GavinPalmer1984: Government is management - whether it is the management of my fingers as they type or the management of relationships with other people. Laws are a policy. Order, predictability, and security are among the intentions of people who govern and manage. Capitalists stake claim to land. An individual capitalist is susceptible to other individuals who may or may not agree with the property claims or might not be aware of them. So the capitalist is forced to manage/govern relationships with others. If the capitalist fails to engage in relationships with other people - then the property is not protected. The United States government is the evolution of a creation based in capitalist ideology. It intrinsically ignores the consent of people yet to be born because the unborn had no say in its initial creation. The government was created with the intent of allowing future generations to make changes. But it was already a capitalist government based upon unfair concepts of inheritance where property owners legitimately have more power than those people without property.
Government is management - whether it is the management of my fingers as they type or the management of relationships with other people.
Laws are a policy. Order, predictability, and security are among the intentions of people who govern and manage.
Capitalists stake claim to land. An individual capitalist is susceptible to other individuals who may or may not agree with the property claims or might not be aware of them. So the capitalist is forced to manage/govern relationships with others. If the capitalist fails to engage in relationships with other people - then the property is not protected.
The United States government is the evolution of a creation based in capitalist ideology. It intrinsically ignores the consent of people yet to be born because the unborn had no say in its initial creation. The government was created with the intent of allowing future generations to make changes. But it was already a capitalist government based upon unfair concepts of inheritance where property owners legitimately have more power than those people without property.
What's your point?
My solution: use the system in place and reduce corruption through intelligent designs... more realistic.
Ah yes. Central planning is the cure for all that ails us. Because it's worked so well in the past.
How do you combat coercion without coercion?
Depends on what you mean by "combat". In the last post you said "reduce"...as in "make there be less of". "Combat" could mean "reduce", as in prevention...but it could also mean "respond to"...as in reaction.
Game theory explores how unwanted behavior is "combated".
Your solution: undo the federal government... unrealistic.
Oh man, how did I not figure that out?
You're gonna have to do a bit more than give me a 3 second sound bite.
My solution: use the system in place and reduce corruption through intelligent designs
Intelligent designs = free market. As good as government experts are, they will not design a better system than the free market.
I don't think you're understanding the idea. Taxation = stealing. Keeping the system means that we will be institutionalizing a 40% theft rate. You like that?
unfair concepts of inheritance where property owners legitimately have more power than those people without property.
There is no way for people with more property to have less influence that the ones with property.
Inheritance is unfair? How so? It's a mere transfer of money. If inheritance is unfair, then so is any exchange.
I only point out the existence of a moral delimma which is answered differently among different people: which is expected. It is pragmatic to understand that people will have different ideas concerning "what is fair".
I explain my "idealism" simply to share my own thoughts and potentially convey reasoning as to why I suggest the things I do.
You should all know that I am a Ron Paul supporter, I like non-violence, volunteerism, charity, liberty, and all of that other stuff that makes you feel all warm inside. But I do try to be realistic and understand the positions of different people.
I understand why Reid said public sector jobs are more important than private sector jobs - and I understand people who disagree... just as an example.
You know what else Harry Reid said?
@John James
I don't advocate central planning. Great video on game theory... nice, realiating, forgiving, and non-envious. I don't see why the narrator alludes to socialism as being against this winning strategy of tit-for-tat.
He used the example of the line of cars. But it is a good example of using regulation. An individual can enter into the fast lane and travel at the same speed as if they were in the other lane. This "forces" cooperation. An even better design would be automated vehicles... allowing for exception cases where there are valid emergencies.
But to get back on topic... people who coerce would be coerced. But the current government allows for corruption because of poor design. And in essence - there is competition for that coercive ability. But the real solution is to actually change the poor design that allows for corruption.
Some of you might recommend the removal of the government. But change is a gradual thing. Keep your ideals and let those guide our transition in that direction.
@Wheylous
Free market is utopian. It is the embodiment of the nirvana fallacy. All we can do is work toward a free market by removing barriers and limitations. The free market is not natural... utopia is not natural. The natural state of the world is with unpredictability... which is in and of itself a barrier and limitation.
I know there is no way for peple with more property to have less influence than those without property.... this the main reason why people argue against capitalism and for idealistic socialism... because capitalism allows for this stratification.
