In the Free Market, many claim that their wouldn't be enough schools or roads. Refute this Statement.
They get transported on roads, railways, by sea, and through air.
Who made the bread for the Lada factory workers in the USSR? The "invisible hand" magically produced bread and Ladas for the people to enjoy? The fact that something is currently produced by/in a "chained" market is somehow proof that the invisible hand of the free market would be inferior in doing the same? Based on what logic or history?
Anyway, I fail to see how any of this proves that there are (or would be) "enough" roads, schools, bread, lollipops, and pink Ferraris -- free or chained markets notwithstanding. What's "enough", and according to whom? There're sure not enough pink Ferraris for me, and I have a feeling the situation wasn't much better in the USSR, either.
John James as the statist:
z1235:They get transported on roads, railways, by sea, and through air.
"Oh you mean the roads and railways created and managed by government? Bingo. Which leads back to my initial question."
Show me proof that it wouldn't be. If the free market was so capable of doing all this stuff why did it need government to make it actually happen?
Anyway, I fail to see how any of this proves that there are (or would be) "enough" roads, schools, bread, lollipops, and pink Ferraris -- free or chained markets notwithstanding. What's "enough", and according to whom?
Are you actually trying to straw man my argument? I already told you what "enough" is. And all you've done is run around in a circle. I asked how would this "free market" of yours would provide schools and roads, and you answered my question with a question: "how does it provide lollipops?" So I played your game and answered with a question right back: how are those ingredients (and finished products) transported to where they need to go? And your answer was "roads".
So we're right back where we started. Want to try again?
John James as the statist: If the free market was so capable of doing all this stuff why did it need government to make it actually happen?
If the free market was so capable of doing all this stuff why did it need government to make it actually happen?
Who says that the free market needed anything from government to make something happen? Did you ask it?
Say I clubbed you on the head, dragged you into a dungeon, and kept you chained as entertainment for my dogs while feeding you dinner for the rest of your life. Then some smartass comes up to you and asks: "If you are so capable of feeding yourself why did you need my buddy over here to club you over the head and keep you chained into a dungeon to make it actually happen? Prove to me that you are not going to die of hunger if you were to be set free."
So then answer my initial question.
[Are you seeing the circular nature that your argumentation method leads to? You're not getting anywhere because you're not really addressing the heart of the statist's question, which is basically a request for an explanation of how a free market would provide such "public goods". I don't think this is an unusual or outlandish request, as it is difficult to understand how these things would work absent a government, if one hasn't taken the time to look into it. I actually think it's a quite reasonable and understandable request. And don't try to tell me you came up with the possible solutions on your own and were never exposed to proposals by anarchist economists. It's why works like The Market for Liberty, Chaos Theory, The Machinery of Freedom, and all the ones I linked in my initial post in this thread exist. Why in the hell did Block spend all that time writing The Privatization of Roads and Highways if all he had to do was say "you want to know how private roads would work? Well, how do lollipops work? Bam. QED."
Simply arguing semanitcs and vague generalized concepts is not going to do anything to convince average everyday statists. It just makes them think you're either dumb or insane.]
Do those books answer your initial question?
"How would a completely free market provide enough schools and roads (and maintenence thereof) to maintain and/or grow beyond the standard of living we have now?"
How does suggesting a possible way of providing X prove/show that there would be "enough" of X (or at least as much of X as currently is in existence)? This is where juxtaposing the provision of bread, lollipops, and pink Ferraris in a free market vs., say, USSR helps, IMO.
z1235:Do those books answer your initial question? "How would a completely free market provide enough schools and roads and maintenence thereof) to maintain and/or grow beyond the standard of living we have now?"
In fact they do...or at least they argue and support the position that a free market would not only be able to match our current level, but in fact would lead to a higher standard of living than the one we currently experience.
Obviously you can't prove that XYZ would certainly happen, or they wouldn't be "theories" and there would be no "economics" (As Mises said: "If it were possible to calculate the future structure of the market, the future would not be uncertain.")
...but you can offer arguments and support them. That's what those works do...which is much more satisfying to a statist asking such a question because it's the kind of information they're actually requesting.
I have nothing whatsoever against those good books. Did you find my replies to be deficient simply because they failed to include links/references to them?
z1235:I have nothing whatsoever against those good books. Did you find my replies to be deficient simply because they failed to include links/references to them?
Not at all. Rather, because they failed to include any actual argument addressing the heart of the statist's question at all.
Ok. Thx for sharing your opinion.
You're welcome.