What is your ideal government?

[Frigidus]

Free riders, as you are describing, is your claim to why free market military would not work. Well free riders exist in our current system. Think of all the people who don't pay taxes. You have the same problem on both sides of the coin. If half the city did not pay for protection, the city would be destroyed; hence they would pay for the protection. The same as why People still pay taxes and others who do not still get the same benefits as people who do. It is worth it to the payer to get the benefits and absorb the cost of the free rider.

Ah, I see. So are you suggesting that this well organized group of mercenaries wouldn't just go to the guys that aren't paying and kill them? What's to stop them exactly? Once they do this, are they not essentially demanding protection money like a gigantic gang with heavy weaponry and no police force? Great.

Let’s look at Education.

Rich people are the only ones educated now. (Public Schools vs. Private Schools). Not many kids from public schools get into Harvard huh?

No college is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge difference between no school whatsoever. There are only two reasons that the poor won't rise up and kill all the assholes who have have bigger tax cuts than their entire salary are either that they are being kept down with threats of violence or that they are given some extent of control over their lives. A raw market won't give them the latter, so the only way they won't flip out over being obscenely impoverished is violent oppression.

If you want to get answers on your own, here a brief list of readings about free markets and how they solve the problems you have listed. Consider this my gift. Like I said if you want my answers you have to pay for them. I did list them by geographical locations for you so you could see how they have worked all over the world. Please come with facts not ideas.

Irony off the fucking scale. The guy talking about something that has never existed wants me to come with facts and not ideas?

As for your tl;dr list of your anarchist works, which I can 90% guarantee even you haven't completely read, I could come back with an endless stream of books that make my arguments for me too, but people would notice that I was essentially pointing at someone else's opinions and saying "I agree."

[jonesthecurl]

same to you with brass knobs on: do not assume I am ignorant of economics.

[spaceghst44]

If you bother reading, you will see they have existed. But I guess you would rather keep blabbing nonsense and use big people words like f*ck to get your point across.

I have read every single one of those books, articles, and essays, they are all in my personal bibliography. I do not agree with all of them, especially their ideals on Macro Theory, but they do answer your questions, which is why I posted them.

Please read and educate yourself instead of cursing at me because every one of your questions about free markets is in those readings. Even a short read on education, but instead of reading them you reposted the same things again that I already gave you answers to.

Here is the answer to your National Defense question.

THE MYTH OF NATIONAL DEFENSE: ESSAYS ON THE THEORY AND HISTORY OF SECURITY PRODUCTION

http://mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf

..... but I am sure you will not read this either, you will just say this is someone else work that I am claiming and that I have not read it myself.

Your Keynesian and Walrasian views are of the world is flat.

Your posts are more like rants of a child more than anything else with acusations which I assume try to make me look like I have no idea what I am talking about. It really just shows exactly who you are.

You think you are the first person to come up with those original ideas of markets failing? That you are not actually stating the same position of economist from 1929? Because that is what you are doing, you are just doing it without references.

And I am not an anarchist. I am an anarcho-capitalist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

[Draconian_Intel]

Wow... I left for a few days, and decided to come back and check on the thread that I had left going strong as a place to discuss forms of government. Now its a debate on economics? I'm not saying you guys should stop your debate, but could you do it somewhere else? That's not really what the idea of this thread was. Thanks

[Frigidus]

If you bother reading, you will see they have existed. But I guess you would rather keep blabbing nonsense and use big people words like f*ck to get your point across.

I have read every single one of those books, articles, and essays, they are all in my personal bibliography. I do not agree with all of them, especially their ideals on Macro Theory, but they do answer your questions, which is why I posted them.

Please read and educate yourself instead of cursing at me because every one of your questions about free markets is in those readings. Even a short read on education, but instead of reading them you reposted the same things again that I already gave you answers to.

Here is the answer to your National Defense question.

THE MYTH OF NATIONAL DEFENSE: ESSAYS ON THE THEORY AND HISTORY OF SECURITY PRODUCTION

http://mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf

..... but I am sure you will not read this either, you will just say this is someone else work that I am claiming and that I have not read it myself.

Your Keynesian and Walrasian views are of the world is flat.

Your posts are more like rants of a child more than anything else with acusations which I assume try to make me look like I have no idea what I am talking about. It really just shows exactly who you are.

You think you are the first person to come up with those original ideas of markets failing? That you are not actually stating the same position of economist from 1929? Because that is what you are doing, you are just doing it without references.

