LFTR and Market Failures

[myrkul]

niemivh, have you seen this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEV5AFFcZ-s&feature=related ? It starts off a little loopy, and ends over in my camp, but in the middle it seems like it's right up your alley. You should enjoy it.

[1714936284]

1714936284

[1714936284]

1714936284

[1714936284]

1714936284

[1714936284]

1714936284

[1714936284]

1714936284

[FredericBastiat]

I was a democracy pandering nitwit for awhile until someone showed me the folly of my ways. I personally won't force anyone to do or say or believe any specific thing, especially on what's right and wrong, given that it's a subjective topic, and given that it's against my personal beliefs to do so. However, what I can say is that Libertarianism, in it's simplest form, is the most logically sound of philosophies I've read. Although admittedly, it does encounter some 'life-boat' scenario oddities. But who cares about the one-in-a-million happenstance? Besides, if you do, then logic and reasoning is important to you, in which case, you should reconsider all of your beliefs.

That doesn't make it right or wrong per se, but if you use logic and reason to justify anything you do (which is the premise of any of the idealogues), it makes all of the other philosophies look absolutely ridiculous by comparison.

Simply put, if I respect your opinions, will you respect mine? If you do, you can't force your opinions on me and vice versa, without violating that simple premise. Shall we accord each other the right to our opinion and not impose it on each other? Because if we do that, that's the basis of Libertarianism, and if it's not, it's a battle of wills, not one of reasoning.

Flame on.

[niemivh]

I was a democracy pandering nitwit for awhile until someone showed me the folly of my ways. I personally won't force anyone to do or say or believe any specific thing, especially on what's right and wrong, given that it's a subjective topic, and given that it's against my personal beliefs to do so. However, what I can say is that Libertarianism, in it's simplest form, is the most logically sound of philosophies I've read. Although admittedly, it does encounter some 'life-boat' scenario oddities. But who cares about the one-in-a-million happenstance? Besides, if you do, then logic and reasoning is important to you, in which case, you should reconsider all of your beliefs.

That doesn't make it right or wrong per se, but if you use logic and reason to justify anything you do (which is the premise of any of the idealogues), it makes all of the other philosophies look absolutely ridiculous by comparison.

Simply put, if I respect your opinions, will you respect mine? If you do, you can't force your opinions on me and vice versa, without violating that simple premise. Shall we accord each other the right to our opinion and not impose it on each other? Because if we do that, that's the basis of Libertarianism, and if it's not, it's a battle of wills, not one of reasoning.

Flame on.

What are opinions?  Do they have any external context or meaning?  What is the application of opinions?

Ideas are what I wish to discuss, and I only really infer personal-level stuff when I'm trying to show the person believing XYZ to look at his fellow person believing it and see if there is any perhaps demographic, or societal, or external actor to why he is believing what he is; or to look at themselves in the mirror and to assess what they are seeing.  Seeing as the arguments to expand one's knowledge and to rationally discuss the ideas and tenants of the ideology have failed due to lack of effort and willpower on behalf of the Libertarian audience here, then that is the 'second rate' strategy that my arguments have had to employ as of late. 

Do you remember when you learned that being a 'Democracy peddling-nitwit' was a bad-idea?  Do you remember the conversation, the specific instants that made you realize: "could I be mistaken?"  And the path that you took to learn more about a superior system of morality or social-organization or whatever?  Imagine going on that path of learning, rigorously, for years - what do you think that you would learn?  What things would you realize that would turn out to be just as absurd as democracy-peddling would be to you now?  This is the question I want every Libertarian to ask, as becoming a Lib prematurely makes people (specifically white males within a certain age range) to believe that they are wizened old men and possess answers for everything.  More absurdly, they think that this can be derived from a single, or at best, a handful of books that all spew the same basic, underlying ideology.

[FirstAscent]

More absurdly, they think that this can be derived from a single, or at best, a handful of books that all spew the same basic, underlying ideology.

+1

Not only is it interesting that those books all say the same thing, more interesting is what they don't say. They are completely devoid of so much knowledge about the world, and it's inner workings.

Challenge to libertarians: show me the bibliographies of your favorite libertarian book, and let's see how diverse and complete they are with regard to referencing well respected material on various subject matter.

[FredericBastiat]

I'm sure I won't avoid the ire and snideness of the libertarian-haters out there, but this is what I believe.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=21217.msg341902#msg341902

It doesn't include the diversity of the entire universe, but that doesn't make it a crude ideology either. Besides, I don't think that's the point of a philosophy in the first place (at least the ethics of it). It tends to exclude the empiricism (being of secondary concern) and focuses on the ethical morality of the outcomes of the actions of its participants. It is a war of "shoulds" and "shoudn'ts". But y'all already knew that.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, one of the most prolific, esteemed and celebrated philosophers, Ludwig Wittgenstein, mentions very little of the physical sciences (physics) in his works. The application of opinions and philosophies are those in which you affect changes in the environment around you (applied sciences), and then see how individuals respond.

[FirstAscent]

I'm sure I won't avoid the ire and snideness of the libertarian-haters out there, but this is what I believe.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=21217.msg341902#msg341902

Feel free to start a thread regarding it. Care to address your views on property within the context of oceans, rivers, fishing, migration, pollination, pesticides, timber, whaling, poaching, black markets, free markets, drilling, pollution, trophic cascades, predation, ecosystem services, soil maintenance, climate amelioration, nutrient cycling, flood control, freshwater supply, genetic resources, and recreation?

[FredericBastiat]

Feel free to start a thread regarding it. Care to address your views on property within the context of oceans, rivers, fishing, migration, pollination, pesticides, timber, whaling, poaching, black markets, free markets, drilling, pollution, trophic cascades, predation, ecosystem services, soil maintenance, climate amelioration, nutrient cycling, flood control, freshwater supply, genetic resources, and recreation?

I'm only interested in addressing those topics if they affect the property of others sans permission. If you can reasonably demonstrate that any one or all of those significantly affect the property of others, then we can have a discussion about what consequences could be directed at the person whose property effuses or emits unwanted material beyond its boundaries.

It's just physics you're talking about. Those topics are just specialties under the umbrella of physics. All very interesting stuff. Nevertheless, I'm not so concerned as to the specifics of the affects (since there are nuances within nuances) as I am the constant meddling of governments who claim to be the fountain of all knowledge, ethics and punishment (the pretense being that they are our moral overlords).

Besides, if you don't like what others do on their property (assuming their activities remain confined to the dimensions of said property), what makes your utility so much better than theirs?

[FirstAscent]

Feel free to start a thread regarding it. Care to address your views on property within the context of oceans, rivers, fishing, migration, pollination, pesticides, timber, whaling, poaching, black markets, free markets, drilling, pollution, trophic cascades, predation, ecosystem services, soil maintenance, climate amelioration, nutrient cycling, flood control, freshwater supply, genetic resources, and recreation?

I'm only interested in addressing those topics if they affect the property of others sans permission. If you can reasonably demonstrate that any one or all of those significantly affect the property of others, then we can have a discussion about what consequences could be directed at the person whose property effuses or emits unwanted material beyond its boundaries.

That is a terribly dangerous viewpoint, and it demonstrates how your lack of desire in exploring those topics in depth render you ability to propose and judge laws and policies with regard to ownership of property somewhat handicapped.

Besides, if you don't like what others do on their property (assuming their activities remain confined to the dimensions of said property), what makes your utility so much better than theirs?

Again, this is not an adequate and encompassing view. There are so many inter-dynamics occurring here that transcend the boundaries of one property and another.

[FredericBastiat]

That is a terribly dangerous viewpoint, and it demonstrates how your lack of desire in exploring those topics in depth render you ability to propose and judge laws and policies with regard to ownership of property somewhat handicapped.

It's not dangerous if my property remains contained within the defined boundaries. It may be dangerous if it is not. I'm in the politics and society section. We're mainly speaking of philosophies. It would appear your muddying the two.

Again, this is not an adequate and encompassing view. There are so many inter-dynamics occurring here that transcend the boundaries of one property and another.

You didn't read what I wrote. I stated it as if the property is contained. "Inter-dynamics" is not a self-containing definition.

[FirstAscent]

That is a terribly dangerous viewpoint, and it demonstrates how your lack of desire in exploring those topics in depth render you ability to propose and judge laws and policies with regard to ownership of property somewhat handicapped.

It's not dangerous if my property remains contained within the defined boundaries. It may be dangerous if it is not. I'm in the politics and society section. We're mainly speaking of philosophies. It would appear your muddying the two.

Discussion of politics requires acknowledgement of the effects that society has on its future. How could you claim otherwise? This forum is not entitled "Philosophy". Just because your ideology hinges upon ignoring the messy details of the real world does not in fact render you immune from such criticisms about your ideology.

Now, regarding this claim of yours:

It's not dangerous if my property remains contained within the defined boundaries.

I suspect you really don't know many of the things that you might do on your property that have an effect beyond the boundaries of your property. Furthermore, have you considered that boundaries do not exist just in physical extent, but temporal extent as well? What is the temporal extent of your ownership?

Ultimately, your ideology is short sighted due to your simplistic application of the meaning of ownership, which appears to be rather egocentric.

[niemivh]

Feel free to start a thread regarding it. Care to address your views on property within the context of oceans, rivers, fishing, migration, pollination, pesticides, timber, whaling, poaching, black markets, free markets, drilling, pollution, trophic cascades, predation, ecosystem services, soil maintenance, climate amelioration, nutrient cycling, flood control, freshwater supply, genetic resources, and recreation?

I'm only interested in addressing those topics if they affect the property of others sans permission. If you can reasonably demonstrate that any one or all of those significantly affect the property of others, then we can have a discussion about what consequences could be directed at the person whose property effuses or emits unwanted material beyond its boundaries.

It's just physics you're talking about. Those topics are just specialties under the umbrella of physics. All very interesting stuff. Nevertheless, I'm not so concerned as to the specifics of the affects (since there are nuances within nuances) as I am the constant meddling of governments who claim to be the fountain of all knowledge, ethics and punishment (the pretense being that they are our moral overlords).

Besides, if you don't like what others do on their property (assuming their activities remain confined to the dimensions of said property), what makes your utility so much better than theirs?

It's funny how all you Libs are the same. The deterministic, procedural methodology.  The reductionism.  The empiricism.  The absurdity of thinking that 'everything is under the umbrella of physics'.  It would be an interesting discussion to follow the path of these style thinkers who originated this line of thinking and how the underpinning for your entire Lib belief system is actually requisite on these pre-existing world-views.  Oh, and lest I forget, you all have this absurd ontological and bankrupt epistemology because you are all 'skeptics'.  

LOL.  You guys are priceless.  You are all the same, but you are all priceless nevertheless.

[niemivh]

Feel free to start a thread regarding it. Care to address your views on property within the context of oceans, rivers, fishing, migration, pollination, pesticides, timber, whaling, poaching, black markets, free markets, drilling, pollution, trophic cascades, predation, ecosystem services, soil maintenance, climate amelioration, nutrient cycling, flood control, freshwater supply, genetic resources, and recreation?

I'm only interested in addressing those topics if they affect the property of others sans permission. If you can reasonably demonstrate that any one or all of those significantly affect the property of others, then we can have a discussion about what consequences could be directed at the person whose property effuses or emits unwanted material beyond its boundaries.

It's just physics you're talking about. Those topics are just specialties under the umbrella of physics. All very interesting stuff. Nevertheless, I'm not so concerned as to the specifics of the affects (since there are nuances within nuances) as I am the constant meddling of governments who claim to be the fountain of all knowledge, ethics and punishment (the pretense being that they are our moral overlords).

