Seems everyone on here has made their mind up on Libertarianism to one degree or another, maybe those who generically disagree end up elsewhere?
Anyway, before I get attacked, let it be known I agree. In theory. Let is also be noted that I was scared of being attacked on here, which is not normal for me, and that most people, perhaps more weary, (ie those who need to be convinced) would therefore have chosen to go elsewhere instead of engaging…
In the UK our parliament is debating vastly increaing the amount of regulation for scrap metal dealers - outlawing any cash trades, and creating ‘hoops’ with the stated intention of making it much more diffcult to launder stolen metal.
The stated reason for this is because of a massive increase in metal thefts that have caused a massive increase in costs for the varous public and private organisations involved. Now, there may well be sub-plots/corruption/conspiracy with this; increasing the regulation increases the scarcity power and control for the government and lobbyists from establisged metal dealers, which in turn gives them an advantage (is this axiomatic language for people on here?!).
However, it also is one of the only ways to reduce Metal theft - there is no way that private security could prevent it as it is just too easy to do - the costs of the private security would be greater than the metal itself. This is equally true if it were state funded security. So the only way to prevent the theft is by regulation. The downside is the potential for regulation to be over-zealous, but the key point here is that down-sizing he state and de-regulating is in no-ones interest.
Not sure if you agree with the above, and it will be interesting to see the views. But surely if it can be applied to one practical example, there will be others too?
Wouldn’t the added regulation increase the costs of the security, either private or state? The regulations would have to be enforced, just like the private property rights in the metal would have to be enforced, in order to be meaningful.
The key point here is the efficiency - enforcing the regulation nationwide on trading in metal is (supposed to be) substantially cheaper than protecting the theft in the first place. So the addition of the regulation aids a more economical way for society to work.
enforcing the regulation nationwide on trading in metal is (supposed to be) substantially cheaper than protecting the theft in the first place
Please explain why. It seems like enforcing the ban is just as local as preventing theft. Just because something is nationwide doesn’t mean a bureaucrat can do it from his desk in London. You need officers in the field to do it, just like you need to defend against crime.
Using the same logic, we should place enormous restrictions on all trade, because any trade may be rotten.
@OP: You presume you have an omniscience that you do not have. You simply assert that it would be “too costly” to secure the metal but you have no more reason to assert that than you have to assert that the price of oranges in downtown Brussells is too high. Even worse, your alternative (state regulation) “solves” the problem by removing all possibility of evaluating costs since the price mechanism is the only way to really assess costs versus benefits, that is, to calculate.
Your narrative makes it appear as if protecting your metal is a very specific service. It’s not. It’s part of the protection that police gives you overall.
By the same logic, protecting your dining room table is also difficult, if you have to get special police to do it. So is protecting the pile of bricks left outside your house. Going down the line, we see that indeed all our individual items are expensive to protect. Hence, we should ban the trade on all of them.
Now, since we see this is absurd, we must reconsider the scenario. Protecting your metal is no different than protecting any of your other possessions. If the police protects one, they protect the rest as well. They don’t specialize (at least the common police force doesn’t).
Also, only in the UK could they consider it necessary to regulate into actuality that which is already profitable to do, that is, protect one’s assets from thieves. How is it that private security is unable but public security isn’t? Honestly, do they think that these metal firms, accountable to the market, are simply going to continue allowing their metal to be stolen? There are simple fixes for this issue without the possible/probable cartelization of heavy metal.
In my city, we have certain trash days where you can throw out anything from furniture to computers… The city made it a law to arrest people taking the scrap metal from the trash. Because the city beneftis from the scrap metal sale.
They do not care about the other items. Less trash helps them out.
think either I am missing something or you guys - the metal is so easy to steal, its on raoilway lines a bridges and power subs-stations etc. If a provate security firm wanted to emulate the cheap prevention method offered by the government, they couldnt, as the prevention relies on the audit trail of having a regulated metal trade industry, along with the threat of the law for those that do not follow it.
If a security firm wanted to protect the metal, they would need to guard it in some way. they couldnt go up to some metal dealer and demand to check his books and take action against him if he couldbt prove all his metal wasnt their clients.
Yes there is the affect on the metal dealer market, but if this affect is less than the difference in protection costs, then the regualtion is worthwhile, right?
Re the point about proof - do you walk, I mean really walk like a few miles a day? I do, and I see lits of unguarded metal.
You’re not thinking clearly, arriving at the conclusion that only the state is capable. Metal companies could contact scrap-purchasers and make an arrangement wherein the purchaser effectively sells the company the thief and returns the metal. Not only could they, but it’s a clear solution. Or they could hire guards at important points. The threat of law being absent with private protection is simply a shortcoming of the state in their monopolization of the defense industry.
Why is demanding necessary when a deal could be arranged? Simply make it better for the steel purchaser to turn in the thief than to buy the metal. Of all the metal makers, one will assuredly do this. Following that, the competition of the market necessitates adaptation. The other firms aren’t going to let their metal continue to be stolen while one firm’s metal remains unstolen. If they don’t care to pursue their interests by protecting their metal, that’s their prerogative. It’s their prerogative to find a way to fix the problem or not to.
Worth it to potentially cartelize metal industry and offload the costs of protection onto innocent people? Sounds perfect. Don’t assume so easily that the market is helpless without the state. This is often the ploy of the industrialist, seeking privilege from the state. He’s depending on your panic, gullibility, and your tax dollars.
I don’t see how it’s your problem or anyone elses BUT the person who is being stolen from. Even if it can’t be fixed without violence, would stealing from poor people so that other poor people can’t steal from rich people be any better?
And regulation such as prohibitions or laws are the only way to prevent theft in the UK…
What is the problem?
If stealing is already regulated there should not be a theft problem in the UK because you said regulation prevents theft. You were pretty clear on that point as I quoted you twice making the same point even asking for your evidence to support your assertion.
So you either own up to the reality immoral behavior can not be prevented by regulation or continue on in a make believe reality law prevents immoral behavior. Hell I reckon if law was so good at preventing bad behavior the ten commandments would have prevented murder for the past several centuries.
Once it is acknowledged government regulation does not prevent anything the discussion can advance…
Let’s assume regulation to combat metal theft is enacted, maybe going as far as placing a reversed burden of proof on the metal trader to show that their merchandise is legit. The thing is however:
a) If the theft is easy and lucrative and the regulations are only weakly enforced the incentive would be to simply look the other way or forge the documents and simply hope one does arouse suspicion and gets inspected.
b) If the regulations would be enforced tightly, what would prevent the thieves from simply taking a hit to their profits toss that stuff on a truck and simply sell it in say France or Ireland?
Of course with b) in effect the gov would also have to raise more resources for enforcement (either taxes or debts) or divert resources from the enforcement of other crimes.
@Cowell: Please respond to my post. You make many unsupported assertions. How do you know that it is cheaper for the government to regulate it? How do you know it is not worthwhile for railways (which are not actually private entities, particularly in Britain) to guard their own metal? I drive past a steel supplier every day on my way to work and there are fences, barbed wire and security cameras surrounding the entire complex. As for mounted metal, you must be kidding. A train track owner cannot pay a patrolman to ride a rail vehicle up and down and mount security cameras on easily pilfered stretches?
There are some difficult problems that can be raised to rebut the free market and argue the case for government regulation but this is not one of them.
Furthermore, why is this a problem in the UK but not in the US?
Well, it is a problem in the US too, and you hear about it from time to time. Thieves will steal everything from copper pipes in buildings under construction, to manhole covers. On one the project sites for my job, a bunch of thieves stole the wheels and brake drums off of a tractor trailer, which costs hundreds of dollars. You know what we did though? Hired a security guard for the duration of the project.
Metal theft will occur as long as you have 1.) high metal prices, 2.) lack of security, and 3.) widespread poverty. Pushing it into further regulation will just drive the practice underground. The metal will just be laundered through different channels. The thieves on the street will just go to some criminal institution instead of a crooked, but vastly safer, “legitimate” scrapper. Then you’ve strengthened organized crime.
Furthermore eliminating cash transactions will severely hurt the poor and destitute, who probably benefit the most from the honest scrap buisiness. I know a bunch of people who have scrap businesses on the side to make ends meet. They go around collecting trashed cars, household appliances, old furniture, etc. Things too big to be thrown out in the regular trash. Everyone’s seen the homeless person with a cart full of aluminum and other metal. Guess where they’re going? Oh, sorry, no more cash transactions! You need a bank account to transfer it to! What? You don’t have a regular address to open up a bank account! Sorry buddy you’re out of luck!
Seriously, major thefts still occur. If there is a demand for a product, people will steal it too. Various types of construction materials and machines are stolen frequently. Even things that are registered and easily ID’s, like Bobcats, trucks, and excavators, are stolen. They just steal them, drive them onto a truck, and the truck goes right to a port, and they’re sold in South America or China, where your “laundering protections” won’t mean crap. Meanwhile such regulation will hurt the poor, legitimate scrappers, and those who are actually buying the reprocessed material on the back end.