11 ms·

Very good example of a difficult problem. The answer to it is not government. I always challenge myself and others with this: if you had a problem for which gov

by snitko 12y ago

Very good example of a difficult problem. The answer to it is not government. I always challenge myself and others with this: if you had a problem for which government seems like a very reasonable answer, can you design a better solution? And indeed, you can. In this example you have to realize that what government is selling to consumers is the service of preventing eventual rise in prices after the competition is weeded out. If, as a consumer, I am worried about such predatory pricing as in your example, what is to prevent me from signing a contract with a company which specifically states "you are not allowed to raise the price"? Then this contract can be enforced by whichever private court and protection agency I hired (how this would work is a matter of a separate post, but I recommend reading "The Machinery Of Freedom" by David D. Friedman on that subject). However, I don't really think you'd need that contract. What would really happen is that many companies would have infrastructure in many places (as is the case in my country) or you would have alternative connections (as, again, is the case in my country with a 4g operator Yota). Or you would have willing rich investors if they see that opportunity exists to disrupt the market. Finally, people may move and stop using the service if they dislike it. There are all sorts of opportunities. Government is just one solution with a very high cost indeed: you have many people die in bloody wars which are run for your tax money and on your behalf (as is the case with both of our countries, I suppose). And no, however you wanted it, with government you can't have only the good things and none of the bad ones. It's logically impossible, because for a politician the economic incentives are always in the wrong place.

aninhumer 12y ago
>Then this contract can be enforced by whichever private court and protection agency I hired And how they will enforce this contract? If it involves the threat of violence, how is it better than government? If it doesn't, how does it enforce your contract against the threat of violence? >It's logically impossible, because for a politician the economic incentives are always in the wrong place. Can you elaborate on this? I would say democracy is the only structure we know of which has shown itself able to limit concentration of power.
- snitko 12y ago
  >And how they will enforce this contract? If it involves the threat of violence, how is it better than government? If it doesn't, how does it enforce your contract against the threat of violence? I would recommend, again, watching David Friedman's talk on the "Machinery Of Freedom", it's on Youtube. He's got excellent examples and explanations. It's 20 mins and totally worth it. In short. on the difference on it from government violence: when a contract is signed with by me and some entity, we both agree that out conflicts are going to be solved in such and such manner and in such and such courts. That is, if there is going to be some violence involved, we both know it from the beginning. With government, neither me, nor the company signed any contract with the government. The government just comes and starts interfering when it pleases. >Can you elaborate on this? I would say democracy is the only structure we know of which has shown itself able to limit concentration of power. You cannot know whether a politician is truly a good guy or if he's lying to you. The only way to know that is to give him power first. Notice how different the situation is with a businessman: a businessman should first produce something and convince you his product is good before you give him your money. If the product gets worse over time, everybody stops buying it and he goes out of business the next moment. Not so with a politician, who knows he's going to keep getting his salary at the very least, and hopefully bribes, for the next 4 years. A politician knows very well that his voters will keep paying taxes, whether or not they like what he does. That is because if they stop paying, they risk getting in trouble and will possibly go to jail. A businessman doesn't have that luxury. He cannot force you to pay, he can only convince you by offering something you genuinely want to buy. Of course a businessman can also lie to you, but unlike a politician, his lies is more easily discovered and you have the option to stop paying him immediately. And so, the incentives for a politician are in the wrong place. If you can show me an exact mechanism how to reliably elect politicians who would ignore those incentives and do good instead of those incentives offering them a much more profitable thing to do, then I would gladly accept that. But simply saying “we should elect good people” is not a mechanism. It is an intention, and intentions are not results. What's the alternative? Having no politicians and having only the market. On the market, you can decide to buy or stop buying things immediately with your own money.
  - aninhumer 12y ago

by snitko 12y ago

aninhumer 12y ago

>Then this contract can be enforced by whichever private court and protection agency I hired And how they will enforce this contract? If it involves the threat of violence, how is it better than government? If it doesn't, how does it enforce your contract against the threat of violence? >It's logically impossible, because for a politician the economic incentives are always in the wrong place. Can you elaborate on this? I would say democracy is the only structure we know of which has shown itself able to limit concentration of power.

snitko 12y ago
>And how they will enforce this contract? If it involves the threat of violence, how is it better than government? If it doesn't, how does it enforce your contract against the threat of violence? I would recommend, again, watching David Friedman's talk on the "Machinery Of Freedom", it's on Youtube. He's got excellent examples and explanations. It's 20 mins and totally worth it. In short. on the difference on it from government violence: when a contract is signed with by me and some entity, we both agree that out conflicts are going to be solved in such and such manner and in such and such courts. That is, if there is going to be some violence involved, we both know it from the beginning. With government, neither me, nor the company signed any contract with the government. The government just comes and starts interfering when it pleases. >Can you elaborate on this? I would say democracy is the only structure we know of which has shown itself able to limit concentration of power. You cannot know whether a politician is truly a good guy or if he's lying to you. The only way to know that is to give him power first. Notice how different the situation is with a businessman: a businessman should first produce something and convince you his product is good before you give him your money. If the product gets worse over time, everybody stops buying it and he goes out of business the next moment. Not so with a politician, who knows he's going to keep getting his salary at the very least, and hopefully bribes, for the next 4 years. A politician knows very well that his voters will keep paying taxes, whether or not they like what he does. That is because if they stop paying, they risk getting in trouble and will possibly go to jail. A businessman doesn't have that luxury. He cannot force you to pay, he can only convince you by offering something you genuinely want to buy. Of course a businessman can also lie to you, but unlike a politician, his lies is more easily discovered and you have the option to stop paying him immediately. And so, the incentives for a politician are in the wrong place. If you can show me an exact mechanism how to reliably elect politicians who would ignore those incentives and do good instead of those incentives offering them a much more profitable thing to do, then I would gladly accept that. But simply saying “we should elect good people” is not a mechanism. It is an intention, and intentions are not results. What's the alternative? Having no politicians and having only the market. On the market, you can decide to buy or stop buying things immediately with your own money.
- aninhumer 12y ago