Privatization.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Seanchaidh:
... how specifically..? You're just vomiting up abstraction as if it means anything.

By making the companies virtually immune to litigation. By allowing companies to begin with. Companies are not natural, they are designed by law.

The market did not solve the problem because individual incentives favor using gasoline excessively and declining to cut emissions because the effect of one person's use of gasoline is small whereas the effect of millions of people using gasoline, especially in a city with Mexico City's terrain configuration, is large. 99.9999% of what determines the environment of Mexico City is the decision of someone else

Are you trying to argue that the sole and only reason for Mexico City's problems was due to cars? That is far too simplistic and you fucking know it.

It is irrational for self-interested individuals making unilateral decisions to decide to spend or sacrifice anything whatsoever in regards to the environment.

I do not dump car oil on my land. Why? Because it is in my self interest to maintain the land. Your focus is too narrow.

It is similarly irrational for self-interested individuals to voluntarily join a cooperative that requires all members limit their emissions

And yet people do exactly that. Why? Because they feel that their self interest is tied to the environment. Your problem is that you insist on using force when you could instead try and convince people. Self interest is not a math problem, it is a very complex idea.

Can you disagree with this while saying something more than the abstract twaddle you just tried above?

Abstract? Do you know anything about Mexico's situation? Try reading up a bit.

We're talking about a mass of people making decisions with regard to their own peculiar interests; of course there are times where the general interest is not the same as the individual one. Oftentimes it works, many times it does not.

Difference, in your system the corporations own the guns and force the rest of us to serve. In my preferred system, the market and the government is separated and therefore relative interests are split. Your system requires too much violence for me to support it.

No, I just don't find it wise to depend on technological innovation to fix problems that can be fixed without technological innovation.

Really? Are you a primitivist? Or a Luddite? Are you planning to destroy all of those accursed machines? Or are you hoping to keep your air conditioning and your gas guzzler while inventors dig you out?

There is no fundamental law of the universe that says that better technology means less harmful emissions/fewer externality costs, however. Efficiency is a related but still separate issue from externality cost. It is a fine coincidence in our case that technology seems to be moving slowly in the direction of increasing efficiency while decreasing externality costs-- at least regarding fuel.

Actually in regards to everything. More innovations means more efficiency which means less resources used to get another resource out. Food is easier to get than ever before which is allowing us to save land that would otherwise be needed for farmland. And on.

Even still, it is no reason to begrudge Mexico City for taking the action that it did-- however shamelessly they stomped all over your precious ideology by doing so.

They put duct tape over a hole in their ship. It is a patch, and it will never last. The cartels are not powerful simply because they have guns and money. They are powerful because the alternative (the Mexican government) is despised by the people. If the cartels had continued to act as an opposition force to the government they might have been able to topple the entire government. Mexico has a lot of problems.

You may want to read my assertion(s) again. Try not to get too excited to process the words correctly.

Quoted directly from you, "an industry which exposes everyone on earth to a random risk of death potentially billions of times a day". If you do not believe your assertion then do not say it.

Which is why you go to the extraordinary step of talking about how you wish government would go away on the internet. I guess doing lots of bleating makes someone not a sheep.

I suppose you have not read any of my other posts on any of the other topics. If you had then you might realize that I am doing a shit ton more than just complaining. But then again, I suppose to you would view any action at all as simple complaining. After all, you are a conservative and I am a rebel. You want the status quo and I call for change. Conservatives throughout history have claimed that the masses are simply complaining or they are rebels. See how well that assertion turned out.

They provide a substantial level of collective security from foreign invasion where the market would not.

A possibility for foreign invasion that only exists because there are foreign governments.

They provide a substantial level of personal security that few living in a fragmented anarchy would be able to match.

All living in an anarchist system can match it. After all, in an anarchist system there is no police to abuse people without a reaction. What's more, every single government official is more responsible to the people. A friend of mine runs a commune here in Austin. His people can trust him because they can directly affect him. What can I do about the Obama administration?

The world we actually live in requires government.

Then why are so many communes so successful?

Situation: barbarians at the gates. Somehow you've managed to collect together a relatively large city-state without any government. Barbarians see the massive wealth that your supremely efficient market economy has created and have come to plunder it. If all citizens of the right age cooperate together, the city and most of its wealth can probably be saved. If only half do, the barbarians should probably win. Conditions are such that many could escape the city during the battle and move elsewhere if necessary, though this means leaving most of their wealth behind to be plundered. What do you think a self-interested and rational person will do in this situation? Contribute to the defense?

If everyone contributes to the defense, each has a small but significant risk of death or injury. <--- Optimal outcome for the collective
If everyone minus one contributes to the defense, everyone but that person has a risk of death or injury, and the chance of victory is not significantly impacted. <--- Optimal outcome for any individual (It is no wonder that cowardice is seen as a vice...)

If few contribute to the defense, each who does has an extremely high risk of death or capture. <--- sucks the most
Those who don't contribute can probably escape. <--- bad outcome, but still better than death or capture.

Seems like the best decision is not to help-- even if the most preferable outcome is what happens when everyone helps. If only there were some way for everyone involved to agree about what should be done, and then make sure everyone acts accordingly...

Odd, the best decision for me seems to be to help. Which is why such militia systems were widely successful all over the world and continue all the way to this day. In fact, they mostly fail when the people do not understand what they are fighting for. Think Braveheart.

Jux:
Not to sidetrack you from your debate, but I'm interested in your views on this.

Note: These are my views and are not meant to be an absolute truth for everyone. However, I certainly would like to convince people of their validity.

Which rights do people have?

In vague terms life, liberty, and property sounds pretty good. The rights that people have are wide and varied depending upon the situation. Application of the non-aggression principle would also give you a guideline

From where do these rights arise?

From practicality (if you are to live you must have property because two people cannot eat the same apple) and also from our essential humanity.

It would seem to me that the only rights we have are the ones that are agreed upon by the majority of us.

Yes, but those rights are not subject to the whims of the majority. The majority would detail its own rights as being extensive but the lesser group might get the raw end of the stick. For example, some people support their right to privacy, but they do not support my right to privacy because I had the poor luck to be born close to the border and be darkish skinned. I was speaking of the greater rights that extend to all people and should never, ever be infringed.

It would seem that the right to life, one that we consider the most basic, is only granted to me because I live in a society that has deemed that a right. If we lived in a society where say, ritualistic human sacrifice was accepted and commonplace, would I still have a right to life? Who would enforce that right?

In the Aztec society you did have a right to life, if you were an "Aztec". Prior to the arrival of Cortez the Aztecs fought a series of wars against their neighbors called the Flower Wars. They were not wars of conquest. Instead, they were wars that were fought every year in order for the Aztecs to bring back prisoners to be slaughtered. Now, there were Aztecs who became sacrifices but ostensibly they volunteered for the honor. They felt that by being sacrificed they would meet their gods and live on. You have to be careful with these distinctions.

Keep in mind, in an anarchist society there is no state. Therefore, generally speaking, there is no us vs them. There is only an us. Maybe a little different but still very much like us and therefore should be treated as such..

farson135:

Seanchaidh:
... how specifically..? You're just vomiting up abstraction as if it means anything.

By making the companies virtually immune to litigation. By allowing companies to begin with. Companies are not natural, they are designed by law.

The market did not solve the problem because individual incentives favor using gasoline excessively and declining to cut emissions because the effect of one person's use of gasoline is small whereas the effect of millions of people using gasoline, especially in a city with Mexico City's terrain configuration, is large. 99.9999% of what determines the environment of Mexico City is the decision of someone else

Are you trying to argue that the sole and only reason for Mexico City's problems was due to cars? That is far too simplistic and you fucking know it.

It is irrational for self-interested individuals making unilateral decisions to decide to spend or sacrifice anything whatsoever in regards to the environment.

I do not dump car oil on my land. Why? Because it is in my self interest to maintain the land. Your focus is too narrow.

It is similarly irrational for self-interested individuals to voluntarily join a cooperative that requires all members limit their emissions

And yet people do exactly that. Why? Because they feel that their self interest is tied to the environment. Your problem is that you insist on using force when you could instead try and convince people. Self interest is not a math problem, it is a very complex idea.

Can you disagree with this while saying something more than the abstract twaddle you just tried above?

Abstract? Do you know anything about Mexico's situation? Try reading up a bit.

We're talking about a mass of people making decisions with regard to their own peculiar interests; of course there are times where the general interest is not the same as the individual one. Oftentimes it works, many times it does not.

Difference, in your system the corporations own the guns and force the rest of us to serve. In my preferred system, the market and the government is separated and therefore relative interests are split. Your system requires too much violence for me to support it.

No, I just don't find it wise to depend on technological innovation to fix problems that can be fixed without technological innovation.

Really? Are you a primitivist? Or a Luddite? Are you planning to destroy all of those accursed machines? Or are you hoping to keep your air conditioning and your gas guzzler while inventors dig you out?

There is no fundamental law of the universe that says that better technology means less harmful emissions/fewer externality costs, however. Efficiency is a related but still separate issue from externality cost. It is a fine coincidence in our case that technology seems to be moving slowly in the direction of increasing efficiency while decreasing externality costs-- at least regarding fuel.

Actually in regards to everything. More innovations means more efficiency which means less resources used to get another resource out. Food is easier to get than ever before which is allowing us to save land that would otherwise be needed for farmland. And on.

Even still, it is no reason to begrudge Mexico City for taking the action that it did-- however shamelessly they stomped all over your precious ideology by doing so.

They put duct tape over a hole in their ship. It is a patch, and it will never last. The cartels are not powerful simply because they have guns and money. They are powerful because the alternative (the Mexican government) is despised by the people. If the cartels had continued to act as an opposition force to the government they might have been able to topple the entire government. Mexico has a lot of problems.

