1. Is the FED more powerful than government? If so does this not prove that in a truly free market, corporations would work together to form their own central banking system (which deviates from the gold standard) and potentially a state, much like how Rockefeller helped create the FED in the first place. After all the FED is a private company...or is it only because of state regulation, subsidisation, elusive secrecy (the "people's" bank) and protection from bank runs that help maintain the FED? I understand that in theory monopolies cannot obtain under voluntaryism, but that is not exactly my question; my question is really whether politics have more influence over capital or capital more influence over politics. Who owns who, so to speak?
2. Under voluntaryism, would the entrepeneur not be likely to install toll boothes on every stretch of road and pavement? It would cost me a lot just to walk to the shops in such a scenario! Haha.
3. How do you propose keeping bankers from deviating from the gold standard, as clearly they have been all to willing to do so, historically... :(
4. A foreign state cannot invade an anarchy because there is no centralised power scheme to infiltrate and most people own a private protection agency to protect their land. That seems a good system, but what if a foreign state were to sneakily fund a private protection agency to form a monopoly on coercion and subsequently a new state?
5. What happens if two people who have a conflict pay for courts that have different rulings in the free market?
6. Can you prosecute someone on the behalf of their victim? For instance a murdered man cannot launch a prosecution himself, etc.
I had some more questions but can't think of them at the moment...
... Ah yeah, back when I was a 'socialist', I posted this: http://syndicalistlibertarianism.blogspot.com/. Just wondering if anyone had any responses to the points I made there, cheers.
1. No. The Fed can only be that powerful through being protected by the state. Which is only possible because of peoples superstitions about the usefulness of the state. Private companies couldn't pull that off.
2. Not if he competes for customers. The only problem I could come up with is that the road owner would be so rich that he doesn't care about the profits. Meaning it's worth the losses for him to harass some people he doesn't like, for example a religious or ethnic group. Anyone got a response to that?
3. I wouldn't support such centralized control. This is a complicated issue and there have been whole threads about this. This one comes to mind. My short answer would be that any bank could offer any currency they want and customers would prefer those backed by commodities.
4. I realize that complete anarchy is problematic as long as there are still authoritarian states in the world. In my mind anarchy is not something that some regions implement while the rest of the world still are authoritarian dictatorships. Rather, all countries gradually build down their state involvement in the economy as they are becomming more economically interdependent. At the point where some countries decide to outright abolish the state there won't be any evil dictatorships around any more.
5. Read The Machinery of Freedom. It's free. Short answer is that there would be higher layers of courts that they hand the decision to. Also, fighting legal battes is expensive and keeps you from engaging in profitable work, so everyone has an incentive to accept a slightly imperfect ruling rather than to keep fighting.
6. I think so. It's in the book if you care about the details.
As for your blogpost. I read that back when you mentioned it in the other thread. I wrote a partial response, and never posted it. I will write a new response and post it in this thread.
1. In order for the FED to exist it requires the government to enforce it. Without the government the FED (as it is now) wouldn't exist.
2. While they *can* install toll booths on every stretch of road it's more likely they'll charge the shop owners. Think of a mall, you aren't charged to enter a mall but rather the cost of upkeep on the mall is covered by the shop owners who get customers because the mall exists. If I am a shop owner I am going to want my customers to have easy access to my shop, this likely means a well maintained road system, mass transit system, etc.
3. In a free market there is competition in all ventures which includes banking. There is no need to keep bankers on the gold standard unless that is what the consumer wants. Some consumers may desire a wholely unbacked currency while others may desire fractional reserve backing and yet others full reserve backing.
4. Nothing, but realize that these foreign states would need to serve their customers in such a way as to be competative in the market. This reminds me of Austin Powers (movie) where Dr. Evil comes back and his evil empire is making boatloads of money legitimately yet he still wants to be evil about the whole thing. If someone can effectively run a business and get wealthy that way, what motive is there for domination? I understand that this is a subjective argument so the short answer is there isn't anything stopping that. Once they revealed their purpose as secret hostile takeover though they would immediately lose almost all of their business and the market can come up with competitors *very* fast when it's needed.
5. I would suggest a separate topic for this one as it is the most controversial.
6. Insurance solves this problem. If I have murder insurance then when I am killed the insurance agency has to give a ton of money to someone. The insurance agency would rather not have to give up all that money so they have incentive to locate and get the money out of the person who killed me so they get their money back.
EvilSocialistFellow:1. Is the FED more powerful than government?
The FED is part of government.
EvilSocialistFellow:2. Under voluntaryism, would the entrepeneur not be likely to install toll boothes on every stretch of road and pavement? It would cost me a lot just to walk to the shops in such a scenario! Haha.
The toll road operator who makes the road most convenient will get all of the business.
EvilSocialistFellow:3. How do you propose keeping bankers from deviating from the gold standard, as clearly they have been all to willing to do so, historically... :(
Free market in money, runs on banks.
EvilSocialistFellow:4. A foreign state cannot invade an anarchy because there is no centralised power scheme to infiltrate and most people own a private protection agency to protect their land. That seems a good system, but what if a foreign state were to sneakily fund a private protection agency to form a monopoly on coercion and subsequently a new state?
We're back to where we started.
EvilSocialistFellow:5. What happens if two people who have a conflict pay for courts that have different rulings in the free market?
Don't know. Arbitration. Stalemate. 3rd party brought in break the tie.
EvilSocialistFellow:6. Can you prosecute someone on the behalf of their victim? For instance a murdered man cannot launch a prosecution himself, etc.
Would depend on the norms of the community and the local legal traditions.
EvilSocialistFellow:I had some more questions but can't think of them at the moment...
These questions are not dumb. They are very smart. I think you're starting to understand the free market approach better.
Some of these answers are quite good, cheers :D
What is the voluntaryist stance on prisons vs. outlawry? I tend to lean towards prison since I believe it is important to protect the individual rights of could be victims but only for more serious crimes, like rape, murder, etc. I oppose capital punishment not so much on an ethical basis but on the basis that offenders have no chance to reappeal or disprove the allegations launched against them. In prison, however, they may reappeal. That said, I do not oppose the prisoners right to commit suicide, e.g. by means of lethal injection.
