Defending Capitalism

[JA37]

Nice try, but you just made the argument that benefiting from services obligates you to pay, regardless of consent. How is my surprise lawn mowing service different from taxes, specifically?

I'm pretty sure I said the same thing in a previous post. Have a look.
Taxes aren't a surprise. They are known well in advance. If your service is known in advance I accept it when I move to your area. Something like that.

[1713504955]

1713504955

[benjamindees]

If someone abandons their pets in your neighborhood, is that an un-accounted-for cost that you must bear?

How does that affect me?

Let's say it's a thousand stray dogs.  And they might bite you, or eat your cat.  Negative externality?

[NghtRppr]

I can't corner a market through competition? Really? Tell that to Microsoft. They have what, 95% of the market?

Then why doesn't Microsoft charge $10,000 or $100,000 for their operating system? If they truly have the market cornered then they could do that and they would do that. Obviously, they don't. The fact is, if they were to start charging absorbent prices people would switch to Apple or Linux. Just because everyone likes a certain brand at a certain price doesn't mean they have a monopoly. A monopoly implies you can charge whatever you like and people will pay it. Even though Microsoft dominates the desktop market the mere threat of competition is enough to keep them in line. They want to keep their dominant position and part of doing that is not charging ridiculous prices. You really need to read more about economics since it's clear that you're just regurgitating misinformation.

Yes I'm being vague. I'm not a criminal organization and don't know which areas will be profitable. But you can be sure that there will be such areas.

That's an argument from ignorance.

Would you concider the italian mafia a small band of thugs? That's the people you'll be competing with. Not me.

Again, where does their money come from? Drugs? Prostitution? Gambling? Please explain to me how they are going to keep making lots of money when all that will be legal?

Drugs will be dirt cheap? Not really.

Yes really. Anyone that charges substantially more than it costs to produce drugs is inviting competition to undercut them. If someone sells crack for $100 a unit and it only costs $10 to make, someone else can sell it for $90, attract away their business and still make a tidy profit. The same argument then applies to the person selling for $90 which encourages someone to sell it for $80 and so on. The price will tend to shift towards cost plus a small profit. The larger the profit, the more incentive there is for others to enter the market. This is basic economics of which you are clearly ignorant.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." -Rothbard

Are you serious about government having no incentive to reduce drunk driving? Do you have any idea on how much a traffic accident cost? Lost revenue/taxes. You must be mad if you don't think they have an incentive.
Where I'm at roads are constantly being rebuilt according to the latest safety standards. Perhaps you have a shitty government that needs to be voted out at the next election? Some people say you get the leaders you deserve. I won't go that far though.

Lost taxes aren't immediately felt and can't be directly attributed to that. That's no feedback mechanism. If private firms manage the roads and do poorly, they lose money and eventually go out of business. The firms that remain are necessarily doing a better job. I covered this in my first post so there's little point in repeating it here. Markets weed out incompetence. Governments aren't subject to market forces.

If you see taxation as theft, then yes it is unethical. If you see it as payment of services rendered it's not. I see it as unethical to not pay for the services you use and benefit from.

I see it as unethical to force me to pay for a service that I neither requested nor desire.

Private property isn't an answer to the question weather or not something is violence or not. Violence is violence. It's either violence when both do it, or neither. Make up your mind.

Stop confusing violence with aggression. There's nothing wrong with violently defending yourself against a mugger or rapist. If you're against violence then you might as well lay down and die. I'm against aggression and private property is the central issue of what constitutes aggression. If I take the shirt off your back, it's not instantly clear that it's an act of aggression. After all, what if you stole the shirt from me yesterday and I'm just reclaiming my property? In that case, you're the aggressor, for stealing my property, not me.

[BitterTea]

Nice try, but you just made the argument that benefiting from services obligates you to pay, regardless of consent. How is my surprise lawn mowing service different from taxes, specifically?

