Privatized police department.

[Terra Agora]

No that is not a fact. Dont kid yourself. EVERY monopoly ever created was done so with the help of the government.

also:

In your eyes, a free market has never existed. You have no clue what would happen in one.

A free market never existed?
Thanks for telling me I never knew that I believed that.

[Sociobiology]

Untrue. I can hire between about 4 different telecom companies right now in my local area. Whose to say that I can't hire 3-4 different private police departments, or rely on the government public option?



Untrue. Collusion is a result of natural human greed, and if a market is driven by pure greed then there will be collusion. That is a fact, and has been seen in the Gilded Age of the United States. The question is whether collusion is good or bad. Monopolies have low prices in order to keep customers, but they're known to use unethical tactics to squash new entrees into the free market.

No that is not a fact. Dont kid yourself. EVERY monopoly ever created was done so with the help of the government.

really would the government itself count as a monopoly if so they rarely created by other governments. here is a better question define Monopoly.

[Lomenore]

Wamitoria has a point.

Terra Agora, what is your definition of a free market? Is it a laissez faire system where the state has no involvement in economic affairs? I doubt you would call the modern regulated economy a Free Market.

[Galla-]

Untrue. I can hire between about 4 different telecom companies right now in my local area. Whose to say that I can't hire 3-4 different private police departments, or rely on the government public option?



Untrue. Collusion is a result of natural human greed, and if a market is driven by pure greed then there will be collusion. That is a fact, and has been seen in the Gilded Age of the United States. The question is whether collusion is good or bad. Monopolies have low prices in order to keep customers, but they're known to use unethical tactics to squash new entrees into the free market.

No that is not a fact. Dont kid yourself. EVERY monopoly ever created was done so with the help of the government.

Source?

As far as I'm aware, every monopoly ever was created by the environment of the free market and unregulated capitalism. Regardless, the question isn't whether monopolies are a product of the free market, but whether monopolies are overall a good thing, and whether you support horizontal monopolies, vertical monopolies, or both.

And how am I doin it wrong btw? Taking a middle ground approach of regulation and a public option is doing it wrong?

[Terra Agora]

Wamitoria has a point.

Terra Agora, what is your definition of a free market? Is it a laissez faire system where the state has no involvement in economic affairs? I doubt you would call the modern regulated economy a Free Market.

Yes laissez faire. A no he doesn't have a point.

[Keronians]

Wamitoria has a point.

Terra Agora, what is your definition of a free market? Is it a laissez faire system where the state has no involvement in economic affairs? I doubt you would call the modern regulated economy a Free Market.

Yes laissez faire. A no he doesn't have a point.

Which country had a completely laissez-faire system?

How long did it take it to end up in utter chaos?

[Terra Agora]

No that is not a fact. Dont kid yourself. EVERY monopoly ever created was done so with the help of the government.

Source?

As far as I'm aware, every monopoly ever was created by the environment of the free market and unregulated capitalism. Regardless, the question isn't whether monopolies are a product of the free market, but whether monopolies are overall a good thing, and whether you support horizontal monopolies, vertical monopolies, or both.

I can give you specific sources for specific incidents. It would take me awhile for everyone of them though haha.

[Terra Agora]

Yes laissez faire. A no he doesn't have a point.

Which country had a completely laissez-faire system?

You cant be "partly laissez faire" so to say "completely laissez faire" is redundant.

The "wild" west was basically laissez faire.

There a few cases to be honest.

[Lomenore]

really would the government itself count as a monopoly if so they rarely created by other governments. here is a better question define Monopoly.

If the government ALWAYS created monopolies, why would they bother with the farce of private ownership?

Back when Augustus ruled Rome, Egypt was literally his own personal property. He didn't pretend there were private owners of the land. In Ancien Regime France, there were monopolies on things like animal furs from America, which was the property of the crown. In 1884, the Congo Free State was the property of King Leopold of Belgium. When the British wanted to tighten their control of India, they replaced the East India Company with the British Raj. When the Egyptians took over the Canal, they nationalized the Suez Canal Company. In 1953, the Iranian government nationalized the Anglo Persian Oil Company.

If a government wanted to create a monopoly, they would just do it. They would say (for example) "The Oil industry is a state monopoly and any private ownership is illegal."

If governments create monopolies, as some have claimed, then why would they not have them as an official part of the government? Why is it that US Steel or Ma Bell or Standard Oil were private companies, if the US government was responsible for their monopoly status?

[Natapoc]

In the real world companies do not succeed because they supply a better product or a cheaper product or because they are nicer to their customers or anything like that.

It's all about manipulation, marketing, driving deals by knowing the right people at the top, being good at extorting the greatest amount of money for the least amount of work, blaming all mistakes on the customer so they pay you more to fix your mistakes, ect.

Sadly this is one of those things you need to have experienced to understand I think.

Thus the one advantage of public police over private police is lack of profit motive in influencing who to protect when signing contracts and the priority of who to protect when protecting them.

Sib has brought up that in the US public police cannot be held responsible for not responding to requests for help but this is a particularity of US law and not something that needs to be. Why not change it so that public police are required by law to answer all calls for help like in Italy?

There is ALLOT that needs reformed about the police. But privatization cannot guarantee any improvement at all over solid reforms. indeed: When pressed the free marketeers claim that these companies would be bound by laws/contracts. Just as current police are.

There is a idea that prices are always lowered with privatization. This is not always true. Many cities have seen large cost increases after their utilities were privatized.

[Terra Agora]

really would the government itself count as a monopoly if so they rarely created by other governments. here is a better question define Monopoly.

If the government ALWAYS created monopolies, why would they bother with the farce of private ownership?

Back when Augustus ruled Rome, Egypt was literally his own personal property. He didn't pretend there were private owners of the land. In Ancien Regime France, there were monopolies on things like animal furs from America, which was the property of the crown. In 1884, the Congo Free State was the property of King Leopold of Belgium. When the British wanted to tighten their control of India, they replaced the East India Company with the British Raj. When the Egyptians took over the Canal, they nationalized the Suez Canal Company. In 1953, the Iranian government nationalized the Anglo Persian Oil Company.

If a government wanted to create a monopoly, they would just do it. They would say (for example) "The Oil industry is a state monopoly and any private ownership is illegal."

If governments create monopolies, as some have claimed, then why would they not have them as an official part of the government? Why is it that US Steel or Ma Bell or Standard Oil were private companies, if the US government was responsible for their monopoly status?

Private business runs better.
If it was a gov entity it would be funded by taxes to keep it private they wouldn't have to worry about paying them. Well once they fail they do. Thats called a bailout.

Same reason we dont nationalize every food chain and make it a monopoly. Or every air plane company. etc

[Sociobiology]

private police would also have the same problems private fire departments had, no coverage for many people, with the police actively encouraging (or causing) crime to encourage more people to buy their service.
If you have to buy dozens of competing programs then any cost benefit disappears, so what is the down side of government police compared to these?

[Lomenore]

Which country had a completely laissez-faire system?

You cant be "partly laissez faire" so to say "completely laissez faire" is redundant.

The "wild" west was basically laissez faire.

You mean the American West? The same American West that was developed with the help of the transcontinental railroads? The same railroads developed with the help of government bonds and land grants? How is that basically Laissez faire when the lifeline for that society was put into place by the government?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Railway_Acts

There a few cases to be honest.

Then name one. Please? Just one?

[Terra Agora]

You cant be "partly laissez faire" so to say "completely laissez faire" is redundant.

The "wild" west was basically laissez faire.

You mean the American West? The same American West that was developed with the help of the transcontinental railroads? The same railroads developed with the help of government bonds and land grants?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Railway_Acts

Using that logic if the US became laissez faire it wouldn't actually be laissez faire because there is infrastructure that was created by the gov before hand.

[Lomenore]

Indeed. It would be basically saying a Laissez faire system can only exist if a government sets the infrastructure in place beforehand.

[Wamitoria]

You mean the American West? The same American West that was developed with the help of the transcontinental railroads? The same railroads developed with the help of government bonds and land grants?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Railway_Acts

Using that logic if the US became laissez faire it wouldn't actually be laissez faire because there is infrastructure that was created by the gov before hand.

You're beating around the Bush. The simple fact is that without government aid, the Wild West^TM would never have come into being.

[Sociobiology]

You cant be "partly laissez faire" so to say "completely laissez faire" is redundant.

The "wild" west was basically laissez faire.

You mean the American West? The same American West that was developed with the help of the transcontinental railroads? The same railroads developed with the help of government bonds and land grants? How is that basically Laissez faire when the lifeline for that society was put into place by the government?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Railway_Acts

There a few cases to be honest.

Then name one. Please? Just one?

So laissez fair cannot exist with a government, because you will find a government benefit somewhere in any country. Standard oil only existed be cause goverment police enforced there ownership of land by government contract.
and standard oil is a very good example of a monopoly that existed before it got government support.

[Terra Agora]

Using that logic if the US became laissez faire it wouldn't actually be laissez faire because there is infrastructure that was created by the gov before hand.

The simple fact is that without government aid, the Wild West^TM would never have come into being.

Lolwhat?

[Wamitoria]

The simple fact is that without government aid, the Wild West^TM would never have come into being.

Lolwhat?

Railroads. They were authorized/paid for by the government. Private business found it to be too unprofitable to do it for themselves.

[Natapoc]

The simple fact is that without government aid, the Wild West^TM would never have come into being.

Lolwhat?

He has a pretty good point. What exactly do you mean when you say "the wild west" anyway?

[Lomenore]

The West was developed because of the railroads. The railroads were created with government bonds and federal land grants. Without these, the west would not be developed at the rate it was and your laissez faire Wild West would be a mostly unpopulated wilderness.

[Natapoc]

The West was developed because of the railroads. The railroads were created with government bonds and federal land grants. Without these, the west would not be developed at the rate it was and your laissez faire Wild West would be a mostly unpopulated wilderness.

Actually that's pretty false too. It was very much populated. Just not with Europeans.

[Lomenore]

The West was developed because of the railroads. The railroads were created with government bonds and federal land grants. Without these, the west would not be developed at the rate it was and your laissez faire Wild West would be a mostly unpopulated wilderness.

Actually that's pretty false too. It was very much populated. Just not with Europeans.

You're right. I forgot about that. But I think we can agree that the Indians didn't have the numbers that the Americans did.

[ZombieRothbard]

I'm going to defend sears against k-mart to the death why? people join the army to defend the country not walmart.

I agree. There's a difference between putting your life on the line to defend your country and your family, and risking your life for money. If someone invaded my hometown, I'd gladly join the army and help push them away. If I end up dead, that's a risk of the job I knew when I joined up. But when I'm guarding someone else's property for pay, I wouldn't be so motivated. To quote Han Solo "What good's a reward if ya ain't alive to spend it?"

I'd do my job up to a point, since I do want to earn my paycheck. I'd chase away some kid spray painting the walls. If it was me with a BPV and an assault rifle up against some thug with a knife or handgun, I'd fight. If it was me and several of my fellow guards up against a gangbanger, I'd fight. Even group on group fighting is worth the risk, providing the other group is smaller or not as well armed.

Do you steal things from your employer? I don't steal things from mine, and the only reason I am there is to make money.

[Lomenore]

False Dilemma. Just because I wouldn't steal from someone doesn't mean I'd die for them.