Taxation is Coercion

[Bendira]

It has to do with the fact that, despite your many postings, you seemingly don't really have a concrete (or, indeed, any) understanding of human nature.

It's like the time, a few pages ago, when you 'solved' the free rider problem-- by either misunderstanding what the problem is, or human nature.

Thanks for telling me im wrong without telling me why.

The definition of the free rider problem can best be summed up as this; "In economics, collective bargaining, psychology, and political science, "free riders" are those who consume more than their fair share of a public resource, or shoulder less than a fair share of the costs of its production." It doesn't matter that the road is important to both businesses- If we both pay, the cost is reduced, but if only you pay to maintain the road, we still both benefit; if neither us pay, we both die (in terms of business.)

It's very difficult for you to say, you guys know nothing of economics, when your own level of knowledge is apparently very poor.

Relevance? How does this not disprove the threat of free riding in a free market anarchist society?

[Bendira]

So, in the end, our Frindly Fisherman is out of a job. As is Tom the Trucker. And Mike the Mechanic. And Truckers Inc. who can’t sell their trucks as there’re no roads for the trucks to drive on. And Processors Inc. who can no longer get any fish to process. And Fish-Mart who's got nothing to sell. And all the other people who indirectly had something to do with the Friendly Fisherman.

Ok, so basically you made the exact same argument that was made earlier, only you used about 40x the words. The Friendly Fisherman shouldn't go fish out in the middle of no where and expect society to pick up the tab. The fact that the price of this particular fish is low, so low in fact that it isn't worth a business' time to build a road, shows that this fish does not have a lot of scarcity. This could be because, perhaps, very few people like the taste of this fish, and there is no demand. Or perhaps that this fish is fished in another location that provides for much easier and less expensive transport. Again, a lack of basic knowledge about economics.

And right there is the proof that anarcho-capitalists want to enjoy the benefits of society without paying the costs.

Fisherman have no choice but to do the fishing where the fish are.

Oh. My. God. Again, no grasp of economics. If the only place to fish is out in the middle of no where, and there is a demand for this type of fish, the fish would have increased scarcity, raising the price for the fish, raising the profits for the fish, thus making it profitable for business' to extend services to the fisherman. My lord, can you guys think before you post?

LOL. There's more to economics than supply and demand.

Ok, please explain to me why what I just said is wrong.

Simply put: There is more to economics than supply and demand.
For more detail, see here, here, here, here, and here.
Edit: and here.

So your basically admiting that there is nothing wrong with my example.

[Dododecapod]

You must also understand too that the infrustructure costs in a free market would be far less than in our society, because our road and power systems are maintained by a single corrupt monopolistic corporation (the government).

I realise this is a statement of faith for the free marketers, but it also isn't by any means necessarily true. As an example, since the privatisation of Telstra in Australia, overall costs regarding telephone networks (wired, not Cell) have increased quite considerably more than the cost of maintaining and expanding the network has. It's also completely inaccurate, of course, if you are dealing with a corporate monopoly, which will almost always be far more expensive than a government monopoly.

Further, you're assuming that micro-level infrastructure systems are available. One of the most common tactics of large corporations is to eliminate small scale competition - car companies buy and shut down bus services, supermarkets draw supply companies into exclusive contracts. With no government regulation, this type of anti-competition acton would become veryn common.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Unless they aren't.

Private industry will ONLY do what is good for private industry. That's not a criticism, but it is the reality - if something will cost more than it will profit, private industry is NEVER going to do it.

Agree so far.

So, if the cost of stringing and maintaining powerlines to an isolated community is greater than the estimated profit, that isolated community never gets mains power. If expanding the road network to a distant city is costlier than the expected gain, everybody better buy four-wheel drives if they want to get anywhere.

What is your point? Because what I get out of this, is that this isolated community shouldn't exist out in the middle of no where and expect services.

My point is that under a tax system, unlike under a privatized system, they'll get them. Living in Oz, I get a pretty different view on this than most - because "isolated" here means muh more than it does elsewhere. And cities like Perth and Darwin would be totally cut off from the rest of the country if it wasn't for government maintained infrastructure that private industry would never have been interested in creating.

