Give it up Burzum, you cant win the argument this time. Too many older adults here.
With all due respect, age means nothing in a debate.
Plus this discussion is fun, aren't you having fun?
You dont have accurate knowledge of prison life in america. In most prisons they do not spend 23 hours a day in their cells.
If that is true, then I apologise, I just remember hearing it on a prison documentary.
The point still stands though, prisoners are underproductive.
They do make their money off the taxpayer. 30 - 40 thousand dollars a year is given to them for each prisoner housed.
the Private companie make a huge profit (yes we taxpayer still haev to pay for it)
Taxation is force, not a willing exchange of service. If your government suddenly decided that food was going to be subsidized entirely by taxes, but the management of food was still left in the hands of private third parties, it is not free market. It is not a good thing either, and I entirely disagree with this practise. By funding it through taxation, you are largely removing the profit system, meaning food manufacturers and distributors would have little incentive to produce quality food.
Obviously forcing prisoners to engage in hard labour is not a willing exchange of service either, but they are prisoners and are being punished so it is acceptable in this instance. Not only this, but as I said, my system rewards those prisoners that exhibit good behaviour, giving them a choice in how they work, and what they receive for that work, so there is a degree of willing exchange of services.
I wish that great behavior could get people moved from awful/violent prisons to ones as the poster described....
I'm glad you agree.
The privitization of the military was also a fiasco of bad behavior (black water and chenny's).
"At least 90% of the company's revenue comes from government contracts."
I can't find any information on "Chenny's" at all. Is that the name of the company?
But every example of privatization failure has been shot down by the proponants. I will throw the ball in their corner. Please give an example when it worked...
Ok. I will give an example of an incredibly important resource that we are dependent on, and without said resource we would all die: food.
During Mao's regime in China, the production of food was managed entirely by the state. What happened? Around 40,000,000 people died as a result of the famine it caused.
Now let's contrast this with the USA, in which production of food is for the most part free market. The USA is the first nation in history in which the poorest citizens can achieve obesity.
I could give a million more, but this is by far the best example, as opponents of free trade in markets such as healthcare argue that it is an essential service that should not be left in the hands of 'profiteers', but what could be more essential to human life than food? And clearly freeing the production of food is the best way to increase the supply of food, this is objective fact.
You think things are corrupt now, under anti-statism, corruption would be on steroids
No, because under statelessness there would not be an agency with a monopoly on force. That is the entire cause of corruption - The state can do what ever it likes, and its only fear is revolution. You would consider it a terrible thing for a private road company to forcibly make people pay for its roads, whether they use the roads or not, wouldn't you? Why is it ok for a state to do this, then?
I don't mind reminiscing about the concept - it is way better than anarchy after all...
I'm glad you're giving it some thought, then.
Can you please point to the regulations that made the financial industry bankrupt the entire country of Greece?
You mean this crisis?
I'm going to go through this and quote all the important parts for you that show why it was the government that caused the crisis, not the economic freedom of banks.
"A strong economy and falling bond yields allowed the government of Greece to run large structural deficits"
"In order to do so, successive Greek governments have, among other things, run large deficits to finance public sector jobs, pensions, and other social benefits. Since 1993 debt to GDP has remained above 100%."
"To keep within the monetary union guidelines, the government of Greece has been found to have consistently and deliberately misreported the country's official economic statistics."
(Here's where private banks come into it... Their part in it was entirely the fault of the government itself)
"In the beginning of 2010, it was discovered that Greece had paid Goldman Sachs and other banks hundreds of millions of dollars in fees since 2001 for arranging transactions that hid the actual level of borrowing"
"The purpose of these deals made by several subsequent Greek governments was to enable them to spend beyond their means, while hiding the actual deficit from the EU overseers"
"In May 2010, the Greek government deficit was estimated to be 13.6% which is one of the highest in the world relative to GDP"
All these are sourced. To sum it up: The Greek Government borrowed and spent an incredibly large amount of money, racking up a huge debt, then bribed the private banks to keep it a secret from the EU. You're blaming it on the private banks though. Why?
Most people like to blame the economic crises around the world on private banks, because they believe they are spending their money irresponsibly and 'gambling' it on the stock market. However, to claim this is to imply that you know more about banking than world-class bankers whose entire lives revolve around banking itself. You are implicitly stating that you know how to manage a bank and its funds better than bankers do. Is this what you believe? Do you believe bankers lose money because they're incompetent?
Almost all cases of economic failures can be traced to market controls, most notably the Federal Reserve Banks of the nations around the world, which artificially expand credit. This is outlined in depth in The Austrian Business Cycle Theory.
What if it's the road right outside my house? What if it's the road right outside where I'm going?
I was thinking more along the lines of main roads and highways. You can simply own the road out the front of your house.
This guy has a slightly different theory to mine, he believes suburban roads (like your street) would be owned by a collectivist 'company', in which all members of the area own shares. I don't really agree with him, but hey, there's another option to consider.
The roads would still suck.
Why? I need an argument to counter. I have already made my case for why it is a better option - Competition increases quality and drives down prices, this is a basic economic fact.
The state has a monopoly on roads, why are you opposed to private monopolies but not the state's monopoly?
what is to stop the operators of those roads from conspiring to maintain an artificially high price on both roads
There are often more than just two routes to a destination, but let's assume that all road owners conspire together and form a cartel.
If a bunch of businesses come together and say "hey, let's not compete, and then raise our prices really high!", there are two reasons why it will not function for long.
First, who's making sure all the businesses keep their prices high? If you're a business in a cartel, you will realise that if you undercut the others that are involved in the cartel, you can make a huge profit. Why? Everyone will come to you to escape the exceptionally high prices the other guys are demanding, and thus you will steal the market. So every single business involved in a cartel has incentive to undercut the rest for this reason, and unless they are keeping each other in check using threats and/or violence (which would be illegal), then it's likely there will be one to undercut the rest.
Second, new competition is going to spring up. If you're a businessman and you see an area of the market in which a cartel has formed, you're going to want to enter the market because you know you can undercut the cartel and steal the market.
Now what stops the cartel from undercutting the new competition and driving it out of business, before setting the prices super high again?
Well, that would be assuming that undercutting the new competition occurs only for a brief period. New competition doesn't just stop appearing after the first try. New competition is going to be constantly coming, every time new competition is put out of business by the cartel it gives newer competition even more incentive to enter the market, as they will know that the cartel has been weakened due to running at a loss to undercut the previous competition. No matter how big a cartel is it cannot run at a loss indefinitely. And of course, if they're undercutting new competition the whole time, their cartel is no longer a problem, is it?
Ok, so what about companies that buy up all the roads, and the roads lost by the new competition? What happens when they have their 'monopolies'?
Monopolies don't form in a free market. A good example I have read of why they don't is that as they get bigger, the cost of buying out the market increases. If companyA's competitors see companyA trying to become a monopoly, they know they can charge much higher prices when companyA tries to buy them out. If companyA owns 95% of the market, and you are one of the last few competitors, you know you can charge incredibly high prices for companyA to buy you, as there aren't many other companies you are competing with in stock price. Not only this, but companyA is continually faced with new competition springing up. The more monopolistic a company becomes, the less competition they face, and the more inefficient they are able to become. This means it is in fact easier to compete with them, so people begin investing in firms that are in competition. Also, as a company buys out the market, it is accumulating debt on account of the incredibly high cost of buying out the market. This means it has to increase its prices in order to make up for this debt, making them easier to compete with for new competitors.
Look at the deregulation of the finance industry over the past couple of decades
In the USA, regulation has only increased.