My "Political Philosophy"

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And finally when you point out that while their solution may be workable, it carries huge transaction costs and inefficiencies, they (and especially Borodog) retreats to "efficiency is not my problem".

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol.

Do you know what huge transactions costs are? Profit opportunities.

The entire purpose of the market is to reduce transaction costs. Every time there are large transaction costs, there exists an arbitrage opportunity for an entrepreneur to come up with a way to reduce them and make a buttload of cash.

Like to have an orange in New York but the transaction costs of driving to Florida too high? No problem. An entrepreneur buys a truck, buys oranges low in Florida and sells them high in New York. Like to buy a few shares of the Dutch East India Company but its a hassle getting together with the sellers at the same time in their corporate offices? No problem. An entrepreneur familiar with the process brings the legal paperwork to all the parties and then files it with DEIC and the stock broker is born. Like to get across the country but it would take you months of walking? No problem. Entrepreneurs build cars. Like to buy a house but are worried the property doesn't have clear title and you don't have the time to research it yourself? No problem. An entrepreneur will do the research on your behave, and another entrepreneur will sell you title insurance. Like to have a steak but don't have a ranch and cattle? No problem, the market let's you hook up with someone who does. The market operates to reducing transactions costs day in and day out.

And what is your answer to "high transactions costs"? A gigantic bureaucracy that expropriates half of society's productivity while completely failing to actually make anything better. Yeah, that's not a "high transaction cost" at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
I think some people want a state and some people dont. The ones who dont are coerced by the ones who do.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when you are talking about needs, in which group do you place yourself?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think some people want a state and some people dont. The ones who dont are coerced by the ones who do.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when you are talking about needs, in which group do you place yourself?

[/ QUOTE ]
The coerced I guess. I'd like to live in a world without violence (threatened or otherwise) but am not convinced that the problems I alluded to would be solved very well without a government. Consequently, I'm not going to support abandoning the devil I know until I learn more specifics about the devil I dont.

I dont consider myself advocating either position - I have what I consider to be legitimate questions for advocates of both systems. Inevitably, when you ask a statist a question as to why we need a state they reply with how bad it would be if there was nobody in charge. When you ask an anarchist a question about how anarchy would work, they reply with how bad things are under the state.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think some people want a state and some people dont. The ones who dont are coerced by the ones who do.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when you are talking about needs, in which group do you place yourself?

[/ QUOTE ]
The coerced I guess. I'd like to live in a world without violence (threatened or otherwise) but am not convinced that the problems I alluded to would be solved very well without a government.

[/ QUOTE ]


Can we recognize coercing people into things they do not want as a problem?

You just admitted that, as being one of the coerced, you recognize that the state in fact does not care about your needs at all.

In coercing, it provides for the needs of some at the expense of others.

As the one being coerced, and it thus having nothing to do with your needs and your problems, I then don't see how you then not dare stand up to this evil.

You say you want to live in a world without violence but you give moral support to the state who coerces you for the benefit of others. Something is wrong there.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Can we recognize coercing people into things they do not want as a problem?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes? I really dont understand what you're doing in this thread. You appear to not be interested in responding to what I asked (which is fine obviously) but then keep trying to make me ask something else. I've already said I'm sympathetic to the goals of AC but skeptical that it will lead to a society I would want to live in. Consequently I ask for some speculations or suggestions as to how a bunch of problems may be solved in a world without government. We can follow these cryptic answers as far as you like - I'm still going to want to know if there is even a possibility that those will be solved...

[ QUOTE ]
You just admitted that, as being one of the coerced, you recognize that the state in fact does not care about your needs at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
No I didnt. Life is more complicated than that. Perhaps it cares about some of my needs but not others? Or perhaps it cares about some of my needs but prioritises others higher? I think that's pretty likely (though again could you clarify whether it is meaningful to say "the state cares..." or not? You've called me on that before I think and said it doesnt even make sense to talk of a state caring)

[ QUOTE ]
You say you want to live in a world without violence but you give moral support to the state who coerces you for the benefit of others. Something is wrong there.

[/ QUOTE ]
What moral support do I give?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can we recognize coercing people into things they do not want as a problem?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes? I really dont understand what you're doing in this thread. You appear to not be interested in responding to what I asked (which is fine obviously) but then keep trying to make me ask something else. I've already said I'm sympathetic to the goals of AC but skeptical that it will lead to a society I would want to live in. Consequently I ask for some speculations or suggestions as to how a bunch of problems may be solved in a world without government. We can follow these cryptic answers as far as you like - I'm still going to want to know if there is even a possibility that those will be solved...

