Public goods: Fallacy or not? Also, production of security

[Augustine2004]

Ryokan and I got in a snit over whether public goods are real or not. He says yes; I say no. I challenged him to prove Hoppe wrong.

This is Hoppe's argument:
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf

Here's Ryokan's opening salvo:

Lets go more generally, and practically. I ignore Hoppe's sophistry or confusion regarding the difference between public and private goods with large externalities and our obvious disagreement in regards to market efficiency and why markets are good. Rather I will hit him at the heart of it. Hoppe seems to think that private security frims could somehow do the job, as far as I can tell. There is no mechanism to prevent collusion amongst security firms and them using that power to form, shock, a government that provides security. The abiltiy to enforce contracts, uphold laws, etc. so on and so forth depends alot on force. Where there is not a monopoly over the use of force in an area the first thing a group will do is attempt to seize that monopoly. So even ignoring all Hoppe's convoluted junk and ignorance regarding public goods on a strictly practical level private security doesn't work because private security firms have no incentive to make it work. That is why so many Italian city states in the Renaissance period ending up being run by their "private security firms" privateers generally looted any merchant ships they saw rather than just the enemies fleets, and no country to today exist with either having its own security or effectively giving up soveriegnty to another nation in exchange for it.
Additionally, if Hoppe's arguement can't be taken apart, rephrased, reworded, analysed etc. then it is a waste.

Ryokan’s response is clearly not based on carefully and thoroughly studying Hoppe’s argument. He probably just skimmed through.

The last sentence makes me wonder! It may be true: It is only a logical implication. However I suspect a dodge on Ryokan’s part.

Will Ryokan please go through the first few pages of Hoppe carefully and thoroughly. The first sentence or passage that he disagrees with, will he please copy that and explain adequately why he disagrees?

This Ryokan salvo is copied from yet another thread:

He lists roads, railroads, streets, the postal service and a rose garden as public goods in "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism". He also argues that security is considered special because it has "are said to have the special characteristic that their enjoyment cannot be restricted to those persons who have actually financed their production. Rather, people who have not participated in their financing can draw benefits from them, too. Such goods are called public goods or services (as opposed to private goods or services, which exclusively benefit those people who actually paid for them). And it is due to this special feature of public goods, it is argued, that markets cannot produce them, or at least not in sufficient quantity or quality, and hence compensatory state action is required." That is a defintiion not of public goods, but any goods with externalities. If that does not demonstrate Hoppe is either playing a bit of slight of hand or doesn't know what he is talking about I don't know what you want.

Quick lesson: There are 4 kinds of goods: Private goods(rival and exclusive), collective good (excludable, nonrivalrous), common goods (rivalrous, nonexcludable), and finally public goods (nonrivalrous, non-excludable). Roads, rails, the postal service, streets are actually private goods. . They are rival, and they are excludable. They have large externalities, very very large, and so they are usually handled by the government. But they are not public goods. National security is a public good because a. I can't be excluded from its use (and therefore have little incentive to pay for it) and (and this is key) its non-rivalrous. Hoppe ignores that.

If that does not demonstrate Hoppe is either playing a bit of slight of hand or doesn't know what he is talking about I don't know what you want.

Quick lesson: There are 4 kinds of goods: Private goods(rival and exclusive), collective good (excludable, nonrivalrous), common goods (rivalrous, nonexcludable), and finally public goods (nonrivalrous, non-excludable).Indeed, Hoppe does not classify goods the way you did (4 classes, public, collective, common, and private), but as far as I can tell, his argument still applies to all of them. You are playing a semantic card.

Roads, rails, the postal service, streets are actually private goods. . They are rival, and they are excludable. They have large externalities, very very large, and so they are usually handled by the government. But they are not public goods. So what! Hoppe has plenty of things to say about positive and negative externalities, and don’t give me any “very very large” guff. That may be true, but it doesn’t follow that the government should provide such goods. National security is a public good because a. I can't be excluded from its use (and therefore have little incentive to pay for it) and (and this is key) its non-rivalrous. Hoppe ignores that.How can you say that! A whole section that explains how the free market may provide security! Hint: insurance companies.

Back to back posting is frowned on here. I have mereged these into one post.

[Philosophickle]

:dizzy:
Are you debating yourself?

[Augustine2004]

I'm sorry, I should have edited 'Augustine2004' to 'Ryokan' where appropriate. Again I apologize for the confusion.

[Objectitron]

Link isn't working

[JonLanceBarker]

Aug...if there is a vacuum of power, why would no one wish to fill it by seizing power? :eh:

that seems to be the thrust of Ryokan's argument, and you know what...it makes perfect sense. :hamster:

that seems to be what you must refute...i'd love to see you try. :grin:

[Augustine2004]

Link isn't workingJust tried it & it works fine. Did you notice it's a pdf, not html? The webpage linked here is html, but it has many typos because of conversion from pdf format to html.

http://209.85.173.104/u/Mises?q=cache:P06X0d0Qin8J:www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf+public+good&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

[Augustine2004]

Aug...if there is a vacuum of power, why would no one wish to fill it by seizing power? :eh:

that seems to be the thrust of Ryokan's argument, and you know what...it makes perfect sense. :hamster:

that seems to be what you must refute...i'd love to see you try. :grin:sigh . . . you can give a statist a link to mises.org, but you can't make him study it. Why should I bother arguing with someone who won't trouble to understand what I or other libertarians say?

Anyway, I will try something.

I've said this before, but maybe you didn't see that. If everyone were truly Christian, would the world need government? If not, would the government be truly Christian? It may seem as though I'm oversimplifying things, but then we'd be arguing over borderline cases, like 50% saints, 50% devils.

[JonLanceBarker]

sigh . . . you can give a statist a link to mises.org, but you can't make him study it.

actually, i did look at Hoppe's work some...i stopped reading it after i barfed. :eww:

Why should I bother arguing with someone who won't trouble to understand what I or other libertarians say?

why should i bother arguing with someone who only goes to lew rockwell for his news and mises.org for his economic theory?

what did you believe before you kneeled at their feet? :eh:

Anyway, I will try something.

ok.

I've said this before, but maybe you didn't see that.

or maybe i did. :whistle:

If everyone were truly Christian, would the world need government?

yes, because no one knows everything about everything and everyone needs guidance and leadership to know what to do in certain situations.
in heaven, we will be governed by God. (of course, we won't be fallen anymore, but we'll still need guidance and leadership.)
until then, we are governed by fallen, corrupted man...or men.

If not, would the government be truly Christian?

even if it was "truly Christian," there'd still be problems, because in this life men are still fallen.

It may seem as though I'm oversimplifying things, but then we'd be arguing over borderline cases, like 50% saints, 50% devils.

see above for why you're just being silly. :hehe:

[Augustine2004]

actually, i did look at Hoppe's work some...i stopped reading it after i barfed. :eww:Where were you in Hoppe's work then?

[Mr Arkadin]

Here's what I have written about monopsony in regards to employment though the analysis can easily be applied to monopoly.

Now the wages paid for these jobs are determined like any other factor of production: the competing bids of entrepreneurs. The upper limit being the expected increase in revenue generated by the extra factor of production- otherwise known as the MRP of labour. If the wage falls below the MRP of labour then gain derived from an extra worker will increase the demand for it pushing wages back to the MRP; if the wage is above the MRP then entrepreneurs will lay off workers (Mises, 1998). However it is argued a monopsonistic position can arise whereby a firm reduces wages below their MRP. This is the theory underlying the supposed increase in employment caused by the minimum wage as found by Card and Krueger (Metcalf, 2003). The concept of monopsony is flawed since it does not take into account of the fact that labour, as all other factors, is heterogeneous- labour in general does not exist. If one wanted a cleaner he would not have general demand for it, including bankers and brokers, but a demand for cleaning one’s buildings. Furthermore, since labour is a non-specific factor of production, unlike most capital goods, being a monopsonist in a single market is not enough to drive wages below the labourer’s MRP since he could change job and enter a different industry to receive his MRP; so to avoid that happening the employer must pay his MRP. Yet having control of all markets at one time would still not yield a wage lower than the MRP if there was freedom of entry into the market- no legal barriers to entry. This is because if the firm was again paying below the MRP entrepreneurs would see the large marginal gain per worker and enter into the market, increasing the demand for labour, thus raising wages back to the MRP. Finally since there is no objective way to derive what the wage rate would be without monopsony, since one would have to guess what the willingness to pay would be and attempt to calculate the costs for the firm; however costs for each firm are subjective, and are really only ever opportunity costs, so this is also impossible. Therefore, one cannot distinguish between a competitive wage and the prevailing market price. The only conceivable entity which could produce monopsony wages would be a truly socialist state owning all factors of production and erecting legal barriers to entry. It must therefore be concluded, contrary to Metcalf (Metcalf, 2003) that any minimum wage rate, above the market rate, will lead to either: lower employment, less hours, less good working conditions or less holidays; or a combination of the four than would otherwise have been if the minimum wage had not been introduced. If one was unemployed because of this it would be a form of institutional unemployment.

For a more thorough treatment see Chapter 10 of Rothbard's Man, Economy and State here (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp).

This demonstrates that a monopoly cannot arise on a free market. Even if this analysis was wrong however the fact that world government doesn't exist proves that the defence market does not tend to geographical monopoly. The only way this could be false is if the governments incentive structure was substantially different than the market, which indeed it is, but which would prevent world government.

[Augustine2004]

Kim Komando recommends this pdf reader. I have never used it, but I think she's a good computer guru. The website does not say whether the reader can serve as a plug-in in your Internet browser; it's possible that you will have to first download pdf files to your HD, fire up the reader and open the pdf file that you want with it.

http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php

[Ryokan]

Will Ryokan please go through the first few pages of Hoppe carefully and thoroughly. The first sentence or passage that he disagrees with, will he please copy that and explain adequately why he disagrees?
Augustine, I have a life. I have other things to do. I will not cut and paste apart Hoppe's entire arguement.

[QUOTE]
So what! Hoppe has plenty of things to say about positive and negative externalities, and don’t give me any “very very large” guff. That may be true, but it doesn’t follow that the government should provide such goods. Because they would be under produced or over produced otherwise? How can you say that! A whole section that explains how the free market may provide security! Hint: insurance companies.

* moderator notice *
I don't buy his security explaination. Maxim in life: The strong do what they can, the weak what they must. There is no way to construct a society where there is a greater payoff for the security provider not to cease power than to do so. That's just real life.

Now why don't we actually talk this out. I want to talk to Augustine, not Hoppe.

[Augustine2004]

Augustine, I have a life. I have other things to do. I will not cut and paste apart Hoppe's entire arguement.
That looks like a dodge! You do have time to post your unsupported opinions here.
Because they would be under produced or over produced otherwise? Man, must I repeat myself!? How would you know what the alternative world be like!?

I don't buy his security explaination. I'm asking you, why not!? Be specific, man. Maxim in life: The strong do what they can, the weak what they must. There is no way to construct a society where there is a greater payoff for the security provider not to cease power than to do so. That's just real life.

Now why don't we actually talk this out. I want to talk to Augustine, not Hoppe.The latter sentence is a dodge, seems like. The rest is true to some extent unfortunately, but things are not completely hopeless. Anyway, the point still remains, big government does NOT do more good than bad. Now, if your point is that we're going to have big government anyway, whether I prove my point or not, I fear you may be right.


Sorry! I neglected to mention that the pdf file reader is free. Really, really huge positive externality (I try to top Ryokan), and yet it’s FREE. Not at all provided by the government. We are free! Yea!

Essentially speaking, ‘externalities’ as the economists use that term is really no more than ‘likes,’ ‘dislikes,’ ‘wants,’ and ‘vexations.' If you wonder whether discussion or analysis of externalities should really be in ethics, not economics, you’d be right. Economists do assume that individuals act according to their wants and vexations, but they are supposed to make NO ethical judgements of motivations or actions. They may make specific assumptions, for example, Aunt May loves to grow roses, but they would be only for analysis or discussion of specific examples or instances from an economist’s standpoint.

You may wonder if externalities varies with the individual and even with time. For examples, Bob hates roses because of an ugly childhood incident in his past; Sally once hated tamales, but now she loves them. You’d be right.

To go from the fact of varying externalities to the conclusion that the government should do something about them is a non sequitur. The conclusion is an ethical matter. Too many Christians are taken in by the public-good nonsense, instead of following the Bible and thinking carefully and thoroughly about what it says and implies.

[Ryokan]

Talking to you is a waste of time. I don't know why I try. You are a rude, incoherent broken record.

[Augustine2004]

Dodge! It appears from what you wrote that you consider Hoppe's ENTIRE argument to be wrong. You may therefore consider the following paragraph to be wrong. Please explain as specifically as you can. Please?

[from page 2 of Hoppe's argument]The examples given by different authors of alleged public

goods vary widely. Authors often classify the same good or service differently, leaving almost no classification of a particular good

undisputed, which clearly foreshadows the illusory character of the whole distinction.' Nonetheless, some examples that enjoy particularly

popular status as public goods are the fire brigade that stops a neighbor's house from catching fire, thereby letting him profit from my fire

brigade, even though he did not contribute anything to financing it; or the police that, by walking around my property scare away potential

burglars from my neighbor's property as well, even if he did not help finance the patrols; or the lighthouse, an example particularly dear to

economists,' that helps a ship find her way even though the ship's owner did not contribute a penny to its construction or upkeep.

[Augustine2004]

But, of course, leaving security completely to the "market" - without governments, that literally translates into mafia, gangster, and warlord rule - is better, right? :lol::lol::lol:
In the first place, that would not be the free market. Free trades among individuals. The free market is nothing more than those, all right?

In the second place, didn’t you see what I had written about there being a need for a ‘critical mass’ of virtue? If it’s not there, then yes, we’d have warlords or some sort of feudal system, perhaps.

If the above answer doesn’t satisfy you, please ask questions. Please don’t make me guess why not.

[nomad]

Sounds like the argument boils down to 'If people would just act the way they are supposed to, we wouldn't need the government to make them'. You're not the first person to make that argument, though you are probably one of the only ones to suggest it is realistic.

[Augustine2004]

Sounds like the argument boils down to 'If people would just act the way they are supposed to, we wouldn't need the government to make them'. You're not the first person to make that argument, though you are probably one of the only ones to suggest it is realistic.JonLanceBarker and Nomad need to improve their reading comprehension. Sure, I did say that if people would be good they wouldn’t need government. Sure, I did say that we need good government, I mean GOOD government, to make us be good. Now will you jokers please explain how a bad people can make good government. I’ve asked that repeatedly and still haven’t gotten a good answer. If you jokers have nothing to contribute but giving each other amens, bug off.

[nomad]

OK, I'll read it in more detail tomorrow when I have time. But I find the fact that a libertarian expects the government to make us good - well, it's not what I expect from libertarians.

I don't expect the government to make us good. What I expect the government to do is smooth out the differences and act as a constraint on the worst of human behavior. Is it going to make people good? No, but it may make them bearable to live with.

[Augustine2004]

No, the point is that I expect big government to make things worse. We therefore have to keep it minimal.

JonLanceBarker, when are you going to buckle down and really try to understand my arguments? Or just don't bother any more with my threads. OK?

[JonLanceBarker]

when you argue in order to actually try to understand how the world works, instead of standing in the gap for your wingnut demagogue idols, i will pay closer attention to you when you argue.

do we have a deal? :smile:

[Augustine2004]

Here's an interesting example of government having to call in a private company to do what supposedly only it can do.

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/refinery-fire-becomes-dormant-volcano/20080212152909990002

JonLanceBaker, what? You don't understand how the world really works? I'm sorry, I don't bother much with idiots like you. Or if you're not really an idiot, then I don't bother much with people who are lazy about figuring out things.

[JonLanceBarker]

hey aug:

instead of standing in the gap for your wingnut demagogue idols

that was the part you should have paid attention to.

i may not know EVERYTHING about how the world works...but i know enough to tell what's horse hockey when i read it.

[Augustine2004]

Jon Lance Baker, if you fail this IQ test, I would like you to stop posting here and in my other present ones and future ones.

Super Man barbers 6,000 heads a minute; Super Woman, 9,000 heads a minute. He types 3,000 pages a minute; she, 6,000 pages a minute. They jointly run a barbering and typing business. One day someone asks them to barber 600,000 heads and type 600,000 pages in 100 minutes. Can they do it? How should they divide the labor to meet the order? For example, they could divide the task equally. Super Man would barber 300,000 heads and type 300,000 pages; Super Woman would do the rest. They can't fill the order that way. Suppose Super Man starts with the typing. In 100 minutes he can do only 300,000 pages -- and no heads barbered. Super Woman would do 300,000 heads and 300,000 pages in a little more than 83 minutes. In the time left she can do only 150,000 heads, falling short by 150,000 heads of filling the order.


Can they fill the order? If so, how?

[JonLanceBarker]

easy. Superman barbers all the heads and Superwoman types all the pages.

now go to mob rule hell. :mob:

[JonLanceBarker]

:glare: by the way, it's repulsively arrogant of you to require an IQ test for anyone who posts in your threads.

(it didn't work out well for you, in any case. :grin:)

ETA: it's BARKER.

[Augustine2004]

The fact of the economy’s interdependency is used in this argument against the provision of services or things by the government. Autistic economies are possible, in which case each autistic economy is considered one-by-one separately. However the world economy even including North Korea is assumed to be entirely interdependent, for simplicity.

The phrase big government here means a government that takes resources from the world by force or chicanery to ostensibly make the world better than otherwise. Minimal governments are not considered to make the world better except insofar as punishing the evildoer and praising the good citizen do make it better.

First, what do economists mean by economic scarcity? Our wants are infinite, but the universe is thought to be finite. More practically speaking, everyone’s immediately available resources are finite. She or he is thus chronically dissatisfied with the world. In general, every human action is an attempt to lessen the dissatisfaction.

Many ‘economists’ charge that the free market underproduces this or that, or that the free market supplies things or provides services at prices that are ‘too high’, or those people predict such happenings. You may have heard the phrase, ‘market failure.’ Indeed, from the perspective of economic scarcity, the free market is always underproducing.

Can the big government overcome the economic scarcity of the world? No. Even if the government uses its own internal resources for particular purposes, the resources can be used instead by the free market for the same or other purposes. The relative growth in a part of the economy that is caused by the government sets back the rest of the economy correspondingly, because the economy is interdependent. That is inevitable and unavoidable, however clever and knowledgeable the big government may be. Why may we not think, ‘government failure’ rather than ‘market failure’? Robert Heinlein said that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Another Robert, Dr. Higgs, said that the big government is like someone who scoops up some water from the deep side of a swimming pool, walks to the shallow end and dumps the water there, thinking that the water level will thereby rise.

The more interdependent the economy is, the better the argument is. However, if the economy consists of autistic individuals, then it’s not really an economy and we may not have big government either. If the economy is not autistic but is not rather interdependent, the argument is still adequate.

We have to use ethics to decide which approach is better, those of the free market and the big government. Economics can tell us what some consequences would occur, but it cannot tell us which approach would be better. (Sometimes, though, if a government action is undertaken to ostensibly benefit some small group or another, say the poor, economics can show that the Law of Unintended and/or Opposite Consequences applies. That is, we have to expect that the action will NOT benefit the poor. The poor may in fact become worse off. An example is minimum-wage laws.)

It can be shown that the Bible implicitly mandates the free market (do not steal; do not covet; do not lie to benefit yourself or your friend or your relative, etc.) A Christian would therefore not be a supporter of big government. Maybe obey it, as long as you do not do evil, but try to change it.

[Augustine2004]

I'm sorry about misspelling your name.easy. Superman barbers all the heads and Superwoman types all the pages.Very good. You may not be the idiot that I thought you were. The next test is much harder, though.


For this test, please assume that everyone knows the benefits of good division of labor and specialization (for example, Super Man and Super Woman in my last post). (Of course the assumption is far from being true, unfortunately. They seldom teach things like that in g’ment schools.) Please discuss the implication of the assumption as to what choice people would tend to make, minimal government versus Big Government.

[JonLanceBarker]

I'm sorry about misspelling your name.

apology noted...i forgive you. moving on....

Very good. You may not be the idiot that I thought you were.

i'm ecstatic that you think so highly of me. :ahem:...

The next test is much harder, though.

uh huh...more of your arbitrary jury-rigged questions, i assume...

For this test, please assume that everyone knows the benefits of good division of labor and specialization (for example, Super Man and Super Woman in my last post).

ok...........:eh:

(Of course the assumption is far from being true, unfortunately. They seldom teach things like that in g’ment schools.)

i love all these charitably unfounded assumptions you're making...

Please discuss the implication of the assumption as to what choice people would tend to make, minimal government versus Big Government.

since this is a far more loaded question than the first, and on a far more ambiguous topic than simple mathematics, i will later require a few qualifiers as to what exactly you mean. (my idea of a "minimal" govt. or a "big" govt. may not be the same as your idea of either govt. also, what is "minimal" or "big" for Luxembourg may be very, very different compared to what is "minimal" or "big" for the US.)

also, i am still repulsed by your arrogance in assuming that i am an idiot simply for disagreeing with you, and that your arbitrary "IQ test" will automatically weed out those who do not deserve to argue with you...this demonstrates to me that you are not really interested in a two-way discussion, just a one-way exposition in which you cannot be falsified, and therefore you cannot be wrong.

however...so that it may be said that i did try to engage you on fair terms...

the implication of the assumption is merely that people would want a government that allows a laissez-faire economy. the "size" of the government is a secondary issue, and would be settled on a case-by-case basis.

the government of a semi-rural village can afford to be minimal...it's an extremely small sphere of influence.
the government of a large kingdom, on the other hand, obviously has to be "bigger" so that order is maintained. this does not imply that laissez-faire principles must be done away with!

about security...there is no real difference between a government and a private enterprise in their provision of security.

the government requires compensation (monetary or otherwise) to continue to be able to provide security.
so would a private enterprise.

what is the real difference between taxes set by the government and prices set by a private corporation?

the citizens who are under the protection of a government may rightly consider themselves beneficiaries of the government.
the same principle would apply to customers of the security-providing enterprise.

what is the real difference between the citizens and the customers in each setting?

in practice, there is no difference.

we can reasonably consider ourselves "customers" of the government; and we would have to admit that we were "citizens" of the private corporation...which would in effect be a government.

i fail to see the reason in your position...unless you decide that it is immoral for a large kingdom or empire to exist.

[Augustine2004]

i love all these charitably unfounded assumptions you're making...What are you implying? Are you implying that everybody knows about the benefits of good division of labor and specialization? Or something else?

since this is a far more loaded question than the first, and on a far more ambiguous topic than simple mathematics, i will later require a few qualifiers as to what exactly you mean. (my idea of a "minimal" govt. or a "big" govt. may not be the same as your idea of either govt. also, what is "minimal" or "big" for Luxembourg may be very, very different compared to what is "minimal" or "big" for the US.)Loaded question? I wish I know what you got out of my posts.

I tried to define 'minimal' government and 'Big Government' reasonably, and there you go, using your own ideas of 'minimal government' and 'Big Government.' A common tactic in debate is to refuse to use terms in the way the first person to use them used them. I don't know if that’s the case.


also, i am still repulsed by your arrogance in assuming that i am an idiot simply for disagreeing with you, and that your arbitrary "IQ test" will automatically weed out those who do not deserve to argue with you...this demonstrates to me that you are not really interested in a two-way discussion, just a one-way exposition in which you cannot be falsified, and therefore you cannot be wrong.If you can find a few clear counterexamples from history, I’d appreciate it. Literally, if a person ‘simply disagrees’ with a serious attempt to reach a conclusion, he’d be an idiot, won’t he?
So far you have not really shown why you disagree. I really want to know why you disagree, but so far it’s been a waste of time. More warning, if you continue to waste my time, I will finally ask the moderator to take away your posting privilege.

the implication of the assumption is merely that people would want a government that allows a laissez-faire economy. the "size" of the government is a secondary issue, and would be settled on a case-by-case basis. I will give you an I for incomplete. You did pass the first test, so I will continue to work with you. My patience is wearing thin, though.

the government of a semi-rural village can afford to be minimal...it's an extremely small sphere of influence.
the government of a large kingdom, on the other hand, obviously has to be "bigger" so that order is maintained. this does not imply that laissez-faire principles must be done away with!

about security...there is no real difference between a government and a private enterprise in their provision of security.

the government requires compensation (monetary or otherwise) to continue to be able to provide security.
so would a private enterprise.

what is the real difference between taxes set by the government and prices set by a private corporation?

the citizens who are under the protection of a government may rightly consider themselves beneficiaries of the government.
the same principle would apply to customers of the security-providing enterprise.

what is the real difference between the citizens and the customers in each setting?

in practice, there is no difference.

we can reasonably consider ourselves "customers" of the government; and we would have to admit that we were "citizens" of the private corporation...which would in effect be a government.

i fail to see the reason in your position...unless you decide that it is immoral for a large kingdom or empire to exist.First, look who’s making assumptions that need to be proven! Second, don’t you base your ethics on the Bible? You seem not to be familiar with it.

What assumptions other than the one I've explictly stated in my last post do you think I've made?

[Augustine2004]

I just read something that may or may not apply to a certain poster in this thread:

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is contempt prior to investigation"

~ Herbert Spencer (1820–1903)

[Ryokan]

First, look who’s making assumptions that need to be proven! Second, don’t you base your ethics on the Bible? You seem not to be familiar with it

I am going to wade back in to point out that, no, Roman Catholics and the Orthodox do not base their morality on the bible.

[Augustine2004]

This seems to be my best summary of Hoppe’s argument yet.

Given an actual or potential service or thing, no objective procedure exist to measure its rivalry attribute, excludability, and externality. Everyone lives in a world of his own, different from that of everyone else. Everyone has his own idiosyncratic way of evaluating his world, with a different scale of values. For example some people love classical music, others hate music, and others like it but prefer other forms of music. Everyone has his own idiosyncratic way of expressing his opinions. Let me add the point that we have no intelligent way to aggregate and average the opinions. If someone said, “On a scale of zero to ten, the rivalry attribute is about 10.” Someone else says 1. How do you average these numbers in any meaningful sense? How to summarize the data in any useful way if some say it has positive externality and others say negative? Like beauty, externalities are all in the mind, individual minds.

The idea of public goods is therefore impractical or unworkable. Moreover even if the idea did have any sort of usefulness, it doesn’t follow that the government should therefore provide them.

[Augustine2004]

Clarification: Jon Lance Barker is still welcome to post here, as long as the why of each of his posts is clear. Just disagreeing especially in such a disagreeable manner is not welcome, if it’s not apparent why you disagree.

[nomad]

So, let me try rephrasing your summary:

When considering a possible good (public or otherwise), everyone will have a different evaluation of its value. It's impossible (or highly unlikely) that everyone will agree that it is a 'good' (we call them goods for a reason). A public 'good' would have to be something everyone agrees is a good; because this isn't possible, public goods don't exist.

Am I close?

Is he also an anarchist (I think you are, so I don't think it's inconsistent)? Before I argue against this, I would like to know how you feel about, say, passing a law in a democracy. Or maybe you're against that too.

I.E. a law against, say, requiring seatbelts for children under 5 would be considered as a laudable enforcement of the public order by some, and an unnecessary intrusion into private affairs by others. Since there are people who do not consider it 'good', it can't be called a good law.

Seems very similar.

[Augustine2004]

Well, looks like Jon Lance Barker’s not much of a Biter, nothing from him for several days. Maybe he’s gone elsewhere to bark up others. Here’s how I would answer my own challenge.

I assume for now that everyone wants peace and prosperity. I will consider more realistic and complicated situations later. The question is, which is better for good division of labor and specialization, the free market versus Big Government?

I will not consider explicitly in detail the case against central command and control economies, which has already been set forth in www.mises.org

First, what is the labor, exactly, what is to be divided? Absent the free market, the big government must guess. The free market must also make some guesses to anticipate what people want, but they can more quickly show their preferences by buying or refraining from buying. Not only that, but their bought preferences are displayed in terms of numbers (prices). In other words, their preferences are quantified precisely. The Big Government, on the other hand, to the extent that its operations displace or destroy the free market, must necessarily operate in a vacuum of information, so to speak.

Second, who is the best at doing what? An argument similar to the above again gives the nod to the free market. Also, poor performers are quickly starved out, whereas if Big Government do a poor job, sometimes nothing short of violent revolution will exterminate it.

So, we should go with the free market. However, what about a world like our present one, in which some people seem to prefer war and poverty not necessarily for themselves but for others? The answer to the question of what the labor is exactly becomes more nebulous, and depends on what our ethics should be. I can only suggest Christian ethics. The labor would then include apprehension of evil-doers, investigations of their evil-doings, respective judicial proceedings (trials) and their punishment. If the free market is still a major part of the economy, the argument above (“First” and “Second”) applies. If not, well, then all I will say is, good luck.

[Augustine2004]

So, let me try rephrasing your summary:

When considering a possible good (public or otherwise), everyone will have a different evaluation of its value. It's impossible (or highly unlikely) that everyone will agree that it is a 'good' (we call them goods for a reason). A public 'good' would have to be something everyone agrees is a good; because this isn't possible, public goods don't exist.

Am I close?

Is he also an anarchist (I think you are, so I don't think it's inconsistent)? Before I argue against this, I would like to know how you feel about, say, passing a law in a democracy. Or maybe you're against that too.

I.E. a law against, say, requiring seatbelts for children under 5 would be considered as a laudable enforcement of the public order by some, and an unnecessary intrusion into private affairs by others. Since there are people who do not consider it 'good', it can't be called a good law.

Seems very similar.Someone invented the idea of ‘public good’ because, I think, he wanted to give the public a reason to support Big Government. Public goods allegedly have characteristics such that Big Government (natch!) should produce them.

Insurance companies already give discounts for good driving. Perhaps you’ve seen those TV commercials? My insurance company gives me a discount for the air bag on my car IIRC. If it were not for Big Government butting in, I think there would be discounts for seat belts also.

I think that if one got into an accident not wearing a seat belt, I think he’d lose money because of that. Most people would know that, so would wear seat belts. Of course there are foolish people or thrill-seekers, but I’m not inclined to get into much of a pother over them.

[JonLanceBarker]

Well, looks like Jon Lance Barker’s not much of a Biter,

oooooh...CLEVER....like i haven't seen that one before.....:ahem:

nothing from him for several days. Maybe he’s gone elsewhere to bark up others.

first of all...i kinda have a life, and this argument is rather low on my list of priorities.
i have MUCH better things to do here than argue with you about your ignorant view of the world.
(stick THAT in your self-esteem pipe and smoke it.)

Here’s how I would answer my own challenge.

i await the emanations of your enlightened wisdom, O Siddhartha...:no:

I assume for now that everyone wants peace and prosperity. I will consider more realistic and complicated situations later. The question is, which is better for good division of labor and specialization, the free market versus Big Government?

why pit them against each other when they can clearly coexist, as they do in our society?

I will not consider explicitly in detail the case against central command and control economies, which has already been set forth in www.mises.org

First, what is the labor, exactly, what is to be divided? Absent the free market, the big government must guess. The free market must also make some guesses to anticipate what people want, but they can more quickly show their preferences by buying or refraining from buying. Not only that, but their bought preferences are displayed in terms of numbers (prices). In other words, their preferences are quantified precisely. The Big Government, on the other hand, to the extent that its operations displace or destroy the free market, must necessarily operate in a vacuum of information, so to speak.

ok...so? i'm not arguing against the free market's existence, i'm arguing that there are certain things a government is required to do which should not be left in the hands of the far-too-unstable-for-that-job marketplace.

Second, who is the best at doing what? An argument similar to the above again gives the nod to the free market. Also, poor performers are quickly starved out, whereas if Big Government do a poor job, sometimes nothing short of violent revolution will exterminate it.

again...so what? in our society, we already have a mechanism for change if someone in government does a REALLY poor job.

So, we should go with the free market.

do you agree that the free market cannot exist without law enforcement protecting it?

without law enforcement, anybody can assume monopolistic status if they have the force and firepower to back up their claim.

where does law enforcement come from, brainiac? :duh:

However, what about a world like our present one, in which some people seem to prefer war and poverty not necessarily for themselves but for others?

:huh: excuse me?! :twitch:

The answer to the question of what the labor is exactly becomes more nebulous, and depends on what our ethics should be. I can only suggest Christian ethics.

you really must define your terms more clearly. :no:

The labor would then include apprehension of evil-doers, investigations of their evil-doings, respective judicial proceedings (trials) and their punishment. If the free market is still a major part of the economy, the argument above (“First” and “Second”) applies. If not, well, then all I will say is, good luck.

:twitch: i don't see how you get from "free market economy is more efficient than governmental/command economy" to "free market should therefore replace government in every aspect."

that is a truly astounding leap in logic. :no:

[Augustine2004]

why pit them against each other when they can clearly coexist, as they do in our society?What an idiotic statement.



ok...so? i'm not arguing against the free market's existence, i'm arguing that there are certain things a government is required to do which should not be left in the hands of the far-too-unstable-for-that-job marketplace.



again...so what? in our society, we already have a mechanism for change if someone in government does a REALLY poor job.



do you agree that the free market cannot exist without law enforcement protecting it?

without law enforcement, anybody can assume monopolistic status if they have the force and firepower to back up their claim.

where does law enforcement come from, brainiac? :duh:



:huh: excuse me?! :twitch:



you really must define your terms more clearly. :no:



:twitch: i don't see how you get from "free market economy is more efficient than governmental/command economy" to "free market should therefore replace government in every aspect."

that is a truly astounding leap in logic. :no:That's it, I'm not arguing any more with you, and if you post any more without giving me any at least halfway decent why you disagree . . . ETA There are some people who adovocate that we deliberately forgo reproduction so that humanity would go out of existence. Anyway, what does anyone think of people who start wars ostensibly for the behalf of the people of a nation and insist on continuing them though they kill say 5% of the people already?

[JonLanceBarker]

What an idiotic statement.

what a refutation!

That's it, I'm not arguing any more with you

:no: coward. i await your answers to the following points:

do you agree that the free market cannot exist without law enforcement protecting it?

without law enforcement, anybody can assume monopolistic status if they have the force and firepower to back up their claim.

where does law enforcement come from, brainiac?

i don't see how you get from "free market economy is more efficient than governmental/command economy" to "free market should therefore replace government in every aspect."

you've shown me nothing to change my mind in these areas.

they are severe flaws in your thinking.

resolve the difficulty.

[Augustine2004]

what a refutation!I'm sorry. Apparently I had not yet given a definition of 'free market' in this thread.

Simplest definition: trading between true Christians.

Slightly more complicated: trading between true Christians and volunteer work and donations. 'Volunteer work' means charitable works. 'Donations' means charitable gifts.

More general: trading between people who practise Christian virtues (no stealing, no lying, intent to keep contracts, etc.) plus volunteer work and donations.

Yet more general: The market that is more or less like the above.

Still more general: The market that is free from government manipulation or intervention. May or may not include volunteer work or donations.

[Mr Arkadin]

do you agree that the free market cannot exist without law enforcement protecting it?

without law enforcement, anybody can assume monopolistic status if they have the force and firepower to back up their claim.

where does law enforcement come from, brainiac? :duh:



On your first point no.

Point two maybe. What one must remember about a monopoly is that it must be seen to be legitimate, or the authority that gave the firm a monopoly must be believed to be legitimate, otherwise they could confer no authority and would gain no public support. As David Hume pointed out the state, in particular, rests on the implicit consent of the governed. If all the population refused to cooperate with the state then it would immediately crumble.

Point 3. Saving and investment and voluntary exchange which is where all GOODS come from.



:twitch: i don't see how you get from "free market economy is more efficient than governmental/command economy" to "free market should therefore replace government in every aspect."

that is a truly astounding leap in logic. :no:

No it isn't. Either voluntary exchange of legitimately owned goods is the most efficient economic system or it is not.

A point that needs to made is that the so called Free Rider problem which public provision of goods tries to solve actually needs it to be solved voluntarily before the state exists. It is said that public goods will be under produced but so will the government on the market. The private costs of government are greater than the private benefits but the social benefits are greater than the social costs. So how does the state come into being. It must be the case to create the state that the free rider problem is insignificant and can be solved voluntarily and thus undermines the public goods theory completely.

[Augustine2004]

No it isn't. Either voluntary exchange of legitimately owned goods is the most efficient economic system or it is not.I thought that there's no scientific procedure to measure economic efficiency?

A point that needs to made is that the so called Free Rider problem which public provision of goods tries to solve actually needs it to be solved voluntarily before the state exists.Your point is that the state itself has a free rider problem? It is said that public goods will be under produced but so will the government on the market. I don't understand the last phrase - my view is that the government diminishes or destroys the market.The private costs of government are greater than the private benefits but the social benefits are greater than the social costs. The private cost to the ruling class is less than the private benefit in its estimation. Not sure what you mean by social costs and social benefits. Do you have any operational definitions of them? So how does the state come into being. It must be the case to create the state that the free rider problem is insignificant and can be solved voluntarily and thus undermines the public goods theory completely.I'm not sure what you're arguing. The very existence of the state completely undermines the public goods theory?

[Mr Arkadin]

I thought that there's no scientific procedure to measure economic efficiency?

We know that voluntary transactions are mutually beneficial and are optimal vis a vis each party involved. Further we know that monopolists reduce quality and increase price. So if people want government to provide a service, which they believe will be better than the market, they are in error and the outcome is sub optimal. In the case of naked aggression, plain robbery for the sake of it, then the answer is indeterminate.

Read this General Theory of Error Cycles by Hulsmann http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae1_4_1.pdf


Your point is that the state itself has a free rider problem?


Yes.


I don't understand the last phrase - my view is that the government diminishes or destroys the market.


It was a cheap shot at the statists. Since the market is antecedent to the state the market will not provide enough government due to the free rider problem; therefore there should be more governments which is patently false.


The private cost to the ruling class is less than the private benefit in its estimation.


Indeed.


Not sure what you mean by social costs and social benefits. Do you have any operational definitions of them?


I was just using the terminology of the statist in support of public goods theory.



I'm not sure what you're arguing. The very existence of the state completely undermines the public goods theory?

Yes. The existence of a state proves that the free rider is insignificant, the externalities can be internalised or are not as great as some argue, and renders the public goods theory null and void.

[Ryokan]

I'm sorry. Apparently I had not yet given a definition of 'free market' in this thread.

Simplest definition: trading between true Christians.


Why do you even bother debating with me Augustine and NOT disclose this? These sorts of idiocyncratic definitions make a BIG difference.

[Augustine2004]

Why do you even bother debating with me Augustine and NOT disclose this? These sorts of idiocyncratic definitions make a BIG difference.What is YOUR definition?

[Ryokan]

What is YOUR definition?

A market is a social construct which facillitates property rights, goods, or service exchange.
A free market is a market where prices are determined through the uncoerced, open interaction of buyers and sellers. That is to say third parties to not influence prices through force, neither do buyers or sellers, and buyers and sellers are open and honest.

Whether or not Christians are involved is meaningless. If you add that in your whole view shifts.

[Augustine2004]

A market is a social construct which facillitates property rights, goods, or service exchange.
A free market is a market where prices are determined through the uncoerced, open interaction of buyers and sellers. That is to say third parties to not influence prices through force, neither do buyers or sellers, and buyers and sellers are open and honest.

Whether or not Christians are involved is meaningless. If you add that in your whole view shifts.What do you mean, facilitates? Why not simply define the market as the totality of the exchanges of things (actually, property rights) or services and the failed attempts (bargaining, for example, or bid/ask) to make such exchanges?

[Ryokan]

What do you mean, facilitates? Why not simply define the market as the totality of the exchanges of things (actually, property rights) or services and the failed attempts (bargaining, for example, or bid/ask) to make such exchanges?

Because the exchange themselves are not the market, is all. The market is the framework within which exchanges take place.

[Augustine2004]

Because the exchange themselves are not the market, is all. The market is the framework within which exchanges take place.Autistic economics are possible. No exchanges at all. Maybe even no social interaction at all. Like in the asteroid belt. So, no market. Still an economy in that everyone is still subject to economic scarcity.

Anyway, markets qua ‘frameworks’ or ‘social constructs’ are not the most important features of economies in which exchanges do take place. The exchanges themselves are.

To keep you pacified, though, I will write from now on of market economies, free-market economies, and cpc economies (cpc = any kind of central planning and control scheme). Maybe use ME, FME, and CPCE. Perhaps you have a better suggestion, though.

[Ryokan]

Autistic economics are possible. No exchanges at all. Maybe even no social interaction at all. Like in the asteroid belt. So, no market. Still an economy in that everyone is still subject to economic scarcity.

Anyway, markets qua ‘frameworks’ or ‘social constructs’ are not the most important features of economies in which exchanges do take place. The exchanges themselves are.

To keep you pacified, though, I will write from now on of market economies, free-market economies, and cpc economies (cpc = any kind of central planning and control scheme). Maybe use ME, FME, and CPCE. Perhaps you have a better suggestion, though.
I don't vare about that, I want to understand the christian thing. I feel like I've wasted time discussing views from a pragmatic ground with you when you hold them religiously and use practicality as nothing more than window dressing. Your view of government is shaped by a phrase in the bible. Your view of economics may be too. At which point why bother discussing it with you, because its about your faith not the science. See?

[Augustine2004]

I don't vare about that, I want to understand the christian thing. I feel like I've wasted time discussing views from a pragmatic ground with you when you hold them religiously and use practicality as nothing more than window dressing. Your view of government is shaped by a phrase in the bible. Your view of economics may be too. At which point why bother discussing it with you, because its about your faith not the science. See?IIRC you said economics is a quasi-science. I don't agree. Its not an empirical science like physics or an observational science like astronomy or astronomical physics. It's still a science, though a rather distincitive science.

By writing ". . . a pragmatic ground with you when you hold them religiously and use practicality as nothing more than window dressing" you betray your misapprehension that economics alone can show us which actions to take. One does need economics, the correct kind, but it's not enough. One also needs ethics, the correct kind. I think, though I can't prove that, the correct kind of ethics is Christian.

I do wish you would stop calling yourself Christian and libertarian. You're neither. Call yourself pragmatist if you wish, I'll not dispute that self-designation.

[Ryokan]

IIRC you said economics is a quasi-science. I don't agree. Its not an empirical science like physics or an observational science like astronomy or astronomical physics. It's still a science, though a rather distincitive science. Okay.

By writing ". . . a pragmatic ground with you when you hold them religiously and use practicality as nothing more than window dressing" you betray your misapprehension that economics alone can show us which actions to take. It can show us the results of the actions we choose. We have to decide which way to go. I tend to think a pro-growth choice, all things being equal, is a good one. One does need economics, the correct kind, but it's not enough. One also needs ethics, the correct kind. I think, though I can't prove that, the correct kind of ethics is Christian. But you can't prove to me only your ethics is acceptable for a Christian. You hold a bunch of fairly eccentric, out of the mainstream views about Christian ethics in the public life and then tell people they are not Christians if they do not hold those particular views. You hold a certain extremist brand of libertarianism and then tell people outside that narrow view they aren't "real" libertarians.

I do wish you would stop calling yourself Christian and libertarian. You're neither. Call yourself pragmatist if you wish, I'll not dispute that self-designation.
I wish you'd stop being so rude to everybody. I wish you'd stop calling yourself a libertarian and call yourself a barking moonbat. But we don't always get what we want.

[Mr Arkadin]

Hey kids, are any of you going to respond to my argument that the existence of states undermines public goods theory or shall I move off into the ether?

[Augustine2004]

What do you mean, facilitates? Why not simply define the market as the totality of the exchanges of things (actually, property rights) or services and the failed attempts (bargaining, for example, or bid/ask) to make such exchanges?Ryokan, if you're still reading what a barking moonbat from a cavern in the Valles Marineris near its nearest end to the Prime Meridian of Mars, has to write, what term would you use to correspond to the above definition?

Mr. Arkadin does make a good point, like that if anything is underproduced, good government would be.

[Ryokan]

Ryokan, if you're still reading what a barking moonbat from a cavern in the Valles Marineris near its nearest end to the Prime Meridian of Mars, has to write, what term would you use to correspond to the above definition?

Mr. Arkadin does make a good point, like that if anything is underproduced, good government would be.

When you address the Christian thing, Augustine. You are too slippery. Talk to me, don't play gotcha with me. So long as you don't define markets as exchange between to CHristians I can be flexible. Tell me why you defined it that way.

[Ryokan]

Hey kids, are any of you going to respond to my argument that the existence of states undermines public goods theory or shall I move off into the ether?

What was it again? I don't remember and am missing it apparently.

[Augustine2004]

Once again I get an impression you’re a poor or lazy reader. What compendious phrase would you use for the following phrase: “The totality in a given region or the world of exchanges of property rights or services and failures in making such exchanges (past, present or future).” You may suggest changes in the above phrase if you think it would help.

ETA: I defined the free economy (shouldn’t have said free market, given how much trouble I got from you) as exchanges between Christians, because I believe that’s the best kind of economy. Free not only from manipulation or interference by the government but free from sins such as breaking contract, fraud, dishonest weights, thievery, murder, extortion, etc.

[Mr Arkadin]

Here's the point Ryokan:

A point that needs to made is that the so called Free Rider problem which public provision of goods tries to solve actually needs it to be solved voluntarily before the state exists. It is said that public goods will be under produced but so will the government on the market. The private costs of government are greater than the private benefits but the social benefits are greater than the social costs. So how does the state come into being. It must be the case to create the state that the free rider problem is insignificant and can be solved voluntarily and thus undermines the public goods theory completely.

[Augustine2004]

Anybody who wants war, war, war, would be happy with our governments. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, 100 wars had broken out by 2000, killing more than 5M. Excellent evidence for the government goods theory don’t you think?

[Ryokan]

Here's the point Ryokan:

A point that needs to made is that the so called Free Rider problem which public provision of goods tries to solve actually needs it to be solved voluntarily before the state exists. I don't think that is the case. It is said that public goods will be under produced but so will the government on the market. Governments are created by force, not markets, and set prices based on political considerations not supply and demand and may over or under produce depending on those factors. The private costs of government are greater than the private benefits but the social benefits are greater than the social costs. So how does the state come into being. By force. The state comes into being when someone achieves a monopoly on the use of force over a specific geographic locale. While the state is useful for solving the free rider problem states exists because, to frame it in a weird way, force is such that it is easy to create situations where the barriers to entry in the force providing market over specific geographical area is very high. Governments are a natural to human existence.
I suppose on the other hand people would argue while people, in individual cases do not like to pay in to free rider type situations they do see the value of other people paying in, and so everyone collectively agrees to use force to make the other guy pay in even if he himself is compelled to do so by force. But without that force the guy in question who agreed to the force would not pay in. He would like to ride free, but his desire to ride free is outweighed by his desire to have everyone else not.

Either of my explanations explode your idea I think. It must be the case to create the state that the free rider problem is insignificant and can be solved voluntarily and thus undermines the public goods theory completely.
I don't see that at all.

[Ryokan]

Once again I get an impression you’re a poor or lazy reader. What compendious phrase would you use for the following phrase: “The totality in a given region or the world of exchanges of property rights or services and failures in making such exchanges (past, present or future).” You may suggest changes in the above phrase if you think it would help.[/QUOTE} I don't care. I don't care. Without the CHristian thing it is pendantic quibling. Can't YOU read?
[QUOTE]
ETA: I defined the free economy (shouldn’t have said free market, given how much trouble I got from you) as exchanges between Christians, because I believe that’s the best kind of economy. Free not only from manipulation or interference by the government but free from sins such as breaking contract, fraud, dishonest weights, thievery, murder, extortion, etc.
But such an economy does not and can not exist and is useless to talk about. It makes a "free economy" not a principle but rather a utopian fantasy. See my problem?

[Augustine2004]

Governments are created by force. [snip]I don't see that at all.Your problem is that you accept things as they are, as though they are as unchangeable as God. Human nature does not change, but you're not correct that people and governments cannot change. I'm shocked how ignorant you are of history. Joel, Mr. Arkadin, and I may appear quixotic to you, I guess.

You badly miss the point. Governments may or may not be 'natural', whatever that means, but for the most part they are contrary to Christianity. if you continue to disagree at least in that you continue to insist that we accept them as inevitable, you're not Christian, o ye of little faith.

The above abridged quotation highlights a seeming contradiction. First, you assert that governments are created by force. I tend to agree. I would also add, by chicanery; maintained by force and chicanery also. But at the last, you seem to badly miss Mr. Arkadin's point. The government goods theory is an attempt to justify Big Government. He showed, however, that the theory is specious, and hence Big Government cannot be justified that way. I would contend moreover that it is not in any way justified ethically. If there's not a thing (apart from punishing the evildoer and praising the good citizen) for which the government is good, let's do away with it.

[Ryokan]

Your problem is that you accept things as they are, as though they are as unchangeable as God. Human nature does not change, but you're not correct that people and governments cannot change. I'm shocked how ignorant you are of history. Joel, Mr. Arkadin, and I may appear quixotic to you, I guess. You appear very quixotic to me.

You badly miss the point. Governments may or may not be 'natural', whatever that means, but for the most part they are contrary to Christianity. if you continue to disagree at least in that you continue to insist that we accept them as inevitable, you're not Christian, o ye of little faith. I don't think they are anti-Christian unless you see pacifism as a necessary facet of Christianity, but even if it is so I would suggest humans get trapped into doing alot of unChristian things even though they want to be good Christians. Original sin poisoned the whole world.

The above abridged quotation highlights a seeming contradiction. First, you assert that governments are created by force. I tend to agree. I would also add, by chicanery; maintained by force and chicanery also. But at the last, you seem to badly miss Mr. Arkadin's point. The government goods theory is an attempt to justify Big Government. No, public good theory simply describes a thing. The free rider problem simply describes a problem. Using government to fix it is simply a time honored solution to the problem. He showed, however, that the theory is specious, and hence Big Government cannot be justified that way. No, he showed nothing of the sort. I would contend moreover that it is not in any way justified ethically. Unless you oppose all coercive force as immoral, which I do not, I can't see why. If there's not a thing (apart from punishing the evildoer and praising the good citizen) for which the government is good, let's do away with it.I suggest that punishing evil and praising good makes for a huge, intrusive, and viciously tyrrannical government. That is one of the things the government should never do because it suggests that the government knows what good is and is the agent of it, and I do not think the government can ever be either. The government is the tool of fallible men serving fallible purposes. To make its purpose above that, to give it the power to say "This is GOOD" or "this is bad" good being of GOd and bad being not as you seem to frame it, is theocracy with a smilie face.

[Augustine2004]

You appear very quixotic to me.
I don't think they are anti-Christian unless you see pacifism as a necessary facet of Christianity, but even if it is so I would suggest humans get trapped into doing alot of unChristian things even though they want to be good Christians. Original sin poisoned the whole world.
No, public good theory simply describes a thing. The free rider problem simply describes a problem. Using government to fix it is simply a time honored solution to the problem. No, he showed nothing of the sort. Unless you oppose all coercive force as immoral, which I do not, I can't see why. I suggest that punishing evil and praising good makes for a huge, intrusive, and viciously tyrrannical government. That is one of the things the government should never do because it suggests that the government knows what good is and is the agent of it, and I do not think the government can ever be either. The government is the tool of fallible men serving fallible purposes. To make its purpose above that, to give it the power to say "This is GOOD" or "this is bad" good being of GOd and bad being not as you seem to frame it, is theocracy with a smilie face.
I have four theories. I’m not sure whether any of them accurately describes Mr. Ryokan, but I hope I’ve got him covered here:

1. He’s a poor reader.

2. He’s a bad reader.

3. He likes to bug people by raising off-target objections

4. He’s biased to pragmatism.

I don’t know of any time-honored reply to people like him. Do you?

[Ryokan]

I have four theories. I’m not sure whether any of them accurately describes Mr. Ryokan, but I hope I’ve got him covered here: That's rude.

1. He’s a poor reader.

2. He’s a bad reader. Huh? What did I miss?

3. He likes to bug people by raising off-target objections What was off target? What was inappropriate? You seem to get pissed any time the conversation doesn't go exactly as your plan and people don't buy your logic. You don't defend yourself, you jsut call names and question their conservativism, libertarianism, Christianity, whatever.

4. He’s biased to pragmatism.
I am a conservative in that way. I can't help it. I freely admit to it. What do you want? Being pragmatic hardly seems like a horrible crime or character flaw.
I don’t know of any time-honored reply to people like him. Do you?Not being a **** all the time to me would seem like a good start. Talking to me like a normal person might be a start. Stuff like that.
Basically, I would like it if you acted like a guy trying to muddle through things with another guy in a forum, trying to have a conversation, instead of as a missionary imparting divine wisdom upon me from on high.

I recognize I can be boring and annoying. My spelling and grammar can suck, I can occasionally misread things, make mistakes, be wrong. I have admitted to it many times.I should have admitted to it more times but didn't I am sure. I am not a perfect person. But I think you are being unfair here, and I would like to simply talk about things with you, not do this thing we are doing.

[Augustine2004]

Ryokan, I am not a total pacifist. Force or chicanery to defend someone or his property against an aggressor or evildoer is not wrong. Why is that so hard to understand?

[Ryokan]

Ryokan, I am not a total pacifist. Force or chicanery to defend someone or his property against an aggressor or evildoer is not wrong. Why is that so hard to understand?

I do n ot understand why you find the states use of violence so abhorrent if you do not oppose violence in general.

[Augustine2004]

I do n ot understand why you find the states use of violence so abhorrent if you do not oppose violence in general.Let me clarify. If someone or some group aggresses or chicanes against someone else or some other group for NO good reason, then force or chicanery to reverse that action is justifiable.

I am becoming more and more concerned you're a clown.

[Ryokan]

Let me clarify. If someone or some group aggresses or chicanes against someone else or some other group for NO good reason, then force or chicanery to reverse that action is justifiable. Okay, so you see violence as justifiable only within a very very narrow range. I disagree.

I am becoming more and more concerned you're a clown.

This from a guy who uses the word chicane without irony.

[Augustine2004]

Okay, so you see violence as justifiable only within a very very narrow range. I disagree.Examples?


This from a guy who uses the word chicane without irony.Neologism, yes. Could you suggest another word?

[Ryokan]

Examples? You seem to oppose the use of force to maintain social order, manage markets, prevent genocide, you oppose premptive strikes, virtually all wars (even the second world war). Maybe I am wrong. They are your views, you tell me!


Neologism, yes. Could you suggest another word?

Trick, manipulate, something along those lines. Thesaurus's are wonderful.

[Augustine2004]

You seem to oppose the use of force to maintain social order, manage markets, prevent genocide, you oppose premptive strikes, virtually all wars (even the second world war). Maybe I am wrong. They are your views, you tell me!Do you understand that Mr. Arkadin, Joel and I consider the problem of what individual ethics would be best? I tend to assume Christian ethics. Mr. Arkadin and Joel perhaps assume the precepts as distilled out of the world’s major religions by Richard Maybury:

* Do all you have agreed to.

* Do not encroach on other persons or their property.


Of course these are ideals only. Depending on the kind of people these may be closely observed, or may not. Human nature being what it is now, you appear to have given up already, and assume that we need Big Government. Why? I tried to show in another thread that we should expect it would only make things worse. In the first place why may Christians not constantly try to improve the people, rather than relying on the government to make the people better?

In the second place, you seem to think that absent Big Government, social disorder would ensue. Well, you ought to read about the supposedly Wild, Wild West and Iceland during the Viking Era. The Judges Period of Israel. Queen Elizabeth the First ruled Great Britain with . . . zero taxes! That’s right, her government had to operate on voluntary contributions. Her treasury still became solvent after 15 years. Want more historical examples?

Markets operated long before Big Government. Moreover it loves to intervene in them, thereby mucking things up.

Genocide is indeed a problem, a tough problem for a small-government region particularly if the problem occurs in a distant place. I’m trying to puzzle that out, but it doesn’t justify Big Government. Take Rwanda. The genocide there started when rebels shot down the President. The government didn’t deserve all the blame, to be sure, but it certainly was a participant. The UN essentially did nothing! It sent soldiers, but only to evacuate the whites and their dependents. You ought to see the movie Hotel Rwanda. The Holocaust was a Big Government project; moreover the USA for one did little, though FDR surely knew. The Roman persecution of the Christians. The ongoing rape of Iraq. The Russian pogroms.

Some wars are indeed justified, but war is so destructive and murderous, that I’m puzzled by your ardent support.

Preventive or preemptive strikes may or may not be justified. There should be a hearing to examine the evidence for and against any such strike.Trick, manipulate, something along those lines. Thesaurus's are wonderful.I'll continue to use 'chicane' until you indicate your favorite word.

[Ryokan]

Do you understand that Mr. Arkadin, Joel and I consider the problem of what individual ethics would be best? Individual ethics and mass ethics don't all square up. I tend to assume Christian ethics. Mr. Arkadin and Joel perhaps assume the precepts as distilled out of the world’s major religions by Richard Maybury:

* Do all you have agreed to.

* Do not encroach on other persons or their property.


Of course these are ideals only. Depending on the kind of people these may be closely observed, or may not. Human nature being what it is now, you appear to have given up already, and assume that we need Big Government. I have assumed, thanks to 9000 years of human history, that government is necessary to do certain things, yes. Its not "given up" but simply observing reality. Government is not inherently evil any more than fire is. But misused you get burnt. Why? I tried to show in another thread that we should expect it would only make things worse. You didn't show that at all. That's the problem. We really need to has out that better, because if I understand what you are writing about that I think it is deeply flawed. Deeply. In the first place why may Christians not constantly try to improve the people, rather than relying on the government to make the people better? Government is not about making people better or worse. It is about taking people and resources as they are and organizing them effectively in those cases where people do not do so themselves.

In the second place, you seem to think that absent Big Government, social disorder would ensue. I reject your definition of big government and resent you trying to "chicane" your defintion of it as the only acceptable one. But yes social disorder occurs without government. See Somalia. Well, you ought to read about the supposedly Wild, Wild West and Iceland during the Viking Era. Both the West and Iceland had governments that provided a variety of service, collected taxes, etc. They had small governments, but then again they had small populations. The Judges Period of Israel. Was a period of tribal warlordism, government by tribe. Did we read the same bible? Queen Elizabeth the First ruled Great Britain with . . . zero taxes! That’s right, her government had to operate on voluntary contributions. Her treasury still became solvent after 15 years. Queen Elizabeth had a massive estate that was a large part of the economy at the time. She maintained levies on trade, sent out massive state funded colonial ventures to bolster funding, and had the right to levy military forces from local lords who did levy taxes and maintained basic government services. Additionally she sold government offices and functions, allow institutionalized corrupton to pay for their operation. Elizabeth ran something closer to a command economy than some voluntary libertarian dreamland Want more historical examples?
If they aren't goofy historical revisionism like the above.
Markets operated long before Big Government. Moreover it loves to intervene in them, thereby mucking things up. Actually bigger government and freer markets sort of grew up together. Personal political power and a lack of political rights that were connected to the feudal, pre state style of government meant markets were heavily manipulated by powerful individuals and taxed to the hilt.

Genocide is indeed a problem, a tough problem for a small-government region particularly if the problem occurs in a distant place. I’m trying to puzzle that out, but it doesn’t justify Big Government. Take Rwanda. The genocide there started when rebels shot down the President. The government didn’t deserve all the blame, to be sure, but it certainly was a participant. The UN essentially did nothing! It sent soldiers, but only to evacuate the whites and their dependents. You ought to see the movie Hotel Rwanda. Yes. The UN failed. It should have acted. But when it does idiot libertarians jump all over them like what happened in Kosovo. The Holocaust was a Big Government project; moreover the USA for one did little, though FDR surely knew. We did stop it, and your FDR conspiracism is tiring. WHat could we have done to stop it short of invading Germany, which we did. The Roman persecution of the Christians. Huh? The ongoing rape of Iraq. Iraq is not being raped. The Russian pogroms. Huh? Most pogroms were grassroots events.

Some wars are indeed justified, but war is so destructive and murderous, that I’m puzzled by your ardent support. I don't like starting wars, but when a war is happening it is idiotic to put our head in the sand and pretend its not.

Preventive or preemptive strikes may or may not be justified. There should be a hearing to examine the evidence for and against any such strike.I'll continue to use 'chicane' until you indicate your favorite word.Use what you like, but if you continue with chicane people will think your a weirdo.

[Mr Arkadin]

Governments are created by force, not markets, and set prices based on political considerations not supply and demand and may over or under produce depending on those factors.


At least you don't try a Tullock/Buchanan argument which claims the state is in actuality voluntary due to a social contract. But if that is the case the state is evil unless you can justify coercion.

Given that states are born by aggression the individual benefits must outweigh the private costs. Yet to sustain a state one needs a reasonable amount of people to agree with your state to bring it about so some form of voluntary agreement is needed by a certain number of people to bring about the state. Thus for this number of people, again, the private benefits must outweigh the costs. Yet the net social benefits outweigh the net private benefits thus the free rider problem must be solved to some degree by the initial creation of the state. But as the theory indicates such bodies will be under produced. Now since the world is pretty much al statised this insight seems rather curious.

Even if you don't accept this you have to face the fact that NO good is perfectly non-rivalessness or perfectly excludable and the impermissible use of value judgements in declaring what is good or otherwise.


The state comes into being when someone achieves a monopoly on the use of force over a specific geographic locale. While the state is useful for solving the free rider problem states exists because, to frame it in a weird way, force is such that it is easy to create situations where the barriers to entry in the force providing market over specific geographical area is very high.


On your first point I agree. However on the latter you miss out the ideological factor: if people didn't see the state as legitimate the use of alternative defence providers would be much higher as would self protection, such as gun ownership. But as Rothbard points out a monopoly cannot appear on a pure free market.


Governments are a natural to human existence.


If that is the case explain the long term stable anarchies in ancient Ireland and Mediaeval Iceland.


I suppose on the other hand people would argue while people, in individual cases do not like to pay in to free rider type situations they do see the value of other people paying in, and so everyone collectively agrees to use force to make the other guy pay in even if he himself is compelled to do so by force. But without that force the guy in question who agreed to the force would not pay in. He would like to ride free, but his desire to ride free is outweighed by his desire to have everyone else not.


If that is the case show me objectively that he has agreed to it? Where is the contract? Even if it exists I haven't signed it so why should I be bound by it?

[Ryokan]

At least you don't try a Tullock/Buchanan argument which claims the state is in actuality voluntary due to a social contract. But if that is the case the state is evil unless you can justify coercion. Coercion is a fact of life, and necessary for human survival. On a personal level we can't coercion, but societal coercion, both governmental and non, is inevitable.

Given that states are born by aggression the individual benefits must outweigh the private costs. Yet to sustain a state one needs a reasonable amount of people to agree with your state to bring it about so some form of voluntary agreement is needed by a certain number of people to bring about the state. Thus for this number of people, again, the private benefits must outweigh the costs. Yet the net social benefits outweigh the net private benefits thus the free rider problem must be solved to some degree by the initial creation of the state. As I pointed out, yes, enough people agree that there is a free rider problem that they support using force to solve it, even if they lose out on the ability to free ride. But as the theory indicates such bodies will be under produced. Now since the world is pretty much al statised this insight seems rather curious. The state exists for a variety of reasons, not simply as an answer to the free rider problem. "Stated" regions can often and do often violently out compete or rid themselves of unstated areas because they produce and use force better.

Even if you don't accept this you have to face the fact that NO good is perfectly non-rivalessness or perfectly excludable No, but as a practical matter many are effectively and in practice, and economics that is not practical is useless. and the impermissible use of value judgements in declaring what is good or otherwise. The value judgement is made by each individual. Economics is a psuedo science in part because we are little libertarians, that is to say we think in general people decide for themselves what is best for themselves. I believe that is a good principle, and decide what is good based on that. If you disagree fine. It may partly explain our departure in views.



On your first point I agree. However on the latter you miss out the ideological factor: if people didn't see the state as legitimate the use of alternative defence providers would be much higher as would self protection, such as gun ownership. But as Rothbard points out a monopoly cannot appear on a pure free market. I disagree with Rothbards assessment. It is a philosphical idea, not a practical reality. In reality pure free markets of the sort ROthbard describe don't exist.



If that is the case explain the long term stable anarchies in ancient Ireland and Mediaeval Iceland. They weren't anarchies. Iceland was a small, well, democracy and medieval Ireland was a collection of small feudal despot states. They survived because geographic barriers made it non-cost effective for more organized outsiders to bust them for it. Iceland has never really not had this perk, but Irelandlong suffered for the failure of their tribal feudal confederacy model.



If that is the case show me objectively that he has agreed to it? They implicitly do when they vote for tax increasing politicians. That is the calculus involved. Where is the contract? Even if it exists I haven't signed it so why should I be bound by it?
Because they have lots of guns and you don't have as many? Its real simple. THe state has power, and that power compells you to do as it says. You may say "Thats not just!" but the reality is the world we live in cares not for justice, and the existence of a small well managed state improves the quality of most peoples lives enough that most people accept it, and they are strong enough to tell people like you "So sorry charlie". ANd I do feel bad for you, but there isn't a better solution as I see it.

[Mr Arkadin]

Coercion is a fact of life, and necessary for human survival. On a personal level we can't coercion, but societal coercion, both governmental and non, is inevitable.


So are you saying that state coercion is a necessary evil? That is a theologically abhorrent statement since to say that evil is NECESSARY it follows that the creation is necessary evil not jujst fallen.


As I pointed out, yes, enough people agree that there is a free rider problem that they support using force to solve it, even if they lose out on the ability to free ride. The state exists for a variety of reasons, not simply as an answer to the free rider problem. "Stated" regions can often and do often violently out compete or rid themselves of unstated areas because they produce and use force better.


You overlook the insight- the existence of the state demonstrates that the free rider is not a significant as is normally argued.


No, but as a practical matter many are effectively and in practice, and economics that is not practical is useless.


Err economics is not a pragmatic science. It tells us the immutable economic laws which is inherent in the axiom of action which cannot be denied without self contradiction. All LAWS must be exceptionless otherwise they cannot be laws; therefore public goods theory is not a law and therefore has no place in economics.



The value judgement is made by each individual. Economics is a psuedo science in part because we are little libertarians, that is to say we think in general people decide for themselves what is best for themselves. I believe that is a good principle, and decide what is good based on that. If you disagree fine. It may partly explain our departure in views.


No what economics says is that any voluntary action demonstrates that, ex ante, the actor prefers that situation over any other action he can perform. Ex post it can say nothing since that performs an interpersonal comparison of utility. There are no value judgements here, However me writing this demonstrates that I prefer writing this than not doing.


I disagree with Rothbards assessment. It is a philosphical idea, not a practical reality. In reality pure free markets of the sort ROthbard describe don't exist.


This insight is though practical- it says in practice we cannot distinguish between a "competitive" price and the actual market price. What we can distinguish is between monopoly prices and free market prices.


They weren't anarchies. Iceland was a small, well, democracy and medieval Ireland was a collection of small feudal despot states. They survived because geographic barriers made it non-cost effective for more organized outsiders to bust them for it. Iceland has never really not had this perk, but Irelandlong suffered for the failure of their tribal feudal confederacy model.


http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/1_2/1_2_1.pdf On Ireland.

Iceland was a democracy was it when the seats in the parliament were bought and sold. David Friedman has a great article on it but I don't think it is online for free.


They implicitly do when they vote for tax increasing politicians. That is the calculus involved.
Because they have lots of guns and you don't have as many? Its real simple. THe state has power, and that power compells you to do as it says. You may say "Thats not just!" but the reality is the world we live in cares not for justice, and the existence of a small well managed state improves the quality of most peoples lives enough that most people accept it, and they are strong enough to tell people like you "So sorry charlie". ANd I do feel bad for you, but there isn't a better solution as I see it.

Er I don't vote for tax increasing politicians but even if i did it would be to stop another politician from raising them more. Voting is a form of self defence, as Spooner pointed out, not one of demonstrating consent.

[Ryokan]

I'll get back to you tonight or tommorrow Arkadin. Sorry.

[Augustine2004]

Clarification: The hearing on whether a preemptive strike is justified is after the fact or sometime after the strike’s start.


Individual ethics and mass ethics don't all square up.You’ve declared yourself to be a Christian for Pete’s sake. Your attitude is bad for a Christian.
You didn't show that at all. That's the problem. We really need to has out that better, because if I understand what you are writing about that I think it is deeply flawed. Deeply. OK. Where are the flaws? Note that I did NOT start with the assumption that Big Government is inherently evil. My conclusion was merely that we should not EXPECT it to do more good than bad. I did not try to PROVE that it always does more bad than good. Now, to disprove my conclusion, you have to SHOW that your assumption is correct, that we can expect Big Government will do more good than bad in the long run. Either that or find where my argument went off the track.
Government is not about making people better or worse. It is about taking people and resources as they are and organizing them effectively in those cases where people do not do so themselves.That is a mere assertion. Either prove that or show the flaws in the rebuttal of the government goods argument. I reject your definition of big government and resent you trying to "chicane" your defintion of it as the only acceptable one. But yes social disorder occurs without government. See Somalia. You certainly don’t know what happened in Somalia. You trust the UN too much.
Was a period of tribal warlordism, government by tribe. Did we read the same bible? Warlordism!? Where did you get that?
Actually bigger government and freer markets sort of grew up together. Personal political power and a lack of political rights that were connected to the feudal, pre state style of government meant markets were heavily manipulated by powerful individuals and taxed to the hilt.No, markets started before the State. Feudalism is a sort of state.
We did stop it, and your FDR conspiracism is tiring. WHat could we have done to stop it short of invading Germany, which we did. You’re correct, to really stop it we would have to invade Germany’s occupied lands. I wonder when it became common knowledge. As I recall, the concentration camps shortly before VE Day came as a shock to people like Eisenhower. However, FDR had to have known long before that, yet insisted on unconditional surrender. I wonder what a libertarian USA would have done.

Yet you missed a big point by a wide mile. The Holocaust was a Big Government act. It wasn’t even driven by practical or pragmatic considerations. It was mainly for ideological reasons.
Huh? The Roman persecution of the Christians was not genocide, but it’s still murder of members of a group.
Huh? Most pogroms were grassroots events.You seem to think that the government was helpless to stop them. Even if that were so, such events undermine your support of Big Government. I don't like starting wars, but when a war is happening it is idiotic to put our head in the sand and pretend its not.
What do you mean? Once a war starts we have to fight it to the bitter end, regardless of whether it’s practical or good!?

I don't know when I will be back. I have to work on Mom's and my taxes.

[Ryokan]

You’ve declared yourself to be a Christian for Pete’s sake. Your attitude is bad for a Christian. In your opinion.
OK. Where are the flaws? Note that I did NOT start with the assumption that Big Government is inherently evil. My conclusion was merely that we should not EXPECT it to do more good than bad. Your flaw is that you take the government and all its actions as monolithic, that we jsut turn on and off in total, and that we have no means of evaluating the potential results of government action. I did not try to PROVE that it always does more bad than good. Now, to disprove my conclusion, you have to SHOW that your assumption is correct, that we can expect Big Government will do more good than bad in the long run. Either that or find where my argument went off the track. As I said, you are lumping all "Big government" together as a monolith and comparing it to small government, which is basically an anarchy as you describe it. And you then take a solipsistic arguement regarding the evaluation of government behavior, demanding complete certainty that a particular government action, not the total as you set up in the begining, is the absolute best of all possble arguements. It is a bad arguement, Augustine. You certainly don’t know what happened in Somalia. You trust the UN too much. I am very aware of what happened, you aren't, because you bought into Lew Rockwell style revisionist history.
Warlordism!? Where did you get that? Tribes, run by elected or self appointed strongmen (Judges) warring against each other and outside nationalities. Sounds like warlordism to me.
No, markets started before the State. Feudalism is a sort of state. There has never been a time before the state as you want to define the state. Anarchy was not the state of our hunter gather ancestors, or the earliest cities, or anything like that. And markets have always been subject to them.
You’re correct, to really stop it we would have to invade Germany’s occupied lands. I wonder when it became common knowledge. As I recall, the concentration camps shortly before VE Day came as a shock to people like Eisenhower. However, FDR had to have known long before that, yet insisted on unconditional surrender. I wonder what a libertarian USA would have done. Capitulate our "imperial" Pacific holdings to Japan, made a peace with Germany, and stopped sending aid to Britain and Russia, and stayed out of peoples hair if we went behaved the way the people you seem to admire would have had it.

Yet you missed a big point by a wide mile. The Holocaust was a Big Government act. But only a government could have stopped it. We do and always will live with belligerent or cruel foriegn governments. It wasn’t even driven by practical or pragmatic considerations. It was mainly for ideological reasons. I agree.
The Roman persecution of the Christians was not genocide, but it’s still murder of members of a group. I jsut don't see what it has to do with anything.
You seem to think that the government was helpless to stop them. I would suggest some probably were. The big Pogroms happened in times of great instability, when political control rarely extended over large areas. Even if that were so, such events undermine your support of Big Government. I do not support big government. Stop using your absurd definiton to denigrate me. It is a cheap trick. What do you mean? Once a war starts we have to fight it to the bitter end, regardless of whether it’s practical or good!? No, what I mean is we can't only go to war when we are specifically invaded by an enemy, or fight only when are very existence is at stake, unless we want the world order to collapse and the latter event to occur regularly.

I don't know when I will be back. I have to work on Mom's and my taxes.
Good luck with that.

[Ryokan]

So are you saying that state coercion is a necessary evil? That is a theologically abhorrent statement since to say that evil is NECESSARY it follows that the creation is necessary evil not jujst fallen. If the world were not fallen then government would be unnecessary. But it is what it is. State coercion, evil or not, is definitely necessary.



You overlook the insight- the existence of the state demonstrates that the free rider is not a significant as is normally argued. No it doesn't. As I pointed out, without a state many of the people that voted to have the state punish and prevent free riders would in fact themselves ride free. Thats where your arguement falls apart.



Err economics is not a pragmatic science. It tells us the immutable economic laws which is inherent in the axiom of action which cannot be denied without self contradiction. Obviously you confused austrian economics with the whole economics. No one but tthe action axiom or any of that junk. All LAWS must be exceptionless otherwise they cannot be laws; therefore public goods theory is not a law and therefore has no place in economics. You clearly don't understand what economics is. It is a collection of theories and one or two unprovable assumptions. I am not an Austrian and frankly don't take them very seriously as they are not interested in empirically verifiable theories but rather in philosophical, logic based axioms and laws that aren't too useful for real people.




No what economics says is that any voluntary action demonstrates that, ex ante, the actor prefers that situation over any other action he can perform. Ex post it can say nothing since that performs an interpersonal comparison of utility. There are no value judgements here, However me writing this demonstrates that I prefer writing this than not doing. I am not catching your point. Sorry.



This insight is though practical- it says in practice we cannot distinguish between a "competitive" price and the actual market price. What we can distinguish is between monopoly prices and free market prices. Again I am missing your point. A 7 month old is screaming at me. Sorry.



http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/1_2/1_2_1.pdf On Ireland. So Ireland was..... A semi-feudal tribal government ruled by strongmen with tenuous personal loyalties and agreements, strength of traditional, ancestrally based toughs, and tribal laws. So what?

Iceland was a democracy was it when the seats in the parliament were bought and sold. Which is why it was only sorta of a democracy, and sorta a heriditary oligarchy. Still, unique. But definitely a government. David Friedman has a great article on it but I don't think it is online for free. Suxor.



Er I don't vote for tax increasing politicians but even if i did it would be to stop another politician from raising them more. Voting is a form of self defence, as Spooner pointed out, not one of demonstrating consent.[/QUOTE]

[Mr Arkadin]

If the world were not fallen then government would be unnecessary. But it is what it is. State coercion, evil or not, is definitely necessary.


There is no such thing as a necessary evil; it is an anathema to Christianity. Given an evil, but contingent though not necessary, action a just response is necessary although such a punishment is only contingent on the evil action taking place.


No it doesn't. As I pointed out, without a state many of the people that voted to have the state punish and prevent free riders would in fact themselves ride free. Thats where your arguement falls apart.


People who originally created the state do not vote for it but consent to it and thus solve at least in part the free rider problem in setting the state up. Now obviously they can get a decent return for themselves eventually by theft but the initial coordination shows the free rider to be less than significant.


Obviously you confused austrian economics with the whole economics. No one but tthe action axiom or any of that junk. You clearly don't understand what economics is. It is a collection of theories and one or two unprovable assumptions. I am not an Austrian and frankly don't take them very seriously as they are not interested in empirically verifiable theories but rather in philosophical, logic based axioms and laws that aren't too useful for real people.


Have you ever read anything on Austrainism especially its methodology? The axiom of action cannot be denied without self contradiction and the other postulates are obvious inductive statements such as the disutility of labour. Now since this is impractical, because it shows us what the state really is, can you tell me what useful economics is?

[Ryokan]

There is no such thing as a necessary evil; it is an anathema to Christianity. Given an evil, but contingent though not necessary, action a just response is necessary although such a punishment is only contingent on the evil action taking place. By this logic, no then the state is not evil.



People who originally created the state do not vote for it but consent to it and thus solve at least in part the free rider problem in setting the state up. Now obviously they can get a decent return for themselves eventually by theft but the initial coordination shows the free rider to be less than significant.No, not if the intial coordination is in part out of recognition of the free rider problem. Your arguement is broken. Dividing up the actions unnaturally won't help you.

Have you ever read anything on Austrainism especially its methodology? The axiom of action cannot be denied without self contradiction and the other postulates are obvious inductive statements such as the disutility of labour. The trouble with Austrian economics is that it makes unprovable assumptions that are not connected to reality. Thanks to information problems, transaction costs, and the questionable rationality of many human behaviors the action axiom isn't a useful point of discussion Now since this is impractical, because it shows us what the state really is, can you tell me what useful economics is? Useful economics is one that can model human behavior in regards to choice and resource allocation with a high degree of accuracy.

[Mr Arkadin]

By this logic, no then the state is not evil.


It is then incumbent upon your to justify coercion.


No, not if the intial coordination is in part out of recognition of the free rider problem. Your arguement is broken. Dividing up the actions unnaturally won't help you.


But if they coordinate out of recognition of the free rider then surely it is at least conceivable that the free rider problem can be sorted on an entirely voluntary basis.


The trouble with Austrian economics is that it makes unprovable assumptions that are not connected to reality.


Such as what? Scarcity, the disutility of labour, the axiom of action?


Thanks to information problems, transaction costs, and the questionable rationality of many human behaviors the action axiom isn't a useful point of discussion


You misunderstand the axiom. It states that to act one must use means to attain ends and that end is the "best" end available to the actor ex ante. But ex post they my have made an error hence the existence of disequilibrium. The "problems" above have no bearing on the axiom.


Useful economics is one that can model human behavior in regards to choice and resource allocation with a high degree of accuracy.

And what brand of economics can actually do this? Also why do we want to know, as economists what people will choose? The people concerned with this would be firms and so the best people for such prediction is entrepreneurs and market analysts not economists.

[Ryokan]

It is then incumbent upon your to justify coercion.
By your logic it IS justified.


But if they coordinate out of recognition of the free rider then surely it is at least conceivable that the free rider problem can be sorted on an entirely voluntary basis.
With a smll group and a limited time frame.


Such as what? Scarcity, the disutility of labour, the axiom of action? What it does is take this pieces and create logical puzzle boxes that don't model real world behavior. Basically, while the Austrian school demands we follow out the praxelogy, I suggest human being are actually too complex and act in to complex a manner for this to be a usefully predictive means of describing human economic behavior. Econometrics is a more useful tool than self evident axioms and logicical reasoning. Useful meaning it predicts outcomes.



You misunderstand the axiom. It states that to act one must use means to attain ends and that end is the "best" end available to the actor ex ante. But ex post they my have made an error hence the existence of disequilibrium. The "problems" above have no bearing on the axiom. It has incredible bearing on the way peoples behavior actually plays out though, and it is not factored into alot of Austrian thought.


And what brand of economics can actually do this? Broadly, the neoclassical school in it various permutations. Also why do we want to know, as economists what people will choose? So we can help individuals and organizations make better decisions. The people concerned with this would be firms and so the best people for such prediction is entrepreneurs and market analysts not economists. Entrepreneurs and market analysts are not trained to do what economists do and vice versa.

[Mr Arkadin]

By your logic it IS justified.


No it isn't unless someone has first coerced someone else.


With a smll group and a limited time frame.


So you admit it can be solved voluntarily.



What it does is take this pieces and create logical puzzle boxes that don't model real world behavior. Basically, while the Austrian school demands we follow out the praxelogy, I suggest human being are actually too complex and act in to complex a manner for this to be a usefully predictive means of describing human economic behavior. Econometrics is a more useful tool than self evident axioms and logicical reasoning. Useful meaning it predicts outcomes.


Again what have you read of Austrian Economics? Further what are these unrealistic assumptions you claimed? I suggest you read this: http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE3_1_16.pdf
I would also recommend this on why one cannot predict the behaviour of human actors:
http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae10_1_1.pdf


It has incredible bearing on the way peoples behavior actually plays out though, and it is not factored into alot of Austrian thought.


Can one act without using means to attain ends or not?


Broadly, the neoclassical school in it various permutations. So we can help individuals and organizations make better decisions. Entrepreneurs and market analysts are not trained to do what economists do and vice versa.

Econometric prediction from the neo-classical school are notoriously bad.

[Ryokan]

No it isn't unless someone has first coerced someone else.
I disagree. Evil does not have to be a personal action, but rather a state of being, and therefore coercion would be justified to right it.


So you admit it can be solved voluntarily. When the time frame is limited and groups are small enough that social coercion, ostracism, and personal pressure can substitute for state coercion yes.




Again what have you read of Austrian Economics? Further what are these unrealistic assumptions you claimed? I suggest you read this: http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE3_1_16.pdf I am not talking about philosophical relativism. I am saying that the numerous factors that go into human decision making make it impossible for rational rule making of the Austrian sort alone to effectively model human behavior.
I would also recommend this on why one cannot predict the behaviour of human actors:
http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae10_1_1.pdf The stupidity of this is that we can and do predict the behavior of human actors with a fair degree of accuracy, and we have been doing so for years. I am sorry, but the mass of data is with the social sciences non von Mises.



Can one act without using means to attain ends or not? No, but that has nothing to do with my discussion.



Econometric prediction from the neo-classical school are notoriously bad.
Actually they are pretty good, especially on the microlevel. They are worse but still more useful they von Mises style logical reasoning on the macrolevel.

[Augustine2004]

Ryokan, in brief, you're no economist. Economics generally does not presume to make predictions. Are we in recession or not? It won't be official until sometime after the recession. It's always been thus. Choices made by people are generally unpredictable. Try to predict the next teenage girl fad!

The collapse of the Soviet Union WAS to some extent predictable in Austrian School economics, but CIA estimates of Soviet economic progress were notoriously badly off.

ETA: The beginning of a recession is usually not officially determined until many months after it happens. Likewise the ending.

[Ryokan]

Ryokan, in brief, you're no economist. I agree, I am not an economist. I have some training in that area but it is definitely not my line of work. Economics generally does not presume to make predictions. Really? That seems to be their main mode of employment. Are we in recession or not? It won't be official until sometime after the recession. It's always been thus. Choices made by people are generally unpredictable. Try to predict the next teenage girl fad!But they are, in fact, preditable. Social scientist of all stripes make predictions based on models they have created, and get accurate results. That is how you test your model.

The collapse of the Soviet Union WAS to some extent predictable in Austrian School economics, but CIA estimates of Soviet economic progress were notoriously badly off.

ETA: The beginning of a recession is usually not officially determined until many months after it happens. Likewise the ending.
What does this recession stuff have to do with anything. Obviously economists can't pinpoint exactly when a recession happened. You have to wait for the data, just like a astrophysicist doesn't know when a supernova happened until thousands or millions of years afterwards, but he can still make predictions.

[Augustine2004]

Austrian School Economics is not one of the so-called social sciences, and in any case they can't tell us what is good and what is bad. What should be government goods and what should be market goods.

But, then, everyone is an economist. Rules for making predictions: Things tend to stay the same day to day, or things change slowly. If there’s a strong trend, though, expect it to continue for a while; don’t try to anticipate its end, no matter how extreme things may get. There are some exceptions to the last rule, but not many; you’ve got to be pretty sure you know what you’re doing if you’re going to break that rule.

[Ryokan]

Austrian School Economics is not one of the so-called social sciences, and in any case they can't tell us what is good and what is bad. I am not Austrian school. But I agree that economist cannot tell us what is good or bad, jsut the outcomes of our decisions or policies. We rate those outcomes.
What should be government goods and what should be market goods. I would suggest we should divy them up or regulate them in a way that, all other things being equal, maximizes efficiency.
But, then, everyone is an economist. Rules for making predictions: Things tend to stay the same day to day, or things change slowly. If there’s a strong trend, though, expect it to continue for a while; don’t try to anticipate its end, no matter how extreme things may get. There are some exceptions to the last rule, but not many; you’ve got to be pretty sure you know what you’re doing if you’re going to break that rule.
Huh?

[Augustine2004]

I am not Austrian school. But I agree that economist cannot tell us what is good or bad, jsut the outcomes of our decisions or policies. We rate those outcomes.I agree, but why is the free market not a good way for us - all of us - to rate them? I would suggest we should divy them up or regulate them in a way that, all other things being equal, maximizes efficiency.Sounds good, except, how would we measure efficiency? IOW do you have a good operational definition of effficiency or a more or less objective way to measure the efficiency of an economy in comparison with the alternative world?

What I should have written in my last post instead is this: “Everyone is a social scientist." I was being sarcastic about the ability of the social scientists to predict anything any better than smart people in other professions can.

Economics as practiced by the majority of economists is not any more a science than the rest of the social sciences is.

[Ryokan]

I agree, but why is the free market not a good way for us - all of us - to rate them? Because we know it fails in certain situations to produce that result because in some situations nongovernmental forces make free markets unfree. pQUOTE]Sounds good, except, how would we measure efficiency?[/QUOTE] I tend to lean towards utility maximization, Pareto efficiency or Kaldor Hicks efficiency isn't bad either. x-efficiency isn't horrible but it is a bit depersonalizaing. And you could just do your best to optimize some social welfare funtion, though that can get a bit fuzzy and is much more societal wide. I am sure I am forgetting a good one, but that's all I got right now. IOW do you have a good operational definition of effficiency or a more or less objective way to measure the efficiency of an economy in comparison with the alternative world? There are several. General speaking, to put as basically as possible, you always want production and price to stay at where that neat little supply and demand curve meets, with externalities included of course. And we make all those little curves using data gathering and econometrics. Economy wide we gather data even more widely.

What I should have written in my last post instead is this: “Everyone is a social scientist." I was being sarcastic about the ability of the social scientists to predict anything any better than smart people in other professions can. Well I disagree.

Economics as practiced by the majority of economists is not any more a science than the rest of the social sciences is.Again I disagree.

[Augustine2004]

Because we know it fails in certain situations to produce that result because in some situations nongovernmental forces make free markets unfree.I think you refer to evildoers. The problem of security. You haven’t explained how to prevent evildoers from taking over whatever government exists and making it even worse - and the world worse. You’ve yet to refute the argument for the free-market production of security. No, we do NOT know that the market fails. WE fail, yes. The market, no. I tend to lean towards utility maximization, Pareto efficiency or Kaldor Hicks efficiency isn't bad either. x-efficiency isn't horrible but it is a bit depersonalizaing. And you could just do your best to optimize some social welfare funtion, though that can get a bit fuzzy and is much more societal wide. I am sure I am forgetting a good one, but that's all I got right now.what self-confidence! You ought to know that humility is considered a Christian virtue. Anyway, would you please work through a detailed example of how you would determine the closeness of the economy to optimal efficiency? There are several. General speaking, to put as basically as possible, you always want production and price to stay at where that neat little supply and demand curve meets, with externalities included of course. And we make all those little curves using data gathering and econometrics. Economy wide we gather data even more widely.
Well I disagree.
Again I disagree. You said in another thread IIRC that economics was a quasi-science. I don’t know what that is supposed to mean, but certainly it’s not a science like what engineers use to design bridges, TVs, computers . . .

Again, please work through a detailed example of how you would draw ‘that neat little supply and demand curve.’ I’m sure you will refuse, not because you don’t have the time, but because you KNOW that I can show it can’t be done with any degree of knowledge.

[Ryokan]

I think you refer to evildoers. No, I am not. The thing of it is alot of the worlds problems stem from the unintended consequences of good people doing good things on a macroscale. i am talking about market failures. The problem of security. You haven’t explained how to prevent evildoers from taking over whatever government exists and making it even worse - and the world worse. You can't do it for certain, though modern democraies are a institutionalized attempt to do that. As I said before though, many of our problems are not caused by evil doers. You’ve yet to refute the argument for the free-market production of security. I and many others have. ts jsut you hand wave or change the subject everytime. No, we do NOT know that the market fails. WE fail, yes. Ah, no. The market fails when everyone takes a rational action for themselves, rational, not evil, and then we end up with inefficiency. what self-confidence! You ought to know that humility is considered a Christian virtue. I do not understand how you can be so mean to everyone and claim the moral high ground like this You are behaving like a troll. Anyway, would you please work through a detailed example of how you would determine the closeness of the economy to optimal efficiency? Its like this. I will go through all the trouble if youdiscuss the security issue with me, no hand waving, no insults, no tangents. Just discuss it. If that goes well then yes. I will explain in more detail, and I may even bust out my Bamboo and draw graphs and stuff. You said in another thread IIRC that economics was a quasi-science. I don’t know what that is supposed to mean, but certainly it’s not a science like what engineers use to design bridges, TVs, computers . . . No. Like Austrian economics, neoclassical economics assumes people are rational and that resources are finite. These are not necessarilly so, but practically speaking they are useful and since we are fairly accurate using these assumptions I am comfortable with them. Aside from that its a science.

Again, please work through a detailed example of how you would draw ‘that neat little supply and demand curve.’ I’m sure you will refuse, not because you don’t have the time, but because you KNOW that I can show it can’t be done with any degree of knowledge.

I conditionally agreed. Show you can not be a rude, slippery, self righteous troll and are capable of discussing and debating instead of preaching and handwaving and I will take the time.

[Augustine2004]

I'm preparing now by studying 'The Myth of Efficiency' by Murray Rothbard, available here http://www.mises.org/rothbard/efficiency.pdf

[Augustine2004]

I will go through all the trouble if youdiscuss the security issue with me, no hand waving, no insults, no tangents. Just discuss it. If that goes well then yes. I will explain in more detail, and I may even bust out my Bamboo and draw graphs and stuff.Was this post
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2250466&postcount=33
not good enough? It shows among other things that measuring the distance to optimum is a chimerical idea. If you disagree, please show us how to do that, but let me add that people should not be assumed to stay the same from birth to death. In fact, they do get born and they do die, do they not? Moreover, we cannot forecast precisely when new people will be born and what their characterstics will be. Nor when the people now living will die. Tastes change; values change; circumstances change. Hence, statistics, even if they are perfect for a specific time and place, are useless for other times and other places, except rather roughly, if at all useful.

Your supply and demand curve is a theoretical construct only, and even if it described the situation for which it was constructed perfectly, it is useful if at all only rather approximately.

We need the economy to be infinitely flexible and adaptive, and the free market economy comes closest to having those characterstics.

[Ryokan]

I'm preparing now by studying 'The Myth of Efficiency' by Murray Rothbard, available here http://www.mises.org/rothbard/efficiency.pdf

I question whehter I will even procede with all that if your arguement is going to parrot Rothbard. We would have to start by agreeing efficiency exists and is a useful concept. otherwise why waste my time Augustine.

[Ryokan]

Was this post
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2250466&postcount=33
not good enough? It doesn't address the private defense issue at all. It is preaching about public goods. You never defend yourself EVER. You only attack attack attack demand demand demand. No matter how much your armor is chinked along the way. You start defending, addressing others arguements as much as you attack and I will continue. It shows among other things that measuring the distance to optimum is a chimerical idea. No, it doesn't. If you disagree, please show us how to do that, but let me add that people should not be assumed to stay the same from birth to death. In fact, they do get born and they do die, do they not? Moreover, we cannot forecast precisely when new people will be born and what their characterstics will be. Nor when the people now living will die. Tastes change; values change; circumstances change. Hence, statistics, even if they are perfect for a specific time and place, are useless for other times and other places, except rather roughly, if at all useful. They are useful in aggregate, and then are not just roughly accurate, whatever the heck you mean by they. THey are certainly accurate enough that they represent a impirtant and useful tool for decision making. ANd while values and tastes may change, as rational beings I would suggest to you their underlying preferences do not, and that is the key.

Your supply and demand curve is a theoretical construct only, and even if it described the situation for which it was constructed perfectly, it is useful if at all only rather approximately.[/QUOTE} I completely agree. Any scientific model or theory is jsut a construct. But they are still very useful.
[QUOTE]
We need the economy to be infinitely flexible and adaptive, and the free market economy comes closest to having those characterstics.Not unregulated. It can quickly become unflexible and unadaptive because government is not the only force that can make a market unfree.

[Augustine2004]

We have to first agree on the basics before we tackle the specific issue of the production of security.

I’m still puzzled by your continued rebuttals to what seems like a reasonable argument. Unless you just want to reject everything free-market (maybe you’re a secret agent for the government), I wish I know what’s wrong with your thinking.

I suppose I will have to keep on guessing until I finally find out what’s wrong with your thinking.

THey are certainly accurate enough that they represent a impirtant and useful tool for decision making. ANd while values and tastes may change, as rational beings I would suggest to you their underlying preferences do not, and that is the key.
In any case, what does it have to do with the question of which is better, government regulation or none? The free market does have entrepreneurs. We have a great many success stories. Microsoft, iPhone, the telephone, etc.
Your supply and demand curve is a theoretical construct only, and even if it described the situation for which it was constructed perfectly, it is useful if at all only rather approximately. I completely agree. Any scientific model or theory is jsut a construct. But they are still very useful.Then there should be no problem with your supplying a specific example of how useful they are for the government to use.
Not unregulated. It can quickly become unflexible and unadaptive because government is not the only force that can make a market unfree.What about an example from history. Or better yet, several examples? Note: I defined the free market as the market that is free from not only government interference or manipulation but free from evil-doing. You appear to be defining the free market differently. I think you are dodging by deliberately using different definitions. That is at the very least discourteous.

[Ryokan]

In any case, what does it have to do with the question of which is better, the government regulation or none. The free market does have entrepreneurs. We have a great many success stories. Microsoft, iPhone, the telephone, etc.
Then there should be no problem with your supplying a specific example of how useful they are for the government to use. Government regulation has success too. Air quality is in many places better than it was in the seventies, markets are much more open and competitive than they were a hundred years ago thanks to trust busting, and as we speak you are protected from foriegn invasion by the government. It is not that government regulation or none overall or none need be compared, but each individual case. Does that make sense? There are degrees of government. You always ignore that, and it is wrong headed and stupid.
What about an example from history. Or better yet, several examples? Microsoft used its market power to force out most operating system producers and keep them out. Now we have a product so inferior that people are forced to use microsofts last generation operating system because there is not realistic alternative. This is not a result of Microsoft's evil, they were competeing just as any other business does. Global warming is an excellent example. For one person to emit CO2 from their car is no problem and not evil. But when an entire planet does it it is bad for all of us. Same with pollution, or logging where their are endangered species, etc. Market failures all over the place, but no evil. Note: I defined the free market as the market that is free from not only government interference or manipulation but free from evil-doing. Even pretending the free market as defined by you could exist, it would still fail because markets fail for reasons other than evil doing.You appear to be defining the free market differently. I think you are dodging by deliberately using different definitions. That is at the very least discourteous.I keep forgetting you hold to that weird, idiosyncratic definition rather than the mainstream one. Sorry.

[Ryokan]

We have to first agree on the basics before we tackle the specific issue of the production of security. Okay.

I’m still puzzled by your continued rebuttals to what seems like a reasonable argument. Unless you just want to reject everything free-market (maybe you’re a secret agent for the government), I wish I know what’s wrong with your thinking. How am I supposed to respond to that level of paranoia and insanity? Where are your reasonable responses? What government outside a police state give a crap what you have to say? You call me arrogant and yet you think the government gives to craps in a bag about your nutty opinions?

I suppose I will have to keep on guessing until I finally find out what’s wrong with your thinking.
It is not an all or nothing proposition! What don't you get about that!

[Augustine2004]

Ryokan, will you or will you not give examples like what I asked for? What I am going to do now is to dig into what books I have and www.mises.org for those examples, and I'm going to give them if you don't beat me to the punch. An idea I have is that the government has a legal monopoly on force, so maybe Rothbard's critique of monopoly theory can be adapted to fit the situation here.

I said we have to agree on the basics first and you said okay, but there you go, giving examples of alleged government successes already. What is your MEASURE of success? Your operational measure of success? How do you KNOW that the free market economy wouldn't do as well or better?

[Ryokan]

Ryokan, will you or will you not give examples like what I asked for? What I am going to do now is to dig into what books I have and www.mises.org for those examples, and I'm going to give them if you don't beat me to the punch. An idea I have is that the government has a legal monopoly on force, so maybe Rothbard's critique of monopoly theory can be adapted to fit the situation here.

I said we have to agree on the basics first and you said okay, but there you go, giving examples of alleged government successes already. What is your MEASURE of success? Your operational measure of success? How do you KNOW that the free market economy wouldn't do as well or better?

I give up. It is clear you are incapable of having the discussion I am looking for. Go ahead and make snide comments about me bailing out all oer the forum. I am done with you. You are a complete and total nutball, and you can't even see it.

[Augustine2004]

Goodbye, Ryokan, and good riddance.


The state is defined as the social institution having a legal monopoly of force over a well-defined region of the world, and is supposed to act for the common weal on behalf of the people. In reality it acts in and on behalf of the ruling class, but I won’t argue that point now.

For the sake of simple argument, let’s agree that the state’s sole objective is to minimize the use of force and evil-doing. Let’s not worry about other alleged government goods now except insofar as the state acts to minimize evil-doing, such as polluting the environment.

Ryokan rightly objected that ‘evil-doing’ needs to be defined. Who but the state is to define what evil-doing is? I would reply, why, the people, acting through the free market economy, but for some bizarre reason or reasons that I have been so far been unable to fathom, he continues to reject that answer.

I do concede that insofar as the people do not rebel against the state, it may be taken for granted that by and large the people is satisfied with the state’s definition of ‘evil-doing.’ Ought we then be satisfied with such a state of affairs (sorry about the unavoidable pun)? If we are Christians, I say not, if the State sins and is leading us into sin. (Note that if the State acts as an institutional agent of the ruling class, the ruling class is in reality the sinner, and we ought to refuse to obey it insofar as to obey is to sin. Moreover, see Luke 17:3.)

If everyone does not sin, what do we need the State for? Is it only because we sin that some people allege that we need the State? All right, then, let’s ask: can the State really minimize the use of force and evil-doing?

How can we know? The future is not knowable. We cannot know what actions to take to minimize the use of force and evil-doing. The same objections can be made of the free-market society, true, but how would the State make things better than what the free-market society can achieve anyway?

Use statistics? It seems to have some predictive power, but no constant has emerged in decades of ‘scientifically’ studying people and analyzing reams of data about them, except insofar as they are subject to the laws of physics and to Austrian-School economics. Besides, statistics do not tell us what to do. Is the murder rate rising? Ok, so it is rising. What should we do then? We should not act until we know what is probably causing the murder rate to rise. To date the only general answer we have for why people murder others is that we are evil.

(That said, Ryokan may find Healing Our World: In an Age of Aggression by Dr. Mary J. Ruwart more convincing than my arguments because of its reams of statistics [this was written before he said goodbye]. Some examples:
Neumark and Wascher (1998) examined the correlation between state minimum wages and [job] training. They found that minimum wages reduced training. – Mark D. Turner, The Urban Institute and Institute for Policy StudiesBy the 1990s International Paper alone planted more than 48 million trees a year – five times more than it harvested – and donated or sold the rest for [the purpose of] additional reforestation. – Larry Schweikart The Entrepreneurial Adventure [amendment not mine]The principles of restorative justice are consistent with those of many indigenous traditions, including Native American, Hawaiian, Canadian First Nation people, Aborigines in Australia, and the Maori in New Zealand. These principles are also consistent with values emphasized in nearly all of the world’s religious. – Mark Umbreit Western Criminology Review
)

What’s more, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, we cannot rely solely on economics and statistics. The very idea of making the world better means we have to use ethics. If we are Christians, we therefore have to look to the Bible for answers to what we should do.

We cannot shrug our shoulders, and say that’s the way the world is, we’ll just have to take it as it is. We have a mission to change it, do we not?

Now, to change the world, we should not by and large use force. We should use argument by and large. I cannot understand why Ryokan is such a lover of force, if he is really Christian Use force to arrest people to indict them, yes! Use force to punish people that have been convicted of evil-doing in hearings or courts of law, yes! To force those people to make restitution to their victims, yes! Otherwise . . . ??

But, is there not some exception in addition to the above, somehow? A theocracy, similar to the Omayyad Empire, only Christian, not Muslim? The Muslims didn’t actually use as much force as you might think. They instead used diplomacy more than the threat of force to ‘conquer’ cities. On this point, read For Good and Evil, Second Edition: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization by Charles Adams.

I have not yet begun to search for the examples of the use (actually, misuse) of statistics to make government policy. This will take time, now that Ryokan has ducked out.

[Zeluvia]

Is religion subject to free market forces?

[Ryokan]

Is religion subject to free market forces?

I don't understand the question. I'm sorry.:blush:

[Augustine2004]

Is religion subject to free market forces?Well, to live in the world, it would help to know economics.

[Zeluvia]

Do people choose religion based on what suits them best? What profits them the most?

[Ryokan]

Do people choose religion based on what suits them best? What profits them the most?

Probably not. People "choose" their religion based on a complex set of factors, I think. Presumably the religion they believed was accurate would influence their decision making based on what they believed they would benefit them. But their level of certainty, people habit of inflating the value of current good and discounting the costs of future bads all affect that.

[Zeluvia]

If we are Christians, I say not, if the State sins and is leading us into sin.

Okay, but, here is my point. What defines "evil" and "sin" but the tenets of the religion you follow? And how do people choose what religion they follow, except by what suits them?

[Augustine2004]

I have not yet begun to search for the examples of the use (actually, misuse) of statistics to make government policy. This will take time<snip>.This is not a perfect refutation of Ryokan’s assertion that statistics can be used to create and guide sound government policy, but that was the first thing that I thought of and liked. (Too long, not exactly on topic, and not totally focused on the assertion.)

What causes business cycles? The typical event in an economy of two or more interacting people is the trade. If you think about it, it should be a puzzle why the free market economy would have cycles. Sure, the aggregate of the money or monies involved in the trades may fluctuate, because people 1) hoard or spend more money or 2) trade more or less often than before. However, generally speaking we seem to have no reason to think that any general and intrinsic property of the economy would cause business cycles. Any change in the economy would be extrinsic and contingent or random. There would be no systematic or system-wide change.

However, the advent of central bank systems such as the United States Federal Reserve System brought the business cycle into being. How can that be? The business cycle has two phases, the boom (expansion) and the bust (contraction). The boom is the phase in which malinvestments (to be explained later) accumulate. The bust is the phase in which the malinvestments are worked out of the economy.

We should assume that the central bank systems are meant by its owners and managers to create conditions of prosperity for them. Such an assumption is well supported by history. The conditions would include easy credit and money (not real money, of course, but still things used as though they were money) created out of thin air, as it were.

To be sure, businessmen in the free market economy do make mistakes from time to time in making investments. What I meant by malinvestments in the above paragraph are bad investments that business make because of easy credit and a flood of ‘fake’ money.

Let me use as an analogy the Tower of Babel. For it to reach the heavens, its construction must be sound. However occasionally shoddy construction does occur. As the building grow toward the sky, stresses accumulate in the building. Let a strong breeze blow; an earthquake occur; or something go bump in the night. Bang! A part of the building collapses, and the debris must be cleared away, and new construction begun.

What might cause malinvestments to accrue economy-wide? One reason would be that the government changes policy from time to time, causing investments that were predicated on previous policy to go bad. But even if the government maintained a unchanging policy, fixing the monetary system would still create problems.

Consider Milton Friedman’s suggestion that the money supply be expanded at a steady rate, say 5% per annum. By money supply here I mean of course what the Federal Reserve System is supposed to regulate. I assume further that the government maintains the status quo on economic policy in every other way. That would certainly be a much better situation than what we have now, but it would still be better to allow the free market economy maintain and manage its own money supply. Later I will take up Ryokan’s supposition that statistics can be used to guide the Federal Reserve System in the management of the money supply. Why would such a steady-state situation still create problems?

First of all, allowing the economy to maintain and manage its own money supply is likely to create a better match between the time preferences of the participants in the economy on the one hand and interest rates and monetary balances on the other hand, than otherwise. I will not explain this point any more unless asked to do so. You can click here http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap18sec2.asp and if you still have questions, ask away!

Here’s the point about the inability of statistics to help guide government management of the economy well. We have no knowledge of the relationship between the time preferences of the economy participants on the one hand and on the other hand interest rates and money balances, knowledge that would help us anticipate the future. We have measured the acceleration of objects towards the center of the earth, and found it to be more or less constant from place to place and time to time. We could therefore construct buildings and moon rockets with some confidence that they would work. Not so with the aforementioned relationship.

At times 5% may be too high. At other times it may be too low. Businesses cannot know which possibility is the case and the size of the mismatch. They must therefore guess. We have to expect that they will guess wrong more often than not. Economic conditions vary. Hence malinvestments even in such a steady-state environment must accumulate to the point that the boom comes to an end. The economy must then take time out to work them out of its system, so to speak. The Tower of Babel collapses, ever again.

We can’t even use statistics to adjust the government monetary policy for optimal economic growth, because, again, we have no knowledge of the time preferences of the participants in the economy. Other stuff we don’t know, either, as a result of the government putting the free market out of the play, so to speak. This is true of the free market to some extent also, but people by acting freely do indicate by their actions their time preferences, which are encoded, so to speak, in prices, especially including interest rates. The prices also have an instrumental effect, in that they dampen demand and stimulate supply. (Surely you should know by now how free markets work.)

I could suggest more reading if you wish.

[Augustine2004]

Okay, but, here is my point. What defines "evil" and "sin" but the tenets of the religion you follow? And how do people choose what religion they follow, except by what suits them?Well, actually, the major religions have much in common. Evidently you didn’t read Richard Maybury’s principles in my earlier posts. Do everything you agreed to do and do not encroach on anybody or his property.

Further: if you want peace and prosperity, 1) everyone must want peace badly enough to make some effort to get along with everyone else and 2) allow the free market to exist. These conditions imply private property rights and Maybury’s principles. The free market cannot exist wholly without the ubiquity of private property. It cannot exist wherever war rages.

[Zeluvia]

But wars are fought over property no?

And doesn't the definition of "evil" change with society in time and place?

It seems to me you start with a definition of human interaction that ignores human biology, and try to place this on a spiritual plane.

I think that is doomed to fail.

The very rejection of the idea of public goods denies that we all need certain minimum requirements to survive biologically.

Or do you separate the concept of "common good" such as air and water and enough land to grow/produce food from the idea of "public" good?

[Augustine2004]

But wars are fought over property no?yes.
And doesn't the definition of "evil" change with society in time and place?yes.
It seems to me you start with a definition of human interaction that ignores human biology, and try to place this on a spiritual plane.
how you got this from my posts escapes me. I suppose my chatter about ethics led you to think of spiritual matters, whatever you think that phrase means.
The very rejection of the idea of public goods denies that we all need certain minimum requirements to survive biologically.

Or do you separate the concept of "common good" such as air and water and enough land to grow/produce food from the idea of "public" good?TWeb seems to be full of poor readers. Or is my ability to communicate clearly and effectively at fault? Maybe I should just leave Tweb and become a hermit as best as I can. I meant GOVERNMENT 'goods.' Capisce?

[Zeluvia]

yes i think so.

yes i think the hermit idea has merit !!

anyway I will go back and reread = )

[Augustine2004]

yes i think the hermit idea has merit !!

Have you considered it? Got any suggestions?

[JonLanceBarker]

Have you considered it? Got any suggestions?

i think she meant for YOU. :hehe:

[Augustine2004]

i think she meant for YOU.Oh. Yeah. Well, have YOU got any suggestions?

[JonLanceBarker]

Oh. Yeah. Well, have YOU got any suggestions?

As a matter of fact, I do.

Go join an Eastern Orthodox monastery...preferably one with no web access whatsoever.

Perhaps some very patient monk will correct your skewed point of view. :wink:

[Augustine2004]

As a matter of fact, I do.

Go join an Eastern Orthodox monastery...preferably one with no web access whatsoever.

Perhaps some very patient monk will correct your skewed point of view. No kidding? Where?

[Yankee_Doodle]

Augustine:

Well, I finally checked out this thread. Dude this is the most unrealistic, unproven bunch of krap I've ever heard. You keep accusing others of making unsupported assertions, when this entire theory is unsupported. It is a theory and one of the worse ones I've ever wasted my time reading, so you can't demand that people disprove something that really just amounts to some guys wild baseless b/s.

You know how some things are so stupid they're funny, well this is even more stupid than that (so sadly it's not even funny).

You propose privatizing everything .... like that would ever happen in a million years anywhere? Like any people or government would hand its national defense over to private contractors?

So then there be a profit incentive in creating more war (not that there's not already one ... but man your idea puts this in the realm of the Twilight Zone). I guess there would be more profit in extinguishing a fire rather than having a bunch of firemen sitting idle, or in more crime. Company executives will become like war lords ... I have to say it again, this is the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard. I was hoping you were like 19 or something (in which case I would write this off to youthful stupidity) but I see your degreed, so I assume you're at least a 20 something. My advice, stop reading such dumb books. When there is absolutely no possibility of something happening why waste time reading (or even talking) about it?

Would there be any more elected officials or would companies run everything? When I think of the slippery slope it becomes too long & again since this is less likely than bears learning how to fly I see little point?



AW

[Augustine2004]

Augustine:

Well, I finally checked out this thread. Dude this is the most unrealistic, unproven bunch of krap I've ever heard. You keep accusing others of making unsupported assertions, when this entire theory is unsupported. It is a theory and one of the worse ones I've ever wasted my time reading, so you can't demand that people disprove something that really just amounts to some guys wild baseless b/s.

You know how some things are so stupid they're funny, well this is even more stupid than that (so sadly it's not even funny).

You propose privatizing everything .... like that would ever happen in a million years anywhere? Like any people or government would hand its national defense over to private contractors?

So then there be a profit incentive in creating more war (not that there's not already one ... but man your idea puts this in the realm of the Twilight Zone). I guess there would be more profit in extinguishing a fire rather than having a bunch of firemen sitting idle, or in more crime. Company executives will become like war lords ... I have to say it again, this is the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard. I was hoping you were like 19 or something (in which case I would write this off to youthful stupidity) but I see your degreed, so I assume you're at least a 20 something. My advice, stop reading such dumb books. When there is absolutely no possibility of something happening why waste time reading (or even talking) about it?

Would there be any more elected officials or would companies run everything? When I think of the slippery slope it becomes too long & again since this is less likely than bears learning how to fly I see little point?



AWYou are indeed a poor reader. What was the first stated or unstated assumption that I made?

The Action Axiom: Human beings act purposefully. Now try to refute that! Some human behavior is indeed without purpose, perhaps acts of pure reflex, but they are of no interest to economists.

Moreover, for a Christian, you are a quitter and lacking in faith. Stop calling yourself Christian. JLB, that goes for you, also.

[Zeluvia]

The first issue I have with Hoppe's argument is this:

He seems to be saying that all goods/services are produced privately, and therefore, public goods do not necessarily exist. I will grant him that different governments and different societies define public goods differently, but I don't think this means that "public (government) goods is a fallacy.

In the beginning, there was no "ownership" of things, there was territory to be defended, but people could be nomadic. So, in order to have "private property" the society has to agree that what you produce should belong to you, and you have to be able to defend it, or the society has to assist you with the defense.

Security therefore Creates private property, and hence private "goods".

[nomad]

[QUOTE=Augustine2004;2280162]
The Action Axiom: Human beings act purposefully. Now try to refute that! Some human behavior is indeed without purpose, perhaps acts of pure reflex, but they are of no interest to economists.
/QUOTE]

This sort of hand-waving is why no one is taking you seriously.

People act intentionally, except when they don't, which doesn't fit into my theory so I will conveniently ignore it. Is that what you're saying? We call it 'fitting the data to the theory' in my neck of the woods.

[Mr Arkadin]

[QUOTE=Augustine2004;2280162]
The Action Axiom: Human beings act purposefully. Now try to refute that! Some human behavior is indeed without purpose, perhaps acts of pure reflex, but they are of no interest to economists.
/QUOTE]

This sort of hand-waving is why no one is taking you seriously.

People act intentionally, except when they don't, which doesn't fit into my theory so I will conveniently ignore it. Is that what you're saying? We call it 'fitting the data to the theory' in my neck of the woods.

Reflexive action can still be dealt with within the praxeological framework.



Concerning your argument, I see some major wiggle-room for the praxeologists. Have you ever started your car and then begun daydreaming, only to realize suddenly that you drove not to the corner store, but to your grandmother's house? I have. This suggests the idea that "reflexive, unconscious" action can be arbitrarily complex. It needn't be a simple knee-jerk; a properly trained pilot can "reflexively" take off or land an airplane. Over-the-road truckers report this phenomenon often.

This insight can be formalized by regarding actions as atomic units of unspecified complexity. For example, one "decides" to eat an apple, but one doesn't "decide" where to bite first, or how many times to chew (at least, one doesn't usually). Similarly, one "decides" to drive to the store, but one doesn't necessarily "decide" to avoid obstacles, stop at red lights, obey they speed limits, etc. Those are reflexive behaviors we develop, via training, to enable ourselves to carry out our real intention: getting to the store.

Notice that this can be harmonized with your alternate perspective. If you buy my suggestion above, it can be argued that Mises and Wittgenstein are describing the same phenomenon at different granularities. At a high level, a person decides to storm the enemy trench. At a lower level, trained reactions enable him to leap over bomb craters, dodge hand grenades, aim and fire his weapon, etc. Mises might say that those individual components of the action are "unconscious, reflexive" behaviors, and the soldier would probably agree that, in some sense, they are. Mises concludes that "storm the trench" is an action, while "jump over the crater" is not--instead, it's an incidental component of "storm the trench." Wittgenstein relatively ignores the end in view--storming the trench--and attempts to characterize the soldier's individual steps.

A similar criticism of praxeology has been raised, that a person buying an apple didn't really prefer this particular apple. Some praxeologists attempt to argue that the buyer did indeed prefer this particular apple. I believe it was Rothbard who pointed out that which apple one takes is simply not part of the action. The action is "take an apple at random," not "take this particular apple." The choice of apple matters only if the buyer inspected several apples and selected one particular one--but even then, the real action was, "take any apple that's red on at least X% of its surface." The critique is answered by clarifying the definition of action.

[nomad]

I don't really think reflexive action is a problem; I agree with the fundamental tenet (as it also underwrites sociology and traditional economics, which assume that human behavior can be predicted with some degree of error).

However, the attitude of selectively choosing your data to fit your expectations, and then ignoring data that doesn't, has appeared several times in this thread. Of course your theory works when you get to choose the data that fits into your model. If you want people to take you seriously, you have to be willing to engage with that part of reality that is an exception, not just wave it off as unimportant, not relevant, or 'just doesn't get it', and then point to some other part of reality that does support your model.

It seems you have found a model that works sometimes. That's great. But I don't think it works all the time, I think that your assumptions about when your model will work are flawed, and I think that the real world does not currently match the set where we think it will work.

[Mr Arkadin]

I don't really think reflexive action is a problem; I agree with the fundamental tenet (as it also underwrites sociology and traditional economics, which assume that human behavior can be predicted with some degree of error).

However, the attitude of selectively choosing your data to fit your expectations, and then ignoring data that doesn't, has appeared several times in this thread. Of course your theory works when you get to choose the data that fits into your model. If you want people to take you seriously, you have to be willing to engage with that part of reality that is an exception, not just wave it off as unimportant, not relevant, or 'just doesn't get it', and then point to some other part of reality that does support your model.

It seems you have found a model that works sometimes. That's great. But I don't think it works all the time, I think that your assumptions about when your model will work are flawed, and I think that the real world does not currently match the set where we think it will work.

What kind of action are you thinking of if it is neither purposeful or reflexive?

[Yankee_Doodle]

You are indeed a poor reader. What was the first stated or unstated assumption that I made?

The Action Axiom: Human beings act purposefully. Now try to refute that! Some human behavior is indeed without purpose, perhaps acts of pure reflex, but they are of no interest to economists.

Moreover, for a Christian, you are a quitter and lacking in faith. Stop calling yourself Christian. JLB, that goes for you, also.

dude you've always been an idiot, you are an idiot now, & I have little doubt you will continue to always be an idiot. You're nothing but an anarchist who is playing economist & who fancies himself a Christian (and has the audacity to define who is and is not Christian).

Duhhhh ----> don't quit your day job ... you know what I figured it out, all Calvinists (who actually know why they belong to a reformed church) are inherently stupid, arrogant, egotistical (yet have little reason to be egotistical since from an intellectual perspective they tend to be vastly lacking), and oh did I mention stupid?

:wink:

[nomad]

that was a little over the top, don't you think?

[Zeluvia]

Did I mention I was a biological determinist?

I guess that is why this whole theory just goes right over my head...

[Mr Arkadin]

[QUOTE=Zeluvia;2280872]Did I mention I was a biological determinist?
/QUOTE]

How do you know that the atoms moving inside you brain telling you this are correct?

[Augustine2004]

I don't really think reflexive action is a problem; I agree with the fundamental tenet (as it also underwrites sociology and traditional economics, which assume that human behavior can be predicted with some degree of error).

However, the attitude of selectively choosing your data to fit your expectations, and then ignoring data that doesn't, has appeared several times in this thread. Of course your theory works when you get to choose the data that fits into your model. If you want people to take you seriously, you have to be willing to engage with that part of reality that is an exception, not just wave it off as unimportant, not relevant, or 'just doesn't get it', and then point to some other part of reality that does support your model.I don't recall any instance in which praxeologists selectively choose the data to fit their expectations. Would you mind citing one or two? Actually praxeology is an apodictic science, it is NOT an empirical science like physics. It logically starts with the Action Axiom. Mr Arkadin claimed that reflexive behavior can be fitted into praxeology, but I don’t see that behavior having no purpose whatsoever would be of any interest except to physicists and biologists. Perhaps he has a different view of what ‘reflexive’ means.

While praxeologists are interested in history and social science, they ordinarily do not regard them as sources of data from which to induct some sort of generalization, or to ‘explain’ with some sort of principle. As an example of the later phrase, I mean a principle like, the speed of light in vacuum is a constant. There is indeed the principle that the choices people make in life are unpredictable, but that’s pretty much it for praxeologists. We can look at history and try to explain why people made the choices that they did, but that’s not science.

To be sure, praxeologists often do make assumptions, but they are only auxiliary assumptions, what I call particularizing assumptions, assumptions made so that a particular situation could be investigated and explained.


It seems you have found a model that works sometimes. That's great. But I don't think it works all the time, I think that your assumptions about when your model will work are flawed, and I think that the real world does not currently match the set where we think it will work.The only way praxeology can fail is 1) formal deductive logic can fail, 2)a praxeologist made some logical error in his thinking or 3) the Action Axiom is wrong or inapplicable.



AW, unless you were kidding around and do accept my arguments in this thread, I still would like to know the first point of your disagreement with them.

[Augustine2004]

The first issue I have with Hoppe's argument is this:

He seems to be saying that all goods/services are produced privately, and therefore, public goods do not necessarily exist.My fault for expressing myself so poorly. Of course governments produce things and perform services all the time. What Hoppe meant was that it’s BETTER to have NO government good or service. I will grant him that different governments and different societies define public goods differently, but I don't think this means that "public (government) goods is a fallacy.OK, but surely that shows there may be a problem with thinking that there are goods or services we should have our governments produce or provide.

In the beginning, there was no "ownership" of things, there was territory to be defended, but people could be nomadic.I don’t know how nomadic Adam and Eve were. In any case, to them resources were superabundant. Air, food, and to some extent land. So, property didn’t really exist then partly for that reason. So, in order to have "private property" the society has to agree that what you produce should belong to you, and you have to be able to defend it, or the society has to assist you with the defense.That’s OK, actually, but how would society assist? Someone coming to the aid of a damsel in distress, and things like that?

Security therefore Creates private property, and hence private "goods".Practically speaking, yes. The point still remains, it’s better for people to follow Richard Maybury’s precepts (do all you agree to do, and don’t encroach . . . ). In the small government thread, I tried to show that Big government does NOT really make things better and can in fact make things worse, like start wars (attention, JLB and AW, remember the worms in the tap water).

[Yankee_Doodle]

as the great philosopher elcarlos' di pluribus mencia once said ... uhhh di da di

[Augustine2004]

as the great philosopher elcarlos' di pluribus mencia once said ... uhhh di da diDid all of what I wrote amuse you? Or some part of it? If so, which?


Tu ne cede malis - Virgil

[Zeluvia]

[QUOTE=Zeluvia;2280872]Did I mention I was a biological determinist?
/QUOTE]

How do you know that the atoms moving inside you brain telling you this are correct?

Existentially, of course, I "know" nothing at all.

[Zeluvia]

My fault for expressing myself so poorly. Of course governments produce things and perform services all the time. What Hoppe meant was that it’s BETTER to have NO government good or service. OK, but surely that shows there may be a problem with thinking that there are goods or services we should have our governments produce or provide.

I don’t know how nomadic Adam and Eve were. In any case, to them resources were superabundant. Air, food, and to some extent land. So, property didn’t really exist then partly for that reason. That’s OK, actually, but how would society assist? Someone coming to the aid of a damsel in distress, and things like that?

Practically speaking, yes. The point still remains, it’s better for people to follow Richard Maybury’s precepts (do all you agree to do, and don’t encroach . . . ). In the small government thread, I tried to show that Big government does NOT really make things better and can in fact make things worse, like start wars (attention, JLB and AW, remember the worms in the tap water).

Well I think you have to start with how and why people bond together in social groups to understand why they would defend each other.
See, even with all their problems, I see governments as a natural outgrowth of early tribal structures. Organization to some degree must be necessary for survival, and some ONE has to be the voice to follow, else chaos. The question of government is how we choose who gets to call the shots.

The problem with all these "agreements" is that they work fine until you get to a point of survival....

Ever been really hungry and had no means of procuring food?

[Yankee_Doodle]

AW, unless you were kidding around and do accept my arguments in this thread, I still would like to know the first point of your disagreement with them.

Alright I'll be serious. There's no doubt that the consumer is always better served when labor and trade are free. Here few could disagree. However, one thing Hoppe's thesis seems to ignore is the dominion of government has generally arisen in areas where the private sector failed to meet public demand. Earlier in our history private enterprise built large parts of our infrastructure; and obviously failed to adequately serve public demand (since gov't had to intervene).

Take road construction. Certainly if the government ceased building roads tomorrow roads would still be built, and probably for a lower cost than government currently spends. However, will every housing or industrial complex developer spend money beyond what they need to spend for their own interests? Something like a county or regional grid that served all existing stake holders (or citizens) would be unlikely. You would end up with a hodge podge of roads that didn't take the big picture into account and I guess tolls at every corner?

Certainly larger highways could be funded through bonds that relied on toll revenues; and this could be done privately (probably more efficiently than the government can). However, what about small communities with an insufficient amount of traffic to justify an expenditure like a highway? Would those people be forced to move to larger communities? And, what about traffic? Under this scenario the incentive would be for more traffic not less.

Instead of positively addressing such issues Hoppe seems to wander off on a tangent by mocking what he views as theories of ethics espoused by other economists (which he asserts do not even amount to ethics at all). He never really answers questions like under his theory would roads outside of coal mining regions have ever been built in a poor, sparsely populated state like West Virginia?

I haven't read the whole thing but so far I see many unanswered questions, which the author acts like he's addressing but all he really does is attack opposing views (albeit in a fairly polite fashion) while glossing over the details. I'm extremely unconvinced.

I could buy into more realistic (and classical) libertarian theory, but even if Hoppe's theories might work in a theoretical world they wouldn't work in our word right now (or for the fairly longterm future).

Right now cheap products from abroad are hurting our worker. A company can simply go to a third world country, who has a very low tax structure (because they virtually have no infrastructure), where they pay workers near nothing (because there's no safety net), and where they're allowed total disregard for the environment. The way I see is America is trying to sell Adam Smith to the rest of the world at the expense of our average citizen. I'm not saying build a wall, but I do think we could fairly impose tariffs under the theory that such importers are free riders, gaining the benefit of American economic theory and hegemony while not contributing a nickel to it. The fact is the productivity of the American worker isn't far enough ahead of our competitors to make up for these inequitable benefits we give them.

The long term theory was even though countries like China might employ unfair trade tactics (like manipulating their currency), continued free market expansion will eventually force political change & thus we can change the world through the buying power of our consumer. Of course this imagines that we succeed in forcing such change before we decline economically (of course once we do we are not only are much poorer as a result, but we will no longer wield such economic power again). Of course this initial reasoning for treaties like the WTO has given way to the economic interests that have gained power and are now entrenched as result.

If every nation actually practiced free trade then free trade would work for us; but they don't so it doesn't.

Moreover, the idea of having a private army is even more bewildering (if Hoppe goes this far). Imagine giving the power of an advanced military to an unelected group of corporate leaders? There are so many problems (which most should easily be able to imagine) with this idea I don't even know where to start.

My feeling is a guy like Ron Paul might be great for this country, however, Hoppe simply goes too far. I think we can privatize many functions currently performed by government, and many will agree there are many federal agencies that shouldn't exist. Even entitlements could be at least partially privatized and we (the average American) would derive significant benefit; and we could certainly significantly reduce our global military presence (800 major overseas bases is probably at least 700 too many) & station most of our troops here at home.

Additionally, Hoppe doesn't seem to recognize that sometimes "outlaw companies" as he calls them (here in NYC we call it the mob) won't always lose to competing non-outlaw companies. It would be nothing short of chaos. He thinks its only those who support and benefited from the old order who would stand in opposition to, for example, security companies who abide by libertarian law. However, this just isn't the case. Opposition would probably mostly come from small time thugs who only operate in a small geographic sphere, or larger organized crime. Even if the good companies wind up dominating it will only be after intense fighting (probably violent conflict). We would likely end up more like modern Russia (a mob run nation that is for all intents and purposes a banana republic) then the libertarian utopia Hoppe imagines.

I'll close by saying Hoppe's thesis might not be utterly useless; but it can only succeed in a different world then we live in today (though, the same could probably be said for many past economic theories we view as mainstream today). This sort of system you must admit won't happen in today's world. Even the most ardent states rights laissez-faire republicans couldn't imagine allowing private companies to take over policing or our armed forces, much less the average American.


AW

[Yankee_Doodle]

Did all of what I wrote amuse you? Or some part of it? If so, which?


Tu ne cede malis - Virgil

Hey, I was writing a serious response while you wrote this. BTW living for liberty doesn't abrogate living according to pragmatic reality?


Anyway, I'll wait for your response to my response.

AW

[Augustine2004]

There's no doubt that the consumer is always better served when labor and trade are free. Here few could disagree. However, one thing Hoppe's thesis seems to ignore is the dominion of government has generally arisen in areas where the private sector failed to meet public demand.Public demand? As distinguished from what? In any case, without the free market to set prices and thereby moderate demand, it can be conceivably if not practically infinite. Earlier in our history private enterprise built large parts of our infrastructure; and obviously failed to adequately serve public demand (since gov't had to intervene).I wonder if you have really studied this thread yet. For the matter economics in general. Have you never heard of economic scarcity? Also, the world economy is practically of an unitary and interdependent character. A rather rough analogy is a long narrow balloon. If you squeeze one end, the other end does get somewhat bigger, but the interior volume of the balloon does not thereby increase (it gets slightly smaller in fact). Another analogy: the government is like the kid at a swimming pool. Impatient at how fast the pool is filling, he scoops up some water at the deep end, goes to the shallow end, and pours out the water. He thinks that this way the swimming pool fills up faster. Man, I just can’t believe how ignorant you are of elementary and obvious economic facts.
Take road construction. Certainly if the government ceased building roads tomorrow roads would still be built, and probably for a lower cost than government currently spends. However, will every housing or industrial complex developer spend money beyond what they need to spend for their own interests? Something like a county or regional grid that served all existing stake holders (or citizens) would be unlikely. You would end up with a hodge podge of roads that didn't take the big picture into account and I guess tolls at every corner?

Certainly larger highways could be funded through bonds that relied on toll revenues; and this could be done privately (probably more efficiently than the government can). However, what about small communities with an insufficient amount of traffic to justify an expenditure like a highway? Would those people be forced to move to larger communities? And, what about traffic? Under this scenario the incentive would be for more traffic not less. All right, suppose before Eisenhower decided to have the Interstate system built, an alternative world came into existence, like in quantum mechanics, in which Eisenhower decided to NOT have the Interstate system built. In fact, the USA decided to let new roads be built, and the then-existing roads be operated and maintained by private companies from now on. Not likely, I’d agree. Just hypothetical, for discussion and argument’s sake, all right? Call this new world the fm world. Because people are in the main not predictable, I can only speculate what that world would look like, but I will simply concede that the roads may well be fewer and less convenient to use. So? You cannot simply look at just the roads of both worlds and conclude therefrom that our present world is better off. Because of its unitary and interdependent character, you have to evaluate the economy as a WHOLE, taking EVERYTHING into account. Besides, your argument is somewhat like saying that Carpenter Joe must be a better carpenter than Carpenter Sally because he has 10 table saws and she has only one. As to the issue of central planning, have you not heard of Adam Smith’s invisible hand? You also never seem to have considered the argument against centralized command and control economies.
Instead of positively addressing such issues Hoppe seems to wander off on a tangent by mocking what he views as theories of ethics espoused by other economists (which he asserts do not even amount to ethics at all). He never really answers questions like under his theory would roads outside of coal mining regions have ever been built in a poor, sparsely populated state like West Virginia?Actually, I would not define the free market so that it excludes volunteer or charitable endeavors. If you want more discussion on this point, fine.
I haven't read the whole thing but so far I see many unanswered questions, which the author acts like he's addressing but all he really does is attack opposing views (albeit in a fairly polite fashion) while glossing over the details. I'm extremely unconvinced.Take your time; I’m willing to wait weeks.I could buy into more realistic (and classical) libertarian theory, but even if Hoppe's theories might work in a theoretical world they wouldn't work in our word right now (or for the fairly longterm future).It IS realistic, proceeding as it does from the action axiom. YOU are not being realistic 1) if you reach conclusions that contradict the axiom or 2) you use unrealistic auxiliary assumptions.

Right now cheap products from abroad are hurting our worker. A company can simply go to a third world country, who has a very low tax structure (because they virtually have no infrastructure), where they pay workers near nothing (because there's no safety net), and where they're allowed total disregard for the environment. The way I see is America is trying to sell Adam Smith to the rest of the world at the expense of our average citizen. I'm not saying build a wall, but I do think we could fairly impose tariffs under the theory that such importers are free riders, gaining the benefit of American economic theory and hegemony while not contributing a nickel to it. The fact is the productivity of the American worker isn't far enough ahead of our competitors to make up for these inequitable benefits we give them.

The long term theory was even though countries like China might employ unfair trade tactics (like manipulating their currency), continued free market expansion will eventually force political change & thus we can change the world through the buying power of our consumer. Of course this imagines that we succeed in forcing such change before we decline economically (of course once we do we are not only are much poorer as a result, but we will no longer wield such economic power again). Of course this initial reasoning for treaties like the WTO has given way to the economic interests that have gained power and are now entrenched as result.

If every nation actually practiced free trade then free trade work for us; but it doesn't.

Moreover, the idea of having a private army is even more bewildering (if Hoppe goes this far). Imagine giving the power of an advanced military to an unelected group of corporate leaders? There are so many problems (which most should easily be able to imagine) with this idea I don't even know where to start.

My feeling is a guy like Ron Paul might be great for this country, however, Hoppe simply goes too far. I think we can privatize many functions currently performed by government, and many will agree there are many federal agencies that shouldn't exist. Even entitlements could be at least partially privatized and we (the average American) would derive significant benefit.

Additionally, Hoppe doesn't seem to recognize that sometimes "outlaw companies" as he calls them (here in NYC we call it the mob) won't always lose to competing non-outlaw companies. It would be nothing short of chaos. He thinks its only those who support and benefited from the old order who would stand in opposition to, for example, security companies who abide by libertarian law. However, this just isn't the case. Opposition would probably mostly come from small time thugs who only operate in a small geographic sphere, or larger organized crime. Even if the good companies wind up dominating it will only be after intense fighting (probably violent conflict). We would likely end up more like modern Russia (a mob run nation that is for all intents and purposes a banana republic) then the libertarian utopia Hoppe imagines.

I'll close by saying Hoppe's thesis might not be utterly useless; but it can only succeed in a different world then we live in today (though, the same could probably be said for many past economic theories we view as mainstream today). This sort of system you must admit won't happen in today's world. Even the most ardent states rights laissez-faire republicans couldn't imagine allowing private companies to take over policing or our armed forces, much less the average American.Let’s agree on the basics first.

[Mr Arkadin]

[QUOTE=Mr Arkadin;2280880]

Existentially, of course, I "know" nothing at all.

Well that certainly accounts for your responses in previous dialogues with you.

[nomad]

I don't recall any instance in which praxeologists selectively choose the data to fit their expectations. Would you mind citing one or two? Actually praxeology is an apodictic science, it is NOT an empirical science like physics. It logically starts with the Action Axiom.

I will investigate further. But that's not really what I'm talking about. I mean, things like where someone pulls out some historical episode which they feel disproves your theory, and instead of addressing it you point out some other historical episode (i think early america) as support. That's choosing the data. The statement you made was just an example of the general attitude, but not a very good example of it really. I am getting interested in this, so I will go back and pull out what I feel are the unsupported assertions and data-fitting out of this thread. I don't have time to do it today, and I'm out of town until next friday, so look for it sometime the week after that. In addition, I'll address the below further, this will let you know where my thinking is going.

I finally did look up praxeology, not realizing it was a technical term. There's no such thing as an 'apodictic' science, at least not in my understanding of science; it appears to be closer to philosophy.

Incidentally, i'm not sure of the exact wording of the action axiom that you describe, but pretty much every social science depends on the fact that humans act intentionally, so of course I don't disagree with it. However, it also gives support to sociology and traditional economics as well, they just differ in the application of it as far as I can tell.

There is no such thing as an apodictic statement about the real world; at best, they are assertoric. Apodictic statements can only exist in their own world. With the real world, you have to prove them true, and that removes them from the set of apodictic statements.


While praxeologists are interested in history and social science, they ordinarily do not regard them as sources of data from which to induct some sort of generalization, or to ‘explain’ with some sort of principle. As an example of the later phrase, I mean a principle like, the speed of light in vacuum is a constant. There is indeed the principle that the choices people make in life are unpredictable, but that’s pretty much it for praxeologists. We can look at history and try to explain why people made the choices that they did, but that’s not science.


If you are are going to talk about human nature, you are using history and social science as data. However, you are right - social sciences cannot, by their very nature, be as rigorous as the physical sciences, simply because it's nearly impossible to establish effective controls on the experiment - something is always different. Most of social science, in fact, is spent trying to determine the missing controls, from what I have seen.


The only way praxeology can fail is 1) formal deductive logic can fail, 2)a praxeologist made some logical error in his thinking or 3) the Action Axiom is wrong or inapplicable.


Or, some other wrong assumption was made somewhere. The action axiom alone is not sufficient to prove very much. From what I have seen, it states that humans act 'purposefully'. But without a definitely of purposefully, this isn't very meaningful. Even if I agree that the correct formulation is that a human will always act in such a way to remove the greatest dissatisfaction to him, how do you measure that or prove what the 'greatest dissatisfaction' is? That takes you out of the realm of apodictic science. The assumptions you will have to add to it to make it useful could be in error as well. I'll make a list of what I have seen on these in this thread as well.

I do have a few specific issues, I'll make a list and maybe that will lead to a more productive conversation, maybe you have an answer for them. I'll try to get all this together.

[Yankee_Doodle]

Public demand? As distinguished from what? In any case, without the free market to set prices and thereby moderate demand, it can be conceivably if not practically infinite. I wonder if you have really studied this thread yet. For the matter economics in general. Have you never heard of economic scarcity? Also, the world economy is practically of an unitary and interdependent character. A rather rough analogy is a long narrow balloon. If you squeeze one end, the other end does get somewhat bigger, but the interior volume of the balloon does not thereby increase (it gets slightly smaller in fact). Another analogy: the government is like the kid at a swimming pool. Impatient at how fast the pool is filling, he scoops up some water at the deep end, goes to the shallow end, and pours out the water. He thinks that this way the swimming pool fills up faster. Man, I just can’t believe how ignorant you are of elementary and obvious economic facts.

As an undergrad I was a finance major not economics .... I took the typical micro & macro, weeded my way through Wealth of Nations, so while I'm no economist I'm not ignorant of economics as you opine (though I learned this stuff 10 yrs ago).

What I may have forgotten about economics has been replaced by real world experience and common sense. I understand scarcity but what about things like the multiplier effect .... economics is not a zero sum game


All right, suppose before Eisenhower decided to have the Interstate system built, an alternative world came into existence, like in quantum mechanics, in which Eisenhower decided to NOT have the Interstate system built. In fact, the USA decided to let new roads be built, and the then-existing roads be operated and maintained by private companies from now on. Not likely, I’d agree. Just hypothetical, for discussion and argument’s sake, all right? Call this new world the fm world. Because people are in the main not predictable, I can only speculate what that world would look like, but I will simply concede that the roads may well be fewer and less convenient to use. So? You cannot simply look at just the roads of both worlds and conclude therefrom that our present world is better off. Because of its unitary and interdependent character, you have to evaluate the economy as a WHOLE, taking EVERYTHING into account. Besides, your argument is somewhat like saying that Carpenter Joe must be a better carpenter than Carpenter Sally because he has 10 table saws and she has only one. As to the issue of central planning, have you not heard of Adam Smith’s invisible hand? You also never seem to have considered the argument against centralized command and control economies.

Of course I've heard of Smith's invisible hand & agree with the argument against centralized economies (and governments). Apparently my position is not clear to you. My main argument against Hoppe's theory is its unrealistic nature, not necessarily the efficiency of it.

Actually, I would not define the free market so that it excludes volunteer or charitable endeavors. If you want more discussion on this point, fine.Take your time; I’m willing to wait weeks.It IS realistic, proceeding as it does from the action axiom. YOU are not being realistic 1) if you reach conclusions that contradict the axiom or 2) you use unrealistic auxiliary assumptions.Let’s agree on the basics first.

Even volunteers wouldn't be able to fill the vacuum left by government if they ceased performing what is now viewed (by most) as public functions.

Unfortunately you fail to factor human nature into the equation. If we give, for example, private entities the power to create and operate our military inevitably it will lead to tyranny -- as absolute power corrupts absolutely. This stuff might look good on paper and it might be feasible in the mind of a college student (with little if any real world experience). However, for those of us who have had the benefit of real experience and an understanding of human nature gained through real interactions with people (not just reading about them in books) we know this model cannot work.

Do I think states should perform most functions currently done at the federal level (like Medicare or creating & enforcing drug laws -- just to name a couple)? Of course I do. Do I think that many elements of these functions couldn't be privatized (but with government oversight)? No. I would love to see, Medicare for example, block granted to the states and the states use private insurance companies to run the program (giving individuals the freedom to choose their health plan), which does occur to some extent now. However, do I think most people would have the foresight or discipline to save enough to afford health care as a senior? No because here in the real world people just don't operate the way they do in books. This is my point, and perhaps once you've had the benefit of more than 30 years on this earth you will see my point.

I love when I hear politicians praise the productivity of the American worker or make statements like I trust in the intelligence of the American people. What I want to see is a parody where you have a politician making these statements and split the TV screen to show the American ghetto or the way people live in some poor rural parts of this country with the other side of the screen showing some politician making these dishonest statements.

We certainly need change, but change that recognizes the utility of government and the retains the idea that a government, accountable to the voter, should have oversight in areas that are truly public functions. The military is a public function, law enforcement is a public function, ensuring retirees have some sort of pension and health care is a public function, operating a safety net is a public function, regulating road ways is a public function, and regulating childhood education is a public function.

We can hand over the construction and maintenance of some bridges and highways to contractors, the military must use contractors for many functions, we can convert to a voucher system for schools, but to travel down your slippery slope of virtually no government is a disturbing idea.

Imagine Acme company is allowed to operate a military. Who would pay them? It would either be taxpayers or other companies right? If we assume other companies are the source of their revenue then couldn't Acme widget company demand the Army be sent into a foreign land to enforce their economic interests? Who will the soldiers be loyal to? Will it be the guy signing their pay checks or will it be the people? It seems likely we would be handing over our defense to a mercenary group rather than a military accountable to civilian elected officials.

What about border patrol? What would be the incentive? Acme widget company could simply import cheap labor who has little regard for worker safety or benefits and destroy the working class of this country (not that its not happening now, but imagine the rate it would occur in the world you propose).

Basically Hoppe imagines a new country (perhaps a previously undiscovered chunk of land somewhere that people, from the beginning, decide to follow his theory).

The alternative world where Eisenhower didn't build the interstate highway system couldn't exist without many more assumptions about this alternative world. The highway system connected already existing, well established communities and cities. If a country could start fresh they wouldn't build communities or inhabit regions in an inefficient manner. In other words population would have to follow highways (Eisenhower dealt with the opposite situation, he had to build highways according to where people already lived).

Only farmers would travel beyond coastal regions (since locating production facilities near sea ports to facilitate trade is more efficient). We probably wouldn't even need roads to our farm lands, trains would suffice. People would immigrate to this imaginary country and would take open jobs. Developers would build residences near the economic center and build roads to facilitate commuting to work. Retailers would conglomerate stores near the center and build roads connecting themselves to existing roads. Great right?

The problem with Hoppe is his theory only works in an imaginary country, which can never exist (since there's no large undiscovered chunks of land in this world anymore). I guess a simple test for vetting an economic theory is its possible utility. Adam Smith or Keynes had viable ideas with real world application. What sense does it make speculating about a theory, which can only be applied in an alternate universe? Sounds silly to me.

Since you seem to agree with my premise that this theory could only be applied in an alternate world, I'm not sure why you insist on insulting me for merely pointing out this obvious fact?

[Augustine2004]

[AW I've not yet read every word of your post, but even a quick scan made it obvious you still don't agree to my repeated request that we agree on the basics first.]

Again I failed to credit someone else. Robert Higgs used the swimming pool analogy. I don’t know whether he is the originator or not - or I forgot who.


Let me start over. Do you not agree with Richard Maybury’s precepts, which he distilled from all the world’s major religions:

* Do all you agreed to do.

* Do not encroach on people or their property?

I would add the tit for tat precept, which seems like Newton’s Third Law: Suppose you have been following the Maybury precepts (above) but someone still broke one or both of those against you. It’s then OK to return ‘tit for tat,’ but not overproportionately.

Let’s not discuss the problem of justice until later.

What would happen if everyone followed the Maybury precepts, which include the tit for tat strategy, since a given date, say January 1, 1900? Let’s call the world the M world, short for Maybury. Even shorter, the MW.

Which would be better the MW or our present world. Of course those who think we should follow the Maybury precepts would choose the MW. I don’t have any ethical argument to present to those who don’t. The best I can do with those people is to ask what precepts they think we should follow instead.

Critics would rightly say that not everyone will follow the Maybury precepts. There is then the problem of what to do with those who will not follow them. Actually, the problem is two-fold: security against them and justice to them. I don’t want to discuss them until we agree on the basics.

Let me point out, however, that the world does follow the precepts for the most part. Would it not be much worse if most people don’t most of the time? Hence, it should be all right to divide the world in two parts, one somewhat like the MW world and the other the non-MW part. Let’s put government in the non-MW world, because, after all it does frequently violate the precepts.

[Yankee_Doodle]

Yes:

I agree people should do what they agree to do; and

I believe in private property rights and that people have a right against the encroachment of their persons or property by another.

(btw I think you only asked that we agree on "the basics" on one prior occasion, not to nit pick but you said you repeatedly requested this)

[Augustine2004]

What about tit for tat? What do you favor? 1 million tits for 3,000 tats? As if the Iraqi ordinary citizens had anything to do with 9/11 or al Qaida.

[Yankee_Doodle]

What about tit for tat? What do you favor? 1 million tits for 3,000 tats? As if the Iraqi ordinary citizens had anything to do with 9/11 or al Qaida.

Your question here goes to the larger issue of proportionality (and IMO is beyond the scope of the libertarian debate). However, it's an interesting question all the same so I'll try to answer it the best I can.

The common (seemingly less informed) view of the old maxim an eye for an eye is that it goes against the idea of turning the other cheek. However, that's not how the idea was originally presented. It was actually presented to reduce violence rather than to promote it. In other words if someone from another village kills a member of your village you cannot go and wipe out the entire offending village. Rather you can only target the offending individual when seeking justice. It can be said Christ took this a step further, but not that He opposed the original concept all together (which was in fact a sort of proportionality that sought to limit rather than promote violence).

So then if as Christians we are to follow the word of God (which of course we must) then it seems that divine justice can only be wrought in proportion to the wrong committed by the offender. Moreover, and just as importantly, only the offender may be the target of justice and when targeting him or her they may only be punished in proportion with the wrong committed.

I don't mean to digress to a discussion of just war theory, which IMO is a rather obscure concept. After all when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor it was the nation state of Japan who was the offender. We cannot realistically have solely targeted the offending military unit who actually carried out the attack. It was a unified Japan, where both the military and political arms of their nation decidedly attacked the United States. In such a war that requires fighting until the opponent submits to your will, proportionality becomes an impossible concept to consider in tactical planning.

However, Iraq is a markedly different situation. Your basically asking me to defend our initial decision to attack Iraq when in fact I find the decision indefensible. Iraq obviously had nothing to do with 9/11 and the Bush administration knew that. I disagreed with the decision then but now I think we do have an obligation to Iraq. It's not to say that obligation needs to be fulfilled with our Army; but we have an obligation all the same. Having served in this war I believe the Iraqi people really do desire some form of at least basic democracy. They want peace, the want a functioning market economy, the want prosperity, they want rights, they want a law enforcement and a judiciary they can trust, and they want a functional and democratic political system.

However, they also are Muslim, and while the idea of a theocracy is undesirable to many Iraqi's (namely Sunni's), most still envision Islam as the desired "state religion" and desire many elements of Islamic law codified into their civil laws. So obviously Iraq will never be like Paris & our efforts should be aimed at very limited objectives at this point.

Frankly we don't really need to be in Iraq to successfully defend the region against Iranian expansionism (not that we should even care about Iranian expansionism anyway). Moreover, if our strategic goal is limited to dealing with Al Qaeda -- remaining in Iraq is probably the least efficient use of our limited assets and resources.

Look, when Ron Paul proclaims we should reduce our global military presence (which is more than any previous empire in history) I applaud. When people say we should reduce our military presence in Iraq and focus it on the real threat of Al Qaeda, I applaud. However, when people take the attitude that we should collectively say screw Iraq I disagree. We are the direct cause of Iraq's current state of affairs & therefore we have an obligation to help them get on their feet. However, that doesn't mean an open ended blank check. We should tell them we're willing to keep our Army there (in about half its current numbers) for another year, then we'll give your government X amount of dollars, then your on your own.

A more credible position might be that we gave them an adequate opportunity to get their act together --- but what did we expect? Did we think Iraq would magically become skilled at democratic governance?

Fact is America will probably elect in John McCain. It makes me sick when I see the little instigator Joe Lieberman at McCain's side (and McCain's new friend, the so called Pastor Haguee, who is truly a wolf in sheep's clothing and nothing but a bigoted war monger).

In America's drive for safety we create laws that govern us in our cars, that collect the DNA of minor offenders, tap the phone calls of our citizens, heck when I returned from Iraq I was wearing my desert Army uniform, had my military ID and dog tags, and still had to take off my boots so they could go through an x-ray machine.

The funny thing is its usually the more so called liberal and progressive states where all these Orwellian laws are enacted. When I hear Bush or McCain call themselves strict constructionists it makes me sick. But was Clinton any different? He created a federal funding program that gave monies to local police departments in return for adherence to certain guidelines. Is this in keeping with our great tradition of state sovereignty? Heck no & the so called liberals are no better than the so called conservatives, accept ironically it seems that the more conservative a state the less likely they are to enact these Orwellian laws & the more willing they seem to defend their citizens against government encroachment.

Real republicans (or I should say traditional republicans) are libertarians at heart. Of course the republican party has been infected by neo-cons who find their inspiration from Milton Freedman (who is perhaps the devil himself).

Now I'm rambling I guess & digressed into an emotive exposition, but I won't erase it because it is how I feel. I do think the America I was taught to believe existed is being replaced by a hegemony that looks after the interests of our multi-national companies, oilmen, global banking industry, and Israel more than the interests of the average American citizen. Total libertarianism is an appealing alternative, but IMO anything close to it must be preceded by a period of transition, which at least in large part can only come from government (unfortunately I doubt the government can even be trusted to do that).

Why should we care if China is prosperous or not? Do we really think they could ever threaten us militarily if we decided to pull out of the WTO and look after our own economic interests? Why should we even care about the fate of Israel? If we want to prevent terrorism why not simply ban anyone from terrorist countries from even visiting this country? If terrorists attack our allies then isn't that their problem? Why should we spend our treasure so they don't have to spend theirs? Let Germany, Italy, Spain, and all the rest of them defend themselves. If Pakistan and Indian want to nuke each other .... oh well, stinks for them but not our problem. If China wants to conquer and pillage Taiwan, again, why should we care? Shouldn't Japan build her own army? Why do we need troops in South Korea, they can defend themselves just fine.

Why not do like the French & say if we're ever attacked by terrorists we'll nuke whoever did it. Heck, we can threaten to nuke Mecca if any Arab ever touches our soil again.

If we were really willing to go the America first route I'd be right there happy as a pig in doo doo. However, if I ever get a chance to talk with Hoppe I might tell him his theory is full of doo doo.

In Detroit only 25% of kids graduate from high school, yet for some reason we actually spend our valuable time and treasure on trying to force peace between Israel and Palestine and trying to demonize Iran on the word stage. We spend tens of billions of our hard earned dollars to have tens of thousands of troops in Germany while any drug smuggler, terrorist, or third world immigrant can poor into our country in droves. What are we worried about with Germany? Is the bratwurst or beer?

While China and Japan are manipulating their currencies and driving our auto industry out of business and our kids are chewing on lead paint from their toys we talk about the importance of free trade. Heck, there's nothing free about trade, it's one sided and we're the suckers. I want to see a guy run for President who has as his slogan a big picture of Uncle Sam mooning the world. We should no longer baby sit the world and we should withdraw from the WTO and defend our border. If I were king I guarantee there wouldn't be a kid in Detroit who would be allowed to drop out of high school. Nothing would be smuggled over our borders; and no Muslim terrorist would dare to want to screw with the United States, period, or they would really reap the whirlwind. Oh, and within five years our auto and oil industry would be forced, that's right forced, to convert to 100% alternative energy. Forget about not needing Arab oil ever again, we would cease needing oil for ground transportation or electrical production ever again. Even Obama won't mess with the entrenched powers who demand we retain our hegemony. Heck, if I were king foreign entities would not even be allowed to influence our political system. Foreign PACS --- gone! What ever happened to knock em flat Pat? I'll tell you, JP Morgan and friends guaranteed the thought police would make the very idea of America first politically incorrect. Okay, I'll shut up now, but you get the point.



AW

[Augustine2004]

I’m somewhat surprised that you agree on the basics. Moreover many of the things that you said in your last post were cogent. So, I’m baffled why you reject Hoppe so vehemently. It must be that your thinking is not yet straight or complete. Or maybe you have not yet finished studying the thread and Hoppe’s essay.

The present world can conceivably be separated into two, one that I’ll call the M part (for Maybury) and the rest, called non-M. The former of course follows the Maybury precepts including the tit for tat precept nearly all the time. Unfortunately, there’s almost nowhere an oversized government does not operate (perhaps I should just say, ‘nowhere,’ period). The M part is with so little influence on our lives, that I guess I have to imagine an alternative world as follows:

The alternative world (AW, to honor you ha) still has a substantial non-M part, but no government exists anywhere except for the kind that punishes evil-doers and praises the good citizens (designated here by ‘small’). I do not want to consider defense against aggressive governments and terrorists until later. I assume that free markets operate everywhere, including charitable organizations (such an assumption is not necessarily true, but it does seem likely).

Let’s suppose a charitable organization gets the idea of building a lighthouse. It goes around soliciting contributions. The problem is, it plans to exaggerate both its estimates of the benefits and the costs of building the lighthouse. Deliberate fraud.

So, eventually the lighthouse gets built. I’m not going to say whether the benefits are as great as promised by the organization, nor how much it costs to build the lighthouse. I won’t say anything about how much money the organization retained from the lighthouse contributions.

The point is, the organization’s fund-raising is still all M. The estimates are after all just opinions, not facts. It may have been morally reprehensible for the organization to retain so much money, but in so far as it publishes an accurate accounting, again it’s still M

Now consider yet another alternative world. Let’s replace the organization with a government. Heretofore, it’s the small kind, but now it also decides to have a lighthouse built after soliciting contributions.

What difference would there be now that might matter between these two alternative worlds? Who knows! People are not predictable as I’ve said before. Which AW would be better? Who knows! Ethics as it stands does not permit us to make such a determination that would be proof against reasonable objections.

Suppose a group of invisible alien scientists had instruments that could read minds. The aliens conduct ‘polls’ with their instruments and determine that the inhabitants of one AW liked their world better than the inhabitants of the other AW do theirs. Does that not mean anything? Not necessarily.

To really get a contrast, we will have to imagine that the government in the second AW is somehow able to 'shake down' some people in order to get the lighthouse built. Now we no longer have an M situation. If we agree that the Maybury precepts should not be violated, then we should disapprove of the situation.

But have we not gained from the lighthouse? Why would a mere violation of the second Maybury precept be so harmful? Is it really that impoverishing, so that overall there is no gain or perhaps there is even a loss?

Note that there’s an important difference. The lighthouse would not have gotten built in the third AW, had the government not shaken down the people. We should therefore consider yet 2 more AWs. The fourth one involves a consortium of shipowners who pledge their money for a lighthouse and find later to their dismay that they don’t have enough money. The fifth one involves a charitable organization who fails to raise enough money to get the lighthouse built.

Can we judge the fourth and the fifth AWs as being worse off than the third AW? NO! The resources that would have gone into the planning, designing, construction and operation of the lighthouse would go into other projects or actions instead. It’s impossible for economists who do not have to spend any resource to compare, for example, several cars on the one hand and a lighthouse on the other hand, and decide one is better than the other. A group of people who are allowed to spend their resources and choosing between the cars and the lighthouse can tell us which are better, however. Because people are not predictable, either the cars or the lighthouse could be chosen.

Well, any question or objection?

[Yankee_Doodle]

I’m somewhat surprised that you agree on the basics. Moreover many of the things that you said in your last post were cogent. So, I’m baffled why you reject Hoppe so vehemently. It must be that your thinking is not yet straight or complete. Or maybe you have not yet finished studying the thread and Hoppe’s essay.

The present world can conceivably be separated into two, one that I’ll call the M part (for Maybury) and the rest, called non-M. The former of course follows the Maybury precepts including the tit for tat precept nearly all the time. Unfortunately, there’s almost nowhere an oversized government does not operate (perhaps I should just say, ‘nowhere,’ period). The M part is with so little influence on our lives, that I guess I have to imagine an alternative world as follows:

I thought Hoppe stood against government period? So it's not enough for him that we eliminate fat in government and turn many functions over to private interests, as far as I can tell for Hoppe there is no function that government is suited to do. He is basically an anarchist (not a libertarian). Like I said my beef with Hoppe is that his theory will never happen .... even if it's a more efficient model than currently exists.

The alternative world (AW, to honor you ha) still has a substantial non-M part, but no government exists anywhere except for the kind that punishes evil-doers and praises the good citizens (designated here by ‘small’). I do not want to consider defense against aggressive governments and terrorists until later. I assume that free markets operate everywhere, including charitable organizations (such an assumption is not necessarily true, but it does seem likely).

Okay, now you have government performing some level of a police function, which is markedly different from what seems to be proposed by Hoppe?

Let’s suppose a charitable organization gets the idea of building a lighthouse. It goes around soliciting contributions. The problem is, it plans to exaggerate both its estimates of the benefits and the costs of building the lighthouse. Deliberate fraud.

So, eventually the lighthouse gets built. I’m not going to say whether the benefits are as great as promised by the organization, nor how much it costs to build the lighthouse. I won’t say anything about how much money the organization retained from the lighthouse contributions.

The point is, the organization’s fund-raising is still all M. The estimates are after all just opinions, not facts. It may have been morally reprehensible for the organization to retain so much money, but in so far as it publishes an accurate accounting, again it’s still M

Now consider yet another alternative world. Let’s replace the organization with a government. Heretofore, it’s the small kind, but now it also decides to have a lighthouse built after soliciting contributions.

What difference would there be now that might matter between these two alternative worlds? Who knows! People are not predictable as I’ve said before. Which AW would be better? Who knows! Ethics as it stands does not permit us to make such a determination that would be proof against reasonable objections.

Well, in Hoppe's world neither a government or any sort of charitable organization would be likely to build a lighthouse. It's more likely shipping companies would do this. The question of course becomes who owns the water? Let's say our sea coasts are operated by different sorts of companies. Some operate ports for ships that transport goods, others operate beaches for public enjoyment (but anyone whom wants to enjoy the beach would have to pay a fee). In a perfect world this would probably be more efficient that government.

However, companies much like governments have the inherent flaw of human nature to grapple with. What is to stop a company who owns such rights from overcharging?

Certainly there is a limit to the price the market will bear, which is the outer limit of what they could charge (here is where the invisible hand of the market sets the controls).

Also assume commercial fishermen need to fish and need a lighthouse. They form a cooperative (in the form of a corporation) who leases the right from the ultimate owner of the waterway to fish and share the cost of lighthouse.

This is all well and good, however, what about those who cannot afford the price most others can? Certainly at the outer limit of the price a large enough market (to remain profitable) can afford there are many would consumers who would be excluded from the market. For these people we have charities; however, charities are of course under no legal obligation to ensure all are fed. The only incentive for private interests or individuals to donate to the charity is to avoid mass elements in the population from rebelling, which in itself might prove effective for a while at least. However, as the market perfects assume it includes more and more people, and we wind up with only a small segment of the population who are excluded from it (so small they cannot possibly threaten the establishment). Now the incentive to care for their needs disappears and you wind up with many people essentially starving.

Naturally there will arise advocates for that population, who will organize them and find a voice. However, this will naturally cause conflict. It's not to say this is an undesirable consequence. An effective advocate for such a population, forced to operate in a libertarian system, would have to find a market solution for the problem. Let's say poorer people form their own cooperative to guarantee they receive at least enough services to survive. Certainly the services they receive wouldn't be as good as richer folks would get, but why should they be?

Of course the answer is dumb people reproduce at faster rates than intelligent people, so eventually we'll wind up right back where we started (which is what's happening in America right now). Smarter people would be forced either into conflict with dumb people, or into manipulating them (the latter is occurring as we speak in the US).

Let's face it there was only one social system that ever produced full employment & that was the Nazi Party. Since I assume none of us desire driving down that road we must assume no system can be perfect. Even Adam Smith's theory assumed all people would eventually acquire roughly equal knowledge. Sadly this was an unrealistic assumption (some are biologically incapable of reaching the intelligence of others).

Certainly we could say without a safety net that guarantees benefits (or with private insurance companies who operate elements of the safety net, like unemployment insurance) all people would be forced to seek a higher education or learn a skill that enables them to participate in the market. There could be no free riders.

At the end of the day some sort of government and taxation would be necessary. For one government must operate both law enforcement and national defense.

However, I also agree allowing government to even operate these functions (police & defense) is wrought with its own set of problems. Government might take law enforcement far beyond what the people really want or need (as is happening now) & it might do the same with defense (for example, they might decide to erect a global empire, as has already occurred). So what is the right answer? It seems both models have serious inherent problems, so we need a hybrid solution.

I would say allowing a body elected by the people to manage the police and defense systems, but forcing that body to fund these programs by a pay as you go system might work. For example, say a local town runs their own police department. However, the town is run by a small counsel and mayor & they can only raise revenue through a small sales tax that is only enough to support the government itself. Thus anyone who wants police protection would have to pay for it. For example, a housing development, industrial or retail complex, or an apartment complex, would have to pay for policing. This would ensure that law enforcement never grows beyond what is needed or desired by the people, while at the same time holding the government and its police force accountable to all citizens.

The same goes for defense. Obviously we would need a strong revamped constitution to limit defense. For example, we can mandate that establishing a permanent foreign military presence is illegal. However, let's say a shipping company is having trouble with pirates. The company would have to pay the government to provide military protection. If it costs too much the shipping company won't survive but it shouldn't survive because it costs more than its economic benefit.

Of course in a national emergency where we had to mobilize for war to repel a foreign invader must be an available option under our constitution and some sort of national government would be required. However, that national government would only have tariffs as a means of raising revenue (no more income tax). They could afford to maintain border protection, and if there's a threat of foreign invasion they must have the power to raise an adequate army; but that's it. All other functions would be handled at the local level. No more national law enforcement, no more federal government as we know it now.



Suppose a group of invisible alien scientists had instruments that could read minds. The aliens conduct ‘polls’ with their instruments and determine that the inhabitants of one AW liked their world better than the inhabitants of the other AW do theirs. Does that not mean anything? Not necessarily.

To really get a contrast, we will have to imagine that the government in the second AW is somehow able to 'shake down' some people in order to get the lighthouse built. Now we no longer have an M situation. If we agree that the Maybury precepts should not be violated, then we should disapprove of the situation.

But have we not gained from the lighthouse? Why would a mere violation of the second Maybury precept be so harmful? Is it really that impoverishing, so that overall there is no gain or perhaps there is even a loss?

Note that there’s an important difference. The lighthouse would not have gotten built in the third AW, had the government not shaken down the people. We should therefore consider yet 2 more AWs. The fourth one involves a consortium of shipowners who pledge their money for a lighthouse and find later to their dismay that they don’t have enough money. The fifth one involves a charitable organization who fails to raise enough money to get the lighthouse built.

Can we judge the fourth and the fifth AWs as being worse off than the third AW? NO! The resources that would have gone into the planning, designing, construction and operation of the lighthouse would go into other projects or actions instead. It’s impossible for economists who do not have to spend any resource to compare, for example, several cars on the one hand and a lighthouse on the other hand, and decide one is better than the other. A group of people who are allowed to spend their resources and choosing between the cars and the lighthouse can tell us which are better, however. Because people are not predictable, either the cars or the lighthouse could be chosen.

Well, any question or objection?

I didn't read your fourth AW before my previous response. Basically if a consortium of shipping company owners and commercial fisherman couldn't afford the lighthouse, then it shouldn't be built right? Why else would we build such a thing if not to facilitate these industries & if the economic benefit of those industries could not by their self support the project then it would an inefficient use of resources (those industries would either have to use moon and star light or they would die because they're not economically viable).


Like I said a pure call it Hoppian world isn't really possible ... but with some minor variation it might be doable.


AW

[Augustine2004]

I thought Hoppe stood against government period? So it's not enough for him that we eliminate fat in government and turn many functions over to private interests, as far as I can tell for Hoppe there is no function that government is suited to do. He is basically an anarchist (not a libertarian).Not just ‘basically’. He IS an anarchist.[QUOTE=Arminius_Wesley;2283348]Like I said my beef with Hoppe is that his theory will never happen .... even if it's a more efficient model than currently exists.I’m not sure what you mean by ‘more efficient.’ Anyway, you may well be correct that we will never give the free market the chance it needs to work for us.
Okay, now you have government performing some level of a police function, which is markedly different from what seems to be proposed by Hoppe?Well, yes.
Well, in Hoppe's world neither a government or any sort of charitable organization would be likely to build a lighthouse. It's more likely shipping companies would do this. The question of course becomes who owns the water? Let's say our sea coasts are operated by different sorts of companies. Some operate ports for ships that transport goods, others operate beaches for public enjoyment (but anyone whom wants to enjoy the beach would have to pay a fee). In a perfect world this would probably be more efficient that government.That word ‘efficient’ again. Give us an operational definition. Do you know what an operational definition is?
However, companies much like governments have the inherent flaw of human nature to grapple with. What is to stop a company who owns such rights from overcharging?Why, the free market, of course. See, if customers think the prices are too high, they just refuse to buy. So, the seller in order to stay in business has to lower his prices.
Also assume commercial fishermen need to fish and need a lighthouse. They form a cooperative (in the form of a corporation) who leases the right from the ultimate owner of the waterway to fish and share the cost of lighthouse.

This is all well and good, however, what about those who cannot afford the price most others can? Certainly at the outer limit of the price a large enough market (to remain profitable) can afford there are many would consumers who would be excluded from the market. For these people we have charities; however, charities are of course under no legal obligation to ensure all are fed. The only incentive for private interests or individuals to donate to the charity is to avoid mass elements in the population from rebelling, which in itself might prove effective for a while at least. However, as the market perfects assume it includes more and more people, and we wind up with only a small segment of the population who are excluded from it (so small they cannot possibly threaten the establishment). Now the incentive to care for their needs disappears and you wind up with many people essentially starving.Did this really happen in history especially before the rise of the Welfare State? If not, you’re assuming a lot about say the USA people, who does support the Welfare State. If they support that, it seems to me that we should assume that the AW people would also support charities, to be fair. Sudden disasters may strike, but that was usually in an oversize government setting. The Irish Potato Famine, for example.

Naturally there will arise advocates for that population, who will organize them and find a voice. However, this will naturally cause conflict. It's not to say this is an undesirable consequence. An effective advocate for such a population, forced to operate in a libertarian system, would have to find a market solution for the problem. Let's say poorer people form their own cooperative to guarantee they receive at least enough services to survive.That did happen in the USA prior to the rise of the Welfare State. Certainly the services they receive wouldn't be as good as richer folks would get, but why should they be? To be fair, you should assume that in a world of oversize government, statists would be equally indifferent, like in France just prior to the French Revolution, or during the Soviet era. As Maire Antoinette allegedly said, “Let them eat cake.”


Of course the answer is dumb people reproduce at faster rates than intelligent people, so eventually we'll wind up right back where we started (which is what's happening in America right now). Smarter people would be forced either into conflict with dumb people, or into manipulating them (the latter is occurring as we speak in the US).Bush and Cheney are not geniuses. Also, it would be interesting to know how you explain the sudden (from a political science perspective) Chinese change from a near-total communist state to a near-capitalist state, if what you say is true. What about India, too?

I skipped over the rest of your post, because I still haven’t presented fully my revamped argument yet. The argument, you should realize, is NOT that we can realize the small-government world. It is simply that the small-government world is better than the oversize government world (such as our present world).

Besides, I’m not sure that there are not enough smart and caring people like you. You seem to think otherwise. I hope you’re wrong. Let’s not give up hope. Perhaps we can develop more persuasive and understandable argument than mine out of our debate.

[Yankee_Doodle]

Give us an operational definition. Do you know what an operational definition is?

Yes. For example: Augustine = dumb pubescent idiot

[Augustine2004]

To really clinch my argument, I ought to compare our present world to an AW in which there is one less government good, such as a certain Alaskan bridge. However, every possibility should be covered. That is impossible to do so in a few months. Hence, we have to consider the situation in general or abstract terms.

What characteristics should a government good have? That is, a good or service such that if a typical government provided it the world would indeed be better off. My answer would should be obvious already: It’s impossible to know. Conceivably, all possible goods (let’s understand ‘services’ as included in that term from now on) can be ranked from most desirable for provision by the typical government to least. But even the most desirable is not necessarily one that SHOULD be produced by the government. After all, it’s always possible that violations of the Maybury precepts are too costly, for one thing.

Might there not be an exception, though, such as underproduction? I’ve already answered that question: I’ve already conceded that economic scarcity exists. There is always underproduction. The government does not at all solve that problem by causing more production in one area of the economy. I explained that the economy is unitary and interdependent. So, if the economy is forced to produce more in one area, the production in the other areas of the economy must necessarily be less. We do not win more production. In fact we may get LESS production overall.

Many people despite the foregoing still seem to think that the production of security should be an exception. After all, they think, if inadequate provision of security were made, all would be lost. Women in particular appear to fear rape and murder by men so much that they become staunch supporters of oversize government and scorn anarchists and small-government advocates.

So, that’s what we’ll discuss next time. However, let me say this: the production of security does NOT have any special characteristics such that the free market would be relatively less responsive to the wishes of potential consumers of security goods and services than the typical government would be. If you disagree, what would those characteristics be? What’s more, history has repeatedly shown that the typical government tends to produce insecurity itself, such as war and evil-doing by the police.

Any question or criticism? I suspect I need to improve this post, but I think I’ll just go ahead & toss it out there and see what happens.

[Augustine2004]

Of course the answer is dumb people reproduce at faster rates than intelligent people, I'm not sure, can you understand any part of Luke 10:21?

[Zeluvia]

What I failed to see in the lighthouse example was a cost/benefit analysis.

Where was the economic projection of the ships, cargo's and lives saved by being able to see the rocks vs the economic benefit of the cars produced instead?

[Yankee_Doodle]

I'm not sure, can you understand any part of Luke 10:21?

Ahhh ... the advocate for the illiterate. I never said dumb people couldn't understand Jesus and the Bible ..... but God made His word simple to understand.

What they can't understand is mathematics, law, chemistry, electronics, engineering, medicine, etc. Perhaps in your world you might appreciate being surrounded by stupidity .... but I find idiots rather worthless and a waste of space.

If we could simply deport all imbread idiots we would be a great country (regardless of what system we lived under). It's not to say it takes a genius to be saved .... but I'm thinking all our idiots would be just as saved if we deported them to some other land .........

:lol:


AW

[Augustine2004]

What I failed to see in the lighthouse example was a cost/benefit analysis.

Where was the economic projection of the ships, cargo's and lives saved by being able to see the rocks vs the economic benefit of the cars produced instead?A point I tried to make is that such an analysis is impossible to make like an engineer would analyze what a design would do. People's choices are not predictable. Would you prefer pink to blue? What is your favorite TV show? What will be the hit movie of next year?

Also, events are to some extent not predictable either. How many ships would be wrecked in 10 years if there were no lighthouse? What would their market value be, amortized over the same period of time?

Can YOU predict what choices you will make next year?

[Augustine2004]

Would a novel about a M society that fights for its existence help you understand how M provision of security might work, especially if it were entertainingly written? Can I do it? How entertaining am I? Am I too gloomy? Am I not funny enough?

[Yankee_Doodle]

Would a novel about a M society that fights for its existence help you understand how M provision of security might work, especially if it were entertainingly written? Can I do it? How entertaining am I? Am I too gloomy? Am I not funny enough?

You're alright in my book Augustine even though we disagree about plenty. It's okay to beat each other up a little bit ... but let's not forget we are fellow Christians.

[Augustine2004]

Ryokan and AW, this report on post-Katrina New Orleans does not prove that M provision of security is superior to non-M provision, but . . . http://journal.telospress.com/cgi/reprint/2007/139/170.pdf

[Zeluvia]

A point I tried to make is that such an analysis is impossible to make like an engineer would analyze what a design would do. People's choices are not predictable. Would you prefer pink to blue? What is your favorite TV show? What will be the hit movie of next year?

Also, events are to some extent not predictable either. How many ships would be wrecked in 10 years if there were no lighthouse? What would their market value be, amortized over the same period of time?

Can YOU predict what choices you will make next year?

Well, with things like lighthouses, the expense is usually not undertaken until the necessity is proven, which would give you an historical basis for the number of ships lost prior to the lighthouse being built, and you could use that to project the number and value of ships lost if you do NOT build the lighthouse.

It is not like picking a color, it is not a matter of choice. The wind and the currents and the rocks are a threat to ships. The lighthouse reduces said threat.

So I guess I miss your point about personal preference, as I do not see how that applies to lighthouses.

[Zeluvia]

Also, how does your idea work when it comes to roads?

Are you in favor of privatizing all roadways, so the owners and people responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the road can charge tolls?

I am curious, because we are having this debate about the roads now in Texas

And I thought the Katrina paper was bunk, he never mentioned how the levees got built in the first place, or why they weren't kept up, well at least as far as I read. I must admit having him use the word socialist to describe our government kinda put me off him.

[Zeluvia]

Would a novel about a M society that fights for its existence help you understand how M provision of security might work, especially if it were entertainingly written? Can I do it? How entertaining am I? Am I too gloomy? Am I not funny enough?

Actually,I would like to see you build a civilization on paper with an M type society from the ground up.

I see many of these economic theories and social ideas, but many of them seem to start where we are NOW, with private property already doled out, with civilization already at some point of development.

But if the system isn't capable of building civilization out of hunter/gatherers, why should we trust it too continue civilization?

[Ryokan]

But if the system isn't capable of building civilization out of hunter/gatherers, why should we trust it too continue civilization?
Why wouldn't we? I don't understand that, Zeluvia. Anything beside some variation on the tribal/clan confederacy or dictatorship model, like the Iroquios nation or Shaka Zulus "kingdom" , could work out of a hunter gatherer society, imo.

[Zeluvia]

Why wouldn't we? I don't understand that, Zeluvia. Anything beside some variation on the tribal/clan confederacy or dictatorship model, like the Iroquios nation or Shaka Zulus "kingdom" , could work out of a hunter gatherer society, imo.


I wonder sometimes as I watch the democrats and republicans this election year if we really got very far from tribal/clan confederacies = )

Well I guess the point I was trying to make is that utopian plans usually don't explain progression well.

How to get from HERE to THERE, or how such a plan would naturally evolve.

Every system of economics and social organization we have been through and now use have naturally evolved, through sometimes painful stages.

[Yankee_Doodle]

Every system of economics and social organization we have been through and now use have naturally evolved, through sometimes painful stages.

With the looming gigantic crisis in Medicare & social security and financing our global hegemony we're in for another painful stage.


AW

[Augustine2004]

Zeluvia, Not only is risk assessment more an art than a science, people actually choose risks to live with and risks to try to avoid. You cannot eliminate risk totally. That’s why I made the point about personal preference: People choose which set of risks to live with.

Insurance companies do not eliminate risk, but they do enable you to exchange one set of risks for another set of risks.

I suspect you will still have questions, and I would be happy to try to answer them.

[Augustine2004]

I wonder sometimes as I watch the democrats and republicans this election year if we really got very far from tribal/clan confederacies = )

Well I guess the point I was trying to make is that utopian plans usually don't explain progression well.

How to get from HERE to THERE, or how such a plan would naturally evolve.

Every system of economics and social organization we have been through and now use have naturally evolved, through sometimes painful stages.It's an interesting coincidence that just a while ago I read an essay that addressed one of the questions above. Murray Rothbard says to use essentially the same strategy the abolitionists used. http://www.lprc.org/strategies.html He also discussed the Marxists' strategy.

Let's face it most of us are slaves of the ruling classes.

[Ryokan]

I wonder sometimes as I watch the democrats and republicans this election year if we really got very far from tribal/clan confederacies = ) That's not fair. The democrats are very tribal in their primary selection. The Republicans usually hold an inquisition and burn candidates at the stake until someone pure enough is left.

Well I guess the point I was trying to make is that utopian plans usually don't explain progression well.

How to get from HERE to THERE, or how such a plan would naturally evolve.

Every system of economics and social organization we have been through and now use have naturally evolved, through sometimes painful stages.

Okay, I agree with that.

[Zeluvia]

With the looming gigantic crisis in Medicare & social security and financing our global hegemony we're in for another painful stage.


AW

well, I have said it before and I will say it again, as the globe levels out, some will fall and some will rise.

I know Ryokan disagrees with me, but comparing the pre-WWII America with the post WWII America leaves me with the opinion we are going to fall some as far as standard of living and global hegemony, for many of the same reasons the Soviet Union fell, we just can't afford it.

The fact that we consume many of the world's resources, and keep many of the world's markets moving won't be enough to keep the dollar artificially propped up as the Chinese and Indian consumers start coming on line.

Our loss of manufacturing base does not bode well either IMO. We have to give "normal" people a means of support, and by this I mean those that won't be getting PH'ds.

Yep, its only been 50 odd years since American became a world power, so que sera, sera...

[Zeluvia]

Zeluvia, Not only is risk assessment more an art than a science, people actually choose risks to live with and risks to try to avoid. You cannot eliminate risk totally. That’s why I made the point about personal preference: People choose which set of risks to live with.

Insurance companies do not eliminate risk, but they do enable you to exchange one set of risks for another set of risks.

I suspect you will still have questions, and I would be happy to try to answer them.

Insurance is legalized gambling, and the house sets the odds.

If insurance was actually a "disaster pool" that you paid into for the right of taking out when you needed it, that would be a different story, but it is a for profit business, now isn't it?

My point, which you missed, is that only when the RISK is high enough do we build the lighthouse, or install the dam, or raise the levee, or put in the stoplight. In other words, we usually spend a few lives before we lay out the cash, so it is still NOT about personal preference.

It is about the COMMUNITY'S assessment of risk, not about one person's opinion.

Katrina caused so much damage because the money to repair, fix, and fortify the levee's was deemed to be out of line for the amount of risk of a dead on hit by a cat 4 or 5 hurricane. The Army Corps had warned that they were capable of dealing with a cat 3, but no more.
We chose not to invest in better levees.

[Mr Arkadin]

Insurance is legalized gambling, and the house sets the odds.

If insurance was actually a "disaster pool" that you paid into for the right of taking out when you needed it, that would be a different story, but it is a for profit business, now isn't it?

My point, which you missed, is that only when the RISK is high enough do we build the lighthouse, or install the dam, or raise the levee, or put in the stoplight. In other words, we usually spend a few lives before we lay out the cash, so it is still NOT about personal preference.

It is about the COMMUNITY'S assessment of risk, not about one person's opinion.

Katrina caused so much damage because the money to repair, fix, and fortify the levee's was deemed to be out of line for the amount of risk of a dead on hit by a cat 4 or 5 hurricane. The Army Corps had warned that they were capable of dealing with a cat 3, but no more.
We chose not to invest in better levees.

Here's (http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE10_1_3.pdf) a an article which discusses probability and addresses why insurance is not legitimised gambling

[Yankee_Doodle]

Here's (http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE10_1_3.pdf) a an article which discusses probability and addresses why insurance is not legitimised gambling

I agree insurance is a necessary function & so much is proven given its market viability.

The insurance industry and our pension systems have huge amounts of cash, which they invest. Sadly they mostly invest in either fixed income or commercial real estate investment vehicles (or synthetic securities related to mortgage lending).

If our government could create incentives for these industries to redirect investment in the domestic equities market (allowing for the more productive use of capital for things like industrial capital spending) then we would reap enormous rewards.

I would even support a government guarantee for the insurance industry if it was supported by a robust regulatory regime; at least enabling legislation with a sunset provision to reinvigorate our manufacturing base (among many other things we should do -- like withdrawing from the WTO & instituting a reasonable regime of moderate tariffs). Sadly all of our candidates for office are beholden to every interest in the world except the only they should be beholden to (our people) so none of this will happen.

AW

[Augustine2004]

The insurance industry and our pension systems have huge amounts of cash, which they invest. Sadly they mostly invest in either fixed income or commercial real estate investment vehicles (or synthetic securities related to mortgage lending).

If our government could create incentives for these industries to redirect investment in the domestic equities market (allowing for the more productive use of capital for things like industrial capital spending) then we would reap enormous rewards.Warren Buffett. White Moutain. You certainly don't know anything. Why don't you spend more time studying and less time writing?

[Augustine2004]

Insurance is legalized gambling, and the house sets the odds.It's not at all like Las Vegas or Monaco games.

If insurance was actually a "disaster pool" that you paid into for the right of taking out when you needed it, that would be a different story, but it is a for profit business, now isn't it?Yes. You appear to think that the people running the pool should NOT be paid.

My point, which you missed, is that only when the RISK is high enough do we build the lighthouse, or install the dam, or raise the levee, or put in the stoplight. In other words, we usually spend a few lives before we lay out the cash, so it is still NOT about personal preference.
It is about the COMMUNITY'S assessment of risk, not about one person's opinion.Are we not discussing an anarchistic or small-government world?


Katrina caused so much damage because the money to repair, fix, and fortify the levee's was deemed to be out of line for the amount of risk of a dead on hit by a cat 4 or 5 hurricane. The Army Corps had warned that they were capable of dealing with a cat 3, but no more.
We chose not to invest in better levees.I cannot be sure what would have happened in an anarchistic or small-government world. By 'we' in the above, I suppose you mean the people. Actually, it was the Bush Administration, who wanted money for the war and for empire.



Life entails taking chances. If one is not taking chances any more, he’s dead, comatose or a chattel slave. Part of making choices is evaluating the set of risks that each choice has, though we may not have perfect knowledge of them. Every possible course of action has its own set of risks. Even cowering under your bed has its own set of risks.

The paper on probability and insurance that Mr. Arkadin suggested may be too long and too difficult for someone who does not already have some exposure to the Austrian School Economics (praxeology actually) literature. If you have questions feel free to ask.


I like the idea of a novel about a small-government community defending itself, but the novel will perhaps take more than a year, so I’m somewhat at a loss to proceed now.

[Yankee_Doodle]

Warren Buffett. White Moutain. You certainly don't know anything. Why don't you spend more time studying and less time writing?

Give me a break dude .... your the one who admitted to not having a date in years? Get out and check out the world more, maybe you will learn how to communicate with people better. I doubt you have 10% of my academic credentials, yet you assert your intellectual fortitude (much like a teenager who thinks he knows it all yet really doesn't know squat). No one is about to really buy into your anarchism, get a grip.

Warren Buffet (and his buddy Bill Gates) are silly liberals (because they're guilty about being rich and white).

I merely point out that if we are to give our insurance companies or pension systems exclusive access to our workers then we should naturally want them to invest here at home, and invest in more productive things (rather than just real estate, which we already have too much of).

We need to refocus of manufacturing in this country & given our current system I see no reason why we shouldn't expect government to at least provide incentives for investing in America? I didn't elect anyone to represent China.

Moreover, why not convert social security into a pension system, which is allowed to invest in the economy (so retirees no longer have to depend on young workers to support them, which is a system with no future)? People will not support any reform proposals that seek to eliminate governments role in our retirement system, they just won't (if you left your bedroom more often and actually interacted with other humans you might realize this). At least by privatizing social security but still having a government guarantee (along with a robust regulatory regime to ensure the monies are not poorly invested) people might actually buy into it.

As for insurance, the market demands insurance therefore it exists. I thought you were the Mr. invisible hand of the market guy? You seem to ignore the value of risk management. I'd explain complex idea like derivatives, synthetic securities, or hedging but why bother .... I doubt you'll understand it anyway. Insuring property against fire allows people the ability to take out a mortgage. Banks will not lend to potential homeowners if they can't manage risk with actuarial certainty. Perhaps we have become overly risk averse, but that doesn't have much to do with insurance companies. We live in a large society, not a hodge podge of small farming communities. On our roadways there are millions of drivers and to spite how careful you are there is always the risk that the next guy will be negligent & harm you and destroy your property. This is why we have insurance (without it we wouldn't be able to borrow to buy a home or car or much of anything).

Things must occur in stages that at each point requires popular support. If after privatizing social security we one day decide we no longer require a government guarantee or regulation, fine (maybe that is a better idea -- though I doubt it). However, at this point the support is non-existent & I'm simply advancing an idea that might actually get done (rather than the fantasy land you seem to exist in). I'm interested in a great American future and less interested in ideology. You seem to give too much weight to principal in areas where divine moral imperative is absent. You want to stand on the side of ideas that have no chance & lack an understanding that change can only occur incrementally. This is how our system was designed. For the most part it is a great check against the possibility of tyranny, and although it isn't perfect it has proven itself better than alternative systems that allow for more rapid change. Perhaps if YOU did more reading and less dreaming you might realize this?


AW

[Zeluvia]

I think he should start with anthropology

[Augustine2004]

The problem with Jon Lance Barker, Zeluvia, and AW is that they give up too readily or they know nothing of Thomas Paine, John Locke (not that Lost guy), Karl Marx, and others whose ideas had consequences. Say 'William Wilberforce,' and you'd get blank looks from those ignoramuses or quitters.

[Augustine2004]

I merely point out that if we are to give our insurance companies or pension systems exclusive access to our workers then we should naturally want them to invest here at home, *Gasp* that sounds like restriction of trade.and invest in more productive things (rather than just real estate, which we already have too much of). Too much real estate!? What nonsense!
We need to refocus of manufacturing in this country & given our current system I see no reason why we shouldn't expect government to at least provide incentives for investing in America? Cut taxes; remove laws that harm the free market; cut government spending. Less bureaucracy. I didn't elect anyone to represent China.Just what that is supposed to mean? We should not live like kings if we don't deserve to. (Work hard, honestly, and peacefully.)

Moreover, why not convert social security into a pension system, which is allowed to invest in the economy (so retirees no longer have to depend on young workers to support them, which is a system with no future)? People will not support any reform proposals that seek to eliminate governments role in our retirement system, they just won't (if you left your bedroom more often and actually interacted with other humans you might realize this). At least by privatizing social security but still having a government guarantee (along with a robust regulatory regime to ensure the monies are not poorly invested) people might actually buy into it.It seems like you will never get around to studying the thread. Otherwise you would not ask that question! By now you should know you can't expect the government to do more good than bad, without any exception.

As for insurance, the market demands insurance therefore it exists. I thought you were the Mr. invisible hand of the market guy? You seem to ignore the value of risk management. I'd explain complex idea like derivatives, synthetic securities, or hedging but why bother ....Given the astounding collapse of the subprime market, I don't want you to bother. I doubt you'll understand it anyway.This, from a guy who, I'd guess, lost thousands of dollars in the collapse. Insuring property against fire allows people the ability to take out a mortgage.Sure, I can pay an insurance premium of one million dollars and be able to take a mortgage of ten million dollars. Banks will not lend to potential homeowners if they can't manage risk with actuarial certainty.Until the subprime collapse, that was to some extent true. [sarcasm] Perhaps we have become overly risk averse, but that doesn't have much to do with insurance companies. We live in a large society, not a hodge podge of small farming communities. On our roadways there are millions of drivers and to spite how careful you are there is always the risk that the next guy will be negligent & harm you and destroy your property. This is why we have insurance (without it we wouldn't be able to borrow to buy a home or car or much of anything).I will have to renew the insurance on Mom's car soon. It's a legal requirement in my state.

[Augustine2004]

Ryokan, here’s Rothbard on the usefulness of statistics. The vast bulk of statistics are useful only to the State. http://www.mises.org/story/2589 “Statistics: Achilles’ Heel of Government” What's more the collection of statistics or data is burdensome to the economy.

[Zeluvia]

The problem with Jon Lance Barker, Zeluvia, and AW is that they give up too readily or they know nothing of Thomas Paine, John Locke (not that Lost guy), Karl Marx, and others whose ideas had consequences. Say 'William Wilberforce,' and you'd get blank looks from those ignoramuses or quitters.

But, I think we all have similar issues with your scenarios.

Your ideas aren't fleshed out, they aren't taking into account HUMANS.
You even have to postulate the way humans MUST act in order for your theory to work.

I think you should start with the way humans DO act. That is why I asked you to think about how we would go from what we have now, to what you envision. I think working out the practicalities of making the change will give you some insights into some of the reasons we do not think your ideas will work in the real world.

[Yankee_Doodle]

*Gasp* that sounds like restriction of trade.

If the state is going to require you to have insurance on certain things (e.g. your car, house, etc.) then it's creating a compulsory market for insurance companies. In exchange why should we ask (or at least provide incentives) insurance companies to invest in areas that will benefit the US economy? I would ask the same question with regard to pension funds who are given a captive market.

Too much real estate!? What nonsense!

apparently you haven't been watching the news much. Right now there is too much supply (which is driving prices downward). Part of it is the subprime market; however, supply is equally a huge issue (conceded by most experts I've heard on the subject).


Cut taxes; remove laws that harm the free market; cut government spending. Less bureaucracy.Just what that is supposed to mean? We should not live like kings if we don't deserve to. (Work hard, honestly, and peacefully.)

So you're saying we shouldn't have a system that drives us toward behavior that ensures we will deserve to live like kings (as you say)?

It seems like you will never get around to studying the thread. Otherwise you would not ask that question! By now you should know you can't expect the government to do more good than bad, without any exception.

I generally do not expect the government to be more efficient than the market. However, I take reality into account. For example, I want to see social security privatized. However, the idea that government should guarantee a secure retirement for our citizens is an entrenched idea. Any contrary suggestion stands absolutely no chance of adoption by the public at this juncture.

So I propose a privatized system, either run visa vi private accounts or akin to the way public pensions are run. However, I couple this with a government guarantee. A government guarantee must be coupled with a robust regulatory regime or else no politician in their right mind would support it. The government must be able to know that its guarantee wouldn't be fiscal suicide. In other words if the US government will guarantee that retirees will receive an adequate amount at retirement to live on it must be able to insist the monies paid into the system throughout an individuals life aren't directed toward high risk investments (or at least that only a small portion may be directed toward such activity).

This is a realistic idea with a real chance of adoption by the public (as opposed to what you propose, which has no chance of adoption).

Given the astounding collapse of the subprime market, I don't want you to bother. This, from a guy who, I'd guess, lost thousands of dollars in the collapse.

I rent (I live in NYC at the moment) so I haven't lost anything in the collapse of subprime.

Sure, I can pay an insurance premium of one million dollars and be able to take a mortgage of ten million dollars. Until the subprime collapse, that was to some extent true. [sarcasm] I will have to renew the insurance on Mom's car soon. It's a legal requirement in my state.

As far as I know no one was getting a "subprime" mortgage for a $10 million home? Moreover, insurance is generally paid out in premiums (rather than the formulation you assert). Car insurance is a legal requirement in most states; that being said it's not necessarily a bad thing (though I won't spend much time defending compulsory insurance rules)?

[JonLanceBarker]

The problem with Jon Lance Barker, Zeluvia, and AW is that they give up too readily or they know nothing of Thomas Paine, John Locke (not that Lost guy), Karl Marx, and others whose ideas had consequences. Say 'William Wilberforce,' and you'd get blank looks from those ignoramuses or quitters.

:rofl: :lmbo: :rofl: Quite wrong, in fact.

Thomas Paine: Famous deist and writer of "Common Sense." Infamously also wrote against Christianity (did you know that?)

John Locke: Christian who wrote a heluva lot about natural law and individual rights.

Karl Marx: Atheist, economist, wrote Communist Manifesto.

William Wilberforce: Methodist, MP, basically made his life's work the passage of laws to ban the slave trade in England.

I'll go a little further:

Baron de Montesquieu: we get the idea of "separation of powers" from his work.


:hehe: Don't ever tell a history major he doesn't know about history, Aug. All that scores you is points on the irony meter. :hehe:

[Yankee_Doodle]

Nice work JonLance .....

[Augustine2004]

But, I think we all have similar issues with your scenarios.

Your ideas aren't fleshed out, they aren't taking into account HUMANS.
You even have to postulate the way humans MUST act in order for your theory to work.

I think you should start with the way humans DO act. That is why I asked you to think about how we would go from what we have now, to what you envision. I think working out the practicalities of making the change will give you some insights into some of the reasons we do not think your ideas will work in the real world.But, I think we all have similar issues with your scenarios.

Your ideas aren't fleshed out, they aren't taking into account HUMANS.
You even have to postulate the way humans MUST act in order for your theory to work.

I think you should start with the way humans DO act. That is why I asked you to think about how we would go from what we have now, to what you envision. I think working out the practicalities of making the change will give you some insights into some of the reasons we do not think your ideas will work in the real world.What a poor reader you are. Also a poor thinker.

You say to start with the way humans do act. Then what?

Talk to them about how things can be better. Tell them about Richard Maybury’s precepts and the tit-for-tat strategy. Tell them the government should NOT be expected to make things better. In other words, education. Not the pseudo-education they ladle out in government schools, and which you’re unfortunately too full of.

[JonLanceBarker]

:sigh: Aug........I really think you should shut up now. I'm sorry, but you just keep calling people poor thinkers with no evidence that your thinking is better.

So I think you should shut up now. For your own sanity.

[Augustine2004]

If the state is going to require you to have insurance on certain things (e.g. your car, house, etc.) then it's creating a compulsory market for insurance companies. In exchange why should we ask (or at least provide incentives) insurance companies to invest in areas that will benefit the US economy? I would ask the same question with regard to pension funds who are given a captive market.Haven’t you still read the whole thread yet? I will give this one more chance, but I’m thinking now of not responding any longer to your posts here unless there’s some indication you did read the thread and understand some of it. Why the heck should the state require anything of the market?



apparently you haven't been watching the news much. Right now there is too much supply (which is driving prices downward). Part of it is the subprime market; however, supply is equally a huge issue (conceded by most experts I've heard on the subject).What a poor thinker you are. The supply didn’t change much. In fact, given the increase in population, the supply per person maybe went down. Maybe also a poor listener. It’s hard to believe you’re really a lawyer. And what about the role of the Federal Reserve System, Ginnie Mae, and Freddie Mac?




So you're saying we shouldn't have a system that drives us toward behavior that ensures we will deserve to live like kings (as you say)?Another stupid question.



I generally do not expect the government to be more efficient than the market. However, I take reality into account. For example, I want to see social security privatized. However, the idea that government should guarantee a secure retirement for our citizens is an entrenched idea. Any contrary suggestion stands absolutely no chance of adoption by the public at this juncture.

So I propose a privatized system, either run visa vi private accounts or akin to the way public pensions are run. However, I couple this with a government guarantee. A government guarantee must be coupled with a robust regulatory regime or else no politician in their right mind would support it. The government must be able to know that its guarantee wouldn't be fiscal suicide. In other words if the US government will guarantee that retirees will receive an adequate amount at retirement to live on it must be able to insist the monies paid into the system throughout an individuals life aren't directed toward high risk investments (or at least that only a small portion may be directed toward such activity).

This is a realistic idea with a real chance of adoption by the public (as opposed to what you propose, which has no chance of adoption).There’s some truth here. A long job of massive re-education must occur. Let’s not give up, please.



I rent (I live in NYC at the moment) so I haven't lost anything in the collapse of subprime.Perhaps you own some mutual funds?



As far as I know no one was getting a "subprime" mortgage for a $10 million home? Moreover, insurance is generally paid out in premiums (rather than the formulation you assert). Car insurance is a legal requirement in most states; that being said it's not necessarily a bad thing (though I won't spend much time defending compulsory insurance rules)?No, you pay premiums for insurance. About the $10 million, I was being sarcastic.

[Augustine2004]

:sigh: Aug........I really think you should shut up now. I'm sorry, but you just keep calling people poor thinkers with no evidence that your thinking is better.

So I think you should shut up now. For your own sanity.You're always free to unsubscribe from my threads. You've not really contributed much. You've wasted a lot of time. You've hardly done much to save me from my insanity, and I don't expect any better from you in the future.

[Augustine2004]

:rofl: :lmbo: :rofl: Quite wrong, in fact.

Thomas Paine: Famous deist and writer of "Common Sense." Infamously also wrote against Christianity (did you know that?)

John Locke: Christian who wrote a heluva lot about natural law and individual rights.

Karl Marx: Atheist, economist, wrote Communist Manifesto.

William Wilberforce: Methodist, MP, basically made his life's work the passage of laws to ban the slave trade in England.

I'll go a little further:

Baron de Montesquieu: we get the idea of "separation of powers" from his work.


:hehe: Don't ever tell a history major he doesn't know about history, Aug. All that scores you is points on the irony meter. :hehe:I'm all the more puzzled, given that you do know about what they managed to accomplish, why you are such a quitter.

[JonLanceBarker]

I'm all the more puzzled, given that you do know about what they managed to accomplish, why you are such a quitter.

I'm all the more puzzled, given that you now know that I do know what it is they accomplished, why you continue to disparage my perspective on your ideas.

And by the way, the reasons you hardly ever see me here are:

1) I find other threads than yours far more interesting. See reason #3.

2) I have a LIFE outside TheologyWeb.

3) I find your pompous attitude utterly distasteful, especially given that you have shown no real evidence that you're right and are completely close-minded when it comes to reasoned criticism from such as AW. Given this, I have come to the conclusion that I have nothing to learn from you, and would rather leave you to those who have more patience and more knowledge of your "pet field."

The reasons I eventually return are these:

1) I want to see the quality of the responses you get.

2) I want to see if you ever change your mind.

3) I want to remind you that other intellectual people give your ideas short shrift.

So then....anything to say? :grin:

[Augustine2004]

I'm all the more puzzled, given that you now know that I do know what it is they accomplished, why you continue to disparage my perspective on your ideas.I may have misunderstood. I thought your principal criticism was that nobody would ever accept them. As far as I can tell, you and others didn't actually find any reasoning flaw, and the Action Axiom remains unrefuted.

And by the way, the reasons you hardly ever see me here are:

1) I find other threads than yours far more interesting. See reason #3.

2) I have a LIFE outside TheologyWeb.

3) I find your pompous attitude utterly distastefulAgain, you're free to stop reading my threads.especially given that you have shown no real evidence that you're rightYou mean historical evidence? Is what Wilberforce managed to accomplish making no difference whatsoever to you? and are completely close-minded when it comes to reasoned criticism from such as AW.What in your opinion was the best answers that AW and Zeluvia gave? Given this, I have come to the conclusion that I have nothing to learn from you, and would rather leave you to those who have more patience and more knowledge of your "pet field."Closed mind.

The reasons I eventually return are these:

1) I want to see the quality of the responses you get.

2) I want to see if you ever change your mind.

3) I want to remind you that other intellectual people give your ideas short shrift.

So then....anything to say? :grin:You may lurk, but if you continue to make posts that are a waste of time to read, I may ask the moderator to take away your posting privileges in my threads.

[Zeluvia]

What a poor reader you are. Also a poor thinker.

You say to start with the way humans do act. Then what?

Talk to them about how things can be better. Tell them about Richard Maybury’s precepts and the tit-for-tat strategy. Tell them the government should NOT be expected to make things better. In other words, education. Not the pseudo-education they ladle out in government schools, and which you’re unfortunately too full of.

You can talk till you are blue in the face, but you can't change our biology...yet.

It's not public school education I am full of, it is life experience.

Now, address this specific issue in your minimal government free-market model.

15 farms, down river from a paint plant. The plant makes glow in the dark paint using Radium. It dumps it's waste in the river, which waters the 15 farms. All the food produced on these farms is mildly radioactive.

Show me how this would work out in your model.

[Augustine2004]

You can talk till you are blue in the face, but you can't change our biology...yet.You're still not thinking clearly.

It's not public school education I am full of, it is life experience.Spitzer? Bush? The military-industrial-policial complex? The Soviet empire? Wars? Bad laws? Stupid laws? Collapsing bridges? Taser-wielding police? Speed traps?

Now, address this specific issue in your minimal government free-market model.

15 farms, down river from a paint plant. The plant makes glow in the dark paint using Radium. It dumps it's waste in the river, which waters the 15 farms. All the food produced on these farms is mildly radioactive.

Show me how this would work out in your model.I will have to make assumptions, some of which you may not agree with.

Nobody knows how harmful radium is, until many years pass. Eventually, however, doctors figure out what's happening & tell their patients. The patients in turn institute a lawsuit to make the paint plant stop dumping radium in the river. They also let the news media know what's going on.

The resulting publicity is enough by itself to make the plant stop; otherwise it'd go out of business.

[Zeluvia]

You're still not thinking clearly.

Spitzer? Bush? The military-industrial-policial complex? The Soviet empire? Wars? Bad laws? Stupid laws? Collapsing bridges? Taser-wielding police? Speed traps?

I will have to make assumptions, some of which you may not agree with.

Nobody knows how harmful radium is, until many years pass. Eventually, however, doctors figure out what's happening & tell their patients. The patients in turn institute a lawsuit to make the paint plant stop dumping radium in the river. They also let the news media know what's going on.

The resulting publicity is enough by itself to make the plant stop; otherwise it'd go out of business.

Your assumptions are fine. Since the radiation is such low dose, it will probably just cause an assortment of cancers. At what point do the doctors communicate with each other well enough to identify it is a cluster? This could take a long time.

Now, what about the people's farm land? They have to sue also correct?

Does the company get to declare bankruptcy to avoid the lawsuit?
Are the farmers implicated in the lawsuit or just the company?

Publicity is all that is needed? So you believe in a free press, it is a vital part of your process? What if the "press" doesn't cover these kinds of stories because they don't "sell"? What if the shareholders of the company also control the press?

What if the employees of the company want to keep their job, and claim it isn't their fault that these people have cancer?

Now, what if the company just decides to MOVE the process somewhere else?

[Yankee_Doodle]

Of course in the real world thankfully we have an EPA that enforces the Clean Water Act & this type of dumping would be illegal (and the state arms that enforce the CWA test the water of streams, lakes, rivers, etc. to look for evidence of illegal dumping).

However, in Augustine's word the EPA wouldn't exist (nor would any state agency to regulate this behavior). In reality it would take years to identify a cluster, and it would be too late for an untold number of people (who would already have contracted cancer). The EPA is a valid use of the governments police power granted to it by the constitution.

Augustine you act as if your laissez faire model has never been tried in America? Are you familiar with the age of the robber barons? Government regulation of business came slowly in this country. Prior to FDR we did allow corporations free reign & of course they abused their power so much the people demanded that government step in.

There was a huge fight during the time of FDR regarding the federal governments expanded use of the commerce clause to regulate industry (e.g. the court packing scandal). The abuses in the stock market and banking system led to the collapse of our market and banks (resulting in the great depression).

A fact to note is that since the depression our economic downturns have become continually less severe & less frequent. No American will want to turn back the clock in the way you propose. We need some fine tuning, yes, but your proposals don't stand a chance of ever being taken seriously (let alone being adopted).


AW

[Zeluvia]

The government we have now started small, minimalist, and evolved over time as the needs of our society changed, as it will continue to do.

You do have some points about what the proper role of our government is, but everything we have now is like the lighthouse, it was created to fulfill a need and that need was identified by the lives and deaths of individuals.

[nomad]

There's too much here to catch up on. I'll go through it when I can.

I wanted to go back to the insurance thing. I think insurance is a good example of where private motivation does not necessarily ensure public good.

Insurance is not exactly like gambling, but the difference is primarily in the motivations. The document quoted (at least the part I read of it, at which point it seemed to shift directions away from this) commits a classic narrative fallacy, and fails to take into account the Black Swan. Insurance companies manage risk as intelligently as they can. But to say that life is predictable because of insurance companies only needs to look at the Hurricane Andrew debacle.

Hurricane Andrew was the largest insured loss to date, about $16 billion. The resulting claims left at least 11 insurance companies insolvent, and a mass exodus of insurance companies from Florida as insurance companies decided the risk was not worth the potential profits. A state-sponsored insurance company picked up the slack and before long, one site I looked at (and can't find again) said that at one time this state insurance company was underwriting 85% of state hurricane insurance funds.

Private companies simply decided it wasn't worth it.

Maybe the right thing is market forces should decide that people shouldn't live in Florida anymore. Or house prices should skyrocket because of new building codes. What do you think the market should do in this case?

[Augustine2004]

Your assumptions are fine. Since the radiation is such low dose, it will probably just cause an assortment of cancers. At what point do the doctors communicate with each other well enough to identify it is a cluster? This could take a long time.We can have the EPA and it still can take a long time to catch on to what is going on. You and AW apparently tend to assume, unsupported by history, that government agencies always do perfect and instant work.

Now, what about the people's farm land? They have to sue also correct?Um, yeah.

Does the company get to declare bankruptcy to avoid the lawsuit?No, companies do not declare bankruptcy. The courts do that, legally speaking. A company may file for bankruptcy, or declare itself insolvent, but that doesn't mean much legally speaking yet. I'm not certain what would happen in the small-government M world, but I'm fairly sure that the people responsible for dumping the radium, or convicted of that, would be forced to pay for that.

Are the farmers implicated in the lawsuit or just the company?Are you sure you are using the word 'implicated' correctly? 'Involved' perhaps?

Publicity is all that is needed? So you believe in a free press, it is a vital part of your process?No not totally, I was just speculating. Look, again, people are not predictable. Communities aren't either. What if the "press" doesn't cover these kinds of stories because they don't "sell"?Well, here I may be wrong. Why would you think the press would NOT cover a story like that? What if the shareholders of the company also control the press?What if the shareholders of Microsoft also control the MSM?

What if the employees of the company want to keep their job, and claim it isn't their fault that these people have cancer?Maybe they lose their jobs anyway?

Now, what if the company just decides to MOVE the process somewhere else?Like the company can afford to move or build a new plant. Like the company can do things in secret yet.

[Augustine2004]

Of course in the real world thankfully we have an EPA that enforces the Clean Water Act & this type of dumping would be illegal (and the state arms that enforce the CWA test the water of streams, lakes, rivers, etc. to look for evidence of illegal dumping).

However, in Augustine's word the EPA wouldn't exist (nor would any state agency to regulate this behavior). In reality it would take years to identify a cluster, and it would be too late for an untold number of people (who would already have contracted cancer). The EPA is a valid use of the governments police power granted to it by the constitution.

Augustine you act as if your laissez faire model has never been tried in America? Are you familiar with the age of the robber barons? Government regulation of business came slowly in this country. Prior to FDR we did allow corporations free reign & of course they abused their power so much the people demanded that government step in.

There was a huge fight during the time of FDR regarding the federal governments expanded use of the commerce clause to regulate industry (e.g. the court packing scandal). The abuses in the stock market and banking system led to the collapse of our market and banks (resulting in the great depression).

A fact to note is that since the depression our economic downturns have become continually less severe & less frequent. No American will want to turn back the clock in the way you propose. We need some fine tuning, yes, but your proposals don't stand a chance of ever being taken seriously (let alone being adopted).


AW
I’ve already bemoaned a few times your need to reeducate yourself, and that post is a good example. Protection against pollution is part of the problem of production of security. Hoppe already addressed that. Look, I don’t want to have to address specific area after specific area, when the general argument is adequate. There are simply NO exceptions to the rule that the government must keep out of the free market’s way. I’ve already conceded that at any one given time all possible goods and services could be ranked from most desirable to least desirable for production or provision by the government. NOW you show how it follows that the top good or service MUST be produced by the government. You can’t. You are not going to prove anything by bring up this or that example of a service by the government and asserting that it is ‘valid’.

‘Erin Brockovich’ might be a movie that offers some insight into the small-government M world particularly in regard to how it would handle cases of pollution. Please keep in mind that law enforcement and justice services are so bad now that the free market should not have to work up a sweat providing better services in those areas. If there’s competition, it will work up a sweat anyway.

If ever you get a chance, why don’t you inspect a stream or lake in Scotland? AFAIK, Scotland still does not have EPA, and most of the water is privately owned.

AW, you should know how bad people can be by now. How badly they can represent things. The robber barons weren’t angels to be sure, but that is a slam that is to a large degree unwarranted. Ever heard of Dale Carnegie? John Davidson Rockefeller was a philanthropist. Moreover, the real robber barons, such as the Morgan family, used the government; on this see The Case Against The Fed by Murray Rothbard.

That book should open your eyes. If you’re still not convinced, read The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli.

[Augustine2004]

The government we have now started small, minimalist, and evolved over time as the needs of our society changed, as it will continue to do.

You do have some points about what the proper role of our government is, but everything we have now is like the lighthouse, it was created to fulfill a need and that need was identified by the lives and deaths of individuals.Why don't you read The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli? 'Evolved to meet our needs' bosh unless you meant the needs of the ruling class.

[Augustine2004]

There's too much here to catch up on. I'll go through it when I can.

I wanted to go back to the insurance thing. I think insurance is a good example of where private motivation does not necessarily ensure public good.

Insurance is not exactly like gambling, but the difference is primarily in the motivations. The document quoted (at least the part I read of it, at which point it seemed to shift directions away from this) commits a classic narrative fallacy, and fails to take into account the Black Swan. Insurance companies manage risk as intelligently as they can. But to say that life is predictable because of insurance companies only needs to look at the Hurricane Andrew debacle.

Hurricane Andrew was the largest insured loss to date, about $16 billion. The resulting claims left at least 11 insurance companies insolvent, and a mass exodus of insurance companies from Florida as insurance companies decided the risk was not worth the potential profits. A state-sponsored insurance company picked up the slack and before long, one site I looked at (and can't find again) said that at one time this state insurance company was underwriting 85% of state hurricane insurance funds.

Private companies simply decided it wasn't worth it.

Maybe the right thing is market forces should decide that people shouldn't live in Florida anymore. Or house prices should skyrocket because of new building codes. What do you think the market should do in this case?I'm unable to reply in detail because I don't know the situation. However, Florida does have a government and you mention 'a state-sponsored insurance company.' That suggest a government that intervernes rather much in the insurance market. I have much to keep up with but I'll keep an eye out for details.




AW and Zeluvia, Dr. Mary Ruwart has chapters (especially 8 and 14) on the environment in her book: Healing Our World: In an Age of Aggression. You will have to go through prior chapters first. However, she says our governments are the leading cause of environmental degradation.

[nomad]

I'm unable to reply in detail because I don't know the situation. However, Florida does have a government and you mention 'a state-sponsored insurance company.' That suggest a government that intervernes rather much in the insurance market. I have much to keep up with but I'll keep an eye out for details.


The government does intervene rather much in the insurance market. Mostly this is regulatory, to ensure that insurers pay their claims properly. But also, increasingly we see the government taking a reinsurance role, similar to what Fannie Mae etc. are doing for mortgages. Only recently did the government start actually issuing normal insurance, and that was because private companies did not feel the risks were worth taking. Which should worry us, but that's not the issue right now.

But I do have some issues with Hoppe's essay. The main thing is this: He believes that the existence of insurance proves that life is predictable. In addition, he uses statistics (which I thought you said you didn't believe in the use of statistics?) for these predictions.

However, I think that to do so is 'choosing the data' and ignoring those cases where insurance could not adjust at all.

I do believe that life is somewhat predictable, or I wouldn't bother to read all the sociology books that I do. But that doesn't mean life is completely predictable, even in a general average sense.

Insurance is not completely unlike gambling, though the gambling is on the part of the insurer, not the insured (well, there is a little, because you are assuming the insurer will pay your claims, but that's not nearly the risk it used to be). At least, like intelligent gambling; more like a card-counting blackjack player than your drunk weekend warrior poker fan. Insurance has to have somewhat predictable risks to make a profit.

So, if I know that my automotive policies will have an accident at a rate of about 1 in 1000 policyholders a month, and that these will cost me an average of $4000, then I can calculate the premiums I need to charge to make a profit (in this case, about $4 each). Raise that to 1 in 10, and the premium necessary goes up to $400/month.

Or, from an alternate point of view, if on average a policy holder has a $4000 accident every 40 months, then for the insurance company to make money it needs to charge $100 a month.

OK, none of that is news, just baseline stuff. Well, obviously the insurance company needs to know the average accident rates. But more than that, it has to assume that they will stay the same over time, or at least intelligently predict it (which isn't easy to do). As long as accident rates stay near the predicted rates, then the insurance company should make money... some months it might make more than others, and some months it might actually lose money, but it should average out over time (and the more policyholders you have, the more the averaging effect works in your favor).

A good card counter does the same thing - watches the odds to determine when to bet small, when to bet big, when to call in your partners. But even an experienced card counter can have a bad night and lose big.

So let's say that in some town they build a new bridge with a bad corner that causes a much higher accident rate that year. What to do? Could the insurance company predict this event? They try, but they can't always. And they will lose money. This is the Black Swan - when things used to be same for a long time, and you get lulled into a sense of security that things will be the same. This happens in financial speculative bubbles, it happens in flood plains, it happens when people think they are successful when they have just been lucky.

But automotive isn't such a bad thing. That bridge is just a small part of the country market, and the insurance company can probably absorb that event. Next year, they will raise their rates to what they need to be to stay profitable. If they don't, they may just stop insuring drivers in that area.

Hurricane Andrew was quite another thing altogether. The insurance companies were lulled into a false sense of security, and seriously undercalculated the risks of hurricanes, due to a season of lower hurricane activity from ~1920 to ~1980 (saw this on a web page, will get source if needed). Then Hurricane Andrew hit, and it was a Black Swan of quite a different magnitude, one that was terminal to at least 11 insurance companies.

And natural disasters are one kind of predictability. The more human natural disasters - terrorism, for instance - are rather harder to get insurance policies for, because the risks are completely unknown and therefore very difficult to calculate. The potential downsides for getting it wrong can be massive as well. I think most insurance policies exclude damages that are acts of war as well, and for the same reasons.

Maybe this should be a separate thread.

[Zeluvia]

Why don't you read The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli? 'Evolved to meet our needs' bosh unless you meant the needs of the ruling class.

Okay, so how did the social security system meet the needs of the ruling class?

[Yankee_Doodle]

I’ve already bemoaned a few times your need to reeducate yourself, and that post is a good example.

What you really mean, sadly, is anyone who strays from your view needs to reeducate their self in way that turns them toward your view. This is much different then what a true intellectual (who understands the limitations of human capacity) would say. I would say I disagree with you and here's why .... yet you persist in using language like this, which in itself dilutes your credibility (and sadly your blind to this reality).


Protection against pollution is part of the problem of production of security. Hoppe already addressed that.

I disagree (as I disagree with much of what Hoppe had to say). The reason is simple, we've been down this road and the market did not correct to rid itself of environmental degradation. In fact if one thing can be proven true it is that if a company can get away with something and they will make more money by doing it, they will do it. Moreover, given a choice between a cheaper product (built by a polluter company) and a more expensive product (built by a company that respects the environment) the consumer will choose the cheaper product (so much has also been proven since this occurs in the modern marketplace).


Look, I don’t want to have to address specific area after specific area, when the general argument is adequate. There are simply NO exceptions to the rule that the government must keep out of the free market’s way. I’ve already conceded that at any one given time all possible goods and services could be ranked from most desirable to least desirable for production or provision by the government. NOW you show how it follows that the top good or service MUST be produced by the government. You can’t. You are not going to prove anything by bring up this or that example of a service by the government and asserting that it is ‘valid’.

The government producing something and regulating (or policing) something are two different things. Moreover, realizing that the public is unwilling to give up a government guarantee for their retirement is different than saying a government guaranteed retirement system is a more efficient model.

‘Erin Brockovich’ might be a movie that offers some insight into the small-government M world particularly in regard to how it would handle cases of pollution. Please keep in mind that law enforcement and justice services are so bad now that the free market should not have to work up a sweat providing better services in those areas. If there’s competition, it will work up a sweat anyway.

This is an area I know a bit about. In law school I did a research project (in an environmental law class) on the Clean Air Act and legal theories that might make polluters accountable for the harm their pollution causes. Under that regulatory scheme states are given significant power to monitor the environment. The goal is obviously to avoid the type of harm we saw in the Erin Brockovich movie. Periodic testing of waterways allows us to do this (it should also be said that the EPA and its state arms are much more advance today than they were at the time the Brockovich story occurred). This monitoring is good for the public (few besides you would disagree with this).

If ever you get a chance, why don’t you inspect a stream or lake in Scotland? AFAIK, Scotland still does not have EPA, and most of the water is privately owned.

The fact is many of our own streams and smaller lakes are privately owned & for the most part people don't arbitrarily pollute on their own land. That being said the UK has plenty of laws against environmental pollution and they police their environment (so I'm really not sure how streams in Scotland are relevant here?)

AW, you should know how bad people can be by now. How badly they can represent things. The robber barons weren’t angels to be sure, but that is a slam that is to a large degree unwarranted. Ever heard of Dale Carnegie? John Davidson Rockefeller was a philanthropist. Moreover, the real robber barons, such as the Morgan family, used the government; on this see The Case Against The Fed by Murray Rothbard.

The problem here is you're taking one small example of how a powerful man abused his influence over government and advancing the notion that this is the norm (a very typical but logically fallacious debate tactic). The norm was that these robber barons (and industrial capitalists generally speaking) abused the environment, abused their workforce, and generally lacked regard for public welfare in order to make an extra buck.

That book should open your eyes. If you’re still not convinced, read The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli.

I've read the Prince ..... frankly it's overrated, even though there are some lessons to learned from it.

[nomad]

Let me start over. Do you not agree with Richard Maybury’s precepts, which he distilled from all the world’s major religions:

* Do all you agreed to do.

* Do not encroach on people or their property?

I would add the tit for tat precept, which seems like Newton’s Third Law: Suppose you have been following the Maybury precepts (above) but someone still broke one or both of those against you. It’s then OK to return ‘tit for tat,’ but not overproportionately.

Which would be better the MW or our present world. Of course those who think we should follow the Maybury precepts would choose the MW. I don’t have any ethical argument to present to those who don’t. The best I can do with those people is to ask what precepts they think we should follow instead.


I'm a little confused about what you are asking here. Are you asking if this world + everyone following the MW precepts would be better, or are you suggesting that these precepts are enough to build a morality off of?

For the first, I would tentatively agree, but I would also agree that 'this world + nobody talks in the theater while I'm watching a movie' is better. More right behaviour of course would be better.

If you mean this is sufficient to drive people's behavior - no, sorry, I think it is insufficiently vague to be useful. How good it sounds, I'm sure, depends on whether you are the one with the property to not encroach on or not. It is not even close to Christian morality.

Unless you are adding more into the 'Do not encroach on life' part than I'm giving you credit for...

Let me ask you two questions. Assume there is a place, and there is one spring where fresh water can be gathered.

One: Am I encroaching on anyone else's life or property if I choose not to sell any of the water to other residents of the area?

And two, would you consider this a moral thing to do?


There are plenty of other ways to abuse property in ways that are not directly encroaching on other's lives as well. I can go into them in necessary. I also don't see anything in your model to deal with abusive contracts etc.

And I'm not so much a fan of Adam Smith either. I think he's mostly right in his model, but there are real world limitations on it. Two of the most important I can think of are the education of the consuming populace, and the barriers to entry for competition. Perhaps if we can address those limitations, then it would work, but I'm not sure how you propose to do so; the market can't do it, since by definition they are reasons why the market can't do other things.

[Augustine2004]

Nomad, please allow me to defer my reply to your insurance questions.

A partial repudiation of the FDR-Truman New Deal did occur with a half-way return to capitalism. If the USA had instead returned nearly all the way to full-blown capitalism and stayed there, the Cold War would not have been much of a thing if at all anything, because the federal government would not have much power to do anything. The USSR might have made bigger gains in the first few years of the Eisenhower Administration, but as the USA economy grew much more impressively than it actually did, I doubt Soviet expansionism would in the long run appeal to people as much as it did in actual history. Possibly far less. The Soviet empire might even have collapsed much sooner than it did, because the USA Federal government aid to the Soviet government would have been far less than it actually was.


Around 1973, when For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard was published, in that book he had this to say: “The rivers are, in effect, unowned, i.e., they have been kept as ‘public domain’ owned by government. Furthermore, by far the biggest culprits in water pollution are the municipally owned sewage disposal systems. Again: government is at the same time the largest polluter, as well as the careless ‘owner’ of the resource.”

Things are better now, but you have to realize that our governments have been responding to public demand for clean environments since that was written.

Yet again I will not claim that the totally free market will result in a perfect world. Sure, some pollution may still happen. After all the carbon dioxide that we exhale could be considered a pollutant. However - well you know what I was going to say next.

How’s this idea for a novel? China becomes even more M and small-government than it is now, but unfortunately the rest of the world becomes more oversize-government. The world becomes five parts: one part led by the United States, another part led by Russia, another part comprising of China and her allies, and the rest of the world. While now in decline, the United States is still a major player. Though India is in China’s part, it is to some extent in a rivalrous relationship and tends to play the United States part and the Russia part against China. China tries for a long time to stave off war with the non-M part of the world, but finally must decide to fight or submit by re-instituting an oversize government.

Unfortunately, that is too complicated. At least, it would take me a long time to finish. I probably need more knowledge that I at present possess. I’d also need to imagine new technology - developed by Chinese, natch!

[Augustine2004]

Okay, so how did the social security system meet the needs of the ruling class?In brief, so that they can keep on ruling and obtain benefits from that. I could suggest books. Actually, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress would be a start.

[Augustine2004]

I disagree (as I disagree with much of what Hoppe had to say). The reason is simple, we've been down this road and the market did not correct to rid itself of environmental degradation. In fact if one thing can be proven true it is that if a company can get away with something and they will make more money by doing it, they will do it. Moreover, given a choice between a cheaper product (built by a polluter company) and a more expensive product (built by a company that respects the environment) the consumer will choose the cheaper product (so much has also been proven since this occurs in the modern marketplace).But you're talking about a world that was never pure-free market, which requires private property EVERYWHERE, including the oceans.




The government producing something and regulating (or policing) something are two different things.They are different, but Hoppe's argument covers both. Moreover, realizing that the public is unwilling to give up a government guarantee for their retirement is different than saying a government guaranteed retirement system is a more efficient model.?? I asked you to define 'efficient.' Nothing from you so far. I now guess you mean, 'do more good than bad,' yes?



This is an area I know a bit about. In law school I did a research project (in an environmental law class) on the Clean Air Act and legal theories that might make polluters accountable for the harm their pollution causes. Under that regulatory scheme states are given significant power to monitor the environment. The goal is obviously to avoid the type of harm we saw in the Erin Brockovich movie. Periodic testing of waterways allows us to do this (it should also be said that the EPA and its state arms are much more advance today than they were at the time the Brockovich story occurred). This monitoring is good for the public (few besides you would disagree with this).I do want clean environments. Clean air, water, food. I most certainly don't deny that most people want them also. So, CAN you prove that, GIVEN that most people want clean environments, a pure M, small-government world will nonetheless become 'dirty'?



The fact is many of our own streams and smaller lakes are privately owned & for the most part people don't arbitrarily pollute on their own land. That being said the UK has plenty of laws against environmental pollution and they police their environment (so I'm really not sure how streams in Scotland are relevant here?)If you would see how clean they are, you might begin to doubt that governments are necessary. We need private property EVERYWHERE.



The problem here is you're taking one small example of how a powerful man abused his influence over government and advancing the notion that this is the norm (a very typical but logically fallacious debate tactic). The norm was that these robber barons (and industrial capitalists generally speaking) abused the environment, abused their workforce, and generally lacked regard for public welfare in order to make an extra buck. There is some truth to what you say. However, you're distorting things or have falled for socialistic distortions. The Federal Reserve System is NOT a small example! How can you say that! Moreover you should read up on 'regulatory capture.' It usually occurs whenever a new regulatory agency is created.



I've read the Prince ..... frankly it's overrated, even though there are some lessons to learned from it.Why do you think it's overrated? It does describe accurately what the governments around the world are really like.

[nomad]

Nomad, please allow me to defer my reply to your insurance questions.


No problem. It's not really central to this thread anyways, just the first thing I hit when I was going back through it (my background is in CPU validation, and I have written a couple random event generators, so I have some experience with prob/stat and stochastic analyses).


A partial repudiation of the FDR-Truman New Deal did occur with a half-way return to capitalism. ....

It's a lot of speculation. But I think that we will be able to look at China in the coming years and test some of those hypotheses (though China is not even close to a capitalist democracy politically, in practice its capitalism can be more ruthless than even the US due to lax central enforcement).


Around 1973, when For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard was published, in that book he had this to say: “The rivers are, in effect, unowned, i.e., they have been kept as ‘public domain’ owned by government. Furthermore, by far the biggest culprits in water pollution are the municipally owned sewage disposal systems. Again: government is at the same time the largest polluter, as well as the careless ‘owner’ of the resource.”


I think he is equivocating when he says 'government'. Clearly, the city of New Orleans does not own the Missisippi, nor the city of Minneapolis, nor the city of St. Louis, if any government does, it's the federal government. At best we could say that, for instance, the city of St. Louis owns the part of the Mississippi River that passes through it. There is a single federal government, but there are also many smaller governments that handle important societal functions.

But I was still suspicious of the claim that governments are the largest polluters. According to this site: http://www.bartleby.com/65/wa/watrpollu.html, which shows the Columbia Encyclopedia, industry is the largest polluter, followed by municipal water systems. Regardless of whether they are the largest or not, I think that the fact that significant water pollution comes from municipal water systems is sufficient to concede that part of Rothbard's point.

However, is this sufficient to substantiate the other part of his statement? His statement implies that, because the government both owns and pollutes the river, that this is proof that central management doesn't work. I do not think this is the case. River pollution from municipal sources is merely another case of the tragedy of the commons.

If you could prove that runoff from the St. Louis municipal sewage system polluted the river in St. Louis, you might have a point. But the river runs towards the ocean, and it's possible that the pollution was dumped into the river near the exit from the part owned by St. Louis. In this case, the residents of St. Louis aren't the ones paying the price for the pollution; other towns and cities downstream are, who own different parts of the river. This is no different than any industrial site trying to push the pollution into someone's backyard, or in fact the general NIMBY leanings of the populace. And causes much the same kinds of disagreements (see the acid rain disputes between Canada and the US, or the recent water 'negotiations' between Georgia, Tennessee, and (alabama?) I think?).

The only way you could pin this completely on the government, I think, would be to point to unfair differences in EPA regulations that favor municipal pollution. I don't know if those exist or not.


Yet again I will not claim that the totally free market will result in a perfect world. Sure, some pollution may still happen. After all the carbon dioxide that we exhale could be considered a pollutant. However - well you know what I was going to say next.


I think the 'market' has shown that consumers are willing to tolerate pollution somewhere else, but voters aren't willing to tolerate pollution locally to them. Wait, aren't these the same people? Yes, yes they are, and that is a very curious contradiction isn't it? That a group of people will vote one way at the ballot box, and another way at the cash register?


How’s this idea for a novel? China becomes even more M and small-government than it is now, but unfortunately the rest of the world becomes more oversize-government. .... China tries for a long time to stave off war with the non-M part of the world, but finally must decide to fight or submit by re-instituting an oversize government.


I'd have to see the novel. RIght now, I am not seeing any reason why China would necessarily have to go to war with another part of the world, merely because they have a smaller government. Or why they would have to 'submit' and have a larger government?

I’d also need to imagine new technology - developed by Chinese, natch!

Now that I would consider reasonable. I like the Chinese, and wish them well. And they actually seem to be smart enough to see that communism, political repression, and religion repression actually don't work well for them and are willing to change (slowly, but they are changing).

[Augustine2004]

I goofed! Hayek’s information argument has been roundly criticized. Prices qua distilled information (or whatever term you prefer) are far less important than prices qua tools for decision-making. Someone may demand one million dollars for a well-maintained 1993 Zowie car. You go to inspect the car and ask why one million dollars. He merely shrugs. You say, I can buy similar cars for oh, 3 thou, 5 thou. He also shrugs. You then say, good luck, and walk away. See Rothbard’s treatment of socialist calculation especially in Chapter 12, Section E of Man, Economy, and State, available online www.mises.org.

[Augustine2004]

The government does intervene rather much in the insurance market. Mostly this is regulatory, to ensure that insurers pay their claims properly. But also, increasingly we see the government taking a reinsurance role, similar to what Fannie Mae etc. are doing for mortgages. Only recently did the government start actually issuing normal insurance, and that was because private companies did not feel the risks were worth taking. Which should worry us, but that's not the issue right now.Letting the government regulate any industry is a bad idea, as this article illustrates. http://mises.org/story/763

If you wish I can look for more articles that decry government regulation. What I did was to enter ‘regulation’ in the search box of www.mises.org and click on ‘content search’ You may have to wait a long time. Generally speaking, in regulatory capture, the regulated industry use the regulating agency to enhance their profits, such as undermining rivals.

But I do have some issues with Hoppe's essay. The main thing is this: He believes that the existence of insurance proves that life is predictable. In addition, he uses statistics (which I thought you said you didn't believe in the use of statistics?) for these predictions.You need to reread him more carefully. Both predictable in some ways and unpredictable in other ways. Statistics are fine for when they do work. Weather is a good example - both predictable and unpredictable. You’d be astonished to know that I’m pretty sure it will be cold in late January and early February where I live.

OK, none of that is news, just baseline stuff. Well, obviously the insurance company needs to know the average accident rates. But more than that, it has to assume that they will stay the same over time, or at least intelligently predict it (which isn't easy to do). As long as accident rates stay near the predicted rates, then the insurance company should make money... some months it might make more than others, and some months it might actually lose money, but it should average out over time (and the more policyholders you have, the more the averaging effect works in your favor).

A good card counter does the same thing - watches the odds to determine when to bet small, when to bet big, when to call in your partners. But even an experienced card counter can have a bad night and lose big.The cards don’t change from day to day, so that’s an analogy that we must be careful not to press too much.

So let's say that in some town they build a new bridge with a bad corner that causes a much higher accident rate that year. What to do? Could the insurance company predict this event? They try, but they can't always. And they will lose money. This is the Black Swan - when things used to be same for a long time, and you get lulled into a sense of security that things will be the same. This happens in financial speculative bubbles, it happens in flood plains, it happens when people think they are successful when they have just been lucky.

But automotive isn't such a bad thing. That bridge is just a small part of the country market, and the insurance company can probably absorb that event. Next year, they will raise their rates to what they need to be to stay profitable. If they don't, they may just stop insuring drivers in that area.

Hurricane Andrew was quite another thing altogether. The insurance companies were lulled into a false sense of security, and seriously undercalculated the risks of hurricanes, due to a season of lower hurricane activity from ~1920 to ~1980 (saw this on a web page, will get source if needed). Then Hurricane Andrew hit, and it was a Black Swan of quite a different magnitude, one that was terminal to at least 11 insurance companies.

And natural disasters are one kind of predictability. The more human natural disasters - terrorism, for instance - are rather harder to get insurance policies for, because the risks are completely unknown and therefore very difficult to calculate. The potential downsides for getting it wrong can be massive as well. I think most insurance policies exclude damages that are acts of war as well, and for the same reasons.

Maybe this should be a separate thread.I guess you’ve not yet read the thread to the post in which I pointed out that life is taking chances. If you’re not taking chances, you’re dead, comatose, or a chattel slave.

[Augustine2004]

No problem. It's not really central to this thread anyways, just the first thing I hit when I was going back through it (my background is in CPU validation, and I have written a couple random event generators, so I have some experience with prob/stat and stochastic analyses).I trained as an electrical engineer, so I do know probability theory and have some statistics facility. So, don't worry about asking questions here. Let's just ignore the other readers, ha. But I think that we will be able to look at China in the coming years and test some of those hypotheses (though China is not even close to a capitalist democracy politically, in practice its capitalism can be more ruthless than even the US due to lax central enforcement). Neither economics nor ethics, properly understood, are empirical. Economics IS practical, but it is also theoretical. That's because the Action Axiom is both a predicate for logical arguments and a description of human behavior in the real world. Ethics is merely prescriptive when we're not looking for good rules. As for China's capitalism being more ruthless, I'm not sure what you're talking about. The well being of the average China - material and health - seems to be growing by leaps and bounds, while that of the average American is slowly decaying. We used have the lowest infant mortality in the world, but now we're rank 21 or something like that and sinking. Moreover, the legal and justice system in China badly needs reforming. She still has to learn how to handle cases of pollution well.



I think he is equivocating when he says 'government'. Clearly, the city of New Orleans does not own the Missisippi, nor the city of Minneapolis, nor the city of St. Louis, if any government does, it's the federal government. At best we could say that, for instance, the city of St. Louis owns the part of the Mississippi River that passes through it. There is a single federal government, but there are also many smaller governments that handle important societal functions.

But I was still suspicious of the claim that governments are the largest polluters. According to this site: http://www.bartleby.com/65/wa/watrpollu.html, which shows the Columbia Encyclopedia, industry is the largest polluter, followed by municipal water systems. Regardless of whether they are the largest or not, I think that the fact that significant water pollution comes from municipal water systems is sufficient to concede that part of Rothbard's point.Rothbard wrote that in 1973 or sometime before.

Pollution requires a complete overhaul of our legal and justice system. We need to discuss that before we can discuss pollution. The legal and justice system must rest on the notion of property rights, with government having none whatsoever. Right now, some towns regulate the heights of buildings. I actually don’t have anything against height limits per se. However, the problem I have is with the government setting the height. Let’s consider this alternative: a family settles in an unhabituated or abandoned area because it has a great view of the ocean. As time goes on, other people move in. The family should, if it wants to, be able to enforce its right to preserve its view of the ocean.

[Augustine2004]

Just saw this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/020326.html Bush seems to be shielding Big Pharma

Not sure how to classify this. Regulatory capture doesn't quite fit, does it?

[nomad]

Letting the government regulate any industry is a bad idea, as this article illustrates. http://mises.org/story/763


Argument by anecdote is not valid, but I do see the point made there. However, it's a small piece of the puzzle. In general, I think government regulation has done far more good than bad. I would have to do some research here though; it's possible that for many things that improved, the government regulation was not the cause, it was merely coincident.

But the first example he chooses (Microsoft) was clearly guilty of monopoly abuses, imho. His article is somewhat biased; I don't think that the FAA applying new rules to this new segment is out of line at all, considering it is very close to a charter airline. It's only a problem if you disagree with regulation at all. But it doesn't prove that regulation is a problem by itself. If you want to argue that in this particular instance, the regulatory process may have been unfair, that may be true. But I don't think this case is nearly as strong as he makes it out to be.


If you wish I can look for more articles that decry government regulation. What I did was to enter ‘regulation’ in the search box of www.mises.org and click on ‘content search’ You may have to wait a long time. Generally speaking, in regulatory capture, the regulated industry use the regulating agency to enhance their profits, such as undermining rivals.


I don't think that is the general case at all. What is usually the case, though, is that more regulation tends to benefit the entrenched businesses, and the richer ones more, in that it makes a product more expensive to develop and creates a larger barrier to entry, and richer companies or people can afford this easier than small ones. However, that is usually a side effect, not the intended effect. And in the past, this price has often been paid with better quality.

Also, sometimes businesses themselves benefit from increased regulation - during the time of the Spanish-American war, European powers were so fed up with the poor quality of American meat (like in The Jungle by Upton Sinclair) that they refused to allow imports of American meat. Meat packers actually asked for the government to regulate the quality of meat intended for export. The quality of the meat for export rose, the US government guaranteed it, and European powers started importing american meat again. (The law regulating exported meat did not apply to the domestic market, sadly). And again, this was AT THE REQUEST of the american meat packing industry. Sure, a third party might be able to serve this purpose, but the US government was trusted by other governments, and so served the purpose more fully.


You need to reread him more carefully. Both predictable in some ways and unpredictable in other ways. Statistics are fine for when they do work. Weather is a good example - both predictable and unpredictable. You’d be astonished to know that I’m pretty sure it will be cold in late January and early February where I live.


Maybe I do. So for very general, common sense things, they are predictable. I don't see how that is helpful. Maybe you can answer this: In late January/early February next year, do you think it will on average warmer or colder than this year?


I guess you’ve not yet read the thread to the post in which I pointed out that life is taking chances. If you’re not taking chances, you’re dead, comatose, or a chattel slave.

True, by definition as you say (I took a chance driving to work, though not intentionally so).

[nomad]

Neither economics nor ethics, properly understood, are empirical. Economics IS practical, but it is also theoretical. That's because the Action Axiom is both a predicate for logical arguments and a description of human behavior in the real world.


Not that, we'll be able to see what a nearly deregulated market actually looks like.


As for China's capitalism being more ruthless, I'm not sure what you're talking about. The well being of the average China - material and health - seems to be growing by leaps and bounds, while that of the average American is slowly decaying. We used have the lowest infant mortality in the world, but now we're rank 21 or something like that and sinking. Moreover, the legal and justice system in China badly needs reforming. She still has to learn how to handle cases of pollution well.


Though the government of China is perceived as this mad centralized overlord, in practice it really isn't anything like that. Maybe they want to be, but they can't. The government is very decentralized. There are cases of, say, a provincial government sending an inspector to a manufacturing plant, and the local city refusing to let them. A local bribe is a lot more useful to an entrepreneur than following 'federal' regulations.

So even if the central government wanted to implement, say, clean air regulations, they have very little ability to do so outside the major cities. A factory in the provinces can operate with impunity, if they have the blessing of the authorities (or can buy their way into the local government).

Corruption is rampant, but then that's China for you. (at least at many times in history; it is a common Chinese complaint at least, and the number one complaint right now as I understand it). It isn't really that there's no regulation I guess, it's just that regulation means the local governor puts whatever rules on you he wants to extract the right bribes.

The well being of China has started far behind the United States, but you're right, they are clearly catching up (supposedly, the infant mortality rate is lower in Shanghai than in New York City).


Pollution requires a complete overhaul of our legal and justice system. We need to discuss that before we can discuss pollution. The legal and justice system must rest on the notion of property rights, with government having none whatsoever. Right now, some towns regulate the heights of buildings. I actually don’t have anything against height limits per se. However, the problem I have is with the government setting the height. Let’s consider this alternative: a family settles in an unhabituated or abandoned area because it has a great view of the ocean. As time goes on, other people move in. The family should, if it wants to, be able to enforce its right to preserve its view of the ocean.

Why should the family be able to enforce its right to preserve its view of the ocean? After all, they don't own the land that's part of the view. This seems an odd switch from your libertarian position. They could just buy the land, after all, and then force it by contract. But if they don't own the land, why should they contractually be able to limit what is done on that land to preserve their personal view?

In the same view, let's say there are 9 farms in a square, each 9 acres square (3x3). The farm in the middle of the square gives up the business and decides to sell it. The buyer is a cell phone company who puts up a large cell phone power on the property. Or, an energy company who wishes to put a small power plant there (there's a river there which some of the farms water their crops from).

What in your legal theory would allow the farmers to block the use of that land for uses other than farming? They are worried about the effects of the cell phone tower on their cows, and their wives think it is ugly (not very rational); they are worried that runoff and pollution from the power plan with destroy their crop efficiency and reduce their profits and livelihood (reasonable). Which case is valid, and how does a farmer go about blocking it in your M world? What about the rights of the farmer in the middle to sell his land to whoever he wants?

But this is in fact the same sort of discussion we would have for pollution, but less politically charged, so I like it.

[Augustine2004]

You said argument by anecdote is invalid then went on to cite instances of ‘good’ regulation. I don’t deny that there may be such instances. They do not by themselves justify oversize government - or even government regulation in general.

Do you not know about Customer Reports? Underwriters Laboratory (that famous UL label)? Word of mouth?

The meat packers didn’t have to ask the government; all they had to do was to improve their product quality. Eventually their sales would have gotten better. It’s possible that the government made things move more quickly, but once sales improved enough, it should have gotten out of the biz.

Have I made what seems to you a convincing enough case? If not I need to think more about this.

[Augustine2004]

Not that, we'll be able to see what a nearly deregulated market actually looks like.Not sure what your point is. Perhaps you meant that people need to see actual results to be convinced. I’m afraid that’s true. Economics, however, is like mathematics in that the only way to disprove any given argument is to find some logical flaw in the argument. No amount of empirical data can ever disprove any soundly logical economic argument.
Corruption is rampant, but then that's China for you. (at least at many times in history; it is a common Chinese complaint at least, and the number one complaint right now as I understand it).The corruption is in the government? It isn't really that there's no regulation I guess, it's just that regulation means the local governor puts whatever rules on you he wants to extract the right bribes.I guess you do mean the corruption is in the governments.

Why should the family be able to enforce its right to preserve its view of the ocean? After all, they don't own the land that's part of the view. This seems an odd switch from your libertarian position. They could just buy the land, after all, and then force it by contract. But if they don't own the land, why should they contractually be able to limit what is done on that land to preserve their personal view?That’s the novelty, you just own PARTIALLY. You don’t have to buy the land. Because the family was there first, it got the right to have its view of the ocean preserved. A later-comer could homestead some of the underlying land, but he would still be limited in what he could do with the land, if the family tells him that it wants its view preserved. I’m sorry I didn’t make that clear.

In the same view, let's say there are 9 farms in a square, each 9 acres square (3x3). The farm in the middle of the square gives up the business and decides to sell it. The buyer is a cell phone company who puts up a large cell phone power on the property. Or, an energy company who wishes to put a small power plant there (there's a river there which some of the farms water their crops from).

What in your legal theory would allow the farmers to block the use of that land for uses other than farming? They are worried about the effects of the cell phone tower on their cows, and their wives think it is ugly (not very rational); they are worried that runoff and pollution from the power plan with destroy their crop efficiency and reduce their profits and livelihood (reasonable). Which case is valid, and how does a farmer go about blocking it in your M world? What about the rights of the farmer in the middle to sell his land to whoever he wants?I would say that at least one of those wives has the right to block the construction of the cell phone tower. The company would have to negotiate the right to build a tower on the middle square with each neighbor.

[nomad]

You said argument by anecdote is invalid then went on to cite instances of ‘good’ regulation. I don’t deny that there may be such instances. They do not by themselves justify oversize government - or even government regulation in general.


You're right - the very fact that we can both give anecdotes shows that it's invalid. And you're right, they don't by themselves justify oversize government.

But I think that something like this has to start with anecdotes, just more of them. Note that in this case, we are not necessarily talking about a large government - government regulation doesn't have to involve the government spending a lot of money (though it has to involve some), these are just laws.

What I would have to do is show that there were cases in the past of injustices that the market didn't fix. And then show that a government regulation did. I believe such instances exist historically. I will try to find some (i read a lot, but i forget most of it... i usually try to only post when I actually have some facts I remember to back it up, and that usually means i'm reading that book right now :)

I will concede that governments do screw up, royally in some cases, but if you are going to posit that everyone in the marketplace follows your rules, I think we could also posit that everyone in the government follows your rules. And then we should work out how badly things can go when people don't. I am not so worried about the best case, but I am worried a lot about the worst case. If on average the market is better, but its worst injustices are worse than the worst injustices propagated by the government, i would weight that in the analysis.


Do you not know about Customer Reports? Underwriters Laboratory (that famous UL label)? Word of mouth?


Yes, I do. I don't know that they are enough. The average consumer does not care that much about being informed, not that they like being ignorant, your average consumer does want to know what the 'best' dishwasher is, but they generally aren't interested in investing the time. Democracy has the same problem, with the possible exception that the consumer pays the price for his ignorance, whereas ignorant voters, to a degree, as long as they are somewhat randomly ignorant, would strongly bias towards what the intelligent voters want (from Caplan's analysis; of course, he goes on to show that voter errors aren't random but are systematic). I will grant that some of this is due to government regulation and consumer advocacy lawsuits, and in general a consumer doesn't worry too much about it, knowing that if he makes a really bad choice it will be covered somewhere, either by the manufacturer or a lawsuit. If this was removed, perhaps consumers would have to be more informed, which would make the market work better but would also lead to a greater cost for those that choose badly, and I think that is probably a worse cost.

But, with the internet and the greater connectivity today, I think it is much easier to become an informed consumer than it ever has been before, and that


The meat packers didn’t have to ask the government; all they had to do was to improve their product quality. Eventually their sales would have gotten better. It’s possible that the government made things move more quickly, but once sales improved enough, it should have gotten out of the biz.


Yeah, I wondered that myself. I don't know. Incidentally, I did screw up a little, it's actually not during the Spanish-American war, but slightly before (the law was passed in 1891).


Have I made what seems to you a convincing enough case? If not I need to think more about this.

Not yet, but you are getting there.

Not sure what your point is. Perhaps you meant that people need to see actual results to be convinced. I’m afraid that’s true. Economics, however, is like mathematics in that the only way to disprove any given argument is to find some logical flaw in the argument. No amount of empirical data can ever disprove any soundly logical economic argument.


Any 'sound economic argument' that doesn't match reality is useless. Unless you live in a theoretical world. I do not agree with that at all. Economics is intended to be a predictive science, and in the real world; therefore, empirical testability is the most important part of it. I think we have a central disconnect right here.


The corruption is in the government?I guess you do mean the corruption is in the governments.


Yes it is. For all intents and purposes, however, it becomes just a cost of doing business, since it is not even or regular across all participants in a given market. That is probably part of scandals like the pet food scandal. There is a factory in China somewhere that makes 'medicine', but most of it is useless, and some it is was even shown to be sugar pills or saline. IIRC, the plant was still in service (and may still be in service) for years, even though the central government tried to shut it down, because of this kind of corruption. There is a high degree of customer ignorance, though, which is how they stay in business I guess.


That’s the novelty, you just own PARTIALLY. You don’t have to buy the land. Because the family was there first, it got the right to have its view of the ocean preserved. A later-comer could homestead some of the underlying land, but he would still be limited in what he could do with the land, if the family tells him that it wants its view preserved. I’m sorry I didn’t make that clear.


So can I also prevent farmers from clear-cutting the land for a farm? Prevent buildings from going up if I don't like them? There aren't many places left where this would apply (because some already owns almost all the land. Still doesn't seem very libertarian. That seems like a strange right to grant, but if the owner agrees to that via contract, I suppose it isn't a problem. Who grants the right to have a view preserved, and enforces the limitation on the owners of the land whose rights are being infringed?


I would say that at least one of those wives has the right to block the construction of the cell phone tower. The company would have to negotiate the right to build a tower on the middle square with each neighbor.

Why? Where does the right get created, and where will it be codified? It isn't in any of the contracts the farm owners signed to buy their farms. Or would it have to be?

[Augustine2004]

Any 'sound economic argument' that doesn't match reality is useless. Unless you live in a theoretical world. I do not agree with that at all. Economics is intended to be a predictive science, and in the real world; therefore, empirical testability is the most important part of it. I think we have a central disconnect right here.
I want to focus on this objection. I've pointed out already in this thread that that the choices that people make are not predictable. Austrian School praxeologists have already developed an impressive body of 'laws', but generally speaking economics is not a predictive science like physics is. People continue to lose money in the financial biz. Governments have not yet repealed the business cycles. Actually, contrary to what I'd just written, a certain kind of government policy can be shown to cause it.

The Action Axiom is a description of human behavior in the real world. It is that every normal human being acts to achieve some goal plus happiness. Try as hard as you can to refute it. No matter how hard you try, every attempt to refute it is itself an action aiming to achieve some goal. IOW, every such attempt is itself a confirmation of the Action Axiom.

In yet other words, not only is the Axiom a premise, it is truly a self-evident and PRACTICAL premise. Austrian school economics is both theoretical and practical.

There are indeed self-called economics who try to do economics as though it were like physics, but it doesn't work that way and will never.

You're correct that any argument that doesn't match reality is useless. The fault would not be in the Axiom, though. Usually in applying the Axiom to a particular situation, you add auxiliary assumptions, what I call particularizing assumptions. If the argument does not fit the reality, the problem must be in the particularizing assumptions or in the argument itself (unsound logic) or both.

[nomad]

You're correct that any argument that doesn't match reality is useless. The fault would not be in the Axiom, though. Usually in applying the Axiom to a particular situation, you add auxiliary assumptions, what I call particularizing assumptions. If the argument does not fit the reality, the problem must be in the particularizing assumptions or in the argument itself (unsound logic) or both.

hmm, sounds familiar. Around here we call it 'the scientific method'. Except that around here, axioms are only proved by failure to find a contradictory case, not continuation of finding supporting cases. And a single contradictory case invalidates the axiom. Even if the effort to find the contradictory case itself satisfies the axiom.

Of course, I think the action axiom is too vague to be useful; it's not falsifiable. So the particularizing assumptions become the bulk of the argument. I don't know why you focus on that axiom so much.

[joel]

I finally got around to reading the Hoppe article.
I think the first part was good, refuting the free-loader problem. I generally agree.

I don't think the main (libertarian) argument for having a government is the free-loader problem, so this doesn't show that governments are unnecessary/evil.

Following are some comments on the article.

But then, when goods are never goods-as-such-when no physicochemical analysis can identify
something as an economic good-there is clearly no fixed, objective criterion for classifying goods as either private or public.

Hoppe's hidden premise here is that we can know objective truth only through physiochemical analysis. I believe there is objective metaphysical reality. Hoppe treats value judgements ("caring or uncaring") as completely subjective, not allowing for the possibility that such judgements can be objectively right or wrong.

Later Hoppe essentially argues that the free market will always result in optimally utility. (and that central planning cannot). One possible counterargument someone might raise (that Hoppe did not address) is that a situation might arise in which everyone's prefered option is not a Nash equilibrium--that is where the individual best choices do not end up in the state that everyone actually prefers. For example, the prisoner's dilemma. I thought about this for a moment, and then I realized the problem with this counterargument: The solution to problems like the prisoner's dilemma is not to have an outside power dictate the individual choices, but to allow the individuals to communicate and make contracts between themselves. Indeed, the only way the prisoner's dilemma is useful to the police officers is if they prevent all contact between the prisoners. Without that, there is no dilemma.

Later Hoppe argues that priorities (the decision to spend on X rather than Y) are best sorted out by free individuals. This is true in general, but the question of whether to protect individual rights is not really just another optional thing (like cheese production) to be prioritized (e.g., by the free market). On the contrary, protection of individual rights is the precondition to all the other things. (Just as Hoppe acknowledges in the article that the nonaggression principle is a precondition.)

Later Hoppe points out that free exchange is the best way to sort out things like "how many different sorts of hamburgers" will be produced, and will best respond to changes in demand. While I agree in general, this does not apply to law. There must not be multiple versions of "law" in the land. And law should not be based solely on changes in demand.

Additionaly, my view is that what is correct or incorrect (just or injust) law is a matter of objective reality. Thus "what the law should be", is not a matter of changing, subjective opinion. Ideally we would allow those best to discover the objective truth of the matter determine the law (that's the whole point of electing legislators).

Later Hoppe refers to the slowness of the state-run judicial process. I hear him on that one. I was recently on jury duty for 12 workdays (spanned across 4 weeks) for a DUI case! Talk about slow. I'm curious what non-anarchist libertarians (yet who oppose the draft) have to say about jury duty.


If there were only one person who withdrew his payments because he was not convinced a battle was necessary in the particular conflict at hand, there would be immediate economic pressure on the company to look for a peaceful solution to the conflict.

That's not true. It's only true with all else being equal. There could, in fact, be several more people who join up with or switch to that firm because they support the cause, thus providing a net incentive to go to battle.


And as such a scheme could appear to the clients of different firms to be working only if there
were agreement among them regarding such arbitrational measures, a system of law governing relations between companies that would be universally acceptable to the clients of all of the competing security producers would naturally evolve.

I disagree that it would naturally evolve in all cases. If there was company A that was pro-choice, and company B that was pro-life, how would they possibly agree on how to resolve that dispute? Or back in the society before the abolition, how would the pro-slave-trade company and the abolitionist company possibly agree on how to resolve that dispute? (The former would declare that the later, by enforcing abolition, was committing an act of aggression, and violating their property rights. They would be incorrect, but that would be their sincerely held view.)


Thus, these judges would be under pressure to find solutions to the problems handed over to them that, this time not with respect to the procedural aspects of law but its content, would be acceptable to all of the clients of the firms involved.

Again, how would these judges come up with an acceptable ("to all of the clients") compromise in the abortion or slave-trade conflict?


Rather, the likely outcome would he that the honest companies would develop the strength needed-alone or in a combined effort and supported in this effort by their own voluntary customers to check any such emergence of outlaw producers and destroy them wherever and whenever they came into existence.

That's exactly the problem. Both company A and company B (and their respective customers) think they are just and that the other is an outlaw company! --and will do whatever necessary to check or destroy the outlaw company.
Either (1) what Hoppe said is true, and the two such companies will go to war or (2) what Hoppe said is false, and outlaw companies will be a problem.

Hoppe's main point in the latter portion of the article is that security is not a public good needing to be provided by a government. Perhaps he has a point regarding security as such. But law (meaning law as it should be) is a public good, and it is not a matter where different people can partake of different law (like different people can partake of the hamburger of their choice or abstain from hamburgers). Nor is it a matter of consumer demand, but a matter of objective reality. It, in a sense, is a declaration of what is true, and truth is not determined by subjective demand, and objective truth does not permit multiple versions of itself for different people.

A single law (set of statutes) must be established over the land. (From the consumer's perspective, how good would it be to make every decision knowing that there are 100 enforcement companies all with differing laws, each willing and able to prosecute you for breaking its version of the law.) I have little problem with private security companies, as long as they all submit to the one law of the land. But, then again, that would have to be enforced.

So there would still need to be a government to establish the law and to enforce that the security companies follow the law.

[Augustine2004]

hmm, sounds familiar. Around here we call it 'the scientific method'. Except that around here, axioms are only proved by failure to find a contradictory case, not continuation of finding supporting cases. And a single contradictory case invalidates the axiom. Even if the effort to find the contradictory case itself satisfies the axiom.

Of course, I think the action axiom is too vague to be useful; it's not falsifiable. So the particularizing assumptions become the bulk of the argument. I don't know why you focus on that axiom so much.Yet again, economics is not physics. Moreover knowledge of economics is genuine knowledge, though not falsible in the Popperian sense. Actually, the assertion that only falsible assertions could be genuine knowledge is itself self-refuting.

Man, Economy, And State by Murray Rothbard, available online www.mises.org is nearly 1000 pages. Vague, ha! To be sure, perhaps most of it consists of refutations of others’ mistaken pronouncements. However, that would still leave 300 or more pages of solid information.

[Augustine2004]

But then, when goods are never goods-as-such-when no physicochemical analysis can identify
something as an economic good-there is clearly no fixed, objective criterion for classifying goods as either private or public.

Hoppe's hidden premise here is that we can know objective truth only through physiochemical analysis.Not so, you clearly need to start with Chapter 1 of Man, Economy, And State by Murray Rothbard available online www.mises.org at least up to section 5. I believe there is objective metaphysical reality. Hoppe treats value judgements ("caring or uncaring") as completely subjective, not allowing for the possibility that such judgements can be objectively right or wrong.Well, he's critiquing the public-good thesis, which after all does not explain how to determine the objective rightness or wrongness.Later Hoppe essentially argues that the free market will always result in optimally utility. (and that central planning cannot).I don't think so. He does argue in other works that in the free market there is ex ante optimality, that is, when a trade occurs (e.g., a comic book traded for a bucket of sand), each party to the trade hopes that he has made a good deal. One possible counterargument someone might raise (that Hoppe did not address) is that a situation might arise in which everyone's prefered option is not a Nash equilibrium--that is where the individual best choices do not end up in the state that everyone actually prefers. For example, the prisoner's dilemma. I thought about this for a moment, and then I realized the problem with this counterargument: The solution to problems like the prisoner's dilemma is not to have an outside power dictate the individual choices, but to allow the individuals to communicate and make contracts between themselves. Indeed, the only way the prisoner's dilemma is useful to the police officers is if they prevent all contact between the prisoners. Without that, there is no dilemma.For sure, everyone has made trades that he later regrets having made. So what?Later Hoppe argues that priorities (the decision to spend on X rather than Y) are best sorted out by free individuals. This is true in general, but the question of whether to protect individual rights is not really just another optional thing (like cheese production) to be prioritized (e.g., by the free market). On the contrary, protection of individual rights is the precondition to all the other things. (Just as Hoppe acknowledges in the article that the nonaggression principle is a precondition.)OK, I guess.Later Hoppe points out that free exchange is the best way to sort out things like "how many different sorts of hamburgers" will be produced, and will best respond to changes in demand. While I agree in general, this does not apply to law. There must not be multiple versions of "law" in the land. And law should not be based solely on changes in demand.You clearly misunderstand what Hoppe means by law. Given a world that is M, we still need elaborate rules. Laws in other words. Life would certainly be simpler if everybody chose the same body of laws, but I don't think choice should be restricted. Indeed, if choice was restricted in some way, the world would no longer become M. Also, how do you restrict the choices anyway?
Additionaly, my view is that what is correct or incorrect (just or injust) law is a matter of objective reality. Thus "what the law should be", is not a matter of changing, subjective opinion. Ideally we would allow those best to discover the objective truth of the matter determine the law (that's the whole point of electing legislators).If you have a good solution to the problem of people taking advantage of such powers for themselves, I would be interested.
If there were only one person who withdrew his payments because he was not convinced a battle was necessary in the particular conflict at hand, there would be immediate economic pressure on the company to look for a peaceful solution to the conflict.

That's not true. It's only true with all else being equal. There could, in fact, be several more people who join up with or switch to that firm because they support the cause, thus providing a net incentive to go to battle.Your objection does not apply. Reread the contents of the box and see that you missed the word 'immediate.' Moreover, you have to assume that many people are bellicose, spoiling for a fight. Why not be fair and assume the same of oversize government?


And as such a scheme could appear to the clients of different firms to be working only if there
were agreement among them regarding such arbitrational measures, a system of law governing relations between companies that would be universally acceptable to the clients of all of the competing security producers would naturally evolve.

I disagree that it would naturally evolve in all cases. If there was company A that was pro-choice, and company B that was pro-life, how would they possibly agree on how to resolve that dispute? Or back in the society before the abolition, how would the pro-slave-trade company and the abolitionist company possibly agree on how to resolve that dispute? (The former would declare that the later, by enforcing abolition, was committing an act of aggression, and violating their property rights. They would be incorrect, but that would be their sincerely held view.)I don't see that your hypothetical situation is any worse than now. Anyway, I am not going to guarantee there won't be any disputes or conflict in the M world.


Thus, these judges would be under pressure to find solutions to the problems handed over to them that, this time not with respect to the procedural aspects of law but its content, would be acceptable to all of the clients of the firms involved.

Again, how would these judges come up with an acceptable ("to all of the clients") compromise in the abortion or slave-trade conflict?I wish I know!


Rather, the likely outcome would he that the honest companies would develop the strength needed-alone or in a combined effort and supported in this effort by their own voluntary customers to check any such emergence of outlaw producers and destroy them wherever and whenever they came into existence.

That's exactly the problem. Both company A and company B (and their respective customers) think they are just and that the other is an outlaw company! --and will do whatever necessary to check or destroy the outlaw company.
Either (1) what Hoppe said is true, and the two such companies will go to war or (2) what Hoppe said is false, and outlaw companies will be a problem.What Hoppe means is not objective laws, but laws as determined by the people acting through the market or the government.

Hoppe's main point in the latter portion of the article is that security is not a public good needing to be provided by a government. Perhaps he has a point regarding security as such. But law (meaning law as it should be) is a public good, and it is not a matter where different people can partake of different law (like different people can partake of the hamburger of their choice or abstain from hamburgers). Nor is it a matter of consumer demand, but a matter of objective reality. It, in a sense, is a declaration of what is true, and truth is not determined by subjective demand, and objective truth does not permit multiple versions of itself for different people.I agree that truth is objective. However, ethics, including laws, is not completely objective and will never be. That's so even if everyone were to take his ethics from the Bible.

A single law (set of statutes) must be established over the land. (From the consumer's perspective, how good would it be to make every decision knowing that there are 100 enforcement companies all with differing laws, each willing and able to prosecute you for breaking its version of the law.) I have little problem with private security companies, as long as they all submit to the one law of the land. But, then again, that would have to be enforced.

So there would still need to be a government to establish the law and to enforce that the security companies follow the law.Life in the M world would certainly be simpler that way than at present, with maybe 10,000 bodies of law. I do symathize, but I do not want choice to be restricted. Regarding abortion, we can seek ways to reduce its incidence, if not eliminate it altogether, such as providing services to the expectant mom.

[nomad]

Yet again, economics is not physics. Moreover knowledge of economics is genuine knowledge, though not falsible in the Popperian sense. Actually, the assertion that only falsible assertions could be genuine knowledge is itself self-refuting.


I didn't say that non-falsifiable statements can't be genuine knowledge. A non-falsifiable statement has no use in the real world. Though I think maybe the action axiom could be falsifiable, if it was clearly defined what you meant by purposeful.

The way it is currently written, it appears to say that human beings fulfill a cause-effect relationship. The import of this would be that human behaviour is somewhat deterministic (perhaps in a newtonian, if not einsteinian way) and that brings economics that much closer to physics.


Man, Economy, And State by Murray Rothbard, available online www.mises.org is nearly 1000 pages. Vague, ha! To be sure, perhaps most of it consists of refutations of others’ mistaken pronouncements. However, that would still leave 300 or more pages of solid information.

Fine, I will look through it some. You admit then, that the action axiom, as you've been throwing it around, is incomplete enough to need 300 pages of clarification. I might agree with the action axiom per se, in its simplest form, but I am not sure if I will still agree after 300 pages of clarification. I will let you know.

The solution to problems like the prisoner's dilemma is not to have an outside power dictate the individual choices, but to allow the individuals to communicate and make contracts between themselves.


I am not sure that will solve every prisoner's dilemma. Any time there is a zero-sum game, there will always be a prisoner's dilemma. Perhaps there are no zero-sum games in economics. Here is an example from Tim Harford, on divorce: http://timharford.com/2007/11/ (scroll down about 2/3rds to the part that begins 'Dear Economist: My wife and I are separated....'


Later Hoppe points out that free exchange is the best way to sort out things like "how many different sorts of hamburgers" will be produced, and will best respond to changes in demand. While I agree in general, this does not apply to law. There must not be multiple versions of "law" in the land. And law should not be based solely on changes in demand.


So, do you disagree that, for instance, my subdivision may require in its bylaws a neat and trimmed lawn, while another subdivision may not require any maintenance at all? Some kinds of laws this is true, but there are many laws that are really just preferences.

Sorry, just replying to everything tonight :)

[Augustine2004]

I didn't say that non-falsifiable statements can't be genuine knowledge. A non-falsifiable statement has no use in the real world. Though I think maybe the action axiom could be falsifiable, if it was clearly defined what you meant by purposeful.If the Action Axiom were not applicable to a situation, any conclusion from the axiom would not be applicable to it. The situation would be at least one person who had no aim or purpose. I can’t conceive of such a person unless he were comatose or dead. I think ‘purpose’ as Rothbard uses that term simply is what most people understand it to mean.
The way it is currently written, it appears to say that human beings fulfill a cause-effect relationship. The import of this would be that human behaviour is somewhat deterministic (perhaps in a newtonian, if not einsteinian way) and that brings economics that much closer to physics. I don’t think determinism is different from Newton to Einstein. I really can’t quarrel with the above, though I thought of doing so.



You admit then, that the action axiom, as you've been throwing it around, is incomplete enough to need 300 pages of clarification.Did I say ‘clarification’? I meant ‘elaboration.’ Did you see that Super Man and Super Woman post? That’s an example.I am not sure that will solve every prisoner's dilemma. Any time there is a zero-sum game, there will always be a prisoner's dilemma. Perhaps there are no zero-sum games in economics. Here is an example from Tim Harford, on divorce: http://timharford.com/2007/11/ (scroll down about 2/3rds to the part that begins 'Dear Economist: My wife and I are separated....'Sum of WHAT?



So, do you disagree that, for instance, my subdivision may require in its bylaws a neat and trimmed lawn, while another subdivision may not require any maintenance at all? Some kinds of laws this is true, but there are many laws that are really just preferences.I forgot all about those bylaws. If you include them, there could be well be millions of sets of laws?

It does seem ridiculous that a private road would require its users to drive the English way and another road the American way. However there could be a good reason. There’s an English colony in America?

In the arid West of the United States, water rights are rather elaborate. The wet South would find them overelaborate.

[Mr Arkadin]

After observing this thread from a distance a few comments need to be made.

Firstly Nomad, you a making a classic logical positivist error in you reasoning. According to this there are two types of statement: a
normative one which is a statement of preference and yields no knowledge; and a secondly a positive statement which is in principle empirically falsifiable. The question though is where does that statement lie in such a scheme- it can't be a positive one because it can't be empirically falsifiable. Therefore it must be a statement of preference and thus yields no knowledge.

There must then be a priori, non-falsifiable, statements that yield knowledge, such as the law of logic, otherwise it would not be possible to traverse the purely theoretical to empirical reality. Mises' answer to this, and Hoppe's, is to use a statement that cannot be denied without self contradiction ie. the axiom of action- man acts to attempt to determine events in the future for his perceived betterment. The only other subsidiary postulates are the disutility of labour and scarcity. Hardly unrealistic. To say it does not adhere to the scientific method is to use scientific in a very narrow sense and to conflate the methodology of the natural sciences with the social.

Now to Joel, firstly a question- what is law? As it is abundantly clear even today there is no such thing as a single monolith of law. You decide to into my theme park and I lay down some laws on what you can and can't do different from the state statutes. You enter my bar, my house, my school, my church or any other piece of my property and you will be subject to different laws. The state itself is subject to different laws than ourselves- I steal a car I get banged away, in theory anyway, the state does it and it is a laudable action of tax for the public good. The rule of one objective law is a complete and utter myth.

Further all law needs enacting by people, the constitution does not just sit there and enforce itself. You just need to look at Britain for an unwritten constitution. So the question is what system supplies the best incentive structure for the lawmakers- is it monopoly with the power of force or the market mechanism?

You'll then probably appeal to the final arbiter- even though he does not exist. Who arbitrates between the UK and USA. What law binds them vis a vis each other? What you really want is one world government but even then you have no final arbiter because those who work for the government have no higher authority to arbitrate between each other. And even if you weren't in the government you could press for the worlds laws to be change and be released retrospectively. There is no such thing as an ultimate final arbiter bar one: God and he will judge absolutely on judgement day.

[nomad]

If the Action Axiom were not applicable to a situation, any conclusion from the axiom would not be applicable to it. The situation would be at least one person who had no aim or purpose. I can’t conceive of such a person unless he were comatose or dead. I think ‘purpose’ as Rothbard uses that term simply is what most people understand it to mean.


The axiom just means that, given the same set of circumstances, the person would (likely) do the same thing. At least, that is how I read it. (Of course, if you are LFW/Open Theist, you would start off disagreeing here; that's why I say this is philosophy). This by itself doesn't give you much. Next, to make this useful you have to theorize about what the purpose is. Maybe that's in the elaborations? (I am going to look when I have time, which won't be today or tomorrow unfortunately).


I don’t think determinism is different from Newton to Einstein.


Not the determinism, per se. Newtonian physics is 'incomplete', different in scale. Einsteinian physics works when Newtonian physics no longer does. So, for those cases, to a Newtonian physicist it looks like those things are no longer acting deterministically, while the Einsteinian theory shows that in fact they are.

I would argue there are different levels of determinism. Actually this is part of Hoppe's argument, though he does not phrase it like this, and the difference between 'class' and 'case' probability. I know that, if I give 100 people the choice between buying an identical box of pasta for $1.09 or $1.19, most people will, with purpose, buy the one for $1.09. However, I will probably get one joker once in a while who will buy the higher priced one. Has he acted randomly? No, we just don't understand the purpose that his 'purposeful' was.

However, in argument, for most practical purposes I can use 'always' and continue with my argument, as these random people aren't enough to skew any sample. Or 'most of the time'. And make some general rules. Science works this way too - in most experiments there are outliers, those weird data that are unexplainable. You hope they are just experiment errors, but you never know. If there a small enough number of them, you write them off, publish the paper, and do more experimentation and try to reproduce them. Especially if they are really off, the kind of wrong data that would change your theory if true.

That's all I was trying to say. Statistically, most of the time, I can aggregate people together and somewhat accurately predict the group's behavior, even if I can't predict the behavior of any individual person, or a differently composed group.

Did you see that Super Man and Super Woman post?


Doesn't ring a bell. Where is it?

Sum of WHAT?


In divorce, you are splitting up assets. There are a fixed amount of assets, and either you or the other party are going to get them. For one party to increase their take, the other party must lose something. That's zero-sum. Finite resources are also zero-sum; for Georgia to take more water from the reservoir, Alabama won't be able to take as much.


I forgot all about those bylaws. If you include them, there could be well be millions of sets of laws?

It does seem ridiculous that a private road would require its users to drive the English way and another road the American way. However there could be a good reason. There’s an English colony in America?


True, and for this reason I think either you have to argue that 1) such laws should never be made (but even if you don't call them 'laws', 'contractual limitations' would effectively give the same thing), or 2) not all laws are formed out of objective ethics, even if such a thing exists.


In the arid West of the United States, water rights are rather elaborate. The wet South would find them overelaborate.

The wet South is catching up; the water per person is not necessarily higher in the south due to the far greater number of people in, say, Alabama, compared to, say, Arizona.

[nomad]

Firstly Nomad, you a making a classic logical positivist error in you reasoning. According to this there are two types of statement: a
normative one which is a statement of preference and yields no knowledge; and a secondly a positive statement which is in principle empirically falsifiable. The question though is where does that statement lie in such a scheme- it can't be a positive one because it can't be empirically falsifiable. Therefore it must be a statement of preference and thus yields no knowledge.


You are right. However, if there are no empirically falsifiable statements in your theory, then you have not said anything about the real world. I am not really talking about producing knowledge. Or maybe I am and haven't been thinking this through clearly enough (it is possible).

Even such basic facts as 2+2=4 have to shown to be transferable to the real world.... 2Na+ + 2Cl- = 2 NaCl. Not that they can be untrue in the real world, but that 2 is an abstract concept, and sometimes converting these to real objects involves enough transformation to change the meaning of the original self-evident statement. Most of these such statements are at such a low level we take them for granted, but they are there. We don't worry about it too much because such statements themselves are usually part of larger statements that are also empirically verifiable; it's rare that a statement is presented as 'proven by the system, apart from empirical evidence', that has hidden empirical assumptions.

I don't think science works exactly like you are thinking. And yes, I am intentionally conflating the method of social and natural sciences. Despite the fact that natural sciences are far more predictable than social sciences, when in the natural sciences you find that 99% of your cases work and 1% doesn't, you go look at the 1% to see what you missed, and sometimes you find something new, something that is different about it. In the natural science it's far easier to control that; in the social sciences, it isn't, and you can't do the same experiment multiple times. However, the processes by which they try to develop knowledge are very similar. Logical processes suggest that something might be true. Data is collected to see if, in fact, that is true. People argue over what kind of missing variables might be skewing the data that could either invalidate your conclusion altogether or explain the exceptions. It's not really all that different, from what I can see. Just there are many more uncontrolled inputs to the system in the social sciences, and that makes it harder to make accurate theories.

But that doesn't mean it's theoretically impossible to do so. The action axiom, as you give, says that in the same situation, the person will always make the choice which leads to his betterment. That sounds like a sort of determinism to me. Would you disagree? That means that it's theoretically possible, scary as it is, to predict what that person will do.

It's possible you are arguing that this is only possible in aggregate, and then I have to think more about that.

[Mr Arkadin]

You are right. However, if there are no empirically falsifiable statements in your theory, then you have not said anything about the real world. I am not really talking about producing knowledge. Or maybe I am and haven't been thinking this through clearly enough (it is possible).

Even such basic facts as 2+2=4 have to shown to be transferable to the real world.... 2Na+ + 2Cl- = 2 NaCl. Not that they can be untrue in the real world, but that 2 is an abstract concept, and sometimes converting these to real objects involves enough transformation to change the meaning of the original self-evident statement. Most of these such statements are at such a low level we take them for granted, but they are there. We don't worry about it too much because such statements themselves are usually part of larger statements that are also empirically verifiable; it's rare that a statement is presented as 'proven by the system, apart from empirical evidence', that has hidden empirical assumptions.


As is clear one needs a theory to interpret any form of data; if didn't have one you couldn't interpret it. So ultimately, therefore, one needs to base their epistemology on an a priori basis. The question then is, how do you have an empirical (or synthetic in Kantian terminology) a priori theory? The answer lies in the law of non-contradiction. If a statement cannot be denied by without self contradiction this creates 100% certitude in the real world (I'm working on a foundationalist reformulation of the cosmological argument) Examples here I think therefore I am and the axiom of action. From this one can, using the laws of logic, derive the whole corpus of purely a prior knowledge. The question next to ask is what methodology does one use in certain disciplines? As Augustine has pointed out already and the articles I messaged you the actions of people are not predictable because they do not fit the requirements to be probabilistic. Further since we have an irrefutable ground on which to base economics, it then rests with mathematics and logic as an a priori science. As pointed out before economics does use some non a prior assumptions. Firstly I believe them to be defensible as inductive statements but also do you really think that saying labour exhibits disutility isn't saying anything about the real world even though it is not falsifiable.


I don't think science works exactly like you are thinking.


No it doesn't but it should.



But that doesn't mean it's theoretically impossible to do so. The action axiom, as you give, says that in the same situation, the person will always make the choice which leads to his betterment. That sounds like a sort of determinism to me. Would you disagree? That means that it's theoretically possible, scary as it is, to predict what that person will do.

It's possible you are arguing that this is only possible in aggregate, and then I have to think more about that.

It could be deterministic and Mises himself was a soft determinist however I don't think it necessarily has to be. Firstly since in this sense man decides what his interest is so is indeterministic. Secondly it my be possible to distinguish actions of the will and physical actions. And thirdly one could reduce the axiom to man acts- the end- but then use he acts in his self interest as a general inductive statement which can be treated a priori.

[joel]

Not so, you clearly need to start with Chapter 1 of Man, Economy, And State by Murray Rothbard available online www.mises.org (http://www.mises.org) at least up to section 5.

I don't know where that is on the website. And it seems more efficient in the short run if you can just tell me how I am mistaken.


For sure, everyone has made trades that he later regrets having made. So what?

You don't need to be so argumentative. We agree on this point. I was making an argument in favor of our common ground. Besides, I wasn't really talking about making a trade that you later regret. I was still assuming that everyone makes the rational, game-theoretical best individual choice, but that eliminating the option that everyone actually prefers.


OK, I guess.You clearly misunderstand what Hoppe means by law. Given a world that is M, we still need elaborate rules. Laws in other words. Life would certainly be simpler if everybody chose the same body of laws, but I don't think choice should be restricted.
Indeed, if choice was restricted in some way, the world would no longer become M. Also, how do you restrict the choices anyway?

It has to be restricted to one. How to do so is the question we all have to answer. If it isn't restricted, then free trade and rational planning for the future is nearly impossible.


If you have a good solution to the problem of people taking advantage of such powers for themselves, I would be interested.

The best we can do is checks and balances, one of the best of which is an armed citizenry.


Your objection does not apply. Reread the contents of the box and see that you missed the word 'immediate.'

Why wouldn't the additional support be just as immediate as the one person who withdraws?


Moreover, you have to assume that many people are bellicose, spoiling for a fight. Why not be fair and assume the same of oversize government?I

Note, I'm not even arguing that it's because people are bellicose (though that is a possibility), but because people want to fight for justice.


don't see that your hypothetical situation is any worse than now.

What? Sure we have the occasional person who blows something up, but for the large part people fall under the monopolistic government and work to change it, rather than setting up their own justice force and start a shooting war, (though the people do reserve that right against the government in case it becomes absolutely necessary).


Anyway, I am not going to guarantee there won't be any disputes or conflict in the M world.

I don't know what "M world" is. If it was defined earlier in the thread, I'm sorry, I've only yt read the first 8 pages, or so of this thread.


What Hoppe means is not objective laws, but laws as determined by the people acting through the market or the government.

Exactly. The two factions will each view the other as being outlaw.


I agree that truth is objective. However, ethics, including laws, is not completely objective and will never be.

But it is not acceptable to wield violence based on subjective emotions. The law ought to forbid such use of force, thus restricting the use of force to objective judgement.


Life in the M world would certainly be simpler that way than at present, with maybe 10,000 bodies of law. I do symathize, but I do not want choice to be restricted.

But that is exactly what each security company will attempt to do! The use of force imposes ones own rules, at the expense of the preferred rules of those on whom they are imposing. That is the nature of the use of force. That is why this is all contradictory. You can't claim that the use of force should be free, under the free market, in order to gain more perfect freedom, because the use of force is the restriction of (someone else's) action. To say that there should be no restriction on action (including the use of force) is to permit all restrictions of action.


Regarding abortion, we can seek ways to reduce its incidence, if not eliminate it altogether, such as providing services to the expectant mom.
That's unacceptable to pro-lifers. The underlying issue is one of justice. The goal is such an issue is not merely to reduce or eliminate the incidence of the injustice, but to acknowledge it officially as injustice, as we did with the 14th amendment: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The goal with abolishing slavery was not just to reduce the incidence of slavery, but to enforce that everyone has equal protection of individual rights.

[joel]

I am not sure that will solve every prisoner's dilemma. Any time there is a zero-sum game, there will always be a prisoner's dilemma. Perhaps there are no zero-sum games in economics. Here is an example from Tim Harford, on divorce: http://timharford.com/2007/11/ (scroll down about 2/3rds to the part that begins 'Dear Economist: My wife and I are separated....'

So are all such problems the result of people embarking on a joint effort without establishing a contract agreement regarding the issue they later encounter? That certainly is a dilemma. But is there a relevant example? I mean, the question is whether the government should take over production of a particular good because of such a situation. I'm not sure of an example of a nation-wide zero sum game regarding the production of a particular good.


So, do you disagree that, for instance, my subdivision may require in its bylaws a neat and trimmed lawn, while another subdivision may not require any maintenance at all? Some kinds of laws this is true, but there are many laws that are really just preferences.

Even in that example, each subdivision has one set of law. What I was arguing against is more analogous to having two governing bodies in the same subdivision, one threatening violence if people don't keep their lawn neat, and the other threatening violence against people who would threaten or use violence against people for such trivial things as not keeping their lawn neat. It's when you have multiple groups wielding violence, each with their own set of rules over the same geographical area. Each individual must not be permitted to wield violence against everyone else according to their own preferences.

[joel]

It does seem ridiculous that a private road would require its users to drive the English way and another road the American way. However there could be a good reason. There’s an English colony in America?

Again, a closer analogy would be to allow one group to issue tickets for not driving the English way, and another group to issue tickets for not driving the American way on the same road. The result will be no rule of law at all, because everyone will assume they will be punished no matter what they do.

[joel]

Now to Joel, firstly a question- what is law?

In what I wrote above, I was using it to mean "a set of rules that an individual or group enforces by means of violence or the threat of it."


The rule of one objective law is a complete and utter myth.
Hopefully my more recent posts above clarify this point. If not, please clarify your objection.


Further all law needs enacting by people, the constitution does not just sit there and enforce itself. You just need to look at Britain for an unwritten constitution. So the question is what system supplies the best incentive structure for the lawmakers- is it monopoly with the power of force or the market mechanism?
But the situation changes if there is more than one set of lawmakers with the same jurisdiction. So the incentive structure is not the only relevant question, if some incentive structures involve having more that one set of lawmakers with the same jurisdiction.


You'll then probably appeal to the final arbiter- even though he does not exist. Who arbitrates between the UK and USA.
That's not a relevant example. They have jurisdiction over different geographical areas. (War is the result when neighboring countries decide to change that fact.)

[joel]

True, and for this reason I think either you have to argue that 1) such laws should never be made (but even if you don't call them 'laws', 'contractual limitations' would effectively give the same thing), or 2) not all laws are formed out of objective ethics, even if such a thing exists.

I think I see your point. But I think you are conflating contractual agreements with law. Contractual agreements are made voluntarily. If we make a contract that allows you to use my property in a certain way, then it's voluntary that I choose to let you. Apart from such a contractual obligation, the law says you cannot use my property any way you wish.

In the case of the driving this way or that, I'd say the law should just be that criminal negligence is illegal. The courts may rule whether a particular instance of violation of the rules of the road (set by their (ideally private) owner) is a violation of the law.

So when I say that it is objective "what the law should be", I am referring to things like criminal negligence, not things like whether we all drive on the left or right side of the road, per se.

[nomad]

I think I see your point. But I think you are conflating contractual agreements with law. Contractual agreements are made voluntarily. If we make a contract that allows you to use my property in a certain way, then it's voluntary that I choose to let you. Apart from such a contractual obligation, the law says you cannot use my property any way you wish.


I see what you are getting at. I was thinking more in terms of negative contracts, and that if we have a contract that you won't do X, then that effectively becomes a law because the government will enforce that contract (even in the most minimalist government scenario).

But that has an important distinction from law, because I agreed to limit my behaviour, and (assumedly) there is an exit clause from which I can end the contract. A law has no such limitations; I did not agree to it, and yet it prescribes a penalty for violating it, and there is no way to get out of it.

So laws are OK for objectively moral things only. Other things (like preferences) can be taken care of in contract law. I can see the sense in that.

However... are contracts only personal? Are there any implied contracts? Example: Suppose in my neighborhood, I signed a contract saying I will not play any music over 50 dBA (just pulling a number out of the air, I can't remember how loud that is, but I think it's pretty loud), as a prerequisite for buying my house. I agree to it. Later, I have a son. He grows up and wants to play music loud in the house. Is he bound by the contract? (a dumb example but I think it gets the point) Is this just a parental thing and I will pay the penalty if he violates the contract? (probably the solution)? What about someone visiting the house? Is there an implied contract there?

(will address other posts later, I don't have much time right now, I'm running an electronics recycling event tomorrow and I still have a lot to get done....)

[Mr Arkadin]

I
That's not a relevant example. They have jurisdiction over different geographical areas. (War is the result when neighboring countries decide to change that fact.)

All I am proposing is that each individual has jurisdiction over their own private land on which all other property must rest. Now since these are different geographical areas be definition you will surely have no problem with this for the situation is the same between the USA and the UK. If private property owners have a dispute they could go to war. The question is which set of incentives will reduce violence?

Your previous point about a functioning legal system is a prerequisite for a functioning market is true. However one needs a functioning market economy to produce sufficient wealth for the state to develop and live at the expense of others. This would lead one to believe that a functioning legal system will evolve concurrently, and naturally, with the market.

I believe you'll find this (http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/long/long11.html) article interesting.

[Augustine2004]

Not the determinism, per se. Newtonian physics is 'incomplete', different in scale. Einsteinian physics works when Newtonian physics no longer does. So, for those cases, to a Newtonian physicist it looks like those things are no longer acting deterministically, while the Einsteinian theory shows that in fact they are.

I would argue there are different levels of determinism. Actually this is part of Hoppe's argument, though he does not phrase it like this, and the difference between 'class' and 'case' probability. I know that, if I give 100 people the choice between buying an identical box of pasta for $1.09 or $1.19, most people will, with purpose, buy the one for $1.09. However, I will probably get one joker once in a while who will buy the higher priced one. Has he acted randomly? No, we just don't understand the purpose that his 'purposeful' was.I would not force people to make such a choice. Some people are not pasta eaters - I’m not one and I probably can find a few persons who are not - and would walk away without buying. You might accuse me of being argumentative, but in daily living choices are never that restricted. Also, you’re like the person who tests the proposition that the ratio of the circumference of a perfect circle to its diameter is pi by measuring the circumferences and diameters of various drawn circles. He then announces that pi is 3.14 plus .002 minus .0009.
Doesn't ring a bell. Where is it?Here it is. The Super Man and Super Woman puzzle http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2247902&postcount=24 If you’re really pressed for time, I would suggest you look at the Rothbard book first. Skim through and see how much stuff praxeologists have managed to come up with. The Law of Association (what you’d call Comparative Advantage) is extremely important. http://mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp In divorce, you are splitting up assets. There are a fixed amount of assets, and either you or the other party are going to get them. For one party to increase their take, the other party must lose something. That's zero-sum. Finite resources are also zero-sum; for Georgia to take more water from the reservoir, Alabama won't be able to take as much.True, the entire MATERIAL universe may be effectively finite. I mean the universe excluding the human beings. But our knowledge is increasing. Zero sum? Nah.

[Augustine2004]

Surely the assumption that the government would be run by saints is unrealistic. It would be more realistic to assume that devils would run it. Here’s an interesting consequence of that assumption - in the REAL world. “The Government does not want safe roads.” http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/020380.html

[Augustine2004]

Nomad, I guess you've read the Foundation series by Isaac Asimov, which was based on your assumption that statistics can be successfully applied to large groups of people.

If that were so, computers can be programmed to make money from the stock market. Not so. One rule in developing money-making strategies is to avoid over-optimizing. One would think that if you optimize a strategy on past data that it would then do well. Not so. Almost invariably it does poorly. One is tempted to conclude that the past does NOT predict the future.

[joel]

All I am proposing is that each individual has jurisdiction over their own private land on which all other property must rest. Now since these are different geographical areas be definition you will surely have no problem with this for the situation is the same between the USA and the UK.

So, if person A murders person B on person C's property, then it is up to person C to prosecute? If, after the fact, A travels to person D's property, then C will have to request extradition for the carrying out of C's law upon A? What if A kidnaps B on C's property, takes B to D's property where A kills B, then A travels to E's property?

What if A simply stays on his own property where A owns and uses lots of slaves? The neighbors would have to declare war to stop the injustice? Or do you view it as inappropriate for a "nation" to police another nation like that?

Each individual is free to make treaties and declare war with other nations?
It seems likely that groups of neighboring individuals would agree together to create some kind of federal government over their set of properties.


Your previous point about a functioning legal system is a prerequisite for a functioning market is true. However one needs a functioning market economy to produce sufficient wealth for the state to develop and live at the expense of others. This would lead one to believe that a functioning legal system will evolve concurrently, and naturally, with the market.
I don't know if "naturally" is the right word.


I believe you'll find this (http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/long/long11.html) article interesting.Interesting article, with some good points.
Here are some comments:


In both Market Anarchism and limited government, then, the working of the system will involve different parties trying to enact their several conceptions of justice. The best system is not one that eliminates such conflict...

Ah, but the word "enact" means something different in the two cases. Under the limited government, there is a single executive branch. The divided powers aren't all enforcing their own conception of justice. Only the one branch is. Under Market Anarchism, each firm is enforcing their own conception of justice.


But suppose that, under Market Anarchism, when you get your monthly bill from Acme Security Company, you see that you’re paying $X for “basic service” (protection against force and fraud) and $Y for “premium service” (snooping on your neighbours to make sure that they’re not taking drugs or having abortions or playing violent video games).

Well I see Mr. Long is pro-choice. Others believe that preventing abortion falls under the category of "protection against force and fraud", and will support firms that agree.


And the few fanatics who are willing to put their money where their mouth is would be easier to deal with under anarchy; you can’t arrest people who lobby for government-imposed aggression, but you can arrest people who aggress.

Right. Presumably, Mr. Long's firm will see the pro-choice firms' actions (and their clients) as aggressors and start to use force against them (e.g., arresting them). The pro-choice firms (and their clients) will see that as an act of aggression. Etc.


It’s true that people living under anarchy might disagree about the definition of aggression. But if two security agencies disagree about how exactly to define property rights in some particular case, they can fight it out – thus sending their costs through the roof and their customers to the nearest competitor – or they can resolve their dispute through peaceful arbitration, thus keeping their costs low and their customers happy.

But we aren't talking about a disagreement on some particular case. The problem is when there a different definition of aggression, as a principle. If two sides disagree on whether a particular instance qualifies as, e.g., slavery, then that may be able to be worked out. But if they disagree in principle on whether slavery (or abortion or whatever) is aggression, then each side will see their position as based on principles of justice, and that any compromise is a surrender of basic principles, and therefore evil wins, even if one of the sides was right. When there is an attempted compromise between justice and injustice, the result is an injustice.



Governments resort to force far more often, since they don’t have to worry so much about losing customers.

But what about when the majority (or consumer demand) is wrong? It may be necessary for something to be done to fight an injustice, even if it is not the popular opinion. In that case, you need an enforcing body that cannot lose customers (e.g., a government).


since aggression is costlier than non-aggression, the dispute-resolution will tend to favour laws with a broadly libertarian content.

It can also work the wrong way. What about when preventing aggression against "others" (protecting individual rights) is costlier than not? Suppose again, we were back before the abolition. Probably most people who are opposed to slavery would opt to pay the lower fee for the "basic service" that does not include the higher cost of fighting slavery. Enforcing equal protection of the law (e.g., protecting others who are unable to protect themselves) is costlier than not, so the dispute-resolution will tend to disfavour it, resulting in non-libertarian content of the law. (Not to mention that the wealthy slave-traders who have a vested interest in it, are certain to put their money in support of their trade.)


First, the common framework need not be imposed by force; it may come about simply because agencies whose policies are incompatible with the majority system will lose customers, going the way of Betamax.

The majority system could be wrong. It's interesting he uses the example of Betamax, which was superior to the dominant VHS.
In the case of goods like that, we can say, so what? But in the case of injustice, it would be immoral to say, "so what?"

[Mr Arkadin]

So, if person A murders person B on person C's property, then it is up to person C to prosecute? If, after the fact, A travels to person D's property, then C will have to request extradition for the carrying out of C's law upon A? What if A kidnaps B on C's property, takes B to D's property where A kills B, then A travels to E's property?


Firstly do you still maintain this situation is different than the relationship between the USA and the UK?

1st point. As for your points it depend firstly if trespass is taking place. If A is trespassing on C's property C can prosecute for trespass. The right to prosecute for the murder would devolve to the next of kin who would homestead the right.

2nd point. The next of kin would have to negotiate with D to apprehend A; however harbouring a known criminal is hardly going to be without societal sanction. Now having said that D could be then deemed to be an accomplice to the murder and so the forceful apprehension of him on his property justified.

3rd point. Depends whether C allowed the kidnap or A was trespassing. If the former he is an accomplice to a crime; if the latter prosecute for trespass. If D allowed murder on his property, he is an accomplice yet again. Same points apply for E. Again rights holders to prosecute A.

NB. I am assuming here that B did not consent to being murdered or kidnapped on C's property which would be a legitimate contract. Also that the rights holder can sell this right or delegate it to another party for its execution.


What if A simply stays on his own property where A owns and uses lots of slaves? The neighbors would have to declare war to stop the injustice? Or do you view it as inappropriate for a "nation" to police another nation like that?


Assuming they are truly there against their will then people could boycott deals with him and impose sanctions. I believe also that if we are to truely free them, not replace one state with another, then one could legitimately claim that they are invading on the behalf of the slaves and bring A to justice. It must be pointed out here that economic advancement renders slavery less profitable since the productivity of the worker is much lower than a waged one.


Each individual is free to make treaties and declare war with other nations?


Yes.


It seems likely that groups of neighboring individuals would agree together to create some kind of federal government over their set of properties.


Standards of dealing would be established as Merchant Law was although this need not initiatory coercive power of anyone. If you are saying though tthat the state is inevitable then why do we not have a world government presently?


I don't know if "naturally" is the right word.


So the economy is a creation of the state as well as the legal system. Why don't we let them run everything then?




In both Market Anarchism and limited government, then, the working of the system will involve different parties trying to enact their several conceptions of justice. The best system is not one that eliminates such conflict...

Ah, but the word "enact" means something different in the two cases. Under the limited government, there is a single executive branch. The divided powers aren't all enforcing their own conception of justice. Only the one branch is. Under Market Anarchism, each firm is enforcing their own conception of justice.


But they are. What the judges think should go differs from the politicians? Ever heard of the public outcry over judicial decisions? Or the way in which a judge can use fictitious nuances to over turn a precedent. I highly recommend the article "The Myth of the Rule of Law" I don't know if it is online. Further what are you meaning by enforcing? By enacting a statute you are enforcing you conception of justice since you believe it to be right whereas others do not who voted against it. You also negate the existence of competing courts in the medieval period such as the ecclesiastical, the local, secular etc Also what about different branches of the judiciary giving different sentences for the exact same crime by the same person?



But suppose that, under Market Anarchism, when you get your monthly bill from Acme Security Company, you see that you’re paying $X for “basic service” (protection against force and fraud) and $Y for “premium service” (snooping on your neighbours to make sure that they’re not taking drugs or having abortions or playing violent video games).

Well I see Mr. Long is pro-choice. Others believe that preventing abortion falls under the category of "protection against force and fraud", and will support firms that agree.


Some firms will as you say however will their clients really wish to pay for expensive violent activity? They could pay for the right to bring up the child and compensation for the woman to carry it which would be cheaper than fighting. As I have argued before unwanted babies would be much less prevalent than today due to the absence of the welfare state. The problem of what to do with children palgues all political philosophies.



And the few fanatics who are willing to put their money where their mouth is would be easier to deal with under anarchy; you can’t arrest people who lobby for government-imposed aggression, but you can arrest people who aggress.

Right. Presumably, Mr. Long's firm will see the pro-choice firms' actions (and their clients) as aggressors and start to use force against them (e.g., arresting them). The pro-choice firms (and their clients) will see that as an act of aggression. Etc.


See above for a non-violent reconciliation. Even today though people fight for what they believe to be right. ie the state enslaving their subjects. The question is what incentive structure is best given the fallen world- monopoly or market forces.



It’s true that people living under anarchy might disagree about the definition of aggression. But if two security agencies disagree about how exactly to define property rights in some particular case, they can fight it out – thus sending their costs through the roof and their customers to the nearest competitor – or they can resolve their dispute through peaceful arbitration, thus keeping their costs low and their customers happy.

But we aren't talking about a disagreement on some particular case. The problem is when there a different definition of aggression, as a principle. If two sides disagree on whether a particular instance qualifies as, e.g., slavery, then that may be able to be worked out. But if they disagree in principle on whether slavery (or abortion or whatever) is aggression, then each side will see their position as based on principles of justice, and that any compromise is a surrender of basic principles, and therefore evil wins, even if one of the sides was right. When there is an attempted compromise between justice and injustice, the result is an injustice.


But as Long said this is going to be very costly indeed when you can't devolve the costs on others. Further comprise would still leave injustice, for either side, but it would be less unjust than the alternative from both sides view. We live in a fallen world and perfect justice is only going to be meted out by the man upstairs- all we can do is is to create a system where more justice than not takes place.



Governments resort to force far more often, since they don’t have to worry so much about losing customers.

But what about when the majority (or consumer demand) is wrong? It may be necessary for something to be done to fight an injustice, even if it is not the popular opinion. In that case, you need an enforcing body that cannot lose customers (e.g., a government).


Do you though deny his assertion that the state will be more aggressive than a private security firm? You are thinking of the state as a rather saintly body aren't you? Furthermore all government rests on the implicit consent of the governed as Hume said- ultimately the people get the government they deserve in a perverse kind of way.



since aggression is costlier than non-aggression, the dispute-resolution will tend to favour laws with a broadly libertarian content.

It can also work the wrong way. What about when preventing aggression against "others" (protecting individual rights) is costlier than not? Suppose again, we were back before the abolition. Probably most people who are opposed to slavery would opt to pay the lower fee for the "basic service" that does not include the higher cost of fighting slavery. Enforcing equal protection of the law (e.g., protecting others who are unable to protect themselves) is costlier than not, so the dispute-resolution will tend to disfavour it, resulting in non-libertarian content of the law. (Not to mention that the wealthy slave-traders who have a vested interest in it, are certain to put their money in support of their trade.)


I don't deny this. Any thing can happen. But will the general trend be toward libertarian dispute resolution? See note above about productivity and slavery. Further it is highly unlikely in the first place that slavery would have become so institutionalised if it weren't for the state making it cheaper. See here. (http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE7_2_2.pdf)



First, the common framework need not be imposed by force; it may come about simply because agencies whose policies are incompatible with the majority system will lose customers, going the way of Betamax.

The majority system could be wrong. It's interesting he uses the example of Betamax, which was superior to the dominant VHS.
In the case of goods like that, we can say, so what? But in the case of injustice, it would be immoral to say, "so what?"

Supposing that Betamax was technically better than VHS (I don't know). It does not follow that should be in use since one has to see what those resources could be used for. The same with justice- if spent all resources on justice no doubt more justice would exist but more people would starve because less was put into justice rather than food production.

We live in a world of scarcity and evil. We cannot have heaven on earth; we must choose. All the problematic examples you cite can and do happen under a statist regime. There is no perfect system. All we can produce is a system which will minimise evil and maximise good. And this question revolves around incentives and boils down to this- does initiatory coercive of some, who can devolve costs on to others, better than one where everyone must pay the full costs of their actions (this is talking exclusively constitutionally)

An anarchistic system will be by no means perfect- rape, murder, theft, robbery, child abuse, perversions, family breakdown, wife beating etc- it will however be better than the current statist one.

[Ryokan]

1st point. As for your points it depend firstly if trespass is taking place. If A is trespassing on C's property C can prosecute for trespass. The right to prosecute for the murder would devolve to the next of kin who would homestead the right.

2nd point. The next of kin would have to negotiate with D to apprehend A; however harbouring a known criminal is hardly going to be without societal sanction. Now having said that D could be then deemed to be an accomplice to the murder and so the forceful apprehension of him on his property justified.

3rd point. Depends whether C allowed the kidnap or A was trespassing. If the former he is an accomplice to a crime; if the latter prosecute for trespass. If D allowed murder on his property, he is an accomplice yet again. Same points apply for E. Again rights holders to prosecute A.

NB. I am assuming here that B did not consent to being murdered or kidnapped on C's property which would be a legitimate contract. Also that the rights holder can sell this right or delegate it to another party for its execution. The trouble is that we have had this system in the past. The trouble is D is probably related to A, and there will be no negotiation. D will tell C to toss off. At which point C will get all his buds together and his family, and D and A will get their family and buds together, and they will go at it. Not only might A die, but maybe his cousin Q dies. At which point D and his family howls for vengeance, and demands C cough up the killer of Q. And C tells him to toss.
I don't see how tribal and clan warfare is better than our current system.

[Augustine2004]

I don't see how tribal and clan warfare is better than our current system.I assume you mean, WHY would tribal and clan warfare be better than our present system. As that question stands now, it does not necessarily have to be better. Many factors are involved. What kind of people? Are they bellicose, inclined to feud rather than to sue? What legal and justice systems are available?

Anyway, there’s Somalia for more than a decade since IIRC 1991 and medieval Iceland. Also ancient Ireland.

I cannot summarize Hoppe's discussion of how a modern society may produce security in detail without running into copying restrictions. If you wish I will republish the link to it.

[joel]

But they are. What the judges think should go differs from the politicians?

Sure, I have heard of instances where the U.S. executive branch refused to enforce a Supreme Court ruling. The S.C. is powerless if the executive branch does not comply.


Further what are you meaning by enforcing? By enacting a statute you are enforcing you conception of justice since you believe it to be right whereas others do not who voted against it.

I mean using force. It is conceivable that the legislature enacts a law and the executive branch ignores it and does not enforce it. or enforces things that aren't enacted laws. (Of course, the legislature can pull the executive branch's funding...)


Some firms will as you say however will their clients really wish to pay for expensive violent activity?

I would. Though you are probably right, and most people would not pay to fight injustice. But that's just another problem with Market Anarchy.


I don't deny this. Any thing can happen. But will the general trend be toward libertarian dispute resolution?

No, I think the general trend likely would be to not fight injustice, because it is more costly than not. I'm concerned about protecting those who can't protect themselves.


...and boils down to this- does initiatory coercive of some, who can devolve costs on to others, better than one where everyone must pay the full costs of their actions (this is talking exclusively constitutionally)

Voluntary funding of protection of individual rights is a separate question from that of whether to have a monopoly. We could have a voluntarily funded monopoly.

[Augustine2004]

Joel, you seem to be arguing for government as long as abortions continue to be a problem.

[joel]

Life would certainly be simpler if everybody chose the same body of laws, but I don't think choice should be restricted. Indeed, if choice was restricted in some way, the world would no longer become M.
...
I do symathize, but I do not want choice to be restricted.

I thought about this some more, and I think you've got a contradiction here. You want nobody to be restricted in their choice of law (presumably from all possible sets of laws). But that means nobody can be restricted from choosing law that restricts everyone to a particular law.

So, when you say you want people not to be restricted, you really do want people to be restricted from restricting.

To demand no restrictions is to make all restrictions permissible.

[Mr Arkadin]

No, I think the general trend likely would be to not fight injustice, because it is more costly than not. I'm concerned about protecting those who can't protect themselves.


Oh so the state can eliminate all injustice? I'm concerned about people who can't eat; therefore the state should control food production. You have completed ignored my comments above about how we are never going to have perfect justice on earth and the relative cost of pursuing a marginal unit of justice.


Voluntary funding of protection of individual rights is a separate question from that of whether to have a monopoly. We could have a voluntarily funded monopoly.

As I have said before I am using monopoly in the Rothbardian sense. There is no non arbitrary way of distinguished between the competitive price and the market price. The only non-arbitrary way is between the interventionist and the free market price because the price formation process is qualitatively different in both situations. Please read, before we get bogged down, this. (http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10a.asp) There is a lot here but finding the relevant part won't be difficult.

Finally before I respond to you again please tell me why market anarchism is any different than the relationship between the USA and UK and also the points you ignored in my previous post.

[joel]

Joel, you seem to be arguing for government as long as abortions continue to be a problem.
More generallly, my argument was: as long as there are those who can't protect themselves (e.g., children, slaves, those who can't purchase justice because they are being aggressed against).

[Augustine2004]

More generallly, my argument was: as long as there are those who can't protect themselves (e.g., children, slaves, those who can't purchase justice because they are being aggressed against).Let’s imagine a world in which everyone has his own set of ethics. That’s true of this world, actually, to some extent. What concerns us are the rules of conduct towards one’s neighbors, though. Should we have any rules of conduct at all? If so, what should they be? How should they be enforced? You appear to think that we need government to not only enforce them but make them. You appear to have rejected Maybury’s precepts and the tit-for-tat precept already, and is arguing for oversize government to enforce whatever rules you favor.

I agree abortion is murder and should be prosecuted as such. Unfortunately, it appears especially in the United States that opinion on that point is that it is not murder. I do not say to give up. We should continue to argue against it and provide alternatives (make them easier to choose and use). I think that’s the best we can do. Slavery still does exist, and of course we should work to eliminate that. I don’t think we should work through the governments, though. After all, we have oversize government just about everywhere, and we still have abortion and slavery.

[Augustine2004]

I thought about this some more, and I think you've got a contradiction here. You want nobody to be restricted in their choice of law (presumably from all possible sets of laws). But that means nobody can be restricted from choosing law that restricts everyone to a particular law.

So, when you say you want people not to be restricted, you really do want people to be restricted from restricting.

To demand no restrictions is to make all restrictions permissible.To want something does not equate that thing being actual. We would have negotiators and arbitrators to resolve conflicts of wills. Compromises nobody likes but make peace.