I was talking with a conservative colleague yesterday about regulations. He made some interesting points about how some regulation improved efficiency for consumers, and the market, since anyone would be afraid to do anything without at least a little assurance of some standards (don't want to drive somewhere unfamiliar, might be water in gasoline, don't want to make sure appliances won't burn down house, etc.) He conceded that at some point too much regulation would be a bad thing, but some should exist. Is there any articles that address this contention? Maybe just some talking points you folks can come up with (besides morality)?
Jackson LaRose: Angurse:Consumer reports anyone? Competition? Insurance? That's what I advocated, then he countered with "how can you trust them"? To which I replied, "well you know we can't trust government"! But he still believes that the state is more accountable to the people, and that it would be next to impossible to read a consumer report on everything you purchase or utilize on a daily basis.
Angurse:Consumer reports anyone? Competition? Insurance?
That's what I advocated, then he countered with "how can you trust them"? To which I replied, "well you know we can't trust government"! But he still believes that the state is more accountable to the people, and that it would be next to impossible to read a consumer report on everything you purchase or utilize on a daily basis.
Like most anti-free marketeers, your friend has a strange and mechanical view of human behavior. If you buy a product and it turns out to be a dud, you won't buy it again and you'll tell other people not to buy it. The company would be crippled by bad reputation may be even if they eventually change their ways.
BUT, the key point is that the businessmen are aware of all these things before the fact. It would be very rare for a person (in a free market) to consider getting in the business of selling people crap. It would be even more rare for such a person to convince anybody to give him capital.
Have conservatives always been clueless about free-market theory, or is it a recent phenomenon?
Jackson LaRose: The Late Andrew Ryan:Bingo. My belief is that in a stateless society reliable mutualist organizations would form together in order to safely and reliably do all of the things that the government currently does which are actually important. That's an interesting thought, sort of a consumer insurance agency.
The Late Andrew Ryan:Bingo. My belief is that in a stateless society reliable mutualist organizations would form together in order to safely and reliably do all of the things that the government currently does which are actually important.
That's an interesting thought, sort of a consumer insurance agency.
Basically. I think that if people got it in their head that "no statism" was the societal rule, they would think of all sorts of way of dealing with companies. These insurance agencies could basically be big law firms that make giant contracts between their customers and businesses. They could then be related to DROs. If some business hurt someone through dangerous products, they could spank them legally with the premade contract.
There is also the option of the private city if you are really insecure. The owners of the city could just create standards and regulations and experiment until their city was worth as much as possible. I don't think it would be statism, as the administrator would have had to earn the land, and as a consumer, I would enter any private city that didn't have legal services EXTERNAL to the private city. This means that the city administrator owner could provide protection and regulations in order to make the city more wealthy, but any matters of contract enforcement would be dealt with by an agreed upon third party. In fact this is my favorite solution right now.
Hairnet: I don't think it would be statism, as the administrator would have had to earn the land, and as a consumer, I would enter any private city that didn't have legal services EXTERNAL to the private city. This means that the city administrator owner could provide protection and regulations in order to make the city more wealthy, but any matters of contract enforcement would be dealt with by an agreed upon third party. In fact this is my favorite solution right now.
I don't really see how this is any different than a hybrid of principality, and free city (Danzig, or Venice).
The question shouldn't be whether regulation makes markets more efficient, but does STATE regulation make markets more efficient. I make the distinction between a private person or persons being discriminatory toward their economic activities over the State making obtuse rules over who can sell what, why, when, and where. With a private person(s), their actions are based on a reasonable standard (what do they get out of their transactions), whereas the State just applies regulation without any sort of reasoning or standard. Just food for thought. *shrugs*
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Exactly, there are three things, all inherently linked, which you must keep in mind at all times
1. The state is a human institution
This sounds silly, but it is true, the state is run by humans and therefore has no intellect or reason which a collective of humans doesn't, merely some nice buildings, an idiots ideology which originated as being justified by god, and a bunch of guns. Therefore the only tools which the state has which a voluntary institution doesn't have is force, why exactly force would be the best way to solve something is beyond me, especially when it is cut off from profit and loss feedback mechanisms. This is part of why I believe that minarchism CANNOT work and inherently self destructive. So long as there is a state, immediately people will jump to manipulate its power, for that is easier and more self evident to immediately achieving a goal than going through complex and plans which actually have a chance to obviously fail. Until the state is eliminated a free market is impossible for any significant period of time and innovative, voluntary solutions will not arise, I will not think about how to cooperate with people until I can stop having that big thug guy go and steal from them.