I'm pretty sure I said the same thing in a previous post. Have a look.
Taxes aren't a surprise. They are known well in advance. If your service is known in advance I accept it when I move to your area. Something like that.

Here is what I was responding to:

I see it as unethical to not pay for the services you use and benefit from.

Before I was born, I was not aware that entities called states, which claim the right to do things we would consider immoral if done by individuals, controlled almost all of the populated land on this planet. I was not aware that in order to stay out of prison, I would be forced at gunpoint (figuratively, though sometimes literally) to give up a large portion of my earned money, effectively making me a part time slave. If I had known these things, perhaps I would have made the decision to stay in the womb.

Since that's rather silly, at what point do you claim that I "knew in advance" that I would be stolen from for the rest of my life, and what action should I have taken to avoid it? When did I consent to be a slave?

[Anonymous]

If someone abandons their pets in your neighborhood, is that an un-accounted-for cost that you must bear?

How does that affect me?

Let's say it's a thousand stray dogs.  And they might bite you, or eat your cat.  Negative externality?

The stray dogs dont hold you down and apply a taser to your balls.

I dont want freedom from the government I want competition WITH the government.

A bit of market pressure might prevent abuses such as putting people in a rape cage when there is no victim.

[NghtRppr]

If someone abandons their pets in your neighborhood, is that an un-accounted-for cost that you must bear?

How does that affect me?

Let's say it's a thousand stray dogs.

Free meat.

[MoonShadow]

If someone abandons their pets in your neighborhood, is that an un-accounted-for cost that you must bear?

How does that affect me?

Let's say it's a thousand stray dogs.  And they might bite you, or eat your cat.  Negative externality?

Sure.  But they are just as likely to eat each other, and after I shoot the first one, the survivors are going to be very wary of me.

Anyway, why would that be an issue?

[Anonymous]

cat-herding (verb) : Persuading a group of independently minded people to go in the same direction; (alt): a difficult, frequently failing enterprise in leadership.

The state doesn't LEAD it FORCES.

A group of people when lead properly will succeed far more readily than one that has guns pointed at it.

Or are human motivations beside the point ?

A more useful government would be one which only leads the population with moral authority not because the population fears them. If politicians are corrupt and show obvious psycopathy tendencies why do they wonder when the poopulation models the behaviour ?

[benjamindees]

Let's say it's a thousand stray dogs.  And they might bite you, or eat your cat.  Negative externality?

Sure.  But they are just as likely to eat each other, and after I shoot the first one, the survivors are going to be very wary of me.

And let's say someone deliberately bred these dogs and released them into your neighborhood.

So, if one of them bit you, who would be responsible?

[JA37]

Then why doesn't Microsoft charge $10,000 or $100,000 for their operating system? If they truly have the market cornered then they could do that and they would do that. Obviously, they don't. The fact is, if they were to start charging absorbent prices people would switch to Apple or Linux. Just because everyone likes a certain brand at a certain price doesn't mean they have a monopoly. A monopoly implies you can charge whatever you like and people will pay it. Even though Microsoft dominates the desktop market the mere threat of competition is enough to keep them in line. They want to keep their dominant position and part of doing that is not charging ridiculous prices. You really need to read more about economics since it's clear that you're just regurgitating misinformation.

You have a very narrow definition of monopoly. Microsoft is a de-facto monopoly (or natural monopoly) on the desktop. Please note that there's nothing wrong with that. If you provide a service or product that is far superior to everything else out there and everyone buys it, you have a monopoly. How do you keep such a monopoly? By charging a little less than the "pain threshold" of switching to something else. Have a look here for more information about monopolies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
I don't think that it's me who need to read more ...

That's an argument from ignorance.

Well what do you know. I can't forsee the future. Imagine that. I can make predictions and educated guesses though, but those are "too vague" for you.

Again, where does their money come from? Drugs? Prostitution? Gambling? Please explain to me how they are going to keep making lots of money when all that will be legal?

