Hmm... I think I'm being confusing. There's a difference between the individual and the society. Not as such. Society is just a collection of individuals, and "society's" actions are just those of a group of individuals. So if each individual in that society seeks his or her own happiness without causing detriment to others' happiness, "society" seeks the most happiness for all. But isn't an individual just a collection of brain cells and their slaves? Maybe each brain cell should seek their own satisfaction. And additionally, each molecule their own. But, each brain cell does seek it's own satisfaction. It acts in it's own self interest and doesn't aggress against other cells. They're all happy and the brain is happy as a result of the cell's happiness. Start using centralised force against brain cells and I think you'll find the brain is allot less happy. Apply the same principal to humans and society. |
|
|
|
I'm allowed to rob you (10 min): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZEAny system based on violence is doomed to fail. You can figure out all the algorithms, voting methodologies and systems you like, but if it's not voluntary, it's a lost cause. The world itself is based on violence, small creatures are eaten by larger ones, until the larger ones die and are themselves eaten. The video is BS, governments provide a service like anyone else, once they stop revolutions dispose them rather quickly. People don't accept taxes because of some paper, they accept it because they somewhere believe in their country and government. A tax officer will not kill you even they imprison you. A tax lets you have roads, internet, police, protecting soldiers and free food should you one day find yourself down on luck. The problem is the US government has become corrupted and thus people are stopping to believe in them. My algorithm would avoid such corruption and hence likely this discussion about government vs. criminals. US government = criminals = correct. Government as a concept = criminals = false. When people rape, murder og rob others someone needs to step in and exert violence over the bad guys. It can NOT be avoided. What funds that is TAXES however low a libertarian might like them. I know your next argument "private security firm". Considering the vast overprice you are paying for private health insurance in the US I think that is a really shitty idea. Let alone what happens when such a firm finds out that beating up people brings more customers! Roads by a million different companies so you can't drive to work without a 100 stickers in your window? The US meltdown must have melted your brains too... All that said my algorithm/program IS voluntary, you would know if you read a few posts in the thread first. However nothing is stopping a later algorithmic government from using some level of violence. Again: natural. You can't create a monopoly on violence and expect it to NOT become corrupt. Like every government that has ever existed. Someone does need to step in and stop violent actors. To conclude that we need a monopoly on violence to solve this problem is a non-sequitur. Health care in the states is expensive because of numerous regulations that drive up the cost. eg malpractice laws, perverse tax incentives. It has nothing to do with it being "privatised". Roads by a million companies might not work, but that's the great thing about the free market: entrepreneurs will find a way that DOES work. The customer is always right. What if i disagree with your algorithm? Still voluntary? |
|
|
|
|
Oh man! you said the E-word in front of FA. Big mistake. Now you get to learn all about edge effects and why the state should use violence to force people to hug trees.
Love the OP, by the way. Just emailed it to a bunch of people.
|
|
|
|
I'd dispute that taxation is ' extortion, by violence or threat of violence'. The origins of government are clear in the name, it's modern day meaning has become twisted in the same way as 'corporation'. Government does not necessarily mean 'the state', governor was once a common term for any kind of overseer and societies infrastructure is more effectively and efficiently maintained when overseen centrally, when done correctly taxation is justified.
So taxation ISN'T extortion through threat of violence!? Wow, I didn't know that! I've been paying taxes all this time... I'll never fill out another tax return. |
|
|
|
If not self-interest, then what is the cause of toxic dumping?
Government licenses. |
|
|
|
I'm allowed to rob you (10 min): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZEAny system based on violence is doomed to fail. You can figure out all the algorithms, voting methodologies and systems you like, but if it's not voluntary, it's a lost cause. |
|
|
|
|
How do you prefer to apply the violence of the state
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. Society is made of of interdependent actors trading voluntarily. Well done Obama!
The government just stole my wealth to pay for services that we either don't want or that it won't allow others to provide.
|
|
|
|
The parallels are striking. The combination of "Stockholm Syndrome" and "cognitive dissonance" produces an individual who firmly believes the state is not only acceptable, but also desperately needed for their survival. The individual feels society would collapse if the state ended. |
|
|
|
Is there a mechanism in capitalism to ensure that capitalism is functioning properly?
i.e. something to make sure the market operates in these areas to maintain efficiency:
1) no patents, trademarks, ownership
2) qualifications (i.e. doctors take X years to qualify)
3) freedom of trade in people (visas)
4) land planning (i.e the greenbelt artificially raising prices)
Sadly I think trade needs a little help, it seems under attack from all sides
IP laws are actually a burden on the market. Government licenses amount to protectionism. Capitalism functions properly by itself, absent violence. |
|
|
|
There's a lot of choices in life. Just because you choose to be nice, doesn't require anyone else to reciprocate.