And I am not an anarchist. I am an anarcho-capitalist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

Look, the reason you don't post a list of fifty books and tell someone to read them is that it doesn't add anything of substance to the thread. While I could, in theory, devote the next month's worth of spare time to reading all the literature that has been published dealing with whatever viewpoint I have to be debating, the thread would die well before I was done. How about you name a few key points to these theories? As of this moment, the only two arguments you've actually made (listing books and websites aside) are as follows:

Free riders, as you are describing, is your claim to why free market military would not work. Well free riders exist in our current system. Think of all the people who don't pay taxes. You have the same problem on both sides of the coin. If half the city did not pay for protection, the city would be destroyed; hence they would pay for the protection. The same as why People still pay taxes and others who do not still get the same benefits as people who do. It is worth it to the payer to get the benefits and absorb the cost of the free rider.

Let’s look at Education.

Rich people are the only ones educated now. (Public Schools vs. Private Schools). Not many kids from public schools get into Harvard huh?

That's literally it.

Also, want to know why I'm being a dick at the moment? You reek of smarmy arrogance. A few examples:

I am not here to teach you basic economic principles

Please do not comment with snide remarks on things you know nothing about, it only makes you look the fool.

Your Keynesian and Walrasian views are of the world is flat.

If you actually talk that way...well, damn.

Oh, and one other thing. Assuming you have read every single one of those books, you have clearly devoted a solid portion of your life to the study of economics. I readily admit that my take on the economy is from a layman perspective, but simply pointing out that your average forum dweller has less experience than you does not win you an argument.



Edit: Oh, and which anarcho-capitalist societies exist now/have existed in the past? How are things going exactly? This is an honest question, as I truly am unaware of any.

[spaceghst44]

Governments produce nothing positive that can not be privatized, hence forth, governments should not exist. markets work fine, we should use them.

p.s. democracy is mob rule.

Was my original post. Was not being a dick, arrogant, or smug. Is my take on government. That is what this tread is about.

A very timely comment about markets working fine.
I hadn't noticed any problems had you?

Was the response to my ideals, which you can agree that is cynical for the sake of being cynical, especially when:

Claiming markets do not work without a government presence by citing current market failure engulfed with government oversight is trite.

Which is what was claimed by jonesthecurl.

So I was cynical back to jonesthecurl .

NOTICE: you are not even in the picture yet.

Yet for some reason, you decided to jump in and say:

All right, lets tear apart your theory.

Which not only is an arrogant and aggressive statement towards me (who posted nothing towards you or about you, only my views) you did a piss poor job tearing anything apart.

I gave you answers, available to the public, to every question you asked about free markets. I even listed short readings on Education and Defense with web links for you to take 30 minutes to read and get your answers. Yet you did not read them and posted the same ideas again, still with nothing to back them.

Look, the reason you don't post a list of fifty books and tell someone to read them is that it doesn't add anything of substance to the thread

It adds a lot to the thread. It gives people a plethora of information about free markets that they did not have before.

You think I am being arrogant? How about a post from someone out of the blue claiming to destroy your ideas, who hence has only back peddled into saying:

I readily admit that my take on the economy is from a layman perspective

Yet you, as a laymen, were all ready to go and fired up to try and destroy my claims.

I gave you examples, many actually of free markets:

Africa:
Leeson, Peter T. (forthcoming) "Trading with Bandits" Journal of Law and Economics. available at: peterleeson.com
The American Frontier:
Anderson, Terry and P.J. Hill (1979). "An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West," Journal of Libertarian Studies. Vol. 3 No. 1 pp. 9 - 29. Available at: www.mises.org.
Anderson, Terry and P.J. Hill (2004). The Not So Wild Wild West. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. For sale on Amazon.com.
Benson, Bruce L. (1991). "An Evolutionary Contractarian View of Primitive Law: The Institutions and Incentives Arising under Customary Indian Law," Review of Austrian Economics. Vol. 5 pp. 65 - 85. Available at www.mises.org.
Amsterdam:
Stringham, Edward (2003). "The Extralegal Development of Securities Trading in Seventeenth Century Amsterdam," Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance. Vol. 43 No. 2 pp. 321 - 344. Available at: sjsu.edu.

