EDITORIAL, STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
How Insurance Companies Could Easily Replace Government
By Joe Jarvis - November 06, 2017

Government is a big insurance company. Except you can’t shop elsewhere for insurance. And their price is super high. And they threaten you if you don’t want to pay them. And the services they deliver are sub-par for the price. And you can’t itemize your “insurance” to only include the products you need. And often just when you need them most, you find out how incompetent, corrupt, and overall ineffective they are at ensuring you against anything.

Just look at Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria. Governments play politics with awarding repair projects, while the majority of the island is still left without power. Daddy Yankee was a bigger help than FEMA.

And because the government really doesn’t deliver on their promise of keeping people safe and coming to their aid, people still turn to private companies. People still find it in their best interest to use some of the 50% of their income left after the government plunders the rest to purchase insurance.

You pay property taxes, and these go to support indoctrination centers also known as public schools. They pay for local roads, local traffic enforcers, and firefighters. But these services are collectivized. The firefighters aren’t really there to save your home, they are there to keep the whole town from burning down.

Firefighters are likely some of the most dedicated public employees. The ones I have met often go into the profession for the right reasons, and take seriously their commitment to saving lives. Many are even volunteers. But still, they can only show up after they have been called. Many bravely rescue people from serious situations. But rarely is a structure saved.

That is where private insurance comes in. You purchase private home insurance so that in the event that your home burns down, you don’t lose all the money that has gone into it. But some companies go above and beyond when you purchase insurance from them.

Increasingly, insurance carriers are finding wildfires, such as those in California, are an opportunity to provide protection beyond what most people get through publicly funded fire fighting. Some insurers say they typically get new customers when homeowners see the special treatment received by neighbors during big fires.

“The enrollment has taken off dramatically over the years as people have seen us save homes,” Paul Krump, a senior executive at Chubb, said of the insurer’s Wildfire Defense Services. “It’s absolutely growing leaps and bounds.”

Chubb provides extra protection to the homes they insure in certain zip codes that are prone to wildfires. They get private firefighters on the scene before the building catches. This means instead of being left with a pile of ashes and a check to go about the arduous process of rebuilding your life, you are simply left with your home intact.

Obviously, this makes sense from the insurance company’s perspective as well. They are spending a little money on firefighters so they don’t have to spend a lot of money replacing homes.

So if we have insurance programs like this, why do we need government programs? All the incentives are there for the private insurers. And the outcome is better for the homeowners. But how many homeowners are lulled into a false sense of security by the “free” government services? Since they already paid for the public services, it doesn’t seem to make sense to buy extra protection.

If there wasn’t already a publicly funded organization to fight a fire, people would specifically shop for insurance that included it. Or they would install sprinkler systems, and their insurance company would give them a huge discount on emergency fire services. If they installed an emergency cistern to pump from, even cheaper.

This system also protects neighbors as fires generally spread house to house. Any protected property is a valuable buffer to stop the spread of a forest fire.

And again, we are talking about firefighters, probably the least corrupt and most dedicated government agency in existence. Still, the private sector has a system that makes more sense.

What About the Poor?

A disproportionate amount of poor people live in rented homes and apartments. The owners of these buildings have the same incentive to ensure their buildings are safe. Factor in liability for injuries and that adds more incentives to prevent destruction in the first place. That means more insurance discounts for safe practices.

The poor also benefit from their neighbor’s insurance. As in the case with wildfires, the property being protected is a buffer to other property which may also be saved as a byproduct.

Poor people are still hit with plenty of local taxes like sales tax, excise tax, and food service tax. Some localities even tax income and fuel. So the government already significantly burdens the poor with taxes. If the tax burden didn’t exist to pay for sub-par public “insurance” then it would be easy to afford a little extra private insurance.

The median home price in America is under $200,000 which means you could likely find solid insurance for under $100 per month. Contrast that to the median property tax in America which is $2,149 a year. Suddenly the cost of tacking on extras for your home insurance doesn’t seem so expensive in comparison.

Would This Work for Other Government Services?

