I don’t know. I came up with an answer but it was ignored. And my answer works. I see it everyday and night, and it works fairly well, except for the State intervening, but that aside…
the value of being the recipient of good or bad justice services, or defence services or any other kind of service is of the subjective value to the recipient. and so i dont understand the dichotomy you are trying to crowbar in, between objective and subjective.
the question is famously , who watches the watchmen?
what keeps businessmen honest, is it the government, or consumers and other businesses in a context of freedom?
if the latter, then the same system that keeps burgermakers honest keeps services that are by fiat ‘the proper province of government’ honest. without a monpolistic government. (which by economic analysis/public choice etc, is and would be, a fail)
Then you should support eliminating the monopoly.
All of your blatant assertions mean nothing to us, Steph. Show that defense (retaliatory force) is so special that it requires a monopoly or be silent.
Why are you afraid of an objective entity having the monopoly on the enforcement of contracts?
You’re the one who wants it both ways. You want private enterprise to be private and you also want it to be able to take the law into its own hands supposedly on behalf of its clients. You don’t want there to be an impartial judge, referee, someone who is skilled in hearing both sides of the argument and who cares about individual rights and justice, because THAT is how he earns a reputation for being objective, rational and fair.
When justice is the business, the people who are standing up to be judges cannot appear to have a vested interest in anything other than justice, equity, fairness by a rational objectively verifiable standard.
The marketplace is a lot of things, but it is not objectively fair. It is subjectively fair, however. People choose to spend their time and money on things they value, which may or may not be objectively worthy or objectively “the best.” The best is what the customers say it is, even if another product is demonstrably “the best.”
And that’s how it is in the marketplace.
Which is why government must have strict adherence to objective law. I’ll say it again in the hopes that it may sink in one of these days. The problem with government today is that it is based on and empowered to act to enforce NON-OBJECTIVE LAWS.
No. The proper question is why should it.
Because it isn’t.
Demonstrate that defense requires a monopoly or be silent.
your dream of an objective entity, is as absurd as a marxist dreaming of new socialist man.
let it go.
stop the madness.
how will the government be kept in its place? you have allowed yourself only government to appeal to! hence what is keeping the men and women of special privilidge ‘retaliation institute’ honest, is themselves, legally and morally shielded them from the outside effects of competition.
Your “analogy” sucked.
You didn’t even read what I wrote.
i’ll try to put it in more randian language.
only a free market in governance can lead to a good approximation of good governance
the granting of monopoly and special priviledge to individuals claiming to be the only ones capable of providing good governance will enevitably lead to a poor approximation of good governance i.e. bad governance . monopoly government is bad, like monopoly anything in bad.
and to the recipient of government services , those services have subjective value, to whatever extent they require that governance approximate object standards, only governments in fre ecompetition have the proper incentive structure to tailor to the custeomrs need for objectivity , a monopoly government will simply ignore it. it will have no incentive not to.
Still waiting for the answer to this.
if that is a profitable service to offer then yes, otherwise no.
And your pouting is noted.
I did; you commit the same error as Rand.
Now either show that defense requires a monopoly or be silent.
I do think individuals can be objective. And the government is made up of more individuals, all of whom are required to be objective in their work. Their subjective preferences are to be checked at the door when they go to work. Just the opposite is true in the marketplace. The subjective works in the marketplace and must be given freedom to work. It’s why the government has to be kept from interfering.
That is why the marketplace is the wrong place for the objective use of retaliatory force. The marketplace works for some functions of government, which is another reason I advocate voluntary funding for government services. There are some people like yourselves for example who would feel they can handle all their issues privately. Maybe you can.
The government is insurance to prevent anyone from over-stepping the NAP.
Government is there in case the private dispute resolution fails to achieve its intended aim - resolving the dispute privately.
You’d like that, wouldn’t you. No government to stop you and your PDA running merrily thru the streets, enforcing your clients’ wishes & whims.
what are the incentives for them to be objective?
businessmen have no incentive to be honest with their customers? spoken like someone with no business experience
moral hazard. implicit contradiction. does not compute. eject eject
You’re asking humans to try and not be human. This is not in our nature. Objective is not an on/off switch and pure objectivism notices no quality, no value, and that in the hands of an army is called being bloodthirsty.
Objective, again, without any qualifiers is just a label. You haven’t said what this objective is. You just throw it around as if it means something, but it doesn’t without a qualifier. Yet, hardened objectivism purges any qualifiers and is therefore blind.
his pda is better than yours, since his must pass the market test. and yours must pass no test.
This is completely untrue. All human action is based on subjective values, that is praxeology 101.
Insurance can be provided privately. You still have not proven any need for government. You’re still maintaining a false premise from which all of your logical errors are flowing.
Whose streets? The streets would all be privately owned. PDAs would only go where property owners wanted them.