The freer the market, the freer the people

[Mr Bananagrabber]

Private firms? You mean firms who charge you directly after they do some policing for you?

Policing is a public service. It will always be done with tax money. The police don't get to charge you for services rendered. They get funds allocated from the govt. They are in no respect anything like a monopoly.

Private firms that get paid by a city government to provide a service.

But they don't charge the government. They can't dictate their budget.

[Sibirsky]

Private firms that get paid by a city government to provide a service.

But they don't charge the government. They can't dictate their budget.

They do charge the government. And costs have been lowered while quality has increased in the majority, if not all cases.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

But they don't charge the government. They can't dictate their budget.

They do charge the government. And costs have been lowered while quality has increased in the majority, if not all cases.

haha. yeah they send the government a bill. "We've had 10,000 hours of target practice this year so you owe us $500,000 in reimbursement for ammunition and labour". They get a budget dude. And they have to operate within that budget. Also, how the hell do you assess quality of policing? If they smile and say "thank you for using NYPD" when they arrest you?

[Hydesland]

They do charge the government. And costs have been lowered while quality has increased in the majority, if not all cases.

Where this is true, this is most likely because it was on the rare occasion that outsourcing to the private sector was seen as cheaper in the first place in terms of policing, so the fact that costs are reduced is meaningless given it is a monumentally biased sample. However, this doesn't really say anything about the power of the free market, since one of the main problems of trying to distribute public goods in an entirely private system is that of funding, and various problems, including the free rider problem, means these costs simply explode and are not allocated optimally. In this case tax payer funds are pooled together to finance this operation, and the authority is centralised and accountable to one institution (the government), rather than private defence agencies answering only to those with the biggest pay checks.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

They do charge the government. And costs have been lowered while quality has increased in the majority, if not all cases.

Where this is true, this is most likely because it was on the rare occasion that outsourcing to the private sector was seen as cheaper in the first place in terms of policing, so the fact that costs are reduced is meaningless given it is a monumentally biased sample. However, this doesn't really say anything about the power of the free market, since one of the main problems of trying to distribute public goods in an entirely private system is that of funding, and various problems, including the free rider problem, means these costs simply explode and are not allocated optimally. In this case tax payer funds are pooled together to finance this operation, and the authority is centralised and accountable to one institution (the government), rather than private defence agencies answering only to those with the biggest pay checks.

Nice work

[Meryuma]

How do companies get so big? Could it be that state intervention on behalf of capitalists has occurred since the dawn of the capitalist system?

http://www.mutualist.org/id4.html

Why, yes!

Haha, a link to 'mutualist . org', clearly this is a strong justification of your absolute statement of "yes!". Not only that, but your blatantly biased source presents an article by Kevin Carson, someone who uses the strongly discredited labour theory of value as the basis of his approach, something so absurd as to cause even fellow anarcho capitalists frustration.

1. Kevin Carson isn't an ancap. Not all market anarchists are. Mutualism is not anarcho-capitalism.
2. His conception of the LTV is within a subjectivist/marginalist context.
3. That's an ad hominem. This is a scholarly article, with sourced claims, that you are dismissing out of hand.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

3. That's an ad hominem. This is a scholarly article, with sourced claims, that you are dismissing out of hand.

It's not just some character attack. It's showing that there is relevant information suggesting that the dude isn't credible.

[Sibirsky]

They do charge the government. And costs have been lowered while quality has increased in the majority, if not all cases.

Where this is true, this is most likely because it was on the rare occasion that outsourcing to the private sector was seen as cheaper in the first place in terms of policing, so the fact that costs are reduced is meaningless given it is a monumentally biased sample. However, this doesn't really say anything about the power of the free market, since one of the main problems of trying to distribute public goods in an entirely private system is that of funding, and various problems, including the free rider problem, means these costs simply explode and are not allocated optimally. In this case tax payer funds are pooled together to finance this operation, and the authority is centralised and accountable to one institution (the government), rather than private defence agencies answering only to those with the biggest pay checks.