So why can’t this be applied to other government services? It can, and is.

If you are insured against property crimes, it means that insurance company has an incentive to reduce the risk that anything is stolen that they will have to replace. Of course, this means the insurance will be cheaper in safer places. But it also means discounts for things like proper locks, security cameras, and maybe even alert dogs.

Home owner’s insurance also insures property against theft. This makes sense because the overall rate of clearing property crimes is 19.4%. That means over 80% of theft, burglary, arson, vandalism, and larceny go unsolved.

And when insurance doesn’t cover it, wealthy people hire private investigators to solve the crimes the police have no interest, or incentive, to solve. About 46% of violent crimes go unsolved. Over a third of murders will not see the perpetrator brought to justice. If your car gets stolen, you have a 13% chance that the police catch the thief.

Despite these stats, America spends $100 Billion a year on policing, and that does not include incarceration.

The insurance provider encourages behavior that should be standard from the start. But because of the false belief that the government provides overall everything insurance, people don’t protect themselves how they should.

Government Replaced By Insurance Companies

The more people that buy into a platinum insurance plan the more the risk is spread. That means cheaper plans. But the government makes people believe they are already covered by public services.

This is the idea behind government “insurance.” The risk is spread so far and wide that in theory, it should cost very little to be protected. But the government doesn’t run like an insurance company. Their incentive is not to reduce costs to themselves nor the people they protect. Because they don’t have to entice customers, they can charge more than a fair market price for their protection. Because customers cannot opt out, there is no incentive to provide good service. And since they are only tasked with protecting the property, and not replacing it, they have no actual incentive to prevent loss.

Companies like Chubb are setting a great precedent for the future of insurance. If the government didn’t take so much of our money, there would be an endless array of insurances to choose from to replace everything the government does now. And it would be better service, for cheaper.

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in EDITORIAL, STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Varangian Guard

    Insurance is a form of legalized gambling in my opinion. The house always wins just like a casino.
    They are betting that the GUB will make its’ subjects buy the insurance because they don’t want the blight, or the dependent, or the wreck or whatever the waste or by product of the tragedy you are betting against is.
    Getting back to the House always winning, the insurance company has unlimited resources from always winning and will cut your claim short every time. They will employ litigators on both sides of the argument should it make it’s way to court. It only makes it to court when the insurance company tells you that they will cancel your policy if you try to claim too much.
    I have been quite fortunate myself but many I know have still been devastated with ALL the recommended coverage and then some.
    THE HOUSE ALWAYS WINS……………..

    • All insurance is a sham to some degree. This comment got my attention, “And again, we are talking about firefighters, probably the least corrupt and most dedicated government agency in existence.”

      All of the supposed first responders and emergency services are a sham and well past over done here in USA today. As an example a short while ago I was travelling down I-5 thru Portland area and came to a traffic slow down almost to a stop of all lanes. My radio was broadcasting the 24 hour traffic report on Portland area and it said caution at this area for a probable wreck or injury. As I passed by I saw 3 EMT rigs, two local police cars 2 fire engines, a stater and a sheriff. They were all responding to a guy on the side of the road in his vehicle. Shortly after passing by, the radio said his wife had called emergency as her husband was having a likely heart attack. Turned out he had heart burn or acid reflux and drove away on hos own accord. But how many agencies got to file an emergency response report of how well they handled this emergency ? This happens many millions of times per year here in USA and the tax payer gets hosed daily. Not necessarily for this guy and his heart burn, but a multitude of other insane reactions to drugs and other stupidity considered to be a public emergency. Beyond that flaw of thinking processes, all of these agencies are run by their unions and only grow bigger at taxpayer expense. They never get more efficient like all government boondoggles feeding at the taxpayer trough. Like every other matter a little common sense would go a long way with emergency services and any real need or function and yes many of these folks are literally stealing from the tax payers in various ways especially their insane pensions that are all going BK. They have had some excellent PR though and many Americans still buy into the over done sham.

