Total Posts:90|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Free Market v. State Intervention

rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 4:55:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Is it better to have a free market, in which the ownership of property and means of production are entirely privately owned, or a market where there is state intervention?

Notice that I'm not implying a command economy. It's simply a market with state intervention to ensure A or B.

Moreover, assume in both situations there are laws and civil courts in order to prevent fraud, etc. It's not THAT free, in which you can disobey the law. There are defined property rights and other logistical matters settled by law.

Discuss!
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 7:33:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
State needs to intervene in the case of market failures (includes externalities)
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 8:04:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The statist intervention argument is based on a double standard. It assumes that the market's incentives are selfish. For some reason, the state just automatically does exactly what you want it to. In reality, states also suffer incentive problems. Arguably, they are much worse for many reasons.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 8:26:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 8:04:36 PM, Sieben wrote:
The statist intervention argument is based on a double standard. It assumes that the market's incentives are selfish. For some reason, the state just automatically does exactly what you want it to. In reality, states also suffer incentive problems. Arguably, they are much worse for many reasons.

...and that's pretty much the argument that caused me to make the leap from minarchist to anarchist.
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 9:46:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 8:04:36 PM, Sieben wrote:
The statist intervention argument is based on a double standard. It assumes that the market's incentives are selfish. For some reason, the state just automatically does exactly what you want it to. In reality, states also suffer incentive problems. Arguably, they are much worse for many reasons.

Or based on well documented things called free riders as well as negative externalties.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 9:50:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Markets do not always provide optimal outcomes for the most amount of people, so when seen as widely necessary and practical, the state should intervene. This can include universal healthcare accessibility, developing infrastructure, subsidizing renewable energy programs, providing free education, upholding national defense, etc.

Technically, the market can provide these services, but not to the extent that the state can. For instance, under markets alone, many people won't be able to afford quality healthcare and education, alternative energy won't yield much investment nor progress, and there may not be an adequate defense against a possible invasion.
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 9:52:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 9:50:40 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
Markets do not always provide optimal outcomes for the most amount of people, so when seen as widely necessary and practical, the state should intervene. This can include universal healthcare accessibility, developing infrastructure, subsidizing renewable energy programs, providing free education, upholding national defense, etc.

That does not include universal healthcare, accessibility, developing infrastructure, subsidizing renewable energy programs, or providing free education.

That is wealth redistribution and it is theft.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 9:53:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 9:50:40 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
Technically, the market can provide these services, but not to the extent that the state can.

That's pure bullshitt.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 10:01:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 9:53:02 PM, askbob wrote:
At 1/23/2011 9:50:40 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
Technically, the market can provide these services, but not to the extent that the state can.

That's pure bullshitt.

No, he's completely correct. Markets would not provide "free education" or "universal healthcare." The market can provide education and health care, of course, it just wouldn't do so by taking from some people to fund giving those services to other people for "free."
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 10:03:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 10:01:39 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
No, he's completely correct. Markets would not provide "free education" or "universal healthcare." The market can provide education and health care, of course, it just wouldn't do so by taking from some people to fund giving those services to other people for "free."

haha yes with the "free" word in front of them. I was referring to the service and the quality in general.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 10:03:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 9:52:32 PM, askbob wrote:
At 1/23/2011 9:50:40 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

That does not include universal healthcare, accessibility, developing infrastructure, subsidizing renewable energy programs, or providing free education.

That is wealth redistribution and it is theft.

The very existence of a state requires theft.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 10:05:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Anarchists are too stupid to realize that anarchy isn't stable at all in the slightest, and can only give birth to government.

Pardon me, maybe naive is a better word.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 10:08:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 10:03:26 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 1/23/2011 9:52:32 PM, askbob wrote:
At 1/23/2011 9:50:40 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

That does not include universal healthcare, accessibility, developing infrastructure, subsidizing renewable energy programs, or providing free education.

That is wealth redistribution and it is theft.

The very existence of a state requires theft.

I disagree. The existence of the current state requires theft. Theft is not the basis of its existence.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 10:11:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 9:46:45 PM, askbob wrote:
At 1/23/2011 8:04:36 PM, Sieben wrote:
The statist intervention argument is based on a double standard. It assumes that the market's incentives are selfish. For some reason, the state just automatically does exactly what you want it to. In reality, states also suffer incentive problems. Arguably, they are much worse for many reasons.

Or based on well documented things called free riders as well as negative externalties.

Negative externalities are not "market failures", they are government failures. If I pollute the air and it harms you or your crops or whatever, I've violated your property rights and committed a crime. If the government monopolizes the legal system, and does not treat this as a crime, then it is a government failure, and has nothing to do with the market screwing up.

