I’m worried about all the murdering far more than the selling stuff on the black market. Yes, without government there’s no black market. But without government (or without effective government, as is the situation in parts of Mexico) there’s also nothing to stop a group of assholes from getting together and using violence and terror to control trade in an in-demand product. If you don’t want to call a group of killers that uses violence to control trade in some desired substance a cartel when there’s no black market, then fine, but I see no reason to believe that such a group couldn’t exist without government.
I don’t think anybody has argued a group of assholes can’t exist without government. Only that cartels can’t exist without government. It’s a more modest claim.
I don’t accept that cartels require a black market, but in any case, I’m arguing that lack of government won’t stop people from doing absolutely everything that cartels do, except with unregulated market in the place of a black market, and such a group isn’t any less bad than a cartel. Therefore, I’m arguing that on this issue alone, lack of government is worse than government, since am effective government is the only thing that can eliminate a powerful and violent cartel.
You tell us. Given that no one has ever actually built a system in such a fashion without involving a government, that strongly suggests that either there are no humans outside government with the intelligence or imagination to attempt them, or that there are factors involved in the creation of such works that make private construction unworkable.
You will note that I specified rail (and canal and railroad) systems. There have been a handful of private turnpikes and the predecessors to railroads going back several hundred years prior to the nineteenth century (and even before the modern nation-state). Not one of them actually amounted to anything more than a way for a very few investors to make a living off the effort and none of them actually resulted in the development of actual systems that provided methods of producing wealth.
Private funds were often included when building such systems, (usually only after being backed by government bonds or allocations), but no such system has ever been built without public/government intervention to acquire land, regulate access, safeguard investors, etc.
The notion that we would have gotten just as far in developing such systems, (much less further along), if the government had just stayed out of the way is a ludicrous dream of the Ayn Rand fringe of the libertarian movement with no basis in reality. (This is not to say that no libertarian viewpoint is valid, only to note that this extreme version is without foundation.)
Cartels function in the US. Does the US not have an effective government?
Often times government built infrastructure is completed by private firms. I wouldn’t imagine even the most ardent left winger would believe that “there are no humans outside government with the intelligence or imagination to attempt them”, but perhaps I’m being too charitable.
That also overlooks the fact that there are instances of private construction of infrastructure.
But there’s a third option in addition to the two you listed. Namely, that nobody got around to building highways and railroads until the modern nation state was firmly entrenched. It’s easy to presume the government saw it in its own best interest to concern itself with the work.
Basically, nobody has built a private highway because the government won’t let them.
The US railroad system was built mostly by private enterprise.
As I said earlier in this post, you’re overlooking the fact that all such infrastructure postdates the modern nation state. You’re using history as an experiment, but this experiment has no control.
If transportations systems are so valuable, and I agree that they are, why is it ludicrous to assume some private firm would want to get involved with what promises to be a very lucrative business?
Given control of the global economy by a few:
governments will be very important. The problem is that they generally work for the same few.
It is not my position (and I am hardly a “left winger”) that no one was smart enough to envision a large system of transportation, but your question was why would not private people build such systems and I noted that there was no reason to believe they would because no one did.
It overlooks nothing. Private funding of individual works is fine. It does not result in major systems to allow wealth to be developed.
Nobody “got around” to building them? Well, the reality is that no one actually invested in an attempt to build such systems. So it presumes that a government is necessary for such systems to exist.
Really? You have evidence that governments have prohibited people from creating a system of transportation?
Nope. It was built by private and public resources working (usually) in cooperation. Both railroads and canals were deeply indebted to the practice of states providing land grants to get them started.
So what? Your initial question was “Why wouldn’t the private sector have built highways?” The answer is there is no reason to believe that they would, since they never did build a canal, a railroad, or a highway that did more than help one person or company to provide short distance transportation for itself.
Your claim of a lack of control establishes my point. Small project canals, railroads, and roads were built for hundreds of years, but it was not until governments began to become involved that they were developed into systems that could be used to generate wealth. Without the wealth generated by the government-sponsored projects, there would never have been enough wealth to develop such systems.
Actually, there is a sort of control in the history of the U.S.
People who promoted government involvement were fairly common in the Northern states and most of the opposition to the government getting entangled in such projects was centered in Southern states. In 1861, there were far fewer canals and railroads in the Southern states than in the Northern states, explicitly because Southern states opposed such expenditures. Thus, the North had far more rail (21,000 miles) than the South (9,000 miles, often of lighter rail) to move troops, materiel, and munitions than the South did, promoting industry, (that generates wealth), along with permitting rapid response to threats.
Go read the history of such projects. An occasional thinker did propose such things in the past, but before governments began to invest in such projects, (sometimes directly, sometimes by simply backing the investments), no one had the funds to tackle such enormous projects. No private firm ever had the funds–or the ability to raise the funds–to actually attempt the construction.
No it doesn’t. The industrial revolution came after the modern nation state.
No, no more than you have evidence that highways would develop without government intervention. You theorized, I counter theorized.
Right, government provided financing and land grants, private companies did the construction.
But there is a reason to believe they would, the profit motive.
No, it establishes that your point is unfounded.
It foolish to expect the antebellum south to have similar economic development to the antebellum north since their economies were run on completely different models.
This makes no sense. I have never “theorized” that highways would develop without government intervention.
