Paying taxes -- Patriotic duty or extortion?

Quote: rxwine

My one favorite "free person" situation is this:

A "free person" (anarchist if you will) one day landing on a alien planet.

On arrival (he/she) declares, I am a free person not subject to your way of life, customs, laws, etc.,

...

So, they just vaporize him.

You could also replace "alien planet" with "Florida swamp" and "vaporize" with "eaten by a crocodile." Someone who doesn't share your morality ... doesn't share your morality.

And there are lots of people like that. The number of anarchists who are morally outraged by their perception of coercion in American life is miniscule compared to the number of anti-American terrorists who are morally outraged by their perception of sinfulness in American life. I can't fathom a scenario in which the purveyors of anarchist philosophy could make a dent in the thinking of those people.

In response to MathExtremist

I'll say it again. Regulations help create monopolies. They do not stop monopolies. It is impossible to stop a monopoly from forming. Someone out there will come up with a product that everyone wants. Thats what technological advancement is. With anarchy they can not last for long though. Eventually someone else will figure it out. I don't care that your pocket is padded by the concept of intellectual property. Your pocket does not come before my liberty. You can not own an idea. Starting a fire was an idea. Was every other caveman supposed to not start fires just cause another one figured out how to do it?

Let's have a little experiment in anarchy, shall we?

Quote: rudeboyoi

In response to MathExtremist

I've changed my mind and I think a statist society based on highly regulated commerce is better than lawless anarchy. You're right about everything, governments are awesome.

I'll go back to murdering kittens now.

Well, then...

Say whatever you want. Anyone that reasonably knows me would either think i said those comments in jest sarcastically or I didn't say them at all.

Quote: rudeboyoi

In response to MathExtremist

I'll say it again. Regulations help create monopolies.

Regulations are written by the lobbyists of the monopolies to protect the monopolies. Think Monsanto.

So, let's say the government is abolished and everyone is free to do their own thing. In my neighborhood, some people get together and say, "Hey, ya know what, we don't all agree on what's right or wrong and some people around here have been getting a little routy. We should come up with a system, like rules and stuff, for what you can and can't do." Everyone in that neighborhood gets together and agrees to become a joint community and abide by the same rules and whatnot. To live within this community, you gotta pay some money every month, which helps upkeep in the neighborhood -- keep the roads paved and stuff, street lights, pay for neighborhood watch, etc. Everyone's delighted, of course, because the roads do need some paving, their streets aren't well lit at night, some stop signs and whatnot need replacement, and the people agree too many bad people in the area and they want a system (neighborhood watch) in place to fight crime. To live in this neighborhood, ya gotta pay a certain amount every month. If you don't want to pay the monthly fee, ya either gotta leave the community or be taken in and put in jail. Remember -- everyone agrees to this.

So -- how is this any different than how the USA works? If ya don't wanna pay your taxes, then either move somewhere else (ie: Canada) or go to jail. Everyone likes this system, except a few people. Is there something wrong with these people who like this system (a majority of the people)? Are these few who do not like the system trying to impose something on the rest of the people?


People tend to gravitate towards a government based or structured community. There's a reason there are rules and laws -- because people generally want them. Most people don't agree with all laws, but I think almost all people agree that laws are a good thing.

I'm not saying there are no problems the way the US government works...I'm not saying corruption doesn't exist, I agree with every law, I agree with how every system works, nothing like that. I think some systems could get removed or changed (school system and postal service, for instance). But what do you expect -- private systems for fire fighters, policeman, court systems, DMV, etc.? Some systems aren't super efficient (ie: police department), but I don't think that has anything to do with the government and has all to do with the job that is required of them. Do you really think the police would be more efficient and do better if it was privatized and people had to pay for their own police company.


Parts of the system may be broken, but as a whole it is not broken.

Quote: RouletteRandom

That depends on what you call "advanced".

A duck swimming in a pond is less advanced, or is it?

It doesnt need to work. It doesnt pay tax. It's nobody's slave. It has everything it wants and needs.

The duck had a mother sitting on its eggs for a number of days. It has a father too. Ducks mate for life. The duck is raised by its mother and taught to fly and be a duck. They might join a flock. There's a very high probability that the duck as an egg will get eaten, be left behind by its mother, or die from other calamities. The fact that the duck is in the pond in the first place is far from 100%. It's a number estimated to be around 50%.

Bees have a queen, a defacto leader.

The reason why we have government is that humans are shitty and that we assign all humans the same values and try to protect them and give them equal opportunity despite how shitty people are. Government gives people the opportunity to succeed by leveling the playing field, giving everyone access to roads, sewers, garbage services, hydro, clean water, education, and all of the items in life to become successful at a reasonable price to everyone. You can call it slavery.

But it gets everyone's odds of being able to swim in the pond from 50% to 99%, especially since someone isn't allowed to own the lake and charge me an arm and a leg to swim in it.

Damn!
I'm a freakin duck ;-)

Quote: Wizard

Sounds like government to me.

Perhaps you are missing the big distinction.

Quote: rudeboyoi

Regulations help create monopolies. They do not stop monopolies. It is impossible to stop a monopoly from forming.

The Sherman Antitrust Law and its ilk, accompanied by numerous and usually clear cut judicial decisions, clearly contradict that assertion. Where monopolies have flourished, it has been because of failures (for any number of reasons) to enforce those strict laws.

Quote:

Someone out there will come up with a product that everyone wants. Thats what technological advancement is. With anarchy they can not last for long though. Eventually someone else will figure it out.

Total anarchy=total chaos. And total dismissal of patents, trademarks and copyrights.

Quote:

I don't care that your pocket is padded by the concept of intellectual property. Your pocket does not come before my liberty.

As succinct a statement of confiscation as we are ever likely to hear.

Quote: RoulettePhysics

One simple rule should be: you are allowed to do whatever the hell you want, provided you dont harm anyone or affect the free will of others. In other words, freedom to be however you are. You have no right to control others, and they have no right to control you.

I'm 90 and feeble but still want to drive?

I want to go to high schools and give cocaine to the students so they can get high and enjoy themselves?

I want to walk around naked, and when I see an attractive lady, I want to pee near her so she is aware of my scent?

I like poison ivy. I want to plant as much of it as I can in your neighborhood.


Will you allow me to "do whatever the hell I want?"

You may answer that the 90 year old would not be allowed to drive because he "may" harm someone. Then I would say no one should be allowed to drive because anyone driving "may" harm someone. Who decides?

The anti-government crowd has yet to convince me that the lack of a government can work on any scale much larger than a very small town. I think it is more reasonable to consider government a "necessary evil" and to keep it in check by paying attention to what it does. We've lost the ability to keep our government in check because we became too greedy overall to pay attention--either we want all the dollars we can make or we want the free dollars from the government. Neither of those two options really work because no one person should have everything while running over everyone else and no person should get a lot from the government while continuing to contribute nothing to society.