2. The free market is more than merely "traditional firms"
Charity is an example of a free market, a voluntary commune is an example of the free market, voluntary community service is an example of the free market. Wherever one man works with another man voluntarily and with respect for his property rights, that is the free market, this is why I have such respect for mutualism in the original sense of the word.
The reason why most firms today are traditional firms is because of the problems above, all effort is simply poured into lobbying the government to perform the task which takes away feedback, drains resources from other areas of society, and corrupts the nature of the program itself. Furthermore because there are few examples of people pooling together resources for their combined benefit or something of the like, people, when setting out to solve a problem, do not immediately consider that an option!
3. The law of political demand
You desire safety "regulation" therefore there is a demand for it. This also goes for your friend. This will NOT go away simply because the state is removed, there will be a demand for regulatory watchdog agencies just as there is a demand for packages being delivered. There was a time that the state had a monopoly on delivery, when the state monopoly was broken there was of course still a demand for package delivery and the market performed this. Any argument against the free market can instantly be turned around and pointed at the accuser because his simple worrying about the free market not being able to provide a service (which is often widely shared) shows, guess what? A demand to provide this service which the accuser is currently willing to pay for!
Andy,
Good post, and I approached this guy with the insurance company solution. This eventually (don't exactly remember how) led to a discussion about how the guy thinks that states arising is inevitable in the Hobbesian state of nature. Different question, I guess.
Jackson LaRose: Hairnet: I don't think it would be statism, as the administrator would have had to earn the land, and as a consumer, I would enter any private city that didn't have legal services EXTERNAL to the private city. This means that the city administrator owner could provide protection and regulations in order to make the city more wealthy, but any matters of contract enforcement would be dealt with by an agreed upon third party. In fact this is my favorite solution right now. I don't really see how this is any different than a hybrid of principality, and free city (Danzig, or Venice).
I don't know much about those governments. I would say it was different because people can choose the DRO that manage the contracts held between the city and the tenant. I don't that is the case in Danzig. But it would be a principality, but the Prince wouldn't be allowed to just kick you out, or cut off your head, or take all your shit. Why? Because if he does he will face the financial wrath of a DRO who could make him miserable.
Even then, I think I would prefer normal statist principalities to democracy.
Jackson LaRose:His argument is that unrestrained, raw capitalism would reduce efficiency/take a lot of time to have to check the minutiae of every product you purchase. Also, it would depress exchange, as people would be aware of the increase amount of risk involved.
That's not an argument.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Hairnet:I don't know much about those governments.
Hanseatic League (of which Danzig was a member)
Venice (Sort of a Merchant Republic City-State)
Hairnet:Even then, I think I would prefer normal statist principalities to democracy.
Unless the prince was mad.
Esuric:That's not an argument.
Hey, I'm not the one making it.
Jackson LaRose:He conceded that at some point too much regulation would be a bad thing, but some should exist.
One of those mystical parabolas.
Caley McKibbin:One of those mystical parabolas.
Yep, much like the economy of scale. In the end we both agreed that what I was proposing was unprecedented, and we agreed that it may be possible for the market to completely self regulate, but we just don't know.
Bob Murphy's take in Chaos Theory is that product safety would be taken care of via contracts and insurance.
If I wanted to be sure that the airline I was flying on was safe, I would make sure that when I buy a ticket, I also get a contractual pledge from the airline that if I die because of a plane crash, the airline must pay my family $y million dollars.
Insurance companies would have to underwrite these pledges, so they would require strict safety standards.
bobbyveech:Bob Murphy's take in Chaos Theory is that product safety would be taken care of via contracts and insurance.
Would that make things more expensive than they currently are?
Basically through this argument you come full circle to create institutions that impose their will onto others. Instead of calling them governing agencies they will be "consumer insurance agencies". For profit industry will still create inefficiencies by attempting to create a situation favorable to them. E.G the oil industry attempting to continue oil dependence in the world.
Is it just me or do socialists and capitalists in their quest for a utopian socialized/capitalistic economy advocate the exact same thing using different terminology.?