania says, pure 'Capitalism' is not a synonym for the free market.
The market is never going to be complettly free. For political reasons mainly. But not all is in the hand of national governments. Think about the energy sector. This sector is still regulated - and since producer countries formed a cartell - is going in some way remaining that way.
The only way to change that would be if major players would move out of the cartel.
Saudi-Arabia for example or Iran.

So if I have all private I don't pay taxes, right? Then we have exactly a free market. If you want to cling to a leviathan agency to provide many things badly you can.

OK, you don't have to pay taxes. And I just invaded your Independent House (because I believe you and your backyard just ceded from the union?) and now you're living in the street.

The free market prevents them from behaving in ways that the free market doesn't *like*.

Like what?

But those aren't the same as the things that I don't like. For instance the free market supports a small but thriving armed robbery industry.

How?
Anyway, isn't this better then a large and all pervasive armed robber industry?

I don't feel that this particular industry should be allowed free rein to flourish, as I think I might end up spending a lot more on armed guards, barbed wire and security systems than I currently pay in the small bit of my taxes that goes towards the police.
Why not spend the same and get a better service from a private company?

OK, you don't have to pay taxes. And I just invaded your Independent House (because I believe you and your backyard just ceded from the union?) and now you're living in the street.
He can get his private police force.

1) The problem in the Soviet Union wasn't that the breadlines were Govt. run, but that they were ill-funded. The same with LBJ's "War on Poverty", as well as some Govt. run health insurance. If something costs X to implement properly and you only give it 1/5X, then of course it's going to fail.
But why were they underfunded? Usually the problem isn't that things are underfunded, it's that the money is spent on the wrong things.

2) I don't know a lot about Japan's train system, but I do know that it's horribly crowded. To have more trains would reduce profit, therefore there is no incentive to have more trains.
So don't use it then, nobody forces you to.

3) In the U.S. at least, unions were the most effective in the years before privileges were given to them.
Good. Let's go back to that then. They also represented a much smaller proportion of the "workers."

4) Also in the U.S., the railway companies each had their own track width that could only be used by their trains. The system worked horribly until legislation was passed to standardize track width.
This mistake wouldn't happen today. Companies adopt voluntary standardisation for paper, cds, pcs..... everything. They learned their lesson after the VCR/Betamax fiasco. People make mistakes, the market offers incentives to correct them, govt offers incentives to expand them.

5) The only way that there would be a business is if it's profitable enough to have one. The same goes for a competing business.
The same doesn't go for potential competition. Milton Friedman highlights the fact that for "natural" monopolies there are 3 possibilities: nationalisation, regulation and laissez faire. After studying all these possibilities (in the railway industry, no less) he concluded that the 3rd is the least bad.

A market were there are no restrictions on what can be bought or sold.

And no matter what Libertovania says, pure 'Capitalism' is not a synonym for the free market.What about :
* Nuclear weapons
* Slaves
* Murdering services

?

So if I have all private I don't pay taxes, right? Then we have exactly a free market. If you want to cling to a leviathan agency to provide many things badly you can.

of course you'd still have to pay taxes. Preferably less.
But i believe in giving people a choice.

What about :
* Nuclear weapons
You think a small company will be able to afford these?
* Slaves
Violates peoples rights.
* Murdering services
Violates peoples rights

The linked free market courts document says...

"Several objections may be raised to such free-market courts. The first is that they would sell justice by deciding in favor of the highest bidder. That would be suicidal; unless they maintained a reputation for honesty, they would have no customers."

What? Someone with a lot of money wouldn't want to go to a court where they could buy the decision they wanted? Where would this happen? Very few people are interested in purchasing honesty. I think people like to buy success.
a) judges would be reluctant to do this as it would ruin their business
b) nobody would take such a decision seriously so it is irrelevant
c) govt judges have NO incentive not to do this
d) if the dispute was between firms or mediated by the 2 party's police companies they would almost certainly have pre-agreed a court to avoid such fiascos, as the article points out
e) there is ample evidence (from e.g. the credit card agency) that when trust is important to business (like a court) they are honest, because it pays to be honest
f) there is already a thriving arbitration industry in the US which works as advertised
g) several similar systems have worked in the past.
h) even the rich wouldn't want such a system since you may well be against someone richer.

of course you'd still have to pay taxes. Preferably less.
But i believe in giving people a choice.
Where is the choice in paying taxes? Please tell me how govt police and taxes are different from a mafia style protection racket.

The free market prevents them from behaving in ways that the free market doesn't *like*. But those aren't the same as the things that I don't like. For instance the free market supports a small but thriving armed robbery industry. I don't feel that this particular industry should be allowed free rein to flourish, as I think I might end up spending a lot more on armed guards, barbed wire and security systems than I currently pay in the small bit of my taxes that goes towards the police.


I don't understand this.

It is because you don't understand this that you advocate a free market.

I am assuming that the free market position is that the market keeps the corporations in check. If that isn't what you meant, read the rest of this post anyway and let me know.

The market keeps the corporations in check. Not by deliberately doing anything, just by being. The market has inherent mechanisms of supply and demand and so on which make the market a self-regulating entity.

Interference from any agency seeks to impose rules on the market, for instance governments, the IMF, World Bank or whatever disrupts the perfect functioning of the market. The market works best as a market if it is left to itself.

The market therefore, unchecked, unregulated, unhampered, free, functions perfectly as a market and ensures that entities within the market, buyers, sellers, etc, behave in the ways the market dictates. Sellers produce when demand is high, buyers buy when the price is low, it is more complex than that but I'm just giving examples.

But the market only keeps in check things the market keeps in check. It doesn't regulate the desire of one entity to bomb another entity. In fact it makes sound market sense do destroy the factories and workers of your competitors in order to decrease supply and drive up the price of your product.

The market in the UK (and I'm sure many other countries are the same) currently supports a thriving armed robbery industry. People can buy guns, and masks, and use them to rob banks, thus producing money. Freeing the market wouldn't stop this. It might allow the banks, and me, to buy our own guns, and barbed wire, and a private police force to defend ourselves. But I think this would cost me more money than it currently costs me to buy the same service (law enforcement) from the state, through taxes. Also there aren't many gunfights in the street in Britain, and I think there might be more gunfights in the street if there wasn't a state police force. I'd rather not get shot.

