I'm going Socialist: Someone explain this to me?

[dgr]

Before you make any rash decisions read "THE ROAD TO SERFDOM". THE GOSPEL OF WEALTH'' AND 'THE SELLING OF AMERICA"

 

[BenIsForRon]

I agree with you patriot123, the government should have the authority to bust trusts.

Let me give a you an imaginary scenario why:

Let's pretend for a moment that all our major interstates were privately owned. How would someone compete with the owner of I-40? They would have a lot of trouble getting property owners along the corridor to cough up their property without eminent domain.

So now we're in a situation where the owner of I-40 owns this straight shot from North Carolina to California, and no one else can build a similar road because it goes through over ten states and thousands of property owners.

On top of that... do we really want thousands of roads carving into our countryside competing for the ever cheaper transportation dollar?

I say no, and that some things require either government or private monopolies. And government should have a role in making sure either those monopolies don't abuse their power, or don't exist to begin with.

...All that said, I do agree with most here that government has created most of our monopolies, maybe all of them, and antitrust laws have been largely ineffective.

 

[Joe3113]

I agree with you patriot123, the government should have the authority to bust trusts.

No, they shouldn't.

Let me give a you an imaginary scenario why:

Let's pretend for a moment that all our major interstates were privately owned. How would someone compete with the owner of I-40? They would have a lot of trouble getting property owners along the corridor to cough up their property without eminent domain.

So now we're in a situation where the owner of I-40 owns this straight shot from North Carolina to California, and no one else can build a similar road because it goes through over ten states and thousands of property owners.

On top of that... do we really want thousands of roads carving into our countryside competing for the ever cheaper transportation dollar?

I say no, and that some things require either government or private monopolies. And government should have a role in making sure either those monopolies don't abuse their power, or don't exist to begin with.

...All that said, I do agree with most here that government has created most of our monopolies, maybe all of them, and antitrust laws have been largely ineffective.

http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf

YouTube - Privatizing Roads (Walter Block)

 

[Bman]

No, they shouldn't.

The only reason I can think to disagree, and maybe I missed it in the pdf, is in the ability for someone to land lock someone else.

 

[Bman]

Let me give a you an imaginary scenario why:

One size hardly fits all. Why I understand part of your reasoning with regards to roads, in the grand scheme of government the line must be drawn with the thickest and most permanant marker imaginable if we are to have a government. The problem is pandora's box. Once you find a reason for government, what reason will someone else find. Before you know it we have what we have today which is total disregard for the actual scope of what the founding fathers percieved government to be. I'm certainly skeptical of eliminating government from certain aspects of life, but I do realize I am playing with fire. I just don't know if privitization is always the only or best answer, because I also understand anyone can start a fire. These are things as a society that we must discuss, but in all honesty it is much better to side with privitization in the end, because in that scenario no one is too big to fail. Government loves wasting money on failed ideas.

 

[Joe3113]

The only reason I can think to disagree, and maybe I missed it in the pdf, is in the ability for someone to land lock someone else.

Chapter 12.

But if you want other responses to land lock by Block, I guess I can try find some.

Homesteading +Block, or just look at his website publications.

 

[Chieftain1776]

So in my history class, we've been discussing trusts. A lot. We're now onto the Election of 1912. We've looked at so many acts trying to curb trusts. We've looked at "good" trusts and "bad" trusts who have ruined competition for an entire industry. As much of a conservative as I am, this is one topic that I can't just ignore and say, "let the free market decide." Trusts seem like they are literally the key flaw of Capitalism. Presidents have just kept regulating and regulating, and REGULATING the economy just to fix the problem of trusts! And they just keep coming back, or more just keep popping up. And it's so pointless. I'm beginning think that Capitalism is a failed form of economy -- that Socialism, despite its vices, is a much better way to have an economy set up. I hate this path of thinking that I'm on, but it just seems like there's no other way to have an economy work. Can someone please explain to me where my thinking on trusts is flawed? Why I'm wrong? Why a laissez-faire economy is better than a regulated, or even Socialist one?

Well to be fair if your basing your opinion on a history lesson delivered by someone who is typically hostile to capitalism (high school teachers/college professors) then you should devote similar time to opposing views. Someone mentioned Armentano here are some books and here are some writings. Cato also has a lot of results if you perform a search. Here is a general recommendation.

 

[Naraku]

It tires that some people here favor ideology over rational interpretation. A true free market does not exist and has not existed in all of history, period.

People get bogged down in ideological battles ignoring reality. The reason communist economies fail is because they are based on ideology and on many occasions try to force human behavior. That is their critical failure not the basic principle.