As a pragmatic person - I am fine with stratification. But I would wish that stratification become more fair over time - as people begin to voluntarily donate their valuables in their death will instead of leaving those valuables to their family. And I would like people to be more free to form their own governments... by increasing representation.
I do misspeak about "unfairness". In reality - unfairness is inevitable.... but we progress by increasing the "fairness" of the designed system.
GavinPalmer1984:But the current government allows for corruption because of poor design.
No, government is corruption, by design.
And in essence - there is competition for that coercive ability.
No, there is the exact opposite of competition...it is called monopoly. Again, what is government but a monopoly on the use of force?
But the real solution is to actually change the poor design that allows for corruption.
You mean like, turn a dog into a cat.
Your direction is the opposite of that. Your direction is more of the same. "Government x doesn't work, so we need more government x to fix the problems of government x. And we need to elect the 'right' people. Intelligent and respectful people. Then everything would be better." In other words, Communism would have worked if it hadn't been for Stalin, right?
GavinPalmer1984:Free market is utopian. It is the embodiment of the nirvana fallacy.
Nirvana fallacy refers to the notion that perfection is attainable...that all fraudulent behavior can be eliminated, for example. A free market says nothing about creating Nirvana on Earth. All a free market is is the absence of government. No one ever said that would make the world perfect.
All we can do is work toward a free market by removing barriers and limitations. The free market is not natural... utopia is not natural. The natural state of the world is with unpredictability... which is in and of itself a barrier and limitation.
No offense, but that has to be the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. If the free market (i.e. the absence of government) is "not natural", that would have to mean government is "natural"...as in, not conceived or created by man...but existing before man. That is either seriously confused, or completely deranged. Either way, it's total nonsense.
I would wish that stratification become more fair over time - as people begin to voluntarily donate their valuables in their death will instead of leaving those valuables to their family. And I would like people to be more free to form their own governments... by increasing representation. I do misspeak about "unfairness". In reality - unfairness is inevitable.... but we progress by increasing the "fairness" of the designed system.
I would wish that stratification become more fair over time - as people begin to voluntarily donate their valuables in their death will instead of leaving those valuables to their family. And I would like people to be more free to form their own governments... by increasing representation.
...by taking stuff from some people, by force, and giving it to other people.
a moral delimma
created by government in the first place (see below for how government creates the uneven distribution of wealth we have).
It is pragmatic to understand that people will have different ideas concerning "what is fair".
Yes, and afterwards showing them why they're wrong.
You should all know that I am a Ron Paul supporter
Then speak like it ;)
I understand why Reid said public sector jobs are more important than private sector jobs
Do enlighten us as to why jobs which are created through the confiscation of wealth and assigned in a system of socialist calculation are more important than jobs created by a voluntary market which has supply and demand working to actually solve the calculation problem.
But the real solution is to actually change the poor design that allows for corruption
I'll bite. What do you suggest we do?
change is a gradual thing
It doesn't mean that we shouldn't advocate the end result. Did you see abolitionists trying to get slaveowners to beat their slaves a bit less at first and give them a tad bit more food? Or did you see them fight for total abolition?
Remember, "Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice"
In fact, if you look that phrase up, the first 3 results are all libertarian websites. Most importantly, you should read the second one ( http://www.fff.org/freedom/1197e.asp ) :
Libertarianism is the political philosophy based on the principle of nonaggression. Every human being is a self-owner with inalienable rights. And gradualism is inconsistent with the moral foundation of libertarianism. ... Before proceeding, it is useful to distinguish gradualism as a policy from gradualism as a fact of reality. This latter form of gradualism says that, try as you may, it takes time to implement ideas. The transition to a libertarian society would not — because it could not — occur overnight. This is the nature of the temporal reality in which we live. If this is all that is meant by gradualism — if it means "as fast as possible" — then there is no quarrel between "gradualists" and "abolitionists" within the movement. This is not the formulation of gradualism with which abolitionists are concerned.
Libertarianism is the political philosophy based on the principle of nonaggression. Every human being is a self-owner with inalienable rights. And gradualism is inconsistent with the moral foundation of libertarianism.
...
