Indiana's freedom to discriminate law

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Magical Realist, Mar 29, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    As with a couple of other matters in which you have declared yourself uninterested, you might want to take enough interest to avoid repeating your more obvious and silly errors of claim and reasoning. Like the lipstick Confederate flag design on your forehead, they detract from whatever it is you are trying to say, in ways you don't seem to be aware of.

    When you confuse a Hardin commons with a "common good", you also mislay the role of government in dealing with the problems characteristic of each.

    One of the sometimes available solutions to the Tragedy of the Commons is to make the profits from the exploitation a common good, for example. Another is to vest an ownership interest in the exploited commons - any ownership interest, usually a State but others are possible. These solutions require governmental intervention in a free market, and the forced establishment of new terms for the free market exchange. Neither solution is visible to someone who thinks a Hardin commons is a "common good" (and even vice versa, with the seriously oblivious - see education, above).

    All solutions to a Tragedy of a Commons, in real life (and they are common, as every commercial fisherman in the world has discovered since WWII) , involve governmental interference in a private market. That is often but not always true of solutions to the problems of a common good. That's a fairly significant difference, no?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    If I would see some evidence that I'm wrong, I would takt care. But your unsuppported "no", when my claims seems in nice correspondence with wiki, is not enough evidence. I would recommend you to present facts. A short description of type "these are different things, A is this and B is this" would have been helpful, and probably received a short "ok", with, probably, some minor correction of the formulation of my points. But these "no", "wrong", "you are stupid" polemics without even telling what in your opinion is the correct position is quite counterproductive, as we see.
    For the first point, please an example for clarification. (I have my guesses, but expect yet another round of "no, not this" followed by "you don't see the difference, stupid".)

    The second is clear - to transform the commons into something owned is a nice solution, it is the one compatible with the free market. That it requires government is far away from obvious. Usually the government simply defends the existing order - and, once there exists commons, will defend them against those greedy capitalists which take parts of the commons and declare them their property. The situation may become different, say, if the greedy capitalist is rich enough to pay a bribe to the government, he will receive all the commons as his property. The free market, instead, contains a method of transforming unowned commons into property - you can take unowned things and use them, and once it is clear or visible that you have put your labor into it it becomes the result of your labor, thus, your property. If a larger community has already used it, one can make a deal of splitting it into part, so that everybody who has previously used it receives a part. Another possibility is to define more complex property rights, based on customary law - the new ownership is accepted, but accepts as customary law that the others who have used it in specific ways can continue to use it that way - but as special rights, which they now "own", and disappear when they die. A group ownership is also possibility open to a free market, communities and firms have always be owners, with or without the state.

    If it would be true, yes. It isn't. (Expect, of course, all the examples I have given are examples not of handling the commons, but of a common good, in your yet hidden definition of the difference. In my version of what the difference is, this is not the case, but about your version we know only my is wrong, nothing more, so, everything is possible.)
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    No such correspondence is visible. My no has been supported.

    You guess wrong. My short descriptions were not greeted by you in any such fashion.

    I'll try again, as above: A commons is a resource that was not produced and has no owner. It is not a good or service made available to everyone by its owner, like a public library, or produced by an economy and distributed around so anyone can own some, like a grade school education. It is not a common good, something produced or owned. The example Hardin used was open, ungoverned, unowned grassland used for grazing cattle by anyone who wanted to. One can contrast that with the public grazing lands owned by the US government, the communal grazing lands owned by ejidos or similar in some places, and the privately owned pastures of ranchers in market economies. Other people have used air, airspace, fresh water from rainfall, populations of wild animals and plants, minerals, and the like.

    Please stop posting stuff you made up as if other people had posted it and you were quoting them.
    Ownership is a legal status. You have to have laws, contract enforcement, etc. - government.
    Very little in the way of most commons is ever going to be the result of somebody's labor - how would the resource have existed before? And you have omitted the actual process by which the clarity and visibility of one's ownership is established - so that one can, say, borrow money with the property as collateral. That process requires a government - might even be said to define a government.

