Free Market Impracticalities: Ice Cream Vans

[Connolly]

How would the free market solve this issue:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/council-whips-up-a-frenzy-with-move-to-restrict-ice-cream-vans-1465994.html

Lack of regulation causing private operators to enter housing estates numerous times per day causing various problems including serious noise pollution.

People are calling for greater regulation and restrictions, some local authorities want Ice cream vans banned from housing estates.

So what is the free market solution?

[Jazzratt]

So what is the free market solution?

Ignore what the people want. Allow the ice cream vans to go wherever they like, making as much noise as they like. The invisible hand will eventually sort it all out, but in the mean time we can sell you double glazing at an inflated cost because it's worth more to you.

If you don't think this is a good solution you will be strong armed by banks until you do.

[Connolly]

Ignore what the people want. Allow the ice cream vans to go wherever they like, making as much noise as they like. The invisible hand will eventually sort it all out, but in the mean time we can sell you double glazing at an inflated cost because it's worth more to you.



:lol::laugh:

Youd wonder that since the solution has been applied why we are still having problems.

[Jazzratt]

:lol::laugh:

Youd wonder that since the solution has been applied why we are still having problems.

There are no problems in the free market. Anything that goes wrong is because the market is being interfered with too much.

Seriously, lolbertarians are like that all the damn time.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I remember as a child I used to annoy the hell out of my parents to bring me into McDonalds whenever we passed it by. Maybe we should ban it too?

The article, by the way, doesn't mention anything about noise pollution.

[Connolly]

It does, here:



Earlier this month in England (http://www.independent.ie/topics/United+Kingdom), Worcester City Council (http://www.independent.ie/topics/Worcester+City+Council) limited vendors to playing their distinctive jingles for a few seconds at a time.

Restrictions have also been imposed on the volume of the jingle and they have been banned from outside places of worship, schools during class time and in narrow or restricted places. But one imaginative parent may have come up with the best solution of all.

"I just tell my children that when the jingle sounds, it means the van has run out of ice-cream," she revealed.


To reduce the range for which children can detect an Ice Cream van I suppose?

[Connolly]

I remember as a child I used to annoy the hell out of my parents to bring me into McDonalds whenever we passed it by. Maybe we should ban it too?



I dont think any reasonable person here would call for the banning of Ice Cream vans, rather, regulations and guidelines imposed - as it is with the entire food industry, including MacDonalds. This is a solution that works.

But the question is where does this leave proponents of a freemarket solution.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The free market answers to everyday problems:

If you don't like noise pollution, plug your ears.
If you don't like the food we sell you, don't eat.
If you don't like the high cost of living, don't live.
If you don't like capitalism, fuck off and die.

And that is Freedom™®!

[Bud Struggle]

The free market solution is that the ice cream isn't worth the bother and the noise and the pollution and everyone stops buying it and the ice cream man goes off to greener pastures. Easy enough.

Now what's the Communist solution?

[Green Dragon]

I do not know what the the term "housing estate" means in Ireland. I am gussing it would be synanomous to "housing project" in the USA.

A "free market" solution to the problems by the inhabitants of the estate? Maybe charter out an ice cream shop on the grounds.

The "revleft" solution has not been proposed. My guess it would be a variation of the people (democratically, of course!) telling other people when they can and cannot purchase and consume ice cream, while they would tell each other that the "people" have agreed when and when not to consume ice cream.

[pusher robot]

One possible solution, aside from the one that Brother Tom recommended, is to sue the truck driver for wrongful deprivation of one's ability to use one's right of quiet enjoyment of one's property.

This is known as a "nuisance" and nuisance is one of the oldest areas of tort law in existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuisance

[Bud Struggle]

The "revleft" solution has not been proposed. My guess it would be a variation of the people (democratically, of course!) telling other people when they can and cannot purchase and consume ice cream, while they would tell each other that the "people" have agreed when and when not to consume ice cream.

I can just imagine how the idea of "some Commies" telling you when and where you could eat your Ice Cream would go down in middle America. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::lol:

You guys have got one LONG road to hoe. :D

[Qwerty Dvorak]

One possible solution, aside from the one that Brother Tom recommended, is to sue the truck driver for wrongful deprivation of one's ability to use one's right of quiet enjoyment of one's property.

This is known as a "nuisance" and nuisance is one of the oldest areas of tort law in existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuisance
That would be a big gamble though and it's unlikely to happen.

[pusher robot]

That would be a big gamble though and it's unlikely to happen.

Uh, why? In what way would it be a gamble? And if it is, doesn't the fact that no one is willing to wager on success demonstrate the rather niggling nature of the problem?

[Connolly]

The free market solution is that the ice cream isn't worth the bother and the noise and the pollution and everyone stops buying it and the ice cream man goes off to greener pastures. Easy enough.

Now what's the Communist solution?


Then suppose 10% of the housing estate purchase Ice cream from the vans. This 10% is enough to make it economical for 6 ice cream vans per day to come jingling around the place.

What of the problem which 90% of the housing estate face?

The communist solution is that a jingle is not necessary. There is no pressure to attract children. There is no private rivalries seeing who can play their jingles loudest to attract most children.

A routine time of arrival would suffice, or indeed, numerous ice cream vans within reason if demand were high.


I do not know what the the term "housing estate" means in Ireland. I am gussing it would be synanomous to "housing project" in the USA.

A "free market" solution to the problems by the inhabitants of the estate? Maybe charter out an ice cream shop on the grounds.

The "revleft" solution has not been proposed. My guess it would be a variation of the people (democratically, of course!) telling other people when they can and cannot purchase and consume ice cream, while they would tell each other that the "people" have agreed when and when not to consume ice cream.


Most housing estates are quite large, and with little room for construction - bar the odd playing field.

Your first solution would require taking up maybe a piece of greenery, for which say, as the example above points to, 90% of people who dont like ice cream require for their own purposes.

The second problem is that children, especially young children, would have to travel reasonably far distances out of their parents way or sight to the "ice cream hut". The ice cream hut is only economical if covering large areas which an ice cream van can.

The ice cream van would travel within close proximity in a communist model - and make no noise.


One possible solution, aside from the one that Brother Tom recommended, is to sue the truck driver for wrongful deprivation of one's ability to use one's right of quiet enjoyment of one's property.



Oh right. So there would be state intervention.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Uh, why? In what way would it be a gamble? And if it is, doesn't the fact that no one is willing to wager on success demonstrate the rather niggling nature of the problem?
In the same way that playing blackjack is a gamble; it would cost money, and there is a good chance you could lose. In nuisance cases, in Ireland and the UK at least, the court effectively acts as an arbiter between the competing interests of the parties. Though the courts do not generally consider public convenience to be a mitigating factor when determining liability, they would probably give consideration to the fact that this is how the ice cream man earns his livelihood, the fact that ice cream vans have been around for ages and are generally accepted in society etc.

Anyway, the problem is a niggling one. The article smacks of a slow news day. The best way to solve this problem is for the parents to learn how to say no (we can stop pretending that this is about noise pollution).

[Connolly]

Anyway, the problem is a niggling one. The article smacks of a slow news day. The best way to solve this problem is for the parents to learn how to say no (we can stop pretending that this is about noise pollution).


It could be a condom van for all I care. The point is, I would like to know how, at least in theory, a freemarket system would solve such a problem, and one of competing interests.

If you heard the Joe Duffy show today on the issue, numerous callers mentioned noise pollution as an issue.

[Bud Struggle]

Then suppose 10% of the housing estate purchase Ice cream from the vans. This 10% is enough to make it economical for 6 ice cream vans per day to come jingling around the place.

What of the problem which 90% of the housing estate face?

The communist solution is that a jingle is not necessary. There is no pressure to attract children. There is no private rivalries seeing who can play their jingles loudest to attract most children.

A routine time of arrival would suffice, or indeed, numerous ice cream vans within reason if demand were high.



Most housing estates are quite large, and with little room for construction - bar the odd playing field.

Your first solution would require taking up maybe a piece of greenery, for which say, as the example above points to, 90% of people who dont like ice cream require for their own purposes.

The second problem is that children, especially young children, would have to travel reasonably far distances out of their parents way or sight to the "ice cream hut". The ice cream hut is only economical if covering large areas which an ice cream van can.

The ice cream van would travel within close proximity in a communist model - and make no noise.
right. So there would be state intervention.

No different than any "Del Boca Vista, Phase II" housing development community board would do.

[pusher robot]

Oh right. So there would be state intervention.

Only to uphold property rights. See?

[Bud Struggle]

Only to uphold property rights. See?

Bada Bing! :lol:

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Only to uphold property rights. See?
And to restrict property rights.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Privatize air. :thumbup1:

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

TomK hit the nail on the head (not that Pushers analysis wasn't any less relevant).

If the people of these communities didn't like the Ice-Cream vendor, they'd stop buying the Ice Cream and cease to be a market for his annoyance.