Before proceeding, it is useful to distinguish gradualism as a policy from gradualism as a fact of reality. This latter form of gradualism says that, try as you may, it takes time to implement ideas. The transition to a libertarian society would not — because it could not — occur overnight. This is the nature of the temporal reality in which we live. If this is all that is meant by gradualism — if it means "as fast as possible" — then there is no quarrel between "gradualists" and "abolitionists" within the movement.
This is not the formulation of gradualism with which abolitionists are concerned.
Moving on,
It is the embodiment of the nirvana fallacy
No, a perfect, immediately self-correcting free market which responds to shocks in 24 hours to return to equilibrium is nirvana. The actual free market (lack of institutionalized aggression on the part of government) is quite possible.
The free market is not natural
Right now all I can imagine you being is a white Southerner in 1840 saying "The free negro is not natural"
capitalism allows for this stratification
Allows for it but does not institutionalize it, and indeed such a turn of events in a free market would be highly unlikely. We currently have the unequal wealth distribution we have due to government policies. Government-created monopolies and free government-money to banks.
As a pragmatic person
You know, it's really easy to be a libertarian and say "well, I know this system would not be good", because then you seem like such a pragmatic person. The truth is, you're a copout who fails to analyze the reality he touts. It's like saying "capitalism and socialism work well in theory, but not in practice." No, sir, socialism never worked in theory. It's really easy to say that it did, you sound like such an understanding person. But the truth is, it's a copout. Same with "I'm a pragmatist, let's have gradual redistribution of wealth."
unfairness is inevitable
The concept of fairness in legal ethics extends no further than a respect for property rights. The rest is personal morals. Personal morals which should not be forced upon others.
If you wish someone would give their valuables in their death to someone outside of their family- this has to happen by persuasion and nothing else. You'd have to show this person that giving to other people is more important than giving to their family.
I never understood the idea of inheritence being unfair as if there's nothing you can do about it! If person A and B were born at the same time, and person B inherited a lot of money and person A inherited nothing...why can't A just become B's good friend and get on the same level playing field that way? Why is there always a solution of a 3rd party taking from B to give to A?
How is it that critics of free market can claim that it is a utopian impracticable ideal? It's completely absurd. It requires the construction of nothing, only deconstruction. Socialism on the other hand requires a massive structure. Free Markets require the absence of things and the rest follows. There is nothing difficult about creating those conditions, other than educating people. Simply because one idea is better than another does not make it 'utopian'. It's nonsense.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
John James: GavinPalmer1984: Government is management - whether it is the management of my fingers as they type or the management of relationships with other people. Laws are a policy. Order, predictability, and security are among the intentions of people who govern and manage. Capitalists stake claim to land. An individual capitalist is susceptible to other individuals who may or may not agree with the property claims or might not be aware of them. So the capitalist is forced to manage/govern relationships with others. If the capitalist fails to engage in relationships with other people - then the property is not protected. The United States government is the evolution of a creation based in capitalist ideology. It intrinsically ignores the consent of people yet to be born because the unborn had no say in its initial creation. The government was created with the intent of allowing future generations to make changes. But it was already a capitalist government based upon unfair concepts of inheritance where property owners legitimately have more power than those people without property. What's your point?
All of the recent posts ignore my definition of government... that I laid out here.
Government is simply management? Sure you can define it that way, but it's quite useless. What do you call the thing we call government?
Better yet, let's use "the state."
GavinPalmer1984:What's your point?All of the recent posts ignore my definition of government... that I laid out here.
Huh? You and I have already exchanged 4 posts since I asked you that. How about responding to something more recent...like the part about how everything still comes back to you advocating taking stuff from some people, by force, and giving it to other people.
Wheylous: Government is simply management? Sure you can define it that way, but it's quite useless. What do you call the thing we call government? Better yet, let's use "the state."
The thing you call "the state" is the evolution of a poorly designed creation. It is different than "my government" in that it is static and tends to have a life-span that is greater than its creators. So I would have us move toward better systems of government that make use of technology.
People will continue to form states so long as there is threat of ignorance - recognizing that the state is itself a product of ignorance. I think the state's primary function should be to address the threat of ignorance. This is the way in which states are no longer needed.
GavinPalmer1984:I think the state's primary function should be to address the threat of ignorance.
