mustang19:I understand the parable like this: Government activity produces negative consequences that may be assumed to exist without proof.
That's either a highly flawed or a highly dishonest understanding of Bastiat's parable of the broken window. My money's on the latter.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
In other words, you admitted that you can't prove any causal link(s) concerning the (alleged) statistical correlation between the advent of European state welfare and nationalization programs and subsequent economic growth.
That's right. One can only observe in cross sectional studies that countries that invested more in public infrastructure grew faster than those that didn't. But the evidence is not looking very favorable to "privatize everything". You'll solve the debt problem but probably tank the economy.
Eh, let's go back to talking about the argument.
mustang19:Eh, let's go back to talking about the argument.
Why should I, when you don't seem to be playing fair?
What exactly are we arguing about anymore?
After reading over the whole thread it seems like the subject has changed drastically from the OP.
mustang19: Eh, let's go back to talking about the argument.
So clearly this thread no longer has a purpose.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
Not sure. We did manage to create one of the longest threads on the front page, though.
Fuck this forum for eating my original post.
mustang19: Not sure. We did manage to create one of the longest threads on the front page, though.
But you've demonstrated that you don't understand what the parable of the broken window is. So, basically, every time someone has mentioned the broken window fallacy as a counter argument to you, and you then promptly dismiss it, you didn't actually understand what you were dismissing. No wonder this thread is so long.
I suggest you take the time to read the parable. Perhaps you will then be on the same level as everyone else. Perhaps.
mustang19:Government activity produces negative consequences that may be assumed to exist without proof.
Yes, government activity implies the existence of negative consequences, by definition (so no proof is necessary). There exist only two realms of human interaction: (1) voluntary, free and (2) coercive, political. "Government activity" falls safely within the second realm, under any conceivable definition of the term. It implies the necessary existence of agents who suffer negative consequences from being coerced into predicaments they would have not chosen voluntarily.
It implies the necessary existence of agents who suffer negative consequences from being coerced into predicaments they would have not chosen voluntarily.
This is going back to our earlier discussion. If you believe that taxes for public libraries and sidewalks constitute an immoral use of force, I understand what you are saying. But most of the people who vote to fund these programs apparently don't consider themselves being robbed.
Autolykos, you asked me to explain some of the statistical techniques I mentioned. I'll try to do that without involving too much math.
A lagged regression is a method for determining long run correlation. For instance, if one wants to determine the correlation between growth now, at the T, and spending five years from now, at time T-5, the data for growth at time T is simply regressed against the spending at time T-5.
GMM, or Generalized Method of Moments, equates population and sample moments to compute a point estimate for the population correlation coefficient. Moments are the integral of the distances from the mean for each sample data point. GMM requires the population distribution to be assumed to identify population moment parameters, however.
VAR (Vector Autoregression) models the time series autoregressions between variables. For instance, if the previous year's GDP growth is correlated with the present year's GDP growth, VAR will control for the effects of this autoregression on the computed result.
Cointegration tests determine whether or not the two variables both cause each other over time, as well as the direction of these causal effects. If cointegration is detected, the variables cause each other. Unidirectional correlation indicates that one variable causes another, but not vice-versa. No correlation indicates both variables follow a random walk relative to each other, with no shared variance.
Other approaches that may be used include linear and nonlinear regression, maxmimum likelihood methods, and rank-order methods, which I can go into more detail on if anyone is interested. They are all basically more involved ways of detecting correlation and time series relationships. Causality is not an enigma. It's the residual correlation between events at different points in time.
Cointegration tests determine whether or not the two variables both cause each other over time, as well as the direction of these causal effects. If cointegration is detected, the variables cause each other.
How do they do that apart from measuring correlation over time?
Causality is not an enigma. It's the residual correlation between events at different points in time.
Not to my knowledge. You left out the necessity of holding ceteris paribus.
They don't. It's all correlational. That doesn't mean correlational models must exclude causality.
Residual correlation is correlation left over after controlling for confounding factors. Given a valid model, the independent variables which explain all subsequent variance of the dependent variables (DVs), or explain the variance of intermediate variables, could be said to have caused the DV's variation (in the particular population under study). The residual correlation results from instrumenting, or holding constant, the intermediate relationships.
