pull down to refresh
Thanks for the suggestion and for your open question!
You got me on this one, the more I tried to find a difference between (say) having to acquire food daily and having my broken bone put back in place, the more I struggled to find one!
Ok, if i can't afford food I can somehow produce it by myself (but in the context of life/death, is more efficient to steal it than farm or raise it, from a time perspective), but I am ultimately limited. Same thing for health or security, there is some degree of "feasibility" but at the end, in the context of the division of labor, I am really relying on everyone else even for the basic things needed for necessity.
But how do we ensure that the basics are met also for people who cannot afford them?
Ultimately my question is: I am happy having to cut my profit via taxation to get some service back, because even though I can pay for that service directly (and maybe have a better service even), i can one day find myself in a situation for which that service is provided to me even if I am not able to pay that tax right now. It's like a form of collective insurance. This is imposed by a civilized State in some way or another, but in a free market, does this emerge? How can it work? Sometimes bad luck happens from day 0 or is not in our hand to control it.
Because I generally have a bad opinion on central gov that enforces things (cause today may be good, tomorrow may be bad) but I don't see how relying on people's trust and expect them to help you out will actually solve the thing (even imagining some sort of i help you now you pay back later)
This is the nirvana fallacy. You're basically attributing a property to the state that it doesn't possess.
When states have taken on the responsibility to provide food, people starved. States have now taken on the responsibility to ensure health care and people are sicker than ever.
If we push far enough, these arguments always come back to two things: scarcity and incentives.
- States are worse at producing stuff, so they increase scarcity (other things equal)
- States don't care as much about providing for you and your family as you do, so they will do so less (other things equal)
It's a double whammy: there's less stuff for everyone and a normal person gets less of it.
How everything works out is always complicated because an economy is a complex system with unpredictable equilibria. Generally though, people conduct their lives differently absent a safety, which often involves family and social dynamics that act as insurance as well as charities playing larger roles.
Got it, sounds reasonable.
Well at this point the question arises... what is even the point of the state? Law? Why should people follow it? How are things enforced? The moment there's someone "authorized" to point a gun, all the other bad things we have seen inevitably roll out
It's a racket, basically a giant organized crime syndicate but with good PR.
Law doesn't have to be tied to a state.
People shouldn't follow the state.
Things are enforced by threat of violence.
The moment there's someone "authorized" to point a gun, all the other bad things we have seen inevitably roll out
Sort of. There's a big difference between being authorized to point a gun at an aggressor in defense of yourself and being authorized to point a gun at peaceful people to force them into obedience.
Start by asking yourself what’s different about those things than the necessities that you are expected to provide for yourself (food, clothing, housing, etc.)
Some of these issues are tricky but most are just a lack of imagination.
Edit: there are tons of free resources on this stuff at mises.org. I recommend starting with Economics in One Lesson and also making discussions like this on Stacker News. Many of us are interested in these questions and it’s fun having new initiates to talk to.