A dangerous, incorrect, and unproven assumption.

I cannot believe you are seriously suggesting this. Corporations will NEVER be able to handle things like defense. If we allowed them to, we would have thousands of separate private armies all across the world, with nothing unifying them. He;;. they'd probably end up fighting each other. There would be noone to make sure that a corporation doesn't just go and drop atom bombs on someone. CEO's would decide who, where, and when to fight; and few of them would make the same decisions. It would be complete chaos. That suggestion is downright retarded.

Modern History tells us that more public industry and more regulation of the free market will lead to economic prosperity. See "New Deal".

The market is not motivated to meet the needs of the people. The market is motivated only to make money, and to do so by any means possible; even if it means creating an inferior product and marketing it as superior. Thus, a body is needed to provide public industry for the people and regulate the "free" market.

Slon and I had a similar argument earlier. If the private market "ALWAYS" does things better than public industry, explain the superiority of the Soviet AK-47 as compared to similar military guns created by private industry at that time.

So that I actually have a say in what is done to defend me.

__________________

It is not an assumption, it is a fact. When has it been disproven. I assume that, because you say it is incorrect, you have a situation in which it has been disproven.
You are probably paritally right in this paragraph: there might be many different defense companies. But this is, in no way, a bad thngs. Being private companies, they would have to allocate their resources in a way that maximized their profit. How is this done on the free market? It is done by minimizing costs while maximizing the utility that your customers derive from your product. In other words, frims attempt to satisfy their customers for the smallest cost to them.

There will not be anything that unifies them as the US army is unifed within itself. But, the US Army (and when I say "army" I mean the military as a whole) has a monopoly on derfense. Monopolies are bad for the customer. When gov't grants an entity a monopoly, such as the US Army, resources are allocated ineffcently. The company loses sight of satisfying the customer (the only way to make money in the free market) and begins to do things inefficently. For evidecne of this, just remember when the defense department lost boatloads of money. It is no big deal for them because they will get more money from taxes. But if this happened to a private firm, it would have been devastating.

So, why wouldn't they fight eachother? Because fighting is expensive. Unlike the US Army, private companies much really pay attention to the ammount of money that they spend. If they go to "war" with another company, the company is going to have to pay for the "war." And to pay for the war, the company is going to have to charge its customers more money. If a company is constantly going to silly wars with other companies, its customers are going to have to pay high prices. Because customers don't want to pay high prices, the customers will get a differen company to protect them.

This answers your silly little assertion that there is no one to make sure companies don't atom bomb eachother. Atom boms cause much colladeral damage. The company that dropped the bomb would be held responsible for this damage. This will serve as an important check on their willingness to drop an A-Bomb.

Further, which country has dropped an A-Bomb on innocent people? Is it a smaller army from a small country that can't afford to piss too many people off? Or, was it the biggest Army in the world that caused such a huge ammount of destruction? I think you know which one it is.

In short, I can't see how you think a BIG army is a good thing. The colonists fought a big army because the big army was oppressive. Big, gov't armies: bad. Small, private derfense agencies: good.

Also, the CEO's decided what to produce only in the sense that they make the decisions on what the company does. A CEO can decide to make whatever he pleases, but if it does not please the consumer, he will go out of business. For example, if the CEO of Nike decides to put nails in Nike Shoes, he will likely go out of business. The same applies for defense agencies. If Defense Agency X engages in numerous wars against friendly people, it must cover the cost of the wars by charging its customers more money. This will likely cause him to go out of business.

Here is a link to an essay, "I Pencil", about the ways that the market coordinates resources.
I, Pencil | The Foundation for Economic Education: The Freeman, Ideas on Liberty

Oh, you must be kidding me. The New Deal kept America in the Depression. It did not allow wages and prices to fall, it put restrictions on the ammount of work indivduals could do, it destroyed farm products. It was a disaster.

Look at how Harding handled his downturn: he did nothing. What happened? The economy recovered before anyone knew what happened.
This is the exact opposite of reality. The market's sole motivation is to meet the needs of people. This is the basis for all trade. What you suggest is that people trade, but do not benefit from trading. This is completly insane. They would not trade unless they derived some benefit. A company can undertak monumental marketing campaigns, but the bottom line is that if people don't like the product they aren't going to buy it. If they buy the product, this means they expect to derive utility from the product. Now, you might think that the product is inferior, but you don't really matter. You are just an arrogant outsider, attempting to enact his subjective value scale into law.

The common argument is that capitalism concentrates on the indivdual while the masses are poor and destitute. This is completly wrong. The only way that one makes money in a free-market system is by meeting satisfying the needs of consumers. Contrast this with socialism. In socialsim there is no rational price system. The economic planners have no idea how much of one thing to make and how much of another to make. If a plant manager is wasting resources, making things that people would not want to buy on the free market (but they get them in the socialist country because there is no rational price system so they are cheaper than they should be) the plant stays open making the current product and wasing respurces.

If this scenario occured in a capitalist economy, the plant would stop making whatever product it is making and switch into a more profitable industry. Now, when a company makes a profit what does it mean? It means that company has satisfied consumer demand. What does it mean when a company makes a loss? It means the compay hasn't satisfied the consumers.

In a capitlist ecnonomy those companies that satisfy consumers stay in business; those that don'y satisfy consumers don't stay in business.
Two things:
First, private enterise, being motivated to allocate resources efficently, will not waste money on devoloping something that no one wants. The only people who want machine guns is the government (well, not exactly, but mostly.) It was the Soviet Government that had the guns made. If there had been a want for AK-47s on the private market, the private market would have devolped them. The Soviets went around bragging about odd things. For example, they were happy that they made a bunch of concrete. But they made too much! No one needed all that concrete and they had surpluses.

Second, are you suggesting that the Soviet Union was more successful than capitalism? If so, explain why the Soviet Union no longer exists.

This point that you are trying to make ironicly helps me make my argument. We see in the AK-47 example that the private market does not like to make guns as much as government. This means that not as many people want guns, which means that private indivduals are less violent than gov't. This means that there will be less fighting when the armies are privitized.
In what do you have more of a say: the shoes wear or the defense you recieve? I'm guessing shoes. And what is the difference between shoe companies and the army...

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

Maybe, I was just wondering how you would get there from here? Advocating for privatization of our "socialized" wars on drugs and terror would be a good place to start limiting government. If you limit government enough, there will be less government.

Excellent, I get what your'e saying. I do advocate for all of these things. And I do realize that gov't will not be eliminated with one "punch." However, it should be eliminated with one punc and I won't disregard more radical areas for political expedience.

But, now I understand your post and I mostly agree with it.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

No. It is a misguided opinion with little basis in reality. Saying that this is a fact is like saying a coin will always land on tails.

Wrong. Firms attempt to maximize profit at the lowest cost to them. That does not necessarily mean offering a superior product to consumers.

Public industry and institution is not a "monopoly". A monopoly is one of the many failures of an unregulated market economy. Public institutions, in a democratic society, are regulated by the people. Monopolies are not under government control, so cannot be controlled by the government or the people in your system. What is to stop one of your little private armies from monopolizing defense if there is no government there to regulate it? (If you're wondering, the answer is nothing.)

Again, the army is part of the government, not a private business granted monopoly by the government. Your failure to differentiate between the two makes it seem like you have little knowledge of what you're saying.

If you think satisfying the customer is the only way to make money in a free market, you need to take a trip to the real world, my friend.


For evidecne of this, just remember when the defense department lost boatloads of money. It is no big deal for them because they will get more money from taxes. But if this happened to a private firm, it would have been devastating.

So basically, we won't be able to afford to defend ourselves against any foreign hostility.

But will that ensure that something like that won't happen? I think not. Some people are crazy. A crazy person can easily gain a lot of power if any private company can own an army.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately, a smaller army can't defend the people efficiently, especially when half of its resources have to be set aside to be used to compete for power with similar companies. It's inefficient and ineffective. You admit one of your little system's flaws right here. If we piss people off, even accidentally, we won't have the capability to defend ourselves. Would you rather have private militias, with no cohesiveness whatsoever, squabbling for power; or the most powerful military in the history of the world protecting your country?

