3 ms·

>No. My stance is that innocent-people pay for the crimes of others in your hypothetical. You say "No" but then you repeated what I stated in different terms.

by ancap 10y ago

>No. My stance is that innocent-people pay for the crimes of others in your hypothetical. You say "No" but then you repeated what I stated in different terms. Yes, it's unfortunate that there are bad people in the world who do not respect the property of others. We take measures to mitigate those risks like putting locks on our doors. That does not denote a market failure. Measures taken to mitigate crimes against us surely cannot be considered paying for something you do not use. When I purchase something from the store, I'm not just buying that item itself. I'm paying for all the costs necessary to get that item to me--which includes costs for operating a business. Me paying that costs does not equate paying for something I did not use--I did use it. I used that business in order to be delivered goods. They paid costs to ensure I would get the goods. No, market failure. >IE: you get lung cancer when a Coal Power Plant burns Coal. Market failure, specifically an externality. You pay for lung cancer that was caused by other people. As I've stated previously this is not a market failure because this example depends on the idea of the commons. This exemplifies the failure of the idea of the commons, but not the market. >If you don't care about efficient markets, then you probably shouldn't call yourself an "ancap". If you're truly interested in having a discussion about morality and theory, why not cut out all the pretentious, snide comments? In this entire discussion I have only been respectful.

dragontamer 10y ago
> We take measures to mitigate those risks like putting locks on our doors. That does not denote a market failure. Measures taken to mitigate crimes against us surely cannot be considered paying for something you do not use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure > In economics, market failure is a situation in which the allocation of goods and services is not efficient. That is, there exists another conceivable outcome where an individual may be made better-off without making someone else worse-off The store AND the consumers will be better off if a police force stopped the thefts. This is the very definition of a market failure.
- ancap 10y ago
  You keep linking to that wikipedia article but I don't think you've read it or understand it. >The store AND the consumers will be better off if a police force stopped the thefts. >This is the very definition of a market failure. You continue to fallaciously claim that absent a public police force businesses would do nothing to stop theft. The claim is absurd and ignores measures that businesses already take today to stop thefts. Furthermore you fallaciously claim that a public police force would stop thefts. We have a public police force. Thefts still happen. You have provided no evidence that absent a public police force that there would at least be more thefts and that option would be Pareto inefficient. Your argument is the very definition of a non-sequitur.
  - dragontamer 10y ago
    > You continue to fallaciously claim that absent a public police force businesses would do nothing to stop theft. They will do something to stop theft, and this something will cost money. It will cost insurance, it will cost security cameras, or security guards. And these costs will be passed onto the consumer by the store raising prices. IE: Consumer loses. Business lose. Thieves win. Market failure in a nutshell. > Furthermore you fallaciously claim that a public police force would stop thefts On the contrary. I suggest the police force as a deterrence. They help fix the problem, but the costs of a perfect police force are too great (both in civil liberties and in monetary costs). So in practice, we settle for a medium were enough thieves get caught to deter crime, but not all thieves are caught.
    - ancap 10y ago
      Customers covering operating costs does not constitute market failure. You should re-read that wikipedia article you keep linking. Also continuing to claim that in general "thieves win" is as absurd as claiming they "win" under the current laws and system. Non-sequitur in a nutshell.
      - dragontamer 10y ago
        > Also continuing to claim that in general "thieves win" is as absurd as claiming they "win" under the current laws and system. I have a far more nuanced argument than that. Thieves win in your system more than they do in the status quo, because you somehow think that insurance companies / bouncers are sufficient to deter thefts. A public police force is needed to deter thefts on a fair basis.

by ancap 10y ago

dragontamer 10y ago

> We take measures to mitigate those risks like putting locks on our doors. That does not denote a market failure. Measures taken to mitigate crimes against us surely cannot be considered paying for something you do not use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure > In economics, market failure is a situation in which the allocation of goods and services is not efficient. That is, there exists another conceivable outcome where an individual may be made better-off without making someone else worse-off The store AND the consumers will be better off if a police force stopped the thefts. This is the very definition of a market failure.

ancap 10y ago
You keep linking to that wikipedia article but I don't think you've read it or understand it. >The store AND the consumers will be better off if a police force stopped the thefts. >This is the very definition of a market failure. You continue to fallaciously claim that absent a public police force businesses would do nothing to stop theft. The claim is absurd and ignores measures that businesses already take today to stop thefts. Furthermore you fallaciously claim that a public police force would stop thefts. We have a public police force. Thefts still happen. You have provided no evidence that absent a public police force that there would at least be more thefts and that option would be Pareto inefficient. Your argument is the very definition of a non-sequitur.
- dragontamer 10y ago
  > You continue to fallaciously claim that absent a public police force businesses would do nothing to stop theft. They will do something to stop theft, and this something will cost money. It will cost insurance, it will cost security cameras, or security guards. And these costs will be passed onto the consumer by the store raising prices. IE: Consumer loses. Business lose. Thieves win. Market failure in a nutshell. > Furthermore you fallaciously claim that a public police force would stop thefts On the contrary. I suggest the police force as a deterrence. They help fix the problem, but the costs of a perfect police force are too great (both in civil liberties and in monetary costs). So in practice, we settle for a medium were enough thieves get caught to deter crime, but not all thieves are caught.
  - ancap 10y ago
    Customers covering operating costs does not constitute market failure. You should re-read that wikipedia article you keep linking. Also continuing to claim that in general "thieves win" is as absurd as claiming they "win" under the current laws and system. Non-sequitur in a nutshell.
    - dragontamer 10y ago
      > Also continuing to claim that in general "thieves win" is as absurd as claiming they "win" under the current laws and system. I have a far more nuanced argument than that. Thieves win in your system more than they do in the status quo, because you somehow think that insurance companies / bouncers are sufficient to deter thefts. A public police force is needed to deter thefts on a fair basis.