"Book club"

[myrkul]

You don't agree with its central premise that the NAP is bunk or that a state is needed.  Apart from agreeing that racial discrimination should be legalised again, I can't see what you agree with in that book.

I proposed it mostly for the description of market law. Perhaps you would like another book to read? I can suggest one much closer to my own views, if you like.

But you don't agree with the description of market law.  What you describe and what he describe are very different.

Have you actually read the book? 

I found nothing to disagree with in the system of Market law described in the book. Either you misunderstand my position, his position, or both. I suspect the latter.

[Hawker]

You don't agree with its central premise that the NAP is bunk or that a state is needed.  Apart from agreeing that racial discrimination should be legalised again, I can't see what you agree with in that book.

I proposed it mostly for the description of market law. Perhaps you would like another book to read? I can suggest one much closer to my own views, if you like.

But you don't agree with the description of market law.  What you describe and what he describe are very different.

Have you actually read the book? 

I found nothing to disagree with in the system of Market law described in the book. Either you misunderstand my position, his position, or both. I suspect the latter.

You haven't answered the question.  Have you read the book?  Tell me what chapter you are talking about.

[myrkul]

You don't agree with its central premise that the NAP is bunk or that a state is needed.  Apart from agreeing that racial discrimination should be legalised again, I can't see what you agree with in that book.

I proposed it mostly for the description of market law. Perhaps you would like another book to read? I can suggest one much closer to my own views, if you like.

But you don't agree with the description of market law.  What you describe and what he describe are very different.

Have you actually read the book? 

I found nothing to disagree with in the system of Market law described in the book. Either you misunderstand my position, his position, or both. I suspect the latter.

You haven't answered the question.  Have you read the book?  Tell me what chapter you are talking about.

Yes, I have. The chapter I am speaking of is "Police, Courts, and Laws - on the Market".

[Hawker]

You don't agree with its central premise that the NAP is bunk or that a state is needed.  Apart from agreeing that racial discrimination should be legalised again, I can't see what you agree with in that book.

I proposed it mostly for the description of market law. Perhaps you would like another book to read? I can suggest one much closer to my own views, if you like.

But you don't agree with the description of market law.  What you describe and what he describe are very different.

Have you actually read the book? 

I found nothing to disagree with in the system of Market law described in the book. Either you misunderstand my position, his position, or both. I suspect the latter.

You haven't answered the question.  Have you read the book?  Tell me what chapter you are talking about.

Yes, I have. The chapter I am speaking of is "Police, Courts, and Laws - on the Market".

And you agree with that chapter?  Or is it only some sentences in that chapter that you think are ok?

[myrkul]

And you agree with that chapter?  Or is it only some sentences in that chapter that you think are ok?

I said I found nothing to disagree with regarding the system of market law described therein, did I not?

I have just skimmed the chapter again, to be sure, and I saw no sentence that I disagreed with. I may have missed one, but I doubt it.

One thing I did notice, that I dislike, is that he uses the word "court" when referring to private law. He makes it clear what he is discussing upfront, but though I would prefer he use "arbiter", he can be forgiven not using a new term when speaking to an uninitiated audience.

[Hawker]

We start with "Government is an agency of legitimized coercion."

We come to Joe being accused of stealing a TV.  Tannahelp, the security company, tells him to surrender himself or they will take him by force.  Joe has his own defence company.  The dispute goes to arbitration and he loses.  Tannahelp, the security company, at this point is an agency of legitimized coercion; it has the authority to take back the TV and to punish Joe.  

In effect, Joe has a new government called Tannahelp, hasn't he?  

Anyway they decided to kill him.  Joe's agency, Dawn Defense, may object that this is too severe.  He may have paid them to make sure that no-one ever has the right to kill him.
In this case, "If, by some chance, the customers of the two agencies feel equally strongly, perhaps two courts will be chosen, one of each kind, and cases allocated randomly between them."

On other words, its a random chance whether or not Joe gets killed by his new government despite his explicitly entering a contract that said he was not to be killed.

So, these private companies can arrest and kill you merely on suspicion if you don't have a security company.
If you do have a security company, its random chance whether or not you get what you paid for.
If you lose at arbitration, you lose everything.  You can be killed if the arbitration company selected by your new government allows that.

You think all that is OK?

[myrkul]

As I suspected, you misunderstand the position, or are deliberately distorting it. Read the chapter again, paying special attention to the section (which is 4 paragraphs long) which begins "But wars are very expensive,"

[Hawker]

As I suspected, you misunderstand the position, or are deliberately distorting it. Read the chapter again, paying special attention to the section (which is 4 paragraphs long) which begins "But wars are very expensive,"

I've understood it fine. 

If Joe has no defence agency, he can be killed.  I take it you are agreed on that?

[vampire]

Why should you have to pay for his ambulance ride? Why should anyone but him? It's his bill, let him pay it.

Are you gonna ask a critically injured person -  do you have money? Or save him first?

[myrkul]

As I suspected, you misunderstand the position, or are deliberately distorting it. Read the chapter again, paying special attention to the section (which is 4 paragraphs long) which begins "But wars are very expensive,"

I've understood it fine. 

If Joe has no defence agency, he can be killed.  I take it you are agreed on that?

Deliberately distorting it then. Thanks for your honesty.

If he has no Defense agency, he is still capable of signing the same agreements to arbitrate with the other agencies as they are, he's just on his own for defense. Those who refuse protection would most likely be the "survivalist" types, and be armed to the teeth anyway.

Why should you have to pay for his ambulance ride? Why should anyone but him? It's his bill, let him pay it.

Are you gonna ask a critically injured person -  do you have money? Or save him first?

Me? I don't run an ambulance service. But if I did, I'd find it hard to collect if my patients died while waiting for insurance to clear, so I would focus on keeping them alive first, and worry about payment later. Thus the use of the word "bill", as in "bill me later"

[Hawker]

You avoid the question.  If Joe has no defence agency, there is no restriction on Tannahelp killing him is there?  They won't be investigated, let alone punished.

[vampire]

Me? I don't run an ambulance service. But if I did, I'd find it hard to collect if my patients died while waiting for insurance to clear, so I would focus on keeping them alive first, and worry about payment later. Thus the use of the word "bill", as in "bill me later"

So if he can't pay who's paying? In emergency rooms they don't check really for insurance, they treat you. If you don't have insurance and can't pay then the cost will be passed to the rest of society. I.e. it's socialized.

[myrkul]

You avoid the question.  If Joe has no defence agency, there is no restriction on Tannahelp killing him is there?  They won't be investigated, let alone punished.

This merry-go-round again? We've covered this. My arguments haven't changed. Go back and read 'em.

Me? I don't run an ambulance service. But if I did, I'd find it hard to collect if my patients died while waiting for insurance to clear, so I would focus on keeping them alive first, and worry about payment later. Thus the use of the word "bill", as in "bill me later"

So if he can't pay who's paying? In emergency rooms they don't check really for insurance, they treat you. If you don't have insurance and can't pay then the cost will be passed to the rest of society. I.e. it's socialized.

If nothing else, then there is always charity. You may (and probably will) argue that that is still socialized, and you're right. But they voluntarily agree to pay the bills of those who are unable to, and that is an important distinction.

[Hawker]

OK, so you are for legalising racial discrimination and for having agencies that have a right to kill on suspicion.

Well, the book seems to refute your position on the NAP so unless you have changed your mind about it, I think we are done.

[FirstAscent]

The discriminator loses money, or an employee. The discriminated against can seek employment, or whatever service they were seeking, elsewhere, where they will not have to do business with a bigot. The discriminated against has a more enjoyable experience, elsewhere, and the discriminator is out business.

Business owners don't have to behave in an economically rational way.

Don't be obtuse. The real world isn't how you imagine it. Are you mentally incapable of augmenting your limited knowledge with the complexities and issues which don't conform to your simplistic model of the world?

[FirstAscent]

Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?

You avoided answering this question.

Its a question on another subject.  Why waste time on it?

Because it is on topic to the discussion: Discrimination. I ask again: Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?

It's irrelevant. Said business will still operate. Are you that stupid? I believe so.

[niemivh]

Note to armchair economists, libertarians, etc.: if you can't get a handle on the information that exists in the titles listed above, then you're not in a position to pontificate, speculate, or blow hot air about economic theory. And if you don't understand why, then once again, you're not in a position to spout your pontifications and speculations.

Preemptive defense of your book titles?  You've got some passion.  Reminds me of me.

 

[niemivh]

Opening of "The Machinery of Freedom" says:

The central idea of libertarianism is that people should be permitted to run their own lives as they wish. We totally reject the idea that people must be forcibly protected from themselves. A libertarian society would have no laws against drugs, gambling, pornography —and no compulsory seat belts in cars.

The law compelling people to wear seat belts in backs of cars greatly reduced deaths and injuries.  Since people hurt in car accidents need to be be rescued, failure to wear a seat belt imposes a cost on everyone else. 

Is there any point in carrying on?  The guy clearly thinks society in an infinite money tree to pick up the costs of his carelessness. 

Yes, he (D. Friedman) is batshit insane with a nice, soothing voice.  Makes you just nod and accept what he's saying. Here's a condensed video version of what I presume the book of the same name advocates for. 

"The Machinery of Freedom"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jTYkdEU_B4o#

[niemivh]

Its a cost imposed on society by the careless.

Why should you have to pay for his ambulance ride? Why should anyone but him? It's his bill, let him pay it.

Oh, and enjoy the book. I'm still trying to work through the "history" part of Political Economy. I sure hope the "theory" part is less snooze-inducing.

Ha, well, this is the kind of stuff I read all the time.  Most of the contemporary stuff is garbage compared to classics back when the intellectuals actually lived up to the name.

[FirstAscent]

Note to armchair economists, libertarians, etc.: if you can't get a handle on the information that exists in the titles listed above, then you're not in a position to pontificate, speculate, or blow hot air about economic theory. And if you don't understand why, then once again, you're not in a position to spout your pontifications and speculations.

Preemptive defense of your book titles?  You've got some passion.

 

Most of the libertarian clowns here never factor in the actual foundations upon which an economy runs. Without resources, an economy is dead in the water. Furthermore, libertarians suffer from the belief that a free market, by virtue of diminishing supply and rising prices due to a diminishing supply, harvesting of a finite resource will diminish. That's one of their most fallacious assumptions. In actuality, when the price of a resource goes up due to diminishing supply, there is increased competition, effort and technology applied to harvest that finite resource into non-existence. It happens every time. A pure free market sans regulation is death to us all.