Hambone10 Wrote:We have 200 years of reasons why the free market systems can't be charged with running everything... and if you're a true history buff... thousands of years of it...

It's not that businesses are by their nature, BAD... but they are out for their singular purpose. To make money. They do so by maximizing income and maintaining costs. They want a lower cost to get more customers, so they must work on the areas they can more easily control... Costs. Taking care of their employees or the environment is only a tertiary concern.

We have WAY too much government right now, and they are making WAY too many decisions... but to advocate throwing the baby out with the bathwater makes one appear to be foolish.

Sure, for many government programs there should be/are/can be private alternatives for those who wish to avail themselves of that option... but the government program sets the minimum acceptable standard...

You can't ask consumers, many of whom do not have choices by virtue of education, information, finances or opportunity to drive costs down AND maintain quality levels.

Not to be annoying...but...Id say we have 200+ years governmental intererence in the free market to prove that government is the one that is failing with running things...not the free market.

In a total free market...without government and public property...the consumer would drive everything though his free choice of who he wished to buy good and services from. If a company got the reputation of abusing employees,using unethical business practices,selling harmful or dangerous goods or doing
anything that the consumer was opposed to...the consumer simply would withdraw business and through market signals,effect that company to change...or go out of business.

The problem we have today is the inteference in the free market through govt. subsidies,union collusion,environmental regulation,licencing,and an untold other thousands of govt. regulations that stiffle busineses and make entry into markets very hard for newcomers.....The consumer IS capable of effecting change and regulating the free market without the need for government to be involved.

perunapower Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:All of your above examples can be handled by those seeking profit in the free market/without government....I understand that with a statist education(I include myself) that these concepts are hard to grasp....I suggest that you do as I have done...expand your knowlege of free market principles.

Here's an example that I believe shows the pure idealism on which your philosophy is based.

There is a road in one of the poorest neighborhoods in the the city. This road is riddled with potholes and needs the lane markers repainted, normal wear and tear on a roadway. Also, the crime in the poor neighborhood soars because of the lack of police presence in the neighborhood. The richer neighborhoods band together and pitch in money to repair their roadways and pay policemen to patrol the richer neighborhoods. The poor neighborhoods have difficulty paying their mortgages, for food, and for gas to get to work, so there isn't any money left over for police patrol and roadway maintenance. How do the problems in the poorer neighborhoods get fixed? Are they supposed to rely on charity from the rich? (Good luck with that if they are.)

That doesn't even tackle the problem of organizing the funds to undertake such projects. As soon as you organize a body to oversee all of this you've created a type of government.

Quote:The beauty of a true free market society is that you do not have to know HOW it will work...All you need to know is those in seek of profit will figure out the details by responding to market signals.

I'm sorry, but if you can't come up with specific solutions to tasks that the government currently does other than to say, "Oh the free market will take care of it," then your theory is worthless.

How will it work? That is a legitimately posed question. Those in seek of profit will seek the highest bidder and because society isn't equally distributed with wealth, societal problems will not be equally resolved. A free market may work on a limited small scale environment, but it is another animal when you try to extrapolate that example to the whole of society.

OK...If I must.

Your example of poor communities being unable to get the roads fixed or have protection would not be a problem in a truely free market paradigm....Since there would be ONLY private property, the poor would likely not own homes or roads...they would mostly do as they do today...rent. Since the owners of these homes and roads would surely want them to be maintained...That would occur. To not do so would certainly mean a deterioration and loss of value of the property....Do you maintain your property?...Yes

As for police,fire or protection services...The same thing would happen. Since the owners of property would be concerned with keeping thier property safe...they would surely contract with a protection agency to handle that function...Do you have insurance on your property?...Yes.

I think you underestimate the amount of charity that occurs in our nation today...and it occurs even though half of incomes are stolen before we get to dispurse them into the economy. Certainly without that theft...there would be twice the amount of disposable income to donate to charity.

Now...I can go on and on and on trying to explain how the government screws up the free market....Im no expert and I totally understand that this will NEVER happen since we have been indoctrinated as children to believe that the state is to be worshiped and obeyed....Im just here as a reminder that Central Control has never worked in any society in history but for a short time...I firmly believe we are in the slow decline of our experiment.

Can our rep. republic be prolonged and evolved...Yes...a good start would be a new constitutional convention and an updating and clarification of the document to remove from it as much central government power as possible,returning it to the states and citizens.

jh Wrote:

perunapower Wrote:My mistake, I worded my challenge poorly. I'm still waiting on free marketeers to come up with specific solutions to the tasks our government currently does (i.e. police, fire, infrastructure construction and maintenance, etc.). I was trying to echo my challenge from the longer post above, but I obviously failed to do so.

I'm not an actual free marketeer because I believe that the free markets only function properly when a government exists to protect private property & other rights (and that a government is the inevitable outcome of any attempt to provide such protection). Anarchy, even peaceful free marketeer anarchy, is an unstable equilibrium.

One thing I would like to point out, though, is that what you are rightly afraid would happen under the "free marketeer" system is already happening under the governmental system. As you point out in your examples, the poor areas are currently underserved by governmental services such as police protection & road maintenance. I'm sure that even in communists societies those with more resources were able to leverage those resources to get better service. Would it be worse under the free marketeer system? Possibly, but it's really hard to tell.

good points... I contend that since only private property would exist...Owners of that property would do a better job of providing thoses services that is currently being done...They would simply have an incentive to do so....Goverment never has the incentive,since it can steal from you to accomplish its goals.

jh Wrote:The free market solution to illegal immigration is to end all immigration quotas. Capitalism & the free market both depend on the free flow of labor & capital across national boundaries (I'm pretty sure I stole that from Adam Smith but I'm not going to look it up). Illegal immigration is ended in one fell swoop (aside from those actually coming in to do us harm).

Since the immigrants are no longer illegal they aren't forced to work for substandard wages & in substandard conditions, thereby not depressing wages (of course there would be no minimum wage either so the effect on wages might be harder to estimate). Since there would be no welfare or other government entiltements, those who were unwilling to work would be more likely to return to their own countries.

This:ncaabbs:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:OK...If I must.

Your example of poor communities being unable to get the roads fixed or have protection would not be a problem in a truely free market paradigm....Since there would be ONLY private property, the poor would likely not own homes or roads...they would mostly do as they do today...rent. Since the owners of these homes and roads would surely want them to be maintained...That would occur. To not do so would certainly mean a deterioration and loss of value of the property....Do you maintain your property?...Yes

As for police,fire or protection services...The same thing would happen. Since the owners of property would be concerned with keeping thier property safe...they would surely contract with a protection agency to handle that function...Do you have insurance on your property?...Yes.

I think you underestimate the amount of charity that occurs in our nation today...and it occurs even though half of incomes are stolen before we get to dispurse them into the economy. Certainly without that theft...there would be twice the amount of disposable income to donate to charity.

Now...I can go on and on and on trying to explain how the government screws up the free market....Im no expert and I totally understand that this will NEVER happen since we have been indoctrinated as children to believe that the state is to be worshiped and obeyed....Im just here as a reminder that Central Control has never worked in any society in history but for a short time...I firmly believe we are in the slow decline of our experiment.

Can our rep. republic be prolonged and evolved...Yes...a good start would be a new constitutional convention and an updating and clarification of the document to remove from it as much central government power as possible,returning it to the states and citizens.

So the well-being of the poor would be left up to the few rich because they can't even afford their own housing. Congratulations, you just created a oligarchical society.

What makes you so sure that owners would properly maintain their rent houses? Why wouldn't they spend their money on a dozen plasma TVs to adorn every room in their house? They are quite unlikely to supply adequate services to their rent houses, in my opinion. You also have a police force more partial to the aristocratic caste you've established as all of the property owners. Police and fire services know where their paycheck comes from, so naturally they will be more partial to the aristocratic class. Whenever you place that much societal power in the hands of a few, it rarely ends up well.

perunapower Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:OK...If I must.

