Wesker1982,
Please present your competing offer.
CHILL, lol. I wasn't on the forums at all last night after my last post.
But anyways, I don't know why you are asking this. We both object to State, i.e. violent, control of markets. I asked a couple of questions, and I didn't get all uptight when you didn't instantly answer them, and they were the main point of my post:
Yeah, since no other options are available now, I am sticking with it too. That does not mean I do not advocate that it be done another way. I would rather it be done without violence, even though I might never see it happen.
If you were alive before slavery was abolished, and you believed it would not be abolished any time in your life, would you advocate the abolition of slavery? Would you object to it on the grounds that "this is what we have now", or would you at least support the idea of it?
You ignored this, which I didn't really mind since you admitted to objecting to State control of markets. That was good enough for me. But now you have diverted the attention (via red herring) from the critical part of my post.
I expect you to either change the subject or ignore my answer, but whatever:
Right now the State violently monopolizes this service. My competing offer would be to allow people to opt out and hire competition. This is where I ask you to use whatever knowledge of the market you must have. If the violent monopoly were abolished for this service, no doubt that entrepreneurs, who would be more efficient due to the feedback mechanisms of the pricing system, would provide this service.
It is like you are asking for an exact business model, but you should know that this is not a prerequisite for advocating voluntary markets. I mean, I would like to see you elaborate business models for all of the government functions violently monopolized now. And if you couldn't, it would be folly for anyone who even slightly understands how the voluntary market works to object to it on these grounds.
If the mail isn't provided by a violent monopoly, how else would it be delivered? Can't give me an business model? I accept the answer that, no matter how it is provided, a violent monopoly is not necessary to deliver mail. Competition and profit would give entrepreneurs great incentive to come up with business models that would satisfy consumers way more efficiently than a violent monopoly, because if the service is poor, they lose money. I hope that the profit/loss incentive doesn't need a ton of explanation here. The profit/loss signal also helps with economic calculation, it makes possible efficiency that cannot be achieved with a violent monopoly.
With that said, the actual model would look something like this:
Title Registry (Bob Murphy)
In market anarchy, who would define property rights? If someone hands over the money to purchase a house, what guarantees does he have?
This is a complex issue, and I won’t be able to give specifics, since the actual market solution would depend on the circumstances of the case and would draw on the legal expertise (far greater than mine) of the entire community.23* I can, however, offer some general remarks.
Whatever (if any) the abstract or metaphysical nature of property law, the purpose of public titles is quite utilitarian; they are necessary to allow individuals to effectively plan and coordinate their interactions with each other. Specialized firms (perhaps distinct from arbitration agencies) would keep records on the property titles, either for a specific area or group of individuals. Title registry would probably be accomplished through a complex, hierarchical web of such firms.
The fear of rogue agencies, unilaterally declaring themselves “owner” of everything, is completely unfounded. In market anarchy, the companies publicizing property rights would not be the same as the companies enforcing those rights. More important,competition between firms would provide true “checks and balances.” If one firm began flouting the community norms established and codified on the market, it would go out of business, just as surely as a manufacturer of dictionaries would go broke if its books contained improper definitions.
23*My stance may appear slippery, but imagine that a Cuban economist advises Castro to abolish socialism and allow a free market to develop. Must the economist predict beforehand whether and how many shopping malls will exist under his proposal?
And:
In a laissez-faire society, there would be no government to pre-empt the field of registering deeds. Businesses in a free market would take over this function, since it is a salable service. These companies would keep records of titles and would probably offer the additional service of title insurance (a service already offered by specialized insurance companies today). Title insurance protects the insured against loss resulting from a defect in the title of the property he buys (as, for example, if the long-lost niece of a deceased former owner shows up and claims the property by inheritance). It would substantially reduce problems of conflicting claims, since title insurance companies would be unlikely to insure a title without first checking to make sure there was no conflict. In a free society, title insurance might also protect the insured against loss of his property due to aggression or fraud committed against him. In this case, the aggressor would be dealt with in the same manner as would any other aggressor (a subject which will be covered in Chapters 9 and 10).
There would probably be a plurality of companies competing in the field of title registration and insurance, so they would no doubt find it in their interest to maintain a computerized central listing of titles in the same way that other agencies now keep extensive files on the credit rating of consumers. In this way, they would be in the same relationship of cooperative competition as are present-day insurance companies.
Because they would have competition, title insurance companies would have to be extremely careful to maintain a good business reputation. No honest person would jeopardize the value of his property by registering it with a company which had a reputation for dishonest dealing. If he made use of a shady company, other individuals and firms would have doubts about the validity of his title and would be reluctant to buy his property or to loan money on it. In a totally free market, companies would usually act honestly because it would be in their interest to do so. (The question of dishonest companies will be dealt with in Chapter 11.)
http://freekeene.com/files/marketforliberty.pdf
Or, basically, if the way the State does it now is profitable and efficient, free market models would imitate it. So if you are so confident that the State does it the best way possible, you should have no fear since if this is the case, the free market model would copy it.
?
