Topic: Criticisms? - page 10. (Read 11937 times)

You could start your own, but many times that's not a option (lacking the time/skills/capital to do so.) But that doesn't really help the situation. You won't put the bad bussinesses out of business because of the reasons I outlined before.

But this does bring up another point; the free market presumes that there are enough people to do a job or run a certain venture, and when there aren't enough people to provide a certain service, it becomes scarce and the price will go up, drawing more people to the oppertunity and solving that problem. But what is that's not the case? What if there are not enough people willing to provide a service that is needed, and there are simply not enough people to do the kinds of jobs needed? The price will certainly go up, but it won't ever come down and that means a service becomes unavailable to many people. Depending on what the service is, that's anywhere from not really a problem (luxury goods) to clearly unacceptable when it's a service like running a daycare, medical care, running a retirement home, when this is only available to the (super)rich.

This is a good point. Some people might get screwed, and not have a better market option locally. Of course, there are other options. If the only retirement home (school/daycare/etc) local to you is horrible, you could always start your own. Or advertise for someone to do so. If you've gotten screwed by someone, take them to arbitration.

One of the many reasons we need a government is to fill in the gaps where "the free market" or market-forces are either not working, or produce unwanted results. The reason for the unwanted results is that there are many areas of life where we don't act rationally, or have something (or emotion) at stake to outweigh what you might call a rational market decision.

A free market works great when there are many options available (of a service or a good) and all options are competing. What is also nessecary is that you are free to take your bussiness eslewhere when the product you want is not to you liking. It's also required that you are well informed to actually make a sound decision. this works well with buying goods online; the competing products are just as many clicks away as the one you are dissatisfied with, and abundant information about competitive options are at your fingertips in a convienient format.

Imagine you are old and unable to properly take care of yourself. You do have a great and loving family in the town you're living at but they are unable to provide all the care you need since they are hardworking people and have lives of their own. You arrange that you'll be admitted to a retirement home. This is a commercially run bussiness, and it turns out it's a shitty one, they charge and extortionate rate and the board of directors are awarding themselves massive bonusses. According to "the free market" this retirement-home would go out of bussiness since you could get a much better service for your money someplace else. Turns out, it doesn't. Why? Well even if you as an elderly gentleman (maybe even in the first stages of dementia ..) would find out which place would get you the best value for money i'm sure you wouldn't even concider moving to the other side of the country since everyone you know lives nearby, and those are the last people you have left.

The point is that there are many instances where letting the free market take over is not the right solution. Infact in some cases that would lead to an awefull state of affairs, but in most cases it will lead to having the worst parts of a free market without any of the benefits of that free market since people for whatever reason need a certain product of service anyway.

Further examples are hospitals, dentists, children's daycare centers, pleces that care for the (mentally) handicapped, and primary schools. (You would not move little Timmy for the third time this year, making him lose al his friends again, and driving 150 miles every day to get him to a school)

Many times is better to let those evil govenments raise their evil taxes and make life better for everyone by removing the market incentive and simply demanding every school/daycarecentre/retirement-home/hospital to maintain a certain standard at a certain price.

No, when people go to a government to adjudicate, that's called court. It comes from back when people used to go to kings to judge their cases. They held "court".

When you go to a private agency to adjudicate, it's called either arbitration, or mediation, depending on whether it is contractually binding.

Because when people go to a person to adjudicate, its called going to court.  That's the language.  Unless you mean that there is no enforcement in which case, there are no property rights at all.

Again you insist on that word, "court"... why are you stuck on that?

If they don't agree, the court will enforce a judgement.  That's what a court is for.

And this is where you are wrong.

Disagreements are not settled by force in arbitration. They are settled by both parties coming to an agreement.

Well we are making progress aren't we.  We are agreed that the market means there will only be 1 system of law and the one system will be the one that can enforce its judgements.  The others fail as there is no place in the market for a court system that can't enforce its judgements.

One lawmaker wins on a last man standing basis. 

Enforcement requires violence so the winner is the one that has the most fire-power.  And that is your new government.

Its not an attractive prospect is it?

You are the one saying that enforcement = firepower, not me.

Ignore the source of the fire-power.  Any court system has to be able to enforce its judgements to survive in a market.  You have agreed that you eventually you will end up with one.  That one is not the "fairest" its the one with the most fire-power.

How is "most fire-power" a good way to decide what the law should be?

You make a good point, but your assumptions are flawed. To be honest, I'm having trouble coming up with a way to explain just how flawed, simply because we're coming from such completely different directions.

OK. I imagine that such an action would be viewed (rightly) as an invasion by the supporting country, or a takeover attempt by the rich individual. That "court system" would be wiped off the map, just as any other invading force would be.

Lets stay to one point at a time.

No matter how many sets of laws you start with, you end up with just one set.  And its not selected by fairness; its selected by its ability to be enforced.  So if an ambitious country or a rich individual supplies one of the court systems with attack helicopters and tanks, the other court systems all fail and the law of the land is whatever that 1 court system with the backing of a foreign state happens to say it is.

How is that a good thing?

One set of laws, but not one court. The one set of laws does have an advantage in fairness, because it is the one that the market has chosen, the one that benefits both sides of each dispute the most.

So you are agreed that we end up with 1 set of laws and 1 court system in a market court system.  And that that 1 set of laws doesn't have any particular advantage or fairness.  Its the one that has the firepower to enforce its judgements.

Thats your ideal? 

You're sooooo close. Now, you just have to realize that what you describe is not how courts become monopolies, but how laws would be normalized in a market court system.

So, we are agreed.  We started with 3 courts systems, and 1 has gone.  The one did not go for any ethical reason.  It ceased to exist because it could not enforce its judgements.  There is no market for a court that charges for judgements that it can't enforce.

Now I'm sure you agree the same logic applies to the Islamic vs the Episcopalian court.  Either they enforce their judgements or they cease to exist.  So having started with 3 we end up with just 1 court system.

In truth, you can start with 1000.  The nature of the market is that only 1 court will be left because each time there is a conflict, one of the courts will fail to enforce its judgement and it will cease to have a place in the market.

Agreed?

No arguments here... Which is why I don't think that a primogeniture-supporting court would last long. But it's your scenario, I was just working within the bounds of that. If he wants a sure shot at getting ANY of his deceased father's property, though, he's going to have to compromise.

What you are doing is pretending your market would not work.  If the oldest son goes to a court that supports primogeniture, then he is paying for that court to enforce his legal right to the entire estate.  If it can't do that, that court cannot exist; it has no place in the market.  It either enforces its own judgements or it ceases to exist.

Your notion that having taken his money for primogeniture, it can then deliver anything else is at best fraudulent.  The oldest son loses his inheritance and the legal fees.

I'm not sure how you got here... The reason I said "Part of something is better than all of nothing." is that each person has a chance to lose everything, if they fight over it... and, in your scenario, that is assured for two of the kids. In my scenario, all participants have a right to the property... they're just working out the split.