Besides, if you don't like what others do on their property (assuming their activities remain confined to the dimensions of said property), what makes your utility so much better than theirs?

It's funny how all you Libs are the same. The deterministic, procedural methodology.  The reductionism.  The empiricism.  The absurdity of thinking that 'everything is under the umbrella of physics'.  It would be an interesting discussion to follow the path of these style thinkers who originated this line of thinking and how the underpinning for your entire Lib belief system is actually requisite on these pre-existing world-views.  Oh, and lest I forget, you all have this absurd ontological and bankrupt epistemology because you are all 'skeptics'.  

LOL.  You guys are priceless.  You are all the same, but you are all priceless nevertheless.

And, I would try, but I'd be all alone.  You guys have no idea what I'm talking about when I'm simply discussing the implications of your shibboleths and ideological fetishism.  In short, most of you are too stupid & ignorant to even be voting, much less debating anything.  So, if I starting discussing the origin of these belief systems, and epistemological world-views over the past 1000 years, I might as well be speaking in a Martian language.

[FredericBastiat]

That didn't take long niemivh. Resorting to ad hominem. I guess our conversation is effectively finished.

And as for you FirstAccent, it seems your entire discussion is an attempt at ignoring property definition and engaging in verbal diahhrea -trying to convince everybody that all property is common (violating the very definition of ownership), which of course is not true in the outcome, because it will resort to an Authoritarian system of government where all resources are effectively owned by the ruling class (of which I'm sure you'd like to have a membership).

Sorry, not buying. You can throw all your special environmental terminology at me all you want (no disrespect), but if all it does is result in theft and plunder of the masses under the pretense of "saving the planet", I'm having nothing of it. Notwithstanding, I respect the environment, and don't believe in pollution because of it's affect on others (trespass and vandalization).

Private property is the best way IMO to protect the environment from harm. And finally, if anything, Libertarians are nitpicks for the details. I may not be an environmental grandmaster wizard, but I'm not stupid either.

[myrkul]

I suspect you really don't know many of the things that you might do on your property that have an effect beyond the boundaries of your property. Furthermore, have you considered that boundaries do not exist just in physical extent, but temporal extent as well? What is the temporal extent of your ownership?

Firstly, you've started a thread to explain all this, and I'm still waiting on an update in it. Second, as to the temporal boundaries of property, That property is mine until I reassign it. That can happen a number of ways, to my heirs at my death, through selling it, etc. If I care about my heirs, or the resale value of the property, I will not do anything to reduce the long-term value of that property.

Consider: The Scimitar-horned Oryx. It is currently extinct in the wild, existing only in zoos and game preserves. There are no more roaming the wilds (commons) of Africa. Do you know where the largest concentration of Scimitar-horned Oryx are, today?

In a private game reserve in Texas. Your precious biodiversity is being protected by hunters. Why? Because if they hunted them completely out of existence, they couldn't hunt them anymore. Self-interest, protection of the value of one's private property, has succeeded where environmentalism and the commons has failed.

[niemivh]

That didn't take long niemivh. Resorting to ad hominem. I guess our conversation is effectively finished.

And as for you FirstAccent, it seems your entire discussion is an attempt at ignoring property definition and engaging in verbal diahhrea -trying to convince everybody that all property is common (violating the very definition of ownership), which of course is not true in the outcome, because it will resort to an Authoritarian system of government where all resources are effectively owned by the ruling class (of which I'm sure you'd like to have a membership).

Sorry, not buying. You can throw all your special environmental terminology at me all you want (no disrespect), but if all it does is result in theft and plunder of the masses under the pretense of "saving the planet", I'm having nothing of it. Notwithstanding, I respect the environment, and don't believe in pollution because of it's affect on others (trespass and vandalization).

