The Driver's License

[ALawPoker]

This is an article I wrote for my blog. It's pretty long, but if anyone has the patience to read it all I'm curious to hear your responses.



I got into a drunken debate the other night, and it inspired me to write this. It's long, but hopefully it's worth your while. Grab a beer or two and enjoy.

As our government has increasingly imposed itself on us over our 225 year history, we begin to take certain impositions for granted. One of those impositions that most people leave 100% unchecked is the driver's license. It is my assertion that the government should not be forcing us to own a government issued license in order to operate a car. At first glance, most people will meet such a claim with immediate dismissal. If you look a little deeper though, you will recognize that the issue is not that much different than drug laws, gun licensing, or marriage licensing. All such legislation is done so for the presumed "greater good" of society at the expense of individual decision making. And if you look a bit more analytically at the subject, you should be scared for the precedent that has been created.

Society as a whole desires to be safe, happy, and healthy. It is wholly rational to value an ideal such as safety. However, we do ourselves a tremendous injustice by not paying due diligence to the process involved in achieving said ideal. The first step is understanding that government is subordinate to us. If we grant government the priviledge to do X, and they take Y and Z with them, it is up to us to realize they overreached. The idea that the issuance of a driver's license is some sort of inherent world order, and that government's programs in general are the glue that holds society together is a scary outlook on life. The fact that in a debate like this, 100% of the burden of proof automatically falls on me is a scary. I know what my rights are, I know I have the right to travel; the burden of proof is on you to tell me why I don't.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson didn't have a gun permit or a marriage license. Such impositions would have gone against the very thing they fought for. But in a little over two centuries our government has made such authoritarian "progress" that today we take such infringement for granted. A hundred years ago when Ford built the model T, I probably could have had a legitimate, rational discussion about whether the government should require permits for someone to operate such machinery. Today, it is taken for granted that they do so, and we wrongly assume this is a necessity which is for our best interest. I fear for the year 2102 when people forfeit their right to free speech as easily as we've forfeited our right to travel.

Before I sound like too much of a radical or a lunatic, let me say this: I understand that the assertion that we should not be required to own a driver's license is a drastic claim. However, the quest to be free of an overreaching government requires drastic measures. I really don't care a whole lot about the driver's license if it were in a bubble, but similar to the way you don't get rid of a wart unless you get it by the roots, you don't get rid over an over-imposing government unless you take all its injustices with it.

It is my assertion that the requirement of a government issued driver's license is A.) un-Constitutional, B.) a violation of our individual rights, and C.) an inefficient, ineffective, and corrupt use of government. I don't really care that much about A, because it takes the premise that the Constitution is infallible. While I believe strongly in the ideals this country was founded on, I'd rather argue why this issue is objectively wrong than why it is simply un-Constitutional. Whether or not I can convince you of A, B, and C, I hope I can at least help you understand that this is a legitimate argument, and that we need to start thinking about all forms of government restrictions before our government's authority over us grows more out of hand.

I believe the role of government is nothing more than to protect us from each other; everything else is voluntary and subject to personal decision making. I believe government has very little inherent worth and that they exist as a tool for us (not the other way around). If you value big government, or if you believe that we don't have the inherent right to freedom of speech, the right to freedom of religion, the right to unlimited contract, the right to keep and bear arms, and (most importantly in this case) the right to travel, then stop reading now. If this is the case, the debate is nothing more than a difference in fundamental ideology, and I don't intend to budge you from your core beliefs. If you believe in freedom, if you acknowledge our rights as individuals, if you believe that we are not subordinate to government, and if you believe in the ideals that this country was founded on, then keep reading. And if after reading, thinking about the subject, and doing your own research if necessary, you still believe that the driver's license is a worthwhile system (and moreover, if anyone feels that it is not even a legitimate debate) then I'm anxious to hear why.

Government places restrictions on certain activities in order to, presumeably, create a safeguard against destruction, or it could be argued, a "greater good" via lack of destructive or unproductive behavior. "Safety" and "drug free" and the like are terms that sound good and win in the voting booth. It must be understood though that we, as individuals, have certain unalienable rights regardless of what happens in the voting booth. If 65% of the people in my district passed a law that said I can't speak in public after 8 p.m., this action can not be enforced. A majority vote doesn't change the fact that I have a right to freedom of speech; no government can ever take this away, because they didn't give it to me in the first place. Most government "safeguards" are nothing more than excuses for the government's coercion of authority and gradual violation of our rights (to the point where we forget we even have them). I know what my rights are, I shouldn't be required to explain them and defend them every time the government passes a new law and defends it on the basis of a majority decision.

