I consider myself a free market libertarian but stop short of the Libertarian political stance of those like Murray Rothbard. For example, I would never ask for a military or police put in private hands. And even further I don't mind government social healthcare. However, I do mind disproportionate stealing of money to pay for healthcare. If everyone paid the same share of their after tax threshhold income to the running of the states programs I wouldn't mind. In addition to this, programs that dont have to be a monopoly such as health care should be able to opted out of and the individual should have the responsibility for using the free market system to get their own health care. So the same amount that the individual is paying towards social healthcare out of thier income tax should be refunded so that individual can chose his or her private healthcare. But the individual MUST take responsibility for their own actions. If they take the refund and piss it up against the wall and then gets sick without health insurance they are on their own as far as the government is concerned. Conversely, water supply in this country will always be a monopoly. There can never be competition in water supply, so putting it in private hands is a no no (as with policing and defence in contradiction with Rothbard) and should be run by government and paid for from the flat taxes that government levies on the population. I think we can have and should have laisses-faire free markets in anything that can not be a monopoly and government regulation to prevent private sector monopoly. Getting that regulation better is a problem, because at present, these policies help the monopolies.
This right here is where your argument falls down. Your failure to actually comprehend what free market advocates are pushing for and what a free market actually means is clouding your judgement. Under a free market, there should be no need for corruption and bribery to bring a "better" product to the market. By it's own contradiction if the government corruption is needed to bring a product to market over another, then obviously the other product is the better product. The results of that bribery and corruption may be that the individual may be forced into thinking that the economic transaction between the two parties is the best option available to them when in fact it is not. A perfect case in point is the manipulation of the P.V. Solar market by the Australian and other governments. Now there is no doubt that there is a natural market demand for renewable energy. However, current solar technology simply does not stack up in economic terms with coal and gas turbine grid systems. So there are companies like Dyesol attempting to innovate to bring a naturally competitive product to the market that can compete with Coal and Gas power. In normal free market conditions private capital will flow to these types of companies that are trying to innovate to meet that demand from the market. They do this in the hope that the company makes the technological leap and makes a heap of money. Instead the government steps in and subsidises an inferior product through up front grants and rediculously uncompetitive feed in tariffs up to 5 or more times the cost of the coal generated power. As a result, the private capital floods to companies that are going to make a profit from this and deprives those scarce resources from the companies that could potentially have produced a product that was economically going to compete or make redundant coal fired power. But the consumer thinks he has a mutually beneficial transaction between him and the solar supplier. He thinks that over 20 years of home ownership he is better off going down this path. When in reality, if the resources hadn't been manipulated away from the free market mechanism of the company trying to bring a naturally competitive renewable technology to market, the company may have made that leap and been even cheaper than coal and most importantly no taxes have to be levied on the masses to pay for it. Sorry for the long post, I think I need to start a blog lol
I'll let the others slide for now but do you really think it is a good idea for personal security (ie, the police) to be in the hands of the state? Personally, that is one that I am most in favour of turning over to the free market. The police at the moment are short-staffed, the justice system clogged, and priorities go toward generating revenue from victimless crimes more so than solving actual crimes or providing protection. If you are rich or important, sure, you get the full resources of the police, but otherwise... It seems to me that we are almost living in a lawless situation at the current time. Unless you have money... EDIT: few syntax issues
I get your point and pondered Rothbards logic for a long time before discarding it because it certainly has merit worth pondering. If we have a truely free society where the role of government is small like you and I both advocate then the responsibilities of police are greatly reduced with the power of government. If government is only there to enforce contract and property rights and breaches of liberty from one individual or company on another and provide services that can not be provided by the free market (water supply). Then the police would not be wasting time arresting pot smokers and other victimless crimes. Society has deemed that things like speeding and not wearing seat belts and driving unroadworthy cars are offences against another's Liberty and need to be policed. If we want freedom of movement throughout a state or country, we need to have a police force that represents the majority with protection for the individual. Edit: my point is we can't have laws that are made for everyone and then privately policed within separate little communities. It would become the wild west again.
Sorry shiney! I'm getting Auspm like with my posts will try to shorten. Hard to do when the fundamentals of free market economics are either so misunderstood or misrepresented they need explaining in detail.
