Smokeskin wrote:

That's just not how it works. Socialist countries tend to actually force people to work. You're not allowed to be a stay-at-home dad. If you're able to work, you must work. You can't just accumulate capital and then use it to live of, that's typically regarded as exploitation. Your time is not your own, you are a work unit that must be put to work for the state.

That sounds exactly like capitalism, really. Because our modern consumerist society turns people into work units for private organization. And you're right, the socialist governments of the last century were terrible entities, horribly structured and rife with corruption and greed. But why is it okay to decry socialism for these issues and not the many capitalist systems that are rife with equally severe problems? If this is your argument against anarcho-socialism, why isn't this just as good a complaint against anarcho-capitalism?

Smokeskin wrote:

And to top it off, they tend to eliminate markets. You don't get your say on what goods you want at what price. Production quotas and prices are set. Product and services are uniform instead of diversified. Productivity is low, efficiency is low. Markets are wondeful things. Not only are they ruthless in weeding out those who are inefficient. They provide information wrapped in an incentive. If there is a shortage of something, prices go up. This tells producers that there's is a demand for more of such goods, and it provides an incentive for producers to meet that need.

They also tend to be ruthless in weeding out those who aren't exploitative, those who aren't willing to use underhanded tactics to get their way, and those who aren't willing to stoop as low as social manipulation. Plus I disagree with your assessment of uniformity. There's a reason why every car has seat belts, most computer systems use one of three kernels, and the AK-47 is the most popular weapon on the planet. While uniformity might be a disadvantage in biological evolution, it is anything but in the world of technology. Innovation helps us best if it is implemented as far and wide as possible.

Smokeskin wrote:

This is the mechanism that ensures that people get what they want. That's why capitalism produces wealth. That's what socialism and even government (non-market exposed) services in capitalistic societies lack and results in such abysmal performance in covering the needs of the citizens.

Capitalism doesn't produce wealth. It encourages the exploitation of people and resources, while concentrating control over those people and resources around an ever-shrinking upper class. It creates the conditions for wage slavery, and a currency cycle between workers and owners (you get paid by owners to work, then pay said owners for everything you need or want). Furthermore, capitalism is going to become a more hostile environment for the lower class as time goes on. There was a time when being a laborer in a capitalistic society was an acceptable norm, but we are living in a world of ever-growing automation... and the need for a labor class is disappearing. How will anarcho-capitalism react when it has a massive number of people willing and ready to work, but no need for them whatsoever? What will we do when we have a skilless social class that serves no purpose to a world with costless, tireless machine labor?

Justin Alexander wrote:

I already gave you the source: The VENONA cable decrypts are publicly available. You can look at them for yourself. If you're interested in reading about the other primary sources demonstrating the guilt of both Rosenbergs, check out: Khruschev's autobiography, Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America, and The Sword and the Shield.

The NSA's Venona page seems to be down, but I did find some good reference materials regarding the topic over the past week. The biggest reference to the whole issue seems to be the September 21st, 1944 cable. In it, Julius's recruitment of Ruth and David is discussed. Now as I said before, Ethel isn't referred to by any code word in these cables. Rather, she is discussed as "Liberal's wife" (Liberal being Julius Rosenberg, obviously). The only damning information I can find that might implicate her in anything is this single sentence: "Liberal and his wife recommend her as an intelligent and clever girl." which does not say anything regarding explicit collusion... for all we know, Julius asked her if she knows any smart couples in the area, and she recommended Ruth. Granted, I haven't had a chance to look through the full files (stupid NSA website), but nothing I've seen so far would make me think she was a spy. She didn't even have a codename in these cables, implying that the Russians didn't consider her an asset. At worst, she might be guilty of knowing her husband was a spy. But I've seen nothing even to imply that. I'll discuss more once I get more of these cables to peruse through.

nizkateth wrote:

I'd also like to see some evidence to back up these anarcho-capitalist ideas. Frankly, a lot of it seems just as idealistic and probably unlikely as any other ideal system. That somehow, people will manage to, without coordinated and centralized leadership, manage to build and maintain a society based entirely on mutual willing agreements. These agreements will not screw anyone, will be totally optional, and people who opt not to be involved with them won't be screwed for doing so. Or at least, that's the impression I keep getting. My concerns may be hinged upon the idea of people being all jerks (or at least enough of them), but this whole ancap concept seems to be based on the opposite idea: that people are all good and honest and no one with significant resources would (or would be able to) wield that to the detriment of others.

Of course people would try to wield their power at the detriment of others. It would just be a lot harder to do in ancap society, since there's no powerful government with a monopoly on violence that serves politicians and government officials, and those that bribe them. If you really think that the government helps you more and protects you better than what you'd get if you purchased the same services on the free market, I think you're very misguided about what government does for you. Do you really see it pass laws that helps you rather than corporations? Does its institutions provide you with swift and efficient service? Do you like all the stupid subsidaries it hands out to corporations? Do you like it when zoning laws keeps Walmart competitors out of the market? If you could take your tax money and place it somewhere else, do you think government would work better for you or worse?

Quote:

I just don't have that kind of faith in people. I expect that overall, if not required to socially or legally, not nearly enough people would donate to help the poor.

I sure hope it would be socially required to do so. I hope people would suffer ostracization if they'd didn't chip in. But if people really don't want to help, I'm not going to force them. I'm not going to resort to violence to make sure they act the way I want them to, which politicians so gladly do.

Quote:

I expect that if not restricted by regulations and labor laws, that some companies would do exactly what they did when we didn't have regulations or labor laws: employ children in factories for 14 hours a day, sell human meat ground into beef after accidents, pay people in store credit so they can never get out of the job they work an owe the company everything when they die. That kind of stuff. Most of the regulations and laws we have now exist for a reason, because we once didn't have them and things were worse.

Working conditions: I think those laws only came into existence after the labor unions had done all the hard work, and companies wouldn't stand a chance trying to pull off something like that. Consumer rights codes and liability would certainly be stronger in ancap society, so you would see less human meat in your beef.

Quote:

Because really, we have seen these things before. The early days of the settled American west had little to no law, and business was typically very exploitative. This isn't theoretical, it happened. And it was awful. How is ancap not, in at least some if not many ways, just a return to such a time?

It was a primitive time. They didn't have efficient markets, they didn't have the technology and education to communicate and organize. And it was a poor society, which means you have to work harder and accept larger risks. Developing nations won't get off the ground if they start out trying to play by modern 21st century western standards.