Private industry may be able to provide goods and services cheaply. But they will only be willing to if there's a profit to be made - no profit, no services.

I agree.

So you believe it is morally acceptable for me to be forced to pay for some person that goes and builds a house in the middle of no where, where an entire road system and power system will have to be run to their house?

Right, let’s force the farmers, miners, lumber jacks, oil workers, fishers, and indeed everybody else whose job takes them away from major cities and force them to move to the city. Never mind that we need their services out there in the middle of nowhere and that we need to transport the goods they produce into the cities.

You’re “forced” to pay for the infrastructure that allows people to live in the middel of nowhere because it’s vital to society as a whole...

You have no idea how capitalism works . Its almost sad that you guys are such trolls. The example he gave was a person living out in the middle of no where without anything to offer to society. Obviously if there is somebody giving something to society that society values, roads would be built as a means to transport these goods back to society. You guys all make fun of the invisible hand of the free market. I don't mean to be offensive, but the reason why is because you have no grasp on reality, economics or cause and effect relationships.

If only we could read the works of someone explaining the concept of the invisible hand of the free market ... but, unfortunately Adam Smith is not only an irrelevant historical figure, he too is an idiotic troll with no idea how capitalism works because he disagrees with you about taxation.

So do most economists (including libertarians like Milton Friedman).

Apparently, you are one of the privileged few in time and space with the necessary wisdom and experience to properly grasp "reality, economics or cause and effect relationships."

Seriously, regardless of the merits of some of these lines of argument (like the Friendly Fisherman), your insults are getting tiresome. You do realize that some of us are adults with full post-graduate educations and decades of experience in the real world free market. What exactly makes your understanding of reality and economics superior to everyone else's?

[Dyakovo]

Simply put: There is more to economics than supply and demand.
For more detail, see here, here, here, here, and here.
Edit: and here.

So your basically admiting that there is nothing wrong with my example.

Apparently you only read the first link on microeconomics. Congratulations, way to prove your ignorance.

[The Cat-Tribe]

The Constitution sets up the government; with the Constitution comes with the Bill of Rights, which declares that there are Inalienable rights that the government cannot cross, destroying the idea of a Social Contract.

This is total nonsense. Limitations on a contract do not "destroy" a contract in any way.

The Bill of Rights isn't a 'limitation' of the 'contract'; it's a rejection of the contract entirely, and the establishment of the United States's written rejection of any 'Social Contract'.

Is the problem that you don't understand social contract theory or that you don't understand how the Bill of Rights relates to the Constitution?

As I explained in an earlier post, the idea of inalienable or natural rights is not inconsistent with the idea of a social contract. To the contrary, the most common modern theories of the two ideas overlap (particularly those that inspired the Constitution and Bill of Rights):

1. Most social contract theories come from the same philosophers (Hobbes, Locke, etc) that believe in natural human rights including property rights. They recognize, however, that not everyone will recognize and respect everyone else's rights. Thus, existence without government (or "the state of nature") is a state of war and we form government to protect our liberty:

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

--Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ... (emphasis added)

-- Declaration of Independence

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

--James Madison, Federalist No. 51(emphasis added).

2. John Locke, whose philosophy of natural rights most inspired the Founders of the United States, explained this connection between such rights (including property rights) and the formation of the social contract in his Second Treatise of Government:

Sec. 123. IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and controul of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.
...
Sec. 127. Thus mankind, notwithstanding all the privileges of the state of nature, being but in an ill condition, while they remain in it, are quickly driven into society. Hence it comes to pass, that we seldom find any number of men live any time together in this state. The inconveniencies that they are therein exposed to, by the irregular and uncertain exercise of the power every man has of punishing the transgressions of others, make them take sanctuary under the established laws of government, and therein seek the preservation of their property. It is this makes them so willingly give up every one his single power of punishing, to be exercised by such alone, as shall be appointed to it amongst them; and by such rules as the community, or those authorized by them to that purpose, shall agree on. And in this we have the original right and rise of both the legislative and executive power, as well as of the governments and societies themselves.