China:
Friedman, David (2006). "From Imperial China to Cyberspace: Contracting Without the State," Journal of Law, Economics, and Policy. pp. 349 - 370. Available at: davidfriedman.com.
England:
Benson, Bruce L. (1998a). "Evolution of Commercial Law," in P. Newman (editor) The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law. London: Macmillan Press. For sale on Amazon.com.
Benson, Bruce L. (1998b). "Law Merchant," in P. Newman (editor) The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law. London: Macmillan Press. For sale on Amazon.com.
Benson, Bruce L. (1990). The Enterprise of Law, Justice without the State. San Francisco, CA: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, pp. 224 - 230. For sale on Amazon.com.
Europe:
Benson, Bruce (2002). "Justice without Government: The Merchant Courts of Medieval Europe and Their Modern Counterparts," printed in Beito, Gordon and Tabarrok (editors) The Voluntary City: Choice, Community and Civil Society. Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute pp. 127 - 150. For sale on Amazon.com.
Davies, Stephen (2002). "The Private Provision of Police during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries," printed in Beito, Gordon and Tabarrok (editors) The Voluntary City: Choice, Community and Civil Society. Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute pp. 151 - 181. For sale on Amazon.com.
Greif, Avner (1989). "Reputation and Coalitions in Medieval Trade: Evidence on the Maghribi Traders," Journal of Economic History, pp. 857 - 882. Available on JSTOR.
Milgrom, Paul, Douglass North, and Barry Weingast (1990). "The Role of Institutions in the Revival of Trade: The Medieval Law Merchant, Private Judges, and the Champagnes Fairs," Economics and Politics. pp. 1 - 23. Reprinted in Anarchy and the Law.
Iceland:
Friedman, David (1979). "Private Creation and Enforcement of Law - A Historical Case," Journal of Legal Studies. pp. 399 - 415. Available at davidfriedman.com.
Long, Roderick T. (1994). "The Decline and Fall of Private Law in Iceland," Formulations. Available at: libertariannation.org.
The Indus Valley:
Thompson, Thomas J. (2006). "An Ancient Stateless Civilization: Bronze Age India and the State in History," The Independent Review. Vol. 10 pp. 365 - 384. Available at Independent.org.
Ireland:
Peden, Joseph R. (1977) " Property Rights in Celtic Irish Law," Journal of Libertarian Studies. Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 81 - 95. Available at www.mises.org.

Mexico:
Clay, Karen (1997). "Trade without Law: Private Order Institutions in Mexican California," Journal of Law, Economics and Organizations. pp. 202 - 231. Available at Ideas.
Scotland:
Leeson, Peter T. (unpublished) "Laws of Lawlessness." Available at peterleeson.com.
Somalia:
Coyne, Christopher J. (2006). "Reconstructing Weak and Failed States: Foreign Intervention and the Nirvana Fallacy," Foreign Policy Analysis. Vol. 2 pp. 343 - 360. Available at ccoyne.com.
Higgs, Robert (2004). Against Leviathan: Government Power and a Free Society. Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute. pp. 374 - 376. For sale on Amazon.com.
Leeson, Peter T. (unpublished) "Better Off Stateless Somalia Before and After Government Collapse," Available at: peeterleeson.com.
Powell, Benjamin, Ryan Ford and Alex Nowrasteh (unpublished). "Somalia After State Collapse: Chaos of Improvement?" Independent Institute Working Paper Number 64. Available at independent.org.

Please note that you provoked me, you can agree on that because I made no post to you until you threatened to “tear apart” my claim. I am confident in my claim.

I do struggle with one issue that got tonkaed brought up that I devote much of my research to:

Mostly i am just curious how you would facilitate what would seem to be some rather large changes considering the current system is heavily in favor of large (if no too often over) regulation of most economic behavior. In the model sense, i would assume much of it would hold up quite well, but im not sure how a lot of it would go over as far as implementation.

That is a much better question to discuss.

[Frigidus]

Governments produce nothing positive that can not be privatized, hence forth, governments should not exist. markets work fine, we should use them.

p.s. democracy is mob rule.

Was my original post. Was not being a dick, arrogant, or smug. Is my take on government. That is what this tread is about.

I'm with you so far.

A very timely comment about markets working fine.
I hadn't noticed any problems had you?

Was the response to my ideals, which you can agree that is cynical for the sake of being cynical, especially when:

Claiming markets do not work without a government presence by citing current market failure engulfed with government oversight is trite.

Which is what was claimed by jonesthecurl.

So I was cynical back to jonesthecurl .

NOTICE: you are not even in the picture yet.

Yet for some reason, you decided to jump in and say:

All right, lets tear apart your theory.

Which not only is an arrogant and aggressive statement towards me (who posted nothing towards you or about you, only my views) you did a piss poor job tearing anything apart.

Jones made a joke and you insulted him. Since nobody else had called you on it I decided to. I'm not sure if you've been in many forums before, but that's pretty standard practice.

I gave you answers, available to the public, to every question you asked about free markets. I even listed short readings on Education and Defense with web links for you to take 30 minutes to read and get your answers. Yet you did not read them and posted the same ideas again, still with nothing to back them.

Look, the reason you don't post a list of fifty books and tell someone to read them is that it doesn't add anything of substance to the thread

It adds a lot to the thread. It gives people a plethora of information about free markets that they did not have before.

You think I am being arrogant?

Yet you couldn't spell out the general ideas yourself? I will say one more time: in this forum, and in most others, it is considered bad form to provide links that, as you have admitted, would take half an hour to read rather than summarize the ideas in a paragraph or three.

How about a post from someone out of the blue claiming to destroy your ideas, who hence has only back peddled into saying:

I readily admit that my take on the economy is from a layman perspective

Yet you, as a laymen, were all ready to go and fired up to try and destroy my claims.

