| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
leve15
United States301 Posts
Russians didn't become communists because they're lazy, they became communists because living in Russia is hard, and they had to rely on each other for survival. Through hardship, a selfish attitude yields little sympathy. And through prosperity, selfish attitudes are born. Armchair economists are hilarious. Go outside. Meet people. And maybe then you'll understand for yourself why Anarcho-capitalism doesn't work. | ||
|
ShroomyD
Australia245 Posts
 | ||
|
Thereisnosaurus
Australia1822 Posts
On August 29 2010 15:55 ROFLChicken wrote: Actually I think his statement ties into your point fairly well... you talked about rational players and their inability to cooperate for mutual gain. His point was that even making the assumption that players act rationally is a huge leap given all the studies to the contrary.. I see the misunderstanding. I did not state that this is an assumption we can make, but one that we could only if we engineered a situation in which the players could be relied upon to be rational. I've spent a lot of time to figure out if it would be possible, and I think it could be, but in the sort of way that getting men to mars in the next three or so years is possible. Dooable, but requiring such a tack against the flow it's essentially impossible. The studies to the contrary on rational behavior, by the way, often fail to give the principle of subjective rationality enough clout. We act rationally based on previous experience and our understanding of the principles involved. Very few studies I have seen have gone to sufficient lengths to justify their conclusions by objectively ensuring that they made their participants aware of what they are actually doing (many results can be put down to the average participant simply misunderstanding the bounds and parameters of the experiment as opposed to acting irrationally in full possession of the facts) I admit I have not actually read many of these papers in full, but I doubt anyone else here has either, we read the professors and academics who analyse the results, and they often make conclusions that are not as careful as they should be- so I'd advise against being so sure that the evidence is so clear cut. | ||
|
exeexe
Denmark937 Posts
Any questions? | ||
|
Drium
United States888 Posts
On August 29 2010 12:04 Yurebis wrote: You aren't entitled to kill other people I feel. I think most would feel the same. But not only are you not entitled, it would bring you nothing for doing that. It would bring a bad reputation if anything, increasing the risks of someone lauching a nuke preemptively against you! I say only retarded governments would do that, because they got the nukes for free (by expropriation of capital) and so, easy come = easy go. They also can use the nation as a shield to himself; the crazy president can make everyone seem guilty for a missle launched, so a potential retaliation may come not to the guy who ordered the nukes, but private property elsewhere, like idk, 9/11 maybe? Terrorists retaliating against a state more often than not kill the innocent, coerced civilians. Oh sorry but I'm going on a tangent, you're not talking about global violence, you're talking about the environment. Lol. Okay, and why would you like that the harvesters didn't do what you don't want them to do? What claim do you have over the forests? Do you have a better idea on what to do? Do you feel necessary to force them not to on your own principles? Why? They didn't do anything to you, and unless you can prove so, you really don't have a claim over the resource... just disagreement over its use, but no better claim to it. What happens in the free market is that, if someone has a better idea on how to use a resource that was previously already in use, they buy it off. They can afford it, because they expect a greater return from it, and the previous business ends up winning too, since they weren't making that much. The CO2 on the atmosphere has no effect on anyone I feel, and if you think it does, on you even, then you can sue them, if it comes to that point. Raise campaigns against the companies, and if it's popular enough, they'll be glad to comply; because it means making their products more scarce, so they have to produce less and sell at higher prices; but only if the public outrage is big enough to force every other competitor to do the same thing. Environmental issues are great for big corporations, contrary to popular thought, because it enables collusion better than any other concern, well ok, not better than health and safety and stuff that the government already regulates them for. But third best. Fourth. IDK. If you really believe that Co2 in the atmosphere has no effect then I suggest you educate yourself on the issue. You still haven't answered that while logging companies will replant forests, they have an economic incentive to do so in the form of tree plantations with monocropped trees, which destroys those ecosystems. Your argument seems to boil down to "So what if companies destroy the environment, dooming us all in the process? You can't tell them what to do man." This is why I drew the comparison with me owning nuclear weapons. If I did own enough to wipe out all life, and wanted to use them, what basis would you have to stop me in your system? All you have is a disagreement with me about how I should use something that I own. You say that if I have a better idea about how to use the forests, I should just buy them. This misses the point of my argument which is that the most economically efficient choice is not always the most socially optimal especially when it comes to the environment. Your argument doesn't hold in this