The model has to make certain assumptions, including completeness and the law of large numbers. If the actual causal variables are not included, then, of course, there's a problem.
State spending as a percentage of GNP/GDP/whatever rises in tandem with productivity since the beginning of time. You can't get blood out of a stone.
mustang19: They don't. It's all correlational. That doesn't mean correlational models must exclude causality.
What is causality, a little badge to be pinned on the left hand corner of the page? Either causality is established or it isn't. Causality is established in experiments where all variables but the one being tested are controls
Residual correlation is correlation left over after controlling for confounding factors. Given a valid model, the independent variables which explain all subsequent variance of the dependent variables (DVs), or explain the variance of intermediate variables, could be said to have caused the DV's variation (in the particular population under study). The residual correlation results from instrumenting, or holding constant, the intermediate relationships. The model has to make certain assumptions, including completeness and the law of large numbers. If the actual causal variables are not included, then, of course, there's a problem.
After having parsed through this tangle of verbage, I note "after controlling for confounding factors". What are they and how do your models control them?
What is causality, a little badge to be pinned on the left hand corner of the page? Either causality is established or it isn't. Causality is established in experiments where all variables but the one being tested are controls.
Exactly. Economic history is treated as a natural experiment.
Typical confounding variables include demographics, initial GDP per capita, human capital, and fixed effects (a control for average growth rates within a country or region). It depends on the particular model. Partial correlations are established and the effects of these confounds are extracted from the coefficient of correlation.
The model results are usually walked through step-by-step, with one control variable applied at a time. A result can be considered more valid the more robust it is, or the degree to which it isn't unduly affected by the application of additional controls.
That's what I was going to ask. How many variables do these models typically incorporate? What are the types of variables?
Can you explain why you think the two assumptions you mentioned are justified?
Exactly. Economic history is treated as a natural experiment. Typical confounding variables include demographics, initial GDP per capita, human capital, and fixed effects (a control for average growth rates within a country or region).
Typical confounding variables include demographics, initial GDP per capita, human capital, and fixed effects (a control for average growth rates within a country or region).
How is that in any way sane? You're taking something that in no way reflects an experiment, and then treating it as if it was such. The whole point of experiments is the ease at which you can replicate them. To take a bunch of snapshots of a constant stream of causal events and then relate particular variables to eachother seems to have no basis whatsoever. And what an insignificant number of variables you mention. What is the basis for this methedology?
http://www.freetheworld.com/regional.html reaches the opposite conclusion. Apparently, you can find data to fit any theory.
mustang19: Exactly. Economic history is treated as a natural experiment.
Illogically so.
Typical confounding variables include demographics, initial GDP per capita, human capital, and fixed effects (a control for average growth rates within a country or region). It depends on the particular model. Partial correlations are established and the effects of these confounds are extracted from the coefficient of correlation. The model results are usually walked through step-by-step, with one control variable applied at a time. A result can be considered more valid the more robust it is, or the degree to which it isn't unduly affected by the application of additional controls.
So they set these variables for the model? Assuming their own assumptions on GDP and population growth? And not assuming relevant prices? Come to think of it, there aren't irrelevant prices because each price determines the decisions of each consumer. How do these models account for that? One variable applied at a time? What is even the point in that case if they're not going to assume all the controls? Are you describing to me an 'experiment' where no variables are controls except the chosen factor and GDP or population growth? And we've already discussed GDP's problems...
What a mess.
Economic freedom, as measured by the Fraser index, is not robustly related to growth, except at low levels of EF. The government spending component in particular doesn't exhibit significant relation, and includes only government consumption, not government capital expenditure.
That's what I was going to ask. How many variables do these models typically incorporate? What are the types of variables? Can you explain why you think the two assumptions you mentioned are justified?
Usually a handful, related to history and macroeconomic variables- initial GDP, capital, region, and so on. Although it is possible to correlate just about anything with economic growth.
The law of large numbers holds for a sufficiently large number of observations. It's usually best to have at least twenty observations. Completeness can never be proven. Models can only be expanded.
