If I could think about how every single thing in the market could work more efficiently, I'd be out there implementing them and becoming very rich.
If you do not know how the free market will solve something, then you can also not be
certain that it will solve it.
But it's not possible as long as the government insists on its monopoly.
Then let's make sure the government doesn't have a monopoly on it. It does not mean the government should stop doing it and no longer demand people to pay for it.
How many people are being forced to pay for that service who don't use it?
Why would anyone not use the thing s/he already paid for? Everyone uses it, and so nobody is interested to use something else s/he has to pay for specifically.
A great video detailing this is "John Stossel Goes to Washington," where he compares things like government welfare to private charity, government airports to private airports, government roads to private roads, etc. Do a Google search and you'll probably come up with it.
I watched it yesterday. A nice one-sided anti-government propaganda piece. It didn't provide any new information. Pretty much everything I already heard from you. It also has no relevance to me: I already knew the US government was fairly screwed up. That does not prove governments are without exception.
Problem: that's not how our government is supposed to be set up.
It is irrelevant how it is
supposed to be set up, because a) people differ in opinion on how it is supposed to be set up, b) just because something is supposed to be set up in a specific way does not mean that specific way is better than another way, for example: you would not be making that argument if the US was supposed to be set up as a authoritarian monarchy. And c) how a country is supposed to be set up can change during the course of history: Russia was once supposed to be ruled by a Tsar, the Netherlands was once supposed to be a republic. Things change.
What you're saying is an Appeal to Common Practice fallacy.
No, it is not. I'm not claiming that something is good because it has been in practice for a long time. I am arguing that if
you claim that something is better than what has been in practice for a long time, the burden of proof is on you. Since I make no claim as to what is better, it is not a fallacy.
You really should look up the fallacies you want to accuse people of, because you constantly get them completely wrong. In fact your own argument is a ironic mixture of an
Appeal to tradition and an
appeal to novelty: you claim that something is good because it was once supposed that way, and that it will be good because it is different than it is today.
But as has repeatedly been shown, all we have to do is get the government out of the way and the free market will provide. There are countless examples. Every time, someone has made that very argument; it has never been shown to be at all indicative of reality.
That has nothing to do with what I said. I said that we do not have the option to 'give the free market a chance' before 'imposing the government' because we simply cannot travel back in time.
Funny; John Stossel's latest special, "Myths, Lies, and Nasty Behavior," covers that very issue and shows how the free market has been much better than government at stopping and cleaning up litter.
I can't find an online video of it, so you'll have to explain it to me.
But those details would have to be worked out anyway, even with a single company doing it.
Yes, that's true. But if you want it to be build by two competing companies, it needs to be worked out by
the government before setting the companies to work, while if the government hires one company that company can work it out in negotiation with the government. And there won't be disagreement between the companies that first need to be resolved.
But it's got to be more efficient than taking 15 years to build a 4-mile stretch of road.
How can it be more efficient if
the government first needs to work out all the details before work can start?
That wouldn't be possible here, as they wouldn't be the only two companies bidding for the contract. They'd just be the two lowest bidders. The price would then be already agreed upon.
I am talking about a situation where all companies are colluding to screw the government, and the lowest bidders are just those that the companies have decided should do the work, and they are bidding several times higher than they would dare to ask any other client.
They can. But it'll only work with government interference.
Let's say you've got an exit off an Interstate that is the only one for 20 miles in either direction. There are two gas stations at that intersection. The owners of the gas station decide to collude and set their price at $3/gallon, thus bilking all of the travellers who have no other choice but to stop there.
Your example has no relevance because we are talking about companies colluding to bilk
the government.
Then one of them drops his price to get business from the other. This happens very quickly because they anticipate the other one doing the same thing.
Not if they both agreed not to do that.
But let's say that doesn't happen, and they keep their prices up. All that does is open the door for someone to come in and undercut their prices. He could sell gas for $2.25/gal and make a killing. He'd have no problem finding investors to put up the money, and as I pointed out above they can build commercial buildings lightning-fast now. He goes into business, undercuts their price, and makes a killing. The other guys now have to either lower their price or go out of business.
What is there to stop this third guy? Only government.
Or the bullying of the other two. Doesn't require the government to do that.
And the result is, the cartel uses government force to maintain their gouged prices.
No, it just requires force. Not necessarily government force.
