RE: I was chilling in the sun with a pigeon and a rabbit when I thought about this article
Sorry for late reply, If things were volutaryist no, people would choose to pay into social safety nets or not. They would choose to pay into education and not to. Would the elderly pay into education if they had the choice to? Given the choice many people aren't capable of looking out for their own best interest let alone the interest of an interconnected society. Yes, currently there is a social safety net and there aren't enough people who would voluntarily pay in to support such a thing nor education nor research nor other societal value adding operations such as road repair and parks. In my opinion that is, perhaps you think these wouldn't be affected even in low income areas?
Certainly the first wrong shouldnt have been commited, but after it has, we should try to give back to the people who were wronged. For instance, if a corporation lowers wages, increases product price and decides to use that cheap chemical it knows is poisonous and pay off small settlements in the off chance they get caught/ can't lawyer their way out of it. We put up governmental regulations to deny such activities.
Sure taxation isn't a natural part of capitalism per se, nor are regulations which protect worker and consumer rights. The natural capitalism showed that their was a 100 hour 7 day work week without benefits and for shit pay. And their weren't enough labor alternatives to force any changes. So we made regulations which prevent such abuses.
Rather big business's pretend to advocate for small government, what they mean is less unfavorable regulation and more favorable regulation. Gut the epa, the CFPB, etc. You want wells fargo to create 10 credit cards for you without asking you, for your local landfill to cut storage costs and increase energy revenue by burning your trash or dumping it into the ocean?
Regulations are important, without them, greedy people trying to increase their profitability abuse society. Do away with corporate government which favors corrupt business practices. Though there are things which benefit society whos costs need to be socialized, like education and transportation infrastructure. We'd see increased societal benefit if medicine were too.
Yes, corporations use the power of the state to shield themselves, though they also use collusion within the market, price undercutting, purchasing leverage, price leverage etc as means of barriers to entry which occur blatently in a "free-market" without government regulation to halt such activity. They don't just "go out of business eventhough consumers want a lower price." They could simply force their suppliers not to deal with the new business entity in a "free-market".
"Of increased efficiencies yet increasing prices? Does a massive profit indicate a lesser value of service/product which should be levied for other social benefits?"
So as a company integrates its supply chain and produces more goods, the cost of production goes down. But that cost isn't given back to the consumer as a lowered price point. Of decreasing overhead costs yet again no decrease in the price point. And demand remains stable because the service or product is a necessary purchase and their are barriers to entry which are not just the government stopping entry into the market.
Is it fair to say the price of internet should be 70 bucks a month and to provide no alternatives? To have energy providers burn coal and wood because it is cheaper eventhough it poisens the air you breath?
Are you in favor of getting rid of patents in your "free-market" world?
Yeah I don't know anything about austrian school of economics care to explain?
“Yeah I don't know anything about austrian school of economics care to explain?”
Sure, but Tom Woods probably does a better job than me, he explains some of the foundational parts of Austrian economics here. http://tomwoods.com/ep-962-austrian-economics-the-basics-you-secretly-crave/
He shows how we can derive economic laws from the apparently sterile axiom that “human beings act.” He also discusses where prices come from, and what the fundamental problem with socialism is.
“Sure taxation isn't a natural part of capitalism per se, nor are regulations which protect worker and consumer rights.”
Government regulations usually have the opposite effect of their stated reason for being implemented. For example, the minimum wage is supposedly implemented to give workers a “livable wage”. The actual effect of it is that some of the workers get a higher wage (the minimum wage) but a lot of them just get fired because they aren’t allowed to sell their labor at a price that the employer was willing to buy it. Let's say you can produce 14 USD of value for your employer before the minimum wage was raised to 15 USD your salary was 11 USD. The employer was making 14-11=3 USD per hour by employing you. After the minimum wage, he would be losing 15-14=1 USD per hour if he kept you as an employee.
What the regulator was trying to do was to force the employer to lose money by paying too much for a worker. If the employer would keep the employee he would lose money and he would go out of business, so of course, he just fires the worker and tries to automate his business.
“Regulations are important, without them, greedy people trying to increase their profitability abuse society.”
Greedy people do not stay away from government jobs such as being a politician/regulator or bureaucrat. It is harder to increase your profitability by abusing society if you are regulated by the market and consumers with choice than if you are regulated by the government. Voters can choose between different corrupt and greedy politicians who usually don’t do what they promise to.
“Though there are things which benefit society whos costs need to be socialized, like education and transportation infrastructure.”
Do you have any proof of that or any arguments? The burden of proof is on you here.
“Yes, corporations use the power of the state to shield themselves, though they also use collusion within the market, price undercutting, purchasing leverage, price leverage etc as means of barriers to entry which occur blatently in a "free-market" without government regulation to halt such activity. They don't just "go out of business eventhough consumers want a lower price." They could simply force their suppliers not to deal with the new business entity in a "free-market".”
Here's an essay addressing this. :) https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/the-misplaced-fear-of-monopoly/
“Are you in favor of getting rid of patents in your "free-market" world?”
I do advocate the abolition of patents, yes. Think of it this way, if you invented the wheel and you patented it. What does that mean? It means that you claim ownership of the idea to use wheels. If someone else copies you or comes up with the same idea on their own what are you going to do about it?