I don't understand how can you go through 11 pages of critizicing the system that made the United States on of the 5 most powerful countries in the world in less than 100 years.
On January 29 2010 12:21 lixlix wrote: There is always an equilibrium price but this equilibrium price is constantly shifting and often extremely difficult to know. The market price can be extremely far away from the equilibrium price for a very long time due to inefficiencies, information lag, etc...
But if you don't know the equilibrium price apart from the market price, how can you say that the market price was wrong? You don't know the equilibrium price, it's also a subjective approximation! Is what you mean this.. "I think such product is too expensive/too cheap"?
Edit: "market price was wrong", not the equilibrium price.
On January 29 2010 10:55 StorkHwaiting wrote: [quote]
What if I want to use my money to buy a bomb to blow up your business so that my business next door is more profitable?
That would be punished via you paying for the damage you did to anothers property. Not only that, but people would be disinclined to shop at your business. Advocates of Market-Anarchy, or Laissez-Faire radicalism, advocate for this, in the general broadest sense:
This is under the assumption they have such knowledge. Most cases, we, as a population, do not have such knowledge. =/ Problem with Capitalism, we don't have perfect information.
Let us look at a scenario between a doctor and a patient. The patient needs a treatment, and while it may not necessarily be now, it must be sometime. The patient doesn't know how much a surgery will cost, it could cost $10, it could cost $1,000,000, they simply do not know. After all, how could they? Also, they do not necessarily know the quality of such a product. Could this doctor be a good surgeon, or does his patients usually suffer unusually long times of pain? You say the patient might know from the amount of customers, but how would they find out? Do they stand outside the door all day long? Either way, the opportunity cost of searching up such information could be higher than the gain from knowing it, and furthermore, such information might only be attainable under the loss of a substantial amount of money. So, how would the patient decide whether or not to get this surgery? They could move on, but do they know anymore? This lack of perfect information skews the results of the market, and gives much more than "equal" power between consumer and supplier.
The state doesn't have perfect information either... in fact they have a lesser incentive to, because the business to which they attend are not their own, but of others they may never meet or come face to face with.
May I propose that the question should be not "whether you can make the right choices?" but "who has the best incentives to make the right choices?" plus "right choices for who?"
No, the state doesn't, but it will usually have much better information than an individual. Incentives play no role in this as "right choices" are 1. Opinion based, unless you're talking of economically efficient being the right choice, but that completely disregards morality. 2. Relies upon the assumption there are choices available. 3. Relies upon that the option of a "right choice" is available. Which, often times, there isn't. Without perfect information, or at least even DECENT information, no right choice is forseeable.
Now, let us add a new number into my hypothesis above. Suppose the "right amount" or "equilibrium price" was $50,000. How could the patient EVER get to that price if each doctor charges him $500,000+ or nothing, and he doesn't have the information to offer $50,000? How can he argue against the doctors without sufficient medical knowledge?
Wait... who says what the equilibrium price is? IMO there is no equilibrium price (there is no spoon luls).. I think if you're really interested about the aspects of trade you should study uh catallactics.
The state has *no way* of knowing how much *you* value anything because that which you value can only be known after-the-fact, only after you buy something or perhaps even assert your wish to buy something for a certain cost do we know that you value the "something" more than the "cost" (in dollars if it may be)
A trade is made because both parties value the objects being traded differently! Can we agree on <--- that?
Equilibrium price is the price determined by the market given a supply and demand schedule which is the aggregate of people's personal demands and the suppliers personal well, supplies. But fair enough if you do not believe in an equilibrium price. And no, the state really doesn't. That's a problem with it, and the problem with the market is lack of perfect information. Thus, we can't really say one is the best, only that in certain circumstances, one is preferred over another. =/ Yes, I agree with that assumption. Sorry if I'm frustrating you.
Naw it's not frustrating, I like teaching and being taught, that's what we be doing here I hope. Maybe I was too harsh on saying that an equilibrium price doesn't exist. Well it certainly doesn't exist somewhere in reality, like.. objectively. But an equilibrium price would be only an approximation to that which you find other peoples evaluations to be at. Like.. there's no exact price, it's only approximations.. because even at the lowest common denominator, the individual, their values are also constantly changing... so.. there certainly can't be an exact price even if we were all to have our heads scanned and analyzed by some really good keynesian.
