If government provides "services" that are so good, why do they have to use force ?

[Rob Roy]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Note this question and the intro was excerpted from an article written by Eric Peters.


Most people “get” that their ability to decline a service or product serves as an incentive. The seller of the service or product must convince you that the service or product is worth at least as much as the money they are asking in return. If not, and you decline, then they must try harder to convince you of the merit of what they’re selling. If they can’t convince you (or enough other people) then they go out of business. In a free economy, where willing buyers transact with sellers who cannot coerce, only services and products that have objective merit – defined by people’s willingness to purchase them – succeed. Products and services that lack merit fail – as defined by people’s lack of interest in paying good money for them.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]But most people have difficulty making the intellectual (and philosophical) Great Leap Forward – applying the same reasoning, the same economic discipline, to government.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]If, for example, the government really does provide valuable services – as it so often claims – then why is it necessary to force people to purchase these allegedly
valuable services? If the services provided by government really do have value, wouldn’t most people eagerly purchase them without coercion?




[/FONT]

 

[schuylaar]

Note this question and the intro was excerpted from an article written by Eric Peters.


Most people “get” that their ability to decline a service or product serves as an incentive. The seller of the service or product must convince you that the service or product is worth at least as much as the money they are asking in return. If not, and you decline, then they must try harder to convince you of the merit of what they’re selling. If they can’t convince you (or enough other people) then they go out of business. In a free economy, where willing buyers transact with sellers who cannot coerce, only services and products that have objective merit – defined by people’s willingness to purchase them – succeed. Products and services that lack merit fail – as defined by people’s lack of interest in paying good money for them.
But most people have difficulty making the intellectual (and philosophical) Great Leap Forward – applying the same reasoning, the same economic discipline, to government.

If, for example, the government really does provide valuable services – as it so often claims – then why is it necessary to force people to purchase these allegedly
valuable services? If the services provided by government really do have value, wouldn’t most people eagerly purchase them without coercion?

aren't you canadian?

 

[londonfog]

Note this question and the intro was excerpted from an article written by Eric Peters.


Most people “get” that their ability to decline a service or product serves as an incentive. The seller of the service or product must convince you that the service or product is worth at least as much as the money they are asking in return. If not, and you decline, then they must try harder to convince you of the merit of what they’re selling. If they can’t convince you (or enough other people) then they go out of business. In a free economy, where willing buyers transact with sellers who cannot coerce, only services and products that have objective merit – defined by people’s willingness to purchase them – succeed. Products and services that lack merit fail – as defined by people’s lack of interest in paying good money for them.
But most people have difficulty making the intellectual (and philosophical) Great Leap Forward – applying the same reasoning, the same economic discipline, to government.

If, for example, the government really does provide valuable services – as it so often claims – then why is it necessary to force people to purchase these allegedly
valuable services? If the services provided by government really do have value, wouldn’t most people eagerly purchase them without coercion?

how do you pay for the services...if nobody paid because they did not want to

 

[racerboy71]

aren't you canadian?

no, i'm from oregon, but recently moved to san jose, but my in laws are giving me money to start a large outdoor greenhouse grow, why do you ask?

 

[schuylaar]

no, i'm from oregon, but recently moved to san jose, but my in laws are giving me money to start a large outdoor greenhouse grow, why do you ask?

awwwww..don't be mean..he's all we got

 

[BrewsNBuds]

how do you pay for the services...if nobody paid because they did not want to

Those services, as no one was willing to pay for them, would not be performed.

 

[Rob Roy]

how do you pay for the services...if nobody paid because they did not want to

Thanks for asking. First lets see if we agree on what a "service" is. I think a service provider provides a potential customer with something that the potential customer wants, so naturally some individuals may want a given service and some may not. Agreed? Is that what a service is?

To ensure payment at a grocery store ( a common provider of a service) the people that actually want the service pay when they are leaving. This creates a willing exchange, you got a cart of groceries, the store got $150. Both parties got what they wanted. This seems to be a reasonable approach to interactions, yes?

Okay, you want to know what happens when one party doesn't want to pay. That all depends did they seek the service and not pay (theft) or was the so called service not really a service but an offer that couldn't be refused? (extortion) If something is presented as a service, but one party doesn't want it, is it still a service? I say no, what do you say and why?

 

[abandonconflict]

The gov't exists to protect private property and to serve the ruling class. The services are only there because capitalism doesn't work with out stimulus. They also give the added bonus of keeping people from revolting.

