Free Markets and Prisons

This whole tookie deal has got me thinkin' about our domestic prisons lately, the relative simplicity of their function, the shortages of space they currently face, the burden they pose to taxpayers, and the monopoly the state has over their utilization.

States typically step in and provide desired goods and services where the market "fails". Law and order is a necessary good that is universally demanded, and it is simply easier for a state to provide this good to the public, paid for by the public tax. And prisons are of course a subset of law and order. But could the government supplement the law and order it provides with a little bit of free market action? This certainly exists to some extent, with private investigators, defense attorneys, and security contractors to name a few. Has the free market for holding inmates in cages ever been tested?

The function of a prison is simple - to remove convicted criminals from a law abiding society, thus removing their danger to that society. You house inmates, who have forfeited their rights to freedom, inside cages and feed them three times a day until their sentence is up.

And clearly this opens up a new private industry in America. There is a demand for more prisons, and were the supply able to meet the demand, more jobs would be created. Efficiency and cost competitiveness of the private sector would lower the cost to the state (who would be the sole customer of the prisons), not to mention more tax revenue would be received from the additional jobs and the corporate profits.

Anyways, what are peoples' feelings on the benefits and costs of this exercise in free market? (in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, eliminating shortages, tax burden, etc) Am I on the ball here, or am I way off, and why?

[The Don]

You sir, are on the ball. Here (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty4a.asp) is some reading on the subject. Of course, if the market is going to take over incarceration, why not have it take over law enforcement and the administration of justice as well?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
States typically step in and provide desired goods and services where the market "fails"

[/ QUOTE ]

I would only point out that states don't sit around and wait for market failures before 'stepping in'. States generally create any market failures.

natedogg

[sam h]

Private prisons already operate in many states. I don't know enough about them to have an opinion either way, but I do know that they have been heavily criticized by groups advocating for prisoners' rights.

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
You sir, are on the ball. Here (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty4a.asp) is some reading on the subject. Of course, if the market is going to take over incarceration, why not have it take over law enforcement and the administration of justice as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

These are all really really bad ideas...Why do so many people have such a boner for the "free" market now anyway?
Free markets do NOT increase effeciency and reduce costs in many sectors of human interaction. Many prison functions now are outsourced to private firms with dismal results...

See, the problem with using markets with prisons is with whom are they competeing? for whose benefit? who gets the service? And what happens is, since it is the prisoners who are being fed and receiving the medical treatment, and, since they're prisoners, they have no say whether or not their treatment is satisfactory, can do nothing, and therefore have no recourse. Why feed them a full three meals a day when 2 or 1 will do? Does anyone on the outside really care if people are straved and/or not treated for sickness? Why even treat anyone? The privitazation of the health care in prisons is the primary reason that the Hepatitis epidemic is so out of control in prisons.

Remeber, the reason why competition works to increase efficiency is that the groups in competition compete to trade their good or service for the customer's money. Such is not the case in prison (they compete for public money and provide a service to prisoners), or most things where there is some sort of public good or public interest. The opposite happens, they comepte hard for money to run a prison, and do everything they can not to run it.

Privitzation is a big problem, also, with the caring for mentally/physically unfit people. Accros the country states have been closing their state hospitals and giving their patients over to the private sector... well, it usually cost more, while, the employees are not trained properly, and the service costs many people that which remains of their health.

And Law Enforcement privitized? are you mad? I hope you're joking. If Law enforcement were privately run you would have even more disparity between the justice dished out to different economic classes and different races. The phrase "Equal Protection Under the Law" would be nothing but a farce, instead of just largely one.

[ QUOTE ]
Private prisons already operate in many states. I don't know enough about them to have an opinion either way, but I do know that they have been heavily criticized by groups advocating for prisoners' rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, yes I see that now. I should have simply googled first and saved myself the thought process. doh!

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do so many people have such a boner for the "free" market now anyway?
Free markets do NOT increase effeciency and reduce costs in many sectors of human interaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow...have you actually taken an economics class? Ever? Because this is just silly. Feel free to provide evidence to prove your point.

[ QUOTE ]

Many prison functions now are outsourced to private firms with dismal results

[/ QUOTE ]

And you base this assertion on...what? Evidence? Logical reasoning? You provide neither. From what I've heard the case is exactly the opposite, but I freely admit that I'm not super familiar with the subject.

[ QUOTE ]

See, the problem with using markets with prisons is with whom are they competeing? for whose benefit? who gets the service?

[/ QUOTE ]

These are questions...not problems. Coherent logical argumentation does not appear to be your strong point.

