as long as there is support for ownership of capital determining production, rather than actual use of production determining production then there is support for government. What does this exactly mean? "actual use of production determining production"? |
|
|
|
You stated that healthcare in your country is more expensive, and then cited longer waiting times as your evidence. Longer lines don't equate to price. The price is shifted, in your country, from the individual to the government but it is not increased, it's dramatically lower. Yes, people have to wait longer, that's what happens when more people are being treated by the same number of facilities, supply and demand.
When I don't understand someone's argument I don't reply to it. I usually find that if I don't understand what he said it is not going to be a productive discussion.
I did not cited evidence. I changed paragraph because I was talking about another issue. That is what paragraphs are used for. |
|
|
|
Health care costs are dramatically lower in countries which have government run health care plans. Your assertion that governments drive up the cost of health care is completely unfounded. You are joking right? I live in one of those countries and its not cheaper at all. In fact, Ive gone 4 times to the hospital near my home. Everytime I see people being treated in the corridors because there are no rooms. My aunt had to go to the private clinic because there was a 6 months waiting list to cure her chataracts. Imagine 6 months my old granma without being able to see (she still lives on her own). Thats government "caring" for you. Every winter authorities ask us not to go to the hospital during some weekends because they become totally saturated. Etc... The western railroad expansion was funded by the government with land giveaways to the railroad companies, backed by government force against American Aboriginals. Not all the lines. In fact, there were three lines that made the east-west route first. Two with government help, one private. The only line that its still used is the private one. When you build something thinking in the people needs to get profits you make something useful for the people. When you use the policitcal process you make something useful for a few (the ones that got rich with the government help). Btw, I feel like you are just throwing talking points one after the other, without going nowhere. When your talking points are rebutted, you throw more. What are you trying to say? |
|
|
|
So, if a group of nodes separates from the rest of the network for at least ten minutes, bitcoins created after that point could become invalid. Vulnerability?
If the person that generated the bitcoins joins the network before any other has found the bitcoins, it should be fine. First to notify the network the discover is the one that gets the bitcoins. |
|
|
|
Hum... Interesting thread.
However, this is too a serious subject. We should create a commitee to discuss about it.
Im not sure, let the comitee decide it. |
|
|
|
I don't see how you expect contracts to be enforced. A sufficiently large company can contract their own private forces (mercs) to support their "economic interests." This already happens.
You are absolutely correct, this already happens, with the state taking the place of "private forces". As a private entity grows in size and wealth, the cost to secure its property increases. In a stateless society, this entity would have to pay for every cent of security services it consumed out of its own pocket. This, I think is obvious, would act as a limiting factor on the size of private entities. However, when there is a state, the larger the entity, the less they pay per capita for security services - the police are subsidized by the rest of the citizens. The state as a provider of security for the people is a sham, it's all about those with wealth paying bottom dollar for protecting their assets.
Executive Outcomes was a private military company founded in South Africa by former Lieutenant-Colonel of the South African Defence Force Eeben Barlow in 1989. It later became part of the South African-based holding company Strategic Resource Corporation.
[...]
Executive Outcomes had contracts with multinational corporations such as De Beers, Chevron, JFPI Corporation, Rio Tinto Zinc and Texaco.
You forget that all this corporations rised thanks to regulations and privileges from the governments. |
|
|
|
The system you advocate is what creates the concentration of power in a few hands. The concentration of wealth that you see around is because of the laws aproved by the will of the majority.