The sample is biased because there are so few examples of this.

[Linperia]

how can a market be free if we got participants with very few money and with a lot.
but maybe a equal market would lead to a free society.

[Hydesland]

This is a scholarly article, with sourced claims, that you are dismissing out of hand.

Is it really a scholarly article? Really? Just because it contains a bibliography/reference section does not mean it deserves that title. Is it published in a journal? Nope. Is it peer reviewed? Nope. Is it actually furthering research in technical and methodological manner? Not really, it is ideological, not methodological in nature. It is wrought with value language that you would never find in an accredited journal, such as "an act of robbery as massive as feudalism" ... "Randroids" ... "robber baron capitalism" ..., and almost every statement is an absolute. I don't think you would find any accredited scholar that would consider this a genuine scholarly article, rather than an ideological manuscript. This is what a scholarly article looks like.

[Sibirsky]

how can a market be free if we got participants with very few money and with a lot.
but maybe a equal market would lead to a free society.

Prices are free to move. Participants are free to change their behavior as they wish.

[Vecherd]

how can a market be free if we got participants with very few money and with a lot.
but maybe a equal market would lead to a free society.

A society that puts equality ahead of freedom will end up with neither.

[Mercator Terra]

how can a market be free if we got participants with very few money and with a lot.
but maybe a equal market would lead to a free society.

A society that puts equality ahead of freedom will end up with neither.

I think im going to quote that

[Meryuma]

3. That's an ad hominem. This is a scholarly article, with sourced claims, that you are dismissing out of hand.

It's not just some character attack. It's showing that there is relevant information suggesting that the dude isn't credible.

Having political beliefs doesn't undermine one's credibility. It's impossible to make a completely neutral article about how existing capitalism is sustained through suppression & conquest.

Just because something is written by an anarchist doesn't mean its points are invalid.

Hydesland, I'll admit that "scholarly" might have been a bad choice of word.

But that gives you no excuse to dismiss it out of hand.

[Pope Joan]

I'm a right winger, and even I call bullshit on this stuff. Because corporations always act in their employees' clients and constituents' best interests, and as they grow more powerful they only become more beneficial to the whole world, amIrite?

True.

Even smart corporations realize that unbridled free markets lead to doom.

Quietly, they beg for regulation. "Stop us, before we kill each other!"

[Meryuma]

I'm a right winger, and even I call bullshit on this stuff. Because corporations always act in their employees' clients and constituents' best interests, and as they grow more powerful they only become more beneficial to the whole world, amIrite?

True.

Even smart corporations realize that unbridled free markets lead to doom.

Quietly, they beg for regulation. "Stop us, before we kill each other!"

Unbridled free markets lead to doom for big business, but another economy is possible.

[Mercator Terra]

True.

Even smart corporations realize that unbridled free markets lead to doom.

Quietly, they beg for regulation. "Stop us, before we kill each other!"

Unbridled free markets lead to doom for big business, but another economy is possible.

How so?

Monopolies sure, but big business in general?

[Hydesland]

But that gives you no excuse to dismiss it out of hand.

It wasn't addressed to me, I'm not obliged to address it.

[Vecherd]

I think im going to quote that

Thank you

[Meryuma]

Unbridled free markets lead to doom for big business, but another economy is possible.

How so?

Monopolies sure, but big business in general?

In a freed market, pretty much anyone could start a business out of their house. The increased competition from low-overhead cottage industries will create more equal distributions of wealth between businesses: a great example of what Gary Chartier calls "socialist ends through market means". For more info:

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/11/25/ ... e-crowded/

An excellent article by Roderick Long, despite misuse of the term "corporatism" and hosting on a right-lib site.

But that gives you no excuse to dismiss it out of hand.

It wasn't addressed to me, I'm not obliged to address it.

I actively addressed the latter half of that post to you...

