Your worst fears of business are already realized in the state

I don't make a habit of appealing to conspiracy theories, but it seems that public schools has some 'splainin' to do.  The logic of my fellow American and fellow earthling is lacking severely in the realm of political thought.  When you take a step back and view the world and its inhabitants for what they are you realize what a waste of time high school civics was.  Who needs a theory of legislating when the concept of the state is inconsistent with and a revolt against nature and humanitarianism?

Saying that we were brainwashed would discredit what I have to say, but I have not yet been able to come up with a better way to explain the absurd arguments for the state and against freedom.  For it seems to me that all the objections I hear opposing free markets are tens times more applicable to the state.  Here are a few examples.

1) "If roads were private we'd have corporations buying up all the roads and charging whatever they want"

So to avoid a monopoly of road ownership we need to establish from the onset a monopoly of road ownership given to the government.  This new monopoly has the power to extract funds from everyone, even those that rarely use the road or do not use the road at all.  This monopoly has the right to claim whatever land it wants to build new roads, and it gets to determine what the "fair" price of this land is.

With privatized roads perhaps a monopoly would arise, but competition would not be outlawed, eminent domain would not trample private property, and opting out of road use and thus road funding would be possible and legal.  Government is not liable for deaths that occur on their roads and they are less accountable in general because roads are bundled into a thousands of other government functions many of which (such as war) overshadow the inefficiencies of roads.  Is there any doubt that government roads are the worst possible solution?

2) "You want corporations to run the military?  You're an idiot"

Ad hominem attacks are all I ever get in this situation so this is the best I can do at representing the argument.  My same response about roads applies to this but it is even more important to have a private military than private roads.  Why?  Our military (or foreign presence in general), believe it or not, is responsible for a lot of bad stuff.  They assassinate, torture, murder, and provoke.  The first time I hear that my defense contractor is torturing people I cancel my subscription as I'm sure many others would.  We wouldn't have to wait 8 years to elect a new president who promises our war money back only to betray us when he takes office.  Such a military leader is liable for fraud and would be prosecuted.

The current military is funded by coercion, not consent.  Drafts add in the element of kidnapping by conscription.  Politicians are kept in power by the massive military industrial complex.  The synergy that exists with publicly funded military interests such as Blackwater, Ratheon, Halliburton, Boeing, etc. could not exist as they do today with private defense.  Defense companies that try to spend a trillion dollars in a year would find it impossible to find a customer base willing to agree to such a ridiculous scope of foreign entanglement.

I also hear that our defense is only as good as it is because people are forced to pay for it.  My response is (a) there's so much "defense" that we endanger ourselves by putting troops where they don't belong (b) there's far too much potential for abuse (see comments of torture above) and (c) a free society would be so prosperous that defense costs would be minimal expenditures and would most likely be handled by insurance companies.

3) "Without the FDA we'd be eating poisoned food"

No one says this, right?  Sigh, I'm afraid they do.  Chris Mathews said it about two weeks ago.  Guess what?  Businesses don't want to kill their customers!  It's bad for business!  I'm all for private regulation and of course competition in private regulation.  Why would we think a monopoly on regulation would be a good thing?  They can't go out of business, if they do a bad job they can say it's because they had insufficient funding and get more money... why would we expect this to be a good solution?

4)  "All that business cares about is the bottom line."

Lew Rockwell has said that "profits are an indication that services are being rendered on a voluntary basis".  "The Bottom Line" is how business calculates whether or not it is putting its resources to good use and serving people.  In this sense, all businesses should care about is it's bottom line; it provides a metric of how they benefit society.

How does this apply to government?  "All politicians care about is a vote".  While businesses daily have to fight for your vote, for your confidence, politicians only have to do it every 2, 4, or 6 years.  But more importantly than this is that politicians can be elected by benefiting the majority at the expense of the minority.  Businesses are putting their own resources on the line while politicians confiscate others' resources for the benefit of their constituents.  Businesses do not pander to the majority because profits are often found by serving a minor niche in society previously unfulfilled.  It is a far more efficient and ethical way of human interaction and cooperation.

5) "Business pollutes and destroys the environment"

Yes, some businesses pollute, but government is in charge of upholding private property rights.  The US government has, since the industrial revolution, found that it was in the public's interest to allow producers to pollute family farms and households.  For over a hundred years the individual has had little recourse when it comes to polluted land.  Businesses that pollute should be fined and these fines will make it prohibitively expensive to continue doing business.

The tragedy of the commons is not a problem of the free market it's the problem of collectivism.  Consider a basket of shared resources.  Human nature and scarcity being what they are, it is only natural to consume as much of these resources as possible because not doing so results in someone else consuming the scarce resources.  Only through property rights can resources be conserved, replinished, and rationed.  Today's modern and most disturbing examples of pollution and tragedy of the commons are found in our water ways.  Government does not allow ownership of the oceans, rivers, lakes etc. and so we have massive pollution and over fishing.  Buffalo were nearly wiped out because the US government opened the middle of the country to every cowboy (real ones, driving cattle) which used up the vegetation and left the land barren.  The buffalo were hunted for meat and this open country was in bad sorts.  The establishment of property rights in the plain states saved the buffalo and it can save our oceans, lakes, and rivers. 

I might continue this to another post.  Other topics would include money creation, courts, police, banking and the FDIC, healthcare, social security, parks, and I'm also open to suggestions.