Now, Communists could find any problem with any situation if they want. If people stop buying Ice Cream, what will happen with all the unemployed vendors? Who will pay their families bills, etc etc. When this story comes out next month, I'm sure it'll be an issue.

Capitalists don't worry about this. Capitalism solving these petty problems is inherent to the system itself, no top-down command is required.

[Connolly]

Maybe you cant read or something. I you look at my other posts, 10% of the community purchase ice cream from the vans. 90% dont want them.

Whats the solution?

[Bud Struggle]

TomK hit the nail on the head

My post actually doesn't count. I do the Capitalist thing professionally. :lol:

[Connolly]

Only to uphold property rights. See?


So, say if I lived near an airport, you could even say I bought my house after the airport was constructed, the airport and the noise to go with it is an invasion of my property rights - yes?

Sure society wouldnt function.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

If the people of these communities didn't like the Ice-Cream vendor, they'd stop buying the Ice Cream and cease to be a market for his annoyance.That's the stupidest statement I've heard in quite sometime. Ever learn about "market share?" With just 10% of the population one can acquire a profit and still be operational.


no top-down command is required.Except private property is dependent on top-down authority. But then again capitalist apologists always forget that little detail.

You're twisting and turning to extract some market alternative, but there isn't one, and people aren't going to lose anything from regulation. It sucks that reality doesn't conform to the market god. :thumbup:

[Bud Struggle]

That's the stupidest statement I've heard in quite sometime. Ever learn about "market share?" With just 10% of the population one can acquire a profit and still be operational.

Maybe, but it depends on the market--but that's not really how housing developments operate--they have board and rules and leections and bylaws.

Anyway, if it was a "quality" development--no ice cream venders would EVER be allowed. EVER.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Maybe, but it depends on the market--but that's not really how housing developments operate--they have board and rules and leections and bylaws.

I looked into ice cream trucks for one of my business projects, actually. I went forward with operating a book retailer that also publishes local music and authors, but the costs for the truck weren't that much. A few thousand to buy - even less to rent. Maybe one thousand dollars worth of ice cream. You're not going to walk off with anything stupendous, but it's pretty easy to get into it.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Maybe, but it depends on the market--but that's not really how housing developments operate--they have board and rules and leections and bylaws.

Anyway, if it was a "quality" development--no ice cream venders would EVER be allowed. EVER.
That's the point, it's not a quality development. It's a council estate, it houses the city's poor.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I should also add for clarification purposes (since inevitably someone is going to reply) that I'm one of the most lenient socialists on the forum when it comes to the market (professing acceptance of mutualism and geoism), and I find the idea of market riddling out problems like this ridiculous.

Any system can be taken to the extreme end of utopianism.

[Bud Struggle]

That's the point, it's not a quality development. It's a council estate, it houses the city's poor.

WHO's to SAY what quality is? Quality is just a matter of attitude--nothing more. council estate could be "Council Estates"--in a heartbeat.

Being exclusive is BY FAR more about attitude than about money.

[Connolly]

That's the point, it's not a quality development. It's a council estate, it houses the city's poor.


And working class...

[Connolly]

Tom K, admit it to fuck - you dont have a solution.

All you can mouth off is 'build quality housing estates'. The fucking free market does not do that, Dublin is a kip with lego block buildings dressed up to look good for about a year. An utter disgrace.

[Vendetta]

Here's a reply from another forum.



If the parents want the ice cream trucks gone, then stop giving their kids money. Eventually, the trucks will lose more money in operating costs (i.e. gas) and stop making rounds in areas where they receive little business

[Bud Struggle]

Tom K, admit it to fuck - you dont have a solution.

All you can mouth off is 'build quality housing estates'. The fucking free market does not do that, Dublin is a kip with lego block buildings dressed up to look good for about a year. An utter disgrace.

I don't live there, of course. I have land on Lough Ree outside of Carnagh. Not that it matters. People make up the "quality" of the housing estates--not the money. That was my point. Really, truly, deeply--people are the ones the decide on the quality of the place they live in--not money.

[Connolly]

Here's a reply from another forum.



As my example points to above, if 10% use the Ice cream vans, the other 90% lose out.

The problem remains.


don't live there, of course. I have land on Lough Ree outside of Carnagh. Not that it matters. People make up the "quality" of the housing estates--not the money. That was my point. Really, truly, deeply--people are the ones the decide on the quality of the place they live in--not money.

But can you not see you are walking around the problem?

10% want Ice cream at the expense of 90% in the estate.

All I ask is how the market system solves this issue, or have must we put up with whatever the minority want at people's expense.

[Bud Struggle]

As my example points to above, if 10% use the Ice cream vans, the other 90% lose out.

The problem remains.



But can you not see you are walking around the problem?

10% want Ice cream at the expense of 90% in the estate.

All I ask is how the market system solves this issue, or have must we put up with whatever the minority want at people's expense.

No offense--this is a psycho problem. Some guy ringing some bells and selling ice cream. SO WHAT?????

Live and let live--what the hell do you want to do --SHOOT THEM? There's nothing Communism could do that a good Community board couldn't? Isn't that right?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Here's a reply from another forum.

I already pointed our the stupidity inherit in that statement. You don't need even 20% market share to get away with a profit.

[Vendetta]

I already pointed our the stupidity inherit in that statement. You don't need even 20% market share to get away with a profit.

I see it, thanks.

[pusher robot]

So, say if I lived near an airport, you could even say I bought my house after the airport was constructed, the airport and the noise to go with it is an invasion of my property rights - yes?

No, because you bought the house as it was, with the knowledge of its proximity to the airport a factor that affects the price. Therefore you have no damages, since the consensus reduction in the value of the quiet use and enjoyment of your property has already been reflected in the price you bought the house at. You got a discount because of the existence of the noise.


Sure society wouldnt function.

It would though, because the remedy for a nuisance is compensation for damages. So the airport could close down and terminate the nuisance, or it could continue simply compensating you for the inconvenience. In the case of something that is profitable because of its social desirability or necessity, like an airport, it's very likely that it would be they could simply compensate you for the nuisance and factor that into the price of using the airport.

[Connolly]

No offense--this is a psycho problem. Some guy ringing some bells and selling ice cream. SO WHAT?????

Live and let live--what the hell do you want to do --SHOOT THEM? There's nothing Communism could do that a good Community board couldn't? Isn't that right?


If you take it to a hypothetical and extreme level, then you cannot deny it being a problem.

For example, 10% of the housing estate can keep 40 Ice cream van visits per day coming. Each Ice cream van attempts to attract children by playing the highest jingle.

You have a problem there, and something I cant see the logic of the free market solving.




No, because you bought the house as it was, with the knowledge of its proximity to the airport a factor that affects the price. Therefore you have no damages, since the consensus reduction in the value of the quiet use and enjoyment of your property has already been reflected in the price you bought the house at. You got a discount because of the existence of the noise.



Suppose I had the house before the airport was built. What then?



It would though, because the remedy for a nuisance is compensation for damages. So the airport could close down and terminate the nuisance, or it could continue simply compensating you for the inconvenience. In the case of something that is profitable because of its social desirability or necessity, like an airport, it's very likely that it would be they could simply compensate you for the nuisance and factor that into the price of using the airport.


But they dont have to. Nor does an Ice cream van have to compensate 90% of an estate.

[pusher robot]

Suppose I had the house before the airport was built. What then?

Then the airport should probably compensate your for your inconvenience, purchase your property from you, or stop making so much noise.


But they dont have to. Nor does an Ice cream van have to compensate 90% of an estate.

On the issue of airports, people have indeed met with some success in dealing with serious noise problems. But the solution has tended to be the aircraft using noise abatement procedures rather than compensation. For the ice cream vans, well, society has decided it's just not that big of a deal as evidenced by the fact that ice cream trucks have basically no effect on housing prices. Therefore your inconvenience is so slight that it's probably not worth it to even bring the complaint. That's what happens when you're outside the mainstream in a largely democratic society - you need to accommodate society, rather than demanding that society accommodate you.

[pusher robot]

Finally for those who think it's cheating to involve civil courts, there is another solution as well.

Brother Tom hinted at it when he suggested not buying the vendor's products. But of course, as GC pointed out, that's no solution when the, say, 90% negatively impacted by the music aren't customers in the first place. What then?

The answer should be obvious. The 90% should simply pay the vendor not to play the music. All they need to do is offer the vendor n+1 dollars, where n is the amount of sales the vendor would lose due to not playing the music, and the profit-oriented vendor would happily accept their offer.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The 90% should simply pay the vendor not to play the music. All they need to do is offer the vendor n+1 dollars, where n is the amount of sales the vendor would lose due to not playing the music, and the profit-oriented vendor would happily accept their offer.Wait - what? Then anyone worth their snot in brain matter creates their own loud distractions until they get payed. It's even doubtful enough money could be pooled together to handle just one loser; people are too mindful of their own pocketbooks to pay into social blackmail. Even so, your situation reflects on a monopoly of power. Since I don't have to remove my ice cream truck, I can annoy you to hell until I get the exact money reward I want.

This actually sounds like a good way to get enough money for my computer. Perhaps we should run with it for a week. I can guarantee you I would excerise this right of annoyance just to expose the flaw in private property. How long before properterians rush for the government to intrude on my business? :laugh:

:lol:

[Dean]

The answer should be obvious. The 90% should simply pay the vendor not to play the music. All they need to do is offer the vendor n+1 dollars, where n is the amount of sales the vendor would lose due to not playing the music, and the profit-oriented vendor would happily accept their offer.

I don't know of a single business that would be willing to overturn its entire business plan if it were going to be "fairly compensated."

[Schrödinger's Cat]

With this type of practice in place, teenagers wouldn't need to work at retail stores. Just annoy your neighbors and get paid for it! :thumbup1:

[Lynx]

Wasn't there an effort by merchants to drive away mall rats with elevator music?

[Plagueround]

Wait - what? Then anyone worth their snot in brain matter creates their own loud distractions until they get payed. It's even doubtful enough money could be pooled together to handle just one loser; people are too mindful of their own pocketbooks to pay into social blackmail. Even so, your situation reflects on a monopoly of power. Since I don't have to remove my ice cream truck, I can annoy you to hell until I get the exact money reward I want.

This actually sounds like a good way to get enough money for my computer. Perhaps we should run with it for a week. I can guarantee you I would excerise this right of annoyance just to expose the flaw in private property. How long before properterians rush for the government to intrude on my business? :laugh:

:lol:

I'm glad I'm not the only one that did a double take on that "solution". I was going to type up a similar reply, but duty called and Gene beat me to it.

Maybe we should go into a business venture together Gene...I have plenty of music people consider loud and obnoxious that should do the trick.

[pusher robot]

[quote=GeneCosta;1232447]Wait - what? Then anyone worth their snot in brain matter creates their own loud distractions until they get payed. It's even doubtful enough money could be pooled together to handle just one loser; people are too mindful of their own pocketbooks to pay into social blackmail. Even so, your situation reflects on a monopoly of power. Since I don't have to remove my ice cream truck, I can annoy you to hell until I get the exact money reward I want.

That's not likely to happen, since even being annoying takes time and effort, and unless your annoying behavior is productive enough that people are willing to pay you to do it, you are ultimately going to be limited by financial realities. The other people, knowing this, merely have to wait until you have to get a real job, at which point they get what they want for free.

Finally, if we are apparently now assuming that a majority of the citizens do not want the described behavior, the proper response would be for the local municipal corporation (that is, in most cases, the city government) to set conditions as to the use of its property. Since the municipal corporation owns the roads outright, it has the right to set to disallow use of its property if the users, say, insist on driving their cars drunk, or on the wrong side, or with excessive volume. This should make everyone happy - a solution that bypasses markets, which makes you happy, and still respects property rights, which makes libertarians happy.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

That's not likely to happen, since even being annoying takes time and effort, and unless your annoying behavior is productive enough that people are willing to pay you to do it, you are ultimately going to be limited by financial realities. The other people, knowing this, merely have to wait until you have to get a real job, at which point they get what they want for free.

If you possess something as annoying as an ice cream truck stereo you can get people annoyed pretty quick for no money. I'd up the stakes with a weather siren.


to set conditions as to the use of its property. Since the municipal corporation owns the roads outright, it has the right to set to disallow use of its property if the users, say, insist on driving their cars drunk, or on the wrong side, or with excessive volume. This should make everyone happy - a solution that bypasses markets, which makes you happy, and still respects property rights, which makes libertarians happy.

Thank you for finally deferring to the government. That was the whole point of this exercise: to prove that the market has its own shortcomings.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

That's the stupidest statement I've heard in quite sometime. Ever learn about "market share?" With just 10% of the population one can acquire a profit and still be operational.

So, obviously, the rights of these 10% are being protected.

I'm glad that I live in a Capitalist society, were I can choose RC Cola which 90% of people shun but I am able to acquire because someone believed that me and that oppressed 10% are worth it. That's what America is all about.

That all those apple and pumpkin pie eaters must make room for me and my pecan eating brothers. Why? There are more of them; I'm sure if we held an election and were worker -run, it'd be determined to spend all our resources on these ultra generic pies. But no, thanks to Capitalism, my rights as a pecan preferer are protected against the chauvinistic, outdated majority.

And for only one reason. I have money.

Also, what the article doesn't mention is that the real reasons people want these vendors banned is because their primarily black or hispanic. Yeah, you're a racist.


Except private property is dependent on top-down authority. But then again capitalist apologists always forget that little detail.

You're twisting and turning to extract some market alternative, but there isn't one, and people aren't going to lose anything from regulation. It sucks that reality doesn't conform to the market god. :thumbup:


Good God what Dystopian novel are we in were we need a state to regulate the noise of ice-cream vendors? We already have police who can handle noise complaints in our capitalist society, don't we?

Should we just ask every senior citizen in the country if they're going to bed at 6 or 7 O'clock, and just make are scheldules from that?

[Plagueround]

So, obviously, the rights of these 10% are being protected.

I'm glad that I live in a Capitalist society, were I can choose RC Cola which 90% of people shun but I am able to acquire because someone believed that me and that oppressed 10% are worth it. That's what America is all about.

The analogy you present doesn't work because your RC cola choice in no way infringes on the wishes of others to not be disturbed or bothered (well...except maybe if you're slurping real loud).


That all those apple and pumpkin pie eaters must make room for me and my pecan eating brothers. Why? There are more of them; I'm sure if we held an election and were worker -run, it'd be determined to spend all our resources on these ultra generic pies. But no, thanks to Capitalism, my rights as a pecan preferer are protected against the chauvinistic, outdated majority.If there is a demand for pecan pie then it would be accommodated in socialism/communism. I'm sure you would like to imagine the mass oppression of the pecan lovers as a flaw, but you're grasping for straws here.


And for only one reason. I have money.Congratulations. I'll cue the star spangled banner. :rolleyes:


Also, what the article doesn't mention is that the real reasons people want these vendors banned is because their primarily black or hispanic. Yeah, you're a racist.I wasn't aware there was a large population of black and hispanic Irish that sold ice cream, but I imagine you're not sure of that either and just didn't read the article or bother to see where it came from and your claims are baseless, unless you can provide an article or an account on the ethnicity of ice cream vendors in Ireland. So no, no one is a racist based on this thread, it's more likely you're just a tad ethnocentric.


Good God what Dystopian novel are we in were we need a state to regulate the noise of ice-cream vendors? We already have police who can handle noise complaints in our capitalist society, don't we?

Should we just ask every senior citizen in the country if they're going to bed at 6 or 7 O'clock, and just make are scheldules from that?Cities and communities make noise (and other) ordinances all the time...what do you think the police base the noise complaints on? While I do question the validity of being horribly disturbed by ice cream truck songs, its hardly a sign of dystopic state control.

[pusher robot]

If you possess something as annoying as an ice cream truck stereo you can get people annoyed pretty quick for no money. I'd up the stakes with a weather siren.

Thank you for finally deferring to the government. That was the whole point of this exercise: to prove that the market has its own shortcomings.

WOW! What a revelation! I'll be sure to adopt communism immediately, as this stupendous insight about a non-existent government-less society proves that communism obviously has NO SHORTCOMINGS WHATSOEVER!

I mean, really. I took the OP at his word, that he just wanted to know what some possible "free-market" solutions would be. Nobody, least of all myself, would ever claim that any system for resolving disputes between people is without some shortcoming.

The whole conceit that demonstrating the practicality of noise ordinances of all things somehow is a substantive critique of capitalism is just absurd.

[Connolly]

Then the airport should probably compensate your for your inconvenience, purchase your property from you, or stop making so much noise.



Throwing money at me dosnt solve my problem im afraid, a problem which didnt exist beforehand, and which was not encroaching 'my property rights', but now is.




On the issue of airports, people have indeed met with some success in dealing with serious noise problems. But the solution has tended to be the aircraft using noise abatement procedures rather than compensation. For the ice cream vans, well, society has decided it's just not that big of a deal as evidenced by the fact that ice cream trucks have basically no effect on housing prices. Therefore your inconvenience is so slight that it's probably not worth it to even bring the complaint. That's what happens when you're outside the mainstream in a largely democratic society - you need to accommodate society, rather than demanding that society accommodate you.


You assume people to be superhuman, 'experts' on everything, capable of making informed decisions and choices about everything they buy - what pie in the sky that is, reality is very different, and one of the reasons this free matket idea is complete nonsense.

