Dat inequality

[CoccoBill]

I think it is fundamentally true that if government does anything that people want it to do, the same could be done better and more cheaply by private interests because government policy is necessarily a product of the will of the consumer.

I agree whole-heartedly. If people were benevolent, selfless and smart, we wouldn't need governments, rules, laws, regulations, police, military, or anything like that. I see government as the necessary "evil".

Perhaps this appears to not be the case because government policy is inherently convoluted and creates unpredicted moral hazards and monopolies

What safeguards do free markets have against coercive monopolies?

[Renton]

I agree whole-heartedly. If people were benevolent, selfless and smart, we wouldn't need governments, rules, laws, regulations, police, military, or anything like that. I see government as the necessary "evil".

It's because people are malevolent, greedy, and stupid that we need NOT to have a strong government. The worst thing you could possibly do is give them a monopoly on force. At least in a free society people would face negative consequences for doing destructive things, whereas governments only insulate people from such consequences and often elevate them to being above the law.

What safeguards do free markets have against coercive monopolies?

I've gone into great detail in this thread as to why true monopolies cannot form without government sanction. There are no safeguards. Reputation harm, the threat of competition if not actual competition, and consumer substitution are always forces bearing down on monopolistic enterprises. These forces require no top down regulation of any kind, and are in fact constantly subverted by governments all over the world.

[CoccoBill]

It's because people are malevolent, greedy, and stupid that we need NOT to have a strong government. The worst thing you could possibly do is give them a monopoly on force. At least in a free society people would face negative consequences for doing destructive things, whereas governments only insulate people from such consequences and often elevate them to being above the law.

I've gone into great detail in this thread as to why true monopolies cannot form without government sanction. There are no safeguards. Reputation harm, the threat of competition if not actual competition, and consumer substitution are always forces bearing down on monopolistic enterprises. These forces require no top down regulation of any kind, and are in fact constantly subverted by governments all over the world.

In a free society people face negative consequences for doing destructive things only if the target of said things is able to dish out the consequences. Governments insulate people from the consequences or elevate them above the law only if such decrees are allowed in the policies, I'm not convinced that these would be an unavoidable outcome of every government. Sure, many if not most current governments exhibit this kind of behavior in one way or another, but I would argue that's due to there not being sufficient safeguards against special interest lobbying, the effect of wealth on policies.

The objective of pretty much every company out there is to create a monopoly, I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with monopolies per se. Abusing the the monopoly position with coercive tactics is completely different, and I don't see anything that the free market can do about all of them, or has done in the past. Reputational harm if of no consequence if you control your market segment and can block anyone else from entering. Please tell me if there is a government force in effect that stifles the free market from taking down coercive monopolies right now, since if there are none, seems like coercive monopolies could not exist. US railroads, Microsoft and IBM come to mind.

Perfect policies exist right where perfectly working markets do, both have their drawbacks and limitations. I'd personally prefer a society with policies mainly concerned with protecting individual rights and keeping market forces in check, I'm not for incentives or policies that try to shape markets.

Also, what makes you think there wouldn't be laws, police, and dispute resolution in the absence of government?

I think there absolutely would be, probably ones more efficient than we have today. Though, they would only be available to those who could afford them, I'm afraid.

[Renton]

Microsoft is monopolistic because of the network effect, primarily. The network effect is not necessarily a bad thing though so its hard to decide how to solve this problem or whether it is even a problem. I suspect that IBM is monopolistic primarily due to excessive IP laws (again, government sanction as ever). The rest of what your saying looks like the standard "but what if it were a Good Government?!" one. I as much as anyone favor incremental improvement to the system, and I'm with you here. I would take a better government over the one we currently have in America any day, but I am skeptical of the efficacy of any government in accomplishing what you mean for it to accomplish.

I think there absolutely would be, probably ones more efficient than we have today. Though, they would only be available to those who could afford them, I'm afraid.

The rich who could afford law enforcement also would value the peace of mind that comes with living in a safe, law abiding area. I suspect that ingenuity from the private sector would find a way to solve the free rider problem in a way that would provide all people within an area with a basic amount of security and justice.

I'm not copping out when I say that its simply very hard to imagine what private police and dispute resolution would look like; the free market comes up with new things all that time that we could scarcely have imagined. No one 30 years ago would have thought we would be buying all our shit on amazon having access to all this amazing stuff on the internet. When governments monopolize dispute resolution, criminal justice, education, and all these other things, they cause us as a society to turn off our imaginations as to what different faces all these institutions could have in the event of innovation. Without competitors, these institutions are unlikely to innovate at all, or do so extremely slowly. This isn't because the government is bad, its just because the incentive structure isn't there for innovation to occur.

[CoccoBill]

The rich who could afford law enforcement also would value the peace of mind that comes with living in a safe, law abiding area. I suspect that ingenuity from the private sector would find a way to solve the free rider problem in a way that would provide all people within an area with a basic amount of security and justice.

I see the rich in guarded gated communities or in forts with moats, not policing the streets. It's not cost-effective to stop all crime, just what's affecting yourself.

When governments monopolize dispute resolution, criminal justice, education, and all these other things, they cause us as a society to turn off our imaginations as to what different faces all these institutions could have in the event of innovation. Without competitors, these institutions are unlikely to innovate at all, or do so extremely slowly. This isn't because the government is bad, its just because the incentive structure isn't there for innovation to occur.

