Global Warming w/o Tiggy

[phank]

Agent of the people, yes. But we do have agent problems. For one thing, the agent may have his own agenda; he may try to deceive his client or employer. Bernie Madoff, hmm?

Yes, you're right. Agents can be bad. Many governments ARE bad. But I've never said otherwise. I've said that if the government is responsive, that usually works out much better.

No, the people has to keep the state good, if the men and women in the State are inclined to be human (lazy, greedy, stupid, whatever). And, funny you're accusing me of 'chanting slogans' when you're doing that yourself.

No, I'm observing history, government, and human nature. Certainly I agree with you that if nearly all the people are "bad", then NO system would work (and our species would have died out a couple hundred thousand years ago).

I am not going to repeat myself after this: It doesn't matter what the system is, if the people in it are bad. You are going to get bad results, unless the people of the world does the work that is necessary to keep the State good. Considering how much labor would be required to keep the State good, we may as well as live without any State, ya?

Do you seriously think that if the people are bad, doing without any state is going to make them good? So I'll also say one more time: People are people. They perform best under certain known conditions. It is possible to create, defend, and preserve those conditions. Good government does exactly that. And we can look around the world, and at history, and identify good governments in exactly that way - if the nation was long lasting, productive, industrious, then the government was good.

I do get all those. YOU failed to understand that if the people are human (poorly educated, lazy, cowardly, on the make, whatever) you should expect them to make or get good government as much as you would expect good fruit from a dying apple tree.

OK, let's try again. I am assuming that people are people are people are people. Everywhere. They share the same genes, the same personalities, the same preferences and desires, the same delusions. Successful companies in the economy don't become successful by hiring nothing but superhumans (wherever they might be). They hire ordinary people and manage them well. Now, I understand that some people are ignorant, but education seems to work well. Some people are lazy, but most lazy people are willing to work if they see that they'll be rewarded with what they want. Some people are cowards, except under conditions where they are courageous. In other words, ignorance, laziness, cowardice, etc. are contingent on circumstances. This is how people are. They need to be inspired, motivated, and respected. If they see no hope, they will be "bad" people. Good governments have provided that hope. It works.

Isn't that what we have now? Small businesses are not hiring now. Previously, they were the greatest at hiring people, but now the USFG is really dreadful.

If you have a surefire system of eliminating business cycles, great. History tells us that such cycles happen everywhere, under every economic system.

Unfortunately, we in general have no idea what to do. We think something is wrong, all right, but unfortunately libertarians are still regarded as kooks. We don't pay their prescriptions much attention.

Are you serious? As a political group, libertarians aren't widely popular because no two libertarians can agree on lunch - indeed, no ONE libertarian can agree with HIMSELF on lunch! And so far, the notions you put forward have been tried, and have failed. Miserably.

I've already posted something about the impossibility of drawing reliable inferences from studies of history

And you are simply wrong. Sorry. History is worth studying. But hey, don't take my word for it, go find an historian and tell HIM that it's impossible to draw reliable inferences from history. Come back when you have some answers.

Why do you deny the somewhat obvious correlation between respect for private property rights on the one hand and peace & prosperity on the other hand?

Deny it? I have repeatedly said that respect for, and defense of, private property is one of the most essential activities of government. I bet you could find me saying that at least three times on this thread alone. I bet you couldn't find a SINGLE instance of me denying what I have endorsed repeatedly and strongly. So what should I conclude? That you are lying? That you don't read what I say? That your mind is so made up that you are responding reflexively, rather than communicating at all?

I hope I won't have to make the point ever again that if the people of the world are human (poorly educated, lazy, greedy, on the make, rapacious, whatever) no State is really going to work (make the world better). You're dreaming if you continue to think any State can make things better than otherwise. On the contrary, we should expect the State to make things worse.

Yes, this is where you started. You have now decided history is bunk because it disagrees. You have decided people can't be what they actually are, because that undermines your thesis as well. And you are back to chanting the same slogan, over and over.

Well, I can't educate you, and I doubt anyone else can either. If it were possible, chances are someone would have done so by now. You just go ahead, pat yourself on the back for being right regardless of evidence (which doesn't really matter anyway), and feel superior and righteous. And I'll go on living in the real world, and we'll both be happy.