The most immediate response to the argument that we should not be required to carry drivers' licenses is that chaos on the road would ensue. This assumes irrational human behavior, and is pure speculation. I would say that I don't believe people would act fundamentally irrational in the absence of government intervention and that the deterrants of harm to self and retribution for potential harm to others would be enough to ensure due diligence as well as any law. I would also say, I don't understand why anyone would choose to drive a car if the action were fundamentally irrational, or how automobiles would have ever risen in prominence to the point where government had any reason to intervene. If driving a car truly proved to be inherently perilous, the result is simply that rational people would not drive, own, design, build, market, or sell cars. When I see a 10 dollar bill in the middle of a half frozen pond, I don't run to it. Some sort of massive, widespread desire to run across unstable ice does not magically sweep its way through mainstream America, creating a need for the almighty government to determine who is fit to partake in such activity. Whether the automobile never would have gained in popularity, or whether they would have been designed differently to deal with whatever inefficiencies were causing such reckless behavior, or whatever, doesn't really matter. The point is, it would work itself out in whatever manner is rational. Ford is not going to have much success selling a product that everyone dies while they try to use. The reason driving cars is the norm today is because it has proven to be rational, relatively safe bahvior. It did not become safe because of the government, it is an inherently safe and rational action, and it has remained safe despite the government's attempt to manipulate rational behavior. If driving a car was an inherently irrational choice, and it could only be made rational through the mystic powers of government intervention, then I would question how the demand for automobiles ever came to be a part of our every day lives in the first place. It's not as if the motor vehicle is some sort of alien instrument, magically donated to the world in the 20th century, requiring a select few elected officials to oversee the use of. The motor vehicle was rationally designed, developed, sold, bought, and used by human kind, and it is foolish to think that human nature's ability to use the instrument somehow vanishes.

The roads are (relatively) safe right now not because the government's licensing system has magically blessed us with the ability to drive safely. The roads are safe because people fundamentally do not want to hurt themselves and others. People fundamentally understand that a car can be a dangerous piece of machinery and they should learn how to use it. The idea that "no license" equals "no regard for anyone's safety" demonstrates an incredible gap of logic created by the way today's society takes government intervention for granted and assumes it is acting benevolently. If I lived in the 14th century, and someone believeable told me that some guy named Bruce turned on a switch every day that made the sun rise, I'd probably think Bruce was a necessary tool of society. Once I begin to learn about strange concepts like "solar power" and a "rotating earth", I probably have a hard time buying it-- the idea that Bruce flips the switch sounds a lot more plausible and it's easier to understand. Eventually, I keep doing research and putting thought into it, and I realize Bruce is pretty useless, and the sun would come up whether or not he was pretending to take credit for it. Bruce doesn't actually care about us, and isn't actually the glue that holds society together like so many people have passively let themselves believe. Government doesn't magically make driving cars safe; people making rational decisions simply results in safe driving. All the elements of science simply result in giving us sunlight, Bruce is just the guy trying to take credit for it.

I realize you may be saying to youself "ya but most people are stupid and don't act rationally." It's important to understand, 'stupid' and 'rational' are relative terms. People fundamentally do act rationally (if they "didn't" then the barrier of what is "rational" would simply change, and society would progress in different ways). Just because your neighbor can't recite the pethagorean theorem, it doesn't mean that his human nature is any different than your own, or that he will not make optimal decisions. The use of the automobile (and every other hallmark of our society) has risen to prominence because it is a rational action given the nature of human kind as a whole; not because 4 or 5 people know how to use it, and the rest aren't intelligent enough to figure it out. This is a bit of a silly tangent, but it's a necessary point. The idea that "most" people are too "anything" to do something that has become a fixture of society is wholly illogical.

I will go on another tangent for a second to mention that I am not really in favor of a privatized police corps, even though idealistically I agree with a lot of the arguments in favor of it. In terms of keeping the peace, I think a government operated police corps and court system are necessary. Without getting too far into it, the reason is that I see inherent problems when there is no central authority on a disagreement. We have to deal with potential corruption and inefficiency via government monopoly, but I just don't see any other way it could possibly work. That being said, if you say something like "I don't think the government should provide monopolized police forces" to someone who hasn't thought about it much, he will respond with something like "HA, I don't want to live in chaos" without realizing that he is being delusional.