But why were they underfunded? Usually the problem isn't that things are underfunded, it's that the money is spent on the wrong things.

So don't use it then, nobody forces you to.

Good. Let's go back to that then. They also represented a much smaller proportion of the "workers."

This mistake wouldn't happen today. Companies adopt voluntary standardisation for paper, cds, pcs..... everything. They learned their lesson after the VCR/Betamax fiasco. People make mistakes, the market offers incentives to correct them, govt offers incentives to expand them.

The same doesn't go for potential competition. Milton Friedman highlights the fact that for "natural" monopolies there are 3 possibilities: nationalisation, regulation and laissez faire. After studying all these possibilities (in the railway industry, no less) he concluded that the 3rd is the least bad.

1) They were underfunded because the USSR (and the US) was spending a bunch of money on buying nuclear weapons and sending people into space.
2) In order to get to your job, you're kind of forced to. You could argue that they could get a different job, but not everyone can get a job within walking/bike riding distance.
3) Actually, while they didn't have a higher percentage of workers whenever unionization was at its peak, they had a higher percentage of workers than we have now.
4) Perhaps, perhaps not. I can concede that people will probably voluntarily standardize such things.
5) I believe that you mentioned what "potential competition" is, could you retype what it is, or provide a link, please?

Also, there was a point at the end brought up about murder, that everyone wants to live in a murder-free society. This is true, and the reason for it is that the most, and the least that you can lose if murdered is one life. This is true for everyone. However, in the case of something like theft, this doesn't follow. A poor person would have no objection to living in a society where theft is acceptable, since the amount that they could gain from stealing from a rich person is much more than the amount that they could lose if someone stole from them. Therefore, a poor person would have a huge incentive to go to an arbitration court that doesn't regard theft as a crime.
The other party and their police company wouldn't allow that. Poor people benefit from not being robbed too, they wouldn't be better off if robbery were allowed. The tiny minority who wanted theft and their hypothetical police company (I doubt there would ever be such a thing) would be permanently fighting the rest of society and their police, they couldn't get away with it.

David Friedman has an excellent chapter on "the economics of theft" where he goes into this, a pity it isn't webbed.

OK, you don't have to pay taxes. And I just invaded your Independent House (because I believe you and your backyard just ceded from the union?) and now you're living in the street.

He can get his private police force.

cheaper and more efficiently than by taxation? How much tax does this guy pay? I have one salary, my own, and I pay about a third of it in tax. That means that if I didn't use any other services at all that are currently provided by the state, my private police force guy would earn about half what I do. And then how do I pay the doctor?

Where is the choice in paying taxes? Please tell me how govt police and taxes are different from a mafia style protection racket.

As I said...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daroth
of course you'd still have to pay taxes. Preferably less.
But i believe in giving people a choice.


pay taxes but less, if you choose to go all private. But you'd still have to pay some taxes! As roads are gov. maintained, as an example. Or pay no taxes and have to pay for the right to use the roads. Which would be no different from a tax anyway

cheaper and more efficiently than by taxation? How much tax does this guy pay? I have one salary, my own, and I pay about a third of it in tax. That means that if I didn't use any other services at all that are currently provided by the state, my private police force guy would earn about half what I do. And then how do I pay the doctor?
You pay a subscription to the company, not directly employ a bodyguard (well, you can if you want/have the money).

in such a system, how would you make sure that the companies used are honest?
I know how it works normally, but in a society where we pay no taxes and everything is private?

But the market only keeps in check things the market keeps in check. It doesn't regulate the desire of one entity to bomb another entity. In fact it makes sound market sense do destroy the factories and workers of your competitors in order to decrease supply and drive up the price of your product.

Not if the victims have police forces to protect them. Crime really doesn't pay, otherwise evolution would have made us all criminals. The threat of retaliation (through fines, prison or more primitively getting a kicking) is a disincentive to agress against others.

The market in the UK (and I'm sure many other countries are the same) currently supports a thriving armed robbery industry. People can buy guns, and masks, and use them to rob banks, thus producing money. Freeing the market wouldn't stop this. It might allow the banks, and me, to buy our own guns, and barbed wire, and a private police force to defend ourselves. But I think this would cost me more money than it currently costs me to buy the same service (law enforcement) from the state, through taxes. Also there aren't many gunfights in the street in Britain, and I think there might be more gunfights in the street if there wasn't a state police force. I'd rather not get shot.
I'd hardly include crime as a free market activity. I think private police would be a) cheaper and b) more effective. The evidence seems to corroborate this from towns in America which have contracted out policing to private companies. I know this isn't the same as what I'm advocating but it's a step towards it. In one town, crime fell by 1/3, costs halved and response time went from 45 to 6 minutes. Probably because they didn't spend all day eating donuts, arresting dope smokers and harassing minorities.

As I said...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daroth
of course you'd still have to pay taxes. Preferably less.
But i believe in giving people a choice.


pay taxes but less, if you choose to go all private. But you'd still have to pay some taxes! As roads are gov. maintained, as an example. Or pay no taxes and have to pay for the right to use the roads. Which would be no different from a tax anyway
It is different because you have choice. Again, what is the moral difference between a govt protection racket and a mafia protection racket?

The linked free market courts document says...

"Several objections may be raised to such free-market courts. The first is that they would sell justice by deciding in favor of the highest bidder. That would be suicidal; unless they maintained a reputation for honesty, they would have no customers."

What? Someone with a lot of money wouldn't want to go to a court where they could buy the decision they wanted? Where would this happen? Very few people are interested in purchasing honesty. I think people like to buy success.


a) judges would be reluctant to do this as it would ruin their business
b) nobody would take such a decision seriously so it is irrelevant
c) govt judges have NO incentive not to do this
d) if the dispute was between firms or mediated by the 2 party's police companies they would almost certainly have pre-agreed a court to avoid such fiascos, as the article points out
e) there is ample evidence (from e.g. the credit card agency) that when trust is important to business (like a court) they are honest, because it pays to be honest
f) there is already a thriving arbitration industry in the US which works as advertised
g) several similar systems have worked in the past.
h) even the rich wouldn't want such a system since you may well be against someone richer.

a) getting paid for a service would not ruin your business, it would be your business.
b) people take the decision of judges seriously because they are judges. if the decision of a privately funded judge didn't have to be taken seriously, they wouldn't be a judge. how can you have a justice system that people are free to ignore if they don't like the decision?
c) govt judges have a lot of incentive not to take bribes. it's against the law for one thing, they can go to jail. And they don't need an incentive to not give the decision to the client who pays the most, as their clients don't pay directly. They pay through taxation and have to pay their taxes whether they win or lose.
d) if the dispute was between firms or their 2 police companies they would make agreements based on mutuality of interest and balance of power. if the dispute was between Microsoft and you, I expect you would be screwed.
e) there is ample evidence that when dishonesty is profitable (eg Enron) companies are dishonest
f) the arbitration industry works as an arbitration industry. It arbitrates between two parties to help them settle their differences. It doesn't send anyone to the chair, or jail, and it can't impose billion dollar fines.
g) name one
h) rich people would not want to screw people over, in case someone richer screwed them over? All rich people now adhere to the principle "do as you would be done by" ? I rather think that a lot of people, rich or not, live by the principle "do whatever you can get away with, and hope you don't get caught"

The other party and their police company wouldn't allow that. Poor people benefit from not being robbed too, they wouldn't be better off if robbery were allowed. The tiny minority who wanted theft and their hypothetical police company (I doubt there would ever be such a thing) would be permanently fighting the rest of society and their police, they couldn't get away with it.
Then if the other party wouldn't allow it then the situation couldn't be arbitrated and there would be a war.
While, yes, it is true that poor people benefit from not being robbed, they would benefit more from being able to rob.

in such a system, how would you make sure that the companies used are honest?
I know how it works normally, but in a society where we pay no taxes and everything is private?
Only buy stuff from honest companies. What sort of dishonesty are you worried about? If it is force, theft or fraud then you can take them to court.

Not if the victims have police forces to protect them. Crime really doesn't pay, otherwise evolution would have made us all criminals. The threat of retaliation (through fines, prison or more primitively getting a kicking) is a disincentive to agress against others.

I'd hardly include crime as a free market activity. I think private police would be a) cheaper and b) more effective. The evidence seems to corroborate this from towns in America which have contracted out policing to private companies. I know this isn't the same as what I'm advocating but it's a step towards it. In one town, crime fell by 1/3, costs halved and response time went from 45 to 6 minutes. Probably because they didn't spend all day eating donuts, arresting dope smokers and harassing minorities.

the victims have police forces if they can afford them, and not if they can't. Private police may be cheaper and more effective that state police because they don't eat donuts all day, and it may be because they can pick and choose where they police. Hands up for the contract of policing, oh pick anywhere dirtpoor that doesn't pay any taxes anyway and even if it saved up all its money would be able to afford one old guy on a bicycle?

Why is crime not a free market activity? i pay you to kill someone, you do it, service rendered. In a totally free market, who is to stop me? The threat of retaliation (through fines, prison or more primitively getting a kicking) is a disincentive to agress against others, but not all that much of a disincentive when you look at the amount of agression against others in the world.

It is different because you have choice. Again, what is the moral difference between a govt protection racket and a mafia protection racket?

none really.

Only real difference I can think of would be in a mafia protection racket, you pay money to protect your business from the mafia itself. PAY OR ELSE!!!

Same with a gov. don't pay? they take whats yours! but they also offer services if you pay. schools, healthcare, etc.

Only buy stuff from honest companies. What sort of dishonesty are you worried about? If it is force, theft or fraud then you can take them to court.
Only if your police has more guns than them.

Only buy stuff from honest companies. What sort of dishonesty are you worried about? If it is force, theft or fraud then you can take them to court.

No I can't take them to court, I can't afford it. And how am I going to buy stuff from an honest company when the dishonest company has burnt down all the honest companies?

Only buy stuff from honest companies. What sort of dishonesty are you worried about? If it is force, theft or fraud then you can take them to court.

private courts? he with the most money wins? (not really so different than now)

How would you be able to take them to courts though? If there are no govenmental agencies to enforce the rulings?

It is different because you have choice. Again, what is the moral difference between a govt protection racket and a mafia protection racket?

the moral difference is a difference of morals. They are both protection rackets, but the mafia does things that the majority of people disagree with, for the benefit of the mafia. Government when it is good does things that the majority of people agree with for the benefit of those people.

In essence there is no difference between 2 groups of people who take money off you. The difference is what they do with the money. Why not ask what is the difference between good goverment and bad government? they both take money off you at gunpoint but one does good stuff with it and the other does bad.

a) getting paid for a service would not ruin your business, it would be your business.
b) people take the decision of judges seriously because they are judges. if the decision of a privately funded judge didn't have to be taken seriously, they wouldn't be a judge. how can you have a justice system that people are free to ignore if they don't like the decision?
c) govt judges have a lot of incentive not to take bribes. it's against the law for one thing, they can go to jail. And they don't need an incentive to not give the decision to the client who pays the most, as their clients don't pay directly. They pay through taxation and have to pay their taxes whether they win or lose.
d) if the dispute was between firms or their 2 police companies they would make agreements based on mutuality of interest and balance of power. if the dispute was between Microsoft and you, I expect you would be screwed.
e) there is ample evidence that when dishonesty is profitable (eg Enron) companies are dishonest
f) the arbitration industry works as an arbitration industry. It arbitrates between two parties to help them settle their differences. It doesn't send anyone to the chair, or jail, and it can't impose billion dollar fines.
g) name one
h) rich people would not want to screw people over, in case someone richer screwed them over? All rich people now adhere to the principle "do as you would be done by" ? I rather think that a lot of people, rich or not, live by the principle "do whatever you can get away with, and hope you don't get caught"
a) would you go to such a judge?
b) it's quite simple. Decisions will only be taken seriously by citizens, police companies and corporations if the judge is respected. there is a market for respectable judges and no others.
c) giving biased decision is fraud and would be punished under this system too. Govt judges could and do take bribes.
d) I doubt it. People would stop doing business with microsoft if they screwed people over, why would you risk it? They'd be oestracised by the business community.
e) that was an accounting thing related to govt taxation, I think. And what happened to Enron? Are they still a healthy company? No. As I said, crime doesn't pay.
f) it can impose fines and doesn't need to jail anyone. It's arbitration, not mediation so they can and do punish people, even before their decisions were held as binding by the govt.
g) see the anarchist thread, I named many.
h) You don't need to assume they're honest. It's in their interests to behave. What do dishonest people do in our current system? They bribe senators etc. The current system is much more open to abuse, you're just too blinkered to see it.

