if we want a stateless society, why dont a team of private investors and political refugees colonize Somalia
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
Stranger:But the point is that I love my country. Don't you?
I've traveled a wee bit. I like my country, but in many ways, it is inferior to others I have been to. I don't feel I particularly owe it anything in the way of allegiance or loyalty.
I could learn to love a free country, regardless of the climate or geography. Being free is more important to me than acknowledging my history and the history of my ancestors with a particular state.
@all, I second the Liberty Colony idea. It's possible that an exodus may at one point be the only option left to us. The world is certainly not getting less statist. Things are moving in the wrong direction, and while choosing to stand and fight might be honourable, it's wise to pick the battles you can win. If you can't beat the state, then change the game. Plus the entrepreneurial opportunities for a Liberty Colony could be tremendous.
Danno:Then again, the threat of it has kept most issues from making it particularly needful.
You mean, like the bailout?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Danno: You continue to use "move house" as a no-cost, or minimal-cost, solution of last resort. That would be a hassle for a renter - but I own my house (as far as governmental restrictions will allow me to "own" property), and selling property that has no good access to transportation routes is not an easy, or profitable, task. This is not merely an inconvenience - this could reduce the value of my property by tens, or hundreds, of thousands of dollars. Your financial situation may be different, but for me, this would be a fairly serious problem. As long as they held me and my neighbors hostage to their demands, the road company could enjoy the upper hand. Their agents, buying property that was devalued by unreasonable transport costs, could make a killing, if they bought enough at a low price, then changed transport access cost enough to raise values. It'd pay them well to horribly abuse me and my neighbors - transferring value from us to them without violating any contract.
You continue to use "move house" as a no-cost, or minimal-cost, solution of last resort. That would be a hassle for a renter - but I own my house (as far as governmental restrictions will allow me to "own" property), and selling property that has no good access to transportation routes is not an easy, or profitable, task. This is not merely an inconvenience - this could reduce the value of my property by tens, or hundreds, of thousands of dollars. Your financial situation may be different, but for me, this would be a fairly serious problem.
As long as they held me and my neighbors hostage to their demands, the road company could enjoy the upper hand. Their agents, buying property that was devalued by unreasonable transport costs, could make a killing, if they bought enough at a low price, then changed transport access cost enough to raise values. It'd pay them well to horribly abuse me and my neighbors - transferring value from us to them without violating any contract.
Imagine you go to the movie theatre to see the latest blockbuster. Midway through the movie, the ushers come in, lock all the doors, then announce that they will not allow anyone to leave the room unless they pay a thousand dollars each.
You would of course pay them their thousand dollars and leave, passing the line of people waiting to see the next showing by announcing that it was a pretty good movie?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Perhaps we've never seen Hoppe's demolition. Perhaps is one of the few cases of services that are so location-dependent as to require a government. It's a far more likely example of "must be done by government" thang than, say, cola-flavored beverage, which obviously works better in the private sector than it would in public sector.
Utter nonsense/pure assertion. There is nothing that requires a "government". A government cannot calculate, it can do nothing but violate preferences to acquire its funding. It can override the preferences of some to serve the whims of others.
Of course roads in the USA are not "public goods". If I take my car to transport myself to the local grocery store and back, I'll owe dues to some private provider. Or maybe not, and you'll have to go to the trouble of explaining why they're not really "public" goods.
Because there is really no such thing as a "public" good. It's an arbitrary classification made by economists injecting their personal biases into their analyses.
This isn't even a strawman argument. This is "if you knew better, you'd know better" - not particularly convincing. You didn't even bother to offer a link/pointer toward Hoppe's argument - you simply claimed that it existed, and was not refutable.
No, I expected you to either be familiar with it or ask for it.
Is that the best you can do? Winning an argument by sneering at the opposition is rarely respected, or effective.
Lose the irreverent, childish tone when addressing me. All you are doing is arguing for theft, so do not be surprised when I treat such arguments no better than I treat those of any advocate of aggression.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Danno: I'd thought so - but I fail to understand how this is reconciled with that wikipedia list of "anarchic" societies.
I'd thought so - but I fail to understand how this is reconciled with that wikipedia list of "anarchic" societies.
Don't worru about reconciling with Wikipedia.
Danno: Then, according to you, minimalist-government proponents are indistinguishable from anarchists. Okay - cool. Shall we get together and cooperate on this?
Then, according to you, minimalist-government proponents are indistinguishable from anarchists. Okay - cool. Shall we get together and cooperate on this?
Not exactly what I said. Minimalist believe we still need a little government and anarchists/freedom movement thinks we can do without the little bit too. We are in agreement that less is better.
I would welcome cooperation. There are lots of opportunities in the LC for investment and involvement.
Twirlcan:I disagree. You will be like a Garfield Comic in the middle of a Chinese newspaper.
I have already gone to a foreign country and essentially learned the language and survived once. I have confidence in myself that I can do it again.
Danno: If I provide the monopolistic security service for an area, and force the residents there to pay for it (whether they want to or not), is it theft? Or is it theft if they refuse to pay for a service that I am, indeed, providing? Let's face it - if my security service prevents Joey from breaking windows, or prevents him from breaking more windows by putting him in a cage - have I not provided a valuable service to the window owners? If I prevent others from providing such a service, I'm in the wrong - but does that make it wrong for me to provide such a service, or insist that the window owners pay me for it?
If I provide the monopolistic security service for an area, and force the residents there to pay for it (whether they want to or not), is it theft? Or is it theft if they refuse to pay for a service that I am, indeed, providing? Let's face it - if my security service prevents Joey from breaking windows, or prevents him from breaking more windows by putting him in a cage - have I not provided a valuable service to the window owners? If I prevent others from providing such a service, I'm in the wrong - but does that make it wrong for me to provide such a service, or insist that the window owners pay me for it?
Why am I required to pay for services I do not want? Do you think that someone can provide you a service whether you like it or not and you should then have to pay whatever they think the service you don't want is worth? I think whether or not you want the service is the relevant question.
Danno:It's economies of scale - they've got it, largely because nobody else is allowed to compete with them in simple letter delivery.
So your arguement is that the government gives beneficial treatment to its own activity and subsidizes it with tax-payer money but it provides a service you like so you think its better. The government is providing a subsidy for this activity which means that if you had to pay the complete cost yourself the service wouldn't exist. So what you are really saying is your glad other people are paying for you to be able to send a letter cheaply.
So your glad the government is taking money by force from other people so you can have this particular service. How about we take all of your money so someone else can live in a nicer house? Same idea.
I actually think there's a problem with the way this debate is being carried out in regards to the road owner who isn't maintaining the road. Danno is asking the question "How can we over come this?" and concluding (wrongly) that we can't and therefore require the state. However this assumes that a road owner who refuses to sell or maintaing his road purely for the psychic profit that comes with being an asshole to the home owners is imcompatible with libertarianism, it isn't.
Is he aware that HOAs are most likely to own neighborhood roads BTW?
You know it's obvious that he doesn't believe in private ownership of land and is therefore a communist, not a minarchist.
Paul: Danno: Some years ago, Smith & Wesson annoyed gun owners {...} They're still in business, and doing fine. Exxon annoyed lots of people, for less intentional "crimes against humanity" - and I'd like to own some of their stock. Ostracism does not work as well as you seem to think it does. You're applying your values to things and assuming everyone else has the same values. If people were upset enough with S&W and Ruger to stop buying their guns, they'd be out of business before you could say "bang". That they're still in business is evidence that people weren't very upset at all, not that "ostracism doesn't work". A small number of upset people make a lot of noise, but (one of) the nice thing(s) about the economic system, as opposed to the political system, is that it's truly democratic: a small number of people making a lot of noise only have only a small effect on the economic system (S&W and Ruger probably lost a few sales) - the silent majority have a correspondingly large effect; in politics, the small noisy group dominates.
Danno: Some years ago, Smith & Wesson annoyed gun owners {...} They're still in business, and doing fine. Exxon annoyed lots of people, for less intentional "crimes against humanity" - and I'd like to own some of their stock. Ostracism does not work as well as you seem to think it does.
Some years ago, Smith & Wesson annoyed gun owners {...} They're still in business, and doing fine. Exxon annoyed lots of people, for less intentional "crimes against humanity" - and I'd like to own some of their stock. Ostracism does not work as well as you seem to think it does.