[ QUOTE ]
And what happens is, since it is the prisoners who are being fed and receiving the medical treatment, and, since they're prisoners, they have no say whether or not their treatment is satisfactory, can do nothing, and therefore have no recourse.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is different from the status quo...how? The prisoners never have a say in how they are treated, regardless of whether the prison is state-owned or privatized.

[ QUOTE ]
Why feed them a full three meals a day when 2 or 1 will do? Does anyone on the outside really care if people are straved and/or not treated for sickness? Why even treat anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because, if you are a prison entrepreneur, the state won't do business with you unless your prison provides these services to prisoners.

[ QUOTE ]
The privitazation of the health care in prisons is the primary reason that the Hepatitis epidemic is so out of control in prisons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Another assertion made without evidence or a logical argument. Feel free to refer us to a paper on the subject, or make a logical argument linking the privatization of prison health care to the spread of hepatitis.

[ QUOTE ]
Remeber, the reason why competition works to increase efficiency is that the groups in competition compete to trade their good or service for the customer's money. Such is not the case in prison (they compete for public money and provide a service to prisoners)

[/ QUOTE ]

You are contradicting yourself. How is the state not a customer? How are prison entrepreneurs not competing for the state's money?

[ QUOTE ]
...or most things where there is some sort of public good or public interest. The opposite happens, they comepte hard for money to run a prison, and do everything they can not to run it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if an entrepreneur won't run his prison effectively, why on earth would the state keep contracting with him? Your argument, like many others you made in your post, lacks logic.

[ QUOTE ]
Privitzation is a big problem, also, with the caring for mentally/physically unfit people. Accros the country states have been closing their state hospitals and giving their patients over to the private sector... well, it usually cost more, while, the employees are not trained properly, and the service costs many people that which remains of their health.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yay, yet another assertion made without providing either evidence or a logical argument linking privatization with worse service.

[ QUOTE ]
And Law Enforcement privitized? are you mad? I hope you're joking. If Law enforcement were privately run you would have even more disparity between the justice dished out to different economic classes and different races. The phrase "Equal Protection Under the Law" would be nothing but a farce, instead of just largely one.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny that you actually kinda get it in this point. Equal protection under the law IS a farce under the status quo, and you realize this. And yet you attack private law enforcement for the same problem. Pot calling the kettle black, anyone?

Will

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Free markets do NOT increase effeciency and reduce costs in many sectors of human interaction. Many prison functions now are outsourced to private firms with dismal results...

[/ QUOTE ]

A government outsourcing a function that it has claimed monopoly over is not the same as a free market in that area. Do you see why?

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Free markets do NOT increase effeciency and reduce costs in many sectors of human interaction. Many prison functions now are outsourced to private firms with dismal results...

[/ QUOTE ]

A government outsourcing a function that it has claimed monopoly over is not the same as a free market in that area. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you're exactly right. But with prisoners, there simply can't be a free market, they aren't free, they don't choose whether they want patronize a prison or which prison to patronize, and they have no capital to trade with the people imprisoning them. Only some form of government imprisons people, which is why they have the monopoly.

[peritonlogon]

If this contained anything other than a bunch of ad hominem attacks, and claims that I'm wrong because I'm wrong then I would reply to what you had to say.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Free markets do NOT increase effeciency and reduce costs in many sectors of human interaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow...have you actually taken an economics class? Ever? Because this is just silly. Feel free to provide evidence to prove your point.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea that "free markets" don't increase efficiency and reduce costs in all "sectors of human interaction" is widely accepted within the discipline of economics. Maybe you should take a few more classes yourself before throwing around those kinds of comments.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, you're exactly right. But with prisoners, there simply can't be a free market, they aren't free, they don't choose whether they want patronize a prison or which prison to patronize, and they have no capital to trade with the people imprisoning them. Only some form of government imprisons people, which is why they have the monopoly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Noting now that you've shifted gears, how is a state-run prison system better in this regard?

[peritonlogon]

I hope I didn't screw up this link, here it is... study/article on privtization of prison healthcare in wisconsin (http://www.earncentral.org/earntoc/ documents/Faultysolution32405.doc)

I couldn't find the article I was looking for.

I certainly agree that the whole prison system needs reform. However, as far as privatizing I think a state run prison system would seek to rehabilitate the prisoners better and more importantly act in order to serve the intrests of Justice for the society at large. Privatizing a prison just means some firm tries to pump up the contract award as much as possible and in anyway possible (bribes, friends, anything) while at the same time trying to do as little as possible with the money awarded for the contract by cutting wages, not training guards properly, and, most commonly and effectively, not providing the service.

My solution= people caring, reading, voting, taking action. May not sound possible, but it beats the alternative.

[BCPVP]

Link ain't there.

