Andrew79

There's also Hoppe's "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism" which is an easier read for a non-economist.

You are aware government is a monopoly? And as history has shown, there is not a more dangerous monopoly possible. In a market, the incentives that create monopolies are the same incentives that mean they can never work. But these incentives doesn't exist for government.

http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/16582-i-am-closing-down-the-topic-of-determinism/

Well, did you decide to post yet another thread on determinism, despite Stefan politely asking people not to, or did you have no choice in your rudeness?

With this, and your replies on your other thread, it's obvious you're nothing but a troll.

A government that doesn't use offensive force isn't a government, it's a business.

Why are universal standards needed? Any standards needed for employment will be maintained by the market. Competition ensures high standards - competition that doesn't exist in a state system, leading to this: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/80-of-new-york-high-school-grads-cant-read-despite-being-no-1-in-school-spending/ And in the UK, where the previous government's focus was "education, education, education" even supermarkets have to provide basic education in reading and writing because the state system is nothing more than a glorified child-care service. "Religiously deranged" - do you mean like the last leader of the USA who claimed God told him to go to war? But there are plenty of very, very smart people who believe in god, just as there are many smart people who believe in government. Claiming that their education system would mean the end of modern civilisation is nothing short of hysterical - a standard lefty emotional plea with nothing to back it up. Especially as there already exist many religious schools in the UK and USA that do a far better job than their state counterparts. And ignoring that religious schools would be far from the only option, variety being a hallmark of markets. And if abuse is a concern for you, then why are you advocating the state? Don't you know how it gets its money? Hint: it's not through voluntary means. In fact, the state is the antithesis of civilisation. It seems like you would rather imprison a nation and force your beliefs on them than to entertain the idea that using violence to get what you want is not only wrong but counter-productive. And you talk about intellectual abuse, but you've already unapologetically lied in this thread, demonstrating your own dogma. All you've done is trade god for government.

You accuse him of constructing a false analogy, yet in your very next sentence you tell a blatant lie. Education was around long before the state got involved. If people want education, and history shows they do, then the market will supply it better than the state possibly could. But if they don't, who are you to not only force it on them, but force them to pay for it, and give them essentially no control over it?

Good education is, in my opinion, one of the most important things in society Which is why it cannot be left to the state. When you have a monopoly you have lower quality, less supply, higher costs, and less variety than a market would supply. The government does not seek to remove religion, but to replace it.

I don't.And the name of the forum you're posting in is "General Anarchism and Economics" - Freedomain Radio's political philosophy is zero government. Voluntarism rather than violence. "Roles of government"? These roles were around before government."Their neutrality"? There is no neutrality. Government services are biased in favour of the government. And because there's only one provider, if you have a problem with them - tough luck.A service is a service is a service. And free markets will always provide a service better than a government can. There are no magic exceptions to basic economics.

Again, because they don't work without the state. The very nature of cartels means they can't work because the same incentives that create them, tear them apart: the quest for easy profits that leads to rivals joining forces, will then lead to these rivals undercutting each other for more profit. But what if these rivals have signed a contract? Ok, so they've agreed a deal to cheat their customers... but they're definitely not going to cheat each other... they'll have no problem finding a judge/security agency/whatever that will take this contract seriously... and they'll be no public outcry... And it doesn't matter that new land can't be created. If anything, that means it's more important to have a completely free market to ensure it's not wasted.

Engage then.In the Rothbard video I posted he explains why cartels and monopolies need the state. And as far as I'm concerned his theories have been completely backed up by reality.If he's wrong, explain why.It's easy but mindless to just tell people they're wrong and their rebuttals are weak. Especially when you're not providing any reasons at all as to why they're wrong and you're right.

And yet it does. Cartels and monopolies are features of government, not of free markets:

If you're just wanting to record a voice-over, Audacity is the best free program: http://audacity.sourceforge.net/ If you're wanting to do video (record the screen) as well, CamStudio is pretty good for free http://camstudio.org/ Or if you're on a PC, the free Windows Movie Maker isn't bad and is easy to use. And if you're on a Mac, the built-in Imovie is decent.

No, you do not have the same point. The Japanese diet (plenty of fish) has nothing to do with socialism and every to do with geography."Murricans" - fantastic, a bit of socialism 101: whenever possible mock and smear your opponents . Personally, I've travelled all over the world and without a shadow of doubt the good people of the USA have been the kindest and most friendly I've come across.It must be terrible to hate such a great country simply on the basis that it's success exposed socialist ideology as worthless nonsense. I run a business that conducts 10-15 experiments per week with sample sizes ranging from a few hundred to a few million, so I know all about statistics and the art of bullshitting.And trying to pull very specific conclusions from very general data is pure bullshit (do you even know if you've got the causation the right way round?). I know, and I know I shouldn't waste my time.But seeing how smug, righteous, and arrogant they are, despite their ideology being responsible for poverty, genocide, and mass starvation always gets a rise out of me.

