Defence and the Free Market

[pErvinalia]

You don't care about externalities when it concerns fossil fuels and global warming.

[Forty Two]

Why is the free market not good enough for the defence of the nation. Why is defence socialised? If the free market leads to the best outcomes and the most efficiency of spending, then why are our militaries and their spending under a command economy? If the free market isn't good enough for defence, then why is it allegedly good enough for things like health, education and science?

Maximising choice maximises freedom and opportunity, promotes competition, stinulatws economies, and reduces costs. Therefore the defence of the nation should be put out to tender. To stand against this is to stand against freedom and Liberty.

It's because there is no real "market" for national defense. There is a market for individual security services (and that is a vibrant free market). However, a public good or national interest cannot be sold to individual market participants.

Key terms - public good, positive and negative externalities, the free rider problem, nonexclusivity, and nonrivalrous.

Why do you hate freedom and Liberty?

I don't. Eliminating national defense as a state function, and leaving it up to a "market" where customers buy the national defense that they want to purchase is conducive neither to liberty, nor freedom.

The government puts the building and running of social goods such as roads, hospitals, schools, law-and-order services, and infrastructure out to tender.

That's not a free market. That's a bidding process. The government puts certain tasks or goods/services purchases up for a bidding process; however, "law enforcement" is not sold in a free market. Security services can be purchased in the free market, but not law enforcement in general. A municipality could conceivably hire a a private company to supply its personnel, of course, but it wouldn't be a "market" for such services - it would be a bidding process for one customer. You wouldn't have a bunch of "law enforcement providers" competing against each other for consumers, where you hire Fred's Police, or XYZ Police, or ABC Police. It doesn't work.

Hospitals can and are certainly private. An organization builds a hospital and provides health care services. You can have 10 hospitals in a region, and people can go to one or the other or the other. Same thing with schools -- we have private schools in the US, in addition to public ones. No problem.

National defense is not like those things, for reasons already stated. It's more like law enforcement, where the police are actually acting on behalf of the State or the Crown, and not the individual citizen. A crime is committed, the police go and arrest the guy or investigate it. They aren't going to forget about it just because one citizen doesn't pay his police bill.

If the Chinese or whoever can defend the nation to the same extent for a lower cost the government have a duty to outsource that public service to reduce the burden on the taxpayer - which in the US is considerable.

You think the UK government has the duty to outsource UK national defense policy to the Russians, if the Russians can defend the nation better or the same at a lower cost? Good luck with that. If that logic works for you, then have fun with it. It's borderline retarded, though, assuming you're serious, which I can't.

[Forty Two]

You don't care about externalities when it concerns fossil fuels and global warming.

By your logic, we should leave national climate change policy up to the private sector.

[JimC]

You don't care about externalities when it concerns fossil fuels and global warming.

By your logic, we should leave national climate change policy up to the private sector.

Be fair, it's rEv parodying what he takes to be the Sethian position...
























(a bit like the missionary position, but armed...)

[Brian Peacock]

[pErvinalia]

You don't care about externalities when it concerns fossil fuels and global warming.

By your logic, we should leave national climate change policy up to the private sector.

What logic is that?

[JimC]

Actually, some parts of the private sector, for instance those involved in manufacturing solar cells or wind turbines, or those involved in insurance are totally on board...

[Forty Two]

You don't care about externalities when it concerns fossil fuels and global warming.

By your logic, we should leave national climate change policy up to the private sector.

What logic is that?

Touche'

[Forty Two]

Actually, some parts of the private sector, for instance those involved in manufacturing solar cells or wind turbines, or those involved in insurance are totally on board...

Indeed, people that see customers and makes stuff to sell to them are right on board with a free market in that stuff. They aren't of course, marketing "climate change policy."

[pErvinalia]

You don't care about externalities when it concerns fossil fuels and global warming.

By your logic, we should leave national climate change policy up to the private sector.

What logic is that?

Touche'

No, I meant what logic is it that you read in most post to suggest what you suggested. I didn't mean that there was no logic in my post.

[Seth]

You don't care about externalities when it concerns fossil fuels and global warming.

Sure I do, we just disagree as to the existence and magnitude of such externalities and whether, if they exist, they are positive or negative in their effects.

[Seth]

Actually, some parts of the private sector, for instance those involved in manufacturing solar cells or wind turbines, or those involved in insurance are totally on board...

Only because the government subsidizes their industries with massive amounts of taxpayer money, without which they would cease to exist almost immediately, which completely eliminates them as free market participants.

[JimC]

Actually, some parts of the private sector, for instance those involved in manufacturing solar cells or wind turbines, or those involved in insurance are totally on board...

Only because the government subsidizes their industries with massive amounts of taxpayer money, without which they would cease to exist almost immediately, which completely eliminates them as free market participants.

Initial subsidies were needed to prime the pump, but have substantially decreased in most sectors, and renewable energy is now at a par in terms of cost with big coal...

[pErvinalia]

And of course, subsidies to and ignoring pollution from fossil fuels is irrelevant to Seth.

[Scot Dutchy]

Is there anything relevant for Seth?