I gave you examples, many actually of free markets:

<obscenely long list here>

I'm not going to take a trip to the library, check out twenty books, spend the next month reading them, and resurrect this thread from the dead in the hopes that you're still around to read it. If you want to debate you're going to have to post something yourself. Otherwise I guess we'll just argue about where the blame for the brief flame war lies.

Please note that you provoked me, you can agree on that because I made no post to you until you threatened to “tear apart” my claim. I am confident in my claim.

I lept to jones' defense, as he wasn't online at the time to respond. I don't regret this. As for my tone, if my outburst is the worst you've encountered on the internet...well, you're lucky.

I do struggle with one issue that got tonkaed brought up that I devote much of my research to:

Mostly i am just curious how you would facilitate what would seem to be some rather large changes considering the current system is heavily in favor of large (if no too often over) regulation of most economic behavior. In the model sense, i would assume much of it would hold up quite well, but im not sure how a lot of it would go over as far as implementation.

That is a much better question to discuss.

Fair enough. I'll let him get back to you on that.

As for me, unless you provide something more than links and names of books I'll be taking leave of this thread. Sorry if I came off as a bit of a twat.

[spaceghst44]

Jones made a joke, but you are forgetting, or seems that you are just refusing to admit, the part where it was directed towards me, being the reason I insulted him. I did not see you “leap” to my defense when jones offended me, now did you?

It is also standard practice to only talk about things you know about.

Nobody else called me out on it, which is what I am having this conversation with you.

I can spell out plenty of theories of my own. I just said you have to compensate me (does not have to be monetary mind you) for mine. If you think I have none, feel free to contribute something useful and new, and you shall receive. Do not just repeat dribble spoken to you by high school teachers.

It is not in poor form to produce a link that is already written. It is efficient. It saves time (therefore a million other variables) from writing information that is already written. You are assuming that summaries about ideas that you know nothing about would only take a paragraph or three.

I will blame you for this “flame war” because you jumped in where you did not belong. I am defending myself.

You should take a trip to the library, it is very educational. I spend about 30% of my time in the Library of Congress reading and studying both sides to every argument pertaining to markets and government. The side I choose, to me, makes the most logical sense.

Higher Education truly only comes from educating yourself.

[Frigidus]

Jones made a joke, but you are forgetting, or seems that you are just refusing to admit, the part where it was directed towards me, being the reason I insulted him. I did not see you “leap” to my defense when jones offended me, now did you?

Jones didn't mean to offend you. This post as a whole has finally made it perfectly clear that you have spent almost no time in a forum. See, in forums we don't take things very seriously. Sarcasm is found throughout the site, and if you're going to insult the intelligence of anyone that uses it you're going to see a lot from people like me.

It is also standard practice to only talk about things you know about.

No, it isn't. 99% of the people here don't have a degree dealing with the various topics we discuss, and yet they all have an opinion. Imagine that, forming an opinion without being an expert in the field. Heresy!

I can spell out plenty of theories of my own. I just said you have to compensate me (does not have to be monetary mind you) for mine. If you think I have none, feel free to contribute something useful and new, and you shall receive. Do not just repeat dribble spoken to you by high school teachers.

Well, you self righteous piece of shit, if you don't want to post your opinions why don't you just pack up and get the f*ck out of this forum? Although my ideas might not be new ones, at least I speak them. All you've done is clutter threads with lists literally nobody on this site cares about. While it is possible that you are well versed in economics and politics, you have done nothing to prove it. Any old dipshit with access to Google can come up a list of books, and they too look like a pretentious dick when they post it as their argument. In short, GFY.

It is not in poor form to produce a link that is already written. It is efficient. It saves time (therefore a million other variables) from writing information that is already written. You are assuming that summaries about ideas that you know nothing about would only take a paragraph or three.

This isn't a freaking doctorate you're writing. I don't come here to study things that are barely interesting, I come here to debate.

I will blame you for this “flame war” because you jumped in where you did not belong. I am defending myself.

Well, now I am attacking you, because you're either a troll or an infuriatingly smug toolbox. Blame all you want.

You should take a trip to the library, it is very educational. I spend about 30% of my time in the Library of Congress reading and studying both sides to every argument pertaining to markets and government. The side I choose, to me, makes the most logical sense.

Then, by all means, go to the Library of Congress and stay there. You can study all you want, and once you feel up to the task you can even offer to voice your opinions to all those uncivilized people who don't live lives reading dusty, old tomes...for a modest fee, of course.

Higher Education truly only comes from educating yourself.

The only thing your self-education gave you that I've gotten from this thoroughly miserable conversation is that you have a terrible case of unwarranted self-importance. My regrets to your family.

And now I take a permanent leave from this tread. I just want you to know that despite whatever you might have taken from this little discourse, I wish you the worst in life. If you're a troll, mission accomplished.

[PLAYER57832]

Call me patriotic or and idiot

Your an idiotic Patriot. Your country is at the root of this economic Armageddon and it was your elected leader that dragged your country and mine into a pointless unfounded war in iraq.

My country? Or the greedy business folks it contains?

I certainly did NOT vote for Bush. I have talked for some time about a coming crisis.

As far as "dragging" your country along... try blaming the folks who made the decisions. I certainly lay blame, but you can't only point it up. These are not children. Folks want to benefit from largess, but are quite happy to ignore where it all comes from.

I have not. I stopped buying from Walmart years ago. I did NOT take an adjustable mortgage on my house. (but a lot of folks sho did were flat out lied to ... and the folks who lied and who created the climate that made the lies possible, are plain criminals).
I buy my clothes at garage sales or from fair trade retailers. when I can (though I admit this is not always possible in my small community -- at least unless I pay huge shipping costs, which are probably worse than just buying from a nearby non free trade store). I limit the chemicals I use in my daily life as much as possible. And I DON'T just leap on the nearest "green" fad...

I cannot say that every decision I have made is always the best, but at least I do try and don't just blindly step out and do what everyone else is doing.


"dance, dance ... but no matter how merry the music ... in the end, the piper must be paid".

Too many people want to simply take and take and take ... this is merely the comuppance. The sad part is that it is my children who will be paying the worst part.

[PLAYER57832]

It is also standard practice to only talk about things you know about.

No, it isn't. 99% of the people here don't have a degree dealing with the various topics we discuss, and yet they all have an opinion. Imagine that, forming an opinion without being an expert in the field. Heresy!

Absolutely true! Of course it helps a great deal if one can admit one's failings. And, once in a while someone speaks up who really does know something (I include you, when it comes to some topics)

BUT, the other side is that sometimes those on the outside, without a lot of education on a particular matter can "cut to the chase" and see the "big picture" as well or better than a "true expert". After all, a PhD means you know a whole lot about a very narrow aspect (as least in most fields), it does not mean you are a complete expert in every aspect of your "ology".

I may be able to tell you better exactly why there are no fish in a particular stream, but anyone can go and see that there are no fish, and pretty well understand that to be a problem. Similarly, it does not take a master (or PhD) in economics to know that if people keep trading and borrowing without paying attention to what, ultimately, lies at the base ... that is real products, production and people ... it will, ultimately fail.

Higher Education truly only comes from educating yourself.

Yes, and it would be nice if you expanded your horizens to include some issues in the real world.

Ideology is great, but you know what? Most people just want to put food on their table and have a little left over for some fun. Most people want to laugh, go to church (or NOT go to church), and live their lives. Most people will do that whether a dictator is in power or a democracy. THAT is the true reality. You ignore that at your perile.

[spaceghst44]

You have turned this thread into what your opinion states as "my lack of forum etiquette” instead of an ideal form of government.

You were wrong and to childish to admit it, so now you have reverted back to calling me names and cursing at me. How old are you 6?

Nice job trying to spin the fact that you failed horribly.

Sorry to hurt your pubescent feelings. I am going to put you on ignore, so you should do the same. That way I don’t have to hear you curse, cry, and whine, like a little baby.

AS for the next person who assumes so much about people they have never met.

A PhD does not mean you know a whole lot about very narrow aspect. You have to pass preliminaries, which test you on a broad scale of knowledge in your field. Your dissertation is by nature narrow, I agree, but think about the things you have to do to even get into graduate school. All the tests (GRE’s or MCAT, or LSAT) that test you on a wide range of knowledge.

I admit I am not the person to talk to about 18th century poetry, but I would also not go into a forum about 18th century poetry, trash somebody else or claim to destroy their ideas, or stick up for someone who was making a joke at someone else, because I know nothing/not enough about 18th century poetry.

Ideology does put food on my table. Without ideology, we don’t advance, we don’t grow, nothing new is created. That is life.

I do have a lot of fun. I go to football games, bars, hockey games, concerts, hiking, movies, enjoy working on my car. I have lots of fun.

Most people will do that whether a dictator is in power or a democracy.

If you find nothing wrong with this statement, then the peril is yours. With that I leave this forum.

sorry to get it so messy Draconian_Intel .

[Frigidus]

This is against my better judgement, but since he's leaving I might as well post one more response. To anyone that actually bothered to read the back and forth, what are your opinions of this guy? Did I come off as arrogant as he did? Anyways, to the conclusion...

You have turned this thread into what your opinion states as "my lack of forum etiquette” instead of an ideal form of government.

You were wrong and to childish to admit it, so now you have reverted back to calling me names and cursing at me. How old are you 6?

Actually, I believe you were the one that veered off course when you decided I'd have to get out my credit card to hear your opinions. Thanks for the reading material though, it's not like I get enough to fill the week from my professors.

