5 ms·

>In the great scheme of things, yes. Although the definition kinda gets silly and I see your point. At the end of the day, you cannot trust the "free market" to

by ancap 10y ago

>In the great scheme of things, yes. Although the definition kinda gets silly and I see your point. At the end of the day, you cannot trust the "free market" to solve vandalism or shoplifting. See my above response. Markets do deal with vandalism and shoplifting, probably better than the police. >You need to create a justice system, hire cops, and then use these cops to persecute vandals or other criminals. Under a free market devoid of crimefighting units, vandals and shoplifters will cause prices to rise (as stores increase prices to offset losses). IE: market failure. Otherwise innocent people are forced to pay for the crimes of others. >The creation of a police force requires innocent citizens to pay taxes for the police force as well. And the state will require the use of force to extort the money from these innocent citizens. So in the great scheme of things, the whole setup is extremely anti-market and demonstrates how much of a market failure the whole crime system is. Private police forces do exist. There are currently examples of this in Detroit where the public police is defunct. As for the court system, the closest thing I can think of in the private sector would be arbitration. There are theories out there of how the market might operate an entire court system. Just because these private systems are not more prevalent due to government monopolies does not denote a market failure. >Here's the primary difference: plastic bag pollution occurs even if you are 100% compliant with the law. >Plastic bags get thrown away into a dump, or otherwise discarded by some means. Then they degrade into micro-particles (since there's very few bacteria that can actually break down the bag), and then you start running into long-term pollution problems. If the dump is incurring a cost by putting plastic bags into its landfill, than it behooves the dump to recuperate those costs from those consuming and throwing away those bags. If the dump's consumption of plastic bags is causing pollution to neighboring properties than the dump is liable. This can all be handled with the market. No bans, and no taxes necessary.

dragontamer 10y ago
> See my above response. Markets do deal with vandalism and shoplifting, probably better than the police. Yeah. By making innocent people pay for the crimes of shoplifters, without actually fixing the shoplifters. Shoplifters: Get free profit. Consumers / Stores: Pay the cost. That's hardly a solution, and you know it. > Private police forces do exist Generally speaking, we give monopoly powers of force to the Police. Private security forces are not allowed to use guns or tasers for example. The effectiveness of unarmed security guards hired by insurance companies does jack-shit with regards to stopping a 7-11 gun-assisted theft. And yes, I prefer that only trained officers have the legality to use guns in public places. Too many people shooting firemen in panic attacks: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/16/us/maryland-firefighters-shot/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/16/us/maryland-firefighters-shot/... > If the dump is incurring a cost by putting plastic bags into its landfill, than it behooves the dump to recuperate those costs from those consuming and throwing away those bags. If the dump's consumption of plastic bags is causing pollution to neighboring properties than the dump is liable. Okay. The dump is owned by my county. And my county is now recuperating the costs by taxing the public. Congratulations. We're back at square one. Taxes are the fairest way of paying for this problem. And if the dump is a private, 3rd party entity... how do you expect the dump to actually force people to pay for the services? Taxes man, they are the simplest solution.
- ancap 10y ago
  It's interesting that you're either purposefully cherry picking my comments or just not reading them. If you read my response above you would see that markets do not merely allow shoplifters to get away with it and I never suggested they should. >Generally speaking, we give monopoly powers of force to the Police. Private security forces are not allowed to use guns or tasers for example. >The effectiveness of unarmed security guards hired by insurance companies does jack-shit with regards to stopping a 7-11 gun-assisted theft. I'm not sure where this limitation of no guns for private security guards is coming from. I know plenty of private security guards who carry guns. >Okay. The dump is owned by my county. So you admit that what you were describing was a red herring and not a market failure. >And if the dump is a private, 3rd party entity... how do you expect the dump to actually force people to pay for the services? What do you mean "force people to pay for the services"? If I go to an accountant and use their services, I pay them for it. That's what we agreed to. If I didn't agree to pay him he wouldn't perform the service. Why would this be different? No force necessary.
  - dragontamer 10y ago
    > If you read my response above you would see that markets do not merely allow shoplifters to get away with it Please. Explain. Bob shoplift from a store. How does the insurance company stop him from shoplifing from the store again? A Police Officer puts him in Jail. He spends some time thinking about it and eventually decides shoplifting isn't worth jailtime. But private 3rd party citizens do NOT have the ability to use force on others. And that's a good thing. Without the Police acting as a stick, you simply don't have a deterrence. Yes, Walmart hires greeters and purchases insurance policies against shoplifting. That doesn't stop the shoplifters I see shuffling through Walmart. If a Walmart greeter starts to confront a shoplifter, they just say "lol nope" and leave. An Officer threating them with jail? That's something that gets a shoplifter's attention. > So you admit that what you were describing was a red herring and not a market failure. I'm saying that the County is using taxes to pay for the Dump (and similarly, raising a "bag tax" to discourage the use of plastic bags is a good thing). And according to you anarcho-capitalists, you guys typically consider the forceful removal of money from the private citizenry to be immoral. I'm defending the use of taxes to solve this market failure. Because taxes are NOT a function of a free-market economy. You should know the basics of your own argument dude. If you don't think raising taxes is a problem, then you have no qualms or counter-arguments from me. I'm presuming a few things about your argument because I've heard this philosophy many times before. I feel like cutting to the chase. So, are you for or against taxes? I assume you're against, which is why I'm stating my arguments in this way.

