*** The official market and government thread ***

[rong]

We're using the term differently. You're calling "lawless" a state of wrong behavior. I'm calling "lawless" a state of ineffective mandates. Most of what goes on in society is not that affected by the reach of the law. Think of the internet or dating or going to friends homes or how you work with coworkers. It's all general market behavior.

I'm thinking of lawless as a place where the law doesn't protect me.

You're right that the police does a shitty job of policing its own property. That doesn't mean we need more police, though. It means we need police to have less property. Your argument was logically heading in this direction at first.

I never said it did a shitty job. I said in a place with lots of people and relatively little policing you're more likely to get violence. But this goes back to the point that people, when not compelled not to, are often violent.

It would be no different than if you go to a club and this happens. The likely way communities would organize is by purchasing security for the communities. But there are like a million different ways to solve this problem, and we already use them in various capacities in other fields.

This is not like a club. In a club people still have an incentive not to viciously attack me because they may go to prison for it. In a random place with no paid for protection (that's effectively what it is) I am at risk of being attacked and mugged with the attacker having no consequence.

The key difference is that choice is involved. Every ounce of difference between the market and the state can be boiled down to the market operating on choice and the state operating on mandate. People can choose which communities to be a part of rather easily, but nobody can choose which government to be a part of.

That's right. For wealthy people there is a choice whether to be safe from violent crime. The poorer you get, the less of a choice you have. What kinda shitty world do you want to live in? I guess I wanna live in a society where the right to not be violently raped is shared by all, not just those with a healthy pay packet.

Even if it "sounds like the government we've done away with", it's not anything like it unless an entity collects taxes. This small optical difference is an enormous functional difference.

Yes, it is very different from the government we've done away with in that it only protects those who can pay for it.

I guess it comes down to what's considered acceptable to charge people for. If you saw a guy on fire in the street would you check his pocket before you pissed on him to put out the fire? No? You commie bastard! There was a rent there that went uncollected. You could probably have had his salary for a whole year if you only had a contract for him to sign.

"Ghetto" is a misnomer in a market. The word exists based on government owned property. We've discussed in the past how privately owned cities and roads would eliminate these sorts of things by no longer subsidizing poverty. Move outside of the government owned or heavily subsidized areas, and you don't have ghettos anymore.

OK, forget the word ghetto, although we both know what I mean by that. But there will be areas of the country that have very little or even no law enforcement. What happens here? Do these become no go areas? Or do the security companies handle these areas for free?

As for regimentation in wealth and class, that is good. It's one of those things that's counter-intuitive to the lay, but in economics, the most powerful weapon the poor have is their ability to live in cheap places and do things for cheap. It's the same model for why minimum wage laws have the opposite effect than intended and they just end up pricing the poor out of the job market. Every country that has moved from third world to first, including the US, operated on this paradigm. Every country that tried to not operate on this paradigm has not entered first world status.

Yes, agreed, but the poor areas still need to be safe to live in. You may say they have high levels of crime in the poor areas now, but with no law enforcement it would be far worse. I just don't see how you can possibly think any areas can survive without basic property ownership and anti violence laws, and some level of enforcement of these laws. Without them it would be anarchy.

The effects are already mostly like this, and the results are that the "poor" have it best. The dangerous places in the US are near government property with high populations. Go out in the burbs or the country. The police does very little, the people are generally poorer, but everybody is much safer

That's down to higher wealth, therefore less desperation and lower population density. It is not because of government property ownership of anything. Plus we all know that law is enforced in the wealthy areas (well laws against theft and violence) far more rigorously than in poor areas. If anything this argues my point about how important it is to have laws enforced and the dangerous slippery slope we head down as we move towards laws not being enforced at all.

[wufwugy]

I never said it did a shitty job. I said in a place with lots of people and relatively little policing you're more likely to get violence. But this goes back to the point that people, when not compelled not to, are often violent.

I disagree with the premise. Risk of punishment is not a main deterrent. It certainly is a deterrent to some degree, but we have it in market behavior normally.

This is not like a club. In a club people still have an incentive not to viciously attack me because they may go to prison for it. In a random place with no paid for protection (that's effectively what it is) I am at risk of being attacked and mugged with the attacker having no consequence.

If this was true, crime data would be the opposite of what it is. The data would show places where the law has less reach having more violence, and regions where the law has greater reach having less crime. What we have today is the opposite of this.

Additionally, there are consequences in markets. Keep in mind that on the premise that consequences are deterrents, the majority of consequences causing deterrence don't come from the government but from the people themselves. Home security, locks, dogs, and firearms reduce far more breaking and entering than the police do.

That's right. For wealthy people there is a choice whether to be safe from violent crime. The poorer you get, the less of a choice you have. What kinda shitty world do you want to live in? I guess I wanna live in a society where the right to not be violently raped is shared by all, not just those with a healthy pay packet.

If this was true, it would be true for everything else. It would mean only the rich can afford food, cars, car insurance, toys, shelter, tickets to shows, you name it. Supply and demand is highly elastic. The poor have far more resources in markets than they do in states.

I guess it comes down to what's considered acceptable to charge people for. If you saw a guy on fire in the street would you check his pocket before you pissed on him to put out the fire? No? You commie bastard! There was a rent there that went uncollected. You could probably have had his salary for a whole year if you only had a contract for him to sign.

This is similar to the Christian argument against atheists I mentioned earlier. The government doesn't compel us to act good, and most of the good we do has nothing to do with money. Furthermore, most of living standards increases (like abundance of food) has to do with money. People and businesses pretty much never do what you're suggesting. When they do, it's typically on the backs of government enforcement.

OK, forget the word ghetto, although we both know what I mean by that. But there will be areas of the country that have very little or even no law enforcement. What happens here? Do these become no go areas? Or do the security companies handle these areas for free?

We already have these and they work far better than the regions with heavy law.

Yes, agreed, but the poor areas still need to be safe to live in. You may say they have high levels of crime in the poor areas now, but with no law enforcement it would be far worse. I just don't see how you can possibly think any areas can survive without basic property ownership and anti violence laws, and some level of enforcement of these laws. Without them it would be anarchy.

I'm not suggesting there shouldn't be rules and codes of conduct. Those things work swimmingly. I think they should be fully enforced, even with force. What I don't think is they should be enforced by the unaccountable, unchecked government.

My views are about getting rules to work better, societies to be safer and more functional. I'm not saying Mad Max is better, I'm saying Mad Max is a myth. It's not about rebellion, it's about reform.

That's down to higher wealth, therefore less desperation and lower population density. It is not because of government property ownership of anything. Plus we all know that law is enforced in the wealthy areas (well laws against theft and violence) far more rigorously than in poor areas. If anything this argues my point about how important it is to have laws enforced and the dangerous slippery slope we head down as we move towards laws not being enforced at all.

Socially beneficial codes of conduct are enforced much better in places with less legal intrusion as is. Places like Utah and Montana are far more secure than places like New York. It isn't entirely because of the differences in government, but that's a big one.


Does it not strike you as a head-scratcher that the bastion of crime is on government owned streets? Renton's post was on the ball about this. The incentive for the government to protect its property is far lower than for private owners. Especially considering the government has constructed a giant dependency system that keeps the poor on its streets.



Is a hundred million people voting once every two years really a good arbitrator of morals, law, and good behavior?

Your interaction with your environment is far greater through your market behavior than through this voting scheme. Doesn't this necessarily mean that law works better as a market function?

[CoccoBill]

If this was true, crime data would be the opposite of what it is. The data would show places where the law has less reach having more violence, and regions where the law has greater reach having less crime. What we have today is the opposite of this.

You have the causality backwards. Higher law enforcement presence doesn't cause more crime, more crime causes higher law enforcement presence.

[wufwugy]

You have the causality backwards. Higher law enforcement presence doesn't cause more crime, more crime causes higher law enforcement presence.

I never said higher enforcement creates more crime. Tangentially, it probably does by way of criminalizing more activity, but what I said was different.

If enforcement is the mechanism by which crime is reduced, it would show in the data. We would see higher enforcement reduce crime and lower enforcement increase it. But the data doesn't show this.

Neither side of this argument is telling of what's really going on. I made the point as a counter to the false claim that we need state-backed enforcement to keep us safe.

[CoccoBill]

If enforcement is the mechanism by which crime is reduced, it would show in the data. We would see higher enforcement reduce crime and lower enforcement increase it. But the data doesn't show this.

What data are you referring to? You're not saying that where there's less laws (fewer things that are illegal) there's less crime, right, so what are you saying? What's an example of a macro or micro level community, where there's less crime that in its peers due to less regulation or enforcement?

Neither side of this argument is telling of what's really going on. I made the point as a counter to the false claim that we need state-backed enforcement to keep us safe.

If by we you mean people with resources to protect themselves, you're right, but the point is to provide the same for everyone. The people with the means to protect themselves have zero incentive to provide the service to others for free, for crimes that don't directly affect them. A LOT falls under the category not-directly-affecting-me, and it isn't even what actually affects, it's what's perceived to affect.

