I'm not informed about this discussion of NZ, but if it ain't because people need cheap houses and builders were happy to fill the gap without a thought for the future, then I'll eat a bitcoin.

I agree with all you say here, but you're misunderstanding my point.  I'm not specifically trying to show cause and effect, but merely indicate that there exist cases of deregulation which have proved disadvantageous to the consumer.  Right now we have a status quo of Big Interfering Regulating Government, and most people are sufficiently content with that that they won't go out and demonstrate on the streets demanding change.  If you want to change the status quo, the onus is on *you* to convince people that deregulation is the right way to go and to get them out on the streets demonstrating.

I'm keeping an open mind, but I've yet to be convinced.  I wrote what I see as the real problem (Big Corporation) in my last post and I find it interesting that you merely criticize my general points without answering my specific question about free-market policies.

Regardless of whether it's economically sound or not, ignoring the plight of millions of people makes for real bad sociology.  Not everyone is an expert economist or financial advisor - some people have to be street sweepers and some people have to be teachers.  The point remains that deregulation of Enron led to a serious abuse of trust on an enormous scale.  In a wider sense, economies exist in order to improve the human condition so deregulation here was pure Economics Fail.  Or maybe you think economies exist only to make capitalists wealthier?

Do anarchists/libertarians like Big Corporations?  That's mostly what I have problems with.  For me, you could get rid of lots of regulations, but there are two I'd introduce: any single company may not possess more than 5% market share and company directors and shareholders may not hold public office.  If there were no Big Corporations, political lobbying would be vastly reduced.  And I'd bet that without lobbying, the government would be a very different kettle of fish.  You guys complain about how regulation stifles free market competition.  Well now, apart from politicians-in-the-bag, who profits most from regulation?

You say this as though company failure fixes all the problems.  The failure of Enron caused enormous problems for millions of people and those problems haven't gone away.  Do a google search for "enron pensions" just to get a taster.  You could, however, argue that Enron became as big as it was, and therefore in a position to affect millions of people, by virtue of previous government regulation.  There's nothing in a free market politics, though, that prohibits companies becoming just as big.

Are you speaking of the time of great composers like Mozart and Beethoven?  The were patronized by wealthy families, royalty, or churches, each of which was wealthy because... can you guess?  It wasn't from free market competition, I can tell you that.  And if you're talking about more modern times, well there wasn't the problem of mass copying.  Pre-vinyl the skill was in the performance as much as the composing, and you couldn't record it.  For vinyl, mass unauthorised copying wasn't possible without big expensive machinery.  Cassette copying was much simpler but caused a notable downgrade in quality.  The "problem" of unauthorised copying of music is *exclusively* a problem of the digital age.

This is not a good thing, though.  In fact, bottled water is probably one of the biggest debacles in the history of marketing.  I remember I saw a great youtube presentation about where the bottled water market came from, and how it came to be as it is.  Look for "say no to bottled water" "stop bottled water" and so on.

You know, there's a thing about this libertarianism.  Here you say "look at bottled water", but bottled water is a sham.  Someone else said "look at the internet in somalia, it's great now" but if you want people to look at Somalia and think how great libertarianism is, well, think again.  If only half of what wikipedia says is true, things in Somalia seem to be terrible. So it may well be better now than under government, but if you're already living in the gutter it's not so hard to pull yourself up now, is it?

This is perfectly logical.  A creates, sells under restrictive contract to B, who breaks contract and sells to C.  A has no recourse against C.  Agreed.  I'd just be dubious that A will sell his creativity given the lack of recourse against unauthorised copying.  Except at a very high price.  B, of course, will be reluctant to pay a high price in something that they will, certainly, eventually have very little control over.  It's just my opinion, you may well disagree.  Only an experiment will tell - and I mean a 100 year long experiment in libertarian/anarchist economics.

This seems more reasonable.  But...
1. Film studios might never release their products for DVD after the theatre period - what's in it for them?
2. I once saw a film that was pirated by using a hand-held in the cinema.  I didn't realise until someone in front of the camera got up and (presumably) went to the toilet.
3. Musicians would have a hard time making money - after their first concert all the music would be copied and distributed.  Lower quality yeah, but we're not all audiophiles.
4. How about authors and journalists?
5. Computer games writers?

