It's odd that you talk about "well tended infrastructure" and government interferance as if one is able to generate the other.
Whatever problem you pointed out, if it truely is a problem, you never solved it. You gave a problem, and proposed government action. What makes you think that government can "provide" better products than a market, when a government has no motives to do so? If you mean that a democratic government can do so, what about the evil marketers in the capitalist system, won't they just hyjack this system and now be capable of FORCING people to buy their defective Awesome Auger infrastructure. There will be NO ESCAPE from crappy products, unlike in a market.
Transparency? Why would the government provide it? The government is motivated to benefit itself, and itself only, it doesn't care about the consumer. Realistically neither does the businessman (purely in the abstract, there are businessmen who "care" but that isn't what is being pointed out) but the businessman fears the consumer going elsewhere, the government official just laughs in your face.
i didnt say anything about govt. What I said was that we will either tend to our infrastructure and our people, or our civilization will not stand the test of time. We will go the way of the Mayans; they didnt disappear, they just gave up on civilization.
Even in a free market the problem remains the same. Easy flow of goods, sturdy places of business, strong contract enforcement, and well defended trade routes are the drivers of commerce and they will have to be dealt with.
No matter the system, the costs will get passed on to everyone. I dont believe in taxes, Whoever sits around going, "I cant wait to pay my taxes this year'" I believe public goods (not government, public) should be funded by a policy that is fair to the value of the money involved.
Adam E Zandarski
Pskapompos:No, you didnt call me a marxist. You called me a thief and a murderer. And then banned me for expressing my opinion.
No, you were banned for a day for refusing to back your claim. You feel that repeating your stance is enough; it's not. You got a little nudge in the direction of hopefully letting you know that such behavior is not tolerated here.
So either back your claim that we are all our brother's keeper or shove off.
Pskapompos:Even in a free market the problem remains the same. Easy flow of goods, sturdy places of business, strong contract enforcement, and well defended trade routes are the drivers of commerce and they will have to be dealt with.
Pskapompos:No matter the system, the costs will get passed on to everyone.
Pskapompos:policy that is fair to the value of the money involved.
Base model cars of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but quarter-mile races.
Pskapompos: i didnt say anything about govt. What I said was that we will either tend to our infrastructure and our people, or our civilization will not stand the test of time. We will go the way of the Mayans; they didnt disappear, they just gave up on civilization.
The Nation-State doesn't produce tangible goods to exchange, not even ideas. The Nation-State takes, but does not give. Their mind is put to shaping culture, a culture that already exists. It does not give anything that they actually have produced and exchanged peacefully. The Nation-State via force and thievery corrupts the free market. In every exchange in the free market the Nation-State by force becomes the middle man and takes what it wants, but does not give anything back. The Nation-State does not work within the principles of a free market in which a barter and negotiation deals are on going with consideration to the property, freedom, and thus, free-will of each individual. The free market considers these, the government violates these. The Nation-State's only act in the whole exchange is take by force. The free market is here, but the government has and does corrupt it.
Pskapompos: Even in a free market the problem remains the same. Easy flow of goods, sturdy places of business, strong contract enforcement, and well defended trade routes are the drivers of commerce and they will have to be dealt with.
And the free market does deal with these each and every day even in the face of government corrupting. I would say the free market is very strong indeed for having to deal with the government corrupting each and every exchange by force. In the free market force is not used in the exchange. Negotiation and thus bartering is. Whether that bartering is a U.S. dollar worth .04 compared to it's 1.00 almost 100 hundred years ago, a gold coin that's value is either stable or worth even more in the same time period, somebody merely wants to trade a corn cob for another potato, or a contracted team of men and/or women labour to make a television and are given just compensation in the market (to give some instances in the market place).
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
Pskapompos: No matter the system, the costs will get passed on to everyone. I dont believe in taxes, Whoever sits around going, "I cant wait to pay my taxes this year'" I believe public goods (not government, public) should be funded by a policy that is fair to the value of the money involved.
