What's so special about the NAP?

[hazek]

How do you know it will not be worse, and infact will be even better?

Because you can't try to solve the problem of maybe being attacked and hurt/killed or maybe being robbed, by giving a small group of people the authority to perpetually rob you and definitely hurt/kill you if you resist.

Maybe > Definitely.

That's how.

What a significant body of economist fail to see is that there are quite a few areas where economic theory is not suited. I think you've been reading way to many of their works.

That's your baseless opinion, nothing more.

[1714181391]

1714181391

[1714181391]

1714181391

[1714181391]

1714181391

[Equilux]

How do you know it will not be worse, and infact will be even better?

Because you can't try to solve the problem of maybe being attacked and hurt/killed or maybe being robbed, by giving a small group of people the authority to perpetually rob you and definitely hurt/kill you if you resist.

Maybe > Definitely.

That's how.

What a significant body of economist fail to see is that there are quite a few areas where economic theory is not suited. I think you've been reading way to many of their works.

That's your baseless opinion, nothing more.

you think that the poor will maybe get attacked? MAYBE? Oh no, they will definately be attacked hurt/killed and much more and much worse because of the reasons I outlined earlier. The "maybe" just gets moved to the rich and the people who can buy that "maybe"

[Equilux]

How do you know it will not be worse, and infact will be even better?

Because you can't try to solve the problem of maybe being attacked and hurt/killed or maybe being robbed, by giving a small group of people the authority to perpetually rob you and definitely hurt/kill you if you resist.

Maybe > Definitely.

That's how.

What a significant body of economist fail to see is that there are quite a few areas where economic theory is not suited. I think you've been reading way to many of their works.

That's your baseless opinion, nothing more.

No no no, that the beauty, that's not just my opinion, and infact it's getting more and more well established, even among certain economists

[hazek]

Again your lack of knowledge in economics is showing, since suggesting a thief is going to still from the poor is the most basic case of lack of an incentive for such an act to actually occur in the real world unless of course you believe all thieves are lunatics not acting rationally in their own self interest.

[myrkul]

That is simply not true, I suggest you check those stat Hazek was referring to, thefts and especially violence is extremely local. Thieves almost never go more than a mile or 2 from a neighborhood they know and usually inhabit.

Well, if the crime is local, then I see no reason why the solution cannot be either. Neighborhood watch groups already operate extensively, removing the monopoly on force would allow them to be armed.

[Equilux]

That is simply not true, I suggest you check those stat Hazek was referring to, thefts and especially violence is extremely local. Thieves almost never go more than a mile or 2 from a neighborhood they know and usually inhabit.

Well, if the crime is local, then I see no reason why the solution cannot be either. Neighborhood watch groups already operate extensively, removing the monopoly on force would allow them to be armed.

And who would fund these watchgroups? The gangsters or impoverished people who can't scrape togther a living? Again massively favoring the rich, and the poor get inferior service again.

Again your lack of knowledge in economics is showing, since suggesting a thief is going to still from the poor is the most basic case of lack of an incentive for such an act to actually occur in the real world unless of course you believe all thieves are lunatics not acting rationally in their own self interest.

You should really check out those crime stats you talked about earlier, have you even gone outside every once in a while? Rationality? Really? you must have heard of ghetto's right? Crime is very local, thats very well documented, and too bad if it doesn't fit a economic model you chose to defend.

[myrkul]

That is simply not true, I suggest you check those stat Hazek was referring to, thefts and especially violence is extremely local. Thieves almost never go more than a mile or 2 from a neighborhood they know and usually inhabit.

Well, if the crime is local, then I see no reason why the solution cannot be either. Neighborhood watch groups already operate extensively, removing the monopoly on force would allow them to be armed.

And who would fund these watchgroups? The gangsters or impoverished people who can't scrape together a living? Again massively favoring the rich, and the poor get inferior service again.

The same people who fund the neighborhood watch groups now... the neighborhood watch groups.

[Equilux]

That is simply not true, I suggest you check those stat Hazek was referring to, thefts and especially violence is extremely local. Thieves almost never go more than a mile or 2 from a neighborhood they know and usually inhabit.

Well, if the crime is local, then I see no reason why the solution cannot be either. Neighborhood watch groups already operate extensively, removing the monopoly on force would allow them to be armed.

And who would fund these watchgroups? The gangsters or impoverished people who can't scrape together a living? Again massively favoring the rich, and the poor get inferior service again.

The same people who fund the neighborhood watch groups now... the neighborhood watch groups.

That seems a fairly interesting point. But it doesn't scale very well, since like you said thay would need to be armed, and therefor trained, bringing us back to one of the issues on the previous page, that this is much less efficient since a much larger group of people would be doing the same job and most likely less well.

more importandly this would again favor the people and only their own neigberhoods, who have the time and money to parttake in those groups. And again the area's that need protection the most (which is the same area with the least people able to help in such groups) are left without protection.

On top of that there is also the problem of organised crime. watchgroups, of private police forces being paid to protect those with money won't stand a chance or don't feel the need to bother them because it happens not to affect them.

[myrkul]

That seems a fairly interesting point. But it doesn't scale very well, since like you said thay would need to be armed, and therefor trained, bringing us back to one of the issues on the previous page, that this is much less efficient since a much larger group of people would be doing the same job and most likely less well.

more importandly this would again favor the people and only their own neigberhoods, who have the time and money to parttake in those groups. And again the area's that need protection the most (which is the same area with the least people able to help in such groups) are left without protection.

On top of that there is also the problem of organised crime. watchgroups, of private police forces being paid to protect those with money won't stand a chance or don't feel the need to bother them because it happens not to affect them.

I don't quite understand what you're talking about, and I'm not certain you do either.  Maybe you should do a little reading.

[FirstAscent]

I keep asking a certain question in various formats, but never get an answer. I'll try again.

How would a NAP society remain a NAP society?

[hazek]

I keep asking a certain question in various formats, but never get an answer. I'll try again.

How would a NAP society remain a NAP society?

I believe here's my answer: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88184.msg972865#msg972865

[asdf]

If you're worried about the poor being attacked, pay your defense agency to defend them as well as yourself.

If people want the poor to be taken care of, a market will emerge to provide this service. This form of charity will be much more common when the government stops stealing > %50 of our wealth.

Furthermore, the poor only exist because of the government. After the end of the 2nd world war, poverty was declining at %1 per year (in the USA), until the government created the welfare programs. After that it began to rise again. socialised charity creates a culture of dependency. Simple dolling out cash to poor people doesn't help them.

Consider the massive burden the government places on the economy; diverting typically half a nations resources to beurocracy and other unproductive uses. This inefficiency results in less production, meaning less wealth to go around and therefore higher prices. The poor suffer the most. Voluntary trade results in the most efficient allocation of capital, thus the most production/wealth. When the state introduces force in to the equation, everyone loses.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Furthermore, the poor only exist because of the government. After the end of the 2nd world war, poverty was declining at %1 per year (in the USA), until the government created the welfare programs. After that it began to rise again. socialised charity creates a culture of dependency. Simple dolling out cash to poor people doesn't help them.

...snip...

Interesting isn't it.  When income tax was over 90%, the economy boomed and poverty was falling.  Those were the good old days.

[myrkul]

...snip...

Furthermore, the poor only exist because of the government. After the end of the 2nd world war, poverty was declining at %1 per year (in the USA), until the government created the welfare programs. After that it began to rise again. socialised charity creates a culture of dependency. Simple dolling out cash to poor people doesn't help them.

...snip...

Interesting isn't it.  When income tax was over 90%, the economy boomed and poverty was falling.  Those were the good old days.

So, could you point out stats to back up your claim of 90% income tax after WWII?

[FirstAscent]

...snip...

Furthermore, the poor only exist because of the government. After the end of the 2nd world war, poverty was declining at %1 per year (in the USA), until the government created the welfare programs. After that it began to rise again. socialised charity creates a culture of dependency. Simple dolling out cash to poor people doesn't help them.

...snip...

Interesting isn't it.  When income tax was over 90%, the economy boomed and poverty was falling.  Those were the good old days.

So, could you point out stats to back up your claim of 90% income tax after WWII?

It's already been done. Search the forums.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Furthermore, the poor only exist because of the government. After the end of the 2nd world war, poverty was declining at %1 per year (in the USA), until the government created the welfare programs. After that it began to rise again. socialised charity creates a culture of dependency. Simple dolling out cash to poor people doesn't help them.

...snip...

Interesting isn't it.  When income tax was over 90%, the economy boomed and poverty was falling.  Those were the good old days.

So, could you point out stats to back up your claim of 90% income tax after WWII?

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

In the mid-twentieth century, marginal tax rates (the rate applied to the last bit of income) in the United States and United Kingdom exceeded 90%

If you are genuinely interested, check the correlation between tax rates and growth.  As the tax rate comes down, the growth rate falls too.  The good old days of the booming US economy were the days when the top rate was 70% and above.  

[myrkul]

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

In the mid-twentieth century, marginal tax rates (the rate applied to the last bit of income) in the United States and United Kingdom exceeded 90%

I asked for stats, and since you instead gave me a wikipedia quote, I'm going to have to ask this way: [citation needed]

[Hawker]

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

In the mid-twentieth century, marginal tax rates (the rate applied to the last bit of income) in the United States and United Kingdom exceeded 90%

I asked for stats, and since you instead gave me a wikipedia quote, I'm going to have to ask this way: [citation needed]

Google.  Stop being lazy. 

[myrkul]

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

In the mid-twentieth century, marginal tax rates (the rate applied to the last bit of income) in the United States and United Kingdom exceeded 90%

I asked for stats, and since you instead gave me a wikipedia quote, I'm going to have to ask this way: [citation needed]

Google.  Stop being lazy. 

It's your assertion, back it up.

[Hawker]

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

In the mid-twentieth century, marginal tax rates (the rate applied to the last bit of income) in the United States and United Kingdom exceeded 90%

I asked for stats, and since you instead gave me a wikipedia quote, I'm going to have to ask this way: [citation needed]

Google.  Stop being lazy. 

It's your assertion, back it up.

I regard wikipedia as adequate back-up.