Your example of poor communities being unable to get the roads fixed or have protection would not be a problem in a truely free market paradigm....Since there would be ONLY private property, the poor would likely not own homes or roads...they would mostly do as they do today...rent. Since the owners of these homes and roads would surely want them to be maintained...That would occur. To not do so would certainly mean a deterioration and loss of value of the property....Do you maintain your property?...Yes

As for police,fire or protection services...The same thing would happen. Since the owners of property would be concerned with keeping thier property safe...they would surely contract with a protection agency to handle that function...Do you have insurance on your property?...Yes.

I think you underestimate the amount of charity that occurs in our nation today...and it occurs even though half of incomes are stolen before we get to dispurse them into the economy. Certainly without that theft...there would be twice the amount of disposable income to donate to charity.

Now...I can go on and on and on trying to explain how the government screws up the free market....Im no expert and I totally understand that this will NEVER happen since we have been indoctrinated as children to believe that the state is to be worshiped and obeyed....Im just here as a reminder that Central Control has never worked in any society in history but for a short time...I firmly believe we are in the slow decline of our experiment.

Can our rep. republic be prolonged and evolved...Yes...a good start would be a new constitutional convention and an updating and clarification of the document to remove from it as much central government power as possible,returning it to the states and citizens.

So the well-being of the poor would be left up to the few rich because they can't even afford their own housing. Congratulations, you just created a oligarchical society.

What makes you so sure that owners would properly maintain their rent houses? Why wouldn't they spend their money on a dozen plasma TVs to adorn every room in their house? They are quite unlikely to supply adequate services to their rent houses, in my opinion. You also have a police force more partial to the aristocratic caste you've established as all of the property owners. Police and fire services know where their paycheck comes from, so naturally they will be more partial to the aristocratic class. Whenever you place that much societal power in the hands of a few, it rarely ends up well.

I contend that there will be far fewer poor due to an unhindered free market. Without regulation people would be free to work.."untaxed" and be allowed to spend their income any way they wish. Much more disposable income would be available to everyone...and..since a free market monetary system(that would be based on assets, not promises) and could not be inflated..the poor would benefit through actual value of their currency.

Landlords could certainly decide to not maintain their structures. But what if by the lack of maintance and sanitation, a tenant is harmed? Would the landlord not be liable for damages? Would it not be in his best intrest to maintain a safe structure? What if the building collasped due to his neglegence and damaged adjacent structures? Would he not be liable for those damages also?...My point is that failure to maintain your property would be at your own risk.

If you contract with someone and they do not live up to the contract...what do you do?....You take them to arbitration.
The same thing would occur with your police example...If the protection agency that you contracted with broke the contract...they would be libel for damages...It simply would not be in the business intrest of these contractors to do shoddy work.

One thing you mention...I totally agree with..."When ever you place societal power in the hands of the few it rarely ends up well."
Our current system of government totally backs up your assertion.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:I contend that there will be far fewer poor due to an unhindered free market. Without regulation people would be free to work.."untaxed" and be allowed to spend their income any way they wish. Much more disposable income would be available to everyone...and..since a free market monetary system(that would be based on assets, not promises) and could not be inflated..the poor would benefit through actual value of their currency.

Landlords could certainly decide to not maintain their structures. But what if by the lack of maintance and sanitation, a tenant is harmed? Would the landlord not be liable for damages? Would it not be in his best intrest to maintain a safe structure? What if the building collasped due to his neglegence and damaged adjacent structures? Would he not be liable for those damages also?...My point is that failure to maintain your property would be at your own risk.

If you contract with someone and they do not live up to the contract...what do you do?....You take them to arbitration.
The same thing would occur with your police example...If the protection agency that you contracted with broke the contract...they would be libel for damages...It simply would not be in the business intrest of these contractors to do shoddy work.

One thing you mention...I totally agree with..."When ever you place societal power in the hands of the few it rarely ends up well."
Our current system of government totally backs up your assertion.

That's all fine and dandy if everyone is ethical and is gracious to the renting class. People desire power. It's been that way for thousands of years. If you put a class of people in charge of the well-being of others (their housing, their safety, their infrastructure), haven't you, in essence, created a government supporting the poor? Aren't these poor people having to pay this "government"? The rich people are now paying for all the infrastructure, police, fire, etc. and the poor are relying upon them.