You may want to read my assertion(s) again. Try not to get too excited to process the words correctly.

Quoted directly from you, "an industry which exposes everyone on earth to a random risk of death potentially billions of times a day". If you do not believe your assertion then do not say it.

Which is why you go to the extraordinary step of talking about how you wish government would go away on the internet. I guess doing lots of bleating makes someone not a sheep.

I suppose you have not read any of my other posts on any of the other topics. If you had then you might realize that I am doing a shit ton more than just complaining. But then again, I suppose to you would view any action at all as simple complaining. After all, you are a conservative and I am a rebel. You want the status quo and I call for change. Conservatives throughout history have claimed that the masses are simply complaining or they are rebels. See how well that assertion turned out.

They provide a substantial level of collective security from foreign invasion where the market would not.

A possibility for foreign invasion that only exists because there are foreign governments.

They provide a substantial level of personal security that few living in a fragmented anarchy would be able to match.

All living in an anarchist system can match it. After all, in an anarchist system there is no police to abuse people without a reaction. What's more, every single government official is more responsible to the people. A friend of mine runs a commune here in Austin. His people can trust him because they can directly affect him. What can I do about the Obama administration?

The world we actually live in requires government.

Then why are so many communes so successful?

Situation: barbarians at the gates. Somehow you've managed to collect together a relatively large city-state without any government. Barbarians see the massive wealth that your supremely efficient market economy has created and have come to plunder it. If all citizens of the right age cooperate together, the city and most of its wealth can probably be saved. If only half do, the barbarians should probably win. Conditions are such that many could escape the city during the battle and move elsewhere if necessary, though this means leaving most of their wealth behind to be plundered. What do you think a self-interested and rational person will do in this situation? Contribute to the defense?

If everyone contributes to the defense, each has a small but significant risk of death or injury. <--- Optimal outcome for the collective
If everyone minus one contributes to the defense, everyone but that person has a risk of death or injury, and the chance of victory is not significantly impacted. <--- Optimal outcome for any individual (It is no wonder that cowardice is seen as a vice...)

If few contribute to the defense, each who does has an extremely high risk of death or capture. <--- sucks the most
Those who don't contribute can probably escape. <--- bad outcome, but still better than death or capture.

Seems like the best decision is not to help-- even if the most preferable outcome is what happens when everyone helps. If only there were some way for everyone involved to agree about what should be done, and then make sure everyone acts accordingly...

Odd, the best decision for me seems to be to help. Which is why such militia systems were widely successful all over the world and continue all the way to this day. In fact, they mostly fail when the people do not understand what they are fighting for. Think Braveheart.

Jux:
Not to sidetrack you from your debate, but I'm interested in your views on this.

Note: These are my views and are not meant to be an absolute truth for everyone. However, I certainly would like to convince people of their validity.

Which rights do people have?

In vague terms life, liberty, and property sounds pretty good. The rights that people have are wide and varied depending upon the situation. Application of the non-aggression principle would also give you a guideline

From where do these rights arise?

From practicality (if you are to live you must have property because two people cannot eat the same apple) and also from our essential humanity.

It would seem to me that the only rights we have are the ones that are agreed upon by the majority of us.

Yes, but those rights are not subject to the whims of the majority. The majority would detail its own rights as being extensive but the lesser group might get the raw end of the stick. For example, some people support their right to privacy, but they do not support my right to privacy because I had the poor luck to be born close to the border and be darkish skinned. I was speaking of the greater rights that extend to all people and should never, ever be infringed.

It would seem that the right to life, one that we consider the most basic, is only granted to me because I live in a society that has deemed that a right. If we lived in a society where say, ritualistic human sacrifice was accepted and commonplace, would I still have a right to life? Who would enforce that right?

In the Aztec society you did have a right to life, if you were an "Aztec". Prior to the arrival of Cortez the Aztecs fought a series of wars against their neighbors called the Flower Wars. They were not wars of conquest. Instead, they were wars that were fought every year in order for the Aztecs to bring back prisoners to be slaughtered. Now, there were Aztecs who became sacrifices but ostensibly they volunteered for the honor. They felt that by being sacrificed they would meet their gods and live on. You have to be careful with these distinctions.

Keep in mind, in an anarchist society there is no state. Therefore, generally speaking, there is no us vs them. There is only an us. Maybe a little different but still very much like us and therefore should be treated as such..

I may not agree with you on everything, as you seem to be an anarchist (I am a minarchist,) but damn if you're not fascinating to read!

I believe the privatization of almost everything the government does currently would be in the best interest of the country. The courts and national security are the only two things the federal government really has to do. Enforce the laws and punish the violators. Simple as that.

Nikolaz72:
I'm not against the stupid or stubborn rightwing when they are the majority, just that in my system when you win the election you get to implement the things you think best.

That's not how it works here. Winning elections still means you represent all constituents, not just the ones that voted for you.

Nikolaz72:
> What exactly do [Americans] get to do? To me it seems like the only thing he really got elected on was implementing this healthcare and the Republican Minority cockblocked it. That is undemocratic by every sense of the word.

> But certain things happend that you could not choose. For example - Being born to poor parents and getting cancer. That's not a choice

I'm not going to comment on our elections. However, using the legislative process to repeal a law is how the system works. What a nation doesn't need is a majority that thinks it wins the right to call the shots, that sees opposition as obstruction.

Reality deals uncontrollable circumstances. Do we make every unique set of life circumstances a public issue? That's up to the people.

Nikolaz72:
IRS is not a man with a gun. It's a representation of the system in place to protect -everyone- not just the entitled few which you seem to be a part of.

This defense comes with particularly bad timing as a scandal blows its integrity out of the water.

Not everyone can afford things to themselves. I'd be happy to help those if I can, and I have donated and offered money to friends in need. People are charitable, but at the same time not everyone consents to a system that helps itself to their bank accounts because they're breathing.

AgedGrunt:

Nikolaz72:
I'm not against the stupid or stubborn rightwing when they are the majority, just that in my system when you win the election you get to implement the things you think best.

That's not how it works here. Winning elections still means you represent all constituents, not just the ones that voted for you.

Nikolaz72:
> What exactly do [Americans] get to do? To me it seems like the only thing he really got elected on was implementing this healthcare and the Republican Minority cockblocked it. That is undemocratic by every sense of the word.

> But certain things happend that you could not choose. For example - Being born to poor parents and getting cancer. That's not a choice

I'm not going to comment on our elections. However, using the legislative process to repeal a law is how the system works. What a nation doesn't need is a majority that thinks it wins the right to call the shots, that sees opposition as obstruction.

Reality deals uncontrollable circumstances. Do we make every unique set of life circumstances a public issue? That's up to the people.

Nikolaz72:
IRS is not a man with a gun. It's a representation of the system in place to protect -everyone- not just the entitled few which you seem to be a part of.

This defense comes with particularly bad timing as a scandal blows its integrity out of the water.

Not everyone can afford things to themselves. I'd be happy to help those if I can, and I have donated and offered money to friends in need. People are charitable, but at the same time not everyone consents to a system that helps itself to their bank accounts because they're breathing.

AgedGrunt, you seem to have a stomach for Nikolaz72 much stronger than I. I chose to ignore him.

It would seem Nikolaz72 isn't from America and/or misunderstands what America is. We are a Constitutional Republic, which is not a Democracy. It has democratic principles for some things, true. But putting pickles on my burger doesn't make it a pickle sandwich, now does it?

Many people also forget the federal income tax didn't really become a thing until Wilson made it a part of the Constitution through the Amendment process. (I wonder if a SCOTUS case has ever been attempted to challenge this...)

The original federal income tax applied to only the top 1% of earners and took only 1% of their annual earnings. In about a decade's time, this rate had skyrocketed to 70-75%. The whole slippery slope argument typically works when it comes to government power. The government only needs a foot in the door to break the whole door down eventually.

AgedGrunt:
Snip

Majority says yes, minority says no. As such the answer is no = America in a nutshell.

A system based on Ancient Law blocking change.

American system seems to cater to Conservatives, but lets leave it at that.

farson135:

From where do these rights arise?

From practicality (if you are to live you must have property because two people cannot eat the same apple) and also from our essential humanity.

Just to play devil's advocate, is it really true that living=must have property? Is it not entirely possible for communes to exist where there is no individual property, and everything is shared? In the event of food, I don't see how me eating an apple constitutes it as being property. Do mutual agreements to share food not exist?

farson135:

It would seem to me that the only rights we have are the ones that are agreed upon by the majority of us.

Yes, but those rights are not subject to the whims of the majority. The majority would detail its own rights as being extensive but the lesser group might get the raw end of the stick. For example, some people support their right to privacy, but they do not support my right to privacy because I had the poor luck to be born close to the border and be darkish skinned. I was speaking of the greater rights that extend to all people and should never, ever be infringed.

Ah, so you're not really talking about the majority getting to decide everyones rights, but rather who the rights apply to selectively. I can agree mostly with this, though I think even this is subjective somewhat. Do we not take away certain rights from people once they are convicted felons?

farson135:

It would seem that the right to life, one that we consider the most basic, is only granted to me because I live in a society that has deemed that a right. If we lived in a society where say, ritualistic human sacrifice was accepted and commonplace, would I still have a right to life? Who would enforce that right?

In the Aztec society you did have a right to life, if you were an "Aztec". Prior to the arrival of Cortez the Aztecs fought a series of wars against their neighbors called the Flower Wars. They were not wars of conquest. Instead, they were wars that were fought every year in order for the Aztecs to bring back prisoners to be slaughtered. Now, there were Aztecs who became sacrifices but ostensibly they volunteered for the honor. They felt that by being sacrificed they would meet their gods and live on. You have to be careful with these distinctions.

Keep in mind, in an anarchist society there is no state. Therefore, generally speaking, there is no us vs them. There is only an us. Maybe a little different but still very much like us and therefore should be treated as such..

Which is why I didn't name a culture specifically. This is a hypothetical society where human sacrifice happens, and is supported by the majority, but we're not talking about volunteers here. And do you feel that an anarchist state where there is only 'us' is practical, given peoples tendencies to form smaller knit groups even within a community?

Big_Willie_Styles:
Many people also forget the federal income tax didn't really become a thing until Wilson made it a part of the Constitution through the Amendment process. (I wonder if a SCOTUS case has ever been attempted to challenge this...)

Since when can the Supreme Court strike down a Constitutional Ammendment?

Jux:

Big_Willie_Styles:
Many people also forget the federal income tax didn't really become a thing until Wilson made it a part of the Constitution through the Amendment process. (I wonder if a SCOTUS case has ever been attempted to challenge this...)

Since when can the Supreme Court strike down a Constitutional Ammendment?

They can't. They have to use the Constitution to make judgements, but cannot judge or challenge the Constitution itself.

Kopikatsu:

Jux:

Big_Willie_Styles:
Many people also forget the federal income tax didn't really become a thing until Wilson made it a part of the Constitution through the Amendment process. (I wonder if a SCOTUS case has ever been attempted to challenge this...)

Since when can the Supreme Court strike down a Constitutional Ammendment?

They can't. They have to use the Constitution to make judgements, but cannot judge or challenge the Constitution itself.

Yup, it was just rhetorical. I think my irony bone[1] was going off at the thought of someone criticizing someone not from America about understanding how things work over here and then following it up with this gem.

[1] Down and to the left of the funny bone.

Jux:

Kopikatsu:

Jux:

Since when can the Supreme Court strike down a Constitutional Ammendment?

They can't. They have to use the Constitution to make judgements, but cannot judge or challenge the Constitution itself.

Yup, it was just rhetorical. I think my irony bone[1] was going off at the thought of someone criticizing someone not from America about understanding how things work over here and then following it up with this gem.

I think he says stupid things like that to anyone who doesn't agree with him. Regardless of their knowledge, hence why he claims that Statistics cannot be used as evidence in a debate.

I still think that more hilarious than this.

[1] Down and to the left of the funny bone.

Nikolaz72:
American system seems to cater to Conservatives, but lets leave it at that.

It caters to those with money, means and connections to exploit it. And this is so off-topic it's laughable. Do you even care about the topic anymore? These threads need an expiration date.

Jux:
Just to play devil's advocate, is it really true that living=must have property? Is it not entirely possible for communes to exist where there is no individual property, and everything is shared? In the event of food, I don't see how me eating an apple constitutes it as being property. Do mutual agreements to share food not exist?

Narrow your view. Think about a single bit of apple. If you eat that bit, can you then take that same bit and share it with someone? No. Then it is your property. It is physically impossible to share everything. That is why most communes take the idea that property is shared collectively and then distributed as necessary.

Do we not take away certain rights from people once they are convicted felons?

We do and ostensibly felons are a "them". Personally I cannot name a former felon who is a current politician. They may exist but you can guarantee their opponent will make a big deal out of it.

If you are asking my opinion on that practice, the purpose of prisons is to rehabilitate people. It is contrary to then say that felons are not allowed to be fully functioning members of your society.

This is a hypothetical society where human sacrifice happens, and is supported by the majority, but we're not talking about volunteers here.

Once again, it would be an us vs them kind of thing. Those are the only situations I have ever heard of.

And do you feel that an anarchist state where there is only 'us' is practical, given peoples tendencies to form smaller knit groups even within a community?

It is fairly practical as long as you allow certain leeway. There is a theory called growbalization. Basically it says that cultures are becoming more decentralized as mass media expands. It is hard for me to keep up with "modern culture" when the lines that once existed break down so much. When you have "Bronies" and Lady Gaga in the world it is hard to tell what exactly THE culture is anymore. As time goes on this will become even more pronounced. In addition, considering how connected the world is becoming it is difficult for spatial issues to really matter (hence "The World is Flat").

Will it be perfect? No. Not even close. BUT in large part it is possible to an extent.

farson135:

Seanchaidh:
... how specifically..? You're just vomiting up abstraction as if it means anything.

By making the companies virtually immune to litigation. By allowing companies to begin with. Companies are not natural, they are designed by law.

Oh, you don't like limiting the liability of shareholders? I guess you'd like a much smaller economy.

I could agree to some reforms on that front. On the other hand, the use of courts is intervention into the market by force. It tends often to be one of the more level-headed ways of doing it, but that doesn't change what it is.

The market did not solve the problem because individual incentives favor using gasoline excessively and declining to cut emissions because the effect of one person's use of gasoline is small whereas the effect of millions of people using gasoline, especially in a city with Mexico City's terrain configuration, is large. 99.9999% of what determines the environment of Mexico City is the decision of someone else

Are you trying to argue that the sole and only reason for Mexico City's problems was due to cars? That is far too simplistic and you fucking know it.

Certainly not. However, Mexico City's air pollution was due in large part to cars, and no single source was controlled by just one decision-maker. The argument depends in no way on cars being the sole or even the primary source of the harmful air quality.

It is irrational for self-interested individuals making unilateral decisions to decide to spend or sacrifice anything whatsoever in regards to the environment.

I do not dump car oil on my land. Why? Because it is in my self interest to maintain the land. Your focus is too narrow.

You own your land. You do not own the sky.

It is similarly irrational for self-interested individuals to voluntarily join a cooperative that requires all members limit their emissions

And yet people do exactly that. Why? Because they feel that their self interest is tied to the environment. Your problem is that you insist on using force when you could instead try and convince people. Self interest is not a math problem, it is a very complex idea.

I gestured at altruistic behavior earlier. That is often what that sort of thing is-- civic duty, favoring the general good; I also mentioned that sometimes the reason for such behavior was a matter of social status. The thing is, joining such a collective effort puts you at an individual disadvantage compared to those who don't. So the people who take the really quite admirable step of voluntarily limiting their emissions relinquish some of their share of goods and services.

Can you disagree with this while saying something more than the abstract twaddle you just tried above?

Abstract? Do you know anything about Mexico's situation? Try reading up a bit.

Do you know what abstract means?

We're talking about a mass of people making decisions with regard to their own peculiar interests; of course there are times where the general interest is not the same as the individual one. Oftentimes it works, many times it does not.

Difference, in your system the corporations own the guns and force the rest of us to serve. In my preferred system, the market and the government is separated and therefore relative interests are split. Your system requires too much violence for me to support it.

Corporations can't own firearms in your system?

In any case, the coercive power of the government of the United States is not likely to be as actually violent as the utopia you seem to favor.

No, I just don't find it wise to depend on technological innovation to fix problems that can be fixed without technological innovation.

Really? Are you a primitivist? Or a Luddite? Are you planning to destroy all of those accursed machines? Or are you hoping to keep your air conditioning and your gas guzzler while inventors dig you out?

Are you capable of considering more than one sentence at a time?

Seanchaidh:
No, I just don't find it wise to depend on technological innovation to fix problems that can be fixed without technological innovation. Technological innovation is nice, and as you say there are plenty of incentives to pursue it even aside from the environment. There is no fundamental law of the universe that says that better technology means less harmful emissions/fewer externality costs, however. Efficiency is a related but still separate issue from externality cost. It is a fine coincidence in our case that technology seems to be moving slowly in the direction of increasing efficiency while decreasing externality costs-- at least regarding fuel.

There is no fundamental law of the universe that says that better technology means less harmful emissions/fewer externality costs, however. Efficiency is a related but still separate issue from externality cost. It is a fine coincidence in our case that technology seems to be moving slowly in the direction of increasing efficiency while decreasing externality costs-- at least regarding fuel.

Actually in regards to everything. More innovations means more efficiency which means less resources used to get another resource out. Food is easier to get than ever before which is allowing us to save land that would otherwise be needed for farmland. And on.

Externality costs are not inherently related to innovation-- and you didn't indicate otherwise. If you think you're responding to what I was saying, you are mistaken.

Even still, it is no reason to begrudge Mexico City for taking the action that it did-- however shamelessly they stomped all over your precious ideology by doing so.

They put duct tape over a hole in their ship. It is a patch, and it will never last. The cartels are not powerful simply because they have guns and money. They are powerful because the alternative (the Mexican government) is despised by the people. If the cartels had continued to act as an opposition force to the government they might have been able to topple the entire government. Mexico has a lot of problems.

... are you still even talking about their approach to air pollution?

You may want to read my assertion(s) again. Try not to get too excited to process the words correctly.

Quoted directly from you, "an industry which exposes everyone on earth to a random risk of death potentially billions of times a day". If you do not believe your assertion then do not say it.

You responded to a hypothetical situation in which that was the case, that it was fine to just let such a hypothetical industry do whatever it would-- you wanted to raise the stakes of the example idea of a collective action problem to killing everyone on earth, so I did so-- and then you still said the market should rule. Now you are trying to conflate it with air pollution as if you're making a point. It is a poor way for you to argue, in any case.

Which is why you go to the extraordinary step of talking about how you wish government would go away on the internet. I guess doing lots of bleating makes someone not a sheep.

I suppose you have not read any of my other posts on any of the other topics. If you had then you might realize that I am doing a shit ton more than just complaining. But then again, I suppose to you would view any action at all as simple complaining. After all, you are a conservative and I am a rebel. You want the status quo and I call for change. Conservatives throughout history have claimed that the masses are simply complaining or they are rebels. See how well that assertion turned out.