As for free riders and public goods, that takes a bit more explaining--I'd recommend Ch. 10 of http://mises.org...
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 10:13:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 9:46:45 PM, askbob wrote:
At 1/23/2011 8:04:36 PM, Sieben wrote:
The statist intervention argument is based on a double standard. It assumes that the market's incentives are selfish. For some reason, the state just automatically does exactly what you want it to. In reality, states also suffer incentive problems. Arguably, they are much worse for many reasons.

Or based on well documented things called free riders as well as negative externalties.
There are free riders and negative externalities in political markets.

Your move.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 10:13:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 10:08:24 PM, askbob wrote:
At 1/23/2011 10:03:26 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 1/23/2011 9:52:32 PM, askbob wrote:
At 1/23/2011 9:50:40 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

That does not include universal healthcare, accessibility, developing infrastructure, subsidizing renewable energy programs, or providing free education.

That is wealth redistribution and it is theft.

The very existence of a state requires theft.

I disagree. The existence of the current state requires theft. Theft is not the basis of its existence.

All taxation is theft, even if it's taxation for something you think is necessary. The method of acquiring the money is what makes it theft; it doesn't matter what it's used for.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 10:13:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 10:05:12 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Anarchists are too stupid to realize that anarchy isn't stable at all in the slightest, and can only give birth to government.

Pardon me, maybe naive is a better word.

Cancer treatment is pointless; half the time the tumors just grow back anyway. Either way, everyone eventually dies of old age.

/sarcasm

At best it might give rise to a small localized government, which would be forced to remain highly efficient in order to prevent encroachment on its territorial monopoly and stop capital from relocating to other regions.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 10:15:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 10:08:24 PM, askbob wrote:
At 1/23/2011 10:03:26 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
The very existence of a state requires theft.

I disagree. The existence of the current state requires theft. Theft is not the basis of its existence.

No, the existence of any state (except a voluntaryist minarchy, which would be highly unstable) necessitates theft. TAA is one of the few liberals with the intellectual honesty to admit that.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 10:16:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 10:13:58 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 1/23/2011 10:05:12 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Anarchists are too stupid to realize that anarchy isn't stable at all in the slightest, and can only give birth to government.

Pardon me, maybe naive is a better word.

Cancer treatment is pointless; half the time the tumors just grow back anyway. Either way, everyone eventually dies of old age.

/sarcasm

At best it might give rise to a small localized government, which would be forced to remain highly efficient in order to prevent encroachment on its territorial monopoly and stop capital from relocating to other regions.

Tell that to Genghis Khan.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 10:17:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 9:52:32 PM, askbob wrote:
At 1/23/2011 9:50:40 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
Markets do not always provide optimal outcomes for the most amount of people, so when seen as widely necessary and practical, the state should intervene. This can include universal healthcare accessibility, developing infrastructure, subsidizing renewable energy programs, providing free education, upholding national defense, etc.


That does not include universal healthcare, accessibility, developing infrastructure, subsidizing renewable energy programs, or providing free education.

That is wealth redistribution and it is theft.

So let me get this straight.

Your argument is simply that taxation is theft?
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 10:19:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 10:16:48 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:

Tell that to Genghis Khan.
Formation of states is just logistical. Agricultural societies are particularly vulnerable to invading barbarians. Valuation of natural resources (gold, oil) rewards conquest because possession is a zero-sum-game. The world is quite different now.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 10:22:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 10:11:52 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Negative externalities are not "market failures", they are government failures. If I pollute the air and it harms you or your crops or whatever, I've violated your property rights and committed a crime. If the government monopolizes the legal system, and does not treat this as a crime, then it is a government failure, and has nothing to do with the market screwing up.

Dude you are an idiot. Without a governmental structure they exist. Thus it is the fault of the market and not government. The government is responsible for intervening and making these externalities illegal or punishable. As for free riders, I'm not reading that crap. Post the concise reason why.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 10:26:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 10:16:48 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Tell that to Genghis Khan.

Remind me, how long did the Mongolian empire last? Once a nation becomes an imperial power, it's essentially signing its own death warrant. Pillaging, plundering, and exacting tribute is not a sustainable means of growth. Moreover, controlling a large geographic area from a centralized location is costly and inefficient. On ancap, PDA's would have an incentive not to engage in that behavior inasmuch as they would be directly responsible to their customers and would have to compete with other companies for business. When there is no territorial monopoly on force to begin with, conglomeration becomes disadvantageous.

In order to prevent conglomeration, it's not necessary that PDA's be able to defeat a large power in direct engagement, but merely that they be able to deter them from attacking. If the costs of subduing a region exceed the monetary benefits it becomes a bad economic decision.

Does it mean that large empires will never emerge on ancap? No, but it shows that there is an incentive structure in place that it makes it a whole lot less likely than when the world is run by coercive monopolistic powers not directly answerable to anyone.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 10:26:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 10:11:52 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 1/23/2011 9:46:45 PM, askbob wrote:
At 1/23/2011 8:04:36 PM, Sieben wrote:

As for free riders and public goods, that takes a bit more explaining--I'd recommend Ch. 10 of http://mises.org...