I'm never going to convince you because you have decided already you're against it, now you're trying to rationalise it. If you were open minded you'd be asking questions, not demanding that it's impossible. This is a pointless debate because you've put up a barrier and whatever I say you'll imagine another problem and never go away convinced. Go off and think about it and look at some links in your own time without the pressure of an adversarial debate, keep an open mind.

the moral difference is a difference of morals. They are both protection rackets, but the mafia does things that the majority of people disagree with, for the benefit of the mafia. Government when it is good does things that the majority of people agree with for the benefit of those people.

In essence there is no difference between 2 groups of people who take money off you. The difference is what they do with the money. Why not ask what is the difference between good goverment and bad government? they both take money off you at gunpoint but one does good stuff with it and the other does bad.
So, you would be ok with a mugger if he gave all his 'earnings' to charity?

none really.

Only real difference I can think of would be in a mafia protection racket, you pay money to protect your business from the mafia itself. PAY OR ELSE!!!

Same with a gov. don't pay? they take whats yours! but they also offer services if you pay. schools, healthcare, etc.
So they pretend to protect you from ignorance and ill health too. It's still the same.

The tiny minority who wanted theft and their hypothetical police company (I doubt there would ever be such a thing) would be permanently fighting the rest of society and their police, they couldn't get away with it.

David Friedman has an excellent chapter on "the economics of theft" where he goes into this, a pity it isn't webbed.

What makes you think only a tiny minority would want theft? Put this question to any major corporation in the world:

If law and order were perfect, the economy would thrive and it would be worth 1 billion dollars. With honest business practices, you can earn one percent of this economy, ie 10 million dollars.

On the other hand, if law was lax and theft was legal, the economy would suffer and only be worth 500 million dollars. With corrupt business practices, you can earn 10 percent of this economy, ie 50 million dollars.

Which will look better on your balance sheet?

Only if your police has more guns than them.
I'm here to talk to open minded people, not to get in a flame war with antagonistic commies. We've been through this. You can't understand this system because you already don't understand markets in general.

So, you would be ok with a mugger if he gave all his 'earnings' to charity?

Yes, as long as I can vote him out of his position as mugger. I didn't say all goverment is good, only good government is good.

No I can't take them to court, I can't afford it. And how am I going to buy stuff from an honest company when the dishonest company has burnt down all the honest companies?
Loser pays fees. Of course the criminal pays the full cost of his crime, including the cost of bringing him to justice. Arsonists would be punished too, just like they are now. Please understand that crimes would still be punished!!!

private courts? he with the most money wins? (not really so different than now)

How would you be able to take them to courts though? If there are no govenmental agencies to enforce the rulings?
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html

I'm here to talk to open minded people, not to get in a flame war with antagonistic commies. We've been through this. You can't understand this system because you already don't understand markets in general.

calling people antagonistic commies is antagonising them into a flame war.

Anyway, he's still right. The market only regulates what survives in the market. That which is fit for the market survives. Compassion and justice are not qualities which the market encourages, but they are very important to me.

What makes you think only a tiny minority would want theft? Put this question to any major corporation in the world:

If law and order were perfect, the economy would thrive and it would be worth 1 billion dollars. With honest business practices, you can earn one percent of this economy, ie 10 million dollars.

On the other hand, if law was lax and theft was legal, the economy would suffer and only be worth 500 million dollars. With corrupt business practices, you can earn 10 percent of this economy, ie 50 million dollars.

Which will look better on your balance sheet?
How would it look when your 50 million was "legally" stolen from you? I think you're suffering from a failure of imagination and lack of consistency.

So they pretend to protect you from ignorance and ill health too. It's still the same.

maybe this would work better, if you explained to me why you see them as the same thing?

calling people antagonistic commies is antagonising them into a flame war.
I'm bored of him, he's been annoying me for weeks with his insanity.

Anyway, he's still right. The market only regulates what survives in the market. That which is fit for the market survives. Compassion and justice are not qualities which the market encourages, but they are very important to me.
But the market is you! It is customers. You're statement is inconsistent. Justice is required for a functioning market and that is why it will be there. I don't understand what these vague statements have to do with anything. The system as described makes perfect sense. You're arguments are beginning to sound desperate. Please go and research the idea because there's nothing I can do to convince you now, you have to be willing to entertain the possibility and go and convince yourself.

Loser pays fees. Of course the criminal pays the full cost of his crime, including the cost of bringing him to justice. Arsonists would be punished too, just like they are now. Please understand that crimes would still be punished!!!

OK, so I burn down your house, and you take me to court, and I am tried and convicted, and the court asks me to hand over payment. I reply "Well i did have a match, but i used it to burn down this guy's house. Would you like my pants and my shoes?"

Crime would only be punished if someone could pay the lawyers for the perpetrator and the lawyers for the victim to sit down and decide that that is what is going to happen, in a court that someone has to pay for.

It is still justice for those who can afford it, because now I'm not a penniless dude, I'm HouseBurners Inc, and you're the penniless one. You go round and round the houses looking for a police company to take on your case, and it has to be no win no fee because you got no money and the loser pays. Only I'm not going to lose because all the great expensive lawyers are working for me.

maybe this would work better, if you explained to me why you see them as the same thing?
"Give me your money or we'll violently take it and harm you." It's the same thing. Taxation is armed robbery, or at best extortion.

OK, so I burn down your house, and you take me to court, and I am tried and convicted, and the court asks me to hand over payment. I reply "Well i did have a match, but i used it to burn down this guy's house. Would you like my pants and my shoes?"

Crime would only be punished if someone could pay the lawyers for the perpetrator and the lawyers for the victim to sit down and decide that that is what is going to happen, in a court that someone has to pay for.

