Re: Anarcho-Capitalism Doesn’t work, So Why Keep Talking About It.
Here's a Link to the original post: https://steemit.com/anarchy/@daniel31oh/anarcho-capitalism-doesn-t-work-so-why-keep-talking-about-it
I read this post on Steemit.com yesterday criticizing anarcho-capitalism. Personally I think capitalism is a trigger word that deteriorates any conversation between people who don’t see eye to eye. So I usually avoid its use, but I felt I could respond well, so, here it goes.
The author basically started off by accidentally pointing out that most of what he has read is just post by noobs to the topic who think they got it all figured out while clearly trying to figure out how it works. He also labels them blind followers. Just a thought, but maybe the author should study some writings by people who aren’t…..noobs. All most in the same breath he’s complaining that people talk about how anarchy-capitalism should work instead of saying "this is how it will work”. This ignores the fact that anarchy isn’t about a specific plan. Thats the state that creates that vibe. Can we explain how it might work based on projections from studying human action and interaction when free to do so? Yea sure, but to expect some exact plan when the main goal is to let everyone live as they wish…. well we would have to interview every human and ask them how they would live if the state was removed from existence. I’m not sure those results would be much better then projections based on observations anyway.
Moving on to the complaint of paying full price. First off the author assumes when government pays a subsidy that there is no effect or consequence beyond the bill being paid. We’ve seen this happen to College tuition. The Government pays more in subsidies and the prices keep going up faster and faster. When the gov pays part of the bill it seems assumed that there is a relief felt by the customer being subsidized. However, knowing that a customer can pay x why not keep it that way. So say my bill for a service was $100 a month and then the government decided subsidize it by 50%($50). The service provider knows I can handle paying $100 and the government is guarnteeing $50. They could raise the price to $140 and still net the customer a $10 savings. So yea! The customer saved because of a subsidy, but now the price of that service has been inflated. This example is extremely immediate, but the same thing can happen over years and years so that sharp drastic changes in price don’t occur but a steady upward move continues.
So what is the “full price”? Is it possible we are paying more then the “full price” now? Part of the problem is I’m sensing a perspective that doesn’t understand that values are subjective. It seems there is some stagnant price that things are worth. I guess living in a world where prices sky rocket, thanks to Government itself being a monopoly and granting monopolies to companies, probably would lead one to think the companies are evil if their indoctrination center worked well and convinced them government is great! Don’t want to take my word for it? How about a Harvard study explaining how drug prices are high because government grants a monopoly to Big Pharma? Check out the link…. http://thefreethoughtproject.com/harvard-study-govt-pharma-monopoly/#b64Dt6XlYbdTG0zV.99 So if by full price you mean the government inflated price, then yea I’d rather not pay that, but if by full price you mean the natural value that would be found if people’s subjective values were allowed to run the market instead of the state, yea I’d pay that.
The author specifically mentions the recent Mylan scandal, but doesn’t go into much detail. Like for instance as a NJ resident I’ve heard all about how Rep Chris Smith got $10,000 over 11 years from Mylan. Yea I’m sure Smith did absolutely zero favors to make sure they profited so they would throw him more money so he could be re-elected. That would never happen. How about the fact that Mylan’s patents on parts of their injectors make it impossible for a competitor to create an injector that the FDA will approve. Yea, that’s Mylan’s fault, not the government's right? Here’s a bit from an article I found that might help enlighten some on this specific issue.
"Unfortunately – and as no surprise to libertarians and free market advocates – federal regulators continue to buffer the padding that surrounds Mylan’s monopoly. Shortly after the Auvi-Q recall, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries pitched a generic version of the EpiPen. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) squashed their efforts, citing “major deficiencies” in their application. Teva plans to appeal the decision, but won’t be able to effectively move forward until 2017 at the earliest.
Teva isn’t alone in this struggle. Windgap Medical, a Boston startup, and Adamis, a small biotech firm based in San Diego, have both struggled to bypass FDA’s barriers of entry in the marketplace as well.
