Free market efficiency and planned obsolescence

[Mittlyle]

Free market is advocated as efficient system as resources are allocated by the 'invisible hand' of the markets. I, however find the efficiency claims quite unfounded as direct consequence of maximizing profits is phenomenon know as planned obsolescence. That is, products are made inferior than need be just to be able to resell updated version as soon as possible. Also resources are recycled only when its profitable comparing to new materials, meaning its very rarely going to happen voluntarily. These two factors make free market extremele wasteful when considering resources. My claim is that by limited central control you could have hands down more efficient outcomes than in pure laissez-faire. By effieciency I'm speaking about use of commodities of real economy. I'm not impressed by abstract numbers representing speculation.

(Oh, btw, I'm really advocate of free market provided there is sufficient regulation for enviromental matters.)

[1714169433]

1714169433

[1714169433]

1714169433

[1714169433]

1714169433

[AyeYo]

There is only a miniscule minority of economic schools of thought that believe that a completely unregulated market is perfectly efficient.  The rest (and any that are taken seriously) recognize the need for a moderate level of intervention in markets to address exactly the type of issues you've identified. 

What's good for profit and what is long-term sustainable are often worlds apart.

[NghtRppr]

First of all, it's always fallacious to compare our current system of fascism (privately owned business with public regulations) with a truly free market (privately owned business without public regulations). So don't think that our current system is any reflection of an actual free market unless you have taken into consideration all the ways in which the government is interfering.

As far as planned obsolescence goes, if it costs $1 to make a product X that will last 1 year, yet Company A makes it so that it only lasts 6 months then Company B has an incentive to make a version of product X that will last 7 months. Also, Company C has an incentive to make a version of product X that will last 8 months, and so on. The length of time that a version of product X will last at a cost of $1 will tend to approach 1 year. Free market competition tends to prevent wastefulness.

As far as pollution goes, as long as people value pristine land, clean air and fresh water, there will be a cost associated with spoiling them. Businesses that can avoid these costs will increase their profits, expand and eventually drive the less profitable polluters out of business. The only reason why we have such a problem with pollution is because governments prevent private property owners from suing for damages from pollution. Also, we a have a tragedy of the commons on rivers and other public land. If you dump garbage on my privately owned land or burn coal fires that pollute my air (assuming I was there first) and I can sue you, you will stop or be sued into bankruptcy. Right now, there's no way to stop some company from polluting the air on my land because the government gives them a free pass.

[em3rgentOrdr]

First of all, it's always fallacious to compare our current system of fascism (privately owned business with public regulations) with a truly free market (privately owned business without public regulations). So don't think that our current system is any reflection of an actual free market unless you have taken into consideration all the ways in which the government is interfering.

As far as planned obsolescence goes, if it costs $1 to make a product X that will last 1 year, yet Company A makes it so that it only lasts 6 months then Company B has an incentive to make a version of product X that will last 7 months. Also, Company C has an incentive to make a version of product X that will last 8 months, and so on. The length of time that a version of product X will last at a cost of $1 will tend to approach 1 year. Free market competition tends to prevent wastefulness.

As far as pollution goes, as long as people value pristine land, clean air and fresh water, there will be a cost associated with spoiling them. Businesses that can avoid these costs will increase their profits, expand and eventually drive the less profitable polluters out of business. The only reason why we have such a problem with pollution is because governments prevent private property owners from suing for damages from pollution. Also, we a have a tragedy of the commons on rivers and other public land. If you dump garbage on my privately owned land or burn coal fires that pollute my air (assuming I was there first) and I can sue you, you will stop or be sued into bankruptcy. Right now, there's no way to stop some company from polluting the air on my land because the government gives them a free pass.

+1.

Free market is advocated as efficient system as resources are allocated by the 'invisible hand' of the markets. I, however find the efficiency claims quite unfounded as direct consequence of maximizing profits is phenomenon know as planned obsolescence. That is, products are made inferior than need be just to be able to resell updated version as soon as possible.

Aha.  Have you considered the possibility that possibly planned obsolesce for some products is indeed the most effective use of resources?  For instance, cars should be assumed to have some accident after several years, so it is actually a waste of resources to design the engine and machinery to last forever.  Computer parts are most likely to become obsolete after ~5 years, so it is a waste of resources to over engineer the reliability at the expense of lower performance and higher cost.  Now, mind you, if you do want a piece of equipment to last forever, then you will have to pay.  Most of the computer logic that NASA sends out into space is designed with triple modular redundancy such that if one copy of a module fails, there are two other copies.

Anyway, just look at all the old stuff you can buy on ebay...some of it is really good.  I have purchased a lot of great but really old saxophones for really cheap off ebay from people who had them sitting in their basement for years.  I fixed them up, and they play just fine.  Sounds like an efficient allocation of resources to me.  But then you also have these crappy student models that are designed to break after 4 or so years, because it turns out most students don't end up playing their instrument for life.

Also resources are recycled only when its profitable comparing to new materials, meaning its very rarely going to happen voluntarily. These two factors make free market extremele wasteful when considering resources. My claim is that by limited central control you could have hands down more efficient outcomes than in pure laissez-faire. By effieciency I'm speaking about use of commodities of real economy. I'm not impressed by abstract numbers representing speculation.

Have you considered that maybe because silica and aluminum are so plentiful, it may actually not be worth the resources and labor (depending on the economics of a particular situation) to recycle in some cases?

[AyeYo]

First of all, it's always fallacious to compare our current system of fascism (privately owned business with public regulations) with a truly free market (privately owned business without public regulations). So don't think that our current system is any reflection of an actual free market unless you have taken into consideration all the ways in which the government is interfering.

As far as planned obsolescence goes, if it costs $1 to make a product X that will last 1 year, yet Company A makes it so that it only lasts 6 months then Company B has an incentive to make a version of product X that will last 7 months. Also, Company C has an incentive to make a version of product X that will last 8 months, and so on. The length of time that a version of product X will last at a cost of $1 will tend to approach 1 year. Free market competition tends to prevent wastefulness.

Back in reality land, Company's A, B, and C have the MOST incentive to all get together and mutually agree to make product X only last six months AND charge an outrageous price for it.

As far as pollution goes, as long as people value pristine land, clean air and fresh water, there will be a cost associated with spoiling them. Businesses that can avoid these costs will increase their profits, expand and eventually drive the less profitable polluters out of business. The only reason why we have such a problem with pollution is because governments prevent private property owners from suing for damages from pollution. Also, we a have a tragedy of the commons on rivers and other public land. If you dump garbage on my privately owned land or burn coal fires that pollute my air (assuming I was there first) and I can sue you, you will stop or be sued into bankruptcy. Right now, there's no way to stop some company from polluting the air on my land because the government gives them a free pass.

100% untrue, as usual....

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/nov2010/mass-n22.shtml

You can current sue companies for pollution all you want, provided you can actually prove they are the polluter.



The fact of the matter is the "costs" of pollution are typically far lower than amount of money saved by not worrying about being environmentally friendly - which is, obviously, why businesses pollute in the first place.  So, no, these costs do not drive polluting companies out of business.


I also find it hilarious that you once again manage to pin even this issue on government.  You think government gives a free pass to pollute... I guess that's why big business and the free marketeers are up in arms over every environmental regulation that comes along.    Pollution would be at its maximum without government involement.  Government is currently the only thing controlling it, because law suits don't do a damn thing.

[FreeMoney]

Will people prefer your product that breaks fast or mine that lasts longer?

[AyeYo]

Will people prefer your product that breaks fast or mine that lasts longer?

Why make yours last longer when we can get together and both make them break quickly to increase our profits?

[Anonymous]

Will people prefer your product that breaks fast or mine that lasts longer?

Why make yours last longer when we can get together and both make them break quickly to increase our profits?

Then an individual like me comes along who likes to build great things, not just make money. I build a product that's cheaper and lasts longer.

Both are in for trouble.

[NghtRppr]

Back in reality land, Company's A, B, and C have the MOST incentive to all get together and mutually agree to make product X only last six months AND charge an outrageous price for it.

You're talking about cartels. The same profit motive that causes them to form also causes them to fail. If Companies A, B and C all agree to charge the same high prices, each company has an incentive to charge lower prices to gain more market share. Even though they are charging less, the volume is greater and total revenue can increase. But let's say that A, B and C resist the urge to cheat and the cartel remains strong. There is still a higher profitability in that market which encourages Company D to enter the market and undercut the others.

You can current sue companies for pollution all you want, provided you can actually prove they are the polluter.

No, you can't. You can only win a lawsuit against companies for pollution if they are breaking government regulations. You can't win a lawsuit outright for pollution if they are following regulations. That was my point. As long as the government says they can pollute, they can pollute.

Why make yours last longer when we can get together and both make them break quickly to increase our profits?

Because I can increase my profits faster by undercutting you and gaining market share as well as goodwill for my brand which goes a long way towards profitability. People pay hire prices for brands they associate with quality.

[AyeYo]

Will people prefer your product that breaks fast or mine that lasts longer?

Why make yours last longer when we can get together and both make them break quickly to increase our profits?

Then an individual like me comes along who likes to build great things, not just make money. I build a product that's cheaper and lasts longer.

Both are in for trouble.

Not at all.  There are many options available.  

First off, better and cheaper isn't always possible.  Look at a field like microprocessors.  Intel is already on the bleeding edge.  Joe Atlas Idiot isn't going to come along and magically design and build a better microprocessor and sell it for less money.  So it sounds get in theory, but it doesn't work like that in practice.

Where are you going to get the bankroll to attempt to take on a large oligopoly of companies?

Even if you could, do you know what happens when you make something that lasts forever and sell it for cheap?  You go out of business.  New customers are in finite supply.  Returning customers are in infinite supply.

Finally, if all else fails and your impossible idea actually works, the oligopoly will just have you killed and/or your business terrorized.  It happens all the time in the real world.  In Liberland with no government powerful enough to enforce laws and execute retribution, the powerful companies of the world can do whatever they please.

[NghtRppr]

Even if you could, do you know what happens when you make something that lasts forever and sell it for cheap?

You focus on adding improvements. Your argument would only apply assuming we have reached the apex of technology, which we haven't.

In Liberland with no government powerful enough to enforce laws and execute retribution, the powerful companies of the world can do whatever they please.

Let's concentrate on one of your fallacies at a time please.

[AyeYo]

Back in reality land, Company's A, B, and C have the MOST incentive to all get together and mutually agree to make product X only last six months AND charge an outrageous price for it.

You're talking about cartels. The same profit motive that causes them to form also causes them to fail. If Companies A, B and C all agree to charge the same high prices, each company has an incentive to charge lower prices to gain more market share. Even though they are charging less, the volume is greater and total revenue can increase. But let's say that A, B and C resist the urge to cheat and the cartel remains strong. There is still a higher profitability in that market which encourages Company D to enter the market and undercut the others.

That's assuming Company D can even enter the market.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry

That's assuming Company A, B, or C doesn't buy Company D in it's infancy.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buyout

That's assuming it's even possible to undercut the other guys. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale

So you know what they say about assuming.  Having a start-up company just magically appear into an established industry and take away market share from an oligopoly of companies that have MASSIVE economics of scale advantages, more experience, pervasive marketing, etc.... yea it's just not going to happen.

You can current sue companies for pollution all you want, provided you can actually prove they are the polluter.