To take a bunch of snapshots of a constant stream of causal events and then relate particular variables to eachother seems to have no basis whatsoever. And what an insignificant number of variables you mention. What is the basis for this methedology?
Statistics is based on the belief that knowledge can be gained through observation. If one believes that this is an innapropriate approach to economics, then one must propose other methods.
So they set these variables for the model? Assuming their own assumptions on GDP and population growth? And not assuming relevant prices?
Inflation measures can affect the result, but are not necessarily going to be systemically affected by the IV.
Come to think of it, there aren't irrelevant prices because each price determines the decisions of each consumer. How do these models account for that? One variable applied at a time?
One control variable is not applied at a time; one control is added on at a time. In the final specificaiton, all controls are included. The measurement of relative prices and output are possible concerns. Microeconomic analysis can be conducted to look at physical inputs and outputs to the system.
Are you describing to me an 'experiment' where no variables are controls except the chosen factor and GDP or population growth? And we've already discussed GDP's problems... What a mess.
If microeconomic assessments are more your thing, we can talk about those as well.
mustang19: Economic freedom, as measured by the Fraser index, is not robustly related to growth, except at low levels of EF. The government spending component in particular doesn't exhibit significant relation, and includes only government consumption, not government capital expenditure.
Economic growth measured in GDP? You should see my surprised face (Shoutout to JJ on that one).
Usually a handful, related to history and macroeconomic variables- initial GDP, capital, region, and so on.
As discussed, GDP is problematic. How is capital measured? Do they take an inventory of currently utilized national capital goods?
Although it is possible to correlate just about anything with economic growth.
...Exactly...
What law is that? Why 20 and not 25?
Knowledge certainly can be gained by observation, but it depends on what kind of knowledge. Observation in the constant equilibriating disequilibrium that is the market yields no explanation on causality. What good is economics if it cannot explain causality?
Economics is an a priori science, since no economic 'experiment' can prove or disprove things, but only lend credence to them. Economic knowledge is made possible with mentally constructed market experiments with ceterus paribus conditions. Example: Ceterus Paribus increased supply decreases price.
Who said inflation? Is that the only missing variable? Is it the only determinant of prices? What about supply and demand? What's the IV?
What's the point of the increments?
I didn't deny that state infrastructure spending could have be a net positive.
I linked the North America report, not the world report. Anyway, the point is that you can find data sets to fit any theory. I would assume that high growth rates correlate to some extent with higher state spending just because you can take a larger percentage from richer people without killing them, which Hans Hoppe explains in a seminar.
All methods trace back to observation. The question is, what realm of things were observed? AE is based on more general observations than normal statistical studies. I'm going to make a thread about this later.
ed: Caley, I'll be back to you on that.
The capital stock is not included in GDP, besides the capital produced in any given year included as investment. GDP is calculated as... you know the formula, with data obtained from tax returns and business surveys. As far as I know, net GDP, or GDP minus depreciation, is not used particularly often by empirics.
20 is convenient because smaller samples tend to produce statistically insignificant results. 20 or 25 is not that important. The point is to have a reasonable sample size.
The law of large numbers states that as samples are randomly drawn from a population, sample characteristics will increasingly reflect population characteristics. If you just ask three people their opinion on politics, your results probably won't be as accurate as those from a random sample of a hundred people. So a sufficient sample size is important.
There can be problems with this approach if price floors or ceilings exist. It is possible that public infrastructure really destroys the economy but it's effects are hidden through government regulated milk prices. Otherwise, supply and demand equilibriate and GDP measures aggregate demand- which may be a DV and/or a control IV. The independent variable is the variable input into the model to evaluate the hypothesis, like government policies.
To display the effects of each control variable on the result and check for robustness. If a result fluctuates wildly with application of control variables, this could indicate problems in data quality or model design, unless the relationship really is that complicated (and can be investigated with additional theoretical and microeconomic work).
To Caley:
I linked the North America report, not the world report. Anyway, the point is that you can find data sets to fit any theory.
I read the report summary and didn't see any specific claims regarding a correlation between EF and growth across US and Canadian states.
Just for kicks, I correlated US state EF with 2009 growth rates from usgovernmentspending.com and got a negative correlation. Not that it means much.