by ancap 10y ago

dragontamer 10y ago

> See my above response. Markets do deal with vandalism and shoplifting, probably better than the police. Yeah. By making innocent people pay for the crimes of shoplifters, without actually fixing the shoplifters. Shoplifters: Get free profit. Consumers / Stores: Pay the cost. That's hardly a solution, and you know it. > Private police forces do exist Generally speaking, we give monopoly powers of force to the Police. Private security forces are not allowed to use guns or tasers for example. The effectiveness of unarmed security guards hired by insurance companies does jack-shit with regards to stopping a 7-11 gun-assisted theft. And yes, I prefer that only trained officers have the legality to use guns in public places. Too many people shooting firemen in panic attacks: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/16/us/maryland-firefighters-shot/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/16/us/maryland-firefighters-shot/... > If the dump is incurring a cost by putting plastic bags into its landfill, than it behooves the dump to recuperate those costs from those consuming and throwing away those bags. If the dump's consumption of plastic bags is causing pollution to neighboring properties than the dump is liable. Okay. The dump is owned by my county. And my county is now recuperating the costs by taxing the public. Congratulations. We're back at square one. Taxes are the fairest way of paying for this problem. And if the dump is a private, 3rd party entity... how do you expect the dump to actually force people to pay for the services? Taxes man, they are the simplest solution.

ancap 10y ago
It's interesting that you're either purposefully cherry picking my comments or just not reading them. If you read my response above you would see that markets do not merely allow shoplifters to get away with it and I never suggested they should. >Generally speaking, we give monopoly powers of force to the Police. Private security forces are not allowed to use guns or tasers for example. >The effectiveness of unarmed security guards hired by insurance companies does jack-shit with regards to stopping a 7-11 gun-assisted theft. I'm not sure where this limitation of no guns for private security guards is coming from. I know plenty of private security guards who carry guns. >Okay. The dump is owned by my county. So you admit that what you were describing was a red herring and not a market failure. >And if the dump is a private, 3rd party entity... how do you expect the dump to actually force people to pay for the services? What do you mean "force people to pay for the services"? If I go to an accountant and use their services, I pay them for it. That's what we agreed to. If I didn't agree to pay him he wouldn't perform the service. Why would this be different? No force necessary.
- dragontamer 10y ago
  > If you read my response above you would see that markets do not merely allow shoplifters to get away with it Please. Explain. Bob shoplift from a store. How does the insurance company stop him from shoplifing from the store again? A Police Officer puts him in Jail. He spends some time thinking about it and eventually decides shoplifting isn't worth jailtime. But private 3rd party citizens do NOT have the ability to use force on others. And that's a good thing. Without the Police acting as a stick, you simply don't have a deterrence. Yes, Walmart hires greeters and purchases insurance policies against shoplifting. That doesn't stop the shoplifters I see shuffling through Walmart. If a Walmart greeter starts to confront a shoplifter, they just say "lol nope" and leave. An Officer threating them with jail? That's something that gets a shoplifter's attention. > So you admit that what you were describing was a red herring and not a market failure. I'm saying that the County is using taxes to pay for the Dump (and similarly, raising a "bag tax" to discourage the use of plastic bags is a good thing). And according to you anarcho-capitalists, you guys typically consider the forceful removal of money from the private citizenry to be immoral. I'm defending the use of taxes to solve this market failure. Because taxes are NOT a function of a free-market economy. You should know the basics of your own argument dude. If you don't think raising taxes is a problem, then you have no qualms or counter-arguments from me. I'm presuming a few things about your argument because I've heard this philosophy many times before. I feel like cutting to the chase. So, are you for or against taxes? I assume you're against, which is why I'm stating my arguments in this way.