Until taxation is voluntary, it’s a misnomer to refer to it as being paid “willingly.”
Customers enter into the deal voluntarily.
No, they’re not being coerced. They are voluntarily compensating the company for the cost of exploration, extraction, refining, shipping to market, etc.
Force backs all government actions. we allow it as a necessary evil to make society work. So it’s both. it is taking from private citizens at gunpoint and it is also a price we pay for civilization. Although let’s recognize the evil for what it is. We are not all willing participants in society. And very few of us signed on to pay half our income in taxes at all levels. The only taxes you can say are totally voluntary are those approved by referendum that apply to all. Any idiot can vote to increase someone else’s taxes.
Drug cartels exist because the government creates a black market. No government, no cartels.
If a cartel starts to rule a territory by force and intimidation, it ceases being a cartel and becomes the new government.
Even the use of the seas, much more conducive to private investment, relied heavily upon governments to provide aids to navigation, "rules of the road," dredging of waterways, etc. Again, if private investment would have been so much superior to government intervention, it is surely remarkable that it has never occurred.
[/QUOTE]
There have been private highways, the railroads in the US were largely built by private interests, etc.
But by the time modern transportation came into being, the nation-state was already firmly entrenched in the Western world.
Cartels do exist without prohibition, in markets which are legally free, when supply and demand are limited enough that the companies involved consider it is best to lock that market down.
When the government sees one in a legal sector and isn’t part of it, they persecute it - but it may be after years of the Deal being on. And sometimes what’s protecting a cartel isn’t “the government” above the table, but specific government members who get something out of their protection.
The crash occurred in the absence of policies that regulated poor business practices in the private sector. There were such regulations in place from the mid 1930s until the 1990s, and while they were imperfect, it is clear that they were largely effective at preventing banking panics and financial crises. The recovery would never have been possible without government intervention to save the financial system. Government also spent more money on modest infrastructure improvements (not nearly the amount of investment we need but that’s another thread). I would agree that the market is the driver, but regulations prevent excesses in the market and they can support the economy when the market is not be to do that on its own.
Wait, governments create black markets? I thought that black markets were being used as the example of “market not created by government”.
Why not? Would the demand for drugs simply disappear? Drug cartels compete with legal distributors of drugs and legal products, as well as illegal distributors and illegal products. Alcohol is regulated and largely legal. And yet, you still have moonshiners, and they can actually make a fairly good income in some places.
With no government, people could still get together and do exactly what cartels do. You can play semantics and pretend they’re not cartels, then, but whatever they are in that case, they’re just as bad.
So it’s just an argument about definitions, then. The point is that government isn’t necessary for bad groups like cartels to exist and do bad things. They can exist and do bad things with or without government. Effective government can prevent them from existing.
This argument is being dragged into places that I frankly do not feel like dealing with at this time. Mostly because I’ve had them dozens of times already. I’ll simply restate my claim directly related to the OP:
The private sector is indispensable to government. The government could not exist without voluntary exchange occurring prior to its institution. Now this voluntary exchange may not meet your arbitrary standard of decency imposed as an irrelevant third party, but it does exist. It must exist or else the government would not. If you acknowledge that there is a government, then you must also acknowledge that a “private sector” existed before that government. This is axiomatic.
For this reason, I conclude that the private sector is more important than government.
Ok I couldn’t resist.
If you want to define cartel as “a group of assholes” I can adjust accordingly, but it does have a specific meaning that I am accustomed to using, so excuse me.
Cartels are attempts to use collusion to gain a monopoly. There hasn’t been a successful cartel not aided and abetted by government. There are theoretical reasons cartels don’t succeed, but strictly empirically speaking, they have never succeeded without intentional or unintentional government aid.
Governments make them “black”, but they are still a market not created by government.
Name a specific example of a successful cartel without the aid of government.
Did I deny highways provide a “means by which wealth could be generated”? If so, when? I’ll wait…
The question was whether highways “add wealth”. They don’t. They redirect resources. If I steal your 401k funds and build a strip mall have I added wealth?
ETA: there has been several examples of private roads, subways, canals, bridges, airlines, telephone companies, ISPs, etc. they all provide the means you claim are reserved to the magical miracle government
You obviously haven’t much baseball this year there have been a couple of brawls that were true to their name.
As far as a cite goes the easiest one is to have you go take a drive. Count the number of police you see and count the number of people speeding you see. Most roads everyone will be driving at a similar speed that isn’t the speed limit when there isn’t a cop there. Those people are self-regulation the speed limit for that road. You also won’t see many officers there aren’t enough of them to regulate the speed on every road so it is practically left to the people to regulate themselves. That is how most regulation goes.
In my example above the point was the regulators review every drilling plan and said my boss’s plan was sufficient it is left to the employees in the oil industry to we’re effectively regulated and that is done through self regulation.
To go back to the analogy most people want to just play the game and will call it fairly when they run into someone who just wants to bean the opponent no one let’s him play next time. Sure this is less efficient and less games will be played which is why the umps are good but they aren’t necessary.
The prison industry has seen quite a bit of privatization, and these private prisons use prison labor as well.
Without a decent government someone is just going to take what private enterprise makes. Government is a bit like a protection racket with roads thrown in.
There were? Were charges pressed?
I don’t actually drive, so I can’t take your advice personally. And past that, even if I could, anecdote /= data, as you know. A couple of days ago I went up to London and on a 30 minute walk saw not only seven police officers, but two of whom were armed. Not a common occurrence in context.
That aside; you’re forgetting about speed cameras. Too, the current lack of police isn’t going to mean in everyone’s mind a total lack of police. I’d also peg part of it down to self-regulation for one’s own sake, too, which does count for your theory, but not perfectly enough, given the abundance of situations where the consequences for a lack of regulation won’t fall on you.
Right. And it failed, in that instance, didn’t it? One person stood up for safety by quitting, you - and it didn’t have an affect on the unsafe conditions. Self-regulation didn’t help, because one person had no say, and another person didn’t care or didn’t correctly look at the risk.
As it stands now, a player who repeatedly beans someone might well find themselves plunked in turn. That a bench-clearing brawl does not usually mean that all players on both teams turn against the beaner, but his own team will back him up. Why should we expect to see no-one letting him play? What if he’s a really, really good pitcher?* Someone* will let him play. There’s a big hullabaloo at the moment in the UK because an ex-footballer convicted of rape has just been signed back up by a team. Teams will, quite often, overlook problematic behaviour and worse when talent is on offer.
Imagine in our regulation-lacking theoretical world, Clayton Kershaw decides he’s going to deliberately bean a player every now and again. You think he won’t find work?
A black market is a market that springs up in an area proscribed by government fiat. No government, no black market.
Black markets are an example of the efficiency of the market. Demand is met even in the face of government opposition.
It’s a group of assholes who do the things that the cartels in Mexico do – and without government, such a group could certainly do all these things. If you don’t want to call them a cartel, that’s fine, but I’ll call a group of assholes who do all the things that Mexican cartels do cartels, whether or not government exists.
It’s not semantics. Cartels form in the black market, which is in turn created by the government.
If this were true you’d either have to argue the US is not an effective government, or it has won the War on Drugs. Neither is the case. The US is an effective government, yet drug cartels exist in the nation.
“A group of assholes” is rather broad, and not synonymous with a cartel. Seems the latter is a subset of the former.
A government exists in Mexico.