A quick question for AC Peeps: Market failure

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]

In reality, the consumers lack of knowledge about certain speciality type services (e.g. electronics repair, surgery/medicine) may be a far worse (but related) problem than the problem we usually think of when we hear the term "Monopoly". Certainly, Spillovers are more important than either one.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the state is so great at electronics repair, surgery and medicine; why does it force everyone to use it and pay for it at gunpoint, and shoot and kidnap anyone who tries to compete?

Surely if it's so great the people will choose it voluntarily.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
ACist types often fail to take this factor into account: What if people aren't willing to get by via only quid pro quo market transactions, and react violently in response to such a stringent rule? More generally, people can react negatively to too much marketization, and it can and often does have bad cultural effects (e.g. increased greed and competition for status). Its strange to say the government is the problem when without government regulation and a safety net worse "unvoluntary transactions" are going to take place.

[/ QUOTE ]


So if I take this correctly: it is justified to coerce people with lethal violence if you think that it's going to prevent even more violence?

Why can you not look for voluntary solutions to things you perceive as problems? That way you can actually know if people think it's a good idea, because they can choose for it.

Do you actually believe that you can solve problems with violence?

[Msgr. Martinez]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ACist types often fail to take this factor into account: What if people aren't willing to get by via only quid pro quo market transactions, and react violently in response to such a stringent rule? More generally, people can react negatively to too much marketization, and it can and often does have bad cultural effects (e.g. increased greed and competition for status). Its strange to say the government is the problem when without government regulation and a safety net worse "unvoluntary transactions" are going to take place.

[/ QUOTE ]


So if I take this correctly: it is justified to coerce people with lethal violence if you think that it's going to prevent even more violence?

Why can you not look for voluntary solutions to things you perceive as problems? That way you can actually know if people think it's a good idea, because they can choose for it.

Do you actually believe that you can solve problems with violence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Congratulations, you are the Utopian Bill O'Reilly.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
So if I take this correctly: it is justified to coerce people with lethal violence if you think that it's going to prevent even more violence?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very common moral dilemma: you see a train heading straight at a group of 100 people, who will all die should the train hit them. You can intervene and switch the rail of the train, but then the train would hit and kill 1 specific person. What do you do?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if I take this correctly: it is justified to coerce people with lethal violence if you think that it's going to prevent even more violence?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very common moral dilemma: you see a train heading straight at a group of 100 people, who will all die should the train hit them. You can intervene and switch the rail of the train, but then the train would hit and kill 1 specific person. What do you do?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, that ignores the difference between "think" and "know."

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a very common moral dilemma: you see a train heading straight at a group of 100 people, who will all die should the train hit them. You can intervene and switch the rail of the train, but then the train would hit and kill 1 specific person. What do you do?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. This is not at all a common moral dilemma--it's merely a dilemma commonly posed by people trying to show that utilitarianism doesn't suck.

2. I'm not sure how this relates to the question of using violence (aggression?) to stop further violence/ aggression. From the (lack of) context, there doesn't appear to be any aggression, and switching the rails wouldn't really constitute 'violence' in any common use of the term.

I think many people in this situation would choose to save the 100 people. So let me ask you: what exactly do you think think this has to do with statism, aggression, etc? Cause I don't really see the connection.

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you would be surprised at how many large business interests responded favorably to the early federal regulation of the early 20th century as well as the New Deal policies.

[/ QUOTE ]

The New Deal/the Wagner Act/etc was a tool by the corporate state to squash a growing revolutionary worker's movement in the bud and we went from trade unions as a form of worker's organizing for demands and recognizing solidarity to "Unions" that became large organization ruled by a power elite as well whose goal was to play a game with the property owners that roughly went - "You pretend to give us what we're asking for, and we'll convice the rank-and-file to keep their heads down"

Kevin Carson points out: "In any event, the Wagner regime worked for labor only so long as capital wanted it to work for labor. It was originally intended as one of the "humane" measures like those the kindly dairy farmer provided for his cattle in Tolstoy's parable (the better to milk them, of course).(14) If we're going to be livestock, that sort of thing beats the hell out of the kind of farmer who decides it's more profitable to work us to death and then replace us. But that's all moot now; when the corporate elite decided the "labor accord" had outlived its usefulness, and began exploiting the available loopholes in Wagner (and the full-blown breach in Taft-Hartley), labor began its long retreat."

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
The New Deal/the Wagner Act/etc was a tool by the corporate state to squash a growing revolutionary worker's movement in the bud and we went from trade unions as a form of worker's organizing for demands and recognizing solidarity to "Unions" that became large organization ruled by a power elite as well whose goal was to play a game with the property owners that roughly went - "You pretend to give us what we're asking for, and we'll convice the rank-and-file to keep their heads down"

Kevin Carson points out: "In any event, the Wagner regime worked for labor only so long as capital wanted it to work for labor. It was originally intended as one of the "humane" measures like those the kindly dairy farmer provided for his cattle in Tolstoy's parable (the better to milk them, of course).(14) If we're going to be livestock, that sort of thing beats the hell out of the kind of farmer who decides it's more profitable to work us to death and then replace us. But that's all moot now; when the corporate elite decided the "labor accord" had outlived its usefulness, and began exploiting the available loopholes in Wagner (and the full-blown breach in Taft-Hartley), labor began its long retreat."

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely, and I think Carson's post on the subject was excellent.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you actually believe that you can solve problems with violence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Congratulations, you are the Utopian Bill O'Reilly.

[/ QUOTE ]


Can you explain?

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
There are a few million black men sitting in jail in the states for rejecting the state sponsored poverty they grew up in

[/ QUOTE ] They aren't "rejecting state sponsorship" here; they (well, one or two probably are out of the millions) aren't breaking the law because they are opposed to the type of state programs we are talking about here (although they may be opposed or incarcerated because of the drug war, which is an entirely different manner) or fighting them. Your point is a completely different one than mine, and no violent revolution is forthcoming because of programs that ease the transitional pains or poverty. Who is going to rise up in arms against these programs? The recipients of the program who people whom think (according to you, incorrectly) that they benefit from them and want them? Businesses? Your post has nothing to do with violence in opposition to economic systems.

[ QUOTE ]
France has undergone large protests in recent years to proposed law changes

[/ QUOTE ] Yeah, and the biggest protests in France have been against increased marketization of the type you guys call for and/or lead by organized labor.

Remover too many or the wrong pro-union or safety net type policy in France and most of the country is on strike the next day. Doesn't sound like all of these workers are "voluntarily agreeing" to libertarian capitalism to me.