Bitcoin Forum

Libertarian Capitalists believes that if you do not govern, if you leave to chaos - then the emergent outcome will be better than meddling; out will come greatest productivity from less government intervention.

And in a sense they are right. Competition leads to the aggressive seeking out of all niches. In a narrow sense, there is greater economic activity. And this is what it looks like:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_nFQ8CK6s2fo/TN3wKPRNDRI/AAAAAAAAABE/yWEMbWiNqII/s320/Pond-OverGrown.jpg

Social Democrats advocate a mixed economy where the state is prepared to invest time and effort into planning for the future. And this is what happens when you plan and maintain:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_nFQ8CK6s2fo/TN3xyqXa_TI/AAAAAAAAABM/_rFFxR-COsE/s320/nicegarden1.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_nFQ8CK6s2fo/TN3yepcFIAI/AAAAAAAAABQ/V8qOjZMRhx4/s320/Allotment_garden_lg.jpg

Remember, there may be more Biomass raised by leaving entirely to nature (Biomass analogous to wealth measured by GDP) than the forced unnatural occurrence of a field of potatoes. But the latter will feed more people.


http://a-new-red-dawn.blogspot.com/2010/11/this-is-what-libertarian-capitalism.html

Not quite true.  Libertarians don't care about what is the most productive society as they don't believe in society.  For example, when it comes to food safety libertarians are OK with people dying because the people are at least free and freedom trumps safety.  So a libertarian won't care about how the garden looks.

perhaps, though i'm sure some people care very much for the idea that the greater good is best when the greatest are set free from society as a whole. And where minimal regulation is the enlightened approach.

It is as though, to some, the credit crunch didn't happen - or teaches no lessons.

Actually, libertarians each have their own view. There are guaranteed to be enough that will exhaust the environment's resources (and spoil it) for the short term gain - which is happening anyway right now. It takes vision and regulation to stop that. The most productive thing to do with any unspoiled territory, and any semi spoiled territory (such as BLM land) is to immediately declare it wilderness off limits to any development, to let it continue as nature. And then force technology to find solutions to make the existing completely spoiled areas more efficient.

If people didn't want to die they should have personally infiltrated each food company to find out their ingredients and the cleanliness of the factories, and then spent their dollars accordingly. No damn government will tell businesses they have to put safety regulations on there production methods!

As a well-off white male, I have the means to thoroughly research everything I buy and cannot imagine situations where other, poorer people cannot do the same or do not have access to the choice or selection I do.

What you don't seem to realize is that meddling only produces more chaos...

...so, nice try.

 :-*

Damn right.  Every road traffic sign takes us one step closer to chaos, to complete collapse of society and ultimately the rapture. 

78 in a 50 is my risk bro, not yours

Never mentioned the collapse of society or rapture, only chaos. It's you who is associating chaos with negativity, not I.

And yes, complicating a system - even with traffic signs - creates more chaos. Do you really not see that? Or do you insist that trying to "order" things truly does so?

Dont feed the trolls.

the reason why libertarians dont care is that the people who would take the most risks, in employment and food and everything else would be the poor, and who gives a shit about the poor.

Rich people will buy luxery products that are guaranteed not to have these problems and of course hedge fund managers never have to worry about mine cave ins or adequate saftey equipment.

You cna look back in history for the libertarian hey days, where every street corner had a man selling an elixor that would cure you of anything that you would pay him to tell you it cured you of.

Our alcohol had rat poison in it to give it bite.
Our children worked  and you were paid ion corporate script and ended up dying "owing your soul to the company store"
black lung? well you should have gotten a different job.



No regulation is just as bad or worse than burdensome regulation. Smart regulation is the way to go.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_nFQ8CK6s2fo/TN3wKPRNDRI/AAAAAAAAABE/yWEMbWiNqII/s320/Pond-OverGrown.jpg

This plot of land was stripped of its natural growth and planted with artificial seed. This is far from a natural environment. It's more of an example of government-enabled corporatism if anything. Certain plants get subsidies while what was natural and thriving is killed. The small and weak growth that pops up is quickly admonished to the artificially stronger plants.

This is what genuine unfettered growth looks like:

http://www.soultravelmultimedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Nature-Wallpaper-9.jpg

Nice try.

