Problem being that markets react to highest price, not biggest need.
You show me a market that will willingly sell at a lower price to people who need it most instead of distributing top down in order of who pays the most.
Why? If anybody wants to help, he can do that, wilingly. I don't like being forced to help somebody I don't even know. Also, high-price means draws competition.
Well, that is the point. Taken individually we are much less likely to support a stranger that society neverthelease may need to flourish. And when we do support them we expect a lot of social rewards and even become greedy and demanding. You'll get a lot of "Hey i saved you from that dissaster, now you suck my dick" kind of stuff.
People that need help are usually in a vulnerable position that can easily be abused by whoever offers help. That is why we decided as a society that we need to help people in need to stay away from a downward spiral. And that we need to support everyone from not falling into one.
If you have some problems then chances are these problems will trigger new problems etc. And this can happen outside of your own control. It can also happen to whole communities or countries.
So in general it is much better and cheaper to prevent people from sinking too low as there is a big chance of systemic failure in someones situation which drags the surroundings with it.
So if you want a stable situation where society can flourish you need to secure a certain standard of living.
I'm not saying everything should be free but you need to provide a bottom.
I also feel society needs to set a top as well.
Bureaucracies are not ment to react fast. They are ment to provide a stable bundle of services to society over a long time.
If it changed too much then people would not be able to plan long time. Who would invest in a house when you have no way of knowing what will happen around it? Every step individuals take will be a risk per se. You will have to deal with an enourmous ammount of small forces. You will have to read and understand all the rules of all these entities that you will have to deal with.
That is just haunting, nothing else.
Why would people make it intentionally complicated when their business which feeds them depends on ability to sell? They can just organize into groups. Not that in bureaucracy it is ANY better. When you need anything, you have to usually deal with several burreacrats who mostly deal with you as with pieve of shit they've stepped into. Not mentioning they toss you between one and other like hot potato.
It's not complicated intentionally. The complexity is just a result of the many restrictions society puts on businesses. The discussion should be about why it got complicated like that in the first place and not just naively about removing the complexity.
You will see that if we allow sales to be the the only goal that society will get undermined.
You can sell more beef if you mix it with horse meat, right? Why have rules that protect customers from fraud if society needs to sell?
Why not use the cheaper but cancerous flavour enhancer in your product? It will sell better and the people will not notice the effects for years! Screw bureaucracy, they only complicate stuff and stuff.
So there is a good reason for having all these bureaucrats running around and checking their things. Unless you have something that replaces this system with something that at least has the same benefits it will be fairly difficult to make bureaucracy go away. They are essential in a lot of things in society.
You think security firm B is better than A? Sure, untill you read the fine print and see that you have signed a 12 year contract that cannot be disbonded without you losing your head. Anyway, there is no government so noone to uphold a law. There will be nothing protecting you against security firm B making sure you fullfill your contract.
If you are so stupid to sign that contract, well, your problem. You got a choice (unlike today).
You could be in a situation where you have no choice but to sign the contract.
Security firm B could already be controling a vital resource.
You are having fantasies about how much choice people usually really have.
In fact, because security firm B has been so successfull in dealing out these contracts (they only hire the smartest) they now 'protect' most of your city.
They have now decided to 'protect' the water supply of the city.
Anyone who is under the protection of the minor security firm A will not get any water.
Everyone will need to sign the 12 year contract with security firm B.
Security firm A is now too small to pose a risk againt security firm B. The people working for security firm A start to disapear mysteriously.
You may think that maybe you don't need security firm B anymore. So you decide stop paying for the service and you just dig a hole and have your own water.
Of course, once security firm B finds out that you haven't been paying they will pay you a little visit.
You will explain to them that you don't need their protection and that you have your own water now.
So they say, sure kiddo, but you know what? It is a hard world out there. Are you really sure you can live without our protection?
You tell them sure, what can happen?
That night a black car stops by your house. A couple of gorillas with baseball bats get out and redecorate your appartment and your face.
Next day the security firm comes by again. They heared you had some kinds of problems and offer their services. At double the price. Because they can.