I don't think we can ever avoid taking and giving. Each breath we take is taking from another. Reproduction creates another breather that will take from another. I don't see how you can uphold some kind of absolute truth that we should not take and give. Ideally - we all share.
GavinPalmer1984:I don't think we can ever avoid taking and giving. Each breath we take is taking from another. Reproduction creates another breather that will take from another. I don't see how you can uphold some kind of absolute truth that we should not take and give. Ideally - we all share.
That might possibly the most asinine thing I've ever heard. (And I've heard some idiotic shit.)
I talk about taking stuff from some people, by force, and giving it to other people, and your response is "breathing." Do I really have to break this down?
1) Air is not scarce (in the relative sense) on Earth.
2) If you can prove which air you own, and that someone took it from you, I'm sure we can get it returned.
3) Please tell me where force is involved in any of this.
And when you can't do any of this, you might want to come up with a better defense for theft and violence than claiming "breathing" qualifies.
You are starting with the assumption that you can in fact make a valid claim to property. I am claiming that any such claim is inherently invalid because there are people effected that can not contractually agree to your claim. There is no way to have mutual consent regarding your claim of property... it is impossible.
absolutism is impossible - therefore violence.
Here, I dumbed it down.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
GavinPalmer1984: People will continue to form states so long as there is threat of ignorance - recognizing that the state is itself a product of ignorance. I think the state's primary function should be to address the threat of ignorance. This is the way in which states are no longer needed.
How is it that you will address the threat of ignorance with a monopoly on education?
GavinPalmer1984:You are starting with the assumption that you can in fact make a valid claim to property. I am claiming that any such claim is inherently invalid because there are people effected that can not contractually agree to your claim. There is no way to have mutual consent regarding your claim of property... it is impossible.
A post ago you said "I don't think we can ever avoid taking and giving". Now you're telling me there's no such thing as valid possessions. Explain how you "take" something from someone when they don't possess it.
Jargon: How is it that you will address the threat of ignorance with a monopoly on education?
A voucher program allows for taxation and combats monopolies.
John James: GavinPalmer1984:You are starting with the assumption that you can in fact make a valid claim to property. I am claiming that any such claim is inherently invalid because there are people effected that can not contractually agree to your claim. There is no way to have mutual consent regarding your claim of property... it is impossible. A post ago you said "I don't think we can ever avoid taking and giving". Now you're telling me there's no such thing as valid possessions. Explain how you "take" something from someone when they don't possess it.
I start with the opinion that all property is our common wealth - even for those who have not yet been born.
GavinPalmer1984:I start with the opinion that all property is our common wealth - even for those who have not yet been born.
So...basically in your view there would be nothing wrong with me taking the shirt off your back right now.
Are you actively trying to avoid questions?
I've considered that idea and rejected it - why the hell would everyone own all unowned things? There's just no point in that. No logic. No one owns things until he homesteads them. That's that.
Why do you think everyone should own everything? And then, how can anyone make an eclusive claim to anything else? If we all own some newly discovered continent, then how do we go on to carve out homes for ourselves? Wouldn't we need the agreement of all of humanity (including those not yet born) to do anything with the property?
It's a deceivingly pleasant thing to say ("we all own the property") which simply has no logical backing.
I think there would be something wrong with you taking the shirt off my back. My reasoning has nothing to do with concepts of ownership - but more about concepts of compassion and healthy behavior.
GavinPalmer1984:I think there would be something wrong with you taking the shirt off my back. My reasoning has nothing to do with concepts of ownership - but more about concepts of compassion and healthy behavior.
So your personal concepts of "compassion" and "healthy behavior" are what would necessitate my taking the shirt you're wearing being "wrong." That's nice. Too bad "there is no way to have mutual consent regarding your claim of property "compassion" and "healthy behavior"... it is impossible.
So I guess I'm getting that shirt then.
You can try to take the shirt if you like. And I will try to kill you if I like. This seems very irrational to me. It is not a good survival strategy. Mutual and unenforced cooperation would be the better strategy. It would be nice if we engage in a mutaully benefiical relationship.
I disagree with the idea that there can be no mutual consent to ideas of healthiness. We have shared necessities. And cooperation is often a good strategy in many real-world scenarios including this "t-shirt delimma".