You're applying your values to things and assuming everyone else has the same values. If people were upset enough with S&W and Ruger to stop buying their guns, they'd be out of business before you could say "bang". That they're still in business is evidence that people weren't very upset at all, not that "ostracism doesn't work". A small number of upset people make a lot of noise, but (one of) the nice thing(s) about the economic system, as opposed to the political system, is that it's truly democratic: a small number of people making a lot of noise only have only a small effect on the economic system (S&W and Ruger probably lost a few sales) - the silent majority have a correspondingly large effect; in politics, the small noisy group dominates.
This does not fit the situations I have observed. Smith & Wesson did have a few lean years, but had police/military contracts that got them through the ostracization that happened in the private owner market. Walmart has some people so upset with them that they often have protesters who spend time in their parking lot (or just outside), passing out pamphlets to discourage their customers. They show no signs of being put out of business by these people.
You're right, of course - the noisy minority (or even slim majority) has very little political effect in the marketplace. If a company can find enough customers to remain viable, those who despise it will not be able to harm it. But that's exactly the point I was making - that ostracism does not work as a deterrent in the marketplace. I've listed examples of where it's failed to put a company out of business - can you give examples of where it has worked (outside of government intervention) as you claim it can?
Danno, who is surrounded by people annoyed enough to campaign against businesses, and who has always seen them be ineffective.
The avatar graphic text:
"Are you coming to bed?"
"No, this is important"
"What?"
"Someone is wrong on the internet."
Well minarchism is socialism.
GilesStratton: Danno:Then again, the threat of it (outraged uprising) has kept most issues from making it particularly needful. You mean, like the bailout?
Danno:Then again, the threat of it (outraged uprising) has kept most issues from making it particularly needful.
Good point. Perhaps we cannot expect our fellow citizens to object strenuously to anything that the Federal Government (or any of the different agencies that are part of it) will do, and we're lost. Come to think of it, the freedom lovers aren't even holding the line - they're losing ground on most fronts on a regular basis. Browne was probably right when he asserted that one's personal freedom was enhanced when one ignored 'burning issues', and just muddled through, rather than try to tackle the leviathan.
This does not mean, however, that I've been convinced that anarchy is a workable alternative to statism. It's been noted before that government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and an awful master. This does not prevent me from cautiously using fire for the purposes of heating my home, or believing that I can do without fire at all.
Danno, contemplating a hot, relaxing shower.
Danno:political effect in the marketplace.
What?
Danno:If a company can find enough customers to remain viable, those who despise it will not be able to harm it.
Of course they will, you're looking in black and white. The options are not "go out of buisness" or "stay in buisness", there are degrees as to how well it does and all other things being equal a company (or more correctly the individuals that make up the buisness) will aim to maximise monetary profit.
Jon Irenicus: Perhaps we've never seen Hoppe's demolition. Perhaps is one of the few cases of services that are so location-dependent as to require a government. It's a far more likely example of "must be done by government" thang than, say, cola-flavored beverage, which obviously works better in the private sector than it would in public sector. Utter nonsense/pure assertion. There is nothing that requires a "government". A government cannot calculate, it can do nothing but violate preferences to acquire its funding. It can override the preferences of some to serve the whims of others.
This is pure assertion - spoken like a True Believer.
Of course roads in the USA are not "public goods". If I take my car to transport myself to the local grocery store and back, I'll owe dues to some private provider. Or maybe not, and you'll have to go to the trouble of explaining why they're not really "public" goods. Because there is really no such thing as a "public" good. It's an arbitrary classification made by economists injecting their personal biases into their analyses.
Oh - that explains it. Thanks for clearing that up.
This isn't even a strawman argument. This is "if you knew better, you'd know better" - not particularly convincing. You didn't even bother to offer a link/pointer toward Hoppe's argument - you simply claimed that it existed, and was not refutable. No, I expected you to either be familiar with it or ask for it. Is that the best you can do? Winning an argument by sneering at the opposition is rarely respected, or effective. Lose the irreverent, childish tone when addressing me. All you are doing is arguing for theft, so do not be surprised when I treat such arguments no better than I treat those of any advocate of aggression. -Jon
Oh, yes, massah.
Danno, admittedly having been guilty of hubris on occasion himself.