It is still justice for those who can afford it, because now I'm not a penniless dude, I'm HouseBurners Inc, and you're the penniless one. You go round and round the houses looking for a police company to take on your case, and it has to be no win no fee because you got no money and the loser pays. Only I'm not going to lose because all the great expensive lawyers are working for me.
Now you're being ridiculous. Please just go off and think about it, I'm sure you can answer this yourself, this will do more to convince you than any book I can link to.

But the market is you! It is customers. You're statement is inconsistent. Justice is required for a functioning market and that is why it will be there. I don't understand what these vague statements have to do with anything. The system as described makes perfect sense. You're arguments are beginning to sound desperate. Please go and research the idea because there's nothing I can do to convince you now, you have to be willing to entertain the possibility and go and convince yourself.

I haven't got the economic power to enforce justice. I will never have the economic power to enforce justice. My government does a reasonable job of enforcing justice at a reasonable price. I'm not a communist or a socialist, but I believe in state provision of certain things. You just say that it makes perfect sense. It doesn't make perfect sense. There are things within it that i disagree with and things within it that would create a system which I don't want to live in. If you don't like vague, go back over my answers to your a-f) points

I'm here to talk to open minded people, not to get in a flame war with antagonistic commies. We've been through this. You can't understand this system because you already don't understand markets in general.
I'm sorry you take it like this.
I don't want to go into a flame war either. I was just trying to point out flaws. I'm just looking for the truth.
I'm sorry if I'm rude or if my language is offensive sometimes. It is not intentional. I hope we can have a debate despite my poor diplomatic skills, without flames and without hurting anyone.

OK, so I burn down your house, and you take me to court, and I am tried and convicted, and the court asks me to hand over payment. I reply "Well i did have a match, but i used it to burn down this guy's house. Would you like my pants and my shoes?"

Crime would only be punished if someone could pay the lawyers for the perpetrator and the lawyers for the victim to sit down and decide that that is what is going to happen, in a court that someone has to pay for.

It is still justice for those who can afford it, because now I'm not a penniless dude, I'm HouseBurners Inc, and you're the penniless one. You go round and round the houses looking for a police company to take on your case, and it has to be no win no fee because you got no money and the loser pays. Only I'm not going to lose because all the great expensive lawyers are working for me.

Now you're being ridiculous. Please just go off and think about it, I'm sure you can answer this yourself, this will do more to convince you than any book I can link to.

No, I'm not being ridiculous. The system makes perfect sense to you. If you think that this makes perfect sense, how can you say it is ridiculous? If you think it can't happen in your perfectly sensible system, please explain why.

"Give me your money or we'll violently take it and harm you." It's the same thing. Taxation is armed robbery, or at best extortion.

what about give us your money as your receiving all these benefits. If you don't well take it violently.

I'm sorry you take it like this.
I don't want to go into a flame war either. I was just trying to point out flaws. I'm just looking for the truth.
I'm sorry if I'm rude or if my language is offensive sometimes. It is not intentional. I hope we can have a debate despite my poor diplomatic skills, without flames and without hurting anyone.

POOF!!!!!


lol joking

what about give us your money as your receiving all these benefits. If you don't well take it violently.

I don't know of any government in Western Europe that has an armed revenue service. Does the US IRS really tax people with violence?

Well, if you can't pay you'd be forced to work it off, either by giving a proportion of your earnings or by working in a factory prison.

The loser pays the fees. If you think you won't win then you'd just be wasting money by taking it to a court anyway. If you will win there's no problem.

A private justice system isn't likely to have much influence from lawyers and probably no jury either (jurys are only there to limit the govt's power). You'll both get in a room and the judge will ask questions and decide who's in the right or reach a compromise. Quick, easy and cheap. The police companies will only be able to act against those who've been convicted in a private court, any other system would mean constant warfare and thus loss of money. Historically private courts have commanded immense respect. I have anther link that might help but it's down at the moment I'll let you know.

Yes gov. do take our money. and in that sense they are no better than the mafia.

But they use that money (some of it anyway) in a way that benefits people.

I don't know of any government in Western Europe that has an armed revenue service. Does the US IRS really tax people with violence?
Well, try not paying your taxes and see what happens. If tax wasn't violently enforced why would anyone pay it? You don't pay, you go to jail. That, my friend, is violence if ever I saw it.

I don't know of any government in Western Europe that has an armed revenue service. Does the US IRS really tax people with violence?

well the topic was comparing gov to mafia.

if you don't pay your taxes they will take whats yours. and if you try to resist, they'll use the police. so in that sense, there is a similarity.

what about give us your money as your receiving all these benefits. If you don't well take it violently.
That's extortion. Imagine if ford put a car on your drive and then forced you to pay for it! AND you pay whether you want it or not. It's still a form of theft.

I'm sorry you take it like this.
I don't want to go into a flame war either. I was just trying to point out flaws. I'm just looking for the truth.
I'm sorry if I'm rude or if my language is offensive sometimes. It is not intentional. I hope we can have a debate despite my poor diplomatic skills, without flames and without hurting anyone.
No, it's not that you're rude or anything. It's just I don't enjoy debating you because we just talk past each other and get pissed off.

Well, if you can't pay you'd be forced to work it off, either by giving a proportion of your earnings or by working in a factory prison.

And you really think that in a prison factory I'd do enough work even in my entire life to pay for a murder trial?


The loser pays the fees. If you think you won't win then you'd just be wasting money by taking it to a court anyway. If you will win there's no problem.

You're assuming that the justice will be just. What about if I'm right but no lawyer will take it on because I'm not going to win because the other party has much better lawyers and has shares in all the private judging companies?


A private justice system isn't likely to have much influence from lawyers and probably no jury either (jurys are only there to limit the govt's power).


Why would a private justice system not have influence from lawyers? In a free market in justice I would make sure I paid as much money as I could to get persuasuve intelligent informed people on my side


You'll both get in a room and the judge will ask questions and decide who's in the right or reach a compromise. Quick, easy and cheap.


Why could there not be a public justice system like this? Why would there not be private justice system that was long and complicated? Are these judges being paid by the case or by the hour? What you are describing is a kind of justice system, not the way the justice system is paid for.