For example, the housing estate i live in is roughly around 4-5 years old. Its in a county quite rural outside Dublin (which is urban). 95% of the housing estate I would say are from Dublin. The water in the housing estate is very high in lime content, as opposed to Dublin, where there is very little. The lime makes the water taste very bad. All the people i know of either buy water or bring it from dublin. It is quite an issue, quite a long term expenditure to buy consumable water. This has no bearing what-so-ever on the house prices - for various reasons. People looking to buy cannot 'fathom' the scale of the issue when actually living in this circumstance year in year out. Coming from dublin they have not experienced it, and approach it with naivety. If they do have prior knowledge of it, its "sure we'll get used to it".

It is easy to say, "its your own fault", but its not, its human limitation to be able to comprehend every possible scenario amongst the pressure's of purchasing a house, almost a permanent and irreversible dwelling for most.

It is complete nonsense to suggest that market prices are effected by the likes of ice cream vans. It is clearly an issue, considerable media coverage has been given to it. It certainly wont affect house prices though, the market is not sophisticated enough a tool, and its premise of free choice is plagued with problems of human limitations, as mentioned above.

The market is not sophisticated enough to account for a whole series of small issues regarding the dynamics of "actully living in a particular house", and which can, culminated, effect people considerably - and without bearing on house value, and for which the issue is minor enough to be overlooked by people.

Pie in the sky is all it is, 'consumer welfare agencies' and politicians are full of it.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

So, obviously, the rights of these 10% are being protected.Did you even read the link before you jumped into a frenzy? How are the rights being protected from a disturbance of sound?



were I can choose RC Cola which 90% of people shun but I am able to acquire because someone believed that me and that oppressed 10% are worth it. That's what America is all about.Okay. Now that I have indeed established you don't know what the fuck this thread is about, why not go into the original post and examine it for yourself? You're looking like a complete ignoramus. You also have no clue what socialism entails if you think 10% of the population won't acquire their favorite soft drink. Go read something.


Also, what the article doesn't mention is that the real reasons people want these vendors banned is because their primarily black or hispanic. Yeah, you're a racist. The article isn't advocating people just banning the vendors. Most want to regulate the sound. Calling me a racist won't deflect the fact you have no clue what you're talking about.

You're all high and mighty about property rights, but if I stand outside your house on the public street and blare a siren into your house, you'll call the cops.:lol:

[Dean]

WOW! What a revelation! I'll be sure to adopt communism immediately, as this stupendous insight about a non-existent government-less society proves that communism obviously has NO SHORTCOMINGS WHATSOEVER!

I mean, really. I took the OP at his word, that he just wanted to know what some possible "free-market" solutions would be. Nobody, least of all myself, would ever claim that any system for resolving disputes between people is without some shortcoming.

The whole conceit that demonstrating the practicality of noise ordinances of all things somehow is a substantive critique of capitalism is just absurd.

It serves to show how compensation, the application of monetary value to concerns which can't be solved in that way, is often inappropriate and serves to limit social capability. Our society could develop some kind of alternative system for the ice cream route - for instance, having more standardized routes but less noise, so that people know when it will be there without the noise. But by turning to monetary transactions as a primary mode of resolution, society severely limits its inquiries about what can be done, and in turn limits its capability for effectively resolving other issues which may come up.

[pusher robot]

It serves to show how compensation, the application of monetary value to concerns which can't be solved in that way, is often inappropriate and serves to limit social capability. Our society could develop some kind of alternative system for the ice cream route - for instance, having more standardized routes but less noise, so that people know when it will be there without the noise. But by turning to monetary transactions as a primary mode of resolution, society severely limits its inquiries about what can be done, and in turn limits its capability for effectively resolving other issues which may come up.

But society should be limited in its options of what to do. A society that can run completely roughshod over the wishes of individuals is not a society I would want to live in.

Furthermore, I have more than adequately demonstrated how the market would sensibly address this very problem granted the completely reasonable stipulation of a civil court system. Do you object to civil courts? If so, why?

My belief is that organic, bottom-up solutions that arise from people making choices in their own interests are almost always superior to authoritarian top-down solutions that come from those who assert the right to tell people what their interests are. Agree or disagree?

[Self-Owner]

You're all high and mighty about property rights, but if I stand outside your house on the public street and blare a siren into your house, you'll call the cops.:lol:[/FONT]



I don't get it. He
a) believes in property rights
b) believes in state enforcement of property rights and

yet for some reason you think this is absurd.

Of course, in a real free market the housing association you choose to live in would own the residential streets, so it would be a matter of ease to ban any unwanted vendor from driving on them.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

"Housing associations" can mean a score of different things - all unrelated to the market. While you're contemplating that assertion remember that a gift economy isn't a market.

[Dean]

But society should be limited in its options of what to do. A society that can run completely roughshod over the wishes of individuals is not a society I would want to live in.

Furthermore, I have more than adequately demonstrated how the market would sensibly address this very problem granted the completely reasonable stipulation of a civil court system. Do you object to civil courts? If so, why?
Civil courts take the power away from private property and capital interests. That is not a market solution by any standard.


My belief is that organic, bottom-up solutions that arise from people making choices in their own interests are almost always superior to authoritarian top-down solutions that come from those who assert the right to tell people what their interests are. Agree or disagree?
I agree with this. But I believe in a deeply involved council system, which means that the bottom would be directly, fluidly and organically involved in their own management.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

But society should be limited in its options of what to do. A society that can run completely roughshod over the wishes of individuals is not a society I would want to live in.

Furthermore, I have more than adequately demonstrated how the market would sensibly address this very problem granted the completely reasonable stipulation of a civil court system. Do you object to civil courts? If so, why?

My belief is that organic, bottom-up solutions that arise from people making choices in their own interests are almost always superior to authoritarian top-down solutions that come from those who assert the right to tell people what their interests are. Agree or disagree?
Is the judiciary, or is the judiciary not, an arm of the state?

[pusher robot]

Is the judiciary, or is the judiciary not, an arm of the state?

The criminal court obviously is, but I would argue that the civil court system is much less a tool by which the state wields power, because its entire purpose is not to enforce any particular statute but to resolve disputes between people. Their substantive body of law is not state edicts but the common law tradition built up over the past couple of millennia.

But even putting this distinction aside, suppose it is an arm of the state.

So what? All that appears to demonstrate is that a completely stateless society is unworkable, something that the vast majority of libertarians and capitalists would agree with.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

The criminal court obviously is, but I would argue that the civil court system is much less a tool by which the state wields power, because its entire purpose is not to enforce any particular statute but to resolve disputes between people. Their substantive body of law is not state edicts but the common law tradition built up over the past couple of millennia.
Both civil and criminal courts implement a mixture of statute law and common law today. But even putting that aside, a civil court system is an over-arching, top-down structure which is capable of, and intent on, imposing its judgement on society and shaping society according to its view of what's fair. This would be even more the case in the kind of free-market regulation-less society we are talking about here, because people would just turn to the courts instead of to their local or national governments to protect their interests. I think that qualifies the civil court as a state, be it in name or only in practice.


So what? All that appears to demonstrate is that a completely stateless society is unworkable, something that the vast majority of libertarians and capitalists would agree with.
Well the poster here was attacking just such a society, where the "invisible hand" is the only kind of regulation we need. I think this entire thread has proved that the invisible hand of the market isn't enough, some regulation or state intervention will always be needed. That was the gist of the OP. That you only realize now that you agreed with the OP all along is neither here nor there.

[Self-Owner]

"Housing associations" can mean a score of different things - all unrelated to the market. While you're contemplating that assertion remember that a gift economy isn't a market.


Given that things like street lighting and residential roads are public goods, and that most people want street lights and their house connected to the road network, the most likely form of provision in a truly free market would be a housing association - when you buy your house, it will most likely be a condition of the sale that you join a housing organization in which you also agree to pay for the upkeep of the local roads and street lights etc. Bundling a public good (street lights) with a private good (a house) is one of the most sensible ways of dealing with the problem.

So if people do have problems with ice cream vendors near their house, it shouldn't be too hard to collectively, via the housing association, ban them from the private residential roads (you guys love collective action, right?). The problem only arises because the state, at the moment, owns all the roads - and lets anyone who wishes travel on them. Turn them into private property and they'll be used in the interest of the people who actually live nearby to make the problem goes away - if it is a problem at all. Three cheers for the invisible hand!

[Dean]

The criminal court obviously is, but I would argue that the civil court system is much less a tool by which the state wields power, because its entire purpose is not to enforce any particular statute but to resolve disputes between people. Their substantive body of law is not state edicts but the common law tradition built up over the past couple of millennia.

This doesn't have anything to do with the issue. The point is that the market offers no decisive solution to this problem. It can only be amended by use of a court system, which is totally perpendicular to the market system.

[Self-Owner]

This doesn't have anything to do with the issue. The point is that the market offers no decisive solution to this problem. It can only be amended by use of a court system, which is totally perpendicular to the market system.

There's no reason the market couldn't provide courts.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

There's no reason the market couldn't provide courts.
It would be a giant waste of money to provide courts without also providing a means of implementing their will. And once you have that, in what sense do you not have state interference?

[Connolly]

SO:



So if people do have problems with ice cream vendors near their house, it shouldn't be too hard to collectively, via the housing association, ban them from the private residential roads (you guys love collective action, right?). The problem only arises because the state, at the moment, owns all the roads - and lets anyone who wishes travel on them. Turn them into private property and they'll be used in the interest of the people who actually live nearby to make the problem goes away - if it is a problem at all. Three cheers for the invisible hand!


So what you are saying is that the roads within the housing estate be owned by the residents.

So how does that work? people dont buy their homes all at the same time in an estate, but at different times. Nor, at present, in private estates, do home owners own the roads within, but the property developer. Houses are not constructed all at once, but in phases. Housing estates are not constructed all at once, but a different times, with travel routes between them.

What, even if the roads are privately owned, is stopping 51% of the estate charging the other 49% to use the road - using this "collective action"?

Indeed, a village with a main national road going through it, could establish a tollbridge and charge what they liked - couldnt they?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

when you buy your house, it will most likely be a condition of the sale that you join a housing organization in which you also agree to pay for the upkeep of the local roads and street lights etc. Bundling a public good (street lights) with a private good (a house) is one of the most sensible ways of dealing with the problem.


Unless the primal land owner does the smart, profitable thing and retains at least some level of control over the roads while dropping the costs on you.

Conditional contracts are statist, not anarchist, which I presume we're not arguing over in defense of the "free market." What are you going to do if I don't uphold a contract - throw me in jail?

[theraven]

Wow 4 pages wasted on ice cream trucks.

There isn't the problem here that most of you are making.

If the roads are publicly owned (as they are in all by gated communities in the US) then nothing should be done. I am sure there are already noise level ordinances that restrict the volume of the ice cream trucks. Beyond that there is nothing you can do to prevent licnesed vendors from driving on public roads, the only other thing you could do would be to remove the licensese from some vendors.

If the roads are privately owned, whether by a company which manages the community or by the residents via a home owners assocation then of course the people there can restrict access if they feel the need.

But that said this is hardly an indictment of capitalism, the main complaint seems to be their is to much food going around poor area's of town (someone mentioned thats what the area was) and that the sound is kind of annoying. Hardly a major issue that requires a complicated solution.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Wow 4 pages wasted on ice cream trucks.

There isn't the problem here that most of you are making.

If the roads are publicly owned (as they are in all by gated communities in the US) then nothing should be done. I am sure there are already noise level ordinances that restrict the volume of the ice cream trucks. Beyond that there is nothing you can do to prevent licnesed vendors from driving on public roads, the only other thing you could do would be to remove the licensese from some vendors.

If the roads are privately owned, whether by a company which manages the community or by the residents via a home owners assocation then of course the people there can restrict access if they feel the need.

But that said this is hardly an indictment of capitalism, the main complaint seems to be their is to much food going around poor area's of town (someone mentioned thats what the area was) and that the sound is kind of annoying. Hardly a major issue that requires a complicated solution.


It's not meant to be a complicated issue. Only those who hold the market to the equal of a god are complaining about regulation being the wrong way to approach something with "market alternatives." So far not one viable alternative has been presented.

[Self-Owner]

SO:

So what you are saying is that the roads within the housing estate be owned by the residents.

So how does that work? people dont buy their homes all at the same time in an estate, but at different times. Nor, at present, in private estates, do home owners own the roads within, but the property developer. Houses are not constructed all at once, but in phases. Housing estates are not constructed all at once, but a different times, with travel routes between them.

What, even if the roads are privately owned, is stopping 51% of the estate charging the other 49% to use the road - using this "collective action"?

Indeed, a village with a main national road going through it, could establish a tollbridge and charge what they liked - couldnt they?

I can't say for sure what exactly would happen, for obvious reasons (one of which is that the free market is smarter than me, or you, or any one individual). But I imagine it would look something like this:

A developer builds a housing estate. If someone wants to buy one of these houses, they have to also - as a contractual obligation - join a residential association which pays for the housing estate's roads, street lighting, maybe even litter collection etc. The contract isn't just for a house, so to speak, but for a house plus a whole bundle of goods. The reason being that while things like roads, lighting etc are public goods, it makes sense to bundle them in with the local houses because they are more valuable to the local residents. Now these associations can be set up in any way the developer likes: the governing rules could be whatever the developer says goes for the indefinite future, they could be fixed, or they could be democratically decided by the members of this association. Of course, they can't be set up any way the developer likes: the developer has to sell the houses in the end. So the chances are that they'll want to institute a system that people actually want to buy into. It seems plausible that a democratic system will be the way to go. In which case, any pesky ice cream trucks can be easily refused entry.

[Self-Owner]

Conditional contracts are statist, not anarchist, which I presume we're not arguing over in defense of the "free market." What are you going to do if I don't uphold a contract - throw me in jail?



Except they aren't at all statist. You can have free market courts and free market enforcement agencies all without a state needing to exist. And no, I don't think you'll be thrown in jail if you don't uphold a contract. But it's not impossible that I'll come after you for damages, is it?

[theraven]

It's not meant to be a complicated issue. Only those who hold the market to the equal of a god are complaining about regulation being the wrong way to approach something with "market alternatives." So far not one viable alternative has been presented.

The market alternative is to let them go on any public roads they want and try to amke a profit. If they make a profit they keep doing it, if not they stop. Whoever owns the roads/linceses them would set a decible limit on their noise so it isn't overly burdensome on the community.

If we lived in a perfect market based world,the solution would be obvious-whoever owned the road would set the rules. So if its a homeowners assocation they would set the number. If it's a a company they would etc.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

My belief is that organic, bottom-up solutions that arise from people making choices in their own interests are almost always superior to authoritarian top-down solutions that come from those who assert the right to tell people what their interests are. Agree or disagree?
Agree, with two important qualifications: (1) Each individual must have an equal amount of power to influence decisions; this does not happen in the market, where your influence over the outcome is proportional to your wealth. (2) Collective solutions are superior to individual solutions, because of the "Prisoner's Dilemma"-type structure of most matters of public policy.

Consider a society in which every individual said "I would really love to do X, but only if everyone else does it." In a purely individualistic society, no one will do X, even though everyone wants it.


There's no reason the market couldn't provide courts.
Sure there is. A court must have the power to enforce its decisions on people who are likely to virulently oppose those decisions. A court must have the power to arrest people and send them to jail.

And anyone with the power to arrest people and send them to jail is by definition a state.


You can have free market courts and free market enforcement agencies all without a state needing to exist.
Again, "enforcement" implies the power to force people to do things they don't want to do...

...which is exactly the kind of thing that you libertarians whine and cry about when the state does it.


And no, I don't think you'll be thrown in jail if you don't uphold a contract. But it's not impossible that I'll come after you for damages, is it?
And if I don't feel like paying damages? Sooner or later, if I keep refusing to cooperate, you have no choice but to use force on me. And that requires a state.

Like every other utopia, yours fails because it's based on the stupid assumption that all people will always want to play by your rules. In reality, you'll have a fight on your hands with every non-libertarian in the world. Socialists will refuse to recognize your private property, conservatives will try to make you obey their morality, liberals will come after you when you start allowing business owners to put up "No Jews allowed" signs, and nationalists will demand their nation-state back.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The market alternative is to let them go on any public roads they want and try to amke a profit. If they make a profit they keep doing it, if not they stop. Whoever owns the roads/linceses them would set a decible limit on their noise so it isn't overly burdensome on the community.

If we lived in a perfect market based world,the solution would be obvious-whoever owned the road would set the rules.
THE PERFECT MARKET WORLD:

"Hello. I just bought the roads around your house from the previous owner. I'm here to negotiate a new contract. You see, given that my roads are private property, I intend to build a fence on them, around your house, and hire a guard to shoot any trespassers. This is why you need to sign this contract, so you won't be considered a trespasser. It's probably rather important to you, since you need to cross my roads in order to buy food, go to work, and do all the other little things that keep you alive.

"So, here's the contract. The terms are as follows: You will work in my factory for the rest of your life. It's 70 hours a week, but we have a flexible schedule, so you can take those hours any time you like. You will have no vacations of any kind, and you assume personal responsibility for any workplace injuries. I installed some spinning blades for fun last month - you'll love 'em! You won't receive a wage, per se, but we will provide you with food and clothing. Also, from time to time you will be required to suck my dick. Take it or leave it."

[theraven]

THE PERFECT MARKET WORLD:

"Hello. I just bought the roads around your house from the previous owner. I'm here to negotiate a new contract. You see, given that my roads are private property, I intend to build a fence on them, around your house, and hire a guard to shoot any trespassers. This is why you need to sign this contract, so you won't be considered a trespasser. It's probably rather important to you, since you need to cross my roads in order to buy food, go to work, and do all the other little things that keep you alive.

"So, here's the contract. The terms are as follows: You will work in my factory for the rest of your life. It's 70 hours a week, but we have a flexible schedule, so you can take those hours any time you like. You will have no vacations of any kind, and you assume personal responsibility for any workplace injuries. I installed some spinning blades for fun last month - you'll love 'em! You won't receive a wage, per se, but we will provide you with food and clothing. Also, from time to time you will be required to suck my dick. Take it or leave it."

Sounds like the soviet union, with the government instead of road owner.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Sounds like the soviet union, with the government instead of road owner.
Um, yeah, the fact that a free market society puts totalitarian power in the hands of the property owners is kinda the whole point.

I'm glad you finally understand that unrestrained property rights are the same thing as unrestrained state power.

[theraven]

Um, yeah, the fact that a free market society puts totalitarian power in the hands of the property owners is kinda the whole point.

I'm glad you finally understand that unrestrained property rights are the same thing as unrestrained state power.

It's better then unrestrained state power, but I don't favor either. It's better because other property owners could/would resist them where as a government like the soviet union has a total monopoly.

[Self-Owner]

Sure there is. A court must have the power to enforce its decisions on people who are likely to virulently oppose those decisions. A court must have the power to arrest people and send them to jail.

Just because you can't think outside of the statist box doesn't mean there is no outside. Why can there not be separation between courts and enforcement agencies? It's certainly possible that enforcement agencies would want the reputational benefits from having decisions passed down to them from impartial and respected courts.

Plus, who says anything about jail? What do you think the chances of a form of punishment that costs $40 000 a year for each incarcerated prisoner arising on the free market are? Not very high.



And anyone with the power to arrest people and send them to jail is by definition a state.


Except this is not necessarily true by any means.



Again, "enforcement" implies the power to force people to do things they don't want to do...

...which is exactly the kind of thing that you libertarians whine and cry about when the state does it.

No libertarian in the world is arguing that no one should ever use any force against anyone; if you want to fight straw men, you'll probably win. Of course we say that people should be allowed to use force to defend themselves and their property, and if you actually talk to libertarians instead of telling them what their own views are, you'll realize this. What we do say, though, is that no one should initiate the use of force on anybody else. This is precisely why there's a difference between a state using force and an individual using force to get his own property back.


And if I don't feel like paying damages? Sooner or later, if I keep refusing to cooperate, you have no choice but to use force on me. And that requires a state.

Sure it might require force, but not a state.


Like every other utopia, yours fails because it's based on the stupid assumption that all people will always want to play by your rules. In reality, you'll have a fight on your hands with every non-libertarian in the world. Socialists will refuse to recognize your private property, conservatives will try to make you obey their morality, liberals will come after you when you start allowing business owners to put up "No Jews allowed" signs, and nationalists will demand their nation-state back.

You should really read The Machinery of Freedom. There's a reason why a private system of law would look by and large libertarian: because there's an asymmetry in cost between offense and defense. A system of property is relatively easy to enforce, because it's in the interest of every property owner to make sure it's enforced. Even socialists get pissed off if you try and squat in their house. But it's a lot harder, and a lot more costly, to try and enforce, say, conservative morality on people, because generally people won't like this. Anyway, I don't expect anarchy is possible unless a critical mass of people are prepared to respect the rights of others. Oh well; until then, we can at least try to abolish all the other ways governments extort people.

[Demogorgon]

The criminal court obviously is, but I would argue that the civil court system is much less a tool by which the state wields power, because its entire purpose is not to enforce any particular statute but to resolve disputes between people. Their substantive body of law is not state edicts but the common law tradition built up over the past couple of millennia.

Only in common law jurisdictions. Most Commonwealth countries (though Scotland is at least partially excluded), America (Louisiana excepted) and Ireland use Common Law, but across much of the world civil law applies and the civil courts resolve disputes on the basis of statute. Even in Common Law countries a great deal of civil matters rely on statute.

That aside, the civil courts are meaningless if people ignore their rulings, meaning that an enforcement mechanism must exist. Again that requires the state. I am not saying that resolving such matters in the courts is a bad idea. It is often a good idea, but to claim it is a market solution is just silly.

This is always what gets me when Libertarians say that the state should not involve itself in x, y and z and let the courts sort out disputes. The courts are part of the state!

[Demogorgon]

Plus, who says anything about jail? What do you think the chances of a form of punishment that costs $40 000 a year for each incarcerated prisoner arising on the free market are? Not very high.

What are the alternatives? To my mind such a society can only impose forced work or physical punishment, whether it be corporal or capital on offenders. Banishment too, I suppose, but that is hardly practical in the modern world. None of these things seem remotely desirable to me.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Just because you can't think outside of the statist box doesn't mean there is no outside. Why can there not be separation between courts and enforcement agencies? It's certainly possible that enforcement agencies would want the reputational benefits from having decisions passed down to them from impartial and respected courts.
"Enforcement agencies?" Oh, you mean heavily armed groups of people who don't have to obey any authority?

Yeah, I'm sure they'll be really worried about their reputation.

In any case, even if the courts don't have the power to enforce their decisions, someone must have that power (otherwise the justice system is a joke). And that "someone" - whoever has enough power to make people do things against their will - is a state.


Plus, who says anything about jail? What do you think the chances of a form of punishment that costs $40 000 a year for each incarcerated prisoner arising on the free market are? Not very high.
Oh, I see. So if Bill the Billionaire decides to kidnap you, rape you, and then murder you in sadistic fashion, the only punishment he'll be required to endure is a fine.

So if you're rich enough to afford to pay the fines, you can commit crimes at your leisure. In fact, fines will be almost like prices for entertainment - the prices that the sadistic and deranged will have to pay for their "fun." You want to cut out someone's tongue? That's $100,000. Rip out an eye? $350,000. And naturally there will be different prices depending on the wealth, race and gender of the victim. Mutilating white males might be quite expensive; the more stingy psychopaths will have to settle for women or minorities, or perhaps some homeless people. Murdering them could even be free, if they have no relatives to press charges. After all, there will be no state to investigate crimes, so it will be up to your friends and family to discover your dead body and pay someone to investigate. If you don't have any friends or family, or if they're poor, you can be murdered at any time for free.

Wow, I always knew that anarcho-capitalism was evil, but you're making me see it in a whole new light. You really are a pile of human excrement below contempt.


Of course we say that people should be allowed to use force to defend themselves and their property, and if you actually talk to libertarians instead of telling them what their own views are, you'll realize this.
If your property consists of a plot of land the size of Luxemburg, your use of force to "defend your property" is no different than the use of force by the government of Luxemburg.


What we do say, though, is that no one should initiate the use of force on anybody else. This is precisely why there's a difference between a state using force and an individual using force to get his own property back.
Only if you believe that property ownership is legitimate. If you believe that property ownership is illegitimate, as we communists do, then "getting your property back" is an act of unprovoked violence - an initiation of force.


Sure it might require force, but not a state.
Guns don't discriminate between the various kinds of "force" in libertarian philosophy. A gun that is used for defense can just as easily be used for offense. A group of people with more guns than anyone else in the area - even if they're only theoretically supposed to "defend" stuff - is a state.

After all, a state is defined by its nature, not by the actions of its leaders.


You should really read The Machinery of Freedom. There's a reason why a private system of law would look by and large libertarian: because there's an asymmetry in cost between offense and defense.
But the rewards of successful offense (grabbing other people's stuff) are also much greater than the rewards of successful defense (keeping the stuff you had to begin with). So yes, offense is more costly, but it also brings greater rewards. It's a gamble. And if the history of the human species is any indication, there won't be any shortage of warlords willing to gamble everything for a chance at great wealth, power, and glory.


A system of property is relatively easy to enforce, because it's in the interest of every property owner to make sure it's enforced.
Actually, no. It is only in the interest of some property owners to enforce it - specifically, it is in the interest of those property owners who are likely to be defeated in an open civil war. The property owners who are likely to win an open civil war, on the other hand, have every interest to start such a war.

The reason all property owners support property rights under the current system is because they are all certain to lose any civil war - the government is certain to win. Take away the government, and things change.

[Dean]

There's no reason the market couldn't provide courts.

Yes there is. Any kind of legal or court system which was directly beholden to its monetary investment would quickly cease to be an unbiased broker, and would support the interests of the person with greater capital, or whomever had paractices more conducive to capital growth in nearly every instance. Just as a market - generated police force would be disastrous. You cannot have mediating forces pursuing capital as a mode or a standard; such forces would cease to mediate, and would become nothing more than spokesmen for the side with greater capital.

[pusher robot]

First of all, private courts do in fact exist. I've done work for one myself. They are commonly known as "arbitrators" or "mediators," and they are private companies that provide judges, hearings, rulings - all the mechanisms of a state-run court.

Of course, at bottom, their usefulness only comes from the ability to use the organized power of the state to compel compliance through the other civil court system. So, point granted, the state is still necessary at the very bottom.

But I still struggle to understand why you communists think this is such a devastating critique of capitalism or even free-marketism. Please fill in the blank for me:

1. A government of some sort is necessary to exercise a monopoly on violence.
2. ???
3. Therefore, property is wrong.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

But I still struggle to understand why you communists think this is such a devastating critique of capitalism or even free-marketism. Please fill in the blank for me:

1. A government of some sort is necessary to exercise a monopoly on violence.
2. ???
3. Therefore, property is wrong.
The illegitimate status of property is the conclusion of a completely different argument (or collection of arguments - there are many reasons why we think property is wrong, but the idea that "a government of some sort is necessary" is not among them).

[Qwerty Dvorak]

First of all, private courts do in fact exist. I've done work for one myself. They are commonly known as "arbitrators" or "mediators," and they are private companies that provide judges, hearings, rulings - all the mechanisms of a state-run court.

Of course, at bottom, their usefulness only comes from the ability to use the organized power of the state to compel compliance through the other civil court system. So, point granted, the state is still necessary at the very bottom.

But I still struggle to understand why you communists think this is such a devastating critique of capitalism or even free-marketism. Please fill in the blank for me:

1. A government of some sort is necessary to exercise a monopoly on violence.
2. ???
3. Therefore, property is wrong.
:rolleyes: Arbitrators and mediators aren't courts, you know that.

[Dean]

First of all, private courts do in fact exist. I've done work for one myself. They are commonly known as "arbitrators" or "mediators," and they are private companies that provide judges, hearings, rulings - all the mechanisms of a state-run court.

Of course, at bottom, their usefulness only comes from the ability to use the organized power of the state to compel compliance through the other civil court system. So, point granted, the state is still necessary at the very bottom.
I am well aware of Arbitration. My experience has been that arbitrators that deal with labor laws and contract fulfillment almost always side with the company or the union habitually. I think you can guess who is more popular.


But I still struggle to understand why you communists think this is such a devastating critique of capitalism or even free-marketism. Please fill in the blank for me:

1. A government of some sort is necessary to exercise a monopoly on violence.
No, we are saying, at least I'm saying, that competition and/or profit is/are (a) lousy standard(s) for a court system to characterize itself by. (I hope you liked that sentence). Courts which do not have any clear link to capital (federal and local criminal courts for instance) also exhibit a regard for profit and capital in their judgements in the context of a capitalist system.


3. Therefore, property is wrong.
No, property rights are a lousy standard for a society.

[Demogorgon]

But I still struggle to understand why you communists think this is such a devastating critique of capitalism or even free-marketism. Please fill in the blank for me:

1. A government of some sort is necessary to exercise a monopoly on violence.
2. ???
3. Therefore, property is wrong.
It isn't. However it is a knock down argument against extreme Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists and whatnot who keep turning up here.

[Self-Owner]

:rolleyes: Arbitrators and mediators aren't courts, you know that.

Of course they are. There are well known examples (i.e. merchant law, international business arbitrators) of institutions of law set up without recourse to a coercive government. Just because you want to define these things away from being courts doesn't make it so.

[Self-Owner]

Yes there is. Any kind of legal or court system which was directly beholden to its monetary investment would quickly cease to be an unbiased broker, and would support the interests of the person with greater capital, or whomever had paractices more conducive to capital growth in nearly every instance. Just as a market - generated police force would be disastrous. You cannot have mediating forces pursuing capital as a mode or a standard; such forces would cease to mediate, and would become nothing more than spokesmen for the side with greater capital.

Which is precisely why people wouldn't go to such courts, if they really were beholden. Look: in a free market, a court would be as good as its reputation. Courts - which most likely wouldn't have enforcement arms - would be sought after precisely because they are impartial. No one would agree to having a dispute resolved in a court which is clearly biased to one side or the other, and it would be in the competing courts' best interests to transparently and definitively show that no such bias exists.

Have a read of this. (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html)

[La Comédie Noire]

Which is precisely why people wouldn't go to such courts, if they really were beholden. Look: in a free market, a court would be as good as its reputation. Courts - which most likely wouldn't have enforcement arms - would be sought after precisely because they are impartial. No one would agree to having a dispute resolved in a court which is clearly biased to one side or the other, and it would be in the competing courts' best interests to transparently and definitively show that no such bias exists.

Have a read of this. (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html)


You are forgetting the violence inherent in private property relations. Most large capitalists support a state for a reason, so they have protection from other capitalists.

If you privatized enforcement agencies you'd have individual capitalists or groups of them amassing private armies to protect their interests or even worse, further their interests. Imagine the amount of small scale scrimages that would occur, now add nuclear weapons to the equation.

Factories would be bombed, workers would be killed, and things would generally be a mess. It's happened before, just google "gangster capitalism."

Now imagine truely unregulated capitalism.

People would begin living in enclosed cities closer to their places of work and their employer's chosen security service, it's the only way they'd have guranteed protection.

It'd be like the middle ages on crack!

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Private courts are only as good as you can enforce the decision. Hell, first you need to get the people into the court. And who is going to go to court knowing they might lose? Arbitration occurs as a compromise of interests, usually focused more on financial agreements than anything else.

Extending this analogy further, are we going to compromise with rapists?

:thumbdown:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

First of all, private courts do in fact exist. I've done work for one myself. They are commonly known as "arbitrators" or "mediators," and they are private companies that provide judges, hearings, rulings - all the mechanisms of a state-run court.

Of course, at bottom, their usefulness only comes from the ability to use the organized power of the state to compel compliance through the other civil court system. So, point granted, the state is still necessary at the very bottom.

But I still struggle to understand why you communists think this is such a devastating critique of capitalism or even free-marketism. Please fill in the blank for me:

1. A government of some sort is necessary to exercise a monopoly on violence.
2. ???
3. Therefore, property is wrong.

Changing the subject won't distract users from the fact the market cannot handle every situation, and that better alternatives exist. You seem to be under the presumption that this thread was targeted at social liberals as well as economic libertarians. It wasn't.

[pusher robot]

One can easily be a libertarian - even an "economic libertarian" - while still believing that as a practical matter a minimal state is probably necessary. A "libertarian" is a maxmizer. In the same way a utilitarian tries to maximize utility, a libertarian tries to maximize liberty. Of course, how that looks depends on what you understand liberty to be. But most libertarians are not absolutists - they understand the concept that total liberty for all ends up resulting in less liberty for everyone, which is why things like laws and courts and such are probably needed.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Of course they are. There are well known examples (i.e. merchant law, international business arbitrators) of institutions of law set up without recourse to a coercive government. Just because you want to define these things away from being courts doesn't make it so.
No, arbitrative bodies are not courts. There are clear differences; courts are sat by judges, arbitrations by arbitrators; court decisions are generally bound by jurisdiction, arbitration decisions apply regardless of jurisdiction; many of the formalities of court litigation are absent in arbitration, etc, etc.

So it is clear that arbitration and court litigation are not the same, there are many differences between them other than those listed above. But that whole point is really just pedantry on my part. What is really relevant here is not the difference but the similarities between them. The two key similarities between arbitration and court litigation are that both can be appealed to a court of law, and both carry the force of law. These points destroy any assertion that arbitration is an institution of law "set up without recourse to a coercive government". That's just not true.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

One can easily be a libertarian - even an "economic libertarian" - while still believing that as a practical matter a minimal state is probably necessary. A "libertarian" is a maxmizer. In the same way a utilitarian tries to maximize utility, a libertarian tries to maximize liberty. Of course, how that looks depends on what you understand liberty to be. But most libertarians are not absolutists - they understand the concept that total liberty for all ends up resulting in less liberty for everyone, which is why things like laws and courts and such are probably needed.
The OP was targeting a specific claim, made more often by anarcho-capitalists but also by extreme libertarians, that the invisible hand of the market is capable of solving issues of public order, policy etc. etc.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

One can easily be a libertarian - even an "economic libertarian" - while still believing that as a practical matter a minimal state is probably necessary. A "libertarian" is a maxmizer. In the same way a utilitarian tries to maximize utility, a libertarian tries to maximize liberty. Of course, how that looks depends on what you understand liberty to be. But most libertarians are not absolutists - they understand the concept that total liberty for all ends up resulting in less liberty for everyone, which is why things like laws and courts and such are probably needed.

Oh, but of course. Which is why Self-Owner looks all the more silly trying to squeeze out a market solution for what can be answered quite easily. Like some of our resident communists, he's spinning an idealist situation.