Decivre wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

That's just not how it works. Socialist countries tend to actually force people to work. You're not allowed to be a stay-at-home dad. If you're able to work, you must work. You can't just accumulate capital and then use it to live of, that's typically regarded as exploitation. Your time is not your own, you are a work unit that must be put to work for the state.

That sounds exactly like capitalism, really. Because our modern consumerist society turns people into work units for private organization.

Absolutely not. People choose to work for private organizations. They can stay home, or they can work where they like. They're not forced by anything, they have choice. And companies are forced to be competitive in the offers of working conditions, terms and salary they offer. It is extremely unlike what you see in socialism.

Quote:

And you're right, the socialist governments of the last century were terrible entities, horribly structured and rife with corruption and greed. But why is it okay to decry socialism for these issues and not the many capitalist systems that are rife with equally severe problems? If this is your argument against anarcho-socialism, why isn't this just as good a complaint against anarcho-capitalism?

Because those problems are much less severe in capitalistic societies, and the majority of those problems are found in government, which I am indeed opposed to. The question is, when you see these issues, why do you not rail against them?

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

And to top it off, they tend to eliminate markets. You don't get your say on what goods you want at what price. Production quotas and prices are set. Product and services are uniform instead of diversified. Productivity is low, efficiency is low. Markets are wondeful things. Not only are they ruthless in weeding out those who are inefficient. They provide information wrapped in an incentive. If there is a shortage of something, prices go up. This tells producers that there's is a demand for more of such goods, and it provides an incentive for producers to meet that need.

They also tend to be ruthless in weeding out those who aren't exploitative, those who aren't willing to use underhanded tactics to get their way, and those who aren't willing to stoop as low as social manipulation.

Yeah, that's markets for you. Whatever works. But let us not pretend that the problems are even remotely close to matching the benefits. This is a common thing with you, you nitpick at little details and think they match up the big picture. It's like you can't think quantitively, like you have no sense of scale. But tell me, are you for or against markets?

Quote:

Plus I disagree with your assessment of uniformity. There's a reason why every car has seat belts, most computer systems use one of three kernels, and the AK-47 is the most popular weapon on the planet. While uniformity might be a disadvantage in biological evolution, it is anything but in the world of technology. Innovation helps us best if it is implemented as far and wide as possible.

Spoken like a true socialist. In the real world, the AK-47 might be the most popular weapon, and as such that's all anyone would need, right? No one would ever want say a more expensive assault rifle in a smaller calibre with larger precision and higher maintenance requirements, right? So we'll just let everyone have AK-47s. And everyone should have crappy cars. And crappy clothes. And crap food. And crap health care. The socialist way.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

This is the mechanism that ensures that people get what they want. That's why capitalism produces wealth. That's what socialism and even government (non-market exposed) services in capitalistic societies lack and results in such abysmal performance in covering the needs of the citizens.

Capitalism doesn't produce wealth. It encourages the exploitation of people and resources, while concentrating control over those people and resources around an ever-shrinking upper class. It creates the conditions for wage slavery, and a currency cycle between workers and owners (you get paid by owners to work, then pay said owners for everything you need or want).

When you think about it, it is funny how this exploitation of people and resources in capitalistic societies leads to high living standards and lots of goods and services at everyone's disposal. Don't you find it difficult to hold such counterfactual beliefs?

Quote:

Furthermore, capitalism is going to become a more hostile environment for the lower class as time goes on. There was a time when being a laborer in a capitalistic society was an acceptable norm, but we are living in a world of ever-growing automation... and the need for a labor class is disappearing. How will anarcho-capitalism react when it has a massive number of people willing and ready to work, but no need for them whatsoever? What will we do when we have a skilless social class that serves no purpose to a world with costless, tireless machine labor?

The same way a democracy would deal with it. Charity and welfare.

Smokeskin wrote:

Right now, the government has a monopoly on violence and it uses this violence to make sure you follow the rules it sets out. However, politicians' and government officials' personal interests and corporate lobbyism exert say 5 or 10 times as much influence as what citizens can muster. But while the corporations wield the power of the government, they don't pay for it, the citizens do. In ancap society, corporations lose ALL of the funding for their power base. The ancap citizens keep their money and can pay to the providers that give them what they want. Ancap citizens are not forced to pay to a corrupt government. But let's say some company tries to retain the power of the old days and build up some private army. Do you really think consumers are going to pay more for goods from a company that pays for a private army? Or do you think they're going to switch to the cheaper competitor? Corporations want to make money, and unless there's a taxpayer-funded government to cheaply subvert, there's not going to be profit in trying to oppress people.

And yet corporations still profit while oppressing people. Chiquita pulled it off when they assassinated union leaders in Colombia. Monsanto is still a multi-million dollar business today, despite their extremely bad press. And Walmart practically shits on its workers, yet is still the biggest store chain on the continent. And this isn't always caused by government efforts. There are plenty of fruit companies that don't kill people who try to unionize, most with competitive prices. Yet Chiquita is doing great, and is still the biggest banana supplier on the planet. Furthermore, Colombia basically had no government at the time these assassinations occurred, yet this didn't improve or worsen their capacity to murder people, did it? Government influence is not the only means of gaining power. Companies have gained power through good-old-fashioned property control and underhanded activities. I still don't see how these things will change in an anarcho-capitalist society.

Smokeskin wrote:

Why would anyone want to stop them from making legal agreements with people? If I buy a product from a company and agree not to reverse engineer it or re-distribute it, of course I have to abide by that agreement. But what they can't do is prevent me from buying a copy from a competitor.

The media monopolies have done a damn good job of shutting down their competition, even in places where copyright law doesn't reach. Even if we were to eliminate their biggest support, the U.S. Government, I find it naive to believe they wouldn't just replace this with another entity.

Smokeskin wrote:

I don't recognize the legitimacy of the government or leagl system, I never entered a social agreement (and the one that I'm forced into is surely not even remotely fair). Only sheep would find the idea of legitimacy pointless. You should stand up for yourself and insist on not being oppressed instead.

Except it really is pointless. Anyone who has the means and force to declare "legitimacy" effectively can do so. That's how many dictators get into power, and that's how most power vacuums get filled. Just because governments declare themselves legitimate by the military force they can summon does not mean something else cannot replace them by the same military force they exert. It is the way of the world. And any social system that does not recognize that has no sense of basic pattern recognition. Legitimacy isn't the issue, military might is. So unless you are using legitimacy as a synonym, I think it's a pointless phrase. This is one of my biggest problems with anarcho-capitalism. It is a system that is very receptive to the building of military power, as this is a private action. What safeguard does it have in case a private entity, who has built up a significant amount of military power, decides to use it to become a societal power?

Smokeskin wrote:

There are things like organized crime too, sure. They operate the same way as governments. They're just really weak compared to governments, they hardly ever affect my life while government does so greatly, and most organized crime is created by governments. If we didn't have drug and prostitution laws and such, there wouldn't be a need for organized crime. Government laws create markets where normal businesses can't operate, and instead we get a market where exceptionally violent people meet the demand.

Underground markets are created by governments, sure. But you're forgetting the age-old business of racketeering. Are you telling me that a group will be magically unable to squeeze victims for money in anarcho-capitalism? How?

Smokeskin wrote:

There is no protection except what competitors and markets can come up with. Now stop dodging and answer why the small risk that one commodity for a limited time would be covered by a monopoly is somehow worse than the situation of pervasive monopolies (government, patents, IP, copyright) we see today.

Stop right there. Standard Oil wasn't some small risk, and it only existed for a limited time because a government broke it up. It was an actual, honest to goodness, property-based monopoly, which destroyed its competitors through undercutting by self-subsidization, bought up their resources, and expanded like an empire. Its reach was nearly worldwide by the time the trust-busting court case came about. And if you honestly believe that Standard Oil's grip on the planet was a non-issue, then you seriously have never read up on the history. Modern monopolies are dangerous, to be sure. Intellectual property limitations hamper technological advancement, and hinder societies ability to build on previous works of art, a practice that was once an important part of human culture. I absolutely agree with you. But you seem to want to ignore something that is a significant and serious threat to the very premise of anarcho-capitalism. If a monopoly can be produced merely through private ownership, how could that be battled in a legal system that only includes civil cases and tort? How can that be competed with when the very premise behind it is that it can eliminate any and all competition by the merits of ownership and local subsidization?

Smokeskin wrote:

Class action law suits and risk exposure torts would cover that, yes.

But I thought that all law was based on agreements in an anarcho-capitalist society? How can an entity be held liable for an action they never agreed to curtail?

Smokeskin wrote:

I'd imagine that people, corporations and the markets would prepare, so there wouldn't be a vacuum. Private property is central to anarcho-capitalism, of course people retain their property.

That has a lot of potential for problems. What is to stop a politician from granting themselves free land on the way out, if the anarcho-capitalist state is going to recognize ownership that was granted by the previous government? What about in places like England, where a few families own 2/3rds of the country by merit of being descendants of the aristocracy that conquered it? What about in places like the Middle East, where a transition from monarchy to anarcho-capitalism would change nothing, because the king owns [b]everything[/b]?

Smokeskin wrote:

This is one of the funniest things I've read in a long time. If you think the average American doesn't enjoy an incredibly high standard of living, you're completely delusional.

"High" in your statement is a fairly relative term. We certainly aren't faring as bad as most of Africa, but we are faring worse than much of Europe. Hell, our level of education is doing worse then both India and China at this point, and we have the biggest prison population by both population percentage and gross numbers. Do I want to live in a third-world hole of corruption like the Philippines instead? Hell no. But that doesn't mean I'm living on pie in the sky.

Smokeskin wrote:

I'm sorry but I don't really see the DeBeers close-to-monopoly as a big issue in any way. If you don't want to pay the price, don't buy diamonds. You are living in a robber baron society right now. You're paying for the government, its officials and its armed men, and the corporations are wielding that power against you. With the market competition of the modern world, the old style robber baron system wouldn't work, but it survived through the monopoly of violence of governments.

I agree with you somewhat, but you are far less worried about the potential evils of resource control than I. Are property-based monopolies a rarity? Sure, there's only been one significant one in history. But if you truly believe that it could [i]never[/i] happen again, in a society you wish to create where property ownership is the one thing unhindered, then you are deluding yourself. And it would only take a single one to form in order to collapse an anarcho-capitalist society. With no controls or systems in place to prevent people from centralizing resources, it would be a ticking timebomb waiting to happen. Maybe it wouldn't happen, maybe people would get along fine and no one would ever gain control over a resource to such a degree that they could hold the power of the world's industry in their hands. I'm a bit more optimistic about humanity than nizkateth is. But I don't like the prospects of a system that could crumble under the might of a single bad egg, or a small group of them.

My issue with markets is that it's basically "let what humans want decide what gets done." If humans were ideal animals, that would work just fine. But we aren't. Humans are self-focused, short-sighted, tribalistic, lazy, greedy, gluttonous, [i]Apes[/i] who are easily manipulated in large numbers, prone to aggression, and instinctively seek out leaders to tell them what to do. That is not a recipe for letting the whims and desires of the masses direct the flow of resources. This is why McDonald's is a huge part of the market, but we do not yet have colonies on the Moon or life-extension into the centuries. Because there is a bigger market for "quick, effortless, cheap, 'food' for the masses" than there is for things like exploration of the universe or human immortality. You'd think immortality at least would be worthy of more consideration, seeing the direct benefit it could have for people. But there are too many religions based on death that oppose these efforts, and too many people too short sighted to even consider the idea.

I'm typing on my wife's ipad, waiting to fulfill my civil duties, so please apologize egregious typos. I'm also about to read Sandberg's document on Extropian Law andd Order, so maybe my views will change a little more after reading. There are so few well-documented examples of AnCap that it's difficult to imagine, so articles like this finally give me something to latch onto. (Article is available at: http://www.aleph.se/EclipsePhase/Law%20and%20Order.pdf )

Decivre wrote:

The biggest difference is in how we think government should be. Libertarians generally want a government that is largely insignificant, that primarily serves an arbitration role for a greater private society. Anarchists, on the other hand, essentially want the concept of "people" and "government" to be unified, so that a community of 200 people is also a nation of 200 government officials.

1) I would be cautiouss about how one describes any brand of Anarchism. There are so many 'brands' f Anarchism, and brands within those brands, it's dangerous to make any broad generalizations about what 'anarchists want'. It'ss a real issue which makes any discussionss difficult. I may reference this point again in the future. 2) There are certain duties which a separate government provide that just aren't provided in an AnCap/true democracy. For example, protection of minorities. While a representative democracy like the U.S. doesn't have a sterling record, it does provide one more recourse for minorities to pursue when they can't win by a flat vote. Or imagine if our current science lessons and research were established by popular vote.

Quote:

But why justify wage-slavery? The idea that you should be shackled to a job just so that you don't die in the streets is [i]wrong[/i], regardless of whether it's how society has always been.

This isn't a question of society's demands. It's nature's demands. TNSTAAFL. For the history of time, all life has had to struggle and work to get its needs met, and all signs seem to indicate that this will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. Granted, the amount of work and suffering we go through now is MUCH lower than it was ages ago, but there's still a minimum amount of work that must be done to enjoy the services we receive (including food and shelter). EP eliminates this through magic cournicopia machines and free energy. We don't live there. This is the argument I keep coming back to. If people/animals/plants don't work, they don't eat. This is a universal law. That's nothing like slavery. We are at the point where we can protect those people who CAN'T work. But it still takes a massive team to do that. As long as all of those hundreds of people have to work in order for one person to eat, enjoy electricity, medical care, a car, entertainment, etc., I cannot morally justify one person opting out of being part of that team, but still demanding all of the privileges. I also think the term 'wage slave' is gross exageration for the majority of U.S. citizens. You're providing a free 13-year education, a greatly subsidized four=- or two-year school on top of that, to focus on any field of labor you like. The investment opportunities and support make the U.S. ideal for people to create their own businesses if they don't find one they like. Yeah, if you're dropped here from outer space and have no marketable skills, you're a wage slave until you get some technical experience. But for the rest of us, you choose your career, and you ccan choose when to change it. You have such a broad range of freedom, that calling it 'sslavery' is almost offensive.

Quote:

nezumi.hebereke wrote:

All of the previous examples of socialist GOVERNMENTS are single-authority centralized social structures.

While I'd agree that most large-scale socialist experiments have ended in totalitarian states (and failure),

I was actually referrring to socialist states like the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, etc. While they're not pure socialism, they are definitely socialist. I'd also say they didn't end inn totalitarianism. But my point is that socialism without a central government just hass never really existed beyond a tiny size (Mondragon included, as it too has a representative board which handles the majority of the 'government' work).

As for the creation of a federation, I don't really consider a federation to be a small government. The federation only needs enough rules to establish the decentralized network.[\quote] Potato, potato. A federation which establishes and enforces rules is a government, in my book. But yes, I think we agree. [quote wrote:

Unfortunately though, I think you wish too much with regards to heterogeneity... if only because this doesn't seem to be a common human trait. ... If you and I both had our dreams fulfilled, and we had a world with both anarcho-communist and center-libertarian governments within it, those two structures would eventually come to clash against one another. Not perhaps violently, but inevitably by memetics.

Which is perfect. I don't expect my preferred systems to last for eternity. What I hope for though iss that we leave enough spacce for that 'social darwinism' to take place; that disagreeing ffactions are neighbors, peacefully compete, test each other, learn from eacch others' mistakes. I'm happy to see a system give way to a newer, more superior one (assuminng it's actually more superior), as log ass thaat one leaves space for its own competition and for it to be eventually superseded as well.

nezumi.hebereke wrote:

Quote:

nezumi.hebereke wrote:

All of the previous examples of socialist GOVERNMENTS are single-authority centralized social structures.

While I'd agree that most large-scale socialist experiments have ended in totalitarian states (and failure),

I was actually referrring to socialist states like the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, etc. While they're not pure socialism, they are definitely socialist. I'd also say they didn't end inn totalitarianism. But my point is that socialism without a central government just hass never really existed beyond a tiny size (Mondragon included, as it too has a representative board which handles the majority of the 'government' work).

I disagree about calling the Netherlands, Sweden or Finland socialist. We are talking about the 16th, 17th and 18th most free economies (out of 177) in Heritage Foundation's ranking. (of course, maybe that is evidence of just how bad things are for free markets :-) Big government sector, far too many laws and regulations, big all-encompassing welfare systems, taxes: check. But people are allowed to set up companies and invent new products freely (the inventor of contact lenses ended up in jail in Czechoslovakia for "economic sabotage" - he messed up the five year plan for glasses!), many markets like telecoms are very deregulated, Sweden has a thriving sector of voucher-paid schools (some for-profit, some co-op), most state-owned companies have been privatized (while the old Swedish plan of how to socialize all private companies using tax-funded stock buying crashed and burned in the 80s). When The Economist has a cover story about Scandinavia you know it can't be socialist. To a large degree the mixed economic model has worked because it (1) isn't a total train wreck like a planned economy, (2) gives enough growth and profit to maintain nice perks to keep people happy, and (3) in a sufficiently open and meritocratic society you can correct at least some of the patronage, bureaucracy and rigidity. I have a suspicion it doesn't scale great (small, homogeneous societies have an easier time reaching consensus, outsiders have a hard time getting into the system - it is not fun being immigrant youth in Sweden).

nizkateth wrote:

My issue with markets is that it's basically "let what humans want decide what gets done." If humans were ideal animals, that would work just fine. But we aren't. Humans are self-focused, short-sighted, tribalistic, lazy, greedy, gluttonous, [i]Apes[/i] who are easily manipulated in large numbers, prone to aggression, and instinctively seek out leaders to tell them what to do. That is not a recipe for letting the whims and desires of the masses direct the flow of resources.

This is exactly why markets work and socialism fails. In socialism, you don't have any checks and balances on shortsightedness, laziness, greed or aggression. If you're a socialist manager and you're a bad person, that's just tough luck for everyone else. He's going to keep on being in charge, rolling out crappy products and making his employees suffer. Consumers can't get competiting products, employees can't seek elsewhere. Capitalism works differently. It is very hard to be both greedy and lazy. If you're greedy, the best way of making some money is to (help) produce something other people want. If you're a dick to be around, you better try to reel it in or you employees might seek elsewhere (or at least you'll have to pay them more so they feel compensated for the harassment). The incentives in capitalism are generally aligned with creating value for other people. You are generally right about human nature, but you fail to realize that it is actually an argument against your position. What you're suggesting is to give free reign to the dark sides of humanity.

Quote:

This is why McDonald's is a huge part of the market, but we do not yet have colonies on the Moon or life-extension into the centuries. Because there is a bigger market for "quick, effortless, cheap, 'food' for the masses" than there is for things like exploration of the universe or human immortality. You'd think immortality at least would be worthy of more consideration, seeing the direct benefit it could have for people.

Remind me again how socialism provided all the scientific breakthroughs? Remind me how the socialists had the highest quality of living? Can't you see that what you're saying is obviously counter-factual? And also, are you on one of your power trips again where you want to oppress people into not getting the sort of food they want? If some people want McD food, and other people want to produce it for them, are you going to go "if you do that, we'll rob you of some of your money!"?

nizkateth wrote:

So, let me get this clear. You have problems with democracy, but no problem with what is essentially the same thing except instead of (theoretically) one-person-one-vote it's one-dollar-one-vote? "Voting with your money" is essentially what the competition of capitalism is based on. So it's bad when people vote with a vote, but good when they vote with cash? What I'm seeing here is that you have an idealized view of ancap in which everything works out ideally. And I admit, I have an idealized view of socialism (where bad management [i]isn't[/i] just allowed to continue; I don't want socialism without checks and balances, that would be pretty opposite of my ideal). But it seems like the argument is: capitalism corrupts the government, so get rid of the government. Maybe a better solution would be getting rid of corruption. Whether in an ancap, democratic, socialist, communist, pure-anarchy, etc. The problem is corruption, not the system that is corrupted. You seem to think that ancap is either immune or at least very resistant to corruption. Decivre and I seem to disagree, and can see many ways in which corruption would not only persist but thrive in such a society.

I'm an anarcho-socialist, so optimally I would get rid of the government AND capitalism. A state is great if it can retain its ideal form, and never gets overtaken by greed or ambition. But if that's a risk, I'd rather just cut that all out altogether.

nizkateth wrote:

You think charity would handle those in need, I don't have enough faith in people to believe such. We've had charity as long as we've had society, and it has never been enough. Far too often the needy are wrapped in a SEP Field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somebody_Else's_Problem), and I honestly believe that if aid is not done passively (through taxes that don't have to be thought about, they are deducted automatically) and obligatorily (through laws), that overall the poor would suffer worse. Don't get me wrong, I despise most if not all of what we currently have for government. But my solution would be revising it, not tossing it out completely. Narrower allocation of power is great, and seems like it would work well if a constitution had caveats such as: the powers of the government are limited to exactly what is included here which can only be expanded by amendments; the rights of the people include anything not specifically prohibited here. I too am opposed to drug laws. But I've seen too much good come from government intervention. My family has recently moved from a crappy apartment (rented from a private owner) to a nicer apartment (privately owned but subsidized by the government). Our rent went down, and the quality went up, because to qualify for government assistance, the company that owns the apartments has to meet certain standards. It's essentially the socialist/capitalist type blend I've been advocating here for a while.

So you would probably be a Left Libertarian in your specific ideology, desiring a small government that largely provides for citizen needs and infrastructure (like security, roads, housing and food), while largely keeping out of everything else. I have largely the same ideology, I just want even less government, and even less capitalism. Optimally. Whether I'll ever get that is a whole other question.

Those tribes used a government structure which most of us call anarcho-collectivism, the first form of anarcho-socialism that was discussed in the 19th century. Unfortunately, this system is not sufficient for the modern world as it is far too populated. Most newer anarcho-socialist structures try to be sustainable with larger populations. Unfortunately, non have ever been tried out in a far-reaching way. This is not to say that they aren't experimented with. Anarcho-collectivism has been used by hippie communes since the 60s, and modern cooperatives are using anarcho-syndicalism to great effect. Amateur biologists and other hobbyist groups have been using elements of anarcho-communism, as have political activists for a very long time. But when people think of "socialism" or "communists", they usually think of state socialism, the governmental entity that was used in the USSR and PRC, that was later spread to a number of other eastern nations and Cuba. This gets confused with all other versions of socialism very often, and is even muddled with the modern hybrids that most western nations enjoy today. This confusion has probably tainted the discussion quite a bit. I did get called a statist a couple times.

nizkateth wrote:

So, let me get this clear. You have problems with democracy, but no problem with what is essentially the same thing except instead of (theoretically) one-person-one-vote it's one-dollar-one-vote? "Voting with your money" is essentially what the competition of capitalism is based on. So it's bad when people vote with a vote, but good when they vote with cash?

No, there is no voting. I can't take my vote or my money or anything and use that to coerce you. I can tempt you with a better offer than anyone else is willing to make, but that's about it. You are stuck in the mindset of having to subject to a government's oppression.

Quote:

What I'm seeing here is that you have an idealized view of ancap in which everything works out ideally. And I admit, I have an idealized view of socialism (where bad management [i]isn't[/i] just allowed to continue; I don't want socialism without checks and balances, that would be pretty opposite of my ideal).

The problem is that socialism is by its very nature without checks and balances. You can try to force checks and balances on it, but you will always by fighting against the inherent incentives of socialism, which are oppressive and exploitative. Capitalism on the other is based on markets which provide automatic checks and balances. There are ways that markets can be gamed (false information, manipulation, monopolies and cartels, etc.) but they are working against the natural tendency of the market, and over time that should prevail. So no, I don't think everything works out ideally. That's an unrealistic assumption. But as you can see, anarcho-capitalism will tend to work but people can struggle to pull it a bit off course, while socialism tends toward oppression and people can struggle to pull it a bit off that oppressive course. But in both cases, it will just be that, a struggle to pull things a bit off course. The idea that we can effectively fight against inherent incentives is simply a fiction.

Quote:

But it seems like the argument is: capitalism corrupts the government, so get rid of the government. Maybe a better solution would be getting rid of corruption. Whether in an ancap, democratic, socialist, communist, pure-anarchy, etc. The problem is corruption, not the system that is corrupted. You seem to think that ancap is either immune or at least very resistant to corruption. Decivre and I seem to disagree, and can see many ways in which corruption would not only persist but thrive in such a society.

I don't think we'll ever get rid off corruption. There is just too many benefits in it for people, the incentives are too strong. It's a mad dream. What we can do is get rid of government's monopoly on violence, because that is what makes the corruption unbearable. When government is corrupted by the influence of money and votes (yes votes, when politicians threaten me with violence, robbery and extortion through laws just because the current head honcho wants to satisfy some moralistic voter bloc, that's oppression too), that's horrible. When there's corruption in Toyota, all that happens is that the cars get a bit more expensive or a bit lower quality because some CEO chose the 2nd best supplier because of a kickback. I can live with that, or I can just buy a Hyundai instead.

Quote:

You think charity would handle those in need, I don't have enough faith in people to believe such. We've had charity as long as we've had society, and it has never been enough. Far too often the needy are wrapped in a SEP Field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somebody_Else's_Problem), and I honestly believe that if aid is not done passively (through taxes that don't have to be thought about, they are deducted automatically) and obligatorily (through laws), that overall the poor would suffer worse.

If that is truly the case, then I still refuse to rob people, effectively at gunpoint, with laws and taxes.

Quote:

Don't get me wrong, I despise most if not all of what we currently have for government. But my solution would be revising it, not tossing it out completely. Narrower allocation of power is great, and seems like it would work well if a constitution had caveats such as: the powers of the government are limited to exactly what is included here which can only be expanded by amendments; the rights of the people include anything not specifically prohibited here. I too am opposed to drug laws.

Great idea, and I'm with you so far. Except democracy doesn't work that way. You said something like it earlier: people are shortsighted, self-serving, ignorant and judgmental. With people as voters, politicians are not going to get elected with the sort of platform you're suggesting. And once they are elected, they're more than likely going to be corrupted by the incentives in politics from lobbyism, special interest groups and political deals. Look at say Obama, the huge gap there is between the platform he ran on and what he did afterwards. You suggest that first the majority of people are going to vote for decent politicians, AND then when in office the majority of politicians are going to turn out to actually be decent and not just faking decency AND not get corrupted by the bribes of money and power. I just don't see that happening, ever. Why would people and politicians suddenly change and become these enlightened, benevolent beings?

Quote:

But I've seen too much good come from government intervention. My family has recently moved from a crappy apartment (rented from a private owner) to a nicer apartment (privately owned but subsidized by the government). Our rent went down, and the quality went up, because to qualify for government assistance, the company that owns the apartments has to meet certain standards. It's essentially the socialist/capitalist type blend I've been advocating here for a while.

Yeah, you want welfare from the government, preferably without working, that's what you've been saying all along. I don't know how your family is doing, and whether or not your situation justified getting more welfare. Maybe you deserved more, maybe you didn't, but let us assume you did deserve more. I would prefer to just give it to you as cash, so you could decide if you wanted to spend it on a better apartment, or a car, or an education, or better food, or fashion items. What I certainly DON'T think should happen is, as in your case, that the government has decided for you, so you're forced to see that extra welfare go to housing and forced to go through the cost and hassle of moving to get it, and on top the government created a costly bureacracy to evaluate standards and manage the subsidiaries for apartments. And to top it off, that sort of stuff invariably skews markets and leads to inefficient distribution of resources in society. So even if you deserved the extra money, it is a classic example of how government and socialistic ideas even when trying to do good, ends up going about it in totally the wrong way, wasting resources and reducing people's freedom.

nizkateth wrote:

Okay... at this point I want to make sure we're actually talking about the same thing; something's telling me we're hitting a definition gap. So tell me, what is socialism? Define it for me.

Usually when the term socialism is used today, they are talking about the hybrid economy that we largely have now (socialist and capitalist)... where most things in the economy are still private and handled by private enterprise, and some things are handled by the government (social security, welfare, public schooling, health care where applicable, and other similar programs). Some things are a hybrid of the two, where a private company gets a regional monopoly at the behest of the government (power companies and land telephone companies do this). If you're talking about the USSR and the PRC before they went capitalist, you are talking about state socialism. This is an economic model where every aspect of the economy is controlled by the state. Competition barely exists (only with regards to which government controlled production is more efficient). Markets do not exist (except as it pertains to export and import). This is why I prefer to use the term anarcho-socialism when I talk about my views. I don't want to get mixed up with these two things (though if push comes to shove, I'm far more receptive to a hybrid economy rather than state socialism). I hope that Smokeskin is working under similar terms.

nizkateth wrote:

Okay... at this point I want to make sure we're actually talking about the same thing; something's telling me we're hitting a definition gap. So tell me, what is socialism? Define it for me.

If you want a definition of socialism, let's go with the first line from wikipedia: Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.

nezumi.hebereke wrote:

Regarding charity, I'm fine with some of my taxes going towards this. However, my issue with just handing over cash is; 1) The cost for buying food is lower if the government buys bulk (or uses a company buying bulk) and moves that food without levying sales taxes on it. So my money does more charity when provided in things like food stamps.

Sales tax goes back into the government drawers, so that's not an actual cost. And I don't know if the US manages to do better than Denmark (I doubt it), but when the government buys bulk here they always end up paying more, buying too much, buying the wrong stuff, and/or handling it inefficiently.

Quote:

2) The majority of people on welfare are parents, and children do not have the ability to ensure their parents spend the money on food rather than crack. I would prefer, if a significant portion of our charity recipients are children, we put roadblocks in place to prevent the middle-man (the parents) from mis-spending that charity.

If they're going to spend money on crack instead of feeding their kids, they're probably going to sell their food stamps or the food anyway. You're only making the problem worse by incurring a loss on them and forcing them to waste time selling the food stamps for cash.

Quote:

3) People like to complain and suck at math. If we give people just enough to cover rent and groceries, they won't be optimal spenders and will complain they need more money to cover costs. However, as is human nature, as they get more money, they find more things to spend it on. This isn't a 'poor person problem'; I do have the same issue every time I get a raise.

I'd rather give them them money every week then. You're right that akrasia is a big problem, and especially so for poor people. Iirc then akrasia really sets in for planning beyond a week.

Quote:

I know this is a little off-topic, but it keeps coming up. If your goal in charity is that people don't starve, handing them cash is a cruddy method of doing that.

I think any real welfare goes beyond just fixing starvation. It is just way too limited a scope for people to get back on their feet. For poor people, reestablishing themselves will invariably take hard work and hard choices. If they just get a small apartment and food stamps, that's not going to do it for them. Maybe living on spaghetti for 2 weeks is what it takes to make that investment you need to improve your life, like saving up to take the girl you like on a date, which will end up in a relationship, which will give you the motivation to get a real job.

Decivre wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

I totally, 100% disagree that that is socialism. Not even the Scandinavian countries are socialist.

So you are talking about state socialism then? Or cooperative economies as a whole?

I don't know what you mean by "cooperative economies as a whole". I think the simplest way to think of things as capitalism vs socialism, private ownership vs social ownership, market economy vs managed economy. Those are the core issues. We can argue definitions and exceptions all day, and in many actual cases there are mixes and matches. But whether you look at China or Denmark, those are primarily capitalistic. Their economies are driven by private ownership and markets. Sure, there are big, powerful governments that own a lot and suck a lot of money out of people's pockets, but those are merely socialistic aspects of a capitalistic society. The majority of the activity is still capitalistic, and the capitalistic parts generate enough wealth to outpace the ill effects of the socialistic parts. It is like a parasitic infestation that the host manages to live with - when you refer to the combined creature, it is still characterized by the host (even if it has to live with some handicaps).

Decivre wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

I don't know what you mean by "cooperative economies as a whole".

In other words, are you involving any and every economic model that does not allow for singular ownership of property when you discuss socialism, whether or not they involve a state? I ask because much of your rhetoric has been mostly focused on your anti-state views, rather than any specific disdain for socialism as an economic model.