The police companies will only be able to act against those who've been convicted in a private court, any other system would mean constant warfare and thus loss of money. Historically private courts have commanded immense respect. I have anther link that might help but it's down at the moment I'll let you know.

The police can only act after a conviction? I've already burnt down your whole street.

No, it's not that you're rude or anything. It's just I don't enjoy debating you because we just talk past each other and get pissed off.
Indeed, I also think the difference between our point of views is too wide to have any meaningful debate.
Let's just agree to disagree then. Have a nice day.

That's extortion. Imagine if ford put a car on your drive and then forced you to pay for it! AND you pay whether you want it or not. It's still a form of theft.

Lib, if you don't mind me asking.
what do you do job wise and where do you live?
if you don't mind me asking

And you really think that in a prison factory I'd do enough work even in my entire life to pay for a murder trial?

Easily.

You're assuming that the justice will be just. What about if I'm right but no lawyer will take it on because I'm not going to win because the other party has much better lawyers and has shares in all the private judging companies?
You're assuming it won't be. We're going in circles here. The answers have been provided by me and the article. It's just a matter of you absorbing it and going over it in your own time. Please do, nobody accepts it straight away, I didn't, not until after a lot of thinking.

Go to the anarchist thread where I gave many working examples of private justice.

Why would a private justice system not have influence from lawyers? In a free market in justice I would make sure I paid as much money as I could to get persuasuve intelligent informed people on my side

Fine, but barristers would play a much lesser role if they were there at all and wouldn't do much to sway a judge who is perfectly capable of considering the arguments himself.

Why could there not be a public justice system like this? Why would there not be private justice system that was long and complicated? Are these judges being paid by the case or by the hour? What you are describing is a kind of justice system, not the way the justice system is paid for.

The same reason the market doesn't make cars that are slow, ugly and expensive.

The police can only act after a conviction? I've already burnt down your whole street.
You know what I mean, they can't impose fines or sentences without a conviction, same as now.

Please read the article again. Once you get a feel for the logic you'll be able to figure out the answers on your own.

Indeed, I also think the difference between our point of views is too wide to have any meaningful debate.
Let's just agree to disagree then. Have a nice day.
You too.

Lib, if you don't mind me asking.
what do you do job wise and where do you live?
if you don't mind me asking
I'm a physicist from Scotland. And yes it is a govt uni. Before you say anything it's hardly my fault unis are nationalised!

I'm a physicist from Scotland. And yes it is a govt uni. Before you say anything it's hardly my fault unis are nationalised!I'm not debating anymore, but just pointing out that I'm finding it funny.
I work in the private sector and think it is fucked up.
You work in the public sector and think it is fucked up.
Perhaps everything is fucked up?

I'm a physicist from Scotland. And yes it is a govt uni. Before you say anything it's hardly my fault unis are nationalised!

was not going to say a thing. you've used the tools at hand.
student or teacher out of curiousity?

anyway, what do you think of the higher charges that students are supposed to pay?
think it was 3000 pounds but not sure

I'm not debating anymore, but just pointing out that I'm finding it funny.
I work in the private sector and think it is fucked up.
You work in the public sector and think it is fucked up.
Perhaps everything is fucked up?
My anarcho-communist flatmate works for an oil company. Go figure.

was not going to say a thing. you've used the tools at hand.
student or teacher out of curiousity?
Bit o' both, I'm doing a PhD.

anyway, what do you think of the higher charges that students are supposed to pay?
think it was 3000 pounds but not sure
It's a poor parody of a private system. They're trying to get the best of both worlds and will end up with the worst of both. Why should my joiner friend have to subsidise my education? Public universities a) have very poor teaching, b) transfer wealth from poorer to richer. I don't think I'll stay on after my PhD, the whole system makes me sick.

Bit o' both, I'm doing a PhD.

It's a poor parody of a private system. They're trying to get the best of both worlds and will end up with the worst of both. Why should my joiner friend have to subsidise my education? Public universities a) have very poor teaching, b) transfer wealth from poorer to richer. I don't think I'll stay on after my PhD, the whole system makes me sick.

so you believe more in the american system i take it?

good. better system.

so you believe more in the american system i take it?

good. better system.
No. The American systems of health and education are not privatised, despite what most Europeans believe. The govt intervenes substantially. There are very few universities which are independent of the state.

No. The American systems of health and education are not privatised, despite what most Europeans believe. The govt intervenes substantially. There are very few universities which are independent of the state.

was not refering to schools and helthcare. from what i've seen they seem crap pver there.

I believe the universities are though. is that not why most students have to take out substantial loans to pay for them. also the rates vary alot. please correct if mistaken

was not refering to schools and helthcare. from what i've seen they seem crap pver there.

I believe the universities are though. is that not why most students have to take out substantial loans to pay for them. also the rates vary alot. please correct if mistaken
I'm pretty sure the state plays a large role. American Libertarians make the same criticisms of the Uni system as British ones do. If you want an excellent criticism of the modern university system you can find it in Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", written over 200 years ago.

I'm pretty sure the state plays a large role. American Libertarians make the same criticisms of the Uni system as British ones do. If you want an excellent criticism of the modern university system you can find it in Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", written over 200 years ago.

well i know that the 2 largest uni's in the US receive more money per year that all the uni's in britain together though donations and what the students pay

well i know that the 2 largest uni's in the US receive more money per year that all the uni's in britain together though donations and what the students pay
Oh it's better than the UK, that's for sure. Could be much better though.

Easily.

no i wouldn't. I'd pick my nose and stuff, just like i'm, currently supposed to be working in the marketplace right now, but am in fact posting here

You're assuming it won't be.

because it never is and never has been. your belief that in truly free market people would start acting in free market way is just as unreasonable as a communist's belief that in a communist society everyone would share alike and not be greedy. people are much messier than that.


We're going in circles here. The answers have been provided by me and the article. It's just a matter of you absorbing it and going over it in your own time. Please do, nobody accepts it straight away, I didn't, not until after a lot of thinking.


No they haven't. And it is both patronising and incredibly optimistic on your part to state that the guy's essay is a statement of fact and I just don't get it. I understand it well. It doesn't cover all the bases or prove that the market will give me what I want.


Fine, but barristers would play a much lesser role if they were there at all and wouldn't do much to sway a judge who is perfectly capable of considering the arguments himself.


