I'm really enjoying our discussion!
Then I guess we're both in the right place
.
I disagree: have you ever really enjoyed a particular product (a food item, TV program, etc.) that went away because some other item outsold it? Thus, in the business environment, the majority "took" your favorite product from you. That is the free market at work.
The main thing that's important to keep in mind is that there is a fundamental difference between the way government works and the way a business works. The government can, without legal repercussions, initiate force against an individual or group; and government is unique in that it is the only institution that can do that. In fact, defining government solely as "the institution with a legal monopoly on the initiation of force" is a very complete definition of government.
If the government decides to steal my property from me because the majority deems it proper, then I will be forced to forfeit my property, at gunpoint if necessary. On the other hand, if a product on the market is discontinued because its manufacturer deems it unprofitable to pursue, then nothing is "taken" from me because it was not mine to begin with. When you use the word "took" (in quotes), it was not being used as the way something is normally taken, because in reality nothing was taken. It's the same as saying that jobs are being "stolen" when manufacturers ship them overseas. It's an improper use of the word "stolen."
When something is "taken" or "stolen" from me, that act comes with certain criteria. I must own the item being taken from me. If not, then I have no claim over the item for someone else to take. In owning the item, I have acquired it by exchanging value for value (that is, I gave up something like time, or I gave up money which I acquired by giving up time), or it was given to me by someone who did make that exchange. So when that is taken, it is the equivalent of taking that which I gave up in order to acquire it, which means the time (a portion of my life) that was exchanged to acquire it.
On the other hand, if what was "taken" from me was the ability to make an exchange with a party because that party has decided not to engage in such an exchange, then nothing has really been taken, because there was nothing that I owned to be taken.
I really like that last sentence. That gives Free Marketeers hope. What I'd like to get across is that just like people complained about $4/gallon gasoline but had to pay it, I think some people here have to realize that the government is charging the "correct" Free Market price.
I think that claim makes certain assumptions.
We know that in a free market, the barrier to entry is minimal. Anyone can generally come along and start a business that competes with an existing business, and if the latter business provides better products and services and/or lower costs than the former that the latter will attract customers away from the former.
We also know that these businesses can use any method they'd like in order to attract new customers so long as they don't initiate force against anyone.
When looking at governments around the world, I don't see a low barrier to entry into the marketplace of governments, nor do I see governments competing sans force against each other. It may be true that from the individual's point of view they are going to choose the government that they like best, taking into account costs (i.e. I might find a government that's marginally better than the US, but the costs involved with moving there and significantly disrupting my life may make those benefits insignificant). But from the supply side of the equation, competition seems to be kept at bay because those involved will not only suppress new competition but will use force against their existing competition.
From here it may be argued that at the government level (if government were seen as the citizens of the world) that the planet is an anarcho-capitalist society, proving that anarcho-capitalism wouldn't work well because we know how poorly governments get along with each other. But this attributes characteristics of individuals to governments that they don't have. For instance, the most efficient way for an individual to acquire something is to produce it, or produce something else and exchange for it. This costs less effort than taking it by force, so most people will take the path of least resistance and produce instead of steal. But governments are in a unique position because they have the legal authority to steal, so they can engage in activities (like war) that no individual would partake in if they had to bare the costs.
For example, if we're becoming more Socialist, perhaps that's because there are plenty of even more Socialist countries.
I wouldn't hesitate to argue that the view of the government is a reflection of its population. This is why we need to educate people to the benefits of freedom in order to elect liberty candidates, not the other way around.
If people would like to lower the "price" of government, then what are they doing to encourage it?
Answering that question would require that I speak for others, which I'm not prepared to do.
For myself, I host a new radio show which I'll be working on expanding out into other markets. In 2010, I'm running for the US Congress. It would be great to win, but the primary reason is because it gives me a stage from which to educate.
I concede this; however, I believe my other example to the other poster covers this (let's say a man agreed to the contract he did not repay. Let's say he has a wife. She volunteered to be married to the husband, but she did not volunteer to go through the hassle and embarrassment of a debt collection. Thus, private relationships can lead to involuntary ones - disproving the previous point.)
In a free society, the wife would not be obligated for her husband's debts, nor would she have to bear the obligation of going through the debt collection process. Actually, even as it is today, people are not responsible for their spouse's debts unless they're cosigners (which means they would have agreed to the consequences of contract breach).