Private property is the best way IMO to protect the environment from harm. And finally, if anything, Libertarians are nitpicks for the details. I may not be an environmental grandmaster wizard, but I'm not stupid either.

You should have been around for the long, hundred+ pages I wrote refuting every salient aspect of what can be referred to as "Libertarianism".  Just go browse my old posts.

Plus I'm writing a book (albeit slowly) that is going to refute and destroy every aspect of this cult-ideology.  I hope to be able to finish it in a year and am starting officially end of August or first of September.

 

[FredericBastiat]

You should have been around for the long, hundred+ pages I wrote refuting every salient aspect of what can be referred to as "Libertarianism".  Just go browse my old posts.

Plus I'm writing a book (albeit slowly) that is going to refute and destroy every aspect of this cult-ideology.  I hope to be able to finish it in a year and am starting officially end of August or first of September.

 

Point me in the general direction, otherwise I won't bother (or summarize as I have). I'd love to see how you use logic to explain it away, or is that not a necessary component to your refutation? I'd imagine the fact you consider your reasoning to have any meaning and be worthy of review it would have to be logical, in which case, I'd be interested in what axioms you start with to begin your arguments.

You see the problem isn't the fact that you can make any moral rules you want, the issue is one of enforcing them. At that point things get really dicey. They're great for those who sign on to be ruled in such a fashion, but makes it extraordinarily violent for those who just want to be left to their druthers. It's when opinion, ethics and morality crosses over into the physical world where you start to produce a plethora of consequences.

[niemivh]

You should have been around for the long, hundred+ pages I wrote refuting every salient aspect of what can be referred to as "Libertarianism".  Just go browse my old posts.

Plus I'm writing a book (albeit slowly) that is going to refute and destroy every aspect of this cult-ideology.  I hope to be able to finish it in a year and am starting officially end of August or first of September.

 

Point me in the general direction, otherwise I won't bother (or summarize as I have). I'd love to see how you use logic to explain it away, or is that not a necessary component to your refutation? I'd imagine the fact you consider your reasoning to have any meaning and be worthy of review it would have to be logical, in which case, I'd be interested in what axioms you start with to begin your arguments.

You see the problem isn't the fact that you can make any moral rules you want, the issue is one of enforcing them. At that point things get really dicey. They're great for those who sign on to be ruled in such a fashion, but makes it extraordinarily violent for those who just want to be left to their druthers. It's when opinion, ethics and morality crosses over into the physical world where you start to produce a plethora of consequences.

"I won't bother".  The anthem of Libertarians everywhere.  The thermonuclear weapon of argumentation deployed by the Libs.

Well you can click my name and then look at my past posts and then find the biggest ones and then go to those threads and follow the arguments.  That isn't that hard really.  Sorry if I'm not desiring to paraphrase everything on this website multiple times for each user, as I'm one of the very few (only?) users who has posted anything substantial in size (or merit, for that matter).  Plus, if you are as lazy as all the other Libertarians, as evidenced by your 'threat' of apathy (which I think, for you, is probably more a way of life), why should I do anything for you?  I would be willing to meet anyone that was honestly interested in having a debate, someone inquisitive and curious about the world 'half way' so to speak and would donate many, many hours of my personal time trying to convince someone of something who wasn't so slothful.

And what are you talking about when you say:  "I'd love to see how you use logic to explain it away, or is that not a necessary component to your refutation?" 

? What is that in reference to?

Here is a list of books that you can read that will roughly approximate what I think and have to say on these topics until I'm able to write my own book(s) on these topics.  I'm no longer interested in long-winded discussions with people on this site.  Maybe that'll change at some point, but Myrkul was a good debater for a while until the arguments I posed never were answered and he tried repeatedly to simply run the conversation in circles with 'bigger' and 'better' (but really worse and more stupid) analogies. 

