free market services vs monopoly government

[Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>]

I wrote at the bottom of another post:
> General rhetorical question: indeed why have governments at all?

and Kent Crispin parried:
: General rhetorical answer:  Because people are the way they are.

Kent you seem to harbor the belief that government monopoly is a good
thing, or at least that government is somehow an unavoidable necessary
evil.  I doubt I'll convince you otherwise, but in case there are
other people reading who still think governments the best way of doing
anything, I'll try to explain why I think government monopoly is a bad
thing.

Are you opposed to free markets?

Government holds a number of monopolies.  These monopolies are not
efficient.  They result in resource wastage on a mind boggling scale.
The USG has pretty much bankrupt your country, the US national debt
being I understand at a level where US citizens collectively do not
have the resources to pay it off.  If a privately or publicly held
company got to that stage the receivers would be sent in. 

The success that a country does enjoy is pretty much proportional to
the degree of market freedom.  Luckily for us our governments have
left a bit of freedom in markets, or we would have food shortages, and
rationing.

In economies with extremely low amounts of market freedom, the readily
observable inefficiency demonstrates my point.  (eg Former Soviet
Union communist economy).

Governments tend to grow, and soak up larger tax percentages, and
encroach into more aspects of life which were previously a question of
free choice, or were previously purely market driven.  The reason for
this growth is due to the government as an entity unconciously
promoting itself as an organism.  A great huge cancerous growth which
has us by the jugular.

The reason governments as businesses can get away with their abysmal
performance is because they have a near complete monopoly.

A good start would be a choice in government, to generate some
competition.  So you can buy membership in a protection racket, hire
the services of a private security firm, or buy insurance from an
insurance group because of its benefits package, or go elsewhere if
the offering sucks.  You choose on an individual basis what package
best suits you, and you choose the service providers who you consider
as the best value for money.

eg. I can go buy into Uncle Enzo's pizza delivery and protection
racket because the protection is 5000% better value for money than the
Feds deal.

I can pick and choose the services I want to produce a mix which
satisfies me.  Double efficiency, people don't have services provided
for them which they actively don't want, and I can buy services which
the government attempts to prevent the market from providing, so my
requirements are better met.

As well as the increased efficiency obtained in provision of services
which governments are currently holding monopolies on, the reduced
taxation and regularatory burdens put on the economy would cause a
boom.

And your argument is?

That people want government?  Fine, let those sheeple that do want
something even more oppresive and intrusive than the current
government buy into whatever form of oppresive cult they want.
Perhaps a sheltered perimeter gaurded enclave where all media is
censored, there is capital punishment for spitting on the side walk,
evil thoughts results in public flogging, etc, and where the taxation
rate is 90% would suit them to a T.

Great!  We need some evolutionary pressures anyway.

So which mix would you choose Kent?

Or are you arguing that there are lots of stupid people, and that you
are happy to let their ill-informed choices, and their willingness to
go with the bankrupt corrupt status quo fuck your life up?  Why should
there be blanket decisions made and forced upon you as an individual.
Free choice makes for much more efficiency in terms of economics, and
in terms of individuals happiness.


Here's a reading list for those interested in disbanding government
and replacing it with services purchased on the free market:

"Snow Crash", Neal Stephenson
	Snow Crash is a sci-fi novel giving a depiction depictions of
	life with choice in services, private law enforcement services
	competing with Uncle Enzo's pizza mafia.

"The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", Heinlein
	The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a sci-fi novel giving a
	depiction of a wild-west like legal system.  There are no
	laws, excepting individual responsibility.

"Machinery of Freedom" 2nd Ed, David Friedman
	Machinery of Freedom talks about free market methods to provide
	services that have traditionally been provided by government.

"The Wealth of Nations", Adam Smith

	The Wealth of Nations is an interesting book despite being
	published in 1776.  Didn't have his judgement clouded by this
	namby-pamby socialist/communist junk.  Pure capitalism,
	examining why the free market is efficient.

"The Road to Serfdom", Hayek

	Road to Serfdom explains in Hayeks view that socialism is a
	slippery slope leading to economic decline and communism.  In
	context of Nazism after second world war.  He makes the case
	that Socialism the root of much evil.


Adam
-- 
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`