|
On September 15 2010 07:23 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
You ignore my points about the weaknesses of law by sentiment, simply stating that, I paraphrase: 'if mass murder lies in human nature, it is going to happen anyway'. Did you know that there has never been a military conflict between liberal democracies? Peace is 'popular' because it is the fundament of our society - will this be the same in an ancap? What if it is profitable to make war? Does that justify it?
Wait what? I'm going to count on both my hands how much democracy's the U.S overthrew with black ops military force and money, and I'm going to run out of fingers and have to use my toes. Also, Pakistan and India.
For all you or I know, he can be defining 'liberal democracies' in such a way that the US itself doesn't count as one anymore...
But such an argument is silly anyway. It's like... "no white man has beaten another white man", which even if it were true, what does it prove, heheh... that we all should be white men, so the other whites don't beat on us?
|
war is only profitable if you can offload the cost of war to other people. It would be impossible to raise an army in the first place if you do not already have a monopoly on force to coerce other people into doing your bidding. Also, you wont be able to raise the capital for weapons without taxation. Because your business model to potential investors will be:
"hey guys pay me now so i can stockpile all these weapons and then maybe in a few years after we've killed a bunch of people I can pay you back."
"what can you do/give me to guarantee that this wont be a wasted investment for me?"
"erm...well........i promise not to shoot you! >:0!"
"but I am the one selling weapons."
"..."
-----
Also, 99% of you people say that the strong crushes the weak in nature and that is the natural evolution state of the wild ectect. But actually nature is 90% cooperating and boring coexistence. Going out to attack other people is an incredibly bad idea because there is the off chance that they will fight back and wound you. And if you are hurt then you a) now need assistance from other people to do the most easy mundane things, and b) are now a easy target to people stronger than you.
And, when you get down to it, the state doesn't protect you from criminals. A desperate druggie who needs cash right now for his fix will still shoot you in the face in current society. At the end of the day you are still defending yourself because the cops are far away and they are human too so they also dont want to be in an armed engagement. The cops only come for cleanup and future consequences, but by then it doesnt matter to you anymore because you will have already been hurt. People perceive a false dichotomy between the current state and "a state of nature." When in fact, you have never left "the state of nature." And currently, you are the weak that the strong is feasting upon, ridiculously over-charging you for "benefits" that you haven't asked for in the first place.
|
Cops today also have like, a 10% crime solving rate lol. To insist that no one can do any better... is clingy at best imo.
okay maybe not 10% on average but in bad neighborhoods yeah.
okay maybe I should drop the statistics.
|
I've read a lot of this discussion, but not all of it, and at 44 pages I think I'll just land up repeating what people say if I voice my natural objections to anarcho-capitalism. So I'll just try and focus on one point, which I haven't seen others bring up.
A page back, you asked what things are better without a profit motive. I think many things are, but in particular- art. In Britain, state support for art continually impresses me. For me in particular, Radio 3 is able to offer incredibly in depth documentaries and discussions of obscure composers, with no advertising.
Because of the smaller audience and need for concentration that goes with classical music, I don't think a commercially based radio station can offer as much - so far I'm yet to hear one. Music critic Alex Ross (in the Rest is Noise) argues the same - saying that England has the best classical music programming in the world.
To give another example, in the BBC's Planet Earth series, there is some breathtaking footage of a snow leopard. Getting the footage was a huge task, requiring so much time and money (and IIRC an entire second expedition) - the result of which only took up a small portion of the programme. The programme didn't need it - they already had more than enough material for it to be hugely successful. But those fragile few minutes with the snow leopard give the whole series something much more - something which is hard to define in times of money.
Once again, I know of no commercial enterprise which is able to match the quality of these documentaries, and am inclined to guess it's unlikely one will exist.
Perhaps in other ways Anarcho-Capitalism can work - but these two examples give me the impression there is at least some case for not letting profit into everything.
|
On September 15 2010 12:02 Tal wrote:
I've read a lot of this discussion, but not all of it, and at 44 pages I think I'll just land up repeating what people say if I voice my natural objections to anarcho-capitalism. So I'll just try and focus on one point, which I haven't seen others bring up.
