Paying taxes -- Patriotic duty or extortion?
Quote: MathExtremistNow 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.
I agree with you but I am trying to keep the conversation focused. I am not a great writer but I am trying to convey complicated ideas to a somewhat hostile audience. Your style for most of this conversation has been to open with an assertion that something I said is wrong, make half a dozen points, and then end with a global statement about how impossible my proposal is. You could be right about all of it---I am wrong far more often than I care to admit. But this forum (and my schedule) does not lend itself to me answering your criticism of my point, rebutting half a dozen plus points, and then criticizing your global statement. Besides, I don't care to argue with you. I am not a dummy, I have answers for your questions so I would appreciate it if you approached this with a sense of curiosity rather than a desire to prove me wrong. If you have already decided that I have nothing to offer then let's call it a day. If you are genuinely curious about specific points (like the monopolist argument) let's try to stay narrowly focused on single topics so we can make some progress.
You claim that I cannot compete with google and google is basically the only provider of a service, I agree with you on both claims. The reason that you cannot raise capital to compete with google is that they operate extremely efficiently and do not overcharge for their service. You can call them a monopolist, but they do not behave as a monopolist does in terms of maximizing profits. We know this is true because if they did one of their competitors could take market share by charging a lower price. Obviously google is a very complicated case to explain in this setting as they have a set of interconnected products, some of which they offer free in order to generate products they can sell to other people.
There are in fact competitors that service, as you point out, 10% of the market. We could all switch to Yahoo tomorrow, but we don't because we freely choose Google. This just means that they are the best, and if this arises as a result of the choices of free individuals then what is the harm?
My point is not that google is/isn't a monopolist, my point is that it doesn't matter. The reason there is a fear of monopolies is that the monopolies can make "obscene profits" and the consumer has no where else to turn. I use google all the time and have for over a decade, but I have never given them a penny. If they are a monopoly, what harm have they caused?
Edit: The monopolies like google that arise without coercively blocking competition are not harmful to the economy because their domination of the market is contingent on their continuing to do a good job. If they rest on their laurels they lose market share like the American auto firms did to the Japanese. If the government or the mafia use the threat of violence to restrict the market then all of the terrible things a monopolist might do become possible because the fear of potential competition is removed.
Quote: FaceBut 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.
Thank you :)
Anyway, I remember the strike at the Frontier Casino went on for years. They were being "shunned" for years for all that did.
I'd also like to think gamblers would one day act like smart consumers, but the bad games continue.
I have some sort of point here.
: )
Well have at it, then. No need to beat around the bush.Quote: bigfoot66I have answers for your questions
And perhaps I misunderstood your premise -- I think monopolies are sometimes good, sometimes bad. Bad in cases of antitrust or anti-competitive behavior, good in cases where the monopoly position frees up additional capital from having to compete and instead diverts it to R&D, and also in the case of innovation protected by intellectual property.
Let's revisit the shoe monopoly from before:
Quote: MathExtremistBut 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?
What's your answer to combating this clearly anti-competitive behavior? Do nothing and accept the coercion of a monopolist or coercively intervene? To me, coercion happens either way, it's a question of evaluating which coercion leads to the more just outcome.
Quote: rudeboyoiIt's a pet peeve of mine when people say cheat on their
taxes. That's like saying you cheat on your mugging if you hide the bulk of your money somewhere other than your wallet and the mugger doesn't find it.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/warren-buffett-has-a-simple--rational-explanation-for-why-rich-americans-should-pay-higher-taxes-123214184.html
An excerpt from the article above (with my emphasis in bold text):
In his 2006 book, “The Audacity of Hope,” Barack Obama quoted Buffett, who said that fellow billionaires “have this idea that it’s ‘their money’ and they deserve to keep every penny of it. What they don’t factor in is all the public investment that lets us live the way we do . Take me as an example. I happen to have a talent for allocating capital. But my ability to use that talent is completely dependent on the society I was born into. If I’d been born into a tribe of hunters, this talent of mine would be pretty worthless. I can’t run very fast. I’m not particularly strong. I’d probably end up as some wild animal’s dinner. But I was lucky enough to be born into a time and place where society values my talent, and gave me a good education to develop that talent, and set up the laws and the financial system to let me do what I love doing—and make a lot of money doing it. The least I can do is help pay for all that.”
For the government (including the communist form of government) to keep the society in order, everyone must pay tax, and the taxation should be equitable. Equitable does not mean "equal", or that everyone must pay exactly the same amount or the same percentage. What amount or percentage is considered equitable? Unfortunately, equitable in taxation is just like beauty -- it is in the eye of the beholder.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are admirable for their calling for a more equitable taxing structure even if the end result is a MUCH high tax rate for them.
Quote: MathExtremistWell have at it, then. No need to beat around the bush.
Beat around the bush? What are you talking about? Look, I may well be wrong, but I am not a dummy. I majored in political theory and studied economics at one of the finest schools in the country. Both topics are a hobby for me so I have plausible answers for just about any objection you will make.
Quote: MathExtremistAnd perhaps I misunderstood your premise -- I think monopolies are sometimes good, sometimes bad. Bad in cases of antitrust or anti-competitive behavior, good in cases where the monopoly position frees up additional capital from having to compete and instead diverts it to R&D, and also in the case of innovation protected by intellectual property.
Let's revisit the shoe monopoly from before:
What's your answer to combating this clearly anti-competitive behavior? Do nothing and accept the coercion of a monopolist or coercively intervene? To me, coercion happens either way, it's a question of evaluating which coercion leads to the more just outcome.
Why are we discussing this if you think monopolies are good? If you want to criticize my proposal you need to be a bit more clear so I can directly address your fears around liberty.
I'm not sure I understand the difference between competitive and anti-competitive behavior. Trying to crush your opponents (within the realm of ethical behavior) is part of competition. You murky the waters by stating that the manufacturer engaged in shady practices, I do not defend violators of property rights. Let's say they just built a better mouse trap and behaved ethically to gain their large position. I tried to outline why your "price dropping" strategy would not work a few posts back, you (perhaps correctly) stated that I was just making naked assertions, so I will now quote from an article by the great Tom Woods who is a far better writer than I am and can state the same principles I did in a more lucid fashion:
"Dominick Armentano, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Hartford, surveyed scores of important antitrust cases and failed to uncover a single successful example of predatory pricing. Chicago economist George Stigler noted that the theory has fallen into disfavor in professional circles: “Today it would be embarrassing to encounter this argument in professional discourse.” There is a reason for that disfavor. The strategy is suicidal."
If you would like the full list of reasons that strategy will fail the article is here: http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/the-misplaced-fear-of-monopoly/
The heart of it is in the spoiler.
The dominant firm, should it somehow succeed in driving all competitors from the market, must now drive prices back up, to enjoy its windfall, without at the same time encouraging new entrants (who will be attracted by the prospect of charging those high prices themselves) into the field. Then the predatory-pricing strategy must begin all over again, further postponing the moment when the hoped-for premium profits kick in. New entrants into the field will be in a particularly strong position, since they can often acquire the assets of previous firms at fire-sale prices during bankruptcy proceedings.
During the period of the below-cost pricing, meanwhile, consumers tend to stock up on the unusually inexpensive goods. This factor means it will take still longer for the dominant firm to recoup the losses it incurred from the predatory pricing.
A chain-store variant of the predatory-pricing model runs like this: chain stores can draw on the profits they earn in other markets to sustain them while they suffer losses in a new market where they are trying to eliminate competitors by means of predatory pricing.
But imagine a nationwide chain of grocery stores, which we’ll call MegaMart. Let’s stipulate that MegaMart has a thousand locations across the country and $1 billion of capital invested. That comes out to $1 million per store. Those who warn of “monopoly” contend that MegaMart can bring to bear its entire fortune in order to drive all competitors from one particular market into which it wants to expand.
Now for the sake of argument, we’ll leave aside the empirical and theoretical problems with predatory pricing we’ve already established. Let’s assume MegaMart really could use its nationwide resources to drive all competitors from the field in a new market, and could even keep all potential competitors permanently out of the market out of sheer terror at being crushed by MegaMart.
Even if we grant all this, it still makes no sense from the point of view of business strategy and economic judgment for MegaMart to adopt the predatory-pricing strategy. Yes, for a time it would enjoy abnormally high profits, and indeed the prospect of those profits explains why MegaMart would even consider this approach. But would the premium profits be high enough for the whole venture to be a net benefit for the company?
George Reisman insists, correctly, that they would not. “Such a premium profit is surely quite limited — perhaps an additional $100,000 per year, perhaps even an additional $500,000 per year, but certainly nothing remotely approaching the profit that would be required to justify the commitment of [the firm’s] total financial resources.”
Let’s suppose that the premium profit that could be reaped by MegaMart after removing all its competitors amounted to $300,000, the average of those two figures. Assume also that the average rate of return in the economy is 10 percent. That means MegaMart can afford to lose $3 million — the capitalized value of $300,000 per year — in order to seize the market for itself. Spending an amount greater than that would be a poor investment, since the firm would earn a lower-than-average rate of return (lower, that is, than 10 percent). For that reason, MegaMart’s $1 billion in capital is simply irrelevant.
What follows from this, according to Reisman, is that,
"everyone contemplating an investment in the grocery business who has an additional $5 million or even just $1 million to put up is on as good a footing as [MegaMart] in attempting to achieve such [premium] profits. For it simply does not pay to invest additional capital beyond these sums. In other words, the predatory-pricing game, if it actually could be played in these circumstances, would be open to a fairly substantial number of players — not just the extremely large, very rich firms, but everyone who had an additional capital available equal to the limited capitalized value of the “monopoly gains” that might be derived from an inpidual location."
Market defenses
Coming back to the more general “predatory pricing” claim, one final argument buries it forever. Economist Don Boudreaux invites us to imagine what would happen if Walmart adopted the predatory- pricing strategy and embarked on a price war over pharmaceutical products, with the aim of driving other drug retailers from the market. Who would be harmed by this? Consumers, to be sure, as well as rival drug suppliers.
But there’s a less obvious set of victims, and it’s they who hold the key to solving the alleged problem. Companies that distribute the drugs to Walmart also stand to lose. Why? Because if Walmart drives competitors from the field and then raises drug prices, which is the whole point of predatory pricing, then fewer drugs will be sold. It’s as simple as the law of demand: at a higher price of a good there is a lower quantity demanded. That means a company like Merck, which distributes a lot of drugs to Walmart, will sell less of its product.