I don't see lack of perfect information as a "problem with the market" .. well, it's as much of a problem as "people can't fly" or "move through walls" if you know what I mean.
Haha, that's very true. It is very interesting to learn through conversation and civil debate. ^_^ That point, I agree on. An equilibrium price, as far as I'm concerned, is an ideal. Much like infinity,you can get the idea, but to reach it is incredibly difficult. Nonetheless, to have the idea there as an indicator is still useful, much like how the concept of infinity is useful in mathematics.
Hmm, well, I highly disagree on that point. =/ See, the market works because there is a struggle between two forces, both of which are trying to do the best for their own good, to make a mutually beneficial choice. I think of it much like a court room, where two sides battle it out to find the truth of the matter. However, if one side suddenly doesn't have a crucial witness, or piece of information, the system falls apart. =(
Define "fall apart". Certainly one would come up on top in that case but the fact that there was a conference in the first place shows you that these people were willing to engage in their dispute civilly and adhere to the jury or judge's decision!
Well, by fall apart, I meant that the point of the trial failed. Sure, something the trial happened, but see, that's not the point of the trial. The point of the trial is to find the truth, to make sure justice comes out on top. However, with insufficient information, we do not know whether or not the correct verdict was chosen.
Also, Moral Hazard applies to everything, not just the state. It is not, by definition, caused by the state. In fact, it applies to people as well. If you get insurance, you're more likely to drive more recklessly. =/ Stuff like that.
Let's not debate the calculation problem. The Austrians had this debate with Central Economic Planners for nigh 30 years, and while we won the debate in actuality, in the world, the Planners achieved victory and as we can see the horrendous effects of their victory. I am hopeful though for a new Austrian/Market revolution when the house of cards finally crumbles in the coming years.
Free-Banking, 100% Reserve Banking, and a Commodity-Currency with no fixed exchange rates. I would also prefer Hayek's De-Nationalization of Currency, which is a part of Free-Banking. Anyone is free to produce their own currency. Competition will arrive at the strongest currency, which is the best for all of us.
What's all this talk about "theoretical equilibrium price" -- there is none. Practitioners never talk about how much something "ought" to be. If the market is buying and selling at a certain price, THAT is where the price "ought" to be, the transient equilibrium price where supply meets demand.
Just look at a market price ladder with all the bids and offers stacked up. Then you realize many things about equilibrium. Those who ask for too much, don't get a trade. Those who bid too little, don't get a trade. If you want to buy, you have to match your desire to get a good price with the desire for sellers to also get a good price. The market has the final say.
On January 29 2010 12:26 proberecall wrote: I don't understand how can you go through 11 pages of critizicing the system that made the United States on of the 5 most powerful countries in the world in less than 100 years.
when i make a sandwich, i go against the grain and use roma tomatos instead of the standard Hot House brand.
On January 29 2010 12:34 StRyKeR wrote: What's all this talk about "theoretical equilibrium price" -- there is none. Practitioners never talk about how much something "ought" to be. If the market is buying and selling at a certain price, THAT is where the price "ought" to be, the transient equilibrium price where supply meets demand.
Just look at a market price ladder with all the bids and offers stacked up. Then you realize many things about equilibrium. Those who ask for too much, don't get a trade. Those who bid too little, don't get a trade. If you want to buy, you have to match your desire to get a good price with the desire for sellers to also get a good price. The market has the final say.
i've been trying to buy KLA at 0.065 for the past 3 days with no success!
and it's been sitting at 0.065 for the most part! (well, half the time)
On January 29 2010 12:21 lixlix wrote: There is always an equilibrium price but this equilibrium price is constantly shifting and often extremely difficult to know. The market price can be extremely far away from the equilibrium price for a very long time due to inefficiencies, information lag, etc...
But if you don't know the equilibrium price apart from the market price, how can you say that the market price was wrong? You don't know the equilibrium price, it's also a subjective approximation! Is what you mean this.. "I think such product is too expensive/too cheap"?
Edit: "market price was wrong", not the equilibrium price.
people seem to be attributing a lot of things to me when I haven't said anything.