I know taxation is a bugaboo but the real problem for most of it is the fairness of those taxes. If there is an "income tax" (not withstanding the actual legality of it based on the Constitution), then it should be on ALL "income"--no "income" should be protected from it. Hedge fund managers, farmers, CEO's should each pay "income tax" based on "income"... Don't favor any group and don't over penalize any group.

That is where "WE" come in--if we sit back and let it happen, say we can't do anything about it, etc. then someone else gets a bigger voice than ours. The lobbyists and ruling class in Washington have a bigger voice because they are involved.

Anyway, I still am not convinced anarchists could have the place they think they can have...it just seems like it wouldn't work on any scale much larger than a couple of hundred people.

Quote: RonC

Anyway, I still am not convinced anarchists could have the place they think they can have...it just seems like it wouldn't work on any scale much larger than a couple of hundred people.

I can't see how it would work even on that scale, as soon as someone decides to change their mind about something. To me, anarchy is a workable concept if and only if everyone is of the same mind -- and if and only if that mind never changes. But what do you do about a breach of contract?

The idea behind anarchy is to avoid coercion because that is (apparently) the height of moral evil. Most people don't see it that way but let's go with it. The premise behind "voluntaryism" is that all actions should be voluntary. As in:



So two parties agree to a product distribution agreement. Party A is a solo product developer who makes widgets but can't sell them. Party B is a big product distributor who doesn't know how to make widgets. So they make an agreement: for the next three years, Party A will delivers 10 widgets per month, Party B will sell them for $3000 each and will pay Party A $300 each (a 10% royalty). This goes on for six months, and then the CEO of Party B calls up the owner of Party A and says "I'm paying you too much, I'm not going to do it anymore. Here's a new agreement that gives you only 1% royalty instead, sign it or I'll stop distributing your widgets."

I don't know how the anarchist / voluntaryist philosophy expects to handle that scenario, but any enforcement of that contract is inherently coercive, and that coercion arose from the simple fact that one party to a previous agreement changed their mind. That's all it takes for someone who previously agreed to someone to no longer agree, and that alone gives rise to the requirement for coercion. It's human nature -- we change our minds all the time.

In the US, Party A could sue for breach of contract, but that's because we have a judiciary and the rule of law, both part of the government. I have no idea how an anarchist would handle that -- but the mere fact that Party A is operating at a disadvantage to Party B means that the premise of anarchy (no hierarchy) has already been violated. In other words, anarchy can't actually exist except in theoretical discussions of what could happen if everyone already got along.

And yes, this is a real-life story -- it happened to me, multiple times. I've had to engage lawyers to enforce contracts with distributors.

Quote: MathExtremist

.... "I'm paying you too much, I'm not going to do it anymore. Here's a new agreement that gives you only 1% royalty instead, sign it or I'll stop distributing your widgets."

AKA, Walmart

Quote:

..., but any enforcement of that contract is inherently coercive, and that coercion arose from the simple fact that one party to a previous agreement changed their mind. That's all it takes for someone who previously agreed to someone to no longer agree, and that alone gives rise to the requirement for coercion.

That was my argument for wanting to pick up my passline bet, if the house took my dice away .

Quote: Wizard

Sounds like government to me.

I've been thinking about this, let me try an analogy. The current world of shoe manufacturing is more or less libertarian. You can purchase any shoe you like from any manufacturer. If we changed the system to a coercive one it would look like this: There is one shoe manufacturer, he takes as much money as he wants from you and provides you with whatever shoes he wants. You don't have to take the shoes, but if you try to resist paying for them you may be put in jail or killed. If you try to open a competing shoe business you will be prosecuted criminally.

If we transitioned to this system of shoe manufacture what effect would this have on shoe quality and price? Yes the shoe maker in this system would do roughly the same thing that Nike does today, produce shoes and accept money from the shoe wearers, but the system would in fact operate entirely differently.

Quote: MathExtremist

Do you have children? Did they consent to being born to you, under the government you live in? If not, aren't you a hypocritical progenitor of slavery?

This is a wonderful question. I do not have children today but I would like children and have thought about this at length and in a sense you are correct. I am not sure what the solution is except to try to change hearts and minds.

Quote: MathExtremist

It's all well and good for a group of anarchists to go live in the woods and attempt to live under an egalitarian, non-coercive society.

Who said anything about egalitarian? And screw this, I don't want to live in the woods. I want to live in my house without people stealing from me to fund international aggression.

Quote: MathExtremist

But it's impossible for a large, multi-generational group to live in a non-coercive state. First, there are children and it's your *job* as parents to coerce them. Second, even if you could get a large number of people to buy into your political philosophy and agree to live by the "I'm free to do whatever I want as long as it doesn't hurt you" credo, you will always fail because there are two groups of people who won't. One group is the criminals (cheaters). These people intentionally break the societal norms because they've decided the benefit from cheating outweighs the harm from being shunned or whatever the punishment is. The other group is the psychopaths. These literally don't care what the societal norms even are. Psychopathy is a well-studied psychological abnormality and has a prevalence of about 1% in the general population. For a psychopath, the moral value you place on a non-coercive society is irrelevant. In other words, there are enough people who aren't morally outraged by the coercion you perceive that you'll never get everyone to fall in line out of the goodness of their own hearts. Coercion is required.

Respectfully, your point is not very strong. Your argument is basically "there are bad people therefore government." You don't explain why non-coercive punishment could not deter bad behavior, nor do you explain why government can be relied on to stop the behavior. As I look around the world I see a lot of criminal activity, it is not obvious that governments are doing a good job of stopping it. Furthermore, what keeps psychopaths from taking the reigns of government and really screwing people under the color of authority? Wouldn't power seekers be drawn to work in the very government that you claim will control them? Can you name a politician who isn't a psychopath? Those African dictators are doing a great job of protecting their subjects from criminals?

Quote: MathExtremist

Coercion is also inherent. We've been discussing the monopoly problem, and I haven't really heard any good rebuttals, but here's a different way to look at it. From a game theoretic standpoint, forming cartels and monopolies is obviously the optimum solution to any unregulated commerce. They arise naturally and, once established (even if through legitimate competition) can easily squash any other competition by alternately price-gouging and under-cutting upstarts. In the end state, if your evaluation of the morality of a society is maximization of freedom via minimization of coercion, regulation of monopoly does a better job at that than letting monopolists persist. Regulation is itself coercive, but unregulated monopolists are more so. You can't ever eliminate coercion, so the question is "given that some coercion must exist, what's the best way to manage things?" I submit that the evolution of human governments -- and the history of rebellion, uprising, and revolution -- indicate that the US is doing a decent job. And I don't know how you feel about intellectual property, but as I indicated before, any society that freely allows one person to steal the work of another is morally bankrupt. The only difference between intellectual property theft and forced labor is that the slave saw it coming.