No, you can't. You can only win a lawsuit against companies for pollution if they are breaking government regulations. You can't win a lawsuit outright for pollution if they are following regulations. That was my point. As long as the government says they can pollute, they can pollute.

And in magically Liberland with no regulations at all, I'm going to sue you for smoking a cigaratte in your own yard seven blocks from my hosue because one microscopic bit of tar landed on my front yard and I have DNA evidence that proves it was from you.

So yea... no standards, no effective legal system.  Good luck with that.

We can currently pressure the government for stricter pollution standards.  You can't do that in Liberland.  All you can do is hope the privately owned courts aren't owned by the same company that's polluting your neighborhood.

Why make yours last longer when we can get together and both make them break quickly to increase our profits?

Because I can increase my profits faster by undercutting you and gaining market share as well as goodwill for my brand which goes a long way towards profitability. People pay hire prices for brands they associate with quality.

See response above.  It's very easy to say, but in reality land you've got a shark filled, ocean sized obsticale course to get through to actually accomplish those things.

[AyeYo]

Even if you could, do you know what happens when you make something that lasts forever and sell it for cheap?

You focus on adding improvements. Your argument would only apply assuming we have reached the apex of technology, which we haven't.

Ah to be so naive...

If only you could understand the difference between the ease of saying something and the ease of doing something.

[Anonymous]

Even if you could, do you know what happens when you make something that lasts forever and sell it for cheap?

You focus on adding improvements. Your argument would only apply assuming we have reached the apex of technology, which we haven't.

Ah to be so naive...

If only you could understand the difference between the ease of saying something and the ease of doing something.

I think you need to look at products such as Team Fortress 2. Companies actually do that sort of thing. Not every company is in it for the money.

[NghtRppr]

Having a start-up company just magically appear into an established industry and take away market share from an oligopoly of companies that have MASSIVE economics of scale advantages, more experience, pervasive marketing, etc.... yea it's just not going to happen.

Cartels lose the advantage of having an economy of scale by charging higher prices if they are high enough. I can enter the market at a smaller scale, pay higher costs yet still make a profit. I can also advertise exactly what I'm doing and show how the cartels are charging more than myself. People resent being gouged like that and word of mouth would quickly increase my market size. You've got a lot of "if's" that can be overcome and don't even apply to all cases.

And in magically Liberland with no regulations at all, I'm going to sue you for smoking a cigaratte in your own yard seven blocks from my hosue because one microscopic bit of tar landed on my front yard and I have DNA evidence that proves it was from you.

You have to show damages.

So yea... no standards, no effective legal system.  Good luck with that.

There will be courts.

All you can do is hope the privately owned courts aren't owned by the same company that's polluting your neighborhood.

There are many reasons why people wouldn't deal with courts that are biased without having some impartial party to settle disputes. Really though, describing a libertarian legal system isn't something I can do in a few sentences. It deserves a thread of its own.

[AyeYo]

Even if you could, do you know what happens when you make something that lasts forever and sell it for cheap?

You focus on adding improvements. Your argument would only apply assuming we have reached the apex of technology, which we haven't.

Ah to be so naive...

If only you could understand the difference between the ease of saying something and the ease of doing something.

I think you need to look at products such as Team Fortress 2. Companies actually do that sort of thing. Not every company is in it for the money.

Ah, but if they aren't all in it for the money (greed, rational egoism, et.al.) then the free market myth just got blown wide open, because it depends on everyone being it for self-interest and maximized profit.

[AyeYo]

Having a start-up company just magically appear into an established industry and take away market share from an oligopoly of companies that have MASSIVE economics of scale advantages, more experience, pervasive marketing, etc.... yea it's just not going to happen.

Cartels lose the advantage of having an economy of scale by charging higher prices if they are high enough. I can enter the market at a smaller scale, pay higher costs yet still make a profit. I can also advertise exactly what I'm doing and show how the cartels are charging more than myself. People resent being gouged like that and word of mouth would quickly increase my market size. You've got a lot of "if's" that can be overcome and don't even apply to all cases.

Dude... no... just... no.  Economics of scale has NOTHING to do with the prices being charged.  It has to do with procurement of supplies, logisitcs, etc.   It's based on purchasing power and thus size.  You REALLY need to hit up a school and get a simple footing in econ 101.


I guess this is why we see start-up oil companies blowing the Seven Sisters out of the water.  

And in magically Liberland with no regulations at all, I'm going to sue you for smoking a cigaratte in your own yard seven blocks from my hosue because one microscopic bit of tar landed on my front yard and I have DNA evidence that proves it was from you.

You have to show damages.

Says who?  Does the non-existent government put that law in writing?  I'll take you to the private court that my friend's company owns and sue the ever living shit out of you.  What's stopping me from doing it?

So yea... no standards, no effective legal system.  Good luck with that.

There will be courts.

Courts interpert laws and standards.  They do not make laws and standards.

All you can do is hope the privately owned courts aren't owned by the same company that's polluting your neighborhood.

There are many reasons why people wouldn't deal with courts that are biased without having some impartial party to settle disputes. Really though, describing a libertarian legal system isn't something I can do in a few sentences. It deserves a thread of its own.

Not deal with them?  What are you just going to not show up because you think they're biased?  Fine.  I'll pay the private police force (that my other friend happens to own, perks of being a rich guy - hell, maybe I'll send my own police force) to come arrest you for not appearing for your summons at my other friend's biased court.  What's stopping me from doing it?

[billyjoeallen]

Even if you could, do you know what happens when you make something that lasts forever and sell it for cheap?

You focus on adding improvements. Your argument would only apply assuming we have reached the apex of technology, which we haven't.

Ah to be so naive...

If only you could understand the difference between the ease of saying something and the ease of doing something.

I think you need to look at products such as Team Fortress 2. Companies actually do that sort of thing. Not every company is in it for the money.

Ah, but if they aren't all in it for the money (greed, rational egoism, et.al.) then the free market myth just got blown wide open, because it depends on everyone being it for self-interest and maximized profit.

Everything? EVERYTHING? really? It's easy to construct your straw man when you use absolutes like that. That might win you points with the peanut gallery, but if you actually believe that, well that's just sad.

"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, Son" ~Animal House

[AyeYo]

Even if you could, do you know what happens when you make something that lasts forever and sell it for cheap?

You focus on adding improvements. Your argument would only apply assuming we have reached the apex of technology, which we haven't.

Ah to be so naive...

If only you could understand the difference between the ease of saying something and the ease of doing something.

I think you need to look at products such as Team Fortress 2. Companies actually do that sort of thing. Not every company is in it for the money.

Ah, but if they aren't all in it for the money (greed, rational egoism, et.al.) then the free market myth just got blown wide open, because it depends on everyone being it for self-interest and maximized profit.

Everything? EVERYTHING? really? It's easy to construct your straw man when you use absolutes like that. That might win you points with the peanut gallery, but if you actually believe that, well that's just sad.

"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, Son" ~Animal House

The word "everything" doesn't even appear anywhere in my post.  Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

[em3rgentOrdr]

I can't wait for this whole aregument to become irrellvant once the open-source 3D printers and CRC routers mature and become commonplace...

"Son, back in the old days before a little kid like you could own a 3D printer, we were all held hostage by evil corporations that deliberately designed their products and toys to fail after a certain amount of time."

[AyeYo]

I can't wait for this whole aregument to become irrellvant once the open-source 3D printers and CRC routers mature and become commonplace...

"Son, back in the old days before a little kid like you could own a 3D printer, we were all held hostage by evil corporations that deliberately designed their products and toys to fail after a certain amount of time."

What happens after they become commonplace?

[NghtRppr]

Dude... no... just... no.  Economics of scale has NOTHING to do with the prices being charged.  It has to do with procurement of supplies, logisitcs, etc.   It's based on purchasing power and thus size.  You REALLY need to hit up a school and get a simple footing in econ 101.

I'm afraid you missed the point. Let's say that, since you are a large company, you can make product X for $10 a unit and since I'm a small company, I can only make them for $20 a unit. What happens when you charge $30 a unit? I can make them for $20 and sell them for $29 and still make a profit. Therefore, your economy of scale only gives you a benefit if you don't charge as high of a price as you otherwise would. That's my point. An economy of scale doesn't enable a cartel to charge whatever price it wants. Try to understand what I'm saying before you begin with the childish name calling.

Says who?  Does the non-existent government put that law in writing?  I'll take you to the private court that my friend's company owns and sue the ever living shit out of you.  What's stopping me from doing it?

Yes, let's say that when you and I have a dispute we both go to different courts and my court rules in my favor and your court rules in your favor. There are two possibilities then. Either the courts have some policy in place to account for this, some other third party that settles the dispute, or they are what are known as "bandit courts". The problem is that since the bandit courts have to fight everyone all the time and since fighting is expensive they are going to lose money compared to the other courts that will only have to fight some of the time. The bandit courts will eventually lose out to the legitimate courts due to competition.

Not deal with them?  What are you just going to not show up because you think they're biased?  Fine.  I'll pay the private police force (that my other friend happens to own, perks of being a rich guy - hell, maybe I'll send my own police force) to come arrest you for not appearing for your summons at my other friend's biased court.  What's stopping me from doing it?

Nothing is stopping you but since your firm isn't recognized as legitimate, I can just hire a legitimate firm which will have more money due to lower costs of only fighting some people, some of the time, to protect me on a contingency basis. In other words, after they wipe your police force out, they stick you with the bill for my services.

[billyjoeallen]

Even if you could, do you know what happens when you make something that lasts forever and sell it for cheap?

You focus on adding improvements. Your argument would only apply assuming we have reached the apex of technology, which we haven't.

Ah to be so naive...

If only you could understand the difference between the ease of saying something and the ease of doing something.

I think you need to look at products such as Team Fortress 2. Companies actually do that sort of thing. Not every company is in it for the money.

Ah, but if they aren't all in it for the money (greed, rational egoism, et.al.) then the free market myth just got blown wide open, because it depends on everyone being it for self-interest and maximized profit.

Everything? EVERYTHING? really? It's easy to construct your straw man when you use absolutes like that. That might win you points with the peanut gallery, but if you actually believe that, well that's just sad.

"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, Son" ~Animal House

The word "everything" doesn't even appear anywhere in my post.  Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

never said it did. The words "all","everyone", and "only" do, though, and I like your little ryme. It's like you graduated from the Jesse Jackson school of rhetoric.

[AyeYo]

Even if you could, do you know what happens when you make something that lasts forever and sell it for cheap?

You focus on adding improvements. Your argument would only apply assuming we have reached the apex of technology, which we haven't.

Ah to be so naive...

If only you could understand the difference between the ease of saying something and the ease of doing something.

I think you need to look at products such as Team Fortress 2. Companies actually do that sort of thing. Not every company is in it for the money.

Ah, but if they aren't all in it for the money (greed, rational egoism, et.al.) then the free market myth just got blown wide open, because it depends on everyone being it for self-interest and maximized profit.

Everything? EVERYTHING? really? It's easy to construct your straw man when you use absolutes like that. That might win you points with the peanut gallery, but if you actually believe that, well that's just sad.

"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, Son" ~Animal House

The word "everything" doesn't even appear anywhere in my post.  Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

never said it did. The words "all","everyone", and "only" do, though, and I like your little ryme. It's like you graduated from the Jesse Jackson school of rhetoric.

