Why Not Try the Free Market?
Taxi drivers in Washington DC went on strike recently to protest the mayor's decision that they use meters rather than a fare zone system. Well, why not just let each taxi company charge what they want and in a manner in which they choose? In other words, for once why not try the free market instead of the government controlled taxi system that you find in most (perhaps all) cities?
Comments (39)
Curt Howland
Because that would mean the city gives up _control_.
Taxi licenses are rationalized by the supposed benefit of getting only qualified drivers. So if someone proposed such an elimination, the tired old "blood in the streets" argument would come up again.
Published: February 8, 2008 9:19 AM
Person
That's a bad idea because it would (through the complex interplay of the taxi system) cost the government revenues, which then it would have to capture through higher taxes later, and then we'd have both the bad taxi laws AND higher taxes elsewhere. Ergo, you are a statist for proposing this.
Yeah, it's a stupid argument. It's also equivalent to about half the stuff you've said about the Fair Tax :-P
Published: February 8, 2008 10:33 AM
dennis smith
Because the workers who drive the cabs do not want to be free to compete against each other.Because printed gov. money keeps them from the right of being free to compete of which they know nothing of. And because when taxi driveing was a free enterprize Government put excessive regulations on them in the name of safety for the public. Because the vast majority of the public cannot take care of themselves in a free market society.
Published: February 9, 2008 9:22 AM
polygold
Qualified drivers?...Cost government revenues?...Non-competetive cab drivers?...Give me a break! The free market system is self-regulating and doesn't need another of the government's 'ugly' heads in the mix!
Published: February 9, 2008 4:44 PM
Free Market Phooey
Because you then lose a standard fare structure. Under that system a customer would be free to query every driver in the cab rank and choose the cheapest at the rear of the rank. Every customer would be forced to query every driver each time he wanted a ride to avoid being ripped-off - though I guess some companies would standardise and win business that way (like McDonalds). The system is worth a try, but let's not pretend it has no drawbacks. And please don't use the term "free market" in this context. It has no standardised meaning.
Published: February 10, 2008 12:11 AM
Inquisitor
Free market = no government intervention in a particular industry. There you go.
Published: February 10, 2008 7:03 AM
scineram
The free market has no drawbacks.
Published: February 10, 2008 8:46 AM
Michael A. Clem
Well, why not just let each taxi company charge what they want and in a manner in which they choose?
Well, if they did that, taxicabs might become so economical and useful that fewer people would ride the public transit system...
Published: February 10, 2008 3:43 PM
Free Market Phooey
no government = power vacuum = nasty gang takes over = no free market
Published: February 10, 2008 4:30 PM
Free Market Phooey
The free market has no drawbacks.
Posted by: scineram
Was that supposed to explain anything? If someone was able to create what they thought was a free market somewhere, then many other people would immediately point out what they considered to be drawbacks. Laurence M. Vance proposed a change to the taxi market and I told you all one of the "drawbacks" of his proposed intervention. I didn't say his proposal was a step backward. I just said "let's not pretend it has no drawbacks".
Humans are not mindless clones you know. Each human is different. Drawback is a subjective word. Whenever a human is given any choice this has the drawback that he must make a decision. If we get into semantics and say "perfection has no drawbacks", "free market" is defined as perfection. Then indeed "free market" has no drawbacks. But you have still not explained what "free market" is and in what sense it is perfection. Is this a religious site or a site where logical rational reasoning can be found?
Free market = no government intervention in a particular industry.
Well, the government has already intervened by building a road, writing road rules, and specifying standards for car design. Why shouldn't government also specify metering and charging? And if the "free market" involves government having no say on the charging, would a free market also involve government having no say on which side of the road the taxi drives, or the maximum speed it may drive at?
Driving at 150mph has drawbacks, but the free market has no drawbacks, so I guess this means the free market always involves a safe speed. Who decides?
Published: February 10, 2008 4:58 PM
Inquisitor
"no government = power vacuum = nasty gang takes over = no free market"
Read The Myth of National Defence and spare us this kindergarten "logic".
"Who decides?"
The owners of the roads, based on their consumers' preferences. Private firms have shown little inability in coordinating to resolve issues by themselves. Dr Block has some great work on "public" goods and their provision on the market.
Published: February 10, 2008 5:11 PM
Free Market Phooey
Read The Myth of National Defence and spare us this kindergarten "logic".
I've just read as much of "The Myth of National Defence" as I am going to.
In his contribution, Walter Block argues that to claim “that a tax collecting government can legitimately protect its citizens against aggression is to contradict oneself, since such an entity starts off the entire process by doing the very opposite of protecting those under its control.”
So I suppose a surgeon can't claim to heal a patient because he starts off the entire process by cutting into the body. A back-burning fireman can't claim to be extinguishing fires because he starts off by lighting one.
I don't have time to read and refute and more rubbish from Block, so spare me the Kindergarten PDF books. Don't post any more references. If you are not smart enough to disprove my points in a direct posting then keep off this forum.
Published: February 10, 2008 9:43 PM
Inquisitor
No, I simply haven't the time to waste on obvious trolls like yourself. If you do not educate yourself, continue to loudly make inane, uneducated statements then you will be ignored as the silly little troll you are. I'd love to see you try and refute Dr Block though. Maybe even publish it so he can have a look too. Good day.
Published: February 11, 2008 4:09 AM
Free Market Phooey
I'd love to see you try and refute Dr Block though.
I just did it in a previous post. Here it is again:
In his contribution, Walter Block argues that to claim “that a tax collecting government can legitimately protect its citizens against aggression is to contradict oneself, since such an entity starts off the entire process by doing the very opposite of protecting those under its control.”
So I suppose a surgeon can't claim to heal a patient because he starts off the entire process by cutting into the body. A back-burning fireman can't claim to be extinguishing fires because he starts off by lighting one.
The fact is that a fireman can extinguish fires by lighting one, a surgeon can heal by cutting, and a government can protect its citizens by taxing them to support an army. Neither job is perfect, but real life is full of compromise. Block may later make some valid points, and I might later go back and read that PDF. However I don't appreciate being sent on a wild-goose chase when someone posts a reference instead of answering me directly.
Inquisitor has repeatedly insulted me and labelled me instead of politely responding to posts. If one of us is a troll, it is Inquisitor.
Published: February 11, 2008 4:59 PM
Inquisitor
I called you a troll because that is what you are. Typical of trolls, you then try suggest I am one. Not that I care, you're the one without any credible posting history here.
Anyway, what is your point with any of the above? It does nothing to address anything Dr Block has written. It is just pointless blathering. Block's actual point is that government must violate property rights to protect them. It is not referring to failures to do so - it is referring to the very way it acquires its funding.
Published: February 11, 2008 5:53 PM
Paul Edwards
Free Market Phooey:
Your analogies are inadequate. To apply them correctly, one would have to ask - can a surgeon claim to protect you from cuts on your body, when he will cut on you in an operation? Can a firefighter claim to never start a fire and then start a fire? No. They can't. But that's only a problem if that is their claim and our main objection is to being cut on or having fires not lit, rather than other perhaps more overriding objectives.
Similarly, the state cannot claim to protect us from aggression and theft when the first thing it must necessarily do is aggress against us via theft and the threat of an initiation of violence.
So if my highest priority is not being threatened, ripped off, and aggressed against, and since it is my right to not suffer such indignities, i am right to insist that the state cease its criminal behavior against me.
And you are not justified in advocating such aggression against me. However, you can, if you really wish to, voluntarily suffer any abuse you wish at any private club that will accommodate you. What’s the term for that sort of club? – Whatever it is, since it's voluntary, it’s not a state.
Sorry.
Published: February 11, 2008 6:05 PM
Free Market Phooey
Paul Edwards, I stand by my analogies. Rational citizens create a government that operates a police force and army funded by some form of tax. These rational citizens support this in order to maximise their own wellbeing, and minimise their own loss of property. No one is claiming that funding a police force is cost free, just like no surgeon claims to operate cut-free. You do it to gain overall benefit, not to achieve perfection.
So if my highest priority is not being threatened, ripped off, and aggressed against, and since it is my right to not suffer such indignities, i am right to insist that the state cease its criminal behavior against me.
Your opinion of aggressed against might be different from mine. For example if I drink water from a natural river then some clown might claim to "own" the river and claim that I am aggessing against him. You might WISH to not suffer such indignities, but unless you can back your wish with the force of government then it remains a wish. Also you misuse the word criminal. The government decides what is criminal, not you or I. We only wish certain things would be criminalised and stopped.
And you are not justified in advocating such aggression against me.
I can advocate whatever I like and you can advocate whatever you like. If I advocate what you term "aggression" then I will justify it. For example if you try to claim an entire river for yourself then I will advocate taking some of that away from you so other people can drink. I justify that on the grounds of common human decency, or I can justify it based on force. Are you proposing a society where I am prevented from thinking for myself and advocating for my own wishes?
Published: March 4, 2008 11:03 PM
Inquisitor
Are you some sort of legal positivist? The government 'decides' what is criminal? By whose mandate? Certainly not mine... I say the government is criminal, and let it try contest that claim without falling into contradiction.
For any of your claims to work you must prove common ownership of things, not just assert it, as many seem to want to do these days. No one has a right to stop another from appropriating a river if they have no prior claim over it. Having drunk from it for a number of years might justify an easement to continue having access, but it certainly is no grounds for hindering appropriation.
Published: March 5, 2008 9:36 AM
Free Market Phooey
I don't know what a "legal positivist" is. A law is whatever the government says it is. I dislike many laws too. However to distinguish between what is legal and what is my wish I must use different words. Paul Edwards and others on this site misuse simple words in order to deceive.
I do understand your wishes for the use of natural resources. My wishes are different from yours. Under my preference any human born on earth would be given fair access to a scarce natural resource such as a river in order to drink and live. Rothbard's dream of having the entire earth owned by first-comers to the detriment of late-comers is repugnant, immoral, unjustifiable to me, and has so far proven to be unworkable. Go ahead and advocate it if you wish, but don't try to deceive by misusing words such as legal. Legal is whatever the government says is legal - by definition.
Published: March 5, 2008 3:19 PM
Inquisitor
Legal positivism = the law defines what is right or not (as opposed to being predicated on what is right or not.) Except, I did not see Paul use the word 'legal' once. You seem to think ethics is merely a matter of expressing opinions. Fine, but then prove that it is so. Alternatively, if you think it has an objective basis, prove Rothbard wrong.
Published: March 5, 2008 7:07 PM
Free Market Phooey
Inquisitor, I am not a legal positivist. The law defines what is right according to the wishes of the goverment. Every person has their own wishes, as does every group/gang, etc. From this we can determine what is "right" according to those wishes. To use the word "right" requires a context as there is no single absolute "right" that exists without context.
Paul said So if my highest priority is not being threatened, ripped off, and aggressed against, and since it is my right to not suffer such indignities, i am right to insist that the state cease its criminal behavior against me.
So Paul takes whatever is his wishes (his highest priority) and defines "aggressed against" to be opposed to his wishes. He then asserts it is his "right" to not suffer this (no context given to this "right") and then claims the state is doing criminal behaviour if it goes against his wishes. This line of reasoning is nonsense similar to what I read from Rothbard and others on this forum.
Example: I want every bus to be painted pink. This is my right. Anyone who paints a bus blue is aggressing against my basic rights and is behaving in a criminal fashion. Can you see the flaws in my statement? Paul Edwards' post has the same flaws.
You seem to think ethics is merely a matter of expressing opinions.Ethics is a widely misused word, as is right. The facts are that people express opinions, people also use force upon other people. I study human behaviour and express opinions and report facts. I avoid using the confusing word ethics and will not attempt to prove that "ethics is merely a matter of expressing opinion". This is meaningless to me. Human behaviour can be studied from an objective basis. When Rothbard confuses his personal wishes with the decisions made by other people then Rothbard is objectively wrong. For example if he says "I want pink buses therefore society must paint them pink" he is wrong, society can and does paint them other colours. This proves him wrong. Society is unlikely to ever follow Rothbard's wishes. Extraordinary suffering would result in my opinion. Anyway, I am not going after Rothbard today, only Paul Edwards at this stage.
Published: March 5, 2008 7:51 PM
Inquisitor
Unfortunately, the "nonsense" is neither Paul's nor Rothbard's, but solely yours. Paul is referring to a moral right, not a legal right. I do not subscribe to the view of ethics you do, which reduces to nothing more than pure nihilism. Unless you prove that Rothbard's ethical system is flawed, I have no reason to take your word for it. So far, all you've done is asserted some form of ethical subjectivism. "Society" can no more determine what is right than it can determine when the sun will rise.
Published: March 5, 2008 8:27 PM
Free Market Phooey
So then where does this "moral right" come from? Paul Edwards may well think his wishes align with moral right. Rothbard definitely thought that moral right was his wishes.
I prefer my wishes to either of these moral rights. Let's say that I claimed my wishes were moral right. How would you prove me wrong?
Published: March 5, 2008 9:40 PM
Inquisitor
No, Rothbard certainly didn't think it's his 'wishes'. Please read him rather than making things up. Paul bases his view on rights on argumentation ethics, Rothbard on the natural law tradition. I'd suggest before knocking it you read up on it.
Published: March 5, 2008 10:06 PM
Free Market Phooey
So now you tell me that all of the changes to law that Rothbard was agitating for were not what he wished would happen? If not why was he touting these law changes? And what did he really want? Are you saying that Rothbard was deceiving his readers?
Published: March 5, 2008 10:15 PM
Inquisitor
No, what you said is this:
"Rothbard definitely thought that moral right was his wishes."
I.e. that Rothbard advocated market anarchism based on his wishes, instead of coming to the conclusion that support for natural law entailed it. He wished for these changes to occur because he believed that was how to achieve a moral system; not that the system was moral because he wished it, as you left it to be implied, which is the inverse of what he did. The system is desired _because_ it is moral, not the reverse.
Published: March 5, 2008 10:40 PM
Free Market Phooey
Well I think Rothbard's system is unnatural and immoral. It is more natural and moral to give a fair go to other people. If 5 people exist then divide the land and water amongst 5. But if 5 more are born or arrive some other way, then the natural and moral system will redivide the land and water 10 ways. Rothbard's system does not do this and hence is not moral or natural. He uses these words to try to legitimise his personal wishes. Other terms he uses for the same purpose are "freedom" and "free market".
Published: March 5, 2008 11:38 PM
Inquisitor
Do yourself a favour, and read up on natural law... beginning with Henry Veatch's Rational Man.
Published: March 6, 2008 9:03 AM
Free Market Fooey
Inquisitor,
I repeat what I said to you earlier.
Don't post any more references. If you are not smart enough to disprove my points in a direct posting then keep off this forum.
Published: March 6, 2008 6:24 PM
Inquisitor
Okay, here's a bit of advice for you - stop demanding to be spoonfed. If you're not willing to read up on a topic before criticizing it, don't be surprised if your arguments are nothing but nonsense aimed at strawmen, and therefore not taken seriously. Whatever happened to actually reading up on things? This is not a university, it is not a school.
Published: March 6, 2008 6:39 PM
PR
There is nothing natural or moral about this at all! If the new arrivals are born, then they must have parents among the original five. Why should C, D, and E have to subsidize A and B's reproductive habits? Are you suggesting that parents providing for their children isn't natural?
The argument is basically the same if the newcomers arrive from somewhere outside. Either they were invited by one or more of A-E or they weren't. If they were, then the hosts are responsible for providing for their guests. If they were not invited at all, then what distinguishes them from an invading force?
Even from an efficiency point of view your system makes no sense. The incentive under would be to crank out as many kids or invite as many guests as possible to grab the greatest share of the loot, or at least keep up with your neighbors doing the same.
Published: March 6, 2008 6:57 PM
Free Market Fooey
It is natural for parents to provide for their children until the children reach adulthood. When a large number of young adults require land it makes sense for society to allocate them a share. This inclusive system gives the young incentive not to violently overthrow the ruling old. History shows both sharing and revolution to be natural. Pick one.
Uninvited people can arrive as the result of a shipwreck on a remote island, or as escapees from a war-torn country. Give these people a fair go, or treat them as invaders and kill them. Which is natural to you?
My system makes no sense from an efficiency point of view?? I wouldn't crank out extra children just because society will give them a fair go upon adulthood. Would you?
The problem with Rothbard's system is that it is a nasty system that offends many people's morality and it is fragile because it leads to natural resource concentration and overthrow by the desperate poor. To call it natural and moral is highly debatable. Even you suggest that it cannot be understood without reading a long and expensive book written within the last 100 years. How can that be natural?