Nice job trying to spin the fact that you failed horribly.

Sorry to hurt your pubescent feelings. I am going to put you on ignore, so you should do the same. That way I don’t have to hear you curse, cry, and whine, like a little baby.

Not my policy, I like to be aware of what everyone says, otherwise how would I make sure they weren't being a colossal wanker?

AS for the next person who assumes so much about people they have never met.

A PhD does not mean you know a whole lot about very narrow aspect. You have to pass preliminaries, which test you on a broad scale of knowledge in your field. Your dissertation is by nature narrow, I agree, but think about the things you have to do to even get into graduate school. All the tests (GRE’s or MCAT, or LSAT) that test you on a wide range of knowledge.

Translation: No, a PhD means that you can not argue with me and that my opinion is worth so much more than yours that it will cost you to hear it. I've passed some tests, you know!

I admit I am not the person to talk to about 18th century poetry, but I would also not go into a forum about 18th century poetry, trash somebody else or claim to destroy their ideas, or stick up for someone who was making a joke at someone else, because I know nothing/not enough about 18th century poetry.

Translation: I, sitting here on my throne, have discerned from the very little that Frigidus has posted that he is not worthy of arguing with. Guards, have him removed.

With that I leave this forum.

I'm thrilled, as I never have to speak with him again.

[BigBallinStalin]

A very timely comment about markets working fine.
I hadn't noticed any problems had you?

I am not here to teach you basic economic principles, I get paid to do that and by doing it here I get no compensation.

That being said:

You obviously know nothing about markets.

Claiming markets do not work without a government presence by citing current market failure engulfed with government oversight is trite.

Recent economic failures are due to past and present government intervention.

Please do not comment with snide remarks on things you know nothing about, it only makes you look the fool.

Haha...nothing about economics, cute. All right, lets tear apart your theory.

Governments produce nothing positive that can not be privatized, hence forth, governments should not exist. markets work fine, we should use them.

The obvious problems with completely free markets aside (the unchecked and constantly growing division between rich and poor aside, something which generally leads to true mob rule), there are plenty of things that can't be privatized. For example, a military. How, exactly, would you go about charging for military service? Let's say you're the protector of a city, but a member of that city refuses to pay for the service as he feels he can protect himself. You would still be protecting him, as he is surrounded by those that actually pay. What if half the city was like this? The only way to guarantee that it wouldn't be a losing venture would be to enforce payment by all individuals. Some would call this taxation, others extortion, I call it the foundations of government.

This doesn't even mention that without large governing bodies, war would become much more profitable. If you could overwhelm the company guarding a certain area, you would get everything. It's not like they would receive support from other companies, why help the competition?

Let's look at education: your system would essentially only educate the rich, removing the poor from any type of job that would require an education and leaving them permanently at the bottom of the pile. I somehow doubt they'd be thrilled with this.

These problems were around before systems of government were put in place. That is why they exist. You want to talk about knowing nothing about markets, let's look at the guy that's saying that an economy, simply by existing, solves all the problems that come with a ruling body.

That was the worst job of tearing apart any theory. You just stated ideas that were in your head without facts. I will point out why you are wrong, if you want my answers you will have to pay for them.

Military can be privatized, they exist today.

Free riders, as you are describing, is your claim to why free market military would not work. Well free riders exist in our current system. Think of all the people who don't pay taxes. You have the same problem on both sides of the coin. If half the city did not pay for protection, the city would be destroyed; hence they would pay for the protection. The same as why People still pay taxes and others who do not still get the same benefits as people who do. It is worth it to the payer to get the benefits and absorb the cost of the free rider.

You meant to say war is only profitable for governing bodies.

Let’s look at Education.

Rich people are the only ones educated now. (Public Schools vs. Private Schools). Not many kids from public schools get into Harvard huh?

If you want to get answers on your own, here a brief list of readings about free markets and how they solve the problems you have listed. Consider this my gift. Like I said if you want my answers you have to pay for them. I did list them by geographical locations for you so you could see how they have worked all over the world. Please come with facts not ideas.

Africa:
Leeson, Peter T. (forthcoming) "Trading with Bandits" Journal of Law and Economics. available at: peterleeson.com
The American Frontier:
Anderson, Terry and P.J. Hill (1979). "An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West," Journal of Libertarian Studies. Vol. 3 No. 1 pp. 9 - 29. Available at: http://www.mises.org.
Anderson, Terry and P.J. Hill (2004). The Not So Wild Wild West. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. For sale on Amazon.com.
Benson, Bruce L. (1991). "An Evolutionary Contractarian View of Primitive Law: The Institutions and Incentives Arising under Customary Indian Law," Review of Austrian Economics. Vol. 5 pp. 65 - 85. Available at http://www.mises.org.
Amsterdam:
Stringham, Edward (2003). "The Extralegal Development of Securities Trading in Seventeenth Century Amsterdam," Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance. Vol. 43 No. 2 pp. 321 - 344. Available at: sjsu.edu.

