Every year, opposing political think-tanks pump out voluminous research on economics. What percentage of voters bother to study research from opposing think-tanks in order to make an informed decision? Not many, if any.
Even if the layman did this research, by the time he has enough information to make an informed opinon, it will be time for the next election and many of the variables will have changed. When you throw ideological bias and political deception into the mix, it is improbable that most voters - whether they be pro- or anti-market - know the best way to allocate resources in an economy.
Since voters are poorly informed, their decisions must result in unintended consequences (i.e. not allocating resources effectively). Since many voters are ideologically biased towards deceptive politicians, they are likely to treat these unintended consequences as symptoms of the original problem. Thus, they vote for more of the same policies. [Of course, the relevant comparison is people making decisions about resources in their own hands.]
In addition, the more that voters make decisions about efficiently allocating resources, the less capable they are of doing so. This is because the quantity and interdependence of the relevant variables increase, i.e. the guesswork of voters is more likely to be wrong. There is also not much hope that voters will become less ignorant about electoral politics, because they're more likely to get hit by a car on the way to the polling booth than they are to effect the outcome of a national election.
For example, a debate about something as simple as the minimum wage is complicated by other state interventions such as welfare programs, price controls, immigration laws, etc. It would be much easier to study the effects of the minimum wage if it was only one of a few regulations. But because it is one of many, it isn't possible for the typical voter to make an informed judgement about it.
Is this a simple way of showing how bigger governments will always be less effective at allocating resources? Arguments like these avoid wading into the statistical paralysis of opposing think-tanks, and Austrians already know that statistics are flawed in the social sciences.
so with the seasteading thing, does this need to trade with states or will it be self sustainable? needing to be houndreds of miles out in the middle of a ocean, getting food and water sounds like it needs some technological advances to for people to trade and pay taxes with states that involve taxes with trade.
people can vote with feet and wallets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKANfuq_92U&feature=player_embedded#!
here is a video called the myth of the rational voter
cab21: so with the seasteading thing, does this need to trade with states or will it be self sustainable?
so with the seasteading thing, does this need to trade with states or will it be self sustainable?
Self-sustainability is foolish. It would have free trade quite naturally. Being on the ocean, it would be very conducive to trade as well.
Oh, I see, you're asking will it be able to generate its own power and food. Well, there's plenty of space, flat too, and cheap, so something like floating solar panels would be easy. Water is plentiful, apply power to seawater and you get fresh water.
Foodwise, I'm looking into seaborn aquaculture, seems it would be much cheaper to produce farmed fish and the like that way.
cab21: needing to be houndreds of miles out in the middle of a ocean, getting food and water sounds like it needs some technological advances to for people to trade and pay taxes with states that involve taxes with trade.
needing to be houndreds of miles out in the middle of a ocean, getting food and water sounds like it needs some technological advances to for people to trade and pay taxes with states that involve taxes with trade.
What it needs is mainly water and energy. Solve those two problems and it can be sustained rather easily even in the middle of the ocean, importing food as needed, just as every city does.
http://io9.com/5927543/10-structures-that-could-allow-humans-to-live-on-the-ocean
this article looks interesting. how much have you looked into what others are doing in seasteading and what have you found?
Actually, come to think of it..
Just because voters don't know much about economics, doesn't mean that state economic policies are bad per se. Just as most people don't know how to cure illnesses, doesn't mean they are likely to choose clueless doctors. The division of labor allows for third party reviewers, etc.
The problem comes from the inability to evaluate the underlying causes of the successes and failures of a society to achieve a healthy economy. Since not even economists can agree on the causes, voters' choices will largely be hit and miss.
The relevant comparison is individuals and businesses using their own assets productively. What I'm trying to do is find an explanation that is (even) simpler than some public choice theories, and is based on things that people know for sure, i.e. political bias and the complexity of economics. Hopefully, I won't end up reinventing the wheel in the process.
cab21: http://io9.com/5927543/10-structures-that-could-allow-humans-to-live-on-the-ocean this article looks interesting. how much have you looked into what others are doing in seasteading and what have you found?
My favorite scheme is a modular structure like this design:
Ancap66: Just because voters don't know much about economics, doesn't mean that state economic policies are bad per se. Just as most people don't know how to cure illnesses, doesn't mean they are likely to choose clueless doctors. The division of labor allows for third party reviewers, etc.
In my scenario of an individualist state, some individuals would found cities based on political principles and then attract people who like its ideas. This essentially creates a new division of labor, a new job: jurisdiction founder.
