Economics Questions

Re: The Information Problem of Voters

Anenome — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 06:20:38 GMT

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.

Re: The Information Problem of Voters

Ancap66 — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 03:54:07 GMT

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.

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?

Re: The Information Problem of Voters

Anenome — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 22:22:21 GMT

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.

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.

Re: The Information Problem of Voters

cab21 — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 21:37:35 GMT

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?

Re: The Information Problem of Voters

Anenome — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 16:54:06 GMT

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.

Re: The Information Problem of Voters

Anenome — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 16:48:46 GMT

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:

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Re: The Information Problem of Voters

Ancap66 — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 12:43:37 GMT

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.

Re: The Information Problem of Voters

cab21 — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 11:11:29 GMT

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?

Re: The Information Problem of Voters

Anenome — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 09:10:13 GMT

cab21:

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.

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.

Re: The Information Problem of Voters

cab21 — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 08:55:27 GMT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKANfuq_92U&feature=player_embedded#!

here is a video called the myth of the rational voter

Re: The Information Problem of Voters

cab21 — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 06:27:30 GMT

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

Re: The Information Problem of Voters

Anenome — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 05:27:54 GMT

John James's Huemer link was an awesome listen/read.

Huemer makes a very insightful point, that gaining political knowledge has a high cost. And that people typically will only invest in something if they expect to get a return out of it. Yet, they know that regardless of anything they learn, their ability to influence political decision-making is exceedingly marginal, and therefore they don't bother.

This is yet another area where my proposal for multitudinous experimental seasteading jurisdictions would truly benefit a society, since living in a place where anyone can start their own jurisdiction means that there could be enormous benefit to individual political and economic education.

Furthermore, the argument of reality is much harder to ignore than merely going head to head on theory, meaning that the socialists would be forced to confront the actual outcome of their own systems, and its results failures, and thereby its failure to attract citizens to its systems, despite their "good intentions" (which will no doubt mystify them for awhile, lol).

Re: The Information Problem of Voters

Ancap66 — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 02:20:00 GMT

I think I come across here as a bit paternalistic, as if I have looked at all the research and concluded that every voter is an idiot. Rather, I have looked at some research and concluded there is no way in hell that most voters have seriously investigated all of that. In which case, liberal and conservative voters who comprise the statist quo, are uninformed about the consequences of most of the economic policies that their elected politicians implement. Therefore these policies must result in unintended consequences, which they then blame on the original problem.

So there is enough prima facie evidence to have some faith in the counter-intuitive perspective that: most of the political policies of the day are counter-productive at achieving their supposed ends.

That would accomplish virtually nothing, except being a feather in our cap.

I agree that this is typically how things have played out, since the size of government has always been to grow. However, the success of RP has shown that political ideas can come back in fashion. I have the impression that there are a lot of myths out there just waiting to be shattered. Of course, there will always be a percentage of free loaders, but I still like the idea of getting enough political support to throw a new tea party. However, this may only be possible once a small-scale libertarian society has been established and proven to work much better than the statist quo.

Re: The Information Problem of Voters

Wheylous — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 17:56:33 GMT

Austrians already know that statistics are flawed in the social sciences.

Not all statistics. I think the focus is on correlation/causation.

Re: The Information Problem of Voters

Anenome — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:12:08 GMT

Ancap66:
@ Anenome

I think the problem is that the masses have been focused on democracy/electoral politics, rather than thinking outside the square.

The masses still think democracy is what makes the modern republic great... it's actually what keeps modern government in debt and aggressive, and a hundred other problems.

Ancap66:
My main point is that almost all voters, whether they support more or less government, are not economists

Certainly. And we can't ever expect that they will do their homework and suddenly decide that 'libertarians know what's up, we should hand them enough political power to change things.'

Ancap66:
and even economists get it wrong. I've looked at research on both sides of certain issues, and understanding all the interdependent and changing variables is way too complicated for the vast majority of voters. In the areas of the economy that they have power over, they will never make smart cost/benefit analyses in favor of the "greater good" (nor do they have any reason to, given the incentive structure). If there's one thing voters can agree on, it's that they are mostly clueless about economics.

Every bureaucracy in power is the product of clueless and biased voters, and is therefore most likely to be an inefficient allocation of resources - compared with the actions of private individuals looking after their own personal and business finances.

Right, so the shift I want to make is to allow anyone to set up a legal jurisdiction reflecting their principles, not simply those whom are good at building political power in a democracy (mainly, as we know, by promising the moon).

Ancap66:
I agree that setting up our own society may be a better transitional option, since you often have to "see it to believe it".

I've come to believe that it's the only way we will ever see any libertarian principles embodied in law. Freedom philosophy works as a system. We wouldn't get very far by convincing any government to uptake only one part of our economic and legal prescriptions. What would it profit it us if we won the war on, say, the minimum wage, and everyone abolished the minimum wage?

That would accomplish virtually nothing, except being a feather in our cap.

Think of how much effort and political capital would need to be expended just to accomplish that, and how it would instantly become ammunition for the leftists' class warfare program, by which they don't intend to say anything logical but merely to gain political power, a sort of political ignorance arbitrage! That's a good way to put it :P

The more intellectual effort a policy requires for it to be understood, the less likely it will be accepted and made law in any democracy.