I would assume that high growth rates correlate to some extent with higher state spending just because you can take a larger percentage from richer people without killing them, which Hans Hoppe explains in a seminar.
Even I'm not going to argue that the payroll tax kills people.
All methods trace back to observation.
I can either let that sit or take it as a profound epistemological question. I'll let it sit. Forgive me, but what does AE stand for? American Enterprise Institute?
Interesting thread that you linked to. I saw the empirical model by Sieben. Getting a high R squared on GDP is easy, though. You can get an even higher R squared by excluding his assumptions.
They do everything but that. I know Alberta is 1st-2nd highest in both and also in currrent GDP per capita.
I don't know how that relates to what I said.
I can either let that sit or take it as a profound epistemological question. I'll let it sit. Forgive me, but what does AE stand for?
I didn't think it was profound. AE = Austrian Economics.
mustang19:But most of the people who vote to fund these programs apparently don't consider themselves being robbed.
I was talking about those who don't vote to "fund" these programs.
You asked for a proof for the existence of negative consequences from government action. Do you now concede that negative consequences are tautologically inherent to every government action, by definition?
mustang19:Autolykos, you asked me to explain some of the statistical techniques I mentioned. I'll try to do that without involving too much math.
...
Let me repeat myself: why should I go back to talking about the argument, when you don't seem to be playing fair?
The moral of this story is: you can't make an omelette without first breaking a few eggs.
Some in this country have gotten into the routine practice of rationalizing away the fact that someone gets screwed no matter. I'm not entirely sure why but I see it all the time in political debates. The left particularly likes to focus on stealing from the rich. Maybe they think they're playing Robin Hood I dunno.
However, just because someone doesn't want to fund something originally doesn't mean they won't come to appreciate it over time. I know I was very opposed to the financial bailouts at first but I've come to appreciate them. I've even come to appreciate the auto bailouts.
We live in a system where a good many people (myself included) accept that they're going to be forced to pay taxes one way or another so they might as well try to get that money used in a way that satisfies them.
It's entirely possible that everything would be better if no such system existed but I don't bet on that happening anytime soon. I'm not much for idealism, I try to make do with what I've got.
Mustang, I'm glad you shared those papers. A lot of it is over my head because of the math but I still enjoyed reading the essay parts.
I'm not exactly a fan of national healthcare but I'm certainly with you on the infrastructure projects. The problem is that while we may be able to agree that building infrastructure is a good idea, we run into the real world problem of having to pick which projects to fund and which projects not to fund. All the arguments about productivity aside, there's no escaping the fact that we're essentially picking winners and losers and we might be funding some projects that really don't deserve funding. But I guess that's just the risk we have to be willing to take.
I don't like the word "tautology". Praxeology sounds much better. But yes, I agree and I can understand how you are opposed to the idea of public goods in priniciple. Individuals who disagree are free to move to countries that don't levy income taxes or provision public goods.
You're welcome. Once one gets into the details of it, deciding which projects to fund is a civil engineering matter. The federal government doesn't decide that; when making disbursements, it generally hands a block grant to the states, which often give the money to local governments, which have a better idea of local conditions.
If you would like a less boring and technical (although a little sensationalist) look at infrastructure issues, you could look into infrastructurereportcard.org. It's not just a matter of creating new infrastructure at this point. The public infrastructure stock has been depreciating since approximately 1970, and additional investment is needed just to maintain already existing roads, bridges, sewage systems and waterways. Additionally, there isn't always a government financial loss on these investments. The revenue generated from infrastructural economic growth is a fairly important revenue sources for local governments, even if the public sector puts up the initial capital.
Given a net return on public infrastructure capital of at least 30%, 5% annual depreciation, and an average tax rate of 30% of income, projects will self-finance on average. Since historically, tax revenue increases have been followed by subsequent tax cuts, some of the higher returning infrastructure projects may even result in cuts to marginal tax rates in the long run. That means higher absolute tax revenue, but lower taxes as a share of income. Something to think about.
The left particularly likes to focus on stealing from the rich. Maybe they think they're playing Robin Hood I dunno.
