|
Originally Posted by boost
Right, so I think I pretty much agree with your explanation of how the market corrects for TotC in the examples you used. But we were more specifically talking about city planning, zoning, etc. In this realm, the resources concerned are not as tangible, for example, airspace, number of entrances/exits in a given stretch of road, etc. Pretty much, I'm thinking more of TotC scenarios in which the end game is not a depletion of a finite resource, but a stalemate in which inefficiency is mandatory, else you give your competitor an edge.
I think that is a very good observation, and the answer is that I don't think anybody knows how the chips would fall. However, it is important to note that there is not just one city. We currently have some very small competition between state governments trying to do things like attract businesses from other states, but I think that pales in comparison to the competition between city boards would be if all property was private. I think the basis is that in a market, the cost-benefit analysis reigns supreme; whereas, it doesn't in a state. So even with finite resources in a specific city, the cost-benefit analysis works better than the vote-politician dynamic
Right, so the mechanism to respond to an under-performing state needs to be better. A voting system that doesn't encourage two (and in all practical ways only two) centrist political parties, and maybe the possibility for a recall referendum could be a viable solution, no?
The parties/candidates that cannot hold office because they renege on campaign promises will not be able to fund successful campaigns, pay to employ talented staffers, etc etc.
Europe is much more advanced than we are in this regard, yet that has solved none of its problems. Europe is in full-on disaster mode today, and honestly I think we'd be in for WW3 if it wasn't for global trade and the known impossibility for any European state to create a dominant military. That's just fun speculation though. The point is that Europe is better at what you suggest yet it hasn't improved their policies. Arguably it makes their policies worse.
Like, dude, we need a state, so I'm just always weary when everything that you tap into your keyboard can be summed up by "gubment bad." It's like people who claim all police are bad, and furthermore that the institution itself is inherently bad, but, like, you know, you don't want to live in a world without police.
I do want to live in a world without police. Also I don't think that because some police are bad it means all are bad; instead I think that the system is fundamentally dysfunctional, which means that "the police" as a whole is inherently a problem.
Let me explain why I think we shouldn't have police:
I seriously do not believe that they are responsible for safety and security in communities. If they were, then wouldn't it mean that places where there are more police are places that quickly become the safest? Yes, I think it would, but that isn't what we see happening. What we see is all the safe regions being where the people themselves do not tolerate an insecure environment, and the police do very little there. We see in the places where the police are the most, perpetuation of an unsafe community.
Police almost never stop crime in process, but regular people do on a regular basis. Because of our belief in the police state and the illegality of many forms of private protection, the people depend on the police to provide them security, yet the police rarely live up to the standards. Just take the recent riots for example. I contend that private property was damaged precisely because all the businesses rely on the police for protection. Yet if instead, the businesses knew that their only protection was what they created on the merits, they would already have a system in place that truly benefits them over the costs and protects them from vandalism.
Consider what the fundamental duty of the police is. Is it to protect and serve? No. That is a lie. It is to uphold the laws, to protect the state. This is why the overwhelming majority of what cops do is just patrol the streets, looking for anybody speeding, rolling at stops, or without updated tags, so they can ticket them for state revenues. The police spends almost all of their time harassing citizens.
As for more indepth policing, like homicide investigations or SWAT type enforcement, that stuff could be handled so much more easily by private organizations on contract by insurance companies on contract with individuals and communities who choose to pay for those services.
Taxes are you being forced to pay for what you're told you need. Why does freedom of choice work for everything except for those handful of arbitrary things the state says we need?
|