Privatization.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

aelreth:

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.

A mixed economy is not exclusive to the different forms of capitalism.

Jux:

aelreth:

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.

A mixed economy is not exclusive to the different forms of capitalism.

It is. The mixed economy is a road to serfdom. Just like Hayek predicted.

The market is not free, we have a market shackled by the state. A century old monetary system that is rigged to benefit the banks that are the Federal Reserves primary dealers.

aelreth:

Jux:

aelreth:

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.

A mixed economy is not exclusive to the different forms of capitalism.

It is. The mixed economy is a road to serfdom. Just like Hayek predicted.

The market is not free, we have a market shackled by the state. A century old monetary system that is rigged to benefit the banks that are the Federal Reserves primary dealers.

Are you going to back this up with anything more than platitudes?

A mixed economy isn't completely divorced from capitalism just because you say so. Capitalism, at it's most base definition, is simply an economic system that allows for private ownership of production means with the goal of making a profit. There is nothing about a mixed economy that stops this. A mixed economy could easily be categorized as a subset of capitalism, as it allows for private ownership of production means with the goal of making a profit. Just because the state subsidizes certain things doesn't negate that.

Jux:

Are you going to back this up with anything more than platitudes?

A mixed economy isn't completely divorced from capitalism just because you say so. Capitalism, at it's most base definition, is simply an economic system that allows for private ownership of production means with the goal of making a profit. There is nothing about a mixed economy that stops this. A mixed economy could easily be categorized as a subset of capitalism, as it allows for private ownership of production means with the goal of making a profit. Just because the state subsidizes certain things doesn't negate that.

Ownership? What capital do you own that isn't subject to tax? If you fail to pay that tax, you will find out who really owns it.

Calling it a subset is sugarcoating a poison, the state has actively perverted it for it's own ends. The state will make things worse in the long run through: incompetence, corruption and price controls then use that as an excuse for another power grab. All the while bashing the private sector because it sees it as a rival.

The mixed economy is a march towards state domination. Calling it Capitalism only hastens it's march.

aelreth:

Jux:

Are you going to back this up with anything more than platitudes?

A mixed economy isn't completely divorced from capitalism just because you say so. Capitalism, at it's most base definition, is simply an economic system that allows for private ownership of production means with the goal of making a profit. There is nothing about a mixed economy that stops this. A mixed economy could easily be categorized as a subset of capitalism, as it allows for private ownership of production means with the goal of making a profit. Just because the state subsidizes certain things doesn't negate that.

Ownership? What capital do you own that isn't subject to tax? If you fail to pay that tax, you will find out who really owns it.

Calling it a subset is sugarcoating a poison, the state has actively perverted it for it's own ends. The state will make things worse in the long run through: incompetence, corruption and price controls then use that as an excuse for another power grab. All the while bashing the private sector because it sees it as a rival.

The mixed economy is a march towards state domination. Calling it Capitalism only hastens it's march.

You speak as if the State is an evil overlord hivemind, such thoughts appear crazy outside niche Libertarian circles.

And yes, America is a capitalist system.

aelreth:
It is. The mixed economy is a road to serfdom. Just like Hayek predicted.

The market is not free, we have a market shackled by the state. A century old monetary system that is rigged to benefit the banks that are the Federal Reserves primary dealers.

And yet 60-70 years or so have passed since the welfare state in Europe, and still serfdom is not in sight. Quite on the contrary, people are more socially and economically free than when it started.

The great rise of the banks did not start a century ago. It started in the 1980s when in the USA and UK neoliberals deliberately favoured the financial industry. As evidence, take a look at the USA's largest companies. Go back to 1980, and the top is full of manufacturing and resource companies. Look at 2000+, and there are a lot of banks up there. This probably not including all the background "hidden" financial industry including private hedge funds and so on.

But is it any surprise that capitalism would drift into the grip of those who control and mediate the flow of capital?

aelreth:

Jux:

Are you going to back this up with anything more than platitudes?

A mixed economy isn't completely divorced from capitalism just because you say so. Capitalism, at it's most base definition, is simply an economic system that allows for private ownership of production means with the goal of making a profit. There is nothing about a mixed economy that stops this. A mixed economy could easily be categorized as a subset of capitalism, as it allows for private ownership of production means with the goal of making a profit. Just because the state subsidizes certain things doesn't negate that.

Ownership? What capital do you own that isn't subject to tax? If you fail to pay that tax, you will find out who really owns it.

Calling it a subset is sugarcoating a poison, the state has actively perverted it for it's own ends. The state will make things worse in the long run through: incompetence, corruption and price controls then use that as an excuse for another power grab. All the while bashing the private sector because it sees it as a rival.

The mixed economy is a march towards state domination. Calling it Capitalism only hastens it's march.

And the fact that things are taxed means you don't own it? Thats some serious mental gymnastics right there. I won't argue that america's brand of capitalism is a healthy one. Corporations have way too much power. As Agema said, your doomsday predictions don't seem to match up with reality. Americas downfall to 'serfdom' if it does happen, won't be because of the welfare state, but rather because corporations gain too much power. If anything there needs to be more regulation on big business to ensure this type of special intrest cronyism is beaten back.

Seanchaidh:

Big_Willie_Styles:

davidmc1158:

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.

The only amendments that are by default invalid are those that try to change the number of seats a state gets in the Senate. There are other exceptions written into the US Constitution but they expired in 1808.

Agema:

aelreth:
It is. The mixed economy is a road to serfdom. Just like Hayek predicted.

The market is not free, we have a market shackled by the state. A century old monetary system that is rigged to benefit the banks that are the Federal Reserves primary dealers.

And yet 60-70 years or so have passed since the welfare state in Europe, and still serfdom is not in sight. Quite on the contrary, people are more socially and economically free than when it started.

The great rise of the banks did not start a century ago. It started in the 1980s when in the USA and UK neoliberals deliberately favoured the financial industry. As evidence, take a look at the USA's largest companies. Go back to 1980, and the top is full of manufacturing and resource companies. Look at 2000+, and there are a lot of banks up there. This probably not including all the background "hidden" financial industry including private hedge funds and so on.

But is it any surprise that capitalism would drift into the grip of those who control and mediate the flow of capital?

I have little doubt that any country with Europe's past can say that they have greater freedom today than 60-70 years ago.

On banking I agree, this was hastened by Greenspan lowering the interest rates to create a bubble, then Glass-Steagall was repealed in the late 90s. We then lowered interest rates even further after the 9/11 attacks during the slowdown following the internet bubble so Bush wouldn't have a recession during his watch. Then Bernanke comes in and sees what Greenspan did to create the Clinton boom (which was lowering interest rates) and follows in his footsteps.

If you want to regulate the banks, simply end fractional reserve banking. That way banks will have to live and die by the same rules all other businesses have to abide by.

"A depositor places money in his bank. The result is a deposit, and the depositor has a claim to this sum of money at any moment. One would think that the bank would be obliged to keep the money on hand, much in the same way that other deposited goods - like grain in an elevator - must be kept on hand. The law begs to differ. Banks are obliged to keep only a portion, or fraction, of that deposit in their vaults and are free to use the remaining sum as they please. Canada and the United Kingdom are examples of countries where there is no legal requirement for a bank to hold any percentage of that original deposit in its vault. In the United States, if a bank has net transactions accounts (deposits and accounts receivable) of less than $12.4 million, the reserve ratio is also set at zero. This differs greatly from grain elevators, where the law strictly states that the elevator owner must keep 100 percent of the deposited grain in the silo." David Howden

Is it any wonder why these entities are to big to fail?

aelreth:

"A depositor places money in his bank. The result is a deposit, and the depositor has a claim to this sum of money at any moment. One would think that the bank would be obliged to keep the money on hand, much in the same way that other deposited goods - like grain in an elevator - must be kept on hand. The law begs to differ. Banks are obliged to keep only a portion, or fraction, of that deposit in their vaults and are free to use the remaining sum as they please. Canada and the United Kingdom are examples of countries where there is no legal requirement for a bank to hold any percentage of that original deposit in its vault. In the United States, if a bank has net transactions accounts (deposits and accounts receivable) of less than $12.4 million, the reserve ratio is also set at zero. This differs greatly from grain elevators, where the law strictly states that the elevator owner must keep 100 percent of the deposited grain in the silo." David Howden

That's a bad analogy. A grain elevator is more like a safety deposit box in a bank. The bank is not allowed to open the safety deposit box and the customer pays them for storing the contests of the box. A bank account is actually a loan from the customer to the bank and the customer is paid interest on the money. If a farmer stores his grain in a silo, it is the farmer who pays the elevator owner a storage fee. Misleading analogies like that should not be used.

aelreth:
I have little doubt that any country with Europe's past can say that they have greater freedom today than 60-70 years ago.

An interesting statement from a man whose country had states that prosecuted consenting same-sex couples for sodomy until ten years ago, only opened up the electoral franchise to and desegregated a large chunk of its population in the 1960s, and interned something like 100,000 of its citizens in concentration camps in the 1940s. Never mind what it got up to pre-1940s.

It's not a pretty historical picture either.

On banking I agree

I'm not sure you entirely do, because the tent I'm pitching goes back earlier to massive deregulation of the stock markets and banking sector in the 1980s - at least in the UK under Thatcher; I suspect similar occurred in the USA, although maybe it happened previously. The governments of the UK and USA have gone a long way to make life extremely easy for finance, and interest rates are a small part of the bigger picture.