Monopoly is a problem therefore the solution is a monopolist to break up the monopolies? Is this seriously what you are proposing?

If an economist were to present a paper proposing your cartelization theory with the wild swings in prices he would be laughed out of the room. It is impossible to enforce a cartel without government and there are no examples in history of this ever happening. I am sorry but you are wrong here, it is a very bad theory that breaks down very quickly under even a superficial scrutiny.

If you believe in intellectual property do you think that we should all be paying royalties to the heirs of the inventor of the wheel?

Quote: bigfoot66

I've been thinking about this, let me try an analogy. The current world of shoe manufacturing is more or less libertarian. You can purchase any shoe you like from any manufacturer. If we changed the system to a coercive one it would look like this: There is one shoe manufacturer, he takes as much money as he wants from you and provides you with whatever shoes he wants. You don't have to take the shoes, but if you try to resist paying for them you may be put in jail or killed. If you try to open a competing shoe business you will be prosecuted criminally.

There's a big difference between suggesting that one shoe manufacturer may be a monopolist vs. suggesting that it would ever be possible, in a capitalist society, to force shoe consumption on everyone. In other words, the analogy between government services and a shoe manufacturer isn't an accurate one.

But let's look at the question of a monopolist shoe manufacturer. Once upon a time there were 30 different manufacturers. Through shrewd dealing and potentially shady business practices, one manufacturer either acquired all the other shoe manufacturers or ran them out of business. Now there is only one. If you want shoes, you can either make them yourself or buy from the monopolist shoe company. Every time a new cobbler starts a small, local shoe shop and tries to produce competitive products, the giant shoe company opens up a store right next door and gives their shoes away until the cobbler runs out of money and goes out of business, and then the giant shoe company raises their price again. They are, in recent parlance, too big to fail.

Assuming you agree that a monopolist shoe manufacturer is a bad thing, how does your chosen form of non-government rectify this?

Edit: to keep this to one post, I'll quote your subsequent one:

Quote:

It is impossible to enforce a cartel without government and there are no examples in history of this ever happening.

No, of course there aren't:

Quote:

If you believe in intellectual property do you think that we should all be paying royalties to the heirs of the inventor of the wheel?

No. Patents are a limited-term monopoly:

Quote: U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries....

Quote: bigfoot66

Perhaps you are missing the big distinction.

Why don't you tell me what it is.

If you are suggesting drug cartels you are right that they exist but you are making my point. The government inadvertently cooperates with the cartel but shutting down their potential competitors thus driving up the price and profit margin for drugs. This is why there were alcohol cartels during prohibition and none today. The economic concept is by Bruce Yandle and is called "Baptists and Bootleggers" and explains why both of these groups end up advocating prohibition even though on the surface they appear to have opposing interests.

Again you are making my point with the intellectual property thing. What property right expires? Do you lose your house after 20 years because it is only for a limited time? There is no such thing as intellectual property because property rights only apply to rivalrous goods, ideas are nonrivalrous.

You are very bright but I dont feel like you are thinking through these topics very deeply. I hold an unpopular point of view that I am happy to explain to you if you are genuinely curious as to how people think this way but your part of he bargain is to take the ideas seriously and challenge them in a more meaningful way than trying to play "gotcha" without thinking through the implications of my points.

100 people live in a community.

99 people agree to rules, laws, etc.

They decide to live in the community, you must pay a certain amount every week, to keep the community as a whole from falling apart (i.e.: roads and services).

1 person disagrees. He wants to live in the community, but doesn't like any of the rules, laws, or fees.


Why should the 99 people who agree with each other be subject to what the 1 wants? You talk about free-will or something like that....can't these 99 people decide for themselves?

Here's the way to do it. Take all land and ocean and divvy it out to private citizens.

Gets rids of all government, and any new person coming into existence has to deal with private citizen to even walk an inch left or right.

(sounds like a nightmare to me)

Quote: rxwine

Here's the way to do it. Take all land and ocean and divvy it out to private citizens.

Gets rids of all government, and any new person coming into existence has to deal with private citizen to even walk an inch left or right.

(sounds like a nightmare to me)

Have you ever been to Disneyland or a mall? Do you find that the private property owners there make it a nightmare to use their property?

I was actually thinking about this the last time I was in Vegas on the strip. It occurred to me that walking through crystals to get to Cosmo was essentially a private road. It further occurred to me that I and the vast majority of my fellows paid nothing to use the road and bought nothing at the mall, yet the walkway was far more pleasant and clean than the government roads. I would far prefer to travel on privately owned land than government land.

Quote: bigfoot66

You are very bright but I dont feel like you are thinking through these topics very deeply. I hold an unpopular point of view that I am happy to explain to you if you are genuinely curious as to how people think this way but your part of he bargain is to take the ideas seriously and challenge them in a more meaningful way than trying to play "gotcha" without thinking through the implications of my points.

I disagree that I'm not thinking through these topics deeply, but you're also not addressing the points I've made, you're just repeating your initial positions. I've made three points:
a) Monopolies will naturally arise in an unregulated market;
b) Breach of contract is a fatal flaw in a voluntary-only structure because the parties are apt to change their minds; and
c) A society which permits the theft of the fruits of my labor is morally bankrupt, regardless of whether those fruits are tangible or intangible.

Let's start with the critique that there is nothing to stop a monopolist from arising in an unregulated economy. It doesn't take much more than a passing comprehension of game theory to see that if two competitors both believe increased profitability will flow from merger then they'll merge. How do you stop the formation of monopolies? Alternately, do you believe monopolies are okay if they arise organically?

Quote: bigfoot66

Have you ever been to Disneyland or a mall? Do you find that the private property owners there make it a nightmare to use their property?

I was actually thinking about this the last time I was in Vegas on the strip. It occurred to me that walking through crystals to get to Cosmo was essentially a private road. It further occurred to me that I and the vast majority of my fellows paid nothing to use the road and bought nothing at the mall, yet the walkway was far more pleasant and clean than the government roads. I would far prefer to travel on privately owned land than government land.

So instead of dealing with a relatively consistent entity you want to negotiate with potentially hundreds of different entities with potentially different ideas of how things should be?

Why does that not sound like paradise? Getting to my mall (about 7 miles away for me) could actually be a real nightmare after a couple years. Deals would be scrapped, land ownership could change hands. Is there even universal contract for getting somewhere, or are contracts themselves just a mishmash of everyone's ideas? And who enforces each one, just the owner? Negotiating my way to the mall could change month after month depending who owned the land in between me and the mall.

Why does that sound better than government to you?

Okay. Going to try to tackle a bunch of stuff here at once.

Fire departments. We already know there are volunteer fire departments. Case closed.