You are not the masses. I actually favor democracy.

They provide a substantial level of collective security from foreign invasion where the market would not.

A possibility for foreign invasion that only exists because there are foreign governments.

When your ideology requires everyone on earth to share it in order for it to work, it has a serious, probably insuperable problem. In any case, situations of low investment into security encourage not only states to take advantage, but also sufficiently united private interests.

They provide a substantial level of personal security that few living in a fragmented anarchy would be able to match.

All living in an anarchist system can match it. After all, in an anarchist system there is no police to abuse people without a reaction.

Yeah, there is a power vacuum which can be filled by anyone whatsoever without any democratic mandate. "A war of all against all" is slightly too simple a description, but it is not entirely inaccurate.

What's more, every single government official is more responsible to the people. A friend of mine runs a commune here in Austin. His people can trust him because they can directly affect him. What can I do about the Obama administration?

Exercise your political freedoms. Do that "convincing people" that you seem so fond of; it's a democracy.

The world we actually live in requires government.

Then why are so many communes so successful?

They exist in situations created by governments. They are also fairly small communities, often united by a common religion ideology. There's a reason your ideology is more popular in rural areas-- it works better at small scales. But it also requires being undisturbed by more powerful or numerous others and having a fairly high degree of common purpose.

Your ideology would work fine on another planet just as long as the population didn't grow too much and no one else was around-- because the essential services of government can be approximated at the small scale by family structures, social pressure, personal generosity and so on. Collective action problems are much easier to manage for smaller values of N.

Situation: barbarians at the gates. Somehow you've managed to collect together a relatively large city-state without any government. Barbarians see the massive wealth that your supremely efficient market economy has created and have come to plunder it. If all citizens of the right age cooperate together, the city and most of its wealth can probably be saved. If only half do, the barbarians should probably win. Conditions are such that many could escape the city during the battle and move elsewhere if necessary, though this means leaving most of their wealth behind to be plundered. What do you think a self-interested and rational person will do in this situation? Contribute to the defense?

If everyone contributes to the defense, each has a small but significant risk of death or injury. <--- Optimal outcome for the collective
If everyone minus one contributes to the defense, everyone but that person has a risk of death or injury, and the chance of victory is not significantly impacted. <--- Optimal outcome for any individual (It is no wonder that cowardice is seen as a vice...)

If few contribute to the defense, each who does has an extremely high risk of death or capture. <--- sucks the most
Those who don't contribute can probably escape. <--- bad outcome, but still better than death or capture.

Seems like the best decision is not to help-- even if the most preferable outcome is what happens when everyone helps. If only there were some way for everyone involved to agree about what should be done, and then make sure everyone acts accordingly...

Odd, the best decision for me seems to be to help. Which is why such militia systems were widely successful all over the world and continue all the way to this day. In fact, they mostly fail when the people do not understand what they are fighting for. Think Braveheart.

Then you are a collectivist. You favor risking life and limb for the good of the collective. That is not universal.

Seanchaidh:
Oh, you don't like limiting the liability of shareholders? I guess you'd like a much smaller economy.

So let me get this straight, the only reason the economy is large is because corporations exists. No. False economies do exist because corporations and the government distort the market, which may make the economy seem larger than it is, but in reality they are just moving numbers around.

On the other hand, the use of courts is intervention into the market by force. It tends often to be one of the more level-headed ways of doing it, but that doesn't change what it is.

The invention of corporations was a legal issue. It was the government distorting the market. It is not force to remove that distortion legally.

You own your land. You do not own the sky.

YOU said environment. More backtracking.

I gestured at altruistic behavior earlier. That is often what that sort of thing is-- civic duty, favoring the general good; I also mentioned that sometimes the reason for such behavior was a matter of social status.

There is more than just that and I have mentioned several parts of it. You may not give a shit about the environment but you do want to pay less in gas. Simple.

The thing is, joining such a collective effort puts you at an individual disadvantage compared to those who don't. So the people who take the really quite admirable step of voluntarily limiting their emissions relinquish some of their share of goods and services.

Right, they relinquish the right to pay for more gas.

Do you know what abstract means?

Abstract- thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances

The situation in Mexico is reality, it is not an object but it is an actual instance.

Corporations can't own firearms in your system?

One, corporations do not exist. Two, they do not own THE guns. The big guns.

In any case, the coercive power of the government of the United States is not likely to be as actually violent as the utopia you seem to favor.

Utopia? You know it is funny, you keep applying your biases to my model. You are a conservative. I am not. You cannot adequately apply your models to mine. Keep your perfect world, philosophical bullshit off my model.

Are you capable of considering more than one sentence at a time?

Are you capable of forming a coherent thought? You want to make technology more efficient by using non-technological elements. Therefore, you want the absence of technology to "fix" technological "errors". Can you name a single act that you would support that would continue to use technology without using technology to "solve" the problem?

Externality costs are not inherently related to innovation

Because not all innovations have externality costs or are meant to address them. You keep expanding your statements. How do you expect to get anything done if you keep changing your arguments?

If you think you're responding to what I was saying, you are mistaken.

You mistaken if you think I was not responding to what you said.

... are you still even talking about their approach to air pollution?

I am talking about fundamental problems in the Mexican system. Problems that you refuse to acknowledge.

You are not the masses. I actually favor democracy.

Yes, the kind of democracy where the elites hold all of the power and the people have to kowtow to the power of politicians and corporations.

Personally, I favor a more representative kind of democracy. You know, the kind where the people actually have a say in what happens to them.

When your ideology requires everyone on earth to share it in order for it to work, it has a serious, probably insuperable problem.

Does my system require that? You are the conservative. You force everybody to share at the point of a gun. Do not apply your logic to my system when you do not know anything about my system.

In any case, situations of low investment into security encourage not only states to take advantage, but also sufficiently united private interests.

And yet, the Free Cities of the Holy Roman Empire lasted for hundreds and sometimes over a thousand years when bordered by far larger powers. I have hinted the reason for that many times and it was not due to a large military.

Yeah, there is a power vacuum which can be filled by anyone whatsoever without any democratic mandate. "A war of all against all" is slightly too simple a description, but it is not entirely inaccurate.

Great, you apply Hobbes theoretical model of the state of nature to a society with governments and systems in place. You obviously know what you are talking about (/sarcasm).

Exercise your political freedoms. Do that "convincing people" that you seem so fond of; it's a democracy.

What freedoms exactly? The freedom to petition? The Obama administration has ignored petitions that they are required to answer to. The freedom of speech? A friend of mine was thrown in jail because he had the audacity to speak on a public sidewalk. The freedom of the press? Well, the politicians have ensured that only a handful of corporations control the major media. And a friend of mine just started a new newspaper at UT. Guess how long it took him to get permission to actually found the organization on campus and get all of the IRS forms filled out. He started in December of last year. He is still waiting for some of the paperwork.

The government has broken every enumerated right except the 3rd amendment. Somehow I doubt that will be very helpful.

BTW you want to talk about convincing people, notice how many of my friends are politically active. And notice how many people they gather. We are convincing people. What are you doing? Aside from sticking up for the state on an internet forum?

They exist in situations created by governments.

No, they exist in situations created by themselves. In many cases these communes are on the fringe of legality (at best).

Then you are a collectivist. You favor risking life and limb for the good of the collective. That is not universal.

Fuck the collective. I will save myself and my way of life.

You are the supreme example of a person who does not have the ability to reconcile radically different points of view. That is why I call you a conservative. Bismarck would be proud.

Stop trying to apply your narrow views to my models. Try doing some research and figure out how these models work before you talk about them.

farson135:

Seanchaidh:
Oh, you don't like limiting the liability of shareholders? I guess you'd like a much smaller economy.

So let me get this straight, the only reason the economy is large is because corporations exists. No. False economies do exist because corporations and the government distort the market, which may make the economy seem larger than it is, but in reality they are just moving numbers around.

Yes, you don't agree with its legal underpinnings, therefore any benefit derived from it must be "false". Production of goods and services is no longer production of goods and services because you don't agree with it. A != A as long as farson135 disagrees with A.

On the other hand, the use of courts is intervention into the market by force. It tends often to be one of the more level-headed ways of doing it, but that doesn't change what it is.

The invention of corporations was a legal issue. It was the government distorting the market. It is not force to remove that distortion legally.

Yes, yes, enforcing a judgment is not force. It's just a "suggestion".

You own your land. You do not own the sky.

YOU said environment. More backtracking.

....

Seriously, that's your reply? My argument concerns imposing costs on others, not imposing costs solely or primarily on yourself. It is not "backtracking" to acknowledge that there are instances of pollution that are not collective action problems. I never claimed that dumping pollutants on your own land was a collective action problem.

However-- sometimes there is a suitably profitable activity that involves dumping waste to an extent that it probably does impose costs on others. I'll just reuse Karma168's picture:

I gestured at altruistic behavior earlier. That is often what that sort of thing is-- civic duty, favoring the general good; I also mentioned that sometimes the reason for such behavior was a matter of social status.

There is more than just that and I have mentioned several parts of it. You may not give a shit about the environment but you do want to pay less in gas. Simple.

Or you'd rather not put yourself at a disadvantage compared to everyone else-- and so impose an environmental cost even if you'd prefer the environment be better off and would be willing to take collective but not unilateral action to accomplish it.

The thing is, joining such a collective effort puts you at an individual disadvantage compared to those who don't. So the people who take the really quite admirable step of voluntarily limiting their emissions relinquish some of their share of goods and services.

Right, they relinquish the right to pay for more gas.