[snip] David Howden

My faith in what David Howden says there is vastly tempered by the fact he claims that there is no legal requirement for a bank to hold back reserves of the loans it makes in the UK and Canada. He is either flatly wrong, or misleading by being right in a technical sense only because the UK has some other means of compelling banks to have a suitable reserve. Because the UK sure as hell does not permit banks to loan all their deposits away.

Nielas:

Seanchaidh:

Big_Willie_Styles:

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.

The only amendments that are by default invalid are those that try to change the number of seats a state gets in the Senate. There are other exceptions written into the US Constitution but they expired in 1808.

Even those you could probably ram through simply by amending Article V prior.

Nielas:

That's a bad analogy. A grain elevator is more like a safety deposit box in a bank. The bank is not allowed to open the safety deposit box and the customer pays them for storing the contests of the box. A bank account is actually a loan from the customer to the bank and the customer is paid interest on the money. If a farmer stores his grain in a silo, it is the farmer who pays the elevator owner a storage fee. Misleading analogies like that should not be used.

Yet the bank makes money off of loaning that "grain" out. Then you wonder why banks are so profitable and fragile at the same time.

What is the interest that we are paid on our savings from the bank and what does the bank charge the borrower?

Agema:

An interesting statement from a man whose country had states that prosecuted consenting same-sex couples for sodomy until ten years ago, only opened up the electoral franchise to and desegregated a large chunk of its population in the 1960s, and interned something like 100,000 of its citizens in concentration camps in the 1940s. Never mind what it got up to pre-1940s.

Very different world 60-70 years ago isn't it?

Agema:

I'm not sure you entirely do, because the tent I'm pitching goes back earlier to massive deregulation of the stock markets and banking sector in the 1980s - at least in the UK under Thatcher; I suspect similar occurred in the USA, although maybe it happened previously. The governments of the UK and USA have gone a long way to make life extremely easy for finance, and interest rates are a small part of the bigger picture.

High interest rates means that people will deleverage, and not take on more debt. It also means that banks will have to pay depositors interest. Banks aren't profitable then. They may have to find an honest way of living. Goldman Sachs can't let that happen.

Actually we were throwing bankers in jail over the savings and loans crisis. Still waiting for this administration to start doing the same.

Agema:

My faith in what David Howden says there is vastly tempered by the fact he claims that there is no legal requirement for a bank to hold back reserves of the loans it makes in the UK and Canada. He is either flatly wrong, or misleading by being right in a technical sense only because the UK has some other means of compelling banks to have a suitable reserve. Because the UK sure as hell does not permit banks to loan all their deposits away.

Is your bank participating in CHAPS sterling and/or CREST sterling settlement bank? If not a reserve requirement is voluntary.

Notice how these stress tests don't use interest rates or bank runs? They want to be able to feign surprise when things banks go belly up.

aelreth:

Nielas:

That's a bad analogy. A grain elevator is more like a safety deposit box in a bank. The bank is not allowed to open the safety deposit box and the customer pays them for storing the contests of the box. A bank account is actually a loan from the customer to the bank and the customer is paid interest on the money. If a farmer stores his grain in a silo, it is the farmer who pays the elevator owner a storage fee. Misleading analogies like that should not be used.

Yet the bank makes money off of loaning that "grain" out. Then you wonder why banks are so profitable and fragile at the same time.

What is the interest that we are paid on our savings from the bank and what does the bank charge the borrower?

If fractional reserve banking was outlawed, banks could turn into brokerages for debt securities-- 'depositing' would become loaning directly to another client of the bank with a facilitation and review fee, and there would likely be quite a bit more risk for individual depositors. If a bank can't use the money in some way (and if the bank is required to keep it on hand, then it clearly can't use it) then there is no reason to have it. They would instead charge money for keeping track of it and savings would have to be put into something that entails much less liquidity and likely more risk in order to generate any income.

Problem with this: banks that could only serve as facilitators of loans between other parties would not have the same financial incentive to make sure the loan is likely to be repaid, making their specialization in matters of loans much less useful; clients would need to be able to evaluate a loan application themselves because one simply cannot depend on someone paid on commission to do so.

If the bank offers no advice, then their expertise is completely wasted.
If the bank sells advice, then there is a moral hazard since they profit from loans being made and not loans being repaid.
If the bank sells insurance on the loan and accepts the risk, then that's basically fractional reserve banking again; if one goes that route, what was the point of outlawing fractional reserve banking?

And no matter what option you choose, you've basically killed the ability to get interest from a loan of unspecified duration with the period at the immediate discretion of the creditor. That situation just no longer exists as there is no longer any incentive to accept such a deposit.

Another way to do it would be to have credit unions in which depositing is formally the same thing as buying stock in the credit union. This entails less liquidity for depositors (in this case shareholders) as well.

Yet the bank makes money off of loaning that "grain" out

Yeah, that's why they pay you for the "grain" rather than you paying them to store it. If it was about storage and was meant to be absolutely without risk, then banks would charge depositors rather than pay them. Now, there is the FDIC (and other national equivalents), but that just shifts the risk of default to an even larger and presumably more reliable entity, that being one with the power to tax.

Seanchaidh:

aelreth:

Nielas:

That's a bad analogy. A grain elevator is more like a safety deposit box in a bank. The bank is not allowed to open the safety deposit box and the customer pays them for storing the contests of the box. A bank account is actually a loan from the customer to the bank and the customer is paid interest on the money. If a farmer stores his grain in a silo, it is the farmer who pays the elevator owner a storage fee. Misleading analogies like that should not be used.

Yet the bank makes money off of loaning that "grain" out. Then you wonder why banks are so profitable and fragile at the same time.

What is the interest that we are paid on our savings from the bank and what does the bank charge the borrower?

If fractional reserve banking was outlawed, banks could turn into brokerages for debt securities-- 'depositing' would become loaning directly to another client of the bank with a facilitation and review fee, and there would likely be quite a bit more risk for individual depositors. If a bank can't use the money in some way (and if the bank is required to keep it on hand, then it clearly can't use it) then there is no reason to have it. They would instead charge money for keeping track of it and savings would have to be put into something that entails much less liquidity and likely more risk in order to generate any income.

Problem with this: banks that could only serve as facilitators of loans between other parties would not have the same financial incentive to make sure the loan is likely to be repaid, making their specialization in matters of loans much less useful; clients would need to be able to evaluate a loan application themselves because one simply cannot depend on someone paid on commission to do so.

If the bank offers no advice, then their expertise is completely wasted.
If the bank sells advice, then there is a moral hazard since they profit from loans being made and not loans being repaid.
If the bank sells insurance on the loan and accepts the risk, then that's basically fractional reserve banking again; if one goes that route, what was the point of outlawing fractional reserve banking?

And no matter what option you choose, you've basically killed the ability to get interest from a loan of unspecified duration with the period at the immediate discretion of the creditor. That situation just no longer exists as there is no longer any incentive to accept such a deposit.

Another way to do it would be to have credit unions in which depositing is formally the same thing as buying stock in the credit union. This entails less liquidity for depositors (in this case shareholders) as well.

Yet the bank makes money off of loaning that "grain" out

Yeah, that's why they pay you for the "grain" rather than you paying them to store it. If it was about storage and was meant to be absolutely without risk, then banks would charge depositors rather than pay them. Now, there is the FDIC (and other national equivalents), but that just shifts the risk of default to an even larger and presumably more reliable entity, that being one with the power to tax.

Try a different way, eliminate the FDIC. This way the government provides no special protection for the banks. Just like I suggested.

There would be two types of banks, those that charge you storage fees, and those those where you charge them interest for loaning out your money.

Bring back the older laws (the ones where you hang the bankers if the vault is empty after a bank run).

Businesses would advertise their reserve rates (they used to in the US) others would advertise the rate of return for (using interest) for depositing your money in their banks. The latter banks would be very austere with their loans and be very mindful of their reputation and their ledgers. Of course there would be higher risk for higher reward loans, that comes with the territory. This would stop the moral hazards.

It would make a healthier business sector and a healthier banking sector.

Seanchaidh:
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.

Actually it is flawed. If the only benefit of corporations can be had without the corporation then why do we need the corporation?

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

Which is the same no matter what.

You never really explained what you don't like about corporations, other than that they are "unnatural"-- which is basically meaningless.

I have, many times. If you had actually read my posts on a regular basis you would know that. In the meantime, you could have asked me directly.

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.

What transactions would be changed?

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

Used cars are a little different but overall yes. Unless you are buying a cheapo eastern European car (while in Eastern Europe) the newer cars tend to be cheaper than the older cars (assuming you need the car to run reasonably well). Old cars require work. Newer cars don't (generally). So, you buy a newer car and you get better gas mileage. Over time you will have to replace that car and you will likely get an even more fuel efficient car. And on.

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

If you do your research interest payments do not have to be that significant.

Yeah, they can work-- in the context of a state!

Also outside the context of a state. These are extra territorial units that exist outside the confines of any state. Crypto-anarchists have their own models that exist outside your government. I have even seen it. It is interesting. Although I do not have the technical skills to effectively log in. Plus there are the territorial entities that are effectively independent counties (even if they are not recognized).

This is another example of why you need to do more research.

What mistake?

You do not understand these models and you are applying them improperly.

This is well established theory in more than one field of social science

As are mine. These models were not created in a bubble. If you actually paid attention you would see numerous asides to various people. In fact, I have mentioned the theories of Locke several times on this topic.

Your problem is that you do not understand the limits of your theory. My models have limits, as do all models. You refuse to acknowledge your limits. My theories are perfectly valid. As are yours. However, your theories have too many holes and they require an insane level of violence to keep them around. That is why I argue against your theories.

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?

It applies to many things. I dump oil on a person's land and they can force me to clean it up.

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

So you refuse to acknowledge the point. Big surprise.

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

You cited it as independent.

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

Are you saying it is not a state? Then back it up.

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

Considering states are simply mental constructs, if we decline their existence yes they cease to appear.

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.

That is not a virtue that is a fact.

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.

Wrong. The state of nature is the absence of society and therefore the absence of the social contract. The social contract still exists in an anarchist state.

he certainly did not think it was a condition that could not possibly exist.

He did not, but everybody else does.

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

Sure I do. History is on my side.

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.

No, it is completely inaccurate.

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.

And how does the "group" form? Who is my group? My friends? My family? My colleagues? The people I keep in touch with on the internet? Anarchism is about bridging those gaps in a different way. Back in the day there was no nationalism. Now it is common but cosmopolitanism is growing.

Not everyone accepts your non-aggression principle and you cannot force everyone to accept it.

Really? It seems that most people do. Leave me be and I will leave you alone. Everything else requires justification. The fact that you support the government's right to murder innocent people is not based upon you believing the act is right. Instead, it is based on your justifications of self-protection.

John Locke did not seek to build a new state. He sought to change the way people viewed things. He was successful in many ways (inalienable rights) but unsuccessful in others (marriage as a temporary contract). We are trying to change people's perspectives as he did.

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

Hypocritically? I am more than happy to trade blows with you. But I am also happy to have a conversation. Stop fighting and I will as well.

Nikolaz72:

You speak as if the State is an evil overlord hivemind, such thoughts appear crazy outside niche Libertarian circles.

And yes, America is a capitalist system.

Then why was the US constitution written to constrain the State?

With a state that tells me what I must and shall not do, then bashes the capitalist when things don't go their way. As an excuse to impose more rules.

farson135:

Seanchaidh:
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.

Actually it is flawed. If the only benefit of corporations can be had without the corporation then why do we need the corporation?

It hardly matters-- you can't prevent corporations from existing in an anarchy because there is simply no enforcement mechanism powerful enough to do so-- or else it will take over and probably do a whole lot of other undesirable things. Or it's a democratically legitimate state.

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

Which is the same no matter what.

What is the same no matter what? The necessity to have the information isn't the same no matter what. Limited liability makes it much less necessary to know every niggling detail.

You never really explained what you don't like about corporations, other than that they are "unnatural"-- which is basically meaningless.

I have, many times. If you had actually read my posts on a regular basis you would know that. In the meantime, you could have asked me directly.

You didn't in this thread. You only complained about them being unnatural. You never elaborated. You didn't respond otherwise to my question about what you didn't like about them-- "You don't like limited liability?"-- you instead proceeded to argue against the value of limited liability.

I like to not depend on people reading another of my scattered thousands of posts to make my argument. Maybe this is part of why I appear to make a great deal more sense than you.

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.

What transactions would be changed?

Any relating to default or suits against the company for example. Duh?

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

Used cars are a little different but overall yes. Unless you are buying a cheapo eastern European car (while in Eastern Europe) the newer cars tend to be cheaper than the older cars (assuming you need the car to run reasonably well). Old cars require work. Newer cars don't (generally). So, you buy a newer car and you get better gas mileage. Over time you will have to replace that car and you will likely get an even more fuel efficient car. And on.

Weird, I keep seeing old and inefficient cars on the road, especially driven by poorer folk. If only people knew that they could just save money immediately by buying new!

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

If you do your research interest payments do not have to be that significant.

Yawn.

Yeah, they can work-- in the context of a state!

Also outside the context of a state. These are extra territorial units that exist outside the confines of any state. Crypto-anarchists have their own models that exist outside your government. I have even seen it. It is interesting. Although I do not have the technical skills to effectively log in. Plus there are the territorial entities that are effectively independent counties (even if they are not recognized).

This is another example of why you need to do more research.

The world is covered in states. Just being near one has a large effect on social norms.

What mistake?

You do not understand these models and you are applying them improperly.

I apologize for applying your models to reality, but my point is that they don't work in reality so that is how I have to apply them. If you want to contend that they work, but only in fantasy or on another isolated planet with an extremely small population, then you'll have no argument from me.

This is well established theory in more than one field of social science

As are mine. These models were not created in a bubble. If you actually paid attention you would see numerous asides to various people. In fact, I have mentioned the theories of Locke several times on this topic.

Locke was a political philosopher, metaphysician, and politician. He was not a social scientist. Neither was Hobbes. But Rational Choice Theory and collective action problems are the bread and butter of much sociology, social psychology, and economics. Durkheim, Weber, Blau, Foucault, Habermas-- these are social theorists.

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?

It applies to many things. I dump oil on a person's land and they can force me to clean it up.

You can also decline to clean it up and defend yourself from the attempted use of force.

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

So you refuse to acknowledge the point. Big surprise.

That people in large welfare states like to trade with one another rather than repeat the conquest of the Aquitaine is hardly a vindication of your anarchism, hah.

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

You cited it as independent.

There is nothing about independence that makes something a state either.

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

Are you saying it is not a state? Then back it up.

I'm saying it doesn't matter whether it's a state because there is no mechanism that will prevent states from appearing in your models-- none that will actually work, I mean. There is the entirely wishful "but no one would want to because market!"

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

Considering states are simply mental constructs, if we decline their existence yes they cease to appear.

And your wishing hard enough causes "we" to deny their existence?

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.

That is not a virtue that is a fact.

The virtues of a system are generally touted as factual rather than fictitious, yes.

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.

Wrong. The state of nature is the absence of society and therefore the absence of the social contract. The social contract still exists in an anarchist state.

The social contract is not the sum of all human connections.

he certainly did not think it was a condition that could not possibly exist.

He did not, but everybody else does.

?????

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

Sure I do. History is on my side.

Desertion has never been a problem for military forces? What?

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.

And how does the "group" form? Who is my group? My friends? My family? My colleagues? The people I keep in touch with on the internet?

It doesn't matter how they form or what they are comprised of. The fact is that they do form.

Anarchism is about bridging those gaps in a different way. Back in the day there was no nationalism. Now it is common but cosmopolitanism is growing.

Cosmopolitanism is a reasonable reaction to feeling safe because of the existence of a state that will enact bloody vengeance upon those who would harm its citizens. In the context of states, very luxurious, careful, and sophisticated moralities develop-- as well they should. In the context of anarchy, these moralities do not develop. Your idea of anarchism only comes about because people are not exposed to natural and unrestrained rates of violence. It is of course good that people are not exposed to natural rates of hostility or aggression-- and thankfully most people don't want to pointlessly throw that away upon the poor assumption that dismantling states will result in a similarly stable and secure situation as already exists (or even more naively, a more stable and secure situation than exists.)

Not everyone accepts your non-aggression principle and you cannot force everyone to accept it.

Really? It seems that most people do. Leave me be and I will leave you alone. Everything else requires justification.

Most people exist in states. Their incentives are heavily impacted by deterrence.

The fact that you support the government's right to murder innocent people

????

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

Hypocritically?

Yes.

aelreth:

High interest rates means that people will deleverage, and not take on more debt. It also means that banks will have to pay depositors interest. Banks aren't profitable then. They may have to find an honest way of living. Goldman Sachs can't let that happen.

Banks can set their own interest rates on deposit and loans. They make money by paying depositors less interest than they charge on loans and gain in investments, and adjust the rates as they need to in order to make money. In practice, most current accounts effectively charge the depositor by offering interest rates lower than the inflation rate. Were the bank unable to use that money to invest/loan instead being forced to hold it in reserve, it would need to charge depositors more.

Is your bank participating in CHAPS sterling and/or CREST sterling settlement bank? If not a reserve requirement is voluntary.

No, apologies, I'm wrong and you (/Howden) are quite right - it is apparently voluntary in the UK. Banks are dissuaded from reserves below 3% purely by pressure from the financial regulators.

aelreth:
Rage against the machine!

Huh... Wonder when that became a right-wing thing, anyway let me 'explain' why America is a capitalist system.

A Capitalist society is a society where people are ruled over by capital. Look at your society, could you survive 'without' capital? If not, you live in a capitalist system.

Spare me your Neo-Anarchist economic doctrines, capitalism is capitalism. And the U.S just happens to be what they have been for centuries, capitalists.

In a mixed economy at it's best, you can survive regardless of circumstance. If this is serfdom, then I shall gladly change my name to 'Slave of the State' for I'd rather be well-off dependent on a system ruled by everyone, than live in poverty under the rule of the Corporations, whose only interest is in their profits, gladly leaving people to starve were it not for regulations or self-interest. Which do rarely align with that of the masses.

I'd rather be a 'slave' to a system which very laws holds my interests at heart in hopes of re-election, than a slave to a system in which I could easily be cast aside as soon as I've outlived purpose.

Keep your fancy dreams of a pure Libertarian Nightmare-society to yourself mate.

What the society has done for you has made you incredibly entitled, were you living in the very system you think a Utopia you'd be wishing for the very freedom you so foolishly think it would bring you, you truly think you would be one of the people sitting on top of the wealth? HAH, No. No, the vast majority would be dependent on the very few whom had money when the system switched in the first place. You can't reboot a world, and in such a system the ones with the most money, just as now. Has the best chances of making more money, just as now. Just in such a system without regulations nor much for taxes it would be taken to the extremes, you, completely dependent on the few with the money to truly thrive in such a system.