Police. Police do not protect you. The average police response time is 11 minutes and that's even if they choose to come to your rescure. They are under no obligation to do so. There have been multiple supreme Court decisions on this matter. And typically when they arrive they escalate the situation making it much worse than it actually is. Only you and those in close proximity to you (roommates and neighbors) can actually protect yourself.

Monopolies. Monopolies arise organically. Everytime someone invents something new for that moment they have a monopoly on that product. With law the life of that monopoly is extended. With anarchy the monopoly will never last long. As soon as someone else figures it out they can then bring a similar product to the marketplace.

Fraud. Dealt with through shunning and yelping. Hey screw this guy. He doesn't handle his agreements. Don't do business with him.

Contract enforcement. You can have an arbitration group that both businesses agree to have settle the dispute. As long as both parties follow through with the decision then all is well. If one party decides night to honor the decision reached then that will be disclosed to everyone.

Roads. Roads around residences will most likely be paid for by those residing around those roads. Roads around businesses will likely be paid for by the businesses around those roads. After all you want customers to come to your business so you're going to be damn sure to have a way for them to get there. Highways/interstates will likely be paid for by businesses that have to routinely transport a large quantity of goods over great distances perhaps subsidized by travelers paying tolls.

You don't need a violent middleman (aka government) keeping the Lions share for themselves in order for these things to function. The market will always find a much more cost effective way. A private business has an incentive to do well. If they don't they go under. Government has no incentive. If some service they provide is failing. All they have to do is steal more money from the private sector. Which will never last forever. Every single government will always eventually collapse. They are parasitic in nature. When the private sector can no longer stay profitable with government ever-increasingly leeching off them government will collapse.

Great, again if this actually works why is it not in existence somewhere and growing and not a failed project which only lasted several years?

Quote: rxwine

Great, again if this actually works why is it not in existence somewhere and growing and not a failed project which only lasted several years?

Indoctrination and fear-mongering. Fortunately we have technology to help us spread the message of liberty. Unfortunately it usually takes a moment of trauma at the hands of the state to snap people out of their stupor.

Quote: rudeboyoi

Okay. Going to try to tackle a bunch of stuff here at once.

Fire departments. We already know there are volunteer fire departments. Case closed.

And they, volunteer fire fighters, (usually) get paid for their work. It's not so much as "volunteer" as it is on-call or part-time. Some places where there's a low population and they can't afford to pay firefighters, then yeah, there are volunteers who don't get paid...but I believe their work is much more on a as-needed basis.

Quote: rudeboy

Police. Police do not protect you. The average police response time is 11 minutes and that's even if they choose to come to your rescure. They are under no obligation to do so. There have been multiple supreme Court decisions on this matter. And typically when they arrive they escalate the situation making it much worse than it actually is. Only you and those in close proximity to you (roommates and neighbors) can actually protect yourself.

What's the alternative? If the people in my close proximity are not able to help me and I can't defend myself....what's the solution?

Quote: rudeboy

Monopolies. Monopolies arise organically. Everytime someone invents something new for that moment they have a monopoly on that product. With law the life of that monopoly is extended. With anarchy the monopoly will never last long. As soon as someone else figures it out they can then bring a similar product to the marketplace.

I believe part of the purpose for patents is so that an inventor can have time to make his invested money back. It can take a lot of time, money, and resources to come up with an invention. What's motivating someone to invent something if someone else will quickly seize his idea. The entrepreneur may have put a lot of money into his invention and wants to be properly compensated (by being able to sell his invention at a price which he wants and planned)....while the thief put in considerably less time/money/effort into snatching up the idea and being able to sell it for significantly cheaper, since he doesn't have a significant cost that he must overcome.

Quote: rudeboy

Fraud. Dealt with through shunning and yelping. Hey screw this guy. He doesn't handle his agreements. Don't do business with him.

Who's to say who's in the right? I could screw someone out of a lot of money, and in the eye of public opinion, it's my word vs theirs. If I'm a fraud / con-artist, I probably got a good way to get out of it and making the other person looks bad, or at least making myself look good.

Quote: rudeboy

Contract enforcement. You can have an arbitration group that both businesses agree to have settle the dispute. As long as both parties follow through with the decision then all is well. If one party decides night to honor the decision reached then that will be disclosed to everyone.

I prefer actually enforcing the contract, where both parties must abide by the agreement of the contract or else they face a penalty (which is either agreed upon or one decided after the fact).

Quote: rudeboy

Roads. Roads around residences will most likely be paid for by those residing around those roads. Roads around businesses will likely be paid for by the businesses around those roads. After all you want customers to come to your business so you're going to be damn sure to have a way for them to get there. Highways/interstates will likely be paid for by businesses that have to routinely transport a large quantity of goods over great distances perhaps subsidized by travelers paying tolls.

Why would I pay for the road I live on if I don't have to? Or the roads around my business or restaurant, if there are others nearby, if I don't have to? Remember, ya can't throw me out of my house, put me in jail, or force me to pay. Remember, roads need upkeep/maintenance. Ya can't just build it once and forget about it.

Who builds the roads? Who decides if they're "up to standard" and safe? Who decides who can use the roads? *I don't want them Mexicans using my road, they're all drug dealers, murderers, and rapists!*

Quote: rudeboy

You don't need a violent middleman (aka government) keeping the Lions share for themselves in order for these things to function. The market will always find a much more cost effective way. A private business has an incentive to do well. If they don't they go under. Government has no incentive. If some service they provide is failing. All they have to do is steal more money from the private sector. Which will never last forever. Every single government will always eventually collapse. They are parasitic in nature. When the private sector can no longer stay profitable with government ever-increasingly leeching off them government will collapse.

Are you talking about government as a whole (theory of government) or are you talking about our actual US government (and/or specific governments)?

Quote: rudeboyoi

Monopolies. Monopolies arise organically. Everytime someone invents something new for that moment they have a monopoly on that product. With law the life of that monopoly is extended. With anarchy the monopoly will never last long. As soon as someone else figures it out they can then bring a similar product to the marketplace.

Fraud. Dealt with through shunning and yelping. Hey screw this guy. He doesn't handle his agreements. Don't do business with him.

Contract enforcement. You can have an arbitration group that both businesses agree to have settle the dispute. As long as both parties follow through with the decision then all is well. If one party decides night to honor the decision reached then that will be disclosed to everyone.

You've repeated your assertion multiple times that issues like fraud and breach of contract can be adequately dealt with by shaming, shunning, and other reputation-based threats, but certainly not everyone places equal (or even any) weight on such threats. As you've acknowledged, monopolies arise organically. Except once there is a monopolist, your tactics for dealing with fraud and breach disappear -- there is no choice but to do business with him. The monopolist doesn't care if you don't want to -- you have to because there is no competition.

And the notion that monopolies will never last long under anarchy seems to contradict the fact that they will naturally arise in the first place. Market power tends to aggregate because it is generally efficient to do so. What market force would cause a monopoly that has arisen organically to subsequently self-destruct? Don't just make a naked assertion, lay out a cogent theory for how that could happen because I can't see it.

I'm still not quite sure as to how this "shunning" thing would work. Let's say I want to scam a doctor for a bunch of money. I tell him give me $5M or else I'll ruin your reputation. He tells me to F off. Ok. I have a few friends who have kids between the ages of 8 to 12 years old. I want to ruin the doctor's reputation, so a report is made on the TV news, newspaper, etc. saying Doctor X is a pedophile and rapes children (he's a pediatrician). Kids agree to do it, parents agree to do it, after all, they're all patients of Doctor X.

So, now this guy's reputation is ruined and he's done nothing wrong. What's his recourse you say? Yeah, he's gonna shun me and others....that's gonna work out great in the eye of public opinion -- who are they gonna believe, a pedophile doctor or 10 kids + parents + nurses?

Or are we gonna get an "arbitration group" where we both agree they (people in group) are unbiased? Hell no, I ain't doing that!


What if it's just me (no accomplices). I run some scam and get a bunch of people's money (there was some hot shot gambler dude who'd sell gambling systems or something, and run off with the money) or a ponzy scheme (sorry, "reverse funnel"). What do I care if I get shunned and yelped and whatever in Nevada? My name might be Nate Archibald here in Las Vegas, but when I move out to New Jersey, change my appearance & name as well as my ponzy scheme strategy a bit....I'm good to go, no one knows who I am. I'll never agree to some "arbitration group". No one can put me in jail. No one can force me to pay anyone. And when I'm done in NJ, I'm off to somewhere else. I would not be able to be stopped. (And...please don't try to argue something like "You'd be shunned all over the world and your picture & name and whatnot would be made available to everyone!")

Quote: RS

I believe part of the purpose for patents is so that an inventor can have time to make his invested money back. It can take a lot of time, money, and resources to come up with an invention. What's motivating someone to invent something if someone else will quickly seize his idea. The entrepreneur may have put a lot of money into his invention and wants to be properly compensated (by being able to sell his invention at a price which he wants and planned)....while the thief put in considerably less time/money/effort into snatching up the idea and being able to sell it for significantly cheaper, since he doesn't have a significant cost that he must overcome.

It probably bears some explanation that the purpose of a patent isn't to protect an idea. You can't patent an idea, you can only patent a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (see 35 USC 101).

The real point of a patent is to encourage inventors to publicly disclose their inventions because, the theory holds, inventions in the public domain are better for the economy than inventions kept secret. An inventor always has two choices: disclose your invention or keep it a trade secret. Contrary to rudeboyoi's apparent belief, there are plenty of inventions that are either impossible to copy or financially unwise to copy if you need to front the R&D costs instead of just learning how to build it. That's what a patent does -- it publicly discloses how to build the invention. A patent application is deficient if the "written description" is insufficient or an inventor is not "enabled" to build it. The tradeoff for that public disclosure is a limited-term monopoly that allows you, the inventor, to prohibit others from making, using, or selling your invention.

But patents are not the whole of "intellectual property." Trademarks are a vital part of our economy because they allow corporate entities to protect their brands and reputations. A brand is an intangible asset but a very, very valuable one. If someone sold soda cans that said "Coke" on them, except the soda was made from a combination of Four Loko, Fireball whiskey, white vinegar, and the scent from the Crystals mall, the public perception of "Coke" would be diminished even as the seller was able to leverage the previously-developed good name of Coke. Trademark law exists to prohibit someone from misappropriating or spoiling the reputation of other companies.

And copyrights exist to protect creative works. A painter who creates a masterpiece should, in any fair society, be able to control the sale of his artwork so he can profit from it. When artists choose to sell only originals and limited runs of prints (say 50 or 100), that creates scarcity and therefore increased price. It's simple economics. If someone with a cellphone goes into an art gallery, snaps a photo, and sells thousands of unauthorized prints for a cheaper price, they are stealing from the artist by misappropriating his artwork. The same would be true if someone started a radio station, downloaded Taylor Swift and Bruno Mars mp3s from some torrent site, and then publicly broadcast those songs without compensating the artists. There's a reason that's called "piracy" -- because it is morally equivalent to the theft of physical goods from a ship at sea. I can't comprehend how anyone could take a contrary position, but clearly the anarchists do.

I just want to know why you picked NJ as stop #2?
With all the available choices, and I usually respect your opinion, NJ?
Brain fart?

<edit> I just noticed that 6 out of the last 13 recent threads entries ended with my last post there. That is WAY too many, Pls excuse my intrusion, I meant no harm....

Quote: RS

I'm still not quite sure as to how this "shunning" thing would work.

It wouldn't -- but even if it did, that's not the sole purpose of the laws related to breach or fraud. A big part of that is the ability for the victim to recover damages. In the current legal system, if A and B enter a contract and B breaches it, A can sue and potentially force B to uphold his end of the deal and/or pay financial compensation. In the anarchist system, even if B is shunned, that doesn't help A. Justice isn't only about punishing the offenders, it's about making the victims whole.

Here's a clearer example: Andy and Bob enter a contract where Andy pays Bob $5M to build a luxury house in Las Vegas. Bob takes the money and moves to Tahiti. Bob gets shunned but who cares? He has $5M and lives in Tahiti!

re: Monopolies:

Wouldn't an anarchistic(?) world be more prone to monopolies, whereas our current system helps prevent monopolies?



It also seems like for anarchy to truly work, there would have to be some sort of super-power keeping it in existence -- making sure governments are not formed. But, surprisingly or not (I don't find it surprising), governments are formed for a reason....because people tend to like the idea of a government. This is what I cannot understand -- if anarchy became a thing and there were no more governments.....what would stop communities from forming their own governments?

I live in an area with an HOA (which is like a mini-government). I don't always agree with them (they are total idiots from time to time)...but I like how there are rules and stuff here. The guy next door can't just all of a sudden paint his house with polka dots....my other neighbor can't have a pack of dogs chained to a post in his front yard with 3 different beaten up rusty cars parked on the grass with an RV parked on the side-walk for years...they can't blast their music at 4am or turn their garage into a shooting range....hell, there's even a gate & security guard that doesn't let random people into my neighborhood area. I LIKE THOSE RULES AND THE PROTECTION IT BRINGS.

Is an HOA of a neighborhood a government? If not, what if the 5 or 10 neighborhoods around my area all felt the same, and we wanted to "merge together" as a community, with one HOA overseeing all of these neighborhoods? Is that a government? What if we bring in a fire station and a police station (something we all want and agree to)...is it now a government? I agreed to all these things and I like these things....Why can't I have a government if I want one? If you don't want to live where there's a government, you can go somewhere where there isn't one (like Papua New Guinea or something.. or Antarctica).

Quote: MathExtremist

except the soda was made from a combination of Four Loko, Fireball whiskey, white vinegar, and the scent from the Crystals mall

Omg, that made me LOL so hard.

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

I just want to know why you picked NJ as stop #2?
With all the available choices, and I usually respect your opinion, NJ?
Brain fart?

Well, it's the other major gambling area in US that people know about. I probably should have written Atlantic City, not New Jersey.



Super-Edit: Damnit, MathExtremist. Your examples are like 98.01% clearer than mine are. alskdhfalskdhf

Quote: RS

re: Monopolies:

Wouldn't an anarchistic(?) world be more prone to monopolies, whereas our current system helps prevent monopolies?

if anarchy became a thing and there were no more governments.....what would stop communities from forming their own governments?

Nothing. In fact, the acknowledgement (by rudeboyoi) that "monopolies arise organically" gets you there. Governments are monopolies, and governments also arise organically. There was no master hand imposing governments on humans from the dawn of civilization. The entire history of human society -- and every governmental structure ever seen -- arose organically: someone accumulated some power, used it to accumulate more, and created a hierarchy. Hierarchies arise organically, which means that anarchy is inherently unstable. I don't see how anarchy could ever be the basis for societal equilibrium, and nobody's ever been able to explain why it could be.

Quote: MathExtremist

It wouldn't -- but even if it did, that's not the sole purpose of the laws related to breach or fraud. A big part of that is the ability for the victim to recover damages. In the current legal system, if A and B enter a contract and B breaches it, A can sue and potentially force B to uphold his end of the deal and/or pay financial compensation. In the anarchist system, even if B is shunned, that doesn't help A. Justice isn't only about punishing the offenders, it's about making the victims whole.

Here's a clearer example: Andy and Bob enter a contract where Andy pays Bob $5M to build a luxury house in Las Vegas. Bob takes the money and moves to Tahiti. Bob gets shunned but who cares? He has $5M and lives in Tahiti!

IRL example.

Russ Hamilton cheats people out of ten million dollars or so in the anarchic world of online poker.

He is shunned by the poker community.

He lives in a mansion, 99% of the people he deals with don't know about his wrongdoing, and even if they did they don't mind taking the money he spends.

If you could edit out the cheating part (let's say I won the millions and everyone believes that I cheated but I didn't) I would take that arrangement in a heartbeat.

Or, let's say you swindle the elderly using false identities.

Quote: RS

... with 3 different beaten up rusty cars parked on the grass with an RV parked on the side-walk for years...they can't blast their music at 4am or turn their garage into a shooting range...

And the problem with my house is...?

Quote: RS

Super-Edit: Damnit, MathExtremist. Your examples are like 98.01% clearer than mine are. alskdhfalskdhf

He does that. It's spooky.

Maybe it's a bug, not a feature, but government generally makes sure even if I am not in Donald Trump's area code, someone will still come out to fix the sewer, the electricity, and roads.

Privately owned business doesn't get much profit from trying to serve everyone. Government even outs those services, so the tax money can service something for everyone.

It's how they got the railroads and telephone lines out to the farm areas in the first place. It's not cost effective for private business to service everyone.

Quote: rxwine

Maybe it's a bug, not a feature, but government generally makes sure even if I am not in Donald Trump's area code, someone will still come out to fix the sewer, the electricity, and roads. Privately owned business doesn't get much profit from trying to serve everyone. Government even outs those services, so the tax money can service something for everyone. It's how they got the railroads and telephone lines out to the farm areas in the first place. It's not cost effective for private business to service everyone.

Carried to the extreme, we have that arthritic agency, the U.S.Postal Service.

I realized that it's not entirely clear which flavor of anarchy is being proposed by the avowed anarchists in this thread. Is it socialist anarchy or anarcho-capitalism? In other words, does the non-coercive society you envision include money and an unregulated capitalist marketplace, or is the free market abolished and replaced with a socialist (or communist) system based on the Marxist sentiment "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"? In reading up on it, there are several schools of thought here and they vehemently disagree with each other: socialist anarchy views capitalism as a form of coercion, while anarcho-capitalism thinks socialism is a form of coercion.

And I still defy any anarchist to maintain their moral opposition to coercion once they have teenagers:

"Daddy, I know it's a Tuesday and I have school tomorrow, but Chad wants to take me on his motorcycle up to the bluffs and look at the meteor shower that happens tonight at 2:30am. He says he'll keep me warm with his body and the bottle of tequila he's already started drinking. Can I go?"

If an anarchist would say yes to that request, it's no surprise there are so few anarchists.

There is a reason God makes teenagers like they are. So you won't miss them when they move out.

Quote: MathExtremist

I disagree that I'm not thinking through these topics deeply, but you're also not addressing the points I've made, you're just repeating your initial positions. I've made three points:
a) Monopolies will naturally arise in an unregulated market;
b) Breach of contract is a fatal flaw in a voluntary-only structure because the parties are apt to change their minds; and
c) A society which permits the theft of the fruits of my labor is morally bankrupt, regardless of whether those fruits are tangible or intangible.

Let's start with the critique that there is nothing to stop a monopolist from arising in an unregulated economy. It doesn't take much more than a passing comprehension of game theory to see that if two competitors both believe increased profitability will flow from merger then they'll merge. How do you stop the formation of monopolies? Alternately, do you believe monopolies are okay if they arise organically?

I debated continuing the conversation because I just don't know that we will get anywhere. I said that you are not thinking deeply about this topic because I stated that cartels cannot exist without the help of the government and your response was (I think) drug cartels, which are the perfect example of my point. I will also say that I have addressed these issues many times in my life, most people I meet disagree with me and ask the same questions that I have already heard 1000 times. I might be wrong, but I can't imagine that you will ask me something I haven't already addressed. Furthermore I have been addressing your points very directly. I believe you make a lot of assertions and present them as fact with little support, but I have been addressing them directly.

Let's continue the conversation with the understanding that this will not likely change either of our positions, but since you seem more interested in attacking my position than defending government (understandably, it is difficult to defend the moral disaster that is government) let's look at this as a chance for me to sharpen my views and a chance for you to understand how the world might work with less coercion rather than a debate. It will probably also be better if we address one issue at a time with some depth than a series of objections superficially, you have chosen monopolies so let's look at that.

There is some debate over the definition of a monopolist. Some believe that if only one supplier exists in a given market he is a monopolist, others argue that a single supplier is not in fact a monopolist so long as there are no artificial barriers keeping others from entering the market. In some especially capital intensive cases it makes sense that there would be only one supplier, for example take aircraft carrier manufacturing. If the society needs one aircraft carrier every 5 years and huge investments are required to produce one it might make sense that there is only one firm. I would argue that this is not a problem as long as new entrants could theoretically enter the market. This will discipline the supplier to some degree. The threat of a competitor entering the market will be enough to keep him from charging obscenely high prices. Obviously this is not perfect, and he will probably enjoy a higher profit margin than in more intensely competitive industries, but there is still a competitive threat keeping the price down to some degree. If he enjoys extremely high profit margins someone else will say, "Hey, I could make a ton of money if I started making aircraft carriers, look at how well that guy is doing!"

I know you say that he will wildly vary his prices if a competitor wants to enter the market but this theory is a non-starter and no economist believes this. If you want to debate this we can but I would ask that you think about the inherent problems a bit. For example, if the prices were constantly in flux why would a customer ever buy at the high price, wouldn't he wait for the price to fall? Furthermore, let's say that I try to compete with evil monopolist. I set up shops, create a factory, etc. and start producing widgets. Evil Monopolist lowers his price below the marginal cost of production and I go out of business. Just because I have failed as a concern does not mean that the capital disappears, there is still an idle widget factory. If he raises his price someone can still use that capital to compete against Evil Monopolist. Historically what has happened when people try this is that the competitor will buy a ton of the artificially cheap good and resell it, we could stockpile the subsidized good, store it and then bring it to market when he tries to raise his price. It is just not a good business strategy to sell things at a loss.

Compare this to the situation with the post office, which has a real monopoly. If you try to compete and deliver 1st class mail you will be charged criminally, as Lysander Spooner and the American Letter Company were. It doesn't matter that Mr. Spooner could deliver mail for half the price the monopolist did, men with guns shut him down and made the world a worse place. This is a real monopoly, and it can only exist when the government or some other violent gang (think mafia) creates the situation. It requires someone violently excluding other participants from the market. When this happens the supplier will indeed charge the price that maximizes total profit which depends on the elasticity of demand. For some goods the demand is inelastic (think of a life saving drug), and you can charge any amount of money and still get the same amount of demand as a monopolist. Other goods are elastic and the monopolist needs to strike a balance between high margins and reduced demand.

Even if you think I am wrong about all of this, your implied solution is government which, as Barack Obama reminded us, has a monopoly on violence (among other things). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewQl-qAtNwQ If monopolies are such a big problem, isn't giving someone a monopoly on violence a much bigger threat to society than a shoe or ice cream monopolist? Is your proposed solution to the issue of monopoly the creation of a monopoly on the destruction of monopolies? Why would any of your fears about monopolies not apply to the government?

Quote: bigfoot66

I know you say that he will wildly vary his prices if a competitor wants to enter the market but this theory is a non-starter and no economist believes this. If you want to debate this we can but I would ask that you think about the inherent problems a bit. For example, if the prices were constantly in flux why would a customer ever buy at the high price, wouldn't he wait for the price to fall?

Okay, you're taking the anarcho-capitalism stance. How do you address the socialist anarchist position that capitalism is itself coercive?

Also, you certainly realize that consumer transactions are not always perfectly-elastically untethered from time in the way you presume. Uber and Lyft have surge pricing -- as do vacation destinations, restaurants, movies, etc. The option for a consumer to "wait for the price to fall" is not always feasible. Consider the gas prices at the fill station near the rental car return vs. the one across town. If you're short on time, you pay more. And this is in today's real-life regulated economy. Imagine what would happen in an unregulated one.

Quote:

Furthermore, let's say that I try to compete with evil monopolist. I set up shops, create a factory, etc. and start producing widgets.

Nope. You're in a situation where there's already an evil monopolist, which means you can't even raise the capital to build your factory and shops because nobody will invest in you. Part of the problem with these sort of hypotheticals is that they presume a setting which, under the premise of the unregulated free market you desire, could never occur in the first place. It's all internally inconsistent.

Quote:

Compare this to the situation with the post office, which has a real monopoly. If you try to compete and deliver 1st class mail you will be charged criminally, as Lysander Spooner and the American Letter Company were.

Using a single example of a monopoly to prove the premise that all monopolies are bad is the logical fallacy known as proof by example, and I reject it.

Quote:

If monopolies are such a big problem, isn't giving someone a monopoly on violence a much bigger threat to society than a shoe or ice cream monopolist? Is your proposed solution to the issue of monopoly the creation of a monopoly on the destruction of monopolies? Why would any of your fears about monopolies not apply to the government?

Because a monopoly-busting monopolist that I have some say in, via representative democracy, and that is formed with the intention to serve the public good, is a greater moral good than an unregulated monopolist that serves none but its own desires. My position -- and history bears this out -- is that aggregation of power is inherent in human nature. The ultimate aggregation of power is monopoly. You appear to deny human nature; I want to accept it and deal with it. The facts of humanity are constantly on display, and even though you and your friends may be generous and altruistic, you cannot sensibly deny that some people are greedy and selfish. Those greedy and selfish people will, if starting from a hypothetical perfectly fair and unregulated scenario, accumulate more resources and power than you. We know that such a fair scenario can't possibly exist for lots of other reasons (my land is more bountiful than yours, etc.) but that's beside the point. If that accumulation of power proceeds unchecked, you end up with a drastically unfair monopoly on power and wealth. If that power is aggregated too narrowly and is wielded unfairly, you end up with revolution. This has happened time and time again in human society.

Using an analogy to particle physics, the element of anarchy is unstable and has a very short half-life, after which it inevitably decays into a more stable element. The elements we have now -- capitalism and representative democracy -- have proven more stable than any other prior form of human social order. Certainly no anarchist society (of any flavor) has lasted as long as the United States. What makes you think it would going forward? I assume, of course, the truth that stability is also something that people seek, and in fact a baseline measure of stability is valued more highly than perfect liberty by many people. That's why people willingly submit to being governed in the first place.

The bottom line is that, really, nothing is regulating life on Earth except genetic fitness. Part of the evolution of humanity as a species is the evolution of social structures and economies and governments. In evolutionary terms, if an anarchy were of greater fitness than capitalist democracy, why aren't we in an anarchy right now?

Quote: SanchoPanza

Carried to the extreme, we have that arthritic agency, the U.S.Postal Service.

You, too? Wind and rain and internet jabs, we deliver the mail! Sometimes. When we feel like it. If it's not raining and stuff =p

And please stop bothering MathE. I've a coup to plan and he's supposed to be figuring out how to establish a meritocracy for me.

Quote: Face

And please stop bothering MathE. I've a coup to plan and he's supposed to be figuring out how to establish a meritocracy for me.

I'm working on the utility function for quantifying merit. So far it involves spatial intelligence, vocal range, biceps curl strength, hair follicle density, and the ability to control the dice. Bonus points if you can perform acts of pyrokinesis or levitation.

Quote: MathExtremist

I'm working on the utility function for quantifying merit. So far it involves spatial intelligence, vocal range, biceps curl strength, hair follicle density, and the ability to control the dice. Bonus points if you can perform acts of pyrokinesis or levitation.

How about failing one or one and a half of your criteria?

Quote: MathExtremist

Okay, you're taking the anarcho-capitalism stance. How do you address the socialist anarchist position that capitalism is itself coercive?

Also, you certainly realize that consumer transactions are not always perfectly-elastically untethered from time in the way you presume. Uber and Lyft have surge pricing -- as do vacation destinations, restaurants, movies, etc. The option for a consumer to "wait for the price to fall" is not always feasible. Consider the gas prices at the fill station near the rental car return vs. the one across town. If you're short on time, you pay more. And this is in today's real-life regulated economy. Imagine what would happen in an unregulated one.

Nope. You're in a situation where there's already an evil monopolist, which means you can't even raise the capital to build your factory and shops because nobody will invest in you. Part of the problem with these sort of hypotheticals is that they presume a setting which, under the premise of the unregulated free market you desire, could never occur in the first place. It's all internally inconsistent.

Using a single example of a monopoly to prove the premise that all monopolies are bad is the logical fallacy known as proof by example, and I reject it.

Because a monopoly-busting monopolist that I have some say in, via representative democracy, and that is formed with the intention to serve the public good, is a greater moral good than an unregulated monopolist that serves none but its own desires. My position -- and history bears this out -- is that aggregation of power is inherent in human nature. The ultimate aggregation of power is monopoly. You appear to deny human nature; I want to accept it and deal with it. The facts of humanity are constantly on display, and even though you and your friends may be generous and altruistic, you cannot sensibly deny that some people are greedy and selfish. Those greedy and selfish people will, if starting from a hypothetical perfectly fair and unregulated scenario, accumulate more resources and power than you. We know that such a fair scenario can't possibly exist for lots of other reasons (my land is more bountiful than yours, etc.) but that's beside the point. If that accumulation of power proceeds unchecked, you end up with a drastically unfair monopoly on power and wealth. If that power is aggregated too narrowly and is wielded unfairly, you end up with revolution. This has happened time and time again in human society.

Using an analogy to particle physics, the element of anarchy is unstable and has a very short half-life, after which it inevitably decays into a more stable element. The elements we have now -- capitalism and representative democracy -- have proven more stable than any other prior form of human social order. Certainly no anarchist society (of any flavor) has lasted as long as the United States. What makes you think it would going forward? I assume, of course, the truth that stability is also something that people seek, and in fact a baseline measure of stability is valued more highly than perfect liberty by many people. That's why people willingly submit to being governed in the first place.

The bottom line is that, really, nothing is regulating life on Earth except genetic fitness. Part of the evolution of humanity as a species is the evolution of social structures and economies and governments. In evolutionary terms, if an anarchy were of greater fitness than capitalist democracy, why aren't we in an anarchy right now?

I am sick of you bringing up outside topics, and your writing, particularly your last two paragraphs here, is some of the most blow-hardy stuff I've ever read. You are probably great at math but you are not very good at approaching a philosophical topic with curiosity and intellectual honesty. Instead of pontificating with meaningless analogies about how my philosophy is bankrupt you need to stay narrowly focused if you want to have a productive discussion. You say that it is impossible to raise capital to compete with a monopolist.....why? Confine your answer to less than two sentences if at all possible.

Quote: bigfoot66

philosophy is bankrupt

I consider it more bankrupt than the one you criticize, so far.

To put it another way, if anyone didn't think Walt Disney's idea of a super big theme park would work, he proved them wrong.

You're too much on the drawing board still. Whatever actual success there is, seems relatively limited so far.

How long have people been tossing this idea around now? More than a few decades, or longer?

Quote: bigfoot66

I am sick of you bringing up outside topics, and your writing, particularly your last two paragraphs here, is some of the most blow-hardy stuff I've ever read. You are probably great at math but you are not very good at approaching a philosophical topic with intellectual honesty. Instead of pontificating with meaningless analogies about how my philosophy is bankrupt you need to stay narrowly focused if you want to have a productive discussion. You say that it is impossible to raise capital to compete with a monopolist.....why? Confine your answer to less than two sentences if at all possible.

I directly rebutted your naked assertions with counterexamples and your response is to attack my writing style -- and then invoke intellectual honesty? That's rich.

The answer to your question is trivial because it's definitional: if you can effectively compete with an entity, including by raising money, then that entity is not a monopolist.

Try to raise money to compete with Google on search. The Internet search market has been non-competitive for over a decade, despite both Microsoft and Yahoo throwing millions of dollars at it. There are no government regulations on search providers; Google's monopoly arose organically because it had a better service, and right now Google controls around 2/3 of the global search market including about 90% of mobile search. The verb "google" has even entered our lexicon, defined as "to use Google to search for something on the Internet." Nobody's ever said "let me altavista that for you."

Now then, if you want to have a debate, you'll need to actually support your position. Calling my critique blow-hardy while avoiding the substance isn't going to cut it. You're the one who wants to change hearts and minds, so you need to demonstrate how your proposed social structure is both superior and feasible.

Quote: MathExtremist

I'm working on the utility function for quantifying merit. So far it involves spatial intelligence, vocal range, biceps curl strength, hair follicle density, and the ability to control the dice. Bonus points if you can perform acts of pyrokinesis or levitation.

It pleases me that you're still plugging away after all these years. I must remind you, though, that there is a deadline for this. Should you fail, we're in for a regular ol' dictatorship. And I'll be your captain =)

Quote: bigfoot66

I am sick of you bringing up outside topics, and your writing, particularly your last two paragraphs here, is some of the most blow-hardy stuff I've ever read. You are probably great at math but you are not very good at approaching a philosophical topic with curiosity and intellectual honesty. Instead of pontificating with meaningless analogies about how my philosophy is bankrupt you need to stay narrowly focused if you want to have a productive discussion. You say that it is impossible to raise capital to compete with a monopolist.....why? Confine your answer to less than two sentences if at all possible.

All due respect, MathE, with nearly 100% accuracy, says all the things that are in mine own head. And he does it much more concisely and digestible than I ever could.

I'll probably mostly bow out, as trying to play catch up on all these philosophies can't be done in a day and I'm woefully underarmed. But I will toss in the comment that, at least from where I'm standing, it appears government is necessary for productive, higher life. Seems all of the higher mammals have a hierarchy, with "power" condensed within the strongest (apes), oldest (elephant), etc.

But do keep talking. I oft describe my own leanings as "more extreme than libertarian, but not quite anarchist", mostly because while I want raw freedom, I see no way for anarchy to work. But I want to be convinced. You keep preaching and I'll keep reading.