I'm having a debate on another forum about this subject. I was just curious about your input on the current state of it. The argument has evolved into a discussion of monopolies, with one of the participants arguing about how water is necessarily a monopoly commodity and thereby requires government coercion to restrict damage to the interests of consumers.
I have pointed out he's given no justification to his argument, and he's replied by restating his assertion. I was just wondering what counter arguments would you point out, as this debate over public goods I feel is key?
Here's the relevant thread:
http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41873
"When the King is far the people are happy." Chinese proverb
For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:
"Where there are problems there is life."
Is anybody at all interested?
If what is worrisome is that a party might violate the rights of another, how does it follow that in order to protect those rights, the right of others (that is, the rights of other individuals to provide water) must be violated?
Also, where is the proof that the government has done a better job than the private sector? I never hear of how bad Crystal Gyser water is; however, I have heard of how bad the water is in Los Angeles County, California.
Furthermore, there much evidence that governments are the great polluters of earth. Some examples include: Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where atomic bombs were denoted and polluted two cities and killed thousands of innocents; depleted uranium during Desert Storm; all the nuclear bomb testing throughout the world; as well as other biological and chemical weapons that have used against millions of innocents throughout the world during wars. Let us not forget that the government disregarded property rights during the industrial revolution, for the benefit of the rober barrons, by allowing to polluters to pollute on other people's property.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Those are all valid points, but in the discussion thread the main counterpoint against my argument was that supplying water is an economy of scale with higher entry barriers, hence a greater likelihood of exploitation of consumers through monopoly pricing. I know Mises had a different position on this, but how would you refute it?
abskebabs: Those are all valid points, but in the discussion thread the main counterpoint against my argument was that supplying water is an economy of scale with higher entry barriers, hence a greater likelihood of exploitation of consumers through monopoly pricing. I know Mises had a different position on this, but how would you refute it?
So a business is supplying a good at a price that no one else can beat... Where is the problem?
MatthewF: So a business is supplying a good at a price that no one else can beat... Where is the problem?
Wow, when you put it that clearly I find it hard to play statist devil's advocate. I'll try: Even though there could be a profit opportunity for rival companies to build their own pipelines and take advantage of the gap between the monopoly price and price charged by the capitalist, they cannot as their rival is so large in comparison with them that they cannot afford the capital to make it a viable project. Hence the consumers lose out from not being able to enter the market and the rivals cannot enter the market, weep, weep, weep....
Any rebuttals?
There was another thread about water recently: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/8838.aspx
Someone who purchases a residence and is concerned about water will probably want a guarantee from the water company that water will be provided at a certain price for a certain period of time. Or, the people a neighborhood or town that share the same pipe network could set up a system whereby different water providers input enough water into the pipes to serve the individuals who decide to patronize them (this is even easier with electricity).
The point is that people are going to want some control the price of water before they move in anywhere. A maliciously monopolistic water company will simply drive people out of the neighborhood and cause property values to fall, so the market will favor solutions that prevent this from occurring.
About fluoride
People on that forum think that the government keeps bad produce from the supermarkets and poison from medications. I'm not sure it's worth arguing with them.
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
Natalie: About fluoride People on that forum think that the government keeps bad produce from the supermarkets and poison from medications. I'm not sure it's worth arguing with them.
I must say I would find it discouraging, to abandon that forum. I've been a member for a long time, and as it is a science forum, I still feel people could come round to the arguments I am making as they are based on reason and not simply accepting the prejudices of consensus reality.
Ask them if Utilitarian thinking is proper then if it became universally acceptable that all positive externalities must be undertaken by the State, then it would be acceptable, for example, that all beautiful women ought to wear mini-skirts, as this would improve the mood of the majority of males, thus their productivity in their daily routine would equally improve. And this should be legally required in self-similar fashion as the fluoridization(sp?) of water (even if the majority of beautiful women would find such legal mandate repugnant to their person).
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
GDG: Yes, indeed, very democratic. Why should a few hold-outs degrade service that everyone else wants?
Yes, indeed, very democratic. Why should a few hold-outs degrade service that everyone else wants?
What hold outs is he referring to? He's clearly blindly anti-business without rhyme or reason. Sounds like a 100% rhetorical question and he seems to be threatened by your notion. He also fails to acknowledge the opinions of many who feel that the current service of water is either in-adequate or otherwise already in a degraded status. However those people have no alternative choice.
GDG: As for property rights, water supply is a service, not a property right. I doubt that there is any law preventing you from obtaining water from other sources, be they bottled water or rain water collected in barrels.
As for property rights, water supply is a service, not a property right. I doubt that there is any law preventing you from obtaining water from other sources, be they bottled water or rain water collected in barrels.