If you need further convincing that the FDA impedes the market, consider the following:
The average time it takes for a drug to go from the lab to the medicine cabinet is 12 years
Only 1 in 5,000 new drugs will make it through the FDA approval
Based on the regulatory burden of creating new medicine, the average price tag for research and development for a new compound is $2.6 billion”
https://fee.org/articles/don-t-blame-capitalism-for-your-pricey-epipen/?utm_source=zapier&utm_medium=facebook
The claim that corporations don’t like big government was also made. Meanwhile corporations donate to the Democratic and Republican parties. They barely if at all donate to small parties especially when those smaller parties stand on their principles. Like why would military manufactures support Stein who is largely against the military industrial complex(big government). Why wouldn't they support Ron Paul who wouldn’t have ever given a single corporation a subsidy or a leg up on competition through regulation. Support the constitutionalist party? What about the libertarians? So it’s clear that the facts show Corporations love big government. Otherwise all the small parties that would let them be more "free" would be seeing huge amounts of donations from these greedy corporations that spend unfathomable amounts on influencing political power to their benefit.
Profit is always the main concern of business and that’s a good thing. That is only true when there isn’t a state with power for sale that can be used to minimize competitor's market share/profits thus increasng the profits of the company that played the game with the state the best/hardest. The fact that profit is the main concern is exactly how the market regulates businesses into caring about customers and the environment. The only way companies can get away with neglecting customers and the environment is if there is something stoping competitors from offering a better option.
The city of Gurgaon India was also mentioned in the article. All the bad stuff of course. As if anarchists think anarchy is a utopia. Oh, wait, no, that was the author who thought we were trying to create a utopia. Oops... Try this on for size. Gurgaon has the third highest income pre capita in India. It has offices for 250 Fortune 500 companies. A quick search of Wikipedia revealed that and a few more interesting things to note. Such as, Gurgaon is governed by the Municipal Corporation of Gurgaon which follows a Mayor-Council system. Also, The police department in Gurgaon is headed by the Commissioner of Police - Gurgaon Police, which forms a part of the Haryana Police.[27] and reports to the Haryana state government. Navdeep Singh Virk is the Commissioner of Police in Gurgaon. Gurgaon Police has a separate traffic police department headquartered in sector 51.[28] Fire protection within the city limits is provided by Municipal Corporation of Gurgaon through four fire stations, located in sector 29, sector 37, Udyog Vihar and Bhim Nagar. So, I’m not entirely sure that there is no government there.
The author also seems to forget quite a bit of recent history. Apparently government can and has ensured people won’t be taken advantage of. I don’t know about you, but I’m pretty sure that happens everyday whether at home or abroad. Has government ever been able to ensure that people don’t loose their jobs en masse? I seem to remember this happened quite a few times historically while government was in existence. It also seems to be implied that some how American government protects the rights of foreign labors by regulating american companies that go over seas. I’m not going to say they don’t attempt to, but to imply they actually fulfill such a task is naive.
The assertion that capitalism doesn’t care about rights is weak at best. As perviously explained, to stay with or get ahead(profit) of competition, companies must put the customer and their concerns/needs first. Is capitalism focused on rights not really. Capitalism is a basic understanding and wisdom of human action and interaction. Due to that it has recognized what anarchy has recognized as well. Individuals own themselves and make choices based on their own subjective values. In that sense Capitalism indirectly cares about rights(self-ownership). Beyond that the author forgot he was addressing anarcho-capitalism not just capitalism. Even if the capitalism part inherently has zero to do with rights, anarchy does.
In closing the author claimed something along the lines of getting back to the foundation of this country is the answer. Minimal government. However, either history is being ignored again or the author enjoys trying the same thing over and over again expecting different results. The foundation of this country(constitution) either expressly designed what we have today or was powerless to stop it. Meaning this all will happen again if we simply do everything over again without making massive changes.
It seems I stumbled upon someone who hasn’t fully investigated what he’s talking about nor has spent enough time observing what is really going on around him. Hopefully this post will help him along the way.
By; Neil Sollenberger
Host of An Anarchist Conversation
iTunes Libsyn Facebook Youtube