      • Varangian Guard

        The next time you need a cop, smoke eater or an EMT why don’t you open with that story you just told instead of hello, I’m glad to see you…….they may not smile but they will still take care of you like their life depended on it.
        Just so you know, what shows up at any incident is dispatched to that call. Each time they go out they have to file a report on what they did. This is because the public has cell phones and a hard on to be Monday morning quarter backs as taxpayers with never having been trained, never having dealt with the public, heck many don’t even have jobs. Just a free phone. I don’t know which one you are but you are entitled to your opinion as shallow as it is.

        • Peter Bos

          Regarding more details of why insurance companies represent the natural government by providing the only legitimate government function of protection of individual life and property by means of risk-sharing, I refer you to my recently published book, The Road to Freedom and the Demise of Nation States. If you are fed up with the current political scene, my book represents a paradigm shift in thinking about the social organization of men, one that contractually provides all the functions traditionally associated with the state, which will bring individual sovereignty and freedom to all people worldwide. This book describes why the state is a mythical and illegitimate concept that does not and cannot work and why, without the corrective feedback of profits and losses under free-market competition, this unstable, unmanageable, and highly inefficient bureaucratic organization will produce its own demise.

          In contrast with the current politically democratic state, imagine a social organization with natural government based upon economic democracy in which individuals vote with their money ballot on every issue each time they make a purchase or enter into a contract with whom and whenever they choose. Imagine a world in which the protection of life and property is provided through voluntary subscription by organizations that actually have a proprietary interest in your life, your property and well-being. Imagine a world without taxes, without elected politicians and political bureaucracies, a world without national debts.

          Imagine a world without coercive authoritative laws and regulations. Imagine a world with a system of jurisprudence based upon customary law, focusing on the prevention of injustice, where each individual can obtain restitution for transgressions. Imagine a voluntary compliance system in which its enforcement is through contractual reciprocity and social or economic sanctions, without the need for jails.

          Imagine a world where you can enjoy the benefits of your labor and investments without seeing them diminished in value through inflation resulting from the printing of fiat money and through confiscation by taxes. Imagine a world where individual traders issue virtual individual sovereign money backed by goods and services. Imagine a world with a social organization based upon contract rather than privilege for the few. Imagine a world with non-compulsory lifelong education offered competitively by the best educators in the world at extremely low cost. Imagine a world without arbitrary national borders, tariffs or other trade restrictions that inhibit the free exchange of goods and services between people worldwide, thereby eliminating frictions and wars. Imagine a world with unlimited opportunity, individual sovereignty and total freedom.

          This is not a utopian dream, because such a world is not only possible but its basic structure and institutions already exist. The cornerstones described in this book show how all traditional government services can be provided more efficiently and effectively in the free market by decentralized proprietary organizations. These cornerstones comprise new innovations in the protection of life and property, the private issue of virtual individual sovereign money, voluntary compliance jurisprudence, proprietary management of community development and public services, and non-compulsory competitive education, which are the fundamental building blocks for implementing and maintaining the Road to Freedom. This Road to Freedom constitutes an evolutionary continuation of the principles of individual rights, sovereignty and freedom underlying the American Revolution as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

          Peter B. Bos, Author

          This book is now available through your local bookseller
          or from your preferred on-line retailer.

        • And you are free to still believe in the many illusions created for you. I am not saying none of it is necessary, I am saying it is all well past over done and over reacted to big time. This is why we see a lot of waste in government because they have fooled you into thinking it is all very necessary and it isn’t. Look at how police have been militarized and they have all grown and then realize their response times in most cases and the outcomes after they show up ? Fill out a report on your burglary and nothing ever happens even if they catch the perp. I had this happen several times. It is a very dysfunctional over blown system that has simply gotten too big and PC, not unlike every aspect of big government. You do not seem to grasp that police and all EMS do NOT actually protect and serve you in most cases at all. They protect and serve their own jobs and making their forces ever larger and pensions grander.

    • Don Duncan

      As a professional gambler for over a half century I don’t consider a sure thing a gamble, i.e., if the outcome is known who is gambling? However, it is seldom the case that the outcome is known. Ignorance, self delusion, and escapism built the casinos. More often than not it was win-win. The loser was entertained and the provider of the entertainment got compensated by mutual consent, even if the consent was ill-informed, but buyer beware.

      I made a living beating the house at their own game. They retaliated by barring me, holding me against my will, robbing me, cheating me, and threatening me with death. Still I persevered against the injustice called “The Justice System”, the violence, the cheats, the corporate gaming world.

      What I dealt with is a microcosm of the political paradigm which I identified early in life at 12 (1954). I expected it. I was not wrong.

  • JRX

    A government is hardly like an insurance company. Is this another silly idea of the US libertarian Rothbard? Replacing a government with private insurance companies wouldn’t be an easy sell. Would you intend to force people to do it?

    Nah, help people have the government they want, and you might have it the way you want, for yourself and at your own expense. We are all in the same boat as nobody is having the kind of government they would prefer.

    • mary

      I suspect he means that govt has co-opted the functions of insurance companies (and friendly societies) and thereby screws everything up. In a free society, those functions would return to the insurance companies.

      And Rothbard was a genius, certainly not prone to “silly ideas.” However, your idea that “people can have the govt they want” is, on the other hand, really too silly for words.

      • JRX

        Maybe you are right, but how can DB avoid to spell that out if that’s what is meant.

        Rothbard was ignorant of most things that ever happened outside of the US. He defined government as a territorial monopoly on coercion, completely ignoring the fact that governments only turned territorial monopolies about 100 or 150 years ago in practice. That’s when all the central banks, heavy taxation etc where put in place. It doesn’t take a lot of effort to find out about this, but you have to look.

        Rothbardians say governments are the problem, while it’s the territorial monopolistic government that’s the problem. So they crave to abolish governments instead of the monopolies. So they don’t look beyond that.

        That, my friends, is a great disservice to mankind and one serving the overlords perfectly, as it makes his followers marginalized and pretty much irrelevant. Thank you Murray.

        • MountainMan

          What’s the difference between government and a territorial monopolistic government?

          • JRX

            A government can have a territorial monopoly, but that doesn’t have to be the case. The monopoly is actually a new thing as there were non-monopolistic governments in the past and all over the world.

  • Linda Joy Adams

    no oversight of govt contractors by act of congress since 2002.. and the same international cabal of companies also own and manage the insurers SO THEY ALREADY RULE US AS NO GOVT IN CHARGE OF MUCH OF ANYTHING Since 2002. with 30 trillion dollars missing re govt own final balance sheet. welcome to the REVIVED ROMAN EMPIRE MODEL SINCE 2002 WHERE THE GOVT STOPS GOVERNING AND THE CONTRACTGROS SOON BECOME ONLY THE CORRUPT ONES AND THE MOST INNOCEENT GET ‘CRUCIFIED’ BUT THIS TIME WITH NO PUBLIC KNOWING . 95% please vote for those who will put the oversight by the real govt back in every bill for audits and criminal charges for stealing from us. Do you have 17 Medicare numbers active on you or a loved one you will inherit the overpayment from. created by the unaccountable contractor now ruling the USA and 100 nations and UN contracts also.. Linda Joy Adams

    • No question the elites in and out of government have created the corporatocracy and they control us via that entity. This is what the deep state apparatus is all about ! Many executives and lobbyist come from government and vice-versa, so it is just a giant revolving door of corruption at this juncture. A monster feeding on the tax payer and congress going along with all of it as the cherry on top !

      This can only happen because many Americans have become fat, dumb and lazy. Simple stuff. And here is how they do it all rather easily.

      http://www.downtoearththinking.com/the-war-for-our-minds-.html

  • LawrenceNeal

    Without gobernent, who would destroy other countries in our name?

  • SnakePlissken

    I was listening to Adam Corolla’s podcast with Ben Shapiro the other day and he was making similar points, though he is using the extreme example of California. https://youtu.be/A4osJmtsYa4

  • Don Duncan

    How (fill in the blank) Could Easily Replace Govt. Any voluntary service/product will work. Any non-voluntary will not. Govt. is non-voluntary.

