How did you determine that? It seems to be an ideological conviction with some popularity in the steemit circles, but is that really a fact and if so, how was this established as fact? I find the first point especially unconvincing.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Competition drives innovation.
Governments are monopolies, so don't need to compete for market share within their borders.
They have no incentive to take risks or embrace efficiencies.
The way I see it, those are still assertions and I'm not sure there is actual evidence to prove those. I personally haven't found any evidence to convince me that this is really the case.
What would you accept as evidence? What would qualify?
Some facts I guess. Any data that would support these particular views. There is a wide variety of evidence that could potentially be convincing. A good place to start might be your reason to believe that this is the case.
How much time do you have? :)
Let's be specific. Which is the important service you see as least likely to be provided properly by the market, in the theoretical absence of the state?
Oh, I have time, especially if you are going to spend the time to go into detail, I will always be willing to read, digest and discuss. After all this is the idea here anyway, right? ;)
I think the market is going to have a hard time with safety, dealing with crime or undesirable and harmful behaviors, infrastructure, things like nature reserves and so on.
Crime and harmful behaviours both need to be broken down into
Taking heroin is a crime and a harmful behavior, but it doesn't have a victim, so I see no need to try and prevent someone from doing it.
Adultery is a contract violation, so does in fact have a victim, but is not a crime.
'Crime' just means breaking the law.
Sometimes that's the right thing to do; as demonstrated by Oscar Schindler, Harriet Tubman and Edward Snowden.
Nature reserves are certainly something many people want. From camping grounds to hiking trails, botanic gardens etc.
Because people want them, people will be willing to pay for them, and those who supply that demand will make the experience as enjoyable as possible.
I could see for example a florist maintaining a huge flower garden with a winding path, ending at the shop.
Some people would enjoy the garden without buying anything, while others would be more inclined to buy flowers from that florist, without even entering the garden, out of appreciation for their generosity in providing it.
That's only one idea, which I pulled out of thin air, with a few minutes' thought.
Imagine what other possibilities there are.