That is one of the less savory aspects of the left. At the present time, however, they have laid off on that. Despite all the noise, the two parties are pretty much together on taxes. The Republicans got their extension of the Bush tax cuts and agreed to some of the middle class tax reductions. The differences between the two parties are mostly on spending, not on taxes anymore (other than the House trying to sink the payroll tax cut).
@ Bloom
Don't be so quick to draw a moral from this.
mustang19: I don't like the word "tautology". Praxeology sounds much better. But yes, I agree and I can understand how you are opposed to the idea of public goods in priniciple. Individuals who disagree are free to move to countries that don't levy income taxes or provision public goods.
Pardon, but this is one of the more insanely thuggish things to say. Firstly, all states tax. Secondly, the burden isn't on the taxee to flee but on the taxer to stop. That's like saying "Well hey, if hate being raped so much why don't you stop dressing like a whore?" Now imagine that my whore-clothes are superglued onto my body permanently.
Anyways could you please summarize the parable of the broken window again? I feel like your first answer was sarcastic. Also, Z's answer to your question was in a moralistic sense but the parable not a moral illustration but an economic one. So in the economic sense, I disagree with your definition.
Human rights are one thing, but the right to not pay for basic public services is another. There are countries out there that don't subsidize in public infrastructure to any significant degree.However, they aren't very pleasant places to stay.
There are opportunity costs associated with every action.
In fact, if there aren't opportunity costs, then there's no point in discussing economics.
mustang19:I don't like the word "tautology". Praxeology sounds much better. But yes, I agree and I can understand how you are opposed to the idea of public goods in priniciple.
What are "public" goods? What would you say is their most important aspect which distinguishes them from "non-public" goods?
Individuals who disagree are free to move to countries that don't levy income taxes or provision public goods.
Quite a method you got yourself there for eliminating negative consequences of government action. Just make the ones carrying the "opportunity cost" disappear. And what do you do with the ones refusing to leave, and stubbornly insist on negatively affecting your flowery "aggregate utility" model? Gas them?
If a statistical study showed a consistent increase in utility (satisfaction) from 3 to 7 (on a scale from 1 to 10) for groups of three rapists during rape (for a total aggregate societal utility gain of 3x4=12), on average, while a consistent decrease in utility from 9 to 1 for every rape victim, would you go around promoting gang rape as a "public good"? If not, why not? (12 > 8, after all).
Jargon, my argument is not moral but purely economic. Re-read "Human Action".
Public goods are types of goods subject to market failure. The average return on public infrastructure is much higher than private capital returns, but private capital investment doesn't occur in this area due to the failure to capture externalities discussed before.
No, just let them vote libertarian. People don't want Austrian Economics because it doesn't work. Sure, in 18th century America people got by with private religious education, but they were scraping goat crap on a farm. Sure, there are some developing countries with private infrastructure and education systems, but same story.
No, because there's such a thing as human rights that comes before personal freedom and private property.
Does public infrastructure have anything to do with rape? If anything, building roads helps law enforcement do its job.
@ Z
I only meant that you were reinforcing Mustang's incorrect/sarcastic summary of the broken window. It is true that it is possible that the expropriation of one's wealth towards infrastructure spending might be the spending of their choosing, but since infrastructure is monopolized it's impossible to tell. Mises was right in that spending people's money on ends they do not choose reduces utility, but one can't tell that that expropriatin towards infrastructure wasn't of their choosing because of the monopolization. All the more reason to privatize infrastructure.
@ Mustang - It's baffling to me that you recognize the validity of opportunity cost yet still point to studies saying "Look! Infrastructure is good!" No one here wants to undo or destroy infrastructure. Personally my reasoning against infrastructure spending is that you (in 99 cases out of 100) overpay for labor, the satisfaction derived from such projects is incalculable in contrast to private projects, and it justifies the notion that the state should monopolize infrastructure.
Personally my reasoning against infrastructure spending is that you (in 99 cases out of 100) overpay for labor, the satisfaction derived from such projects is incalculable in contrast to private projects, and it justifies the notion that the state should monopolize infrastructure.
The first and last are true. The second one, calculation, is a little misleading. Public and private infrastructure have the same measureable benefit- increased disposable income.
mustang19: Public goods are types of goods subject to market failure. The average return on public infrastructure is much higher than private capital returns, but private capital investment doesn't occur in this area due to the failure to capture externalities discussed before.
What is market failure? And your externalities do not prove or even suggest anything significant. See James J. Hill's Great Northern Railroad, the only railroad not to go bankrupt.
No, just let them vote libertarian.
Votes don't mean anything. I can vote for Satan but I won't get the Satan outcome, capiche? Hey, the Jews could have voted Hitler out. It was their choice. I guess they really just wanted to be exterminated.
People don't want Austrian Economics because it doesn't work.
Oh really? This is a pretty silly idea. Economics doesn't 'work' anything. If you mean free markets don't work, then (1) they have not existed so cannot be claimed to be a failure, (2) those periods most resembling free markets were the most wealth-creative periods in history. Why is Hong Kong such a beast? Why is America such a beast? See: Gilded Age and Germany's Economic Miracle.
They don't like AE because it doesn't spoonfeed them pies in the sky from their lovely lords. That and AE, understood by all, would basically end monopoly, which is unacceptable to monopolists. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/07/priceless-how-the-federal_n_278805.html
Sure, in 18th century America people got by with private religious education, but they were scraping goat crap on a farm. Sure, there are some developing countries with private infrastructure and education systems, but same story.
"Hey look at the Soviet standard of living in 1937! It's 10x greater than that of England in 1754! I guess this means that communism is the best form of economic organization, hurrah!"
Oh you mean positive rights? As in, entitlements? Whose existence can only be funded by coercive expropriation of labor i.e. slavery? Didn't know you were a supporter of slavery.
Because rape is a crime, as is theft. Infrastructure is not a crime and no one said so.
EDIT: Measurement =/= Calculation. Public projects efficacy cannot be measured because consumers do not 'vote' for it's usage. When the pickled egg guy starts making shitty pickled eggs, less people buy from him. When the roads are shit, who are you going to stop buying from? No one. You already paid for it and it's there. Not driving on roads wouldn't be anymore of an input either, because none of the inputs are processed, as they are in a business.
mustang19:Public goods are types of goods subject to market failure.
What is market failure? (Not playing dumb -- I honestly don't know the meaning of the phrase.) Is everything which is subject to market failure a public good, by definition, or are there non-public goods which are also subject to market failure?
The average return on public infrastructure is much higher than private capital returns, but private capital investment doesn't occur in this area due to the failure to capture externalities discussed before.
What do you think is the most important characteristic of public (government) capital "investments" that makes them so much more immune to (market) failure -- or so much better at "capturing externalities" -- relative to non-public capital investments? What are externalities, and why would capuring them be desirable (valued), and to (by) whom?
No, just let them vote libertarian. People don't want Austrian Economics because it doesn't work.
Does, in your estimation, the current democratic model "work"? Please check out Beyond Democracy ($0.99 on Kindle, and a quick read -- well worth the couple of hours).
Strawman. Harvard is private, and non-religious. So is Khan Academy. Have you read a letter from the 18th century? What did you think about its structure, eloquence, and clarity? There are people scrapping goat crap today that could afford to purchase you and your mother as their slaves.
If a statistical study showed a consistent increase in utility (satisfaction) from 3 to 7 (on a scale from 1 to 10) for groups of three rapists during rape (for a total aggregate societal utility gain of 3x4=12), on average, while a consistent decrease in utility from 9 to 1 for every rape victim, would you go around promoting gang rape as a "public good"? If not, why not? (12 > 8, after all). No, because there's such a thing as human rights that comes before personal freedom and private property.
What are human rights are where are they?
The "public" part makes it equivalent to rape. At least someone must have made an involuntary "contribution" (like the "contribution" made by the raped one during gang rape) -- otherwise it would not be "public", but simply private (i.e. voluntary).
A market failure occurs when the government sells of all its infrastructure and the economy falls apart. Good for James Hill, but countries without public subsidized roads and waterways aren't the best economic success stories.
Why is Hong Kong such a beast? Why is America such a beast? See: Gilded Age and Germany's Economic Miracle.