So the only way, then, to protect IP rights, even if only for a short time, is to introduce severe penalties for whoever leaks the content, so much so, that everyone who signs the contract fears for themselves.  Woe betide whoever misplaces their legitimate copy, or is robbed of it, and finds themselves in hospital the next day with two broken legs.  Don't get me wrong, I think the IP system in force now is ridiculous and way oversize.  Personally I'd love to return to a system of traveling musicians and bards, playing to small groups in return for dinner and a bed.  But I realise that that'd be difficult now, and most of humanity almost certainly disagrees with me.


Nobody will buy it if they cannot be assured that its output can be protected.

Nobody has answered these two questions regarding the social contract, see page 3 of this thread.  If I'm just an ignorant fool who should read the answer to the first question elsewhere because it's already been answered a thousand times, please point me to the right place.  But how about the second re. Egypt?

Agreed, but you didn't sign any contract with the musician in this case.  Suppose I permit you to enter my property and listen to my music only if you agree to certain terms and conditions.  Then what?

I did some calculations a while ago (see http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1918 ) and, using updated values, I would estimate that the expected number of blocks you can generate (ever) with one of these machines, given current bitcoin network growth, is about 11 (=550 BTC).  So it should more-or-less pay for itself, and if bitcoins continue to appreciate against the dollar, then it will more than pay for itself (NOT counting electricity costs).  Hah, I was expecting the opposite conclusion.  I should buy one of these.

Expected number of blocks: E=Ch/(a-1)/D

C=constant=14*86400*H_m/H_M
H_m = hash at min difficulty = 0x00000000FFFF00000....
H_M=max hash value=0xFFFFF....
h=hashes-per-sec
D=current difficulty
a=difficulty growth = 1.153 (approximate, at time of writing)

EDIT: this is interesting, if these miners will pay for themselves, why doesn't atlas just keep them all for himself and use them to mine?  Ok, the answer is obvious, bitcoins don't buy bread yet (though someone did buy pizza).

I can see an inconsistency.  I argue that creative brains are *way* more scarse than whatever real property you're talking about - particularly ink & paper, electronics etc.  I mean, what's to stop me making a contract "I'll tell you about the products of my creativity, but you must use them only in these ways", and then enforcing that agreement through whatever means at my disposal.  Thence, Intellectual Property.

Good point, maybe I am.

Kiba, I'm inclined to agree with Gene here - until this you seemed reasonably coherent and sensible, if a bit extreme.  But this rebel talk of removing democratic options makes you look like a bit of an irrational fool.  Are you being flippant perhaps?  Libertarians are all about protecting individuals and their choices and yet here you would impose *your* values on everyone else.

I don't understand this. Can you explain a bit more please?

I think this is being too simplistic.  Look at, say, a pride of lions.  As free as can be, roaming the plains, knowing no laws, knowing no government.  However when there's a successful hunt, and everyone wants to chow down, well there's a conflict and (I guess) the prime male gets first choice.

In our society there are conflicts too, because what I want (and should be free to do) is mutually esclusive with what you want (and should be free to do).  There are limited resources and we are competing for them.

Therefore, No.  There will always be some circumstances in which your right to conduct only voluntary and consensual relationships should not be respected by all.  In a pride of lions, the top male decides.  In our society, at present, there are laws which decide, but in a stateless society... damned if I know who decides.  I have a big problem with libertarianism and conflict resolution.  Help me to understand guys.

Well, even libertarians think that property rights should be enforced in an anarchist/lassaiz-faire economy.  Patents are nothing other than intellectual property, but I don't know if the libertarian argument defends that too.  So maybe they could argue that patents are OK, but that there shouldn't be a monopoly on patent enforcement...

I note that patents exist to protect the research investment of the developer and allow them to recoup their investment through exclusivity for a while.  Of course, it's being abused now, but what do the libertairians amongst us say about intellectual property?