There are many and various other costs as well. The fact that people make the choice to use gasoline is evidence that it saves them something that they value-- effort, money, whatever. Forgoing the individual benefit in order to avoid the social cost is not advantageous to the individual, even if the social cost is larger than the individual benefit.

Do you know what abstract means?

Abstract- thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances

The situation in Mexico is reality, it is not an object but it is an actual instance.

And the way you addressed it was wholly abstract.

Corporations can't own firearms in your system?

One, corporations do not exist. Two, they do not own THE guns. The big guns.

But large groups can exist because those can form voluntarily. They can make their own arms industry. Heavy weapons don't just disappear because there is no evil government. Or are you suddenly a proponent of intervening into the market to prevent various arms industries from occurring?

In any case, the coercive power of the government of the United States is not likely to be as actually violent as the utopia you seem to favor.

Utopia? You know it is funny, you keep applying your biases to my model. You are a conservative. I am not. You cannot adequately apply your models to mine. Keep your perfect world, philosophical bullshit off my model.

You first.

Are you capable of considering more than one sentence at a time?

Are you capable of forming a coherent thought?

Funny you should ask.

You want to make technology more efficient by using non-technological elements.

Nope. I want to make a market situation more efficient by correctly pricing those goods that impose externality costs on third parties to the transaction.

Therefore, you want the absence of technology to "fix" technological "errors".

You're just making things up at this point. I support a Pigouvian tax on goods and services which impose externality costs-- that does not cause an absence of the technology.

Can you name a single act that you would support that would continue to use technology without using technology to "solve" the problem?

Every case in which technology doesn't impose significant externality costs such that democratic polities want to fix them-- which is most of them.

In the case of technologies that impose externality costs, I would support a tax that moves their market equilibrium to a more appropriate quantity and price. Some technologies cause externality benefits; those can be subsidized for the same reason.

Externality costs are not inherently related to innovation

Because not all innovations have externality costs or are meant to address them. You keep expanding your statements. How do you expect to get anything done if you keep changing your arguments?

The fact that you think my arguments are changing is evidence that you didn't understand them to begin with.

... are you still even talking about their approach to air pollution?

I am talking about fundamental problems in the Mexican system. Problems that you refuse to acknowledge.

So that's a "No."

You are not the masses. I actually favor democracy.

Yes, the kind of democracy where the elites hold all of the power and the people have to kowtow to the power of politicians and corporations.

Personally, I favor a more representative kind of democracy. You know, the kind where the people actually have a say in what happens to them.

So you won't object when the people form security cooperatives that develop into precisely the sort of states that exist today? Or is it the case that you hate freedom?

When your ideology requires everyone on earth to share it in order for it to work, it has a serious, probably insuperable problem.

Does my system require that? You are the conservative. You force everybody to share at the point of a gun. Do not apply your logic to my system when you do not know anything about my system.

If your system does not require that, then you should come up with another answer to this:

farson135:

Seanchaidh:
[Governments] provide a substantial level of collective security from foreign invasion where the market would not.

A possibility for foreign invasion that only exists because there are foreign governments.

Really, what do you think you're trying to pull?

In any case, situations of low investment into security encourage not only states to take advantage, but also sufficiently united private interests.

And yet, the Free Cities of the Holy Roman Empire lasted for hundreds and sometimes over a thousand years when bordered by far larger powers. I have hinted the reason for that many times and it was not due to a large military.

Yes, it is often the case that hegemonic powers will have client states in which they have influence. These client states benefit from the security provided by the much larger state, but they do not control their own destiny; they are at the mercy of the larger power. If your idea of progress is having the opportunity to prostrate yourself before a state internationally rather than intranationally...

Yeah, there is a power vacuum which can be filled by anyone whatsoever without any democratic mandate. "A war of all against all" is slightly too simple a description, but it is not entirely inaccurate.

Great, you apply Hobbes theoretical model of the state of nature to a society with governments and systems in place. You obviously know what you are talking about (/sarcasm).

That is the sort of situation that is created by a lack of government. If you agree that there are things which government is necessary to accomplish, then you shouldn't be arguing with me. But you say that the market is all that is necessary-- it is not.

Exercise your political freedoms. Do that "convincing people" that you seem so fond of; it's a democracy.

What freedoms exactly? The freedom to petition? The Obama administration has ignored petitions that they are required to answer to. The freedom of speech? A friend of mine was thrown in jail because he had the audacity to speak on a public sidewalk. The freedom of the press? Well, the politicians have ensured that only a handful of corporations control the major media. And a friend of mine just started a new newspaper at UT. Guess how long it took him to get permission to actually found the organization on campus and get all of the IRS forms filled out. He started in December of last year. He is still waiting for some of the paperwork.

The government has broken every enumerated right except the 3rd amendment. Somehow I doubt that will be very helpful.

Sounds awful. I assume your friend was convicted for the crime of exercising his freedom of speech and now resides in prison?

BTW you want to talk about convincing people, notice how many of my friends are politically active. And notice how many people they gather. We are convincing people. What are you doing? Aside from sticking up for the state on an internet forum?

I'm more or less satisfied. Why would I need to do something in particular?

As for you and your friends, I'm sure your movement is larger than one drop in a bucket. Quite impressive, really.

They exist in situations created by governments.

No, they exist in situations created by themselves. In many cases these communes are on the fringe of legality (at best).

They exist on the fringe of legality because they exist in situations created by other legalities.

Then you are a collectivist. You favor risking life and limb for the good of the collective. That is not universal.

Fuck the collective. I will save myself and my way of life.

Oh, right, you're a one man army. Sorry, I keep forgetting!

You are the supreme example of a person who does not have the ability to reconcile radically different points of view. That is why I call you a conservative. Bismarck would be proud.

And you have so much credibility, too! I must now go sulk at your appraisal of me.

For the record, I kind of like some of the things Edmund Burke said. So, yea conservatism!

Stop trying to apply your narrow views to my models. Try doing some research and figure out how these models work before you talk about them.

You first.

farson135:

Seanchaidh:
Yes, you don't agree with its legal underpinnings, therefore any benefit derived from it must be "false".

You say benefits but you do not mention any. Why? Most likely because you do not know any.

Unsurprisingly, it turns out you are wrong.

The incentive to invest in a company is completely different when your liability is limited versus when your liability is unlimited. The fact that you can only lose what you put in-- unless you do something culpable yourself-- is huge. A secondary effect is the required investment into gathering information on the company being much larger without limited liability. Many investments which are too much of a risk otherwise become acceptable when liability is limited. Much production of goods and services therefore results from limited liability.

With limited liability, investment into a company as well as buying or selling the stock on the secondary market is very much like banking: bank loans (and deposits) also have limited liability-- naturally. The bank can lose only what it puts in because that's just how loans work.

I thought this was common knowledge..? Were you not aware of these justifications for the limited liability of shareholders in corporations?

Yes, yes, enforcing a judgment is not force. It's just a "suggestion".

Let us see, you go from owning a company where you have limited liability for what the company does to owning a company where you the owner has full liability. Where is the force in that act?

The force in that act is the same as when one goes from owning a plot of land of some dimensions to owning a plot of land of smaller dimensions because the court decided so: does a person get to just disagree with the idea that his liability is now not limited? No, if his company is sued or incurs debts, he can lose more than he put in. And if he disagrees, then men with guns show up to take what he has.

That is if the court has any power behind it. For all I know you would prefer courts just be advice-giving fora.

My argument concerns imposing costs on others, not imposing costs solely or primarily on yourself. It is not "backtracking" to acknowledge that there are instances of pollution that are not collective action problems. I never claimed that dumping pollutants on your own land was a collective action problem.

No, you claimed that a rational person would not care.

Actually that was your claim-- which I might have accidentally looked like I was repeating at some point, maybe, just to give you the benefit of doubt? (I vaguely recall saying that rational self-interested people don't care enough to override the strong and unwarranted market disincentive to act in a certain way, which is importantly different.) In any case, I claimed and continue to claim that a rational and self-interested person would not decide to absorb a personal cost to avoid imposing costs on others.

Or you'd rather not put yourself at a disadvantage compared to everyone else-- and so impose an environmental cost even if you'd prefer the environment be better off and would be willing to take collective but not unilateral action to accomplish it.

What disadvantage is there in buying a more fuel efficient vehicle if you have the choice? Once again, your arguments fail to acknowledge reality.

Thousands of dollars, potentially?

It's pretty obvious what the downside is. $$$$$. What's more, that $$$$$ is up front, while fuel efficiency is potential savings in the future. Money now is better than money later.

And you talk about not acknowledging reality. Jesus Christ a la mode!

And the way you addressed it was wholly abstract.

No, my statement was a concrete acknowledgment of Mexico's problems.

Uh-huh. This: "The market would not solve the problem because the government insulated the market from the people and therefore distorted the market."

That right there? That's not concrete. It's not even specifically (or interestingly) abstract. It is vague and abstract. What's more, you still haven't answered the question of how the air pollution problem would allegedly have been solved if there were no Mexican government (or whatever other approach you might prefer.)

Well, I can think of one way-- population never grows far enough for air pollution to be a problem because they are living in an anarchist hellhole.

But large groups can exist because those can form voluntarily. They can make their own arms industry. Heavy weapons don't just disappear because there is no evil government. Or are you suddenly a proponent of intervening into the market to prevent various arms industries from occurring?

Fucking wow. Can you please pay attention to the thread I going with? OR is this an example of your ignorance?

It seems like an example of a poorly constructed sentence which amounts to incomprehensible gibberish.