Really? I challenge you to support that statement. Do the majority of Americans support NAFTA? Do they support the war in Iraq? What percentage of Americans supported a war in Iraq before 2003? When did they support the war, and why? Note that I could pick almost any issue and make the same point: that what most Americans want (absent enormous propaganda) is nearly diametrically opposed to implemented policy in most any topic of importance. That condition does not satisfy my definition of democracy. Somebody mentioned PR. What role does it play in shaping opinion? Who pays for PR and psych research into propaganda? And why? Who owns the media? The answer: private companies. I can give references, but I encourage anyone to not take my word. Go look for yourselves. Please show that I am wrong, if you can. Thats democracy. You are proving my point. You keep claiming that democracy is for the people, I keep saying that democracy is to take the power away from the people. Look around you and tell me which one it is. Bush run an anti-interventionist campaign and then became the war president. Obama promised the sky... Democracy is political darwinism, the best lier wins. And if you start talking about direct democracy lets check California. They voted to ban gay marriage and to ban marihuana. Why should gay people not be able to marry just because the majority decides its not ok? Thats democracy baning gay marriages. I think its inmoral, and anyone with half a heart can see it. Same with marihuana. |
|
|
|
... the first times that I discover this ideas and real critiques to democracy, I had the same emotional response you are having Me too. It took me 15 years to understand the merits of Libertarianism, then another 35 to understand the merits of Voluntarism. I'm a slow learner. Haha. You assume too much. I appreciate your epiphany and am quite aware of how the term is abused. I still recognize that democracy is the most just form of society. Advocating systems which can only result in concentrations of private power seems short-sighted and a quick path to industrial feudalism. I would rather that not occur. The system you advocate is what creates the concentration of power in a few hands. The concentration of wealth that you see around is because of the laws aproved by the will of the majority. |
|
|
|
This is why I am in favor of democracy; it solves those problems. Democracy is a form of opresion. I think democrats and facists are inmoral people. Democracy is just a lighweigth facisms. I like political discussions, but this is not one. I leave it here for today. Fascism. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Interestingly, corporatism is more closely associated with fascism as in Mussolini's Italy. I'll invoke Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." By the way, I forget to tell you that the first times that I discover this ideas and real critiques to democracy, I had the same emotional response you are having. I tried to defend it. The system and the politicians repeat the word democracy and associate it with good things all they can (there is a reason for that), so its hard to de-attach yourself from that indoctrination. I went through the same process. Maybe you end up with another conclussion, but really, using violence to impose your will its not moral just because its a big group of people deciding instead of a small one. |
|
|
|
Democracy is a form of opresion... ...with a good Public Relations Department. Hahahaha, nice one. |
|
|
|
You have not answer to the main issue. You said that you would not buy things if prices were going down, but you have a cellphone and a computer... @hugolp:
traffic: if everyone drove more reasonably, there would be less traffic jams and, on average, all trips would be quicker. However, such a situation is open to abuse by people who drive agressively who can, at everyone else's expense, shorten their own trip. Individual benefit, system wide harm. So? What does this has to do with individual rights? This issue you are talking about can be dealt with private roads. environment: clear example: farmers in Bangladesh can choose to remove trees and increase their crop. This reduces soil quality and increases the probability of flood for everyone. Right, and they would reduce their soil quality and hurt their property in mass. I dont know the system in Bangladesh, but it sounds terribly similar to India, where the market was accused, and turns out the problem was that government imposed regulations to favour Monsanto seeds that comsumed much more water. I am sure that if I dig into Bangladesh agricultural system something similar will come up. Or Brazil chops trees for its own benefit, amazon dies, world suffers. Right, and where in the process are individual rights respected? Do you realize that in the amazon the government is taking away the land from its rightful owners to allow foreign corporations to cut the trees? queues: you can join the end of the queue, or skip to the front. The confusion at the front causes, on average, longer delays for everyone, except you.