My understanding of the "social contract" question is that, e.g. in the US, the founding fathers formulated the constitution, with popular consent.  Those who consented implicitly raised their children to consent, and so on until today.  Like lots of laws, the constitution is being abused now to enable government to pass absurd laws to which the founders and their popular following would never have consented.  So maybe ye should genuinely try to get a revolution going, unseat government, and with popular consent, formulate a new constitution/social contract which includes the missing bit from this one - that is, articles which limit government's power over periods of hundreds of years and through unforeseeable technological and sociological changes.

Let me ask a question, suppose the people of Egypt manage to get their choice of president (and not Suileman who seems to be as unliked as Mubarak).  Now suppose this guy, Mr. X, let's call him, frames a new constitution, and creates a new country Egypt_V2.0, with freedom for all, and there is rejoicing and joy in the streets.  Even though the only guy to sign the new constitution is Mr X himself, would anyone here doubt that all Egyptians agree to be bound by that constitution, even though they didn't sign it?

The only hole in the argument is parents deciding for their children.  But that can hardly be otherwise, can it?

f.

Correct.  Politicians often have "advisors". Unfortunately, the lobbyists are far more powerful.  Actually they're probably lobbying the damn advisors too.  Often, the advisors themselves come from a corporate or political background, and not a scientific one. 

What, like otherwise I'll discover the "dark secret" of anarchists that causes the whole house of cards to tumble down :-)  The private police doesn't solve the problem I earlier mentioned about conflicting private police forces.

Like I say, I'd have way more questions to ask, and challenges to yer messages here, and I'm really enjoying the discussion.  Thanks to all of you.  But I'm burning up way to much time on it.  I gotta stop.  Mostly, I gotta read up on the mises institute, and I ain't got time for that either.

In conclusion, my opinion is:

1. monetary deflation would be very nasty.

2. anarchism would be sweet, but possibly not practicable.

3. I genuinely find it baffling that some of you think a free market can solve long-term problems better than (independent) scientists who have studied the problem deeply.  Particularly when the problems associated with a free-market solution are far away (e.g. my Greenland Glacier Ice product, precious metals in Congo, etc).

4. Also that a free market will respect everyone's rights is bizarre.  A free market responds to the demands of large (i.e. profitable) groups.  Minorities will always find themselves subjugated.

That's it folks.  I bow out.  The last word is all yours.  Cheers.

Are you suggesting that there should be some kind of "governing authority" where disputes can be resolved...?

It's not an issue of freedom of speech.  It's about people who understand an issue being the decision makers, or at least having some significant influence on the decision makers.

As for the free market, what would you buy: cheap wood from company A, or expensive wood from company B which calculated future environmental-repair costs into its price?  Personally, if I could be sure that B would do that, then I would buy theirs.  But I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw their tree trunks.  I can just imagine the board meeting - "Dear shareholders, we have $1B in the bank, but we don't want to give it to you 'cos we'll need it to help out those poor farmers in 20 years time."  "Dear CEO, we want to buy those cool new holographic phones. The door is over there, GTFO."

Free market has shown that it is perfectly capable of squashing chickens into such a small cage that they can't even turn around.  Free market has shown that it is perfectly capable of pumping livestock full of drugs and hormones to make the meat absorb more water, and so sell for more money (sold by weight); so much so that the hormones in the human food supply are causing male fertility leves to drop.  Can the forum come up with more examples of the free market's failings?  Just in case, I'd like to repeat that I don't have any great faith in government either.  I'm just skeptical that the free market would be this wonderful utopia that many people here here seem to think.

Eh???  Can you think of anyone better qualified to make a scientific statement about the loss of biodiversity in the amazon that the *scientists* who have *actually studied it*  Or do you think we should just take, what, like a /vote/???  Bear in mind how susceptible public opinion is to what some barbie in the latest hollywood action-crap says.

If you really believe what you're saying, then economists have no right to speak publicly about economics, and you can shove your von mises institute where the sun don't shine.  Right?  (or if you're of the other camp, then substitute for some other appropriate institute).

Some people are more educated about some topics, and, yes, that gives them the right to speak publicly, and it /should/ oblige other people to consider their opinion.

I noted the problem with finding unbiased scientists.  Is that what's bugging you?  That's not just government - it's big Pharma, big GMO, big Oil, big Internet, big IntellectualProperty, big Whatever, and all the lobbying that goes on behind closed doors (need I make it clear, by private corporations).  You can't have unbiased scientists without unbiased funding.  Corporations will never provide unbiased funding.