As for being liable for damages, who would they be liable to? Are they going to a commercial judge? Wouldn't the judge be swayed, at times, by the party who paid him the most money?

If you have enough money, you could buy your own community and become the dictator of it with no one really to stop you. If you get enough of this monopolization of communities, you get a bunch of dictator-run communities. Then, this free market system breaks down. People can only live in these communities run by a few, where the few can squeeze the money right out of you to enrich their own pockets, because that's what some people tend to do. In this scenario, the world has reverted to medieval Europe, back to a type of feudal system.

Now that was just one possibility. The problem that is deeply ingrained in a free market system is that not everyone has the same wealth. There are the poor, who you said would have to depend on the wealthy for protection, housing, etc., and you have a middle class, who would just probably own their homes and could afford some modest things, and you have the extremely wealthy, who would be able to "own" people by controlling their housing, protection, etc. Eventually the gap between the wealthy and the poor would become a wide chasm because of economic turbulence, eliminating any way for the poor to work through the caste system. Some of the middle class would make poor business decisions and would slip into the poor class; some would make excellent decisions and would be able to buy other houses for the poor to rent, becoming part of the elite class.

perunapower Wrote:[quote=Fo Shizzle]
I contend that there will be far fewer poor due to an unhindered free market. Without regulation people would be free to work.."untaxed" and be allowed to spend their income any way they wish. Much more disposable income would be available to everyone...and..since a free market monetary system(that would be based on assets, not promises) and could not be inflated..the poor would benefit through actual value of their currency.

Landlords could certainly decide to not maintain their structures. But what if by the lack of maintance and sanitation, a tenant is harmed? Would the landlord not be liable for damages? Would it not be in his best intrest to maintain a safe structure? What if the building collasped due to his neglegence and damaged adjacent structures? Would he not be liable for those damages also?...My point is that failure to maintain your property would be at your own risk.

If you contract with someone and they do not live up to the contract...what do you do?....You take them to arbitration.
The same thing would occur with your police example...If the protection agency that you contracted with broke the contract...they would be libel for damages...It simply would not be in the business intrest of these contractors to do shoddy work.

One thing you mention...I totally agree with..."When ever you place societal power in the hands of the few it rarely ends up well."
Our current system of government totally backs up your assertion.

Quote:That's all fine and dandy if everyone is ethical and is gracious to the renting class. People desire power. It's been that way for thousands of years. If you put a class of people in charge of the well-being of others (their housing, their safety, their infrastructure), haven't you, in essence, created a government supporting the poor? Aren't these poor people having to pay this "government"? The rich people are now paying for all the infrastructure, police, fire, etc. and the poor are relying upon them.

You make good points...but..the difference is that if you encounter an unethical landlord...you just leave and find one that is ethical....You have no options if you depend on the "one size fits all" government solutions.

Quote:As for being liable for damages, who would they be liable to? Are they going to a commercial judge? Wouldn't the judge be swayed, at times, by the party who paid him the most money?

This is easy....In FMS you would still have a system of arbitration that would handle disputes...We already are seeing this happening today because of the inefficent court system we currently have. People would contract with a DRO (dispute resolution organization) much like and insurance company...that would protect them and represent them against allegations from others that sought damages.
These companies would be incompetition with each other for business and would also allow a 3rd party to review any settlements for accuracy and fraud. Since the poor might have trouble affording these DROs...DROs would pop up(like the ACLU) to handle those who had limited resources. All parties would submit to binding arbitration and would have to abide by the settlements or be subject to garnishment,ostracism,loss of market share or in extreme cases...forced labor to pay the judgement.

Quote:If you have enough money, you could buy your own community and become the dictator of it with no one really to stop you. If you get enough of this monopolization of communities, you get a bunch of dictator-run communities. Then, this free market system breaks down. People can only live in these communities run by a few, where the few can squeeze the money right out of you to enrich their own pockets, because that's what some people tend to do. In this scenario, the world has reverted to medieval Europe, back to a type of feudal system.