    However, govt. is created by a voluntary choice to have an involuntary system. Not by all, of course, we voluntarists do not consent to be ruled by force. We choose reason, mutual consent, group cooperation. We don’t accept force as a primary basis for social interaction. That is barbarism. That is chaos. That is the present worldwide political paradigm. A paradigm of initiated force allows no freedom, no rights, no reason, no argument. A gun to the head is not an argument it is the opposite.

    When this paradigm is replaced by a new morality of respect for the individual as the primary value in social interaction, then self-governance can begin, not until.

  • W Campbell

    I’m fairly right-wing and generally sympathetic to libertarian views, but this is a stupid article.

    At least government services are in principle there to help you. Private entities are there to make profits i.e. swindle you, scam you, cut every corner, externalize every cost, replace your job with computers or foreign H1-Bs and sock away the profits in offshore tax havens till they can be distributed to top 1% executives and investors.

    • Leopardpm

      I think your view of earning profits is a bit askew… of course everyone wants a ‘better deal’, both the buyer and the seller, and they do their best to negotiate such. But the best way for one business to gain customers in the face of competition from other businesses is to ultimately provide a better or more valued product/service. I mean, imagine a restaurant that wants to maximize profit in the way you suggest: so they perhaps use ‘meat substitute’ instead of actual beeffor their steaks… do you think they are going to wildly increase profits? of course not, they might trick a few first comers, but then they will lose all customers and get a bad reputation… and then also imagine a competitor, would it not be in their best interest to advertise and point out the poor quality of their competition? yup. Private entities exist to make profits, true, but the way to do so is through customer satisfaction, by providing customers with the right combination of price, value, safety, etc etc that the customer desires. Everything is relative to each other – do we want just a low price, even if the quality is so poor that the product is unusable? Do we just want perfect safety, so that we have virtually zero chance of injury in an auto accident, or are we willing to trade such safety for better gas mileage, good looks, a more reasonable price, etc.

      Government services are not ‘there to help you’ – it is only with government that the ‘customer’ is considered an ‘expense’ and so try to minimize you.

      • davidnrobyn

        Kudos, Leopard. This was a very restrained, reasoned response to an unrestrained, unreasoned post.

      • W Campbell

        This response is typical of Econ 101 arguments that bear little resemblance to the real world.

        The fact is that it’s routinely impossible for consumers to gather anywhere near the volume of information about any product needed to make a truly informed buying decision. This is true even for common everyday purchases where you can take as much time as you need to research before you buy, or buy nothing at all – let alone for things like water and electricity service, or health care.

        It’s an observable fact that poor countries with weak or corrupt governments and underdeveloped regulatory systems have far greater problems with things like pollution, food and product quality and safety, and prevalence of cons and swindles than developed countries with strong regulatory systems. If pure competition sans government interference led to superior outcomes, as you say, we would observe exactly the opposite.

        And then, a competitive business environment is not a natural and stable state of affairs to which the universe naturally trends – businesses by and large don’t want to fight an endless war, they want to secure a nice profitable monopoly or gentleman’s-agreement oligopoly for themselves, jack up prices to captive consumers, then sit back and collect the rents while buying out or temporarily undercutting the odd upstart competitor.This is literally the business plan for companies like Amazon and Uber and is the basis for their ultra-high market valuations. Here again, government action (through antitrust policy, breakups, merger prevention etc.) is required to ensure that the business environment is in fact competitive.

        • Leopardpm

          Dear Mr. Campbell, despite your attempted insult in your first line, the rest of your post contains numerous fallacies and a display of a myopic worldview which taints and biases your perspective and opinions.

          First, you claim that folks have ‘imperfect information’ and therefore cannot make purchasing decisions properly. You do realize that ALL human knowledge is imperfect, yet we do seem to progress on steadily. In fact, perfect knowledge would obliterate the need for economics in total – every producer would make exactly the quantity, quality, and type of goods which every consumer desired. The truth is that we are human, and imperfect, and economics shows us how we are able to take action on our limited knowledge and resources and figure our way through this mess called life. Do we make mistakes? Sure, most all the time! But with each mistake we learn, and we take that into consideration in our future actions. You make the assumption that people are stupid automatons who continually bang their heads against walls in an effort to reach the other side. This is not reality.

