My "Political Philosophy"

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]


Those things are payed through taxation and are therefore not on a voluntary basis. The state also outlaws competition in many ways, so the degree to you choosing those things is severely limited.

And I thought we also agreed that the need for the state, in your case, only counted for things that you were not coerced in. I'm specifically asking for those things because you claimed there were things that you had a need for that was currently handled by the state.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Those things are payed through taxation and are therefore not on a voluntary basis. The state also outlaws competition in many ways, so the degree to you choosing those things is severely limited.

[/ QUOTE ]
Everyone may not be volunteering, but I am. When you asked what I was receiving from the state on a voluntary basis I presumed you meant that I was volunteering for. I choose to pay my taxes and receive state subsidised services and the benefits and costs of state regulations.

[ QUOTE ]
And I thought we also agreed that the need for the state, in your case, only counted for things that you were not coerced in.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not aware that we've agreed about anything much (other than that it's a bad thing to force people to do something they dont want to) - most of the time I have no idea what your position is because you ignore my questions and just ask something else. I would caution against taking anything I have said to be agreement with you.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm specifically asking for those things because you claimed there were things that you had a need for that was currently handled by the state.

[/ QUOTE ]
Things I need a state for and which they currently handle? OK - the prevention of irrational psychos having free access to nuclear devices. The state prevents that (at least partially) and I'm very happy to continue paying taxes so that they keep doing it. I'll point out that was actually the inital point - I thought it was clear? Perhaps you can go slower rather than quoting a whole post of mine, including several questions and then asking some not obviously related question - I have no experience debating politics.

[Borodog]

Learn to use a quote tag.

Your usual handwaving bunk. "Endemic to the system"? As usual, empty meaningless rhetoric backed up by no argument. Opportunity not always turned into reality? Yet somehow, magically, a bureacrat can turn it into reality? Strawman? Lol, ironyments. Where did I say that you said that every government program yada yada yada? Your claim is that *any* government programs *at all* can reduce transaction costs where, magically, the market cannot. I.e., that somehow (equally magically), a bureaucrat or a politician can think up what an entrepreneur cannot.

The freerider problem? It's been killed, there is no free rider problem on the free market. Freeriders are only a problem under socialism, where the contributor neither bears the brunt of the cost of not acting nor gains the primary benefit of acting. In a free market individuals act in their own interest because they are self-interested and receive the primary benefits of that action, regardless of who else might benefit. The whole idea of "positive externalities" preventing people from taking actions is farcical, since ANY action by anyone can have "positive externalities" because such things are subjective. This logic leads to government subsidy of anything and everything. The classic example of the "freerider problem", used in neoclassical economics textbooks for decades, the lighthouse, was shown to be utter and complete bunk, since private lighthouses were financed and operated around the world for hundreds of years without government intervention. All government monopolization does is act to kill off the profit incentive to find solutions to so-called "freerider problems." Why think of a way to privately finance lighthouses if the government is going to do it?

"Address the transaction costs of AC approaches to IP and defense"? Lol. You have been told numerous times that intellectual property protection under the market will be whatever the market demands; if people believe you can own ideas, then that is damn well what the judges will rule, because otherwise people will stop using them. And if people don't believe you can own ideas, then that is what they will rule as well. Why don't you address the transaction costs of IP under statism, where IP law is whatever the corporations with the biggest bribes say it is, because it is a small cabal of politicians and *monopoly* judges who decide it, rather than the consuming public?

Again you completely sidestep the transaction costs of government provided defense. You know, the transaction costs that are totalling a half a trillion dollars a year but can't stop a few guys from doing billions of dollars of damage with boxcutters? What about those transaction costs?

