Reactions to AC

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
For whatever reason, I thought it would be a good idea to use the subject of your hypothetical, Bill Gates, in an over the top scenario where power is consolidated. The specifics of this hypothetical were essentially pulled out of my ass without regard for my ability to defend them, and without considering whether they are supported by the argument that you have still not responded to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't directly respond to your power consolodation post, but my response is in my other posts. Yes, if government suddenly disappeared overnight, power would be reconsolodated. But if it erodes gradually as people stop supporting the consolodation of power, it won't. A big huge mean state might swoop in later and scoop up the governmentless region, but any big huge mean state that has enough power to do this would have been more than sufficient to sweep aside any state that could have existed there given the same population, resources, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding your comments:

Is your first paragraph suggesting that Bill Gates himself would be stealing purses and so on? I thought it would be pretty obvious that his hired hands would do anything like this - perhaps I am misreading it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be *even less* profitable. We're talking about a wealth *transfer* here, not any creation of new wealth. Division of labor and comparative advantage don't apply.

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, Gates would be foolish to devote his energies to contraband if there were no government. Protection racket was used because it was the first thing that popped into my head, and I don't see how it implies contraband. But, you're right, this type of activity may not be the best use of Gates' time, he would be more profitable focusing on something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gangs that run protection rackets invariably build their power through contraband trading. This applies even to the ever-present boogeymen of AC, warlords.

[ QUOTE ]
Bill Gates doesn't have a widespread indoctrination system from which he can recruit people, but neither does anyone else. Isn't relative power what's important?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, relative power is important. Relative to everyone else, Bill is weak. Relative to any one person, he's strong. But, as everyone loves to point out, people are not hermits. They can work together.

[Richard Tanner]

Damn had a busy day yesterday and was only able to pop in for a while, not enough to reply here.

[ QUOTE ]
So how much "clean" water (still not sure how clean is clean enough) do I need? Is it OK if it's got some rust in it? How much transportation do I need? "It depends" isn't very helpful. How do we determine how much security is "needed" - we can probably agree that a war on drugs isn't "needed" but do we need constant armed patrols? How often should a prowler drive by your house? Hey, speaking of houses, how much of that do I need? Is a cardboard box enough? And clothing - shoes are pretty dang important, I need a pair of those. And CAT scans, AIDS tests, kidney transplants, quadruple bypassess, I need all of that stuff, too, and it's expensive enough to make my butthole bleed. And some gene therapy. What about the stuff I need that hasn't been invented yet?

[/ QUOTE ]

Some things are arbitrary, some things are not. Clean water is binary, it's clean if you can drink it and not get sick. How many PPM of rust in it is a function of how many PPM of rust is takes to get sick. Not really sure where all this is going, but hopefully this helps.

[ QUOTE ]
What leads us to believe that there will only be one road firm? The materials for building roads are considerably less scarce than those for making shoes - land covers 1/3 of the earth's surface, after all. This doesn't look like a natural monopoly to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignoring that some of that land is already/will be used for other things, and that some land isn't traversable, the point is that land is scarce, and when it gets used, there is no way to magically "make more". This can lend itself to a monoloply or ologopoly.

[ QUOTE ]
It's even harder to control all the material needed for roads. That would be the *whole earth*. AMIRITE?


[/ QUOTE ]

No, you can kill a bison in Asia (or their equivilent) and bring it here to make shoe leather. A road in Asia means very little to me getting to work.

[ QUOTE ]
Private firms build the roads now. Government contracts the stuff out.

[/ QUOTE ]

This needs to change right? I thought we agreed here.

[ QUOTE ]
But if everyone agrees, what difference does it make?

[/ QUOTE ]

You assume everyone will continue to agree (and can peacefully leave) or that they won't grow powerful enough to impose. Like you said in the other thread, "If peoples minds have changed to want everyone's freedom, etc." then I think your plan is very viable, but right no, not so much.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes! They'd stop dumping in common areas, since there would basically be no common areas.


[/ QUOTE ]

The earth is a common area. Simply because you label the ground by a different name (yours, mine, theirs) doesn't change the effects of dumping.

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, governments can "help" (some people) - but to do so they have to start by causing harm. You can't ignore the basis for government just because you happen to like some of the results.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can ignore whatever I want (even though I haven't, I've said multiple times how evil government is). If something is the only/best way of making a plan (in our case, living) viable, it's the winner.

[ QUOTE ]
Issue of wishful thinking again. And even on the smallest scales, in the infancy of the leviathan, government is fed by harm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Small government=small harm. Again, if it's the only way for it to work, I'll take small harm to big. From you posts above, I think you've said that people now aren't ready for AC, that government will have to waste away slowly and that peoples minds will have to change. One of us is arguing now, the other of us is arguing future/theory. Notice the disconnect.

[ QUOTE ]
Anybody can kill. But to kill on that scale, to destroy that much, well, it IS more than one man can do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right you need a group.

[ QUOTE ]
You want to talk about scale? That scale is ONLY possible with government.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's only possible with a group, any group. Government or otherwise.

Cody

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Right. The magic government-limiting forcefield. Like, say, the Constitution. Yeah, that magical piece of paper will make everything OK. Sleep tight!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, fat lot of good the Constitution did. I'm hoping for something better, but I'm not toooo hopeful.

Cody

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Assert, assert assert your way to victory!

[/ QUOTE ]

PVN: Will give me an example
Cody: Here you go
PVN: Assert assert assert

Don't ask a question to which you don't want an answer.

[ QUOTE ]
It's exactly the same logic you used. Except I don't impose anything upon others, you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Matter of scale, but I agree.

Cody

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL as if you don't have a "rote position". "I need this," "we're connected," etc etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say anything about me. But I agree, I'm set and you're set. This looks promising, at least the people watching might get something.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that people don't *belive* something doesn't change the reality of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

A man with a scientific appeal, a man after my own heart.

[ QUOTE ]
Right and wrong are not decided by a popularity contest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right and Wrong are NEVER decided (save for math). Right and wrong are points or view, they're opinions. A popularity contest does however decide policy. Not just here, but everywhere. Sanity by consensus doesn't make anything "right" but it can make it "happen". Life she is a mother [censored] eh.

Cody

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Damn had a busy day yesterday and was only able to pop in for a while, not enough to reply here.

[ QUOTE ]
So how much "clean" water (still not sure how clean is clean enough) do I need? Is it OK if it's got some rust in it? How much transportation do I need? "It depends" isn't very helpful. How do we determine how much security is "needed" - we can probably agree that a war on drugs isn't "needed" but do we need constant armed patrols? How often should a prowler drive by your house? Hey, speaking of houses, how much of that do I need? Is a cardboard box enough? And clothing - shoes are pretty dang important, I need a pair of those. And CAT scans, AIDS tests, kidney transplants, quadruple bypassess, I need all of that stuff, too, and it's expensive enough to make my butthole bleed. And some gene therapy. What about the stuff I need that hasn't been invented yet?

[/ QUOTE ]

Some things are arbitrary, some things are not. Clean water is binary, it's clean if you can drink it and not get sick. How many PPM of rust in it is a function of how many PPM of rust is takes to get sick. Not really sure where all this is going, but hopefully this helps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Are you sure about this? There's some magic number, beyond which everyone gets sick and under which everyone is OK? What about all the rest of that stuff? It's not binary. None of it is. There isn't some objective, fixed quantity of "food" that you can just check off on your list; ditto for clothing, shelter, security.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What leads us to believe that there will only be one road firm? The materials for building roads are considerably less scarce than those for making shoes - land covers 1/3 of the earth's surface, after all. This doesn't look like a natural monopoly to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignoring that some of that land is already/will be used for other things, and that some land isn't traversable, the point is that land is scarce, and when it gets used, there is no way to magically "make more". This can lend itself to a monoloply or ologopoly.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the resources for making shoes are scarce, also. There's a finite number of cows on this earth. You can make "more cows" I suppose, but ultimately there's only so much mass. And the resources that can be used to make more cows (land being one of them) are scarce, too. They have alternate uses.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's even harder to control all the material needed for roads. That would be the *whole earth*. AMIRITE?


[/ QUOTE ]

No, you can kill a bison in Asia (or their equivilent) and bring it here to make shoe leather. A road in Asia means very little to me getting to work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, I see now. So then, the same thing could be said of land used for office buildings. An job opening in an office building in asia means very little to you when looking for a job. Or a WalMart in asia, when you're looking for bananas. Or a house in Asia, when you're looking for a house to buy. These things are objectively more important than silly things like roads - the means to those ends. So if we're concerned about too few roads in some geographic region, we should also be concerned about there being the wrong number of grocery stores, barber shops, car dealers, banks, restaurants, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Private firms build the roads now. Government contracts the stuff out.

[/ QUOTE ]

This needs to change right? I thought we agreed here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, what do you think it needs to change *to*?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if everyone agrees, what difference does it make?

[/ QUOTE ]

You assume everyone will continue to agree (and can peacefully leave) or that they won't grow powerful enough to impose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't assume that. It wasn't specified as a condition. If everyone agrees, then there's no problem. If they later don't agree and are forced to continue, that's a problem. Me and my neighbor decide to split the cost of maintenance for a strip of land at the border of our properties (maybe we get a better deal from the maintenance company). Then I decide to stop. Is it "OK" to force me to continue just because I agreed in the past?

I hire a guy to mow the lawn. Two years later, I decide to get rid of him. I changed my mind, the deal is no longer agreeable to me. Is this "OK"?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes! They'd stop dumping in common areas, since there would basically be no common areas.


[/ QUOTE ]

The earth is a common area. Simply because you label the ground by a different name (yours, mine, theirs) doesn't change the effects of dumping.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're not talking about magically nullifying the effects. How often do companies dump stuff on other people's private property (and get away with it)? How often do they dump stuff on "common" area?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sure, governments can "help" (some people) - but to do so they have to start by causing harm. You can't ignore the basis for government just because you happen to like some of the results.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can ignore whatever I want (even though I haven't, I've said multiple times how evil government is). If something is the only/best way of making a plan (in our case, living) viable, it's the winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Begging the question of whether a plan is needed in the first place.

People lived, viably, before governments, obviously, so we know it isn't the only way. "Best" implies subjective, personal preferences. People can and will disagree on what's best. My best and yours are most certainly different. So why does one need to be arbitrarily selected and imposed while the other is violently repressed?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Issue of wishful thinking again. And even on the smallest scales, in the infancy of the leviathan, government is fed by harm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Small government=small harm. Again, if it's the only way for it to work, I'll take small harm to big. From you posts above, I think you've said that people now aren't ready for AC, that government will have to waste away slowly and that peoples minds will have to change. One of us is arguing now, the other of us is arguing future/theory. Notice the disconnect.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? The two most popular political parties, which control, what, 90% of the votes, are BOTH for expanding the government at ever-increasing rates. And you've misunderstood. Even if people are ready for AC, the government *most likely* is still going to have to slowly recede. You can't just rip it out overnight and expect everything to be fine the next day.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anybody can kill. But to kill on that scale, to destroy that much, well, it IS more than one man can do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right you need a group.

[/ QUOTE ]

And Lincoln would never been able to get one that big without a state. Where would he get the money? Or do you think total war like that is somehow a money-making opportunity?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You want to talk about scale? That scale is ONLY possible with government.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's only possible with a group, any group. Government or otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh huh. If it were, there would be constant warfare everyone on earth. Governments would be overwhelmed by independent, self-financed "groups" trashing everything.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Assert, assert assert your way to victory!

[/ QUOTE ]

PVN: Will give me an example
Cody: Here you go
PVN: Assert assert assert

Don't ask a question to which you don't want an answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure which "examples" you're talking about. You mean like this one?

[ QUOTE ]
No, until then, we might do what we want, but other countries aren't going to, and if they wanna take our newfound freedom, we're so boned.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is an assertion. A similar assertion would be for me to say that hey, North Korea has a government, therefore if we have any government, it will end up looking like North Korea.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's exactly the same logic you used. Except I don't impose anything upon others, you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Matter of scale, but I agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

More assertion. You keep mentioning "scale" as if it self-evidently explains everything. It doesn't.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Right and Wrong are NEVER decided (save for math). Right and wrong are points or view, they're opinions. A popularity contest does however decide policy. Not just here, but everywhere. Sanity by consensus doesn't make anything "right" but it can make it "happen". Life she is a mother [censored] eh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing more than an apology for the status quo and might makes right.

Descriptive "arguments" trump normative arguments FTW!

When you counter a normative argument with a descriptive one, you always "win", because the normative argument will be something other than the status quo (unless your normative argument is that the status quo is what should be) while the descriptive argument *is* (by definition) the status quo. "X might be nice, but it's tough because X isn't what we have now." Duh. "Drugs should be freely available." "OH NOES but that would be ILLEGAL!!"