Well, I won't belabor the point. I have to be fair and go after the small govt guys as well as the large govt guys. Just to be consistent. Seriously though, I first came across all these ideas in early 2008 and pretty much immediately adopted the small govt position, but it never sat easy with me. In arguments with big govt people they could often find inconsistencies with my position that I had no answer for. I became so uncomfortable advocating it and so uneasy arguing for it that I decided to explore the Anarcho-Capitalist type ideas. It took a long time (2-3 years) before I could accept them. Govt propaganda is as heavily ingrained in me as anyone else. I find them to be far more consistent. After all, where is the difference between small and large govt? Where do you draw the line? Ultimately, I have found it to be different from libertarian to libertarian and I think it's clear on this forum alone, that there is no consistent libertarian argument and anyone who looks at them may end up finding themselves confused and just abandon the whole thing because it's too hard to figure out what libertarians are about. The reality is that the only intellectually and morally consistent argument is that of either govt or no govt. Even so, I found it hard to swallow for a long time. The tipping point was when I watched a lecture about how law could work in a free society. And as I thought it through, I realised that it could not only work but would more than likely work far better than the current system we have. I think the reality about the size of the govts we have is almost entirely dependent on the bond market. When it goes through a bull market, you have sustained increases in growth of the govt. As we enter a bear market, it is going to result in reduction in the size of govt (to what point I don't know) until we enter the next bond bull market at which point growth will resume. I don't see any force capable of preventing this oscillation. I also don't expect to see Anarcho-Capitalism in my lifetime (unless my life gets extended well into the 100's or beyond), but it's the only position I feel confident arguing with any consistency.
You are right that these big government policies are ingrained into people's thinking. The Austrians have been so ignored that their voice is not loud enough to make a dent on society. But the natural nature of big government Keynsian policies is starting to tell the truth on its own and people on thier own are realizing this isn't working. Where do you draw the line? That is a very hard and subjective question and especially hard to do when we are SO SO far from that line. So much so that it is pretty much irrelevant at this point but the good should be to start moving toward it until we find it. I guess we will know where the line is after we cross it. I'll address your last paragraph separately as it is directly related to the gold standard thread.
Firstly, to assume in our current system that less demand for government bonds shrinks the size of government is false. We know from the GFC that decreased demand in bonds is quickly countered by Keynsians in central banks to simply print cash and buy them ala Bernanke. They think they can boost aggregate demand through defecits. For a truely free society we must have sound money (100% backed gold standard). Sound money prevents overspending by government and keeps it small by default. Sure there are occasions where govt can run up defecits but it can not be sustained and will eventually contract. It can even be done without debasing a currency as the people will have to willingly buy the bonds with hard money not the printed kind. Edit: I feel arguing anarchy-capitalism in the market place is consistent in EVERY way. The government shouldn't be in any market that the free market provides. The Keynsians and socialists have a very weak argument in advocating the picking of winners and losers and the bailing out/favoring of certain groups/companies. Its called corporatism by true free market capitalists not capitalism. It harms one group and helps another. How that can ever be called "social" I have no idea.
Good value for money. Government is a service we pay for. In some ways its just like any other service we obtain from the market and in other ways its very, very different. You can get good value for money from a high taxing, big government such as Sweden and you can get poor value for money from a low taxing, small government like...well, Somalia springs to mind. If a government can use it's ability to "bulk buy" services on behalf of everyone at a lower cost than people could get them for individually in the market then that's a good deal for the people, but if the administration costs of distributing those services ultimately get too high then it would be better for people to pay for them privately. The line is wherever "good value" becomes "poor value".
Please give us some examples where government has managed to "bulk buy" services on behalf of everyone at a lower cost?
Umm...Medicare, the Australian Defence Force, public libraries, public schools... I'm not saying all government services are always provided more efficiently, only that the difference between government and the private sector is: Public: [Fixed costs] + [Administration] = cost (taxes) Private: [Fixed costs] + [Administration] + [Profit] = cost (market rate) The private sector has to reduce three components in order to be cheaper than the public sector, whereas the public sector only has to reduce two components in order to be cheaper than the private sector. Of course the private sector has a greater incentive to try to reduce it's costs but on some things the sheer economies of scale just make the public sector a better option.