I can only repeat what I said: healthcare is only one factor in life expectancy. For example the Japanese and American diets are not particularly similar so to just ignore that is nothing short of fraudulent. And, again, you're not looking at the actual service provided, you're just cherry picking the data to try to prove the impossible.

Poor hypothesis. If you want to see if capitalism provides better goods and services than socialism, you need to measure those goods and services. You're not even measuring the result of them. You're measuring something that those goods and services are only one factor in, ignoring major factors such as diet, genetics, exercise, etc. And you're only using one reference for capitalism, the US, where 60%+ of healthcare is actually provided through the government. You want to prove socialism beats capitalism, you'll have to do a far better job than this blatant misrepresentation. Or just read Hoppe's "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism", he kills the issue dead.

Seriously? "Hey Mr. Shark, you're being given the same rights as humans. But so is ever other animal, which means you can't eat them anymore. Now I know that's possible because I've seen a video on Youtube with animals getting on just fine. And to help you, here's a copy of Finding Nemo. Remember, fish are friends!"

In other words, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

If you gave animals the same rights as humans, would the animals acknowledge this? Would the lion stop eating the gazelle? Would the spider stop eating the fly? Would cats and dogs live in harmony? I don't believe they would because they're not moral agents - they're not capable of making that decision, of differentiating between right and wrong.

That's simple, do you advocate using violence to get what you want? It's market, same as any other market. There's nothing to stop a firm buying out another firmBut the only way a firm can get business is to provide what people want.As soon as it stops, people will move away.Look at how quickly Facebook pulled the rug out from under Myspace.And if you're bothered about one big organisation controlling the market, why would you even look at the state as an alternative? All capitalism is, is a system that says you can own things, that's it.Let's have a closer look at the potential problems you raised:Reliance on well informed consumers - I do believe the gentleman who came up with this one won a Nobel prize. Which is odd because the market had already dealt with it through things like guarantees and magazines offering reviews.Where this is a real problem is not capitalism, but the alternative, collectivism. For example, when you vote for your glorious leader based on what he's promised to do, not only will he break his word as soon as possible, but everyone knows he will. If you think about that for a second, it's quite amazing, would you keep going to restaurants that never delivered what you ordered? And even make jokes about it and accept it as normal?And not only that, but you're then stuck with them. There's no guarantee and you can't even just take the loss and make another choice. Running out of time... I'll combine the last two into just monopoly - so the way to deal with possible monopolies is through a definite monopoly? Here's Rothbard explaining why monopoly is a collectivist problem, not a capitalist one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6Opvlmy8i8

Er, yeah. That was the point. I was using them to demonstrate that having a monopoly on security doesn't mean you have no conflicts.

Markets and market security are not two completely different things. The first people to trade didn't wait until there was a legal framework in place before they began. The market for trade created the market for security, the two are intertwined. As for competing security agencies fighting each other, it could happen, after all it has been for thousands of years. A notable recent example being the USA and UK agencies inventing a story to attack the Iraq agency. And this goes on because of the incentives - little, if any, cost to their leaders, but massive benefits. In a free society, with no territorial monopoly on security, those incentives are reversed - massive costs and risk to the leader and the entire business and all its employees, but little benefit. And when you have a monopoly on law, in addition to the perverse incentives and the inefficiencies of any monopoly, it will reflect the political ideology of the current law makers. And this can change by the day, giving a rule of people, not of law. For a good overview of the subject, check out the three-part "Law Without Government" series on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khRkBEdSDDo And if you're really interested in learning more, people like John Hasnas, Robert Murphy, Bruce Benson and Roderick Long, have explored the subject in depth.

There's little point in playing "what ifs" with people, it's not hard to set up a story that gets round any system. And mostly they rely on the nirvana fallacy - the fallacy that you're claiming everything under a free market system will be perfect. But it's good that they're genuinely concerned with what goes on in South America. Let's see what it's like there now: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17021996 Hmm... a newspaper editor who exposed corruption was shot. And a few days before that another journalist and his girlfriend were murdered. Where was the government to help these people (other than more than likely directly involved or agreeing to turn a blind-eye)? How many tens of thousands are dead due to governments' war on drugs? Do these real life tragedies cancel out a fictional one? But if they really want to play the "what if" game, you can always ask them what if a government invents a story so it can go to war, and what if it wasn't the first time? At what point would they stop supporting it?

Yes.