[Dododecapod]

The premise is basically untrue. This idea would simply redelegate the economic power currently vested in the state to the market, whilde the market retained the power it already possesses. This would create an economic power monopoly in a single location. While competition would prevent the abuse of that monopoly for a time, the eventual operational or functional control falling into the hands of a single organization or individual would be inevitable, resulting in tyranny.

The market is made up of hundreds of millions of players. There would not be a monopoly.

I was speaking of the market itself. Removing the economic power of government and vesting it in the market (which, might I remind you, would require the abolition of government, since power is transferrable, and any power left to the government would be used to lever economic power) would create a single point of absolute power. Thus, the market would be the source and control of all forms of power, economic, political, military and judicial.

As to the "millions of players" concept, well, frankly, that's pie-in-the sky nonsense. Without regulation, individuals and small players would be eliminated from the market pretty much immediately through simple acts such as vertical integration of supply companies and exclusionary contracting. That's assuming the companies didn't just isolate their markets via company store systems or out and out imposition by force. Those companies too big to deal with would be offered a place in the local cartel, which would wind up being a wholly-owned subsidiary of the national cartel, then the world cartel. And then you have a government again, just not one that you have any control over or that gives a damn what you think.

[Hydesland]

In a freed market, pretty much anyone could start a business out of their house.

People can already start businesses out of their house. But people cannot start any business (whatever the system), especially not ones that require very high capital costs to start, or are very risky and require long contractual obligations. This is where the economics of transactions costs and theories of the firm come in, and many many decades have been spent researching and explaining why under certain situations firms develop and grow.

I actively addressed the latter half of that post to you...

What post?

[Sibirsky]

The market is made up of hundreds of millions of players. There would not be a monopoly.

I was speaking of the market itself. Removing the economic power of government and vesting it in the market (which, might I remind you, would require the abolition of government, since power is transferrable, and any power left to the government would be used to lever economic power) would create a single point of absolute power. Thus, the market would be the source and control of all forms of power, economic, political, military and judicial.

As to the "millions of players" concept, well, frankly, that's pie-in-the sky nonsense. Without regulation, individuals and small players would be eliminated from the market pretty much immediately through simple acts such as vertical integration of supply companies and exclusionary contracting. That's assuming the companies didn't just isolate their markets via company store systems or out and out imposition by force. Those companies too big to deal with would be offered a place in the local cartel, which would wind up being a wholly-owned subsidiary of the national cartel, then the world cartel. And then you have a government again, just not one that you have any control over or that gives a damn what you think.

Or not.

Businesses have been giving their employees more freedom. And both the employees and businesses have reaped immense rewards. Employees become more productive and innovative. Businesses market those innovations. This isn't the 19th century anymore.

[Mercator Terra]

In a freed market, pretty much anyone could start a business out of their house.

People can already start businesses out of their house. But people cannot start any business (whatever the system), especially not ones that require very high capital costs to start, or are very risky and require long contractual obligations. This is where the economics of transactions costs and theories of the firm come in, and many many decades have been spent researching and explaining why under certain situations firms develop and grow.

I have to agree with Hydesland on this one.

[Meryuma]

In a freed market, pretty much anyone could start a business out of their house.

People can already start businesses out of their house. But people cannot start any business (whatever the system), especially not ones that require very high capital costs to start, or are very risky and require long contractual obligations. This is where the economics of transactions costs and theories of the firm come in, and many many decades have been spent researching and explaining why under certain situations firms develop and grow.

I actively addressed the latter half of that post to you...

What post?

1. It would be a lot easier without artificial barriers to entry in the form of licensing and such things.
2. This post:

It's not just some character attack. It's showing that there is relevant information suggesting that the dude isn't credible.

Having political beliefs doesn't undermine one's credibility. It's impossible to make a completely neutral article about how existing capitalism is sustained through suppression & conquest.

Just because something is written by an anarchist doesn't mean its points are invalid.

Hydesland, I'll admit that "scholarly" might have been a bad choice of word.

But that gives you no excuse to dismiss it out of hand.