But that is exactly what the argument for a free market is based upon. It can’t be based on utility, since value is subjective, and there is no objective conception of utility.
You’re trying to make a means justifies the ends argument. You claim only the state can handle roads, and the state only does what it does with violence.
Let’s have an honest debate and point out the gun in the room.
It’s ok. We’re not the government so we won’t force you to take any medication.
Do you believe a legitimate mean to an end is the initiation of force?
eg. If you are hungry, is it acceptable to steal?
I was trying to cut to the chase. And underlying assumptions of yours are apparently a hang-up for you. The migration of the discussion to violence is what this is all about. If you are hung-up on how are street cleaners and roads going to happen and yet hold these assumptions that violence only solves some problems I’d say the easy part of this inquiry of yours is street cleaners and road building. The more devastating, obviously, avenue of inquiry influencing these or who knows what else in your opinion about this world is your personal mode of violence. What that mode is (fear based or you like to initiate violence, etc…) is a foundational premise of your making. Why else would you still wonder how roads are going to be built without somebody present to make sure it happens - perhaps happen violently?
Dear “flic”
Thank you for your intelligent and detailed reply. I shall come back and address the points later… but I have to go right now. In the mean time I should say thet internet provision is not what I really had in mind as a “utility” (maybe my fault in not being clearer). I think that water, gas, electricity, roads and policing are all better examples. I think that discussing internet provision will muddy the waters too much.
You’re either being dishonest or you’re intellectually retarded because I already explained to you that your entire argument is flawed becuase we do not live in a free market.
Your definition of utility is a service provided by government. Had government previously provided internet I have no doubts it would have been in your list. The truth is internet or phone service deliverd to your home is not at all different.
Also your analogy where you falsy tried to find a situation where force was justifiable. What you fail to see however is that when you stop the robber you are
A) Not Initiating force, IE you did not initiate anything
B) Acting in self defense.
Well its a good first step to accept the minarchist position. Now what are the characteristics of the exceptional problems? I would think one you care about is the free loading problem. So you would say maybe in the case of the street sweeper or lighthouse that the people should be robbed for their own good in order to pay for the service. But if it is true that the street sweeper due to freeloaders would not emerge without violence, why should violence be used to attain it? It doesn’t follow that merely because a beneficial service would not exist without violence that violence should be employed to get it. What reason could justify this? I hold personal autonomy higher than street cleanliness in the category of things I prefer.
If your car broke down in the desert and you had gone three days without water, then you came across a traveler that was loaded up with more water than he could possibly drink on his journey and he refused to give you some, would you consider stealing some? I would. I would consider it acceptable for anyone to in those circumstances.
Why would you be travelling the desert by car and without enough water in case of an emergency?
Just concerning your criticism of the private provision…
At least, there will be some change at all. With government monopolies, you need to hope for a majority of people thinking the way the service is provided is bad an then hope that there is a party tackling the issue and there are no other issues more important to those who think that the service is provided badly.
I suppose businesses will tend to grow to an optimum level, as there can be such a thing as too big a scale.
I suppose the utility provider will find use to get his money, for example by contacting his and the clients security agency when payments are not met. Or the client’s bank.
How about “everyone can decided for himself instead of being forced to accept the decision of the majority”.
As noted before, this is actually a good thing. Just look around you and see what happens if people just vote for anything without even understanding it in the slightest.
Why? Whereas with government, there is no way to switch the provider, switching on a free market might just need a e-mail or two.
Now, why should it not be possible to just switch the provider without moving? While government is establishing a territorial monopoly, no private business can do so, as you can freely contract other providers without anyone being able to do something about it.
I am quite new to this forum (started reading yesterday), but this is already the second forum topic (of the few I read) which makes me wonder if people trying to show the deficits of libertarianism like the really quite important issue of cleaning a street in a shopping district have even read some of the basic works concerning a free market society. And if not, I wonder why they do ignore all arguments by principle, even though they are rather clear and logic (I think this thread was answered in the first few posts).
EDIT: I am sorry for referring to a rather old post, I thought mickanomic’s table was the last post in this thread (I thought I did click on the “last page” button), but I was wrong.
How come the only example you give is one of a fairy tail? If you were out in the desert without spare water in your truck and broke down, you likely what you deserve. It’s not that other fellows fault that you were negligent and incompetent.
Your fairy tail is unlikely to ever be realized. It has been argued that altruism increases in a free society, and decreases in a controlled society. So I would argue in the situation you fabricated the odds of being denied water would be greater in a controlled society as water is likely to be a controlled commodity and as is always the case with controlled commodities there is likely to be shortages and mis-allocations. Therefore the person who passes you in the desert has to decide. If he gives you some water he would be in effect stealing from the government, and if caught could face charges which put him in jail. He may very well rather see you suffer and save his own hide.