Why? Why would free market barristers be less influential? Why wouldn't they be more influential as the market freed them to fulfill their potential of influence by becoming really great at influencing judges?


The same reason the market doesn't make cars that are slow, ugly and expensive.

ok, well, it does. eg ford edsel. and the fiat doblo and all mercedes vehicles.
The doblo is ugly because some people like ugliness. Mercs are expensive because people like to pay over the odds for things because it makes them feel cool. Kia or Daewoo or someone make slow cars because some people prefer small, cheap and slow to big, dear and fast.

If the market in justice worked like the market in cars, the poor would have no justice. Those with a little money could choose between no justice and secondhand unreliable justice. With more money, average workaday justice could be yours, or you could choose to spend more money on healthcare and take secondhand justice like your slightly poorer neighbours. and the more wealthy you are, the shinier and faster your justice could be, although you would always have the choice to spend no money and get no justice.

If the justice market isn't going to be like the car market, then it isn't a good analogy for you to say that is.

Anyway if the market is good at providing anything, it is sometimes good at providing choice. (As long as monopoly is regulated against.) And lots of people will choose injustice every time if it means that they get to win while the deserving guy gets to lose.


You know what I mean, they can't impose fines or sentences without a conviction, same as now.

I know, i'm funning.


Please read the article again. Once you get a feel for the logic you'll be able to figure out the answers on your own.

I've figured out the answers, and it doesn't work.

well i know that the 2 largest uni's in the US receive more money per year that all the uni's in britain together though donations and what the students pay

Oh it's better than the UK, that's for sure. Could be much better though.

I'm totally guessing, but the 2 largest unis in th UK probably get more money than all the unis in subsaharan africa excluding SA. If all those countries went free market overnight, do you think their unis would be better off?

I'm totally guessing, but the 2 largest unis in th UK probably get more money than all the unis in subsaharan africa excluding SA. If all those countries went free market overnight, do you think their unis would be better off?
Maybe, maybe not. if people would rather buy food and cloathes than subsidise education who are we to complain?

You can tell me "free market police won't work" all you like but it has worked in the past so your proclaimations are empty.

was not refering to schools and helthcare. from what i've seen they seem crap pver there.
They are, because they aren't completely socialized.

You can tell me "free market police won't work" all you like but it has worked in the past so your proclaimations are empty.
For how long did it work, though? Furthermore, I'm not looking for simply a solution that will work, I'm looking for the best solution, and while all of those examples that you gave in the Anarchist thread probably did work, they could hardly be considered good times to live in.

Maybe, maybe not. if people would rather buy food and cloathes than subsidise education who are we to complain?
This is exactly why people don't become entrepreneurs. Not because they don't have the intelligence to do so, it's because they don't have the resources.

For how long did it work, though? Furthermore, I'm not looking for simply a solution that will work, I'm looking for the best solution, and while all of those examples that you gave in the Anarchist thread probably did work, they could hardly be considered good times to live in.
Ireland ~ 1000 years
Iceland ~ 300 years

By contrast the American republic went ~ 80 years before being destroyed in the second war of independence.

Exactly where was a better place to live in those days? What system do you think would be better? This one?

This is exactly why people don't become entrepreneurs. Not because they don't have the intelligence to do so, it's because they don't have the resources.
Nonsense. Anyone can raise a few quid and sell socks at the market. Peddling goods used to be how immigrants worked their way up the ladder before the govt banned it. I think you've paid too much attention to socialist propaganda and not enough attention to the real world. If you work hard and save for a few years you can easily start a business, especially today when it's so easy to get credit.

Ireland ~ 1000 years
Iceland ~ 300 years

By contrast the American republic went ~ 80 years before being destroyed in the second war of independence.

Exactly where was a better place to live in those days? What system do you think would be better? This one?

Which 1000 years of Irish history had a free market police force?

Nonsense. Anyone can raise a few quid and sell socks at the market. Peddling goods used to be how immigrants worked their way up the ladder before the govt banned it. I think you've paid too much attention to socialist propaganda and not enough attention to the real world. If you work hard and save for a few years you can easily start a business, especially today when it's so easy to get credit.

Last time I looked, people are still peddling goods on the street. Still, it isn't true that anyone can raise a few quid and sell cars at the market, or houses, or healthcare or police forces. How many socks/lighters/toy snakes does one person need?

Nonsense. Anyone can raise a few quid and sell socks at the market. Peddling goods used to be how immigrants worked their way up the ladder before the govt banned it. I think you've paid too much attention to socialist propaganda and not enough attention to the real world. If you work hard and save for a few years you can easily start a business, especially today when it's so easy to get credit.
I think you're the one who's been listening to too much propaganda. Come back and talk to me about this when you've been living in the real world for a couple of decades. It isn't nearly as easy as you think it is.

"They asked for the regulations. The anti-trust act was the govt intervening to try to solve a problem created by a previous intervention. Just like when they granted privilidges to unions and then passed anti-union laws when they got out of hand. Note they didn't simply repeal the offending legislation, they introduced new rules so now there are laws dragging it both ways."



"There is no such thing, that is a sheer fantasy, a sophism to justify mass organised armed robbery. A private police system makes the contract explicit. Please read the link if you don't understand the system. Similar systems have worked before so don't tell me it can't work."


"Sure, I have the right to move but surely I ought to be able to secede, after all I own my land and the govt doesn't. I should be allowed to break with the govt AND take my land."

Sorry this is from yesterday but I just got back on the thread.

Who asked for the regulations? What regulations? I would like to know what laws did the Robber Barons ask for and get to regulate their industries? Secondly the Courts not the Congress gave Unions access to their rights granted by the Constitution.

I never said it would not work.

How are you going to own land without some sort of social contract that allows for private ownereship? You can leave a country and still own land and property in most free societies today. Not one of your better arguements.

Thanks again

Libertovania- you mentioned Wealth of Nations earlier. have youe ever read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. What was your take on it if you have?

Which 1000 years of Irish history had a free market police force?
The 1000 years before the British invaded had a justice system based on voluntary associations (which are part of the market).

Thankfully my fave link is back up. Check this out. It goes into more detail about Celtic Ireland and also how a modern system would work. Thanks for all your patience and being willing to listen to new ideas.