For now I'll enjoy living in my Social-Capitalist system, It doesn't look like I'll become a serf anytime soon, so I guess I'll be enjoying my freedom as-well as my reasonable wealth.

Seanchaidh:
It hardly matters-- you can't prevent corporations from existing in an anarchy because there is simply no enforcement mechanism powerful enough to do so-- or else it will take over and probably do a whole lot of other undesirable things. Or it's a democratically legitimate state.

Wow. Corporations are a legal institution. No law, no corporations.

What is the same no matter what? The necessity to have the information isn't the same no matter what. Limited liability makes it much less necessary to know every niggling detail.

It is just as necessary, if not more so. After all, if you do not know what you are investing in you cannot effectively invest.

You didn't in this thread.

Because I was not asked.

I like to not depend on people reading another of my scattered thousands of posts to make my argument. Maybe this is part of why I appear to make a great deal more sense than you.

YOU pretend to follow what I have said (you discussed things I said in other topics) then you expect me to talk about things that I was not asked about. Either ask or look for my statements. Those are the two legitimate choices. You choose to guess.

Any relating to default or suits against the company for example. Duh?

Ongoing? Obviously not. Future? Yes.

Weird, I keep seeing old and inefficient cars on the road, especially driven by poorer folk. If only people knew that they could just save money immediately by buying new!

Newer. As in, a 2005 Ford is still better than a 2000 Ford.

The world is covered in states. Just being near one has a large effect on social norms.

By that logic we can say that states are only successful due to the presence of decentralizing elements. The "Black and Yellow Pages" have existed in various forms for far longer than currency has existed. Similar elements have also existed longer than states.

I apologize for applying your models to reality, but my point is that they don't work in reality so that is how I have to apply them.

You have admitted that you do not understand how these models work. Yet, you think that they do not work. Do you understand how idiotic that sounds?

Locke was a political philosopher, metaphysician, and politician. He was not a social scientist. Neither was Hobbes.

Yes he was. Just because there was not a title for it at the time does not mean that people did not fulfil the criteria.

You can also decline to clean it up and defend yourself from the attempted use of force.

Another example of your failure to use the non-aggression principle properly. Stop using theories if you do not know how to use them.

That people in large welfare states like to trade with one another rather than repeat the conquest of the Aquitaine is hardly a vindication of your anarchism, hah.

And you still fail to acknowledge the point. The model works in all areas. See, the Hansa (I keep telling you to read that book).

I'm saying it doesn't matter whether it's a state because there is no mechanism that will prevent states from appearing in your models-- none that will actually work, I mean. There is the entirely wishful "but no one would want to because market!"

Another example of your dishonesty. You NEVER asked how we would prevent the rise of a state and yet you feel the need to tell me how we will do it.

The virtues of a system are generally touted as factual rather than fictitious, yes.

It is not a virtue. Do you even understand what a virtue is?

Virtue- Behavior showing high moral standards

How does my statement imply that monarchs are virtuous?

The social contract is not the sum of all human connections.

Irrelevant. I was using an example. And you still have not admitted your fault.

he certainly did not think it was a condition that could not possibly exist.

He did not, but everybody else does.

?????

He lived in a time were creationism was still the norm. Modern sociologist have different views. Hell, Locke knew that "the state of nature" did not exist.

Desertion has never been a problem for military forces? What?

Not when the fight is necessary. Once again, think Braveheart.

It doesn't matter how they form or what they are comprised of. The fact is that they do form.

And they can be formed in any way you wish. That is the point.

Congratulations, you have gone from talking about the middle of anarchist theory to the beginning. Now you need to stay at the beginning and go from there.

Cosmopolitanism is a reasonable reaction to feeling safe because of the existence of a state that will enact bloody vengeance upon those who would harm its citizens.

So you are saying the only reason those German guys wanted to hear about Texas from me is because Germany will attack the US if I attack them? No.

In the context of states, very luxurious, careful, and sophisticated moralities develop-- as well they should. In the context of anarchy, these moralities do not develop. Your idea of anarchism only comes about because people are not exposed to natural and unrestrained rates of violence. It is of course good that people are not exposed to natural rates of hostility or aggression-- and thankfully most people don't want to pointlessly throw that away upon the poor assumption that dismantling states will result in a similarly stable and secure situation as already exists (or even more naively, a more stable and secure situation than exists.)

Do you know how many libertarians have been homeless in their lives? I know 7 personally.

Do you know how many libertarians have been almost killed or thrown in jail indefinitely? I know several dozen personally.

Do you know how many Africans I know who are libertarians? I know 5 personally. Two of them are student activists who brought their group to America to learn about the freedom movement in the US.

The largest most overbearing governments on the planet are shit hole nations that no one in their right mind would want to live in. UT has a huge number of students from Nigeria and the stories you hear are disgusting. I study eastern European history. I have been to Eastern Europe and I have seen the products of your sanctified government.

I do not give a flying fuck what you have seen on TV. Libertarians tend to be those people that you despise because we are not a part of your perfect system. You hate us because we are inconvenient. We hate the people you support because they made our lives hell. You do not want to acknowledge the damage you have done to people to make your life cozy. YOU have a good life. I grew up on a farm and I had to work that land and go to school. I also had to deal with going to school in the 90s at the height of the drug problems (yes, it even made it to rural central Texas). My high school had the wealthy(ish) white boys from town selling drugs while their neo-Nazi friends beat the shit out of people from my part of town and the even poorer Mexican and Polish towns. Do you know how many times my uncle (doctor) had to patch me up after some of those assholes attacked me? When I left that town to live with my mom in the city I got attacked for being a white(ish) boy in a predominately black/Mexican school.

Do not fucking tell me about violence. Do not tell me about my life. And do not make judgments about people that you cannot even come close to understanding. YOU know nothing about libertarians or libertarianism so do not talk about us. Do some fucking research and stop making shit up.

Most people exist in states. Their incentives are heavily impacted by deterrence.

Prove it.

The fact that you support the government's right to murder innocent people

????

You said it. You support the government's right to do anything as long as it has the vague agreement of 51% of the population.

Agema:

Banks can set their own interest rates on deposit and loans. They make money by paying depositors less interest than they charge on loans and gain in investments, and adjust the rates as they need to in order to make money. In practice, most current accounts effectively charge the depositor by offering interest rates lower than the inflation rate. Were the bank unable to use that money to invest/loan instead being forced to hold it in reserve, it would need to charge depositors more.

If you find a bank that yields 5-6% interest (which is the typical interest rate of the past 100 years) on savings let me know, in fact, the wealth of the world is searching for yield in any asset. As it stands central banks are creating enough currency to obscure any benefits to putting money in the bank.

Also I have to thank you, I would also like to apologize for not checking my source before I cited it, you reminded me that I have to double check my sources. If you had not called me on it I would have been parroting rank ignorance. You were right to call me on it.

Nikolaz72:

aelreth:
Rage against the machine!

Huh... Wonder when that became a right-wing thing, anyway let me 'explain' why America is a capitalist system.

A Capitalist society is a society where people are ruled over by capital. Look at your society, could you survive 'without' capital? If not, you live in a capitalist system.

Spare me your Neo-Anarchist economic doctrines, capitalism is capitalism. And the U.S just happens to be what they have been for centuries, capitalists.

In a mixed economy at it's best, you can survive regardless of circumstance. If this is serfdom, then I shall gladly change my name to 'Slave of the State' for I'd rather be well-off dependent on a system ruled by everyone, than live in poverty under the rule of the Corporations, whose only interest is in their profits, gladly leaving people to starve were it not for regulations or self-interest. Which do rarely align with that of the masses.

I'd rather be a 'slave' to a system which very laws holds my interests at heart in hopes of re-election, than a slave to a system in which I could easily be cast aside as soon as I've outlived purpose.

Keep your fancy dreams of a pure Libertarian Nightmare-society to yourself mate.

What the society has done for you has made you incredibly entitled, were you living in the very system you think a Utopia you'd be wishing for the very freedom you so foolishly think it would bring you, you truly think you would be one of the people sitting on top of the wealth? HAH, No. No, the vast majority would be dependent on the very few whom had money when the system switched in the first place. You can't reboot a world, and in such a system the ones with the most money, just as now. Has the best chances of making more money, just as now. Just in such a system without regulations nor much for taxes it would be taken to the extremes, you, completely dependent on the few with the money to truly thrive in such a system.

For now I'll enjoy living in my Social-Capitalist system, It doesn't look like I'll become a serf anytime soon, so I guess I'll be enjoying my freedom as-well as my reasonable wealth.

Then why did my family survive in this country when it was like that? It was after all the greatest expansion of wealth in the history of the world. Property rights have been so eroded since then, I can't call it capitalism, not anymore.

If you are unaware of the time I speak then you shall remain ignorant of history. Perhaps that is the reason why you don't recognize the danger of the state. It is after all the executor of these vast conspiracies you lay at the feet of these corporations, because after all corporations only have power when the state backs their actions with force.

It also sounds like your family wouldn't have been able to survive, or did it? You are here after all.

Which corporation is the most powerful? Please name it. You after all try to champion yourself as someone that wants to thwart it. Can you at least name the the biggest one? Or are you chasing ghosts so someone else can assume power?

farson135:

Seanchaidh:
It hardly matters-- you can't prevent corporations from existing in an anarchy because there is simply no enforcement mechanism powerful enough to do so-- or else it will take over and probably do a whole lot of other undesirable things. Or it's a democratically legitimate state.

Wow. Corporations are a legal institution. No law, no corporations.

