6 ms·
>So you have some entity with the power to enforce contracts by violence? What incentive do they have to do that instead of simply mugging you? A democratic gov
by snitko 12y ago
>So you have some entity with the power to enforce contracts by violence? What incentive do they have to do that instead of simply mugging you? A democratic government has to care about elections. A private company has no such concerns.
Of course, it's the first reaction to say "but your private protection agencies are going to turn into de-facto governments". If you think long enough about it, you understand that they won't. Violence is never profitable unless somebody else pays for it (as with the government). Private protection agencies are in the business to make money long term, just like every other business. And that is only possible if you produce something people truly want.
So, two things as incentives to not rob you. 1. Your future business - if they rob you they, obviously, aren't going to get your business in the future. 2. Competition. Those two things government doesn't have to worry about! You always pay and there's no competition.
>Ostensibly direct democracy, where people can delegate their voting privileges to a representative, and change that delegation at any time
It's better, but it's still worse than the free market with no government, because you still have to pay taxes. You cannot just say "no, no, thank you, but I prefer to keep my money and not use these and these services or fund these wars". You still have to give politicians power first. And you still use government power to make other people pay for what the majority considers a good idea. I think this principle of majority is rather insane. A simple test: if tomorrow the majority decided to shoot all redheads, if you followed your principle, you'd have to agree.
>Indeed, so in a completely capitalist system, your freedom is contingent on the amount of capital you have. Personally, I think some freedoms should be guaranteed regardless of wealth.
When you have a democracy, you're still paying for it. Nothing is free. When you say "some freedoms should be guaranteed" you probably mean "some services", which is different. Freedom is not the product of someone else's labor. It simply is inaction, when you don't tell other people how to live their lives and how to spend their money. I may or may not agree that healthcare should be available to everyone at no cost, but you have no moral right to come and take my money to pay for something you consider to be good. You may, however, convince me to give you money and I may do it.
- aninhumer 12y ago>Violence is never profitable unless somebody else pays for it Well yeah, your victims pay for it. My point is that there's no inherent incentive for a private entity capable of violent coercion to use it for the benefit of anyone but itself. A truly democratic government has an incentive to use it to benefit at least a majority of people. >I think this principle of majority is rather insane. It's not perfect, but I think it's the only way we can make fair decisions about how to share limited resources. In theory Capitalism distributes the most to those who provide the most, which sounds great. In practice those with more resources are more able to provide utility in future, so the distribution ends up being very unequal. (EDIT: One solution might be a free market + enforced wealth redistribution at a rate based on the level of inequality. I think this would actually be much better at encouraging people to actually produce new utility constantly, instead of rent-seeking.) >A simple test: if tomorrow the majority decided to shoot all redheads, if you followed your principle, you'd have to agree. And you think a society that would pass such a vote would be any kinder in a free market? If a majority of people actively want redheads to be killed, then your supposed protection agencies would be happy to oblige. And even without violence, the majority needs only to deny them work and they would starve to death, or at best live in ghettos. > When you say "some freedoms should be guaranteed" you probably mean "some services", which is different. No, my whole point is that access to services is a form of freedom. The freedom to eat. The freedom to learn. The freedom to be healed. If these things are contingent on labour, then they are lesser freedoms. In a world with limited resources, some freedoms will always be curtailed. The question is which ones are the most important? I think the freedom to eat is more important than the freedom to decide how a portion of the utility you provide is shared.
- snitko 12y agoI was tempted to reply, because I think you've made some points I can understand, but object to. And some others I believe you simply misunderstood. > Well yeah, your victims pay for it. That's not what I meant. I meant that when a country starts a war, it's not politicians who pay for it. Citizens pay for wars with their taxes. Politicians simply sell them a war, while not investing any money of their own. In fact, what happens is, politicians make money, because there are companies who benefit from wars (oil, military equip and tech), so they lobby politicians. If politicians or companies had to pay for wars out of their own profits, there would be no wars. > In theory Capitalism distributes the most to those who provide the most, which sounds great. That's a misunderstanding. A rich person can only spend that much for himself (even then, by buying things, he actually creates jobs). He then has to invest into something he believes to be sustainable. Thus, I see businessmen as ultimate redistributors. They proved on the market they're good at handling money, thus they deserve to have more of them. Politicians only proved they can manipulate public opinion and you are entrusting them your own and someone else's tax money. I don't think it's a good idea at all. > And you think a society that would pass such a vote would be any kinder in a free market Yes, because in a free market the redheads would be able to legally invest money of their own to protect themselves from other people, who wish to kill them. With government, since it has the monopoly on protection and laws, no such thing would be possible. In other words, in a completely free market minorities are able to put a price tag on them being discriminated against, while when you have government, they would actually be paying for their own discrimination. Gay people have been paying taxes just like everyone else, yet until some point, it was even illegal to be gay, not even talking about marriage. >No, my whole point is that access to services is a form of freedom Very well. Even by your definition then, when government takes a portion of my money as tax for the services I don't use or disagree with (like wars) it takes away my freedom to use other services I consider good. The crucial distinction is force. Government is force that is abused because it's so centralized. Government is telling other people what they can or cannot do, how they can or cannot spend their money and what services they can or cannot use. It doesn't matter what you consider freedom to be. With government some may indeed get a little more "freedom", but always at the expense of someone else and always with people in the government benefiting most from their position. I'm simply against this redistribution, because it is based on a system that is inherently unfair and broken. No, it cannot be fixed.