    Hernando de Soto, among others, has written extensively on the consequences of various ways in which governments have established ownership of real estate, the extraordinary and underappreciated influence of the technical details involved in owning a piece of land with a house on it, and the burden of governmental failure or dysfunction. Land is in the beginning a commons - the first people have access to it as grasshoppers do, at will. All agricultural and herding societies that have lasted long enough to be recorded have devoted considerable political effort to governing that commons, because the consequences of not governing it are indeed a Tragedy. Some theorist believe that was the reason governments were invented.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    This is the problem I have with your "no"s. It remains unclear what your point is, where and why you disagree with my claims. Why not simply explaining, whenever you write "no", what is the particular statement you disagree with, and what is the IYO correct/corrected variant you agree with? I would guess in 65% I would simply react with "ok, no problem", and a minor correction.

    Ok, so I can explain that, because I care about the economic problem, I can see no difference between unowned grassland and grassland "open to public grazing" (which I interpret here, without knowing how US handles this, as free access to everybody who wants to use it for grazing) owned by the US government. The formal ownership is not what matters if there is an economic problem. What would make a difference is if the US government would behave like a private owner - thus, would protect it against use without permission and require payments for permission. If the use, instead, remains open for all and for free, the US ownership changes nothing.

    The difference between things which have to be produced and things which exist, but not in a sufficiently large amount so that overuse becomes a problem, is also in most of the cases irrelevant for the economic problem.

    This is one meaning of the word "ownership", and in many economic problems an irrelevant one. Of course, a stateless society based on a free market has ownership too. And, of course, all the illegal things which exists against the will of the state, who tells that nobody should own them, are usually also owned by well-defined persons - and the judges in such criminal cases try hard to establish who was the owner. Children own their pocket money and what they buy for them - even if legally they don't.

    (And, of course, there is the other side - the "people" have been declared to "own" almost everything in socialist states, but in fact all this was "owned" in a non-legal meaning by particular party leaders. All of this "ownership" being informal. But this informality is not the main economic problem of such states - more serious is insecurity: Tomorrow, another guy may becomes the owner of everything you own, because he is a better friend of the Great Leader. This makes the time preference for using this "property" rather short: Take all you can, transfer it to a safe bank account in the West - the actual form of this ownership in the Nazi-Ukraine)

    So, there is a lot of ownership in the world without a state, even against the state. Thus, if real (not formal) ownership allows to solve a common good or commons problem, it can be solved also without the state.

    The produced/not produced difference makes also no difference - with group ownership of the produced thinks, restriction of their use to the members, and entry fees or membership fees to get the resources for this one can solve various common good problems with things which have to be produced. The same technique - group ownership with fees, now intended to prevent overuse of unproduced things, can solve the same problem for unproduced things too.

    Things produced by somebody and made available for free use by the public are, in itself, not a problem at all. It is his decision to do this, fine. The problem appears if it would be impossible to make it available for a fee. Typical solutions of such problem are moral enumerations to those who provide it, restrictions of the payments to regular users. Say, building local streets could be paid by the people living in the neighbourhood: There would be, yet, a common good problem, but a solvable one once the environment is not that big. All the guests and travellers and so on can use all this for free.

    All one needs for using this method to establish ownership is that there has to be some investment which improves the part of the commons which is claimed. The classical example is cleaning it to make its use for agriculture possible. Or irrigation. This defines a quite natural process of property creation - one improves as much as one needs and then owns it. The costs for improvement limit the amount of what one can own in such a way.

    For ownership to become ownership it is sufficient that the relevant community accepts it as ownership. Then, it can be also rented or exchanged, with the corresponding contracts being enforced by the local reputational system. So, no, it does not require a government, it requires only a way to enforce contracts.

    A major government dysfunction is actually simply not to accept the traditional ownership rights of local communities. So, if a rich enough Western firm wants to buy the land, they can by it and the owners have to be happy if they have enough time to run away. And, of course, in such societies the Big Banks supported by the government cannot give credits with such unaccepted ownership as security, because they would receive only unaccepted land.