Moreover, in explaining the legitimate and necessary powers of government, Locke specifically included the power to tax -- based on consent of the majority or its representives. See, e.g.,

Sec. 140. It is true, governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection, should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own consent, i.e. the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves, or their representatives chosen by them: for if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people, by his own authority, and without such consent of the people, he thereby invades the fundamental law of property, and subverts the end of government: for what property have I in that, which another may by right take, when he pleases, to himself?

[Xomic]

It has to do with the fact that, despite your many postings, you seemingly don't really have a concrete (or, indeed, any) understanding of human nature.

It's like the time, a few pages ago, when you 'solved' the free rider problem-- by either misunderstanding what the problem is, or human nature.

Thanks for telling me im wrong without telling me why.

I-

I did tell you. You're wrong because you either don't grasp the problem, or you have an extremely flawed understanding of human nature.

Relevance? How does this not disprove the threat of free riding in a free market anarchist society?

No.

If you don't understand why, you don't understand why the free rider problem is a problem, and you likely also don't understand human nature either.

[Bendira]

I realise this is a statement of faith for the free marketers, but it also isn't by any means necessarily true. As an example, since the privatisation of Telstra in Australia, overall costs regarding telephone networks (wired, not Cell) have increased quite considerably more than the cost of maintaining and expanding the network has. It's also completely inaccurate, of course, if you are dealing with a corporate monopoly, which will almost always be far more expensive than a government monopoly.

Its not a statement of faith. Its a statement of fact. I am not familiar with the Australian situation with Telstra, so I don't want to comment specifically on that case, for fear of getting trapped in an empirical argument that I do not have much background of.

Further, you're assuming that micro-level infrastructure systems are available. One of the most common tactics of large corporations is to eliminate small scale competition - car companies buy and shut down bus services, supermarkets draw supply companies into exclusive contracts. With no government regulation, this type of anti-competition acton would become veryn common.

So lets say that there is a single highway that runs from town A to town B. This highway system is privately owned, and is the only highway system that runs from town A to town B. It would be true of course that this highway system would seemingly have a monopoly on travel between town A and town B. However, what about the airline service that flies customers from town A to town B? If the highway service charges extremely high prices, people would just take the plane. If the airline charged high prices, people would just take the highway. If the highway service buys out the airline service and raises its prices, what would stop a new competitor from emerging? And of course, no airline service would sell to a monopolistic highway service that overcharges use for its road, because if you are the airline service you would be making way more revenue than the highway service since you are undercutting their business. It would be a bad business decision to sell, because in the long term you would end up making way more. Also, if the highway service is overpricing use, people would stop using it as often.

The idea of an exclusive contract is something unique to our socialist system. What incentive is their for a supplier to sign an exclusive contract in a free market system, void of government monopolistic collusion? The only reason that WAL-MART gets exclusive contracts for example, is because of intellectual property laws (search the thread for my explaination of why WAL-MART could not exist in a free market) inflating WAL-MART's monopolistic size so large, that it is the only business left.

[Bendira]

It has to do with the fact that, despite your many postings, you seemingly don't really have a concrete (or, indeed, any) understanding of human nature.

It's like the time, a few pages ago, when you 'solved' the free rider problem-- by either misunderstanding what the problem is, or human nature.

Thanks for telling me im wrong without telling me why.

I-

I did tell you. You're wrong because you either don't grasp the problem, or you have an extremely flawed understanding of human nature.

Relevance? How does this not disprove the threat of free riding in a free market anarchist society?

No.

If you don't understand why, you don't understand why the free rider problem is a problem, and you likely also don't understand human nature either.

Ok, when you decide to actually formulate an argument let me know sir.

[Bendira]

Unless they aren't.

Private industry will ONLY do what is good for private industry. That's not a criticism, but it is the reality - if something will cost more than it will profit, private industry is NEVER going to do it.

Agree so far.

So, if the cost of stringing and maintaining powerlines to an isolated community is greater than the estimated profit, that isolated community never gets mains power. If expanding the road network to a distant city is costlier than the expected gain, everybody better buy four-wheel drives if they want to get anywhere.

What is your point? Because what I get out of this, is that this isolated community shouldn't exist out in the middle of no where and expect services.