[Renton]

If by we you mean people with resources to protect themselves, you're right, but the point is to provide the same for everyone. The people with the means to protect themselves have zero incentive to provide the service to others for free, for crimes that don't directly affect them. A LOT falls under the category not-directly-affecting-me, and it isn't even what actually affects, it's what's perceived to affect.

The state police forces are not effectively protecting citizens, yet at extreme financial cost. This egalitarian view of public service is pure fiction. Governments impoverish all people, especially the poor, to cover the costs of the services they provide. The private sector would do police much more cheaply and effectively, because it would have to in order to remain competitive in the market.

The free-rider problem is a problem to be sure, but the unseen of this is that the poor would be much more financially better off in the absence of a nanny state that heavily taxes their income and consumption. Thus, they would be much more well-positioned to afford security. The market for security would likewise attempt to court consumers who can't afford premium police protection. Providers would market their services to the lower-income bracket consumers just like they do with every other service in the economy.

A big problem with most (if not all) public services is that they attempt to guarantee a high standard of quality to all without accounting responsibly for the costs of such provision. There are no prices to provide an expend-or-conserve feedback mechanism so the service inevitably gets squandered by all, quality suffers, and eventually people have to do without it. This can be seen most clearly with universal healthcare systems, but it applies to police forces as well.

[CoccoBill]

The state police forces are not effectively protecting citizens, yet at extreme financial cost. This egalitarian view of public service is pure fiction. Governments impoverish all people, especially the poor, to cover the costs of the services they provide. The private sector would do police much more cheaply and effectively, because it would have to in order to remain competitive in the market.

I don't see any proof of any of this. Are you absolutely certain you're not mistaking implementation flaws in your reference system for inherent flaws in any system? Either way, I didn't say anything about effectiveness, I see safety as a basic inviolable right and I don't see it guaranteed by the market.

The default state of a community is no government. Some sort of central governance model has tended to pop up in every society throughout history, and there's a reason for it. There's a governance model in the nuclear family, not every member has the same say in things. This extends out to family, to neighborhood, to city, region, nation. In every one of them there's a governance hierarchy. You can find one in every company, soccer team and online poker community. Why? Because things go rapidly to hell if there isn't one.

Government is the governance model for a nation-sized blob of people. Saying that things would be better without one and things would just work out is an extraordinary claim, which require extraordinary proof. I haven't seen any yet. Are free markets effective? Sure. Are they just and equal? From what I've seen hell no.

The free-rider problem is a problem to be sure, but the unseen of this is that the poor would be much more financially better off in the absence of a nanny state that heavily taxes their income and consumption. Thus, they would be much more well-positioned to afford security. The market for security would likewise attempt to court consumers who can't afford premium police protection. Providers would market their services to the lower-income bracket consumers just like they do with every other service in the economy.

You're making many assumptions. I'll give you a free market solution to problem P could be a single digit, maybe in some cases 2-digit % cheaper than the public sector equivalent, but I don't think that automatically follows that everyone can suddenly afford everything. Second, you're assuming every possible P makes a valid business case, everything that people need is profitable to produce. Entrepreneurs would fill every single market segment instantaneously with innovative, cost-effective and eco-friendly products and services, it's just that they can't be arsed now because government. I don't buy it.

A big problem with most (if not all) public services is that they attempt to guarantee a high standard of quality to all without accounting responsibly for the costs of such provision. There are no prices to provide an expend-or-conserve feedback mechanism so the service inevitably gets squandered by all, quality suffers, and eventually people have to do without it. This can be seen most clearly with universal healthcare systems, but it applies to police forces as well.

These are clear implementation errors in your reference system, fixed by a simple policy change, aren't they?

[wufwugy]

What data are you referring to? You're not saying that where there's less laws (fewer things that are illegal) there's less crime, right, so what are you saying? What's an example of a macro or micro level community, where there's less crime that in its peers due to less regulation or enforcement?

That isn't a causal link I would put that much credence to. Maybe I would if I really wanted to focus on one small aspect, but that's not important here.

Baltimore has way more crime and way more police than Montana. I'm not claiming a causal link, I'm claiming this as a counter to the claim that enforcement reduces crime because if that was true what we would expect to see is Baltimore's crime level look more like Montana and Montana's look more like Baltimore. There are a million problems with trying to apply causality here because there are many more significant factors at play.

If by we you mean people with resources to protect themselves, you're right, but the point is to provide the same for everyone. The people with the means to protect themselves have zero incentive to provide the service to others for free, for crimes that don't directly affect them. A LOT falls under the category not-directly-affecting-me, and it isn't even what actually affects, it's what's perceived to affect.