Or what if he blocks the road from potential business competitors, hence driving away competition in order to protect his own monopoly?
4. Nothing, but realize that these foreign states would need to serve their customers in such a way as to be competative in the market
Huh? But states aren't market entities and thereby do not have to serve their customers...
EvilSocialistFellow:1. Is the FED more powerful than government? If so does this not prove that in a truly free market, corporations would work together to form their own central banking system (which deviates from the gold standard) and potentially a state, much like how Rockefeller helped create the FED in the first place. After all the FED is a private company...or is it only because of state regulation, subsidisation, elusive secrecy (the "people's" bank) and protection from bank runs that help maintain the FED? I understand that in theory monopolies cannot obtain under voluntaryism, but that is not exactly my question; my question is really whether politics have more influence over capital or capital more influence over politics. Who owns who, so to speak?
Agree with LS here. Fed IS governement. They only exist due to a violenetly enforced monopoly
They could, or they could not. But most likely they will figure out ways to collect money that make using their road the easiest and cheapest option for the consumers.
Competition. I would rather accept currency backed by 100% commodity than one that isn't
Again, LS stated it well: back to square one.
This I am not sure of since we really don't know how a free market would handle this. I'm sure though, that competing entities will come to a better and more fair solution to the problem than the current violent monopoly has.
Here's an article by Rothbard that deals with this subject: http://mises.org/daily/4468
Btw, if I have not responded to a point it is because I feel it has sufficiently addressed my question so don't take offense :P
J.R.M.:Again, LS stated it well: back to square one.
But, then we have a state again? Surely the violence involved in recreating the state would not have been worth it? I think Nero was correct to point out anarchy cannot be established without foreign states being reduced in size themselves, so to speak. I think this is where you and LS are coming from also (*think*)
As it happens I read this a while back but had a few objections in my head (though some are probably forgotten) like what about the pacifist that doesn't make a will, or what about the pacifist that objects to his killer being prosecuted but then his killer goes out and kills someone else. Also, would not such a legal system essentially revert to the lex tallionis - an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc. (I say this because as I recall he advocates something like equal retribution for the crime committed - you kill, you die and so forth - but when taken to the logical extreme of, say, you get drunk and attack someone you must also suffer a broken jaw as consequence, things start getting a tad ridiculous - though I may have misunderstood and Rothbard would actually advocate a financial recompensation of sorts in such a scenario). Also it is all very well to favour individualism over utilitarianism (a stance I mostly favour) but the individual rights of others besides the victim are also important if the agressor could potentially strike again, so to speak (hence explaining why some liberals bring up the 'greatest good for the greatest number of people' arguments, advocating rehabilitation, community service and what not - though I do not necessarily agree, admittedly).
I also have objections to capital punishment where the evidence is not always conclusive (I have no problems with capital punishment when the killer is clearly guilty - e.g. irrefutably CCTV footage) because it means the suspect never has a chance to reappeal. Hence, I personally prefer life imprisonment. What about crimes of passion or crimes on diminished responsibility (though I realise Mises' disagrees with light punishment for diminished responsibility in human action on the grounds of all action being rational).
EvilSocialistFellow:... Ah yeah, back when I was a 'socialist', I posted this: http://syndicalistlibertarianism.blogspot.com/. Just wondering if anyone had any responses to the points I made there, cheers.
I must say, I never quite understood that last part. So if I missed the point and it's something you still believe, then let me know.
It is also questionable which bodies should be accountable; for instance, should increased levels of CO2 emissions be held down to car manufacturers? Car users? ... Who is to blame and for what?
It's not really important. We could for example tax oil at the point of production for the potential environmental damage, and that cost would be passed on to car manufacturers, car users and such.
Which of the numerous and growing environmental concerns that *could* be responsible for cancer?
Environmental problems are not growing. They are the least threatening ever.
Then there is the issue of court hearings and *which* body they are most likely to favour - will it be the ordinary, everyday non-propertied citizen/group of citizens (in fact the propertyless cannot even really sue given the fact they do not own capital or land affected in some way by pollution) or will it be the propertied entrepeneur?
Everyone at least owns themselves, so even the propertyless can sue over for example being exposed to air pollution. Although I doubt there will be too many propertyless in a radically free market.
State owned courts tend to be the least accountable branches of the state and it is quite clear who private judicial systems would be more likely to favour given the bodies they are most likely to receive their funding from.
We have no reason to believe that private courts would favor the rich. Their greatest incentive is to appear fair to attract customers. Also, in a radically free market society wealth would be far less concentrated. I think I responded to this part in the other thread.
Then there is the concern that successfully pursued court cases will mean that the amount a company is sued is lower than the costs they saved by pursuing a non-environmental course of action. Even when the case is successful, the damage to the environment is lasting; at best we can only argue that the threat of court cases would prevent environmental damage in the first place.
The damage done by for example dumping waste is more than what you save by dumping it, you are always imposing a disproportionately greater damage. Therefore the fines for environmental crimes (the cost of cleanup and proper disposal) would always be higher than the savings.
Only resources of commercial interest are preserved; it may be more profitable in the long run for a paper supplier to find a way of preserving a forest (assuming it is his own forest) rather than felling trees without replanting them (for example) but it may be even more profitable for the property owner to chop down the entire forest to build a farm or corporation. It might be more profitable for owners to preserve the wildlife in a lake district for tourist purposes; there again it might be even more profitable for them to transform it into a toxic waste disposal site.
Resources without commercial value are not worth saving. You have to remember that everything comes at a cost. More forests means fewer machines for cancer treatment. We have to decide what we want and environmental protection is not always th desirable good. Environmental protection is not a good that is categorically valued above everything else. Luckily we have the market to guide us, the most profitable venture for the capitalist will also be the most valuable for humanity. If chopping down a forest to build a factory is the most profitable for the owner, then that's what makes humanity the richest, through what that factory produces, which we wouldn't have had otherwise. Humanity needs toxic waste disposal sites. Although it is likely that less environmentally valuable areas will be used for building factories and waste disposal sites, not prime wildlife reserves. They have greater value as hunting or leisure areas. Also remember that environmental damage is rarely permanent. We chop the forest down now, but it will grow back once we are rich and have the luxury to maintain the environment.
