Where ever the Government has a monopoly on a service, the Free Market can do better

[ballen0351]

Kid's only do that if they are taught this. Parents who hit, yell, violate property rights, and refuse to reason with their children teach them to do this as adults. Human nature is adaptable. In an environment of peaceful and voluntary exchange, they adapt. In an environment of violence, fraud, and force, they adapt.

IMHO if you believe humans are so bad and that they need to be controlled for their own good, you probably learned this as a child from your parents. It's not human nature.

My kids don't have property rights they don't own anything.
But I'm talking about toddlers and babies they hit steal and fight it is human nature. We eventually learn to control the behavior because as a civilized society we have rules we agree to live by. Toddlers can't understand civilization yet.

 

[Makalakumu]

My kids don't have property rights they don't own anything.
But I'm talking about toddlers and babies they hit steal and fight it is human nature. We eventually learn to control the behavior because as a civilized society we have rules we agree to live by. Toddlers can't understand civilization yet.

It's true, they don't have legal property, but you can teach kids about property rights at a young age. If you don't you teach children that the only way they can own anything is if they bow down to authority. That behavior translates right into society.

Toddlers have already seen violence at home, on media, or with other children. They don't just start hitting as soon as they can. In fact, the research on this shows that yelling and spanking by parents is the prime initiator of violent behavior in children. 0ver 90% of American families spank. Parents start before a year in age. Hitting fingers, yelling no, etc. Humans adapt to conditions around them. Children raised with peaceful parenting techniques and in calm respectful, loving families aren't violent.

 

[WaterGal]

I think the first thing we need to do is define capitalism. Capitalism is nothing more than the system of peaceful and voluntary exchange that develops in communities. This most assuredly existed in every society before power became entrenched. Careful study of economic history also shows that this period of free and peaceful exchange is what generates the initial gains of wealth in the society. What the Left calls "capitalism" is what develops after oligarchies have begun to use the power of the State to protect their own interests. This is predatory, but it's not capitalism

If you look in the dictionary, capitalism is "a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government". That's not something that is as universal or simple as your definition.

And even if we accept your definition.... like I said, the only way your statement works is if you're talking about how things were before agriculture and governments. Since then, most prosperous societies have not been that way.

Let's take many medieval societies, which relied on feudalism rather than capitalism. In those days, resources such as farmland, forests, mines, etc were all owned by either the nobility (government) or the Catholic church. Most of the population were serfs, who weren't much more than slaves. They were required to spend most of their time working the land owned by their lord, and give the harvested crops (or quarried stone, logged wood, etc) to him. In exchange, they were allowed to live in a cottage on their lord's land and allowed to work a small plot to feed their family. Yes, if they grew some extra food or whatever they could sell it, but they were not free to devote their time to the work they wanted.

Or let's take the the Incas, South America's most prosperous pre-colonial society. They had a completely centralized economy with essentially no private sector whatsoever.

And even other societies, that had more freedom for private individuals to own land and pursue their own businesses, still did not have a great deal of personal freedom for most members of society. If your prosperity is based on slavery or serfdom or exploiting colonies, than it's not based on personal freedom. I know it goes against your libertarian narrative, but the United States in 2013 is one of the freest societies since the development of agriculture.

 

[Rumy73]

If you look in the dictionary, capitalism is "a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government". That's not something that is as universal or simple as your definition.

And even if we accept your definition.... like I said, the only way your statement works is if you're talking about how things were before agriculture and governments. Since then, most prosperous societies have not been that way.

Let's take many medieval societies, which relied on feudalism rather than capitalism. In those days, resources such as farmland, forests, mines, etc were all owned by either the nobility (government) or the Catholic church. Most of the population were serfs, who weren't much more than slaves. They were required to spend most of their time working the land owned by their lord, and give the harvested crops (or quarried stone, logged wood, etc) to him. In exchange, they were allowed to live in a cottage on their lord's land and allowed to work a small plot to feed their family. Yes, if they grew some extra food or whatever they could sell it, but they were not free to devote their time to the work they wanted.

Or let's take the the Incas, South America's most prosperous pre-colonial society. They had a completely centralized economy with essentially no private sector whatsoever.

And even other societies, that had more freedom for private individuals to own land and pursue their own businesses, still did not have a great deal of personal freedom for most members of society. If your prosperity is based on slavery or serfdom or exploiting colonies, than it's not based on personal freedom. I know it goes against your libertarian narrative, but the United States in 2013 is one of the freest societies since the development of agriculture.

Libertarians think remove the "burden" of government and people will all just get along. The reality is that no such paradigm ever existed. All creatures, including humans, are driven by self-preservation. Perhaps there are exceptions but only a scant few. Driven by the instinct to survive, people are driven into conflict. History shows this to be true.

 

[Makalakumu]

If you look in the dictionary, capitalism is "a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government". That's not something that is as universal or simple as your definition.

And even if we accept your definition.... like I said, the only way your statement works is if you're talking about how things were before agriculture and governments. Since then, most prosperous societies have not been that way.

In order for an individual to own private property, there has to be a system of peaceful and voluntary trade in place. This system existed many times in the past.

Let's take many medieval societies, which relied on feudalism rather than capitalism. In those days, resources such as farmland, forests, mines, etc were all owned by either the nobility (government) or the Catholic church. Most of the population were serfs, who weren't much more than slaves. They were required to spend most of their time working the land owned by their lord, and give the harvested crops (or quarried stone, logged wood, etc) to him. In exchange, they were allowed to live in a cottage on their lord's land and allowed to work a small plot to feed their family. Yes, if they grew some extra food or whatever they could sell it, but they were not free to devote their time to the work they wanted.

Or let's take the the Incas, South America's most prosperous pre-colonial society. They had a completely centralized economy with essentially no private sector whatsoever.

And even other societies, that had more freedom for private individuals to own land and pursue their own businesses, still did not have a great deal of personal freedom for most members of society. If your prosperity is based on slavery or serfdom or exploiting colonies, than it's not based on personal freedom. I know it goes against your libertarian narrative, but the United States in 2013 is one of the freest societies since the development of agriculture.

All of the periods of social control you are describing were still preceded by periods of much less social control. You aren't really attacking the narrative I put forward, because you're simply pointing to times when fully fledged hierarchies existed and essentially claiming that they always existed. This isn't true. Ossified power structures take time to develop and during that time, people in the society experience a much greater degree of personal and economic freedom.

 

[Makalakumu]

Libertarians think remove the "burden" of government and people will all just get along. The reality is that no such paradigm ever existed. All creatures, including humans, are driven by self-preservation. Perhaps there are exceptions but only a scant few. Driven by the instinct to survive, people are driven into conflict. History shows this to be true.

Thus, society needs to....what?

Ultimately, what you will end up arguing for is the initiation of force against non-violent and peaceful people. Is that what society needs to do because humans are so bad and need to be controlled?

Here is another thought to consider. What if society was organized without the initiation of force as it's central principle? I organize my family in this way. I maintain my relationships this way. When I don't use force to get what I want, I must rely on reason and evidence to make a case for what I want instead. Imagine what society would be like if more people used reason and evidence to make cases for what they wanted.

This is what peaceful and voluntary exchange creates.

 

[Rumy73]

Thus, society needs to....what?

Ultimately, what you will end up arguing for is the initiation of force against non-violent and peaceful people. Is that what society needs to do because humans are so bad and need to be controlled?

Here is another thought to consider. What if society was organized without the initiation of force as it's central principle? I organize my family in this way. I maintain my relationships this way. When I don't use force to get what I want, I must rely on reason and evidence to make a case for what I want instead. Imagine what society would be like if more people used reason and evidence to make cases for what they wanted.

This is what peaceful and voluntary exchange creates.

Give examples of existing societies, as described, you cannot.

You see evil and control in government, I do not nor the rest of the world. Your ideas are just internet fantasy.

Humans can be both good and bad. Balance... A concept that you cannot accept and/or understand.

 

[Makalakumu]

Give examples of existing societies, as described, you cannot.

You see evil and control in government, I do not nor the rest of the world. Your ideas are just internet fantasy.

Humans can be both good and bad. Balance... A concept that you cannot accept and/or understand.

Balance...hmmmm. Is a little rape okay sometime? How about a little murder? How about theft? The government has the legal authority to initiate force within a given geographic area for what ever cause it deems necessary. Whenever we talk about the government offering a service of any kind, at the very least it has to steal the money for that service from someone. This is the origin the governments inefficiency in service because any form of immediate market signal is removed and anyone who would like to steal money for what the want or need can do so simply by grabbing the reins of power.

Contrast this with the free market. It's a system of peaceful, voluntary exchange where people constantly have to use reason and evidence to get what they want. There are historical examples of this, but they don't last and I think one of the reasons for this is because human society hasn't evolved to that point yet. We live in a Pre-reason society and are gradually moving towards a society where less and less force is involved in our everyday life.

So, where are the examples of this happening? You probably live like this everyday if you're a good person. You don't have to use force to find a girlfriend or get married. You don't have to use force to get your food or shelter. You don't have to use force to raise your children. All I'm really suggesting is that we use force in less and less areas of our lives, that we grow forward into a future of less Statist immorality.