Because, among other things, those countries established public education and infrastructure around the time of their economic takeoff.
You can show examples of the public sector not working, but you can't find any examples of a first world country with no public infrastructure or education.
Slavery is coerced labor, after all. However, the government taking green pieces of paper from you is not quite the same thing.
That's where voting comes in.
It's not really much of a term if stretched beyond common sense. A market failure is a market event which allocates resources in a way that fails to maximize whatever utility function you are trying to maximize. Not all market failures indicate a need for public goods. Government failure occurs when the government fails in the same way.
In practice, absolutely everything is subjec to varying degrees of government or market failure. Don't take these terms as absolutes.
Page 5 > Ctrl+F > "Adam Smith"
Better than any non-electoral system known today. I'll consider your book, but please, cliffs?
The problem with anarcho-capitalism, besides the idea of abandoning checks and balances and democratic representation, is that it does not guarantee human rights to everyone.
As defined by the UN charter:
Article 1 All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 2 Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Article 3 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 4 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Article 5 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 6 Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Article 7 All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. Article 8 Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. Article 9 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Article 10 Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. Article 11 (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed. Article 12 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. Article 13 (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. Article 14 (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Article 15 (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. Article 16 (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. Article 17 (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Article 18 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance only with the permission of the person and not by force. Article 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Article 20 (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association. Article 21 (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. Article 22 Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. Article 23 (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. Article 24 Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. Article 25 (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection. Article 26 (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. Article 27 (1) Everyone has the right to freely participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. Article 28 Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized. Article 29 (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Article 30 Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance only with the permission of the person and not by force.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
(1) Everyone has the right to freely participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
If you want to debate the UN, please PM me or start another thread. Otherwise, I'm getting interested in this discussion.
I would say that most democratic countries at least attempt to uphold human rights.
The decline of European classical education has been a tragedy. For-profit college education has undermined the supremacy of Cambridge and King's College.
If tax funding for rape crisis centers, courts, and police stations to deter crime is equivalent to rape in your eyes, then you and I have a very different ethics.
mustang19:Does, in your estimation, the current democratic model "work"? Please check out Beyond Democracy ($0.99 on Kindle, and a quick read -- well worth the couple of hours). Better than any non-electoral system known today. I'll consider your book, but please, cliffs?
Interview with one of the co-authors (both Dutch, btw). The book is Cliffs Notes (100 pages or so) of itself. Its arguments couldn't possibly be made any more cogent, clear, and powerful. Read it. You will thank me for pestering you about it, I think.
mustang19: A market failure occurs when the government sells of all its infrastructure and the economy falls apart. Good for James Hill, but countries without public subsidized roads and waterways aren't the best economic success stories.
That stuff definitely happens with 3rd worlders saddled by the IMF/WB, but are hardly market processes. When Bechtel gets something fo free, why do they give a shit to run a stable long-term business model?
Again correlation =/=causation in regards to your second point. One example is all it takes to disprove an assertion
Don't make me laugh. Infrastructure? Hong Kong? It's frickin tiny. Also compulsory education didn't happen in the US until the 20th century. I think we both know that the key to America's and Hong Kong's economic clout isn't public education, which couldn't teach highschool students a world map.
You missed the point, which is anyone can point to specific time periods, like early 19th century america and say that people were dirt poor farmers but this only reflects a lack of societal capital accumulation, not the efficacy of any economic paradigm. Once again, correlation =/= causation. In America's case the all-saving holy highway project happened after America had become an economic powerhouse.
Try stop giving them that paper. Then you see what happens to bad slaves.
Can you explain to me how you think that voting for projects is in any way comparable to paying for services? Firstly, no one who lives far from the project will vote for it. So it probably won't get passed. Secondly, entrepeneurs choose projects and their locations on the basis of profit and thus effective resource allocation, whereas politicians choose projects for their effects on re-election chances (See: Tennessee Valley Authority). Thirdly, voting is slow. Fourthly, will this voting be compulsory? Fifthly, those who are most affected by said project and least affected get the same amount of say in the matter.
Don't you realize that monetary transaction is voting? People vote on what services they value most by subscribing to them. You don't need a political process to vote on things. The difference is no one gets stolen from.