[ QUOTE ]
You just admitted that, as being one of the coerced, you recognize that the state in fact does not care about your needs at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
No I didnt. Life is more complicated than that. Perhaps it cares about some of my needs but not others? Or perhaps it cares about some of my needs but prioritises others higher? I think that's pretty likely (though again could you clarify whether it is meaningful to say "the state cares..." or not? You've called me on that before I think and said it doesnt even make sense to talk of a state caring)

[ QUOTE ]
You say you want to live in a world without violence but you give moral support to the state who coerces you for the benefit of others. Something is wrong there.

[/ QUOTE ]
What moral support do I give?

[/ QUOTE ]


What needs does the state provide you, that you choose to engage in on a voluntary basis?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
What needs does the state provide you, that you choose to engage in on a voluntary basis?

[/ QUOTE ]
Subsidised services from police, health care, education, defence, etcetera. Or perhaps the one I began with - protection from the consequences of an open market in nuclear devices.

Can I point out again - I've asked maybe a half dozen questions, all of which you've ignored and we've now got back to "How could AC deal with the problem of nuclear devices in irrational people's hands?"

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And finally when you point out that while their solution may be workable, it carries huge transaction costs and inefficiencies, they (and especially Borodog) retreats to "efficiency is not my problem".

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol.

Do you know what huge transactions costs are? Profit opportunities. <font color="red">when they are endemic to the system, they are not a profit opporunity </font>

The entire purpose of the market is to reduce transaction costs. Every time there are large transaction costs, there exists an arbitrage opportunity for an entrepreneur to come up with a way to reduce them and make a buttload of cash. <font color="red"> opportunity is not always translated into reality </font>

Like to have an orange in New York but the transaction costs of driving to Florida too high? No problem. An entrepreneur buys a truck, buys oranges low in Florida and sells them high in New York. Like to buy a few shares of the Dutch East India Company but its a hassle getting together with the sellers at the same time in their corporate offices? No problem. An entrepreneur familiar with the process brings the legal paperwork to all the parties and then files it with DEIC and the stock broker is born. Like to get across the country but it would take you months of walking? No problem. Entrepreneurs build cars. Like to buy a house but are worried the property doesn't have clear title and you don't have the time to research it yourself? No problem. An entrepreneur will do the research on your behave, and another entrepreneur will sell you title insurance. Like to have a steak but don't have a ranch and cattle? No problem, the market let's you hook up with someone who does. The market operates to reducing transactions costs day in and day out. <font color="red"> rivial examples dont further your arguement. Address the transaction costs of AC approaches to IP and defense. It hasnt happened in the two years of AC posts ive read</font>

And what is your answer to "high transactions costs"? A gigantic bureaucracy that expropriates half of society's productivity while completely failing to actually make anything better. Yeah, that's not a "high transaction cost" at all.

[/ QUOTE ] <font color="red">when did I say that all government programs reduce transaction costs? strawman, your typical argument . Oh and while your trying to find away around transaction costs, also address the free rider problem. Again, it hasnt been done in two years of posts. </font>

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What needs does the state provide you, that you choose to engage in on a voluntary basis?

[/ QUOTE ]
Subsidised services from police, health care, education, defence, etcetera. Or perhaps the one I began with - protection from the consequences of an open market in nuclear devices.

Can I point out again - I've asked maybe a half dozen questions, all of which you've ignored and we've now got back to "How could AC deal with the problem of nuclear devices in irrational people's hands?"

[/ QUOTE ]


Now you're contradicting yourself:

[ 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?".

[/ QUOTE ]

Healthcare and education are market phenomena that existed entirely on it's own prior to state nationalization and regulation.

Are you now raising healthcare and education as "potential problems to be addressed in AC" ?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What needs does the state provide you, that you choose to engage in on a voluntary basis?

[/ QUOTE ]
Subsidised services from police, health care, education, defence, etcetera. Or perhaps the one I began with - protection from the consequences of an open market in nuclear devices.

Can I point out again - I've asked maybe a half dozen questions, all of which you've ignored and we've now got back to "How could AC deal with the problem of nuclear devices in irrational people's hands?"

[/ QUOTE ]


Now you're contradicting yourself:

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm really not - you're just not listening to what I'm saying.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?".

[/ QUOTE ]

Healthcare and education are market phenomena that existed entirely on it's own prior to state nationalization and regulation.

Are you now raising healthcare and education as "potential problems to be addressed in AC" ?

[/ QUOTE ]
You asked me what needs the state provides me with and I listed some (healthcare, education, etcetera). I didnt claim that I need the state to provide those things, I claimed that I need those things and I choose to get them from the state.