The idea that people would all of a sudden want to harm each other in the absence of government intervention is another myth. It holds the assumption that people fundamentally want to harm eachother in the first place, and suggests also that government is somehow effectively restraining this burning desire. People (generally) don't want to harm eachother because A.) their morals/compassion tell them not to and/or B.) because they fear retaliation. Assuming that without the government deciding how everything works that both A and B would somehow magically disappear is simply illogical and poorly thought out, and it is another great example of how much false credit we give government. Similar to Bruce saying "look at me flip my switch and make the light come for you guys" government is saying "look at me magically create safety for you guys." The only difference is, Bruce just wanted attention; the government wants credit so that it has clout to increase its authority and attempt to impose its influence and values on other people. If there was no government police corps, B would still exist in the form of private arbitration (whether or not that's AS effective is essentially where the debate lies in my mind) and A would still exist because our human nature would not change. Without government restriction on who has the right to drive, the incentive to learn to drive and to operate an automobile safely still exists in the form of the aforementioned A and B. Most people do not want to harm themselves and others simply for the sake of doing so, and most people are influenced by the deterrant of retribution for damages as much as the deterrant of a black and white law.

Government exists as a safeguard, where more efficiency almost always could be achieved if human nature were allowed to run its course. This issue is no different; years of letting our government programs go unchecked simply makes it seem different at first glance.

I am willing to go far enough to say that roads would actually be safer without the government imposed restrictions. First off, it's important to understand that almost anyone who wants to legally drive a car under our current system certainly can do so. I realize that a handfull of people might know someone who tried really hard and just could not pass the test. But on the other end of the spectrum there exist plenty of people who could hardly see straight and managed to pass; occasional fringe examples don't carry a whole lot of wait. I don't think anyone will really argue that it's not hard to pass the government issued driving test. (This is good evidence that the government does not genuinely care about our safety, but rather, just wants a hand in the process). The government sanctioned level of entry is so low, that when relied upon, people will generally be less fit than they (or their parents) would require of themselves. The government issued "check mark" serves as a psychological free pass to drive on your own without necessarilly putting the appropriate reflection into it. I feel like Mr. Johnson can figure out when his daughter is fit to safely drive a car a lot more efficiently than some stranger who spends a half hour making sure she knows the basics. You could say that I'm naive to trust that the nature of people is to be so methodical of their actions, but if we didn't live in this world where government makes all of these personal decisions for us, we would sure as hell learn to be (even if Darwin's process had to butt its head in). Without government check marks on when it is OK for us to drink alchohol, on whom it is OK to marry, on which guns we are allowed to own and what type of permission we need to travel with them, on what trimester an abortion is allowed, we would learn to develop and fine tune our own sense of responsibility. If you feed a squirrel every day for 5 years and then stop, he might not be as good at hunting and gathering as he would be if you left him alone in the first place. It's not that the squirrel doesn't have the capacity to feed himself, it's just that he needs to adjust to self-reliance, and he will probably be better off on his own than eating whatever food you decide to give him that day. Without the check mark, people would be forced into self-inspection. We would set our own barriers of entry, and seek to honestly achieve them, rather than drill a small skill-set into our brains in order to convince an impersonal 3rd party that we can do what they're looking for.

Keep in mind that owning a car is not a particularly easy acquisition. The chance that a retarded person or a 7-year-old child will attain access to a car and then drive it is extremely small. If someone gives the keys of a car, or sells a car, to a person who is clearly unfit to be operating it, that is a personal act of irresponsibility. If someone slips me a note that says "I want to kill your neighbor" and then I give him my gun, that is an act of personal irresponsibility. Human nature is not perfect, and people do commit acts of personal irresponsibility, but I refuse to allow a government to over-reach under the guise that they are somehow capeable of solving this problem. Furthermore, a person who lacks the capacity to know he is endangering people and risking his own life by operating the car will also lack the capacity to understand that legally he is required to have a license in the first place, and he is equally undeterred. Maybe you can sleep easier at night knowing that your government requires licensing to drive, but the people who are actually the problem are the same people who are not deterred by the system.

Children, mentally handicapped, and deranged people can always cause harm when left unattended. They could cause harm whether they are required to be holding a government issued ceritification or not. They could turn on the stove and start a fire, they can juggle knives and fail, and they can get in a car and turn the keys. The solution to the problem is not allowing the government to intervene in everyone else's lives; the solution to the problem is holding those who cause damage to our property responsible and avoiding dangerous activity in the first place. If I owned an oven that I know has a tendency to start a fire, owning this oven would be inherently unsafe. If the government gave me a license that said I was a certified oven owner, I still would not own this oven! If I'm really concerned that an influx of deviant drivers will take to the streets in the absence of government intervention, and I don't trust my own ability to avoid them or my own vehicle's ability to protect me, then I won't drive! As a government certified oven owner, my ability to analyze oven safety did not change-- it is an inate talent, and something I would rationally utilize anyways. The only reason driving safety would improve with government intervention would be if A.) driving a car is inherently perilous for a significant amount of people, B.) government is efficient at figuring out who is fit and who is unfit to drive, and C.) the persons who are told they can't drive do not generally do so anyways. I will add to it an ambiguous D: All of this would have to outweigh the previously discussed benefits of an increased emphasis on self-reliance. I fail to see how A, B, OR C is a reality.

If an action is inherently dangerous (without the government's intervention), not only do I fail to see how it possibly improves with the government's intervention, but even if it did, it is an action I would just rather do less or none of than use to give the government precedence to impose restrictions on how I live. An action that can only be achieved via manipulation of the few on the many is an action that is fundamentally not worthwhile in the first place.


I firmly believe that the driver's license in no way achieves a greater societal good, and I stand by that point to the fullest. However, more fundamentally, I don't even care if it was for greater good. Communism, if achieved in its perfect form, without corruption and where everyone did their job to 100% efficiency, would be for the greater good (in terms of financial prosperity). Capitalism certainly trumps communism logistically, but let's assume that communism somehow produced a more prosperous society-- it doesn't mean we should LIKE it. We shouldn't APPROVE of the fact that our freedom has been stripped from us for the goal of a more productive society. I really don't like the assumption that we can look at debates like this according to one narrow issue, like "safety" or "productivity." Even if I were to concede the argument that roads would be less safe (which certainly I am not doing), prove to me why this slight increase of driving safety is any excuse for an infringement on my right to travel. People are so quick to point to noble-sounding ideals, but fail to prove how the means justify them.

If it was proven that Americans of Irish-Italian descent are highly likely to steal groceries, would it be justified to force all Irish-Italians to attain a government issued shopping permit? The "noble ideal" is "lower theft." Theft is almost always bad, less of it is certainly good; no one will argue that. But now prove to me how the means justify achieving the goal. Where do we stop? Do we start to execute certain racial demographics because the result is a "greater good"? The idea that one narrow benefit of an action, or even a broader "greater good," can be pointed to in order to automatically justify the action's means is a scary line of reasoning.

The idea that a perceived safer road justifies a violation on my right to travel, and my right to own property and use it, is a contention that I staunchly disagree with. And the burden of proof is not on me to prove to you why the justification does not exist; I have my rights, they are inherent to me as an individual. The burden of proof is on you to tell me why you have the right to take them away from me.


I would like to take a moment right now to pre-emptively field a few typical, wholly irrational, arguments in favor of the driver's license (or more accurately, in favor of not being against the driver's license).

What about the 14-year-old that thinks he can drive and kills someone. Even unlimited financial restitution can't make up for this.

What about the 14-year-old that plays with matches and burns a house down? What about the 14-year-old that shoots a bow and arrow and kills someone? The fact is, you can't rely on government to sanction every form of activity that is unsafe for some people, because the result is that our freedom to do just about would everything would disappear. First, I would point to the 14-year-old's parents as the crux of the problem. Most children understand that operating a car is dangerous, and if these parents have not instilled this knowledge in their kids (and furthermore failed to monitor his activity to the point where he has the opportunity to operate the car) then they messed up. People mess up, and government coercion does not really change this. If the adolescent who decided it was fit for him to be driving a car would not do so if there was a government restriction on it, he will simply feed his current deviant desire with another form of risky behavior. The adolescent's propensity to partake in dangerous behavior will exist regardless of the government's stance on the legality of driving cars, and he will continue to be risky until either someone teaches him or the result of his actions deter him to change his behavior. Keep in mind, a "driver's license" would be an abstract concept, and a teenager's thrill of knowing he is no longer legally required to have one would only exist once. This transition is a necessary evil created by the fact that government overreached in the first place. Furthermore, this is a fringe issue, and it doesn't really prove anything. I can turn the tables on you and say "What about the 16-year-old girl who never really learned how to drive well (suppose the cop giving the road test was a close friend of the family), and now she uses this certification to assume she can safely drive at night on ice, when rationally she would otherwise realize she couldn't. She spins out and kills someone." These are fringe issues. They each represent an extreme circumstance and do not represent a legitimate effect on the issue.