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
If this contained anything other than a bunch of ad hominem attacks, and claims that I'm wrong because I'm wrong then I would reply to what you had to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see two ad-homs - where I asked if you had taken an economics class, and where I pointed out that logical argumentation didn't appear to be your strong point.

Feel free to indicate what other points you felt were ad homs.

Will

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, you're exactly right. But with prisoners, there simply can't be a free market, they aren't free, they don't choose whether they want patronize a prison or which prison to patronize, and they have no capital to trade with the people imprisoning them. Only some form of government imprisons people, which is why they have the monopoly.


[/ QUOTE ]

Prisoners are not the commodity. The service of locking them up is what is at stake here. This is a service that all of society demands (the need to remove people who have been convicted of crimes).

Upon slightly more (basic) research, many prisons are in fact privatized but no market or economic choice for the consumer (the state, which serves the citizens of the state) exists (similar to our healthcare). This is more along the lines of what I wished to discuss.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Free markets do NOT increase effeciency and reduce costs in many sectors of human interaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow...have you actually taken an economics class? Ever? Because this is just silly. Feel free to provide evidence to prove your point.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea that "free markets" don't increase efficiency and reduce costs in all "sectors of human interaction" is widely accepted within the discipline of economics. Maybe you should take a few more classes yourself before throwing around those kinds of comments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which of these "sectors of human interaction" are you speaking of?

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Free markets do NOT increase effeciency and reduce costs in many sectors of human interaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow...have you actually taken an economics class? Ever? Because this is just silly. Feel free to provide evidence to prove your point.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea that "free markets" don't increase efficiency and reduce costs in all "sectors of human interaction" is widely accepted within the discipline of economics. Maybe you should take a few more classes yourself before throwing around those kinds of comments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. "Sectors of human interaction" is a pretty large field.

I'll counter with this though: in the vast majority of the "sectors of human interaction" free markets do lead to increased efficiency, and if one were to propose that a specific sector was the exception, they should provide evidence to the point.

Agree with this?

Will

[peritonlogon]

I suck ... I couldn't find another aricle or study that had both the greater cost and the worse treatment that comes with prison privatized healthcare, so here's one that just shows the worse care.

prison article (http://www.adpsr.org/prisons/humanrights.htm)

this one might, i didn't read the whole thing though

other link (http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/articles_publications/publications/glrecovery_20040610/Prescription_for_Recovery.pdf)

[peritonlogon]

I'm going back on my decision not to reply to this since, while I stand by it, the post you responded to was not the tightest thing I've written here.
[ QUOTE ]

Many prison functions now are outsourced to private firms with dismal results

[/ QUOTE ]
I provided evidence in the other portion of the thread.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
See, the problem with using markets with prisons is with whom are they competeing? for whose benefit? who gets the service?

[/ QUOTE ]
These are questions...not problems. Coherent logical argumentation does not appear to be your strong point.


[/ QUOTE ]
The point is that free markets won't be effective, since, in the case of prison healthcare, food, clothing and etc. the people receiving the service are not the one's paying for it. The one's providing the goods and services have an economic incentive to come as close to not fulfilling their contract as possible. And once the contract has been awareded the market is no longer free until the contract expires.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And what happens is, since it is the prisoners who are being fed and receiving the medical treatment, and, since they're prisoners, they have no say whether or not their treatment is satisfactory, can do nothing, and therefore have no recourse.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is different from the status quo...how? The prisoners never have a say in how they are treated, regardless of whether the prison is state-owned or privatized.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is different because in the case with outsourced provider the prisoner has no recourse AND the provider has an economic incentive not to the job.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why feed them a full three meals a day when 2 or 1 will do? Does anyone on the outside really care if people are straved and/or not treated for sickness? Why even treat anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because, if you are a prison entrepreneur, the state won't do business with you unless your prison provides these services to prisoners

[/ QUOTE ]

But see, that's just the point. The prisoner has no recourse so the state never really gets to know. So the contract gets renewed.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The privitazation of the health care in prisons is the primary reason that the Hepatitis epidemic is so out of control in prisons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Another assertion made without evidence or a logical argument. Feel free to refer us to a paper on the subject, or make a logical argument linking the privatization of prison health care to the spread of hepatitis.

