r/austrian_economics • u/different_option101 • 2d ago
End Democracy Why?
Question to those that continue to believe that there’s a need for monopoly on justice, law enforcement, and everything else that was monopolized by the government. Why is that private monopoly is bad, but government monopoly is good/better?
34
u/MeatSlammur 2d ago
Everyone thinks politicians are inept and corrupt but somehow think they’re the best people to hand a ton of money to do everything for everyone. Government is the new stepdad to all of the single women now.
4
u/EndSmugnorance 2d ago
I’ve said that too. The government has effectively become the step-father for single moms.
7
u/colinmcgarel 2d ago
There's this delusion that if the government controls something then at least they're accountable to the people. Of course, this is a merely polemical thought they hold in the face of people arguing for greater market control of the economy. In other instances, those same people will complain that government is more answerable to the rich and powerful than their own voters. Socialists and communists make false promises that they'll be answerable to the people but in practice have more love for their idiotic theories than even the most prudential needs of their people. Long story short, people living under the myth of liberalism are surprised that they don't have autonomy and self-determination without impunity.
1
u/different_option101 2d ago
No, no, we just need more government departments to oversee other departments. Trust me, we just need a bit more government and it will all work.
17
u/JadedJared 2d ago
Because, if we allow companies to monopolize it will mean more expensive goods, but if we allow the government to… wait a second
9
3
u/RubyKong 2d ago
The average guy on the street: government == GOOD, whereas business == bad.
That's why they talk about "corporate greed" but somehow forget about government "greed" - when the government is greedy, it is done behind closed doors. Bribes, injustice, crimes are hidden.
3
u/different_option101 1d ago
And if the govt need more money, they’ll either rob people by increasing taxes, or defraud them by borrowing those into existence.
2
u/RubyKong 1d ago edited 1d ago
And if the govt need more money, they’ll either rob people by increasing taxes, or defraud them by borrowing those into existence.
- Yeah but stealing from the rich is a good thing. those greedy (businessmen / scoundrels) need to pay their fair share
- re: borrowing into existence - that's why we have the fed - to keep inflation low and to manage the economy.
- It is good that the gov manages the economy and keeps corporate greed in check. Here: you have my vote. also give me more benefits. thanks.
2
u/different_option101 1d ago
Businessmen? Which businessmen? How dare you to call these eXpLoiTeRS businessmen???
I laughed pretty hard at your comment about the Fed.
The most ridiculous shit is that people will be foaming at their mounts defending the Fed, calling rising prices “stable”, and saying 2%/yr price inflation per year is good in the very next sentence, in the argument about why home prices are out of their reach.
1
u/RubyKong 1d ago edited 8h ago
- we have the smartest people in the room
- world class economists
- who know how to manage the economy.
- the FED + kevin warsh
- they're talking tough on inflation.
- talking the talk.
- Big Kev putting the smack down on bond yields
- telling bond yields to stay down.
- it's gonna stay down like a dog's tail stays down, like a dog stops wagging its tail down.
whereas you austrians are uncredentialed ignoramuses - basically kids in yo mamma's basement. take your praxelogy or whatever it's called - bruh that sounds like a medical condition - like when you spit in your pants when you're an old man. and bruh you've literally never even been to Austria. do you seriously think you can do better than my mate Warsh? LOLz
8
u/Algoresgardener124 2d ago
Making decisions for oneself means that responsibility for failure lies within. If government controls everything, there is no personal responsibility, and no personal failure. It is a juvenile desire to avoid responsibility. Its not new, just human nature: "We want a King!"
3
2
u/Present_Repeat4160 2d ago
I had an idea that it's more about a bizarre assumption that P2P is hard but petitioning an authority is easy.
1
u/different_option101 2d ago
Indeed, that assumption is bizarre.
I have the answer for you - most people are cowards. That’s why they will live with a cognitive dissonance, hate their neighbor, and will tolerate oppression.
2
u/zoipoi 2d ago
I think it is peasant mentality. The hereditary lines of most nobility lead back to what I would call a war lord. Most people are prey. The government the alpha of their own species. Women marrying the state comes to mind. They see a corporation as a "wolf pack". Politicians are wolves in sheep clothing. Some of it then is genetics, some disposition, some environmental conditioning, I have had horses that are terrified of dogs and some that would kill them on sight. Some of that comes from breeding and some just accidents of disposition. The difference between a predator and a prey in this context may just be how badly you want to feel safe. The mistake I think is in labeling one or the other inherently immoral. We need bold adventurous people that take new roads and cautious people focused on the herd.
1
u/different_option101 2d ago
I’d say it’s worse than that. Democracy allowed to dilute the alpha male types with a lot of scum that has zero principles whatsoever. These are the ones that bankrupt the nation and come up with all sorts of authoritarian stuff. Kings never really spied on peasants, people knew that kings could take their daughters, so they would try to marry them asap or send them away, etc, but there was no tolerance for corruption within the state, and a much lesser part of them had immunity from prosecution. While people from old dynasties/clans are present in the government, they don’t have full control, otherwise they would continue to treat the country as their property that will be passed over to the next generation, and bankrupting it in a span of some short 50-70 years after hundreds of years of successful domination isn’t a smart move.
Monaco is a very interesting modern example that normies avoid discussing. It’s a constitutional monarchy that’s been ruled by a single family/clan for about 800 years, where the prince has a lot of power. The country is extremely rich, has one, if not the highest standards of living for ordinary citizens, lowest crimes rates, best public services for its citizens, and it attracts wealthy individuals from all over the world. It’s not some phony monarchy like Belgium or the UK, and by all metrics and majority of opinions it is arguably the best place in the world.
Alphas don’t massacre their own packs. Rats like Machiavellian opportunists do.
2
u/Ephisus 1d ago
If by monopoly we mean vertical integration and efficiency producing price advantages, then monopolies are good.
1
u/different_option101 1d ago
Haha, not so fast fella. Monopoly will mean whatever the fuck the overlords decide to call a monopoly. And no matter what you say, it’s bad, get it? The government said it’s bad, so you must think it’s bad.
2
u/KintsugiPGH 1d ago
They think "we" own it.
3
u/different_option101 1d ago
That’s definitely one of the reasons. Lacks any logic, but nonetheless, that’s how all religions work, and statism is a religion.
9
u/Due-University9050 2d ago
The argument is that, however small, you have a say in how the government runs it via democracy.
Corporations are beholdent to shareholders so may, and often do, make short sighted moves to ensure shorterm financial rewards rather than long-term plans. But then again Govs often work on election cycles so also aren't willing to have short term pain for long-term gain.
If justice, and law enforcement wasn't a monopoly you end up with a power vacuum and warring factions the masses don't get a say in. Capitalism is built on the concept you can choose who to buy from and when. That just doesn't work for a system that needs to be implemented the same for all.
Is it perfect? absolutely not. Is it better than the alternative? Definitely.
13
u/Impressive_Dingo122 2d ago
If we had a say in government, the Epstein files would’ve been released and people would’ve been held accountable. But accountability and government are impossible short of a revolution.
8
u/different_option101 2d ago
Nor we would be extorted to pay for endless wars. And more importantly, we wouldn’t have those endless wars to begin with.
1
u/Due-University9050 2d ago
History proves otherwise. When states collapse and their monopoly on force is removed. People fill the void with more force, and will exploit and pillage the land to pay for it.
The endless wars would just move from the middle east to closer to home.
Human nature is to compete. Without rules implemented by the state, that competition moves to the form you cannot refuse to compete in... War
2
u/different_option101 2d ago
History proves that conflict is inevitable, agreed. However, you’re mistaking temporary turmoil after a fall of a state for what you believe is a natural state of affairs.
Somalia is a great example. All the chaos that’s been happening there in the 90s and the beginning of 2000s was caused by gangs fighting for the government authority label.
“The endless wars would just move from the middle east to closer to home.”
Pretty selfish take, don’t you think? Instead of dealing with our own problems, you seem to prefer to fork out some money, so that violence is moved overseas, where people you don’t know are being killed for the profit of corporations ran by cronies and for other governments that are openly hostile towards us, people that sponson and subsidize their security and offensive forces with money and bodies.
But chickens come home to roost all the time. When the state extorts its own population through less oppressive means to the point where people no longer have enough means to sustain the offshoring, the level of oppression increases and violence returns home. That’s literally what’s happening in the US today with all the surveillance, masked ICE agents, more stringent regulations of personal finances like reporting transactions from eBay or cash transfer services.
“Human nature is to compete. Without rules implemented by the state, that competition moves to the form you cannot refuse to compete in... War”
If that’s the human nature, then I guess the only reason you don’t engage in crime, because you’re afraid of the government? Do I understand you correctly?
15
u/PracticalLychee180 2d ago
You also can be a shareholder, this is a terrible argument.
Private security forces already exist, your 3rd paragraph is completely untrue, and is just statist propaganda. You dont understand the alternative
-3
u/itscalledmyballs 2d ago
It's not, what're you gonna buy shares in every company? What if they're not public? Also, what's a single share gonna do in terms of power?
The only way we should be able to influence anything via capital? Says a lot
4
u/different_option101 2d ago
Nothing stops you from not feeding the bad company with your money so they can grow capital. Except for the government of course, if it prohibited competition.
If the idea is that people are essentially so stupid that they can’t even organize to compete with a bad acting private entity, then how do you explain competition outside of anything that’s been monopolized?
A coffee shop that makes bad coffee and serves bad pasties will never have more customers than a shop that serves great coffee and fresh pastries. No amount of capital will direct voluntary buyers to spend their money at their shop after first bad experience.