My point is that under a tax system, unlike under a privatized system, they'll get them. Living in Oz, I get a pretty different view on this than most - because "isolated" here means muh more than it does elsewhere. And cities like Perth and Darwin would be totally cut off from the rest of the country if it wasn't for government maintained infrastructure that private industry would never have been interested in creating.

Private industry may be able to provide goods and services cheaply. But they will only be willing to if there's a profit to be made - no profit, no services.

I agree.

So you believe it is morally acceptable for me to be forced to pay for some person that goes and builds a house in the middle of no where, where an entire road system and power system will have to be run to their house?

Right, let’s force the farmers, miners, lumber jacks, oil workers, fishers, and indeed everybody else whose job takes them away from major cities and force them to move to the city. Never mind that we need their services out there in the middle of nowhere and that we need to transport the goods they produce into the cities.

You’re “forced” to pay for the infrastructure that allows people to live in the middel of nowhere because it’s vital to society as a whole...

You have no idea how capitalism works . Its almost sad that you guys are such trolls. The example he gave was a person living out in the middle of no where without anything to offer to society. Obviously if there is somebody giving something to society that society values, roads would be built as a means to transport these goods back to society. You guys all make fun of the invisible hand of the free market. I don't mean to be offensive, but the reason why is because you have no grasp on reality, economics or cause and effect relationships.

If only we could read the works of someone explaining the concept of the invisible hand of the free market ... but, unfortunately Adam Smith is not only an irrelevant historical figure, he too is an idiotic troll with no idea how capitalism works because he disagrees with you about taxation.

So do most economists (including libertarians like Milton Friedman).

Apparently, you are one of the privileged few in time and space with the necessary wisdom and experience to properly grasp "reality, economics or cause and effect relationships."

Seriously, regardless of the merits of some of these lines of argument (like the Friendly Fisherman), your insults are getting tiresome. You do realize that some of us are adults with full post-graduate educations and decades of experience in the real world free market. What exactly makes your understanding of reality and economics superior to everyone else's?

The real question is, what makes YOUR understanding of reality and economics superior to mine? And why do you constantly age discriminate? I thought you were a civil rights lawyer or something?

[Xomic]

Ok, when you decide to actually formulate an argument let me know sir.

My argument is;
You argue for a system (free markets) without fully understanding any of the underlying premises.
You cannot defend these premises, because you do not properly understand them.
Further, when we do get you to explain your reasoning, we come across massive gaps in your understanding of humans and human nature.

Example:

So lets say that there is a single highway that runs from town A to town B. This highway system is privately owned, and is the only highway system that runs from town A to town B. It would be true of course that this highway system would seemingly have a monopoly on travel between town A and town B. However, what about the airline service that flies customers from town A to town B? If the highway service charges extremely high prices, people would just take the plane. If the airline charged high prices, people would just take the highway. If the highway service buys out the airline service and raises its prices, what would stop a new competitor from emerging? And of course, no airline service would sell to a monopolistic highway service that overcharges use for its road, because if you are the airline service you would be making way more revenue than the highway service since you are undercutting their business. It would be a bad business decision to sell, because in the long term you would end up making way more. Also, if the highway service is overpricing use, people would stop using it as often.

Here's your flawed understandings:
1) If the highway service buys out the airline service and raises its prices, what would stop a new competitor from emerging?
-What's to stop this new competitor from also being bought out? Answer, nothing. Corporations do not allow competitors to exist.

This seems to be an underlying flaw in free market reasoning. You seem to assume that the net amount and power of a corporation in any sector will never decrease (in terms of competitors) and never increase (in terms of power)

Lets say you have 10 corporations in, say, fishing. You assume that they'll merely wax and wane over time, but at no point will one corporation fail, and be bought out by a competitor, nor do you seem to think any corporation will do very well and use it's power to consolidate it's gains. Let's say one season, Fish Corp A does poorly. Fish Corp B buys it out. Now Fish Corp B has the boats and equipment of two corporations. Next season, maybe Fish Corp D does really, really well, and buys out one of the other corps, Corp F. After two seasons, we have eight corporations. We have six normal sized corporations, and two corporations that have the power of two. Next season, the same thing happens, Corp AB and Corp DF buy a corp each. They now have the power of three corporations each, with four normal sized corps.

Now that Corp DF and AB are so big, they can run their competitors out of business by simply pricing their fish lower than the others can, causing them to be unable to compete-- even if DF and AB take a loss in terms of money, running the other four corporations out of business ultimately benefits them. Any upstarts can be bought out, or run out of business.

And this is just with fishing- Corporations will actively sabotage competitors, if they can. Microsoft did so with IE vs Netscape back in the mid-to-early (IIRC) 1990s. Because Microsoft could bundle IE with windows, and force people they supply with computers to make sure it's on the computers, Microsoft went from have no market share at all to having most of it.

Why did they do it? To make sure Netscape wouldn't evolve into something that would supersede windows as the UI for content.

Ironically, In the EU, Microsoft has been forced to put a popup on first start up that allows the new user to pick their Browser of choice.

Why, you ask, did people not just switch? It's because human beings tend towards apathy. With the IE already there, there wasn't any reason for the majority of users to bother getting a new one.

2) And of course, no airline service would sell to a monopolistic highway service that overcharges use for its road,
-Yes, they would. Humans have been know to take large lump sums over long term risk, if they can. that's why so many corporations get sold. (Seriously, corps like Google and Apple buy a new corporation nearly everyday.)

3) Also, if the highway service is overpricing use, people would stop using it as often.
-This goes back to the whole 'if I don't use it, I shouldn't pay taxes for it' argument. As I pointed out back many pages ago, and was never answered, most, if not all the things you buy travel on the roads at some point. Just because you haven't personally driven on them doesn't mean you haven't used them.

Alas, no one told me how this was incorrect.

Further more, you've already stated that the highway connects town A with B. If there are no other roads, or if the highway buys out those other roads, you'll have no choice in the matter, other than to ban together, and pool the community's money to build you own road to-- oh wait, that'd be a government levying a tax to produce a public good, my bad.

But yeah, other than all this, your logic and understanding of human nature is just flawless.

[Dododecapod]

I realise this is a statement of faith for the free marketers, but it also isn't by any means necessarily true. As an example, since the privatisation of Telstra in Australia, overall costs regarding telephone networks (wired, not Cell) have increased quite considerably more than the cost of maintaining and expanding the network has. It's also completely inaccurate, of course, if you are dealing with a corporate monopoly, which will almost always be far more expensive than a government monopoly.

Its not a statement of faith. Its a statement of fact.[\quote]

No, I'm afraid you are quite and completely wrong. There are MANY cases of government monopolies costing less, sometimes MUCH less, than equivalent free market systems, usually due to the lack of need of profit.

I am not familiar with the Australian situation with Telstra, so I don't want to comment specifically on that case, for fear of getting trapped in an empirical argument that I do not have much background of.

Fair enough.

Further, you're assuming that micro-level infrastructure systems are available. One of the most common tactics of large corporations is to eliminate small scale competition - car companies buy and shut down bus services, supermarkets draw supply companies into exclusive contracts. With no government regulation, this type of anti-competition acton would become veryn common.

So lets say that there is a single highway that runs from town A to town B. This highway system is privately owned, and is the only highway system that runs from town A to town B. It would be true of course that this highway system would seemingly have a monopoly on travel between town A and town B. However, what about the airline service that flies customers from town A to town B? If the highway service charges extremely high prices, people would just take the plane. If the airline charged high prices, people would just take the highway. If the highway service buys out the airline service and raises its prices, what would stop a new competitor from emerging? And of course, no airline service would sell to a monopolistic highway service that overcharges use for its road, because if you are the airline service you would be making way more revenue than the highway service since you are undercutting their business. It would be a bad business decision to sell, because in the long term you would end up making way more. Also, if the highway service is overpricing use, people would stop using it as often.

So the Highway owner and airline owner collude to ensure they both overcharge. Much better business than competing, and between the two of them they can strangle anyone stupid enough to try and start up competition.

The idea of an exclusive contract is something unique to our socialist system.

Which is utter bullshit. Exclusive contracts have been around as long as we've had markets.

What incentive is their for a supplier to sign an exclusive contract in a free market system, void of government monopolistic collusion?

Let's see: Profit (you get a better price if you sign an exclusive contract than a non-exclusive one), stability (don't need to worry about who you're going to sell your produce to next year, even if there's a glut), reducion of risk (and therefore better credit possibilities)...all major and good reasons to sign exclusive contracts.
In fact, the only reason NOT to would be if you thought you could make even better money being a free agent. Which is fine if you're a great marketer AS WELL as being a good farmer/manufacturer, but since most people are only experts at one thing...

The only reason that WAL-MART gets exclusive contracts for example, is because of intellectual property laws (search the thread for my explaination of why WAL-MART could not exist in a free market) inflating WAL-MART's monopolistic size so large, that it is the only business left.

SO, you also consider that a person DOESN'T have the rights to their labour? That a creator has NO rights to what he creates?

[JJ Place]

DaWoad, there is not threat of violence for not paying for a mortgage. It is not coercive. You made a choice to finance a house. It is nothing like taxes.

sure there is, don't pay your mortgage and you'll be violently expelled and, depending on country and situation, possibly jailed and (this has already been said) if you inherit your parents house you didn't chose to finance it your parents did (just like you didn't chose to be born in your country your parents did). It's everything like taxes.

(man all the liberalists are on tonight *grins* you, JJ, Lelouch and bendira all in one thread! I'm kinda flattered)

I'm in the 'anarchist' political category, the 'liberal' social category, and the 'capitalist' economic category myself, all ideological fields taken to absolute purest extreme; but I suppose a liberaist would describe me in appropriate definition; don't think I forgot about any of you, also; I'll make sure to respond to all of you, and I've probably already responded to you already in this thread if I have not responded to you directly.

[Brickistan]

Much scientific research is actually worthless to the furthering of humankind. These intellectuals who get their jolly's off on discovering new types of bacteria are indeed not contributing anything to society. It is the equivalent of me getting payed by the government to blog about music. I am not creating anything. The reason why the government historically has bought off intellectuals is because it will reduce the chance that they will criticize the government. Obviously if I am running my publically funded music blog, and the government forms a band and asks me to review it, obviously I am going to say the band is amazing. Because I know damn well that im not doing anything worthwhile that the private sector would find valuable, so the only way for me to remain employed doing my hobby is to polish the governments poll. Now this still dosn't mean advancements in science wouldn't occur in an anarchist society. Eccentric millionaires donate to science all the time, and many discoveries are made during corporate research.

So, accumulation of knowledge is, in itself, not worthwhile? Right...

Ok, so basically you made the exact same argument that was made earlier, only you used about 40x the words. The Friendly Fisherman shouldn't go fish out in the middle of no where and expect society to pick up the tab. The fact that the price of this particular fish is low, so low in fact that it isn't worth a business' time to build a road, shows that this fish does not have a lot of scarcity. This could be because, perhaps, very few people like the taste of this fish, and there is no demand. Or perhaps that this fish is fished in another location that provides for much easier and less expensive transport. Again, a lack of basic knowledge about economics.

I used many words because I hoped it would help you understand the issues. Apparently, it didn’t...

Once again: the worth of this particular road cannot be measured in simple profit. While building a road to the middle of nowhere might not result in an immediate profit (and thus, in your world, would not be build) it ends up being a benefit to society, as a whole, since the use of this road has implications for so many different people.
As such, there is a benefit to society that goes way beyond mere profit.

No where in this does society benefit from building the road. Who benefits from building this road, are the handful of individuals that would use this road. This handful of individuals do not represent the whole of society. The rest of society would actually be hurt by the building of this road.

So you either didn’t read my example or didn’t understand it...

It’s not just the fishermen and the people who build the road who benefits from it. It’s also the mechanics who maintains the boats and cars. The processing plants and the retailers that now have fish to work with. The truckers and retailers that can now deliver food and other goods to the fishermen. The road inspectors and the company that maintains the road. The cops who patrol the road. And so on...

Uh, wtf are you talking about? If all the fish from the hypothetical harbour are fished, and there still remains the same demand for the fish, the scarcity of the fish would increase. Presumably, depending on the demand and the scarcity of the fish, this would allow for the fisherman to actually make money at his old fishing spot. Because the price of the infrustructure would be built into the cost of the fish. And if the demand for the fish dosn't fall, it would become beneficial for society to build this road and provide power. And the fact that a large portion of the fish die on transport (which sort of shows a lack of knowledge about fishing I think?) would just increase the scarcity of the fish. Again, this just shows your utter lack of knowledge about capitalism and basic economics.

