CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Well, I suppose that I support aspects of intervention, but I hardly call it intervention in the marketplace (only because I went to your link and the broad definitions make me feel this way).
First, police and military. Now, I know, PF is an anarcho-capitalist and has his answers for why government isn't needed at all, but I don't trust that the market can effectively protect the citizens when needed. As nice as the Anarcho-capitalist solution sounds, we'd have to FIRST privatize absolutely everything and then hope to God that contracts would hold without government to enforce them. Property rights do not exist if no one is enforcing those rights.
So government needs to tax us to establish a simple security force. One that protects us from each other and from foreign invaders. The constitutionality of it would prevent government from being able to expand the powers of these forces, and while, clearly, it hasn't been perfect, I hardly see Anarcho-Capitalism being the answer. Limited power is what we want, not elimination of power.
Second service I believe the government should provide is a voucher program for basic needs such as food, water, and healthcare. Friedman also supported education, and I guess it would be good to get the liberals off of our backs for a while, but truly I don't even support education vouchers. To think that poor people would be safer under AC is ridiculous. Poor people would still be poor, but this time they will have no food or healthcare in anyway. With a government system, as flawed as they may be, who's few functions is to protect the people (be it from criminals or hunger), it would be efficient enough to keep a steady flow of protection for the weak and poor. AC implies social Darwinism, because without any enforcement, that is the only path it can really lead towards. Either that or Puritania, but the Socialists kind of make the same mistake. Too much assumption that people would be able to do all these things.
And third would be a standard currency. One that is used to pay the vouchers, collect the taxes, and pay the military. It wouldn't hold as much strength as the current currency, it would just be used to make taxation easier. A Federal bank using sound currency such as Gold or something.
Maybe the future holds something better, because one of the worst things to come from government is our need for a standard currency. It's what allows government to believe that it can intervene in the market more than it should. But so far, this is all I got, and I hate all the Anarchist solutions that keep coming up, be it AC, AS, or plain old Anarchy.
Police security forces are really counter-intervention to mostly autistic intervention such as drugs, prostitution and now soda and junk food and in some cases binary and triangular.
Military forces would be minimal because they would be non preemptive wars and subject to market demands come if need be. Government military is constantly curtailed by the military industrial complex. Private military companies wouldn't be paid unless absolutely necessary.
God that contracts would hold without government to enforce them. Property rights do not exist if no one is enforcing those rights.
Murray Rothbard notes, "police service is not 'free'; it is paid for by the taxpayer, and the taxpayer is very often the poor person himself. He may very well be paying more in taxes for police now than he would in fees to private, and far more efficient, police companies. Furthermore, the police companies would be tapping a mass market; with the economies of such a larger-scale market, police protection would undoubtedly be much cheaper."
Second service I believe the government should provide is a voucher program for basic needs such as food, water, and healthcare.
Again, in order for government to provide these services, binary intervention is a must, so some people see this as a form of stealing. People, who are simply indigent, are taken care of by private charities because of the voluntary exchange and compassion.
And third would be a standard currency.
True, there is a standard currency, and free people and markets decide this, for thousands of years, it was gold as the standard and silver as the parallel currency.
Police security forces are really counter-intervention to mostly autistic intervention such as drugs, prostitution and now soda and junk food and in some cases binary and triangular.
And murder, thievery, and rape.
Private military companies wouldn't be paid unless absolutely necessary.
If militaries would rarely be used, what company would invest greatly in maintaining a private military that hardly makes it property?
He may very well be paying more in taxes for police now than he would in fees to private, and far more efficient, police companies.
Poor people are taxed at a very low level. Sure, the taxing system, as it currently is, could be fixed, but to have lower class Americans rely on their own money to protect themselves is cold. And middle class would then have to allocate so many of their resources to make sure they're protected. And then whoever can buy the most guns would probably be the guy who shakes people down. Too much tribalism involved with this.
in order for government to provide these services, binary intervention is a must, so some people see this as a form of stealing.
A form of stealing, sure. But it's to keep people from starving or dying of disease. It's a sense of humanism. Against Social Darwinism. We can not rely on charities unless they ALREADY have been successful in providing food stamps and healthcare vouchers.
Maybe we can ween ourselves off of vouchers, but until then, they are what I see as necessary.
Well, murder and rape is just unfortunate human action, and law enforcement would be used.
Thievery can be tied to binary intervention because of the billions of dollars taxed creates huge misallocation of resources due to unproductive work of government.
If militaries would rarely be used, what company would invest greatly in maintaining a private military that hardly makes it property?
Wrong, business fluctuations would say otherwise along investment and production takes time. For example, why is there investment in golf courses in the North considering 4-5 months are closed due to the winter. Of the 10 greatest golf courses in America, 14 of the 20 are in the north. These golf courses allocate resources accordingly to the most efficient means and ends, and this would be the case in the case of war. Investment would ensue based on fluctuations.
Poor people are taxed at a very low level.
Wrong, the poor is taxed at some of the highest levels, not only the income tax, and sales tax, the inflation tax is the one tax that hurts those with fixed incomes the most.
Sure, the taxing system, as it currently is, could be fixed, but to have lower class Americans rely on their own money to protect themselves is cold.
There is no way to fix the tax system because government can't distribute wealth without benefiting some at the expense of others whether taxing or spending.
And middle class would then have to allocate so many of their resources to make sure they're protected.
The middle class is dying because again, it is the inflation tax.
And then whoever can buy the most guns would probably be the guy who shakes people down.
Wrong, law would still be enforced except on market based.
We can not rely on charities unless they ALREADY have been successful in providing food stamps and healthcare vouchers.
Wrong, government taxation forces people to donate less. It is about opportunity costs. The more government takes, the less people have to donate.
Well, murder and rape is just unfortunate human action, and law enforcement would be used.
So government is necessary.
why is there investment in golf courses in the North considering 4-5 months are closed due to the winter.
War isn't like Golf seasons. There isn't a War season that investors can count on to make sure that they will be making money. There may not be war for 10 years, there may be one war every year. But with such unsure numbers there would not be much investment in military personnel unless you go with the "evil corporations create war to make profit."
Terrible comparison.
law would still be enforced except on market based.
Who's going to be doing this? What entity is going to make sure that poor Americans will have police to turn to if a family member is murder or raped or even robbed? You have too much faith in a system that doesn't exist.
government taxation forces people to donate less. It is about opportunity costs. The more government takes, the less people have to donate.
Even if this is the case, how are you sure that charities would be successful in properly handing out welfare to poor Americans? if government focuses on security and welfare, it would tax much less in the first place. If we can truly rely on charities, they will show their ability to take over the job as we decrease the size of government. However, once again, your statements seem to be faith based on the idea that if we get rid of government the market will just take over the needs of the people including security and welfare.
Since there was general agreement that most police action is counter intervention to autistic intervention such as drugs, whores, thief and etc. Therefore, billions of taxpayer money is misallocated and wasted on unproductive activity, which makes the use of police very expense because there is no way to properly put into place price mechanisms for government police, but under private police, price mechanism would only prove how much cheaper it would be since it would only involve cases of murder rape and other violent aggression. In addition, most murders and rape can also be linked to autistic intervention indirectly through drug wars. Many drug related killings are not even recorded.
War isn't like Golf seasons.
True, in general, war is not golf, but like all production, it takes time, so they both share time markets much like farmers harvesting corn or livestock. There is no immediate profit, but the profit is over time, so since all capital goods of war and golf are already produced by the private sector and give us economic calculation of external and internal goods, so the only difference is privatizing the actual service of military. Again, the service would not be perpetual but temporary. Combat training would probably already be similar to that of the reserves.
Who's going to be doing this?
Poly centric Law protects individually more effectively than monopolistic law.
What entity is going to make sure that poor Americans will have police to turn to if a family member is murder or raped or even robbed?
99% of all human action involves voluntary exchange unless there is violent intervention, and only government provides that form of violence.
You have too much faith in a system that doesn't exist.
You don't have any faith in a system. How can you say it wouldn't work if never been tried. On the flip side, all government has failed miserably.
how are you sure that charities would be successful in properly handing out welfare to poor Americans?
Most welfare provided by government actually proliferates more welfare because of the disincentive to be productive.
If we can truly rely on charities, they will show their ability to take over the job as we decrease the size of government.
There would be no need to rely on charities because productivity would be higher because all three violent sources of intervention would disappear.
Since there was general agreement that most police action is counter intervention to autistic intervention such as drugs, whores, thief and etc.
Yes, but this has to do with government regulating private behavior (except for thievery).
Government's role SHOULD be to make sure that one person does not harm or steal from the other. Just because government NOW isn't perfect does not mean that the rational alternative is complete privatization of the police department.
most murders and rape can also be linked to autistic intervention indirectly through drug wars.
Murders, maybe, but rapes I hardly see being at all linked to the drug war. Sure, rape, at times, can be a means of gang initiation, but rape, usually, is a means of a man who wishes to exert sexual power over an innocent woman.
so they both share time markets much like farmers harvesting corn or livestock.
No, because there are seasons for golfing and farming. There is no War season. War comes randomly, it may come, it may never come. Farming and Golfing can be calculated on its profitability, War can not.
99% of all human action involves voluntary exchange unless there is violent intervention, and only government provides that form of violence.
No, people who don't like to play fair provide that form of violence. Government's role should be to make sure that violent intervention is prevented.
You don't have any faith in a system. How can you say it wouldn't work if never been tried. On the flip side, all government has failed miserably.
Attempts to make government handle things beyond simple protection and welfare is what has caused such failures in government. Giving power to government to regulate our personal lives and property is the problem, not government as entity itself.
If Anarcho-Capitalism can truly work, it would have to be gradual. Very gradual.
Most welfare provided by government actually proliferates more welfare because of the disincentive to be productive
I'm talking about food and healthcare vouchers. It may contribute to dependency, but the alternative is to just allow them to either die or hope to God that charities will be able to provide for them.
There would be no need to rely on charities because productivity would be higher because all three violent sources of intervention would disappear.
Yes, but this has to do with government regulating private behavior (except for thievery).
Regulating private behavior is impossible, and if it doesn't harm or create aggression, there is no need for government intervention.
Just because government NOW isn't perfect does not mean that the rational alternative is complete privatization of the police department.
Government police is not perfect and never will be because it is wildly inefficient. Only markets can create efficiency unless YOU LIKE WASTING OF RESOURCES.
No, because there are seasons for golfing and farming.
There is no guarantees in markets, that is what the future is UNCERTAINTY. There are numerous variables that could prevent golf and farming seasons. So, in a world of uncertainty, war, golf and farming are no different.
There is no War season
Actually, unlike war provides by markets, there is war season with the crony government and the military industrial complex partnership. These companies will get their money no matter what because of the coercive levy on the American people. HAVE YOU NOTICED THE PERPETUAL WARS SINCE THE KOREN WAR? Military conflicts since the Koren War have not be random.
No, people who don't like to play fair provide that form of violence.
Sure, but most of the violent intervention comes from government as aforementioned. Government perpetuates violence.
If Anarcho-Capitalism can truly work, it would have to be gradual. Very gradual.
True, I never said it would be overnight.
It may contribute to dependency, but the alternative is to just allow them to either die or hope to God that charities will be able to provide for them.
That is fearmongering, charities are about compassion while government is about dependency, and you know that people wouldn't die because of the lack of food or healthcare.
Regulating private behavior is impossible, and if it doesn't harm or create aggression, there is no need for government intervention.
But murder and rape are harm and aggression, so government intervention would be necessary.
Only markets can create efficiency unless YOU LIKE WASTING OF RESOURCES.
Only for the sake of who is hiring them.
Actually, unlike war provides by markets, there is war season with the crony government and the military industrial complex partnership. These companies will get their money no matter what because of the coercive levy on the American people. HAVE YOU NOTICED THE PERPETUAL WARS SINCE THE KOREN WAR? Military conflicts since the Koren War have not be random.
Sounds more like conspiracy theories than actual reasoning for anarcho-capitalism. There are ways to reduce this, like cutting military spending and advocating a constitutional use of the military. Complete privatization of the military, however, would not work for there is no expectancy for profit unless you create war.
Sure, but most of the violent intervention comes from government as aforementioned. Government perpetuates violence.
Then greatly reduce and remove government powers.
The markets would merely replace government, but become a tyrant in different ways. Where government has the constitution, markets would have contracts... enforced by no one. while government has failed us in abiding by the constitution, all it takes is proper legislators to bring us back. If the markets fail us in abiding by contracts or if they become too powerful, there wouldn't be as many options. We'd have to hope that small business could compete against them.
I find that a Constitution holds more strength than anarcho-capitalism.
True, I never said it would be overnight.
I advocate many aspects of it, but I don't see it as a realistic goal (much like Socialism). We should focus on what we know can work now and then see what happens. Speaking that AC is the perfect way and constantly advocating it when we're talking current politics isn't the way to go, at least in my eyes.
That is fearmongering, charities are about compassion while government is about dependency, and you know that people wouldn't die because of the lack of food or healthcare.
No, I don't know that. Already many are uninsured and living paycheck to paycheck. While it's nice to say that this can be rectified through AC, there's no way to actually know that. Once again, gradual.
there is no limit to human productivity.
Never said there was. But to assume that everything will work out is what's actually wrong.
But murder and rape are harm and aggression, so government intervention would be necessary.
NO, that would be private police.
Sounds more like conspiracy theories than actual reasoning for anarcho-capitalism.
Well I guess you entitled to meaningless opinion.
Complete privatization of the military, however, would not work for there is no expectancy for profit unless you create war.
SO, there is no way that government doesn't create war in order to feed the industrial military complex. Again, considering all capital goods produced for the military are by private companies along with already private military companies.
The markets would merely replace government, but become a tyrant in different ways. Where government has the constitution, markets would have contracts... enforced by no one.
Oh, please COURTS. In AC, contracts are ultimately enforced by private courts in the form of an impartial arbitrator, loser pay the fee.
I find that a Constitution holds more strength than anarcho-capitalism.
Really, is that why the federal government has completely ignored it for the 100 years starting the creation of the FEDERAL RESERVE.
Speaking that AC is the perfect way and constantly advocating it when we're talking current politics isn't the way to go, at least in my eyes.
Precisely, the bigger government gets, the more people shift to unproductive work in politics and less productive work in productivity.
Already many are uninsured and living paycheck to paycheck.
But to assume that everything will work out is what's actually wrong.
Then there would suffer and starve to death. That is what is being part of society, being productive. I have no problem with those who refuse to participate.
What for the ones who can not or will not hire them? Are people only entitled the right to life and property if they pay for those rights?
Under this reasoning, Anarcho-Capitalism suggests that rights are paid for voluntarily. If you can't afford police, (and absolutely NOTHING says that people can afford private police security) you can't afford rights.
SO, there is no way that government doesn't create war in order to feed the industrial military complex.
Well, there is less incentive for government will continue to spend money on the military regardless of whether there is war or not. that is the point. Privatized militaries without government paying for it, however, would expect no profit unless War were declared. This only creates a BIGGER incentive to create wars.
So your conspiracy theories only hurt you on this one.
contracts are ultimately enforced by private courts in the form of an impartial arbitrator, loser pay the fee.
Who finds this impartial court? who funds the impartial court?
And what fee? why would making sure that justice is served come with a fee? If you sue someone but lose the case, you must now pay the courts? What if the ruling was not necessary?
Courts should not be paid for by losers. that would greatly reduce the amount of cases that are brought forward, limiting justice. This is why laws are necessary, so that we know what can be tried and what can't.
is that why the federal government has completely ignored it for the 100 years starting the creation of the FEDERAL RESERVE.
Suggesting that the answer is AC isn't an argument. Just because government currently fails at abiding completely by the Constitution does not make the Constitution and government obsolete, especially since you've failed to show how AC would be reasonable in insuring the rights of ALL Americans, and not just Americans who can afford it.
INFLATION
As ridiculous inflation has gotten, that is only advocacy of reducing ourselves to a more sound, standardized currency, not completely eliminating it. As well, AC does not offer any facts that poverty would stop existing.