You see, a lot of what I say is based upon Libertarian/libertarian/etc constructs. When I say THE guns I am not referring to a literal gun, I am referring to the overall power of the state in its condensed form. Now, a person who understands our arguments would pick up on this immediately. We libertarians have general models that we go by and our statements reflect those models (taxation is theft is a greater discussion than what the actual statement implies). However, as you continue to prove, you do not understand the way our models and our considerations work.

You're right in one sense: I understand instead how they fail to work. It is not terribly useful (or possible) to know how something works when it doesn't actually work.

How about this, I will avoid using loaded jargon in my posts if you will stop pretending to understand our theories and in the process stop trying to use my theories against me. Agreed?

How about you just stop pretending that your theories have any merit. How's that sound?

Nope. I want to make a market situation more efficient by correctly pricing those goods that impose externality costs on third parties to the transaction.

Correctly? And you accuse my system of utopia.

More correctly than the price when the market is left to itself, anyway. But yes, it is meant to correct an error in market pricing.

You're just making things up at this point. I support a Pigouvian tax on goods and services which impose externality costs-- that does not cause an absence of the technology.

You are attempting to remove tech from the system. Or are you arguing that you want the same number of cars to use the same amount of gas on the same roads? Another example of your failure to understand our considerations.

When use of a particular process results in externality costs, I support taxes on that process proportionate to those externality costs. Such a tax actually encourages technological innovation that will result in processes which accomplish the same thing or better with fewer and less serious externality costs-- because avoiding externality costs in those cases becomes a matter of profit.

How one can look at that and think "Luddite" or "Primitivism" is a puzzle.

The fact that you think my arguments are changing is evidence that you didn't understand them to begin with.

Or, it is evidence that I have caught you. After all, you say environment and them immediately say, "no, no, no not the entire environment just a select portion of it".

Yes, the select portion of it that you don't own. How much of the environment do you not own, farson135? -_____-

I've repeatedly specified the structure of what a collective action problem is such that if anyone actually interested in a discussion was to apply even the slightest bit of thought to it, he'd be able to figure out exactly why haphazardly dumping motor oil onto your own property wouldn't apply and would not pretend that one's lack of desire to do so is an argument against my position. All of my examples have been about market failure in the context of rational choice theory and EXTERNALITY costs or benefits.

So you won't object when the people form security cooperatives that develop into precisely the sort of states that exist today? Or is it the case that you hate freedom?

Nope, but they would be pointless and no one would bother with them. Unlike you I do not feel the need to stomp all over people in order to shove my views down their throat.

In your system, no one would bother with organized violence or theft because in your ideology everyone is an enlightened star child and shares your preferences and calculations even though the entire goddamned world evolved from a situation of humans having no governments whatsoever to being dominated by them. But it would be different in the future because someone will have passed around a pamphlet explaining anarchism and why the entirely undisturbed market is the best thing ever and no one would ever disagree because libertarian arguments are so good that violence must be done to the English language just to properly express them.

Does my system require that? You are the conservative. You force everybody to share at the point of a gun. Do not apply your logic to my system when you do not know anything about my system.

If your system does not require that, then you should come up with another answer to this:

farson135:

A possibility for foreign invasion that only exists because there are foreign governments.

Really, what do you think you're trying to pull?

Answer to what? If there is no state then there is no "foreign" (as it is used in this context). There is also no ability to invade. History has proven that point.

Independent village. Mongolian horde.

In short, no.

Yes, it is often the case that hegemonic powers will have client states in which they have influence. These client states benefit from the security provided by the much larger state, but they do not control their own destiny; they are at the mercy of the larger power. If your idea of progress is having the opportunity to prostrate yourself before a state internationally rather than intranationally...

You have no idea what you are talking about. The Free Cities were extremely powerful in their own right due to economics. And those cities were allied with merchants in other cities that leaned on their rulers to back off. That is why I suggested you read "The German Hansa". An absolute ruler was not absolute at all. A king cannot do whatever he wants.

But Obama can, right?

A libertarian extolling the virtues of absolute monarchy, how fun.

That is the sort of situation that is created by a lack of government. If you agree that there are things which government is necessary to accomplish, then you shouldn't be arguing with me. But you say that the market is all that is necessary-- it is not.

The state of nature is not about the lack of government. You fundamentally misunderstanding Hobbes' point.

And what do you think his point was?

In addition, you are not talking about governments in general you are talking about government in the market. Stop changing the goalposts.

I've been talking about governments solving collective action problems and have been treating it as not just a but THE role of government. So... yeah. If anything, by making my argument more general I've only widened the goalposts for you. You still haven't been able to kick one in, though, not surprisingly.

Sounds awful. I assume your friend was convicted for the crime of exercising his freedom of speech and now resides in prison?

Nope, he was arrested and spent 3 days in jail before being released. Does that make it so much better for you?

Terrible. I suspect he would have had a much better time if he was kidnapped by random armed people because they felt like it.

Oh, right, you're a one man army. Sorry, I keep forgetting!

Sorry I keep forgetting that you are a smart ass. Of course you do know exactly what I mean but you still insist on playing these games but I should have known better than to say that.

What do you mean?

You first.

Care to cite a place where I applied my models to your incorrectly? No? Then stop fucking around. If you have no intention of making a point then shut up.

Actually I meant that you should stop applying your narrow views to your models. Not as a matter of fairness to me, but so you would come up with better arguments than what you've hurled up so far.

But here, have a list anyway since you asked for one:

You love government having the power to destroy everything but you will not allow car companies to produce gas engines. Amazing.

And it fails. YOU say that the market cannot do anything without the government holding its hand. Yet the government has failed where the market has succeeded.

Market incentives say more than that. But your failure is to see the greater picture. I have already told you that there are market incentives to discourage stealing and none that encourage it.

Yes it does do that on its own. Markets do not support violence.

That is not best for the market it is best for individuals.

I think I'll stop there-- I needn't copy all of pages 1 through 3.

Seanchaidh:
The incentive to invest in a company is completely different when your liability is limited versus when your liability is unlimited. The fact that you can only lose what you put in-- unless you do something culpable yourself-- is huge.

Except for the fact that those circumstances are not limited to corporations. So your point is flawed.

A secondary effect is the required investment into gathering information on the company being much larger without limited liability. Many investments which are too much of a risk otherwise become acceptable when liability is limited.

Because?

I thought this was common knowledge..? Were you not aware of these justifications for the limited liability of shareholders in corporations?

Are you not aware that corporations are not the only way an investor can have limited liability?

The force in that act is the same as when one goes from owning a plot of land of some dimensions to owning a plot of land of smaller dimensions because the court decided so: does a person get to just disagree with the idea that his liability is now not limited? No, if his company is sued or incurs debts, he can lose more than he put in. And if he disagrees, then men with guns show up to take what he has.

Or, he restructures his company to fit within the law and make his liability limited again except in a different fashion. That is, the law does not protect him from his failure.

Thousands of dollars, potentially?

That is why they do not buy the hybrids but that does not address the point for modern vehicles.

And you talk about not acknowledging reality. Jesus Christ a la mode!

A vehicle that costs a few thousand dollars more than another will generally require you to pay less $100 more over the course of several years if that. Few people buy cars all at once. One thousand dollars seems a lot smaller when it is spread out over 20 payments.

Uh-huh. This: "The market would not solve the problem because the government insulated the market from the people and therefore distorted the market."

That right there? That's not concrete. It's not even specifically (or interestingly) abstract. It is vague and abstract.

It is not vague and it is not abstract. The government performed an action that lead to an effect. That is specific. The elements are specific enough and nothing you have said requires a greater level of specificity than what I provided.

What's more, you still haven't answered the question of how the air pollution problem would allegedly have been solved if there were no Mexican government (or whatever other approach you might prefer.)

The government does not shield the companies from the people. The people then call for the companies to do things. The companies then do those things in order to make money.

You're right in one sense: I understand instead how they fail to work. It is not terribly useful (or possible) to know how something works when it doesn't actually work.

Fails to work? You yourself have admitted that libertarian communes do work. More backtracking.

BTW I did notice that you failed to acknowledge your mistake.

How about you just stop pretending that your theories have any merit. How's that sound?

You first.

When use of a particular process results in externality costs, I support taxes on that process proportionate to those externality costs. Such a tax actually encourages technological innovation that will result in processes which accomplish the same thing or better with fewer and less serious externality costs-- because avoiding externality costs in those cases becomes a matter of profit.

So you want technology to solve the problem. That is not what you said before. More backtracking.

Yes, the select portion of it that you don't own. How much of the environment do you not own, farson135? -_____-

More than you. I understand that you are a city boy and the idea of owning land is alien to you but you have to account for these factors.

In your system, no one would bother with organized violence or theft because in your ideology everyone is an enlightened star child and shares your preferences and calculations even though the entire goddamned world evolved from a situation of humans having no governments whatsoever to being dominated by them. But it would be different in the future because someone will have passed around a pamphlet explaining anarchism and why the entirely undisturbed market is the best thing ever and no one would ever disagree because libertarian arguments are so good that violence must be done to the English language just to properly express them.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I have already stated that utopia is not what we are going for. Markets do not like war because wars destroy shit. Markets do not like to waste money rebuilding something when they could spend money building something new. Or-

Independent village.

State.

Mongolian horde.

State.

In short, no.

Do you have any idea what a state is?

But Obama can, right?

Did I say that? Or did I say that he is reaching beyond his prescribed powers?

A libertarian extolling the virtues of absolute monarchy, how fun.

What virtues did you see in my statement?

And what do you think his point was?

He was building a model (one that never existed and cannot exist) where humans were not connected in any way, shape, or form. It was the lack of all social connections.

What do you mean?

You know goddamn well that I was talking about throwing my lot in with everybody to protect myself.

I think I'll stop there-- I needn't copy all of pages 1 through 3.

Should I be in the least bit surprised that you failed to make a point? Your disagreeing with what I say is not cause to say that I am applying incorrect views to a model. Your trying to apply Hobbes' model to my own model is an example. Try and keep up. Or, you could continue to insult me for no good reason. I can already see that conversations with you are pointless. Or would you be willing to calm the fuck down and actually talk to me?

farson135:

Seanchaidh:
The incentive to invest in a company is completely different when your liability is limited versus when your liability is unlimited. The fact that you can only lose what you put in-- unless you do something culpable yourself-- is huge.

Except for the fact that those circumstances are not limited to corporations. So your point is flawed.

At first I thought this might be denying the antecedent or affirming the consequent, but then I realized it's just completely non sequitur in no special way at all. A large share of the production of goods and services is performed by entities where shareholders have limited liability. There is no 'flaw' in the point just because the share isn't 100%. That would be asinine.

A secondary effect is the required investment into gathering information on the company being much larger without limited liability. Many investments which are too much of a risk otherwise become acceptable when liability is limited.

Because?

Because information comes at a cost unless you're insider-trading. :)

I thought this was common knowledge..? Were you not aware of these justifications for the limited liability of shareholders in corporations?

Are you not aware that corporations are not the only way an investor can have limited liability?

Yeah, I cited loans. Of course there are innumerable other ways a person could enter into a contractual agreement or other legal construct that limits liability-- not really worth mentioning? Not sure why you think that is relevant..? You never really explained what you don't like about corporations, other than that they are "unnatural"-- which is basically meaningless.

The force in that act is the same as when one goes from owning a plot of land of some dimensions to owning a plot of land of smaller dimensions because the court decided so: does a person get to just disagree with the idea that his liability is now not limited? No, if his company is sued or incurs debts, he can lose more than he put in. And if he disagrees, then men with guns show up to take what he has.

Or, he restructures his company to fit within the law and make his liability limited again except in a different fashion. That is, the law does not protect him from his failure.

In other words, the transactions that he made previously have been declared null and void by some guy or gal and if he disagrees in any way that has an impact on anyone else then he must obey at the point of a gun.

Thousands of dollars, potentially?

That is why they do not buy the hybrids but that does not address the point for modern vehicles.

????

The most fuel efficient car is also the cheapest? Including used cars?

And you talk about not acknowledging reality. Jesus Christ a la mode!

A vehicle that costs a few thousand dollars more than another will generally require you to pay less $100 more over the course of several years if that. Few people buy cars all at once. One thousand dollars seems a lot smaller when it is spread out over 20 payments.

But it isn't actually smaller. And interest payments exaggerate rather than diminish the difference.

Uh-huh. This: "The market would not solve the problem because the government insulated the market from the people and therefore distorted the market."

That right there? That's not concrete. It's not even specifically (or interestingly) abstract. It is vague and abstract.

It is not vague and it is not abstract. The government performed an action that lead to an effect. That is specific.

"An action that led to an effect. That is specific."

LOL ok.

The elements are specific enough and nothing you have said requires a greater level of specificity than what I provided.

What amounts to "they were insufficiently libertarian" isn't going to cut it as a rebuttal, I'm afraid.

What's more, you still haven't answered the question of how the air pollution problem would allegedly have been solved if there were no Mexican government (or whatever other approach you might prefer.)

The government does not shield the companies from the people. The people then call for the companies to do things. The companies then do those things in order to make money.

This is not a rebuttal to the argument. It's just a denial of the fact that there is a collective action problem.

"Here, have a new line of vehicles that cost more because you want to stop imposing costs on others! Hey, why is no one buying these? Oh, each of you just wants everyone else to buy them? Well, shit."

You're right in one sense: I understand instead how they fail to work. It is not terribly useful (or possible) to know how something works when it doesn't actually work.

Fails to work? You yourself have admitted that libertarian communes do work. More backtracking.

Yeah, they can work-- in the context of a state! Could you be any more dishonest? (That is not an invitation.)

BTW I did notice that you failed to acknowledge your mistake.

What mistake?

How about you just stop pretending that your theories have any merit. How's that sound?

You first.

I'm not pretending. This is well established theory in more than one field of social science-- what is more, it's not the libertarian-leaning people in social science who tend to make valid (or any) criticisms of rational choice theory.

When use of a particular process results in externality costs, I support taxes on that process proportionate to those externality costs. Such a tax actually encourages technological innovation that will result in processes which accomplish the same thing or better with fewer and less serious externality costs-- because avoiding externality costs in those cases becomes a matter of profit.

So you want technology to solve the problem. That is not what you said before. More backtracking.

I never said that it wouldn't be welcome, only that I don't wish to rely on it. And my approach doesn't rely on it. It also doesn't discourage it. It mildly encourages it as a side effect.

So again, how you can look at that and think "Luddite" or "Primitivism" is a puzzle.

Yes, the select portion of it that you don't own. How much of the environment do you not own, farson135? -_____-

More than you. I understand that you are a city boy and the idea of owning land is alien to you but you have to account for these factors.

In other words, you have no point.

You don't own the air. You don't own the overwhelmingly vast majority of the land. You own a tiny portion of the environment. And yeah, you probably don't want to dump shit onto your own land. So the fuck what?

In your system, no one would bother with organized violence or theft because in your ideology everyone is an enlightened star child and shares your preferences and calculations even though the entire goddamned world evolved from a situation of humans having no governments whatsoever to being dominated by them. But it would be different in the future because someone will have passed around a pamphlet explaining anarchism and why the entirely undisturbed market is the best thing ever and no one would ever disagree because libertarian arguments are so good that violence must be done to the English language just to properly express them.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I have already stated that utopia is not what we are going for. Markets do not like war because wars destroy shit. Markets do not like to waste money rebuilding something when they could spend money building something new. Or-

You don't need to cite Penn and Teller to get me to think Libertarianism is magic. I knew that already.

Independent village.

State.

What!? There is nothing about a village that requires that it is or has a state.

Mongolian horde.

State.

Yes, you don't get to decide how other people organize themselves. So sorry.

In short, no.

Do you have any idea what a state is?

Yes, I just don't think that they'll magically disappear or decline to reappear if you just wish hard enough.

A libertarian extolling the virtues of absolute monarchy, how fun.

What virtues did you see in my statement?

That absolute monarchies are magically prevented from aggression against mercantile towns, and that they have limited power to interfere in too harmful a way with trade-- and so on.

And what do you think his point was?

He was building a model (one that never existed and cannot exist) where humans were not connected in any way, shape, or form. It was the lack of all social connections.

There was nothing about Hobbes' state of nature that implied that humans could not have any connections to one another, only that by and large they would not. His conclusion was that a strong state was necessary to make everyone fall in line and prevent the state of nature from occurring-- he certainly did not think it was a condition that could not possibly exist.

What do you mean?

You know goddamn well that I was talking about throwing my lot in with everybody to protect myself.

But you don't know if enough people will help to make it worthwhile.

I think I'll stop there-- I needn't copy all of pages 1 through 3.

Should I be in the least bit surprised that you failed to make a point? Your disagreeing with what I say is not cause to say that I am applying incorrect views to a model.

Right back at you, buddy.

Your trying to apply Hobbes' model to my own model is an example.

I did note in the first place that it wasn't a perfect description, but that it wasn't entirely inaccurate is still true as well. People form small groups and they protect what is theirs and in disputes side not with who is in the right but the one who is a member of the group. Animosity and division follow, and since there is no concentrated power, each person is at much less risk when taking matters into his own hands and performing acts of violence and destruction. Not everyone accepts your non-aggression principle and you cannot force everyone to accept it. The way to get ahead in a system without such concentrated power is to concentrate power. This is why the Spanish state formed naturally, and why other states followed.

Try and keep up.

I think my problem is that I've left you behind. It is certainly not that I haven't followed you. :)

Or, you could continue to insult me for no good reason. I can already see that conversations with you are pointless. Or would you be willing to calm the fuck down and actually talk to me?

Yes, if you can't win the argument hypocritically attack the tone.

Jux:

Big_Willie_Styles:
Many people also forget the federal income tax didn't really become a thing until Wilson made it a part of the Constitution through the Amendment process. (I wonder if a SCOTUS case has ever been attempted to challenge this...)

Since when can the Supreme Court strike down a Constitutional Ammendment?

Separation of Powers? If an Amendment was added, to go to the logical extreme on this one to prove a point, that legalized murder, I'm sure the SCOTUS would weigh in immediately, probably with an injunction.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Jux:

Big_Willie_Styles:
Many people also forget the federal income tax didn't really become a thing until Wilson made it a part of the Constitution through the Amendment process. (I wonder if a SCOTUS case has ever been attempted to challenge this...)

Since when can the Supreme Court strike down a Constitutional Ammendment?

Separation of Powers? If an Amendment was added, to go to the logical extreme on this one to prove a point, that legalized murder, I'm sure the SCOTUS would weigh in immediately, probably with an injunction.

A constitutional amendment isn't a regular law. The SCOTUS cannot issue an injunction against it. Actually, the only power the SCOTUS really possesses is the power to declare a law unconsitutional. An amendment IS part of the constitution. As such, they cannot declare the constitution unconsitutional. The new amendment would BE part of the "supreme law of the land" upon which they must base their rulings.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Jux:

Big_Willie_Styles:
Many people also forget the federal income tax didn't really become a thing until Wilson made it a part of the Constitution through the Amendment process. (I wonder if a SCOTUS case has ever been attempted to challenge this...)

Since when can the Supreme Court strike down a Constitutional Ammendment?

