I found this interesting and figured I would share it here :)
I found this interesting and figured I would share it here :)
This has a lot of concepts which seem to make sense.
I'm actually subscribed to AnCapChase. It's a very good channel that brings up some very interesting topics. I wonder if the people who rated funny actually watched it or just assumed this was a stupid video.
great clip,i agreed on most things but what got me at "wtf" was blacklisting and reputation points.
Without any form of taxes, there would be no government, and as a possible result, you would have to be rich to be able to afford things like health care, or even to have your house put out, if it was on fire.
Taxes ARE about taking away property (money) and having representatives deciding on how to spend YOUR money. It's essentially taking away your money and spending it how the majority wants. The government has no competition and thus can afford to be wasteful. Only in a free market is there an environment where the most efficient organizations (that includes health care and fire departments as you said) will be the most profitable.
If only the rich could afford health care and fire departments, then there wouldn't be health care and fire departments. However, the obvious issue here is that there is a market for health care and fire departments. Through finding the cheapest and most efficient way to run those two services, they will be able to provide those services to the customer for the cheapest and most effective way possible. The video also brings up an optional way of these services, and that is through home owner associations. That means that you pay a yearly "tax" written in contract when you decide to move to a community. When you pay this "tax" the association then provides these services to you.
What is the difference between the homeowners "tax" and an actual tax? The homeowners "tax" is voluntary and you agree upon it before moving to the community. The community would also want to have as many people living there as possible, and as such would be much less wasteful than a government who has a monopoly. The government's tax, on the other hand, is mandatory. Refusing to pay this tax will result in jail time and taking of your rights. If you don't like the homeowners "tax", move. If you don't like the government's tax, you're shit out of luck.
Also, how did I get fire insurance? You buy fire insurance and get it dealt with. It's the same thing as taxes, except that it's more efficient as it has competition. Bazing.
If I commit a crime, people spread that I'm an arrogant asshole around multiple communities and companies and I will be refused services. As in his example, if a casino finds a cheater, the casinos will agree to tell the other casinos about cheaters in the reason that lowering the amount of cheaters overall leads to better business for all of them.
If you decentralize everything you end up with vastly different quality in the services provided, throughout the country. You need laws to enforce standards. You don't want all services to be subject to the whims of capitalism.
Plus these put a lot more responsibilities and tasks at every individual, so whether it's more efficient is debatable.
Yes, it does put a lot more responsibilities and tasks on the individual, but I'm sure somebody and some communities would provide a system of automatically dealing with things for you, but at least then it's optional. I would much rather have the option of choosing what I wish. To me it's the difference between a PC and a console. I could choose what I put into my computer and have it work however I want, compared to the console which comes with all of it for you. It's up to the individual at that point and you aren't going to be chased by the IRS for wanting things a different way.
Hell, maybe there'd be an organization that profits off of making packages and insurance from different organizations and just giving you one bill and handling all the dirty work. Either way it's better than being forced to do something. The state is monopolization of force in a region, and all monopolization, especially of force, is a bad thing.
Some very nice discussion going on here - I was expecting "HURR DURR IT WON'T WORK DDDDDDDDDERRRRP"
What if I'm treated by a bad doctor, who was known to be a bad practitioner in one part of the country but moved to a different location, changed his name and carried on? Without a national authority that revokes his license throughout the country there is no stopping these people.
What you describe is an ideal environment. It won't work in a society where people tend to exploit everything there is to exploit, where people are stupid, and where people have flaws. Decentralizing authority puts the whole system full of these holes. I believe that humanity needs a hierarchical structure to be efficient and to provide a standard of living for everyone.
I find this viewpoint very illogical. I have debated libertarians about this issue.
Here is my argument: right now we have a private healthcare system in the United States, and it's failing badly . Look at nationalized healthcare like in Europe or certain countries in Asia, they're doing great and their people are getting great healthcare for low prices.
Privatized fire departments used to be common in the United States. Plenty of people couldn't afford it and thus had to watch their house burn down. People's livelihood only become an issue of money when nothing acts against capitalism.
Same with the mail and telephone service. Privatized communication companies often didn't provide service to those who lived in rural areas because it wouldn't make them much money. So that's why government stepped in to make sure everyone gets mail.
In the U.S. prisons have often been privatized. In all cases, privatization of prisons led to corruption of the prison management and inhumane treatment of the prisoners. One speaks of efficiency, but to corporations that means cutting costs. That means getting the cheapest or least food or utilities for the prisoners. That is not a society I want to live in: one where merely being a member of it, businesses can decide whether or not to provide me necessary utilities based on how much money they will save.
I'm not sure how many more examples I should give you about how unreliable the "free market" is. It may be efficient in some ways, but it is definitely not anywhere close to as reliable and fair as the government. Some things need to be privatized and some things need to be nationalized at this point in history. To believe that privatizing everything would solve everything WHILE we are experiencing massive externalities by the hands of capitalism (environmental degradation, unfair wages; need I say more?) is just plain crazy.
The rebuttal I've heard to this is that consumers should buy products that are environmentally friendly if they want products to be environmentally friendly. This is a deeply wrong view of how consumers act. People buy things because they're cheap. Sure they SHOULD purchase environmentally friendly products, but the fact is they don't. I would rather policy experts in the bureaucracy (monopoly of force as one might say) to mandate that corporations not kill the environment versus trusting my well-being to the thrift of the consumers, whose only purpose is to consume, not think.
Government may be an evil. But I truly see it as the lesser of three evils, the two others being capitalism and anarchism.
Honestly, without regulation the free market won't remain free. Businesses tend to want to monopolize, or do other things that are harmful to the free market. Just look at what happened when we deregulated securities. If you think the subprime mortgage crisis was a good economic model, by all means deregulate everything.