Can we have a meaningful discussion about the effectiveness of capitalism?

abandonconflict said:
You're better off making up hypothetical bullshit and calling it proof.
Click to expand...


So, in my example several posts back where two private and free acting individuals make a consensual trade, government is involved?

If it is it could only be a case of "self government" of the the respective people in the transaction.
 
Rob Roy said:
Who enforces judgments now? Aren't many (most?) of those judgments issued now nothing to do with a real crime or restituting a real victim?

Nobody has a right to impose on others, but EVERYBODY has a right to seek justice or restitution when they have been wronged.

There will not be a time when everybody will agree to be peaceful and civil, so why use a single system that is based in the arbitrary and systemic use of nondefensive force without recourse to any other mode?

Competition among justice providers / dispute arbitrators would be as easy to institute as any other service that could be provided in a free market. For instance when people make a contract or a business agreement, they could name who and how they will arbitrate in the event of a disagreement. A customer base that is able to chose among several service providers will ensure that the businesses providing the service do a good job or they will not be in business long. In the present, a monopoly exists, they don't have to do a good job and you are stuck with them. like it or not.
Click to expand...
I can understand that, but what happens in cases where there isn't a pre-determined agreement. Say someone steals somebodies car, neither thief nor owner contracted an arbitration agreement, but it's obvious a wrong has been committed.
 
NewtoMJ said:
I can understand that, but what happens in cases where there isn't a pre-determined agreement. Say someone steals somebodies car, neither thief nor owner contracted an arbitration agreement, but it's obvious a wrong has been committed.
Click to expand...

You don't think any one of a group of multiple competing justice agencies couldn't apprehend that person and see that you were restituted ? Isn't that was is supposed to happen now, except only one agency (the state) holds that position in a monopoly backed by force.

Also the thief would then be damaging himself as any agency would surely keep records of who was trustworthy or not. His "credit rating" would be low and it would affect his ability to transact with others.





abandonconflict said:
So just make up hypothetical bullshit and design parameters that don't fit the point you're trying to prove...

:lol:
Click to expand...

Sort of like an anarchist that is really a "progressive" / "communist" government dependent eh?
 
NewtoMJ said:
I can understand that, but what happens in cases where there isn't a pre-determined agreement. Say someone steals somebodies car, neither thief nor owner contracted an arbitration agreement, but it's obvious a wrong has been committed.
Click to expand...

You don't think any one of a group of multiple competing justice agencies couldn't apprehend that person and see that you were restituted ? Isn't that was is supposed to happen now, except only one agency (the state) holds that position in a monopoly backed by force.

Also the thief would then be damaging himself as any agency would surely keep records of who was trustworthy or not. His "credit rating" would be low and it would affect his ability to transact with others.





abandonconflict said:
So just make up hypothetical bullshit and design parameters that don't fit the point you're trying to prove...

:lol:
Click to expand...

Sort of like an anarchist that is really a "progressive" / "communist" government dependent eh?
 
Rob Roy said:
You don't think any one of a group of multiple competing justice agencies couldn't apprehend that person and see that you were restituted ? Isn't that was is supposed to happen now, except only one agency (the state) holds that position in a monopoly backed by force.

Also the thief would then be damaging himself as any agency would surely keep records of who was trustworthy or not. His "credit rating" would be low and it would affect his ability to transact with others.







Sort of like an anarchist that is really a "progressive" / "communist" government dependent eh?
Click to expand...
They could, but what gives these multiple agencies the right to do something like that, and how do you ensure that the alleged perpetrator is given equal treatment. What if they arrest the wrong person, or worse what if a person's rights are overlooked because their accuser is footing the bill for the services. It would stand to reason repeat business is a goal for any private organization, so how can one be sure they are being treated in a fair and equitable manner when there is a direct conflict of interest between the private justice agency and the person who is inevitably going to be paying the bill?
 
NewtoMJ said:
They could, but what gives these multiple agencies the right to do something like that, and how do you ensure that the alleged perpetrator is given equal treatment. What if they arrest the wrong person, or worse what if a person's rights are overlooked because their accuser is footing the bill for the services. It would stand to reason repeat business is a goal for any private organization, so how can one be sure they are being treated in a fair and equitable manner when there is a direct conflict of interest between the private justice agency and the person who is inevitably going to be paying the bill?
Click to expand...

If they arrest the wrong person, they would be responsible for restituting that person. So, acting in their own self interest with the recognition if they fuck up they will pay, they are likely to proceed using due diligence.

Today's monopoly government is immune from that, they self examine themselves and usually find no error. Even when todays monopoly does pay damages they just take it from tax payers and the actors themselves (judges etc. ) usually have immunity.

