Anarcho-Capitalists: YouTube challenge

Can anyone provide answers to this guy? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlEjbhqOBeM

Is it QTronman's video? The Objectivist? Bleh. I've wasted about 5 video responses on him over the past week.

LibertyIsNotGiven, D4Shawn and few others have already made some decent responses.

His super-sarcastic demeanor is super-annoying. Also, his chin-growth is not diametrically proportioned, which for some reason annoys me as well.

The questions are pretty standard. Roads: the growth of the usage of the automobile obviously goes hand in hand with governments laying down highways through land confiscations. So demanding that free markets provide the same kind of leisure that you can enjoy when the government takes from others to provide for you, is kind of stupid. Toll roads exist. Private/communal roads exist. I personally use a private road 4-5 times a week and the road is maintained by only 15-20 people living in houses along the road. Sure, it's not tarmacked and it has a few potholes (which, by the way, government maintained roads have around here, as well, besides the big highways the politicians themselves use), but I have a suspension in my car as well as a driving wheel, with which to steer clear of the potholes.

Fire departments: First off, setting fires or paying someone to set fires is not a good business model. Obviously you are going to get caught at some point and be in world of doodoo. Secondly, as far as I can see, a better business model would be to offer fire protection coverage based on monthly fees. This would ensure a steady income as well as eliminate any incentive for the fire department to set fires, as more fires would only mean more expenses. It would also create an incentive for the fire department to push for more fire prevention (smoke alarms, extinguishers, etc) either through varying fees or outright denying service to those unwilling to take these preventative measures.

Libertas est Veritas:

His super-sarcastic demeanor is super-annoying. Also, his chin-growth is not diametrically proportioned, which for some reason annoys me as well.

The questions are pretty standard. Roads: the growth of the usage of the automobile obviously goes hand in hand with governments laying down highways through land confiscations. So demanding that free markets provide the same kind of leisure that you can enjoy when the government takes from others to provide for you, is kind of stupid. Toll roads exist. Private/communal roads exist. I personally use a private road 4-5 times a week and the road is maintained by only 15-20 people living in houses along the road. Sure, it's not tarmacked and it has a few potholes (which, by the way, government maintained roads have around here, as well, besides the big highways the politicians themselves use), but I have a suspension in my car as well as a driving wheel, with which to steer clear of the potholes.

Fire departments: First off, setting fires or paying someone to set fires is not a good business model. Obviously you are going to get caught at some point and be in world of doodoo. Secondly, as far as I can see, a better business model would be to offer fire protection coverage based on monthly fees. This would ensure a steady income as well as eliminate any incentive for the fire department to set fires, as more fires would only mean more expenses. It would also create an incentive for the fire department to push for more fire prevention (smoke alarms, extinguishers, etc) either through varying fees or outright denying service to those unwilling to take these preventative measures.

We need only go back a hundred years when New York had these market fire stations and it did not work out well then, what would make it work well now? What about the poor bastards who do not have the fee to pay for service. A free market can work for the most part but in some instances I believe it to be impractical.

 

 

anonnymous:

We need only go back a hundred years when New York had these market fire stations and it did not work out well then, what would make it work well now? What about the poor bastards who do not have the fee to pay for service. A free market can work for the most part but in some instances I believe it to be impractical.

 So what you are saying is, "People freely associating can work for the most part, but sometimes they have to be forced to do what's best for them."

As far as the poor go, there are volunteer fire stations that work quite well around where I live (Midwest US).

You never cited what in specific was wrong with them, why it was so and why that would legitimise the non sequitur of government provision of the service.

-Jon

wombatron:

As far as the poor go, there are volunteer fire stations that work quite well around where I live (Midwest US).

I agree. We have similar facilities in my neck of the woods. It's not even mainly about helping the poor, but people view it as a meaningful and rewarding way to spend one's free time. They enjoy the community feeling that quenching fires brings about, and of course the reverence of their fellow men.