A page back, you asked what things are better without a profit motive. I think many things are, but in particular- art. In Britain, state support for art continually impresses me. For me in particular, Radio 3 is able to offer incredibly in depth documentaries and discussions of obscure composers, with no advertising.
Because of the smaller audience and need for concentration that goes with classical music, I don't think a commercially based radio station can offer as much - so far I'm yet to hear one. Music critic Alex Ross (in the Rest is Noise) argues the same - saying that England has the best classical music programming in the world.
To give another example, in the BBC's Planet Earth series, there is some breathtaking footage of a snow leopard. Getting the footage was a huge task, requiring so much time and money (and IIRC an entire second expedition) - the result of which only took up a small portion of the programme. The programme didn't need it - they already had more than enough material for it to be hugely successful. But those fragile few minutes with the snow leopard give the whole series something much more - something which is hard to define in times of money.
Once again, I know of no commercial enterprise which is able to match the quality of these documentaries, and am inclined to guess it's unlikely one will exist.
Perhaps in other ways Anarcho-Capitalism can work - but these two examples give me the impression there is at least some case for not letting profit into everything.
I used the term "profit motive" because the person who I was responding to used it first. Austrian economics doesn't rely on utility maximization functions, money, or even material things at all; it relies on the subjective value theory and praxeology. In the case of art, the profit motive is just otherwise the want for creativity, inspiration, aesthetics, fame, whatever. (The last which can be monetized anyway). Any one motive isn't key; they key is allowing people to seek their own motives, unrestrained by the coercion of others - that is when they can fully realize what they want.
Consider this table.
![[image loading]](http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4075/4858534409_ed4aae5f18_b.jpg)
Re:BBC, I hope you're not implying that the UK people should be glad the government steals from every single one of them and pays off the BBC so that they could deliver such a camera shoot... this is wrong in so many levels lol.
|
On September 15 2010 12:02 Tal wrote:
I've read a lot of this discussion, but not all of it, and at 44 pages I think I'll just land up repeating what people say if I voice my natural objections to anarcho-capitalism. So I'll just try and focus on one point, which I haven't seen others bring up.
A page back, you asked what things are better without a profit motive. I think many things are, but in particular- art. In Britain, state support for art continually impresses me. For me in particular, Radio 3 is able to offer incredibly in depth documentaries and discussions of obscure composers, with no advertising.
Because of the smaller audience and need for concentration that goes with classical music, I don't think a commercially based radio station can offer as much - so far I'm yet to hear one. Music critic Alex Ross (in the Rest is Noise) argues the same - saying that England has the best classical music programming in the world.
How is it a good thing that your government takes money from the private sector so that you can enjoy documentaries about composers? There are people in poverty in your country, but you would rather see your government inefficiently redistribute resources so that you can enjoy this service, without having to fund it yourself?
If a commercial radio station could offer as much you wouldn't be likely to see it as no business would be foolish enough to try and compete with a government sponsored entity. In a free market you might see a similar radio station, but as long as your government has a strong presence in this particular market no private company is likely to try and compete with it.
On September 15 2010 12:02 Tal wrote:
To give another example, in the BBC's Planet Earth series, there is some breathtaking footage of a snow leopard. Getting the footage was a huge task, requiring so much time and money (and IIRC an entire second expedition) - the result of which only took up a small portion of the programme. The programme didn't need it - they already had more than enough material for it to be hugely successful. But those fragile few minutes with the snow leopard give the whole series something much more - something which is hard to define in times of money.
Once again, I know of no commercial enterprise which is able to match the quality of these documentaries, and am inclined to guess it's unlikely one will exist.
Perhaps in other ways Anarcho-Capitalism can work - but these two examples give me the impression there is at least some case for not letting profit into everything.
The market distributes resources in a way that the participants of that market deem efficient. If there were enough people like you willing to pay a bunch of money to see a snow leopard on television than there would be plenty of shows dedicated to providing this service. If this show could only exist with government sponsorship then it should not exist. As the people in this market would have deemed it an inefficient use of resources.
|
Yurebris:
Isn't it an artist more free if supported by the government, rather than having to worry about making ends meet? More able to realise what they want?
Actually I guess with the BBC that is my point (though as is common in this debate, I don't see taxation as stealing). My point is simply that the public sector can offer extraordinary things that the private sector cannot. The morals of it are probably too difficult to get into, but at least I think there's some place for achieving timeless excellence - even if it does cost the tax payer. As it happens, in this example, the worldwide success of BBC documentaries probably actually save the tax payer money, but that's not part of what I'm trying to say.
Evade[clean]. No, that's not my point. Clearly, I want my Government to deal with poverty - but taking money out of the (fairly small) arts budget to deal with that is self defeating. You can help people while also creating a better society for them to live in.
As someone who has paid and will pay UK taxes (currently in China for a year so not paying them right now), I am partly funding it myself.
Across the world there are many free market opportunities for the station you suggest, but I'm yet to hear one measure up to Radio 3. So while you can see the BBC kills competition locally, worldwide I'd have expected some kind of competitor (according to your argument).
The market distributes resources in a way that the participants of that market deem efficient. If there were enough people like you willing to pay a bunch of money to see a snow leopard on television than there would be plenty of shows dedicated to providing this service. If this show could only exist with government sponsorship then it should not exist. As the people in this market would have deemed it an inefficient use of resources.
Well this is where I disagree. By not always worrying about efficiency, they created something amazing. In the long term, I would say that is actually more efficient - but it seems optimistic to hope the market looks 200 years down the line.
Perhaps overall leaving things to the market would be better, but I just want to get across that there are some things it simply does not do as well, and that's good to bear in mind.
|
Why do you think an artist would be more free if supported by government. Doesn't history show that government sponsored art will always bend to the will of the government that commissioned it? Won't an artist be forced to only produce art that is in line with the governments point of view? How does this make the artist more free?
Further, why do you think that an artist should be free of worrying about what everyone else has to worry about? Do you view artists as superior to those who choose other professions? Should artists not have to pay for food or shelter? Artists, like any other profession only exist in order to meet demand for their products or services. If there is no demand for a product that you think an artist should be producing then you are free to pay an artist to do what you want. What gives you any right to force other people to share this cost with you when they might not value art at all. Who are you to dictate what creates an ideal society or that art would even be present in one?
It doesn't matter that you are partly funding it yourself, you are sharing the burden equally with millions of other people who certainly will not all share your viewpoint on your countries art budget. Also, I live in the USA and I get BBC channels over here. And, it is also possible that there is not a great enough demand for a channel similar to Radio 3. If that is the case then it just shows that people prefer the resources that could be used for a competitor to Radio 3 be used in some other way which is just further proof that Radio 3 is inefficiently using resources.
|
On September 15 2010 13:19 Tal wrote:
Yurebris:
Isn't it an artist more free if supported by the government, rather than having to worry about making ends meet? More able to realise what they want?
If what they want is to be fed at the expense of others, yes. But that is no different than a thief, and so it's a-priori irrelevant what he does with the money afterwards. Whatever he does, it is going to be a subpar use compared to what would have happened had the money not been expropriated.
Also, an artist is freer when he gets government contribution as much as an academics is freer to research or teach whatever he wants. Thats just not what happens. Government subsidy always stifles the market and limits people's choices, even on the receiving end.
|
On September 15 2010 13:19 Tal wrote:Show nested quote +The market distributes resources in a way that the participants of that market deem efficient. If there were enough people like you willing to pay a bunch of money to see a snow leopard on television than there would be plenty of shows dedicated to providing this service. If this show could only exist with government sponsorship then it should not exist. As the people in this market would have deemed it an inefficient use of resources. Well this is where I disagree. By not always worrying about efficiency, they created something amazing. In the long term, I would say that is actually more efficient - but it seems optimistic to hope the market looks 200 years down the line. Perhaps overall leaving things to the market would be better, but I just want to get across that there are some things it simply does not do as well, and that's good to bear in mind.
Just because they created what you deem to be an amazing show does not make it right. If you spend enough money on something there will always be people who think the final product is amazing, the market regulates this. If a company spends to much money developing a product that people do not desire then they will have a loss. A government does not have its own money, it just takes money from the private sector to fund its expenditures so it is not subject to the same restrictions of a private company. Do you not see how this dangerous?
The market looks much further down the line than you do or governments do. Government typically only looks as far down the road as the next election cycle. There are companies that have been in business for decades, whereas politicians are rarely in the same office for a long period of time. Most companies have balanced budgets because the people working for the company know that if they run a deficit their company will end up going bankrupt and they will be unemployed. Nearly all governments have unbalanced budgets and run huge deficits because they people employed by government know that they will no longer be in the same position when it is time to deal with any deficit they created. Thus they spend as much as they deem necessary to further their political careers.
|
(haven't read most of the thread)
I get confused every time this discussion comes up. There seems to be a decent amount of theory behind all this, but when I start reading the articles, they always seem to ignore the most basic and obvious problems. Problems and limitations of the free market that every economy student learns in his first semesters and other very obvious problems caused by the absence of certain government institutions.
Now anarcho-capitalism seems to be mostly an American thing - I've never seen this discussion anywhere outside of TL -, is it something that's being taken seriously by the academic world? Do any acclaimed professors of economic theory actually think this would be possible?
|
On September 15 2010 14:00 Orome wrote:
(haven't read most of the thread)
I get confused every time this discussion comes up. There seems to be a decent amount of theory behind all this, but when I start reading the articles, they always seem to ignore the most basic and obvious problems. Problems and limitations of the free market that every economy student learns in his first semesters and other very obvious problems caused by the absence of certain government institutions.
Now anarcho-capitalism seems to be mostly an American thing - I've never seen this discussion anywhere outside of TL -, is it something that's being taken seriously by the academic world? Do any acclaimed professors of economic theory actually think this would be possible?
Well, the "Austrian School" professors believe it is possible.
Outside of that, no.
|
Anarcho-Capitalism is just Austrian Economics taken a step further. There are plenty of economic professors that are adhere to Austrian Economics. Although, a lot of them are just libertarians I am sure there are some that believe Anarcho-Capitalism is possible and some that would undoubtedly think it is preferable to our current economic system.
|
On September 15 2010 14:14 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2010 14:00 Orome wrote:
(haven't read most of the thread)
I get confused every time this discussion comes up. There seems to be a decent amount of theory behind all this, but when I start reading the articles, they always seem to ignore the most basic and obvious problems. Problems and limitations of the free market that every economy student learns in his first semesters and other very obvious problems caused by the absence of certain government institutions.
Now anarcho-capitalism seems to be mostly an American thing - I've never seen this discussion anywhere outside of TL -, is it something that's being taken seriously by the academic world? Do any acclaimed professors of economic theory actually think this would be possible? Well, the "Austrian School" professors believe it is possible. Outside of that, no.
Actually, only a scarce minority of "Austrian School" professors believe it is possible. But it's not surprising that ancap proponents might label themselves as "Austrian School" since they usually question the validity of empirical arguments in economics. This is a kind of comfortable stance given that there basically is no emiprical evidence in favor of ancap. Yurebis shows how to argue for ancap quite formidably, however, he uses his "out-of-prison-card" a bit too often for my taste. Sure, if you believe that markets will function efficiently and can solve all problems ancap will just work fine ... no doubt about it. The fact remains that - under these assumptions - ancap should form automatically and finally overthrow the inefficient and coercive state. This never happened historically, however. In fact ancap does not even offer a convincing route to realizing its occurrence peacefully. You would need the state to abolish itself, which in effect meansthat you would need enough people who believe in the justification and ability of the state to do just that ... which rather contradicts the typical assessment of the state held up by ancap proponents...
|
On September 15 2010 07:23 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
You ignore my points about the weaknesses of law by sentiment, simply stating that, I paraphrase: 'if mass murder lies in human nature, it is going to happen anyway'. Did you know that there has never been a military conflict between liberal democracies? Peace is 'popular' because it is the fundament of our society - will this be the same in an ancap? What if it is profitable to make war? Does that justify it?
Wait what? I'm going to count on both my hands how much democracy's the U.S overthrew with black ops military force and money, and I'm going to run out of fingers and have to use my toes. Also, Pakistan and India.
The U.S. has never actually declared war on any of these nations, or they would have to have had the support of the public. This was never required, because the safegaurds that exist in liberal democracies were non existent, because of the executive power of the president. There exists no effective control in the US system.
Pakistan and India are far from liberal democracies themselves, and the origin of their conflict is historical - the mismanagement of the decidedly undemocratic British Raj.
Yurebis - These posts are taking way to much of my free time, and I believe we will never understand each other. You live in some world of government conspiracies - You state the US somehow made the Japanese attack pearl harbor to be able to coerce their subjects into war.
I live on a different continent and culture and cannot understand the possibilities of markets and problems of government you see. I hope you understand that every politically engaged person I know here trusts the government and only looks at ways to improve on the system we have. Call this ignorance, serfdom, whatever, but I only see open minds and open hearts.
Thanks for the discussion.
|
On September 15 2010 18:18 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2010 14:14 ghrur wrote:On September 15 2010 14:00 Orome wrote:
(haven't read most of the thread)
I get confused every time this discussion comes up. There seems to be a decent amount of theory behind all this, but when I start reading the articles, they always seem to ignore the most basic and obvious problems. Problems and limitations of the free market that every economy student learns in his first semesters and other very obvious problems caused by the absence of certain government institutions.
Now anarcho-capitalism seems to be mostly an American thing - I've never seen this discussion anywhere outside of TL -, is it something that's being taken seriously by the academic world? Do any acclaimed professors of economic theory actually think this would be possible? Well, the "Austrian School" professors believe it is possible. Outside of that, no. Actually, only a scarce minority of "Austrian School" professors believe it is possible. But it's not surprising that ancap proponents might label themselves as "Austrian School" since they usually question the validity of empirical arguments in economics. This is a kind of comfortable stance given that there basically is no emiprical evidence in favor of ancap. Yurebis shows how to argue for ancap quite formidably, however, he uses his "out-of-prison-card" a bit too often for my taste. Sure, if you believe that markets will function efficiently and can solve all problems ancap will just work fine ... no doubt about it. The fact remains that - under these assumptions - ancap should form automatically and finally overthrow the inefficient and coercive state. This never happened historically, however. In fact ancap does not even offer a convincing route to realizing its occurrence peacefully. You would need the state to abolish itself, which in effect meansthat you would need enough people who believe in the justification and ability of the state to do just that ... which rather contradicts the typical assessment of the state held up by ancap proponents...
It's not a minority, if you know anything about the lvmi, the most famous institute on austrian economics... I would say at the very least 70% of the members and speakers are ancaps.
The rest of your post equivocates so much that I don't feel like answering. For one, I didn't choose ancap first and then looked for a justification, that is a ridiculous and empty accusation. I chose moral and economical consistency, and it then follows that the state, as a function of private property defense, is a complete contradiction in terms and in practice, for it violates exactly that which it claims to protect.
I used to be a minarchist, by the way. I just got tired of lying to myself.
|
|
|
On September 15 2010 21:43 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2010 18:18 MiraMax wrote:On September 15 2010 14:14 ghrur wrote:On September 15 2010 14:00 Orome wrote:
(haven't read most of the thread)
I get confused every time this discussion comes up. There seems to be a decent amount of theory behind all this, but when I start reading the articles, they always seem to ignore the most basic and obvious problems. Problems and limitations of the free market that every economy student learns in his first semesters and other very obvious problems caused by the absence of certain government institutions.
Now anarcho-capitalism seems to be mostly an American thing - I've never seen this discussion anywhere outside of TL -, is it something that's being taken seriously by the academic world? Do any acclaimed professors of economic theory actually think this would be possible? Well, the "Austrian School" professors believe it is possible. Outside of that, no. Actually, only a scarce minority of "Austrian School" professors believe it is possible. But it's not surprising that ancap proponents might label themselves as "Austrian School" since they usually question the validity of empirical arguments in economics. This is a kind of comfortable stance given that there basically is no emiprical evidence in favor of ancap. Yurebis shows how to argue for ancap quite formidably, however, he uses his "out-of-prison-card" a bit too often for my taste. Sure, if you believe that markets will function efficiently and can solve all problems ancap will just work fine ... no doubt about it. The fact remains that - under these assumptions - ancap should form automatically and finally overthrow the inefficient and coercive state. This never happened historically, however. In fact ancap does not even offer a convincing route to realizing its occurrence peacefully. You would need the state to abolish itself, which in effect meansthat you would need enough people who believe in the justification and ability of the state to do just that ... which rather contradicts the typical assessment of the state held up by ancap proponents... It's not a minority, if you know anything about the lvmi, the most famous institute on austrian economics... I would say at the very least 70% of the members and speakers are ancaps. The rest of your post equivocates so much that I don't feel like answering. For one, I didn't choose ancap first and then looked for a justification, that is a ridiculous and empty accusation. I chose moral and economical consistency, and it then follows that the state, as a function of private property defense, is a complete contradiction in terms and in practice, for it violates exactly that which it claims to protect. I used to be a minarchist, by the way. I just got tired of lying to myself.
There is a world outside the US, you know, and last time I checked Austria was in Europe. Anarcho-capitalism is almost exclusively an american phenomenon and it's kind of funny that you mention the Ludvig von Mises Institute. Most famous institute for austrian school economics? Who do you want to kid? Mises and Hayek both rejected anarchy (which you surely know as you have read their works, I guess) and most of their European and American scholars do too. It is only a minority among austrian scholars who think that ancap might work and their definition of ancap is rather conflicting especially with regard to how a law system should be established. Since they also prefer to write books and don't publish too much in economic journals, they take hardly any part in the academic discussion. If you really disagree with that, you are severely misrepresenting the actual debate in economics. Of course this doesn't mean that they are wrong, just that their view is an extreme position which is not "popular" among todays scholars, even among those in the austrian tradition.
I also don't see how I equivocate or misrepresent your position. Is it not true that austrian scholars generally reject empiricism and argue in favor of their theories deductively? Is it further not true that there is no empirical data which favours that an ancap society could work, mainly due to the fact that it basically never came about historically (yes, I know, the wild wild west)? Where did I say that you chose ancap first and then found a justification?
|
The rest of your post equivocates so much that I don't feel like answering. Probably because exposing the double standard that ancap proponents need to use in order to get out from under the crushing lack of empirical evidence for their theory is ultimately fatal to your position.
But feel free to carry on explicitly ignoring deathblows to your position and pretending to escape unscathed. It actually looks pretty good to people skimming the thread without actually reading properly.
|
On September 15 2010 10:09 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2010 04:54 Gaga wrote:
So if you cant pay for your security you are doomed ?
doesn't change the fact that this creates a system where the strong completely dominate the weak. (animal behaviour)
-> not desireable in my opinion.
(my english isnt very good so granted may be the wrong word ... you don't have to explain what your understanding of private property is) 1- Security is no different than any other service... you are as doomed as much as if you can't pay for your own food, your own shelter, your own anything; there's still private charity though, and even that will be more efficient in ancap where there isn't taxation on donations. 2- Define "completely dominate".
1- In Germany there is a state that won't let u die on the streets and give u food, shelter and security if you don't have any... what you say is true if there is no state.
To make everyone a beggar and dependant on the good will of others... if he is weak ... i don't believe that this would work in any way better than in a social state... especially not in a system where everyone has to constantly fear about loosing his stuff.
2- dominate them more than they do in a social state that at least tries to balance stuff a bit... by wellfare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