Simplistic and, as is the pattern, wrong. Where there is no law to prevent an association of individuals from inventing an entity for their own purposes and considering it to have a continuous existence independent of the existence of its members, and with separate powers and liabilities, there will be such whenever any group of individuals wants there to be such. One might call it something different, but it can easily be the same thing. You, in particular, would probably call it a state-- and depending on the particulars, you might not be wrong.

That which is defined by people as real is real in its consequences. And humans can be very imaginative.

What is the same no matter what? The necessity to have the information isn't the same no matter what. Limited liability makes it much less necessary to know every niggling detail.

It is just as necessary, if not more so. After all, if you do not know what you are investing in you cannot effectively invest.

If you can lose more than what you put in, a larger amount of reliable information is necessary for any rational investor. If you cannot, then there is less risk. Is this not obvious?

You didn't in this thread.

Because I was not asked.

And thus your case appears very weak; I'm fine with that.

Any relating to default or suits against the company for example. Duh?

Ongoing? Obviously not. Future? Yes.

Because the court changes the future consequences of existing transactions, the court changes the nature of existing transactions by force. It would be the same if a court decided that a bond will henceforth be redeemable for only half of what it was going to pay out prior to the court's intervention.

The world is covered in states. Just being near one has a large effect on social norms.

By that logic we can say that states are only successful due to the presence of decentralizing elements. The "Black and Yellow Pages" have existed in various forms for far longer than currency has existed. Similar elements have also existed longer than states.

Ok. So? I've never put forward the notion that states are sufficient for everything to work well. I think they are necessary for any large population of human individuals. Whereas you think the market alone is sufficient for everything to work well (or you've appeared to argue such, anyway.) I like markets, farson135. I just acknowledge their limitations. I'm not a big fan of centrally planned agriculture or industry. I don't want to abolish currency. I won't argue that the Soviet Union had a stable and desirable long-term setup. States have a place in human affairs and sometimes to intervene in the market where the market has undesirable effects and the people want to address those undesirable effects. The Stalinist you seem to want to argue with is not me. I have what might be called a view of political economy that is not fundamentalist.

I apologize for applying your models to reality, but my point is that they don't work in reality so that is how I have to apply them.

You have admitted that you do not understand how these models work. Yet, you think that they do not work. Do you understand how idiotic that sounds?

Sure, I realize how idiotic it sounds if you mangle my sentences.

I understand how they don't work. I understand that you don't know how they work either, because they don't. You think you understand how they work-- and by thinking so, you fail to understand how they do not.

Locke was a political philosopher, metaphysician, and politician. He was not a social scientist. Neither was Hobbes.

Yes he was. Just because there was not a title for it at the time does not mean that people did not fulfil the criteria.

In any case, rational choice theory is still considered very relevant. Whereas the particular details of Lockean theory are a matter more for political philosophy and comparative history of ideas courses.

You can also decline to clean it up and defend yourself from the attempted use of force.

Another example of your failure to use the non-aggression principle properly. Stop using theories if you do not know how to use them.

Who said I was using the non-aggression principle? He can try to force you. You can try to stop him. I would say that more than you risk by angering him with your pollution, he risks by attempting to force you to clean it up. This is just how things are when there is no overriding authority.

See, this is what I'm getting at when I say that for your ideology to work it would require extreme ideological conformity the world over to a degree that is very implausible. You think it's a good reply to my objection to say (in essence) that one of the people involved isn't a perfect libertarian/anarchist like you!

That people in large welfare states like to trade with one another rather than repeat the conquest of the Aquitaine is hardly a vindication of your anarchism, hah.

And you still fail to acknowledge the point. The model works in all areas. See, the Hansa (I keep telling you to read that book).

Yes, farson135. No independent mercantile town ever was conquered by a foreign group. Sure.

I'm saying it doesn't matter whether it's a state because there is no mechanism that will prevent states from appearing in your models-- none that will actually work, I mean. There is the entirely wishful "but no one would want to because market!"

Another example of your dishonesty. You NEVER asked how we would prevent the rise of a state and yet you feel the need to tell me how we will do it.

You said that no state would arise because people "wouldn't think it would be worthwhile". You gave an answer to the question. It was entirely unsatisfactory, but it was there.

The virtues of a system are generally touted as factual rather than fictitious, yes.

It is not a virtue. Do you even understand what a virtue is?

Virtue- Behavior showing high moral standards

How does my statement imply that monarchs are virtuous?

Here, let me help you with that:

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/extoll+the+virtues+of

The social contract is not the sum of all human connections.

Irrelevant. I was using an example. And you still have not admitted your fault.

Where there is no fault, admitting fault is unnecessary.

He did not, but everybody else does.

?????

He lived in a time were creationism was still the norm. Modern sociologist have different views. Hell, Locke knew that "the state of nature" did not exist.

There are differing theories on what a state of nature would be like. Rousseau's was more optimistic, Locke's was kind of in the middle, and Hobbes had the most dire. The idea that the dissolution of government results in something much like a Hobbesian state of nature is actually still rather popular.

Desertion has never been a problem for military forces? What?

Not when the fight is necessary. Once again, think Braveheart.

The fight in my example could easily be seen as not necessary by a rational and self-interested individual-- especially one surrounded by other rational and self-interested individuals. It could easily be seen as necessary by someone motivated by something other than self-interest, of course. A lot of cultural values are actually responses to this exact collective action problem: ideas of honor and duty, the exultation of courage or bravery, the condemnation of cowardice, and the emotional attachment to group identification and so on-- all related to diminishing the effects of rationality and self-interest on responses to just this sort of collective action problem.

It doesn't matter how they form or what they are comprised of. The fact is that they do form.

And they can be formed in any way you wish. That is the point.

But you do not control the ways in which other groups form, or even how your own group forms (unless you choose to have no group at all, which would be a somewhat weak position without a state to protect you.) You only have control over yourself.

Cosmopolitanism is a reasonable reaction to feeling safe because of the existence of a state that will enact bloody vengeance upon those who would harm its citizens.

So you are saying the only reason those German guys wanted to hear about Texas from me is because Germany will attack the US if I attack them? No.

I'm not saying that. Irrelevantly, though, yes, states also tend to prosecute crimes against non-citizens.

What I am saying is that when people perceive themselves as being free from threat, their expectations change. Their moral ideas are largely a product of their environment.

In the context of states, very luxurious, careful, and sophisticated moralities develop-- as well they should. In the context of anarchy, these moralities do not develop. Your idea of anarchism only comes about because people are not exposed to natural and unrestrained rates of violence. It is of course good that people are not exposed to natural rates of hostility or aggression-- and thankfully most people don't want to pointlessly throw that away upon the poor assumption that dismantling states will result in a similarly stable and secure situation as already exists (or even more naively, a more stable and secure situation than exists.)

Do you know how many libertarians have been homeless in their lives? I know 7 personally.

Homeless, but residing in a state.

Do you know how many libertarians have been almost killed or thrown in jail indefinitely? I know several dozen personally.

Almost killed or thrown in jail indefinitely, but in the context of a state where there is at least the pretension to a rule of law.

Do you know how many Africans I know who are libertarians? I know 5 personally. Two of them are student activists who brought their group to America to learn about the freedom movement in the US.

Ok?

The largest most overbearing governments on the planet are shit hole nations that no one in their right mind would want to live in. UT has a huge number of students from Nigeria and the stories you hear are disgusting. I study eastern European history. I have been to Eastern Europe and I have seen the products of your sanctified government.

Ah yes, and Ayn Rand was from the Soviet Union. There is of course the mistake of accusing all governments of being essentially no different from the worst excesses of totalitarian states or other authoritarian regimes.

Do you know what none of the people you listed are or were? Residents of a stateless utopia.

I do not give a flying fuck what you have seen on TV. Libertarians tend to be those people that you despise because we are not a part of your perfect system. You hate us because we are inconvenient. We hate the people you support because they made our lives hell. You do not want to acknowledge the damage you have done to people to make your life cozy. YOU have a good life. I grew up on a farm and I had to work that land and go to school. I also had to deal with going to school in the 90s at the height of the drug problems (yes, it even made it to rural central Texas). My high school had the wealthy(ish) white boys from town selling drugs while their neo-Nazi friends beat the shit out of people from my part of town and the even poorer Mexican and Polish towns. Do you know how many times my uncle (doctor) had to patch me up after some of those assholes attacked me? When I left that town to live with my mom in the city I got attacked for being a white(ish) boy in a predominately black/Mexican school.

You're still alive. Why do you suppose that is?

Most people exist in states. Their incentives are heavily impacted by deterrence.

Prove it.

I feel like I'm speaking to a fish that doesn't believe in the existence of water.

The fact that you support the government's right to murder innocent people

????

You said it. You support the government's right to do anything as long as it has the vague agreement of 51% of the population.

I addressed this question directly previously in this thread:

Appearing as himself: Seanchaidh:
Now, if you could get such a majority, I'd hardly be in a position to stand in your way-- with or without the existence of governments or markets. Governments serve society. If society wants to do something awful, then governments usually don't stand in the way of it. Of course neither do markets. Occasionally the people being murdered register disagreement violently-- and rightly so; once a political unit has voted to murder you it is fair to say you are no longer expected to abide by its laws.

Notice that I did not say that I supported a right of the state to murder innocent people. I'm not of the opinion that rights really exist. I actually did indicate that it would seem reasonable for victims to defend themselves, so that would seem to be an implicit denial of the right of a state to kill an innocent person-- how could I assert a right that I thought people had no duty to respect?