[/ QUOTE ]

I the article that I put in the link in the other portion of this thread addresses this.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Remeber, the reason why competition works to increase efficiency is that the groups in competition compete to trade their good or service for the customer's money. Such is not the case in prison (they compete for public money and provide a service to prisoners)

[/ QUOTE ]

You are contradicting yourself. How is the state not a customer? How are prison entrepreneurs not competing for the state's money?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're going to have to spell out how this is a contradiction, I am evidently not strong in coherent logical argumentation. The state may be the customer, but it is not the one receiving the goods or services.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
or most things where there is some sort of public good or public interest. The opposite happens, they comepte hard for money to run a prison, and do everything they can not to run it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, if an entrepreneur won't run his prison effectively, why on earth would the state keep contracting with him? Your argument, like many others you made in your post, lacks logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not so much that this lacks logic, it just so happens that one can make a pseudo-objection to the sustainability of what is now practice. If this objection were valid most things of the public good would never get privatized (why would anyone ever get health insurance when they State can do it beter for a fraction of the price?). The reason a lot of new things are getting privatized is that it is a popular fad right now and there is a very big and very quick buck involved for those taking part.

[ QUOTE ]
It's funny that you actually kinda get it in this point. Equal protection under the law IS a farce under the status quo, and you realize this. And yet you attack private law enforcement for the same problem. Pot calling the kettle black, anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because john is bad at poker doesn't mean he's worse than jim... understand? logical falacy. Of course I'm not going to advocate something that's worse than the status quo just because the status quo is bad.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that free markets won't be effective, since, in the case of prison healthcare, food, clothing and etc. the people receiving the service are not the one's paying for it. The one's providing the goods and services have an economic incentive to come as close to not fulfilling their contract as possible. And once the contract has been awareded the market is no longer free until the contract expires.

[/ QUOTE ]
(Scary, I'm sounding more like PVN! /images/graemlins/shocked.gif)
Why does the state not have such problems while the "free market" does? You never explained why a free market would be ineffective and the state would.

[ QUOTE ]
It is different because in the case with outsourced provider the prisoner has no recourse AND the provider has an economic incentive not to the job.

[/ QUOTE ]
While I could be wrong as I'm not that well-versed on this subject, I doubt that a prisoner's legal right to sue over mistreatment disappeaers in a private prison. PVN would probably argue that under a totally state-free system, the prison has an excellent economic incentive to not mistreat the prisoners.

[ QUOTE ]
The prisoner has no recourse so the state never really gets to know.

[/ QUOTE ]
See above. This would be true if the prisoner's right to an attorney is stripped in private prisons, and I'd have a hard time believing it is.

[ QUOTE ]
The state may be the customer, but it is not the one receiving the goods or services.

[/ QUOTE ]
The service is keeping certain people away from the rest of society so they can't continue to hurt others. The state in this case desires this service and it's proven that firms exist that will provide it.

Sorry for butting in.

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does the state not have such problems while the "free market" does? You never explained why a free market would be ineffective and the state would.


[/ QUOTE ]
The State would have as its mission objectives to serve Justice as opppesed to making money.
[ QUOTE ]

While I could be wrong as I'm not that well-versed on this subject, I doubt that a prisoner's legal right to sue over mistreatment disappeaers in a private prison. PVN would probably argue that under a totally state-free system, the prison has an excellent economic incentive to not mistreat the prisoners.

[/ QUOTE ]
In all my life I have never heard of a prisoner suing for mistreatment by prisons. I'm no lawyer but I do know the exact rights and legal status varies from state to state. And as far as what the public thinks (which is usually what matters) they, due to a great media system, think prison is all weight lifting, cable TV and the occasional buggery.... what I mean by this is, people only really go by whatever stereotypes they have happened to hear. And I think PVN would have to agree that prison in itself is contrary to a state-free system.

[ QUOTE ]

The service is keeping certain people away from the rest of society so they can't continue to hurt others. The state in this case desires this service and it's proven that firms exist that will provide it.


[/ QUOTE ]

The "service" is dispensing justice whatever that may mean. A large portion of prisoners are in jail for actions that many, if not most, people have comitted themselves (possession of an illegal substance). Most "state-free society" people do not deem these people to be a threat. But, either way, a person who has a 2 year sentence and is deprived of his freedoms has a right to eat and receive medical care BECAUSE he was placed in prison. As in, he/she committed a crime that we (the American people) deemed worthy of imprisonment for (in this example) 2 years, NOT, 2 years imprisonment, near starvation and next to no healthcare(which is likely to mean Hepatitis (choose your letter) and no treatment.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
The State would have as its mission objectives to serve Justice as opppesed to making money.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe these are mutually exclusive.

[ QUOTE ]
In all my life I have never heard of a prisoner suing for mistreatment by prisons.

[/ QUOTE ]
It happens. It depends on the state for exactly what rights you have, but it does happen.

[ QUOTE ]
The "service" is dispensing justice whatever that may mean.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd say there are several functions of prison. One would be justice (read punishment), one would be seperation from society (safety/punishment), and another would be rehabilitation. All of these are the :services" provided by prisons, to varying degrees.