taxes: you can pay taxes with money you don't "need" - no loss to you, benefit to society (let's ignore govt corruption and inefficiencies). ................ Government spending might end the recession, but at the moment the spending is not finding it's way into the economy. It's staying in the banks' and their bankers' coffers. But you're right, the govt spending distorts the market. You are confusing things. The money the government is spending its (obviously) "finding its way into the economy". The money that is stuck is the money given to the banks (mainly by the central bank). But tell me how government spending helps the economy. Central banks printing more money when people hoard is risky. If the bank prints too much, inflation occurs, all those hoarders stop hoarding, and suddenly the market is awash with liquidity and you've the opposite problem. |
|
|
|
This is why I am in favor of democracy; it solves those problems. Democracy is a form of opresion. I think democrats and facists are inmoral people. Democracy is just a lighweigth facisms. I like political discussions, but this is not one. I leave it here for today. |
|
|
|
Then your best bet is to regain control of the government. Don't disarm yourself by eliminating the only tool at your disposal. You are doomed to failure if you think you can start from scratch against power that already controls the resources you require for survival. There is nothing to regain. The government has always been and always will be a tool of opresion to favour a few at the expense of the many. By supporting it and justifying it you are just giving legitimization to the abuse. Then you do not understand what capitalism actually is. The word, ironicly, was coined by Karl Marx. He made it and 'ism' because he wanted to paint it as an ideology. It's not an ideology, it's a collective description of the free exchanges of individuals within a working free market. There is no example of true capitalism anywhere in the world that I can point to, because the closest thing to capitalism that still exists is the illicit drug trade. State capitalism isn't capitalism, it's merely a soft form of national socialism. This is not entirely true. The word capitalists had been used before Karl Marx by some market anarchists and in a pejorative way. I dont like much the word capitalism. I prefer free market. Its more clear and less politically charged. But a word is just a word, it really does not matter. Ideas its what's important. |
|
|
|
Voluntarism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VoluntaryismI have no problem if a group of people decide to organize themselves in a democratic way, for example a cooperative business. I think its fine and it can work. But it is very different a voluntary association or organization run by a democratic system, where I can leave the group at any time if I am not happy with how it is managed, than having a democratic system imposed by guns (which is basically a democratic government). A democratic government is soft facisms. |
|
|
|
Or a company can make a certain important product with no competition via collusion and other means, which are well known to anyone with even a cursory understanding of history. The end result can be quite the same. That's what monopolies do. It is trivial to show how your assertions are false. History proves that monopolies are a creation of government. There can not be a sustainable monopoly without regulations. The big companies and accumulation of wealth happen because of regulations and government intervention. What is to compel a powerful company to disclose perfect information regarding its products or practices? What do you think the advertising industry is all about? Perfect information does not exists. Its stupid to define something with impossible demands. Free market does not involve perfect nothing. The institution of slavery is itself inherently undemocratic and unjust. This should be obvious. I dont think you understand what a democracy is. Slavery is perfectly valid under a democracy if the majority of the people votes to legalize it. I notice you dodged the question immediately following: Would you outlaw firearms because criminals use them? Or would you take steps to prevent crime?
Care to try? No, I would not outlaw firearms. I dont understand what it has to do though. The market doesn't even exist in the way Adam Smith defined it. You have missed the point spectacularly. I dont like Adam Smith too much, that is true. I really think you dont know what democracy is. Democracy is the rule of the majority. And in real life is a system where the more politically adapted get their way imposed over the rest. |
|
|
|
By enforcing debt collections, protecting private property, and spending on inevitable things like military and police however the government already has a significant effect on the market. Choosing not to direct this effect is simply irresponsible. This is the most important error out of all his silliness. If we're to presuppose as "good" things like protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, punishing crimes like rape, murder and theft (and I agree), then we can say that government is able to perform some of these "good" functions; however, none of these "good" things ever take place without the people taking part in government doing "bad" things. Mostly we're talking about extortion and robbery (AKA taxes), but it includes things like military conquest as well here. This is the first thing any statist is going to struggle with, simply acknowledging the reality