No, of course not. Of course, if they choose to initiate force, I am allowed to reciprocate. Who allows it? Certainly not your aggressor. And to what degree are you capable of reciprocating? Certainly everyone cannot reciprocate effectively in an equal manner. No one "allows it". The point is that there is no institution sanctioned with the right to initiate force that can prevent it. |
|
|
|
Yes yes. Natural monopolies. I am half way through the machinery of freedom. A natural monopoly could change.
Even if it could work, the problem is society. Society would have to accept it. That is a huge jump down in authoritarianism. How does one get to anarcho capitalism? Too many things have to be just so for it to work.
We get there one by having this conversation. one person at a time. What are the "too many things" that have to be just so? In my opinion, all we need is for people to accept that initiation of force is wrong/counterproductive. Most people already believe this, but have blinders on when it comes to the state. Once people see that the state is just institutionalised violence established with the premise of solving social problems, it will naturally fall away. Bitcoin will also help allot (see cryptoananarchist post). As soon as a natural monopoly "changes" it loses to competition. Without the violence of the state to back it up, it has to cater to is customers. |
|
|
|
|
Allow me to steal %50 of wealth from an economy and I'm sure I'll produce some amazing technology too.
Why don't we give the government all out money so they can R&D us into the future!
|
|
|
|
|
I will not pay for imaginary property.
I will donate an arbitrary amount to a content producer that I like. Esp with Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
We need to define "NAP society" first. We can't work on the premise that 100% of people follow NAP absolutely, otherwise there is no debate, we live in a perfect world already ;-) So let's say, for the sake of debate, that between %50 and 99% of people adhere to the NAP. Are we going to discuss an established NAP society or how one might emerge from the current statism paradigm, once the majority accept NAP? Important points of discussion could be: - Who will build the roads?
- How will it defend against external threat?
- What about monopolies taking over the world?
- "power vacuum" - a new state will emerge as soon as it's dissolved.
- Resource scarcity.
- Environmental issues.
- Dispute resolution.
I'd actually be interested in debating just one or two of those in depth without the flipped sides. The idea is that you flip sides to get out of your comfort zone. I like it. Back on topic, in the Machinery of Freedom, Friendman shows the Iceland example of how anarchic societies break down. An outside power interferes sponsoring one faction, that becomes overwhelmingly strong and eventually becomes the state. We've seen anarchy in Somalia break down exactly the same way after what appeared to be several decent years. What would you call that topic? "Foreign Interference" perhaps ? I think that would come under "How will it defend against external threat?", though, a special case. Should pick one or two and start a separate thread for each? |
|
|
|
Sooo... you're not making a case against NAP with point 1.? 2. No: Rich entities and the checkerboard syndrome. Presumably, rich entities exist in NAP-land, and everything about NAP encourages the checkerboard effect.
I don't know what checkerboard syndrome is. link? How does NAP lead to the environment being destroyed by edge effects? If you own land and someones actions are damaging your property, you enter arbitration for damages. I don't see how this is a problem with NAP. How does initiating force prevent environmental destruction? 3. No. Think and research harder, and please don't make me repeat myself fifty times....
I feel the same way about you. People pay for the protection of their own property and any natural resources there of. Why is violence necessary? 4. No. Pull your head out of the libertarian economics book and increase your knowledge. Again, I don't want to repeat myself, especially to deaf ears....
Is it your position then, that the initiation of force will prevent resource depletion? Really, answer the question, Yes or No, and back it up with reasoning. This kind of response gets us no where. Just saying "your wrong, read a book" is a cop out. Resources will be used because we want to use them. How is it productive or desirable to use force to prevent the consumption of resources that people wish to consume? If it's a matter of efficiency then I make the case that voluntary trade is more efficient than coercive trade. If you disagree with this premise, please say so and why. 5. No. Humans are far from consistent....
True, but this is a non-sequiter. humans establish social customs in all facets of life. We shake hands when we greet. we put the fork on the left and the knife on the right. We talk the same language. This is not achieved through force. though these customs may vary from culture to culture, still, within a culture, social standards emerge. I see no reason why they should not emerge with regard to "social etiquette when occupying others property". You think that people other than the property owner should use force to impose their own standard of behavior for people on their property? 6. So you say. Where have you seen this in action?...
seen what? A lawsuit happy state or a free society where laws are determined by the market? For the first, pretty much every state is like this. The number of laws and lawyers just keeps growing. For the second, see Lex mercatoria. Besides, the point is that this is how the market functions in general; the customer is always right. If you are in the business of arbitration or dispute resolution, you will have "laws" that your customers think are best, if not you go out of business. If the customer wants lots of laws and law suits then this is what they will have and vice versa. 7. The market operates on limited knowledge, and more precisely, within the entire market are sub markets composed of a limited set of individuals primarily interested in satisfying their own interests by using a limited set of knowledge. Oh my gosh, please go study my comments in another recent thread....
