Transition into Free market, how?

Economics Political Theory
1

So I have been thinking about how the transition into a Free market economy work

Like Privatization of the roads (a government monopoly) how could it be privatized without Government transition over the monopoly? Wouldnt the transfer of the property rights come from Government, and thus be a government granted monopoly?

I would believe that granted government monopolies are equally detested as government control… not?

Or how would one transit the Money transition from FIAT to Gold and Silver themselves (and being that banks have the entire stock… wouldnt they have monopoly over lawful money?)

FIAT-> Backed paper money-> Coin money

and how does this correlate with the US constitution that government is to coin the money?

How to preserve the value of natural resources? Who is to grant the property rights?

How is maintaining things such as parks, national parks (for preservation) available? (specifically if Government granted monopoly is not given) (Also how to keep them there, since perhaps it will be more profitable in the long run to allow buildings/other uses?)

How can the ‘explotation’ of the worker not be a guarantee? (sorry for the term, I know it comes most with socialists) As to what is fair I understand that allowing the market to set the value seems correct, but what is to avoid collectives of owners to reduce payments coercively over the workers?

Should Unions still exist? (without legal power?) (private organizations working the contracts of the their client workers and protecting their interests?)

How would the Legal system function? (regarded in terms of one collective truth?)

How would military power (government over the sovereign land) work without taxes? (How would this not turn into a Government intervening with the rest of the system through force) (but also needed to protect from attackers?)

Would the non-obligation of Social (welfare) taxes not reduce how many people indeed have to depend on it? (like disabled, blind, deaf, etc?)

I am reading up on Libertarian stuff, and it makes sense… but Im not a libertarian yet because I still have homework to do :stuck_out_tongue:

I ask especially since these are points the other spectrum of the ideology shout at you… and I have what seems to be no valid answer

An extra question, how can someone make a case against those whom support robbing the rich (they robbed first apparently) and who work towards a non-hierarchical society?

2

Government shouldn’t simply sell roads while maintaining regulations and monopoly power over who can build roads. First, roads should be returned to those whose property was stolen. First, to those whose property or whose forebear’s property was seized through imminent domain. If no heir can be found, then the property could be distributed to the taxpayer. Government must get out of the road making and regulating business completely.

Read Murray Rothbard’s “Mystery of Banking” or “The Case for a 100 Percent Gold Dollar.” The dollar would be redefined in terms of weight in gold in accordance with the current money supply and the gold distributed to the banks and the people.

All legal tender and other money laws would be repealed. Short of a constitutional amendment, this would force government money to compete with private money. I wonder which would win out? [:D] Once again, the government should get out of the monetary business completely.

Those who own the property have the right to do whatever they want with that property. Especially beautiful places like the area that is now Yellowstone National Park would lose a great deal of its value if it were to be heavily developed. It would be in the interest of the property owners to maintain the land in a somewhat-pristine state.

Employees and employers would be completely free to enter into voluntary agreements. How can someone be “exploited” when they are acting voluntarily? Perhaps the worker could make more money elsewhere, but unless he’s being forced to work, he’s not being exploited.

Cartels, or collectives of owners, never works in a free market for any significant amount of time. If wages were kept artificially low, owners would have an incentive to secretly begin increasing wages to attract the top talent and make their business better. Distrust amongst the owners would eventually destroy the effectiveness of the cartel.

It is within the right of a free man to enter into voluntary agreements with other free men. If people want to unionize, they may do so. However, they’re likely to damage themselves in the long run when their employer can’t compete with other, non-unionized businesses.

3

I guess that makes sense…

I just cant seem to agree on the property maintenance of State owned Natural Resources though (though in a way I do)

For example I am from Colombia, and we have a great deal of Natural Resources (we also have the biggest bureaucracy)

Now, this means we have many different resources which are not owned by anyone (or they are owned by the State, which supposedly has no owner)

Now I have seen what non-ownership of resources can do to them (namely River Bogota and River Magdalene) are huge sources of water that have been completely disregarded for way too long, and are extremely contaminated… EXTREMELY

But we also have huge landmarks which are protected by the State, including inside the city (huge mountains filled with trees which add value to surrounding areas) and although sometimes Government itself violates by granting construction permits, I think they are pretty important to protect…

How can one protect these areas which have NO owner? Because despite of ideals and purpose, sometimes contractors just build buildings there by annihilating the value of the property (by greater profit of actual sales)

But also I want the privatization of the river (perhaps the market can clean that shit, make it work or something)

Or the Amazon zone, the Choco area (Gold mining zone, all Government bureaucracies) which are filled with valuable resources but also have Indigenous people living there, as well as are exploited illegally (because government does not protect them well, they get their share of money) but are zones of exploitation with no owner (and are quickly reducing the size of resources like in Brasil)

I guess one can also see the damage done by Government expansion programs as well… godammit

I guess that is my main contradiction… with myself

4

Parks would probably be best handled by taking the existing infrastructure and spinning it off into a private company(or several). Since this company’s sole product would be the enjoyment of parkland, it stands a reasonable chance of staying pricetine.

5

Places like the Amazon, which are inhabited by indigenous tribes, are in fact owned by the tribes through a process called homesteading. The state abuses its monopoly power of violence to destroy land that is owned by the tribes by virtue of Natural Law.

6

There are two different problems you pose. First is how to transition to a free market without government. The second is how to privatize public capital without destroying it.

The first problem turns out to be quite simple. It is sufficient to set up an alternative government that can exist in parallel with the government and provide a choice of arbitrator. Then people can choose whether to appeal to this alternative or the previous monopoly government for protection, and all exceptions to the public law therefore collapse. You can do this in a small town. (In fact many revolutionary governments of the 19th century were quite local.)

Once you have done this however there remains all sorts of public and semi-public organizations whose existence was sustainable only by subsidy and privileged protection of the monopoly government. These organizations have a lot of capital assets that must be liquidated, but that doesn’t mean that any of them have to be abolished. Organization itself is a form of social capital and abolishing an organization can have very dire consequences (just think what happened when the U.S. military dissolved Iraq’s bureaucracy). So for example what is to happen with the police? They have to become a competitive enterprise that earns money from selling protection. As a liberation government you are in no way responsible for helping them through, but you still have an interest in protecting capital and seeing an orderly transition to private ownership. (Think of this as though you are a bankruptcy judge liquidating the state.) There is no universal formula for the process of state liquidation, and good judgement will have to be exercised within the context of what needs to be liquidated. But there is no obvious reason why an organization like a city cannot be privatized whole, including parks and other “public” resources it profits from, and the process of streamlining the bureaucracy can be done by the private owners the way any private company streamlines its activities through spin-offs and acquisitions. You don’t need to worry about this so much.

7

We would just have to pay for parks on an as-use basis, and contributions.

And when someone rich guy in your town tries to buy-off the police you could choose to use another private police orginization.