Racist libertarian?  NO WAI!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0HZW9JiudY

[Anonymous]

Benefit and value isn't defined by money alone.

[billyjoeallen]

Even if you could, do you know what happens when you make something that lasts forever and sell it for cheap?

You focus on adding improvements. Your argument would only apply assuming we have reached the apex of technology, which we haven't.

Ah to be so naive...

If only you could understand the difference between the ease of saying something and the ease of doing something.

I think you need to look at products such as Team Fortress 2. Companies actually do that sort of thing. Not every company is in it for the money.

Ah, but if they aren't all in it for the money (greed, rational egoism, et.al.) then the free market myth just got blown wide open, because it depends on everyone being it for self-interest and maximized profit.

Everything? EVERYTHING? really? It's easy to construct your straw man when you use absolutes like that. That might win you points with the peanut gallery, but if you actually believe that, well that's just sad.

"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, Son" ~Animal House

The word "everything" doesn't even appear anywhere in my post.  Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

never said it did. The words "all","everyone", and "only" do, though, and I like your little ryme. It's like you graduated from the Jesse Jackson school of rhetoric.

Racist libertarian?  NO WAI!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0HZW9JiudY

DRINK!

[AyeYo]

Dude... no... just... no.  Economics of scale has NOTHING to do with the prices being charged.  It has to do with procurement of supplies, logisitcs, etc.   It's based on purchasing power and thus size.  You REALLY need to hit up a school and get a simple footing in econ 101.

I'm afraid you missed the point. Let's say that, since you are a large company, you can make product X for $10 a unit and since I'm a small company, I can only make them for $20 a unit. What happens when you charge $30 a unit? I can make them for $20 and sell them for $29 and still make a profit. Therefore, your economy of scale only gives you a benefit if you don't charge as high of a price as you otherwise would. That's my point. An economy of scale doesn't enable a cartel to charge whatever price it wants. Try to understand what I'm saying before you begin with the childish name calling.

I don't think you fully grasp the difference in production costs between a massive conglomerate of companies vs. a tiny start up.

Like I said, difficulty of speaking it and difficulty of doing it are worlds apart.  Hit up some business classes and get back to me when we can talk about this intelligently.

Says who?  Does the non-existent government put that law in writing?  I'll take you to the private court that my friend's company owns and sue the ever living shit out of you.  What's stopping me from doing it?

Yes, let's say that when you and I have a dispute we both go to different courts and my court rules in my favor and your court rules in your favor. There are two possibilities then. Either the courts have some policy in place to account for this, some other third party that settles the dispute, or they are what are known as "bandit courts". The problem is that since the bandit courts have to fight everyone all the time and since fighting is expensive they are going to lose money compared to the other courts that will only have to fight some of the time. The bandit courts will eventually lose out to the legitimate courts due to competition.

LOL  You can't be serious.  Fight what?  Fist fight?  Who is going to determine what court is actually right?


Regardless, my private police force is still coming to your house to arrest you on charge of pollution... no... wreckless endangerment... no... attempted murder, and then drag you to my friend's court who sentences you to hard labor... no... death.  Since I have more money than you, my much larger police... no... military force will simply come drag you from the court room before you even have a chance to protest and it'll be off with your head.  Who's going to stop me?

Not deal with them?  What are you just going to not show up because you think they're biased?  Fine.  I'll pay the private police force (that my other friend happens to own, perks of being a rich guy - hell, maybe I'll send my own police force) to come arrest you for not appearing for your summons at my other friend's biased court.  What's stopping me from doing it?

Nothing is stopping you but since your firm isn't recognized as legitimate, I can just hire a legitimate firm which will have more money due to lower costs of only fighting some people, some of the time, to protect me on a contingency basis. In other words, after they wipe your police force out, they stick you with the bill for my services.

Sorry, I'm a massive, international business and, just like in the real world, we stick together, so no one large enough will even give you tiny guys the time of day.  Even if they did, all the Joe Nobodies of the world aren't going to find "firms" willing to take on what will be the superpower military forces of Liberland.  No one is going to go to war (and it will literally be war) for one worthless guy and his failed lawsuit.


So, as you can see, the state of nature quickly devolves into what the state of nature is: the man with the biggest gun makes the rules, and guess what... that's not you.

[NghtRppr]

I don't think you fully grasp the difference in production costs between a massive conglomerate of companies vs. a tiny start up.

Like I said, difficulty of speaking it and difficulty doing it are worlds apart.  Hit up some business classes and get back to me when we can talk about this intelligently.

You haven't said anything of substance so there's nothing to argue against, just more insults. I think that's rather telling that your position is without merit.

LOL  You can't be serious.  Fight what?  Fist fight?  Who is going to determine what court is actually right?

Just like there is no final authority in disputes between countries there is no final authority between disputes between private courts. It's something that the market will have to sort out.

Regardless, my private police force is still coming to your house to arrest you on charge of pollution... no... wreckless endangerment... no... attempted murder, and then drag you to my friend's court who sentences you to hard labor... no... death.  Since I have more money than you, my much larger police... no... military force will simply come drag you from the court room before you even have a chance to protest and it'll be off with your head.  Who's going to stop me?

You won't have more money for long if you keep spending it on private police forces that don't turn a profit and wage costly wars over silly whims. There would be other companies not supported by one rich guy trying to abuse his power but companies supported by millions of middling but decent people. They would take my case on a contingency, protect me and then charge you for the service.

Sorry, I'm a massive, international business and, just like in the real world, we stick together, so no one large enough will even give your tiny guys the time of day.  Even if they did, all the Joe Nobodies of the world aren't going to find "firms" willing to take on what will be the superpower military forces of Liberland.  No one is going to go to war (and it will literally be war) for one worthless guy and his failed lawsuit.

Like I said, you might have more money at the start but if you waste it on fighting pointless wars, you won't for long. You might be able to oppress a few people, me included, for a while but in the long run you will lose.

[Anonymous]

So, as you can see, the state of nature quickly devolves into what the state of nature is: the man with the biggest gun makes the rules, and guess what... that's not you.

So, what do we do? We give all the guns to even bigger entities and with blind faith we trust that these entities won't deny our whims for their own.

Oh, but no. It would be totally unacceptable to give guns to everybody.... That might level the playing field. Gosh.

[NghtRppr]

So, as you can see, the state of nature quickly devolves into what the state of nature is: the man with the biggest gun makes the rules, and guess what... that's not you.

So, what do we do? We give all the guns to even bigger entities and with blind faith we trust that these entities won't deny our whims for their own.

Oh, but no. It would be totally unacceptable to give guns to everybody.... That might level the playing field. Gosh.

Notice how his argument is nothing but a defeatist "tyranny is inevitable so lets give up". Nowhere does he say anything about legitimacy or morality. I think that keeping your hands off of other people and their property unless you have their permission is fairly important compared to a bunch of hypothetical bullshit that has never been tested.

[AyeYo]

LOL  You can't be serious.  Fight what?  Fist fight?  Who is going to determine what court is actually right?

Just like there is no final authority in disputes between countries there is no final authority between disputes between private courts. It's something that the market will have to sort out.

There is most definitely final authority.  They go to war and the last one left standing wins the argument.  For stuff short of war we have the UN.


So by "market figuring it out" what you mean to say is that you have no answer.

Regardless, my private police force is still coming to your house to arrest you on charge of pollution... no... wreckless endangerment... no... attempted murder, and then drag you to my friend's court who sentences you to hard labor... no... death.  Since I have more money than you, my much larger police... no... military force will simply come drag you from the court room before you even have a chance to protest and it'll be off with your head.  Who's going to stop me?

You won't have more money for long if you keep spending it on private police forces that don't turn a profit and wage costly wars over silly whims. There would be other companies not supported by one rich guy trying to abuse his power but companies supported by millions of middling but decent people. They would take my case on a contingency, protect me and then charge you for the service.

Ah, but that's where you're wrong.  My private military force will ENSURE my present and future profits - basically, it'll fill the role that the US military has today.

As for the rest... step outside and look around you.  Read a history book.  As idealistic a picture as you'd like to paint, it just doesn't work like that in the real world.

Sorry, I'm a massive, international business and, just like in the real world, we stick together, so no one large enough will even give your tiny guys the time of day.  Even if they did, all the Joe Nobodies of the world aren't going to find "firms" willing to take on what will be the superpower military forces of Liberland.  No one is going to go to war (and it will literally be war) for one worthless guy and his failed lawsuit.

Like I said, you might have more money at the start but if you waste it on fighting pointless wars, you won't for long. You might be able to oppress a few people, me included, for a while but in the long run you will lose.

Again, that's were you're wrong.  Those wars aren't pointless.  As an example, the war against you (which really isn't a war, just an offing on one guy) allows me to keep polluting your property with impunity, which keeps my production costs lower, thus boosting profits.


I hate to break it to you, but this is how stuff works in the real world.  This stuff isn't hypothetical, it's going on RIGHT NOW.  The only difference is that my private military force is currently a government military force.  My purpose in these examples is to show you that government is NOT necessary for this pattern of behavior to continue.  I (rich guy) can make do just fine with or without goverment.  I can keep you under my thumb by leveraging the power of government in our current situation and I can keep you under my thumb using my own power directly in Liberland.  Moving to Liberland matters not for me, and in fact saves me the time and effort of installing all my friends in government positions and saves me billions in lobbying costs.

[AyeYo]

So, as you can see, the state of nature quickly devolves into what the state of nature is: the man with the biggest gun makes the rules, and guess what... that's not you.

So, what do we do? We give all the guns to even bigger entities and with blind faith we trust that these entities won't deny our whims for their own.

Oh, but no. It would be totally unacceptable to give guns to everybody.... That might level the playing field. Gosh.

Notice how his argument is nothing but a defeatist "tyranny is inevitable so lets give up". Nowhere does he say anything about legitimacy or morality. I think that keeping your hands off of other people and their property unless you have their permission is fairly important compared to a bunch of hypothetical bullshit that has never been tested.

Please tell me you can see the irony in this post.

[Anonymous]

Your international company cannot sustain its monopoly if other entities and individuals are capable of allocating the same amount of force.

[NghtRppr]

There is most definitely final authority.  They go to war and the last one left standing wins the argument.

Then you answered your own question. The private courts go to war and the last one standing wins.

Ah, but that's where you're wrong.  My private military force will ENSURE my present and future profits - basically, it'll fill the role that the US military has today.

Fighting wars costs money compared to not fighting. You may oppress people for profit but the people fighting back are fighting for their freedom which is a lot more motivating. Also, at some point, your private police force is going to have to start fighting their own families and that's going to destroy their morale especially when you don't have legitimacy. It's funny how you pretend that all the big companies will take over and oppress everyone yet the most powerful country in the world currently allows me to criticize the leader. Yet somehow, this is a magical property that only government can achieve.

Again, that's were you're wrong.  Those wars aren't pointless.  As an example, the war against you (which really isn't a war, just an offing on one guy) allows me to keep polluting your property with impunity, which keeps my production costs lower, thus boosting profits.

You can't even keep your own arguments straight. You were attacking me because a microscopic bit of tar got on your property, remember?

[AyeYo]

Your international company cannot sustain its monopoly if other entities and individuals are capable of allocating the same amount of force.