It’s obviously you who lacks knowledge...

Supply and demand is not nearly as simply as you want it to be. The fishermen might be able to sell their fish at $1 per fish but not at $3 per fish. Demand is not just based on supply, it’s also based on the price of the product in question.

In your fantasy world the road would still not be build, ‘cause no-one would be willing to pay the price demanded by the fishermen in order to finance it.

How is this irrational? The irrationality is the management trying to force workers into entering a system that the employee's clearly would not benefit from using. If the employee's wanted to use the system, they would have done so. The whole betrayal thing is just part of competition in the workplace, where employee's are willing to jump through hoops to please their managers. I fail to see the relevance in this.

There would be a big benefit to the company, as a whole, if all the employees can see each other’s schedules as it makes scheduling the individual worker’s workday that much easier. Indeed, it would be a big benefit for each individual worker to be able to see the other workers schedules. But even so, the software was not used, despite the benefits it would provide.

Since you are admitting that the threat of a free rider would stir competition, I suppose you aren't one of these people who believe there would be stagnate monopolies in a free market. Essentially you are arguing that there would be TOO MUCH competition in the market. This in relation to the employee example has several differences. In the fishing scenario, the fisherman actually have something to gain by raising the money for the road, known as profit. In the employee example, the employee's did not value the system they were being asked to join. There was no incentive for the employee's to join, other than perhaps peer pressure from their co-workers or pressure from the management, in which case each employee presumably deemed it unnecessary to enter the system. Two completely different scenario's with barely any parallels whatsoever.

Actually, I’m absolutely convinced that monopolies and cartels are inevitable under a free market.

To understand why, you need to have another look at the Prisoner’s Dilemma. You see, it actually comes from a field of research called game theory where...

Oh, right... You don’t believe in research that does not produce profit... Oh well, I’ll try anyway...

Look, here’s the payoff matrix, listing the choices of Company A and B in a case where both companies are equal:

	Company A lowers prices, hoping to outcompete Company B	Company A keeps its current prices
Company B lowers prices, hoping to outcompete Company A	Both companies now run at a loss but neither can outcompete each other.	Company B might outcompete Company A, provided that it can survive running at a loss longer than Company A can. Otherwise Company B itself goes out of business.
Company B keeps its current prices	Company A might outcompete Company B, provided that it can survive running at a loss longer than Company B can. Otherwise Company A itself goes out of business.	Both companies keep working as before.

Examining these options it should be obvious why both companies would prefer to keep their prices. It’s the only option that ensure, with absolute certainty, that both companies continue to exists.


Now, let’s examine the payoff matrix for a case where Company A is much bigger than Company B:

	Company A lowers prices, hoping to outcompete Company B	Company A keeps its current prices
Company B lowers prices, hoping to outcompete Company A	Both Companies now runs at a loss, but Company A can survive this for much longer than Company B. Soon, Company B will out of business.	Company B now runs at a loss which it cannot sustain for long. Soon, Company B will be out of business.
Company B keeps its current prices	Company A now runs at a loss, but Company B will soon be out of business.	Both companies keep working as before.

Examining these options it should be obvious that, for Company B, the only way to survive is to keep the current prices. On the other hand, Company A is much better off lowering its prices in order to drive a competitor out of the market.

In the end, you will either have a single giant company maintaining a crippling monopoly on the market (the case where Company A is much bigger than Company B) or you will have a cartel (the case where Company A and Company B are equal).

False. It is rational to fulfill ones self interest, and since every action we take as human's is an attempt at fulfilling self interest, we are completely rational.

Whizzzzzzzzzzzz...

You heard that? That was the sound of the point flying right over your head...

Let’s go back to the original Prisoner’s Dilemma. The truly rational thing to do would be for both players to keep their mouths shut, thus getting away with just six months in prison. But, since they both act in their own interest, both will talk and both will wind up in prison for 5 years. Obviously a much worse outcome than if they had both acted rationally.