When did I say the market price is wrong? what does that even mean? the market price is wrong? Define wrong. I have no idea what you are talking about.
As to my criticism of your contradictory statement, never did I advocate handing out aid to the poor, but I criticize your statement that "not handing out aid is equivalent to letting the poor decide for themselves."
Teaching a man to fish is superior to giving him a fish. Nobody is denying that. Teaching a man to fish is a form of aid.
All the people who are sitting at the bid and offer thinking they have the right valuation for where the stock is going to go is taking a risk. That's what people do. The system doesn't "fall apart" because someone has more information! If someone is sure that the stock is going up, he's gonna start buying up all the offers, probably moving the stock price up a couple of ticks. Does this mean that the market failed? What exactly "failed" in this trial? People who took a risk thinking that the stock will fall ended up trading for a loss because they didn't have enough information.
The market is a system that rewards competition and the flow of information. Whoever has more information faster wins. Fast information and high competition is good for the market. In order for the price of a market to accurately reflect its value, people need to do hard work to take risks buying or selling.
On January 29 2010 11:09 Rothbardian wrote: [quote]
That would be punished via you paying for the damage you did to anothers property. Not only that, but people would be disinclined to shop at your business. Advocates of Market-Anarchy, or Laissez-Faire radicalism, advocate for this, in the general broadest sense:
This is under the assumption they have such knowledge. Most cases, we, as a population, do not have such knowledge. =/ Problem with Capitalism, we don't have perfect information.
Let us look at a scenario between a doctor and a patient. The patient needs a treatment, and while it may not necessarily be now, it must be sometime. The patient doesn't know how much a surgery will cost, it could cost $10, it could cost $1,000,000, they simply do not know. After all, how could they? Also, they do not necessarily know the quality of such a product. Could this doctor be a good surgeon, or does his patients usually suffer unusually long times of pain? You say the patient might know from the amount of customers, but how would they find out? Do they stand outside the door all day long? Either way, the opportunity cost of searching up such information could be higher than the gain from knowing it, and furthermore, such information might only be attainable under the loss of a substantial amount of money. So, how would the patient decide whether or not to get this surgery? They could move on, but do they know anymore? This lack of perfect information skews the results of the market, and gives much more than "equal" power between consumer and supplier.
The state doesn't have perfect information either... in fact they have a lesser incentive to, because the business to which they attend are not their own, but of others they may never meet or come face to face with.
May I propose that the question should be not "whether you can make the right choices?" but "who has the best incentives to make the right choices?" plus "right choices for who?"
No, the state doesn't, but it will usually have much better information than an individual. Incentives play no role in this as "right choices" are 1. Opinion based, unless you're talking of economically efficient being the right choice, but that completely disregards morality. 2. Relies upon the assumption there are choices available. 3. Relies upon that the option of a "right choice" is available. Which, often times, there isn't. Without perfect information, or at least even DECENT information, no right choice is forseeable.
Now, let us add a new number into my hypothesis above. Suppose the "right amount" or "equilibrium price" was $50,000. How could the patient EVER get to that price if each doctor charges him $500,000+ or nothing, and he doesn't have the information to offer $50,000? How can he argue against the doctors without sufficient medical knowledge?
Wait... who says what the equilibrium price is? IMO there is no equilibrium price (there is no spoon luls).. I think if you're really interested about the aspects of trade you should study uh catallactics.
The state has *no way* of knowing how much *you* value anything because that which you value can only be known after-the-fact, only after you buy something or perhaps even assert your wish to buy something for a certain cost do we know that you value the "something" more than the "cost" (in dollars if it may be)
A trade is made because both parties value the objects being traded differently! Can we agree on <--- that?
Equilibrium price is the price determined by the market given a supply and demand schedule which is the aggregate of people's personal demands and the suppliers personal well, supplies. But fair enough if you do not believe in an equilibrium price. And no, the state really doesn't. That's a problem with it, and the problem with the market is lack of perfect information. Thus, we can't really say one is the best, only that in certain circumstances, one is preferred over another. =/ Yes, I agree with that assumption. Sorry if I'm frustrating you.