Here's a good list to start with:

1st tier:

*  "Oligarchy" by Jeffrey A. Winters
*  "Harmony of Interests" by Henry Carey
*  "National System of Political Economy" by Friedrich List
*  "Surviving the Cataclysm" by Webster G. Tarpley
*  "Past, Present, and Future" by Henry Carey
*  "Sophisms of Free Trade" by John B. Byles
*  "Road to Reaction" by Hermin Finer


2nd/3rd tier:

*  "Anti-libertarianism: Markets, philosophy and myth" by Alan Haworth
*  "Democratizing Globalization: The Leverage of the Tobin Tax" by Heikki Patomaki
*  "Zombie Economics: How Dead Ideas Still Walk among Us"  by John Quiggin
*  "Debunking Economics" by Steve Keen
*  "The Enigma of Capital: And the Crises of Capitalism"  by David Harvey

[myrkul]

Well you can click my name and then look at my past posts and then find the biggest ones and then go to those threads and follow the arguments. 

You know what? I don't have anything better to do right at the moment, so that's exactly what I'm going to do. I'm going to sift through pages and pages of your old drek-spew, to see if anywhere in there, you outline an actual philosophy. I don't hold out much hope, but at least it will keep me busy in between changing diapers and feeding babies. Then, I will post my findings here, and keep a record of where you outline this, so that I can reference back to it in the future.

[myrkul]

Oh, god, my brain hurts.

After 5 pages of sanity-straining diatribes (100 walls of text, on average at least one screen-full each)

I have come to the conclusion that:

1. You're stark-raving mad.
2. You may be the same person as vampire. You share "debate" styles.
3. You are unwilling to actually explain your philosophy. You come pretty close in one post, but, alas, you only tangentially touch anything resembling meaning.

You may have posted something more detailed in an earlier post, but my gorge is full for the moment. So, rather than seeing if you ever said what you believed, I did a little side-research.

You first suggested I read The National System of Political Economy, by Friedrich List, so I assumed that the system that he championed would be the one you most closely align yourself with, and indeed, that system does sound like the sort of things you've been saying:

A national system of innovation has been defined as follows:

 

•    .. the network of institutions in the public and private sectors whose activities and interactions initiate, import, modify and diffuse new technologies.[1]
•     .. the elements and relationships which interact in the production, diffusion and use of new, and economically useful, knowledge ... and are either located within or rooted inside the borders of a nation state.[2]
•     ... a set of institutions whose interactions determine the innovative performance ... of national firms.[3]
•     .. the national institutions, their incentive structures and their competencies, that determine the rate and direction of technological learning (or the volume and composition of change generating activities) in a country.[4]
•     .. that set of distinct institutions which jointly and individually contribute to the development and diffusion of new technologies and which provides the framework within which governments form and implement policies to influence the innovation process. As such it is a system of interconnected institutions to create, store and transfer the knowledge, skills and artefacts which define new technologies.[5]

In the "See also" section, I found a link to the "American School", and therein found a link to the second book you suggested I read, Hamilton's Report on Manufactures, so I knew I was on the right track. Also there I found another familiar book title, which pretty much put a lock on this being the philosophy you espouse.

What I don't get is why I had to do all that looking myself, when you could have simply pointed me, or anyone else who asked, at that Wikipedia article. Especially since it seems, at first blush, to be a very positive article.

[FirstAscent]

Your precious biodiversity is being protected by hunters.

How so?

Why? Because if they hunted them completely out of existence, they couldn't hunt them anymore. Self-interest, protection of the value of one's private property, has succeeded where environmentalism and the commons has failed.

If you think the above is an answer to my question of "How so?", then think again. It really only is demonstrative of your shallow understanding of what environmentalism really is, what diversity is, and what the goals of megafauna preservation are.

Do you know what the goals of megafauna preservation are? Because I can assure you, your example of a Texan hunting ranch are not satisfying those goals. Once again, we see where your smug responses are only indicative of your belief that you think you understand what's going on, but really don't.

Are you by chance going to pick up a book on ecology yet? Or are you going to defend your ignorance because I haven't given in to your expectations that I explain it all for you?