Because they already have the structure in place and will most likely be the dominant player in those areas if they are legalized, and with an increased supply they can keep their margins even with falling prices? Perhaps?

Yes really. Anyone that charges substantially more than it costs to produce drugs is inviting competition to undercut them. If someone sells crack for $100 a unit and it only costs $10 to make, someone else can sell it for $90, attract away their business and still make a tidy profit. The same argument then applies to the person selling for $90 which encourages someone to sell it for $80 and so on. The price will tend to shift towards cost plus a small profit. The larger the profit, the more incentive there is for others to enter the market. This is basic economics of which you are clearly ignorant.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." -Rothbard

The same is true today, even with drugs being illegal. They make profits that are unimaginable. Why isn't someone trying to "undercut" them? What you're talking about is economic theory and how things work in a "perfect market". There aren't any perfect markets in the real world. I'm not ignorant, I'm just not naive.

Lost taxes aren't immediately felt and can't be directly attributed to that. That's no feedback mechanism. If private firms manage the roads and do poorly, they lose money and eventually go out of business. The firms that remain are necessarily doing a better job. I covered this in my first post so there's little point in repeating it here. Markets weed out incompetence. Governments aren't subject to market forces.

I agree that the market is great at some things, but you have a very idealistic view of things. Lost taxes are felt in the same way as lost revenue is felt. There's not a big difference there. And healthcare/IC is a very direct cost that is quite obvious, just like a burned down store would be for a private company.

I see it as unethical to force me to pay for a service that I neither requested nor desire.

But you feel that you can use them and benefit from them without paying?

Stop confusing violence with aggression. There's nothing wrong with violently defending yourself against a mugger or rapist. If you're against violence then you might as well lay down and die. I'm against aggression and private property is the central issue of what constitutes aggression. If I take the shirt off your back, it's not instantly clear that it's an act of aggression. After all, what if you stole the shirt from me yesterday and I'm just reclaiming my property? In that case, you're the aggressor, for stealing my property, not me.

Yes yes, defence good. Fine. How about answering the question. Is it an act of agression to toss you out of our gated community when you refuse to pay the fee that everyone above 18 with income must pay? After all, you were just born here and wish to remain with your parents in their house.

[JA37]

Before I was born, I was not aware that entities called states, which claim the right to do things we would consider immoral if done by individuals, controlled almost all of the populated land on this planet. I was not aware that in order to stay out of prison, I would be forced at gunpoint (figuratively, though sometimes literally) to give up a large portion of my earned money, effectively making me a part time slave. If I had known these things, perhaps I would have made the decision to stay in the womb.

Since that's rather silly, at what point do you claim that I "knew in advance" that I would be stolen from for the rest of my life, and what action should I have taken to avoid it? When did I consent to be a slave?

Asked and answered. You don't start paying taxes the second you leave the birth canal. It takes a while. Enough time to figure out what a state is and what comes with it.
Like stated above, Somalia is a very good place to be if you don't like the state interfering with your personal freedoms. You'll have Al-Shabab instead, but atleast that's not the state, right?

[The Script]

Stop confusing violence with aggression. There's nothing wrong with violently defending yourself against a mugger or rapist. If you're against violence then you might as well lay down and die. I'm against aggression and private property is the central issue of what constitutes aggression. If I take the shirt off your back, it's not instantly clear that it's an act of aggression. After all, what if you stole the shirt from me yesterday and I'm just reclaiming my property? In that case, you're the aggressor, for stealing my property, not me.

Yes yes, defence good. Fine. How about answering the question. Is it an act of agression to toss you out of our gated community when you refuse to pay the fee that everyone above 18 with income must pay? After all, you were just born here and wish to remain with your parents in their house.

Is that how gated communities work?  They take a percentage of the income of everyone who lives in them?  I thought they charged you for renting a house within it and also for some specific fees (per household).  If you don't like it in the gated community you can go to another one.  If you don't like gated communities you can rent an apartment or buy a house and the gated community will not send men to your door with guns to collect their fees still.  I don't think gated communities are analogous with the State.

[The Script]

The State has a coercive monopoly, a gated community does not.  A gated community is private property and does not have a coercive monopoly on anyone, not even the people who choose to live within it.  Yes, you can be kicked out of a gated community for not paying, but that is because you are renting on someone's property and can be evicted just like any other rental.

[NghtRppr]

Microsoft is a de-facto monopoly (or natural monopoly) on the desktop. Please note that there's nothing wrong with that.

Then why did you bring it up as an example? You're trying to be smug but it just shows that you have no plan of attack and are pulling arguments out of your ass.

Well what do you know. I can't forsee the future. Imagine that. I can make predictions and educated guesses though, but those are "too vague" for you.

It's called FUD. While you're educating yourself on Wikipedia, look that up too.

Because they already have the structure in place and will most likely be the dominant player in those areas if they are legalized, and with an increased supply they can keep their margins even with falling prices? Perhaps?

That will ensure only that they are in the market. It doesn't ensure that they will be able to charge whatever they want and start a private army. It doesn't even ensure they will remain the dominate player. Did the moonshine makers dominate the market after prohibition ended? No. Is the mob still selling us liquor? No. Illegal rackets are so profitable because they are illegal. Take that away and it's just another industry charging market prices.

The same is true today, even with drugs being illegal. They make profits that are unimaginable.

No, they are making profits that represent the potential risks of death, incarceration, etc.

Lost taxes are felt in the same way as lost revenue is felt. There's not a big difference there. And healthcare/IC is a very direct cost that is quite obvious, just like a burned down store would be for a private company.

The response is just to raise taxes so they can stay in business. There's no incentive to improve. The government can do as shitty job as they want and nothing happens. Oh, well you get to vote in another four years which changes little to nothing.

But you feel that you can use them and benefit from them without paying?

If I'm benefiting, it's against my will. That's like shoving an ice cream sundae down my throat and saying I'm benefiting. Thanks but no thanks.

Yes yes, defence good. Fine. How about answering the question. Is it an act of agression to toss you out of our gated community when you refuse to pay the fee that everyone above 18 with income must pay? After all, you were just born here and wish to remain with your parents in their house.

If I own property, you have to follow my rules or leave. Am I required to let people live in my house? Why should I be required to let them live in my gated community?

[JA37]

Then why did you bring it up as an example? You're trying to be smug but it just shows that you have no plan of attack and are pulling arguments out of your ass.

You claimed that it wasn't possible to corner a market through competition. Clearly it is. Microsoft is a good example. Monopolies aren't inherintly bad, however they tend to abuse the power. That's where we agree, and all your examples comes from. Abuse of monopoly power.

It's called FUD. While you're educating yourself on Wikipedia, look that up too.

No it's called an educated guess. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it FUD. I wasn't educating me, I was educating you. 

That will ensure only that they are in the market. It doesn't ensure that they will be able to charge whatever they want and start a private army. It doesn't even ensure they will remain the dominate player. Did the moonshine makers dominate the market after prohibition ended? No. Is the mob still selling us liquor? No. Illegal rackets are so profitable because they are illegal. Take that away and it's just another industry charging market prices.

No, they are making profits that represent the potential risks of death, incarceration, etc.

Yes, scarsity drives up prices, we estabished that, and you can make up for price drop with volume. Is the mob selling liquor? Probably. It's a profitable business and they like profit. And they are criminals, often violent, so how keen are you in competing with them? I pulled out of the bar business just because there are too many criminals there, and you don't want to associate with them at all. Implied threats are used to make sure you buy from the "right" supplier. Again you're back to the perfect market.

The response is just to raise taxes so they can stay in business. There's no incentive to improve. The government can do as shitty job as they want and nothing happens. Oh, well you get to vote in another four years which changes little to nothing.