Naw it's not frustrating, I like teaching and being taught, that's what we be doing here I hope. Maybe I was too harsh on saying that an equilibrium price doesn't exist. Well it certainly doesn't exist somewhere in reality, like.. objectively. But an equilibrium price would be only an approximation to that which you find other peoples evaluations to be at. Like.. there's no exact price, it's only approximations.. because even at the lowest common denominator, the individual, their values are also constantly changing... so.. there certainly can't be an exact price even if we were all to have our heads scanned and analyzed by some really good keynesian.
I don't see lack of perfect information as a "problem with the market" .. well, it's as much of a problem as "people can't fly" or "move through walls" if you know what I mean.
Haha, that's very true. It is very interesting to learn through conversation and civil debate. ^_^ That point, I agree on. An equilibrium price, as far as I'm concerned, is an ideal. Much like infinity,you can get the idea, but to reach it is incredibly difficult. Nonetheless, to have the idea there as an indicator is still useful, much like how the concept of infinity is useful in mathematics.
Hmm, well, I highly disagree on that point. =/ See, the market works because there is a struggle between two forces, both of which are trying to do the best for their own good, to make a mutually beneficial choice. I think of it much like a court room, where two sides battle it out to find the truth of the matter. However, if one side suddenly doesn't have a crucial witness, or piece of information, the system falls apart. =(
Define "fall apart". Certainly one would come up on top in that case but the fact that there was a conference in the first place shows you that these people were willing to engage in their dispute civilly and adhere to the jury or judge's decision!
Well, by fall apart, I meant that the point of the trial failed. Sure, something the trial happened, but see, that's not the point of the trial. The point of the trial is to find the truth, to make sure justice comes out on top. However, with insufficient information, we do not know whether or not the correct verdict was chosen.
Also, Moral Hazard applies to everything, not just the state. It is not, by definition, caused by the state. In fact, it applies to people as well. If you get insurance, you're more likely to drive more recklessly. =/ Stuff like that.
Hmm... the point of the trial was to find the truth? Maybe for the verdict.. but past that, it also comes down to what the sentence should be, those being gray areas of punishment and retribution.. There is no truth to be sought at that point (unless you're a very hardcore moral objectivist) but really, only disputes to be settled in a way thats good for the court's clients, some ruling that they abide by and approve of. That's not being limited to the prosecution and the defense but also any future clients. edit: forgot to quote
On January 29 2010 10:51 Yurebis wrote: Rothbardian you the man.
I think all of this stupid discussion could have been avoided if people weren't so indoctrinated to a statist paradigm where we got to rely on the elitists to tie our shoelaces, to give us food, make the grass grow, etc.
Capitalism, free market isn't a nasty monster that's going to come out from under your bed and eat you, damnit. Capitalism = free people working voluntarily. Anything other than capitalism has to be forced intervention. Be it a democratic government, a dictatorship, communism, whatever it is, if it's not voluntary, guess what, it's central planners telling you what you can or cannot do.
Shit guys, I got the perfect economy solution right here. I do whatever the fuck I want with my money, you do whatever you want with yours, and no one forces the other one to do anything, ok? Can we settle on that or do we have to be perpetually arguing over who has the better plan for everyone else?!? Fuck.
What if I want to use my money to buy a bomb to blow up your business so that my business next door is more profitable?
That would be punished via you paying for the damage you did to anothers property. Not only that, but people would be disinclined to shop at your business. Advocates of Market-Anarchy, or Laissez-Faire radicalism, advocate for this, in the general broadest sense:
Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual. -- Thomas Jefferson
Here again though I find it funny you accuse me of a straw-man when I ask you who had a higher standard of living, the pre or post industrial average man when that is a legitimate Economic question, to you, coming in and denouncing Free-Market voluntaryism on the basis of violation of anothers liberty which is in every case inherently criminal. If that isn't a straw-man I don't know what is. It also belies your bias in the fact you believe that the State produces an egalitarian man, or in the very least can influence a person's behavior. If this was so, merely producing a law proclaiming x activity to be illegal would reduce such activity, but in every case it doesn't. Hence, why Prohibition never worked. You buy into the fallacy of Thomas Hobbes. He has scared you to believe that men are inherently evil, and destructive. This is the biggest load of horse patooty I have ever read. If that was the case then all such Voluntary societies would destroy themselves, yet, even before Hobbes there were Voluntary societies that were peaceful and lasted for hundreds of years. Case in point -- Celtic Ireland, Medieval Iceland (around 1000 to 1300), Colonial Pennsylvania, and in the later years to a very large extent the Old West.
The natural state of man, is peaceful voluntary cooperation. We arrive at such conclusions due to the nature of reason. A man is better off in every sense by peaceful voluntary cooperation rather than violent appropriation in a free society. Is not the inherent predicament of man to be self-interested, and of this highest order of self-interest is preservation of life? We see this borne out in Switzerland who have the least restrictive gun laws of any society, and yet the lowest crime rates. If your hypothesis was correct, and that of Hobbes, the mere presence and ease of acquisition would lead to more crime, more death, and more destruction, yet, the exact opposite is true. How do you account for this discrepancy?
Actually, I'm Chinese and you should call me a Legalist if anything. I'm not even from the same realm of philosophical thought as you. I don't read Hobbes. What I do read is enough history to know that Celtic Ireland was far from nonviolent.
I'm not scared by a guy I've never read. Rather, I've been outside the house enough to see that a law won't prevent x activity unless there's a cop and a jail waiting for the guy who breaks it. The natural state of man is not peaceful voluntary cooperation, hence why man developed laws in the first place. You take an amazing number of leaps in logic to come to your conclusions. Sure is nice to know that you've definitively nailed down the nature of man though.
I find it odd that all these theories rely on vast assumptions about the nature of man. You ever entertained the notion that the nature of man might be debatable? I notice people do this several times in the course of economics. Man is inherently selfish. Man is inherently rational. Man is inherently peaceful and cooperative. Where are all these men you keep hiding? I don't see them in my world. I see a lot of decent, yet flawed, and quite often bone-headed people with a laundry list of insecurities and foibles that lead them to make all kinds of decisions that are not perfectly rational nor inherently selfish.
Again, all I've seen are theories that seem very detached from the reality that's out there. I guess violence is just a byproduct of laws. Without laws, nobody would be violent.
We call that Moral Hazard and that is a product of the State. Secondly, there will always be crime, for the sole reason that humans have free will. We recognize this fact, and have property rights written down and codified so as to create a common link and understanding in society. No where did I say Celtic Ireland was non-violent, or that crime would disappear. On the contrary. Celtic Ireland was as advanced a society as any other Western Nation-State, yet, they were wholly voluntary and Stateless. Your theory cannot account for this. For if it could, it would contradict your beliefs, yet you still hold fast that a monopoly must be for the safety and security of society.
Apparently, you have skipped over the history of Tuath's and Land Associations. They were private law societies.
So humans are naturally peaceful and cooperative, yet you turn around and say if humans have choice they will commit crimes for the sole reason that they have choice. That doesn't make sense.
Even so, moving on, you say that you recognize criminal activity will exist. Yet, recognizing something and writing it down on paper is not an adequate solution for how to stop said person from engaging in anti-social behavior. You've provided no answer. I'm pretty sure society understands when someone's committed a crime and usually don't need a piece of paper to tell them it's fucked up to steal someone's chicken.
As an aside, I have to ask you to please stop with the annoying ass extrapolations you keep trying to make about who I am and what I believe. First you accuse me of following Hobbes. Then you accuse me of having a theory. I don't have a theory. I have a brain. I think like an individual, not some creepy cultist who continually refers to himself as "we" and can only see the world in terms of theories or schools of thought. I'd rather you just have a conversation, rather than try to fit everything you see into some kind of box.
On January 29 2010 12:21 lixlix wrote: There is always an equilibrium price but this equilibrium price is constantly shifting and often extremely difficult to know. The market price can be extremely far away from the equilibrium price for a very long time due to inefficiencies, information lag, etc...
But if you don't know the equilibrium price apart from the market price, how can you say that the market price was wrong? You don't know the equilibrium price, it's also a subjective approximation! Is what you mean this.. "I think such product is too expensive/too cheap"?