It is in the best interest of a service provider in a competitive and open market to treat all people fairly as consumers have the ability to use somebody else if the service provider does a poor job.

How does it happen now in the one size fits all government monopoly? Do they care if the "customers" are happy or do they act in way to protect their monopoly rather than providing excellent service?
 
Rob Roy said:
If they arrest the wrong person, they would be responsible for restituting that person. So, acting in their own self interest with the recognition if they fuck up they will pay, they are likely to proceed using due diligence.

Today's monopoly government is immune from that, they self examine themselves and usually find no error. Even when todays monopoly does pay damages they just take it from tax payers and the actors themselves (judges etc. ) usually have immunity.

It is in the best interest of a service provider in a competitive and open market to treat all people fairly as consumers have the ability to use somebody else if the service provider does a poor job.

How does it happen now in the one size fits all government monopoly? Do they care if the "customers" are happy or do they act in way to protect their monopoly rather than providing excellent service?
Click to expand...
So we are going to assume the leaders of these private companies do the good and right thing, even after establishing the reason we need these organizations in the first place is because not everyone is going to do the right thing, ESPECIALLY when it comes to money. It seems easier to have one monopolistic entity, because when it comes time to possibly hold it accountable through force, you only have one corrupt organization to overthrow, not several.
 
NewtoMJ said:
So we are going to assume the leaders of these private companies do the good and right thing, even after establishing the reason we need these organizations in the first place is because not everyone is going to do the right thing, ESPECIALLY when it comes to money. It seems easier to have one monopolistic entity, because when it comes time to possibly hold it accountable through force, you only have one corrupt organization to overthrow, not several.
Click to expand...

Accountability is easier to maintain when customers have choices of who they will use, there is little to no accountability when "customers" (captives) are prevented from exercising free choice by a coercive monopoly.

A coercive monopoly can serve its own interests and doesn't have to be concerned withe customers interests to stay in business. Where else are you going to go, if you are forcibly prevented from it?

In a competitive free market that won't happen.

Competing service providers must align their self interest, (profit) with the interest of the consumers (good service) or they won't flourish, as the only way they can make money is to attract and keep customers. If they only seek profit and fail to give good service, the customers will desert them and use somebody else.

In a free market, you "overthrow" somebody by spending your money elsewhere...no guns needed.
 
Rob Roy said:
Accountability is easier to maintain when customers have choices of who they will use, there is little to no accountability when "customers" (captives) are prevented from exercising free choice by a coercive monopoly.

A coercive monopoly can serve its own interests and doesn't have to be concerned withe customers interests to stay in business. Where else are you going to go, if you are forcibly prevented from it?

In a competitive free market that won't happen.

Competing service providers must align their self interest, (profit) with the interest of the consumers (good service) or they won't flourish, as the only way they can make money is to attract and keep customers. If they only seek profit and fail to give good service, the customers will desert them and use somebody else.

In a free market, you "overthrow" somebody by spending your money elsewhere...no guns needed.
Click to expand...
I understand what you're saying, but whose going to stop them from getting together and creating a monopoly. Also, what about the people who need their services but can not afford them? What happens if a single mom of 3 has HER car stolen, and she cannot afford the justice companies fee? Do they take their fee from the criminal? Then what if he or she has nothing? What do we do if someone gets a bunch of arms, and tries taking over things with force, like some individual governing nations in Africa? What do we do when a single person with no relatives or friends is murdered, it doesn't create profit for these justice companies to persue the murderer, so what happens? The point is, anarchy has been tried and is still being tried in some places with utter failure. We haven't even covered who makes the money that these companies are going to want for their profit.
 
desert dude said:
Abandonconflict will love this, what with being a fan of desperate women selling pussy 'cause they have no other way to make a living.

Also, Venezuela is a worker's paradise. They hates them some capitalists.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...rostitutes-earn-more-selling-dollars-than-sex
Click to expand...

Oh look, a racist calling someone a communist...

So you're just going to go around making up bullshit about me because you're jealous of my life...

Venezuela is one of the biggest victims of American imperialism in the world. Bloomberg is worthless, just like the rest of your posts on this site. You don't even smoke, much less grow it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

emepher
Ohio legal cannabis - discussion of laws and everything else
Replies
2
Views
1K
decrepit digits
D
Jimski
POSTING FOR HELP IDEA
Replies
2
Views
255
tstick
tstick
Ydoineedtoregister
Seedling struggling
Replies
3
Views
360
Ydoineedtoregister
Ydoineedtoregister
S
Trichoderma Harzianum - In Soil
Replies
1
Views
306
GreenGenez421
GreenGenez421
S
Question about algae, smell, hydro transplant...
Replies
4
Views
376
Wastei
Wastei
Back
Top