Analogies against Democracy
Aaron Kinney instructs us on using analogies to argue against the democratic process.
One analogy I like to use is soft drinks.
I compare the soft drink market to the government.
I ask them: "what if there was only one soft drink brand available to purchase? And what if you didnt like the taste of it? Do you think it would be fair for the soft drink manufacturer to 1) force the market to only offer its product and no others? and 2) force you to buy their soft drink either at a flat rate every week (say one six pack) or as a percentage of your income?"
The answer to this is always "no". I then ask: "isnt the competitive nature of the soft drink market wonderful? You can choose from so many flavors, and prices are low and flavors are great because of competition. Do you agree that competition is Superior?" 99% of the time, the answer I get to this question is "yes".
Then I shoot for the goal: "So wouldnt it be better if the "government" were replaced by competing companies that were 1) unable to force you to buy their product, 2) unable to prevent competitors from entering the market, and 3) totally reliant on consentual consumer purchasing of its products for its market share?
While at this point they often stammer and are reluctant to admit the logic, I have already won anyway. They have hung themselves with their own noose. And its all thanks to soda pop.
As a comment, I always find it weird that people are so adamant against monopolies, and yet see nothing wrong with the existence of the state or "state companies" (or as we call them in Canada, Crown companies). Once again, people are able to reason perfectly rationally about scenarios until they hit the state, towards which they have a total blind spot. All monopolies are bad, but a monopoly of FORCE, the worst thing possible ? Ah, that one's all right.
10 comments:
Economists, pretty much since A.A. Cournot wrote his "Principles" in 1830-something, have agreed on the effects of monopoly - i.e., a significant amount of dead-weight loss, less output at higher prices to consumer, and lack of choice. His example, of course was the proprietor of a unique mineral water spring, but the theory is applicable to any industry providing goods and/or services.
Except for some very rare naturally occurring monopolies, everyone agrees that a monopoly is bad, especially when that monopoly is imposed by the force of government, as they historically have been. So - if we don't tolerate monopoly in aspects of our life that are utterly trivial (i.e. soda pop, toilet paper, beef jerky) what possibly justification is there for accepting monopoly in government?
None.
Ryan and Doinkicarus,
Good observations. Thanks for the input!
Franc,
Awesome, I forgot I wrote that out, although very much recall pushing the soft drink analogy. Thanx for posting it!
I think its very helpful in showing people different perspectives to help them see the underlying principles to different instances of the same basic equation. And using something trivial like soft drinks and comparing it to something of huge importance like government, takes two extremes and illustrates how the principles are the same throughout.
God bless Government soda pop.
Er, just two little comments on your diatribe there... Government does not provide a "service". It is a monopoly that forces you to pay to fulfill its values, not yours. Secondly, voting is not accountability. Voting accomplishes nothing. I have entries coming on the nature of accountability.
"The government settles disputes"
Huh? Do you mean with its costumed play courts with 12 morons presiding and a king on his throne?
"provides protection"
Huh? Protection from what?
"standardizes currencies"
Making constantly-inflating Monopoly money that everyone is forced to use is not a "service".
"protects wilderness areas"
yea, the Forest Service is doing a great job *sarcasm*
"socialized medicine"
Yea, I love to wait months for sub-standard "service" that I am forced to finance. You get what you pay for.
You gotta look at how well "the government" "protects" wilderness areas, SRS. It doesn't. Private interests have always done enormously better jobs at protecting wilderness. What happens when hundreds of thousands of people tromp through forests? Have you read about "the tragedy of the commons," SRS? You really should check it out. It's sort of an important truth.
The problem here, SRS, is that you need to justify the state not only forcing itself on these so-called "services," and show that it can do any kind of job at all on these things, but you need to justify that a monopoly force can shoot you if you don't pay for them to "provide the services." You don't really think that the state is doing these things well, and for free, do you, SRS?
If you had a choice, what would you choose: a superior organization or individual (or yourself) doing the job, or a group you are forced to use, and if you don't use them for the "service," they shoot you? What other group besides the state does this, SRS? The Mafia.
"I'm not saying it doesn't need massive improvement but it's better than the wild west."
Do you actually know anything about the "Wild West", or are you just talking about the movies?
"From mad men like in my story for one example."
You haven't really explained why you wouldn't get a better service without a monopoly...
"I would love to go back to a gold coin trading system. However with the advent of the "digital money" I don't see how that is possible."
Private currencies wouldn't have to be based on gold only.
"In America I believe the State Wilderness area are funded by the government."
It's well known that American forests are mismanaged. USDA Forest Service has the biggest budget in the world and is involved in scandal after scandal... So what is so special about forest management that it can't be done by private individuals?
Southside, stop for a minute and don't be a fucktard. You know very well that is not the fucking point, and you are being insulting. The state is doing NOTHING to help the health of the least fortunate here- we are all stuck with this sub-standard system, and the rich either get preferential treatment or go to the US. They will not let a concurrent private system relieve the burden of our system.
Now stop posting comments for a while, read Allee's comment, read my comments again, and come back tomorrow. All right?
Just curious, what would a sin item be?
Is being alive a sin item?
Living is 100% fatal, you know.
FYI shooting heroin and getting into accidents without seatbelts (or living for that matter) are not "items" but are actions.
Actions.
Post a Comment