And the world can't stay in orbit if gravity ceases to exist.


You just love making this stupid statements, don't you?  Regardless, you're strawmanning the every living shit out of this thread.


Bottom line: MAN WITH THE BIGGEST GUN RULES  He who conquers the rest, will make the rules.  There is no justice, equality, or morality in state of nature Liberland.  There is only the powerful ruling the weak.

[AyeYo]

There is most definitely final authority.  They go to war and the last one left standing wins the argument.

Then you answered your own question. The private courts go to war and the last one standing wins.

Sounds like a society I want to live in.  Many thumbs up!

Ah, but that's where you're wrong.  My private military force will ENSURE my present and future profits - basically, it'll fill the role that the US military has today.

Fighting wars costs money compared to not fighting. You may oppress people for profit but the people fighting back are fighting for their freedom which is a lot more motivating. Also, at some point, your private police force is going to have to start fighting their own families and that's going to destroy their moral especially when you don't have legitimacy. It's funny how you pretend that all the big companies will take over and oppress everyone yet the most powerful country in the world currently allows me to criticize the leader. Yet somehow, this is a magical property that only government can achieve.

That's because you fail at understanding the system.  As simple as you want to make it, it's more complex than you can ever imagine.

Again, that's were you're wrong.  Those wars aren't pointless.  As an example, the war against you (which really isn't a war, just an offing on one guy) allows me to keep polluting your property with impunity, which keeps my production costs lower, thus boosting profits.

You can't even keep your own arguments straight. You were attacking me because a microscopic bit of tar got on your property, remember?

You're right.  Too many strawmen.  Point remains the same: man with the biggest gun makes the rules.  Liberland quickly devolves into global war and those who come out on top (and it'll be the ones that control all the capital) get to rule with an iron fist.  Doesn't really sound like a utopia of freedom to me.

[NghtRppr]

Sounds like a society I want to live in.  Many thumbs up!

It's the society you live in remember? You said that's how countries settle disputes. Somehow it's a different story when it's private courts?

That's because you fail at understanding the system.  As simple as you want to make it, it's more complex than you can ever imagine.

That's just your baseless assertion.

You're right.

I know I'm right and it also defeats your point. Persecuting me frivolously is a waste of money and you'll go broke.

Bottom line: MAN WITH THE BIGGEST GUN RULES  He who conquers the rest, will make the rules.  There is no justice, equality, or morality in state of nature Liberland.  There is only the powerful ruling the weak.

I'd say that greater than 90% of the people on Earth are decent hardworking people that wouldn't want to be caught committing a crime and don't want violence in their daily lives. Your criticism applies only if most people are scum and it would equally apply to any form of society.

All tyrants get overthrown eventually. It only takes one pissed off guy with a gun to catch him slipping.

[billyjoeallen]

That's because you fail at understanding the system.  As simple as you want to make it, it's more complex than you can ever imagine.

It's complex by design, that way the gun in the room can remain hidden, hidden behind empty platitudes such as "consent of the governed" and 'rule of law".

[Mittlyle]

Free market is advocated as efficient system as resources are allocated by the 'invisible hand' of the markets. I, however find the efficiency claims quite unfounded as direct consequence of maximizing profits is phenomenon know as planned obsolescence. That is, products are made inferior than need be just to be able to resell updated version as soon as possible.

Aha.  Have you considered the possibility that possibly planned obsolesce for some products is indeed the most effective use of resources?  For instance, cars should be assumed to have some accident after several years, so it is actually a waste of resources to design the engine and machinery to last forever.  Computer parts are most likely to become obsolete after ~5 years, so it is a waste of resources to over engineer the reliability at the expense of lower performance and higher cost.  Now, mind you, if you do want a piece of equipment to last forever, then you will have to pay.  Most of the computer logic that NASA sends out into space is designed with triple modular redundancy such that if one copy of a module fails, there are two other copies.

Also resources are recycled only when its profitable comparing to new materials, meaning its very rarely going to happen voluntarily. These two factors make free market extremele wasteful when considering resources. My claim is that by limited central control you could have hands down more efficient outcomes than in pure laissez-faire. By effieciency I'm speaking about use of commodities of real economy. I'm not impressed by abstract numbers representing speculation.

Have you considered that maybe because silica and aluminum are so plentiful, it may actually not be worth the resources and labor (depending on the economics of a particular situation) to recycle in some cases?

In my opinion you are using bunch of straw-mans here.

By planned obsolescence I obviously mean that the product becomes obsolete before it's outpaced by development and it's natural lifetime. If that wasn't the purpose why even bother? Everything else is optimizing the use of resources which obviously is favorable. By regulations you could improve the use of resources significantly.

And yes, there are resources not worth recycling or using more efficiently. But there definitely are those which should be used better but that isn't cost-efficient under our regulatory framework. There are many ways to do that. Here I'll just say it's certainly possible.

First of all, it's always fallacious to compare our current system of fascism (privately owned business with public regulations) with a truly free market (privately owned business without public regulations). So don't think that our current system is any reflection of an actual free market unless you have taken into consideration all the ways in which the government is interfering.

I have no misconceptions of what free market ought to be. The difference in our views is that you label public regulations as inherently bad, I think they can be either bad or good. To summarize my view: bad regulation < no regulation < good regulation. My opinion is that the free market as said would be even worse system.

As to the rest of the conversation, it seems it's about whether competition functions properly under free market, and thus will planned obsolescence be a valid strategy. My opinion is that as long there are IPRs, barrier of entry to any industry is too large, and thus results in monopolies and cartels, which leads to my point. To be honest I think free market without IPR would be pretty good system even with little regulation, but as thats currently unreasonable I think the so called free market would be fatal.

[AyeYo]

All tyrants get overthrown eventually. It only takes one pissed off guy with a gun to catch him slipping.

And a form of government is established to protect the weak from the strong, in an attempt to keep the tyrants out of power.


I don't think you realize how difficult it is to argue this stuff against you because you have: A - no concept and understanding of history, and, B - no concept of understand of how/why we are where we are today, and how the system functions.

I'd highly recommend these two books to you.  They're no some BS pulled out of somebody's ass (i.e. Atlas Shrugged), but actual scholarly research works with real citations and backing up of claims, as well as tremendous amounts of first-hand research.  They will help you learn what you're lacking: the happenings of modern WORLD history (not the US/UK-centric history you get in school) and the highly entwined political and economic relationships of our current world system.

http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0805079831

http://www.amazon.com/Darker-Nations-Peoples-History-Third/dp/1565847857

[AyeYo]

That's because you fail at understanding the system.  As simple as you want to make it, it's more complex than you can ever imagine.

It's complex by design, that way the gun in the room can remain hidden, hidden behind empty platitudes such as "consent of the governed" and 'rule of law".

Close, but not quite.  It's hiding behind empty platitudes like "freedom", "democracy", "free markets", "business friendly," "liberty", "patriotism", and "American dream".

If you think that regulation free Liberland is going to prevent that from developing again, rather than actually facilitating it's more rapid and far easier development, thus growing it more pervasive and sinister than it already is... well then you're quite delusional.  You cannot rein in the greedy and powerful by handing them the world on a silver platter.

[NghtRppr]

And a form of government is established to protect the weak from the strong, in an attempt to keep the tyrants out of power.

The only difference between voluntary organization and government is that the government uses coercion. Without it people would only do what they voluntarily wanted to do. It's hard to see how protecting the weak from the strong wouldn't be one of those things. If it isn't how could a government possibly accomplish that? It can't.

Thanks for the book recommendations, I'll check them out and see if they merit reading, but unless you can make a cogent argument in your own words then this isn't a debate.

You cannot rein in the greedy and powerful by handing them the world on a silver platter.

Concentrating power in the hands of a few politicians is handing them the world on a silver platter. Decentralizing power isn't. Rich people can organize and lobby more effectively than poor people. That's why any system based on swaying votes is going to necessarily favor the rich. Of course, it's easier for you to make baseless assertions, call people names, etc, than to actually address the arguments with some kind of evidenced based reasoning.

[billyjoeallen]

That's because you fail at understanding the system.  As simple as you want to make it, it's more complex than you can ever imagine.

It's complex by design, that way the gun in the room can remain hidden, hidden behind empty platitudes such as "consent of the governed" and 'rule of law".

Close, but not quite.  It's hiding behind empty platitudes like "freedom", "democracy", "free markets", "business friendly," "liberty", "patriotism", and "American dream".

If you think that regulation free Liberland is going to prevent that from developing again, rather than actually facilitating it's more rapid and far easier development, thus growing it more pervasive and sinister than it already is... well then you're quite delusional.  You cannot rein in the greedy and powerful by handing them the world on a silver platter.

You are delusional if you think that there are people who don't currently enjoy the world on a silver platter. You are delusional if you believe that any state in history was ever controlled by people who were not greedy and powerful.   You are delusional if you think a State could be controlled by anyone else for more than a moment.

[AyeYo]

And a form of government is established to protect the weak from the strong, in an attempt to keep the tyrants out of power.

The only difference between voluntary organization and government is that the government uses coercion. Without it people would only do what they voluntarily wanted to do. It's hard to see how protecting the weak from the strong wouldn't be one of those things. If it isn't how could a government possibly accomplish that? It can't.

That's because your definition of coercion is yours alone, and you use it arbitrarily with little to no consistency (something that has been demonstrated to you in this and other threads).

The word you're looking for is compromise, not coercion.  In the real world, you cannot please all the people all the time.  You're butt hurt because our current society isn't 100% the way you like it, so you call that coercion and a violation of your freedom.  I call it compromise.  The world is filled with billions of different people and thus billions of different belief sets.  Running the world 100% your way to stop your bitching and whining leaves about 5.9 billion other people unhappy and violated.  The sooner you realize this the sooner you understand what everyone arguing against you is saying.  In the real world, government and society must be constructed through compromise and concensus, and, no, you will not get your way 100% and you will be forced to obey rules you may not agree with.  Such is life.  It would be no different if you ran the world and were making billions of other people obey rules that they do not agree with.  Get over yourself.

Thanks for the book recommendations, I'll check them out and see if they merit reading, but unless you can make a cogent argument in your own words then this isn't a debate.

I can't make a solid argument against someone that's not up to par on their level of understanding.  I'm not your teacher, so I'm not going to waste page after page explaining history and how the world works.  That stuff is up to you to learn and then, when you understand it, we can have an intelligent debate.

You cannot rein in the greedy and powerful by handing them the world on a silver platter.

Concentrating power in the hands of a few politicians is handing them the world on a silver platter. Decentralizing power isn't. Rich people can organize and lobby more effectively than poor people. That's why any system based on swaying votes is going to necessarily favor the rich. Of course, it's easier for you to make baseless assertions, call people names, etc, than to actually address the arguments with some kind of evidenced based reasoning.

So you think rich people can lobby and organize more effectively than the poor only when government is around?  What happens when you take government away, rich people lose their ability to organize and control the masses?  HA!  With government gone they don't have to lobby.  They can control people directly and there isn't a damn thing standing in their way.

[NghtRppr]

That's because your definition of coercion is yours alone, and you use it arbitrarily with little to no consistency (something that has been demonstrated to you in this and other threads).

Here's my definition.

   co·er·cion

    noun /kōˈərZHən/  /-SHən/ 
    coercions, plural
        The practice of persuading someone to do something by using physical force or threats of violence other than in self-defense of person or property.