          Second, you look towards poor countries which might have ‘weak or corrupt’ governments as examples of what would occur without ‘strong regulatory’ systems. I suggest you deepen your view, perhaps take into account some of your fundamental assumptions (ie: corrupt governments…) and incorporate those into your conclusions. It is a fact that the less hampered by government a country is, across the world, the more successful their economy and people are. And the opposite is true as well. According to your view, a completely authoritarian regime would therefor have the best economy – but we know this is not the case and even have the truth and example gleaned from the fall of the world’s 2nd greatest superpower in the 80’s.

          Lastly, your claim that businesses want to obtain a nice stable monopoly is true… on its face. And that goes back to your ‘econ 101’ phrase… ALL people want to work less and profit more, it is built into human nature. But, what you fail to include or observe, is that there has not been one instance of monopoly which has not been enforced or come to being without governmental regulations or decree. I would guess that you look to the number of businesses within a field to determine ‘competitiveness’ – do you understand that even if there were only a single business providing a service, as long as there were no extra-market force preventing others from entering the same field, then there is the same situation as if there were competition. The areas of service which are most regulated, most mired in governmental oversight, are the same ones which we consumers complain the loudest regarding the poor quality and service – cable, electric, finance, etc. The truth is that due to ‘regulatory capture’, the very institutions you claim protect consumers and grease the wheels of capitalism become the exact tools of business in their desire to obtain monopoly rents.

          Your views seem to be a reflection of the poor summations that kids have obtained in their schooling through very limited and views presented in common textbooks. Perhaps you are your own best example of your claim of ‘imperfect information’ – the question then becomes: Why don’t you search out other possibilities, learn new information and views, so that your worldview is not so tainted and narrow? I can only guess.

          Do you think that another person (or group) should control your life choices and guide you through threat of theft or force? Do you feel that the those in government have your best interests in mind in their decision making? Do you think that it is even possible for others to know what truly is ‘best’, for you?

        • MountainMan

          Countries with “strong regulatory systems” have only succeeded in creating more sophisticated ways of SWINDLING THEIR CITIZENS!

          Look at India. The worst bureaucracy on earth, the place where nothing works, nothing runs on time, where garbage piles up, where people sleep and do their business in the streets, where you can’t get anything done or expedited without paying off a government official.

          It is FREE MARKETS which are the ultimate “strong regulatory systems.”

    • davidnrobyn

      Wow, what an anti-business and anti-market perspective. This critique of yours seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to the concept of the free market providing solutions. It drives home (to me at least) how successful the left and the gov (but I repeat myself) have been in demonizing the free market and entrepreneurship.

    • swemson

      W Campbell’s view of the profit motive as being synonymous with the motivation to swindle and scam others is a perfect example of how the far left has brainwashed the masses into thinking that capitalism doesn’t work.

      Almost ALL of the abuses that W Campbell assumes are a normal part of business in a free economy, are in fact caused by the government’s interference and meddling with our once free economy. He forgets that if an insurance company in a free economy mistreated its clients the way government mistreats the taxpayers, that it wouldn’t last long and therefore not serve the interests of its shareholders and executives.

      The reason that the major cable companies are so hated by most of their customers, is because they function as government created monopolies in each area where they do business, and therefore are free to overcharge their customers and give them lousy service as long as they keep up their contributions to their political patrons who regulate them.

      fs

      • MountainMan

        Well said, swemson, well said!

    • MountainMan

      Hmmmmm…..that’s a very biased, twisted, and backward notion of economics and government.

      You are making some fatal assumptions, e.g., that government is, by nature, benevolent, a savior of last resort, and inherently more trustworthy than private government, i.e., insurance companies. That’s ludicrous! What evidence do you have that government officials are any more trustworthy than private business people?