of the essential nature of states. If they can even start to do that, then it becomes a matter of thinking that these aggressive actions are justified on some sort of utilitarian grounds. At this stage comes a lot of wishful thinking along with whatever pseudo-economics, "If we just elect the right people, they'll be handing out new counterfeited notes to the poor next time." After that, we're to the classical "But who will build the roads?" stage. Much more so in law than in economics is there work to be done in showing how problems are solved. Libertarian theory is in some ways quite new and still developing, though in some others time-tested, age-old wisdom. So, I agree that not only is not "directing" my actions toward (at least paying for) the protection of private property irresponsible, but knowingly directing my actions toward an inferior means (i.e. a state) of accomplishing the goals in mind is irresponsible. States only do "good" things by doing "bad" things first, so if we can figure out how to do more good with less bad, I'm for it, and bitcoin is an example of a way. This is not to disparage solely you Babylon, the anti-capitalistic mentality is a common affliction, but I am really not interested in the type of faulty arguments you are putting forth. I'm not here to debate someone who isn't going to learn about what they wish to argue against. Please try to read some of the books people have suggested because there is a wealth of information out there. Bitcoin is a real life experiment regarding Gresham's law, viz. bad money driving away the good. See here for instance, What Has Government Done to Our Money? -- Fiat Money and Gresham's Law. Even this is really an advanced concept. I suggest again Murphy's book or the first couple hundred pages of Mises' Human Action in order to understand the fundamentals. And as Babylon stated, you presume far too much by assuming that he hasn't heard your arguments before. I know I have. It is my opinion that the idea should be to use the currently existing infrastructure as a tool for the demise of its unjust parts. Democratic states are inherently structures of power and violence. However, they are the only power centers which still respect the will of the people, to at least some degree. No. Democracies are a tool to take away the power from the people. Democracy is political darwinism, where only the better liers and charlatans prosper at the expense of the people that do actual work. In a true democracy, states must justify their actions to the people they claim to represent. What is this true democracy you talk about? We are living in a true democracy and that is why things dont work. Private corporations are not subject to people at all. First, corporations are a creation of the government. Corporations are a special enterprise with government given privileges. What you meant to say is that private enterprises are not subject to the people. Which is completely false. Private enterprises are way more subjected to the people than any governments. Private firms can not force you to do or buy something against your will. Government can. All a private enterprise can do is offer you a better product in the hope that you will want to buy it. Democratic governments just need to put a gun in your head and you must obey. Free markets, almost by definition, cannot exist in the presence of unchecked private control over capital, which is what you are advocating. This is why I wince every time the "free market" is invoked as an argument either for or against something. The free market is absence of regulation. If there are government regulations is not a free market. I cannot understand the idea that because a tool (in this case, government) is being used for injustice by private power that we should eliminate the tool.  I dont know why you would abolish slavery just because some abuse their slaves... Would you outlaw firearms because criminals use them? Or would you take steps to prevent crime?
We should use the tool to dismantle the source of the abuse - which is private concentrations of power and capital, which eventually coalesce for the purpose of distorting and controlling economies (mega mergers, collusion). In doing so, the process will necessarily lead to a more democratic society. In the distant future, it may be possible to be free of states and create free and fair markets (which require perfect freedom and perfect information, according to Adam Smith), but that is not a problem that we can even hope to address now. More pressing and realistically addressable are the needs to improve the better parts of the current system, such as democracy and the parts which support justice and human dignity. This means using the existing political system and changing policy via popular democratic means - just as every historical example (civil rights, women's rights, etc) clearly demonstrates. This should include a serious discussion about the role of private power in economies, both in terms of market manipulation and the policies for which they lobby. I think most people can see immediate remedies for these problems: abolish corporate bailouts at the expense of the population and ensure the policy reflects the wishes of the people rather than the wishes of the economic elite. This is democracy. Democracy is a system so the elite can get their way. Democracy is political darwinism. You are dreaming. The concentration of power happens because of the government, not because of the market. |
|
|
|
I would love a direct democracy. <- The only true democracy.