Ancap66:The problem comes from the inability to evaluate the underlying causes of the successes and failures of a society to achieve a healthy economy. Since not even economists can agree on the causes, voters' choices will largely be hit and miss.
This goes back to the cause/effect problem of sociology and data interpretation.
My idea tackles this by allowing pure political expression without opposition. Thus, if you have an idea for a new legal order, simply start a new jurisdiction, attract those into it whom like the idea, and begin building and see what results. There will not be political opposition to water down the policies, and thus no one to blame but yourselff and your members to that jurisdiction who ostensibly wanted to be there and wanted to see it work.
Ancap66:The relevant comparison is individuals and businesses using their own assets productively. What I'm trying to do is find an explanation that is (even) simpler than some public choice theories, and is based on things that people know for sure, i.e. political bias and the complexity of economics. Hopefully, I won't end up reinventing the wheel in the process.
I don't think you're going to be able to bridge the two main issues, the causality problem, and the problem raised by Huemer, that gaining political knowledge is expensive and at the same time essentially futile in modern democracies where an individual has virtually no effect on politics with their lone vote.
so regarding children and families here, won't there be a problem of a child born in a juristiction and not happy with it's rules or a wife that would have to choose to go alone with the husband or divorse and then the two would have to decide custody of the children? people don't choose the family they are born into and would not choose the juristiction they are born into and that can cause conflict. what structure would be there to allow children to make and follow choices that they would be happy living under if they feel the parents are too controlling and feel trapped in the choices of the parents? i think we have in politics differences in generations the the choices of parents would be much different that the choices of the children as they grow up. how will child abuse be delt with under these make your own juristiction rules as some parents would like to choose to regard the children as property rather than treat them as sovereing individuals that can make their own choices of how and where to live? if people are going to say they are accidental american citzens and have not signed a contract to be a citizen and feel the law is imposed on them, what is to prevent that from the children in this new seastead setup?
cab21: so regarding children and families here, won't there be a problem of a child born in a juristiction and not happy with it's rules or a wife that would have to choose to go alone with the husband or divorse and then the two would have to decide custody of the children? people don't choose the family they are born into and would not choose the juristiction they are born into and that can cause conflict.
so regarding children and families here, won't there be a problem of a child born in a juristiction and not happy with it's rules or a wife that would have to choose to go alone with the husband or divorse and then the two would have to decide custody of the children? people don't choose the family they are born into and would not choose the juristiction they are born into and that can cause conflict.
Certainly. Kids are considered under their parents' supervision until old enough to support themselves financially on their own. They could also sue at a reasonable age to escape their parents' supervision if they felt particularly strong about escaping their situation.
cab21:what structure would be there to allow children to make and follow choices that they would be happy living under if they feel the parents are too controlling and feel trapped in the choices of the parents?
The only objective way to determine when kids are ready to make their own choices is when they're also fully financially self-supportive. This is perhaps better than using a static age to determine adulthood. But, individual jurisdictions could have different criteria as they saw fit, within reason.
Children is the only area of greyness when it comes to voluntaryism. At what point should a parent no longer overrule the will of a kid? Certainly after puberty, that's a biological measure of some maturity, if not total maturity. Then there's determinations of whether parents are abusing their position and in fact aggressing against their children. Ultimately you need courts to decide on a case by case basis, there's no pat answer that handles every case.
cab21:i think we have in politics differences in generations the the choices of parents would be much different that the choices of the children as they grow up.
True, and I fully expect that each new generation of kids would want to start their own jurisdictions and live in cities catering to what they felt were deficiencies in the place they grew up in. Such would be a healthy political process.
cab21:how will child abuse be delt with under these make your own juristiction rules as some parents would like to choose to regard the children as property rather than treat them as sovereing individuals that can make their own choices of how and where to live?
The standard of reasonableness and invasion. Is it reasonable to require a kid to work? Most of the time, within reason. Again, I don't recognize children as sovereigns until they are adults, no one does, it's not even possible, as kids aren't mature enough to make their own decisions. After they're a teenager, a good point is when they decide they want responsibility for their life, when they declare it, and when they move out. At that point, any attempt to hold them would be an aggression.
cab21:if people are going to say they are accidental american citzens and have not signed a contract to be a citizen and feel the law is imposed on them, what is to prevent that from the children in this new seastead setup?
This voluntaryist society is a truly contractual society, making real the supposed 'social contract' of today's legal system. When a kid turns into an adult in this seastead society, he or she is -not- automatically a member of any jurisdiction nor the larger confederal government itself. They must explicitly choose or apply to the jurisdiction they want to be a part of. Some jursidictions would no doubt take all comers, and some would have conditional entry.
Thus, whatever legal system they ultimately choose is explicitly a choice. They would remain under general police protection (privately provided by that jurisdiction), no doubt, while in any of the member territories, as would any visitor or foreigner, but they aren't automatically taken under the wing of the local jurisdiction and imposed upon like modern jurisdictions do. Glad you asked that question.
The idea is calculated to allow jurisdictions to both grow and die organically, based on how well they're serving their members. Generational movement between jurisdictions is expected and welcome as well.
Anenome:Certainly. Kids are considered under their parents' supervision until old enough to support themselves financially on their own. They could also sue at a reasonable age to escape their parents' supervision if they felt particularly strong about escaping their situation. Children is the only area of greyness when it comes to voluntaryism. At what point should a parent no longer overrule the will of a kid? Certainly after puberty, that's a biological measure of some maturity, if not total maturity.
Children is the only area of greyness when it comes to voluntaryism. At what point should a parent no longer overrule the will of a kid? Certainly after puberty, that's a biological measure of some maturity, if not total maturity.
How do you differentiate between "children" and the "elderly" who have about the same intellectual capacity and physiological vulnerability? Are the elderly considered under their adult children's supervision until they kick the bucket? What about the mentally ill?
Anenome:Again, I don't recognize children as sovereigns until they are adults, no one does, it's not even possible, as kids aren't mature enough to make their own decisions. After they're a teenager, a good point is when they decide they want responsibility for their life, when they declare it, and when they move out. At that point, any attempt to hold them would be an aggression.
Once again, this standard must be applied similarly to those with the similar capacities. Does this mean the eldery shouldn't be recognized as sovereigns, because they are too frail to make their own decisions? When an elderly person decides they no longer want responsibility for their life, does that mean his adult children are obliged to care for him?
Ancap66:How do you differentiate between "children" and the "elderly" who have about the same intellectual capacity and physiological vulnerability?
I don't, necessarily. If the elderly prove incapable of caring for themselves, and not of sound mind, they should be taken in by their family or admitted to a care facility. Likely there would be law enforcement involved and due process to determine soundness of mind and whether they're a danger to themselves and others.
I assume too that such care facilities would arise as a function of the free market via donation and the like. There would be no state role in social services.
At the same time, I want to create a mechanism to make coordinated action in the absence of government both possible and easy. This is where the web helps a lot, to create communication channels within a jurisdiction, allowing voluntary mass coordination such as we've historically used government to accomplish. It's a new mechanism of coordinated action based on voluntarism. Since it's a private law society, and anyone can propose laws for themselves and others, and all law is voluntary, anyone could put forth an initiative and themselves as its executor, the purpose of which being to, say in this instance, fund an old age home. Those adopting the intiative could subscribe to it financially and support it either on a continuing basis or lump sums, w/e.
Ancap66:Are the elderly considered under their adult children's supervision until they kick the bucket?
Not unless they're of unsound mind -and- the family has accepted the obligation to care for them. There's no automatic assumption that their family must care for them. In practice, and absent state facilities, I expect many families would. I also expect many people would foresee this event and buy long term care insurance. And they'd actually be able to afford it :P
Ancap66:What about the mentally ill?
Left to themselves unless they become a danger and/or invade another's rights.
Ancap66: Anenome:Again, I don't recognize children as sovereigns until they are adults, no one does, it's not even possible, as kids aren't mature enough to make their own decisions. After they're a teenager, a good point is when they decide they want responsibility for their life, when they declare it, and when they move out. At that point, any attempt to hold them would be an aggression. Once again, this standard must be applied similarly to those with the similar capacities. Does this mean the eldery shouldn't be recognized as sovereigns, because they are too frail to make their own decisions? When an elderly person decides they no longer want responsibility for their life, does that mean his adult children are obliged to care for him?
You've got to separate the two issues. Firstly, if an elderly person can no longer care for themselves and are of unsound mind, then care should be found for them, if there's any person or organization willing to take them on. Since human societies have always had such organizations, even without government involvement, I assume such will continue to exist. Those who argue only the state can fund such things--poppycock.
And no, that would not mean their adult children are obliged to care for them. As an obligation must be accepted and cannot be automatic. I'm sure many families would, and again, I'm sure many people would buy long-term care insurance to avoid such a fate in the first place.