Saturday, September 13, 2008

the state and the justice market

now that we understand the coercive monopoly, let's take a look at the effects it has on the markets it controls and what could be in those markets should the state's grasp be broken.

i want to start with what i consider the most imperative service monopolized by the state: justice. in the "monopoly post" we learned that not only does a coercive monopoly destroy a market and distort the services of such market beyond recognition, but it also manages to suppress the rights of those desiring to compete in the monopolized market. justice, a service just like any other, is almost always one of the first services monopolized by the state. the effects of monopolization are readily apparent. in the u.s., rights violations are routinely sanctioned by the "justice system". non-aggressive individuals are consistently incarcerated for the possession of certain property, such as drugs and guns, while groups who openly admit to the theft of these items and the destruction of other property in the process of these criminal acts, such as the FBI, DEA, SWAT, ICE or other organized gangs, go free.

the justice system also upholds the violation of rights when governments threaten individuals with violent property confiscation if they do not hand over a certain amount of money per specified time period. this extortion, commonly referred to as "taxation" is openly sanctioned by the the monopolized justice system, often resulting not in the punishment of the government individuals perpetrating the crime, but in the further violation of the victim through enslavement at a government jail.

the perversion of justice by the state monopolist is too pervasive to discuss all of the examples in a short blog post, such as the various traffic violations, to allowing the state/corporate partnership to crowd out competition through forced regulation, to the forced use of a state manipulated money supply, etc. the point is that the justice supplied by the state monopolist is arbitrary, expensive, inefficient (it often takes months or years to have cases settled), subject to political whim and is very poor at protecting the rights of individuals. of course what would one expect in a system monopolized by a criminal organization, that said organization would be allowed to violate rights without punishment or forced restitution?

in a competitive system, open to anyone wishing to offer their services, justice would not be subject to the corruption of the state system. because there are always competitors out there hungry for the customers of poorly performing businesses, all must provide the service in the best way possible, or face bankruptcy. in a free market, reputation is everything. as previously stated, the news media, no longer having a state to provide them with an endless news flow, would have to find other things to report on, undoubtedly one of them being the indiscretions of poorly rendered justice. any botched cases would receive attention almost immediately resulting in a loss of business through damaged reputation. therefore, any competitors in this most essential market would have to be very diligent about their decisions. as with any competitive market, prices would, of course, be much lower, efficiency much higher and service would be much more dynamic and nuanced to suit the desires of customers.

as long as the state retains a monopoly on justice, injustice will prevail and, over time, worsen. such is the nature of the coercive monopoly. the only way to fix this problem is to open the market. as with any service or product, if the state system is good enough, it shouldn't have any problem going voluntary and competing in the marketplace.

No comments: