The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

#576
#576
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Sure it would. First of all, you wouldn't be paying all the taxes we are now, therefore prices would naturally be cheaper.
The market would actually decide the prices.
Click to expand...

Also most all of the basics would explode in price. Water, food, energy prices would go through the roof. Not to mention the money you would have to pay for protection. All of these costs would be passed on, it would make our taxes look like a bargain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#577
#577
n_huffhines said:
Actually, that's how things operate now. If you don't pay what the courts find you to owe, they are backed by an armed protection agency who has a monopoly on force. The only difference is there would be more than one protection agency.
Click to expand...

However we have a legal system with codified law so you have means of disputing rulings (and at least some idea of what the rules are).

In your "norms" based world there is no legal system per se; only thousands of disputing protection agencies and arbitrators all making decisions on what will yield them the greatest profits.

Norms will vary as will interpretations of norms so even if you accept notion that these agencies would only act on behalf of "good" actors there is still considerable variance in what "good" means.

In the end, it will be determined by might. The effect of competition will be felt long after the individual has been impacted.
 
#578
#578
hog88 said:
Also most all of the basics would explode in price. Water, food, energy prices would go through the roof. Not to mention the money you would have to pay for protection. All of these costs would be passed on, it would make our taxes look like a bargain.
Click to expand...

That's a statement, not an argument. Care to explain why prices would suddenly explode?
 
#579
#579
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Sure it would. First of all, you wouldn't be paying all the taxes we are now, therefore prices would naturally be cheaper.
The market would actually decide the prices.
Click to expand...

Since we are using Milton Friedman here you can't ignore TANSTAAFL

Just because you wouldn't be paying taxes doesn't mean the costs which taxes support wouldn't have still have to be borne somewhere in the system.

Some products we buy are cheaper than the naturally would be and some are more expensive
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#580
#580
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
That's a statement, not an argument. Care to explain why prices would suddenly explode?
Click to expand...

1) we enjoy relative stability now, that keeps costs in check. Stability would be out the window with A/C
2) Food - if farmers got to set there price point for their products food prices would be 50-60% higher today on the low end.
3) Right now most of our utilities are regulated, they have set areas where only they can service and many are subsidized. In a free for all the local water department can charge what they will. To put in competing infrastructure would be cost prohibitive for a competitor.
4) Energy - Most energy has to be transported over vast distances. Without a stable and standard infrastructure costs would be immense to distribute. Not to mention security costs and the fact areas with readily available resources could hold another area hostage.
 
#581
#581
volinbham said:
Since we are using Milton Friedman here you can't ignore TANSTAAFL

Just because you wouldn't be paying taxes doesn't mean the costs which taxes support wouldn't have still have to be borne somewhere in the system.

Some products we buy are cheaper than the naturally would be and some are more expensive
Click to expand...

Where would the lack of government regulation influence price?
 
#584
#584
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Where would the lack of government regulation influence price?
Click to expand...

On the plus side it would lower direct production/business costs.

On the negative side it would expand the amount of "contract violations" to be defended.

So if I don't have to follow as many safety regs I can lower my costs but I open myself up to more claims from my workers for unsafe work practices/injuries and from consumers from problems with my products (and whether or not I was negligent)

All these claims would be open to interpretation and require involvement of these protection agencies and arbitration to resolve the claims.

Would it ultimately make things cheaper? I guess since we are over regulated but it would open a whole new set of costs/risks.

Again, you have to look to TANSTAAFL and to our history - when we were more unfettered capitalism there were certainly more abuses of employees and customers. In the AC world with private protection agencies these would be new costs.
 
#585
#585
volinbham said:
Since we are using Milton Friedman here you can't ignore TANSTAAFL

Just because you wouldn't be paying taxes doesn't mean the costs which taxes support wouldn't have still have to be borne somewhere in the system.

Some products we buy are cheaper than the naturally would be and some are more expensive
Click to expand...

Interestingly, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch is Friedman, but the acronym TANSTAAFL was coined by Robert Heinlein in his book The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress which is about anarchy.
 
#586
#586
Anybody with an open mind needs to read up on anarchy. If you think it sounds absurd, you probably don't fully understand it. People who are much smarter than you and I buy into it. I'm not saying they are right, but I am saying they are reasoned. If it doesn't sound reasonable, it might be because you don't get it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#587
#587
n_huffhines said:
Anybody with an open mind needs to read up on anarchy. If you think it sounds absurd, you probably don't fully understand it. People who are much smarter than you and I buy into it. I'm not saying they are right, but I am saying they are reasoned. If it doesn't sound reasonable, it might be because you don't get it.
Click to expand...

The exact same argument can be made about communism.

I don't doubt the sincerity and reasoning behind it and I'm not fully versed in the tenets. However, from what I've seen it suffers the same problems that any idealized system has when it comes to fitting the inherently complex nature of human interaction. I do admit that I need to understand it more.

I would also suggest that hard core advocates may not understand other theories of human behavior.

For example, transaction cost analysis and agency theory both illuminate some of the assumptions I've seen here.
 
#588
#588
n_huffhines said:
With government you don't get to choose your judge. He may or may not be corrupt, but if he is corrupt then society is probably dealing with his corruption for 30 years

If a private arbiter is corrupt, people will stop electing to use his services and society will no longer be hurt by his corruption.
Click to expand...


Ummmmm I guess in the last election there were a lot of guys running that had the first name "Judge", because they were all over the ballot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#589
#589
n_huffhines said:
Because your protection agency won't protect you if you behave badly. You go to arbitration, or you face the farmer's protection agency.
Click to expand...

So then armed thugs would be the ones that determine if "you behave badly"? And make no mistake, it would eventually come down to thuggery, because if I am being harmed, I want the baddest "protection agency" around "defending"me.
 
#590
#590
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Sure, if they have my permission. It's my property after all. and they would have a privilege to cross. They don't have a right to cross over my land however.
The whole rights vs privileges argument ensues.
Click to expand...

I don't recognize your right to tell me where I can or cannot go. My "protection agency" will ensure that I can go where I want, when I want, unimpeded. I pay them very very well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#592
#592
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
That thing called the free market. If word got out in a free America that you were using slaves, you wouldn't be in business long. Cmon hog.
Click to expand...
OK.. where do you draw the line then? You happy with AAPL paying below minimum wages in China to get your inexpensive iPhone? What abou tthem nice looking boxers from Bangladesh? Do you know that they are being well treated there? Is it remotely possible that there is some indentured servitude going on? Naaaah.
 
#593
#593
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
There is a key thing you are missing. In the AnCap world you would voluntarily enter into contract.
Click to expand...

Your assumption is that everyone will honor their contracts. If I decide to break mine, I'll tell you to go spit, and if you want to arbitrate, I'll tell you to go f yourself. If it is financially advantageous to break a contract, it will be done. Just like it is today. Your only recourse is the honor system. Good luck with that.
 
#594
#594
SpaceCoastVol said:
Ummmmm I guess in the last election there were a lot of guys running that had the first name "Judge", because they were all over the ballot.
Click to expand...

Do you want to choose from the few widgets government makes, or from the dozens of competitive widgets the market produces?

With government the choice is limited, and a vote isn't exactly a choice. Would you like to choose your car or vote for a car and hopefully get the one you wanted?
 
#595
#595
SpaceCoastVol said:
Your assumption is that everyone will honor their contracts. If I decide to break mine, I'll tell you to go spit, and if you want to arbitrate, I'll tell you to go f yourself. If it is financially advantageous to break a contract, it will be done. Just like it is today. Your only recourse is the honor system. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

But it's not financially advantageous. If you refuse to pay, my protection agency will put you in a humane work camp until your debt is worked off. :good!:
 
#600
#600
n_huffhines said:
Anybody with an open mind needs to read up on anarchy. If you think it sounds absurd, you probably don't fully understand it. People who are much smarter than you and I buy into it. I'm not saying they are right, but I am saying they are reasoned. If it doesn't sound reasonable, it might be because you don't get it.
Click to expand...

Don't fully understand it? That sounds like a cop out. I don't think you guys advocating for it fully understand it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top