This is certainly a possiblilty and anyone that chose this type of existance would be allowed to do so...but...keep in mind that in a FMS..consumers drive the market...and businesses do not have to trade with those that they dont wish to...So if you wish to live in this manner, you better be able to provide for yourself all the goods and services you need because you may become ostracised by others for your actions and find this existance very hard.

Quote:Now that was just one possibility. The problem that is deeply ingrained in a free market system is that not everyone has the same wealth. There are the poor, who you said would have to depend on the wealthy for protection, housing, etc., and you have a middle class, who would just probably own their homes and could afford some modest things, and you have the extremely wealthy, who would be able to "own" people by controlling their housing, protection, etc. Eventually the gap between the wealthy and the poor would become a wide chasm because of economic turbulence, eliminating any way for the poor to work through the caste system. Some of the middle class would make poor business decisions and would slip into the poor class; some would make excellent decisions and would be able to buy other houses for the poor to rent, becoming part of the elite class.

I dont agree the assertion that in a FMS that it would be harder to advance in economic status....In fact before our current government decided to interfere and "help" people...more people found their way out of poverty on their own than any period of our shistory. Just the removal of taxation and regulation would stem a economic boom that we could not even imagine....There will always be economic classes...it can be no other way. In a FMS...charity would get to those that deserved it..not..want it.

We've been there before. I think you would just go back to a time of less regulation, only worse. Let's say, late 1800s. You still have economic boom times and financial panics. You have guys like Rockefeller and Carnegie collecting all the money while most workers are working 6 or 7 days a week to put food on the table. Not enough workers would make enough money to buy a lot of consumer goods so the economy would stabilize (somewhat) at a lower level than what we have today. (The CEOs of course have more money than they can possibly spend). You have a wider gap between rich and poor, and fewer middle class people. Companies would form monopolies and thus would not have to operate ethically because consumers would not have a choice. Arbritration would not work because the arbitraters would be friends of the CEOs and would rule in favor of the high bidder. Just like judges used to get paid off by guys like Jay Gould, Vanderbilt, etc.

You would have robber barons manipulating the stock market. Unions would form but strikes would be put down my armies paid for by the CEOs. Fights would break out between the armies of different companies. You would have more desperation and more crime.

There's a reason that regulations were introduced. They're the only reason this country survived turbulent times, by taming the excesses of the market.

NIU007 Wrote:We've been there before. I think you would just go back to a time of less regulation, only worse. Let's say, late 1800s. You still have economic boom times and financial panics. You have guys like Rockefeller and Carnegie collecting all the money while most workers are working 6 or 7 days a week to put food on the table. Not enough workers would make enough money to buy a lot of consumer goods so the economy would stabilize (somewhat) at a lower level than what we have today. (The CEOs of course have more money than they can possibly spend). You have a wider gap between rich and poor, and fewer middle class people. Companies would form monopolies and thus would not have to operate ethically because consumers would not have a choice. Arbritration would not work because the arbitraters would be friends of the CEOs and would rule in favor of the high bidder. Just like judges used to get paid off by guys like Jay Gould, Vanderbilt, etc.

You would have robber barons manipulating the stock market. Unions would form but strikes would be put down my armies paid for by the CEOs. Fights would break out between the armies of different companies. You would have more desperation and more crime.

There's a reason that regulations were introduced. They're the only reason this country survived turbulent times, by taming the excesses of the market.

Im sorry...I dont think that assertion is valid for a logical reason. The workers that you think were so abused by working long hours in so-called sweatshops...came to these jobs because thier lives of farming subsistance were much worse. It doesnt take a PHD in economics to understand that if subsistance farming had been a great way of life...these people would have stayed on the farm.

In addition...These people experienced the greatest shift of prosperity in our nations history. Most of these workers became part a very thriving upper middle class and even upper class...We will not likely ever see such poverty stricken people rise from the ashes and achieve as these people did. Thank goodness for the "robber barrons". Without them most of us would still be in poverty.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:

NIU007 Wrote:We've been there before. I think you would just go back to a time of less regulation, only worse. Let's say, late 1800s. You still have economic boom times and financial panics. You have guys like Rockefeller and Carnegie collecting all the money while most workers are working 6 or 7 days a week to put food on the table. Not enough workers would make enough money to buy a lot of consumer goods so the economy would stabilize (somewhat) at a lower level than what we have today. (The CEOs of course have more money than they can possibly spend). You have a wider gap between rich and poor, and fewer middle class people. Companies would form monopolies and thus would not have to operate ethically because consumers would not have a choice. Arbritration would not work because the arbitraters would be friends of the CEOs and would rule in favor of the high bidder. Just like judges used to get paid off by guys like Jay Gould, Vanderbilt, etc.