Is Merck going to take that lying down? Of course not. Since a successful predatory-pricing strategy for Walmart would mean lower sales and profits for Merck, it has a strong incentive to block Walmart’s move. And it can do so by means of minimum- or maximum-resale- price-maintenance contracts. A minimum-resale-price-maintenance agreement establishes a minimum selling price at which a retailer must sell a company’s product. Such a minimum would make it impossible for Walmart to engage in predatory pricing in the first place; they would have to sell the product at the stipulated minimum price, at the very least, and could not go any lower. Maximum-resale-price-maintenance agreements would allow a company, once predatory pricing has succeeded — and again, for the sake of argument we set aside all the reasons we’ve given for why predatory pricing can’t work — to limit the extent of the damage. It would forbid a retailer to sell its product above a stipulated price. Walmart’s putative “monopoly profits” could not be realized to any great extent under such an arrangement.
Quote: bigfoot66Suffice to say that we should be aiming for the dismantling of all institutions of organized aggression, however I confess that abolishing all government overnight would probably not be pretty. Governments are fundamentally evil institutions but they do provide some stability and any kind of radical shift would come with a number of short term problems. However these problems would also provide entrepreneurs with opportunities to make a lot of money by providing people with stability, I think it would not be nearly as bad as people picture when they hear the word "anarchy" and the problems would be solved relatively quickly.
I never said we could end all coercion, I am trying to shame you for promoting coercion. Everything is impossible until it is accomplished.
Coercion by government is a necessary evil in order to institute law & order. Without coercion, any form of government is useless, there will be no law and order, and we all live in a state of ANARCHY.
Government is not perfect because ITS CITIZENS ARE NOT PERFECT. Consequently, government can be considered by many as evil. But it is a NECESSARY evil. Consider this: Would you rather live under the evil & dictatorial but stable regime of Saddam Hussein, Moammar Khadafy, or Bashar al-Assad; rather under the practically current anarchist states of Iraq, Libya and Syria?
Quote: rxwineDid he address collusion as a form of monopoly? What was the solution for that?
Collusion can be considered a form of monopolistic behavior, and the solution to collusion is the antitrust legislation ....
Quote: 777Collusion can be considered a form of monopolistic behavior, and the solution to collusion is the antitrust legislation ....
Yes. I am interested how are anarchists address this. Not only can it take the form of one or more real competitors colluding, it can also take the form of a company which is merely taken on different titles but is under one umbrella. You don't like Acme company A, you can always go to Acme b, except what you don't know is it's the same.
No taxes, private, and nobody really knows anything so what's hard about fooling the public?
Quote: SanchoPanzaCarried to the extreme, we have that arthritic agency, the U.S.Postal Service.
The U.S. Postal Service is the agency where the monopolistic power once gave it the efficiency & volume it needed to serve ALL consumers (FedEx & UPS cannot serve ALL consumers and expect a profit). Unfortunately, the USPS workers' ABUSIVE of the USPS monopolistic power, the requirement of serving ALL consumers and other political interventions had created great fiscal problem for the USPS.
So pontificates Warren Buffet, who has decided instead to dispute the I.R.S. and simultaneously become the largest private employer in, of all places, Honduras.Quote: 777"I was lucky enough to be born into a time and place where society values my talent, and gave me a good education to develop that talent, and set up the laws and the financial system to let me do what I love doing—and make a lot of money doing it. The least I can do is help pay for all that."
Quote: 777The U.S. Postal Service is the agency where the monopolistic power once gave it the efficiency & volume it needed to serve ALL consumers (FedEx & UPS cannot serve ALL consumers and expect a profit). Unfortunately, the USPS workers' ABUSIVE of the USPS monopolistic power, the requirement of serving ALL consumers and other political interventions had created great fiscal problem for the USPS.
This is simply not true. If you read the whole thread you will see the part where I describe how early libertarian and abolitionist Lysander Spooner started the American Letter Company that profitably delivered mail for well under half the rate of the government mail service. The idea that government might ever be efficient is laughable, indeed it is an economic impossibility because government does not have access the information conveyed through the price system that allows private firms to make rational, efficient decisions.
The most "rational, efficient" decision of your model example was to limit service to three cites on the Eastern Seaboard, and not to ALL customers. Undercutting a major impediment to postal efficiency.Quote: bigfoot66Early libertarian and abolitionist Lysander Spooner started the American Letter Company that profitably delivered mail for well under half the rate of the government mail service. The idea that government might ever be efficient is laughable, indeed it is an economic impossibility because government does not have access the information conveyed through the price system that allows private firms to make rational, efficient decisions.
What prevents them from colluding in secret in ways I suggest by simply hiding their assets in multiple companies?
With weak law enforcement and no regulation, they burn down real competitors in mysterious accidents. That's potentially easier than underselling me. Just burn down my warehouse in the middle of the night. It was an "accident." Me and local neighbor association have no chance against them.
The rise of secret elite controlled society again where the money is funneled into the hands of the conman over merit, and of course they would be printing the "freedom" pamphlets, how things were much improved over government.
Back to where we started, only we as the people know even less about who is doing what to whom. But at least we are "free."
Am I still a skeptic? You bet.
Quote: SanchoPanzaSo pontificates Warren Buffet, who has decided instead to dispute the I.R.S. and simultaneously become the largest private employer in, of all places, Honduras.
Warren Buffet point is about changing the tax code so wealthy citizens can be "COERCED" to contribute more. Warren and Bill are ready and willing to pay higher rate providing that all other wealthy citizens in similar wealth or at a predefine level of wealth are "coerced" into doing the same.