Why don't you at least once even attempt to show why an organized national defense must be a *monopoly* national defense? Are you under the delusion that people don't organize in the free market? If people need to coordinate for their common defense they are too stupid to figure out how, but politicians and bureaucrats are magically not? Why do you think it is that centralized states get conquered quickly, but decentralized resistances are so difficult for our monolithic armed forces to deal with? Viet Nam ring a bell? Iraq? It took England 700 years to conquer stateless Ireland, which was practically still in the Iron Age. Maginot line FTL?

How many times do you have to lose the same arguments before you abandon them and cease claiming that they "haven't been addressed"?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Learn to use a quote tag.

Your usual handwaving bunk. "Endemic to the system"? As usual, empty meaningless rhetoric backed up by no argument. Opportunity not always turned into reality? Yet somehow, magically, a bureacrat can turn it into reality? Strawman? Lol, ironyments. Where did I say that you said that every government program yada yada yada? Your claim is that *any* government programs *at all* can reduce transaction costs where, magically, the market cannot. I.e., that somehow (equally magically), a bureaucrat or a politician can think up what an entrepreneur cannot.

The freerider problem? It's been killed, there is no free rider problem on the free market. Freeriders are only a problem under socialism, where the contributor neither bears the brunt of the cost of not acting nor gains the primary benefit of acting. In a free market individuals act in their own interest because they are self-interested and receive the primary benefits of that action, regardless of who else might benefit. The whole idea of "positive externalities" preventing people from taking actions is farcical, since ANY action by anyone can have "positive externalities" because such things are subjective. This logic leads to government subsidy of anything and everything. The classic example of the "freerider problem", used in neoclassical economics textbooks for decades, the lighthouse, was shown to be utter and complete bunk, since private lighthouses were financed and operated around the world for hundreds of years without government intervention. All government monopolization does is act to kill off the profit incentive to find solutions to so-called "freerider problems." Why think of a way to privately finance lighthouses if the government is going to do it?

"Address the transaction costs of AC approaches to IP and defense"? Lol. You have been told numerous times that intellectual property protection under the market will be whatever the market demands; if people believe you can own ideas, then that is damn well what the judges will rule, because otherwise people will stop using them. And if people don't believe you can own ideas, then that is what they will rule as well. Why don't you address the transaction costs of IP under statism, where IP law is whatever the corporations with the biggest bribes say it is, because it is a small cabal of politicians and *monopoly* judges who decide it, rather than the consuming public?

Again you completely sidestep the transaction costs of government provided defense. You know, the transaction costs that are totalling a half a trillion dollars a year but can't stop a few guys from doing billions of dollars of damage with boxcutters? What about those transaction costs?

Why don't you at least once even attempt to show why an organized national defense must be a *monopoly* national defense? Are you under the delusion that people don't organize in the free market? If people need to coordinate for their common defense they are too stupid to figure out how, but politicians and bureaucrats are magically not? Why do you think it is that centralized states get conquered quickly, but decentralized resistances are so difficult for our monolithic armed forces to deal with? Viet Nam ring a bell? Iraq? It took England 700 years to conquer stateless Ireland, which was practically still in the Iron Age. Maginot line FTL?

How many times do you have to lose the same arguments before you abandon them and cease claiming that they "haven't been addressed"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll highlight however I damn well please. Layers of quotes are incomprehensible. The arguments have never been lost. when specific questions are asked you respond with your usual crap like "Efficiency is not my problem".

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Learn to use a quote tag.

Your usual handwaving bunk. "Endemic to the system"? As usual, empty meaningless rhetoric backed up by no argument. Opportunity not always turned into reality? Yet somehow, magically, a bureacrat can turn it into reality? Strawman? Lol, ironyments. Where did I say that you said that every government program yada yada yada? Your claim is that *any* government programs *at all* can reduce transaction costs where, magically, the market cannot. I.e., that somehow (equally magically), a bureaucrat or a politician can think up what an entrepreneur cannot.