Show me where I've been inconsistent.

[AyeYo]

That's because your definition of coercion is yours alone, and you use it arbitrarily with little to no consistency (something that has been demonstrated to you in this and other threads).

Here's my definition.

   co·er·cion

    noun /kōˈərZHən/  /-SHən/ 
    coercions, plural
        The practice of persuading someone to do something by using physical force or threats of violence other than in self-defense of person or property.

Show me where I've been inconsistent.

Explanation is already right in front of your face:

The word you're looking for is compromise, not coercion.  In the real world, you cannot please all the people all the time.  You're butt hurt because our current society isn't 100% the way you like it, so you call that coercion and a violation of your freedom.  I call it compromise.  The world is filled with billions of different people and thus billions of different belief sets.  Running the world 100% your way to stop your bitching and whining leaves about 5.9 billion other people unhappy and violated.  The sooner you realize this the sooner you understand what everyone arguing against you is saying.  In the real world, government and society must be constructed through compromise and concensus, and, no, you will not get your way 100% and you will be forced to obey rules you may not agree with.  Such is life. It would be no different if you ran the world and were making billions of other people obey rules that they do not agree with.  Get over yourself.

When you do it, it's liberity.  When anyone else does it, it's coercion.


BTW, actual defintion of coercion per Mr. Webster (says nothing about defending property or not applying to libertarians in Liberland):


co·er·cion
 noun \-ˈər-zhən, -shən\

Definition of COERCION



 : the act, process, or power of coercing



co·erce
 verb \kō-ˈərs\
co·ercedco·erc·ing



Definition of COERCE


transitive verb


1

: to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious — W. R. Inge>


2

: to compel to an act or choice <was coerced into agreeing>


3

: to achieve by force or threat <coerce compliance>

[NghtRppr]

When you do it, it's liberity.  When anyone else does it, it's coercion.

No, remember, my definition is "persuading someone to do something by using physical force or threats of violence other than in self-defense of person or property". If I do that to anyone else then it's still coercion. You've utterly failed to show that I've been inconsistent in application of my definition.

[billyjoeallen]

That's because you fail at understanding the system.  As simple as you want to make it, it's more complex than you can ever imagine.

It's complex by design, that way the gun in the room can remain hidden, hidden behind empty platitudes such as "consent of the governed" and 'rule of law".

Close, but not quite.  It's hiding behind empty platitudes like "freedom", "democracy", "free markets", "business friendly," "liberty", "patriotism", and "American dream".

If you think that regulation free Liberland is going to prevent that from developing again, rather than actually facilitating it's more rapid and far easier development, thus growing it more pervasive and sinister than it already is... well then you're quite delusional.  You cannot rein in the greedy and powerful by handing them the world on a silver platter.

It's erroneous to assume that something not regulated by the State is not regulated at all. It's fallacious to assert that we are against any and all regulation because we are opposed to State regulation. You should pay attention more. We do not condone democracy. We do not advocate patriotism as commonly understood. We think the American system sucks and that it is not even remotely free market. It's corporatist, which is a form of soft fascism.

[Mittlyle]

Thanks for the book recommendations [by AyeYo], I'll check them out and see if they merit reading, but unless you can make a cogent argument in your own words then this isn't a debate.

The first at least is an excellent book. Altough you should know that Naomi Klein is considered left-wing. So don't discard the book just becouse some of her premises you may not agree, the analysis is valid regardless. The main thesis in the book is that crisis of any sort provide temporary opportunity for policy changes that normally would be impossible and that indeed has been used in favor of big money and US foreign policy deliberately many times. Policies after 9/11 have been prime example of this 'method' to pass surveillance laws, tax cuts to wealthy etc. More common pattern in the world are financial crises in which IMF is used as a proxy to pass free-trade policies, that is privatize, deregulate, and liberalize (undergoing in Greece atm). Local government loses power significantly, US multinationals loot natural resources and speculators unstablize the market with hot money. Usually average Joe in that country ends up pretty bad while small elite enriches. Many times those debts causing problems have originated from economic hitman so these crises are completely artificial. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man Another great book) One of the arguments in the book (which seems true at least by increasing rate of busts) is that unregulated market is more prone to busts thus leading to vicious cycle where crises leads to deregulation which leads to more crises etc. And all this is profited by this so called shock-doctrine.

Essential reading to understand world politics. Neoliberalism and free trade is often defined and understood by these policies, so this book gives solid background to understand and argue people who so vigorously oppose free trade and deregulation.

Oh, you rest have proceeded to different matters, but I won't touch those this time.

[AyeYo]

When you do it, it's liberity.  When anyone else does it, it's coercion.

No, remember, my definition is "persuading someone to do something by using physical force or threats of violence other than in self-defense of person or property". If I do that to anyone else then it's still coercion. You've utterly failed to show that I've been inconsistent in application of my definition.

My defintion of murder is: sitting on the curb eating an ice cream cone.  Therefore, when I chop your head off and make sweet love to the hole in your next, that's not murder at all.

See how that works when you make your own defintions?

[AyeYo]

Thanks for the book recommendations [by AyeYo], I'll check them out and see if they merit reading, but unless you can make a cogent argument in your own words then this isn't a debate.

The first at least is an excellent book. Altough you should know that Naomi Klein is considered left-wing. So don't discard the book just becouse some of her premises you may not agree, the analysis is valid regardless. The main thesis in the book is that crisis of any sort provide temporary opportunity for policy changes that normally would be impossible and that indeed has been used in favor of big money and US foreign policy deliberately many times. Policies after 9/11 have been prime example of this 'method' to pass surveillance laws, tax cuts to wealthy etc. More common pattern in the world are financial crises in which IMF is used as a proxy to pass free-trade policies, that is privatize, deregulate, and liberalize (undergoing in Greece atm). Local government loses power significantly, US multinationals loot natural resources and speculators unstablize the market with hot money. Usually average Joe in that country ends up pretty bad while small elite enriches. Many times those debts causing problems have originated from economic hitman so these crises are completely artificial. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man Another great book) One of the arguments in the book (which seems true at least by increasing rate of busts) is that unregulated market is more prone to busts thus leading to vicious cycle where crises leads to deregulation which leads to more crises etc. And all this is profited by this so called shock-doctrine.

Essential reading to understand world politics. Neoliberalism and free trade is often defined and understood by these policies, so this book gives solid background to understand and argue people who so vigorously oppose free trade and deregulation.

Oh, you rest have proceeded to different matters, but I won't touch those this time.

If you enjoyed Confessions, then you'll really like the other book I suggested.  It's an infinitely more in depth look at the same type of relationships presented in Confessions; it also goes back further in history to explain colonialism and examines in great detail the tremendous amount of debate and planning that went into the failed attempts to help the third-world rise from the ashes.

Just be warned, it's extremely detailed and a tough read.

[NghtRppr]

When you do it, it's liberity.  When anyone else does it, it's coercion.

No, remember, my definition is "persuading someone to do something by using physical force or threats of violence other than in self-defense of person or property". If I do that to anyone else then it's still coercion. You've utterly failed to show that I've been inconsistent in application of my definition.

My defintion of murder is: sitting on the curb eating an ice cream cone.  Therefore, when I chop your head off and make sweet love to the hole in your next, that's not murder at all.

See how that works when you make your own defintions?

Yes, I see how it works. However that doesn't explain how I'm being inconsistent. You might not agree with my definition of coercion but you're still wrong when you say that I'm applying it inconsistently. QED. Yet again you've been proven wrong.

Anyways, if you think the definition coercion still allows you to attack and rob people or that murder is eating ice cream then you'll need to come up with some kind of cogent argument for it. The accepted definition is that using threats of violence to get what you want is coercion. I'm sorry if you don't understand the difference between persuasion and coercion but there is a difference.

[AyeYo]

When you do it, it's liberity.  When anyone else does it, it's coercion.

No, remember, my definition is "persuading someone to do something by using physical force or threats of violence other than in self-defense of person or property". If I do that to anyone else then it's still coercion. You've utterly failed to show that I've been inconsistent in application of my definition.

My defintion of murder is: sitting on the curb eating an ice cream cone.  Therefore, when I chop your head off and make sweet love to the hole in your next, that's not murder at all.

See how that works when you make your own defintions?

Yes, I see how it works. However that doesn't explain how I'm being inconsistent. You might not agree with my definition of coercion but you're still wrong when you say that I'm applying it inconsistently. QED. Yet again you've been proven wrong.

Anyways, if you think the definition coercion still allows you to attack and rob people or that murder is eating ice cream then you'll need to come up with some kind of cogent argument for it. The accepted definition is that using threats of violence to get what you want is coercion. I'm sorry if you don't understand the difference between persuasion and coercion but there is a difference.

My point is that you CANNOT make up your own definitions to support your worldview.  Watch:

Murder is premeditated killing, unless it's bitcoin2cash that's being killed.

Now I can kill you and it's not murder.  Magical, but not logical.


Likewise, the little exception you tag on to the end of your coercion definition does NOT change the fact that your system is also coercive.

I'm just going to keep quoting this until you address the actual point being made:

The word you're looking for is compromise, not coercion.  In the real world, you cannot please all the people all the time.  You're butt hurt because our current society isn't 100% the way you like it, so you call that coercion and a violation of your freedom.  I call it compromise.  The world is filled with billions of different people and thus billions of different belief sets.  Running the world 100% your way to stop your bitching and whining leaves about 5.9 billion other people unhappy and violated.  The sooner you realize this the sooner you understand what everyone arguing against you is saying.  In the real world, government and society must be constructed through compromise and concensus, and, no, you will not get your way 100% and you will be forced to obey rules you may not agree with.  Such is life.  It would be no different if you ran the world and were making billions of other people obey rules that they do not agree with.  Get over yourself.

[NghtRppr]

My point is that you CANNOT make up your own definitions to support your worldview.

It's not my personal definition. It's a definition used by hundreds of thousands of Libertarians.

The word you're looking for is compromise, not coercion.  In the real world, you cannot please all the people all the time.  You're butt hurt because our current society isn't 100% the way you like it, so you call that coercion and a violation of your freedom.  I call it compromise.  The world is filled with billions of different people and thus billions of different belief sets.  Running the world 100% your way to stop your bitching and whining leaves about 5.9 billion other people unhappy and violated.  The sooner you realize this the sooner you understand what everyone arguing against you is saying.  In the real world, government and society must be constructed through compromise and concensus, and, no, you will not get your way 100% and you will be forced to obey rules you may not agree with.  Such is life.  It would be no different if you ran the world and were making billions of other people obey rules that they do not agree with.  Get over yourself.

I'm sorry that you think morality is a popularity contest but even if 5.9 billion people think rape and murder are part of a fun Friday night I really don't care. We can argue about whether or not you should be allowed to rape and murder but as soon as you attempt to do it, you're going to have a few extra holes in your body.

[AyeYo]

My point is that you CANNOT make up your own definitions to support your worldview.

It's not my personal definition. It's a definition used by hundreds of thousands of Libertarians.

Which doesn't make a damn bit of difference.  When I say "you", I mean all of you.