We've gone *way* off topic here, so if we want to continue on this subject (anarcho-capitalism et al V govt), let's start a new thread.  I'd have more to say, but this post is huge already, and I've gotta go.

Arrrghhhhhhh WHAT question??  Stop telling me I'm not answering questions that you haven't asked.

Read the title of this thread.

Take a look at wikipedia's page on the amazon rainforest - it's about half of the world's total rainforest.  Do you truly think that's unimportant?  I'm shocked at such ignorance of science just for political ideals.  I don't know whether the destruction of the amazon would have a big effect on the world's environment, please don't be so arrogant as to say that you *do*.

anarchy & lawlessness: you should correct wikipedia's page if you think anarchy is not lawless. My understanding is that anarchy is nothing other than voluntary cooperation between individuals.  By definition, an anarchic society has no regulations.  Even the etymology of the word itself suggests an absence of hierarchy and authority.  This leaves the society vulnerable to whosoever would abuse that situation.  Are you so naive as to assume that nobody would seek to do such abuse?

There's a clear question.  Absolutely nothing. [sarcasm]Apart from moving in the army[/sarcasm].  If everybody wanted to jump off a cliff, there's little anyone could do stop them either, right?

[quote from=caveden]
I bet all these things can be done much more cheaply than the cost of not using such precious resource as all that land.
[/quote]
ok. And I'll bet we could cover greenland with some mirrors (to better reflect sunlight), start melting all the ice, bottle it, and sell it as pristine million-year old, glacial water.  Damn, you could even sell it still frozen, or even cheaper, you could melt it and then re-freeze it - imagine: "pure glacier, the way nature intended".  Given how stupid most people are, can you doubt there would be a market for it?  And why stop with Greenland?  Now don't tell me that people wouldn't pay, they already pay up to ten thousand times the price for bottled than tap water.  And please don't embarrass yourself by suggesting that the market would punish the corporation that decided to abuse Greenland's ice sheet.  Nobody would stop them 'cos Greenland is far away from everyone except about 50000 greenlanders.  People wouldn't care about Greenland, just as you don't care that the tantalum in your mobile phone comes from environmentally destructive mines in Congo controlled by armed thugs engaging in a conflict counting millions dead.  And, you know what, maybe nothing would happen.  Maybe sea-levels wouldn't rise. But if they did, you can be damn sure the profits made would be in CEO and shareholders pockets, and nobody would cough up the money required to protect endangered coastlines.  Oh wait, what am I thinking, if the only point in preserving endangered coastlines is to preserve them, well we can just forget about it.  (That bit was pure sarcasm too, folks.  I hope you got it this time.)

I stand corrected, but that doesn't invalidate my point.  The amazon is important, even if only because we don't yet know how important it is.

And why do you think private corporations will respect private property rights?  In a corporate world, people are rewarded with money and power. That means the people who come to power are the ones that like to have money - greedy self-obsessed people (not much different from politicians of today).  Even hugolp agrees that politicians and corporate leaders are often one and the same.  Your politicians will just become your corporate leaders, and tell me this: why should they suddenly become "nice" in an anarchist society?  I'm not saying the present political leadership is any good, or that the regulations they impose are just and correct.  I just don't think corporate anarchy will do better.

I understand the Austrian theory of debt spending causing boom-n-bust business cycles.  I just don't think it's that simple.  The latest crisis, for example, is far more complex - not least because of the rising price of energy immediately prior to the crisis.  This limited growth for reasons *external* to the economy, which is something economic theories don't consider (as far as I can tell).  Furthermore, my understanding is that the Austrian boom-bust cycle is caused by a debt-inflated economy, thanks to fractional reserve banking, controlled (in the US) by the Federal Reserve.  Guess what?  A corporation specifically designed to safeguard the interests of privately owned member banks, largely independent of the government.  http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm#5

Who gets to decide what's useful?  Just their economic function?  If you start disrupting an ecology, there is no way to tell the end result.  It's a perfect complex system, with long range correlations between species and power-law extinction events.  What if those stupid pink frogs seem useless but then, after they're all dead, it turns out they were an essential dietary part of that lovely useful crocodile's prey?  Same comment for invention of new species.  GM food companies are playing a game that could have dire consequences - and nobody really knows how it could play out.  People talk alot, but nobody really knows.