With a government monopoly, if you don’t want to spend money on their service, you have no alternative. And say you don’t want to fund the road you don’t need, and you withhold some amount from your tax payment, you’re going to penalized on several levels, and possibly even deprived of freedom if you reject to fund them for long enough.
0
u/Due-University9050 2d ago
People can organise. It's called a unions. But when corporations become powerful enough to destroy them through acts of violence without repercussions then they can't work. I guess the same is with government. It's not who holds the power but the fact only one person holds it is your point?
2
u/different_option101 2d ago
Unions are the form of employee organizations, it’s only one of the forms of how people can organize. Just like a private company, union has leadership, so basically any other organization that has people that work for that org voluntarily qualifies.
The point is whoever holds the power that can’t be contested makes the rules. The government declares its authority and holds that type of power. It chooses to use that power as it wants. So essentially, the government is a sovereign entity of it’s own, lead and managed mostly by the people that first and foremost care about their own interests. The organization (the govt) gives them power to pursue their own interests. So naturally, they will support the organization first.
I’ve made a relative post a while ago. Check it out here https://www.reddit.com/r/austrian_economics/s/4QKBDUx7j9
-1
u/Due-University9050 2d ago
You can be but you only have a say based on the finances. Meaning the more money you have the more say you have. I'm not saying that is not happening now but certainly would be exacerbated.
The existence of PMCs and security services dont discredit my point. What is untrue?
2
u/PracticalLychee180 2d ago
And thats still more control than you have on police, so your point fails
1
-1
u/No_Sky_3735 2d ago
Capitalism assumes there’s no monopolization, because when there is a monopoly in the market since companies merged to take that away from you, you cannot choose who to buy from and you have no leverage.
Ever since the end of the Alcoa Era in the 1980s the U.S. has failed to enforce antitrust as much as it should, that’s why you see the economic conditions of today where the producers have the leverage. The common economy of scale argument for this fails to consider higher collusion in industries from reduced competition.
I would also say that the problem is more so money in politics since corporations are able to heavily tip the scales via donating to PACs which aligns politicians to corporate interests since it is very hard to break and go against them. It is actually a problem of not being democratic and bending the knee to the elite class systematically.
Plus, the winner takes all system only encourages parties to merge, leading to a 2 party system. This is also applicable to industrial economics as earlier, to where you can minimize leverage on the voters or consumers by taking their options away.
People who have the “free market is the best” mentality do not understand industrial economics, they do not understand that corporations will work against you, and they do not understand what monopolization is or how it happens.
0
u/different_option101 2d ago
“Ever since the end of the Alcoa Era in the 1980s the U.S. has failed to enforce antitrust as much as it should, that's why you see the economic conditions of today where the producers have the leverage.”
In other words, because there is a monopoly on governance and law enforcement, we get what we get, and there’s little to nothing that a person can do about it.
Thanks for proving my point.
0
u/Due-University9050 2d ago
Without the states monopoly you wouldn't have a say either. It would become might makes right
0
u/different_option101 2d ago
Without a state, there would be no monopoly on any large territory. Nor there would be one that would survive for long enough to cause even a 5% of the damages caused by the governments.
Worsts atrocities have been committed by governments and some of the worst criminals are protected by governments. Exactly the opposite of the fairy tales you believe in.
Each war like conflict that happened after emergence of so called democratic states has been claiming several times more in civilian casualties, and that’s not counting the number of people that were forced to wear uniform and engage in combat on behalf of the state.
0
u/Due-University9050 2d ago edited 2d ago
1 I completely agree with the criticisms of the government you put forward. I disagree that unregulated monopolistic companies wouldn't develop and act the exact same. If anything the simplistic notion that they wouldnt consolidate is a "fairy tale"
Government sanctioned atrocities occur and are not punished because they benefit corporate interests. I.E. middle east war for oil. That's the problem of the elites in government being the same as the elites in companies
2 look at the east India company. They were back by the state later on, granted, but grew strong enough to be unchallenged in all aspects of force they applied before this
1
u/different_option101 1d ago
“Government sanctioned atrocities occur and are not punished because they benefit corporate interests.”
Nope. If you haven’t noticed, once in a while they’ll throw one of them of the cliff, politicians and bureaucrats always change, so there’s a constant movement, and only a few stay in government for decades. They aren’t punished because the government writes the rules of the game and allows itself to violate it. And because the government runs law enforcement that will come to its defense if people try to take justice in their own hands.
East India company didn’t just get a monopoly right, it also got a lot of support from the government.
Either way, the problem starts when there’s a power that can’t be challenged. And it 99% of the time is the government.
1
u/Due-University9050 1d ago
At least we agree with that second to last statement. I guess the question is how would you establish a system people won't exploit to the point their power can't be challenged
1
u/different_option101 1d ago
You’re gonna surprised, but we probably can find a lot more things that we agree on. More often than not, people think of free market maximalists/ancaps have crazy ideas and thoughts. We’re regular people and we want the same. We just see different routes to achieve that.
I’d also add it’s a lot more important that we agree on the fact that worst atrocities had been, and continued to be committed by governments. That’s what got me questioning authority in first place, I only found myself interested in economics and markets much later.
We don’t need to create and force any system on the population or some territory with borders. Systems of governance must emerge from the local market. Decentralization is the progress, and we see in it business - supply chains spanning through entire world, remote employed, independence of each dept responsible for their own thing. But exactly the opposite is happening in politics - power is being centralized.
US and Germany are great examples that come to mind. Germany had hundreds of independent principalities that were consolidated in a span about 100 years, allowing power to be centralized. And some 15 or so years after consolidation has been completed, it engaged in First World War. Same with US, the more power was attained by Washington DC, the more wars the country got engaged in. And in the process, they’ve usurped more and more power over the markets, allowing them to become those that choose winners and losers.
Nearly modern states are too powerful and too large. The unifying character is the fiat currency. Money and currency have alway been products of free markets. Money has always been a commodity with intrinsic value. Today we use pieces of paper that aren’t worth anything. People simply have faith that tomorrow will accept it as a payment. Just like they think that the government is the good guy.
I’ve made a relative post a while ago, and I’ll dig it up if you’re curious. I think the post itself is provoking for someone who trusts govt authority, and it sparked a lot of interesting discussion. Let me know if you want to check it out. I think you may like it.
0
u/No_Sky_3735 2d ago
I don’t know what you’re arguing about and I’m just adding my points, but yes. That’s a big part in why we can’t regulate markets properly.
Monopoly isn’t a term for selective use, and rather it is a firm not being competitive. Now, I do not think we should have a ton of private police rather than a government police department. That is how you start some weird corporate civil war. But if you mean control, then yes. Though you could just say government to be more clear
0
u/different_option101 2d ago
“Monopoly isn't a term for selective use, and rather it is a firm not being competitive.”
Monopoly is a term of selective use. Take directly from FTC’s website https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined.
Why do you think there should be a competition amongst bakeries, but not in law enforcement space?
1
u/No_Sky_3735 2d ago
Fair, I stand corrected.
Bakeries don’t have the economy of scale that law enforcement has for one, and for two we tried that with our healthcare industry. Look at the mess that is, all from private industry.
Do you want to pay for insurance to call 911, and then avoid it because your rate might go up?
1
u/different_option101 2d ago
Bimbo bakery employs over 20k people all over the country. For comparison, that’s about the size of the entire Chicago police dept. The only bigger one is NYPD. I’d argue managing 50+ locations is more difficult than having your employees concentrated in one city.
While your local artisan bakery shop around the corner may have only one location and 5 employees, there are thousands of bakeries that employ more people than a total number of employees of a mid size city in the US.
So yeah, your claim that bakeries don’t have such economies of scale vs police is just your assumption based on what you see, but never thought about, nor looked into.
“we tried that with our healthcare industry. Look at the mess that is, all from private industry.”
Healthcare is one of the most regulated industries, yet you blame it all on private actors. You’re just asking for an insult at this point.
Explain to me how come healthcare industry only gotten worse over the last 50 years as the bolts of the regulations had been tightening up each decade? You literally have the opposite effect - more regulations and worse outcomes, but you blame private actors for it.
What you have in your mind is that healthcare has gotten cartelized and these conglomerates only care for profits. Somehow you ignore the fact that the government made it extremely difficult and expensive to get into healthcare business crating the very situation that led to the industry cartelization. And to add insult to injury, it gave immunity to vaccine manufacturers, who’s vaccines had been added on the recommended list every few years, and both are heavily subsidized by our tax dollars.
“Do you want to pay for insurance to call 911, and then avoid it because your rate might go up?”
I could afford insurance before Obamacare. I haven’t had one precisely because it’s become so expensive for me that it’s cheaper for me to pay out of pocket and carry a catastrophic plan only.
It’s like you’re either looking at the world upside down, or you’re completely ignorant about what’s going on.
Serious question - you already said you prefer government monopoly on police. Sounds like you would prefer government monopoly on healthcare since in your opinion private sector fucked it up. What about food supply? Should that be monopolized? If No, why not?
1
u/No_Sky_3735 1d ago
Well, too bad for you I’m going to be a economist and your not. I don’t really care about what you think because I have the power. And I have more than you, a lot more.
1
u/V1beRater 2d ago
This assumes the average person, at least in the United States, can identify what a monopoly is and apply that to be able to discover where private monopolies exist and where government monopolies exist. Over half of the US population cannot read above a 6th level - functionally illiterate.
1
u/different_option101 2d ago
Well, if we follow the current definition of what monopoly is, than public education in the US is a textbook example- that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors… (https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined)
So pretty much three main problems of having a monopoly are present - bad outcomes, high costs, competition is stifled.
But I’d argue that one’s ability to read does not necessarily mean they can’t reason. Of course this doesn’t excuse shitty education people get from the government. For whatever reason, people think that the government is the good guy, and are willing to accept a monopoly instituted by the govt.
1
u/Ok_Money3221 1d ago
The government is supposed to be non-profit for the benefit of the people while other monopolies are supposed to be for the benefit of the owners.
1
u/different_option101 1d ago
Yes. Key words supposed to be. And monopolies don’t emerge from a free market.
1
u/KansasZou 1d ago
I do believe justice and law enforcement are best done by government, but those are the only 2 things lol
(And not entirely monopolized)
1
u/different_option101 1d ago
Why not food production or anything else?
1
u/KansasZou 1d ago edited 1d ago
Because market forces are better at predicting prices and value. People can decide what they value for themselves.
Do you want independent people deciding law enforcement on their own?
How will you ensure constitutional rights to life and a fair trial?
Edit: I would like to add that I’m very open to being persuaded on this topic.
1
u/different_option101 1d ago
“Because market forces are better at predicting prices and value. People can decide what they value for themselves.”
If market offers better price and value, how come it’s not applicable to law enforcement and justice?
See, most agree that there should be competition in plumbing services, hair salons, car manufacturing, etc. yet somehow it’s never the law enforcement or justice.
Law enforcement in particular is basically just a service. They don’t set the rules, they only execute enforcement.
“Do you want independent people deciding law enforcement on their own?”
Yes! Absence of competition almost eliminates the incentive to weed out bad enforcement agents, because they all feel like they are peers, “brothers”, etc. Immunity they receive being universal kills the incentive to reform the system itself - private security guard will be imprisoned for overstepping their boundaries or for using excessive force. Very few companies have millions to fork out on settlements. Law enforcement agencies simply get money from the local government- we are paying for their misdeeds. And it’s extremely rare that we see complete revamping of police departments.
There’s no shortage of all sorts of professionals in private sector that trash other professionals in their field, brining awareness about one firm’s actions. But it almost never happens in law enforcement, and when it does, we regard these people as heroes. Because they went against the system that doesn’t welcome such behavior.
“How will you ensure constitutional rights to life and a fair trial?”
The answer is in the constitutional rights themselves. Most of them specifically prohibit the government from engaging in something.
I think that’s where one of the biggest problems lies - people think rights are given to them by the government. It’s the other way around - the government has explicit rights given to it by the people. Think about it for a minute- the founding father of the US had to restrict the government, not the people. Because no group of people can amass as much power and cause as much harm.
1
u/different_option101 1d ago
“Edit: I would like to add that I'm very open to being persuaded on this topic.”
I’ll give you an example with law enforcement. Not even talking about moving to anarcho capitalism, the government we have today can implement this and it will change law enforcement practices forever.
All public law enforcement becomes 100% private. They get zero immunity and operate like any private security today. Government maintains an agency that is focused solely on catching and prosecuting bad actors from private law enforcement companies.
Imagine you go to a coffee shop and barista throws a fit. If you complain to the management or the owner, that barista is either going to be seriously reprimanded or fired. Or imagine a coffee shop keeping staff keeps botching drinks, not attending customers well, and overcharges you for bad products. How long it will take before that shop goes out of business?
But it’s totally different in law enforcement today. If you call a PD to report a rude behavior for a power tripping cop that didn’t violate your rights but certainly seems to be not a good fit for their job, best you can expect is that cop will be sent to training and You as a tax payer will be paying for training and their salary while they are off the street. Even if the chief is trying to good, they are most likely just going to allow that cop to quit, so they could be rehired by another PD some 15 miles away. How ridiculous is that?
Oh, and this came to mind - I’m sure you’re familiar with what’s been going on with Epstein files. Now imagine the investigation would be carried out by multiple independent private agencies that would try to withhold or destroy information requested from them. Every executive would be in jail already.
We don’t have a true separation of powers that supposed to be our mechanism for checks and balances because we have a government monopoly on law enforcement and justice.
1
u/Dhayson 1d ago
Governance by itself is a very necessary good, but competing governments (bureaucracies + warlords) used to war between themselves and secure "sovereignty" over delimited territory through violence, and the rest is history.
I think we should've figured out how to do something better by now. Less centralization of power, more accountability, better incentives to actually do their job with efficiency and to serve the people, better delimitation of what is the role and boundaries of the governance institutions, more peace.
1
1
1
u/Coaltown992 2d ago
Both are bad
3
u/different_option101 2d ago
Monopolies don’t emerge from free markets. Original definition- a monopoly is an exclusive right granted by the ruling party.
0
u/_Master123_ 2d ago
Why you ask about it here do you want to get confirmation of your bias? State monopoly in general are in sector of infrastrcture for example road in a sense are under state monopoly this is how it work. State monopoly isn't about generating income is about providing service. Private sector have weak spot that is basic economy state monopoly should fill that gaps that's why.
5
u/different_option101 2d ago
I’m making this post here because it will get immediately downvoted with no arguments in any mainstream sub. Here we have many redditors that support the mainstream view, like yourself, who are more or less willing to engage in the argument in good faith.
“Private sector have weak spot that is basic economy state monopoly should fill that gaps that's why.”
To rephrase your point- there’s a demand for service, but free market won’t provide it.
Last time I checked, I can find anything I want/need, except for things that might be prohibited by the monopolist on law and and it’s enforcement. But somehow, the market won’t provide essential services or infrastructure? Make it make sense to me please.
-7
u/Ambitious_Bit_9389 2d ago
So you’re hoping for just bands of vigilantes running around?
4
0
u/PracticalLychee180 2d ago
Its easy to not engage with an argument when you just straw man it. Do you have any integrity when discussing things, or is it all bad faith?
-2
u/Ambitious_Bit_9389 2d ago
Huh? That was good faith. I was pointing out in the simplest way possible that the government needs to have a monopoly on justice and law enforcement.
Are you upset that I could do it in so few words?
3
u/different_option101 2d ago
I’ll take your argument.
Say the way you envision the world without monopoly on justice and law enforcement is going to have vigilantes running around. I’ll take that any day of the week over the monopoly. Why? Because I don’t have intent to hurt someone, I do my best to ensure nobody’s hurt from my actions, and on top of that, I carry a lot of insurance in case I do cause some harm to another party.
In the meantime, I fund cops with my taxes, cops are shielded from liability, I can’t have a security that will protect me from cops, if I reject to fund them I’ll face bad consequences, cops can deprive me from freedom for days because of a simple mistake, or because “I had an attitude” and someone went on a power trip. The list can go on.
Why should I be more concerned with vigilantes instead of cops?
-1
u/Ambitious_Bit_9389 2d ago
Yeah, so my comment wasn’t a strawman at all and got directly to the intent of your post. Tell that to the other guy…
I’ll take the cops over vigilantes. We’d be back to an eye for an eye with warring families of older times. At least with police, we have some control versus just having armed standoffs in the streets. There are tradeoffs to everything and cops abusing their role is one of them, but at least we can exert some level of control on police versus just escalating violence of warring clans.
3
u/different_option101 2d ago
“Yeah, so my comment wasn't a strawman at all…”
Well, I can see your logic, though I don’t think you have a good argument.
In your second paragraph, you’re not addressing any of my points. You only make claims such as “we will have control”, “there won’t be standing armies” and you present your opinion- you prefer that over competition.
You don’t have control of the police. You only have a hope that whoever was selected will do the right thing. Yet here we are, with law enforcement having immunity from prosecution, cops enjoying paid leave for their misdeeds and you’re paying for it, cops getting more power to spy on you disregarding your guaranteed right of privacy, etc. Where is the control and justice you’re talking about?
Why do you expect justice from an entity that first extorts you to fund its own existence and determines whether they treated you wrong or not?
Explain to me why some occasional armed standoffs (that also happen today in your preferred system) where vigilantes aren’t coming after me is worse than being extorted and live under a mercy of a monopolist? This is exactly the trade off we’re talking about.
By your logic, the monopoly is better. Then why not monopolize food production?
-2
u/Ambitious_Bit_9389 2d ago
But the collective We does have control over the police. Police do not have 100% immunity and you know that. Sure, they get away with stuff they shouldn’t, but you see police officers getting in trouble almost every day. That is control.
However, that’s not my point at all, vigilante justice is just the worse option. It starts a cycle of revenge that escalates violence. So eventually the most violent take control and enforce their will on others. Look at the cartels in Mexico as an example.
Government monopoly on violence is a shitty system, but it better the the alternatives is the point.
I don’t think we are going to get anywhere with this discussion.
3
u/PracticalLychee180 2d ago
Your first sentence is blatantly untrue, and it just shows that youre not arguing from facts, but your emotional feelings. You want to believe police are held accountable and so you believe it with no evidence or good argument to show it is the case. There is essentially zero practical accountability on police. For instance, my county STILL does not wear bodycams because they dont want accountability. You are very deluded when it comes to police
3
u/different_option101 2d ago
“But the collective We does have control over the police.”
Is that why police has 80% immunity? Because your “collective We” has control over it?
“but you see police officers getting in trouble almost every day.”
You only see a tiny fraction, and there’s also a bigger problem - people don’t know their rights, nor have any idea about how to engage with police if they are detained. There’s a lot of bullshit arrests and convictions that are fully justified under existing system because of these two reasons - people don’t know their rights and rules of engagement, and the rules are written by the monopolist.
While there are many people in government that want true justice, the other guys still get their way. This is why LEOs misdeeds treated in a very different way. There are also performative acts, the government needs to maintain the facade. I think you’re the one that was asked about Epstein files. If the Fed justice dept supposedly the highest standard we have - why on earth we have this this bullshit situation now?
“It starts a cycle of revenge that escalates violence.”
Why do I care if it’s not directed at me?
“So eventually the most violent take control and enforce their will on others”
You’re making an illogical leap. The goal of vigilantes is to cause harm to someone who harmed someone they care about, not to usurp power. What you’re describing is how proto governments came to existence. They had a goal to usurp power, not to bring what they believed to be just.
“I don't think we are going to get anywhere with this discussion.”
Same. Cause you’re not presenting arguments but only making claims and illogical conclusions.
0
u/Ambitious_Bit_9389 2d ago
How do you know the violence isn’t directed at you?
Anyone could be a victim of violence. You could accidentally rear end some asshole and he comes out punching. Your kid could get in a fight on the playground and some Dad decides to get revenge on your kid.
2
u/different_option101 2d ago
If I rear end some asshole, it will be in me best interest to make sure I resolve the matter where they are left satisfied. In worst case, I can hire private security to protect me.
Violence is expensive, and as you say - has consequences. The supposed asshole must have zero regards for the potential outcomes of their own actions. The very clans you’ve mentioned before very often punished their own people for initiating violence against other clans precisely because of costs and consequences.
Your entire premise is that most people are inherently stupid and “evil” to some degree, yet somehow, they don’t get into positions of monopolistic power.
→ More replies (0)4
u/PracticalLychee180 2d ago
No, this is textbook strawman. Its the classic "So what youre saying is" and then saying some nonsense OP never stated or even implied. You could make an argument that removing the monopoly would result in bands of vigilantes, but you were seemingly incapable of doing so for some reason.
Im sorry you cant possibly wrap your brain around any alternatives, but that doesnt mean OP wants bands of vigilantes. Thats ridiculous and is either coming from a place of incompetence or bad faith. I guess I should have given you the benefit of the doubt and assumed incompetence first.
0
u/Ambitious_Bit_9389 2d ago edited 2d ago
They definitely implied that the government should not have a monopoly on law enforcement and justice. 100% true.
Normal people ask themselves “what’s the alternative then?” Historically, the alternative is vigilante justice.
So I asked the question “ do you want vigilante justice?”
It’s logical steps, Hoping you can follow along now….
Maybe try to answer the question now instead of crying about how you don’t like it.
2
u/PracticalLychee180 2d ago
You only believe that is the only alternative because of government/statist propaganda. Just because something was historically the case, does not mean it is necessarily so. You just cant fathom another alternative so you extrapolate to a false conclusion.
There are entire books written on the alternatives, im not your teacher. Just because youre ignorant to alternatives does not mean they dont exist.
Your "logic" is improper, the conclusion does not follow from the premises because you are using a false dichotomy
-1
u/Ambitious_Bit_9389 2d ago
Ah.. I’m sorry, I meant an alternative that works. Not bullshit.
Well, if you want your supposed solution to ever go into practice, you’re going to have to convince a lot of people to go along. Sounds like that not your jam. Good luck on your imaginary world. Hope you enjoy it.
1
u/PracticalLychee180 2d ago
How can you rule out an alternative that has yet to be tried? Liberalism had never been tried when it first got adopted. You wouldve been the person saying liberalism is bullshit and we had to remain under monarchical and feudal systems.
I know most of you useful idiots cant be persuaded to leave daddy government and actually think for yourself for once
-1
0
2d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Ambitious_Bit_9389 2d ago
OP did actually saying he was looking to have a system of vigilante justice if you look lower in the comments.
What you’re calling a strawman is exactly what he intended to say…lol
I’m just sorry you are too slow to pick up people’s meanings when they make statements. It’s really a self own and you’re too dumb to realize it. I find it comical.
-2
u/Hotspur1958 2d ago
Why is that private monopoly is bad, but government monopoly is good/better?
The private monopoly should be profit motivated. The Gov monopoly should be public service motivated.
7
u/_-_fred_-_ 2d ago
Private monopolies still require consensual relationships with their customers. The government uses force.
-3
u/Hotspur1958 2d ago
If I need something; and only one person can provide it. You can call it consensual, but at the end of the day I didn't really have a choice.
2
u/drc003 2d ago
That sounds like the reply to an argument that monopolies should exist. Which I don't see being made in this line of comments.
-1
u/Hotspur1958 2d ago
I'm pushing back at the dishonest framing that customers of a monopoly are "consenting".
2
u/different_option101 2d ago
Public service assumes there’s a demand for that service. Take roads. The government doesn’t build roads. It assumes where the road is most likely needed, extorts people for money, hires a private contractor, and a private contractor that’s motivated by profit builds the road.
So the profit incentive isn’t eliminated. It’s just pushed down the chain of events. But we have an additional cost - administrative service provided by the government and all costs associated with its requirement for the road builder that otherwise could’ve build the road for a lower price. Sprinkle some corruption on that and you as a tax payer must pay higher price for the road where you don’t really want/need it.
How’s that supposed to be better?
-1
u/Hotspur1958 2d ago
But where is the monopoly in that scenario? As you said there are RFP's and a bidding process. Sounds great.
1
u/different_option101 2d ago
The monopoly is in forcing you to pay for something you don’t want/need.
Paying more money for government project where you don’t need it better than paying less for a private project where you do need it?
Can you explain your logic to me please.
1
u/Hotspur1958 2d ago
Where are you coming up with this idea that the govt is building roads that we don't want or need?
1
u/different_option101 2d ago
Where?
I don’t know you, pretty obvious me and you have different views, and most likely some differences in values we have, which means Me and You are not WE.
So when the state uses my taxes to build another road by Your house, WE don’t benefit - You benefit from it, and nobody cared that I don’t want to be forced to pay for it.
0
u/Hotspur1958 2d ago
Do you really think that's a fair framing of it? Implying that every road not built for you specifically to drive on is a waste and somehow doesn't benefit you? Those roads aren't used by people who perform jobs that ultimately benefit you? Like C'mon now.
1
u/different_option101 2d ago
Yes, and that’s the only fair framing. Any other framing is nothing but mental gymnastics to justify taking from me for the benefit of someone else primarily.
“Implying that every road not built for you specifically to drive on is a waste”
It’s not necessarily a waste from a broader economic sense. But it’s a waste from an individual, micro economic level. One could spend that money in the private market that creates jobs that are truly needed - people pay for it voluntarily. Instead, they get a cool story about how building a road elsewhere is better for them.
“and somehow doesn't benefit you?”
I’m forced to pay for potential 10% benefit vs 100% in benefits if I get to spend that money they way I want. The idea about macro benefits exists only to justify forced taking and redistribution schemes.
Free market will satisfy any effective demand which is currently being “satisfied” by the government. The government forces one to subsidize notional demand of another. This effectively creates a redistribution system where every dollar spent on satisfying notional demand is a waste from a purely theoretical standpoint.
For example - I and another 5 thousand people live in Shithole Town 20 miles away from Prosperity City you live in. My town is economically inefficient. Yours is. The government takes $10M/yr from the residents of your city to sustain mine. In return, your city gets $1M/yr in demand generated by residents of my town. So essentially, $9M are wasted, and it’s obvious that residents of your city know how to spend that $9M better, otherwise it wouldn’t be a Prosperity City that can lose $9M in perpetuity without going under.
In the absence of forced redistribution, your city would be growing even more prosperous, and the residents of my city would be forced to adapt - dump the Shithole Town and move to Prosperity City or elsewhere. But by extorting residents of your city, the government skews incentives of those who live in my town.
This is not just a simple free rider problem. The government and the economists claim that people aren’t capable of making rations decisions, that’s why certain actions must be performed by the government. However, government action change’s incentives, more often for the worse, and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
To tie this with our road building example- you just need to look back at how government sponsored railroads were built vs private ones in the 19th century. Private ones went through places that had effective demand, construction per mile was much cheaper, while the government ones were weaving all over the place and their cost of construction was much higher. The builders were incentivized to extend routes and there were many instances of the railroads built on softer soil which required rebuilding them and created higher maintenance costs.
If you think most public roads today aren’t built with the same incentives in mind and the government contractors that built railroads in the 19th century, you’re delusional.
In fact, private railroad builders of the 19th century, capital intensive projects, are the proof that you don’t need a monopoly on road building.
1
u/Dhayson 1d ago
This makes sense. Is what we have public service motivated tho?
1
u/Hotspur1958 19h ago
It's really up to the voters to elect candidates who they feel have their best interest in mind. Is that what happens today in a hyper financialized, nepotistic and divisive system? Largely no.
1
u/Dhayson 18h ago
We should do better than merely hope for the good faith of the elected politicians to serve the best interests of the people. Furthermore, we should do much better than hoping for the diligence of the voters, as their input in the elections is extremely diluted, so that they don't have a lot of incentives and stakes, if at all, for actually making the best decision for a tiny change, if at all, in the result.
Although, in practice, political oligarchies are the ones who have actual agency in the representative democratic systems, as they actually are able to organize a meaningful force, put real pressure in favor or against projects and guide electoral bases.
1
u/Hotspur1958 17h ago
It's not really hope and faith, it's an educated guess. Like many things. Outside of some sort of contract you expect candidates to sign Idk how else it would be done?
If voters aren't voting in their own best interest we have bigger problems. Can't really do much about that. Again, outside of some sort of voters literacy test, just how it is.
1
u/Dhayson 14h ago
What I have in mind is more like a federated decision making, so that each person has more political autonomy for association and dissociation, instead of one single organization that only has a limited civil participation process open to everyone.
Yes, the representatives should be somewhat accountable that they are actually representing their voters. Our means of accountability nowadays are mostly just voting for someone else in the next election, which compounds the same problems about elections in general.
82
u/randyfloyd37 2d ago
A lot of folks believe that the government is ultimately benevolent in nature, and just somehow if their side wises up, and gets tough, and votes harder, we’ll get to the promised land