[Augustine2004]

SOME governing (and thus, SOME government) is needed

Granting your premise that we need good government, it does not follow that we can produce it. Have you or someone else figured out how a bunch of humans (lazy, greedy, stupid, poorly educated, whatever) can produce good government?

[Augustine2004]

Spare me. Studies of history are not utter, total wastes of time. What has happened in the past is not subject to flipping coins and consulting magic 8-balls. It is possible for people with at least SOME integrity to study history and discover that, in the large majority of cases, there are essential similarities even if we wish there weren't. And THAT is why those who do not learn the lessons of history, tend to repeat the same mistakes.

Again, I would recommend histories by the Austrians: Rothbard, Ralph Raico, Thomas Dilorenzo, Thomas Woods, and others.

Yes, of course. THEIR history is not contingent, THEIR information is not incomplete or ambiguous, and most importantly, THEIR history edits out all the exceptions to their convictions.

Why the sarcasm?

So when does Rothbard say humans first evolved?

Again, why the sarcasm?

I suggest that the Austrians have a simple model that they developed to counter Keynes' simple model.

Hmmmm . . . Roger W. Garrison's theory of the business cycle may be beyond your reading ability.

But if you wish to worship it, knock yourself out.

More sarcasm. Maybe something is wrong with you.

What I try to do is find a better way than I have now, and figure out how to get there from here. You're convinced you've found a better way, but the few attempts to get there in the past have all failed miserably, and all failed the same way for the same apparent reasons. It's at least conceivable that they just don't work. But the solution to THAT problem is easy - just dismiss history as idle guesswork based on pure ignorance, and POOF your fantasies MIGHT come true.

By now there is a vast, huge, growing pile of history books, and wham they've pushed us into a depression that may turn out to be greater than the Great Depression. Just kidding.

[Augustine2004]

Yes, you're right. Agents can be bad. Many governments ARE bad. But I've never said otherwise. I've said that if the government is responsive, that usually works out much better.

No attempt to refute my assertion that the State should be expected to make things worse.

No, I'm observing history, government, and human nature. Certainly I agree with you that if nearly all the people are "bad", then NO system would work (and our species would have died out a couple hundred thousand years ago).

No, the state didn't exist that long ago. Maybe no more than 6,000 years ago. Lions, tigers, chimpanzees, fishes, etc., being stateless, are no longer with us. Matter of fact, they are figments of our imagination; we clothe fossil bones with imaginary flesh and sinews. Just look at the dinosaurs.

Do you seriously think that if the people are bad, doing without any state is going to make them good?

What a bad reader you are! I take people as they are and ask myself: can they, being so bad, produce good government? I don't see how. You may as well as expect dying fruit trees to keep on producing good fruit.

So I'll also say one more time: People are people. They perform best under certain known conditions. It is possible to create, defend, and preserve those conditions. Good government does exactly that. And we can look around the world, and at history, and identify good governments in exactly that way - if the nation was long lasting, productive, industrious, then the government was good.

You observe the results and create a theory to account for them. Sorta like post hoc ergo prompter hoc. I don't know the relevant Latin, can someone help me out?

If you have a surefire system of eliminating business cycles, great. History tells us that such cycles happen everywhere, under every economic system.

never in a million years will you be able to understand the Austrian theory of business cycles. You would not understand why Friedrich von Hayek won the Nobel Prize. You will gape around in slack-jaw incomprehension at the world.

Are you serious? As a political group, libertarians aren't widely popular because no two libertarians can agree on lunch - indeed, no ONE libertarian can agree with HIMSELF on lunch! And so far, the notions you put forward have been tried, and have failed. Miserably.

Oh, I wasn't talking about Rothbardians. I was talking about the people in general. Don't you yourself have a sense something is wrong? If not, boy, are you out to lunch.

Deny it? I have repeatedly said that respect for, and defense of, private property is one of the most essential activities of government. I bet you could find me saying that at least three times on this thread alone. I bet you couldn't find a SINGLE instance of me denying what I have endorsed repeatedly and strongly. So what should I conclude? That you are lying? That you don't read what I say? That your mind is so made up that you are responding reflexively, rather than communicating at all?

