You seem to struggle with reading comprehension, confusing "a small number of things" with "every single problem".

I honestly can't tell whether you do this willfully or you're actually that bad at understanding the written word. In either case, I don't have the patience to sort it out.

When FlyWf writes that he doesn't expect the government to open up sandwich shops, you interpret this to mean...what exactly?

As above, I honestly can't tell whether you do this willfully or you're actually that bad at understanding the written word. In either case, I don't have the patience to sort it out today.

What do you think the government is clearly better at than the solution market anarchy would find? How can you be so certain the you know what solution market anarchy would provide to that problem? How are you able to compare the efficiencies of the two systems (one of which does not exist) with such certainty?

What? I'm not talking about the government production of goods compared to the private production of goods. I'm talking about comparing market outcomes in the modern state with the market outcomes of a market anarchy system. In a modern state, some of the market outcomes result in goods which are produced by government (justice), some of which are greatly influenced by government intervention but not produced by government (intellectual property for example), and some of which are produced by a more or less free-market system with little government impact (sandwich shops). Fly thinks all of the different market outcomes would be much worse in market anarchy because it would be Thunderdome.

If market anarchy would lead to a massive collapse in standards of living resulting in the Somalization of the region, how do you think the market for sandwich shops in market anarchy would compare to that in the state? I'll bet it would be a lot easier to get a sub in the statist society.

Let's just start with the things that minarchists think government should provide. That there are some things (e.g., public goods like the rule of law) that the government is relatively better suited for is obvious to me but unknowable to you.

When did I make these far-reaching claims you continue to reference? As long as your confusing what you think with what I wrote, there's not much I can say.

Since you are saying that you're certain that government can provide rule of law more effectively than market anarchy could, it follows that you must know how market anarchy would address the problem of rule of law. And not only that, but you are able to compare the efficiencies of the two systems.

He said he wasn't sure that the market would be "vastly superior" to the government solution.

It's possible the government can come up with a solution that is "better" in many regards. But at what cost?

Because the idea of limiting government to just THESE PARTICULAR THINGS is a lol utopian pipe dream? And of course you've got the whole "how do we decide WHICH things are the things we want government to do and stay out of everything else" because everyone is going to have their own list of pet projects.

Im not sure why the kosher example is even being talked about here. What possible interest does the government have in making sure kosher food is kosher vice making sure food in general is prepared safely? Dont get me wrong, I think the government goes overboard in this particular regulatory regime but the kosher example is a little silly.

Did I say that?

States are better at producing law and order (compared to the ideal mechanism) than they are at producing sandwich franchises (compared to the ideal mechanism).

Do you disagree?

If it's better than the cost is negative! Yay for arithmetic!

Great, I agree with you. So what? In exactly the same sense, AC is a Utopian pipe dream.

Kosher is a particular standard. People want food inspected to certain standards, and the market delivered.

I agree, but that's not the question at hand. The question isn't "what are states best at and worst at," but rather "which system will produce a better outcome in producing X good, market anarchy or a state"? I'm saying I don't know the answer to that question for every single possible market, and am open to the possibility that government might produce a better solution in certain areas. I don't see how anyone could be certain what those areas are though.

edit: and when I say "government solution" I don't necessarily mean that government is producing the good in question. It could, like in rule of law or the roads, or it could just provide the legal framework for the production of the good, like for drugs or movies.

That's one particular definition of better. Other people might disagree.

OK, so stop pursuing both, fine with me.

Kosher foods are inspected a standard dictated by the market? Are you ****ing kidding me? It's 4000 year old religious superstition that dictates whether or not food is kosher.

Yes but its a niche standard. The government certainly has an interest in general food safety, less so in "kosherness".

No, it is adherence to the criteria dictated by 4000 year old religious superstition during the production of food that determines whether a food is kosher or not.

what difference does the fact that it's 4000 years old or a superstition make? Actors in the market desire food inspected to that standard. Sellers in that market provide food inspected to that standard.

So? I'm not claiming the government should have an interest in kosherness.

Sholar- I'm 99% sure mjkidd is trying to parrot a somewhat common ACist talking point that government licensing somehow prevented the market from correctly rating bonds(I've seen that in the context of safety regulation). I think they generally phrase it in a slightly more superficially plausible way. He will not be able to elaborate on the mechanism for this, but the bad outcome was government's fault. Similar reasoning is at play in the health care thread when pvn got all confuzzed when I used "market forces" and "government" in the same sentence.

It might be another thing that's unknowable.

mjkidd- You're still not even following it. I'm not trying to convince you guys that market anarchism would cause Somalia, I'm trying to show that you guys have no idea what you're talking about. Economics, history, whatever.

Somalia, as I've only explained like 5 or 6 times, is not provided as an example of what America would look like without the FDA. But if, as people have done, someone claims that without the FDA there'd be private alternatives, I want to know why we don't see these private alternatives. Anywhere. Ever.

Rothbardian idiots love to come up with all sorts of fanciful schemes for how private firms could replace the government in a totally voluntary society, but that none of those things ever happen in the real world should make them reevaluate some premises. Instead they roll to Plan B, saying it's unknowable what market anarchy would produce and anyone claiming that they know the a situation where the market can't be better(e.g. public goods) is a witch.

No, I'm not taking any position at all on why the bond rating companies misrated certain bonds. I don't know why they made the mistakes they did. I simply pointed out that that the firms were in fact regulated by the government and those regulations did not prevent those mistakes.

Because people demand that government fill that role.

Who are the Rothbardian idiots you're referring to?

Wow, you're not even reading this thread, are you?

Also, it would seem that there are in fact private food inspectors currently operating in the United States:

https://www.aibonline.org/

What we'd really need is to be able to compare two countries which were nearly identical, except one struck down health and safety regulations as unconstitutional or for whatever other reason wouldn't implement the majority preferences of the population.

fyp

More exploitation of the poor and stupid. Lower unemployment. Greater class divides. Likely greater economic prosperity. Likely greater inter-class discontent, similar to the 19th century US. The rapid growth of unions which would effectively achieve a minimum wage over time.

We'd live in a richer and more interesting country. Innovation would probably increase.

Higher incidence of poisoning (chemicals, food) and shoddy workmanship. Lowered certainty for consumers. Higher time spent researching alternatives. The poor would suffer this burden disproportionately compared to the middle class and rich. Greater competition due to lowered barriers to entry. Uncertain about economic prosperity, I doubt it would have much effect in most areas.

And, since that will never happen, it's unknowable, right? I mean, any outcome is just as likely as another? That's what I talk about when I talk about the similarities between Rothbardian and Marxist rhetoric. It can never be proved to their satisfaction that their favored theories are incorrect. The world is incorrect before the theories are.