    Maybe this is part of the explanation. But if governments would restrict themself to governing commons where no better ownership-based solutions are possible, I think no libertarian would object against them, I think. The most plausible explanation for state creation remains conquest: A strong military can conquer neighours and enslave them.
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    He says, while failing to do that in the very post as well as throughout multiple threads.
    Well, nobody can do anything about your continual failure to see things. The first and most obvious difference is that an owner exists who can curb abuses and may have an overriding interest in protecting the resource against degradation - that right there takes care of a major cause of the otherwise almost inevitable Tragedy.
    Of course. And suitable disinterested assessors of this having been done, suitable authorities to fix the exact extent of the claim, and formal means of recording this in such a way that strangers years later can verify and depend on the reality of the situation. A government agency, in other words. The US Federal government ran such programs for a while - they worked very well, would have worked even better if black people had not been excluded by racial bigots exercising their freedom of contract.
    It's not the same thing. It doesn't have the properties, benefits, and influences of government established ownership. As has been observed in real life, for example, it is very difficult to set up an efficient utility system (water, electricity) without some leverage against the owners of the houses being served.
    The relevant community would include the utility suppliers and various contractors, and of course the banks, the police, hospitals, etc.
    They're often governing commons, without ownership involved, in rural areas. In the cities of course traditional anything is not the issue.
    Bull. The major objection rightwing "libertarians" have is government interference with corporate exploitation of various commons - everything from fishing licenses to slavery and child labor bans.
  9. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Note that I have accepted your list of differences between commons and common goods without objection. I have objected to other, related questions.

    He can. Does he? I have described two variants - purely formal ownership, where he does nothing, which obviously solves nothing. And mentioned also another one, where he does something - behaves like a real owner - and therefore solves the problem. So, your polemics is essential about nothing, because your "can" implies that you are aware that the "but does not" also exists.

    The essential economical problem is if there are objective circumstances which prevent him from behaving like a usual owner of a usual thing. For example, preventing overuse requires control, protection, thus, is related with costs. These costs may be large - the US seems even unable to protect its border in a way sufficient to prevent illegal immigration, so I doubt it will protect land "open for public grazing" appropriately againt overuse.

    If this is a necessity is questionable. It will be, of course, useful for owners. If it is useful in general, is yet a question. In particular, I can use some land a short time - fix my ownership - and go away, to use some other unowned land to become land owner. Without the government, the broken land will be open to the public again.
    Of course, it is different. If it is better, is an open question. It is, of course, easier to create a lot of things, from armies and concentration camps to water and electricity networks, if you are a state, thus, free to use force against the people, instead of obtaining their agreement and cooperation.
    It includes, of course, the police - or, in an anarchy, the local self-defense forces. Contractors, of course, agree, else there will be no contract. What would be the point of hospitals remains unclear, they have no connection at all to ownership (except, of course, that they also use some land owned by somebody). If banks recognize it is relevant only if one wants a credit with this land as a security. Which is useful but not really essential.
    To suggest libertarians would be in favour of slavery is simply a defamation. Self-ownership (thus, no slavery) is a, no, the central moral principle of libertarians, it is the base for the moral rejection of the taxation, which transformes us into part-time slaves. For this defamation you deserve abhorrence and contempt.

    Then, most libertarians I know care more about other things. Of course, there are libertarians which are heavily influenced by the "child protection" ideology which leaves everybody below 21 with the rights of a baby, but this is a minority. A lot of libertarians are also supporter of rights of children, including the right to work. And, of course, today fishing licenses are a clear case of overregulation. Angling is today mainly sport and leisure, and overfishing is a danger for the oceans, not for the local river or lake. But this is, of course, only one of the many many small harassments and annoyances done by the state to the sheeple, to show them who is the boss.
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    They have been in the past. Their current asserted principles are those of slave owners of the past - word for word, at times.
    There are of course no guarantees any owner of anything will behave reasonably and well. It's just that having a commons open to uncurbed exploitation for private profit will end badly for sure.
    So question it. The assertion on the table is that private ownership of real estate requires a government, a State.
    Yes. And so people who want those things - electricity, sewer and water services, etc - create States to aid in providing them, or do without.
    Regulation? There isn't even a cap on the number of them.

    Fishing licenses are a tax, of a kind often favored by libertarians.
  11. Jac Registered Member

    Sorry for looking dumb I am a new member and don't know how to post ! I can post comments on peoples posts but havnt got a clue how I make my own post !! help !!
  12. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Go to the bottom of the page.