Boy, you are out to lunch, all right. Ever heard of the Transportation Security Agency? The rise of police brutality and injustice? Prosecutorial malpractice? SCOTUS rulings that favor the USFG? Special-interest laws? Millions of regulations that defy common sense in their inflexibility? Oh, I could go on and on. Rant, rant, rant

Yes, this is where you started. You have now decided history is bunk because it disagrees.

I would say 99% of historians are wrong to some extent or other. I don't disagree with TRUE history.

Every human action has an economic component, so every historian must be a competent economist. Moreover, economics is part of the study of human action. Austrians call that, praxeology (praxe, Greek for action). Historians must be praxeologists, finally. The only really competent praxeologists that I know of are many of the Austrians.

[phank]

No attempt to refute my assertion that the State should be expected to make things worse.

Well, since experience doesn't count, history doesn't count, personal knowledge and understanding don't count, simple observation doesn't count, I guess your assertion is irrefutable. Amen.

[FLovell]

Jeez, Phank -- if we do not know how someone wants to be dpone untoi, we could ask. And if we don't have time for that, then leave 'em the heck alone if you can (if you can't, then take your best shot, f'goodness sake)! For some reason all of a sudden I seem to have more trouble fruitfully dialoguing with fellow atheists lately than I usually do dialoguing with Christians -- I give up, think what you wish about government, ethics, division of labor and cooperation (which OF COURSE is necessary) and so forth, I am not going to defend positions I do not hold and have not articulated or try to address every problem with succinct principles (those are what tomes are for).

-- Frank

[phank]

Jeez, Phank -- if we do not know how someone wants to be dpone untoi, we could ask.

Normally, if it's useful or important, we DO ask. After all, you probably don't need to ask every driver of the oncoming traffic if he feels likde having a collision with you! But if you're preparing a meal, it would be rude NOT to ask.

And if we don't have time for that, then leave 'em the heck alone if you can (if you can't, then take your best shot, f'goodness sake)!

And this also essentially what we do.

I think we are miscommunicating, so I'm going to try again here. My point was that (1) nearly always, treating people the way we would wish to be treated works just fine; and (2) nearly always, circumstances where custom treatement is reasonable have been long since identified (like the menu selection), and we use it.

So OK, under exactly what circumstances is the "libertarian rule" going to be a useful, practical improvement over the golden rule? The way I see it, it would be a circumstanced where (1) The other person would wish to be treated in some way we would not; (2) This will be clearly evident enough so that it's reasonable to ask what they'd prefer; but (3) it would be something not currently regarded as reasonable, or else we'd do it already. And I have some difficulty identifying circumstances meeting all those requirements.

And it also seems to me that for the most part, we DO leave others alone absent any compelling reason to interact. So now, I'm looking for a set of circumstances where (1) We would ordinarily think there IS such a compelling reason (you know, like asking a sales clerk to ring up a purchase); but (2) The other person feels otherwise. And we can't ASK that person, because doing so means pestering him when he wishes to be left alone! And if that other person is a sales clerk, he'd damn well better be willing for people to interact with him, or both his customers and his boss will be very irritated.

So then, what set of circumstances do you promose where we currently do NOT leave someone alone, where we should instead leave them alone, without being able to ask them (because we can't BOTH ask, AND leave them alone, right?)

Bottom line: If there in fact are any circumstances where your rule is practically and meaninfully different from the golden rule, those circumstances are not at all obvious to me. Can you suggest any?

[FLovell]

[Frank said] SOME governing (and thus, SOME government) is needed

Granting your premise that we need good government, it does not follow that we can produce it. Have you or someone else figured out how a bunch of humans (lazy, greedy, stupid, poorly educated, whatever) can produce good government?

I agree, our needing SOME government does not mean we can for sure successfully produce "good government," It simply means we need SOME government.

Seems like we'd prefer good government rather than bad government, though, and that, therefore, we should always at least try to produce the best government that we can. Will that be hard and have no guarantees? You betcha! But my Mother always said that most everything important would not be easy (did not your Mother say the same thing?).

And looking at other various different governments people have made today and through history, I see (what seems to me to to be) some REALLY BAD governments, some BAD governments, some MEDIOCRE governments, some FAIRLY GOOD governments, and (relatively speaking) 2 or 3 GOOD governments -- but I admit I see no PERFECT governments, and I doubt we humans will ever produce a PERFECT government.

All I was saying is that we do seem to NEED government. Perhaps my problem is that my (feeble, fallible) thinking has been heavily influenced by the likes of people like Thomas Pain, who said:

"GOVERNMENT, EVEN IN ITS BEST STATE, IS BUT A NECESSARY EVIL; IN ITS WORST STATE, AN INTOLERABLE ONE."

I could be wrong of course, but I sincerely suspect that anarchy would be intolerable, too. Thus I strive -- and try to encourage (with mixed results <grin>) others to strive -- for BETTER government, and I hope we achieve better government before we annihilate or bankrupt ourselves.

I am a fan of Friedrich Hayek and the Austrian School of economics (for whatever that may mean to you -- to a good many it means I should be taken out back and shot). I am for private property, religious liberty, ETHICAL free-trade capitalism, limited government (of the quality we are willing to pay for), and I am a godless live-and-let-live social liberal (little-l) libertarian (which makes me a generally disdained minority -- I cannot get respect from even my own fellow atheists on much (but I am learning to live with that).

-- Frank

[FLovell]

...Bottom line: If there in fact are any circumstances where your rule is practically and meaningful different from the golden rule, those circumstances are not at all obvious to me. Can you suggest any?

I could, but if you can't think of any on your own, screw it, this is getting ridiculously WAY more tedious than is warranted. I'm stickin' with the libertarian formulation of the GR but I am happy for you to reject it as practically meaningless or whatever, so I hereby acquiesce (without yielding).

-- Frank

[phank]

I could be wrong of course, but I sincerely suspect that anarchy would be intolerable, too.

Anarchy has happened repeatedly throughout history around the world. It happens when government breaks down and there is no immediate replacement. And the government that existed was generally pretty weak to begin with. Sometimes it follows revolutions when the people throw the bums out but have no new bums to replace them with.

And we notice that anarchy is unstable and temporary. Very quickly, what sets in is local "strongman" or thug rule, where gangs form and can be said to exercise authority through fear and violence. In those environments, power devolves onto those people who have the most guns and the least respect for human life and property. Needless to say, when the best lifestyles are enjoyed by those most successful at killing their competition and robbing everyone else, the people unfortunate enough to suffer through this are not productive. As Heinlein said, all you really own is what you can carry in both arms at a dead run. This does NOT include land, or dwelling, etc.

(And I'd like to point out that Thomas Paine did not have a single good government to use as a model. Remember this was when England was a monarchy, France was a monarchy, etc. There was not a single representative government in the world at that time, except insofar as the king listened to the nobility. I think today Paine would have numerous role models that would surprise him. Today, we realize that government is necessary, but not necessarily an evil. But then, I'm generally much more in agreement with Jefferson and Madison, than with Paine.)

[phank]

I could, but if you can't think of any on your own, screw it, this is getting ridiculously WAY more tedious than is warranted. I'm stickin' with the libertarian formulation of the GR but I am happy for you to reject it as practically meaningless or whatever, so I hereby acquiesce (without yielding).

-- Frank

OK, like you said, if you don't know it's a good idea to ask. I asked. I interpret your answer as "no I don't know of any, but I won't admit it." Why am I not surprised?

[Augustine2004]

Well, since experience doesn't count, history doesn't count, personal knowledge and understanding don't count, simple observation doesn't count, I guess your assertion is irrefutable. Amen.

Personal knowledge and understanding of what the private property world would be like? Simple observation of the private property world? You do claim to know what the history of the private property world would be? As for your experience, I don't think you are claiming to have experience in the private property world--are you?

Sheesh, you argue as though you take for granted that the State makes the world better than otherwise. Then as soon as that is challenged, you make that post. Sheesh, again.

[phank]

Sheesh, you argue as though you take for granted that the State makes the world better than otherwise. Then as soon as that is challenged, you make that post. Sheesh, again.

I make the claim that history, psychology, observation, and experience show that GOOD government allows people to be their best. You have not challenged this. You have ASSERTED that some hypothetical system never really tried, would be much better if only people were some different species. This isn't a challenge to anything relevant.

Now, my preference is to identify what has been known to work, what experience indicates works, what history shows has worked best, and try to do those things. Your preference, as far as I can tell, is to glorify the virtues of some imaginary system, on the grounds that your misrepresentation of reality means we are all miserable anyway. But most people I know are not miserable, they are satisfied, content, and fulfilled.

So once again, I cheerfully grant you that if you SAY people would be much better off in your imaginary world, if only that world existed and if only people were different, then great. You say so. Hey, you might be right. How could anyone ever know?

[Augustine2004]

[cross-posting! But I go ahead with this post]

I agree, our needing SOME government does not mean we can for sure successfully produce "good government," It simply means we need SOME government.

Seems like we'd prefer good government rather than bad government, though, and that, therefore, we should always at least try to produce the best government that we can. Will that be hard and have no guarantees? You betcha! But my Mother always said that most everything important would not be easy (did not your Mother say the same thing?).

And looking at other various different governments people have made today and through history, I see (what seems to me to to be) some REALLY BAD governments, some BAD governments, some MEDIOCRE governments, some FAIRLY GOOD governments, and (relatively speaking) 2 or 3 GOOD governments -- but I admit I see no PERFECT governments, and I doubt we humans will ever produce a PERFECT government.

Well, sure, it is at least theoretically possible to rank all the present governments from worst to best. Now, take the best. Does it really make the world better? If you say yes, show how you know.

All I was saying is that we do seem to NEED government. Perhaps my problem is that my (feeble, fallible) thinking has been heavily influenced by the likes of people like Thomas Pain, who said:

"GOVERNMENT, EVEN IN ITS BEST STATE, IS BUT A NECESSARY EVIL; IN ITS WORST STATE, AN INTOLERABLE ONE."

Oh, what pain! Quoting an authority like PainE is not enough. Is he right or wrong? Show that he is right.

I could be wrong of course, but I sincerely suspect that anarchy would be intolerable, too. Thus I strive -- and try to encourage (with mixed results <grin>) others to strive -- for BETTER government, and I hope we achieve better government before we annihilate or bankrupt ourselves.

But governments over time become intolerable to the point of revolt. More later in reply to phank's post.

-- to a good many it means I should be taken out back and shot). (which makes me a generally disdained minority -- I cannot get respect from even my own fellow atheists on much (but I am learning to live with that).

Good boy, Frank! Hang in there!

Anarchy has happened repeatedly throughout history around the world. It happens when government breaks down and there is no immediate replacement. And the government that existed was generally pretty weak to begin with. Sometimes it follows revolutions when the people throw the bums out but have no new bums to replace them with.

Not sure to what you are referring. Anarchy at the start of the French Revolution, certainly, but that was NOT a private-property anarchy. Would you mind listing those times that you consider anarchic, so that I could reply?

And we notice that anarchy is unstable and temporary. Very quickly, what sets in is local "strongman" or thug rule, where gangs form and can be said to exercise authority through fear and violence. In those environments, power devolves onto those people who have the most guns and the least respect for human life and property. Needless to say, when the best lifestyles are enjoyed by those most successful at killing their competition and robbing everyone else, the people unfortunate enough to suffer through this are not productive. As Heinlein said, all you really own is what you can carry in both arms at a dead run. This does NOT include land, or dwelling, etc.

Once again, there is no 'critical mass' of respect for the institution of private property, so whatever you have in mind is NOT applicable.

[Augustine2004]

phank, you take people as they are, as if they won't ever change no matter how often they are challenged by questions and ideas new to them are presented.

If I am right that the State should be expected to make things worse, who the hell are you to try to discourage me? The only way to discourage me is to show that assertion wrong beyond reasonable doubt.

Now, do you have a definition of the State?

Will you let me begin to lecture on the foundations of praxeology?

Will you agree to the Maybury precepts or suggest a set of moral principles that you consider to be better?