Now, if you are interested in helping people who are innocent not be murdered by the state, I have a resource for you:

Innocence Project of Texas

Though, if my analysis of collective action problems is any indication, the likelihood that you would donate a very significant sum is quite small-- even if you care about innocent people being murdered by the state. Prove me wrong for a good cause, farson135.

Seanchaidh:
Simplistic and, as is the pattern, wrong.

You better have something to back this assertion up.

Where there is no law to prevent an association of individuals from inventing an entity for their own purposes and considering it to have a continuous existence independent of the existence of its members, and with separate powers and liabilities, there will be such whenever any group of individuals wants there to be such. One might call it something different, but it can easily be the same thing.

No it would not. Someone has to be in charge. Someone has to take responsibility. If there is no law making a corporation a person then only a person can be the representative.

If you can lose more than what you put in, a larger amount of reliable information is necessary for any rational investor. If you cannot, then there is less risk. Is this not obvious?

Is it not obvious that you can have a limited liability investment without a corporation? You just admitted that.

And thus your case appears very weak; I'm fine with that.

So my case is weak to you because I did not answer a question that you did not ask. Typical.

Because the court changes the future consequences of existing transactions, the court changes the nature of existing transactions by force. It would be the same if a court decided that a bond will henceforth be redeemable for only half of what it was going to pay out prior to the court's intervention.

Except you can't do that. Once again, you are ignoring basic libertarian transition theory.

The Stalinist you seem to want to argue with is not me. I have what might be called a view of political economy that is not fundamentalist.

Actually you are more of a Stalinist than a fundamentalist. Stalinists believe in expediency. You are willing to allow the government anything it wants as long as it has the vague support of 51% of the population. That is wrong.

I am arguing against you because what you support is wrong.

Sure, I realize how idiotic it sounds if you mangle my sentences.

That is what you said.

I understand how they don't work.

No you do not. If you did then you would not keep making mistakes in regards to the non-aggression principle and other parts.

I understand that you don't know how they work either, because they don't. You think you understand how they work-- and by thinking so, you fail to understand how they do not.

A guy who cannot even understand the concept of the state of nature is going to tell me that I do not understand how the models that I study work. Typical.

He can try to force you. You can try to stop him. I would say that more than you risk by angering him with your pollution, he risks by attempting to force you to clean it up. This is just how things are when there is no overriding authority.

No overriding authority? Once again, you prove how little you know about these models. Anarchism can still have governments and courts.

Yes, farson135. No independent mercantile town ever was conquered by a foreign group. Sure.

Did I say that? Another lie to add to the list.

You said that no state would arise because people "wouldn't think it would be worthwhile". You gave an answer to the question. It was entirely unsatisfactory, but it was there.

Across all 5 pages I only found one example of that quote. And the one example was from your post. You might be referring to a military collective but you NEVER asked about a state.

Here, let me help you with that:

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/extoll+the+virtues+of

By that logic I could be extoling the virtues of the Nazis by saying that they did not have the ability to kill every single Jew.

Monarchs did not have the ability to control all of their territory in absolute terms. That is not a virtue, it is a basic fact.

The idea that the dissolution of government results in something much like a Hobbesian state of nature is actually still rather popular.

Citation.

The fight in my example could easily be seen as not necessary by a rational and self-interested individual-- especially one surrounded by other rational and self-interested individuals.

Really? Your home gets destroyed if you do not fight. Sounds pretty important to me.

But you do not control the ways in which other groups form, or even how your own group forms (unless you choose to have no group at all, which would be a somewhat weak position without a state to protect you.) You only have control over yourself.

Actually we do in many ways. That is why I am expected to give a shit about my 2nd cousin's new child. Culture defines partially who we give a shit about.

What I am saying is that when people perceive themselves as being free from threat, their expectations change. Their moral ideas are largely a product of their environment.

You did not say that.

Homeless, but residing in a state.

A state that occasionally tries to kill them for walking down the street. Great.

Almost killed or thrown in jail indefinitely, but in the context of a state where there is at least the pretension to a rule of law.

Which makes it better how?

There is of course the mistake of accusing all governments of being essentially no different from the worst excesses of totalitarian states or other authoritarian regimes.

Did I say that? More lies.

Do you know what none of the people you listed are or were? Residents of a stateless utopia.

Some of them are now.

BTW I love the fact that you ignored the point. Every accusation you made is wrong. You know nothing about libertarians and your assumptions are idiotic.

You're still alive. Why do you suppose that is?

Because I got pissed off enough to send that idiot boy to the hospital before he could cave my head in with a 2x4. Because those neo-Nazis are pussies in the face of a man who can shoot back. Because I had the presence of mind to seek shelter during that flash flood instead of trudging ahead like my friends wanted. Because I knew the cop that showed up and the people that I sent to the hospital had a rap sheet. Because I was smart enough to curl up when that bull tried to trample me. Because I grew up to be over 6 foot tall and have enough muscles to scare off most attackers. Because I was born intelligent enough to get into AP classes and thereby avoid the thugs most of the day. Because the cops in my home town are smart enough to let people fight it out as long as it does not go too far.

Did you have a different reason? Oh, did you want me to say that the cops saved me? No, no, no, no, no. The cops only got there after the fact. Luckily, the guys who attacked me were too stupid to get me alone until after I got some damn good hand-to-hand combat training. Although, that one time they did get me alone in any numbers was enough to crack my kneecap with a 2x4. That is why I walk a little funny now. The cops showed up in time to get my statement and take those four to the hospital.

I feel like I'm speaking to a fish that doesn't believe in the existence of water.

Are you being intentionally dense?

Prove-"Their incentives are heavily impacted by deterrence."

Notice that I did not say that I supported a right of the state to murder innocent people.

Yes you did. If you do not like the results of your beliefs then it is time to change them.

Now, if you are interested in helping people who are innocent not be murdered by the state, I have a resource for you:

Innocence Project of Texas

Though, if my analysis of collective action problems is any indication, the likelihood that you would donate a very significant sum is quite small-- even if you care about innocent people being murdered by the state. Prove me wrong for a good cause, farson135.

Sorry, I put money into the Peaceful Streets Project, The Red Cross, Texans for Accountable Government, and others. I am not made of money.

BTW it is in my interest to make sure that this does not happen to me (Antonio is a friend of mine)-

So it looks like your analysis is completely wrong. Not that you will admit that.

farson135:

Seanchaidh:
Simplistic and, as is the pattern, wrong.

You better have something to back this assertion up.

Where there is no law to prevent an association of individuals from inventing an entity for their own purposes and considering it to have a continuous existence independent of the existence of its members, and with separate powers and liabilities, there will be such whenever any group of individuals wants there to be such. One might call it something different, but it can easily be the same thing.

No it would not. Someone has to be in charge. Someone has to take responsibility. If there is no law making a corporation a person then only a person can be the representative.

Without law, no one has to take any responsibility with regard to a corporation or otherwise. Corporations are regarded as persons before the law. It is not an improvement if they become not regarded as persons before no law whatsoever. In that case,

If you can lose more than what you put in, a larger amount of reliable information is necessary for any rational investor. If you cannot, then there is less risk. Is this not obvious?

Is it not obvious that you can have a limited liability investment without a corporation? You just admitted that.

Ok? You said that limited liability made knowledge more necessary rather than less. That is an error.

And thus your case appears very weak; I'm fine with that.

So my case is weak to you because I did not answer a question that you did not ask. Typical.

Your case is weak because you don't explain your reasoning. Probably because it does not survive scrutiny.

Because the court changes the future consequences of existing transactions, the court changes the nature of existing transactions by force. It would be the same if a court decided that a bond will henceforth be redeemable for only half of what it was going to pay out prior to the court's intervention.

Except you can't do that. Once again, you are ignoring basic libertarian transition theory.

The world does not operate according to basic libertarian transition theory.

The Stalinist you seem to want to argue with is not me. I have what might be called a view of political economy that is not fundamentalist.

Actually you are more of a Stalinist than a fundamentalist. Stalinists believe in expediency. You are willing to allow the government anything it wants as long as it has the vague support of 51% of the population. That is wrong.

I am arguing against you because what you support is wrong.

That I recognize personal limits to my own power does not mean I support everything I cannot prevent.

Sure, I realize how idiotic it sounds if you mangle my sentences.

That is what you said.

No.

I understand how they don't work.

No you do not. If you did then you would not keep making mistakes in regards to the non-aggression principle and other parts.

I'm not making mistakes. I'm telling you how it fails. Humans do not operate according to libertarian principles.

I understand that you don't know how they work either, because they don't. You think you understand how they work-- and by thinking so, you fail to understand how they do not.

A guy who cannot even understand the concept of the state of nature is going to tell me that I do not understand how the models that I study work. Typical.

Yes, I imagine it is typical that a wide variety of people do not buy the idea that you understand the ideas that you "study".

He can try to force you. You can try to stop him. I would say that more than you risk by angering him with your pollution, he risks by attempting to force you to clean it up. This is just how things are when there is no overriding authority.

No overriding authority? Once again, you prove how little you know about these models. Anarchism can still have governments and courts.

But no law. Or is your attack on corporations above entirely inconsistent with your views?

Yes, farson135. No independent mercantile town ever was conquered by a foreign group. Sure.

Did I say that? Another lie to add to the list.

If not then you have asserted extremely weak historical evidence for your position and treated it as if it made your case. It didn't.

You said that no state would arise because people "wouldn't think it would be worthwhile". You gave an answer to the question. It was entirely unsatisfactory, but it was there.