Well, I tend to agree with you, but the roads are not your property. You don't have any inherent rights while you use them.

The roads are there because We the People asked for them. We the People gave government the priviledge to build them; they did not give us the priviledge to use them. Tax us for them, build them, go home. It's really that simple. If we don't like the job the government is doing in building our roads, we can take that priviledge away and say we don't want their roads anymore, stop building them. Personally, I'd rather have bumpy dirt paths than government built roads if the roads come with the prerequisite that the government has the right to impose on our freedom in any way they see fit. You want to accept the contract to build roads in between my destinations? Fine, just because you built them doesn't change the fact that I have the right to travel. We do not extend them the priviledge to build roads AND impose on our individual freedom upon doing so. We asked for it, we paid for it, and now we have the RIGHT to use it. Do I need a permit to ride a bike or to walk on the road? These things could be argued to be dangerous too. The government seems to trust the fact that little kids won't run in the middle of the street despite the lack of a requirement of a walking license. They seem to trust the fact that 12-year-old kids won't ride their bikes in the middle of a busy street despite the lack of a biking license. The issue is not about the ownership of the roads; I'm sure people would be furious if they found out tomorrow that they were required to have a license to walk on a government built road or sidewalk. Such an imposition would not be defensible simply because government built the roads for us; we would still have our rights and it wouldn't matter to whom we extended the priviledge to build roads and sidewalks. The government manages to get away with the driver's license because it is a gradual measure, but I fear for the year 2116 when I can get arrested for walking down a street without my government issued walker's license.

What about individuals who desire a qualified 3rd party to teach them to drive and/or verify their ability to do so safely?

This could and would still happen. The only difference is it would happen privately, and more effectively. If there was demand for such a service, private firms would establish themselves. If this service was not popular enough to be geographically convenient to everyone, well, too bad. That's what happens when you want a product that is not in demand, and you may have to be a little inconvenienced to get it. The quality will be better, and the people who do not desire the service will no longer be coerced into paying for it.


Lastly, I realize that attaining a government issued driver's license is not that hard, and in the grand scheme of things, is not much of an imposition on personal liberty. But that doesn't really matter. Pinching someone's arm isn't the end of the world either, but that doesn't mean we should let someone keep doing it to us. The more we let government impose on us, the scarier it gets. Tomorrow that pinch might turn into a flick, and then the flick might turn into a slap. The fact that it's tough to propose the argument that we should be able to drive without a driver's license without being immediately dismissed is a scary reality. We have completely lost touch of the ideals of the federal republic that we were founded on, and it really scares me. The misconception that life could not go on as we know it without government mandated restrictions on who can operate a car really scares me. America did not become great because of a reliance on government; it became great because of our relative lack of government, and I'd like America to stay great.

Even if I wasn't able to convince you that a driver's license requirement is an unjust infraction of our freedom, I hope I have at least convinced you that it's a legitimate debate. If you don't accept the premise that we have certain unalienable rights and that an overreaching government is a bad thing, then certainly you disagree with me fundamentally, and I don't expect to have influenced your core ideology with this discussion. However, if you believe in individual freedom and the ideals our country was founded on, and if you accept that government can not compromise our unalienable rights, and you still do not accept my argument, then I challenge you to tell me why.

[Stagemusic]

Hey, Mr. Tolstoy!

Cliff notes please

[pvn]

You don't need a license to operate a vehicle on private property. The solution is to get rid of government roads; then the need for government driver's licenses takes care of itself.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
I would also say, I don't understand why anyone would choose to drive a car if the action were fundamentally irrational

[/ QUOTE ]

What about really old people who also don't like the government to tell them what they can do? Even if they can't see more than 5 feet infront of them, and their reflexes have slowed to the speed of grass growing. Sorry, but I am very comfortable with the government telling people who cannot safely operate a motor vehicle..that they can't.