Preserve it for it's potential economic utility, if nothing else.  Nobody knows what the future cost of destroying the amazon rainforest would be.

[quote from=grondilu]
In any way, what we should do about tropical forests, is not for a bunch of ecolocrats to decide.
[/quote]
[my ignorance, what's an ecolocrat? do you mean "econocrat"? if so:]  Agreed. I would have the decisions made by scientists, sociologists and philosophers - unfortunately in a pure corporate world scientists and sociologists without some funding bias would be hard to come by.

@ptd: you don't care because you have plenty of disposable income.  In a monetary deflation scenario, lots of people don't, and that chokes production.

Please differentiate between NECESSITIES and LUXURIES.  I never said people don't buy stuff when prices go down, I said people don't buy UNNECCESSARY stuff during periods of MONETARY DEFLATION - and everyone has a different idea of what's "necessary" (I might not have been clear about the "monetary deflation" bit in my first posts, confusing it with price deflation).  If my phone breaks, then I'll buy a new one regardless of whether prices are going up or down, because I NEED one.  But if there is monetary deflation, then I definitely won't buy that new computer game, because I DON'T NEED it.  What about you?  If your money is deflating, would you concentrate your purchases more on necessities, or would you splash out on a new pair of $250 shoes (for you, or your GF) just because they're nice, or would you wait until next month when you can buy the same shoes AND a burger&fries for $250?  What if you lost your job at the same time?  What then?  Now think about people who are investing $millions.  Even low deflation could mean they can afford to buy a new luxury car for their children if they just wait one month before investing.

We did?  Good, I'm glad too.

I'm sure you realised I was being sarcastic when I wrote about invading Brazil??? I didn't know some of those things you wrote, but they wouldn't be so surprising.  I'll bet the amazon was never destroyed for many years because the population density (of humans) was simply too low.  A few hundred tribes living in and around it would never do more damage than regrowth - you'd need big, terrible, fast machines to do significant damage, and that didn't come about until, how long ago, maybe 40 or 60 years ago? (see youtube)

More than private enterprise cares for me, I think (see below).  I'm a big skeptic of modern government though - I have the feeling that once upon a time, politicians were driven by ideals, not greed and personal gain.  I'll tell you what, if I could only live 1000 years to collect, I'd bet that having no govt would eventually reduce mankind to Hobbes' "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" life.  And by "govt" I mean any persistent authority, even e.g. tribal chiefs.  My opinion, therefore, is that it's more important to have some set of laws by which all people can expect some guaranteed living standard, than that the set of laws be "the right ones", whatever that might be.  It's like driving, yeah?  Who knows, maybe driving on the left /is/ better than driving on the right, but it's much more important that everybody agrees which side to drive on, than that their choice be the "correct" one.

govt spending: what you say is right.  In short, those that perform services do not increase overall wealth.  Only the production of goods can do that.  And most of govt's work is services.  However, services do help money to circulate, allowing more people to demand produced goods.  I feel like we're almost coming to an agreement here too...

This, for me, is the biggest drawback to pure capitalism.  It's shortsighted.  Destroying the amazon rainforest would bring great benefits to human society for a while.  Then, after many years, it would be clear that the amazon had a crucial role to play in keeping the atmosphere oxygenated (the lungs of the planet, anyone?), keeping floods under control, maintaining biodiversity, heck, I don't know what else.  Now I may well be wrong, and an oxygen-depleted atmosphere might well improve humanity's state somehow.  It just seems a bit risky to me, that's all.

I'm using m0mchil's python miner, and everytime it submits a getwork request, it stops hashing, opens the connection, gets the work, and then starts again.  This causes me to lose much more that 2.5% of my hashing power, more like 15% or so (note, that's hashing power, not hashes).  Like I say, if I were worried I'd modify the miner, but between now and when the sun goes out, I can only expect another 70 or 80 bitcoins with my meager 20Mhps if the bitcoin network keeps growing as it is for a while longer.  So it'll do as it is.  Thanks for the reply.