So who will protect you against a monopolist security firm?
How will you arrange that these firms act in the best interest of their clients instead of in the best interest of themselfs?
Aren't you one of those gun-banning fools? First, if you will be armed, you won't need security to such everyday "protection“, and if they'd like to "protect" you too much without you wanting it (e. g. during night), you may be able to defend yourself (aka shoot them all). Ha?
LOL., don't you know that there is always a fool with a bigger gun than you?
If security firm B didn't have bigger guns than you they would never be able to establish themselfs as a security firm that protects you against other fools with bigger guns than you.
Of course you are free to get your bigger gun too, but we call that an arms race. Doesn't end well.
Second, are you sure they are willing to take it into bloodshet? Nobody reasonable wants bloodshet! Citizens with even small security company on their side may be as big force as firm B, and using force in such situation will result into bloodshet. Nobody wants bloodshet. Also there is no reason for big firm C not to come, ppl not support firm A, or firm A not getting firm C to help.
Of course, they will try to prevent violence as much as possible. But they know that people want to prevent violence even more. So they can show off a little bit and then control their territory with fear. Since they have the bigger guns it will be clear to everyone they canot win without victims falling.
Big security firm C is called the government. We have bureaucrats that make laws that get enfoorced by the police so security firm B cannot take individual control and the people in the area do not have to fear that something like this will ever happen.
If Big security firm C was
not the government but just another player there is no guarantee that firm C will be worse than firm B and that its only objective is to destroy firm B so it can use the water for itself (maybe to sell it at an even higher price).
So what will prevent security firm C from going bad?
Security firm D?
That's not a real solution, that's kicking the can.
mind you, i'm not saying that it is easy to have a good government or that ours are an exaple of good governments.
I'm saying that there is a definitive position for a top dog that acts in the interest of society as a whole. This to prevent interests of individuals (or individual players) to take control of the whole.
Anyway, whole firm B behaviour is too strange, they want their money and by doing this, it will only harm their business in long-term, so why the hell would they do that. Also, who is the owner of the watter supply that he alows this?
Strange but human. These kinds of 'wars' for control happen all the time when allowed. It is human nature.
Long term plan: monopolize/control some resource (could be locally), extort the people (could me small ammounts so they do't run away instantly) , use profit to expand and monopolize/control more resources.
So unless you have a way to actually prevent such dynamics your society is doomed from the start.
The market allows this as a viable strategy. You don't have to be good, you only have to be better than the competition. So it works equally well to subdue competition as to make a superior product at lower price.
Let me ask this again, how does the market deal with monopolies?
Last but not least. Tell me, is that today any better? Gotcha. Today water belongs to one company, they can say they want any price for it because you will pay it. Nothing stops them from doing it, do you even realize that?
Funny, because in my country we have a law that forbids the company to sell it at too high a price. I have the right to get cheap clean water. Just like gas and electricity.
It's even worse if it belongs to the town or even central government. Because they can imprison you for not paying, for holding weapons, for anything. It is no better in socialistic burreaucracy!![/b] Government can do and does many such things. Most likely it is much worse than it could be in free society. There is at least a chance people themselfes will do it better. Government does almost nothing good.
Like taxes. It is robbery if you ask me, and if you refuse to pay, they will sent you to prison. That's *just*great. Man come on, see through it, all you say is just government propaganda to wash your brain so you won't accept anything else than them.
I live in a country with pretty high taxes.
But it is also one of the cleanest countries and our roads are not broken. We have plenty of food and no shortages.
We have an incredibly high medical standard and most people area healthy and capable of working.
Everyone that can knows how to read and write in multiple languages and we have social security for when society fails to provide a suitable place for you. You can get subsidized in many ways when you want to undertake something in society.
And we don't have guns. But we don't need them because the burglars don't have them.
I'm not afraid of people with guns because they pose no real threat here. People have it so good here that crime rates are pretty low, never mind violent crimes, never mind crimes with guns involved.
And all this because i pay taxes and bureaucrats make laws and rules.
I'm not complaining, to be honest.
What freedoms do i not have that weigh up against all that i
do have in this situation?