 

[Rob Roy]

aren't you canadian?

I'm not sure your question addresses the questions I've asked. So, I'll politely ask you to try to address them in between rubbing cream all over your glowing skin.

 

[Rob Roy]

The gov't exists to protect private property and to serve the ruling class. The services are only there because capitalism doesn't work with out stimulus. They also give the added bonus of keeping people from revolting.

So you would prefer services be based on consensual exchange?

 

[londonfog]

Thanks for asking. First lets see if we agree on what a "service" is. I think a service provider provides a potential customer with something that the potential customer wants, so naturally some individuals may want a given service and some may not. Agreed? Is that what a service is?

To ensure payment at a grocery store ( a common provider of a service) the people that actually want the service pay when they are leaving. This creates a willing exchange, you got a cart of groceries, the store got $150. Both parties got what they wanted. This seems to be a reasonable approach to interactions, yes?

Okay, you want to know what happens when one party doesn't want to pay. That all depends did they seek the service and not pay (theft) or was the so called service not really a service but an offer that couldn't be refused? (extortion) If something is presented as a service, but one party doesn't want it, is it still a service? I say no, what do you say and why?

is a street light a service...what about a light signal ??? people use them..how do you pay for those type of things..I think you know where I'm going with this.

 

[ChesusRice]

Those services, as no one was willing to pay for them, would not be performed.

You mean like build roads?
Boy this nation sure could prosper without roads

 

[BrewsNBuds]

The services are only there because capitalism doesn't work with out stimulus.

Don't you mean government doesn't work without stimulus? And what did we get from the Obama Stimulus Act / 2009? So far, the debt has gone from $10.6 Trillion (2009) to $17.1 Trillion (today).

How does stimulus help grow our economy again?

 

[ChesusRice]

Don't you mean government doesn't work without stimulus? And what did we get from the Obama Stimulus Act / 2009? So far, the debt has gone from $10.6 Trillion (2009) to $17.1 Trillion (today).

How does stimulus help grow our economy again?

Half the stimulus was tax breaks more of it was loans that got paid back

What was the economy like back then

What is it like now

 

[BrewsNBuds]

You mean like build roads?
Boy this nation sure could prosper without roads

Bridges to nowhere, roads to nowhere, light rail to nowhere. Yea, none of these are worthy expenditures and will only cost us money, not benefit us economically.

 

[Rob Roy]

is a street light a service...what about a light signal ??? people use them..how do you pay for those type of things..I think you know where I'm going with this.

If I had a street light and it lit MY property I'd not ask you to or demand that you pay for it. I'd pay for it.

 

[Rob Roy]

You mean like build roads?
Boy this nation sure could prosper without roads

Roads are pretty handy, I agree on that. Is it possible to devise a system where the people that use them pay for them and the people that don't use them are not forced to pay for them?

 

[UncleBuck]

Bridges to nowhere, roads to nowhere, light rail to nowhere. Yea, none of these are worthy expenditures and will only cost us money, not benefit us economically.

public infrastructure: an american boondoggle

said no historian ever.

Roads are pretty handy, I agree on that. Is it possible to devise a system where the people that use them pay for them and the people that don't use them are not forced to pay for them?

oh, i see. you want the benefit of the road, but you don't want to foot the cost.

you just answered the question to your thread.

why use force? because of the freeloader problem (i.e., you).

/thread

 

[abandonconflict]

Don't you mean government doesn't work without stimulus? And what did we get from the Obama Stimulus Act / 2009? So far, the debt has gone from $10.6 Trillion (2009) to $17.1 Trillion (today).

How does stimulus help grow our economy again?

No, I mean capitalism does not work with out government and stimulus. The Obama stimulus did very much to alleviate the recession. Don't confuse the budget of the gov't with the economy. The economy is recovering, people are out buying shit and employers are hiring. All they have to do to deal with the debt is to drastically cut "defense". With big enough cuts, a surplus can be generated that can eliminate the debt within a generation, as long as there aren't any more wars.

Most of the debt comes from wars. Domestic spending on the other hand is unlike "defense" spending in that the money does not end up overseas. It bounces around at home, creating jobs.

 

[BrewsNBuds]

Half the stimulus was tax breaks more of it was loans that got paid back

What was the economy like back then

What is it like now

Are you serious? Now vs. Then?!

January 2009: 80,507,000 Americans out of work
September 2013: 90,609,000 Americans out of work.
source: BLS

I guess the Stimulus Act worked. Right? C'mon, man!