Then there would suffer and starve to death. That is what is being part of society, being productive. I have no problem with those who refuse to participate.
It goes far beyond that, but I'm not going to argue on the individual mindsets of those who can't help themselves for whatever reasons.
I think the main differing in our philosophies is your lack of empathy.
What for the ones who can not or will not hire them?
PLEASE READ FOR A NEW LIBERTY: A Libertarian Manifesto by Rothbard as seen below
There is no absolute necessity for a police force to defend every every inhabitant of an area or still more to give each one the same degree of protection. Police protection is not a collective good because the collective can't want think or act, only individuals exist, and do these things. Police protection is random, so for instance, I am never actually used police protection, and it has been very expensive based on how much I paid in taxes to my use whereas if it were market based, and I needed police protection, it would probably cost a fraction of what I paid in taxes.
Are people only entitled the right to life and property if they pay for those rights?
Rights are not paid for, rights are natural; hence the rational above.
So your conspiracy theories only hurt you on this one.
Who finds this impartial court? who funds the impartial court?
"How would courts be financed in a free society? There are many
possibilities. Possibly, each individual would subscribe to a court service,
paying a monthly premium, and then calling upon the court if he is in
need. Or, since courts will probably be needed much less frequently than
policemen, he may pay a fee whenever he chooses to use the court, with
the criminal or contract-breaker eventually recompensing the vic tim or
plaintiff. Or, in still a third possibility, the courts may be hired by the
police agencies to settle disputes, or there may even be “vertically
integrated” firms supplying both police and judicial service: the Prudential
Judicial Company might have a police and a judicial division. Only the
market will be able to decide which of these methods will be most
appropriate.
We should all be more familiar with the increasing use of private
arbitration, even in our present society. The government courts have
become so clogged, inefficient, and wasteful that more and more parties to
disputes are turning to private arbitrators as a cheaper and far less timeconsuming
way of settling their disputes. In recent years, private
arbitration has become a growing and highly successful profession. Being
voluntary, furthermore, the rules of arbitration can be decided rapidly by
the parties themselves, without the need for a ponderous, complex legal
framework applicable to all citizens. Arbitration therefore permits
judgments to be made by people expert in the trade or occupation concerned.
Currently, the American Arbitration Association, whose motto is
“The Handclasp is Mightier than the Fist,” has 25 regional offices
throughout the country, with 23,000 arbitrators. In 1969, the Association
conducted over 22,000 arbitrations. In addition, the insurance companies
adjust over 50,000 claims a year through voluntary arbitration. There is
also a growing and successful use of private arbitrators in automobile
accident claim cases.
It might be protested that, while performing an ever greater proportion
of judicial functions, the private arbitrators’ decisions are still enforced by
the courts, so that once the disputing parties agree on an arbitrator, his
decision becomes legally binding. This is true, but it was not the case
before 1920, and the arbitration profession grew at as rapid a rate from
1900 to 1920 as it has since. In fact, the modern arbitration movement
began in full force in England during the time of the American Civil War,
with merchants increasingly using the “private courts” provided by
voluntary arbitrators, even though the decisions were not legally binding.
By 1900, voluntary arbitration began to take hold in the United States. In
fact, in medieval England, the entire struc ture of merchant law, which was
handled clumsily and inefficiently by the government’s courts, grew up in
private merchants’ courts. The merchants’ courts were purely voluntary
arbitrators, and the decisions were not legally binding. How, then, were
they successful?" For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Rothbard
Suggesting that the answer is AC isn't an argument. Just because government currently fails at abiding completely by the Constitution does not make the Constitution and government obsolete, especially since you've failed to show how AC would be reasonable in insuring the rights of ALL Americans, and not just Americans who can afford it.
Actually, I didn't fail, private law would entail protecting LIFE, LIBERTY and PROPERTY, which would cover all people, so if gays want to get marriage or civil union, they can under liberty.
Under an true libertarian society, blacks would never have been slaves or segregated. That was failure of government.
As well, AC does not offer any facts that poverty would stop existing.
Poverty will always exist because of the lazy and stupid, but that is freedom.
I think the main differing in our philosophies is your lack of empathy.
I am very compassionate about helping and volunteering but only in private charities.
Police protection is not a collective good because the collective can't want think or act, only individuals exist, and do these things. Police protection is random, so for instance, I am never actually used police protection, and it has been very expensive based on how much I paid in taxes to my use whereas if it were market based, and I needed police protection, it would probably cost a fraction of what I paid in taxes.
the belief that you will have time and money to purchase police protection right when you need it.
or that they will even be offering services at the time of need.
All complete assumption.
Inefficient or not, public sector police officers are guaranteed. They will make investigations for you, rich or poor. they will stop criminals in the act if they see them.
Most of your problems come from too many laws making crime a bigger issue and police less efficient in their duties... the way to solve that problem is to scale back what government can make illegal and how much the individual states will fund their police force. Not to just eliminate the state and hope to God that the market will provide the police force to everyone.
Or, even better, you don't care if everyone gets police protection... as you've already admitted.
Rights are not paid for, rights are natural; hence the rational above.
If you have a right to life, liberty, and property... who protects that right? Is it just a right by default and your duty to protect it? So if you can't protect it... too bad?
Possibly, each individual would subscribe to a court service,
Justice served... if you can afford it.
the courts may be hired by the police agencies to settle disputes
This one I liked, but still faith based hoping that police agencies would work for the people in an absence of government. Or would properly fund the courts. Clearly courts would have to at times deal against the police agencies.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy pondering Anarcho-Capitalist answers for just about everything. But this is something I do not find realistic for our time. To answer all current questions to current problems with the answer being AC is a waste of breath, to me. It sounds nice, but so does Marxism.
private law would entail protecting LIFE, LIBERTY and PROPERTY, which would cover all people, so if gays want to get marriage or civil union, they can under liberty.
No, only the people that the private agencies wish to include. Usually decided by money or personal preference. Not by legally binding contracts (since contracts without law are not legally binding...)
Under an true libertarian society, blacks would never have been slaves or segregated. That was failure of government.
You're confusing AC with Libertarian. AC is a branch off of Libertarian ideals. Libertarians, in general, believe that government is necessary. Even Ayn Rand believed that government were necessary. AC is the final nail in the government coffin. It's the Anarchist dream that many intellectuals sometimes like to play around with. Anarchy in its many forms is interesting, but most find it only to be a philosophy and not a realistic political goal.
Poverty will always exist because of the lazy and stupid, but that is freedom.
And the unlucky... and the handicapped... and elderly... and abandoned children... and the diseased...
I am very compassionate about helping and volunteering but only in private charities.
Yet the impoverished are reduced to "lazy and stupid."
Most of your problems come from too many laws making crime a bigger issue and police less efficient in their duties...
True, but that is a byproduct of government.
the way to solve that problem is to scale back what government can make illegal and how much the individual states will fund their police force.
As we are living today, even a Constitution can't hold back the scale of government.
No, only the people that the private agencies wish to include.
Those companies exist, because the market will demand it.
If you have a right to life, liberty, and property... who protects that right?
Not sure if you have noticed, but government courts and police is not free, so since there is no way to measure how expensive it is compared to if it was provided by the market. THerefore, if there is any bad misallocation of resources, there is no way of knowing where it is coming from, only market forces tells us this.
Again,Already mention this, court and police.
Justice served... if you can afford it.
Again, would be cheaper compared to the CURRENT EXPENSIVE SYSTEM.
Yet the impoverished are reduced to "lazy and stupid."
In all fairness, government triangular intervention is the cause for the lazy and stupid, these are people who are not indignant, but choose to be lazy and stupid and feel entitled to a government handout. There are plenty.
I suppose, although AC does strike my curiosity with Rothbard, Mises even thought that some government was necessary, which I am prone to believe as well, but I fancy the idea of AC as the most efficient non violent and voluntary society.
Government intervention is required in marketplaces where a product can be harmful.
I know this is broad, let me offer some examples. The FDA is government control on the marketplace. Prior to any regulations the food we were eating was not safe. (not sure it is now,, but that is another argument) A factory that has no emission control pollutes our environment. Cigeraettses are harmfula nd the public should know and the people can choice.
