Hobbes and Locke

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
So begins the hostile AC politard takeover of SMP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its the new Aspen.

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
As a thought experiment, tell me what parts of the current system we can remove and still have things "work."

[/ QUOTE ]

An equally interesting thought experiment - what parts of the current system could we remove, only to find that the free market has replaced it?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Learn about how the society in which you live actually operates. And, for the love of God, read Locke and, for that matter, Marx.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reading Marx is actually what turned me into a Libertarian.

[madnak]

Why is the FDA valid, but not the DEA? Do you mind explaining exactly what qualifies as a "part of the current system?" Is it just the things you personally deem necessary?

[aeest400]

I really don't think the concept of needing a government to perform certain more or less fundamental tasks is incompatible with disagreeing that some of those tasks are wasteful, unhelpful, or downright bad. My point is that without a reasonably strong government modern commerce and civil society would be impossible and the stong would inevitably exploit the weak. My secondary point is that there are a lot of "commons" type problems, like civil defense, road building, etc., also would not be taken care of without a governement. Folks can differ about just what the government should do, depending on ones tolerance for injustice and the misery of one's fellows, but it's the ultimate in wishful thinking to believe that "the private sector" or whatever will take care of these tasks. Doing so would be unprecedented in history, and if it did there would not have been the "demand" for the government to take care of such things in the first place.

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
Doing so would be unprecedented in history

[/ QUOTE ]

Now was this a false syllogism or an assumed assertion?
Because so far everything you have mentioned as "impossible" without government has plenty of historical precedent existing without government intervention.

[ QUOTE ]
and if it did there would not have been the "demand" for the government to take care of such things in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure it was "the people" demanding that government violently expropriate these services from the free market? Or was it the few in power acting on self-interest to expand their power?

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
Who builds the roads in Fantasyland?

[/ QUOTE ]


I'll bite. People who want to make money. The same type of people who produce food, cars, toilet seats, pest removal services, etc... entrepreneurs. If there is enough demand for something--and there surely is for transportation--profit seekers will supply it.

Some reading on the history of private roads in the US.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
Were you on the Supreme Court in the Lochner era? Lets just lock the kids in factories.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is the will of the child's parents to allow them to work in factories. In that era, it wasn't viewed as a bad thing. Things have changed, the industrial revolution is over, people are on average far wealthier and parents realize that a child is better off learning marketable skills (education/vocational training) rather than slaving away in factories. Governments aren't necessary to prevent this.

[ QUOTE ]
You have a shallow view of logic and reasoning. I went to a public university and studied a bunch of logic. Google the word if you are curious what the subject is actually about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I thought that it was pretty obvious that I was talking about public schooling at the pre-college level.

[ QUOTE ]
I actually agree with this. Locke's says one of the main functions of government is to ensure property rights. Kinda hard to do without a coercive state.

[/ QUOTE ]

Protection of property is bought and sold ubiquitously everyday on the market in spite of the existence of the state. Do you see where?

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Under these circumstances, people can quell their uneasiness through action much better by cooperating with others rather than through violence.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe as a general tendency, but certainly not as a rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly don't consider it to be a rule. People are guided by the incentive structure laid forth before them. In the modern world cooperation is clearly the way the vast majority of individuals choose in order to maximize utility. A big factor in this is the fact that people hate to be acted upon against their will. They realize that violence begets violence and they avoid it if at all possible. Now, at many points throughout history violence was a necessary risk to ensure survival. At this present--with he complexity of our economy and the expansive division of labor--people can live prosperously in the absence of violence although coercive agents like governments do much to prevent this by confinscating ~40% of people's gains annually. In the past, when division of labor was far less expansive, many chose violence or were forced into feudal servitude because there wasn't a niche for them in in the workforce. Of course there are always sociopaths who will commit acts of violence, but the existence of government does nothing to stop them.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Violence is a very short term solution, before someone commits an act of violence they must consider the consequences of their actions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like your citizens are "rational," where do we find these people?

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't possible to judge what's rational, we just know that people act in their own interest and seek to maximize their utility. The incentive structure dicates whether this is done through violence or through cooperation. As I stated previously, in a modern technologically advanced society with expansive division of labor it is logical for the vast majority of people to choose the latter.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The existence and acceptance of government (largely due to your man Hobbes) has made it the perfect vehicle for violence without consequence.

[/ QUOTE ]
There have always been governments, Hobbes was simply arguing that monarchy is the best form because it best controls people's animal tendencies and allows for social stability/rule by bringing the moral authority of society together in the agent of the Monach. Governments must be coercive or their authority is an illusion. The issue is whether a government's coercion promotes the common good or simply perpetuates the ends of established interests.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. But as I said, governments are parasitic to mordern societies. All governments inevitably expand, the question is whether or not accummulated wealth within the society is enough to feed the monster. In most western societies this has been the case up until the present. The mere fact that the meme exists, not necessity as you assume, is the reason that governments have a place is modern society. Eventually all governments as we know them today will collapse once people realize how much their lives are worse as a result. The existence and success of the capitalism (in spite of government, as I have mentioned), along with trends in political scholarship have placed a thin veil over this truth.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When a bully starts giving wedgies to kids on the playground the other students might laugh at the first few victims but eventually the they will realize that they are better off cooperating and using pre-emptive force in order to stop the offenders.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not so easy to do when what the bully is doing amounts to a "restraint on trade" on any of the myriad complex issues our courts deal with. Making the jump from this simple situation to the complexity of a real society is a fatal flaw. Also, with no government to check the will will of the bully, he could monopolize the resources and, essentially, force eeryone to do his bidding. In one form or another, this is what has always happended before.

[/ QUOTE ]

Restaint of trade is possible in a free market but it is never in the best interests of the producer. The way that producers gain large market shares is by providing the best product at the lowest prices. If someone happens to gain a 100% market share then it is because he has served the needs of his customers far better than his competitors, so much so that the demand for substitutes has become non-existent. In this way the market is still competitive even with but a single firm.

Now, I am sure that you going to bring up the predatory pricing boogyman. This is a myth, it if prices are raised then new firms will always enter the market. Firms will always keep their prices low and the quality of their goods up because it is always more profitable to mass market at a smaller profit margine than to annoy customers by fluctuating prices in order crush competitors. Because humans prefer more of a good (in this case money) to less, they will never engage in predatory pricing. They will alwyas keep prices at a the highest level which prevents new firms from entering the market. This, of course, is the lowest price possible for the given good.

The fact is that producers are slaves to the consumers, not vice-versa. Your devotion to Marxian rhetoric has blinded you from this simple logical truth. The reason why you will see an overwhelming number of libertarians on this poker forum is that successful poker players are better able to seperate what is logical and what is right from what stems from emotion. Marx never makes a logical argument, he just states a value judgment (laborers deserve what they produce [Why? Because that's the way he thinks it should be]) and fools people emotion-based rhetoric with words like "exploitation". The other reason is that poker players realize that the best way to make decisions is through logic and not empiricism. Just because my friend beats 10/20 NL for 5ptbb/100 playing 22/16 doesn't mean that if I play 22% of my hands and raise 16% that I will be as successful as him. It is far more important for me to understand why he plays 22/16.

I challenge you to find me an example of one monopoly that wasn't caused by a government.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Next, they realize that when someone violates someone else (provides them with a "bad" [something that decreases utility]) they are more likely to do it again.

[/ QUOTE ]This is where the mob rises up and burns them at the stake. One of the useful functions of government is to check these passions. This is also why the Constitution has a Due Process clause.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be true in the 16th century but division of labor makes it so that people are better off by producing value at what they are good at (their job obviously) and exchanging it with someone who specialized in stopping bullies. Since people avoid bads (physical harm, theft, whatever) at all costs, they will pay someone to constrain the offender. Government simply is not necessary for this.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Eventually, everyone starts to realize that high time preference (immediate gratification) acts like stealing, murder, etc..., are a poor choice of action in comparision to low time preference acts (voluntary exchange, respect for property, etc...) that are aimed at the long term maximization of utility rather than the short term.

[/ QUOTE ] So, more rational people who seem not to put their interests above those of others?

[/ QUOTE ]


Wrong. It is in their best interests to cooperate (respect property and engage in voluntary transactions).

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that without a reasonably strong government modern commerce and civil society would be impossible and the stong would inevitably exploit the weak.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that exactly what happens *now*???