Tag: privatization

A Response to a Socialist

Joshua D. Glawson | United States

Recently, I wrote a short article critiquing Socialism and Communism. In the response section, a person responded with the following statements (errors are theirs):

“This has a few errors. Capitalism is a hypocritical ideology in its core, if everything is given to the free market, so not everyone can get an education this destroys the argument of “Eh, if you weren’t good in school, you wont be good in the future”. Your point comes about the “more wealth the rich have the better” is wrong, and misleading. There needs to be government interference for this to happen with the social programs that you hate distributing the wealth. Other wise the rich will hoard money with no restrictions and pay less to their employees since there is no interest in supporting the workers. Infact the word you support has been tried out before, in the 1800s, with massive industrial bosses monopolising industry, using child labor and abusing their power, this stems from the fact that the government didnt wish to interefere into the free market. A completely free market will unavoidably colapse into either a monoply or something else. You will also probably refuse to admit that some of the most succesful countries are once with high taxes and societies with not much economic freedom, yet the majority lives well. Compare the average life of a city dweller in the US and Norway, one has to constantly think about his medical insurance bills and if he will have enough capital to pay for his rent, while the other has a more bright life.”

I decided to take the liberty- pun intended- to respond to the typical Socialist reply, and I believe it may help you in your future debates with Statists, Socialists, and Communists. My reply is as follows: 

First, understanding what Capitalism is what it is not is imperative for discussion. Capitalism, as I am describing it, is the free and voluntary exchange of goods and services, i.e. Laissez Faire Capitalism.

The free market does, in fact, solve the establishment of education and can provide it at a reasonable price, as the competition of the marketplace is what drives up sales and profits. E.g. the oldest schools in the US are still some of the top schools in the world and were started by private and/or religious organizations. There are also several developing organizations providing free private education in the US: Free Schools | PrivateSchoolReview.com , Private School May Be Free If You Make Less Than $75,000 | PrivateSchoolReview.com , 8 Colleges Where Students Attend For Free, etc.

Additionally, when a government is coercing people to attend school, it forces education to lose its ‘value.’ A high school diploma means little-to-nothing anymore in the US because so many people have them. This has become such an issue that most employers do not actually check if someone actually has a high school diploma when they check yes in the degree box. Another important principle is that if something “good” is being forced on people, or people are being coerced to do, the good that is done is negated because something done well requires free and voluntary action, not coercion.

Laissez Faire Capitalism has NOT been tried in the US, and I am sad to say that it has not been fully implemented in any country-wide economy. What has been tried is near-Capitalism, where there are mixed economies and approaches to attempt more market freedom. What we do know is that the closer we are allowed to move towards Capitalism, the better off the majority of people are, and in the long run everyone is better off.

Monopolies come in four main categories, not just one. There are geographic monopolies, where simply due to their location almost everyone purchases from the supplier; technological monopolies are where an organization excels in technological advancements when compared to their competitors, and this gives them the  edge for monopolizing the marketplace; natural monopolies are completely free and voluntary, there just are not any direct competitors yet in the market; lastly, government monopolies are coercive powers that only exist because of government influences and protection by government with the threat of fines, prison, garnishments, removal of property, and up to death for those that dare to compete against the coercive monopoly assisted by government. This is important to distinguish, because Laissez Faire Capitalism, in its very philosophy, does not allow coercion as that is the antithesis of Justice. Furthermore, government, itself, is a coercive monopoly as it has monopolized the initiation of force and coercion.

Socialism and Communism are contradictory to Justice as they pontificate that free and voluntary exchanges between people cannot be conducted, i.e. via Laissez Faire Capitalism, while a select few of the political elite who run the Marxist government institution determines who the winners and losers are through arbitrary means. These same people will say in one sentence that [coercive] monopolies are bad, and then turn around and say government should control the marketplace. That is, by its definition, a coercive monopoly.

In response to your pointing out of child labor in the US, please note that it is a “privilege” for children to not work hard labor, not a moral stance. The nature of mankind, when born in nature, is without clothing, with little food primarily from one’s mother (hopefully), with no shelter except that of the voluntary guardian (hopefully), no weapons, inability to walk or talk, etc. We are born helpless, and our state at birth is that of extreme poverty. The US, and other European countries, moved towards not having children in the labor force for multiple reasons. One, because it was not financially necessary for everyone to have their children working because they had better-paying jobs that enabled them, primarily men, to provide for their families’ needs and some desires. Two, many of the labor laws against child labor were directed towards Blacks and other low socioeconomic minorities within the US to prevent them from gaining political and financial leverage in the US. Three, social pressure from those in society were disappointed in seeing that the significant primary provider of child labor was not the private marketplace, but in fact, government sending orphans to work in factories in order to fund their housing, staff pay, food, clothing, etc. especially for the orphans themselves. Today, there are still a number of countries that have child laborers, but they are mostly in developing countries, which points back to my original premise of the “privilege” of not needing child laborers.

As for your erroneous comparison of the US to Norway, let’s take a look at a few facts first. I will begin by stating it is very difficult and fallacious to compare these two countries. Also, there are, of course, major limitations in Norway that come along with having a major Welfare State: The Nordic Glass Ceiling . Nevertheless, Norway has an almost similar economic freedom as the US. Norway’s financial success comes mostly from the private market sells of oil. Norway’s population consists of a homogeneous society with similar ideas, views, and philosophy; whereas the US is far more diverse, and the US has a higher per capita GDP. The enjoyment of life in the US is far greater, overall, than in Norway. Additionally, Norway does not have the utopian system that you seem to be alluding to. The heterogeneous character of the US is what helps it drive forward in the world, providing a superior and diverse competitive market, especially when compared to Norway. This also prevents a true cross-comparison of the two countries, as they are not even similar- it is a false equivalence logical fallacy.


Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

Advertisements

An Anarchist Society is a Better Society

Austin Anderholt | USA

Whenever I try to convince someone that taxation (and therefore government) is theft, I find the process is quite easy: I explain to them how a group of people with bigger guns than everyone else call themselves “The Government” demand that you pay them a certain amount of money that you never agreed upon, or else they will threaten to lock you in a cage. The debate may last a few minutes or even hours, but I eventually can convince most people that government is bad and that taxation is theft. At this point, almost every single person says the same exact thing: “But without government, who would build the roads?” Sometimes they ask how other government projects would be handled, but for some reason, most people seem to inquire about roads first. Nonetheless, people are amazed that one could hold the opinion that people shouldn’t be allowed to lock you in a cage if you don’t pay them the money that they demand. They treat anarchism like a bad word. They assume that a stateless society would be like some sort of Hollywood movie they’ve seen, and this view is completely false.
To the masses that have spent their lives on the highly addictive sedative that we call “The Government”, it may seem crazy that people could build roads and complete other tasks without someone pointing a gun at them and stealing from them. There’s a great political comic here, that shows people standing in a breadline in the Soviet Union, starving away. One of them says, “In Capitalist countries, the government doesn’t hand them any bread!” The people in that comic couldn’t possibly imagine a successful world where bread is distributed through capitalism and a voluntary society. This is very similar to the blindness that the current public has about things that the government does. For example, on the issue of Net Neutrality: Net Neutrality didn’t even exist until 2015. Do you remember a time where you had to pay money to big scary corporations to access all websites on the internet before 2015? Me neither, but the drug of government is so powerful that it’s victims start to assume that “If we don’t have someone controlling how we live, the greedy corporations will make it too expensive to pay for anything!” This is entirely false. Companies have to cater to the individual, or else they will fail. If I owned McDonalds, and I started charging a million dollars per hamburger, everyone would stop buying from me, and my company would fail. This is common sense; if companies want to be on top, they have to compete with each other for the lowest prices and best goods/services, in order to ensure that they’ll get repeat customers. No company would ever charge a huge toll for roads or internet or any other good or service you can think of, or else another company could just sell it for a cheaper price, and therefore get more business. Companies must cater to the customer to survive, and the idea of these “greedy corporations” is just plain false.
That being said, have you ever driven on a private road before? I’m sure you have. Did you have to pay a greedy corporation a huge toll to drive on it? Probably not. In fact, many toll roads are government roads. So, how would roads work? In one scenario, you have businesses competing for the cheapest road prices. Many of them might implement different policies, such as, “Our roads are safer because we don’t allow drunk driving” or, “Our roads are cheaper because we only make you pay one small price forever!” This would make roads extremely efficient, and it has worked in the past: The first American railroad was privately owned and built. Let’s say you were really afraid of these non-existent greedy corporations, and you didn’t want them owning your roads. You could crowdfund for monetary donations to build a road that you let everyone go on for free. It would be like taxation, but completely voluntary and with a significant lack of cages.
With that in mind, privatization would help everyone a great deal. Prices would shoot down for things like healthcare, education, and whatnot. Currently, we live in a system where the government has a forced monopolies on those items, and they can demand any amount of money they want for it. Due to this, they can be wasteful and inefficient, but private companies wouldn’t have that option. However, let’s say there’s a family that’s struggling to get by in a stateless economy, and they can’t afford these items. There are tons of huge private charities that are fighting to end things such as hunger and to give free checkups, showers, meals, etc. to people who are in need. Once taxation stops existing, and people’s paychecks aren’t being slashed in half, can you imagine how increasingly generous people would be in donating to these huge causes? Private charity for people in need would skyrocket!
In conclusion, a stateless society would thrive. As we’ve seen through times like the prohibition, public school, and the Middle East, government intervention almost indefinitely makes things worse. Private companies and charities will do much more good than anything currently being accomplished. A voluntary society is a better society!