      You obviously have not been paying any attention to the damage government does, the injustices it commits, or how unbelievably corrupt it is. Even the mainstream news media is overflowing with stories of government corruption of all types, from A to Z, you name it.

      Of course, corruption can come from ANY quarter of human culture, but isn’t it obvious that a FREE MARKET will TEND to minimize the corruption because of the power of the consumer to CHOOSE?

      You are evading the critical issue of “incentives.” The critical factors about government are:

      1. They have no incentive to do what is rational or ethical, to make good business decisions, or to prevent problems from become catastrophes.

      2. They have the power of taxation and legalized monopoly, ergo, the power to DESTROY.

  • A Mackenzie

    There’s a grand idea…. replace a band of criminals with a band of even worse criminals. I have to agree with W Campbell on this.

    • JRX

      Agree. But we should also remember that insurance companies used to be mutual. They were formed out of completely normal mutual insurances among community members to help each other out in case of bad events, like lightning striking and your barn burning down. Those would likley be force majeure exclusions today.

      But people maintained other exclusions in the past, like recklessness. They also maintained really hard punishments for such recklessness, imposed by the community and not the state.

      I would say the insurance business is yet another industry ruined by state licensing and privileges.

      But a government still isn’t an insurance company, as I stated earlier.

      • MountainMan

        Government is a poser. It delivers on NONE of the promises or guarantees it makes. It destroys everything it touches.

        • JRX

          Yes, like any monopoly does. If there is a monopoly, you break it to restore some kind of normalcy. Break the territorial monopoly of modern day governments and you can expect the same result.

          But that doesn’t require abolishing the government.

          • MountainMan

            “But that doesn’t require abolishing the government.”

            I don’t agree.

            Government cannot be “reformed.” This notion is a great folly.

          • JRX

            I agree that a territorial monopolistic government cannot be reformed. The only way would be to break its monopoly.

            A government can have a territorial monopoly, but that doesn’t have to be the case. That’s actually a new thing as there were non-monopolistic governments in the past and allmover the world.

            I know we aren’t told about this in school and I know libertarians seems to be unaware of it, but it’s still an historical fact.

          • MountainMan

            Can you give us some specific examples of “non-monopolistic governments in the past and all over the world”?

          • JRX
          • MountainMan

            Thanks for that link. It has useful information. The point that i was trying to make is that the term “non-monopolistic government” is an oxymoron.

          • JRX

            That is based on the premise that goverments have a monopoly by definition. It would then be an oxymoron, agreed.

            But that article I linked to refers to many governments over time and continents that didn’t have such monopolies. The monopolistic feature is a new one, almost an anomaly in the history of mankind.

            So the premise is wrong.

          • MountainMan

            Then this is a matter of semantics. It’s not wrong if we use Murray Rothbard’s definition of the state, which is what I had in mind when I wrote. Sorry, I should have clarified this. See:

            “that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion.”

            See also Rothbard’s article, written late in his life:

            NATIONS BY CONSENT: DECOMPOSING THE NATION-STATE

          • JRX

            I know those pieces. It’s a shame that most libertarians follow that definition as it ignores our common history and leads the thought in the wrong way. Way beyond semantics in my opinion.

            If for example a telecom company has a monopoly and is delivering poor or no services and products at high prices, is the right way to get out of that to ban telecom companies, or is it to break up the monopoly?

    • mary

      i suspect the insurance band of criminals can ply their trade BECAUSE of govt, not in spite of it. Without a corrupt govt having their backs, insurance companies would be forced to serve their customers rather than themselves or go broke.

      Remember that 1. financial services is arguably the most regulated area of the ecomony and that 2. financial services companies are yuge contributors to pols. Do you have to wonder why?

      • MountainMan

        Well said, Mary! :–)

    • MountainMan

      Are you kidding? You are looking through the wrong end of the telescope! Government is the biggest crook and mafia there is! With ZERO incentives to do anything good, what else could they be?

  • Mike Schneider

    Government is compulsory insurance.

loading