You would have robber barons manipulating the stock market. Unions would form but strikes would be put down my armies paid for by the CEOs. Fights would break out between the armies of different companies. You would have more desperation and more crime.

There's a reason that regulations were introduced. They're the only reason this country survived turbulent times, by taming the excesses of the market.

Im sorry...I dont think that assertion is valid for a logical reason. The workers that you think were so abused by working long hours in so-called sweatshops...came to these jobs because thier lives of farming subsistance were much worse. It doesnt take a PHD in economics to understand that if subsistance farming had been a great way of life...these people would have stayed on the farm.

In addition...These people experienced the greatest shift of prosperity in our nations history. Most of these workers became part a very thriving upper middle class and even upper class...We will not likely ever see such poverty stricken people rise from the ashes and achieve as these people did. Thank goodness for the "robber barrons". Without them most of us would still be in poverty.

Most of these workers became upper middle class and upper class? How do you know that?
Unfettered capitalism will never be an improvement over what we have now. Smaller government maybe. No government? Good luck with that.

No, the robber barons enriched themselves at the expense of the very corporations they ran, shareholders, and anyone that had any interest on the company. Judges were paid off to rule in their favor. Legislators were paid off to pass laws in their favor. I'm not so much talking Rockefeller and Carnegie here. I'm talking Gould, Jim Fisk, Daniel Drew, Cornelius Vanderbilt, people like that. These are just some of the better known ones. And even then there were some regulations. Even then you had a government.

NIU007 Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:

NIU007 Wrote:We've been there before. I think you would just go back to a time of less regulation, only worse. Let's say, late 1800s. You still have economic boom times and financial panics. You have guys like Rockefeller and Carnegie collecting all the money while most workers are working 6 or 7 days a week to put food on the table. Not enough workers would make enough money to buy a lot of consumer goods so the economy would stabilize (somewhat) at a lower level than what we have today. (The CEOs of course have more money than they can possibly spend). You have a wider gap between rich and poor, and fewer middle class people. Companies would form monopolies and thus would not have to operate ethically because consumers would not have a choice. Arbritration would not work because the arbitraters would be friends of the CEOs and would rule in favor of the high bidder. Just like judges used to get paid off by guys like Jay Gould, Vanderbilt, etc.

You would have robber barons manipulating the stock market. Unions would form but strikes would be put down my armies paid for by the CEOs. Fights would break out between the armies of different companies. You would have more desperation and more crime.

There's a reason that regulations were introduced. They're the only reason this country survived turbulent times, by taming the excesses of the market.

Im sorry...I dont think that assertion is valid for a logical reason. The workers that you think were so abused by working long hours in so-called sweatshops...came to these jobs because thier lives of farming subsistance were much worse. It doesnt take a PHD in economics to understand that if subsistance farming had been a great way of life...these people would have stayed on the farm.

In addition...These people experienced the greatest shift of prosperity in our nations history. Most of these workers became part a very thriving upper middle class and even upper class...We will not likely ever see such poverty stricken people rise from the ashes and achieve as these people did. Thank goodness for the "robber barrons". Without them most of us would still be in poverty.

Most of these workers became upper middle class and upper class? How do you know that?
Unfettered capitalism will never be an improvement over what we have now. Smaller government maybe. No government? Good luck with that.

No, the robber barons enriched themselves at the expense of the very corporations they ran, shareholders, and anyone that had any interest on the company. Judges were paid off to rule in their favor. Legislators were paid off to pass laws in their favor. I'm not so much talking Rockefeller and Carnegie here. I'm talking Gould, Jim Fisk, Daniel Drew, Cornelius Vanderbilt, people like that. These are just some of the better known ones. And even then there were some regulations. Even then you had a government.