If all land is privately-owned and all means of travel privately-owned then there is a need for money. Private institutions will usually make money with fees. If you are charged everywhere you go it means people who can't pay the fee will not be allowed. This means people without money would not able to go anywhere. In fact, there would not be a single place in the country they could reside. People with money would still be able to move and would not have as much money taken from them. This is an unacceptable restriction on liberty.

YouTube - Privatizing Roads (Walter Block)

His argument doesn't even remotely make sense. The argument about speed limits doesn't make a whole lot of sense since most speed-related accidents occur because someone is going faster than the speed limit, not going the speed limit. Drunk-driving is not something that can really be connected to the management of roads.

If his argument was about the condition of the roads themselves it might be a good point.

With roads the main issue is that less-developed communities would not be as able to afford using the road system thus impeding their movement which serves to limit their ability to achieve.

People who suggest this position means I'm anti-liberty or some other garbage should consider what Post-Revolutionary America supported. They did not believe everything was a commodity which should be bought and sold.

 

[Krugerrand]

YouTube - Anti-Trust and Monopoly (with Ron Paul)

Do you have any understanding of Austrian Economics? It is the only reason Ron Paul has had a political career.

Seriously, head over to mises.org and get your learn on. There are free audio-books, lectures, everything. Get a mp3 player, and start listening when you drive, or are doing chores, going for a run, whatever.

Austrian Economics is quite literally, the only real way to guard yourself from fallacies.

It's just amazing to see a politician be so right for so long.

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Dont let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[Joe3113]

It tires that some people here favor ideology over rational interpretation. A true free market does not exist and has not existed in all of history, period.

People get bogged down in ideological battles ignoring reality. The reason communist economies fail is because they are based on ideology and on many occasions try to force human behavior. That is their critical failure not the basic principle.

If all land is privately-owned and all means of travel privately-owned then there is a need for money. Private institutions will usually make money with fees. If you are charged everywhere you go it means people who can't pay the fee will not be allowed. This means people without money would not able to go anywhere. In fact, there would not be a single place in the country they could reside. People with money would still be able to move and would not have as much money taken from them.

Even if not privately owned, and means of travel and not privately owned, there is still a need for money (medium of exchange)..

"A true free market does not exist and has not existed in all of history, period."

What kind of objection is that?

"A slave-less society does not exist and has not existed in all of history, period."

Your point?

This is an unacceptable restriction on liberty.

It's not if you believe in property rights. Do you believe in property rights? Do you believe in trespassing? Hmm?

His argument doesn't even remotely make sense. The argument about speed limits doesn't make a whole lot of sense since most speed-related accidents occur because someone is going faster than the speed limit, not going the speed limit. Drunk-driving is not something that can really be connected to the management of roads.

If his argument was about the condition of the roads themselves it might be a good point.

With roads the main issue is that less-developed communities would not be as able to afford using the road system thus impeding their movement which serves to limit their ability to achieve.

People who suggest this position means I'm anti-liberty or some other garbage should consider what Post-Revolutionary America supported. They did not believe everything was a commodity which should be bought and sold.

You'll find answers to your objections, which are standard, in his book. The one you haven't read or scanned yet. :

http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf

 

[krazy kaju]

A trust has never existed in a free market. Your history book probably skews history by blowing "trusts" out of proportion. Most "trusts" (not actual monopolies) actually increased economic growth significantly, increased real wages, and increased the general welfare.

 

[Naraku]

Even if not privately owned, and means of travel and not privately owned, there is still a need for money (medium of exchange)..

Yes there is, but the money is not taken in a manner that insures certain people will be denied access.

"A true free market does not exist and has not existed in all of history, period."

What kind of objection is that?

"A slave-less society does not exist and has not existed in all of history, period."

Your point?

The point is that claiming there has never been something in a free market when there has never actually been a free market is disingenuous.

It's not if you believe in property rights. Do you believe in property rights? Do you believe in trespassing? Hmm?

I believe in natural law and that it serves as the basis of government. If every inch of the planet is owned by some private group who can charge you or expel you from the land then your right to liberty has been denied, your right to life has been denied. Right to property does not override liberty or life. Right to property is the right most readily dispensed of when one of the other rights is threatened.

As such, there must always be land which is held for the public good, not for private interest. People must be free to travel which means you shouldn't have every path owned by someone who will charge anyone attempting to use the path. Some people do not have money to pay them, but those people still have rights.

You'll find answers to your objections, which are standard, in his book. The one you haven't read or scanned yet. :

http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf

If it is written by the same guy who gave that speech I don't expect answers to anything, at least not good ones. His arguments were terrible.