The freerider problem? It's been killed, there is no free rider problem on the free market. Freeriders are only a problem under socialism, where the contributor neither bears the brunt of the cost of not acting nor gains the primary benefit of acting. In a free market individuals act in their own interest because they are self-interested and receive the primary benefits of that action, regardless of who else might benefit. The whole idea of "positive externalities" preventing people from taking actions is farcical, since ANY action by anyone can have "positive externalities" because such things are subjective. This logic leads to government subsidy of anything and everything. The classic example of the "freerider problem", used in neoclassical economics textbooks for decades, the lighthouse, was shown to be utter and complete bunk, since private lighthouses were financed and operated around the world for hundreds of years without government intervention. All government monopolization does is act to kill off the profit incentive to find solutions to so-called "freerider problems." Why think of a way to privately finance lighthouses if the government is going to do it?

"Address the transaction costs of AC approaches to IP and defense"? Lol. You have been told numerous times that intellectual property protection under the market will be whatever the market demands; if people believe you can own ideas, then that is damn well what the judges will rule, because otherwise people will stop using them. And if people don't believe you can own ideas, then that is what they will rule as well. Why don't you address the transaction costs of IP under statism, where IP law is whatever the corporations with the biggest bribes say it is, because it is a small cabal of politicians and *monopoly* judges who decide it, rather than the consuming public?

Again you completely sidestep the transaction costs of government provided defense. You know, the transaction costs that are totalling a half a trillion dollars a year but can't stop a few guys from doing billions of dollars of damage with boxcutters? What about those transaction costs?

Why don't you at least once even attempt to show why an organized national defense must be a *monopoly* national defense? Are you under the delusion that people don't organize in the free market? If people need to coordinate for their common defense they are too stupid to figure out how, but politicians and bureaucrats are magically not? Why do you think it is that centralized states get conquered quickly, but decentralized resistances are so difficult for our monolithic armed forces to deal with? Viet Nam ring a bell? Iraq? It took England 700 years to conquer stateless Ireland, which was practically still in the Iron Age. Maginot line FTL?

How many times do you have to lose the same arguments before you abandon them and cease claiming that they "haven't been addressed"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll highlight however I damn well please. Layers of quotes are incomprehensible. The arguments have never been lost. when specific questions are asked you respond with your usual crap like "Efficiency is not my problem".

[/ QUOTE ]

I just provided you an entire laundry list of arguments, none of them being "efficiency is not my problem", which I have NEVER stated. Why don't you just once explain how the market, whose entire function is to drive towards economic efficiency by reducing transaction costs, is more "inefficient" than bureaucracy and monopoly? I've asked you this sort of question countless times, but I never seem to get an answer that makes any sense. Only handwaving meaningless rhetoric like "It's endemic to the system."

[Borodog]

And if you find quotes "incomprehensible", I suggest you work on your comprehension.

[bunny]

Any chance for your thoughts on my tidied up question re: how, in an AC society, I could prevent an irrational cult from developing or acquiring nuclear devices for peaceful purposes and then turning around and using them as weapons? Initially I phrased it sloppily, however this was my initial example of something it seems to me is dealt with better by a state.

(Even conceding that some state control leads to irrational people with nuclear weapons - on the face of it it still seems it is safer now than if those people could still get them plus the Church of the Apocalypse or whoever...)

[Borodog]

I don't understand what the problem is. If there is a crazy guy on the street waving a gun around, do people have to wait for him to start shooting to take action? No, of course not. The same is true of "irrational cults" that want nuclear weapons. A nuclear weapon cannot be used defensively nor selectively against an aggressor, hence individuals or their agents are perfectly justified in using force against those seeking to do so.

Is your question really "Who's job is it to keep an eye on cults looking to acquire WMD and prevent them from using them"? I would say that the appriate candidates are insurance companies. You insure yourself against aggression and the insurance companies have huge financial incentives to make sure their clients do not go up in a radioactive mushroom cloud. Insurance companies are large and numerous with vast assets to protect and resources available to do the job. They havefar ranging reinsurance agreements with each other to spread risk out. I am 100% certain that numerous competing AND cooperating such firms could do a VASTLY superior job of protecting people against threats than a monopolist whose one-size-fits-all policies are motivated by politics.