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty11.asp

I think you're the one who's been listening to too much propaganda. Come back and talk to me about this when you've been living in the real world for a couple of decades. It isn't nearly as easy as you think it is.
That's because of all the tax and regulations. Without these starting a business would be as simple as starting a lemonade stand.

Sorry this is from yesterday but I just got back on the thread.

Who asked for the regulations? What regulations? I would like to know what laws did the Robber Barons ask for and get to regulate their industries? Secondly the Courts not the Congress gave Unions access to their rights granted by the Constitution.

I don't have any links handy but look for anything on "public choice economics". It is now well established that regulations were for the benefit of the corrupt corporations rather than "public safety", not surprising when you think who funds all those politicians' campaigns.

Unions were granted many privilidges like the "right" to force employers to bargain with unions and the "right" to engage in violence, particularly against property, which would be criminal for private citizens.


How are you going to own land without some sort of social contract that allows for private ownereship? You can leave a country and still own land and property in most free societies today. Not one of your better arguements.

Thanks again
It is possible that a private police force might not protect property rights but it isn't likely. People would only pay for police who could protect their homes and property, I don't see this changing. Private property has been a key feature of every instance of private law in post industrial societies, as far as I know.

Yes you can ostensibly own land but it's really a sham. The govt can confiscate it (to build a road, for instance) or order you to use it a certain way (if there's an "endangered species" or by not allowing you to build on it) and you are not allowed to secede with your land, if I want to renounce my citizenship I can't take my land out of the govt's influence. For all intents and purposes the govt has claimed ownership of all the land.

The point is if I don't agree with how the govt is behaving I can't take my land out of their influence, they don't allow me the right of freedom of association.

Here's my post on private law systems from the anarchist thread.

Starting earliest to latest, private or mostly private justice systems have existed in:

Ireland for ~ 1000 years until invaded by British. There were kings but security was provided by voluntary groups and justice was provided by a wandering judges called "Brehons". The king was just a military head and didn't get involved in justice. In fact, it was possible to sue the king.

Anglo-Saxon England, partially destroyed when Viking raiders necessitated consolidated military defence. The king enforced a monopoly on justice so that he could execute the criminals and confiscate their lands and property. After the Normans invaded they gradually subverted the system. Prior to that most punishment was in the form of restitution for the victim. Again there were voluntary groups for defence and the groups mediated disputes within themselves and between each other. Again the King was mostly a military figure and English Royal law was basically the codification of the customary laws which arose spontaneously from the bottom up.

Medieval Iceland: Probably the best example from ~ 900 - 1200. Iceland had exactly 1 govt employee who was elected each year and would make the laws. People grouped under chiefs (uaually wealthy landowners) but you could change your chief voluntarily. It had private courts which were well respected. There was no organised military. Historical records indicate that the murder rate was at the worst period ~ the same as a modern US city, quite remarkable for the dark ages. It ended due to subversion by the King of Norway and the church and the unfortunate fact that the title of chief cartelised by law.

Law Merchants: The law merchants operated in the free ports in the middle ages. International merchants used them to decide disputes and they were responsible for much international trade, banking and contract law *later copied* by the state. Remarkably, they never needed to back their verdicts with violence. Any merchant who ignored the courts was shunned by everyone else until he agreed to abide by the decision. Without the innovations due to private law the commercial revolution could not have happened. Eventually the state copied the private laws.

Admirality and Sea law: The admirality law and other provisions such as salvage law was developed and enforced almost entirely by the private sector. Again the state copied laws originating from the private sector.

Revolutionary America: During the war of independence all security provision was private. After the war James Madison (one of the founding fathers) said something to the effect, "we'd better start a govt quick before people realise they don't need one". The revolutionary army were voluntary militia proving even military defence is possible without the state.

19th century England: Private law was active again in the industrial age. Govt law was breaking down and inefficient and couldn't cope with organised crime (veterans of the Napoleonic wars didn't care much for real work and were trained in applying organised violence). Security was provided by voluntary groups called "thieftakers". Govt police were established ~ 150 years ago against great opposition from many sectors of the public. The rich were happy to have the state subsidise their expensive security.

The "not-so-wild" west: Settlers were moving west faster than the feds. Settlers traveled in convoys for security and before joining a convoy one had to sign a contract stipulating how justice would be supplied. Usually each person would choose a judge and the 2 judges would jointly choose a 3rd. Once settled justice was still supplied privately. The "gunslingers" generally preferred to rent themselves out to catch theives and murderers rather than become outlaws themselves. In California the miners set up courts to mediate claims. They remarked on how much crime increased when the Feds arrived.

More recent examples:

'60s New York: During a week long police strike crime increased....not at all.

African Tribe with hard to remember name: A study in the 50s of some African tribe observed how they provided justice without the state. If there was an argument it was mediated by a strong and respected member of the community with a good reputation for this sort of thing. Most punishment was in the form of fines and killers were declared outlaw, meaning anyone could kill them in retaliation without legal repercussions.

Somalia: Often pointed to as an example of dysfunctional anarchy many parts of Somalia are peaceful, namely the parts where govt was never strong. The non peaceful parts such as Mogadishu are basically in civil war between rival would be govts, not a stateless society.

Modern America: Many towns now contract out police services. In the example I saw read about the private police cost half the price and actually reduced crime substantially (about a third or something) by preventing rather than solving crime.

Most provision of protection is already private: locks, alarms, neighbourhood watch, guns, dogs etc. And the police just couldn't work at all without the cooperation of the public as witnesses etc.

The common features of private law are: Private property (sorry Kip, deal with it), restitution rather than punishment, shunning as punishment, mutual aid groups and respect for courts. Whenever private law has been subsumed by state law a marked worsening in crime has occured and a move towards incarceration rather than restitution meaning that the victim is neglected rather than "made whole again".

Links: Private law - http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm
Ireland - http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/1_2/1_2_1.pdf
England - http://libertariannation.org/a/f21l1.html
Iceland - http://libertariannation.org/a/f13l1.html
"Wild" west: - http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf
Primitive societies - http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_1.pdf
What it might look like today (just a guess, mind) - http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty11.asp
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html