Separation of Powers? If an Amendment was added, to go to the logical extreme on this one to prove a point, that legalized murder, I'm sure the SCOTUS would weigh in immediately, probably with an injunction.

Uh...

No.

That is not how the system works.

Though, even with such an amendment, there would still be wrongful death common law.

... Unless that portion of Tort law was repealed by amendment as well...

Big_Willie_Styles:

Jux:

Big_Willie_Styles:
Many people also forget the federal income tax didn't really become a thing until Wilson made it a part of the Constitution through the Amendment process. (I wonder if a SCOTUS case has ever been attempted to challenge this...)

Since when can the Supreme Court strike down a Constitutional Ammendment?

Separation of Powers? If an Amendment was added, to go to the logical extreme on this one to prove a point, that legalized murder, I'm sure the SCOTUS would weigh in immediately, probably with an injunction.

This doesn't make a lick of sense. This is the kind of stuff covered in high school civics class. SCOTUS can't weigh in on the constitutionality of the constitution.

davidmc1158:

Big_Willie_Styles:

Jux:

Since when can the Supreme Court strike down a Constitutional Ammendment?

Separation of Powers? If an Amendment was added, to go to the logical extreme on this one to prove a point, that legalized murder, I'm sure the SCOTUS would weigh in immediately, probably with an injunction.

A constitutional amendment isn't a regular law. The SCOTUS cannot issue an injunction against it. Actually, the only power the SCOTUS really possesses is the power to declare a law unconsitutional. An amendment IS part of the constitution. As such, they cannot declare the constitution unconsitutional. The new amendment would BE part of the "supreme law of the land" upon which they must base their rulings.

You'd be right but our form of government isn't 100% like that. The SCOTUS can rule on the constitutionality of a constitutional amendment if said amendment ruins an essential of the Constitution, like the right to property or something.

Jux:

Big_Willie_Styles:

Jux:

Since when can the Supreme Court strike down a Constitutional Ammendment?

Separation of Powers? If an Amendment was added, to go to the logical extreme on this one to prove a point, that legalized murder, I'm sure the SCOTUS would weigh in immediately, probably with an injunction.

This doesn't make a lick of sense. This is the kind of stuff covered in high school civics class. SCOTUS can't weigh in on the constitutionality of the constitution.

That's not absolute though. The SCOTUS does have the authority to question a constitutional amendment if it changes an essential part of the Constitution. Like an amendment which changed our form of government or did away with property rights. It's never been done before because none of those exceptions have come up.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Jux:

Big_Willie_Styles:

Separation of Powers? If an Amendment was added, to go to the logical extreme on this one to prove a point, that legalized murder, I'm sure the SCOTUS would weigh in immediately, probably with an injunction.

This doesn't make a lick of sense. This is the kind of stuff covered in high school civics class. SCOTUS can't weigh in on the constitutionality of the constitution.

That's not absolute though. The SCOTUS does have the authority to question a constitutional amendment if it changes an essential part of the Constitution. Like an amendment which changed our form of government or did away with property rights. It's never been done before because none of those exceptions have come up.

Uh, no, they can't. An amendment can only be changed by another amendment. The 18th and 21st amendments are an example of this. If you're going to make crazy assertions, back them up with something other than 'I said so'.

Jux:

Big_Willie_Styles:

Jux:

This doesn't make a lick of sense. This is the kind of stuff covered in high school civics class. SCOTUS can't weigh in on the constitutionality of the constitution.

That's not absolute though. The SCOTUS does have the authority to question a constitutional amendment if it changes an essential part of the Constitution. Like an amendment which changed our form of government or did away with property rights. It's never been done before because none of those exceptions have come up.

Uh, no, they can't. An amendment can only be changed by another amendment. The 18th and 21st amendments are an example of this. If you're going to make crazy assertions, back them up with something other than 'I said so'.

It has never come up before, but it can happen. There are exceptions to everything. This is one of them.

A SCOTUS decision can be overturned via Congress with a bill. (It will probably go to the SCOTUS again in that case, but you get my point.)

Separation of powers. Saying a Constitutional Amendment is absolute barring an act of Congress is a little ridiculous.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Jux:

Big_Willie_Styles:

That's not absolute though. The SCOTUS does have the authority to question a constitutional amendment if it changes an essential part of the Constitution. Like an amendment which changed our form of government or did away with property rights. It's never been done before because none of those exceptions have come up.

Uh, no, they can't. An amendment can only be changed by another amendment. The 18th and 21st amendments are an example of this. If you're going to make crazy assertions, back them up with something other than 'I said so'.

It has never come up before, but it can happen. There are exceptions to everything. This is one of them.

A SCOTUS decision can be overturned via Congress with a bill. (It will probably go to the SCOTUS again in that case, but you get my point.)

Separation of powers. Saying a Constitutional Amendment is absolute barring an act of Congress is a little ridiculous.

S
Coincidentally, it takes more than an act of congress to overturn an amendment. Educate yourself on how amendments are ratified man.

Big_Willie_Styles:

davidmc1158:

Big_Willie_Styles:

Separation of Powers? If an Amendment was added, to go to the logical extreme on this one to prove a point, that legalized murder, I'm sure the SCOTUS would weigh in immediately, probably with an injunction.

A constitutional amendment isn't a regular law. The SCOTUS cannot issue an injunction against it. Actually, the only power the SCOTUS really possesses is the power to declare a law unconsitutional. An amendment IS part of the constitution. As such, they cannot declare the constitution unconsitutional. The new amendment would BE part of the "supreme law of the land" upon which they must base their rulings.

You'd be right but our form of government isn't 100% like that. The SCOTUS can rule on the constitutionality of a constitutional amendment if said amendment ruins an essential of the Constitution, like the right to property or something.

I'm sorry, but you are going to have to provide either a ruling by the Supreme Court or research by constitutional scholars/lawyers that backs that one up.

The Supreme Court makes its rulings (supposedly) on the basis of whether or not a law or its application violates the constitution. An amendment is part of that constitution. The Supreme Court does NOT have the power to declare a portion of the constitution unconstitutional.

If what you are saying is true, then the Supreme Court could feasibly declare an injunction against one of the first ten amendments. Also, you would need to explain why another constitutional amendment was necessary to repeal the 18th amendment (Prohibition) through the use of the 21st amendment.

Jux:
S
Coincidentally, it takes more than an act of congress to overturn an amendment. Educate yourself on how amendments are ratified man.

Of course I know they have to be ratified! But a congressional bill is one of the only methods to stoke a ratification process for an Amendment to the Constitution. The only other method known to exist is to call a Constitutional Convention to convene on a particular topic, which has not been invoked in at least the last 100 years, if ever.

Big_Willie_Styles:
snip.

Are you going to cite your claims or not?

Nikolaz72:
To Farson, yes. America 'is' a capitalist society. There's no argument there.

I find it pretty surprising you'd think otherwise.

Wrong.

How can there be a free market if the government creates an artificial floor of the price of labor?
This pushes every single person's labor that is worth less than the minimum wage out of the job market. Why do you hate the poor?

You speak of corrupt banks, yet you don't see that they are only corrupt because the Federal Reserve & Central banks around the world distort interest rates and crush us between the wheels of inflation & deflation just like Jefferson warned us about.

aelreth:

Nikolaz72:
To Farson, yes. America 'is' a capitalist society. There's no argument there.

I find it pretty surprising you'd think otherwise.

Wrong.

How can there be a free market if the government creates an artificial floor of the price of labor?
This pushes every single person's labor that is worth less than the minimum wage out of the job market. Why do you hate the poor?

You speak of corrupt banks, yet you don't see that they are only corrupt because the Federal Reserve & Central banks around the world distort interest rates and crush us between the wheels of inflation & deflation just like Jefferson warned us about.

Not quite. America is not purely capitalist, but capitalism is what our economic model is closest to. There are many flavors of capitalism, laisez-faire capitalism isn't the only type out there.

Jux:

aelreth:

Nikolaz72:
To Farson, yes. America 'is' a capitalist society. There's no argument there.

I find it pretty surprising you'd think otherwise.

Wrong.

How can there be a free market if the government creates an artificial floor of the price of labor?
This pushes every single person's labor that is worth less than the minimum wage out of the job market. Why do you hate the poor?

You speak of corrupt banks, yet you don't see that they are only corrupt because the Federal Reserve & Central banks around the world distort interest rates and crush us between the wheels of inflation & deflation just like Jefferson warned us about.

Not quite. America is not purely capitalist, but capitalism is what our economic model is closest to. There are many flavors of capitalism, laisez-faire capitalism isn't the only type out there.

I disagree, property rights would be much stronger if that was the case. We've had a mixed economy since FDR, however the beginnings can be traced back to the early progressives of the 20th century.

Pretending that it's closer to capitalism blinds you to the seen and unseen consequences of central planning.

Big_Willie_Styles:

davidmc1158:

Big_Willie_Styles:

Separation of Powers? If an Amendment was added, to go to the logical extreme on this one to prove a point, that legalized murder, I'm sure the SCOTUS would weigh in immediately, probably with an injunction.

A constitutional amendment isn't a regular law. The SCOTUS cannot issue an injunction against it. Actually, the only power the SCOTUS really possesses is the power to declare a law unconsitutional. An amendment IS part of the constitution. As such, they cannot declare the constitution unconsitutional. The new amendment would BE part of the "supreme law of the land" upon which they must base their rulings.

You'd be right but our form of government isn't 100% like that. The SCOTUS can rule on the constitutionality of a constitutional amendment if said amendment ruins an essential of the Constitution, like the right to property or something.

Our form of government is 100% like that. The reason amendments are so onerous to pass is exactly because our form of government is 100% like that. There is not any sense in which you are correct about this.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked