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

[ballen0351]

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.

And again it goes back to the Constitution Which give Congress the power to make laws. Yes even laws we dont want or like or that will not make a profit. The Constitution also provides a means of enforcement of those laws and that task is given to the executive branch. AND yes even These laws that cost too much are still required to be enforced

 

[Tgace]

Since this free market society will also be using unicorn farts for power I can hardly wait to get started.....

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Makalakumu]

Since this free market society will also be using unicorn farts for power I can hardly wait to get started.....

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

Actually, I think it will be using the fossilized remains of algae and other biological matter...until a cheaper and more effective solution comes along....aka unicorn farts. Lol.

 

[Makalakumu]

And again it goes back to the Constitution Which give Congress the power to make laws. Yes even laws we dont want or like or that will not make a profit. The Constitution also provides a means of enforcement of those laws and that task is given to the executive branch. AND yes even These laws that cost too much are still required to be enforced

This whole scenario is one giant hippy dippy "what if" discussion. This may or may not apply to a lot of the topics I like to talk about.

That said, governments come and governments go. There will even come a time when the Constitution is no more. Who knows what the future will be like when that happens? At the very least, discussions like this hold the imagination open.

 

[Big Don]

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

The Constitution says Congress MAY establish post offices, not that it MUST...

 

[ballen0351]

This whole scenario is one giant hippy dippy "what if" discussion. This may or may not apply to a lot of the topics I like to talk about.

That said, governments come and governments go. There will even come a time when the Constitution is no more. Who knows what the future will be like when that happens? At the very least, discussions like this hold the imagination open.

OHHHH so we are talking what if fairy tails. See I didnt know that. Well in that case how about everyone just behave and we wont need cops at all. Problem solved end of discussion

 

[granfire]

The Constitution says Congress MAY establish post offices, not that it MUST...

the job description of the post office says it must deliver the mail, no cherry picking.

 

[granfire]

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.

This whole scenario is one giant hippy dippy "what if" discussion. This may or may not apply to a lot of the topics I like to talk about.

That said, governments come and governments go. There will even come a time when the Constitution is no more. Who knows what the future will be like when that happens? At the very least, discussions like this hold the imagination open.

If the free market was so sufficient we would not have police department largely independent of the monetary nobilities of the locality.

There are things that don't make profit, but still need to be enforced.

If the hippie dippie isn't what you want to talk about, why do you?

 

[ballen0351]

The Constitution says Congress MAY establish post offices, not that it MUST...

AND? last I checked MAY= within its right to do so
So Congress is allowed to and has made the postal service. This power has been confirmed several times in the Supreme Court over the last few hundred years

 

[Makalakumu]

If the free market was so sufficient we would not have police department largely independent of the monetary nobilities of the locality.

There are things that don't make profit, but still need to be enforced.

If the hippie dippie isn't what you want to talk about, why do you?

I was attempting self deprecation? Fail.

Have you ever considered that perhaps the weight of history is the main driver of historical trends? Not logic, reason or evidence?

 

[Rumy73]

Years ago, I had a student from the South Side of Chicago. He told me that the cops wouldn't even come into his neighborhood because they were afraid of getting shot at from the tops of buildings. The difference between this case and the one that you brought up is that the company that refuses to do it's job can be replaced through competition.

In matters of the policing the public good, is a competitive free market the best option? Well, America has had history with private policing and fire protection. A good book on the topic is Michael Feldberg's Turbulent Era. Private police ended up becoming militias or labor union busters, serving at the whim of those who could afford to pay. So, if the cops are directly up for sale, where does that put the fate of the common good? Fire protection was similar. There were documented cases of fire companies in shootouts over who had the right to put out a fire and collect the fee. The buildings, as you can guess, burned down. Philadelphia formed a municipal fire service. New York ended the competition between the "city police" and "metropolitan police" to the chagrin of political machines. Pinkerton's private army was forced to change direction after the murder of numerous union leaders and shooting strikers.

You know, public and private endeavors both have a place. This notion that competition is inherently superior to public administration of a service is just as asinine as the communist paradigm that forbade private markets.

 

[Big Don]

UPS made money while in competition with a competitor, the US Postal Service, which has a monopoly on first class mail, who lost, nearly SIXTEEN BILLION DOLLARS.
Fed Ex managed to earn money while in competition with UPS and the US Postal Service.
Even in 1997, when President Clinton refused to intervene in the Teamsters' strike against UPS, when just 2 years earlier he implored ML Baseball players not to strike for "The good of the country" UPS earned money, and USPS LOST BILLIONS.
Even with an unfair advantage, government fails in business. How wonderful the Democrats gave one sixth of the US Economy to government...

 

[granfire]

UPS made money while in competition with a competitor, the US Postal Service, which has a monopoly on first class mail, who lost, nearly SIXTEEN BILLION DOLLARS.
Fed Ex managed to earn money while in competition with UPS and the US Postal Service.
Even in 1997, when President Clinton refused to intervene in the Teamsters' strike against UPS, when just 2 years earlier he implored ML Baseball players not to strike for "The good of the country" UPS earned money, and USPS LOST BILLIONS.
Even with an unfair advantage, government fails in business. How wonderful the Democrats gave one sixth of the US Economy to government...

yeah, you forget that the postal service is mandated to serve where Fed-Ex and UPS can cherry pick, as well as having to pay a huge chunk of money up front, on guestimates with no refund.

Comparing apples to oranges again, aren't we.

And as you noted, there is competition for mail delivery, so the teamsters can strike all they want, the mail will be delivered, one way or another.

And there is no 'monopoly' on first class mail when you can overnight stuff with the private carriers...

 

[Makalakumu]

In matters of the policing the public good, is a competitive free market the best option? Well, America has had history with private policing and fire protection. A good book on the topic is Michael Feldberg's Turbulent Era. Private police ended up becoming militias or labor union busters, serving at the whim of those who could afford to pay. So, if the cops are directly up for sale, where does that put the fate of the common good? Fire protection was similar. There were documented cases of fire companies in shootouts over who had the right to put out a fire and collect the fee. The buildings, as you can guess, burned down. Philadelphia formed a municipal fire service. New York ended the competition between the "city police" and "metropolitan police" to the chagrin of political machines. Pinkerton's private army was forced to change direction after the murder of numerous union leaders and shooting strikers.

You know, public and private endeavors both have a place. This notion that competition is inherently superior to public administration of a service is just as asinine as the communist paradigm that forbade private markets.

There is a difference in scale that I think you are missing. There will always be corruption, even in a free market, but that corruption is local and it does not become institutional without government help. In areas where corruption develops, it's still small enough for local people to actually do something. Compare this to what happens when large governments go corrupt. How much do you think you can really do against a national police force that has unlimited authority and the ability to know the intimate details of your life? You can't even run without them knowing. At least when corruption is localized and limited by the free market, you can move.

So, the free market still wins here.

 

[ballen0351]

There is a difference in scale that I think you are missing. There will always be corruption, even in a free market, but that corruption is local and it does not become institutional without government help. In areas where corruption develops, it's still small enough for local people to actually do something. Compare this to what happens when large governments go corrupt. How much do you think you can really do against a national police force that has unlimited authority and the ability to know the intimate details of your life? You can't even run without them knowing. At least when corruption is localized and limited by the free market, you can move.

So, the free market still wins here.

Good thing we don't have national police force then huh

 

[WaterGal]

Seriously though, what do you all think of this? I just had a discussion with a forum member about how this arrangement would never work and that it would basically suck and probably be the end of the world. Well?

Who, exactly, is paying these guys? Is it an equal amount per household, or based on how much tax you pay? If the former, what if someone can't afford to pay? Do they still get police protection? And if it's the latter.... it seems to me that these (presumably) poorly paid security officers would be basically the private police force of the richest members of town (since if those guys get arrested, the town can't pay them and won't renew their contract), which would make me extremely uncomfortable.

Also.... if the town isn't paying anything to the county law enforcement, how are they still getting services from the county jail or court? It doesn't seem fair that they get that for free when other towns have to pay.

 

[WaterGal]

yeah, you forget that the postal service is mandated to serve where Fed-Ex and UPS can cherry pick

Right, if UPS was required by law to airlift mail to snow-bound towns in Alaska for 46 cents I don't think they'd be making as much money.

 

[Makalakumu]

Good thing we don't have national police force then huh

LOL. Yet.

And you really know how to miss the point.

#truthfumble

 

[Makalakumu]

Who, exactly, is paying these guys? Is it an equal amount per household, or based on how much tax you pay? If the former, what if someone can't afford to pay? Do they still get police protection? And if it's the latter.... it seems to me that these (presumably) poorly paid security officers would be basically the private police force of the richest members of town (since if those guys get arrested, the town can't pay them and won't renew their contract), which would make me extremely uncomfortable.

Also.... if the town isn't paying anything to the county law enforcement, how are they still getting services from the county jail or court? It doesn't seem fair that they get that for free when other towns have to pay.

People pay for the security they need, not the kind that is mandated by fiat. Other arrangements to provide security in cheaper and more efficient ways will appear. Laws that are too expensive to enforce and do not result in any economical change in public safety will be ignored. Everyone will be able to pay for some kind of security and there will be lots of avenues to get it.

The one size fits all government approach cannot out compete the voluntary, local, grassroots, needs-based approach.

 

[ballen0351]

LOL. Yet.

And you really know how to miss the point.

#truthfumble

Newsflash your not on twitter

And your crying about corrupt national police forces well we don't have one of those so quit crying