And you *still* haven't explained how your solution to preventing "irrational cults" from gaining nuclear weapons, to create a massive irrational cult to control society and then give it nuclear weapons, makes a lick of [censored] sense. Frankly, I think it's patently insane and have no idea how you could fall for such a ridiculous idea, since you seem to be an otherwise very intelligent guy.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what the problem is. If there is a crazy guy on the street waving a gun around, do people have to wait for him to start shooting to take action? No, of course not. The same is true of "irrational cults" that want nuclear weapons. A nuclear weapon cannot be used defensively nor selectively against an aggressor, hence individuals or their agents are perfectly justified in using force against those seeking to do so.

Is your question really "Who's job is it to keep an eye on cults looking to acquire WMD and prevent them from using them"? I would say that the appriate candidates are insurance companies. You insure yourself against aggression and the insurance companies have huge financial incentives to make sure their clients do not go up in a radioactive mushroom cloud. Insurance companies are large and numerous with vast assets to protect and resources available to do the job. They havefar ranging reinsurance agreements with each other to spread risk out. I am 100% certain that numerous competing AND cooperating such firms could do a VASTLY superior job of protecting people against threats than a monopolist whose one-size-fits-all policies are motivated by politics.

[/ QUOTE ]
The line of when a pre-emptive strike is OK seems grey to me. We live in a world with nuclear weapons and wackos who think the end of the world would be a good thing. Being wacko doesnt make them dumb though - they're not going to laugh maniacally as they go in to pick up the components of a nuclear device. The scenario I am envisioning doesnt seem far fetched - a charismatic loony founds a sect with an above board facade claiming it will use nuclear devices for peaceful purposes. Once it has access, the loon decides its apocalypse time. I cant see how an AC solution can allow anyone to intervene based on what they suspect the cult is up to.

[ QUOTE ]
And you *still* haven't explained how your solution to preventing "irrational cults" from gaining nuclear weapons, to create a massive irrational cult to control society and then give it nuclear weapons, makes a lick of [censored] sense. Frankly, I think it's patently insane and have no idea how you could fall for such a ridiculous idea, since you seem to be an otherwise very intelligent guy.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am in the position of supporting the ideals of an AC society, but have some concerns as to how some problems will be solved. Some of them have been answered - I no longer worry about whether there would be roads, whether billionaires would incarcerate the rest of us and make us slaves, etcetera etcetera. Nonetheless, there are some things I think a state does better and they worry me enough to stick with the devil I know. (Not that I'm in any position to really do anything anyhow)

The areas I worry about are essentially those which require a fast resolution and where there is a point-of-no-return (ie the nuclear apocalypse). A state can pre-emptively resolve the problem easily enough. I dont expect ACists to have everything worked out in detail - that's obviously counter to the whole thrust of AC. I do expect there to be some assurance that a solution is possible.

Another example (though weaker) is the state response to CFCs - states could legislate against the damage to the ozone layer before the damage had progressed too far. Waiting til people had suffered damage and could therefore sue would have taken much longer (not to mention the problems associated with who to sue). States bring the problems of coercion and monopoly, but there are also some situations where they have the advantage of speedy response.

Ultimately, I am not claiming that states have a better solution to these problems. My position is that I know what the state solution is - it's not perfect, but I know there is an answer. I am leery of jumping into supporting an alternative scheme for structuring society without hearing at least some possibilities for how these problems might be addressed.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone may not be volunteering, but I am. When you asked what I was receiving from the state on a voluntary basis I presumed you meant that I was volunteering for. I choose to pay my taxes and receive state subsidised services and the benefits and costs of state regulations.

[/ QUOTE ]
How does this square with you not being responsible for the actions of Howards government?

chez