The knowledge of the market is enshrined in the price of all goods and services. This is all the knowledge the market requires to make efficient economic decisions. Do you agree with this? Will it be tolls or something else? I don't know. Voluntary trade will most certainly find a more optimal solution to transportation than a bureaucrat with a gun. 8. Wealth is relative to what is available to you. So many factors, and such a simple little reply you made....
Seems you don't actually have a response and are hiding behind your dismissive comments. Your whole post was full of "simple little replys". I addressed the point about paying for protection. Sure wealth is relative, so what? It still costs more to protect your property when there is no competitive market for protection. This applies for everyone, regardless of wealth available. Do you dispute this? As to your other post. What assumptions about the free market have I made that are false? Let's get to the heart of the matter here. |
|
|
|
Absolutely not. Interest is the price of money.
This amounts to saying that the unit of mass we call "gram" has to have a known mass, or that the word "inch" has to be written in certain length. Money is what we use to measure value, just like we use inches to measure length. In both cases it helps us compare and exchange things more easily. Well, aside from the fact that having a known mass for "gram" is vitally necessary for proper scientific measurements, what he was saying is that it's not the price of money, per se, but of lending, ie, getting money. Islamic banking refuses interest, going on a "If you appreciate this service, pay what you want" model. It seems to work pretty well, but even though they don't call it interest, it basically is, just with the borrower setting the terms, instead of the lender. Perhaps I wasn't clear: it's like saying that the unit of mass (an abstract concept) has to have a known mass. See, it is such a silly idea when you apply it to mass or length or color or anything else, yet most people are brainwashed into being comfortable with the same idea when it comes to money. They don't even stop to think for a moment before talking about the "price of money". What would you think of someone telling you "sorry, can't continue building this house, I'm out of inches"? Are you familiar with Alan Watts? He said the exact same thing about inches and building a house. It's not really the "price of money", but compensation for the opportunity cost of not being able to spend that money. The ability to use some currency over a period of time has value, hence a price in the marketplace. Without a price you get scarcity or surpluses, basic supply/demand economics. In the case of 0 interest rates, there will be a shortage of capital. Business' that really need the liquidity and are willing to pay for it are starved of this opportunity because any old fool with a plan has already taken the free loan. It's basically price fixing and fails for the same reason as with any other good or service. |
|
|
|
You make it sound simple. If a man leaves his wife and baby and cancels their insurance, you are 100% happy to let that baby die?
Are you %100 happy to pull out a gun, stick it in the face of the nearest guy and say: "give me money to save the baby or else I'll kill you"? or are you willing to explore non-violent solutions, such as charity. Also, collectivised healthcare is a Tragedy of the Commons scenario; creating scarcity. Which is why, in the socialised system, you have to wait 4 weeks to see a doctor to save your baby. Are you going to deny the baby immediate care because you have squandered health care resources by eliminating the price system? Also, socialised health is a moral hazard; people take less care of themselves because society has "got it covered" if anything goes wrong. This also drives up costs and waste. |
|
|
|
How do the victims who have no next of kin receive restitution? Well, since you have now specified that Event Y is lethal, the victims don't receive restitution anyway. Those who are harmed by the death of the victim do. If you can find someone whom nobody is harmed by their death, I'd be very surprised indeed. Would it not be better to try and prevent Y type events? To be sure. A high enough restitution cost would make safety measures to reduce the chances of Event Y happening more cost effective. If the restitution cost is high enough, it might even stop Activity X, as "too risky". What if most of society deems activity X to be unnecessary?
Just as Joel stated, that is irrelevant. Also, consider that the victims will probably be members of a protection agency, which will have it's reputation staked on resolving the issue in a responsible manner; preventing activity X or seeking arbitration. Remember, just because the government currently provides a service backed by force doesn't mean social needs can't be met without force. |
|
|
|
We need to define "NAP society" first. We can't work on the premise that 100% of people follow NAP absolutely, otherwise there is no debate, we live in a perfect world already ;-) So let's say, for the sake of debate, that between %50 and 99% of people adhere to the NAP. Are we going to discuss an established NAP society or how one might emerge from the current statism paradigm, once the majority accept NAP? Important points of discussion could be: - Who will build the roads?
- How will it defend against external threat?
- What about monopolies taking over the world?
- "power vacuum" - a new state will emerge as soon as it's dissolved.
- Resource scarcity.
- Environmental issues.
- Dispute resolution.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