Thats 100% wrong. He is either lying or ignorant of real facts. Many cities country wide use the state to stake a claim on water fallen on other homeowners property's covering large distances outside of the city. Many people who live in the 4 corners region of the states know what I am talking about. Colorado, New Mexico, AZ, and surrounding states do this frequently.
I myself have paid a fine for a violation of using rain barrels to collect rain for watering my garden. According to the fine I paid the water that fell belonged to the City of Denver. Mind you I lived 50 miles OUTSIDE of Denver 9000 feet above sea level in the rockies. My land was mine. How the state made a claim on my rain water is completely beyond me but they did it and frequently do it to others.
It's also 100% violation of property rights by forcing a monopoly down my throat not granting me access to alternatives. lets change things a little. If the state forced a monopoly of building homes in your city your friends over there might say thats a violation of the property rights of various workers in the home building industry. However somehow when it comes to water it's not. Shelter is just as important as clean drinkable water. Furthermore, the state might built homes but make a law requiring all homes to be fumigated every 3 weeks with toxic chemicals. Meanwhile a huge rise in cancer builds up, no one would assume it was from the fumigation. They would all blindly trust the state and no competition can prove otherwise. The ignorant people would live as "ignorant is bliss" for not realizing the alternatives they could have had if housing was on the open market. That analogy can compare directly to their current water cartel.
Further more if the state did such a good job with their monopoly then why are the following products/industries so successful?
GDG: Mere ownership of property does not include the unlimited right to do as you will. For example, if you tried to replace your suburban house with a convenience store or a small factory, you would quickly find yourself in court, defending yourself from charges of nuisance (in the legal sense) by your neighbors, and zoning violations by your local government.
Mere ownership of property does not include the unlimited right to do as you will. For example, if you tried to replace your suburban house with a convenience store or a small factory, you would quickly find yourself in court, defending yourself from charges of nuisance (in the legal sense) by your neighbors, and zoning violations by your local government.
Again he is wrong. I'm not sure if he's plain ignorant or again lying. Many states do not have zoning laws and it's within property owners rights to put whatever they desire on their land. In fact, one of the countries most prosperous cities, Houston, has no zoning laws at all. Thats the countries 4th largest city last I checked. The open market can handle where the best location to place a business or factory is. Zoning laws arn't needed at all. This is why you learned "Location location location" in business class in highschool.
Furthermore simply because a city or state has deemed it illegal that doesn't mean they are morally in the right. If that were the case then every little tiny thing the state rules on is morally right, including going to war and killing.
Finally I'd join you because I hate water fluoridation but I'm too lazy to sign up on another forum on top of the million I already have. Feel free to copy anything I wrote and post it. GL
Let me answer your original post also.
1. In your assessment are there any medical benefits from fluoridation of water?
15% of dentists agree that it's not necessary or even a bad idea.
http://www.prleap.com/pr/106285/
Most dentists will tell you that flouridated water is nothing compared to simply brushing your teeth. Some dentists agree that brushing your teeth on a regular basis is all thats needed and there are no health benefits of flouridating. The benefits of it only apply if people swish each gulp of water in their mouth like mouth wash. Since we don't do that it's not that truely effective.
Also of those 85% of dentists who think it's a good idea. A quick look at the opinions of some of them reveal that they are only opinions and that very few study's reveal any real benefit. Some study's reveal the opposite.
Here are some more references which contridict the one I posted above.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/topical-systemic.html
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/pit-fissure.html
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/fluoridation.html
According to that site fluoridation is completely useless.
Scientific evidence though isn't my primary argument against it. It is a violation of ones rights to limit their choice and not offer alternative to that system. Not only that but it's a huge waste in taxpayer money which is a violation of property rights. The waste is because there is no consistent proven fact that flouride actually benefits anyone when ingested. I'd prefer to let me choose which method my water comes from.
As a result I waste my own money buying filtered water.
2. Are there dangers involved with fluoridating the water supply?
Flouride is toxic. Study rats show cancers and early death. I'm too lazy to look it up and it's too easy to find all kinds of crap on google.
3. Do the dangers outweigh the benefits or vice versa?
Since the benefits are entirely opinion based I would say no. The biggest danger is a huge waste of money. This is the opposite of wealth production, this is wealth destruction. If flouridating water does nothing how many thousands of dollars have gone wasted into following this practive over the years?
I think most people will agree that lowering someones quality of living by pinching their purchasing power does not equate to better health.
4. In your own point of view, should the fluoridation by enforced mandate of our political authorities be allowed?
Absoultely not. Especially with 15% of dentists making a claim that it helps nothing.
Want to stop tooth decay? Brush your teeth and floss!