If a person, through old age, very young age, alcohol consumption, is physically incapable of operating a motor vehicle safely, I really don't want them on the roads. Do you honestly believe that such people are not going to drive because it is irriational for them to do so? Like that geezer who killed all those people at the farmer's market in Southern California a few years ago? It was certainly irrational for him to drive a car.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't need a license to operate a vehicle on private property. The solution is to get rid of government roads; then the need for government driver's licenses takes care of itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Jdanz]

the problem of anachrocapitalism isn't that it's illogical based on its assumptions.

It's that its assumptions don't reflect the world in which we live.

[vulturesrow]

OMFG dont you get it you can sue granny if she kills someone!!!!!

[Jdanz]

[ QUOTE ]
OMFG dont you get it you can sue granny if she kills someone!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

awesome.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]

If a person, through old age, very young age, alcohol consumption, is physically incapable of operating a motor vehicle safely, I really don't want them on the roads. Do you honestly believe that such people are not going to drive because it is irriational for them to do so? Like that geezer who killed all those people at the farmer's market in Southern California a few years ago? It was certainly irrational for him to drive a car.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did that guy have a license?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
the problem of anachrocapitalism isn't that it's illogical based on its assumptions.

It's that its assumptions don't reflect the world in which we live.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with statists is that they almost never have any idea what they're talking about before they spout off their erroneous assertions.

[ QUOTE ]
So which of my "assumptions" [or conclusions] about human beings are "implausible"? That they act? That in acting they demonstrate preference? That by action human beings attempt to exchange a less satisfactory state of affairs for a more satisfactory state of affairs? That they prefer more goods to fewer goods? That they prefer present goods to future goods? That they prefer more durable goods to less durable goods? That value and utility are subjective, and cannot be measured, nor added, subtracted, multiplied, divided, nor regressed, but can only be ranked by individuals? That there are only two kinds of human action, voluntary and coerced? That every voluntary action benefits the actor ex ante, and every voluntary exchange benefits both parties ex ante? That in the absence of coercion, production must precede consumption? That productivity can only be increased by the application of reason and the production of capital goods? That capital goods can only be produced after savings have been made? That incentives matter? That accumulated capital creates the demand for labor? That first occupation and voluntary exchange form the only objective basis for the resolution of conflicts over scarce resources and goods? That conflict is in fact not even possible in the absence of scarcity? That social order, money, and law are all market phenomena that predate the state and its interventions in each? That taxing producers and savers and transfering to non-producers and non-savers reduces productivity and savings? That printing more paper money does not make a society wealthier? That rational allocation of resources can only be accomplished through the price system? That the price system can only stably exist in an environment of the private ownership of the means of production, freedom of exchange, and a sound (i.e. market or commodity) money? That in the absence of coercion, there are no barriers to entry of any market beyond the savings (i.e. capital) required to achieve high enough productivity, and hence low enough unit cost, to compete? That the levels of profits tend to equalize, regardless of industry, thus acting to keep all sectors of the economy in balance? That the competition amongst capitalists is not the Darwinian competition of who can scramble to consume the most, but rather the anti-Darwinian struggle to produce the most? That it is not out of the goodness of their hearts that the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker provide their wares to me, but because of self-interest? That if human beings are given a monopoly on the use of coercion they will exercise it? That if human beings are allowed to tax their fellow men they will tax them, and at ever increasing levels? That if human beings are allowed to print and spend money, they will do so? That if humn beings are allowed to unilaterally define justice, they will always define it in their favor? That if human beings are given ultimate jurisdiction of all conflicts, even those conflicts involving themselves, bad things will happen? That monopoly in all cases is bad for consumers, and that the cure for monopoly can not be a monopoly? Especially not a monopoly of coercion? That central planning must fail because economic information is dispersed throughout the economy, with only an infinitesimal fraction known by any one actor? That there is no objective way to identify a "market failure" that is external to the market itself? That government can never do "good" because to do any goods it must first do bads, and there is no way to intersubjectively ascertain whether the good outweighs the bad?
<font color="white"> . </font>
You are the one who has no concept whatsoever about human nature or how markets work. Read Man, Economy, and State, and then get back to me.

[/ QUOTE ]