instance because the logging company is already using the forest in the most economically efficient way (For a logging company. Obviously the land could be turned into a parking lot or something but that's moot). You also haven't answered that the logging example doesn't apply to most environmentally destructive companies because they don't exploit resources directly. They either buy them from other companies or the product they sell has an environmental side effect that cannot be factored into their costs, such as energy companies emitting greenhouse gasses from burning coal. You say that public outcry will motivate companies to be less environmentally destructive. I answered this in my original post and you seem to have ignored those answers: Even if consumers cared about the environmental impact of what they bought there would be nothing to stop companies from lying about their pollution or branding their products as green even when they do nothing substantive to help the environment. This happens today and consumers are fooled just imagine what it would be like without regulation. Perhaps eventually the social costs of environmental destruction would motivate consumers to demand real action to protect the environment, but by that time we would already be past the tipping point. Such is the nature of positive feedbacks. Every species that goes extinct affects every other species and decreases environmental resiliency. Every degree that the earth warms triggers countless positive feedbacks that cause more warming. Even if coercion is bad the extinction of all life from warming is worse. Do you disagree? | ||
|
dvide
United Kingdom287 Posts
On August 29 2010 16:21 leve15 wrote: It won't work because not every country is as well off as Western powers. Maybe partly due to oppressive governments [PDF], perhaps? Russians didn't become communists because they're lazy, they became communists because living in Russia is hard, and they had to rely on each other for survival. Why would living in Russia be so difficult compared to anywhere else? And why does that give legitimacy to initiate violence against peaceful people? Through hardship, a selfish attitude yields little sympathy. And through prosperity, selfish attitudes are born. So ancap is being selfish, I take it? Ok, but that's not really an argument and therefore not particularly compelling. Any reasoning? | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On August 29 2010 15:24 Thereisnosaurus wrote: I've had a lot of talks about this before, and it really boils down to two things. Theoretically AC works fine, but it relies on two things that aren't all that reliable Firstly, it assumes that is natural for humans to optimize their material wealth and that they will attempt to do so rationally. The basis for this rational approach working is some fairly complex, abstract economics which the average person does not understand. If everyone in the system actually understood it then it would work perfectly. The problem is, not only is this not the case (almost the opposite in fact), but an AC system would probably be even worse. A person (from the initial rational standpoint) does not feel the need to understand the system, and so there is no external pressure to do so like in some cases in our society. It's the fundamental assumption behind the iterated prisoner's dilemma- if both players understand that if they cooperate they will both ultimately end up ahead, then you get an ideal society. If either of them don't however, you get the absolute opposite, an initial backstab and subsequent descent into a betrayal race, a bottom out, brief period of cooperation and then another back-stab loop as soon as the lesson gets forgotten (since the system does nothing to make sure it is remembered). In almost every debate and model I have entered into on this, there is no evidence that an AC system would create or maintain this pre-requisite to its own functioning For an AC system to avoid this, we would have to create some kind of situation in which a critical mass of participants were intelligent and educated enough to understand when to cooperate, when to betray and by how much, if this mass could not be reached, the system would be ultimately unstable. The second issue is a more practical, cultural one. As much as an AC system works well in theory, these theories do not generally factor the economic and chronological cost of overcoming 4 millennia of cultural inertia built up on the side of the state system. Every part of our life, language and upbringing is saturated in seeing things from a state frame of reference. For example, an informed person with no prior bias, if placed in a situation where they could steal and get away with it, might quite easily come up with the AC assumption that this is detrimental to the society as a whole, will inevitably in the long run cause them more problems via economic ripples and is actually an inefficient use of time in any case. But a human from any culture on earth today, if given the chance to take something of material worth to them that belongs to someone else, with the surety that no high authority could punish them for it, would take it the vast majority of the time. That's what having an authoritarian system does. If someone can figure out a way to disentangle the minds and culture of five and a half billion people from this notion then congratulations, an AC system will have a chance to function as intended (if you can also solve the issue of informed rationality above). TL,DR: works in theory, if certain assumptions are made, and there are definite ways to reach a place where they can be made, but at this time, in this environment, any attempt to switch to an AC system would fail to improve anything, if not make things worse. The first issue is a non-issue. Humans as a species has already overcome the prisoner's dilemma. Less than 1% of the people are sociopathic, everyone else feels enough empathy to dislike killing and stealing, and use force mainly on retaliatory basis. If you're really interested in the prisoners dilemma, watch this: Richard Dawkins - Nice Guys Finish First Also on sociopathic behavior: The Truth About Killing - Episode 1 Part 1 Second issue is not a critique of AC itself but the means of which it can be reached. I don't have any problem whatsoever if you think it's a hard road to travel, but insofar as this thread goes, I'm full enough trying to explain to statists what freedom even means, so if you spare me the time, I'd like to spend it on more imminent objections. | ||