China:
Friedman, David (2006). "From Imperial China to Cyberspace: Contracting Without the State," Journal of Law, Economics, and Policy. pp. 349 - 370. Available at: davidfriedman.com.
England:
Benson, Bruce L. (1998a). "Evolution of Commercial Law," in P. Newman (editor) The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law. London: Macmillan Press. For sale on Amazon.com.
Benson, Bruce L. (1998b). "Law Merchant," in P. Newman (editor) The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law. London: Macmillan Press. For sale on Amazon.com.
Benson, Bruce L. (1990). The Enterprise of Law, Justice without the State. San Francisco, CA: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, pp. 224 - 230. For sale on Amazon.com.
Europe:
Benson, Bruce (2002). "Justice without Government: The Merchant Courts of Medieval Europe and Their Modern Counterparts," printed in Beito, Gordon and Tabarrok (editors) The Voluntary City: Choice, Community and Civil Society. Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute pp. 127 - 150. For sale on Amazon.com.
Davies, Stephen (2002). "The Private Provision of Police during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries," printed in Beito, Gordon and Tabarrok (editors) The Voluntary City: Choice, Community and Civil Society. Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute pp. 151 - 181. For sale on Amazon.com.
Greif, Avner (1989). "Reputation and Coalitions in Medieval Trade: Evidence on the Maghribi Traders," Journal of Economic History, pp. 857 - 882. Available on JSTOR.
Milgrom, Paul, Douglass North, and Barry Weingast (1990). "The Role of Institutions in the Revival of Trade: The Medieval Law Merchant, Private Judges, and the Champagnes Fairs," Economics and Politics. pp. 1 - 23. Reprinted in Anarchy and the Law.
Iceland:
Friedman, David (1979). "Private Creation and Enforcement of Law - A Historical Case," Journal of Legal Studies. pp. 399 - 415. Available at davidfriedman.com.
Long, Roderick T. (1994). "The Decline and Fall of Private Law in Iceland," Formulations. Available at: libertariannation.org.
The Indus Valley:
Thompson, Thomas J. (2006). "An Ancient Stateless Civilization: Bronze Age India and the State in History," The Independent Review. Vol. 10 pp. 365 - 384. Available at Independent.org.
Ireland:
Peden, Joseph R. (1977) " Property Rights in Celtic Irish Law," Journal of Libertarian Studies. Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 81 - 95. Available at http://www.mises.org.

Mexico:
Clay, Karen (1997). "Trade without Law: Private Order Institutions in Mexican California," Journal of Law, Economics and Organizations. pp. 202 - 231. Available at Ideas.
Scotland:
Leeson, Peter T. (unpublished) "Laws of Lawlessness." Available at peterleeson.com.
Somalia:
Coyne, Christopher J. (2006). "Reconstructing Weak and Failed States: Foreign Intervention and the Nirvana Fallacy," Foreign Policy Analysis. Vol. 2 pp. 343 - 360. Available at ccoyne.com.
Higgs, Robert (2004). Against Leviathan: Government Power and a Free Society. Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute. pp. 374 - 376. For sale on Amazon.com.
Leeson, Peter T. (unpublished) "Better Off Stateless Somalia Before and After Government Collapse," Available at: peeterleeson.com.
Powell, Benjamin, Ryan Ford and Alex Nowrasteh (unpublished). "Somalia After State Collapse: Chaos of Improvement?" Independent Institute Working Paper Number 64. Available at independent.org.


Here is a list of Classics for you to read that will help you on your way, since you are obviously uneducated or miseducated.


Alchian, Armen and William Allen. Exchange and Production. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1983.
Alchian, Armen. "Costs and Outputs." in The Allocation of Economic Resources by Moses Abramovitz.
Alchian, Armen. "Uncertainty, Evolution, and Economic Theory." Journal of Political Economy. June (1950).
Bailey, Martin J. "The Marshallian Demand Curve." Journal of Political Economy. June (1954): 225-261.
Bator, Francis M. "Simple Analytics of Welfare Maximization." American Economic Review. March (1957): 22-59.
Baumol, William J. Economic Theory and Operations Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1977.
Becker, Gary. "Competition and Democracy." In Essence of Becker. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1995.
Boulding, Kenneth E. A Reconstruction of Economics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1950. Pages 3 - 38.
Buchanan, James M. and Gordon Tullock. The Calculus of Consent. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1965.
Buchanan, James. Cost and Choice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978.
Chamberlain. Theory of Monopolistic Competition. Harvard University Press, 1962.
Coase, Ronald. "Nature of the Firm." Economica November (1937). Reprinted in AEA readings.
Coase, Ronald. "Problem of Social Cost." Journal of Law & Economics. October (1960): 1-44.
Demsetz, Harold. "Do Competition and Monopolistic Competition Differ?" Journal of Political Economy. February (1959): 146-148.
Demsetz, Harold. "Exchange and Enforcement of Property Rights." Journal of Law & Economics. October (1964).
Demsetz, Harold. "Toward a Theory of Property Rights." American Economic Review. May (1967): 347-359.
Dewey, Donald J. "Geometry of Capital and Interest." American Economic Review. March (1963): 134-139.
Fisher, Irving. Nature of Capital and Income. New York: AM Kelley, 1965
Fisher, Irving. Theory of Interest. Clifton, NJ: AM Kelley, 1974. Reserve
Friedman, Milton. "The Marshallian Demand Curve." Journal of Political Economy. December (1949): 463-495.
Friedman, Milton. "The Methodology of Positive Economics," in Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953.
Hayek, Friedrich. "Use of Knowledge in Society." American Economic Review. 35 (1945): 519-530.
Hicks, John Richard, Sir. Value and Capital. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1946.
Hicks, John Richard, Sir. Theory of Wages. London: Macmillian, 1973. Source: One copy on 2 Hr Reserve
Hirshleifer, Jack and David Hirshleifer. Price Theory and Applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1998.
Machlup, Fritz. "Problem of Verification in Economics." Southern Economic Journal. July (1955): 1-21.
Nagel, Ernest. "Assumptions in Economic Theory." American Economic Review. May (1963): 211-219.
Posner, Richard A. Economic Analysis of the Law. New York: Aspen Law and Business, 1998.
Smith, Adam. Wealth of Nations. Book I. London: J M Dent & Sons, 1910. Stigler, George J. "The Division of Labor is Limited by the Extent of the Market." Journal of Political Economy. June (1951): 185-193.
Stigler, George J. "The Economics of Information." Journal of Political Economy. June (1961): 213-225.
Stigler, George J. "Theory of Oligopoly." Journal of Political Economy. February (1964). Source: Electronic Reserves (JSTOR Link)
Stigler, George J. and Gary S. Becker. "De Gustibus Non Est Disputantum." American Economic Review. March (1997): 76-90.
Vickrey. Microstatics. Harcourt, Brace and World, 1964. Source: One copy on 2 Hr Reserve; one copy on 1 Day Reserve
Viner, Jacob. "Cost Curves and Supply Curves." Zeitschrift Fur Nationalokonomie. 3 (1931): 23-46. Source: Electronic Reserve (Adobe PDF)
Wiener. The Human Use of Human Beings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1950. Source: One copy on 2 Hr Reserve

Noticed I did not even need to use Adam Smith. Your ideas may come from a good place, but you mind has been twisted.

Haha, this is awesome.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'll take up spaceghst44's anarcho-capitalist torch. Where were we?

[john9blue]

ohhh man i remember this thread LOL

political discussion before the new generation of posters

see how civil it is?

this is why we can't have nice things.

[rockfist]

Well ideally we would not have a need for government, but that is just farcical...so a representative Republic in which only taxpayers can vote.

[BigBallinStalin]

So shall public policy be controlled at the federal level while the provincial and municipal levels take a seat way back in the bus?

[pimpdave]

According to supporters of Ron Paul, the ideal government is one which is completely racist and maintains white supremacy, rather than equal protection under the law.

[wildwilliam]

I want the one that benefits me most.

[jay_a2j]

I would immediately get rid of most of the population on the planet. That would be priority number one. Bring the population to a more manageable size, like around 500 million.

Then I would genetically splice bio-nanotech into wheat, corn, and rice. Then I could keep track of everybody from space.

That's about it for the most part...all problems solved.

That sounds like it was taken from the Illuminati 101 World Control book.

[BigBallinStalin]

"Let the people have Skyrim and drink copious amounts of whiskey."

[wildwilliam]

"Let the people have Skyrim and drink copious amounts of whiskey."

I am in. tell me where to deposit me first born.

[Baron Von PWN]

A neo-Stalinist superstate of course.

More seriously.

A State which maximizes social liberties, minimizes its burdens on the people and provides a reasonable social security net. I am undecided on Wether it should achieve this through democracy or some sort of technocratic ruling class.

[saxitoxin]

no elections

a highly decentralized state in which all governing powers were held by districts that were redivided every 20 years to keep their populations under 5,000; each district would be run by a legislative council selected by a lottery

a central government above all the districts responsible for arbitrating disputes between districts, redividing them and protecting individual rights from overzealous councils ... the central government would be managed by a 9-member Board of Control composed of randomly selected attorneys, chartered accountants and retired military officers of the rank of Colonel or better

the police composed entirely of men; the army composed entirely of women