[Dean]

Which is precisely why people wouldn't go to such courts, if they really were beholden. Look: in a free market, a court would be as good as its reputation. Courts - which most likely wouldn't have enforcement arms - would be sought after precisely because they are impartial. No one would agree to having a dispute resolved in a court which is clearly biased to one side or the other, and it would be in the competing courts' best interests to transparently and definitively show that no such bias exists.

Right, right. Choice is so powerful that it grants all power to the consumer. Unfortunately, choice has shown itself to be a crude, imprecise measure of consumer interests, and when it comes to an ideally impartial force like courts, the dynamic gets more murky. For one thing, if the court does indeed have any power to enforce its ruling - directly or indirectly - it will probably trick people into agreeing to this, or it will force them with said power.

I will check out your link later, in any case.

[Demogorgon]

Which is precisely why people wouldn't go to such courts, if they really were beholden. Look: in a free market, a court would be as good as its reputation. Courts - which most likely wouldn't have enforcement arms - would be sought after precisely because they are impartial. No one would agree to having a dispute resolved in a court which is clearly biased to one side or the other, and it would be in the competing courts' best interests to transparently and definitively show that no such bias exists.

Have a read of this. (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html)

Many, perhaps most, civil cases involve one party clearly in the wrong who is refusing to meet their obligations and it requires legal action or the threat thereof to get them to rectify their behaviour. Under your proposed system, what possible reason would such people have for turning up in court at all.

[pusher robot]

Many, perhaps most, civil cases involve one party clearly in the wrong who is refusing to meet their obligations and it requires legal action or the threat thereof to get them to rectify their behaviour. Under your proposed system, what possible reason would such people have for turning up in court at all.

Obviously, for the social approbation that commies are always claiming is soooooo powerful a motivator.

[Self-Owner]

Many, perhaps most, civil cases involve one party clearly in the wrong who is refusing to meet their obligations and it requires legal action or the threat thereof to get them to rectify their behaviour. Under your proposed system, what possible reason would such people have for turning up in court at all.

People for obvious reasons want to be protected from violence against their person and property, and to this end will most likely hire a protection agency. If A commits a crime against B, B can call his agency who will pursue it on his behalf, by going after A for reparations. Of course A will have his own agency, who he will call. Now these companies could have a battle on the streets leading to many deaths and not a little expense, or they could find some way to sort it out between themselves. This will probably come in the form of an adjudication procedure agreed upon by both A and B's respective firms, or in other words: a court. So there will be ample reason for both parties to turn up: because if they don't, what reason do their protection agencies have for keeping their custom? And how easy do you think it will be for someone with a reputation for flouting the judgements of the courts to hire a new agency?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

People for obvious reasons want to be protected from violence against their person and property, and to this end will most likely hire a protection agency. If A commits a crime against B, B can call his agency who will pursue it on his behalf, by going after A for reparations. Of course A will have his own agency, who he will call. Now these companies could have a battle on the streets leading to many deaths and not a little expense, or they could find some way to sort it out between themselves. This will probably come in the form of an adjudication procedure agreed upon by both A and B's respective firms, or in other words: a court. So there will be ample reason for both parties to turn up: because if they don't, what reason do their protection agencies have for keeping their custom? And how easy do you think it will be for someone with a reputation for flouting the judgements of the courts to hire a new agency?
So applying this to the situation at hand... This problem would be solved by the residents banding together and hiring mercenaries to kill the ice-cream man? But that's okay, because the ice-cream man would hire mercenaries to kill the residents?

That sounds so much better than communism.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I think it's time to take a good quote by Pusher: there is no perfect system.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

People for obvious reasons want to be protected from violence against their person and property, and to this end will most likely hire a protection agency. If A commits a crime against B, B can call his agency who will pursue it on his behalf, by going after A for reparations. Of course A will have his own agency, who he will call. Now these companies could have a battle on the streets leading to many deaths and not a little expense, or they could find some way to sort it out between themselves.
And if one of the companies decides that the potential benefits of a street battle are greater than the risks, what do you think will happen?

Anarcho-capitalism is based on many idiotic assumptions, but the idea that groups of heavily armed mercenaries will always work out a peaceful solution to their conflicts is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Of course wars are costly - if you lose. They are very profitable if you win, especially if winning allows you to do anything you want with enemy prisoners (rape, slavery, etc).

And let's not even mention the slight problem that people might not be able to afford the services of a protection agency. In anarcho-capitalism, it's ok to murder the poor.


So applying this to the situation at hand... This problem would be solved by the residents banding together and hiring mercenaries to kill the ice-cream man? But that's okay, because the ice-cream man would hire mercenaries to kill the residents?
Yes, and then the two groups of mercenaries would decide not to fight, because they don't want to die, so they would arrive at some sort of mutually beneficial agreement.

Like, for example, killing the residents AND the ice-cream man and taking all their stuff.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Jennifer Government comes to mind, although that pertains more to Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism than the Friedman alternative.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Yes, and then the two groups of mercenaries would decide not to fight, because they don't want to die, so they would arrive at some sort of mutually beneficial agreement.

Like, for example, killing the residents AND the ice-cream man and taking all their stuff.
Thus making them a prime target for the three other groups of mercenaries who have themselves teamed up.

[Demogorgon]

People for obvious reasons want to be protected from violence against their person and property, and to this end will most likely hire a protection agency. If A commits a crime against B, B can call his agency who will pursue it on his behalf, by going after A for reparations. Of course A will have his own agency, who he will call. Now these companies could have a battle on the streets leading to many deaths and not a little expense, or they could find some way to sort it out between themselves. This will probably come in the form of an adjudication procedure agreed upon by both A and B's respective firms, or in other words: a court. So there will be ample reason for both parties to turn up: because if they don't, what reason do their protection agencies have for keeping their custom? And how easy do you think it will be for someone with a reputation for flouting the judgements of the courts to hire a new agency?
Presuming both have hired exactly equal protection agencies. What if A can't afford a decent protection agency? Or if B has a very good agency who can tell A's agency to get lost safe in the knowledge that they won't dare attack or B, being the shady character he is has hired a less than reputable protection agency who don't give a damn what level of destruction they unleash and everybody knows it and is afraid of antagonising them. And this is before we even get to the possibility that there actually will be violence.

Under anarcho-capitalism, the winner in any court case will be he who can bring the greatest level of force to bare. How does that equate with the "non-aggression principle"?

[EvigLidelse]

Is the problem lying in the ice cream trucks selling ice cream or the kids/people buying it? Almost everybody knows that ice cream tastes really good, just as well that no one forces us to buy it. I wouldn't say that everybody considers that it can make us fat and that it can ruin our health, but everyone of us mature people knows that it might.

Thus, by having the freedom to buy ice cream we also have the freedom not to. By eating ice cream, we know the side effects of it. If we don't want ice cream from the vans, we wont buy it. If we wont buy it, they wont sell it.

But WE DO buy it, and we complain about the vans driving around, making noise and making our kids fat because they eat of it! Isn't really the problem lying in our own stupidity? And why proving our own stupidity blaming the free market?

[Robert]

Is the problem lying in the ice cream trucks selling ice cream or the kids/people buying it?In the selling. The corporate seller brainwashes the child, through advertising on state controlled airwaves and by fancy packaging, into thinking the ice cream will make him feel "good." Which it does. Temporarily. Then the sugar rush fades and the child wants more ice cream. He is never satiated.

Nor is the seller, come to think of it.

[Bud Struggle]

In the selling. The corporate seller brainwashes the child, through advertising on state controlled airwaves and by fancy packaging, into thinking the ice cream will make him feel "good." Which it does. Temporarily. Then the sugar rush fades and the child wants more ice cream. He is never satiated.

Nor is the seller, come to think of it.

Would that be satiated or sated? ;)

Robertus Magnus, welcome back! :)

[Revolution 9]

The free market alternative is allowing neighborhoods decide if ice creme vans can drive in and sell.

[EvigLidelse]

In the selling. The corporate seller brainwashes the child, through advertising on state controlled airwaves and by fancy packaging, into thinking the ice cream will make him feel "good." Which it does. Temporarily. Then the sugar rush fades and the child wants more ice cream. He is never satiated.

Nor is the seller, come to think of it.

There is no such thing as brainwashing, only our own ignorance and lack of perspective.

[Zurdito]

in a truly free market, because of the lack of illusions in the state solving the problem, the neighbours of the area would take the law intot heir own hands and picket the roads or smash the ice cream vans etc., until driving them out. or this is the kind of action routinely taken by the masses in situations where the government does not act as a reformer.

this is why the bourgeosie needs a friendly "regulation" side too, in order to preserve the long term viability of private property, which if there were no reformism, would lead to class war.

or int his case ice cream van wars but take it as obvious that this case was by now only a metaophor, or something, I forgot the word, hah, too long not speaking ze inglish I think.