Wouldn't that be nice lol
I think its quite a fallacy to believe there will be no coercive force used in a free market system. All I have to do is team up a few business, banks and security firms, and there would be nothing nor noone to stop me from doing whatever I please. Think of the Edison types who would litterally beat the patensts out of inventors for their own benefit. I dont care what the system is; socialist or libertarian (both a path to destruction) contracts will have to be enforced, and the writing of them will have to be fair to both parties involved. Trade routes will have to be defended, and someone will have to make sure those defenders dont get it in their minds to conquer.
By "fair to the value of the money involved" Im saying that 10% means something ENTIRELY different from 1000 to 1000000.
Pskapompos: I think its quite a fallacy to believe there will be no coercive force used in a free market system. All I have to do is team up a few business, banks and security firms, and there would be nothing nor noone to stop me from doing whatever I please. Think of the Edison types who would litterally beat the patensts out of inventors for their own benefit. I dont care what the system is; socialist or libertarian (both a path to destruction) contracts will have to be enforced, and the writing of them will have to be fair to both parties involved. Trade routes will have to be defended, and someone will have to make sure those defenders dont get it in their minds to conquer.
It sounds like your premise here is based upon people are immoral and criminal and you've taken a 'that's, that' approach? An unfortunate world you perceive indeed if such is the case.
Which coincidently the movie "Ice Age" is on right now at the house, and that dodo bird scene is funny when they march and chant to the world, "Doom on you, Doom on you, doom on you." ...lol
I make the assumption that people are good when they want to be, and bad as well. There is no either/or. Im sure even Hitler did something good in his life. But power corrupts. And that paradigm will hold true forever. Thats why I support things like federalism and seperation of powers.
I think its quite a fallacy to believe there will be no coercive force used in a free market system. All I have to do is team up a few business, banks and security firms, and there would be nothing nor noone to stop me from doing whatever I please.
Try it.
To darkness I condemn you...
I make the assumption that people are good when they want to be, and bad as well. There is no either/or. Im sure even Hitler did something good in his life. But power corrupts. And that paradigm will hold true forever.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Pskapompos:no coercive force used in a free market system. All I have to do is team up a few business, banks and security firms, and there would be nothing nor noone to stop me from doing whatever I please.
The point that you seem to be missing is that government is institutionalized coercion. Nobody is making the argument that if government didn't exist coercion would just vanish. However, when firms are forced to compete for customers on an open market they have very strong incentives to not coerce people. Companies that deal with people peacefully and voluntarily will outlive companies that try to use violence.
Saying that coercion is bad and therefore we should give one group the power to coerce to stop others from coercing is just insane.
Even a free market police force would have to have that authority. There has to be someone to coerce the coercers away from coercion. How would you stop a theif other than by coercing him. I guess I just have a broader definition (at least economically, definitely not socially) of what a crime is.
again your logic fails you.
you cant coerce a coercer, you self-defend. this is baby stuff.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Pskapompos: I make the assumption that people are good when they want to be, and bad as well. There is no either/or. Im sure even Hitler did something good in his life. But power corrupts. And that paradigm will hold true forever. Thats why I support things like federalism and seperation of powers.
This might be the best one yet: "But power corrupts... Thats why I support... federalism..." ...lol
nje5019: Pskapompos:no coercive force used in a free market system. All I have to do is team up a few business, banks and security firms, and there would be nothing nor noone to stop me from doing whatever I please. The point that you seem to be missing is that government is institutionalized coercion. Nobody is making the argument that if government didn't exist coercion would just vanish. However, when firms are forced to compete for customers on an open market they have very strong incentives to not coerce people. Companies that deal with people peacefully and voluntarily will outlive companies that try to use violence. Saying that coercion is bad and therefore we should give one group the power to coerce to stop others from coercing is just insane.
And the State doesn't compete, as your pointing out here, on the free market. The State uses coercion. The free market allows for negotiation and bartering in exchanges (whether you barter food, gold coins, or paper currency). The State doesn't allow for this. The State mandates. The free market allows free will.
Except for the tens of thousands of other businesses, banks and security firms, and the fact that anybody who wishes to do so can start even more of them without asking anyone's permission.
Oh and the tiny detail of the BILLIONS OF ARMED PEOPLE with no intention of becoming slaves.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap