"Freedom" thread or something

God bless Coase. 102 years old and still kicking.

stonebeard wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Gerinski wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote:   Your water example could be achieved just as well without government.  In fact, your example in itself suggests an enterprise undertaken voluntarily by a group of individuals, not by a government.  The "grumpy old man" you posited wouldn't have to be forced to pay; he merely would be denied the service of the channel unless he either pitched in to build it or changed his mind and decided to contribute to the maintenance later.  No taxes, no coercion, and no government would be needed. Easier said than done I'm afraid. What about antennas for cell phone coverage, or television broadcast waves. How will you prevent the grumpy guy from using a cell phone or switching on a TV? You have to pay to get cell phone service.  You have to pay to get a TV.  Both of these things are controlled by private companies in the US (with some government regulation) and they work just fine. Eh. The telecommunications industry is heavily regulated, which I don't necessarily think is a bad thing but what is bad is the government plays favorites and places barriers on entry to the market, which enables the established players to suck a lot more than normal competition would allow. So, they work, but not "just fine".

Yeah, I agree that there are problems with it.  The problems are due to governmental intervention, though, not in spite of it, which doubly makes the point I was trying to make.

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: Somehow my last post got skipped over in today's discussion, so let me just repeat what I said: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: thellama73 wrote: There exist private security firms and private detectives (police). There exist private adjudicators of disputes (courts and judges.) I think we've been over this point a few months ago. Imagine I'm filthy rich. So rich in fact that I can form my own security firm whose only purpose is to protect me under any circumstances. Now imagine you're poor, so you can only afford basic protection for a low price. Now what happens if, for whatever reason, I decide to kill you (or steal from you, or whatever)? Do you think your security firm would spend time and effort on getting me into jail when I have a privately financed army behind me?

I don't think other security firms would like your army establishing itself as above the law. I don't think private courts, who make their living by having a reputation for being impartial and fair, would like it much either. I don't see such behavior as being tolerated, at least no more than it is now when the police decide to commit crimes because there's no one to sop them.

That is a basic problem Gerinski. Majorities deciding for minorities can lead to majorities deciding to step on minorities, or majorities deciding something about minorities that forces something upon them that they didn't agree to including things that you wouldn't qualify as legitimate, or majorities deciding that something perfectly accepted is illegitimate and thus forcing minorities to do as they want. Majorities can also, as has happened in the past, choose the wrong person who eventually lead to destruction of minorities. 

dtguitarfan wrote: thellama73 wrote: The firefighter example is easily dealt with, since that used to be the way firefighting was handled. You would pay for fire service and they would put a plaque on your house. If a fire started, the firefighters would look for the plaque and if you had paid,would put out the fire. They would also put out the fire if it was in danger of consuming a hose with a plaque by spreading. Seems like a perfectly sensible solution to me. Ooh, ooh - I have a question!  So...um...do you suppose your bills will go up or down in this situation, hmm?

Down. Why?

thellama73 wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: thellama73 wrote: The firefighter example is easily dealt with, since that used to be the way firefighting was handled. You would pay for fire service and they would put a plaque on your house. If a fire started, the firefighters would look for the plaque and if you had paid,would put out the fire. They would also put out the fire if it was in danger of consuming a hose with a plaque by spreading. Seems like a perfectly sensible solution to me. Ooh, ooh - I have a question!  So...um...do you suppose your bills will go up or down in this situation, hmm? Down. Why?

$100 says it won't.  But with any luck neither of us will ever pay the other because it'll never be tested.

The T wrote: That is a basic problem Gerinski. Majorities deciding for minorities can lead to majorities deciding to step on minorities, or majorities deciding something about minorities that forces something upon them that they didn't agree to including things that you wouldn't qualify as legitimate, or majorities deciding that something perfectly accepted is illegitimate and thus forcing minorities to do as they want. Majorities can also, as has happened in the past, choose the wrong person who eventually lead to destruction of minorities.  Democracy is a failed god. Sadly, it's difficult to replace it for some things. But for others, private chice should do.

Liechtenstein may be the closest thing to Libertarianism.  They have a libertarian monarch (imagine that).  They abolished their standing military in 1868 because it was too costly.  They have no national debt.  Tax evasion there is not a crime. 

http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_14.pdf

Tax policy is long-term, stable and predictable. The intention is toleave as much freedom as possible to the citizens to decide on the best use for their own money. Tax decisions are taken close to the citizens, and sometimes by them. Central and local government expenditure is transparent and closely monitored. The administration is not plagued by fraud. There are no large and wasteful bureaucracies and no speculative grand projects whose budgetary outcome is uncertain.

Even their Prince is capitalistic: "States must compete with each other peacefully, to offer their customers service at the lowest price."

thellama73 wrote: The firefighter example is easily dealt with, since that used to be the way firefighting was handled. You would pay for fire service and they would put a plaque on your house. If a fire started, the firefighters would look for the plaque and if you had paid,would put out the fire. They would also put out the fire if it was in danger of consuming a hose with a plaque by spreading. Seems like a perfectly sensible solution to me.

So here's a hypothetical question more relevant to the current stock market driven nature of enterprise.  What if the firefighting division of a conglomerate doesn't generate er, 100% or 1000% quarter on quarter growth in four subsequent quarters because there has been no incident in the regions they serve and their customers decide to prioritize spending for their Iphone instead of paying for a firefighting service.   In order to improve the efficiency of the organisation, the board decides to shut down the firefighting division.  The very next quarter, a massive fire ravages the town and there is no help at hand.  Had there been a public-funded service, it would have been available for the unlikely but dangerous event of a fire.

You could say the people asked for it and made their choice by  not investing in their safety.  But there are two problems to this:

(a)  Is it really worth the trouble?  Should our lives really be governed by quarter to quarter considerations of speculators?

(b)  Not everybody in the town may have opted out of the service.  All it would take is for a significant number of consumers to opt out to tempt the company to consider shutting it down.   That may be short sighted, but that's how things work these days...it doesn't take very long for an organisation to declare a division 'unviable' - unviable that is for their goal of securing 100% bonus raises year after year for their top management.  The market can actually impose the self same will of the majority you believe it should not be imposed...by denying you a product or service you wish to buy (but for which there aren't enough takers, whatever enough means in this case).  An mp3 service I subscribed to shut down despite over 1 million songs being downloaded in the very first year of operations (and that's a lot for a single ecommerce chain in India).  So how much exactly is viable for the modern corporation?  I have no idea.

You say a firefighting service should not be forced on those who do not choose for it. But the flipside is, the service is available for everyone to use, including those who were initially short sighted enough not to appreciate its utility but who are likely to dial emergency if they are actually faced with a crisis.  

This is not about trying to babysit citizens, in my view, more about navigating through the complexity of the modern world.  If we have to debate from first principles on the need for essential services and facilities, it is probably more inefficient than letting the govt take care of it.  Yes, I don't think too much power should be concentrated in the hands of the Central Govt but I am reading a book right now, War on Crime, which might have some clues as to how that came about in America. 


Edited by rogerthat - June 18 2013 at 20:28

Honestly, I think that firefighting is one of the few services that is best handled by government.  Basic disaster protection seems to me to go hand in hand with the police force that protects citizens from being harmed by others.  Our present system of firefighting has worked for years and I don't think it needs to be changed.


Edited by Ambient Hurricanes - June 18 2013 at 23:14