|
ROFLChicken
7 Posts
Referring to theoretical intersections seems fair when discussing an economic system that only exists on paper. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On August 29 2010 15:27 adrenaline.CA wrote: Methodological individualism is an incredibly terrible assumption because people aren't even born that way. Such an assumption literally ignores all the empirical evidence in social science for the sake of philosophy. Okay, now shit just got personal. Are you serious? Really? The individual's preferences and actions are irrelevant for you? All it matters is macro? And I'm the one who's assuming too much? I think you're the one completely abstracting a concept that you don't understand at it's most basic levels. You're trying to tell how planets will behave in a solar system without understanding how the atom behaves. Trying to build a house with no bricks. Trying to tell what a forest without the trees. Aaaaabsurd. Meh I really don't care what you say anymore, and you don't care what I say. Can you shut up or do I have to shut up first? I really don't care at this point. | ||
|
Kishkumen
United States650 Posts
| ||
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
of course anarcho capitalism can "work". just like anything else is possible, that doesnt exist now. if all the stars align then anything can "work". theres no need to get upset about theoretical situations. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On August 29 2010 15:31 Half wrote: You're right, I have no fucking clue how it works, until you just told me. You just explained IN DETAIL how said system would work, and I explained to you the repercussion of locality based laws, one demonstrated throughout history. In an area where multiple common interests are present, and their is a need to defend them, people will obviously gravitate towards common interest, it is absolutely no way they won't. I didn't say they won't. I said you don't know that they will. They will tend to buy those services that best satisfy their ends. Not I nor you can tell what the specifics are, without background or context, and without the government in reality allowing such a thing to occur. We'll only know for sure how it works when it's go-time. I'm presenting you ideas on how it could work, but it is not my obligation to predict how it will, nor even that it will "work" in some arbitrary standard. The slave didn't have to show the whitey where would he be working at to be freed. The founding father didn't have to tell everyone how a minarchy would work as opposed to a monarchy. No, the first step is to recognize what now exists is coercion. It doesn't matter what is done next, if you know that what's going on now is absolutely wrong and subpar to what people themselves want to do. In fact, if I could show to you every single answer, it would be more of an argument in favor of a flavor of statism, as I the ultimate central planner, was able to devise the exact plans in which society can best be ran. The truth of the matter is that I don't, the central planners don't either. The ones who know best is Everyone, free to chase their own ends. And it just so happens that humans are empathetic enough to cooperate without the need of coercion. It is unnecessary at this point; and that's my point. On August 29 2010 15:31 Half wrote: You either have two choices. This isn't business models, its simple logic. Every property and thus the person in them has their own values. These values inevitable conflict. As they conflict people with common interest will naturally band together (not necessarily involving physical violence). You don't know that they inevitably conflict, as for the rest, so what? On August 29 2010 15:31 Half wrote: Strawman, and again, lack of perspective. Even with different laws, people can still respect each other to the degree that conflict is unnecessary. You have your house and I have mine, as long as you leave me alone, what evil can you do to me? You talk like different people living to each other necessarily makes them incompatible and want to force one another to do things. That's ridiculous, be more specific on the incentives there are for one to do so, and we can actually debate something useful like arbitrage, property contracts, dispute resolutions, etc.You say people would be quite happy living in a neighborhood filled with people who don't share their values in distinctive ways (as to require different laws) and would be indifferent towards moving to one filled with like minded people This is of course, has never happened and will never happen. Also the lack of perspective again, is not comparing your scenario in a statist world vis-a-vis. What's there stopping people wanting to kill one another in the state? Public Police? Laws? And why do you feel those things don't exist in ancap...? On August 29 2010 15:31 Half wrote: The result is quite