You wouldn't have to research everything you buy. You would buy products that have been respected by private regulators much like software companies registered by companies like verisign. It's even possible grocery stores would get their products inspected to cater to more market share.

Use your imagination. If people want something, they will get it. It's not like these regulatory innovations were invented by government. It all requires trust in the end and I rather trust organizations that can easily be held accountable by failure rather than by an unremorseful government that only changes every term or so.

A beverage company selling tainted product won't last for very long nor will a company with a reputation of dead employees will get many workers. Use common sense.

Nobody has ever advocated this. Nobody has ever been against food regulation. We just want it to be voluntary and accountable by true incentive. Not bureaucratic democracy.

Fixed that for you.  :D

Actually you don't even have to look back in time at all.  We have a modern libertarian utopia in full swing right now.  It's called Somalia.

Actually, that's what heavily protected land looks like, until a non regulated society gets a hold of it. This isn't 4,000 BC, with a small population. This is the 21st century, and there's more than enough people and businesses who want to put that land to "wise-use", as they say.

Can you define "true incentive" for me?

https://i.imgur.com/lkzGv.jpg

vs.

https://i.imgur.com/J8rSb.jpg

This is a joke, right?  You realize people and grass aren't the same things and pretty pictures don't mean your logic is correct.  Besides, I like Immanuel Go's picture better.

You may like Immanuel Go's picture better, but you haven't indicated that you're interested in methods to make sure that such environments will be around much longer or in abundance given your political ideological beliefs.

My point is simply: Bad logic and pretty pictures do not an argument make.  Do you disagree?

I am still developing my political beliefs and am trying to keep an open mind which is why I actually listen to what you say and follow up on some of the resources you link, instead of blindly dismissing your viewpoints.  I simply am unconvinced that government is the only way to preserve such natural beauty. 

Government is definitely not doing a good enough job. But to relax their regulations even further is to go in the direction the libertarians want.

In a nutshell, we need stricter environmental regulations which severely restrict exploitation of the environment, which in turn spurs capitalistic markets to competitively discover the technology faster that will allow prosperity for people.

EDIT: And relaxed or no regulations will only accelerate the exploitation of the environment, as individuals race to pick the lowest hanging fruit before their competitors do.

Only in America...

Don't use your imagination, face the reality. These regulatory innovations is how the representative government was invented. If all these private entities that you cherish so much were not corrupting it, the government would have been doing an even better job.

a good and reasonable point. Nature does indeed produce great beauty - however, what would you do about barren land where people actually live - because land that is valuable, not just pretty, is land which is where we live and produce from.

A farm left to nature will see a collapse in production. The indians of america prior to invasion had an interesting approach of working with nature - with a guiding hand. It struck the settlers how amazing it was that the forests were full of fruit trees. That doesn't happen by accident.

So it may be possible to kill production with over regulation, but its certainly possible to degrade production by letting go of the tiller entirely.

I've presented a metaphor which supports my views. Metaphor is a good way of making an argument when the processes are in someway similar. And I think I can argue well enough that the metaphor can be pushed far and therefore has power.

In an economy, there are many agents buying and selling, surviving either by merit or by established power. In nature it is the same, regarding survival adaptation and other matters such as diversity. Ecosystem metaphors are seen by many as a good way of looking at the economy.

The reason why libertarians and capitalists get upset about ecosystem metaphors is because it touches a very raw nerve? With a huge part of the world economy driven by ecosystem services, use of the nature metaphors reminds them that a large part of the economy does not exist to their ideology, and yet it plainly does and justifies regulation on a global scale.

And thats before you touch them with the ticklestick of global warming.

Did you really just claim that government would be pristine if it were not for external, PRIVATE forces corrupting it?

...lololololololol...

Please, expand on this.

I think that by "corrupting it" he doesn't mean "corrupting government" but "corrupting the environment" - I'm open to correction though.

Niko did correct me so please ignore.

