3 ms·

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 d

by 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.
- ancap 10y ago
  >Bob shoplift from a store. How does the insurance company stop him from shoplifing from the store again? When did I say an insurance company would stop a shoplifter? Whether or not Walmart will physically confront a shoplifter or not (I'm pretty sure I've seen cases in the news where they have), that's their business, but as far as I know there's nothing from precluding them from doing so. >But private 3rd party citizens do NOT have the ability to use force on others. Sure they do. I assume you're talking about laws here. I can't speak for the laws of every state, but most allow the the use of force in self defense or even to prevent theft. Regardless of the laws of any given jurisdiction, is your argument that there is a market failure because the law prevents a business from taking action? >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 You keep referring to an alleged market failure but you have failed to identify one. In your example the dump is a public institution, thereby excluding the possibility of a market failure.
  - dragontamer 10y ago
    > You keep referring to an alleged market failure but you have failed to identify one. Externality. Plastic bags cost $0. Cleaning up plastic bags costs more than $0. If you can't grasp this basic concept, then that's your own fault at this point. An externality is a basic market failure. Very basic economics here.
    - ancap 10y ago
      The term you're looking for is actually negative externality. I am very familiar with the subject. I know it well enough, in fact, to know that if you're going to refer to a "market failure" you have to actually be discussing the market. Your example is dependent upon a commons and/or publicly owned enterprise, ie. not a market. Very basic logic here.

by ancap 10y ago

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.

ancap 10y ago
>Bob shoplift from a store. How does the insurance company stop him from shoplifing from the store again? When did I say an insurance company would stop a shoplifter? Whether or not Walmart will physically confront a shoplifter or not (I'm pretty sure I've seen cases in the news where they have), that's their business, but as far as I know there's nothing from precluding them from doing so. >But private 3rd party citizens do NOT have the ability to use force on others. Sure they do. I assume you're talking about laws here. I can't speak for the laws of every state, but most allow the the use of force in self defense or even to prevent theft. Regardless of the laws of any given jurisdiction, is your argument that there is a market failure because the law prevents a business from taking action? >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 You keep referring to an alleged market failure but you have failed to identify one. In your example the dump is a public institution, thereby excluding the possibility of a market failure.
- dragontamer 10y ago
  > You keep referring to an alleged market failure but you have failed to identify one. Externality. Plastic bags cost $0. Cleaning up plastic bags costs more than $0. If you can't grasp this basic concept, then that's your own fault at this point. An externality is a basic market failure. Very basic economics here.
  - ancap 10y ago
    The term you're looking for is actually negative externality. I am very familiar with the subject. I know it well enough, in fact, to know that if you're going to refer to a "market failure" you have to actually be discussing the market. Your example is dependent upon a commons and/or publicly owned enterprise, ie. not a market. Very basic logic here.