[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: public vs private



---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Ludwig Von mises argued against socialism using an argument called the
"socialist calculation problem ", which primarily meant that the
scialists have no way of knowing the price of a good in the absence of
a market. hence, any socialism in any amount will lead to
mis-allocation of resources.  Hence the only efficient alternative is
"laissez faire capitalism", i.e- the government makes no unnecessary
laws to curb business. He argued against interventionist policies in
the same manner. Interventionism is partial socialism, which is
inefficient.

>Exploitation is also [as in the US] when all funeral companies
collude to 
>set a minimum coffin price at $5000. will not give prices over the
phone, 
>will bribe local politicians to pass laws that only they- licensed 
>morticians may transport a body so that they can charge you anything
they 
>please, and more recently attempting to ban coffin sales over the
net. 

the example cited is infact, the very thing i am against, in a free
market -the govenment will not be able to do any of these -
1- pass a law which restricts the willing trade of people and the
coffin makers/morticians.
2 - pass a law which restricts trading on the net.

also, in the absence of competition restricting rules, a cartel is a
Very unstable equilibrium. the "power" they represent , which you are
so worried about, is crystallised by LAWS, STATE INTERVENTION. the
truly free market will tend to drive the costs to their lowest.

>The 
>free[er] market  in the US does much worse in terms of services and
much 
>much better in terms of profits- at least in terms of corporate
profits- 
>check the stock performance of service corp international
[mega-funeral 
>company] over the last 20 years.

Ironically , you chose the interventionist part of the US economy to
attack Laissez faire Capitalism, which is its very antithesis.


>depends on which government and which company. there are lots of
companies 
>larger [in revenues anyway] and more powerful than lots of
governments.

Every corporation has a vested interest in listening to you. Have you
read "business@the speed of thought" ( by bill gates ) It gives you an
example of what i am saying.

>in a capitalist utopia... and in a socialist utopia "...the state
will 
>wither away" fat chance- that either will happen

there is an iron law of action which says that a corporation not
responding to your needs will wither away. I might have overstepped by
saying that corporations as such will wither away. I definitely can
say the inefficient , uncaring corporations wil die away. 

>
>at least we agree on something

then you agree that regulation should be curbed and the free-market be
let to work ?

>ah, so going back to the gold standard is the solution for our
problems? how 
>will gold be transmitted over the internet?
no, but that will atleast reduce the economic power of government in
our everyday lives and give us the strongest currency in the world.

>
>likewise the "devlish" scheme of corporate power is to curb
>any public instituition that questions theirs and curbs the
>growth of their power- examples abound.

How ? an example -  the leading player in india's milk market is a
cooperative - amul. It has not been overrun by corporations.

> >
> > simple, scrap regulation. scrap government control over everything
> > and you will achieve your ideal.
>
>see my other post on the possibilities of profitable public
instituitions.

Some of those examples violate basic human rights. Human slavery is
definitely  anti-libertarian. ( selling of babies ). Other examples of
private military has been tried out in limited contexts in previous
eras. It has worked ( source : ludwig von mises institute )

>i believe the generally accepted definition of profit is financial-
>certainly in the context we're discussing- the corporation.

I believe in a society in which everyone can pursue his happines
without being molested and taxed. Each one of us should be willing to
live our lives if we respect the simlar rights of others. Pursuit of
happiness can be non-monetary. But, these are subjective and hence the
government should not indulge in these. Hospitals can be run by
charity organisations ( voluntary contributions as opposed to
involuntary taxes ). The government should handle the law and little 
more. (It can charter private police)



>objectives and certainly not in common usage of the english language.
taking 
>care of your parents does not generate "profits"- proving my point-
some 
>activities are done for motivations
>other than profit.

The corporation is an entity for making money, period. So, whatever
leads it to its goal it will take. It is upto the law to see that the
corporation does nothing that violates the similar rights of other
individuals or corporations. when it lobbies to exclude its
competitors, it is undertaking something like that. that could not
happen in a laissez faire environment.

c.prakash

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The coolest site for free home pages, email, chat, e-cards, movie info.. |
|               http://www.goplay.com - it's time to Go Play!              |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------