Vladimir Nuri writes:
the distinction between govt and business is sometimes an arbitrary one. for example govt agencies typically contract with private companies to perform govt services. a massive example of this is the defense industry. what I would tend to propose is a system where this is augmented and finetuned to the point the govt become a very efficient sorting mechanism for channeling money to businesses that are the most efficient.
Even when government does sub-contract, the inefficiency is usually I think pretty horrendous by industry standards: 1. the subcontracted work is probably not at all desired by the customers (us the tax payers) 2. the subcontracted work is probably poorly specified, so the contractor does work which inefficiently works towards the customers requirements 3. because governments are monopolies they have no incentive to choose the best value for money contract, or to try hard to obtain reasonable contracts 4. because governments employees are often corrupt kick backs are taken by corrupt employees to accept other than the best value for money contractor
AB, I disagree that people would opt out of virtually all govt services. bzzzzzzzt. think of things like trash collection etc. I do believe the vast majority of things the govt does would tend to stay there even if people had a choice.
Everything that can easily be privatised would either be privatised (because it would be so much cheaper without all the corruption, ineptitude and lack of efficiency insentive), or for the first time some competition would be introduced into government and they would actually compete on an even basis. Either outcome is preferable over the current situation, and a direct result of allowing competition.
the big libertarian question is, as you raise it: should people have to pay for things they don't want.
absolutely not.
well consider things like roads,
if you don't drive you shouldn't have to pay for them.
police
if you have hired a private security firm for protection you shouldn't have to pay for the police (who as others have noted mostly do unproductive things, and prosecute victimless crimes, and generally harrass people).
or fire protection
well if your house burns down, and you haven't taken fire insurance with a fire fighting service, and can't afford the fee, well that's tough luck.
or the court system.
I don't want to subsidize arbitration services locking away people for victimless crimes, so I will subscribe to arbitration services which don't do this. See "Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman for a plausible frame work for choice in arbitration services and intra service negotations. Note quite a lot of business use independent arbitration services, because it is much cheaper, fairer, and more predictable than the government monopoly court system.
what if you don't pay, but then dial 911 anyway?
they ask for your to authenticate your chaumian credential insurancce contract. if you can't do that they don't come, same as any other 0800-RENTACOP service.
or you dial 911 and they ask for your credit card first? <g>
yup, exactly.
it really does seem to me like there is a legitimate role for a certain amount of money to be collected for govt service.
I think you can privatise everything. Things which are called natural monopolies could be managed by trade organisations or companies bidding for management getting efficiency related fees. Why should politicians and the rest manage roads, why not a company.
imho it is far, far less than whatis being collected today.
zero I think woudl be best, or very very close.
if taxes were 5-10% people wouldn't give as much a damn about the govt and how it worked.
What all could you spend 5-10% of GNP on that couldn't be privatised? Sounds like an awful lot of legalised theft yet!
libertarians tend to be awfully realistic some times. who pays for roads when everyone uses them?
don't pay not allowed to use. not everyone uses them to drive cars on. Adam