Most of society already works like this, and it works fantastically. The areas in which it doesn't work so fantastically are ones where the government does a lot. Everything you've said about security can be said about food or housing or software or you name it. The fundamental differences between security and food or housing are minimal to non-existent. So why is it that a free market for food is so effective at providing that need for everybody when it is supposed that only government could do so? Why is it that in all the examples we have of government taking over food industries, vast swaths of populations go hungry?

What we don't want is people providing things "for free" (government does nothing for free anyways, everything it does is at cost, virtually always above market costs). We want the self-interest of competing businesses, because that is what allows consumers to choose the better product. Software is possibly the purest example of a bunch of "greedy" people competing with each other, which has rapidly created an incredible, cheap, productive, previously unfathomable software market.

The default state of a community is no government. Some sort of central governance model has tended to pop up in every society throughout history, and there's a reason for it. There's a governance model in the nuclear family, not every member has the same say in things. This extends out to family, to neighborhood, to city, region, nation. In every one of them there's a governance hierarchy. You can find one in every company, soccer team and online poker community. Why? Because things go rapidly to hell if there isn't one.

This is an argument I've made several times. It is sensible to see the obvious similarities between government and governance structures. The difference is that "government" operates by mandate fueled by taxation. "Governance" in areas like business does not have the same revenue streams. Consumers and workers in markets operate by choice. This is the one, single game changer. Everything about why government doesn't work well yet markets work well can be boiled down to the former receives revenues without competition and the latter receives revenues with competition.

Governance is fantastic. We should have as much competition in governance as we can get. Communities and businesses should use whatever sort of authority structure they think worthy. What we don't want is a state that doesn't have to compete for its revenues. In the marketplace, bad governing structures die and better governing structures are regularly created. In the state, governing structure almost never changes. All it really does is re-entrench old, ineffective governing strategies.

[CoccoBill]

Baltimore has way more crime and way more police than Montana. I'm not claiming a causal link, I'm claiming this as a counter to the claim that enforcement reduces crime because if that was true what we would expect to see is Baltimore's crime level look more like Montana and Montana's look more like Baltimore. There are a million problems with trying to apply causality here because there are many more significant factors at play.

You're contradicting yourself. It's exactly because of these many significant factors that we can't expect crime rates to be equal in different cities depending on one factor alone.

Most of society already works like this, and it works fantastically. The areas in which it doesn't work so fantastically are ones where the government does a lot. Everything you've said about security can be said about food or housing or software or you name it. The fundamental differences between security and food or housing are minimal to non-existent. So why is it that a free market for food is so effective at providing that need for everybody when it is supposed that only government could do so? Why is it that in all the examples we have of government taking over food industries, vast swaths of populations go hungry?

I don't consider software an inviolable basic right, I don't see a reason for the government to step in in any way there. Some socioeconomist might be able to tell how food and security are different economy-wise, I can't. I can't think of any examples of hungry populations due to government intervention on food supply either, except maybe for dictatorships. I think in those cases the interventions probably worked as planned.

This is an argument I've made several times. It is sensible to see the obvious similarities between government and governance structures. The difference is that "government" operates by mandate fueled by taxation. "Governance" in areas like business does not have the same revenue streams. Consumers and workers in markets operate by choice. This is the one, single game changer. Everything about why government doesn't work well yet markets work well can be boiled down to the former receives revenues without competition and the latter receives revenues with competition.

A [business|government] is founded when a group of [entrepreneurs|citizens] decide it's a good idea. All of the [investors|citizens] must chip in. In a [business|government] the [shareholders|citizens] provide funding for the operation and [hire|vote for] a management to operate the [company|government]. [Board of directors|senate/congress/president/whoever] gives the mandate the [business|government] must operate under.

A government is not unlike a business, it just operates on a different scale than most others. Think of taxation as a subscription fee. Market efficiency is utterly and completely irrelevant, if it can't provide the basic necessities for all members of society.

Governance is fantastic. We should have as much competition in governance as we can get. Communities and businesses should use whatever sort of authority structure they think worthy. What we don't want is a state that doesn't have to compete for its revenues. In the marketplace, bad governing structures die and better governing structures are regularly created. In the state, governing structure almost never changes. All it really does is re-entrench old, ineffective governing strategies.

There are 193 sovereign nations on the planet to choose from. There could be better ways, but in representative democracies the competition manifests itself by popular vote. Don't like something? Vote for something else, run for office yourself or find a better government. And yes, I know, this hardly works in most current systems, but that's an argument against current implementations of a representative democracy, not against government.