  13. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Another argument ad Hitlerum? Of course, I don't apply libertarian principles to animals, and have brutally murdered a fly just a few minutes ago. So, if some racist does not consider black people as human, but as some kind of apes, he will not apply libertarian principles to them too. This does not change libertarian principles or decrease their value.

    No problem. Private property of real estate exists in a large number of societies without a state. It is typical for a non-nomadic society that there are separated houses for families owned by the family. And, of course, in such a case the land where this house stands is also owned by the same family. (There are, of course, also societies with common houses, but even in such it is quite typical that these shared houses are for young men, but women with small children have separate houses.)

    Then, even today we have enough evidence that real estate property exists without the state. Never heard about the problems with expropriation of poor families because the government has sold the ground to some Western firms? Not? I think these cases are sufficiently well-known that you can find them. Can you explain me what these poor expropriated people are whining about if without the state no ownership of land even exists? What they have lost was usually not ownership recognized by the government, which was the main reason why it was simply expropriated.

    No doubt, there are a lot of cases where the governments expropriate even property of the poor which has been officially recognized by the state - usually in the Third World all one has to do to reach this is to pay a sufficiently big bakschisch. But there are also cases where those poor have lived and worked for generations at the same place, without obtaining any official acknowledgement by the state that they own it. So, for the government this is unowned, and he can sell it to Western companies. And those buy it, why not. And those poor people loose nothing, according to you, because there is no real estate ownership without a state, thus, there is nothing they own there, if they talk about expropriation, they talk about dreams and phantasies, not about real ownership of land because it does not exist. Not?

    As if this would be the only possibility. Yep, to find agreement is often difficult. But not impossible. To organize electricity, sewer and water services is certainly possible without a state. Providing electricity and water does not even have a common good problem involved - who does not want to participate does not get water and electricity.

    Libertarians do not favour taxes. They may consider some taxes as more harmful and dangerous than others, that's all.

    From this point of view, taxing the use of natural resources is, indeed, the least harmful form of taxation. It solves some problems of the commons, the avoidance of such taxes leads to a preservation of the ressources.
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Uh, no, it really doesn't. Certainly not industrial ones.
    The loss of their homes and means of living.

    Big governments quite frequently expropriate by force property recognized by smaller governments. So?
    It's just that nobody has ever figured out how to do it - even in theory.

    Yeah, that'll work. Everybody who doesn't want to pay will keep on defecating in the streets and rivers, and you can pay the entire cost of running sewer, water, and electricity past all their houses to your house.

    Although why you would pay through the nose to hook up to a sewer and water system when your streets are running sewage and the city water is fouled more than your well anyway I don't know.
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2015
  15. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    So they whine about the loss of homes they have never owned?

    There is no doubt that in industrial societies the state is strong enough to have full control over land ownership. For the question if there is ownership of land without a state this is, of course, completely irrelevant.

    So nothing unexpected - the biggest criminal gang takes what it can get.
    Learn to read. I have said that water and electricity do not have a common good problem, nothing about sewer.
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Why yes, people do tend to "whine" about the loss of their homes and means of living. They use words like "disaster" and "tragedy", sometimes "genocide".
    And I addressed your naivety, including sewer automatically because you can't have water without some kind of sewer and it's idiotic to have sewer systems without water. The context is modern industrial civilization, of course.

    You said this:
    To which I replied:
    Meanwhile, the "common good problem" (confused language - there is also a "common cost" aspect, for starters) with water and sewer, electricity, roadways and walkways and waterways and airways, soil fertility, media of exchange, formal education, crime minimizastion, health care, and so forth and so on, is not addressed by denying its existence. It is the primary obstacle the ordinary person faces in obtaining the benefits: one must set up a functional government to get them.

    It's not for lack of effort, you know. Attempts by ordinary people to set these kinds of things up privately, without a functional government taxing rich people and putting in the infrastructure, are a common theme in human history. Their inevitable failures are a major reason the population of Europe was stable for hundreds of years in the Dark Ages: bad roads mean bad food, bad water means disease, no good public health care means the diseases turn into epidemics, no public education means no good public health care, and so forth.