?? I guess you think a true democracy is good. Democracy is the system designed to take away the power from the people while making them think they still have it. Democracy is an authoritarian system. |
|
|
|
You have all raised good points. But the fact is, if there were deflation, I would *NOT* buy a new cellular phone, Do you realize cellular phones do go down in prices all the time and you have bought it anyways? It seems to me you are contradicting yourself. Electronics in general go down in price all the time, and people keep buying it. Everybody knows that if they wait 6 months the phone, the tv, the computer,... they are going to buy will be cheaper. And yet, they still buy it. I would *NOT* buy anything I considered unnecessary This is actually good. You should not buy anything that you dont want to buy just because you know you need to spend the money before it devaluates. The function of the economy is not to make people consume, consume and consume more. The function of the economy is to provide what people need and want. And if someday (that I dont think I will see) we have too much of everything, that day we can stop working this much and just work 1 day a week (in fact this has happened a bit, since 200-300 years ago, people used to work a lot more hours). (taking into account how high the deflation actually is). As a matter of fact, I'm doing exactly that with the bitcoins I have - they're still going up, and I'm keeping them until I need them. I wouldn't invest unless I was guaranteed a return greater than the appreciation of my currency (measured in purchasing power). Bitcoin is a special case, because is starting, mainly for two reasons. 1. As much as it hurts to admit, there is still not much you can buy with bitcoins. 2.Also, there is still not a financial system that operates in bitcoins that allows to transmit bitcoins savings into bitcoin investments. There are many examples of where something that harms an individual can be good for society in general. e.g. traffic, environment, queues, paying taxes, damn I've a mind-blank and can't think of others. This is a fallacy as big as it gets. First of all you need to define what is good for society in general, because this is the typiucal discourse the elite use to mean you do as I command. But assuming you mean what its better for the majority or for the longer term, its still false. Traffic? The first roads in the USA where privately built by cooperatives formed in the different towns. There are examples of private roads that work fine. Environment? Precisely this is an example how the government is managing it and not letting the market manage it by not allowing environmental property rights. You can see the horrible results. Queues? Paying taxes? ? But the Prisoner's Dilemma is a great place to start studying these phenomena. (this goes way back to a long debate about morality, see "should you kill the fat man" on philosophyexperiments.com; let's not get so deep here.).
The economy may be a statistic, but it's important. Do you deny when the economy suffers (i.e. recession, depression) that people suffer more? Or that people are better off when the economy improves? It is a statistic - a very important one, something like the average of people's earnings or wealth. So? It seems to me you are implying that more spending can heal the economy. If this were true, all the government spening should have taken the USA out of the recession. It has not. Its an economic fallacy. Only the people working and producing what they need through NON DISTORTED market signals are going to solve the depression. All the government spending its hurting the economy. #grondilu: someone who hoards is restricting others' ability to make their necessary purchases, *especially* if there's no new money coming into the market. Prices go down if there is less money. Also the banking system reacts (or should react) creating more bills if there is an increase in the deman for money. This is not an issue. I could keep going. |
|
|
|
There is heavy M3 deflation right now. Or rather there is suspected heavy M3 deflation right now, since the fed no longer measures it. It is one of the reasons the Fed can temporarily get away with monetizing government debt. It is simply keeping trying to keep the money supply stable by creating money via gov debt instead of private debt.
If you say there is money that is not backed by a debt instrument I would like to see an example? The only exception I know of is the very small pile of gold central banks still hold because they know they cannot trust each other. When the central bank monetizes the government debt, that is the government printing money, there is no debt there. Now you are saying hey! you just said the central bank bought government debt. Lets see: The central bank buys government bonds and, in the mid-long term, never sells them. If you check any central bank, they just keep buying more and more government debt. There are some short term operations where they sell gov bonds, but in the mid-long run they always increase the amount of bonds. When the bonds mature they renew them. In the mid-long run, central banks always increase their bond holdings. So basically the government is never going to return the principal on a monetized bond, because its always going to be renewed. Now what about the interests? The interests the government pays on the bonds are central bank profits. The central bank profits go back to the government (check the law). So basically the government gets back the interest, its like it does not pay it. So when the central bank monetizes government debt, neither the pricnipal nor the interests are going to be payed in reality. So basically its not debt, its an accounting trick. The central bank uses the government debt as collateral to increase the money supply. If you still think monetizes bonds are debt, I will borrow from you all the money you have in those conditions (not repaying it and not paying the interests). When the central bank monetizes government bonds its equivalent to the government printing money. |
|
|
|
|
That tells you something about politicians priorities and how they decided to allocate resources.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