[ QUOTE ]
But, either way, a person who has a 2 year sentence and is deprived of his freedoms has a right to eat and receive medical care BECAUSE he was placed in prison.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not very well worded. You don't "get" rights because you're imprisoned. You always have rights and always will, in prison or not. It's just some rights are limited.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
That's not very well worded. You don't "get" rights because you're imprisoned. You always have rights and always will, in prison or not. It's just some rights are limited.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is that really correct? On the street you don't have the right to eat. But when in prison you certainly have that right, they cannot starve you just because you don't have money to buy food.

I remember reading about medical treatment, which had the same sort of "problem". Uninsured you don't have the right to, for example, heart transplants, but in prison you did have that right because you are in care of the prison. I don't know if this is correct, but that was the gist of the article I read. There was some worry about that desperate people would commit crimes in order to be put in prison and recive a heart-transplant.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Is that really correct? On the street you don't have the right to eat. But when in prison you certainly have that right, they cannot starve you just because you don't have money to buy food.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I believe it is. Just like I have the right to breathe. Now this doesn't necessarily mean you can force others to feed you at your whim. In prison, the prison must either provide you with food or the means to acquire food because they have otherwise put you in a situation where you cannot acquire food on your own.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
breathe. Now this doesn't necessarily mean you can force others to feed you at your whim. In prison, the prison must either provide you with food or the means to acquire food because they have otherwise put you in a situation where you cannot acquire food on your own.

[/ QUOTE ]
Does this mean it would be legal for prisons in the USA to not hand out food, but instead operate a store where inmates can buy food, in case they have money, and if they don't they starve? Or am I misunderstanding you? This would certainly not be the case in Sweden, here prisons must provide food for any inmate.

[BluffTHIS!]

Chain gangs are the answer. Force them to work and hire their services out cheap to local businesses/sweat shops. Makes the prisoners pay for their incarceration and screws the unions. No downside there.



http://www.sfbappa.org/SF28.images/7%20PICTURE%20STORY/jmb%20Prison%20copy/7jmb07.jpg

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
That's not very well worded. You don't "get" rights because you're imprisoned. You always have rights and always will, in prison or not. It's just some rights are limited.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's that it is poorly worded. The fact that the State has deprived a person of his natural ability to fend for his or her own needs gives the state the responsibility to look after them, which, in this case, I am calling a "right." (yeah, that's right "safety quotes")

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
No downside there.

[/ QUOTE ]
I see a few

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Does this mean it would be legal for prisons in the USA to not hand out food, but instead operate a store where inmates can buy food, in case they have money, and if they don't they starve?

[/ QUOTE ]
ONLY if that prison also provided the prisoners with some sort of exchange that was of sufficient amount that they wouldn't starve if they chose properly. Like a store and the prisoners get a certain number of "dollars" per day.

Or they could just serve them food. Either way, because the prison is denying them any other way to get food, it is responsible for providing access to sufficient quantites of food.

[BluffTHIS!]

You take care of Sweden, and we'll take care of the U.S.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
You take care of Sweden, and we'll take care of the U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can imagine a few of your fellow citizens also having some problems with your idea.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You take care of Sweden, and we'll take care of the U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can imagine a few of your fellow citizens also having some problems with your idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always find it so heart-warming that the euros are so concerned about our domestic policies and welfare. Must be that sense of noblesse oblige.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
And I think PVN would have to agree that prison in itself is contrary to a state-free system.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was coming to this point eventually. It seems that you've already realized that many of the problems you are bringing up in your objection to private prisons are just as applicable (if not moreso) to state prisions.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. "Sectors of human interaction" is a pretty large field.

I'll counter with this though: in the vast majority of the "sectors of human interaction" free markets do lead to increased efficiency, and if one were to propose that a specific sector was the exception, they should provide evidence to the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that marketizing many economic sectors has proven to have substantial benefits. And as I said in another post, I don't know enough about the experiences with private prisons to say either way. But I do think that when it comes to core institutions of a society, like the penal or educational systems, it is folly to assume a priori that marketization will provide a more effective solution just because some abstract economic model says it is so. You shouldn't assume anything, and you should just evaluate the empirical evidence. So yeah, evidence should be provided on both sides.

[ QUOTE ]
it is folly to assume a priori that marketization will provide a more effective solution just because some abstract economic model says it is so. You shouldn't assume anything, and you should just evaluate the empirical evidence. So yeah, evidence should be provided on both sides.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think the Austrian school of economics contains any abstract economic models, but only what appears to be irrefutable logic, which would be applied in these cases.