No, I meant government.  Of course, in a country such as US, where most of constituents have the frame of mind that is reflected in comments here, my statement does not apply. But there is more to world than the US. Yes, there are places in this world where government pretty much does a good job protecting the interest of the public - often defending it from narrow-minded, self-centered private interest. Foreign interest, too - with the mentality prevalent in this forum. It also provides valuable services to the public, provides employment, and distributes wealth more equally among constituents.
My point is, Americans, relatively speaking, almost have no government: it's on the verge of default, weak and easily manipulated by the private interest. They don't even have their own army when they invade other countries - they have to rely on private contractors. People are out on their own, and it shows. And yet, Americans cry that the government is "too big!" From your perspective, France or China or Canada are a living hell.

Niko makes a fair point.  A lot of Americans boast that their government is a waste of space and deduct from that all governments are a waste of space.  And I can see the American's logic; in the US you have beach lifeguards paid $200,000 per year with generous pensions while bridges and airports need maintenance.  In the UK, the lifeguards would (a) never get that pay and (b) get laid off if the local taxpayers want to use that money for better purposes.  That's an extreme example but naturally a UK resident will end up with a more positive attitude to government.

I think you've made some good points, and your last one was good. However, your pictures fail to capture some essential themes of biodiversity, and its role. Your pictures show land which has been landscaped and meddled with. They're better than concrete sidewalks, but the real preservation of biodiversity is in leaving ecosystems in their natural state, and as large as possible, to reduce edge effects.

I think you'd really enjoy these two books:

The Future of Life (http://www.amazon.com/Future-Life-Edward-Wilson/dp/0679768114/) by Edward O. Wilson

Rewilding North America: A Vision For Conservation In The 21St Century (http://www.amazon.com/Rewilding-North-America-Conservation-Century/dp/1559630612/) by Dave Foreman

I'm still not sure about your previous statement. You said that private interests corrupt government, as though the government which facilitates the private interests was not already corrupt. I think that is patently false, but maybe I didn't get what you meant.

"Foreign interested too - with the mentality prevalent in this forum." Can you explain this more? What is the mentality and do they defend with that mentality or defend against that mentality? I'm not clear.

As to the last sentence - yes, some governments do those things. And I would not tell them not to, if that's what their people want.


One reason that I, at least, say that the American government is too big is because it can, despite its peoples' resounding disapproval, engage in multiple illegitimate wars. This means that it kills people in foreign countries, including - or especially - those that have nothing to do with anti-US aggression. This means that it effectively taxes generations to come - generations that may very well want nothing to do with these or any other wars their government concocts - for its unfounded bloodshed. A government that makes such decisions seems pretty big to me.

So, while citizens of other countries may be pleased with their governments and look at Americans like they're insane because their government is already "small," all I have to say is - well, yours doesn't really have the same power to fuck up the world, does it? Yours at least pretends to listen to you, doesn't it? It's practically a different world.

Which I think was along the lines of what you were explaining. Very different perspectives.

But no, Canada, France, etc. are not living hells to me. I have lived in countries with HUGE governments for periods of time. While I felt constricted in many ways, I was comfortable because these governments largely did what their people wanted (outside, perhaps, of immigration ;) ) and were not bloodthirsty.

P.S. America does not have to rely on private contractors to invade other countries, they're just nice to have around because they are not as accountable as its military. If you want to commit war crimes it's best that they don't taint the country's reputation. That's a substantial difference  ::)

I asked for a definition, not a picture of bread.  Can you define it?

I really can't see it as patently false. I think we all agree that there are examples of reasonably good and also of terrible governments. I can think of examples of places with no old-school governments at all that functioned for some time. Some were quite intriguing - say, worker's collectives in Catalonia during the revolution in the 1930s. On the other hand, there is the example of Somalia over the past 20 years. Before I continue, let me state this: on the Political Compass test, I seem to belong to the lower left corner. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=32376.msg511390#msg511390 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=32376.msg511390#msg511390) I tried in ~2002, and again this year - my position is rock solid. Ergo, I am not a proponent of "big" government, and I am definitely against a totalitarian government. Over years, and after experiencing in depth the liberal socialism of the former Yugoslavia, a civil war and a foreign intervention, United States, Canada, and various systems in Southeast Asia - I've come to conclusion that government was the only answer I could come up with that addresses some very practical problems of life. It's not ideal, but I couldn't come up with anything better. For example, I can't figure out how I would be driving a car or a bicycle around the city if there were no government to draw and enforce the rules of traffic. How would it work? Who would yield whom at an intersection? What would we do with dangerous drivers? Who's to say? These are not trivial questions. Of course, one can say how people would come up with rules "by themselves", but there would need to be some kind of framework for discussion, decision making, and even enforcement. And that, to me, is the government.

Much of the argument here boils down to semantics. I want to understand if you object to the big government, or simply to the bad government...?

Bitcoin2cash has all the answers for you on roads. It's very simple. Someone will buy land and build the road for you and charge you for it and provide enforcement and infrastructure. Not satisfied with their service? Bitcoin2cash suggests that you build your own next to it and compete. A third enterprising party can build a tunnel underneath both. And another party can build a bridge over all of them. These are his words almost verbatim, I kid you not. As a driver, you will have choices galore. Just be sure to keep in mind that each road can have different laws as per the owners, and you'll want to keep track of all of the differing laws, and changes of ownership, which inevitably will lead to different fee structures, regulations, etc.

Why have one road going straight from A to B when you can have four? Never mind the waste and damage to the environment.

I think it's safer to say I object to bad government. I'm very aware that there are very helpful governments in the world - Denmark's government is a good example. The US government just isn't one of them.

with regards to governances - I wonder if americans view their federal government as more out of touch than their state government. This might match the european position where a number of countries rate their own government higher than brussels.

Again, if you think people are the equivalent of plants there's not much more I can say to you.  It's a terrible metaphor because humans are acting thinking beings while plants are not.  Society is composed of people, ecosystems are composed of plants and animals.  See the difference?

They don't understand human desire. They think all human beings are the same and can be given the same things: All you have to do is insert some magic numbers and POOF, you have a happy productive human being.

human beings are rather similar. your neighbour isn't a gerbil

I had once a neighbour who was a weasel though.

My neighbor might not be a gerbil but how does that make it so that our needs are similar? And yes, I know that "omg but u both eat food lol" but let's think realistically.

Denying that people have very different needs and desires can be dangerous.

human being are more similar than they are different.

We are so highly co-operative that the very idea of the self is slightly ambiguous.

We are only cooperative to fulfill our various individual desires. It is the individual in the and his selfishness that makes the paradigm churn in the first place.

Not sure that's true.  Solitary confinement causes profound personality changes in a great many people.  Basically it seems that if their "self" is not reflected from society, they lose all sense of self.

Don't confuse the poor man with facts.  ;D

These are not trivial questions, but they are questions with real world solutions besides government.  In fact, I'd be willing to wager that the roads that you drive on were no built by government, are not maintained by a government, and could also be policed by a private contractor even though they are not presently, and you would likely never notice the differences.

Governments don't build roads in America.  They never have.  They fund roads and maintaince via taxation, but there are other ways to fund roads if need be.  The roads are built and maintained by construction contractors, and governments (at most) function as management.  In fact, none of your vital public infrastructure is provided for you by any direct actions of a government official, beyond the funding aspect.  Even in areas that the water or electic companys are publicly owned monopolies, the work of maintaince and expansion of the infrastructure network is done by employees of private industry.  Hell, even the police and military were somewhat private enterprises in the United States once upon a time.  The term 'constable' (where we get the term "cop" from, i.e. "constable on patrol") is an English word that literally refers to a privately hired policeman.  To this day, the county that I live in, and technically every county in the state, has two publicly elected positions for constables, who are not paid by any government agency for the office.  They are private security companies with state honored police powers.  One guy gets elected to the office, and hires off-duty cops to patrol banks and ride along with bounty hunters and serve private civil court summons, etc.  It's likely similar in your own city.  The enforcement of the traffic codes could likewise be performed by private companies.  For example, what if the funds from a traffic ticket went into the coffers of the constable's office after being proven in an independent traffic court?  Enforcement would be both better, and more just, then is presently so.

just seems a bit unwieldy. its simpler to just go and govern and make things happen rather than let weeds take over the garden? dig a hole, plant some fruit trees. And eat fruit. You might get lucky with some wild berries. But they might be poisonous.

Wrong.