I'd recommend Wikipedia.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 10:29:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It doesn't matter, as long as a corporation gains enough power, it can function as a government.

Take corporations that decide to form a type of alliance.. State is formed right there.

It completely boggles my mind how anyone could think that anarchy is stable. The idea is patently absurd. I'm astonished that there are so many anarchists on this site who take themselves seriously.

Now don't get me wrong, I hate the state. I think taxation is theft. I don't think it is right for me to be a citizen simply because I was born in a geographic territory that is run by government.. Anarchy isn't practical. It just isn't. Anarchy is IMPOSSIBLE to enforce.

How the fvck do you anarchists think that current governments were formed? Do you honestly think that things would be different because we have better weaponry?

Hell, if the government were to collapse in the United States right now, and anarchy replaced it.. I guarantee that factions would form up, and a new government would rise. Maybe multiple governments, but governments none the less. It's human nature.

I'm honestly amazed that anyone could actually seriously believe that anarchy could work. It's almost as stupid as believing in the horsesh!t they try to teach you in church.

It's shallow minded bull, that's what it is. Idealistic nonsense.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 10:31:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 10:22:35 PM, askbob wrote:
At 1/23/2011 10:11:52 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Negative externalities are not "market failures", they are government failures. If I pollute the air and it harms you or your crops or whatever, I've violated your property rights and committed a crime. If the government monopolizes the legal system, and does not treat this as a crime, then it is a government failure, and has nothing to do with the market screwing up.


Dude you are an idiot. Without a governmental structure they exist. Thus it is the fault of the market and not government. The government is responsible for intervening and making these externalities illegal or punishable. As for free riders, I'm not reading that crap. Post the concise reason why.

And with a government in place, they still exist. Your point? A society with a competitive legal system is more likely to resolve it.

I like Nozick's plan. Free agent lawyers could represent large groups Pro Bono in cases where negative externalities are infringing on property rights. They would receive payment from any unclaimed portion of the settlement. Environmental suits dealing with externalities were very common in the US prior to the late 19th century.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 10:43:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 10:31:20 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 1/23/2011 10:22:35 PM, askbob wrote:
At 1/23/2011 10:11:52 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:

And with a government in place, they still exist. Your point? A society with a competitive legal system is more likely to resolve it.

I like Nozick's plan. Free agent lawyers could represent large groups Pro Bono in cases where negative externalities are infringing on property rights. They would receive payment from any unclaimed portion of the settlement. Environmental suits dealing with externalities were very common in the US prior to the late 19th century.

The US had a public court system. Conflicting judiciaries and uncooperative defendants might prove to be much more problematic in an Anarchist society that doesn't set down universally binding laws.
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 10:44:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 10:31:20 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
And with a government in place, they still exist. Your point? A society with a competitive legal system is more likely to resolve it.

My point is that they are inherent to the market and not the government thus market failures.

WTF is a competitive legal system? I'd love to hear what that is.


I like Nozick's plan. Free agent lawyers could represent large groups Pro Bono in cases where negative externalities are infringing on property rights. They would receive payment from any unclaimed portion of the settlement. Environmental suits dealing with externalities were very common in the US prior to the late 19th century.

Ahh so instead of simply taxing pollution you want to create a paradise for lawyers.

Lol great plan.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 10:48:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 10:29:23 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
It completely boggles my mind how anyone could think that anarchy is stable. The idea is patently absurd. I'm astonished that there are so many anarchists on this site who take themselves seriously.

I'm honestly amazed that anyone could actually seriously believe that anarchy could work. It's almost as stupid as believing in the horsesh!t they try to teach you in church.

It's shallow minded bull, that's what it is. Idealistic nonsense.

After reading this incredibly narrow-minded and insulting post, I felt like writing a scathing response pointing out all the flaws and idiocy which YOU just posted. You condemn anarchists as the idiots when you show absolutely no comprehension of what it actually entails or any real intention to TRY and understand. Instead, you feel more comfortable sitting back and calling it horsesh!t as though that's a productive post worth a comment. People that respond like this rarely have any grasp on what they are so quickly disregarding as "impossible". I'd love to sit and chat about your own flaws, but I don't believe you'd even be open to discussing anything that you have deemed to be nonsense. Now, if you want to have a rational discussion about the benefits and logical substantiation of anarchy, feel free to actually post something that we ("we" being the anarchists) feel inclined to respond to. Your lack of respect, comprehension and overall tact is not that tempting.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 10:49:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 10:44:44 PM, askbob wrote:
At 1/23/2011 10:31:20 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
And with a government in place, they still exist. Your point? A society with a competitive legal system is more likely to resolve it.

My point is that they are inherent to the market and not the government thus market failures.

Exactly, the issue is caused by the market and ignored (or not properly resolved) by the government. It is true that both have a hand in the issue, but ultimately it is the market that caused the problem.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"