Edit: "market price was wrong", not the equilibrium price.
people seem to be attributing a lot of things to me when I haven't said anything.
When did I say the market price is wrong? what does that even mean? the market price is wrong? Define wrong. I have no idea what you are talking about.
As to my criticism of your contradictory statement, never did I advocate handing out aid to the poor, but I criticize your statement that "not handing out aid is equivalent to letting the poor decide for themselves."
Teaching a man to fish is superior to giving him a fish. Nobody is denying that. Teaching a man to fish is a form of aid.
I can imagine a system in which a third party definitively says "Here are the prices. We did the research. This is the fair value." Well, maybe they're wrong. People will buy from them and sell at a higher price. Then the third party realizes this mistake and corrects it. But then they get picked off again. The end result is the exact system we have right now, where people disagreeing on the price of a product will buy and sell. You can never correctly judge fair value, not only because you don't have full information about the present, but because you don't have information about the future.
Let's say you're in the car trading business. You buy up used cars and sell them to other people. You might know that a car right now has a value of exactly 10,000 dollars. But you sure as hell won't buy or sell at 10,000. You want to make sure you're making the right decision, so you make a spread. You'll buy at 9,000, sell at 11,000. Not only to make a profit, but because there's INHERENT RISK in taking on a position. What if the car turns out to be total shit and worth 5,000 in a week? You protect yourself against unforeseen consequences. That is why no one will EVER completely agree on a price and the market must decide. It needs to have a healthy mix of market markers who provide liquidity, speculators, and arbitrageurs.
people seem to go to the extremes when reading the opinions of others in these debates, me included. I think we often disagree with a certain portion of somebody's statement and automatically attribute a viewpoint to that particular person.
Why do people insist on referring to the State, Economy, Politics as these abstract institutions which trascend the mundane sphere of experience?
For thousands of years the human being has attempted to regulate and legislate human experience. If individuals, which conform society, in which the State, Politics and the Economy adquire any meaning, are broken, and live in ingorance, any kind of legislation will only make suffering systematic.
People seem to do this with everything, they diagnose a conflict, they censor it, look for alternatives, without ever attending to the comprehension of why the conflict exists.
On January 29 2010 10:51 Yurebis wrote: Rothbardian you the man.
I think all of this stupid discussion could have been avoided if people weren't so indoctrinated to a statist paradigm where we got to rely on the elitists to tie our shoelaces, to give us food, make the grass grow, etc.
Capitalism, free market isn't a nasty monster that's going to come out from under your bed and eat you, damnit. Capitalism = free people working voluntarily. Anything other than capitalism has to be forced intervention. Be it a democratic government, a dictatorship, communism, whatever it is, if it's not voluntary, guess what, it's central planners telling you what you can or cannot do.
Shit guys, I got the perfect economy solution right here. I do whatever the fuck I want with my money, you do whatever you want with yours, and no one forces the other one to do anything, ok? Can we settle on that or do we have to be perpetually arguing over who has the better plan for everyone else?!? Fuck.
What if I want to use my money to buy a bomb to blow up your business so that my business next door is more profitable?
That would be punished via you paying for the damage you did to anothers property. Not only that, but people would be disinclined to shop at your business. Advocates of Market-Anarchy, or Laissez-Faire radicalism, advocate for this, in the general broadest sense:
Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual. -- Thomas Jefferson
Here again though I find it funny you accuse me of a straw-man when I ask you who had a higher standard of living, the pre or post industrial average man when that is a legitimate Economic question, to you, coming in and denouncing Free-Market voluntaryism on the basis of violation of anothers liberty which is in every case inherently criminal. If that isn't a straw-man I don't know what is. It also belies your bias in the fact you believe that the State produces an egalitarian man, or in the very least can influence a person's behavior. If this was so, merely producing a law proclaiming x activity to be illegal would reduce such activity, but in every case it doesn't. Hence, why Prohibition never worked. You buy into the fallacy of Thomas Hobbes. He has scared you to believe that men are inherently evil, and destructive. This is the biggest load of horse patooty I have ever read. If that was the case then all such Voluntary societies would destroy themselves, yet, even before Hobbes there were Voluntary societies that were peaceful and lasted for hundreds of years. Case in point -- Celtic Ireland, Medieval Iceland (around 1000 to 1300), Colonial Pennsylvania, and in the later years to a very large extent the Old West.
The natural state of man, is peaceful voluntary cooperation. We arrive at such conclusions due to the nature of reason. A man is better off in every sense by peaceful voluntary cooperation rather than violent appropriation in a free society. Is not the inherent predicament of man to be self-interested, and of this highest order of self-interest is preservation of life? We see this borne out in Switzerland who have the least restrictive gun laws of any society, and yet the lowest crime rates. If your hypothesis was correct, and that of Hobbes, the mere presence and ease of acquisition would lead to more crime, more death, and more destruction, yet, the exact opposite is true. How do you account for this discrepancy?
Actually, I'm Chinese and you should call me a Legalist if anything. I'm not even from the same realm of philosophical thought as you. I don't read Hobbes. What I do read is enough history to know that Celtic Ireland was far from nonviolent.
I'm not scared by a guy I've never read. Rather, I've been outside the house enough to see that a law won't prevent x activity unless there's a cop and a jail waiting for the guy who breaks it. The natural state of man is not peaceful voluntary cooperation, hence why man developed laws in the first place. You take an amazing number of leaps in logic to come to your conclusions. Sure is nice to know that you've definitively nailed down the nature of man though.
I find it odd that all these theories rely on vast assumptions about the nature of man. You ever entertained the notion that the nature of man might be debatable? I notice people do this several times in the course of economics. Man is inherently selfish. Man is inherently rational. Man is inherently peaceful and cooperative. Where are all these men you keep hiding? I don't see them in my world. I see a lot of decent, yet flawed, and quite often bone-headed people with a laundry list of insecurities and foibles that lead them to make all kinds of decisions that are not perfectly rational nor inherently selfish.
Again, all I've seen are theories that seem very detached from the reality that's out there. I guess violence is just a byproduct of laws. Without laws, nobody would be violent.
We call that Moral Hazard and that is a product of the State. Secondly, there will always be crime, for the sole reason that humans have free will. We recognize this fact, and have property rights written down and codified so as to create a common link and understanding in society. No where did I say Celtic Ireland was non-violent, or that crime would disappear. On the contrary. Celtic Ireland was as advanced a society as any other Western Nation-State, yet, they were wholly voluntary and Stateless. Your theory cannot account for this. For if it could, it would contradict your beliefs, yet you still hold fast that a monopoly must be for the safety and security of society.
Apparently, you have skipped over the history of Tuath's and Land Associations. They were private law societies.
So humans are naturally peaceful and cooperative, yet you turn around and say if humans have choice they will commit crimes for the sole reason that they have choice. That doesn't make sense.
Even so, moving on, you say that you recognize criminal activity will exist. Yet, recognizing something and writing it down on paper is not an adequate solution for how to stop said person from engaging in anti-social behavior. You've provided no answer. I'm pretty sure society understands when someone's committed a crime and usually don't need a piece of paper to tell them it's fucked up to steal someone's chicken.
As an aside, I have to ask you to please stop with the annoying ass extrapolations you keep trying to make about who I am and what I believe. First you accuse me of following Hobbes. Then you accuse me of having a theory. I don't have a theory. I have a brain. I think like an individual, not some creepy cultist who continually refers to himself as "we" and can only see the world in terms of theories or schools of thought. I'd rather you just have a conversation, rather than try to fit everything you see into some kind of box.
The point I think is that people are able to foresee violence and prevent it in a number of ways. Maybe that wasn't quite possible in the past due to very severe limitations on information, I don't know, don't feel like theorizing and trying to justify why "slavery" happened, but that I see it being quite possible today.
The "we" you talk about... that's exactly how I see it too man. I wish "we" would stop saying "we" all the time, for each time "we" do, "we" are just forcing others to do what "we" want. Enslaving ourselves if you may.
edit: by it I mean anarchocap Anarcho-cap is quite possible today
On January 29 2010 12:44 lixlix wrote: people seem to go to the extremes when reading the opinions of others in these debates, me included. I think we often disagree with a certain portion of somebody's statement and automatically attribute a viewpoint to that particular person.
EPT
