pull down to refresh
121 sats \ 2 replies \ @anon 7 Aug \ on: Socialism In Plain Sight econ
One thing I couldn't get my head around is how the free market could solve e.g. safety standards. In my opinion, it's crucial to have standards to follow when implementing projects, especially in the public sector. For instance, if safety standards for train brakes are not maintained properly, a crash could occur, leading to fatalities. Similarly, in a laboratory, a virus could escape due to improper implementation of risk controls. I mean in certain areas, standards are required to ensure that individuals can operate together safely. This means that I usually don't get killed when going by train because it was more cost-efficient to eliminate safety standards in favor of performance features. Maybe I didn't use the best examples, but my take is that there are certain scenarios where central coordination is necessary, and I don't think the free market can solve everything entirely. Curious about stackers take. What do I miss?
I think the traditional libertarian answer is that some combination of tort lawsuits, industry-agreed-upon standards, and privately run consumer information groups would be enough to keep the companies' behavior in check.
reply
Yes, but more to the point it is the anarco-capitalist position. Libertarian thought is WAY more broad.
The question Anon is asking are good ones. The simple answer is if need is really present and incentives align people acting in their own interests usually see it and work together. Free markets only work when people voluntarily co-operate. I don't have examples handy but there are plenty of standards bodies that have sprung up organically. Even though we have a state that is supposedly supposed to solve so many problems we still see many examples of things NOT being standardized.
The most common anarchist idea to fulfill many of the governance functions listed is insurance. Insurance already does this in many fields over the top of governments. Lets look at medial for example.
Doctors have malpractice insurance to protect themselves from lawsuits destroying their businesses if they make a mistake. These insurance companies have requirements that they enforce on their customers. Doctors and their practices are required to stay up to date on training. Consumers today depend on many privately run associations and things like that to validate a doctor. The status quo is not perfect but it is far from being fully centrally managed and I'd say there is a pretty good pattern to suggest it could operate just fine without a state. Maybe better.
The FDA has a pretty terrible track record for example. Its a monopoly. There are privately run institutions that test drugs and both approve drugs that help faster and have recommended against using drugs that are less safe before the FDA. You could still have an FDA but if it didn't have monopoly power to ban things people would have more choice to trust other institutions or the FDA. They could make determinations using their own risk tolerance.
If you are interested in this topic I would recommend Chaos Theory: Two Essays on Market Anarchy: Robert P. Murphy, Robert Vroman, Hans-Hermann Hoppe
reply