Furthermore, to illustrate how rediculous your line of reasoning is, as anyone can make anything up. Let me appened something to your story.
If your car broke down in the desert and you had gone three days without water, then you came across a traveler that was loaded up with more water than he could possibly drink on his journey and he refused to give you some, would you consider stealing some? The man with the water however is delivering a truck load of the liquid to help stop a massive forest fire currently burning down people’s homes. If he stops to give you water people may die and property will surely be lost from the raging fire. He has no time to waste! Would it still be moral to stop him at gun point and take his water, knowing full well where he is going and what he is doing? If not so, then how can you justify that violence is ok in ignorance?
My point is, your line of reasoning is somethign commonly used by the left. Where a highly unlikely story is played out but only described from one man’s point of view. All other men in the story are automatically deemed villain’s. Their side of the story is never relevant. So your argument can be tailored and twisted to support your cause. You have provided proof that you can with bad reasoning attempt to justify murder, theft, and more. Allthis proves though is your irrationality and inability to reason.
Well for a start all the preceding discussions led me to the firm conclusion that free market utilities can only work with contracts, i.e. the new homeowner has to agree to the contract before they move in. These contracts are necessarily in perpetuity. The consequence of the contracts that you signed up to can, in the long run, turn out to be very different from what you expected for a variety of reasons:
you made a mistake in your understanding of the consequences of the contract (all too easy to do).
the people you signed the contract with may sell up to other people who are not so good.
the people you signed up to may change their behavior from how they behaved in the past
And contracts are a kind of voluntary submission to the threat of violence.
So the free market does not avoid the violence against freeloaders problem.
Writing this I just had a thought… From my earlier correspondence with the guy from the private roads service, he says that from his real world experience, he thinks about 5% of the population have it in their nature not to like signing up to contracts. Perhaps if a free market was to be arranged then what would happen is that the 95% of cooperators would end up voluntarily submitting to the threat of violence in order to get the benefit of living in towns and cities with running water, electricity, gas, paved roads, street lighting etc, etc… and the non-cooperators would end up living in the hills in huts. They would collect their water from the local stream and light their houses with candles.
I don’t know if I defined utility at all, but whether I did or not I just think the internet is a grey area to discuss because it seems to be part military, part government, part private and just for good measure, international. All of which just make it quite different to the other utilities and much more complex to discuss for the purposes of this debate.
Is they guy with all the water in the desert initiating violence against the thirsty man by refusing to give him water?
No, he isn’t initiating force by refusing to give the water.
And do you have anything other than special pleading?
If the market forces are very weak then the performance of the chosen provider can remain permanently a long way from optimal. Consider it as a mathematical optimization problem like finding a local minima in a “scalar field” where you start at a point away from the minima and then take a “pseudo random walk” where each step is part random and part in the direction of the minima. If the component in the direction of the minima is always very small then you would remain far from it most of the time.
Thats a reasonable point. I don’t thing we’ve reached any conclusion about the optimal scale… but note that if the private utility becomes large then the provider starts to take on characteristics more like a government. It will be less “in touch” with the local needs.
Sounds like you are agreeing with me on this point then. Or are you saying that taking money direct from my bank is non-violence (fine by me, but any sort of non-agreed to action against someone seems to be described as violence by most people on this forum).
Ermmm… not true with the long term contracts.
A) The process of having to read the contracts is not a good thing in itself. You may claim that it leads to some good consequences, but if thats a different matter.
B) I look around me and see some good and bad government things I also see good and bad private things.
It would be extremely difficult to switch utility (gas, water, road, electricity, policing) providers under any system.
huh?!?
How do you change water supplier? Are you expecting a multitude of pipes at your door and you can choose which one to connect to?
So you switch providers.
Switch providers
Switch providers
It’s not in aproviders best interest to make clients un-happy. As they could just leave. I signed a contract with Comcast, but I can easily leave it and move to Qwest. I specifically signed up with comcast however as there is no penalty for ending the contract early. I can leave when I want. As a result qwest’s contracts are becoming less restrctive as they are having trouble competing.
Explain yourself. This makes no sense. Unless your definition of violence and force is insanely scewed.
I don’t understand this. I’m a laymen, speak normal english.
lol. Good one.
When you want to talk seriously let us know.
he’s tinkering around, laying road maps, deciding where the stores and electrical lines will go, etc, etc…
mickanomics! Can I have a 20x20 swimming pool?[:P]