Government organizations put into effect the policies set by the congress (or whatever you want to call it). The congress bases their policies on science, expert opinions and public opinion. The congress consists of citizens that other citizens want to vote in. That's the theory. In principle, I see nothing that separates a congressman or a government bureaucrat from a private entrepreneur or worker. They could, and often are, the same people. I agree somewhat with your argument about the incentive structure regarding the public employee, but I think similar challenges have been put forth for the private employee. The actual objective in the public sector to just "do good" may not completely counterweight the lower incentives for innovation, but it might also be for the best that an institution providing central basic services, should not be spearheading innovation and using higher risk strategies that come with it. If I had to choose between slower innovation and somewhat less cost-effective strategies, and systemic risks regarding safety and environmental sustainability, it'd be an easy choice.

[wufwugy]

Government organizations put into effect the policies set by the congress (or whatever you want to call it). The congress bases their policies on science, expert opinions and public opinion. The congress consists of citizens that other citizens want to vote in. That's the theory. In principle, I see nothing that separates a congressman or a government bureaucrat from a private entrepreneur or worker. They could, and often are, the same people. I agree somewhat with your argument about the incentive structure regarding the public employee, but I think similar challenges have been put forth for the private employee. The actual objective in the public sector to just "do good" may not completely counterweight the lower incentives for innovation, but it might also be for the best that an institution providing central basic services, should not be spearheading innovation and using higher risk strategies that come with it. If I had to choose between slower innovation and somewhat less cost-effective strategies, and systemic risks regarding safety and environmental sustainability, it'd be an easy choice.

Same people + different incentives + different powers = different results.

The objective of pretty much every company out there is to create a monopoly, I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with monopolies per se. Abusing the the monopoly position with coercive tactics is completely different, and I don't see anything that the free market can do about all of them, or has done in the past. Reputational harm if of no consequence if you control your market segment and can block anyone else from entering. Please tell me if there is a government force in effect that stifles the free market from taking down coercive monopolies right now, since if there are none, seems like coercive monopolies could not exist. US railroads, Microsoft and IBM come to mind.

Competition is the checks and balances in the market

These examples of monopolies you've listed aren't monopolies. There are viable alternatives to them all. Microsoft is an exciting example of just how not-monopoly market actors are as well as fundamental disadvantages of incumbent powers within them. I believe I explained why earlier ITT.

In virtually every area that consumers complain about monopolies by corporate oligarchies, they're actually looking at status created by government policies. Probably the best example of this right now is ISPs. Consumers think we're raked over the coals by the companies because they own the lines and there's nothing we can do about it. But that isn't true. There are a bunch of other companies who want in the ISP game, but they can't do it because municipal governments won't let them. Setting up new broadband networks is a regulatory nightmare that no amount of money solves because the regulations exist due to voting incumbents who lobby their local governments to keep out any competition (Union Policy 101). It's not a coincidence that Google Fiber started in the most deregulated area in the country (Kansas) and is nowhere close to getting into areas like New York City.

[CoccoBill]

Same people + different incentives + different powers = different results.

Sure, but nothing changes regarding their skills and outcomes if the resources are there. And in the public sector, the potential resources are larger, and they can also be used for basic research with great long-term but no clear short-term profits, which would be much more challenging to get into in a free market.

Competition is the checks and balances in the market

These examples of monopolies you've listed aren't monopolies. There are viable alternatives to them all. Microsoft is an exciting example of just how not-monopoly market actors are as well as fundamental disadvantages of incumbent powers within them. I believe I explained why earlier ITT.

How and in what time would the free market have dealt with the railroad, MS and IBM issues without government intervention?

In virtually every area that consumers complain about monopolies by corporate oligarchies, they're actually looking at status created by government policies. Probably the best example of this right now is ISPs. Consumers think we're raked over the coals by the companies because they own the lines and there's nothing we can do about it. But that isn't true. There are a bunch of other companies who want in the ISP game, but they can't do it because municipal governments won't let them. Setting up new broadband networks is a regulatory nightmare that no amount of money solves because the regulations exist due to voting incumbents who lobby their local governments to keep out any competition (Union Policy 101). It's not a coincidence that Google Fiber started in the most deregulated area in the country (Kansas) and is nowhere close to getting into areas like New York City.

http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com...rust-lawsuits/

So all of these are made possible by government regulations and would have been sorted in no time by the market, or not been possible in the first place? Somehow I find that hard to believe. In my opinion, if certain practices that would be beneficial for individual businesses but harmful to others were not regulated, they would be much more common. The argument is the same for regulations against individuals behaving badly, why would companies be any different?

Do this: pick something where government has little involvement and compare it to something where government has a ton of involvement. How about......video games vs education? Sure government has some involvement in video games, but generally it's not market-distorting. Government has tons and tons of involvement in education at all levels. Compare them on these criteria: costs, availability for consumers, achievement of proposed goals, innovation, and any others you can think of

Look at things like how video game costs have consistently dropped while education costs have consistently risen. Or how video games have consistently achieved proposed goals while education is consistently failing its proposed goals. You can find things that are more market oriented than video games and things that are more centralized and controlled by government incentives than education, but not by much

That's most likely the case if you look at the US education system. Try Finland or South Korea and it might look different, though education and video games are such different areas that a direct comparison between them is probably not very useful. Again, the US government is in many ways broken, I'm not advocating in any way the current US implementation of a government. What I've been talking about is "a" government, which doesn't but could, until proven otherwise, exist.

[Renton]

I see the rich in guarded gated communities or in forts with moats, not policing the streets. It's not cost-effective to stop all crime, just what's affecting yourself.

Come on man, rich people own tenant space in office, retail, and industrial buildings throughout cities and suburbs. They have a great stake in there being a functioning community and society, a much greater stake than a poor person.

[CoccoBill]

Come on man, rich people own tenant space in office, retail, and industrial buildings throughout cities and suburbs. They have a great stake in there being a functioning community and society, a much greater stake than a poor person.

Point taken, but there are a lot of gaps between the fort and the owned properties. Like dystopian ghettos.