3 ms·

The are plenty of ideas and solutions that answer your questions. I wouldn't like to repeat them now as it happens in every thread when I mention some libertari

by snitko 13y ago

The are plenty of ideas and solutions that answer your questions. I wouldn't like to repeat them now as it happens in every thread when I mention some libertarian ideas. I think the important thing to understand is that a government is not some magic cure for all the problems you mentioned. If you take a simple idea that a government is a monopoly on almost all of the things that it does, then you can go from here. Monopolies are mostly not good for consumers; and a huge one with an access to an unlimited force is certainly not.

jjoonathan 13y ago
> I wouldn't like to repeat them now as it happens in every thread when I mention some libertarian ideas. Funny, I feel like the whole "free market knows best" idea pops up in every thread even though I have no trouble providing counterexamples. I'm genuinely curious to see how you would solve the problems I brought up, especially the ones surrounding the subjectivity of property law. > the important thing to understand is that a government is not some magic cure for all the problems you mentioned I'm pretty sure my post said precisely that. We agree on this point; no need to belabor it. My statement amounts to the trivial counterpart regarding free markets, but I'm pretty sure you don't actually think free markets are perfect (or even always a better option), so how about we continue on to the part where we discuss specifics? > Monopolies are mostly not good for consumers; and a huge one with an access to an unlimited force is certainly not. A monopoly without profit-maximizing incentives, universally shared ownership, and checks+balances (relatively speaking on both counts, of course) seems preferable to one with profit-maximizing incentives, without broad ownership, and without checks+balances. Especially when it comes to force.
- snitko 13y ago
  Ok, let me tackle this one specific point first (I'll address others a bit later, as I have to leave now). > A monopoly without profit-maximizing incentives and with universally shared ownership (relatively speaking on both counts, of course) seems preferable Now, that's in theory. In practice, where are those angels who work in the government and don't seek profit for themselves? Where do you find those people who would be immune to lobbyists and always serve the people of the country? Because if you don't have a very precise workable procedure on how to elect such individuals and also the one that wouldn't allow them to become corrupt in the process, then you can't claim an existence of such a monopoly is better than its absence. Politics attracts people who like power and would willingly lie to and coerce the people who elected them. The only way I see is to deny such people opportunity to have this power. Free market may not be perfect, but it fosters virtue to a much greater degree than politics. A politician must first get power to do some good, while a businessmen must first do some good to make money.
  - sjy 13y ago
    But many people make money without doing good. Why not look at evidence rather than cute aphorisms? People in high-tax social democracies enjoy measurably better outcomes in health, education and happiness.
    - snitko 13y ago
      What do you mean by many people make money without doing good? If they steal, they should go to jail. If they gamble, it's their choice. If they produce something other people are willing to buy, they are doing good. What are the other ways of making money I am not aware of?

by snitko 13y ago

jjoonathan 13y ago

> I wouldn't like to repeat them now as it happens in every thread when I mention some libertarian ideas. Funny, I feel like the whole "free market knows best" idea pops up in every thread even though I have no trouble providing counterexamples. I'm genuinely curious to see how you would solve the problems I brought up, especially the ones surrounding the subjectivity of property law. > the important thing to understand is that a government is not some magic cure for all the problems you mentioned I'm pretty sure my post said precisely that. We agree on this point; no need to belabor it. My statement amounts to the trivial counterpart regarding free markets, but I'm pretty sure you don't actually think free markets are perfect (or even always a better option), so how about we continue on to the part where we discuss specifics? > Monopolies are mostly not good for consumers; and a huge one with an access to an unlimited force is certainly not. A monopoly without profit-maximizing incentives, universally shared ownership, and checks+balances (relatively speaking on both counts, of course) seems preferable to one with profit-maximizing incentives, without broad ownership, and without checks+balances. Especially when it comes to force.

snitko 13y ago
Ok, let me tackle this one specific point first (I'll address others a bit later, as I have to leave now). > A monopoly without profit-maximizing incentives and with universally shared ownership (relatively speaking on both counts, of course) seems preferable Now, that's in theory. In practice, where are those angels who work in the government and don't seek profit for themselves? Where do you find those people who would be immune to lobbyists and always serve the people of the country? Because if you don't have a very precise workable procedure on how to elect such individuals and also the one that wouldn't allow them to become corrupt in the process, then you can't claim an existence of such a monopoly is better than its absence. Politics attracts people who like power and would willingly lie to and coerce the people who elected them. The only way I see is to deny such people opportunity to have this power. Free market may not be perfect, but it fosters virtue to a much greater degree than politics. A politician must first get power to do some good, while a businessmen must first do some good to make money.
- sjy 13y ago
  But many people make money without doing good. Why not look at evidence rather than cute aphorisms? People in high-tax social democracies enjoy measurably better outcomes in health, education and happiness.
  - snitko 13y ago
    What do you mean by many people make money without doing good? If they steal, they should go to jail. If they gamble, it's their choice. If they produce something other people are willing to buy, they are doing good. What are the other ways of making money I am not aware of?