Why not do both? There's always an incentive, you just don't want to see it.
Didn't the governor of Wisconsin change things quite a lot. I seem to remember seeing it on the tv.

If I'm benefiting, it's against my will. That's like shoving an ice cream sundae down my throat and saying I'm benefiting. Thanks but no thanks.

Or in the example with the gated community, you benefit from low crime rates, but still don't want to pay for it.

If I own property, you have to follow my rules or leave. Am I required to let people live in my house? Why should I be required to let them live in my gated community?

It's private property. Everyone who lives there own an equal share and we set the rules by 2/3 majority vote. We decided that everyone +18 with income should pay. Could you refuse, after all you're just born there. You didn't sign anything. Is it an act of agression to toss you out. You're saying no? Correct? Can we keep some of your stuff as payment for services already provided that you decided not to pay for? Is that agresson?
Even more fun, let's say you get a share just by being born there, and the rules say we can't take that share away form you by force, so we can't throw you out unless you give up that share of your own free will. How can we get you to pay the fee? Can we lock you up until you agree to the rules, and pay? Is that agression?

[NghtRppr]

You claimed that it wasn't possible to corner a market through competition. Clearly it is.

Now you're just being intellectually dishonest. If a market is cornered then you can charge ridiculous prices. Why else would we give a shit? If there is only one brand of shoes but everyone is happy with that, why are you complaining? You're so desperate to be right about something, anything, that you resort to childish word games.

So, to keep you honest, let me rephrase. It is impossible to create an abusive monopoly through competition, which is what the issue really is. Now, argue against that instead of going off on irrelevant tangents.

[BCEmporium]

#1 Your "private property" is just "private property" as long as you've the means to keep it that way.
#2 You "money" just have "value" because the State grants it.
...
bottom line, you complaint on the charges the State applies to actually grant you the money you've on the first place. It's a funny circle, uh?

To the #1 you can say "I hire security", well, but having property may not mean you're monetarily rich enough to pay some folks to hang around, and as without state #2 takes over, even if you do, it's worthless now.
Also the State allows you to have far away property, you can live in Florida and have a house on Seattle or Boston. Without anyone to keep it for you that would not be your property anymore. Say you rented your Boston house, after the first rent you didn't get any more. You go there to evict the tenant, however the tenant is part of that community whereas you're not, so his reasons will sound by affinity more reasonable than yours... so you rather come with an army, as the locals will help your faulty tenant and you probably won't come back alive at all of such journey.

Bitcoin2cash, it is possible to create abusive monopolies in open markets, that's what cartels do.

[NghtRppr]

Considering the website we're on, what am I supposed to make of someone that claims fiat currency is the only possible way for currency to exist?

[BCEmporium]

Considering the website we're on, what am I supposed to make of someone that claims fiat currency is the only possible way for currency to exist?

No, it's not... but the one on your wallet is fiat currency, not bullion or virtual.
Still wouldn't grant you ownership...

[JA37]

Now you're just being intellectually dishonest. If a market is cornered then you can charge ridiculous prices. Why else would we give a shit? If there is only one brand of shoes but everyone is happy with that, why are you complaining? You're so desperate to be right about something, anything, that you resort to childish word games.

So, to keep you honest, let me rephrase. It is impossible to create an abusive monopoly through competition, which is what the issue really is. Now, argue against that instead of going off on irrelevant tangents.

I wasn't complaining. You were the one implying that monopolies are always bad and always an effect of government intervention.

Again, no it's not. First of all, charging ridiculos prices is bad business practice and nothing you do, even if you have a monopoly. If you do, people will find alternative ways of doing things. You don't want to kill your market.
If your maket has high barriers of entry, say cost, and you're the first in on that market you can charge very high prices since you're the first mover. Then when someone else tries to enter the same market I can lower prices through economics of scale to put them out of business and then raise the prices again. Is this an abusive monopoly to you? It is to me. Is it done through competition, I would say yes.