The consumer doesn't know whether a company saved itself costs by reducing health and safety measures, allowing one of its employees to take an injury (hence a non-environmental example of "passing on the cost"), whether it released chemical toxins into the environment poisoning the neighbouring community and so forth.
Non-environmental externalities don't exist. A company can't save costs by reducing safety measures. That is because safety measures exist in the first place because companies compete for labor, so called compensating differentials. A company for example has a safety measure costing 1000 Dollars because that attracts workers that will produce 2000 Dollars. If a company reduces safety measures it will lose that productivity and therefore make less profit. So the company had to bear the cost itself. Externalities are only possible when there's collective damage, e.g. air pollution.
That being said, you are, somewhat tediously, making the argument that the market does not take environmental externalities into account, and therefore overvalues environmental destruction. That is true, but the problem really only exists as long as there are commonly owned resources that companies can pollute without anyone suing them over it. I.e. the losses are socialized. In other words, environmental degradation is a socialist (non-propertarian) problem. And in fact every example where "the market fails" to protect the environment is an example where a resource is outside of the market, i.e. not privately owned. The conclusion therefore should not be that propertarianism failed, but that it wasn't applied thoroughly enough.
I am personally a fan of reparations rather than punishment. Also, I think something people often get stuck on is the utopian ideal that all crime can be avoided. No matter what form of government you have there will always be crime. The goal is to make it so such crimes have the least impact on society. If someone is set on killing someone else whether you have capital punishment, life in prison, rehabilitation or reparations it doesn't matter because they are set on killing someone. The goal is to make it so their murder results in as little harm to the overall system as possible.
The human body is a good example of this. The human body accepts that cells will die or be damaged. It is built in such a way though to minimize the effect on the human as a whole. If you try to build a system that removes all crime then you are left with a utopia as the only option. If you first accept that crime will happen then you want to look for ways to minimize it's effect on society.
Reparations takes the approach of accepting crime will happen and acting reactively to it in the most efficient way possible. Proactive policing in my opinion is far too fuzzy to deal with and leads inevitably (opinion) to the state.
Example: Drunk drivers have a tendancy to kill people with their cars. We can do things like are done now to make it illegal to drink and drive, or ban alcohol, etc. Alternatively we can let people behave how they want and when they do kill someone with their car make them pay for the damages (free market insurance allows us to put a price tag on everything, including human life). While this may sound appauling to some it has the result of both detering drunk driving to some extent while also reducing the net damage done to society when it does occur.
If you take the state approach and try to police drunk driving and/or ban alcohol you end up hurting the society more due to wasting a whole lot more resources trying to catch drunk drivers, keep alcohol off the streets, etc. than you gain by saving a life every now and then.
Example: Drunk drivers have a tendancy to kill people with their cars. We can do things like are done now to make it illegal to drink and drive, or ban alcohol, etc. Alternatively we can let people behave how they want and when they do kill someone with their car make them pay for the damages (free market insurance allows us to put a price tag on everything, including human life). While this may sound appauling to some it has the result of both detering drunk driving to some extent while also reducing the net damage done to society when it does occur. If you take the state approach and try to police drunk driving and/or ban alcohol you end up hurting the society more due to wasting a whole lot more resources trying to catch drunk drivers, keep alcohol off the streets, etc. than you gain by saving a life every now and then.
I'm a bit idealistic, so forgive me on this one. I'd like to ask, if we "remove" all crime, wouldn't people focus on something else, something that isn't necessary criminal?
You are making it sound as if crime is necessary, it is, it "creates" jobs for policemen. But then again, we could be able to spend that money on something else rather then fighting crime.
On the other hand we can't spend our money on something else as long as crime exists, therefore crime must be removed and it is important that we get the right approach.
Example: Is it ok to stop drunk drivers who aren't doing anything to disrupt other drivers?
Obviously not, we don't stop drunk drivers because we hate drunks, we stop drunk drivers because they endanger our life in the streets. You can be incredibly drunk, but if you aren't doing anything stupid on the road, you will most likely not be stopped.
It seems I have misrepresented my point. I am not claiming that crime has a positive effect on society, I am claiming that the costs associated with preventing it are higher than the costs associated with letting it happen and then seeking retribution afterwards.
The closest we can get to eliminating all crime is locking all humans in prison. Obviously, the costs associated with this outweigh the costs associated with having some crime. It is my opinion that this is linear and the further away we get from preventing crime the lower the costs are to society.
A good example of this in the modern world is TSA in the US. The costst associated with the increased airport security outweigh the costs associated with the 9/11 attack. This is especially true when you start considering the economic losses associated with time wasted at the airport getting through security, the time wasted on outrage against TSA and the costs of the security itself.
I know this is an appauling concept to some and I do not expect everyone to side with me on it. Please consider that if you truely want crime reduction would you be willing to be imprisoned for your own safety? What about house arrest? What about confined to your neighborhood? What about giving up all of your privacy?
Sorry, my bad, I misinterpreted you.
Is the FED more powerful than government? If so does this not prove that in a truly free market, corporations would work together to form their own central banking system
I believe that his question is based on one very popular fallacy, please correct me if I am making a straw-man. The fallacy actually has the following two different independent premises, from which is derived the conclusion that is contained in your first question. The first premise is:
1) the fed is privately owned, so it will do whatever it likes, so it is more powerful than the government.
The answer to this fallacy is as follows: it does not matter who owns the FED what matters is that its decisions are backed up by the State's force. so no matter what is the content of each particular decision the key here is that it is enforced thanks to the support of the central apparatus of coercion. So this makes them actually State's decisions after all , since the State is the one which controls the force and say whether or not it should back up what the FED wants to implement.
2) The FED prints the money, so it is more powerful than the State. Well, who in the first place granted the FED the monopoly over emitting money base and making other banking regulation. The answer is - the STATE.
Micah71381:A good example of this in the modern world is TSA in the US. The costst associated with the increased airport security outweigh the costs associated with the 9/11 attack. This is especially true when you start considering the economic losses associated with time wasted at the airport getting through security, the time wasted on outrage against TSA and the costs of the security itself. I know this is an appauling concept to some and I do not expect everyone to side with me on it. Please consider that if you truely want crime reduction would you be willing to be imprisoned for your own safety? What about house arrest? What about confined to your neighborhood? What about giving up all of your privacy?