The industrial revolution brought more people out of poverty and into prosperity than in any period of our history.
I dont deny that there were unvirturous businessmen...but so what?

You are living in a dream world, Fo Shizzle. If there is no regulation and companies are free to do as they wish, then markets can be cornered and monopolies formed. Neither of these are at all helpful to the consumer. It is because of the unethical behavior of businesses and even consumers that there are regulations.

You want there to be no taxes and want each person to be able to support whatever they want. One of the government's jobs is to bring together people's priorities and ideas and focus them on specific tasks. If you fragment the government down to the individual, society would be painfully inefficient. Sure little things would be easy to take care of, but the bigger things would be much more difficult. Monies going to police, fire, infrastructure would be so sporadic that it would be difficult to do anything. Some people wouldn't give at all and would just sit on their money thinking someone else will pay for it.

Without some kind of bonding agent, being the government, a splintered, diverse society could never be brought together to accomplish anything. That's why people get elected to represent us, so 300 million people aren't trying to coordinate something.

Regardless, I know some of the principles of a free market system seem great, but having idealistic and unrealistic perceptions of society makes the system not a viable solution to our current government.

perunapower Wrote:You are living in a dream world, Fo Shizzle. If there is no regulation and companies are free to do as they wish, then markets can be cornered and monopolies formed. Neither of these are at all helpful to the consumer. It is because of the unethical behavior of businesses and even consumers that there are regulations.

You want there to be no taxes and want each person to be able to support whatever they want. One of the government's jobs is to bring together people's priorities and ideas and focus them on specific tasks. If you fragment the government down to the individual, society would be painfully inefficient. Sure little things would be easy to take care of, but the bigger things would be much more difficult. Monies going to police, fire, infrastructure would be so sporadic that it would be difficult to do anything. Some people wouldn't give at all and would just sit on their money thinking someone else will pay for it.

Without some kind of bonding agent, being the government, a splintered, diverse society could never be brought together to accomplish anything. That's why people get elected to represent us, so 300 million people aren't trying to coordinate something.

Regardless, I know some of the principles of a free market system seem great, but having idealistic and unrealistic perceptions of society makes the system not a viable solution to our current government.

Thanks for the compliment...I do dream for a world without the force of government.

We will have to agree to disagree....I have total faith in the free market and mans ablility to self-govern. I have almost no faith in government and the entire history of man to back up my assertion that government is the most evil idea ever concieved....Just in the 20th century over 170,000,000 people have been either murdered or gave up thier lives for this fallacy of liberty....All governments eventually end up emploding...What makes us think that this one will somehow escape that fate?

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Thanks for the compliment...I do dream for a world without the force of government.

We will have to agree to disagree....I have total faith in the free market and mans ablility to self-govern. I have almost no faith in government and the entire history of man to back up my assertion that government is the most evil idea ever concieved....Just in the 20th century over 170,000,000 people have been either murdered or gave up thier lives for this fallacy of liberty....All governments eventually end up emploding...What makes us think that this one will somehow escape that fate?

True. No government has stood the through the sands of time, but anarchy obviously hasn't worked or there would be more of those after thousands of years. History backs that up too.

Your faith in humanity is naive, at best, because what are governments a but an organized group of people. They don't lose their human nature just because the official name has changed.

Perhaps it is just better to agree to disagree though.

perunapower Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Thanks for the compliment...I do dream for a world without the force of government.

We will have to agree to disagree....I have total faith in the free market and mans ablility to self-govern. I have almost no faith in government and the entire history of man to back up my assertion that government is the most evil idea ever concieved....Just in the 20th century over 170,000,000 people have been either murdered or gave up thier lives for this fallacy of liberty....All governments eventually end up emploding...What makes us think that this one will somehow escape that fate?

True. No government has stood the through the sands of time, but anarchy obviously hasn't worked or there would be more of those after thousands of years. History backs that up too.

Your faith in humanity is naive, at best, because what are governments a but an organized group of people. They don't lose their human nature just because the official name has changed.

Perhaps it is just better to agree to disagree though.