We have business A, B and C. They all sell the same product. The products are of the same quality. A found a trick. That trick allowed him to sell his product cheaper. The mass will buy the product of business A. It will grow and destroy the other businesses. Normal. It is fair that one with the better idea wins. Survival of the fittest.
Government includes legislative, executive and judiciary. So, none of those branches are involved in the marketplace. So, no regulation at all. Right? Nothing will stop business A from growing. Nothing will save the other businesses from perishing. Nothing will also stop other businesses from taking business A’s spot or tie. This system allows an evolution of the market.
Whatever trick is allowed and encouraged. Ruse will survive. Not force. Business A sells shoes. Let us say that the reason his shoes are cheaper is that he makes them in China. He also hires a few desperate Americans. The Chinese and few Americans are happy because they have a job. The buyers are happy because they get what they want while saving money.
Business D figured out business A’s trick and starts doing the same thing. So, no regulation allows competition and therefore the development of more efficient ways. Eventually it will reach the point where production cannot be more efficient ( or it just did not find it yet).
With no regulations, businesses can scam the mass. A few commercials there, a couple smiles here, business E won because he found a way to lure the mass toward him. Meaning, it was able to direct the buyer’s desires with arguments. There still is no problem because the mass ishappy.
However, there still is this one guy in the mass who sees though the scam and buys from another business. SO, The mass has to be blind enough to be scammed. It must also remain blind. BUT MOST OF ALL THE MASS MUST STAY HAPPY… and kept in perpetual childhood.
Happiness is achieved when our desires are satisfied meaning when our pains of life are taken away from us.
What keeps the mass happy? Those pleasures and superficial necessities they sell us to spare us the pains of living but most all the troubles of thinking. BUT the mass is happy. So, there still is no problem. Who wants to do all the thinking when someone can do it for them? The businesses can’t hurt the mass because the mass is protected by the government. The businesses are not forcing anyone. You are safe. You get what you think you want.
The mass is not free.
The businesses confine our free will in a smaller space. They do not break our freedom of choice but softens it, in order to bend and direct it. They do not tyrannize. They hinder, compress, extinguish and finally reduce each and one of us to nothing more than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which they are the shepherd.
No government in the marketplace will put the mass under a “soft dictatorship”.
I would have said "no" a few days ago. Now, I'm not so sure. If there were no restrictions, what would stop an oil tycoon from the Middle East from purchasing every single aspect of that market? The shops, the food, the materials, the area that it rests on, and eventually, the people.
The government is the only force large enough to say, "Fuck no, our entire country will turn to shit if you buy us."
The market owners will simply see dollar signs when the oil tycoon wants to purchase them.
Three types of intervention: Autistic, Binary and Triangular
Government will always force a separation between ownership and control, and it creates a moral hazard for both the citizens and the government. Intervention is basically the desire to expropriate resources through interventionism at the expense of other parties.
Interventionism involves coercive co-ownership, so citizens haven an incentive to evade it. For example, whether it is evade taxes, emigrate to different regions, choose a different profession, evade regulations or prohibitions, human action tells us that coercive means in the marketplace is unproductive. Therefore, when there is interventionism, there is an greater incentive to use the personal property for consumption rather than investment. The general tendency of interventions is towards excessive consumption and more expensive production because of the necessity to evade the intervention.
Government relies on the resources from taxes and regulations. Government has the propensity to growth with more taxes and regulations to neutralize the ways that citizens evade its previous intervention. In other words, it is to "close the loopholes."
Interventionist government has an great incentive to extend taxation to all parts of the economy; it wants to regulate industries that have so far escaped regulation and beat those countries that serve as tax havens.
The ultimate goal is to reinforce the excessive and coercive power of the state. It is for excessive consumption and insufficient production, basically, government wants to impoverish society because government only makes us poorer.
Government interventionism is not neutralized by contractual devices, it is just imposed. The very meaning of interventionism is to overrule the choices of property owners.
So, when citizens see how high the next tax will be, the next step is how to evade it.