This is an article by Bob Murphy covering this exact topic, "Privatizing Air Security":
http://mises.org/daily/4873
Interesting responses everyone, I will read them all more closely in a tick.
EmperorNero:...
You will have to excuse me for some of the assumptions I made in that blog were based on false premises logical fallacies that I would not make so easily now.
My main points were towards the end/the last half so I guess this is fairly important (and my weakest arguments piled together at the beginning somewhat embarassingly).
The last part was basically referring to the idea that 'the distortion of market signals can lead to over-evaluation of a companies potential green credentials and overall profitability leading to overproduction and resultant boom and bust periods which destroy the green market' - in other words mal-investments lead to overproduction of overrated . However I can now see that high levels of public spending on money printing are an even higher cause of this issue and, as you have explained, the market signals do not get distorted in a free market. Furthermore, there would be no investments possible under pure central planning, so the potential of mal-investments is a lesser evil.
Also that 'there is a misperception of demand due to income inequality which means green alternatives are less likely to be invested in '''. Firstly I phrased this wrong, what I really meant was desire, not demand since demand is only desire backed by sufficient purchasing power (I desire a fleet of volkswagons and a house the size of the Esterhazy courts but have no sufficient purchasing power, thereby there is no market demand for such items). So my point when I wrote the blog post was basically that, environmentally friendly products cannot be purchased by the average man (caused by income equality caused by 'evil capitalism'), hence there may be desire but no subsequent market demand and that investors would underrate the potential market for such goods and services. But average incomes would probably be far higher in a free market in any case. Subsequent investment in such products would be far greater, furthermore, there would be no investment under central planning let alone ecological investments.
I just have a small grip with this point...wouldn't taxation be illegitimate under voluntaryism?
Ok, but how would you trace the source of them? That said, how would a socialist government trace the source of them?
Everyone at least owns themselves, so even the propertyless can sue over for example being exposed to air pollution. Although I doubt there will be too many propertyless in a radically free market. We have no reason to believe that private courts would favor the rich. Their greatest incentive is to appear fair to attract customers. Also, in a radically free market society wealth would be far less concentrated. I think I responded to this part in the other thread.
Yeah, I know more about how private courts would operate now, so that is pretty much ok.
Overall a good refutation
Micah71381:It seems I have misrepresented my point. I am not claiming that crime has a positive effect on society, I am claiming that the costs associated with preventing it are higher than the costs associated with letting it happen and then seeking retribution afterwards.
I have a problem with this namely that it is quite possibly worth sacrificing high levels of economic activity in certain cases to save human life, for example:
This is quite possibly true, but I would have been happy to see more money spent on maintaining Airport Security than to have seen the atrocity of 9/11 (as relatively cheap the costs were to the economy when compared to the atrocious amount of money spent on TSA, anyhow). That is not to say of course that I believe government security is necessarily better than private security (not relevant to this discussion - though I believe private security would be more efficient, personally), I am just attacking the stance that 'the cost of repairing the damage done to property during 9/11 - the twin towers, etc. - was less than the cost on overall security, thereby it would be cheaper to narrow done security costs in future situations for the sake of the economy'.
Also, a loss of human life is a loss to the economy -> a loss of builders, carpenters, plumbers, bankers, investors, executives, doctors and so forth and so forth. Hence, it is certainly worth the cost in my opinion.
In your drink driving scenario, I would be perfectly happy to see private bodies testing drivers for levels of alcohol than to see the criminal damage done in the first place, even if it is a net loss to the country's economy (lives being more important and all the rest).
Do you support outlawry over prison? If so, surely the damage done to the economy by offenders let loose is greater than keeping them behind bars? My thoughts were that prison wardens could sell the goods produced by prisons on the market and use the profits to provide better prison infrastructures/standards of livings/more security for the prisoners in exchange. They are simply kept there for the safety of other would-be victims.
Micah71381:Also, I think something people often get stuck on is the utopian ideal that all crime can be avoided. No matter what form of government you have there will always be crime. The goal is to make it so such crimes have the least impact on society. If someone is set on killing someone else whether you have capital punishment, life in prison, rehabilitation or reparations it doesn't matter because they are set on killing someone. The goal is to make it so their murder results in as little harm to the overall system as possible.
My question was not utopian in nature, rather it was the concern over whether certain crime procedures under the free market would be more short-sighted or less efficient than certain crime procedures under the state. An example would be the individualist approach, favoured over the utilitarian approach, which partially suggests that it is the individual rights (or loss of rights) of all involved in a conflict - both victim and criminal - that we are concerned with and not so much bettering society as a whole. However, clearly the individual rights of other would-be victims is also important, hence why I argue against no justice for an offender if the victim is say a pacifist who explicitly rejects prosecution under such a scenario. The thief who steals from a rather more lenient family (who press no charges) is free to steal from another family in the future (who would not be so happy).
Furthermore, I am concerned with capital punishment as crime retribution not on ethical grounds but for the purpose that the offender never has the opportunity to reappeal. Hence, I propose that capital punishment is used only in the case that there is irrefutable evidence, such as video footage.
By the way, I am taking this stance assuming that crime deterrance does not exist, that 'punishing evil' is irrelevant, rehabilitation is also irrelevant and that the only relevance of legal justice is to protect the rights of citizens and succesfully cause a zero percent reoffence rate (the murder who is subjected to capital punishment can never reoffend).
Also, I propose the crimes of passion are not punished by capital punishment, since the woman who has a vengeance motif against her rapist whom she subsequently murders bears no threat to others (unless they too committ a similar atrocity against her body), again meaning that punishment is not necessary since there is a zero percent reoffence rate.
Obviously, we still have to spend money on stopping crime. It's more important that the money is spent in a good way so that it doesn't ruin the economy.
On the other hand, crime ruins the economy, that must be stopped.
What if they trained the pilots in fighting techniques and allowed them to wear a gun onboard? Wouldn't that be better?
A.G.B:What if they trained the pilots in fighting techniques and allowed them to wear a gun onboard? Wouldn't that be better?
I saw Ron Paul advocating this when talking about Somalia.
What if these pilots allowed with a gun onboard are secret terrorists themselves? It is obviously different with a ferry of cargo (referring to the incidents of priacy on the Somalian coasts) but with the potential havok a plane could reak it is a completely different kettle of fish...
J.R.M.:Competition. I would rather accept currency backed by 100% commodity than one that isn't
Small point here, how would you, the consumer, know that currency is 100% backed by commodity.
EvilSocialistFellow: Micah71381:It seems I have misrepresented my point. I am not claiming that crime has a positive effect on society, I am claiming that the costs associated with preventing it are higher than the costs associated with letting it happen and then seeking retribution afterwards. I have a problem with this namely that it is quite possibly worth sacrificing high levels of economic activity in certain cases to save human life, for example: A good example of this in the modern world is TSA in the US. The costst associated with the increased airport security outweigh the costs associated with the 9/11 attack. This is especially true when you start considering the economic losses associated with time wasted at the airport getting through security, the time wasted on outrage against TSA and the costs of the security itself. This is quite possibly true, but I would have been happy to see more money spent on maintaining Airport Security than to have seen the atrocity of 9/11 (as relatively cheap the costs were to the economy when compared to the atrocious amount of money spent on TSA, anyhow). That is not to say of course that I believe government security is necessarily better than private security (not relevant to this discussion - though I believe private security would be more efficient, personally), I am just attacking the stance that 'the cost of repairing the damage done to property during 9/11 - the twin towers, etc. - was less than the cost on overall security, thereby it would be cheaper to narrow done security costs in future situations for the sake of the economy'. Also, a loss of human life is a loss to the economy -> a loss of builders, carpenters, plumbers, bankers, investors, executives, doctors and so forth and so forth. Hence, it is certainly worth the cost in my opinion. In your drink driving scenario, I would be perfectly happy to see private bodies testing drivers for levels of alcohol than to see the criminal damage done in the first place, even if it is a net loss to the country's economy (lives being more important and all the rest).
I fully agree that human life is a very costly loss. However, I also believe it can be valued through insurance. Life insurance specifically allows the market to determine the value of individual human life. It takes into account life expectancy, productivity, personaly value, etc. Even assuming everyone killed in the 9/11 attacks had a multi-million dollar policy that still doesn't outweigh the cost of the security measures since then. Not even close.
Also, I am fully aware that assigning numeric value to human life is considered to be an atrosity by many people which is why they are willing to accept a massive loss to economic efficiency in exchange for a very small reduction in loss of human life. What I find interesting though is that people are very willing to let people die of heart disease and cancer because those are "natural causes" while someone dying to unnatural causes is a huge deal. My general line of thinking is that if we were to put all the money spent on "national security" toward curing heart disease and cancer we would save orders of magnitide more lives than by stopping a bombing or two.
EvilSocialistFellow: I know this is an appauling concept to some and I do not expect everyone to side with me on it. Please consider that if you truely want crime reduction would you be willing to be imprisoned for your own safety? What about house arrest? What about confined to your neighborhood? What about giving up all of your privacy? Do you support outlawry over prison? If so, surely the damage done to the economy by offenders let loose is greater than keeping them behind bars? My thoughts were that prison wardens could sell the goods produced by prisons on the market and use the profits to provide better prison infrastructures/standards of livings/more security for the prisoners in exchange. They are simply kept there for the safety of other would-be victims.
I support reparations. This means that if someone kills someone else and an insurance agency has to pay out a million dollar insurance policy the killer now owes the insurance agency. If they can't pay their debt in full then they essentially become a slave to be auctioned off in order to repay their debt. For white collar crimes, it's likely that the level of security for such "prisoners" will be low and I can see them working off their debt in a cubicle at an office building with *maybe* a tracking anklet or something. For mass murderers I imagine they will be sold off to medical research institutions for human testing in clinical drug trials or manual labor while chained to a post.
This concept is similar to private prisons, but it is much less defined. In short, insurance agencies have the right to rent out the individual to a comany until their debt is paid off. The type of people that will rent a criminal depends on the crime they committed. Renting out a white collar criminal will probably be common in big businesses. Renting out a murderer will probably only be done by prison factories and medical research groups looking for bargains (i.e.: undesireables).
A.G.B: Obviously, we still have to spend money on stopping crime. It's more important that the money is spent in a good way so that it doesn't ruin the economy. On the other hand, crime ruins the economy, that must be stopped. What if they trained the pilots in fighting techniques and allowed them to wear a gun onboard? Wouldn't that be better?
It would be better if they just lett any/all passengers have guns on board. You know how hard it would be to take over a plane when any individual could have a gun on them? It would be impossible to do anything that didn't involve a deadman trigger, and even then a taser causes you to tense all your muscles which gives nearby people time to sieze the device, then shoot you in the head. :)
There is always incentive for preventing crime to yourself, your company, etc. Insurance agencies would likely be in the market of crime prevention because it lowers cost. Just like you get lower insurance rates if your car has an alarm system or antilock breaks. I am just suggesting that there need not be any kind of institutionalize crime prevention or stopping criminals before they commit a crime.
EvilSocialistFellow: A.G.B:What if they trained the pilots in fighting techniques and allowed them to wear a gun onboard? Wouldn't that be better? I saw Ron Paul advocating this when talking about Somalia. What if these pilots allowed with a gun onboard are secret terrorists themselves? It is obviously different with a ferry of cargo (referring to the incidents of priacy on the Somalian coasts) but with the potential havok a plane could reak it is a completely different kettle of fish...
You know, I was going to say the same thing in relation to my post. Yes, there is a possibility of the pilot being a terrorist, obviously the pilots will be checked but even then there are unknown factors that might influence the pilot to become a terrorist.
Bottom line, there are always unpredictable factors, the same thing could happen with those in charge of the TSA, they are potential future terrorist too. Terrorist can alos infiltrate in the TSA.
I suspect the market can find solutions when it comes to stopping crime so that business can go on, and if the market decides that the TSA is a better and less riskier business then giving the pilots a gun, then so it is.
I'd like to point out that if the pilots are terrorists(of the crazy genre), they don't really need a gun to inflict chaos, they can just crash the airplane and suicide or jump out by parachute. After all, you have no idea on whether a maniac is in charge of your airplane, the only thing you have is "This is a good airline, I can't wait to get to Hawaii".
