The case for government
 

It works really well. There are some things that people as a whole need. Individuals cannot provide these things. An army is one. Roads are another. You can claim under your 'no government' system that these things will be there but the facts are that there are governments in almost all the countries and they have provided armies and roads.

For almost all of history we were without governments in the modern form. Today, nearly all successful countries have governments. This is unreconciably (horribly mispelled, I'm aware and too drunk to care) with your theories of AC.

Sorry guys! But AC is probably a hoax you have bought into.

Re: The case for government
 

Wait... what are the current theories as to how a society without a government will produce roads or an army?

Re: The case for government
 

ANARCHO-CAPITALISM BABY

Re: The case for government
 

Private contractors will make roads and charge people to drive on them. Also, private contractors will have armies that will fight for you if you pay them. I think.

Re: The case for government
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, private contractors will have armies that will fight for you if you pay them. I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then how do we prevent the largest army from taking over?

Re: The case for government
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, private contractors will have armies that will fight for you if you pay them. I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then how do we prevent the largest army from taking over?

[/ QUOTE ]

Insert Borodog and his 15 gimick accounts in 5... 4... 3.. 2.... 1....

Re: The case for government
 

While we're at it...

what about preventing monopolies and mergers?

Are we expecting a group to form, whose job it is is to prevent unfair mergers?



What about criminal defense? Ie. if someone cant afford an attorney who represents him?

While we're at it, how does the court system work?

Re: The case for government
 

CMI,
roads

Armies probably wouldn't be produced in an AC society, mainly because they aren't much good at creating anything but death and destruction, goods not in high demand. That's not to say money wouldn't be spent on defense, necessarily.

On monopolies and mergers...any monopoly that forms in the absence of government intervention can't be hurting consumers...because the only way to get a monopoly in such a situation is to offer the highest quality product at the lowest possible price. So there's no reason to stop such a thing, as it is counterproductive. The same holds with mergers.

Criminal defense will be a lot cheaper in the absence of government-enforced supply restrictions, i.e. the bar.

Court system will probably work primarily through private arbitration. Arbitrators will compete on reliability and quality decisions. People/companies known to ignore the decisions of reputable arbitrators will go out of business because no one will deal with them. Such a system already exist when dealing with international companies...even without one overarching court system they still manage to resolve disputes. Dispute resolution is a service like anything else and can be provided by the free market.

Re: The case for government
 

[ QUOTE ]
It works really well.

[/ QUOTE ]

hee hee

[ QUOTE ]
There are some things that people as a whole need.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, you mean like food? I guess government should start providing food then.

Just because a lot of people need a good or service doesn't mean it should be provided by government.

[ QUOTE ]
Individuals cannot provide these things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Brrrr...wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
An army is one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, gee, without coercive funding we wouldn't have our instrument of mass murder and destruction. What will we do.

[ QUOTE ]
Roads are another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ever driven on a toll road?

[ QUOTE ]
You can claim under your 'no government' system that these things will be there but the facts are that there are governments in almost all the countries and they have provided armies and roads.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, the armies kill civilians and the roads suck. Go government!

[ QUOTE ]
For almost all of history we were without governments in the modern form. Today, nearly all successful countries have governments. This is unreconciably (horribly mispelled, I'm aware and too drunk to care) with your theories of AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Say it with me folks....correlation does not imply causation!

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry guys! But statism is probably a hoax you have bought into.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

Re: The case for government
 

"2) They (falsely) believe that private road ownership would lead to monopolies. This boggles my mind because this, of course, is exactly the situation that we have now. But beyond that, it's just not the case. Consider this. I have a navigation system in my car. Given a starting point and a destination, my navigation system can calculate thousands of different routes in seconds and weight them by which is either the quickest or the shortest (or even some combination thereof). If the data were available, you can easily imagine a system that would choose the most scenic routes! Similarly, if roads are privately owned such a system could easily devise routes that are the least expensive, or some combination of lowest cost and time, and say road quality (number of potholes for example, as rated by the company that provides the maps and datasets for the navigation systems). Thus there is immediate competition between road owners to provide well maintained low cost roads. Poor roads or roads that cost too much are avoided and their owners suffer losses. More efficient and competitive owners reap profits. "


UMMMMM.....


OK, so we have these differnt roads. Owned by different companies. What stops those companies from getting together and saying: "Hey... we have what is essentially a necessity of life. If we get together, we can increase prices and we all make more"?


(if anyone replies with "then another company comes along and charges less" ill laugh my ass off)