So, without the government, no highway system gets built.
That only provides a reason why someone might want to build a system. Without the funds, the system would not, (and did not), get built. As noted, regardless of any profit motive, no one without government backing had the initial funds to invest in such systems or the funds to continue such projects for as long as it took to actually return a profit.
Nice dodge, but irrelevant. The South actively opposed the involvement of government intervention in the creation of canals and railroads. As a result, the South lacked rail lines and the lines it had were not sufficient to handle the required traffic to wage war.
The “economic model” claim fails to hold up, as well. Had the South formed the sort of private/public association used in the North, it would have increased its own wealth. Cotton and tobacco took longer to get to market in the South than corn and wheat did in the North and Midwest. The decision to oppose government involvement resulted in less wealth (more tightly controlled by a small plutocracy).
Government does not create wealth, but without the investment by government in serious systems of infrastructure, wealth is reduced.
The fact that government enforces contracts and provides security, titles to land etc, imo, means the government does create wealth. I don’t get the pure libertarian point of view even though I lean libertarian in a lot of ways.
Even if one argued that the government only protects wealth…that still creates wealth, by freeing up people to work in productive jobs who otherwise would have to be private security guards.
(Government power is leveraged: one policeman can replace several private security guards.)
Never said you did. I said you theorized, and I countered.
There’s no proof of that.
If all the evidence you can provide that the profit motive isn’t enough is your saying so, it’s not persuasive.
It’s not a dodge. The south was an agrarian slave society, the north was market oriented and based on free labor.
Besides, the south isn’t a control because there was a government in place.
Once you show me a society technologically advanced enough for steam engines or automobiles, without a strong central government, then you’ll have a control.
Do you realize that nothing you wrote here actual proves the south and north worked on the same economic model?
Universal public education creates tremendous wealth. Am I in danger of turning into a leftist in this thread?:eek:
To answer OP’s question: both the government and private sectors are essential. Look at North Korea or Soviet Russia to see how poorly an economy functions with minimal private sector. Look at Europe in the early Dark Ages or Somalia two decades ago to see how an economy functions with weak government.
If both sectors are essential, OP’s question has no serious answer. One can try to quantify the contributions of the sectors but it’s hard to assign a clear-cut value to things like a legal system, military protection, or even an education system.
Of course the thread got sidetracked into confusion, even confusion about simple definitions. Highways are not “wealth” ? 
If you build a private driveway on your private land, is that wealth? When an art collector donates a valuable Picasso painting to a publicly-owned museum does the “wealth” associated with that painting disappear? When the confusion about the term “wealth” started I asked for a definition but none was forthcoming from the confusees. They’re certainly not using Webster’s definition.
Some in the thread can’t think beyond “Coercion … Coercion … Coercion!” When a homeowner’s association raises your dues you can sell your house and move to Oshkosh. (But when the feds raise your taxes you might move to Somalia!) And while no one forces me at gunpoint to put gasoline in my car, I do feel “coerced” to buy gas when I want to go somewhere. 
Yes, Virginia, there are differences between the public and private sectors … but to posit a black-and-white difference and derail discussion is … [watches the Mod carefully] sub-optimal intellectually.
Strangest of all may be the insistence that “property rights” precede and transcend government. One hardly knows where to start refuting this beyond wondering if the confusee has ever read a history book. Simplest may be to recall anecdotes from 40,000 BC:
Oog: Share those bananas with your cousin, Jookjook
Jookjook: Yes, uncleThis was a government exercising taxation authority.
*Oog: And quit messing up that play-area, it’s hers.
*That’s the government inventing private property.
I think the real issue is you have no real issue with coercion.
Despite what you may feel, you’re not being coerced. Words have meanings.
The very purpose of government is to protect rights, including the right to property. Of course property rights precede government.
It’s a very simple thought experiment.
Q) What does the government subsist on?
A) Taxation.
Q) Taxation of what?
A) The property of its subjects.
Q) Can the government exist prior to what it subsists on?
A) No
Simple, but misleading. Governments subsist now on taxation of property, but it wasn’t necessarily always so. We do know of societies where there is little or no concept of private property, and they have authority structures which make rules, adjudicate disputes, enforce societal norms, etc. In other words, they have governments.
Once a society develops a concept of property, then the government of that society will want/need its own property, and the concept of taxation will arise. So it’s probably fair to say that you can’t have the concept of taxation without the concept of property (and vice versa, I think). But the concept of government can precede both.
Wrong again; I’ve offered no explicit judgment on coercion, good or bad.
The real issue is that you focus on coercion when comparing the efficacies of private and public sectors as though it were the be-all and end-all of all thought, when in fact it’s tangential.
Since you’re relatively new here, I’ll link one more time to a fun article about the (peculiarly American) religious-like fascination with free markets.
How do you define private property? How do you define government? What societies lack the former but have the latter?
And after you answer all that, the thought experiment applies now, as you concede above.
Government is like any other human institution, it needs material support to exist. How is a government going to exist with out taxation?
Coercion isn’t tangential. The fact that you think it is shows, as I stated earlier, that you have no real issue with it.
Efficacy of the market is very important. As you yourself pointed out, that’s why the USSR failed, it lacked market efficiency.
Do you agree that government can’t exist without taxation?