Micah71381:It would be better if they just lett any/all passengers have guns on board. You know how hard it would be to take over a plane when any individual could have a gun on them? It would be impossible to do anything that didn't involve a deadman trigger, and even then a taser causes you to tense all your muscles which gives nearby people time to sieze the device, then shoot you in the head. :) There is always incentive for preventing crime to yourself, your company, etc. Insurance agencies would likely be in the market of crime prevention because it lowers cost. Just like you get lower insurance rates if your car has an alarm system or antilock breaks. I am just suggesting that there need not be any kind of institutionalize crime prevention or stopping criminals before they commit a crime.
That's actually a great idea. I'm still trying to find other ideas that can work well with others.
We should be allowed to carry guns on board, after all no one can protect me better then me. But you see, when you offer this idea to, let's say your local college, you'll be labeled as a whacko and no one will listen to you anymore. I think it's sad that people ignore the reasoning behind ideas like ours. That's why I was expecting a solution "less radical".
Most people I know usually tell me how they feel about things instead of offering me arguments.
You don't beleive me, go tell someone why the legalization of all drugs is the most logical solution to stopping most crime. After 20min of explanations you'll most likely get a judging look backed by direct and/or indirect insults.
A.G.B:Bottom line, there are always unpredictable factors, the same thing could happen with those in charge of the TSA, they are potential future terrorist too. Terrorist can alos infiltrate in the TSA.
Hmm, I was thinking more along the lines of more efficient private security at airlines - security checks for guns and so forth. I think it would be hard for a terrorist to sabotage all the various checks at airports and so forth. As someone who has travelled a lot, it has always mystified me how on earth Al Qaeda were able to sabotage the airflight; I usually feel fairly secure. But clearly it is possible.
Ah yeah, true but I was thinking more along the lines of non-pilots (and potential terrorists) sent in to protect the plane. That said, on the subject of pilots, that is one of the reasons why a plane normally has three pilots; if one of them is a terrorist, he cannot coerce the other two, unless of course he has a gun :P. Assuming he doesn't have a gun and he tries to coerce them, then other people on the plane, e.g. the cabin, would become suspect as they walk in and out of there regularly.
Having said that, it would be a fairly cool thing to see big men with guns in the cabin on airflights :P (provided they were security, not terrorists, haha).
Come to think of it, I have no idea how they got through the security in the first place,come to think of it, I'm going to to do some research on 9/11 while I'm at it.
I'm positive the terrorists had a gun onboard, I can't imagine how they got past the security with it.
You said that it is not possible for one pilot to coerce the other two unless he has a gun, what if the other two pilots carry guns too?
If I am not mistaken the current theory is that they claimed to have a bomb on board and would detonate it if they didn't get their way. It was largely based on a lie that people believed due to the assumption that the torrorists wouldn't kill themselves if they didn't have to (i.e.: take the flight somewhere and hold prisoners as hostages for ransom or something).
A.G.B:You said that it is not possible for one pilot to coerce the other two unless he has a gun, what if the other two pilots carry guns too?
Hypothetically, I suppose he could shoot them both while their back is turned (then crash the plane)? Practically, though, I know my objections are getting ridiculous now :P
Micah71381:If I am not mistaken the current theory is that they claimed to have a bomb on board and would detonate it if they didn't get their way. It was largely based on a lie that people believed due to the assumption that the torrorists wouldn't kill themselves if they didn't have to (i.e.: take the flight somewhere and hold prisoners as hostages for ransom or something).
I personally would rather let them bomb the plane than crash it and kill more people. I find it hard to believe that they didn't just shoot the pilots and fly the plane themselves.
evilsocialistfellow:Hypothetically, I suppose he could shoot them both while their back is turned (then crash the plane)? Practically, though, I know my objections are getting ridiculous now :P
No it's not ridiculous, it can actually happen. This just proves my point, terrorism is unpredictable, I imagine the market will find the "best solution" because there is no such thing as a perfect answer due to the unpredictable circumstances of everyday life.
When I ride the plane, to let's say, Mauritius, I know that security is an illusion because anything could happen. That said I'm not about to piss my pants I'd still enjoy the trip but seeing as things work nowdays anything could happen. But then again, why would terrorists attack Mauritius, they hate America. I doubt any of them are aware of the existence of that beautifull island.
A.G.B:No it's not ridiculous, it can actually happen. This just proves my point, terrorism is unpredictable, I imagine the market will find the "best solution" because there is no such thing as a perfect answer due to the unpredictable circumstances of everyday life. When I ride the plane, to let's say, Mauritius, I know that security is an illusion because anything could happen. That said I'm not about to piss my pants I'd still enjoy the trip but seeing as things work nowdays anything could happen. But then again, why would terrorists attack Mauritius, they hate America. I doubt any of them are aware of the existence of that beautifull island.
Yes you are right; anything could happen. The only real thing is that terrorist attacks on planes hardly ever happen in this day (and they are usually relatively small scale with a few survivors). Its hard to say what would happen if entrepeneurs were allowed (free from government regulations) to start 'experimenting' with new ideas - such as militarily trained, armed pilots on a flight with a hundred people or so flying over the pentagon :P.
To you, and anyone else willing to answer:
What is your position on animal rights?
Why is coffee in Starbucks so expensive? Lol - I bought a cappucino for £2.15 today (and that was a 'small' - I can't get a smaller size than that and they don't serve cheaper coffee brands, like Nescafe [which I can get for 60p from my college cafeteria], on the other hand you get refills...but one cup of coffee is all I want. This consumer is NOT happy, haha). There is certainly competition from other cafes so I can't understand why its so highly priced *puzzled*. Actually, I think Starbucks is great on the whole (nice atmosphere, high quality coffee, etc.), and I am just moaning really, but I just can't understand why you can't buy cheaper brands of coffee, at smaller sizes and without having to pay that bit extra for potential refills.
Speaking of coffee, what do you think of this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/starbucks-ceo-coffee-prices_n_837831.html ? The CEO suggests speculation is to blame for rising coffee prices (though coffee has always been overpriced at Starbucks in my opinion)...
My position isn't objective, I have a dog and I obviously don't want others to hurt dogs or any other animals. I'm a vegetarian, but that has nothing to do with my love for animals, I think humans are destined to eat meat. I've been reading various articles that prove that meat is important.
I think "rights" is a human concept, it can only exist in human societies because that's where it originated from. Animals can't have rights since they are not aware of them. Human beings are the ones who give animal's rights, which makes the topic very relative. I don't know how people are supposed to deal with stores that practice animal cruelty, the best thing to do is not buy from them and convince others to not eat meat from them. I don't really understand PETA's definition of animal cruelty, they want us to kill animals in a more gentle way, what???
I personally am againts animal cruelty, obviously who isn't, I think someone who enjoys hurting animals is probably a psychopath and don't want to have anything to do with them. I had to buy my little sister a guinea pig because she witnessed youtube videos of weirdos killing them, on porpuse.
I just viewed a John Stossel 20/20 where he offered some great ways to protect animal rights. By farming them.
Apparently we never lack chickens because we farm them. This experiment has been done somewhere in Africa where they let people own tigers. Now those people have a great incentive to protect the tigers from hunters.
2. Roads
EvilSocialistFellow: Why is coffee in Starbucks so expensive? Lol - I bought a cappucino for £2.15 today (and that was a 'small' - I can't get a smaller size than that and they don't serve cheaper coffee brands, like Nescafe [which I can get for 60p from my college cafeteria], on the other hand you get refills...but one cup of coffee is all I want. This consumer is NOT happy, haha). There is certainly competition from other cafes so I can't understand why its so highly priced *puzzled*. Actually, I think Starbucks is great on the whole (nice atmosphere, high quality coffee, etc.), and I am just moaning really, but I just can't understand why you can't buy cheaper brands of coffee, at smaller sizes and without having to pay that bit extra for potential refills.
Because there are probably laws that prevent people from just setting up a coffee stand on the street corner and selling coffee made in a traditional coffee pot. Has to pass health inspection standards, has to have a business license, can't use public property, etc. Go to a country where anyone can sell anything on the street and you can buy most small goods/minor services for dirt cheap.
People buy into the atmosphere, there's nothing you can do about it. Apparently they have consumers. The fact is many people buy products because they are cool, trendy etc. not because they have high quality or anything like that.
If you create a store that focuses on , let's say trendy teenage girls, it doesn't really matter what you sell. If it's a "groovy atmosphere", the clerc is good looking and idealistic, the clothes represent the feminine inner struggle or whatever they are into. I guarentee you , you will sell anything. Besides, most trendy teenage girls are middle class, which means they almost always have pocket money and they probably work "for fun" because their parents pay most of their necessary bills. So they have around 1000$ a month that they can spend without obligations. And if they ahppen to be spoiled you will probably make a fortune.
A.G.B:My position isn't objective, I have a dog and I obviously don't want others to hurt dogs or any other animals. I'm a vegetarian, but that has nothing to do with my love for animals, I think humans are destined to eat meat. I've been reading various articles that prove that meat is important.
I have a dog (two dogs, in fact) too :)
Animals can't have rights since they are not aware of them.
I've heard this before and, I must say, this confuses me; would you say that a severely autistic man or a new born child can't have rights because they are not aware of them? Or would it be that those compassionate towards them give them rights.
I just viewed a John Stossel 20/20 where he offered some great ways to protect animal rights. By farming them. Apparently we never lack chickens because we farm them. This experiment has been done somewhere in Africa where they let people own tigers. Now those people have a great incentive to protect the tigers from hunters.
Interesting. I will look into that. Its the concept of property rights emerging here again; you protect whatever you own.
Actually, I am not opposed to farming, since I believe farming chickens free range style and killing them quickly and painlessly is far more 'humane' than letting them get ravaged by a fox in the wild. I am opposed to experimentation, though. But my own personal objections to the very stance I adopt would be that (a) experimentation on animals appears to be necessary for the progress of science :( and (b) in a free market it would be impossible to prevent experimentation without government intervention; at best we would rely upon ethical consumerism (but how effective is this ever?).
Micah71381:Because there are probably laws that prevent people from just setting up a coffee stand on the street corner and selling coffee made in a traditional coffee pot. Has to pass health inspection standards, has to have a business license, can't use public property, etc. Go to a country where anyone can sell anything on the street and you can buy most small goods/minor services for dirt cheap.
That is damn true actually; in India (where I have been) goods and services are pretty damn cheap (and they sell them on the street). My only objection would be that I have heard stories of people (my father for instance) who got sick eating food they bought on the street stalls because when the cars go past, they blow up dust on to the stall, contaminating the food with bacteria (especially where the food is not being heated, hence it is cold and liable to infection).
MIsguidedOpinions:2. Roads
Good link. I have not watched all of that yet but just wanted to point out that it was 'capillaries' - wooly road systems of city streets and neighbourhood cities - that I was most concerned about in the OP (I have/had no doubt that 'arteries' - long stretches of road over undeveloped land - would be successful). I just didn't know that there were two different terms existent :)
EvilSocialistFellow: Animals can't have rights since they are not aware of them. I've heard this before and, I must say, this confuses me; would you say that a severely autistic man or a new born child can't have rights because they are not aware of them? Or would it be that those compassionate towards them give them rights.
I think this largely depends on objective morality. If you believe in objective morality (there is a universal right/wrong) then your feelings toward these topics depend on what you believe is absolutely right/wrong. If you don't believe in objective morality then "rights" are only what the popular majority defines them as and then forces on others. If these rights only apply to humans then, since we are the dominate force on the planet, we can force our definition of rights onto everything else on the planet.
Yeah, I happen to get stuck on that too. I don't really have an answer.
Interesting. I will look into that. Its the concept of property rights emerging here again; you protect whatever you own. Actually, I am not opposed to farming, since I believe farming chickens free range style and killing them quickly and painlessly is far more 'humane' than letting them get ravaged by a fox in the wild. I am opposed to experimentation, though. But my own personal objections to the very stance I adopt would be that (a) experimentation on animals appears to be necessary for the progress of science :( and (b) in a free market it would be impossible to prevent experimentation without government intervention; at best we would rely upon ethical consumerism (but how effective is this ever?).