And yes, Warren Buffet can dispute the I.R.S and there is nothing hypocritical about such action. The I.R.S must treat him and all other citizens (rich and poor) fairly under the CURRENT tax code.
Quote: bigfoot66This is simply not true. If you read the whole thread you will see the part where I describe how early libertarian and abolitionist Lysander Spooner started the American Letter Company that profitably delivered mail for well under half the rate of the government mail service. The idea that government might ever be efficient is laughable, indeed it is an economic impossibility because government does not have access the information conveyed through the price system that allows private firms to make rational, efficient decisions.
Granting the monopoly power to the USPS in mail delivery certainly will provide necessary volume for the USPS to be efficient in cost. I believe the USPS is still an efficient entity. However, the employee abusive of power and all other political requirements/actions had caused fiscal problem for the USPS.
Quote: rxwineWhat prevents the rise of elites in anarchy? Nothing, I think.
What prevents them from colluding in secret in ways I suggest by simply hiding their assets in multiple companies?
You are demanding an awful lot of my proposal. Politicians collude in the open to loot the citizens. Quit comparing my proposal to perfection, compare it to the real world, where government uses violence and threats thereof to extract a third of the nation's income--More than is spent on housing, clothing and food combined!!!!
http://taxfoundation.org/article/tax-freedom-day-2016-april-24
They use this money to kill people--Governments were responsible for the deaths of 100,000,000 people in the 20th century alone through their wars and government generated famines. I am making the outrageous proposal that this organization that steals from some people to fund their operations killing other people is not good for mankind.
Apparently, in your mind, this is a very small threat compared to the (economically untenable) threat of Warren Buffet, the Waltons, and Bill Gates smoking cigars around a large oak table and finding a way to collude so that they can raise their prices 12%.
Quote: 777Granting the monopoly power to the USPS in mail delivery certainly will provide necessary volume for the USPS to be efficient in cost. I believe the USPS is still an efficient entity. However, the employee abusive of power and all other political requirements/actions had caused fiscal problem for the USPS.
Well I guess you can believe whatever you want. Economic law be damned! 777 believes the opposite is true!
I studied computer science at one of the finest schools in the country and didn't really stray too far into the political philosophy sphere, although I did take an econ course from Martin Feldstein. So let's skip to the punchline: if Rothbard was right and anarcho-capitalism is a superior system, why aren't we in one right now? What's stopping us?Quote: bigfoot66Beat around the bush? What are you talking about? Look, I may well be wrong, but I am not a dummy. I majored in political theory and studied economics at one of the finest schools in the country. Both topics are a hobby for me so I have plausible answers for just about any objection you will make.
Do you dispute the premise that if you pushed a magic button and made the entire world into a collection of anarcho-capitalist societies, that statist hierarchies would not spontaneously regenerate? If so, on what basis?
Quote: SanchoPanzaThe most "rational, efficient" decision of your model example was to limit service to three cites on the Eastern Seaboard, and not to ALL customers. Undercutting a major impediment to postal efficiency.
The fact that he had only expanded service that far is worth noting. However he was also being harassed by government agents and pursued criminally for daring to, wait for it, deliver mail!!! This had to negatively affect operations.
If we didn't have government, why, who would threaten people with jail time for delivering the mail too cheaply!!! I can't believe anyone defends the people who call themselves government.
Quote: rxwineWhat prevents the rise of elites in anarchy? Nothing, I think.
What prevents them from colluding in secret in ways I suggest by simply hiding their assets in multiple companies?
With weak law enforcement and no regulation, they burn down real competitors in mysterious accidents. That's potentially easier than underselling me. Just burn down my warehouse in the middle of the night. It was an "accident." Me and local neighbor association have no chance against them.
The rise of secret elite controlled society again where the money is funneled into the hands of the conman over merit, and of course they would be printing the "freedom" pamphlets, how things were much improved over government.
Back to where we started, only we as the people know even less about who is doing what to whom. But at least we are "free."
Am I still a skeptic? You bet.
There will be elites in anarchy. And if you ask all the elites including the elites in anarchy states whether they prefer a law and order society (communist, dictatorship, monarchy, socialist, democratic or other form of government) or an anarchy society, I'm 100% certain that they all will want to live in an law & order society.
Hiding asset is not a form of collusion, but is a pure form of tax cheat if such hiding is not allowed under the law. If there is a loophole somewhere in the tax code that allows "hiding" of asset, then such action is perfectly legal.
Quote: bigfoot66The fact that he had only expanded service that far is worth noting. However he was also being harassed by government agents and pursued criminally for daring to, wait for it, deliver mail!!! This had to negatively affect operations.
If we didn't have government, why, who would threaten people with jail time for delivering the mail too cheaply!!! I can't believe anyone defends the people who call themselves government.
Perhaps he can deliver mail cheaply to a VERY small population or a very selected geographic, but his service would erode the volume of service granted to the USPS, and any erosion in mail volume my cause increase in mailing cost to ALL consumers in 50 states. It is not the government's intention of making any one's life miserable, but its has to duty to serve the interest of all or majority of the citizens. And when face with a conflict of making one's life miserable and serving the bigger interest of public good ...
Quote: MathExtremistI studied computer science at one of the finest schools in the country and didn't really stray too far into the political philosophy sphere, although I did take an econ course from Martin Feldstein. So let's skip to the punchline: if Rothbard was right and anarcho-capitalism is a superior system, why aren't we in one right now? What's stopping us?
Do you dispute the premise that if you pushed a magic button and made the entire world into a collection of anarcho-capitalist societies, that statist hierarchies would not spontaneously regenerate? If so, on what basis?
As I have said before, I think you are very bright and I enjoy debating you....sometimes ;). If you took a class from Martin Feldstein you went to a [ slightly ;) ] better school than I did.
Rothbard was right, of course, but let me rephrase your question so that it answers itself: "If a libertarian world would be more efficient, how come the criminals who make a very comfortable living taxing people and exercising arbitrary power don't end the system that is making them rich and powerful?"
I think that if I could push a button and eliminate all government globally overnight I probably would not push that button. There would be obvious logistical issues in moving from the current system to a liberty oriented system, specifically there need to be certain services and institutions. The market could provide for all of these things of course, but not overnight.
More to your point, if 99%+ percent of people demand to be ruled and extorted, then ruled and extorted we will all be. I will not likely see liberty in my lifetime, but eventually if we can change enough hearts and minds then no, a state would not arise naturally. Popular opinion is everything. If I am wrong and humans must be slaves instead of free individuals in order to coexist then, of course the experiment would also fail and a state would likely be implemented.
Also if you found my response to the monopoly argument compelling I think it would be gentlemanly of you to admit as much.
Quote: RSI have yet to read a SINGLE reason why I would like to live in an anarchy based society.
Good, we don't want you. Just keep paying your taxes and saluting the flag, citizen.
Quote: 777Perhaps he can deliver mail cheaply to a VERY small population or a very selected geographic, but his service would erode the volume of service granted to the USPS, and any erosion in mail volume my cause increase in mailing cost to ALL consumers in 50 states. It is not the government's intention of making any one's life miserable, but its has to duty to serve the interest of all or majority of the citizens. And when face with a conflict of making one's life miserable and serving the bigger interest of public good ...
None of this is obviously true. If you live 500 miles from the nearest stoplight in Alaska and need to mail a letter to Palatka, Florida, it is not at all obvious that you should pay the same amount as when I mail a thank you card to a friend who lives a few miles away. This system distorts incentives and will lead to too many "expensive" letters being mailed and too few "cheap" letters being mailed. This generates a great deal of deadweight loss--read wasted resources. People who bear the costs of their own decisions make more efficient decisions, if you subsidize expensive decisions then people will make them more often.
When I was at the DMV in Henderson I was trying to estimate how much money it costs a year to run the operation. There were 60 stations with maybe 40 of them open. And maybe 10 other employees (security/maintenance/janitorial). Maybe it's open 10hrs a day. And at $15/hr per person. That's $7500/day just for labor. Then maybe it's double that with benefits so $15k/day on labor. Then maybe another $5k just for utilities/repairs/equipment and such. And maybe they're open 250 days a year. That's $5million per year for a completely useless service.
But it's their for our "protection" which is a big fat lie which we can easily see cause they don't even repeatedly test drivers. I haven't taken a driving test since I was 16. It's just another revenue generator for the state.
You got to use your imagination. Technology is the key to advancing civilization not a coercive middleman. Think if 3d printers became cheap and affordable it could put an end for a need of roads when you could just print something from home. All you would have to do is purchase the raw materials from somewhere. And maybe people could sell their design code for a one time use. Like you purchase someone's design for something and after printing it once it expires. And what if someone figured out how to use plant matter as raw materials. Everyone could just grow their own raw materials. Of course some stuff would still need metals. But stuff that is plastic already maybe we could instead use plant matter. Idk. Just have to use your imagination.
Quote: SOOPOOMr. Bigfoot.... In your system, how do I prevent ISIS from entering the US and blowing up multitudes?
This is an extremely complicated question. Totally fair, but extremely complicated. If I were you I would accuse BigFoot of not having an answer...I have a good answer but this format and my schedule preclude giving it.
The short response is that the foreigners who hate "us" do so most often because we are bombing their people, supporting their evil regimes, etc. If the US government had a more restrained foreign policy then ISIS would not be out to get us in the first place.
Look at it this way, if the Chinese had a large military base near your home, were regularly bombing your town and killing innocent people ("our" government estimates that "we" kill many civilians per terrorist killed, I cannot readily find the numbers and am likely to be wrong but my memory is that they kill 90 civilians for every terrorist they kill), how would you feel about the Chinese? What if rumors flew around town about a Chinese soldier raping your neighbor's daughter?
What if the Chinese instituted a trade embargo on the US? What if this kept out food and medicine in order to topple the "American Dictator George Bush" and this policy lead to the death of 500,000 American children? What if a senior Chinese official then went on 60 minutes and stated that half a million dead children was "worth it" to try to remove George Bush?
This video is 22 seconds long and will change the way you see the world:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omnskeu-puE
Maybe none of this would change the life of a middle aged, wealthy physician. But do you think that a young father whose child was "collateral damage" in the war might be radicalized against the Chinese in this example?
Hiding assets has many more effects than just cheating on taxes, which is not always even the prime purpose of the hiding. Mergers and acquisitions, from either end, may see advantages in non-disclosure. As may financiers, investors, hedge funds and on. Hiding assets may even serve a public relations interest like avoiding bad publicity. Obscuring assets can perform many functions, both intended and unintended as well as legal, illegal and questionable.Quote: 777Hiding asset is not a form of collusion, but is a pure form of tax cheat if such hiding is not allowed under the law. If there is a loophole somewhere in the tax code that allows "hiding" of asset, then such action is perfectly legal.
That is a naive claim in the extreme. Probably stemming from ignoring crystal clear proclamations from people who passionately swear to destroy us and our way of life. And, no, the U.S. is not bombing North Korea or Iran (yet), and the onset of bombing against ISIS has done nothing whatsoever to change their announced goals since their origins.Quote: bigfoot66If the US government had a more restrained foreign policy then ISIS would not be out to get us in the first place.
Quote: bigfoot66Good, we don't want you. Just keep paying your taxes and saluting the flag, citizen.
What's this supposed to mean? Aren't y'all anarchy-people trying to convert people into supporting anarchy? Or is this discussion merely some theoretical for-fun discussion? I'd think if someone was trying to persuade me that anarchy is good...they'd be giving reasons as to why I'd like it?
Quote: SanchoPanzaThat is a naive claim in the extreme. Probably stemming from ignoring crystal clear proclamations from people who passionately swear to destroy us and our way of life. And, no, the U.S. is not bombing North Korea or Iran (yet), and the onset of bombing against ISIS has done nothing whatsoever to change their announced goals since their origins.
Of course they want to destroy us and our way of life. The question is WHY they want to destroy us. Osama Bin Laden said that 9-11 was motivated by American military occupation of their holy land, but what does he know? He is probably just some Ron Paul nutjob with an agenda, right? Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer will give us the REAL story, they hate us because we are just too awesome!!! Oh yeah, and we have mini skirts and Britney Spears and they are like totes jealous!!
Since you closely follow the proclamations of ISIS what did you think of their "Bring it on" video released in November? Do you think their stated goals in that video have anything to do with this discussion?
Edited to add: You are right that we are not bombing N Korea, but there has been sabre rattling and little else from there anyway. Also there are major trade restrictions there...this is annoying at best, an act of war at worst, right?
Quote: RSWhat's this supposed to mean? Aren't y'all anarchy-people trying to convert people into supporting anarchy? Or is this discussion merely some theoretical for-fun discussion? I'd think if someone was trying to persuade me that anarchy is good...they'd be giving reasons as to why I'd like it?
It's a real discussion. You just aren't adding much and I find your comments on this topic boring so if you want to keep paying taxes and saluting the flag be my guest.
Quote: bigfoot66It's a real discussion....so if you want to keep paying taxes and saluting the flag be my guest.
Sounds like a legit discussion to me.
Quote: bigfoot666You just aren't adding much and I find your comments on this topic boring
I guess that makes us even.
Quote: bigfoot66Of course they want to destroy us and our way of life. The question is WHY they want to destroy us.
The question is HOW WOULD WE PROTECT OURSELVES FROM THEM.
You make it seem like it's OUR fault they hate the US and we should change our ways so they don't hate us and want to kill us anymore. I wonder what the countries around Germany did to piss off Hitler so badly....if only they had changed their ways...
Quote: RSI have yet to read a SINGLE reason why I would like to live in an anarchy based society.
+1
I have yet to read a SINGLE reason why I would like to live in an anarchy based society.
Quote: beachbumbabs+1
RR-1, he may, I said MAY, have some redeeming value ;-)
I don't think Rothbard was right, and in fact I think Rothbard's attempt to mix anarchy with capitalism is probably fatally flawed for at least two reasons:Quote: bigfoot66Rothbard was right, of course, but let me rephrase your question so that it answers itself: "If a libertarian world would be more efficient, how come the criminals who make a very comfortable living taxing people and exercising arbitrary power don't end the system that is making them rich and powerful?"
a) Corporations are necessarily hierarchical and therefore antithetical to anarchy, and
b) Private property is inherent in capitalism and therefore capitalism is itself coercive (perhaps you don't agree that private property is coercive, but very few anarchists agree with that).
But to your rephrasing, I don't think that actually answers the question. First, it's not clear to me how you define "criminal" without having laws to define what's a crime, but anarchy doesn't permit laws or the state to enforce them. Second, assuming that there is some natural set of precepts under which everyone agrees what a crime is, e.g., infringing personal liberty in some form, the criminals you decry already found their way into those positions of power, and have been doing so ever since the dawn of human civilization. What's to stop them from doing it again even if there's already a liberty-based society?
I think your faith in the ultimate power of the market is misplaced. Do you dispute that some people are better navigators of markets than others? Do you dispute that such power aggregates unequally among market participants, who will then naturally rise to become the criminals you're concerned about?Quote:I think that if I could push a button and eliminate all government globally overnight I probably would not push that button. There would be obvious logistical issues in moving from the current system to a liberty oriented system, specifically there need to be certain services and institutions. The market could provide for all of these things of course, but not overnight.
See, that's where anarchy must fail. If anarchy requires everyone to agree on anarchy, and government requires less than everyone to agree on government (and clearly that's true) then we'll only ever have government. Anarchy isn't a practical form of social organization if it requires complete and constant agreement from everyone. You never answered my question on breaches of contract, so let's turn there next. How do you handle a breach of contract in an anarcho-capitalist agreement, where originally two parties agreed but now they don't? My example was A is a producer and B is a distributor. They agree on a distribution deal for A's products. Later, B decides not to pay A the agreed-upon amount and wants to renegotiate, but A needs the original deal because he's already relied on that revenue (in building his business, hiring, etc.). B then says "fine, screw yourself, I'm not paying you at all and I'm no longer distributing your products" even though he agreed to do so for a period of two more years. What does anarcho-capitalist philosophy dictate in this situation?Quote:More to your point, if 99%+ percent of people demand to be ruled and extorted, then ruled and extorted we will all be. I will not likely see liberty in my lifetime, but eventually if we can change enough hearts and minds then no, a state would not arise naturally. Popular opinion is everything.
I didn't, really, but I think we're talking past each other on that point. I was under the impression that you thought monopolies were always coercive and therefore liberty-restricting, but then you said otherwise, so that's a less interesting discussion point. I don't think there's any dispute on whether monopolies tend to arise naturally, even if I'm wrong about specifically how they do so. But if naturally-arising anti-competitive monopolies aren't a problem in your worldview, there's no point discussing how to rectify them. (I think they *are* a problem, and I applaud anti-trust laws. In the 1960s, the Supreme Court prevented two shoe companies from becoming a monopoly. Would you have ruled otherwise in Brown Shoe v. US and allowed the two companies merge?)Quote:Also if you found my response to the monopoly argument compelling I think it would be gentlemanly of you to admit as much.
Quote: SOOPOOMr. Bigfoot, I reject your hypothesis that ISIS wants to kill us because America is bombing them. They want to kill us because I reject Sharia law, and their warped view of their own religion says that killing us is ok. Whether or not we are presently bombing them or not. So, how do you protect me from them?
There's no rules. I have in that case will have enough firepower to occupy Switzerland. I can be there in 40 min in a no speed limit land in 15 min.
I got your back, no coercion required =)
It has a lot more to do with this discussion than the response above. The begged question was if ISIS is reacting to our attacks, why were they vowing to destroy us before the attacks?Quote: bigfoot66Of course they want to destroy us and our way of life. The question is WHY they want to destroy us. Osama Bin Laden said that 9-11 was motivated by American military occupation of their holy land, but what does he know? He is probably just some Ron Paul nutjob with an agenda, right? Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer will give us the REAL story, they hate us because we are just too awesome!!! Oh yeah, and we have mini skirts and Britney Spears and they are like totes jealous!!
Since you closely follow the proclamations of ISIS what did you think of their "Bring it on" video released in November? Do you think their stated goals in that video have anything to do with this discussion?
Quote: SanchoPanzaIt has a lot more to do with this discussion than the response above. The begged question was if ISIS is reacting to our attacks, why were they vowing to destroy us before the attacks?
Two things:
1)You misused the term "begging the question"
2) You write this like history started on 9/10/2001. The US has been very active in the region for a very long time.
Quote: SOOPOOMr. Bigfoot, I reject your hypothesis that ISIS wants to kill us because America is bombing them. They want to kill us because I reject Sharia law, and their warped view of their own religion says that killing us is ok. Whether or not we are presently bombing them or not. So, how do you protect me from them?
I'm sorry you reject my super controversial theory that people don't like having their children killed by a foreign army. I get it, you like chocolate, I like vanilla, we love our children, they are lukewarm on their children but highly motivated by religion.
The answer to question is that I don't protect you, you protect your self. If this is important to you then you would be willing to pay for it, right? If there is money on the table an enterprising entrepreneur smarter than me will come up with a way to provide you with defense so that he can pick up that money.
By the way, here is a great article by Hans Herman Hoppe on the private production of defense: https://mises.org/library/private-production-defence
Quote: bigfoot66Two things:
1)You misused the term "begging the question"
What precisely do you think that the phrase means in standard conversational English?
This is ducking the question, which was seeing as how ISIS swore to exterminate the U.S. as we know it before the U.S. took any steps against it (when it was the J.V. team), then how is their vow a reaction to sporadic and ineffective sorties?Quote:You write this like history started on 9/10/2001. The US has been very active in the region for a very long time.
I don't think you understand voluntarism so let me try to explain it: The initiation of force or fraud against a person's property (including his body) is always wrong. The end. No more and no less--Property rights are pretty close to absolute.
This is not a complete theory of life, or morality, but it covers most of our obligations to strangers, namely "keep your mitts to yourself". Now you tell me how this theory, which we all observe in our everyday lives, is wrong and we need our wise overlords to steal a third of our income to terrorize foreigners.
On the monopoly thing---I am not satisfied with your response, and frankly I think you are violating the rules of debating as a gentleman. You claimed that a retailer could wildly vary his prices to drive out competition, I showed that this has never happened in the history of man as we know it, that an economist would be embarrassed to hear such an idea from a colleague, and then went on to describe several mechanisms which would render the plan unworkable by quoting a fellow Harvard man, Dr Tom Woods. You cannot simply respond that you don't find he question interesting anymore. Either concede that you were indeed wrong or explain why Dr Woods and the entirety of economic academia is wrong and you are right.
Quote: bigfoot66
On the monopoly thing---I am not satisfied with your response, and frankly I think you are violating the rules of debating as a gentleman. You claimed that a retailer could wildly vary his prices to drive out competition, I showed that this has never happened in the history of man as we know it, that an economist would be embarrassed to hear such an idea from a colleague, and then went on to describe several mechanisms which would render the plan unworkable by quoting a fellow Harvard man, Dr Tom Woods. You cannot simply respond that you don't find he question interesting anymore. Either concede that you were indeed wrong or explain why Dr Woods and the entirety of economic academia is wrong and you are right.
I'd like to pull back on this a bit. You did say you might be wrong on his particular topic, most people are not intellectually honest enough to admit this. Thank you. It hits a nerve with me because most people think they understand some economic concepts like this one but they have it exactly backwards. When I take the time to point out their logical flaws I expect a very direct concession, but I expect too much. Your response was kind of a "yeah but still"....I heard "ok so I don't know the mechanism and you just shot major holes in that argument but I'm still right." I think I put an uncharitable spin on your words.
I appreciate that. I don't pretend to be a well-studied economist, and I've certainly never been a retail monopolist, so I don't have any experience that would bear on how I'd go about being one. If my example was a poor or ill-founded one, then it was. But I do have experience in game theory, which makes very clear that two parties acting in competition who both realize they can do better when colluding will do so. Everyone, I think, accepts that anti-competitive monopolies will arise naturally in an unregulated market, as in the case of Brown Shoe Co., and it's not clear to me that your flavor of anarchy would do anything about it. Would it? Or do you not view such a monopoly as coercive or otherwise restricting liberty?Quote: bigfoot66I'd like to pull back on this a bit. You did say you might be wrong on his particular topic, most people are not intellectually honest enough to admit this. Thank you. It hits a nerve with me because most people think they understand some economic concepts like this one but they have it exactly backwards. When I take the time to point out their logical flaws I expect a very direct concession, but I expect too much. Your response was kind of a "yeah but still"....I heard "ok so I don't know the mechanism and you just shot major holes in that argument but I'm still right." I think I put an uncharitable spin on your words.
Anarchy literally means "without a ruler," but corporations always have executives and workers. Part of the problem here is that you haven't defined your flavor of anarchy. There are many of them, including those that abhor capitalism and agitate for the abolition of private property altogether. The fact that you and your polar opposites both call yourselves "anarchists" is a marketing problem -- nobody knows what someone actually means when they say "I'm an anarchist." Ironically, given your distaste for intellectual property law, that's precisely the problem that trademark law was designed to address.Quote:ME---on my phone but wanted to make a couple of points. You say corporations are antithetical to anarchy because they are hierarchical....huh? When did I ever say I opposed hierarchy?
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the socialist anarchy philosophy here, but I don't think you subscribe to that anyway so let's not have me be their proxy. I was trying to make the point that not all self-titled anarchists believe in private property rights. I believe in private property rights, and I also believe in intellectual property rights. We'll get to that later I guess, but I still haven't heard an answer to any of the IP questions I asked. Such as "is it okay to plagiarize my book and sell it yourself?"Quote:Private property is coercion? I am totally lost. I run in anarchist circles and I have never met one who made that claim. In fact I don't even begin to understand the claim.
Law enforcement is always coercive. A law without the threat of enforcement is just a suggestion. In an anarchist society, who makes the laws? What happens when two people disagree as to the interpretation of a law or of what actions are permitted or not permitted under it? Who decides? If someone flat-out disagrees with a law, aren't they being coerced by having to follow it? After all, isn't that essentially your argument against the tax code?Quote:You say that in anarchy there cannot be law: when did I say this? Law predates government. Law, hierarchy, and private property are all completely compatible with anarchy--in fact property rights are the philosophical backbone, and law is a close second.
Yes, absolutely you sometimes need to initiate force against others. To believe otherwise is to not have children, or to comprehend that people have different points of view:Quote:I don't think you understand voluntarism so let me try to explain it: The initiation of force or fraud against a person's property (including his body) is always wrong. The end. No more and no less--Property rights are pretty close to absolute.
This is not a complete theory of life, or morality, but it covers most of our obligations to strangers, namely "keep your mitts to yourself". Now you tell me how this theory, which we all observe in our everyday lives, is wrong and we need our wise overlords to steal a third of our income to terrorize foreigners.
a) Bob is walking. Jim runs up to Bob and shoves him. Is Jim in the wrong?
b) Bob is walking in a crosswalk. Jim runs up to Bob and shoves him out of the way of a taxi that ran a red light and was aiming directly for Bob. Is Jim in the wrong?
c) Bob is walking in a crosswalk into moving traffic because he's trying to kill himself. Jim runs up to Bob and shoves him out of the way of a taxi, saving his life. Is Jim in the wrong?
All that said, you're generally right -- the Golden Rule (in the negative form) is a reasonable way to go about your daily life under the assumption that most of your neighbors have the same values as you do. That was far more true in ancient times than it is today, but it's still a good rule. And the protection of liberty is a fundamental tenet of the formation of the United States:
Quote: Declaration of IndependenceWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The difference between us, I think, is that I recognize that in order to get as close to an ideal world where nobody ever initiates unjustified force or fraud against someone or their property, there needs to be the threat of law enforcement "to provide new Guards for their future security." I can't believe that you think an entire society can somehow be made to agree to get along and live peacefully without that threat of such enforcement. Our current society does have the threat of enforcement and we still don't all get along. There will always be cheaters and criminals. The question is which form of social organization can best deal with them. I don't see how that's anarchy if, as it seems to me, anarchy requires everyone to be on the same page.
