Public goods: Fallacy or not? Also, production of security

[Mr Arkadin]

But if it is voluntarily funded, then it is the market price.

Well yes.

As for how Market Anarchy is different than than USA/UK...
I think that each individual land owner being the government of their own sovereign nation (with non-land-owners being citizens of no country) is impractical. For one thing, it would make everyone have to be a statesman, limiting the potential for division of labor. For another thing, one can live and move and have their being in one of USA/UK, with jurisdiction issues arising only as people travel between them. In Market Anarchy, jurisdiction issues would be way too common, since an average person will travel through many "nations" in their daily activities. So you'd have to be familiar with all the law in all these different nations, as well as the problems that will arise as the laws come in conflict. At that fine of a scope, these issues will become greater of a problem. I'm guessing that there tends to be an optimal point with regards to scope, somewhere greater than that, but less than one-world government.

And as I said before, it seems likely that they would start grouping together into federations for common defense. (And those "states" into larger federations, in some kind of hierarchy).

Being sovereign owner of one's own land does not mean one needs to be a statesmen; merely a businessmen able to strike deals. If these deals are beneficial they will take place and the division of labour will take place as normal; and even better than normal. You rightly point out that many different legal codes will cause problems so what we'd expect is a standardisation of legal codes in the same way in which money arises. This can be seen historically with merchant law which solved this very problem. But within this standardisation of law one will still have variety within it with those who contracted to the same law ie. canon or sharia- but when dealing with outsiders they'll revert to the standard law.

People grouping together for defence is a natural process and can be undertaken by insurance companies since they can lower the risks by pooling lots of resources but need not be territoriality bound, which is great since it would be very difficult to wipe them out by competing firms because you won't be able to defeat them by just taking over their offices in New York. Again though it must be emphasised that this grouping and hierarchy need not be states. As Hoppe rightly points out in another of his work is that a natural elite would arise who would be leaders of society but would not be coercive.

[joel]

Being sovereign owner of one's own land does not mean one needs to be a statesmen; merely a businessmen able to strike deals.

But you'd have the monopoly on the use of force in your land, no?

[Augustine2004]

Joel, you persist in seeing government as a solution to some of our problems when you can't guarantee it would not make our problems worse and/or add more problems.

Good anarchy does not work in that it cannot create heaven on earth for us. However, anyone proposing to have the government attack this or that problem must show that it won't make that worse and/or create new problems.

Anyone demanding to show how good anarchy would work needs to know that we anarchists can't be expected to predict in detail what the anarchistic world would do. I've also complained that if I make assumptions that appear to make good anarchy work, I lay myself open to the accusation that those assumptions are 'too convenient.'

I think it's better to consider whether we can really have good government at all.

[Augustine2004]

Ryokan and AW didn’t seem to understand my arguments against letting the government provide security, but I felt a little better after reading this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/020557.html Perhaps the conditioning to believe in the goodness of government is harder to ‘cure’ than I supposed it would be.

[bridgeforsale]

Ryokan and AW didn’t seem to understand my arguments against letting the government provide security, but I felt a little better after reading this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/020557.html Perhaps the conditioning to believe in the goodness of government is harder to ‘cure’ than I supposed it would be.

what about that article made you feel better? He didn't broach any substantive issues.

The idea that private interests should take over domestic policing and our armed forces seems a bit silly to me. You've yet to really make your case. You posted the Hoppe paper, but that was abstract and never really addressed the cons. You guys simply have an ideology that the market is always better than government yet do not explain how all the problems inherent with allowing some company to patrol my neighborhood have.

1) How would you avoid private security firms having preference for other private interests they have a stake in. For example, ABC security company has the contract to protect Smallville. ABC company also owns interests in one of the local shopping malls. So they show that mall preference over another local mall in providing law enforcement services.

2) How do you deal with the eventuality of anti-market forces like monopoly?

3) How do you deal with collusion in bidding for contracts?

4) How would you deal with small scale bribery (of say local private cops)?

The list goes on and on, and the bottom line at some point you will need policing that is only beholden to the public and the voter, supervised by elected officials who are barred from having conflicting interests.

If you're still going to insist on your solution, please provide point by point solutions to the problems I raised .... which as I said you haven't done.


AW

[Augustine2004]

what about that article made you feel better? He didn't broach any substantive issues.

The idea that private interests should take over domestic policing and our armed forces seems a bit silly to me. You've yet to really make your case. You posted the Hoppe paper, but that was abstract and never really addressed the cons. You guys simply have an ideology that the market is always better than government yet do not explain how all the problems inherent with allowing some company to patrol my neighborhood have.

1) How would you avoid private security firms having preference for other private interests they have a stake in. For example, ABC security company has the contract to protect Smallville. ABC company also owns interests in one of the local shopping malls. So they show that mall preference over another local mall in providing law enforcement services.

2) How do you deal with the eventuality of anti-market forces like monopoly?

3) How do you deal with collusion in bidding for contracts?

4) How would you deal with small scale bribery (of say local private cops)?

The list goes on and on, and the bottom line at some point you will need policing that is only beholden to the public and the voter, supervised by elected officials who are barred from having conflicting interests.

If you're still going to insist on your solution, please provide point by point solutions to the problems I raised .... which as I said you haven't done.

What we have is a failure to read the posts here and thinking through what they are saying. I already said that good anarchy won't give us heaven on earth. There will of course be problems. The question above all is, can we expect the oversize government to do more good than bad? My answer is no. You on the other hand for no reason assume that the answer is yes. Furthermore you appear to want perfection before you'd agree to give up on oversize government.

1) Sure, customers may become dissatisfied with the level of service that they get from a company. So, what they do is to stop buying from the company or hiring it. Then, they either do the work themselves, or find another company.

2) In the first place we have monopolies only because the government creates and maintains them by force or chicanery. Moreover if monopolies did arise in the free market without any sort of force or chicanery, they are NOT anti-market. They exist because customers like them. Microsoft, contrary to what you may think, is as successful as it is mainly because customers like its products and service. As for the possibility that companies may use coercion or chicanery to earn unjust profits, that is no different from having an oversize government. Furthermore, people can sue such companies. I suppose you'd imagine a company so powerful that it just laughs off the lawsuits. That would not be fundamentally different from what we have now, however.

3) I'm not sure what you're thinking. If force or chicanery were used, then people can sue, once they learn what is going on.

4) Let me point out that corruption in government is a chronic major problem. It's a major reason, for example, why we are not winning the war on drugs. Anyway, a local guard accepting bribes in the M world would be no different from a private guard accepting bribes in our present world. Those guards are liable to be fired and prosecuted. We do have many private guards even now.

Look, Hoppe was as abstract as he was, because there are NO exceptions and you surely can't expect him to spend all his time answering specific objection after specific objection. Got any more specific objections anyway?

[bridgeforsale]

well, you haven't really addressed the ones I mentioned, but I think it's my fault because I didn't frame it well enough.

I own a police company. I form close relationships with the other guys who run police companies in the region. We collude and fix prices.

Now I'm getting richer and richer and me and my buddies start investing in shopping malls. We protect our malls but don't protect competing malls. No one goes to competing malls because of crime.

Now some one proclaims they're going to sue me because I'm not a fair guy? Well, I am the law, your gonna sue me? Suddenly the judge gets a visit by the local crack head who invades his home? Well, I might send some cops over or you know on that particular night we might just not be able to respond that quickly. To bad so sad for the poor judge and his family huh? Those crack heads ripped him off, raped his wife, and killed his kid.

This is real life not Hoppe's dream world where everyone operates fairly. Sure, if everyone were born again Christians like us this sort of stuff probably wouldn't happen, of course the only place you'll see that world is in heaven.

You know it occurs to me that Hoppe's dream is being lived in Russia right now ..... mob rule.


AW

[Augustine2004]

well, you haven't really addressed the ones I mentioned, but I think it's my fault because I didn't frame it well enough.

I own a police company. I form close relationships with the other guys who run police companies in the region. We collude and fix prices.

Now I'm getting richer and richer and me and my buddies start investing in shopping malls. We protect our malls but don't protect competing malls. No one goes to competing malls because of crime.

Now some one proclaims they're going to sue me because I'm not a fair guy? Well, I am the law, your gonna sue me? Suddenly the judge gets a visit by the local crack head who invades his home? Well, I might send some cops over or you know on that particular night we might just not be able to respond that quickly. To bad so sad for the poor judge and his family huh? Those crack heads ripped him off, raped his wife, and killed his kid.

This is real life not Hoppe's dream world where everyone operates fairly. Sure, if everyone were born again Christians like us this sort of stuff probably wouldn't happen, of course the only place you'll see that world is in heaven.

You know it occurs to me that Hoppe's dream is being lived in Russia right now ..... mob rule.

Cartels are much discussed by praxeologists. For example pages 12-13 and 349 in For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard ISBN13:978-0-945466-47-5. Let me point out that OPEC is primarily a multi-government agency. Cartels are also usually a fascistic feature. Like single-company monopolies, cartels usually require force and/or chicanery by the government to continue in existence. Suppose, like OPEC, they did arise and exist in the free market anyway. They won’t be as powerful as you suppose. Contrary to popular ‘wisdom,’ OPEC did not have as much influence on the oil prices as people think it does. During the Carter gasoline shortage, OPEC was blamed for the long lines at the gas pumps, but really government policies were to blame.

You imply that you got rich as a result of colluding to fix prices? Why would customers not become dissatisfied and start to provide security for themselves, by arming themselves, getting watchdogs, and do volunteer patrolling?

I cannot say that something like the security company scenario won’t happen. On the other hand, you’ve yet to show that we should expect the government to do more good than bad. There have been many reports of government abuse (waterboarding) and police abuse (reckless and unjustified use of Tasers). Policemen have even extorted property. Rape and murder. Under-enforcement of laws against serious crime.

Any more questions or objections? As for that Russia crack, I just can’t believe you know nothing about Putin. He’s about the most Machiavellian government leader ever.

[joel]

Joel, you persist in seeing government as a solution to some of our problems when you can't guarantee it would not make our problems worse and/or add more problems.

No, I can't guarantee such a thing, but that's not a pre-requisite for taking an action.
Suppose I chose to purchase a new car, in the hopes of improving my quality of life. But I can't possibly guarantee that it will not make my my problems worse and/or add more problems.

[bridgeforsale]

Cartels are much discussed by praxeologists. For example pages 12-13 and 349 in For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard ISBN13:978-0-945466-47-5. Let me point out that OPEC is primarily a multi-government agency. Cartels are also usually a fascistic feature. Like single-company monopolies, cartels usually require force and/or chicanery by the government to continue in existence. Suppose, like OPEC, they did arise and exist in the free market anyway. They won’t be as powerful as you suppose. Contrary to popular ‘wisdom,’ OPEC did not have as much influence on the oil prices as people think it does. During the Carter gasoline shortage, OPEC was blamed for the long lines at the gas pumps, but really government policies were to blame.

government supported these cartels because government existed in those worlds, whereas it doesn't exist in yours? The cartel and government (for all effective purposes) become the same entity.

You imply that you got rich as a result of colluding to fix prices? Why would customers not become dissatisfied and start to provide security for themselves, by arming themselves, getting watchdogs, and do volunteer patrolling?

The so called cops who are running your new world will prevent this. Mob rule doesn't follow rules. The private security companies will make sure they are able to prevent the people from arming (or they would disarm them). Perhaps they will allow crime to rise so they can justify ridgid gun control measures & disarm the people. You might say the government does the same thing, but at least we can vote them out after a few years?

I cannot say that something like the security company scenario won’t happen. On the other hand, you’ve yet to show that we should expect the government to do more good than bad. There have been many reports of government abuse (waterboarding) and police abuse (reckless and unjustified use of Tasers). Policemen have even extorted property. Rape and murder. Under-enforcement of laws against serious crime.

Any more questions or objections? As for that Russia crack, I just can’t believe you know nothing about Putin. He’s about the most Machiavellian government leader ever.

Well there you have it, you cannot say my scenario won't happen & you don't really show us how this could be prevented (and of course once your system is implimented it's too late to reverse it, the people are hostage to corporate tyranny). As for Russia .... yeah Putin is quite the Machiavellian (but they still have a huge mob problem).

AW

[Augustine2004]

The so called cops who are running your new world will prevent this. Mob rule doesn't follow rules. The private security companies will make sure they are able to prevent the people from arming (or they would disarm them). Perhaps they will allow crime to rise so they can justify ridgid gun control measures & disarm the people. You might say the government does the same thing, but at least we can vote them out after a few years?

Yeah, we can vote out the people who want gun control in November. Ha!

Well there you have it, you cannot say my scenario won't happen & you don't really show us how this could be prevented (and of course once your system is implimented it's too late to reverse it, the people are hostage to corporate tyranny). As for Russia .... yeah Putin is quite the Machiavellian (but they still have a huge mob problem).

You assume in effect that there is not enough regard for the ideal of Liberty and Justice for All, or not enough desire to follow Maybury's precepts plus the tit-for-tat principle. You're certainly right that it's true today. We need to massively re-educate the world. I'm not sure it's possible, but we have to try. The closer we come to the ideal of Liberty and Justice for All, the better.

[Augustine2004]

Why do most cities make it a misdemeanor for big-soul people to feed parking meters for cars that are not theirs?

[JonLanceBarker]

Why does most cities make it a misdemeanor for big-soul people to feed parking meters for cars that are not theirs?

What the heck is a "big-soul" person?

[Augustine2004]

Jon Lance Barker, I'm sorry I can't explain. All your friends and you are little-souled. Moreover you wouldn't recognize a big-soul person if you saw one.

[JonLanceBarker]

Jon Lance Barker, I'm sorry I can't explain. All your friends and you are little-souled. Moreover you wouldn't recognize a big-soul person if you saw one.

doth thou speak in jest or jab, knave? :dragon: