Where ever the Government has a monopoly on a service, the Free Market can do better
- Thread starter Makalakumu
- Start date
OP
- Thread Starter
- #42
No, they are fallacies.
In every sector where the Free Market is allowed to flourish it out performs the government sector. This is because the Free Market reflects what people actually want. The reason this occurs is because the free market is nothing but the voluntary exchange of goods and services. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that a private police force will out perform it's public counter part. The article I posted is evidence supporting that case. The arguments regarding private property, contracts and economics support that case.
You are left with fallacies at the end of the discussion in the exact same way that people who argue for universal health care are left with fallacies. The evidence and supporting arguments completely destroy both position despite the Constitution says or what people may or may not appear to vote for.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #43
If a phenomenon repeats itself with 100% regularity when allowed to occur! does it take an expert to predict that it would occur in other areas?
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,246
Except the judicial and executive branches of the Govt are clearly spelled out in the Constitution. The Constitution gives the Govt a set of tasks. Making, enforcing, and judging laws is one of the tasks. There is no free market for judges because the Constitution doesn't allow it. There is no free market for law enforcement because that's spelled out as a task for the Govt to do. So your argument to replace them is impossible without totally changing our entire form of Govt.
We can have free market house buiding or lettuce production or car manufactures because they are not tasks the Constitution says the Govt is required to do.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #45
Does the Constitution say that the government is supposed to provide law enforcement as a service?
why don't you point out where the executive branch is excluded in the constitution.
I am pretty sure it is mentioned in a few places how they operate together, yet separate to provide some means of checks and balances.
Why don't you point out where the Constitution says Post Offices have to exist, and/or deserve a monopoly...
[h=3]Section 8[/h]1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
Last edited:
LOL I did not say that the post office is a constitutional thing, I said that by it's mandate it cannot refuse to deliver to places the private competitors opt to avoid. Big difference.
Otherwise the private services would not exist. Just an example how the cherry picking works, leaving the crumbs and lumps for the public services, while the private sector reaps the profits. Smart, eh?
OP
- Thread Starter
- #50
That's what I thought. Also, this doesn't imply that police necessarily be a public service. It could, theoretically, be privatized.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #51
I'm pretty sure mail would get delivered. It just might be more expensive.
That said, there should be some places where mail, or any service, should not be provided and paid for. The Free Market will determine that through assessment of price and risk.
pretty sure is no guarantee.
I am pretty sure FedEx and UPS do not deliver parcels everywhere, and they are not cheap by any means!
OP
- Thread Starter
- #53
There is no guarentee that the government will deliver your mail either. Lol!
How many parcels have you lost to the Postal Gods over the years?
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,246
Loosing something is alot different then refusing to deliver in that area. UPS wont deliver to my area where I live because there is not enough houses here. Fed Ex and USPS are the only games in town
Collectively?
1 letter.
However, as ballen said, that is a far cry from not getting the service!
You know: Private, for profit model....
But to get back to your cop model....driving around in a fancy car with a big dog in the back seat to deter would-be crooks is a far cry from actually facing bad guys.
Sure, there might be room for both, why not, but praising it as the next best thing is rather short sighted. I am no cop, by any means (I don't like people enough to take that job) but it seems to me there is a lot more to policing a community than what a private crew can/will do. (so they got their own academy...Academy Sports and Outdoors?)
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,246
Thats the whole reason right now private police can have a positive impact on a community because they know when the crap hits the fan or when there is real work to be done they jut call the real police and we mop up the mess.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #57
I think something that is completely under rated in people's minds is the ability of the Free Market to allocate where resources should go. If private business won't provide service, there is a valid reason that is usually measured in money.
One thing the government does when it get's involved is that it interferes with the market signals. Their subsidies make something that isn't economical possible and this is one way the government wastes money. If the government never stepped in, a more creative solution could be found. When the government does step in, it prevents more creative and more efficient solutions.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #58
Or, it simply might not be legal for them to deal with certain issues. The regulatory framework hemming in private security contractors is immense. Government always does this to hinder it's competition.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,246
True I dont begrudge UPS, We dont have alot of services where I live. No food delivery, certain cable and internet providers, trash pick up, ect. Its all about money but there are reasons why all areas needed postal service regardless of profit margins. Civic duty like voting, jury duty, and taxes come to mind.
Again you seem to forget or Ignore some things are required by law for the Govt to do. Postal service, military, judges, ect That pesky Constitution again
OP
- Thread Starter
- #60
When it comes to the question of whether or not something is efficient, cheap, and ultimately immediately accountable, the free market wins. Sure, the cops as the stand now provide a service, but not many people consider the real price.
Which goes back to resource allocation.
When the government passes laws, often the real price of those laws and the ultimate feasibility of enforcing them isn't known. Government police are then saddled with all kinds of laws that are effectively unenforceable. In a Free Market, private police would enforce the things that were economical, because people would pay for them directly. For things that are not economical, like speeding or drug use, creative solutions will appear.
This question of resource allocation and the lack of the price mechanism will always hinder socialized services from providing the best quality services.