The word you're looking for is compromise, not coercion.  In the real world, you cannot please all the people all the time.  You're butt hurt because our current society isn't 100% the way you like it, so you call that coercion and a violation of your freedom.  I call it compromise.  The world is filled with billions of different people and thus billions of different belief sets.  Running the world 100% your way to stop your bitching and whining leaves about 5.9 billion other people unhappy and violated.  The sooner you realize this the sooner you understand what everyone arguing against you is saying.  In the real world, government and society must be constructed through compromise and concensus, and, no, you will not get your way 100% and you will be forced to obey rules you may not agree with.  Such is life.  It would be no different if you ran the world and were making billions of other people obey rules that they do not agree with.  Get over yourself.

I'm sorry that you think morality is a popularity contest but even if 5.9 billion people think rape and murder are part of a fun Friday night I really don't care. We can argue about whether or not you should be allowed to rape and murder but as soon as you attempt to do it, you're going to have a few extra holes in your body.

So what you're saying is that morality is what YOU say it is, even if everyone else in the population disagress with you, and if everyone else doesn't do things YOUR way, you're going to kill them.

Where have I heard that before?  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyranny

Yup, Liberland, a beautiful utopia... if you're a libertarian.

That's all I've wanted you admit all along.  I'm not going to sit here and knock your beliefs (ok maybe a little, after all you do knock mine), because the only thing that really gets me is you selling them for something they're not.  Honesty is the best policy.  You simply want to replace our current coercive system with a coercive system more to your liking.  You want to be rid of our current tyranny and replace it with your own brand of tyranny.  Just come out and say it and stop hiding behind BS rhetoric and buzzwords.  A system of absolutely no coercion (your excessively broad use, not mine) CANNOT EXIST because EVERYONE HAS DIFFERENT BELIEFS AND OPINIONS.  There will ALWAYS be compromise.  There will ALWAYS been people unhappy about SOMETHING.  You cannot live like you're the only person in the universe BECAUSE YOU AREN'T THE ONLY PERSON IN THE UNIVERSE.

[NghtRppr]

So what you're saying is that morality is what YOU say it is, even if everyone else in the population disagress with you, and if everyone else doesn't do things YOUR way, you're going to kill them.

My way being not attacking me or my property. So, yes, if people attack me or my property I will defend myself. If you want to be a murderer or a rapist then I'll shed a single tear for you and pour out some beer for you in your memory after you're dead. Congratulations, you got me to confess that I will kill murderers and rapists if they attack me. I hope my reputation can survive this shocking revelation!

[AyeYo]

So what you're saying is that morality is what YOU say it is, even if everyone else in the population disagress with you, and if everyone else doesn't do things YOUR way, you're going to kill them.

My way being not attacking me or my property. So, yes, if people attack me or my property I will defend myself. If you want to be a murderer then I'll shed a single tear for you and pour out some beer for you in your memory after you're dead. Congratulations, you got me to confess that I will kill murderers if they attack me. I hope my reputation can survive this shocking revelation!

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_oversimp.htm

Like I said, it's best to come out and admit it.  I'm not trying to rain on your deregulation parade, just trying to give you a little perspective on your beliefs.

[NghtRppr]

So what you're saying is that morality is what YOU say it is, even if everyone else in the population disagress with you, and if everyone else doesn't do things YOUR way, you're going to kill them.

My way being not attacking me or my property. So, yes, if people attack me or my property I will defend myself. If you want to be a murderer then I'll shed a single tear for you and pour out some beer for you in your memory after you're dead. Congratulations, you got me to confess that I will kill murderers if they attack me. I hope my reputation can survive this shocking revelation!

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_oversimp.htm

Like I said, it's best to come out and admit it.  I'm not trying to rain on your deregulation parade, just trying to give you a little perspective on your beliefs.

No, I get what you're saying. You're saying that even though I don't want people to rob me, other people want to rob me so I should compromise and let them rob me some of the time or only let them take half of my stuff because that way I'm not forcing my beliefs on others. I see where you're coming from but at the same time, I don't give a shit. Rob me at your own peril, thief.

Thanks for trying to reach out to me though. Maybe someday I'll be as sophisticated and egalitarian as you and think we should comprise on murder, rape and theft. Until then, wear bullet resistant armor.

[blogospheroid]

Free market is advocated as efficient system as resources are allocated by the 'invisible hand' of the markets. I, however find the efficiency claims quite unfounded as direct consequence of maximizing profits is phenomenon know as planned obsolescence. That is, products are made inferior than need be just to be able to resell updated version as soon as possible. Also resources are recycled only when its profitable comparing to new materials, meaning its very rarely going to happen voluntarily. These two factors make free market extremele wasteful when considering resources. My claim is that by limited central control you could have hands down more efficient outcomes than in pure laissez-faire. By effieciency I'm speaking about use of commodities of real economy. I'm not impressed by abstract numbers representing speculation.
(Oh, btw, I'm really advocate of free market provided there is sufficient regulation for enviromental matters.)

One of the aspects that i think will happen in a deflationary economy, where everything is deflating, is the much lower consumption of resources in general.  This is unlike today's economy where only a sector like electronics is deflating.

We don't know what percentage of today's demand for saving is being met by shares of various corporations and investment in various commodities. In the bitcoin powered deflationary future, a huge percentage of this demand will be diverted into bitcoin itself, since it will be expected to maintain its value into the future. Saving money is something everyone understands without being told explicitly. That will lead to fewer copper, silver and gold mines.

Planned obsolescence will be in vogue only for products that are extremely new and whose eventual standards are not codified yet. We see a shadow of that even today.
"Products" with a long history - houses, utensils, etc are the longest lasting.
Products that have a short history, but are still being innovated on - cars, scooters - are intermediately lasting
Products that have a long history, but are subject to fashion or lifestyle change are intermediate lasting - clothes and furniture
Products on the cutting edge of innovation - electronics  - last very less.

Besides for anyone who believes that there is an excess amount of planned obsolescence going on, there is a simple perosonal solution - lease your product instead of buying the same. The company takes back what they gave to you.


Recycling is useful where human time doesn't have value. For eg. in India, I regualrly give out my news paper for recycling, but that is because peoiple are coming and collecting it form my doorstep and that is because people in India re so poor that their individual time does not have that much value. I don't think the same will hold true when India becomes richer.

[MoonShadow]

Likewise, the little exception you tag on to the end of your coercion definition does NOT change the fact that your system is also coercive.

In what way is the libertarian concept of "coercion" different than the general definition?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coercion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion

Money quote:
"Coercion (pronounced /koʊˈɜrʃən/) is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, rewards, or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. In law, coercion is codified as the duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced."

[AyeYo]

Likewise, the little exception you tag on to the end of your coercion definition does NOT change the fact that your system is also coercive.

In what way is the libertarian concept of "coercion" different than the general definition?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coercion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion

Money quote:
"Coercion (pronounced /koʊˈɜrʃən/) is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, rewards, or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. In law, coercion is codified as the duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced."

In that fact that your belief system and political system involve "forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner" else there will be "use of threats" or "intimidation or some other form of pressure or force" to make them comply.

Let me say this again: NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOU, in fact, a HUGE majority disagree with you.  Therefore, you would need to FORCE all the non-agreers to comply with your enacted belief system by threat of violence - this is the very defintion of coercion.

[MoonShadow]

Likewise, the little exception you tag on to the end of your coercion definition does NOT change the fact that your system is also coercive.

In what way is the libertarian concept of "coercion" different than the general definition?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coercion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion

Money quote:
"Coercion (pronounced /koʊˈɜrʃən/) is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, rewards, or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. In law, coercion is codified as the duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced."

In that fact that your belief system and political system involve "forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner" else there will be "use of threats" or "intimidation or some other form of pressure or force" to make them comply.

Let me say this again: NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOU, in fact, a HUGE majority disagree with you.  Therefore, you would need to FORCE all the non-agreers to comply with your enacted belief system by threat of violence - this is the very defintion of coercion.

Based upon your assumptions about what the majority may believe, I'd have to say that you are correct in a literal sense.  That people are expected to act in accordance with the NAP, under the potential threat of retaliation.  However, the assertion that the majority disagree with libs on this point is false, and provablely so.  The threat of retaliation isn't the same as coercion under threat of force, because it matters who is the initial aggressor.  Also, the majority of people actually do agree with the NAP as a general social rule, but most people have exceptions.  The difference is that (most of us) don't make exceptions, and none of us make exceptions based solely upon the idea that a police officer is doing the action.  If the police officer represents someone with an honest claim, then the officer is within rights to act upon the interests of said party, whether that be another citizen or even the group of people loosely called the state.  However, that does not give the state the right to make up violations that don't exist, and then expect the police officer to enforce them.

[AyeYo]

Likewise, the little exception you tag on to the end of your coercion definition does NOT change the fact that your system is also coercive.

In what way is the libertarian concept of "coercion" different than the general definition?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coercion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion

Money quote:
"Coercion (pronounced /koʊˈɜrʃən/) is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, rewards, or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. In law, coercion is codified as the duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced."

In that fact that your belief system and political system involve "forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner" else there will be "use of threats" or "intimidation or some other form of pressure or force" to make them comply.

Let me say this again: NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOU, in fact, a HUGE majority disagree with you.  Therefore, you would need to FORCE all the non-agreers to comply with your enacted belief system by threat of violence - this is the very defintion of coercion.

Based upon your assumptions about what the majority may believe, I'd have to say that you are correct in a literal sense.  That people are expected to act in accordance with the NAP, under the potential threat of retaliation.  However, the assertion that the majority disagree with libs on this point is false, and provablely so.  The threat of retaliation isn't the same as coercion under threat of force, because it matters who is the initial aggressor.  Also, the majority of people actually do agree with the NAP as a general social rule, but most people have exceptions.  The difference is that (most of us) don't make exceptions, and none of us make exceptions based solely upon the idea that a police officer is doing the action.  If the police officer represents someone with an honest claim, then the officer is within rights to act upon the interests of said party, whether that be another citizen or even the group of people loosely called the state.  However, that does not give the state the right to make up violations that don't exist, and then expect the police officer to enforce them.

Let me say this again (again): NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOU, in fact, a HUGE majority disagree with you.  Therefore, you would need to FORCE all the non-agreers to comply with your enacted belief system by threat of violence - this is the very defintion of coercion.

You can pretend that YOUR version of violence is "retaliation", but it's nothing more than a semantics game when you take into account that fact that NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOU and in order for it to be defined as retaliation, a person must first agree with your belief system, BUT NOT EVERYONE DOES.

[billyjoeallen]

argumentum ad populum
(In the interest of time, I'm just going to name AyeYo's logical fallacies instead of commenting on them)

[AyeYo]

argumentum ad populum
(In the interest of time, I'm just going to name AyeYo's logical fallacies instead of commenting on them)

Wrong.  I'm not saying he's wrong because the majority disagree with him.  Try again.  Maybe next time you'll understand both my argument and the fallacy you're misusing.

[billyjoeallen]

argumentum ad populum
(In the interest of time, I'm just going to name AyeYo's logical fallacies instead of commenting on them)

Wrong.  I'm not saying he's wrong because the majority disagree with him.  Try again.  Maybe next time you'll understand both my argument and the fallacy you're misusing.

Begging the question.

[NghtRppr]

Therefore, you would need to FORCE all the non-agreers to comply with your enacted belief system by threat of violence - this is the very defintion of coercion.

You call it coercion. I call it self-defense.