Im sorry...but...Other than aprox. 500yr ancient Icelandic example of anarchy(which was not true anarchy..since there were tribal chiefs)...true anarchy has never been allowed to flourish....Somebody always get a bright idea to start some kind of government to "rule" over people.

Id say its more naive to have faith in government than to have faith in mans ability to self-govern....since about 99.9% of both or our days are carried on doing just that...governing ourselves.

Shed the statist paradigm....reject violence.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Im sorry...but...Other than aprox. 500yr ancient Icelandic example of anarchy(which was not true anarchy..since there were tribal chiefs)...true anarchy has never been allowed to flourish....Somebody always get a bright idea to start some kind of government to "rule" over people.

Id say its more naive to have faith in government than to have faith in mans ability to self-govern....since about 99.9% of both or our days are carried on doing just that...governing ourselves.

Shed the statist paradigm....reject violence.

It was about 300 years in 10th through 12th century Iceland. Hardly comparable to today.

Anarchy doesn't last because it's impossible to maintain. Not everyone is virtuous and you have no system of protection. We live 100% of our lives being governed: we still have rules to abide by and we still have to pay taxes. Yes, we mostly get free choice, but there are still limitations to what we can legally choose.

What do a statist paradigm, not that I'm a statist because that involves wanting highly centralized government with the government controlling everything, and accepting violence have to do with each other?

Quit using falsities and using loaded language to get your point across.

perunapower Wrote:[quote=Fo Shizzle]
Im sorry...but...Other than aprox. 500yr ancient Icelandic example of anarchy(which was not true anarchy..since there were tribal chiefs)...true anarchy has never been allowed to flourish....Somebody always get a bright idea to start some kind of government to "rule" over people.

Id say its more naive to have faith in government than to have faith in mans ability to self-govern....since about 99.9% of both or our days are carried on doing just that...governing ourselves.

Shed the statist paradigm....reject violence.

It was about 300 years in 10th through 12th century Iceland. Hardly comparable to today.

Quote: We live 100% of our lives being governed:

Man...Im glad I dont live your life.

Quote:What do a statist paradigm..... and accepting violence have to do with each other?

Theres nothing negative about being a statist...most people are...If you accept "any" form of govermnent you are statist.

If you accept any form of government...you must also accept the violence that government uses against its citizens....Government is at its essence...force and violence. Stop allowing the theft of your wages or stop paying for the use of your property and see how long it takes before a government goon squad comes and uses force and violence against you.....Google Ed and Elaine Brown

Fo Shizzle, you've noted several times that governements tend to expand at the expense of individual liberty. While this is true, I think it's more of a symptom of a greater problem, rather than the root cause. I think the actual tendancy is for power to expand, whatever its nature. Those in power want more, and since they are the powerful, they take it.

The problem with anarchy in a complex society such as ours is that there still must exist powerful organizations to enforce rules, such as the arbitration companies you've suggested. What will stop these groups from expanding the scope & breadth of their powers until they become defacto governments themselves? And unfortunately, the ones to rise to the top are more likely to be the most restrictive and ruthless.

I believe a more prudent course is to set power against power. A divided government, similar to the ones our founders envisioned, with checks and balances to try & slow down the loss of liberty.

You have lost your mind, Fo Shizzle.

You are governed. Every action you take and every thought you make aren't explicitly governed, but we have limitations. If you don't see that as being governed, what do you see it as?

A statist is defined as one who believes in the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty. That's not what most people, especially myself, believe in. You have twisted your definitions and lost sight of reality.

Ed and Elaine Brown were a belligerent couple who stockpiled a weapons cache in their New Hampshire house. Because they failed to report over $1.31 million in income over several years and failed to pay over $600,000 in taxes, the government has every right to arrest them. When the Browns decided to open fire on officers, the officers had every right to defend themselves and do their job. Is this a serious example?

If you live in the United States, you have to abide by United States law. Simple as that.

Government is supposed to maintain security and protect order. jh is right, in an anarchy there is nothing to stop the richer caste, the hired police squads, or the DROs (all of which are present in your little utopian society) from lusting for more power over more people until it becomes a de facto government.