My "Political Philosophy"

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying you have made me a believer, but I always like and trust realistic idealists a lot more than I like and trust the fully optimistic ones.

[/ QUOTE ]


I've never understood what people mean by this. Can you elaborate as clearly as possible?

[tame_deuces]

Hmmm, sure I can.

I work in organizational consulting, which basically means I get to work out solutions for how certain tasks should be organized. For doing task A, we have solution B.

Fully optimistic idealist goes 'Oh, with solution B we'll increase capacity, have higher efficiency, have less overtime. It's splendid, let us implement.'

Realistic idealist goes 'I agree with all things he said, but I expect some people to get angry because the routines change, we will have to expect some conflicts amongst the workers who want overtime and our efficiency for the next 6 months might be reduced as the employees need time to get used to the new system and we might have to rehire if someone decides to leave us. After that I expect things will pick up and in 2 years or so the profit margins should be bigger from going with this solution'

Both want the same, but the realist is probably the best man for the company.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The number of things I think we "need" a state for a very small (and diminishing).

[/ QUOTE ]

Needing a state implies choosing a state. Is the state voluntary or coercive?

[/ QUOTE ]
Both? Once enough people volunteer to assist it, it coerces the rest? Not sure what you mean, but I was merely responding to Borodog who seemed to think I was advocating a state because we need to be protected from a whole host of things.

I'm not really, I'd love an anarchist society if it would work but struggle to think of ways some things I consider problems would be addressed. Perhaps I'm too cautious and should just leap in trusting that the market will sort it out. However, I'm not going to if there's no way of solving the "problems" I am scared of.

[calmB4storm]

[ QUOTE ]
The irony of this is amazing. You are the one who claims there is one simple solution for complex problems: monopoly and violence. I am the one who realizes that the best possible way to search a vast solution space is to allow many competitors to investigate that space and allow consumers to choose the best solutions. Market solutions are often anything but "simple". Do you have any idea how complicated it is to make a pencil? No human being on earth could do it. It requires the coordination of literally millions of people, none of whom do their part because they want a pencil. The complete production process for this simplest of modern day devices would be literally impossible to even document fully, much less centrally plan. For a *pencil*.

The beauty of the market is precisely that it produces incredibly complex coordinated solutions without central planning because of the logic of a few simple things; self interest via mutual accomodation, the division of labor and exchange. It is the logic that produces the solutions that is elementary, not the solutions.

[ QUOTE ]
and that my rhetoric radar flies through the roof when a theory for how society should be apparently has no flaws.

[/ QUOTE ]

This again. Who said it doesn't have flaws? A free market anarchic society is made up of *human beings*, who are flawed. There will be murder, rape, theft, hunger, natural disasters, pain and suffering, all the normal things associated with being human. The question is, what is the best process to try to solve these types of problems in the best possible way? I claim nothing more than that a process based on competition and selection will be better at finding solutions than a process based on monopoly and the coercive institutionalization of monopoly solutions. That's it. Nothing more.

[/ QUOTE ]







[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] Borodog

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm, sure I can.

I work in organizational consulting, which basically means I get to work out solutions for how certain tasks should be organized. For doing task A, we have solution B.

Fully optimistic idealist goes 'Oh, with solution B we'll increase capacity, have higher efficiency, have less overtime. It's splendid, let us implement.'

Realistic idealist goes 'I agree with all things he said, but I expect some people to get angry because the routines change, we will have to expect some conflicts amongst the workers who want overtime and our efficiency for the next 6 months might be reduced as the employees need time to get used to the new system and we might have to rehire if someone decides to leave us. After that I expect things will pick up and in 2 years or so the profit margins should be bigger from going with this solution'

Both want the same, but the realist is probably the best man for the company.



[/ QUOTE ]


So what does that have to do with what we were discussing?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The number of things I think we "need" a state for a very small (and diminishing).

[/ QUOTE ]

Needing a state implies choosing a state. Is the state voluntary or coercive?

[/ QUOTE ]
Both? Once enough people volunteer to assist it, it coerces the rest? Not sure what you mean, but I was merely responding to Borodog who seemed to think I was advocating a state because we need to be protected from a whole host of things.

[/ QUOTE ]

People act according to their values. So when you say that there is a need for the state, then you are implying that it is a business. If people needed the state, then why does the state need to coerce people? Does not the fact that all the things the state does (propaganda, lies, threats, violence) to pull off what it does show that it is the opposite of what you are saying? That the degree to which we are forced is the degree that we *don't* want it.

So what I'm doing here is attacking your unspoken premise, namely that it's a voluntary organization. What others would do, like Boro, is to question those supposed needs, and compare them to the market mechanism. But I don't accept your basic premise; namely that the state provides something people want, and then they choose it.

[shark steak]

I think it isnt leagal for him to state his political thoughts over here! [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The number of things I think we "need" a state for a very small (and diminishing).

[/ QUOTE ]

Needing a state implies choosing a state. Is the state voluntary or coercive?

[/ QUOTE ]
Both? Once enough people volunteer to assist it, it coerces the rest? Not sure what you mean, but I was merely responding to Borodog who seemed to think I was advocating a state because we need to be protected from a whole host of things.

[/ QUOTE ]

People act according to their values. So when you say that there is a need for the state, then you are implying that it is a business.

[/ QUOTE ]
This seems another strange way of using words. I need oxygen but dont think it's a business. (I expect that's not what you meant, my point though is that people who havent thought much about political philosophy much (ie me) need the gaps filled in in arguments like the one you made here.)

[ QUOTE ]
If people needed the state, then why does the state need to coerce people? Does not the fact that all the things the state does (propaganda, lies, threats, violence) to pull off what it does show that it is the opposite of what you are saying? That the degree to which we are forced is the degree that we *don't* want it.

So what I'm doing here is attacking your unspoken premise, namely that it's a voluntary organization. What others would do, like Boro, is to question those supposed needs, and compare them to the market mechanism. But I don't accept your basic premise; namely that the state provides something people want, and then they choose it.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not my premise. My claim is that the state provides something that some people want and others dont. The ones that want it coerce the rest. Some people are voluntarily members of the state - whether because they dont know any better or because they choose it is not something I have any clue on. The ones who dont want it are coerced by the ones who do. (Here again I'm confused on your word choice as you asked "If people needed the state, then why does the state need to coerce people?" but previously have claimed I cant ascribe action to a state)

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

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The number of things I think we "need" a state for a very small (and diminishing).

[/ QUOTE ]

Needing a state implies choosing a state. Is the state voluntary or coercive?

[/ QUOTE ]
Both? Once enough people volunteer to assist it, it coerces the rest? Not sure what you mean, but I was merely responding to Borodog who seemed to think I was advocating a state because we need to be protected from a whole host of things.

[/ QUOTE ]

People act according to their values. So when you say that there is a need for the state, then you are implying that it is a business.

[/ QUOTE ]
This seems another strange way of using words. I need oxygen but dont think it's a business. (I expect that's not what you meant, my point though is that people who havent thought much about political philosophy much (ie me) need the gaps filled in in arguments like the one you made here.)

[ QUOTE ]
If people needed the state, then why does the state need to coerce people? Does not the fact that all the things the state does (propaganda, lies, threats, violence) to pull off what it does show that it is the opposite of what you are saying? That the degree to which we are forced is the degree that we *don't* want it.

So what I'm doing here is attacking your unspoken premise, namely that it's a voluntary organization. What others would do, like Boro, is to question those supposed needs, and compare them to the market mechanism. But I don't accept your basic premise; namely that the state provides something people want, and then they choose it.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not my premise. My claim is that the state provides something that some people want and others dont. The ones that want it coerce the rest. Some people are voluntarily members of the state - whether because they dont know any better or because they choose it is not something I have any clue on. The ones who dont want it are coerced by the ones who do. (Here again I'm confused on your word choice as you asked "If people needed the state, then why does the state need to coerce people?" but previously have claimed I cant ascribe action to a state)

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Most ACists will insist that a "state" can't act (or a corporation or any other association) only individuals. I am fairly certain that Nielsio also maintains that position, so its interesting to see him not choosing his words more careful.

Of course the choice of words like "coercion" and "violence" to describe the situation that arises in any voluntary association that doesnt have unaninimity in all areas is propoganda in and of itself.

Ultimately it boils down to a "put up with it or leave it" argument to distinguish between "voluntary" and "coerced". The ACists will then retreat to the barriers to "leaving it", especially in large associations, like the Federal government. A careful reading of those barriers though reveals that "leaving it" means giving up the benefits that they enjoy, and is thus highly hypocritical. The ultimate in hypocrisy disguised as expediency is Borodog's working for the Government.

You are also not wrong for asking for concrete examples of how something will work better under AC then under statism. Whether they like it or not there is a functioning state. It isnt perfect but it works pretty damn well, especially in those areas that you are likely to be questioning. When challenged in those areas the fallback position is almost always "yes but those problems are inherent in statism too", not accepting that they have a burden of proof of superiority or at least equality in important areas. 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". To which I say B.F.S., that is clearly part of the burden of any theoretical alternative that is supposedly superior.

[Borodog]

[ 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.