The point being that by acting solely in your own interest, rather than in the interest of the whole organisation (society, a company, a group of friends) all members of that group are worse off than if they had all acted in the interest of the whole...

[Lelouche]

society nothing, it's vital to humanity as a whole.

Humanity exists due to society.

Both of you are wrong
Humans beings existed before roads, and infrastructure
Collectivist society has the power to render humanity extinct
Something no individual has ever wielded

If your object is the mere survival of humanity, then Society is actually counter to that goal
Society exists to supposedly make our lives better.
But the cost is menacing danger to us all.

[Lelouche]

Taxation is theft in much the same way that family is oppressive collectivist dictatorship (except that a much more rational case can be made for the latter).

No response?

People don't have to respond to crap
Your comparison isn't even close to valid.

[Chekelov]

Taxation is theft in much the same way that family is oppressive collectivist dictatorship (except that a much more rational case can be made for the latter).

No response?

People don't have to respond to crap
Your comparison isn't even close to valid.

True dat. The problem with your analogy is that the children's parents OWN that property. If the kids want to live there, they gotta abide by the rules.

On the other hand, why precisely does the government have jurisdiction over the land I live on, except for the fact that they have an army and I don't?

[Lelouche]

Taxation is theft in much the same way that family is oppressive collectivist dictatorship (except that a much more rational case can be made for the latter).

No response?

People don't have to respond to crap
Your comparison isn't even close to valid.

True dat. The problem with your analogy is that the children's parents OWN that property. If the kids want to live there, they gotta abide by the rules.

On the other hand, why precisely does the government have jurisdiction over the land I live on, except for the fact that they have an army and I don't?

Because might makes right, that is the only argument that actually works here.
And if your argument for taxes being valid, and not violent coercion is violent coercion

well I guess we are done here.

[Abdju]

Taxation is theft in much the same way that family is oppressive collectivist dictatorship (except that a much more rational case can be made for the latter).

No response?

People don't have to respond to crap
Your comparison isn't even close to valid.

True dat. The problem with your analogy is that the children's parents OWN that property. If the kids want to live there, they gotta abide by the rules.

On the other hand, why precisely does the government have jurisdiction over the land I live on, except for the fact that they have an army and I don't?

Government is sovereign over the land, you are not.

[Jello Biafra]

Because might makes right

Sort of. It takes a certain amount of might in order to create legal rights.
However, might does not make moral right.

[Jello Biafra]

Demand is not just based on supply, it’s also based on the price of the product in question.

I've always found it interesting and apparently not circular at all that price is affected by supply and demand, but demand is affected by price.

Look, here’s the payoff matrix:

Ooh, I like this. *commits to memory*

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

Demand is not just based on supply, it’s also based on the price of the product in question.

I've always found it interesting and apparently not circular at all that price is affected by supply and demand, but demand is affected by price.

You're confusing Demand with Quantity Demanded. I would suggest you grab an introductory econ or microecon textbook and check it out.

[Jello Biafra]

Demand is not just based on supply, it’s also based on the price of the product in question.

I've always found it interesting and apparently not circular at all that price is affected by supply and demand, but demand is affected by price.

You're confusing Demand with Quantity Demanded. I would suggest you grab an introductory econ or microecon textbook and check it out.

"In economics, demand is the desire to own anything and the ability to pay for it and willingness to pay"
This is correct, yes?

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

Demand is not just based on supply, it’s also based on the price of the product in question.

I've always found it interesting and apparently not circular at all that price is affected by supply and demand, but demand is affected by price.

You're confusing Demand with Quantity Demanded. I would suggest you grab an introductory econ or microecon textbook and check it out.

"In economics, demand is the desire to own anything and the ability to pay for it and willingness to pay"
This is correct, yes?

In layman's terms yes. I see why something like this might be very confusing. The problem here is that we have two factors and two results at play. Supply and demand vs. price and quantity. Without getting too deep into it, a change in supply affects the price which then results in a change in the quantity demanded, not the overall demand. "Demand" when economists use the term formally represents the quantity of products consumers are willing to buy at EACH price. Hence we have the demand curve, not the demand point.

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

No tax = anarchy.