Farming doesn't necessary mean you have to kill them, you can make money and own them yourself in order to protect them, like my sister and her guinea pig. If we have to kill them, we do so because we have to sell them to consumers. I don't know what to say, there are a lot of vegetarians out there.
People are also becoming more healthy today then let's say in the 70's when everone was fat and hairy. That's just my limited knowledge of social norms lol, so I wouldn't take it seriously. We've been hit by a lot of movements that made staying healthy look cool(metrosexuality), but if people don't eat animals because it's not cool then that also means they will eat them the day if it becomes cool. Trends aren't something I put much faith into.
You obviously can't make a law to ban meat, it will just create a black market, just let it be. I just do what I want, I associate with people whom I like and if someone asks me what I think of animal rights I'll just fight for them, sometimes. I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals btw, I'm one because I ate too much meat when I went on a trip to Bulgaria and they had a all you can eat buffet, after that I never ate meat again and it's been 5 years.
Micah71381:I think this largely depends on objective morality. If you believe in objective morality (there is a universal right/wrong) then your feelings toward these topics depend on what you believe is absolutely right/wrong. If you don't believe in objective morality then "rights" are only what the popular majority defines them as and then forces on others. If these rights only apply to humans then, since we are the dominate force on the planet, we can force our definition of rights onto everything else on the planet.
I would say that there is a universal underlying ethical principle (objective morality). But I would not say that that objective morality is necessarily what I believe in or what "the majority"' believe in; it is just there so to speak (a universal truth - but one that cannot be found so easily).
I personally believe (though we are getting into subjectivity here) that incapicated humans should have rights, even if they don't (for instance if the majority suddenly decide to discriminate against the mentally handicapped). But I don't see how someone can logically argue that animals should not have the same rights as human because they are not intelligent/can't defend themselves, etc. and not apply the same logic to, lets say, a severely brain damaged man with an IQ of less than, lets say 70, or an elderly woman who cannot physically defend herself. Neither have rights if they cannot protect their rights (I believe) but the question is whether they should have rights (I believe yes - but am struggling to reconcile this with animal rights).
A.G.B:You obviously can't make a law to ban meat, it will just create a black market, just let it be. I just do what I want, I associate with people whom I like and if someone asks me what I think of animal rights I'll just fight for them, sometimes. I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals btw, I'm one because I ate too much meat when I went on a trip to Bulgaria and they had a all you can eat buffet, after that I never ate meat again and it's been 5 years.
I'd like to just point out that I am not a vegetarian either. My question really was not so much about farming (which I am not opposed to in general - even when it is to kill the animal and sell it for meat) but experimentation and battery farming :(
Thing is, I also know, really, that experimentation is necessary for scientific developments...but I question the ethics.
A.G.B:People buy into the atmosphere, there's nothing you can do about it. Apparently they have consumers. The fact is many people buy products because they are cool, trendy etc. not because they have high quality or anything like that. If you create a store that focuses on , let's say trendy teenage girls, it doesn't really matter what you sell. If it's a "groovy atmosphere", the clerc is good looking and idealistic, the clothes represent the feminine inner struggle or whatever they are into. I guarentee you , you will sell anything. Besides, most trendy teenage girls are middle class, which means they almost always have pocket money and they probably work "for fun" because their parents pay most of their necessary bills. So they have around 1000$ a month that they can spend without obligations. And if they ahppen to be spoiled you will probably make a fortune.
Actually, these were my thoughts, haha! But I wanted to see if there would be any other answers. Interesting, though.
I have also noted that in airports the restaraunts also sell food at much higher prices. Presumably this is because all the restaraunts are owned by the airport, hence there is no competition - a pizza once cost me £21 and it was about 0.5 cm in thickness - my own fault for buying it of course but I was hungry :(
Actually, these were my thoughts, haha! But I wanted to see if there would be any other answers. Interesting, though. I have also noted that in airports the restaraunts also sell food at much higher prices. Presumably this is because all the restaraunts are owned by the airport, hence there is no competition - a pizza once cost me £21 and it was about 0.5 cm in thickness - my own fault for buying it of course but I was hungry :(
You also have no one else to buy them from, if I'm not mistaken once you're in there's no getting out. The duty free shops are nice, no taxes.
1) the fed is privately owned, so it will do whatever it likes, so it is more powerful than the government. The answer to this fallacy is as follows: it does not matter who owns the FED what matters is that its decisions are backed up by the State's force. so no matter what is the content of each particular decision the key here is that it is enforced thanks to the support of the central apparatus of coercion. So this makes them actually State's decisions after all , since the State is the one which controls the force and say whether or not it should back up what the FED wants to implement.
It's all run by the same incestuous group of elites. The Saudi king has much more say in US government policy than the US Secretary of State, all appearances aside. The State Secretary is just a bureaucrat... the Saudi king has friends in high places who can help him get what he wants, whether that takes 4, 8, 12 or 16 years. Presidents and State Secretaries come and go. The power elites are forever (kind of). You can read my blog post on this subject here:
http://incompressible.blogspot.com/2010/07/kingpin-theory-of-power-elites.html
I've been fascinated by royalty lately and I need to extend my "kingpin theory" to include not just family dynasties but dynastic bloodlines. The royal houses of Europe, for example, transcend any one country. The royal house doesn't need any particular throne, it just needs a throne to be royal and hold power. And for this purpose, marriage is as good as conquest. The "eugenic" mindset of the royalty is not as crazy as it seems when you look at things from their point of view. Clearly, there's some "magic genetic recipe" that makes those who hold power suitable for the pressures of holding power... in fact, my current theory is that you have to actually be psychotic in just the right way in order to be able to stand the pressures of ruling. In my current theory, it is this psychological brew in the royal genes that is so valuable and cannot be diluted with the blood of those who have not demonstrated they have these genes by having ancestors who have ruled. The strictest form of royal eugenics is "morganatic marriage" whereby members of a royal house are prohibited from marrying down, they must marry a peer (royal blood) or abdicate their place in line to the throne. This leads to genetic problems since there aren't exactly a lot of royals out there and they're all already blood related.
Sorry to go off-topic a bit...
Clayton -