Reactions to AC

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you kidding me? THat IS the point. You want specific predictions from a system that doesn't make them, by design. It doesn't work that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

People are largely predictable, given the same stimuli, we can find commonalities in their actions. Political science (like all sciences, it's constantly evolving) is the efforts to answer the questions I've laid out to you, in varying degrees.

[ QUOTE ]
It WOULD be wild prediction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you aren't qualified to make a prognostication. If you aren't then just say so, no harm in that. But if you are knowledgable, then it's called hypothysis and planning, those are good things.

[ QUOTE ]
What a bunch of people are going to do in a particular social situation is not at all the same thing. You can't read their minds. You don't know their preferences. You have no information about the particulars of their circumstances.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, we don't KNOW, but we can make reasonably educated guesses that can be quite accurate. As above, people are largely alike.

[ QUOTE ]
And I'm telling you I'm not in the business of providing practical solutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

THANK YOU!! This is an answer, if you can't do it, I'm not going to fault you. I don't know about botony, I couldn't give you an answer about gardening, no one has all the answers.

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't like this, well, that's your problem. It still doesn't give you license to coerce me into participating in *your* "practical" solution. Like I said, I don't need your sign-off to do my own thing. The burden of proof is on YOU because YOU are making claims upon ME, not vice versa.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only really true if, by opting out of my "government" (government, in this case, I'm using to mean the current US government) you are able to act totally independent of me. You aren't, you actions will effect me. We need to recognize that.

Cody

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
It never occurs to you to think about why it isn't happening, does it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm gonna start here, although if you're done, then I guess I have plenty of time. What you're saying is that if the market doesn't make them, we must not need them. That works if everything is created by a magic "on" switch, but it doesn't. Somethings are resource and/or time intensive, some things aren't made because they can't be effectively made.

"Well if someone is willing to pay for it, why wouldn't they make it" Because they can't make it for whatever reason, it's too expensive, no available resources, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
What science? Government making arbitrary distictions? That's what you said determined what is "big enough" to be "different" than my xbox. Please, if you have a scientific basis, let's hear it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anothing thing I've said repeatedly. I'm only talking about what the free market seems to be unable to do. If you can correct me, feel free, but thus far you chosen to write them off as "endless scenarios"

[ QUOTE ]
Right. This sounds... exactly like government. Only government has monopoly, or has the power to create them. Only government can prevent competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

And it IS exactly like government, and if you can't provide a way that the free market can stop it, then it's no better then now.

[ QUOTE ]
"Some" resources are scarce? That's like the understatement of the century.


[/ QUOTE ]

Got my on a mistype (thank god you're nice enough not to point out misspelin's), yes almost all resources are scarce. Air, sunlight, etc obviously aren't, but most are.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not interested in providing the answers you're looking for. That's different than answering your question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm yes, not wanting to answer is in fact differnet then answering. So...

[ QUOTE ]
No, but your arbitrary limitation of the scenario makes it pointless. I can construct diabolically pathological statism scenarios all day long. Big deal.


[/ QUOTE ]

You made an example that was simple enough to be solved with a rule that made it apply to the larger point. You cheated!!

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to have a discussion where you don't assume your conclusions, where you don't silently drop points that are uncomfortable for you to address, where you don't complain about behavior that you yourself engage in, feel free to start a new thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be pointless:

PVN: How's about no one makes anyone do anything ever. You only do what you want, when you want.

Cody: Well that sounds cool, but I think you'll have problems applying that to the real world.

PVN: Who cares, it's theoretically good and morally perfect!

[ QUOTE ]
I'm done with this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

There you go, teasing me again.

Cody

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Having "the most" isn't enoguh. You have to have *more* than *everyone else* put together

[/ QUOTE ]

What, in that case *everyone else* has the majority and can enforce what they want at will. Someone, or some group, is always in the lead.
But wait, you said...

[ QUOTE ]
assuming we're talking about an existing AC, where people are accustomed to freedom, not conditioned to being subjects of a state, where people despise coercive force, not revel in its use and hope they can be at the helm of the machine

[/ QUOTE ]

What?? This is in no way like what people think now, and this kinda of sociological change would take many generations, if it's even possible. Social hierarchies did form from nothing, so perhaps we're predisposed to them. But it is very easy to postulate a method of rule (or rely on a lack of rule) when everyone agrees with your ideas (what I quoted above).

I have one. In the case where everyone agrees cheese is the most worthwhile thing ever, and I own all the cheese, and people all think the way I do (ideologically), well then I can run everything with cheese and no one will fight because I have all the cheese.

[censored], this is easy.

Cody

[Taciturn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So "violent theft, pillaging, and murder is part of human nature" but you want to give some of [ QUOTE ]
these violent theives and murders power over others?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, and yes. I'm cynical enough to see that in the temporary power vacuum of anarchy, some entity would eventually acquire the majority of that society's power. I don't see any mechanism within anarcho-capitalism to prevent this - and I don't see how an anarchy can reach some sort of equilibrium in which the power hungry wouldn't be able to go through the process of acquiring this power.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a common argument against anarchocapitalism. It presumes that governemnt just inexplicably disappears and leaves a vacuum. Of course, in such a scenario, all sorts of crazy [censored] could and would happen.

But this is not a likely scenario. If anarchocapitalism does come about, it will not be an overnight process. A significant portion of the population will have to become so displeased with the state that it will decay; once it's gone, these people are not going to simply roll over for the first bozo who comes along claiming to be their god and emperor.

There will be no "vacuum" because the state will not simply recede, it will be *pushed aside* by market actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said eventually... The process of power consolidation under anarchy wouldn't happen overnight, either - I doubt it would be quick, perhaps it would take generations and those people that overthrew the previous government wouldn't be around anymore. I doubt the first bozo claiming to be god would have any success whatsoever - but the Nth bozo who gradually accumulates power and uses this power to gain more power - who may work behind the scenes rather than claiming to the people that he is god - who patiently acquires the ability to influence the populace, to condition them and dumb them down, make them more willing to accept the power of a single entity - who forms an alliance with other like-minded bozos - yeah, although it may take time, the bozo organization would eventually gain a majority of society's power - we'd have an anti-liberty government run by bozos all over again.


Is your argument that when society advances to anarchy, it will be so enlightened and so aware of the problems of power that such a thing could never happen again? - (Not trying to set up a straw-man, I just want to know what your argument is, and this is my best interpretation of it.) If so, do you disagree that some humans are power hungry, scheming bastards? These scheming bastards would, over time, use power to gain more power, conditioning the people and removing barriers to more power as they go along. Most people aren't this power hungry, but it only takes a few. What mechanism under Anarcho-Capitalism is there that would address this? Is it just the vigilance of the newly enlightened people as in your answer? Is it capitalism? Can efficient, competitive capitalism exist when companies have the ability to use coercive force against their competitors and the only deterrent to coercion would be the use, or threatened use, of greater force by an even more powerful intervening organization? Wouldn't arms races between businesses be an inevitability, leading to consolidation of power?



[ QUOTE ]
Some anti-power authority would need to exist which could prevent consolidation of power and the loss of freedom that comes with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, that would be soverign individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Until the primary entity gets more powerful than the rest of society... Or would these sovereign individuals somehow stop it before it got this bad? how?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We're just crazy animals - If we don't grant some form of anti-power to some of us barbarian monkeys, some power-hungry, scheming monkeys are eventually going to take power - and there's no reason to believe their government is going to be better than any other form.

[/ QUOTE ]

And there's no reason to beleive that yours is going to be better either.

What a horrible worldview. My sympathies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh. So, I was embellishing a bit by calling us barbarous, scheming monkeys... I suppose I was attacking the idea (which I can't tell if you believe) that under ACism, humans would be somehow less power hungry than in the past.

Yeah, limited anti-government authority may not be any better. An anti-government could eventually subvert the hypothetically strong checks and balances that it is supposed to be governed by. Power always corrupts, etc... maybe even power that is intended to protect power. Maybe the destiny of any political system is either totalitarianism or collapse...

And, I'm with you, that the Anarcho-Capitalist utopia described in this forum is the closest thing to an ideal society that I am aware of - but, I don't see how it is sustainable. Unless some very serious problems with ACism are addressed, I think it's a pipe dream. The closest thing to sustainable ACism that I can think of is near-ACism supported by an extremely limited authority charged solely with limiting extreme consolidations of power, which could of course be corrupted as well. Maybe the limited anti-government idea is [censored], I don't know... I am bringing it up in response to problems I see with ACism to which, so far, the answers are weak and dismissive.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And, yeah to answer your question literally: the people in charge of this anti-government, being human, would have used violence if they were a hungry caveman trying to get some meat from other hungry cavemen... That doesn't really mean anything though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, so you like being obtuse... what does your response mean?

[Richard Tanner]

I almost shed a little tear while reading your post Taci, well done.

I especially like this part:

[ QUOTE ]
And, I'm with you, that the Anarcho-Capitalist utopia described in this forum is the closest thing to an ideal society that I am aware of - but, I don't see how it is sustainable. Unless some very serious problems with ACism are addressed, I think it's a pipe dream. The closest thing to sustainable ACism that I can think of is near-ACism supported by an extremely limited authority charged solely with limiting extreme consolidations of power, which could of course be corrupted as well. Maybe the limited anti-government idea is [censored], I don't know... I am bringing it up in response to problems I see with ACism to which, so far, the answers are weak and dismissive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your appeal to the practical aplication of the idea is inspiring.

Cody

[pvn]

OK, you goaded me into it. I'm not perfect, it's a personality flaw, but you actually had some good responses. Also, I'm closing in on post 8000, so I can't stop now.

[ QUOTE ]
True, we don't KNOW, but we can make reasonably educated guesses that can be quite accurate. As above, people are largely alike.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is true - but these predictions are less and less accurate as the scenarios we guess about become more and more specific. It's easy to figure out general laws of supply and demand, but much, much harder to figure out what's going to happen when people are allowed to freely participate in a market for roads without government intervention (see the consequnces vs. motives thread).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And I'm telling you I'm not in the business of providing practical solutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

THANK YOU!! This is an answer, if you can't do it, I'm not going to fault you. I don't know about botony, I couldn't give you an answer about gardening, no one has all the answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

NO economist can provide the answers you're looking for. Nobody can predict what mechanisms will emerge from a free market.

IF THEY COULD, then you wouldn't NEED a free market, you could just forcibly impose the solutions that would emerge from a market, in the proportions that they would occur. You'd have the ultimate argument for central planning. "The Marketotron5000 says that equilibrium in a free market would ulitimately be reached by building roads here, here and here, with them each having this many lanes and this type of surface, with tolls at this interval in that amount. Make it happen!"

[ QUOTE ]
This is only really true if, by opting out of my "government" (government, in this case, I'm using to mean the current US government) you are able to act totally independent of me. You aren't, you actions will effect me. We need to recognize that.

[/ QUOTE ]

We do. That's what property rights and liability are all about.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
What you're saying is that if the market doesn't make them, we must not need them.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I'm just saying you won't get them. I "need" a free pony, and an real-life voltron. But I don't have them! Market failure!

[ QUOTE ]
That works if everything is created by a magic "on" switch, but it doesn't. Somethings are resource and/or time intensive, some things aren't made because they can't be effectively made.

[/ QUOTE ]

And government doesn't change that at all. Government doesn't make more resources appear, more time available, or something easier to accomplish. Not any more than voluntary methods *can*. Sure, it's possible that government WILL make something happen where the market wouldn't - but all this indicates is that someone allocated someone else's resources in a manner different than the owners would have, and less efficiently at that.

[ QUOTE ]
"Well if someone is willing to pay for it, why wouldn't they make it" Because they can't make it for whatever reason, it's too expensive, no available resources, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what's the magic powder that government adds?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What science? Government making arbitrary distictions? That's what you said determined what is "big enough" to be "different" than my xbox. Please, if you have a scientific basis, let's hear it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anothing thing I've said repeatedly. I'm only talking about what the free market seems to be unable to do. If you can correct me, feel free, but thus far you chosen to write them off as "endless scenarios"

[/ QUOTE ]

That line descended from your claim that xboxes are different from national security... because of "scale"... determined arbitrarily by governmnet (bureaucrats)... I am simply trying to figure out where science comes in here. I'm confused by this shift towards "what the market seems unable to do".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right. This sounds... exactly like government. Only government has monopoly, or has the power to create them. Only government can prevent competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

And it IS exactly like government, and if you can't provide a way that the free market can stop it, then it's no better then now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes! if the bulk of the population wants institutionalized violence in the form of government, well, they're going to get it. The market isn't a magical force field that is going to stop them. But your hypothetical population who is enlightened enough to keep government to some primordial tiny little size faces a *harder* challenge than if they were simply trying to prevent unjust concentrations of power, because, as we've pointed out, seeding a government, however small, is *starting* the process of that concentration of power - unavoidably. You've just made their job harder. So AC is *necessarily* more easily achievable and sustainable than a tiny limited government that is kept in check. Anything that results in the failure of AC would also result in the failure of the tiny limited "non-evil" state, plus a bunch of other conditions that cause the state to fail that AC is resistant to.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Some" resources are scarce? That's like the understatement of the century.


[/ QUOTE ]

Got my on a mistype (thank god you're nice enough not to point out misspelin's), yes almost all resources are scarce. Air, sunlight, etc obviously aren't, but most are.

[/ QUOTE ]

So which ones are up for nationalization? And please square your answer with your desire to achieve a tiny state.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, this is true - but these predictions are less and less accurate as the scenarios we guess about become more and more specific. It's easy to figure out general laws of supply and demand, but much, much harder to figure out what's going to happen when people are allowed to freely participate in a market for roads without government intervention (see the consequnces vs. motives thread).

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, lemme tell you, from personal experience, even science (specifically biochemistry) is unpridictable. Nothing is certain except math. That said, even though those pridictions might be only 95% true, or 90%, etc. it's still better then trying something with no plan (hell look at the war in Iraq, 1) Go in, 2) Kill them 3)????? 4)Profit).

I'm admittedly more interested in social and physical sciences then others, so I'm not expecting everyone to jump at the oppertunity to answer my hypotheticals. I would, however, like to see some projections about these things, since we know government intervention in certain places is bad, we should be able to know why free market applications in certain places are good.

[ QUOTE ]
NO economist can provide the answers you're looking for. Nobody can predict WITH 100% CERTAINTY what mechanisms will emerge from a free market.


[/ QUOTE ]

Add my (CAPS) correction and we agree.

[ QUOTE ]
IF THEY COULD, then you wouldn't NEED a free market, you could just forcibly impose the solutions that would emerge from a market, in the proportions that they would occur. You'd have the ultimate argument for central planning. "The Marketotron5000 says that equilibrium in a free market would ulitimately be reached by building roads here, here and here, with them each having this many lanes and this type of surface, with tolls at this interval in that amount. Make it happen!"

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure. Isn't part of AC allowing people the freedom to make mistakes. Even if it's empirically proven, I'd still say that forcing others to do it would violate AC. Of course you could argue that the Markettron5000 would take human error into account, but we've strayed from the point.

[ QUOTE ]
We do. That's what property rights and liability are all about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's no insult each other and say that ACers on this board have ever come up with a combined position about property rights and liability. We know about arbiters, but the jusidiction and authority of these arbiters is something that's largely unknown. Not saying it's wrong mind you, just that there has been alot of conflicting ideas about how property (and recently IP) will be dealt with in AC.


[ QUOTE ]
...but you actually had some good responses...

[/ QUOTE ]

Head 'asplode

Cody

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Having "the most" isn't enoguh. You have to have *more* than *everyone else* put together

[/ QUOTE ]

What, in that case *everyone else* has the majority and can enforce what they want at will. Someone, or some group, is always in the lead.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. All it means is that collectively they can outspend Bill Gates. And collectively, for *any person* you select, that person is also going to be overwhelmed by "everyone else". So nobody can outspend everyone. Which means, when you're in the context of established AC (which is logically more easily achieved than your kept-in-check tinystate), nobody can engage in sustained aggression against others.


[ QUOTE ]
But wait, you said...

[ QUOTE ]
assuming we're talking about an existing AC, where people are accustomed to freedom, not conditioned to being subjects of a state, where people despise coercive force, not revel in its use and hope they can be at the helm of the machine

[/ QUOTE ]

What?? This is in no way like what people think now, and this kinda of sociological change would take many generations, if it's even possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it's not like what people think now. If it were, we wouldn't have a state. And your objection applies equally (moreso, even) to your kept-in-check tinystate.

[ QUOTE ]
[censored], this is easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm admittedly more interested in social and physical sciences then others, so I'm not expecting everyone to jump at the oppertunity to answer my hypotheticals. I would, however, like to see some projections about these things, since we know government intervention in certain places is bad, we should be able to know why free market applications in certain places are good.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems the accepted rule is that market distributions are "better" than coercive distributions. Agree or disagree (in general, for the sake of discussion)?

If you agree, then it's up to you to show why you think a particular scenario deviates from the rule, not for anyone else to show why it doesn't.

Market applications are "good" because they are "not bad". It sounds dumb, but it's true. We know getting shot in the leg is bad, we should be able to know why not getting shot in the leg is good.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IF THEY COULD, then you wouldn't NEED a free market, you could just forcibly impose the solutions that would emerge from a market, in the proportions that they would occur. You'd have the ultimate argument for central planning. "The Marketotron5000 says that equilibrium in a free market would ulitimately be reached by building roads here, here and here, with them each having this many lanes and this type of surface, with tolls at this interval in that amount. Make it happen!"

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure. Isn't part of AC allowing people the freedom to make mistakes. Even if it's empirically proven, I'd still say that forcing others to do it would violate AC. Of course you could argue that the Markettron5000 would take human error into account, but we've strayed from the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say you'd have the ultimate argument against AC, I said you'd have the ultimate argument for central planning. And if AC still has advantages (freedom) over the ultimate, perfect form of central planning, while producing
at worst the same results, then, well, what the [censored] are you doing supporting central planning, in any form?

[ QUOTE ]
Let's no insult each other and say that ACers on this board have ever come up with a combined position about property rights and liability. We know about arbiters, but the jusidiction and authority of these arbiters is something that's largely unknown.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? I thought you didn't want to miss the big picture because of the details. There's no reason these micro details need to be known ahead of time. Social norms, individual preferences, etc determine stuff at this level.