Reported Post by rsaccounttrader

Rsaccounttrader · Oct 16, 2010

rsaccounttrader has reported a post.

Reason:

Don't want to be a dick, but I did the same thing (double post, even though it was necessary to seperate two long ideas on an SFA thread) and got an infraction, so I think everyone should be treated equally.
Click to expand...

Post: Do we need government?
Forum: Something for All
Assigned Moderators: Clashfan, MegaMatt, Louis, Angelmax, FireZ

Posted by: Tyro
Original Content:

OstridgeSlayer said: ↑

As I have said before, I will most likely look this up later but at the moment I am interested in the various opinions being displayed on this topic. All I ask is a brief summary which should be easy to provide if you have read his articles thoroughly.
Click to expand...

Let's see if you can muscle through three paragraphs.

"
In the first place, there is a common fallacy, held even by most advocates of laissez-faire, that the government must supply "police protection," as if police protection were a single, absolute entity, a fixed quantity of something which the government supplies to all. But in actual fact there is no absolute commodity called "police protection" any more than there is an absolute single commodity called "food" or "shelter." It is true that everyone pays taxes for a seemingly fixed quantity of protection, but this is a myth. In actual fact, there are almost infinite degrees of all sorts of protection. For any given person or business, [p. 216] the police can provide everything from a policeman on the beat who patrols once a night, to two policemen patrolling constantly on each block, to cruising patrol cars, to one or even several round-the-clock personal bodyguards. Furthermore, there are many other decisions the police must make, the complexity of which becomes evident as soon as we look beneath the veil of the myth of absolute "protection." How shall the police allocate their funds which are, of course, always limited as are the funds of all other individuals, organizations, and agencies? How much shall the police invest in electronic equipment? fingerprinting equipment? detectives as against uniformed police? patrol cars as against foot police, etc.?

The point is that the government has no rational way to make these allocations. The government only knows that it has a limited budget. Its allocations of funds are then subject to the full play of politics, boondoggling, and bureaucratic inefficiency, with no indication at all as to whether the police department is serving the consumers in a way responsive to their desires or whether it is doing so efficiently. The situation would be different if police services were supplied on a free, competitive market. In that case, consumers would pay for whatever degree of protection they wish to purchase. The consumers who just want to see a policeman once in a while would pay less than those who want continuous patrolling, and far less than those who demand twenty-four-hour bodyguard service. On the free market, protection would be supplied in proportion and in whatever way that the consumers wish to pay for it. A drive for efficiency would be insured, as it always is on the market, by the compulsion to make profits and avoid losses, and thereby to keep costs low and to serve the highest demands of the consumers. Any police firm that suffers from gross inefficiency would soon go bankrupt and disappear.

One big problem a government police force must always face is: what laws really to enforce? Police departments are theoretically faced with the absolute injunction, "enforce all laws," but in practice a limited budget forces them to allocate their personnel and equipment to the most urgent crimes. But the absolute dictum pursues them and works against a rational allocation of resources. On the free market, what would be enforced is whatever the customers are willing to pay for. Suppose, for example, that Mr. Jones has a precious gem he believes might soon be stolen. He can ask, and pay for, round-the-clock police protection at whatever strength he may wish to work out with the police company. He might, on the other hand, also have a private road on his estate he doesn't want many people to travel on â€” but he might not care very [p. 217] much about trespassers on that road. In that case, he won't devote any police resources to protecting the road. As on the market in general, it is up to the consumer â€” and since all of us are consumers this means each person individually decides how much and what kind of protection he wants and is willing to buy.

"
Click to expand...

Hahanerd · Oct 16, 2010

You were infracted because you could have PMed Tyro for his MSN and didn't contribute anything. Tyro's posts were both on topic.

Log in or Sign up

Reported Post by rsaccounttrader

Rsaccounttrader Sythe Grandmaster

Sports Bettor - DM me if you have credit accounts.

Log in or Sign up

Reported Post by rsaccounttrader

Thread Tools

Rsaccounttrader Sythe Grandmaster

Sports Bettor - DM me if you have credit accounts.