Many of your questions are based in your own concepts of reality that have little relation to my own concepts of reality.
I explained that I think exclusive ownership inherently infringes upon other parties who no longer have access to the property you think you own. I get the idea of homestead - and investing your labor with property. And it is definitely important in determining valuations of a person's contributions in this life.
I think you can have an economic system where information concerning an individuals contributions can be used to determine access to products and services... recognizing that accessing property is different than owning property.
Having the "agreement of all humanity" is an impossibility. All that can be done is to promote liberty... this is why I support Ron Paul although.
It would be very nice if we had MORE opportunity to create our own rules instead of playing by the rules that have been created before our time. This is why I support State's rights - and increased representation in general.... I support "less force".
So you don't think that there ought to be any property...
As in exclusive use rights.
The closest thing to exclusive use - is an individual's own body. But a person's body isn't really exclusive because it is inherently part of an ecosystem.
I don't like the idea of one individual using another individual's body without consent. But there is even an exception to this. There are children who lack awareness. And there are even adults that lack awareness.
I really don't believe in absolute "laws" and "rules"... not even the golden rule is absolutely correct. If there was one thing I uphold - it is that we should always be learning.
GavinPalmer1984:You can try to take the shirt if you like. And I will try to kill you if I like. This seems very irrational to me.
Pardon my French, but no shit.
It is not a good survival strategy.
Maybe for you. The best strategy for you would be to just give me the shirt. That way you won't get hurt. I mean, you just said I have just as much of a claim to that shirt just as you do. Why is it not wrong for you to attack me for moving to use something I own?
I disagree with the idea that there can be no mutual consent to ideas of healthiness.
So, "there is no way to have mutual consent regarding a claim of property"...that is "impossible"...but a mutual consent to what is "healthy"...that's perfectly attainable. Got it.
I explained that I think exclusive ownership inherently infringes upon other parties who no longer have access to the property you think you own.
You mean like your attempt to prevent me from having access to that shirt you're wearing? Yeah. Why are you infringing upon me that way?
Oh this outta be good. Please explain how this "limit access to property based on individuals contributions" would be different from owning property.
GavinPalmer1984:I support "less force".
Bingo.
You didn't even ask for the shirt John James. You said you were going to take it. Maybe if you had asked - I would have offered it. Or I could have made other suggestions. But you were the irrational one who did not wish to engage in any form of healthy relationship... I am trying to be the nice guy... using the better strategy than you who will not even enter into conversation about the shirt you want.
If we discuss the issue - we might begin to determine who needs this shirt more - and discuss what is most fair. As we become more aware of relevant information - a better decision can be made.
There are forms of mass in this reality. That is natural. There are healthy and unhealthy conditions. That is natural. But when you create a claim - you have created something that is not natural... it might discuss things that are natural - but it is a creation of the human mind.
========================== As for the comparison of access versus ownership - you have to realize that an access-based system would be built around sustainability. This means that all products would have to be the result of agriculture... in summary: the products would essentially be like fruit grown from a tree.
So the fruit tree is the means of producing fruit. And access to the fruit COULD be based upon people's contributions in the economy. This is an example of access versus ownership.
GavinPalmer1984:You didn't even ask for the shirt John James. You said you were going to take it. Maybe if you had asked - I would have offered it.
Huh? Why should I have to ask for something I already have a claim to?
If we discuss the issue - we might begin to determine who needs this shirt more - and discuss what is most fair.
Ah yes. Simple discussion will make all the difference. We will come to a concensus on "who needs the shirt more" and what is "fair". And you want to lecture Wheylous about utopia? You're getting less amusing by the minute.
There are healthy and unhealthy conditions. That is natural.
Define those terms please.
But when you create a claim - you have created something that is not natural... it might discuss things that are natural - but it is a creation of the human mind.
You mean like when state that everyone has an equal claim on everything...that "all property is our common wealth - even for those who have not yet been born"?
As for the comparison of access versus ownership - you have to realize that an access-based system would be built around sustainability. This means that all products would have to be the result of agriculture... in summary: the products would essentially be like fruit grown from a tree. So the fruit tree is the means of producing fruit. And access to the fruit COULD be based upon people's contributions in the economy. This is an example of access versus ownership.