Published: March 6, 2008 7:47 PM
Inquisitor
The books are neither expensive nor long - they merely require thought to be read. Sorry, but moral philosophy is hard work, and it requires effort to be understood. If you're not willing to put it in, as I said, do not expect to be taken seriously.
Published: March 6, 2008 8:17 PM
Free Market Fooey
Denigrator,
Thanks for answering those few points I just raised. Too much effort for you?
I've put in the effort to understand what you call moral philosophy, and I am appalled at the shortcuts that Rothbard takes and his cunning word tricks. I am also appalled by religious worship of the "free market" and the damage this does to serious debate about practical markets and actual society on earth.
Published: March 6, 2008 8:43 PM
Inquisitor
I am appalled by religious worship of statism and so-called "mixed" economies and that statism can somehow 'solve' alleged market "failures". Sorry if pro-market stances on a pro-market blog "appall" you though.
Rothbard does not spend much time justifying his moral philosophy, because he references other authors he believes did so capably (which you can go read if you want to see why he references them.) He merely spells out the implications. Where is the problem in this?
Published: March 6, 2008 9:46 PM
Free Market Fooey
Good for you. Pro-market stances I support, "free market" nonsense I do not. I have little time for reading Rothbard. He makes too many basic mistakes. I generally don't continue to read someone once he has proven himself a fool. Once the foundation mistake is found, there is no point reading the conclusions based upon this mistake.
Published: March 6, 2008 10:50 PM
Inquisitor
When you write a solid refutation of his works on economics and ethics, I'll be sure to give it a look. Until then, au revoir.
Published: March 6, 2008 11:02 PM
fundamentalist
Free Market Phooey: “So then where does this "moral right" come from? …. Rothbard definitely thought that moral right was his wishes.”
You clearly don’t understand Rothbard’s ethical system at all. Although I don’t agree with every detail of it, I know for a fact that he doesn’t base it on his wishes. He bases it on reasonable deduction made from the foundational truth of self-ownership. If it’s true that we own ourselves, then other truths can be derived from that truth. Oversimplified, that’s Rothbard’s ethical system.
You don’t seem to have answered your question about the origins of “moral right.” Yet, you condemn Rothbard for being unnatural and immoral while claiming that “It is more natural and moral to give a fair go to other people.” On what basis do you argue that?
And how do you define fair? Based on your examples, I would say you confuse fair with charity. Fairness, and its closely related term, justice, have traditionally meant that people get what they deserve. Socialists have redefined those terms to mean an equal distribution of material wealth. Traditionally, redistribution of wealth has been called charity. If we stick with the traditional meanings of those terms, we can have a decent discussion about what is fair and justice. If you insist on the socialist definitions, then we can’t discuss anything because we won’t be able to understand each other. We’ll be talking in different languages.
As for the origins of morals, I won’t go into great detail because I have done so before on this site and don’t want to bore the regulars. The source of morals must be God, because as all great philosophers have recognized, no man has moral authority over another man because we are all equals. So religion provides a short-cut to morality in so far as it reveals God’s will for mankind. But Christians have always realized that since God is rational, we should be able to discover his morals through reason. They assumed that God created man and that what is good for mankind is also moral. So they set about trying to discover God’s morality through reason and analysis based on human nature. This came to be known as the natural law tradition. Natural law covered a lot of subjects, but on economics, it came to the conclusion that property is a moral right and theft by anyone, including the state, is immoral.
Free Market Phooey: “But if 5 more are born or arrive some other way, then the natural and moral system will redivide the land and water 10 ways.”
Natural law would say you’re wrong because you violate property. Natural sympathy for others, and Christian charity, would argue that those with land should help the poor, but the poor have no right to the property of others.
Published: March 7, 2008 8:26 AM
Free Market Fooey
Fundamentalist, thanks for your thoughtful reply.
I have saved a copy and will follow-up later.
My concept of "moral right" is basically to "do unto other's as you would have them do unto you". However moral right is worthless unless followed.
It is more natural and moral to give a fair go to other people. I argue this on the basis that unselfish people act this way, unlike Rothbard.
I define fair to be to give equal consideration to the wellbeing of all people. Equal consideration, not equal treatment, not equal material wealth. Justice is being fair.
Published: March 8, 2008 4:44 AM