    By the time the Thames River through London was being dammed by sewage pileup and those with the means were fleeing the city for air that did not nauseate, and a few cholera epidemics had been traced to fouled wells, and it was costing more to dray goods fifty miles inland in bad weather on the existing roads than to float them to Spanish ports, the educated and intelligent people on this planet had figured it out. And you can too.
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2015
  17. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    If they loose their homes and means of living because of the force of other peeople, there are other words for this, like robbery.
    If a sewer system is really a public good problem, you can be sure that the situation is different, namely one where water without sewer is quite reasonable.

    The point is not denying its existence, but that in most of your examples there is or none, or a quite minimal one For roads inside a town the number of home owners in the neigbourhood is small enough to solve the public good problem, for long roads one can take tolls. Formal education, health care, water, electricity are mainly private goods, sewer is also a solvable private good because the number of homeowners is not that big. How "media of exchange" are public goods is beyond me. The best medium of exchange is the internet, and it does not show any public good problem. Soil fertility is private to the land owner. There is some common good part in crime minimization, but it is clearly not one which would be decisive, and purely private solutions like gated communities work even in states.

    Diseases turn into epidemics simply if there is no medicine against them. And all the things you mention have existed in the past for the very simple reason that most people were poor. Once they became sufficiently rich, they improve the environments where they are living. Note also that all your examples have been examples of states, and even quite powerful states.
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Robbery is a word for a crime, crimes are defined by a State.
    I think you may be confusing possession with ownership.
    In a modern industrial society there is no such situation. Water has to go somewhere, usually down hill.
    Denying the fact that nobody has ever figured out a way to provide any of those things without setting up a government, in real life or in theory, does not magically create a way to do that.
    No, that's not how things work in reality. Study cholera, for example. The existence of medicine is not the key factor in most cholera epidemics, and never has been.

    The term "public good" appears to be meaningless in your posts. The term "medium of exchange" in my posts refers to money of some kind.
    It is not.
    Gated communities inside States are not purely private, outside States they are governments themselves - like any walled town or castle.
    They did not afflict other poor people. They did afflict many rich people. They appear to be also the cause, not only the consequence, of the poverty they do afflict.
  19. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    No. The difference between possession and ownership is well-known even to small children who allow other children to play with the toys they own, even if formally, by state law, they own nothing, and all their toys are owned by their parents.

    And, of course, there are some etatists who leave it to the state to define what is good and bad, what is a wrongdoing and what is ok, so that, if the state changes its age of consent or homosexuality laws, a love becomes rape or reverse. Adult people, instead, decide themself about this.

    Even in a modern industrial society not every small village in the mountains needs a sewer system.
    No. But for the examples you have given, it is simply nonsense to claim that those things have never been set up without a government. In theory, it is simply not a problem at all, or a minor problem (once some part of a public good problem is part of it).
    I use the standard definition, as found in wikipedia, you seem to believe that everything provided by the government is public good.
    Ok, in this case I have completely misunderstood you. But a medium of exchange in this sense appears automatically on the market, no need for a government. It appears even in illegal markets, between people who are not allowed to own money like prison inmates, they usually choose tobacco as the replacement for money.
    It depends - but AFAIK in many states purely private gated communities exist. Some of them exist even in violation of official law and are simply tolerated by the state. In particular, I have seen such descriptions about white neighbourhoods, which have simply defended themself against the increase of criminality by transforming their neighbourhood into a gated community, they have simply blocked the formally public roads in their neighbourhood and restricted the access to this neighbourhood.
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Economically, their toys are owned by their parents. Hold that thought - it's important.

    If, like a six year old child playing with toys, you believe you own economic goods you cannot buy or sell, borrow on or otherwise employ as capital, retrieve when lost and found by others, etc many delusions will attend your ideological stances.
    It is a simple assertion of fact.
    Yes, they do. Otherwise their houses will flood when it rains, and filth will get into their drinking water. That used to happen all over, still does in pre-industrial places. Cholera was an important cause of death.
    Nothing you've posted makes any sense according to any standard definition. Education, for example, is largely a public good in wiki's definition.

    The larger problem is that the entire concept of public vs private goods is confusing your argument - it doesn't work in this context. They both need government regulation.
    Not one. Anywhere.
    They disconnected their sewer and water and power and gas lines? Set up their own fire department and police? Please.
    Nope. A government appears, automatically, to manage the needed medium of exchange.
    Prisoners in the US are allowed to own money, that's not an illegal market, and it's the farthest thing on this earth from an absence of government.
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2015
  21. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    But it is a fact that children buy and sell their toys, borrow them, and retrieve them when lost and found by others. And in civilized environments everybody accepts this. Formal property rights are not necessary at all, and the children don't have them, but all what can be done with property they can do and do with their toys.