[AyeYo]

Therefore, you would need to FORCE all the non-agreers to comply with your enacted belief system by threat of violence - this is the very defintion of coercion.

You call it coercion. I call it self-defense.

That's cool and all, but it doesn't change the facts, as already addressed:

You can pretend that YOUR version of violence is "retaliation", but it's nothing more than a semantics game when you take into account the fact that NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOU and in order for it to be defined as retaliation, a person must first agree with your belief system, BUT NOT EVERYONE DOES.

[MoonShadow]

Therefore, you would need to FORCE all the non-agreers to comply with your enacted belief system by threat of violence - this is the very defintion of coercion.

You call it coercion. I call it self-defense.

That's cool and all, but it doesn't change the facts, as already addressed:

You can pretend that YOUR version of violence is "retaliation", but it's nothing more than a semantics game when you take into account the fact that NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOU and in order for it to be defined as retaliation, a person must first agree with your belief system, BUT NOT EVERYONE DOES.

Those are not facts, they are opinions. 

[AyeYo]

Therefore, you would need to FORCE all the non-agreers to comply with your enacted belief system by threat of violence - this is the very defintion of coercion.

You call it coercion. I call it self-defense.

That's cool and all, but it doesn't change the facts, as already addressed:

You can pretend that YOUR version of violence is "retaliation", but it's nothing more than a semantics game when you take into account the fact that NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOU and in order for it to be defined as retaliation, a person must first agree with your belief system, BUT NOT EVERYONE DOES.

Those are not facts, they are opinions.  

Which is exactly what your belief system and defintions are, no?

[NghtRppr]

You can pretend that YOUR version of violence is "retaliation", but it's nothing more than a semantics game when you take into account the fact that NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOU and in order for it to be defined as retaliation, a person must first agree with your belief system, BUT NOT EVERYONE DOES.

I acknowledge the differences in opinion. Some people think it's alright to murder, rape and steal. But can you give me a reason why I should care what these people think? Am I really supposed to feel empathy for these people? Would you defend yourself from an attacker or would you bend over and take it? After all, it's just a matter of opinion.

I think you need to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativist_fallacy

[AyeYo]

You can pretend that YOUR version of violence is "retaliation", but it's nothing more than a semantics game when you take into account the fact that NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOU and in order for it to be defined as retaliation, a person must first agree with your belief system, BUT NOT EVERYONE DOES.

I acknowledge the differences in opinion. Some people think it's alright to murder, rape and steal. But can you give me a reason why I should care what these people think? Am I really supposed to feel empathy for these people? Would you defend yourself from an attacker or would you bend over and take it? After all, it's just a matter of opinion.

Cut the bullshit hyperbole.  When you find me a modern society in which murder and rape are both acceptable AND legal, then I'll entertain your bullshit.  

Until then, the difference of opinion is on property rights, regulations, government involvement, the definition of words like coercion, and the like.  You want to FORCE, through VIOLENCE, your OPINIONS on these subjects onto everyone in the world, the majority of whom disagree with you.  That's the very definition of coercion and tyranny.


Also, please read your own links:

The relativist fallacy, also known as the subjectivist fallacy, is a fallacy committed, roughly speaking, when one person claims that something may be true for one person but not true for someone else. The fallacy is supposed to rest on the law of non-contradiction. The fallacy, it is said, applies only to objective facts, or what are alleged to be objective facts, rather than to facts about personal tastes or subjective experiences, and only to facts regarded in the same sense and at the same time

[NghtRppr]

When you find me a modern society in which murder and rape are both acceptable AND legal, then I'll entertain your bullshit.

I said murder, rape and theft. Why did you leave out theft? Is it because you know you don't have a leg to stand on unless you attack a straw man version of my statement?

It sounds like you're saying that everyone has an opinion and all opinions are equally right. So what if my opinion is that only my opinion is right? Or are you not saying that all opinions are equally right? If not, what exactly are you saying?

[AyeYo]

When you find me a modern society in which murder and rape are both acceptable AND legal, then I'll entertain your bullshit.

I said murder, rape and theft. Why did you leave out theft? Is it because you know you don't have a leg to stand on unless you attack a straw man version of my statement?

It sounds like you're saying that everyone has an opinion and all opinions are equally right. So what if my opinion is that only my opinion is right? Or are you not saying that all opinions are equally right? If not, what exactly are you saying?

You can throw theft in there too if you want, it doesn't make a bit of difference.


What I'm saying is the same thing I've been repeating endlessly in this thread already: There is not a goddman bit of difference between our current system that forces you to do things you don't like and your system that forces billions of other people to do things that they don't like.

I've made no value judgement about who is right and who is wrong, that is YOUR strawman.  I'm simply pointing out to you the FACT that there is NO practical difference between people forcing you to do what you don't like and you forcing other people to do what they don't like, so your entire belief system is HYPOCRITICAL.

[NghtRppr]

You can throw theft in there too if you want, it doesn't make a bit of difference.

Some forms of theft are currently legal. What else do you call taking money from people without their consent?

There is not a goddman bit of difference between our current system that forces you to do thinks you don't like and your system that forces billions of other people to do things that they don't like.

So you're saying that our current system forces people to do things they don't like and a system where rape is legal wouldn't be any different? I think that's just an absurd position. Obviously there would be a huge difference. Even if we acknowledge that both systems would force people to do things they don't like, why is that an argument for anything? Clearly there are some things that are alright to force people to do, such as not rape.

Your position is absurd and pathetic. You're absolutely wrong that there is no difference between the two systems.

[Anonymous]

When you find me a modern society in which murder and rape are both acceptable AND legal, then I'll entertain your bullshit.

I said murder, rape and theft. Why did you leave out theft? Is it because you know you don't have a leg to stand on unless you attack a straw man version of my statement?

It sounds like you're saying that everyone has an opinion and all opinions are equally right. So what if my opinion is that only my opinion is right? Or are you not saying that all opinions are equally right? If not, what exactly are you saying?

You can throw theft in there too if you want, it doesn't make a bit of difference.


What I'm saying is the same thing I've been repeating endlessly in this thread already: There is not a goddman bit of difference between our current system that forces you to do things you don't like and your system that forces billions of other people to do things that they don't like.

So, it's just a matter of preference, eh? Yep, this is going to nihilism, gentlemen. He's infallible. We all know nothing. We get it.

[AyeYo]

You can throw theft in there too if you want, it doesn't make a bit of difference.

Some forms of theft are currently legal. What else do you call taking money from people without their consent?

No no dear boy, that's your defintion of theft, and it's only theft if I subscribe to your belief system.  Do you see how this works yet?

There is not a goddman bit of difference between our current system that forces you to do thinks you don't like and your system that forces billions of other people to do things that they don't like.

So you're saying that our current system forces people to do things they don't like and a system where rape is legal wouldn't be any different? I think that's just an absurd position. Obviously there would be a huge difference. Even if we acknowledge that both systems would force people to do things they don't like, why is that an argument for anything?

Second warning, cut the hyperbole and strawmen.  The issue at hand is not rape, it's the forcing of your belief system on people that do not subscribe to it.

Clearly there are some things that are alright to force people to do

You're damn right about that.  Things like pay taxes, obey laws that society has decided to institute, etc.

[NghtRppr]

No no dear boy, that's your defintion of theft, and it's only theft if I subscribe to your belief system.  Do you see how this works yet?

Yes I see how it works. You think it's alright to define terms however you like because after all, you have a different belief system than I do.

The issue at hand is not rape, it's the forcing of your belief system on people that do not subscribe to it.

Stop avoiding. Some people think rape is alright therefore you're forcing your belief system on them.

You're damn right about that.  Things like pay taxes, obey laws that society has decided to institute, etc.

No, sorry. You have a different belief system than I do so I disagree. Are you going to force your belief system on me? Don't avoid the question this time either. Answer it. Are you going to force your belief system on me and force me to pay taxes? If not, good, I won't pay taxes. If so, then you'd be a hypocrite in saying that I can't force my belief system on others while you are allowed to.

Answer the question and stop avoiding. Let me repeat it a third time, are you going to force your belief system on me and force me to pay taxes?

[AyeYo]

No no dear boy, that's your defintion of theft, and it's only theft if I subscribe to your belief system.  Do you see how this works yet?

Yes I see how it works. You think it's alright to define terms however you like because after all, you have a different belief system than I do.

Then you see why you can't make up your own defintions that go against the accepted definitions.

The issue at hand is not rape, it's the forcing of your belief system on people that do not subscribe to it.

Stop avoiding. Some people think rape is alright therefore you're forcing your belief system on them.

I sure as hell am.  I'm not the one claiming that I have the answer for a societal organization in which no one is forced to do anything they don't like, in fact, I've said the exact opposite.  There will ALWAYS people getting forced to do things they don't want to do.

You're damn right about that.  Things like pay taxes, obey laws that society has decided to institute, etc.

No, sorry. You have a different belief system than I do so I disagree. Are you going to force your belief system on me? Don't avoid the question this time either. Answer it. Are you going to force your belief system on me and force me to pay taxes? If not, good, I won't pay taxes. If so, then you'd be a hypocrite in saying that I can't force my belief system on others while you are allowed to.

Answer the question and stop avoiding. Let me repeat it a third time, are you going to force your belief system on me and force me to pay taxes?

I'm absolutely going to force my belief system on you until you can, through the power of democracy, get your belief system accepted and adopted by society, at which point I will conform to your beliefs while fighting, politically, to get my own back into acceptance.


This is not hypocritcal in the least, because I never said there was something inherently wrong with forcing beliefs on others, in fact I've said the exact opposite (as pointed out above).  Society is all about COMPROMISE and there will ALWAYS be people upset with the current state of affairs and thus ALWAYS trying to change things.  A healthy, fair system (like a democracy) gives these people an outlet to make these changes.

On the other hand, your belief system is based on the fact that it is morally wrong to force beliefs on others, so it makes you a hypocrite to then turn around and force your beliefs on people.

Can you wrap your mind around the massive difference between you and I?  I accept the fact that force and discontent is envitable and not inherently unjust, you do not - yet your system uses force and has lots of discontent people.  That makes you a raging hypocrite.

[NghtRppr]

On the other hand, your belief system is based on the fact that it is morally wrong to force beliefs on others, so it makes you a hypocrite to then turn around and force your beliefs on people.

No, wrong. My belief system is based on the belief that it is morally wrong to violate the non-aggression principle as libertarians define it, in accordance with property rights as libertarians define them.

I'm sorry if there was ever any misunderstanding about that but the above statement is my belief system so attack that, not your straw man version, if you can.

I've said this at least a half dozen times so I'm not sure how you keep failing to understand it. The only thing you are forced to do is to keep your hands off of other people and their property. Do you get it now?

[AyeYo]

On the other hand, your belief system is based on the fact that it is morally wrong to force beliefs on others, so it makes you a hypocrite to then turn around and force your beliefs on people.

No, wrong. My belief system is based on the belief that it is morally wrong to violate the non-aggression principle as libertarians define it, in accordance with property rights as libertarians define them.

Which is the same thing as me saying that my belief system says it's morally ok to murder, based on the murder is ok principle as I define it, in accordance with my rights to murder as I define them.  Then I go out and tell other people that murder is wrong.