That does absolutely nothing to define the difference. Please explain how this "limit access to property based on individuals contributions" would be different from owning property.
I am certain that I could design an economic system that outperforms your free market capitalism. I am sure you would disagree. The funny thing is that we have no opportunity to actually research, develop, and experiment with our different designs. This is why I support Ron Paul. We need more liberty to experiment with alternatives. This is a bigger issue than who's THEORETICAL economic design is better than the others'. And when I make suggestions about changes to our current system - I most certainly have liberty in mind.
I am all for your liberty to research, develop, and experiment with your own economic design. I will learn from your inevitable failures. We can learn from each others' inevitable failures.
I adovcate the movement of economics into the sphere of "applied science".
GavinPalmer1984: Jargon: How is it that you will address the threat of ignorance with a monopoly on education? A voucher program allows for taxation and combats monopolies.
So you're using vouchers to provide for market services with the money from taxation? Why not just let the taxed keep their money and spend it on education how they please? How do vouchers combat monopolies? Markets combat monopolies. Vouchers 'enable' the taxed's access to their own money, which has probably diminished by the time it comes back around to them. How do you combat monopolies with a monopoly, isn't that paradoxical? Your answer relies on the existence of market-provided services and jams the mediator of the tax-man between the customer and the service.
@GavinPalmer
Failures are not inevitable, but probable.
The value of ideas are not relative. Some ideas are better than others. Agriculture is better than pastoral-nomadism, as it produces a better quality of life for all involved. Free-markets are the best idea currently. That is not opinion. That can be logically deduced and is historically supported.
Jargon: So you're using vouchers to provide for market services with the money from taxation? Why not just let the taxed keep their money and spend it on education how they please? How do vouchers combat monopolies? Markets combat monopolies. Vouchers 'enable' the taxed's access to their own money, which has probably diminished by the time it comes back around to them. How do you combat monopolies with a monopoly, isn't that paradoxical? Your answer relies on the existence of market-provided services and jams the mediator of the tax-man between the customer and the service.
The difference between the current tax system and vouchers is vast. The current tax system collects all of the taxes from a large amount of people and allows a small amount of people the power to determine how that money is spent. A voucher system increases the number of people who determine how that money is spent. This is the simple comparison. I hope you can see how vouchers allow for a market system while our current tax system does not allow for a market system at all - and is subject to outrageous corruption.
I honestly don't know why libertarians would not support vouchers... it is most certainly the lesser of two evils.
@Jargon
When your goal is perfection - you will inevitably fail... but that doesn't mean you can't learn and progress - moving closer to your goal.
I like the idea of free markets. But my concept of free markets is obviously different than yours. My concept of a free market is an economy without limitation. And I recognize my concept to be form of perfection which we can only move toward.
Most people use the term "free market" to describe something that has already existed. I don't.
GavinPalmer1984: Jargon: So you're using vouchers to provide for market services with the money from taxation? Why not just let the taxed keep their money and spend it on education how they please? How do vouchers combat monopolies? Markets combat monopolies. Vouchers 'enable' the taxed's access to their own money, which has probably diminished by the time it comes back around to them. How do you combat monopolies with a monopoly, isn't that paradoxical? Your answer relies on the existence of market-provided services and jams the mediator of the tax-man between the customer and the service. The difference between the current tax system and vouchers is vast. The current tax system collects all of the taxes from a large amount of people and allows a small amount of people the power to determine how that money is spent. A voucher system increases the number of people who determine how that money is spent. This is the simple comparison. I hope you can see how vouchers allow for a market system while our current tax system does not allow for a market system at all - and is subject to outrageous corruption. I honestly don't know why libertarians would not support vouchers... it is most certainly the lesser of two evils.
I do recognize that vouchers would be better than what we have now, BUT in your original argument you claimed that the purpose of government was to combat ignorance, by PROVIDING VOUCHERS. So can you not see that absence of taxation is better than taxation and vouchers?
Also, no one ever claimed Free-Markets were perfection. They aren't. Perfection would be if we all had infinite wealth. I agree that this is impossible. I also never claimed that free-markets have existed, but history validates the position that they are desirable by showing the problems with everything that strays from free markets. How is your concept of free markets different than mine? I haven't explained my view of them so how can you know?