AnCap is not just about making profits. In the absence of coercive government, voluntary non-profit associations won't disappear, but are likely to expand their services due to a reallocation of funds which had formerly been consumed by government.

Plus, I strongly doubt a government agency would be able to put a 100$ as effectively into actually fighting fires than any private organization, be it business or non-profit, could.

Sphairon:

wombatron:

As far as the poor go, there are volunteer fire stations that work quite well around where I live (Midwest US).

I agree. We have similar facilities in my neck of the woods. It's not even mainly about helping the poor, but people view it as a meaningful and rewarding way to spend one's free time. They enjoy the community feeling that quenching fires brings about, and of course the reverence of their fellow men.

AnCap is not just about making profits. In the absence of coercive government, voluntary non-profit associations won't disappear, but are likely to expand their services due to a reallocation of funds which had formerly been consumed by government.

Plus, I strongly doubt a government agency would be able to put a 100$ as effectively into actually fighting fires than any private organization, be it business or non-profit, could.

 

 I agree completely.

wombatron:

 

anonnymous:

We need only go back a hundred years when New York had these market fire stations and it did not work out well then, what would make it work well now? What about the poor bastards who do not have the fee to pay for service. A free market can work for the most part but in some instances I believe it to be impractical.

 So what you are saying is, "People freely associating can work for the most part, but sometimes they have to be forced to do what's best for them."

As far as the poor go, there are volunteer fire stations that work quite well around where I live (Midwest US).

 

no I am not saying sometimes people need to be forced, or that it is even ethical to force anyone to do anything. Maybe an arraingment can be worked out for the poor in a free market. What I am saying is that all people should be afforded the opportunity to have fire protection even if they can not afford a privately held force. We to have volunteer fire services around here but most volunteer services are partially funded thru the state.

Jon Irenicus:

You never cited what in specific was wrong with them, why it was so and why that would legitimise the non sequitur of government provision of the service.

-Jon

 

much the same problems that have been discussed here and elsewhere. Competiton starting fires, fires being started to force people to purchase services, people not having the funds just plain not having service and other corrupt actions. I am not suggesting that government needs to be the one to provide the service. I would prefer the private sector do it but it must include provisions for the common good of the community.

 

 

I too agree completely and think that altruism would go a long way in assuring all people fire protection.

I don't see why there would be any more "competition" to destroy houses by firemen than there would be similar competition among carpenters.  Or perhaps car companies (or car insurance companies) carjacking cars and running them off bridges.

We to expect an anarchist society to be filled with rogue carpenters and car companies bent on making profits?

 

Should we have state control of house building and car selling?

no and I am not suggesting such but in a free market there will be corupt people to contend with and there will always be disadvantaged people as well. The challenge is how to deal with both.

Thing is, in the free market corrupt people tend to lose money. In the government, corrupt people tend to rise above.

How about bundled services?

You don't pay your fire protection monthly bill and your water and power also go off since they are billed by the same company.

I was thinking this could work in communities as a condition of purchasing the house in the first place. Then have as a contractual clause that the 'community association' has the first right to purchase the house in the case that the residents want to sell so they could impose these conditions on the next buyers as well to take care of the 'free loader' problem.

You don't like it, don't buy a house in that community.

Sure, it's just recreating the state through contract but if someone were truly opposed to something like this they would be free to live in some shanty town and not have to worry about paying for services they didn't feel they really needed.

And isn't the constant cry of 'what about the poor' just a red herring to show how the Free Market is heartless and that the Invisible Hand goes around bitchslapping people who are less well off than your bourgeoisie ass?

"What about the poor" working their way out of poverty instead of becoming reliant on State funded charity?

"What about the poor" working their way out of poverty instead of becoming reliant on State funded charity?

 

What about being human and caring for your fellow humans who can least afford to live? I am not suggesting that a welfare state be created but unless humans can address the needs of the truely poor and disadvantaged a free market would result in people losing their humanity in exchange for proffit. I truly think that the issue could be address without creating a welfare state.