Political Theory and Gadianton Plumber

[_John Larsen]

Gadianton Plumber:

I wanted to argue with you a little about your wack-job political and economic theories.

Let's start with a simple scenario. Suppose in an a region, an individual corners a market and has complete price control in such a manner that they can set prices arbitrarily. Suppose also this commodity is necessary for a comfortable life. Should society allow the individual to do anything with that commodity, including restricting access to the public to maximize his individual profits?

Good question. Are you presenting some sort of monopoly? Perhaps you need to add some details to your scenario.

Generally speaking though, his property is his and should not be stolen or coerced from him.

Suppose our subject is able, through enterprise and ingenuity, gain complete control of all garbage services. Should he be able to extract whatever price he can, even at the detriment of the society as a whole? Or how about sewers, or electricity?

Or for a more stark example, suppose through ingenuity and enterprise one were to gain control of the police and fire services. Should one be able to deploy them as one sees fit, to the self gain of the individual even to the possible determent of society?

[_solomarineris]

My "theory"
http://www.isil.org/resources/philosoph ... nglish.swf

This is incredibly powerful, superb writing great animation. Powerful for those who live their lives
accordingly.

rocket
Gee. How new. How original. How cartoonish.

Definitely not for you. Just go look for a skydady, grampa or something you can latch your hand to feel safe.

[_rocket]

Suppose our subject is able, through enterprise and ingenuity, gain complete control of all garbage services. Should he be able to extract whatever price he can, even at the detriment of the society as a whole? Or how about sewers, or electricity?

Or for a more stark example, suppose through ingenuity and enterprise one were to gain control of the police and fire services. Should one be able to deploy them as one sees fit, to the self gain of the individual even to the possible determent of society?

You'll find that those examples just don't exist. That is why you are forced to use silly hypotheticals.

As it is now, government has "gained control of the police and fire services" and deploys it as it sees fit. But there are plenty of market alternatives to the government's silly assumption of control -- private security, better fire proofing, even private fire protection services.

If one, for instance, cornered the market for a critical HIV drug through a patent, and then jacked the prices up 5000%, the market reacts. Fewer people will be willing to engage in risky sex. Blood banks will improve procedures. Innovation might come up with alternatives.

[_rocket]

Well then you don't suck. But you are rude for being mean to my post.

Because you rely upon moronic arguments.

[_Droopy]

I bet you are a Glenn Beck type "libertarian" that thinks rights are reserved for white people on this side of the border.

You still suck.

This is tempting, but I'll just lurk and watch the fun. This board is far too top loaded with Bill Maher type "libertarians" for there to be much clear thinking on these kinds of topics when they're involved.

JSM calls himself a libertarian, but supports the most statist grab for centralized control of virtually all aspects of human life (AGW) in this century in the western democracies.

There is a version or wing of libertarianism that is severely secularist and viscerally hostile to Jedeo/Christian social/moral philosophy. I think that's primarily what we have here when we see "libertarians" calling for measures and initiatives that are decidedly anti-liberal so long as they are a strike against "conservatives".

rc is correct in principle when he speaks of "market alternatives". The chance of these ever being tried, across a range of issues, in a society as far along in its infantalization (socialization) as America (or western Europe, which is appreciable farther along that road) is minute, unfortunately.

[_JohnStuartMill]

JSM calls himself a libertarian, but supports the most statist grab for centralized control of virtually all aspects of human life (AGW) in this century in the western democracies.

No, I actually explicitly declined to call myself a libertarian. Reading comprehension, Droopy.

Anyway, you've apparently never heard of "market failures" -- scenarios in which markets can't be expected, per microeconomic theory, to work well. Look up "externalities" and "asymmetric information".

[_Droopy]

No, I actually explicitly declined to call myself a libertarian. Reading comprehension, Droopy.

Oh, you're correct. I'll then retreat to my long held opinion of you as a "leftist" (I think I momentarily had you mixed up with our resident libertarian/socialist/social liberal Edelusion).

Sorry about that.

Anyway, you've apparently never heard of "market failures" -- scenarios in which markets can't be expected, per microeconomic theory, to work well. Look up "externalities" and "asymmetric information".

Yes, I have heard of them. The problem is that most examples of them I've encountered during my lifetime are actually ideological sops that have little intellectual weight and are intended to be used as foils against economic liberty and property rights.

The interesting thing about the concept of "market failure" is the very idea that the "market "around 180,000,000 people who make economic decisions and valuations on a daily basis) can actually "fail". The exact meaning of this escapes me.

Yes, tiny little "green" cars that are prohibitively expensive, idioitc looking, and will seriously injure or kill you in a 20mpy crash are going to fail in the market. That may be "failure" relative to someone's ideology, but is hardly a cause for concern in an economic sense.

Few doubt tha the military, police, fire, and other core infrastructure elements of scociety would be very difficult to structure efficiently or coherently in a private sector sense.

The health care industry, on the other hand, is presently suffering from massive price inflation and a corruption of incentives generated precisely from government meddling in and distortion of the free market (Medicare, Medicaid, and the entire third party someone-else-is-picking-up-the-tab mentality of American health care) that could be cured quickly and effectively by a strong does of lazzi-faire economic principles.

Its worked everywhere else its been allowed to work (free of the meddling, fumbling fingers of ideologues), and it will work here.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Anyway, you've apparently never heard of "market failures" -- scenarios in which markets can't be expected, per microeconomic theory, to work well. Look up "externalities" and "asymmetric information".

Yes, I have heard of them. The problem is that most examples of them I've encountered during my lifetime are actually ideological sops that have little intellectual weight and are intended to be used as foils against economic liberty and property rights.

I agree that some purported examples of market failure are really stupid. But what's even more stupid is to pretend that because of these bad examples, no market failure exists.

The interesting thing about the concept of "market failure" is the very idea that the "market "around 180,000,000 people who make economic decisions and valuations on a daily basis) can actually "fail". The exact meaning of this escapes me.

This is not such an incredible idea for people who have actually undergone training in economics, Droopy, because these people know that the size of a market isn't determinative of its function. It doesn't matter if the market is 6 billion people strong -- if the total cost of a good isn't borne by the people party to the market transaction, then you've got an externality.

Few doubt tha the military, police, fire, and other core infrastructure elements of scociety would be very difficult to structure efficiently or coherently in a private sector sense.

The health care industry, on the other hand, is presently suffering from massive price inflation and a corruption of incentives generated precisely from government meddling in and distortion of the free market (Medicare, Medicaid, and the entire third party someone-else-is-picking-up-the-tab mentality of American health care) that could be cured quickly and effectively by a strong does of lazzi-faire economic principles.

Laissez-faire (that's how it's actually spelled) wouldn't help us much in the health insurance market, which is beset by all kinds of asymmetries of information (you know more about your health condition than does your health insurer, and your doctor and insurer know a lot more about various treatments than you do), externalities (e.g., if you don't get immunized, that increases my risk of getting infected), and adverse selection (people with known health problems flock to the same generous health plans, which spiral out of business as a result).

Its worked everywhere else its been allowed to work (free of the meddling, fumbling fingers of ideologues), and it will work here.

Where, exactly, do they practice laissez-faire health insurance?