Across all 5 pages I only found one example of that quote. And the one example was from your post. You might be referring to a military collective but you NEVER asked about a state.

I specifically referred to security collectives developing into the states we have today. You said, "they would be pointless and no one would bother with them"-- which amounts to the same thing as that no one would find it worthwhile.

The idea that the dissolution of government results in something much like a Hobbesian state of nature is actually still rather popular.

Citation.

The word 'anarchy' is often used to refer to situations in which people are afraid for their lives because there is no controlling authority to protect from violent crime and so on. The typical response to your ideas is that government is necessary to keep order and that anarchy is a horrifically bad state of affairs-- which is essentially the Hobbesian critique (without his disdain for democracy, of course.)

The fight in my example could easily be seen as not necessary by a rational and self-interested individual-- especially one surrounded by other rational and self-interested individuals.

Really? Your home gets destroyed if you do not fight. Sounds pretty important to me.

You very well might die if you fight. Having a home or it being in the same place is not strictly necessary for survival. Not having spilled the entirety of your abdomen on the battlefield is, however.

What I am saying is that when people perceive themselves as being free from threat, their expectations change. Their moral ideas are largely a product of their environment.

You did not say that.

I more or less did. That idea was the basis of my reasoning for saying that cosmopolitan ideas only have much success in the context of safety. When the security situation suffers, such ideas tend to get thrown out the window for all practical purposes.

Homeless, but residing in a state.

A state that occasionally tries to kill them for walking down the street. Great.

????

A state in which people would think that killing a hobo might entail some risk (rightly or wrongly) because of the existence of laws against murder.

Almost killed or thrown in jail indefinitely, but in the context of a state where there is at least the pretension to a rule of law.

Which makes it better how?[/quote]

The "almost" could have been accomplished.

There is of course the mistake of accusing all governments of being essentially no different from the worst excesses of totalitarian states or other authoritarian regimes.

Did I say that? More lies.[/quote]

Then why do you keep mentioning totalitarian or authoritarian states as if it helps your argument?

Do you know what none of the people you listed are or were? Residents of a stateless utopia.

Some of them are now.

*blink*

You're still alive. Why do you suppose that is?

Because I got pissed off enough to send that idiot boy to the hospital before he could cave my head in with a 2x4. Because those neo-Nazis are pussies in the face of a man who can shoot back. Because I had the presence of mind to seek shelter during that flash flood instead of trudging ahead like my friends wanted. Because I knew the cop that showed up and the people that I sent to the hospital had a rap sheet. Because I was smart enough to curl up when that bull tried to trample me. Because I grew up to be over 6 foot tall and have enough muscles to scare off most attackers. Because I was born intelligent enough to get into AP classes and thereby avoid the thugs most of the day. Because the cops in my home town are smart enough to let people fight it out as long as it does not go too far.

Did you have a different reason? Oh, did you want me to say that the cops saved me? No, no, no, no, no. The cops only got there after the fact. Luckily, the guys who attacked me were too stupid to get me alone until after I got some damn good hand-to-hand combat training. Although, that one time they did get me alone in any numbers was enough to crack my kneecap with a 2x4. That is why I walk a little funny now. The cops showed up in time to get my statement and take those four to the hospital.

What is missing in all of this is an account of the psychology of your attackers that doesn't completely ignore the threat/risk of punishment if they were found guilty of your murder (aside from the bull trampling which is not terribly relevant to our discussion.)

I feel like I'm speaking to a fish that doesn't believe in the existence of water.

Are you being intentionally dense?

Prove-"Their incentives are heavily impacted by deterrence."

The police exist and enforce laws. They substantially increase the risk of being punished for breaking those laws. A substantial increase in risk of punishment is both deterrence and a change in incentives.

Once again, I feel like I'm speaking to a fish that doesn't believe in the existence of water.

Notice that I did not say that I supported a right of the state to murder innocent people.

Yes you did. If you do not like the results of your beliefs then it is time to change them.

There are no such results of my beliefs.

Now, if you are interested in helping people who are innocent not be murdered by the state, I have a resource for you:

Innocence Project of Texas

Though, if my analysis of collective action problems is any indication, the likelihood that you would donate a very significant sum is quite small-- even if you care about innocent people being murdered by the state. Prove me wrong for a good cause, farson135.

Sorry, I put money into the Peaceful Streets Project, The Red Cross, Texans for Accountable Government, and others. I am not made of money.

OK, I get it, you don't care enough about the government murdering innocent people to contribute to the innocence project of your state. Sorry I asked.

I was really hoping you'd prove me wrong on this one, though. But you chose to defect rather than cooperate just as I thought you would.

BTW it is in my interest to make sure that this does not happen to me (Antonio is a friend of mine)-

Indeed it is. But you can't accomplish a situation in which it wouldn't ever happen to you by yourself. If such a cause succeeds, I benefit without having committed anything to it. And if it fails, I didn't commit anything to it. This is another reason why it makes sense to use your vote rather than your market power-- voting is less costly (unless you live in one of the districts that like making people wait in line the whole day-- that shit needs to be fixed right the fuck now.)

So it looks like your analysis is completely wrong. Not that you will admit that.

You in fact will not contribute to the Innocence Project of Texas. Why? Because you prioritize yourself above others just like the rational self-interested persons in my analysis. My analysis was spot on.

There is a pattern of you prematurely and inaccurately declaring that I'm wrong about something. It is, of course, unreasonable to expect someone to 'admit' being wrong if he is not.

Seanchaidh:
Without law, no one has to take any responsibility with regard to a corporation or otherwise.

First of all, there is law in anarchy. In the case I am referring to there would be no corporate law.

Second of all, yes, someone does have to take responsibility because a corporation is not a person.

Corporations are regarded as persons before the law. It is not an improvement if they become not regarded as persons before no law whatsoever.

Really? Many of your comrades want CEO's to be jailed for the fraud that their company engaged in. They would have a chance at their claim in my system.

Ok? You said that limited liability made knowledge more necessary rather than less. That is an error.

It could and I said as much.

Your case is weak because you don't explain your reasoning. Probably because it does not survive scrutiny.

Or because you did not ask. I told you that you are jumping in the middle of the theory instead of starting at the beginning. It is your fault, not mine. By this time, if you actually cared, you would have asked. Instead you keep playing this game.

The world does not operate according to basic libertarian transition theory.

Many states do. After all, many are transitioning to Libertarian methods.

That I recognize personal limits to my own power does not mean I support everything I cannot prevent.

You support the government's right. You said as much.

I'm not making mistakes. I'm telling you how it fails.

By misusing the models.

Humans do not operate according to libertarian principles.

Monarchists said the same thing about Lockean models.

But no law. Or is your attack on corporations above entirely inconsistent with your views?

There can be law. Another lie to add to the list.

Anarcho-capitalists like Rothbard explain these facts in detail. Of course you would not know anything about him despite the fact that he is one of the foremost anarchists in the entire world.

No law allowing the existence of corporations, no corporations. In other words, what I said to begin with.

If not then you have asserted extremely weak historical evidence for your position and treated it as if it made your case. It didn't.

So you admit it was a lie. Progress.

BTW have you read that book yet? Of course not. You would never bother to research before you make an assertion.

I specifically referred to security collectives developing into the states we have today. You said, "they would be pointless and no one would bother with them"-- which amounts to the same thing as that no one would find it worthwhile.

Nope. You referred to security collectives and then said they might develop into a state later on. I referred to the security collective not the state. And states are more than security collectives. So you lied, again.

The word 'anarchy' is often used to refer to situations in which people are afraid for their lives because there is no controlling authority to protect from violent crime and so on. The typical response to your ideas is that government is necessary to keep order and that anarchy is a horrifically bad state of affairs-- which is essentially the Hobbesian critique (without his disdain for democracy, of course.)

So let me get this straight, you apply the state of nature to an area that Hobbes would not apply as being in a state of nature. Then you apply ONE definition of anarchism and ignore all others (including the one we are talking about). Another example of your dishonesty.

You very well might die if you fight. Having a home or it being in the same place is not strictly necessary for survival. Not having spilled the entirety of your abdomen on the battlefield is, however.

Your home is far more important than you realize. Try being without one as my family has.

A state in which people would think that killing a hobo might entail some risk (rightly or wrongly) because of the existence of laws against murder.

Then why do you keep mentioning totalitarian or authoritarian states as if it helps your argument?

Because government is not the almighty force that you think it is. The US government commits atrocities.

What is missing in all of this is an account of the psychology of your attackers that doesn't completely ignore the threat/risk of punishment if they were found guilty of your murder

Apparently they did since that one idiot tried to crack my head open with a 2x4. That neo-Nazi prick decided to take out a knife. And on.

The police exist and enforce laws. They substantially increase the risk of being punished for breaking those laws. A substantial increase in risk of punishment is both deterrence and a change in incentives.

Substantial? Do you know how many of my attackers have been arrested? It quickly becomes a he said, she said kind of thing and it never works. Police are aftermath.

There are no such results of my beliefs.

Really?- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/jose-guerena-arizona-_n_867020.html

OK, I get it, you don't care enough about the government murdering innocent people to contribute to the innocence project of your state. Sorry I asked.

I was really hoping you'd prove me wrong on this one, though. But you chose to defect rather than cooperate just as I thought you would.

Do you know what the Peaceful Streets Project is? It tries to do the same thing as the Innocence Project but BEFORE the guys get arrested. Keep the guys out of jail instead of getting them out. Which is preferable in the long run?

Indeed it is. But you can't accomplish a situation in which it wouldn't ever happen to you by yourself. If such a cause succeeds, I benefit without having committed anything to it. And if it fails, I didn't commit anything to it. This is another reason why it makes sense to use your vote rather than your market power-- voting is less costly (unless you live in one of the districts that like making people wait in line the whole day-- that shit needs to be fixed right the fuck now.)

And yet, I benefit even more so because I contribute. I have the Peaceful Streets Project and an ungodly number of friends in various organizations that deal with these issues. I also have a friend on the board of the Innocence Project. Do you know how many people I could call on if I got unjustly arrested? You only have luck on your side. I have a network of people. We are a very connected group. Another thing you do not know about us.

You in fact will not contribute to the Innocence Project of Texas. Why? Because you prioritize yourself above others just like the rational self-interested persons in my analysis. My analysis was spot on.

So you are saying that I contribute to the Peaceful Streets Project out of self interest (I have never been arrested but may be some day) but I will not contribute to The Innocence Project because it is not in my self interest to do so (I guess because I have never been arrested). That makes sense. It could not possibly be because I have scarce resources and I have to pick and choose who to give those resources to (you know, like I said in my previous post).(/sarcasm)

There is a pattern of you prematurely and inaccurately declaring that I'm wrong about something. It is, of course, unreasonable to expect someone to 'admit' being wrong if he is not.

You are wrong. I give to an organization that is very similar to the one you champion but you decide that that is not good enough. Tell me, do you give to The Innocence Project? Do you give to any organization? Is the anarchist more giving than the statist? Perhaps this says something about the failure of your system that only the anarchists care enough to try and build a better world and you statists are fine with leaving it as is.

Agema:

aelreth:
It is. The mixed economy is a road to serfdom. Just like Hayek predicted.

The market is not free, we have a market shackled by the state. A century old monetary system that is rigged to benefit the banks that are the Federal Reserves primary dealers.

And yet 60-70 years or so have passed since the welfare state in Europe, and still serfdom is not in sight. Quite on the contrary, people are more socially and economically free than when it started.

The great rise of the banks did not start a century ago. It started in the 1980s when in the USA and UK neoliberals deliberately favoured the financial industry. As evidence, take a look at the USA's largest companies. Go back to 1980, and the top is full of manufacturing and resource companies. Look at 2000+, and there are a lot of banks up there. This probably not including all the background "hidden" financial industry including private hedge funds and so on.

But is it any surprise that capitalism would drift into the grip of those who control and mediate the flow of capital?

Various countries across the EU are figuratively (and sometimes literally) on fire due to the central conceit of socialism finally coming to pass: Eventually, you run out of other people's money.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Agema:

aelreth:
It is. The mixed economy is a road to serfdom. Just like Hayek predicted.

The market is not free, we have a market shackled by the state. A century old monetary system that is rigged to benefit the banks that are the Federal Reserves primary dealers.

And yet 60-70 years or so have passed since the welfare state in Europe, and still serfdom is not in sight. Quite on the contrary, people are more socially and economically free than when it started.

The great rise of the banks did not start a century ago. It started in the 1980s when in the USA and UK neoliberals deliberately favoured the financial industry. As evidence, take a look at the USA's largest companies. Go back to 1980, and the top is full of manufacturing and resource companies. Look at 2000+, and there are a lot of banks up there. This probably not including all the background "hidden" financial industry including private hedge funds and so on.

But is it any surprise that capitalism would drift into the grip of those who control and mediate the flow of capital?

Various countries across the EU are figuratively (and sometimes literally) on fire due to the central conceit of socialism finally coming to pass: Eventually, you run out of other people's money.

Funny that the countries doing the worst are doing so due to the banks and largeass loans (Iceland and Greece), and the ones with the largest shit are the ones with corrupt Governments pocketed by private interests (Italy and Portugal) and the ones well off are the ones with the largest welfare states (Scandies and Germany)

Iceland loaned itself through the roof using a broken system. Greece committed fraud, spain/portugal/italy had corrupt Governments, a lot of these problems stem from the financial sector and you're stupid enough to blame it on the people?

Good going. Really, I mean it.

I'll go off to enjoy my quite well-off, rather cool country now, and it's welfare goods while you... Have your fantasies of it literally burning I guess (Thought that was just Islamic Fundamentalists, but I guess you extremist Republicans are in the same boat). Ciao.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Various countries across the EU are figuratively (and sometimes literally) on fire due to the central conceit of socialism finally coming to pass: Eventually, you run out of other people's money.

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?QueryId=4549

What you may notice is how countries like Portugal, Greece and Italy don't come up on the top of %Gdp spent on welfare. And look how low Iceland is, and yet it went literally bankrupt.

generals3:

Big_Willie_Styles:

Various countries across the EU are figuratively (and sometimes literally) on fire due to the central conceit of socialism finally coming to pass: Eventually, you run out of other people's money.

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?QueryId=4549

What you may notice is how countries like Portugal, Greece and Italy don't come up on the top of %Gdp spent on welfare. And look how low Iceland is, and yet it went literally bankrupt.

Recessions tend to ruin the economic models of social programs. They can only sustain themselves when the economy is rapidly growing and there are high worker to retiree ratios.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Various countries across the EU are figuratively (and sometimes literally) on fire due to the central conceit of socialism finally coming to pass: Eventually, you run out of other people's money.

Well, not really. The six countries in trouble are/were Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland.

Ireland and Spain were well fiscally managed, with low and declining national debt pre-crisis. Ireland and Cyprus had huge financial sectors, and bailing them out was cripplingly expensive. Spain had a particularly huge housing bubble pop. Italy and Portugal had high but manageable debt. Greece certainly is very culpable, having committed fraud.

A key problem is really the Euro. It helped cause the crisis, because it instituted a global delusion of safety which enabled these countries to borrow at lower rates. Over the years, these countries were able to cover their weak productivity by borrowing; normally higher interest rates and monetary policy (inflation/devaluation) would keep things in check. When the crash occurred, they were again unable to use monetary policy to avert crisis as they didn't have their own currency.

Let's not forget - although you inevitably do as it's inconvenient to your ideology - that this was a financial sector crash. Unwise lending by financial institutions, bubbles, etc. It was and is simply not a problem of states paying for a bit of welfare.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Recessions tend to ruin the economic models of social programs. They can only sustain themselves when the economy is rapidly growing and there are high worker to retiree ratios.

Welfare in the USA and Europe has survived every recession post-war, and it will survive this one. Many countries have gone through long periods of low growth and welfare has survived. Social programs may indeed need to be constrained or reduced due to economic limitations - but this is nothing more than a bland truism: so does everything else that requires spending. It is not a particularly cogent argument against welfare intrinsically.

aelreth:

Then why did my family survive in this country when it was like that? It was after all the greatest expansion of wealth in the history of the world. Property rights have been so eroded since then, I can't call it capitalism, not anymore.

If you are unaware of the time I speak then you shall remain ignorant of history.

It's hard to know what period you're talking about here. I'm guessing you mean the "gilded age" USA circa 1870-1900.

Let's not forget this was a period where the USA used high tariffs to protect the home economy. Where vast tracts of economically useful land had been made available by the government for exploitation by robbing Mexico of half its territory and violently ejecting native Americans, and where the infrastructure for development such as railways were extensively built with considerable support again from government.

Nor, possibly, is it the greatest expansion of wealth ever, even in the USA. It is roughly equalled, if not exceeded, by the postwar growth around 1945-1970. And I would suspect inferior to China's expansion in the last decade or three if we were to expand it to other countries.

Let's not forget either that the USA was not the first nation to use extreme laissez-faire - the UK tried it a generation previously. Growth during the UK's period of laissez faire was not exceptional: not least because the UK, at the forefront of the industrial revolution, had to invent for advancement. The USA's industrialisation after the civil war would be much faster as it could in large part implement existing technologies.

Laissez-faire collapses because what it most clearly offers most of the population is economic weakness and insecurity, so whilst the people can touch the levers of power, they will tend to block it. It is not hard to realise that is why many libertarians are skeptical of or opposed to democracy: they want a government that will rigorously defend libertarian rights, and know that a democracy will be inclined to not to.

Laissez-faire theory derives from a time where most people were effectively self-employed - they could readily own or rent their own means of production (farmers / craftsmen), most businesses therefore being very small and large operations (over a few dozen employees) being exceptionally rare. This made self-sufficiency a much better proposition in times past. However, in the modern era self-sufficiency is more restricted to a small proportion of the population who are generally rural farming smallholders, or sit on a large chunk of the national wealth. Most people do not have the resources for that sort of self-sufficiency: they have to sell skills to employers, and if there is no employer, they have nothing. This very much gives employers - major corporations - enormous power. It might not be a formal, codified power, but it nevertheless power.

Which corporation is the most powerful? Please name it. You after all try to champion yourself as someone that wants to thwart it. Can you at least name the the biggest one? Or are you chasing ghosts so someone else can assume power?

Corporations do not always operate individually. Whilst they compete against each other, in many terms they act collectively. It is in the interest of all oil companies, for instance, to open up a national park to oil drilling. It is in the interest of every corporation in the country to reduce corporation taxes. So they will operate as a "class" against other classes at the same time as against each other.

Corporations have enormous power, intrinsic via their wealth and as above control over their employees livelihoods. In the absence of government they will exercise that "class" power pretty much entirely without restraint. It is hard to see why this is likely to be an improvement over the existing system where as much as they can manipulate government, the wider public can also to restrain them where desired.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked