I am the one tax payer that says- Fire all the cops! Fire all the fire fighters, Fire all the soldiers, Fire all the water department, Fire all postal workers.
Does this just sound like crazy talk to you? Read on.
All of these services have been provided by government throughout all of history. People tend to get in a rut on their ability to question things. What if the government always provided shoes throughout history? Then Jim the Libertarian comes along and says "you know, we could probably allow the free market and free enterprise to produce shoes and reduce the tax burden". Just think of the statist liberals (and conservatives), who would be coming out of the woodwork to tell me what an awful, evil person I am. People would say, "You hate the poor and want to see them shoeless", or "how would the poor own shoes", or "who would make shoes if the state doesn't?" Because the assumption is that if you attack a government monopoly, then you are not attacking the government, but rather you are attacking the service itself.
Now with Shoe's you can obviously see how absurd this is. We all know that if we let the government monopoly take over shoe production, each pair of shoes produced would cost the tax payer $180. But because we let the free market handle this, competition, endless invention, technology, and ultimately the demands of the consumer, drive down costs and improve quality. I have bought a pair of brand new Crocks at Walmart for one dollar (not the brand name, but just as good). So to me, the libertarian, when someone says we must use government to run security, ie: the police, it sounds just as absurd as having them produce shoes. There is absolutely no reason that the service of security can not be provided by the free market. All the typical reasons the statist say we cant, such as -"What about the poor?", "The poor wont have security!", "You just hate poor people and want them to be robbed." will be played in the typical emotional fashion.
Does this just sound like crazy talk to you? Read on.
All of these services have been provided by government throughout all of history. People tend to get in a rut on their ability to question things. What if the government always provided shoes throughout history? Then Jim the Libertarian comes along and says "you know, we could probably allow the free market and free enterprise to produce shoes and reduce the tax burden". Just think of the statist liberals (and conservatives), who would be coming out of the woodwork to tell me what an awful, evil person I am. People would say, "You hate the poor and want to see them shoeless", or "how would the poor own shoes", or "who would make shoes if the state doesn't?" Because the assumption is that if you attack a government monopoly, then you are not attacking the government, but rather you are attacking the service itself.
Now with Shoe's you can obviously see how absurd this is. We all know that if we let the government monopoly take over shoe production, each pair of shoes produced would cost the tax payer $180. But because we let the free market handle this, competition, endless invention, technology, and ultimately the demands of the consumer, drive down costs and improve quality. I have bought a pair of brand new Crocks at Walmart for one dollar (not the brand name, but just as good). So to me, the libertarian, when someone says we must use government to run security, ie: the police, it sounds just as absurd as having them produce shoes. There is absolutely no reason that the service of security can not be provided by the free market. All the typical reasons the statist say we cant, such as -"What about the poor?", "The poor wont have security!", "You just hate poor people and want them to be robbed." will be played in the typical emotional fashion.
All of this is absurd. Hating a monopoly is not hating the service it provides. I do want protection and affordable protection for everyone. There is no reason that security cannot be a service provided by the free market. The obvious questions by statist is "how will the poor pay for it?" They seem to forget that the poor pay for it now as does every tax payer, and because it is a monopoly that doesnt have to worry about cost to the consumer, they pay way too much. So security would be cheaper and the poor and rich alike would be relieved of the additional tax burden used to pay for these services. Police security would be cheaper for the poor. So what would a free market police or security service look like? The beauty of free market is that it is impossible to tell. Free markets constantly are an ever changing orchastration of higher effientcy, creating goods, cutting costs, advancing technology and meeting the constantly changing consumer demands as swiftly and efficently as possible. So I cannot tell you exactly what it would look like. Only that economic history proves that all services can be provided by the market. And it will be cheaper and better.
There are those that say, we cant have "GREED" running the police. Well guess what. Any human quality that is apparently unwanted in a system, does not magically go away if you let a government monopoly run it. It only insures there is nothing you can do about it. In a free market system, you can fire anyone you like. That's how it gets better and better. The businesses that you choose are the ones that survive. You run the show. You decide who fails and who survives, not some bureaucrat.
Compare the TSA vs. a football stadium private securty. How does each one treat you? One has a monopoly and the other is voluntary. How would the local police treat you if you paid them directly and had the ability to fire them and hire another outfit? What would they be worried about? Your wants and needs or theirs? They would constantly worry about yours because if they dont, someone else will.
Some people say the government must provide a police force because all people are entitled to security. So security is a right of the people? Well, shouldnt food be a right before security? Don't people need food more than security? Why not have the government produce all food? We know why! Because before 1850, 9 out of 10 people had to make and grow their own food and almost all their labor was spent on food production, but because of the free market now the average Amercian only spends 6% of their income on food and 1 out of 100 is a farmer. The free market has driven the price of food so low and raised the quality so high that most of us dont even know how a farmer spent much money on it.
Look at the U.S. mail. Despite its constitutional protection as a monopoly, the free market still managed to outperform it, cheaper (pratically free). Now you can send e mail for almost nothing. This is how free markets work, sometimes so well, they can outperform the state despite it having the law, monopoly and force on its side, and they still could not stop from being outperformed in this area. This happened while the U.S. mail could not be competed agaisnt by law! That's how good the free market is.
So I say, Fire all the cops! Get rid of the town fire department, and allow the market to bring you these services, cheaper, better, and customized to your consumer needs.
This isn't a pipe dream, this is Libertarianism. Question the unquestionable! Get out of your rut and start getting involved in this war of ideas!
(Inspired and exerpted from "For a New Liberty" by Murray Rothbard)
Written by Jim Fisher
No comments:
Post a Comment