Well, we've only lost one war so far and are the most powerful military ever... I guess those are some plusses... A powerful nation needs a powerful army to defend it and its interests. What you are saying is we shouldn't be powerful and run at our full potential. That is downright idiotic.

Wrong again. The colonists fought the British because they wanted independence. The fact that they were oppressive is a given. Imperialist Monarchies have a tendency to be oppressive, there is little-no balance of powers. That is a political problem, not an economic one.

Maybe, but not necessarily before the damage is already done.

Who pays a defense agency? That's why we have taxes. Are private companies going to tax us? Your system is unworkable, because defense is something a private company cannot put a price on. It is a person's basic right as a member of a nation.

Again, I am talking about the real world here. In the real world, history and statistics disagree with you. Allow me to enlighten you.

US GDP 1920-1940

US Employment Statistics 1920-1940

US Manufacturing Employment 1920-1940

Because nothing happened in the first place. This is completely insignificant compared to the worldwide economic collapse caused by the stock market crash, and the resulting great depression. If nothing had been done, we would have gone to shit. The Depression and the New Deal are great examples of socialistic economic policies repairing the damage caused by the failures of market economies.

You contradict yourself here. At first you state that markets are motivated to meet the needs of the people; then you say they are motivated by profit. The second one is correct, the first one is incorrect.

Contradictions again. Yes, as a consumer, I do matter.

I think something's true value is based directly upon how much it contributes to the advancement of the society and the economy as a whole. Arrogant indeed .

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The way one makes money is by getting consumers to buy their product. If consumers don't like it, will they stop? Yes, eventually, but that doesn't stop new consumers from buying it. The person has now made money without contributing anything to the economy.


So, I take it, when a private company uses tons of money and resources to mass produce a product that noone buys, they are not wasting anything??? You're argument makes no sense. Let me clarify myself; I am not advocating socialism, at least not in it's pure form. I think a capitalist economy has some use. I believe that industries that are involved with production of consumer products can be private, albeit regulated. Industries concerned with production of military and government equipment should be public, so the government isn't paying to have done what it can do itself better and cheaper.

This is true theoretically, but not always true realistically.

Yet they cannot no for sure whether someone wants something or not until they have already made and attempted to market the good or service in question.

Sorry if I didn't clarify this, but I was referring to the quality of military weapons produced by public industry vs. the quality of those produced by private industry. I am not referring to any consumer demand besides that of the government.

The Soviet Union fell apart because of the rise of nationalist feelings in its satellite countrries, and the revolutions that resulted from those feelings. You'll find that this is usually the case in the fall of any imperialist country, capitalist or communist. In essence, the failure of the Soviet Union was the failure to keep its satellites satisfied by not giving them enough say in their own affairs. The satellites broke apart because they wanted to control their own affairs. The demise had little to do with economics. If America started bringing satellite states under its control, you'd find that they'd eventually rebel too and cause America to fall.

First of all, this has nothing to do with what I said. Second of all, I personally want my army to be quite concerned with fighting. It is an army, after all. Thirdly, what you said about the AK and the private market is both irrelevant and untrue.

Shoes are consumer products. They are not "needs". Shoes do not define the difference between life and death. Shoe companies do not need to unite together. A nation and an army do. Multiple armies with different heads that aren't at all controlled by the government can not be trusted to unite and efficiently defend our country in times of need. Private companies, whether you are willing to admit it or not, exist to serve their own interests. Thus, defense, which is something that every person deserves equally, must be provided by an institution that exists solely to serve its people, not itself. This institution is the government.

__________________

Please explain to me how this is possible. For a company to succeed, it must sell products. For a company to sell products people must buy them. If people buy a product they are saying that they want the product. If they didn't want it they wouldn't buy it.

Saying that companies make money other ways than satisfying consumer needs is like saying that a coin will always land on tails.
First, it is you who looks as if he has no knowledge of what he is talking. The Post Office, roads, and the army are all examples of monopolies that are granted to governmental agencies by the government. All private people are forbidden from competing with them.

A monopoly will not arise on a truly free market, and I ask you to give an example. Monopolies only arise when they are granted special priviledge from gov't. The threat of competition, or actual competition will always prevent a company from having monopoly.

Again, explain this absrud statement to me, something which you have yet to do.

When was the last time Switzerland was invaded? Austrilia? New Zealand? These countries are not invaded because they don't piss people off. Why would a foreign country invade? And, supposing that it does invade, history shows us that we have the upper hand. Look at the American Revolution. Largely unprofessional armies beat the greatest millitary power of the time.

Great argument. Someone might be crazy. What happens when one private army comes in and starts messing with the customers of two private armies, or three private armies? Guess what? It is a three against one fight.
Yes, Japan just accidentally pissed us off. Read my above statement again.

Why do we have to dominate the world to run at our full potential? This is insane. If we took armies out of foreign areas, two things would be accomplished: people would not be pissed at us and the money that is saved from this could be put back into the market (in the form of tax cuts) so it could be put to good use by the market.
If the Brittish had not been oppressive, they wouldn't have wanted independence. This satement you make suggests that big armies are oppressive. Why you would then want a big army is beyond me. The founders share my position: they did not want a standing army. They wanted armies raised for a few years at a time. Just look at Article 1 Section 8 of the US constitution. They make an allowance for a standing Navy, but not a standing army. Why is this? Historically standing armies have been oppressive.
Of course a little damage is done. But in the private sector the damage is minimalized. In a socialist ecnonomy, the damamge continues becasue the lack of a rational price system makes it impossible to determine whether or not something is being produced efficently.
Another unsubstantiated quip from you. Why can't a company put a price on protection? They put prices on food and clothes; these are more important than derfense.

I don't want to get into a Great Depression argument here. I will gladly do it on another thread. But there was, in no way, a free market before the Great Depression.

Did you read anything I wrote? Did you read "I Pencil" (did I leave the link for it?) Companies ONLY make profit by satisfying consumers. Once again, you have only told me I am wrong with out responding to my actual arguments. Why don't you try that?
Not when it is an agreement between two other people. If it is an agreement between two other people, you are not involved. You can bitch, yell and scream all you want but it doesn't change reality. Get your nose out of other people's business.
Value is based on the utility that consumers derive from a product. This is where value is created.
Yeah, sometimes people make mistakes when they buy something. Are you suggesting that people will not make mistakes in "market socialism?"

No, if they screw up they waste resources. I have covered this in my last post and earlier in this post. Once they realize they are wasting resources they will stop whatever they are doing because they are losing money. This is completly missing in a socialist system.
And, once again, you do not explain why I am wrong. You only tell me that I am wrong.
If it is obvious that no one wants something, no one will make it. And if someone tries to make it, and fails, this serves as a signal to other business owners to not do whatever it was that failed.
Well, not knowing enough of the situation, I do not know what to say. I do know that when private firms produce for government, most of the good things about being a private firm disappear. Just look at the very odd nature of cost plus contracts.
Yes, I guess this is why areas controlled by the USSR have such great standards of living. If socialism is so great, why did they have to build a wall to keep people INSIDE East Berlin?

Why does SOuth Korea have a better economy than North Korea?

Food is important. What happens when we put gov't in charge of food: they destroy it. Yep, this is a good deal. We want food to cost a lot of money. I guess you want defense to cost a lot of money, too.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

Ich agree with most of your points.
Free markets need also a set of common rules. Legal security for example, is beneficial for als participants, because it reduces risks.
And sure, there shouldn`t be a free marked for atomic bombs.

But the new deal isn`t an good example. The New deal only extended the economic crisis and never reached his goals.
Public service and indiustry has only sense in aeres, which are connected with the state monopol on the legitimate use of force.
Other areas should be as free as possible. Breach of contract should be the the only case for state interference.

__________________
Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else

Claude Frédéric Bastiat

What if the public sector operated any potential public good (in the form of infrastructure, and infrastructure development) and administered the physical layer of these sectors: telecommunications, rail, and energy.

By ensuring access to markets, the public sector could be providing a useful service that promotes the general welfare. These "conduits" to markets can generate revenue, in the form of a general tax.

The private sector will be able to provide "content" via that conduit at less cost, due to not having to purchase and maintain capital intensive infrastructure.

Conversely, the public sector will be able to generate revenue by specializing in natural public sector monopolies where it can use scale economies to its best advantage.