Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[wufwugy]

Could you provide a link?

I can't. I don't remember exactly what the data was looking at either. It probably had something to do with how the steady drop in crime the US has had for decades doesn't correlate well with changes in wealth. My opinion on this is not backed by data like would be needed to say one way or the other, but I do know that the data is inconclusive on why crime has been dropping. My personal opinion is differences in regulation, welfare, and cultural sensibilities.

I'm not really saying they work because of them, maybe more like despite them, but in the process the local brand of "violence monopoly" is ensuring a lot of basic necessities for everybody.

Do you think it is possible that people would get more of what they need if they were not subjects of a violence monopoly?

I don't see how any regulation automatically prohibits all increases in efficiency. There's been quite a bit of regulations for the past few hundred years and yet we've had a pretty good run of increased efficiency.

We've had this despite all the regulation. You could probably say the government doesn't intervene in most ways in the West and markets have been mostly embraced for lots of things. The flip side of this was seen in the rise of socialism, where the government intervened everywhere and the societies all went to shit. What I advocate for is to take our free market principles and apply them to more things. Food and software/hardware are far more robust industries than education and healthcare and security, and what I've learned about economics tells me that the operating principle for why is that food and software/hardware don't have a whole a bunch of government regulation while the other three have a ton. We can even get into specifics, like how many targeted government regulations of healthcare restrict supply which in turn increase prices. Today the narrative is that prices are way too high and we need government to solve it, all the while the real cause of high prices is government intervention into the market in the first place.

That seems a bit inane. Unintended consequences [can] occur when not all the variables and dependencies are known, but they occur everywhere, not just with regulation. We learn more about them every day and we can learn from our mistakes. Hence the PDCA cycle.

This is a fantastic case for why markets work better than monopolies. There are indeed unintended consequences to everything, but the reason they're so much more harmful in government is that when a monopoly creates a mandate, those unintended consequences are locked in stone. It takes forever for them to change. Compare how slowly the legal monopoly reacts to problems with how quickly businesses operating in markets react. There's no comparison. The scientific approach is the one that allows for more robust change. Monopolies are awful for this.

Just like how our ability to choose the food we buy makes a more robust food industry, an ability to choose what legal arbitration to live by would make for a more robust legal system. Market advocates are not interested in doing away with rules. Our sensibilities tend to be conservative and rule-based. What we advocate for is a dissolution of monopolies.