simple. Homogenized values (one state), where dissidents are marginalized, or fragmented states with polarized values (many smaller states). Dissidents are marginalized. Okay. What kind of dissidents do you picture in ancap, as opposed to statism? Tax avoiders? well, there are no taxes in ancap, so that's one less. Black marketeers? no such thing in the free market. Drug dealers and users? drugs aren't illegal as much as rat poison isn't. Victimless crime offenders? there is no dispute to settle in a victimless crime, so no crime is committed. Prostitutes and pimps? Consensual sex isn't illegal. So I say, if you're worried about people being picked at by PDAs, I'd say you should be more worried about the people that are unjustly jailed TODAY all over the world. If you wanted to be any consistent that is. If you just want to cling to your believes and arguments from ignorance, then that's fine too, but at least be honest that you have no clue. | ||
|
ShroomyD
Australia245 Posts
On August 29 2010 16:51 Kishkumen wrote: Go talk to a non-crazy economist about your "theories" and report back with your findings. Even the Austrian school thinks you need some sort of government supporting an economy. I think you mean respect for property rights (which I think is attainable in 'anarchy'). | ||
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
| ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On August 29 2010 15:32 adrenaline.CA wrote: Marginal utility means that protecting one more citizen does not come at much of a cost. The rest of your post is too incoherent for me to address, especially when you start talking about MP3s and Apple. That's not what marginal utility means at all... you're talking about economies of scale, and the cost-per-product. Obviously the rest of my post would be incoherent if you used a term incoherently first. I'm addressing something you didn't say. But anyway, economies of scale has a very simple answer, and that is diseconomies of scale. Unless you can prove one of the other, it does not always follow that cost per-product diminishes as the company grows. A PDA may very well become bloated with officers and judges. In fact diseconomies of scale apply much more cohesively to human services than economies of scale do. Because it's much easier to become bloated. So no, it doesn't follow that because PDAs are free to grow, that they'll become too big and eventually use their indisputable power for coercion. Measures could be taken by the part of third parties and consumer demand by themselves to ensure such a thing wouldn't happen. And even if it did happen, what are you afraid of? The state coming back? Nothing that people haven't handled in the past' (that's what I'd say in ancap land) If you're worried about an ever-growing entity that never diminishes in power....well... you know where I'm going. | ||
|
dvide
United Kingdom287 Posts
On August 29 2010 16:51 Kishkumen wrote: Go talk to a non-crazy economist about your "theories" and report back with your findings. Even the Austrian school thinks you need some sort of government supporting an economy. Any actual arguments or just empty appeals to authority and sanity? | ||
|
Thereisnosaurus
Australia1822 Posts
The first issue is a non-issue. Humans as a species has already overcome the prisoner's dilemma. Less than 1% of the people are sociopathic, everyone else feels enough empathy to dislike killing and stealing, and use force mainly on retaliatory basis. If you're really interested in the prisoners dilemma, watch this: Richard Dawkins - Nice Guys Finish First Also on sociopathic behavior: The Truth About Killing - Episode 1 Part 1 Thanks for the references, but I'm already past that. I've read Dawkins (everything he's written for the popular market, in fact), not only that but I've read Tucker's outline, the Axelrod studies in their raw form, plus a half dozen other applications of the dilemma by various others like Hofstadter. To say that humanity has overcome the dilemma is laughable, just as much as to say that humanity has overcome mathematics or physics. You can't. If the fundamental assumptions of the dilemma hold true it is as solid as a mathematical proof. There is no evidence as far as I can see that they don't hold true, and no one has ever formally challenged their validity. People will kill and steal if it is rationally worth their while, again factoring all the elements of subjective rationality- mental trauma this will cause due to conditioning, habituated restraint, potential retaliation, difficulty of resisting or diverting current sensations caused by endocrine activity etc. Both an authoritarian and an AC system are effective at limiting the situations in which either of these activities are subjectively rational, but neither 'overcome' the principle that if X and Y are true, Z follows. To modify your wording- Humans as a *society* have overcome the prisoner's dilemma *in a majority of possible situations* Second issue is not a critique of AC itself but the means of which it can be reached. I don't have any problem whatsoever if you think it's a hard road to travel, but insofar as this thread goes, I'm full enough trying to explain to statists what freedom even means, so if you spare me the time, I'd like to spend it on more imminent objections. Typically, the 'It's not relevant' objection is the strongest to any given argument. If you ignore it you're more or less saying 'I don't care about reality, I just want to waste these good peoples' time and frustrate them'. Theory is entirely useless unless it has a relevant practical application. It need not be immediate, simply conceivable. Establish your practical reasoning and work backwards, you'll probably find that a lot more conducive to constructive debate. Though, from your initial post, I'm honestly not sure that's what you want. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On August 29 2010 15:55 ROFLChicken wrote: Actually I think his statement ties into your point fairly well... you talked about rational players and their inability to cooperate for mutual gain. His point was that even making the assumption that players act rationally is a huge leap given all the studies to the contrary. And no one is bothered by the use of 'consensus' and 'popularity' to determine laws and values? Protection of minority rights and privileges is almost always definitionally anti-majoritarian and it doesn't seem like they'd fare too well under ACap. To the extent that a business discriminates, he proportionally loses profit. It is best for everyone if everyone can work and do what they do, and it doesn't matter if they're black, gay, asian, illegaly hispanic, etc etc. *insert rhetoric here* Contrary to popular thought, it's not. Companies do not profit from segregation and discrimination. They profit the most when they take any customer they can. And contrary to popular thought, it was more by the part of government's laws than private business that blacks were discriminated againt, particularly in areas where blacks were predominant. What type of business owner would be idiotic enough to deny service or provide lower quality service to blacks when they're the group that gives him the most business? Blacks weren't forced to sit on the back of the bus by business initiative, that only decreases their business with them! It's mainly the state that has the great idea of sacrificing economical efficiency for the political interest of the day. I don't think a PDA could get away discriminating on any minority group today, as much as the government can't get away either. And if they did, I really don't care, it's their business, they can choose not to do businesses with whoever they want, as much as I could only allow white beautiful women into my house and no one else. Now, if they were to go out and murder blacks for example, surely there would be an outrage, not only because of morality, but they're misusing the resources invested in them for defense purposes only. There would be multiple contract breaches for every unjust act they commit, endorsed by third party courts. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On August 29 2010 16:21 leve15 wrote: It won't work because not every country is as well off as Western powers. Russians didn't become communists because they're lazy, they became communists because living in Russia is hard, and they had to rely on each other for survival. Through hardship, a selfish attitude yields little sympathy. And through prosperity, selfish attitudes are born. Armchair economists are hilarious. Go outside. Meet people. And maybe then you'll understand for yourself why Anarcho-capitalism doesn't work. Sympathy isn't mutually exclusive with capitalism. Nor anarchism. Nor both... combined... I'd say ancap is even more sympathetic than any coercive system, because it respects the proprerty which is duly yours, and only you can make the decision to share it. And people do; there is such a thing as private charity, donation bodies, that act completely non-coercively and no subsidies, and have worked for... I don't know how long, but for very long, before any statist had the jolly idea of stealing a bit from everyone and saying he's doing something good for society! Whatever he chooses to do with the money is irrelevant tbh. On August 29 2010 16:27 ShroomyD wrote: I think perfect competition is a big old fanatsy ty On August 29 2010 16:27 exeexe wrote: Anarchy --> dont listen to boss --> no excessive demands --> no growth --> no capitalism Any questions? You don't listen to your boss, you get fired. Someone who does listen to the boss gets hired. If the boss is such a prick that no one listens to him, he's fired, someone better replaces him. And if he's the sole business owner, then he goes bankrupt, and another firm can serve consumer demand better. Problem solved? No guns needed. | ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
It wouldn't really be Anarchism since we would still have leaders except now they were leaders of our large corporations. When monopolies are formed then there is no chance at all for us to vote for them. Before they have been formed our only chance to change who are in control of us is in how we use our money. i.e. the rich have more votes. The media would still be owned by the same corporations that we are voting for and the average Joe wouldn't have time to understand all the issues with all the corporations in the world. He would just buy what is cheapest for him. The majority would be driven into poverty and would essentially be wage-slave-labor for the upper class. Society would slowly drift towards something closer to an absolute dictatorship than anything else. The economy would crumble and crime, poverty, income inequality and bad health would skyrocket If you are searching for an anarchistic system that actually has some merit to it just take a look at Libertarian Socialism/Social Anarchism. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
MaNa vs sebesdes
Mixu vs Fjant
ByuN vs HeRoMaRinE
ShoWTimE vs goblin
Gerald vs Babymarine
Krystianer vs YoungYakov
PiGosaur Monday
The PondCast
WardiTV European League
Jumy vs NightPhoenix
Percival vs Nicoract
ArT vs HiGhDrA
MaxPax vs Harstem
Scarlett vs Shameless
SKillous vs uThermal
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
ByuN vs SHIN
Clem vs Reynor
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Classic vs Cure
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