    " Law enforcement, streets, libraries, museums, and education are commonly misclassified as public goods, but they are technically classified in economic terms as quasi-public goods because excludability is possible, but they do still fit some of the characteristics of public goods."
    They are regulated by governments, simply because those in power like to regulate everything, and the democratic sheeple accept almost every regulation. But if something is not a public good, there is not even an argument that the free market is suboptimal.

    My general argument is in favour of a free market, so, what matters is not what is actually regulated by the state, but what would benefit from state regulation. Here, for private goods it is known that the free market is optimal, while public goods are a domain where one can argue what is better - a suboptimal free market solution or a state solution, which, in theory (with ideal altruistic and all-knowing politicians), may be better, but if it is really better is an open question.
    Why should they? Note that sewer, water, gas and power lines can even go through state borders. And my claim was not that they actually are seperate states. But that the communities themself are organized by private organizations, on private property. And it is quite typical, especially if this happens in the Third World, that they do not rely on official police and fire departments, except for the parts of the job of the police which is monopolized by the state and not covered by self-defense and defense of others.
    I have lived in states where it was forbidden by the state to use dollars for price declarations, with the result that almost all prices in domains where the inflation rate matters have been declared in "u.e.", something like "the usual unit", which was simply another name for $.
    That's US, in other states this is different. And despite the fact that prisons are indeed "the farthest thing on this earth from an absence of government", there is a lot of illegal trade, using informal units of exchange like tobacco, in many prisons.

    So, even the quite totalitarian situation of a prison is not sufficient to prevent trade and the establishment of units of exchange on the illegal markets. This is simply a fact of life. To claim that to establish a medium of exchange without the state would be imporssible is, therefore, simply ridiculous.
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Not involving adults. Children have permission from the owners to play at ownership, within strict limits.

    Your entire economic ideology belongs in that arena, btw - playtoy economics, simplified and carefully insulated from the real world.
    There is, and you've seen it several times now.
    It is known that free markets can and often will settle into suboptimal equilibria, or even self-destruct entirely, unless prevented by governance. It is also known that establishing and maintaining free markets in a modern industrial economy - even the suboptimal ones - often requires complex and sophisticated government regulation.

    They shouldn't. It would be quite silly of them to try to become a purely private community, as you said they were.

    Why yes. In fact, government regulation of prisoner behavior and circumstances is necessary for that development of a medium of exchange and trade even at that very rudimentary level. For example, the very important factor of accountability - repetition of encounter, consumer evaluation of delivered good, negotiated price, enforcement of debt service, etc - is firmly established by the State.

    Without government, was the assertion. What's ridiculous there is claiming that black market prison economies developed in the absence of a State.
  23. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    They "play" at ownership even if not allowed. There is usually a hard battle in education if the parents want to teach them communistic values without any ownership.

    I have seen only unbased claims by somebody who cannot imagine a world without a government governing it.
    Which is a possibility related with common good problems. There are some other things which may be problematic - missing trust, missing information - but these are problem where the state is in no way better. And states which settle in suboptimal equilibria or self-destruct entirely are what has to be expected, the rule, not the exception.

    This is mainly a propagandistic phantasy. There are some problems with the transformation of some artificially created government monopolies into a working market with some competition. But these are, first of all, some very special, artificially created problems, second, they are only short term problems, third, they don't need regulation for the industry in general, but only for the former state monopoly itself, to prevent that it becomes a monopoly misusing its power.
    Hm, yes, the state firmly establishes that prisoner 1 uses tobacco as the medium of exchange for drugs, then evaluates the delivered drugs, negotiates a price, and beats the other prisoner if he does not deliver what he has paid for. LOL.
    Are you really that ...? If markets appear even against the will of the state, against persecution by the government, and with all necessary elements of a free market (ownership, medium of exchange), then this proves that market do not need any support by the government. They will appear without any problem if there is no government, given that they appear even if the state forbids them and enforces this with irrational penalties against all market participants.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page