1 ) The government decides to build roads (except in the case of a new tract under development by a developer).
2 ) The government sets up a planning commission which involves public and private planning firms.
3 ) The government decides on a plan, involving many government organizations, ranging from the ESA, the EPA, city councils, and so on.
4 ) The government contracts various firms to do the actual surveying, grading and paving.
5 ) Some government agency (state transportation agency, etc., depending on jurisdiction) oversees the project to completion.
6 ) Some government agency (state transportation agency, etc., depending on jurisdiction) maintains the completed road, installs signs, etc.
7 ) Sometimes, that government agency hires outside contractors to engage in significant repairs or improvements.
8 ) Utility companies are allowed, as per agreements with the government, to do installation and maintenance on their utilities which lie underneath the road or alongside it.  

You contradict yourself immediately...


Based upon the research, work and recommendations of private planning firms.  Governments don't have planning firms, btw.


Most people would consider that project management, would they not?


Some government agency finances and manages the maintaince contracts of completed roads.  Only very large cities such as Chicago and NYC do this kind of skilled labor without contracting out the work to private contractors, and even they do it sometimes.  It's literally impossible for smaller cities and independent towns to do it without contracting, because they can't maintain the expertise.  And states don't do it because of the distances involved and political issues with county governments that make such a thing a logistical nightmare.


EDIT:  A single paving machine can cost over $100K, and unlike a fire truck which sits still most of it's service life, a paving machine needs to be in nearly constant use in order for the costs of road maintaince to remain low.  This also means that the machine itself needs constant professional maintaince as well.  And this is just one type of specialized equipment required in road maintaince.  Can a city own one of these?  Sure, but it's not cost effective for a city to do so, because a single city's public works department is unlikey to be able to keep the machine in service.  At least not as well as a contracting company that owns twenty of them, employs 15 operators full time, and two mechanics.  The kinds of specialized equipment that cities tend to own fall into the catagory of 'physical insurance', such as salt trucks in cities that freeze and fire pumper boats in cities near trade waterways.  Many cities have enough trouble just keeping their police helicopters in flight ready condition.

That sometimes is the vast majority of the time.  I would say almost all of the time, but I have no doubt that there are a few exceptions.


And utility companies are private corporations, not mere extensions of government.  And like all companies, they have the right to sub-contract those maintaince duties to other, more specialized, contractors.  And they do, everywhere in America.

This is a field that I have worked within in the past, from several different perspectives.  I know how things actually get done.  You should try to consider your practical understanding of a topic before posting about issues for which you know not.

If you are referring to the concept of a private police force patroling a public or private network of roads as being unwieldy, I would agree.  I was pointing out that it's possible within the current social order without changes that would be dramatic to the casual observer.  I'm not suggesting it as a solution, only an example of how a lib society could actually solve the problem of "enforcement of the traffic laws" in a post-government civil society.  We can't even know how it would actually happen, and I don't even personally support the absolute 'anarchist' ideal anyway.  I think that governments exist because they serve a particular niche (justice, collective defense) very efficiently.  The problem that I have with governments is that they have a perverse incentive to expand the mission into ever more facets of private life.

MoonShadow,

What a strange reply. The statement that rankled me was when you said: "Governments don't build roads." Totally false, and your reply indicates how odd your viewpoint is. It would be like us having the following conversation:

You: "Grocery stores don't sell groceries."
Me: "Uhhh, yes they do."
You: "No, the cashiers sell groceries. Grocers only manage it."

I guess what you seem to think is the one who is paid to do subtasks of the overall project is considered the reason for the product getting to the consumer. That's not really how projects are considered. The organization which delivers the product to the consumer is the one who is generally credited with getting the product to the consumer. No other way to put it.


That's a funny way to put it. It's almost as if you're saying ACME Engineering decided to build a road, and then hired the government to invest in the project, and then manage it.


Really? Just about every city out there has a public works yard filled with dump trucks, backhoes, and other such equipment, and they're sent out daily to do street repair.


This is ignorance incarnate. Normally, I'm ok with ignorance, but when you say things like this:


I then have to hold you to a higher standard. I guess you just don't know what's going on out there on a regular basis. Here's some information for you:

CalTrans Organizational chart: http://www.dot.ca.gov/orgchart/departmentalorgchart.pdf

Photo of CalTrans engaging in road work: http://www.westsideconnect.com/2011/04/21/feature-photo-caltrans-work/

More road work: http://pfostrain.ucsd.edu/gvs/photos/caltrans.krail.gif


Umm, no. It's actually sometimes. The majority of the time, significant repairs and improvements are not occurring. See the above two statements by me.


No fucking shit. What do you think I said in my prior post. But that isn't road building, is it?

Let me explain to you how it really works, in simple terms for you (with handy heuristics for the visually inclined).

If the equipment is yellow, it's probably a contractor building new infrastructure as specified by the government. If the equipment has a government logo on it and general maintenance and repair is occurring, it's the government. In nearly all cases, it's the government which decided to build it, it's the government which specified what was to be built, and it's the government which delivers it to the public, and it's the government which actually gets their hands dirty maintaining it.

If it's utilities being laid down or repaired, then it's not road construction or maintenance, so it doesn't apply to our discussion about road building.

It's more like this..

Me:  "Customers don't run grocery stores, they only pay for them."
Youe: "Uhhh, sure they do, the customer is always in charge!"

The government is the customer.  The private contractor is the grocery store, and the privately employed skilled laborer is the cashier.


Uh, yes.  Of course.  The funding is just funding.  The actual people who do the work really are the most important factor.


No, I'm not.  You're big with burning straw, but not particularly good at it.  Again, the government is the customer in this deal, operating as the representative of the taxpayers (hopefully).  It's like the customer decided that a road needed to be built, and hired ACME Engineering to design it, present it's project for approval, and then build it once funding was present.

Actually, it's not like that at all.  It's exactly that.
I what throwback city do you live in?  I haven't seen an actual public works vehicle in over a decade, and even that was just a passenger van moving laborers with sidewalk brooms.


It was another comparison.

Moonshadow, the person who does the labor is not really the issue. If there is a road, you have eminent domain and thats the state.  Whether the people doing the work are state employees or Build/Operate/Transfer contractors is just a detail.

The thing I love most about the OP pictures is that the yard is what would be maintained by a government worker or government agency, required to maintain the bare minimum of their duties, while the gardens would be maintained by private owners, hoping to out compete their neighbor's garden to attract customers.

And yes, I do absolutely adore the public parks of Italy, Austria, Switzerland, and even Canada, so there is some irony there...

Oh, and on the topic of roads, I love trains, and really envy the European train transportation system, but apparently the main reason USA has such lack of train service is due to heavy government subsidation of roads, highways, gasoline, and trucking. Train companies couldn't compete, and thus the whole system practically fell appart. In Europe, rail tracks are government owned and subsidised (in US they're all private), so it's the other way around. I guess government can do things well. It's just not always the things we personally want.

It's not a trivial detail.  The post that I was responding to questioned how public infrastructure, and particularly public roads, could exist in a libertarian government model.  A model that doesn't support the concept of taxpayer funded infrastructure, and the question "what about the roads?" is the one that every detractor always comes up with thinking that they can paint libs into an ideological corner.  I was just pointing out that the libertarian model abhores public funding of infrastructure, but that doesn't neccessarily lead to the conclusion that such infrastructure wouldn't exist.  Many privately highways have existed in the US in the past, and a few still exist in this modern world.  The question of funding isn't trivial either, but if it can be solved; and there is no reason to believe that it cannot under a libertarian form of governance, then the rest really is trivial because the vast majority of publicly funded infrastructure isn't publicly constructed at present.  That was my entire point, and it still is.  No matter how someone might wish to attack my perspectives, it's still true that most public projects are privately implemented.

Funding is easy.  Build/Operate/Transfer is a fine business model.

Making a road requires eminent domain.  As far as I know, that means you need a state of some kind.

There isn't much evidence either way, but I'd say that no one in either of these two photos actually work directly for CalTrans.  They are all almost certainly employees of private contractors.  And those machines are not likely to be either owned, nor leased, by CalTrans or any other goverment agency of the State of California.

So thank you for proving the point so well.

Building a road requires that the property be owned by whatever agency that intends to build it.  Eminent domain is only a legal process established by governments in order to short cut the difficulties of aquiring said property.  Again, many private roads and highways have been built in America in the past; even though most of them have been taken as public property, they were still built privately.