My "Political Philosophy"

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]

What kind of problem can be better solved by monopoly and violence than by competition and selection?

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this argument. I promote some 'thing' that in my view was solved on an idealistic a non-profit basis that went against the market, and then the political economics guy (well in this case replaced by the AC economics guy, aka you) put it into a 'hindsight' model and tells me it all lead to the betterment and higher efficiency of mankind, hence it was an economic progress. Results orientation for the win or the real deal? Who knows - and then we'd go back and forth for 24 hours in a grim version of the economic calculation debate.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The market can certainly solve some problems best yes, but I disagree that it can solve all problems better.

[/ QUOTE ]

What kind of problem can be better solved by monopoly and violence than by competition and selection?

[/ QUOTE ]
Problems which, once they've manifested, create irreversible damage for which no compensation is possible.
For example, allowing the market for nuclear weapons to exist, unfettered, in a world with insane (ie non-rational) people with access to wealth. By the time we realise there's a problem, it's too late to let the market sort it out.

I'd also be interested how the market allows you to prevent some future terrorist group developing nuclear weapons "just out of scientific interest". They havent violated anyone's property rights right up to the point that property rights, insurance companies and compensation become moot.

[NNNNOOOOONAN]

fwiw, this the only non poker strategy post that DS has written that i agree with every word of

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
fwiw, this the only non poker strategy post that DS has written that i agree with every word of

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you should agree with many other things he has written.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The market can certainly solve some problems best yes, but I disagree that it can solve all problems better.

[/ QUOTE ]

What kind of problem can be better solved by monopoly and violence than by competition and selection?

[/ QUOTE ]
Problems which, once they've manifested, create irreversible damage for which no compensation is possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know of any such problems.

[ QUOTE ]

For example, allowing the market for nuclear weapons to exist, unfettered, in a world with insane (ie non-rational) people with access to wealth. By the time we realise there's a problem, it's too late to let the market sort it out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused about why you think a market for nuclear weapons would exist in a free society.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd also be interested how the market allows you to prevent some future terrorist group developing nuclear weapons "just out of scientific interest". They havent violated anyone's property rights right up to the point that property rights, insurance companies and compensation become moot.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a mugger point a gun in your direction, you don't have to wait for him to shoot you before defending yourself. The mere existence of a nuclear weapon constitutes a threat of force, since it cannot be used selectively in defense of one's person and property, and justifies the use of force against the owner.

In short, in a free society you are perfectly justified in _killing_ people that acquire nuclear weapons. This presents no dilemma of principle for a free society at all, and it clearly does not require a monopoly of nuclear-weapons-scquisition-prevention, especially by a monopolist who spends trillions building, using, and threatening to use nuclear weapons.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What kind of problem can be better solved by monopoly and violence than by competition and selection?

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this argument. I promote some 'thing' that in my view was solved on an idealistic a non-profit basis that went against the market, and then the political economics guy (well in this case replaced by the AC economics guy, aka you) put it into a 'hindsight' model and tells me it all lead to the betterment and higher efficiency of mankind, hence it was an economic progress. Results orientation for the win or the real deal? Who knows - and then we'd go back and forth for 24 hours in a grim version of the economic calculation debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The market can certainly solve some problems best yes, but I disagree that it can solve all problems better.

[/ QUOTE ]

What kind of problem can be better solved by monopoly and violence than by competition and selection?

[/ QUOTE ]


It's a valid strategy for the monopolist. But only if the majority of people fall for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

For example, allowing the market for nuclear weapons to exist, unfettered, in a world with insane (ie non-rational) people with access to wealth. By the time we realise there's a problem, it's too late to let the market sort it out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused about why you think a market for nuclear weapons would exist in a free society.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because there are people who want them? As I said above - irrational people who think they're going to heaven and want to stop the heathens from blaspheming against God, or who want to prove some biblical prophecy by ensuring the apocalypse happens when their particular favorite prophet says it will. It seems to me people like that exist and that they have access to wealth - doesnt that create demand and therefore a market?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd also be interested how the market allows you to prevent some future terrorist group developing nuclear weapons "just out of scientific interest". They havent violated anyone's property rights right up to the point that property rights, insurance companies and compensation become moot.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a mugger point a gun in your direction, you don't have to wait for him to shoot you before defending yourself. The mere existence of a nuclear weapon constitutes a threat of force, since it cannot be used selectively in defense of one's person and property, and justifies the use of force against the owner.

In short, in a free society you are perfectly justified in _killing_ people that acquire nuclear weapons. This presents no dilemma of principle for a free society at all, and it clearly does not require a monopoly of nuclear-weapons-scquisition-prevention, especially by a monopolist who spends trillions building, using, and threatening to use nuclear weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]
But I'm developing nuclear weapons to test a possible interstellar propulsion system. Who are you to burst in with your jackbooted thugs and declare I have intent to use it to cause harm?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

For example, allowing the market for nuclear weapons to exist, unfettered, in a world with insane (ie non-rational) people with access to wealth. By the time we realise there's a problem, it's too late to let the market sort it out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused about why you think a market for nuclear weapons would exist in a free society.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because there are people who want them? As I said above - irrational people who think they're going to heaven and want to stop the heathens from blaspheming against God, or who want to prove some biblical prophecy by ensuring the apocalypse happens when their particular favorite prophet says it will. It seems to me people like that exist and that they have access to wealth - doesnt that create demand and therefore a market?

[/ QUOTE ]

I explained why those in a free society are perfectly justified to take action against those expressing such a demand.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd also be interested how the market allows you to prevent some future terrorist group developing nuclear weapons "just out of scientific interest". They havent violated anyone's property rights right up to the point that property rights, insurance companies and compensation become moot.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a mugger point a gun in your direction, you don't have to wait for him to shoot you before defending yourself. The mere existence of a nuclear weapon constitutes a threat of force, since it cannot be used selectively in defense of one's person and property, and justifies the use of force against the owner.

In short, in a free society you are perfectly justified in _killing_ people that acquire nuclear weapons. This presents no dilemma of principle for a free society at all, and it clearly does not require a monopoly of nuclear-weapons-scquisition-prevention, especially by a monopolist who spends trillions building, using, and threatening to use nuclear weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]
But I'm developing nuclear weapons to test a possible interstellar propulsion system. Who are you to burst in with your jackbooted thugs and declare I have intent to use it to cause harm?

[/ QUOTE ]

You said "allowing the market for nuclear weapons to exist, unfettered, in a world with insane (ie non-rational) people with access to wealth". I explained explicitly why a free society doesn't need to allow this at all, and now you are changing the scenario. First, a nuclear device, for propulsion or perhaps heavy construction purposes, is not a nuclear weapon. You specified nuclear weapons. If you want to develop nuclear explosives for peaceful purposes and do it in an area where accidents can't harm lots of people, more power to you. But that doesn't change the fact that citizens of the free society need not allow you to threaten them explicitly, implicitly, or accidentally with nuclear weapons.

Furthermore, this is another patent case of failing to show how your hypothetical differentiates in favor of statism:

[ QUOTE ]
. . . it clearly does not require a monopoly of nuclear-weapons-scquisition-prevention, especially by a monopolist who spends trillions building, using, and threatening to use nuclear weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]

In short, your solution to prevent "allowing . . . nuclear weapons to exist, unfettered, in a world with insane (ie non-rational) people with access to wealth" is to have a gigantic coercive organization run by insane (ie non-rational) people with enormous access to stolen wealth who like to build nuclear weapons.

Brilliant.

I never have been able to understand this sort of Orwellian doublethink from statists. We need the state to protect our property by expropriating 50% of our productivity year in and year out. We must be protected from monopolies, therefor we will institute a gigantic monopoly. We need the state to protect us from violence by violating us at every turn. We need the state to protect us from slavery by enslaving us. We need the state to protect contract by dictating who we cannot or who we must contract with and what the terms cannot or must be. We need the state to protect the monetary system by debasing the money supply with perpetual counterfeiting. On and on and on.

As far as I'm concerned you are all welcome to your irrational concerns and your irrational solution.

Bah.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
You said "allowing the market for nuclear weapons to exist, unfettered, in a world with insane (ie non-rational) people with access to wealth". I explained explicitly why a free society doesn't need to allow this at all, and now you are changing the scenario. First, a nuclear device, for propulsion or perhaps heavy construction purposes, is not a nuclear weapon. You specified nuclear weapons. If you want to develop nuclear explosives for peaceful purposes and do it in an area where accidents can't harm lots of people, more power to you. But that doesn't change the fact that citizens of the free society need not allow you to threaten them explicitly, implicitly, or accidentally with nuclear weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]
My apologies, the labelling them weapons was misleading - it's the nuclear devices for peaceful purposes which can then be used as weapons which bothers me. I wasnt intentionally changing the story. I could easily imagine some new age church, founded by some charismatic psycho developing nuclear devices safely, above board, with the stated goal of leaving Earth and colonising some new utopia...only to learn too late that things had changed and now they were going to instigate armageddon and fulfill some obscure prophecy. I dont think this is particularly far fetched.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, this is another patent case of failing to show how your hypothetical differentiates in favor of statism:

In short, your solution to prevent "allowing . . . nuclear weapons to exist, unfettered, in a world with insane (ie non-rational) people with access to wealth" is to have a gigantic coercive organization run by insane (ie non-rational) people with enormous access to stolen wealth who like to build nuclear weapons.

Brilliant.

[/ QUOTE ]
You misunderstand my position - I'm not advocating statism (and I agree with you that a statist has to say why states are better, not just focus on why they think anarchy is bad). I am wanting to be converted to AC but am leery given one or two concerns I have for which I have not seen a good AC solution.

It may well be that I am sticking with the devil I know, I cant really evaluate that. Nonetheless, we live in a world of nuclear explosives. Currently it is a world run by states and control of nuclear devices rests with them. Now we(or at least some people) are considering another alternative - I wont consider it viable if there is no answer to questions like this, whether that's because I'm scared, brainwashed or whatever. I dont think it's unreasonable to think these things through in advance.

[ QUOTE ]
I never have been able to understand this sort of Orwellian doublethink from statists. We need the state to protect our property by expropriating 50% of our productivity year in and year out. We must be protected from monopolies, therefor we will institute a gigantic monopoly. We need the state to protect us from violence by violating us at every turn. We need the state to protect us from slavery by enslaving us. We need the state to protect contract by dictating who we cannot or who we must contract with and what the terms cannot or must be. We need the state to protect the monetary system by debasing the money supply with perpetual counterfeiting. On and on and on.

As far as I'm concerned you are all welcome to your irrational concerns and your irrational solution.

Bah.

[/ QUOTE ]
The number of things I think we "need" a state for a very small (and diminishing). Nonetheless, given I think those needs exists, I'm not going to close my eyes and embrace ACism if there is no answer to those concerns. My reason for posting on these topics is not to say "States are better". It's to ask "How are these potential problems to be addressed in AC?" I wouldnt consider myself an us or a them.