You can't seem to wrap your mind around that.  Your system is based on non-aggression, but it is inherently aggresive against those that do not believe in it.  It is hypocricy plain and simple.  You can play semantics and redefine and reword it until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change a damn thing.  Libertarians attempt to avoid this inconsistency and hypocricy by either creating their own defintions with exceptions for themselves (as you've done) or by using buzzwords like "coercion" arbitrarily (as others often do).  You can play this game all day long, but it isn't fooling anyone.  As long as there of people of differing opinions (and there always will be), ANY societal organization will be stepping on someone's toes.

[NghtRppr]

Your system is based on non-aggression, but it is inherently aggresive against those that do not believe in it.

Remember how you defined taxation not to be theft? I define defending my person and property not to be aggression. It's funny how you keep calling people hypocrites but make up all these silly rules that apply to everyone but you.

[AyeYo]

Your system is based on non-aggression, but it is inherently aggresive against those that do not believe in it.

Remember how you defined taxation not to be theft? I define defending my person and property not to be aggression. It's funny how you keep calling people hypocrites but make up all these silly rules that apply to everyone but you.

You can defend your person and property all day, errr day.  No one is debating that.  It's a shame that I have to keep striking down your redherrings and strawmen, because debate is so much easier when done honestly.

Once again, the debate is about YOU IMPOSING YOUR SYSTEM ON OTHERS.

You cannot in one breath say that me forcing my system on you is aggression, then in the next say that you forcing your system on me is not aggression.  That's logical inconsistency.

You cannot say that you are morally opposed to systems being forced on people, then turn around and force your system on people.
That's hypocricy.

[NghtRppr]

You cannot say that you are morally opposed to systems being forced on people, then turn around and force your system on people.

I didn't say that. I said that it is morally wrong to violate the non-aggression principle as libertarians define it, in accordance with property rights as libertarians define them. That's what I'm saying. Do you have anything in response against that? Stop trying to couch the debate in your terms thereby making straw man arguments. If you just can't help it then try using the quote feature and respond directly to what I say instead of your fabrications.

[MoonShadow]

You cannot in one breath say that me forcing my system on you is aggression, then in the next say that you forcing your system on me is not aggression.  That's logical inconsistency.

Fact #1, the system that you advocate presently exists, and is forced upon those of us who do not agree.

Fact #2, the system that we advocate does not exist, and no one is presently forced to abide by it.  In our theoretical depictions of it, you would not be forced to do anything beyond respecting the social conventions that already exist, namely property rights and human rights.

Therefore, your opinion upon whether our theoretical society would be coercive or not is irrelevant.

Do you disagree?

[Anonymous]

"Oh god, this system is so oppressive. There's no group with guns to make sure I am entitled to free stuff. I have to go out of my way to protect myself and feed myself. What a horrible world. Mommy, I need my bottle."

[LokeRundt]

AyeYo, I'm going to claim you violated my property rights and send you a bill for getting the dent out due to all the *headdesk*

[billyjoeallen]

All tyrants get overthrown eventually. It only takes one pissed off guy with a gun to catch him slipping.

And a form of government is established to protect the weak from the strong, in an attempt to keep the tyrants out of power.


I don't think you realize how difficult it is to argue this stuff against you because you have: A - no concept and understanding of history, and, B - no concept of understand of how/why we are where we are today, and how the system functions.

I'd highly recommend these two books to you.  They're no some BS pulled out of somebody's ass (i.e. Atlas Shrugged), but actual scholarly research works with real citations and backing up of claims, as well as tremendous amounts of first-hand research.  They will help you learn what you're lacking: the happenings of modern WORLD history (not the US/UK-centric history you get in school) and the highly entwined political and economic relationships of our current world system.

http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0805079831

http://www.amazon.com/Darker-Nations-Peoples-History-Third/dp/1565847857

Appeal to Authority fallacy

[AyeYo]

All tyrants get overthrown eventually. It only takes one pissed off guy with a gun to catch him slipping.

And a form of government is established to protect the weak from the strong, in an attempt to keep the tyrants out of power.


I don't think you realize how difficult it is to argue this stuff against you because you have: A - no concept and understanding of history, and, B - no concept of understand of how/why we are where we are today, and how the system functions.

I'd highly recommend these two books to you.  They're no some BS pulled out of somebody's ass (i.e. Atlas Shrugged), but actual scholarly research works with real citations and backing up of claims, as well as tremendous amounts of first-hand research.  They will help you learn what you're lacking: the happenings of modern WORLD history (not the US/UK-centric history you get in school) and the highly entwined political and economic relationships of our current world system.

http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0805079831

http://www.amazon.com/Darker-Nations-Peoples-History-Third/dp/1565847857

Appeal to Authority fallacy

You really don't understand these fallacies you like to quote, do you?

Appeal to authority is: "My point is right because this guy ________ (insert important sounding title) says it's right."


Tell someone I cannot have an intelligent argument with them because they have no idea what they're talking about is NOT appeal to authority fallacy... it's not even an argument.  It's a statement of fact.

[The Script]

All tyrants get overthrown eventually. It only takes one pissed off guy with a gun to catch him slipping.

http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0805079831

http://www.amazon.com/Darker-Nations-Peoples-History-Third/dp/1565847857

Appeal to Authority fallacy

You really don't understand these fallacies you like to quote, do you?

Appeal to authority is: "My point is right because this guy ________ (insert important sounding title) says it's right."

Tell someone I cannot have an intelligent argument with them because they have no idea what they're talking about is NOT appeal to authority fallacy... it's not even an argument.  It's a statement of fact.

Ha ha, I think you may both be wrong? Suggesting someone read a book because you believe it has strong empirical evidence isn't an appeal to authority, as you say, but claiming that someone else doesnt know what they are talking about is "a statement of fact" seems rather arbitrary to me.

[AyeYo]

You cannot in one breath say that me forcing my system on you is aggression, then in the next say that you forcing your system on me is not aggression.  That's logical inconsistency.

Fact #1, the system that you advocate presently exists, and is forced upon those of us who do not agree.

Correct.  I already discussed this.

Fact #2, the system that we advocate does not exist,

Cannot exist is more like it, but I get the idea.

and no one is presently forced to abide by it.  

Irrelevant.

In our theoretical depictions of it, you would not be forced to do anything beyond respecting the social conventions that already exist, namely property rights and human rights.

So you're forcing everyone that doesn't agree with your system to conform to your system.  I've been saying this all along.

How is this new information?

Therefore, your opinion upon whether our theoretical society would be coercive or not is irrelevant.

Do you disagree?

Yup.  Conclusion does not follow premises.

[Litt]

You cannot in one breath say that me forcing my system on you is aggression, then in the next say that you forcing your system on me is not aggression.  That's logical inconsistency.

Fact #1, the system that you advocate presently exists, and is forced upon those of us who do not agree.

Correct.  I already discussed this.

Fact #2, the system that we advocate does not exist,

Cannot exist is more like it, but I get the idea.

and no one is presently forced to abide by it.  

Irrelevant.

In our theoretical depictions of it, you would not be forced to do anything beyond respecting the social conventions that already exist, namely property rights and human rights.

So you're forcing everyone that doesn't agree with your system to conform to your system.  I've been saying this all along.

How is this new information?

Therefore, your opinion upon whether our theoretical society would be coercive or not is irrelevant.

Do you disagree?

Yup.  Conclusion does not follow premises.

Some people are so dependent on the system, they are not ready to see the truth. Personally, I would rather focus on my energy on people who already have the knowledge to sense something is wrong. The saying from the Bible that you can only help the ones that help themselves rings so true to me nowadays more than ever.

Funny how the Bible makes so much better sense now it's rather scary. That is until you realize history is just repeating itself to those who did not remember and learn from it's mistakes.

[AyeYo]

You cannot in one breath say that me forcing my system on you is aggression, then in the next say that you forcing your system on me is not aggression.  That's logical inconsistency.

Fact #1, the system that you advocate presently exists, and is forced upon those of us who do not agree.

Correct.  I already discussed this.

Fact #2, the system that we advocate does not exist,

Cannot exist is more like it, but I get the idea.

and no one is presently forced to abide by it.  

Irrelevant.

In our theoretical depictions of it, you would not be forced to do anything beyond respecting the social conventions that already exist, namely property rights and human rights.

So you're forcing everyone that doesn't agree with your system to conform to your system.  I've been saying this all along.

How is this new information?

Therefore, your opinion upon whether our theoretical society would be coercive or not is irrelevant.

Do you disagree?

Yup.  Conclusion does not follow premises.

Some people are so dependent on the system, they are not ready to see the truth. Personally, I would rather focus on my energy on people who already have the knowledge to sense something is wrong. The saying from the Bible that you can only help the ones that help themselves rings so true to me nowadays more than ever. Funny how the Bible makes so much better sense now it's rather scary. Until you realize history is just repeating itself to those who did not remember and learn from it's mistakes.

The system is broken, almost no one denies that.  My point is that you cannot fix it by giving full power to those that have a proven track record of breaking it.

[Fakeman]

Free market is advocated as efficient system as resources are allocated by the 'invisible hand' of the markets. I, however find the efficiency claims quite unfounded as direct consequence of maximizing profits is phenomenon know as planned obsolescence. That is, products are made inferior than need be just to be able to resell updated version as soon as possible. Also resources are recycled only when its profitable comparing to new materials, meaning its very rarely going to happen voluntarily. These two factors make free market extremele wasteful when considering resources. My claim is that by limited central control you could have hands down more efficient outcomes than in pure laissez-faire. By effieciency I'm speaking about use of commodities of real economy. I'm not impressed by abstract numbers representing speculation.

(Oh, btw, I'm really advocate of free market provided there is sufficient regulation for enviromental matters.)

I can't wait for this whole aregument to become irrellvant once the open-source 3D printers and CRC routers mature and become commonplace...

"Son, back in the old days before a little kid like you could own a 3D printer, we were all held hostage by evil corporations that deliberately designed their products and toys to fail after a certain amount of time."

Good points. Now WTF do pages 2-5 of this thread have to do with "Free market efficiency and planned obsolescence"?

[Mittlyle]

Free market is advocated as efficient system as resources are allocated by the 'invisible hand' of the markets. I, however find the efficiency claims quite unfounded as direct consequence of maximizing profits is phenomenon know as planned obsolescence. That is, products are made inferior than need be just to be able to resell updated version as soon as possible. Also resources are recycled only when its profitable comparing to new materials, meaning its very rarely going to happen voluntarily. These two factors make free market extremele wasteful when considering resources. My claim is that by limited central control you could have hands down more efficient outcomes than in pure laissez-faire. By effieciency I'm speaking about use of commodities of real economy. I'm not impressed by abstract numbers representing speculation.

(Oh, btw, I'm really advocate of free market provided there is sufficient regulation for enviromental matters.)

I can't wait for this whole aregument to become irrellvant once the open-source 3D printers and CRC routers mature and become commonplace...

"Son, back in the old days before a little kid like you could own a 3D printer, we were all held hostage by evil corporations that deliberately designed their products and toys to fail after a certain amount of time."

Good points. Now WTF do pages 2-5 of this thread have to do with "Free market efficiency and planned obsolescence"?

Frankly, there were some other points too but they are in the middle of the junk. I thought I would lock this thread but those guys were too entertraining for me to do that... Actually I'll do it now. If there's something left to discuss, I advise you to start another thread with according title.