If the private sector is not meeting the market (providing the service intended) then it has to cut costs or increase productivity. If the public sector is not providing the service intended (meeting the market) then its costs (taxation) are increased. Large government cannot cut costs and improve service delivery - it can only take funds from another department (witness Defence cuts) or from the people. And it doesn't fail and disappear like a private business it will always be there - even if it broke.
Medicare? Are you serious? If medicare was so efficient then there would be no private sector in Australia. Do you think that if there was no government alternative in education in Australia that the basic private education would cost more than what the governments currently pay? Have to be kidding. Defence force is a completely different "service" and cant be put into the same category. Public Sector: [Fixed Costs] + [Administration x 3] = Cost (Taxes) Private Sector: [Not fixed costs] + [Administration] = Cost (market Rate) The public sector has ridiculous running costs in everything they do. It's always been that way always will be that way. The private sector has much fewer "fixed" costs because of innovation. Someone is always finding a more efficient way to do it. Government has absolutely no incentive to do so and it doesn't even try. Take one perfect example of your "Bulk Buy" theory not working. Set top boxes for pensioners. If government was able to use it's massive buying power to buy us all set top boxes at by far the cheapest price possible. Those set top boxes would have been it. Instead they paid double or more than what a pensioner could have purchased and installed one for.
IMO: The theory of governments acting as bulk purchasers of services for the community is a sound one... the problem is that there are no real incentives for them to do these things efficiently.
Well, I think it's more a case of they are just dragging it out, but I feel it's going to crack at some point, as it has started to in Greece, Spain, etc. After all, isn't that why we are all in Gold/Silver? Because the great bond bull market has come to a close and the US won't be able to pay it's bills? Maybe big govt types should put their money where their mouth is and sell their Gold and buy the safe(lol) govt bonds. The only argument I have with you in regards to the Gold Standard is in regard to who is in charge of it. Govts don't have a great record when it comes to maintaining it. That's why my first preference would be competing currencies followed by my second preference, which is what you described in the Gold Standard thread.
Medicare is efficient enough to provide basic health care services to everybody and it costs between 1.5% and 2.5% of our taxable income. That's a hell of a lot of value for a very small amount of money. Compare our system to the American one that assumes all heath care is optional and you can see why our system is superior. People can spend as much on extra health care as their budget allows (and plenty do) so we can have a private market that sits on top of the public system without rorting the desperate and seriously ill people who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford treatment. Public education also provides a lot of cost savings (and good value to the community) which you can also see when you compare the general standard of education now to the general standard of eduction that existed before the public system was introduced. Defence can easily be put in the same category as the above public services when you consider the United State's experiment of privatising it's military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan - you can do it, but it's a very costly and ethically dubious exercise. That's a perfect example of where the balance between the government and the private sector went wrong. It happens and I'm not denying that. In fact, it's even more reason to try to get the balance right rather than proof that government is always inefficient. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is a good example of where bulk buying is done significantly better than the set-top boxes and its cost is about $250 per year for every man woman in child in the country. For that money, it only costs us a couple of bucks extra for virtually all the essential and life saving medicine any of us might need and someone else (the government) just takes care of the whole thing for us.
The problem is not every one utilizes the system. I wonder how many young people get their 1.5 or 2% worth of their income each year visiting a doctor? So essentially what we have is maybe 1 or 2 in 5 people, being forced to pay for a service they don't use. Now this is not inefficient, but it is an example of how a publicly funded program operates and manages to stay in business - by slugging everyone regardless of their need to utilize the system. Big AD send me $14.50 each year and you can get 1 free crumbed steak with chips and veges and your choice of gravy, diane, pepper or mushroom sauce each year, if you want. Too bad if you don't take me up on that offer though. A business operating under that framework would not last long.
It wasn't an experiment in anything. It was crony capitalism(corporatism) at its finest. You can guarantee that if Cheney/Rumsfeld et al had not been the profiteers of those policies it would never have happened.
Everybody ends up using the system. The fact that everybody isn't using the system right now is the entire basis for how the system works - everybody chips in a little bit as they go and whenever someone gets sick or injured they get taken care of. I don't need access to health care right now and you might not either, but one day we will (and if we're really unlucky we'll need it urgently and it will just be there for us). Trying to get everybody to individually save a small portion of their earnings and keep it aside to pay for health care doesn't work. We tried it for a very long time and it sucked so we came up with the current socialised health care system which is significantly better.