Here we need to split the issue into two parts. One part we could call efficiency, the other relates to freedom. I think socialism's managed economy on any scale is likely to be inefficient and corrupt*. But if you and some like-minded souls want to use your money and belongings to create some socialist company or mini-society, go ahead. I'm sure you do it because you think it will make you happy, so even if it is "inefficient" that doesn't mean you're wasting it. Buying an Aston Martin is an exceptionally poor investment too, but that's not why you buy one. So I don't really have any problem with "voluntary socialism". The reason I vent against states - democratic or not - is that they abuse their monopoly on violence to oppress people. There is a difference in degrees of course, as a dictator can be benevolent or malicious. Socialist states tend to destroy all attempts at generating wealth in their society, resulting in appaling living conditions for the citizens (and to curb the citizens' dissatisfaction with this they soon follow it up with exceptionally oppressive policies like censorship and secret police). It is the coupling of the inefficiency of socialism and the oppressive nature of states that makes it problematic. This also applies when socialistic ideas are implemented in otherwise more liberal states. You can compare it to religious ideas. Your personal beliefs aren't much of an issue, but when you try to get the state to use its monopoly on violence to force everyone else to comply to your ideas, then it becomes a problem. For the person who wants a free education but instead can only receive religious indoctrination (like say teaching abstinence only in sex ed or that evolution is false), there is no practical difference if it happened because the school is complying under threat from a Taleban soldier with an AK-47 with orders from the local mullah or a cop with a Glock 17 with orders from the local politicians. States implementing capitalistic ideas however I tend to not have a problem with, because that reduces state oppression and gives people wealth and freedom. Look at China, I just saw updated figures the other day - they've gone from 84% living in deep poverty to only 10% in just 23 years, that's over 700 million people! That is amazing and one of the largest humanitarian success stories in recent history. One thing we must keep an eye on though is that when the state has a monopoly on violence, we need measures to curb its power and limit influence from both internal and external sources. Strong laws against corruption, bribes, lobbyism, campaign funding, political intelligence and insider trading, etc. is necessary. It is NOT capitalistic to let corporations buy off politicians. I don't think we should go around shooting eachother, but you need a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. In the same way I don't believe in laws regulating everything (or anything for that matter), but when the law gives untold to power to politicians we need laws to keep them in line.

nizkateth - I note your story is a work of fiction.

Smokeskin wrote:

Sales tax goes back into the government drawers, so that's not an actual cost.

Here a big chunk of welfare is provided by the federal government, but sales tax are strictly state. So my federal income tax goes to paying state sales tax in a state I don't live in.

Quote:

And I don't know if the US manages to do better than Denmark (I doubt it), but when the government buys bulk here they always end up paying more, buying too much, buying the wrong stuff, and/or handling it inefficiently.

The way the U.S. does it is it gives you coupons you can redeem for particular items in a store. So for example, your cheese coupon can be redeemed for Safeway brand American cheese, Happy Boy Cheese Slices, etc. and you can choose the best. The government negotiates with the stores to get competitive rates (I *believe*), and the coupons are only good for $x in whatever item it is. So you get $20 of fruit money, $5 of cheese money, etc. But the entire infrastructure of actually buying and moving the produce is handled by the same grocery store I shop at with my own money, so there's no additional costs. However, costs may be reduced by the government negotiating with sellers to get that product to be purchasable with food stamps.

Quote:

If they're going to spend money on crack instead of feeding their kids, they're probably going to sell their food stamps or the food anyway. You're only making the problem worse by incurring a loss on them and forcing them to waste time selling the food stamps for cash.

Food stamps aren't perfect, but they aren't as liquid as cash either. I wouldn't buy food stamps, because I need an ID to use them. So now I'm running a fake ID as well, and I take on a significant risk for shaving a few dollars off my groceries. If you're already hungry enough to be willing to work in the black market, you already qualify for food stamps, so there's no big deal. I guess my point is, I've never seen or heard of anyone going down to the corner and try to buy crack using coupons for bananas. Even when I do my own charity work and offer food to people for free, no strings, they turn it down. If you're dirt poor, food doesn't have a high resale value around here, so you may as well give it to your kid and let him buy food himself if that'll shut him up. Cash is already liquid though.

Quote:

I'd rather give them them money every week then. You're right that akrasia is a big problem, and especially so for poor people. Iirc then akrasia really sets in for planning beyond a week.

1) That increases infrastructure costs. 2) At best, your unsupported statement is no better than the food stamp program. However, it's just as likely to be much worse.

Quote:

I think any real welfare goes beyond just fixing starvation. It is just way too limited a scope for people to get back on their feet.

No question, but you said it yourself, getting your feet under you takes work. Many, many people are not interested in doing that work. Even so, I'd rather they not starve. So as long as they have PB&J and a roof to sleep under when it rains, I feel like I've done my duty. You're right though, absolutely, work programs and education are good and necessary things. This does not replace that. If you want to work, you should be given the tools to succeed. I'm speaking only for the programs for those who cannot or will not work. If your interests are primarily crack, and how to get money for more crack, no amount of college scholarships will help you. So have a free lunch, and try not to infringe on anyone else's rights in your crack-fueled crack-search.

nezumi.hebereke wrote:

The way the U.S. does it is it gives you coupons you can redeem for particular items in a store. So for example, your cheese coupon can be redeemed for Safeway brand American cheese, Happy Boy Cheese Slices, etc. and you can choose the best. The government negotiates with the stores to get competitive rates (I *believe*), and the coupons are only good for $x in whatever item it is. So you get $20 of fruit money, $5 of cheese money, etc. But the entire infrastructure of actually buying and moving the produce is handled by the same grocery store I shop at with my own money, so there's no additional costs. However, costs may be reduced by the government negotiating with sellers to get that product to be purchasable with food stamps.

My state handles it far more simply. You're given a card with a set amount of food stamps with a fixed monetary value. The common rule of thumb is that if it has a sales tax, it can't be bought with food stamps. And you get to pick what you want to eat.

nezumi.hebereke wrote:

Food stamps aren't perfect, but they aren't as liquid as cash either. I wouldn't buy food stamps, because I need an ID to use them. So now I'm running a fake ID as well, and I take on a significant risk for shaving a few dollars off my groceries. If you're already hungry enough to be willing to work in the black market, you already qualify for food stamps, so there's no big deal. I guess my point is, I've never seen or heard of anyone going down to the corner and try to buy crack using coupons for bananas. Even when I do my own charity work and offer food to people for free, no strings, they turn it down. If you're dirt poor, food doesn't have a high resale value around here, so you may as well give it to your kid and let him buy food himself if that'll shut him up. Cash is already liquid though.

We actually do have an issue with food stamp reselling in my state. Because food stamps are handled on a card akin to a debit card, the card can be used by anyone with the PIN. So it's not uncommon for someone to trade food stamps for normal money, in favor of the purchaser of the stamps. I've seen them sold for 2:1.

nezumi.hebereke wrote:

No question, but you said it yourself, getting your feet under you takes work. Many, many people are not interested in doing that work. Even so, I'd rather they not starve. So as long as they have PB&J and a roof to sleep under when it rains, I feel like I've done my duty. You're right though, absolutely, work programs and education are good and necessary things. This does not replace that. If you want to work, you should be given the tools to succeed. I'm speaking only for the programs for those who cannot or will not work. If your interests are primarily crack, and how to get money for more crack, no amount of college scholarships will help you. So have a free lunch, and try not to infringe on anyone else's rights in your crack-fueled crack-search.

If only to play devil's advocate, I don't think every person who uses crack is necessarily a drain on society. There are some very wealthy crack users out there. To be honest, food stamps are a quick fix to a bigger issue. Employment is rapidly decreasing because there aren't enough jobs for unskilled labor, and the price to gain work skills is prohibitive to the average person. So there is this growing underclass of unskilled people who are rapidly losing any possibility of work in the face of ever-better automation.

Smokeskin wrote:

Yes, it is due to sampling. It is simply survivorship basis. They HAVE to be totalitarian. People don't want the poverty socialism imposes on them. If they're not totalitarian, attempts at implementing socialism are soon reversed and voila, the socialist state is gone.

Incorrect. Every socialist nation so far formed based on the theories of Karl Marx, who proposed that the best way to form a classless stateless society was to revolt against capitalism and install a state socialist intermediary. He and Engels believed that this state socialist nation could help restructure the society, then gradually dismantle itself to produce the utopia they envisioned. While Lenin and Trotsky planned to pull this off (though whether they would have succeeded is debatable... I certainly think they were going to fail), Stalin put the idea on hold and kept the USSR as a totalitarian nation. At best, we can argue that Marx and Engels were [b]dead wrong[/b] on how to implement anarcho-communism (and I would very well agree with you). We can't say with any degree of veracity whether anarcho-communism would actually work, however. I didn't even discuss China, because Mao had no intentions of a stateless society, nor did any of the state socialist nations that were produced by China.

Smokeskin wrote:

Yeah, you anarcho-socialists are on virgin ground. I don't really see how anarcho-socialism can be implemented on a large scale though. I could see an anarcho-capitalist society with anarcho-socialist groups within it (and those groups might or might not be the majority).

Well, they've been implemented on the organization level, and to great effect. I don't imagine that if they were given a plot of land and national autonomy, they would magically collapse under their own weight. So we know it works on a small scale. I personally feel that if it's decentralized federation structure is maintained, an anarchist nation could work just fine... especially in light of modern infrastructure, like the internet (which completely eliminates the delegate concept that early anarchist texts referenced as a communication medium).

Smokeskin wrote:

The irony is that socialism is so bad at producing wealth that everyone is poor. It typically doesn't manage to cover basic needs of the citizens. It's goals might be worthy, but the suggested implemention is completely flawed. If a government covering people's basic needs is your goal, then welfare capitalism is the way to go (much like Nizka suggested and what you see in say the Scandinavian countries). It is not without its problems, but it is workable.

And yet there are plenty of low-scale implementations that don't result in poverty, or even a decent amount of wealth. At best, we can both agree that all large-scale state socialist systems have been utter crap at providing for a populace, and ultimately result in societal collapse (or replacement, as was the case in China).

Smokeskin wrote:

Which is why anarcho-capitalism has a market for security - so citizens can buy protection against individuals, corporations, self-proclaimed governments, foreign nations or whoever else might want to oppress them.

Or so that the securities market can strong-arm the populace themselves, and eliminate the need for a greater government force to get the job done. And this might be to the benefit of security companies that [i]don't[/i] try to strongarm the populace as well, because they will immediately drum up new business. It all smells to me like too good a condition for security cartels to form.

Smokeskin wrote:

Who cares if it is a low poverty line? It is the world recognized poverty line, above it you are free of the worst problems of deep poverty, and 700 million people have been moved above it. That is progress no matter how you look at it. That is real progress. It is impossible to underestimate the magnitude of this humanitarian effort. Seven. Hundred. Million. People. Not living in deep poverty. Mothers not seeing their children die for trivial reasons. It is HUGE. And when we're talking about that, you bring up wealth disparity? Do you seriously think that the fact that some Chinese now have mansions and Bentleys in any way makes lifting 700 million people out of deep poverty problematic? That sounds completely insane and more than a little bit cold.

Actually, the low poverty line is a significantly important issue. Deep poverty is defined by the U.N. as living off less than $1.25 a day. Consider that for China, even $5 a day is not a living wage... and 70+% of the populace still lives below that. I'm not saying it's not a good thing that this number has gone down. But when you take into account the rapidly growing cost of living in China, which has outpaced poverty reduction by a wide margin, this does not equate to great things. People still starve in the streets. They just starve with more money on hand.

Smokeskin wrote:

Yes that sounds like a good idea. Until you're a person with authority, who then has to decide what the punishment for people like yourself should be. Then it looks like a better idea to be lenient. Or even better, no punishment at all. Let's call bribes lobbyism. Oh that got unpopular, let's make a law against it, but with loopholes so we can continue to receive bribes. And insider trading, of course that doesn't apply to politicians. See a pattern?

All assuming that we retained the current status quo, of course. Which is an odd way to look at any theorized attempt to reform things. Remember, corruption hasn't always been as bad as it is now. It tends to wax and wane, depending on the times. Our best bet is to take advantage when it wanes, and do everything in our part to force such conditions.

Smokeskin wrote:

There's a monopoly on violence, and those groups bought and paid for it to back them. Forget about it.

You might be surprised. I have a bit more faith in humanity. I just hope it doesn't take another revolution.

Smokeskin wrote:

I think the number is PPP adjusted, but even if it isn't it is still a big leap. If it was only 350 million people, that is still an amazing feat.

Well, I'm assuming you are going by the World Bank numbers, as they are the ones that place China's poverty so low. Those base deep poverty on $1.25 per day converted directly from the value of the countries currency, regardless of any other factors.

Smokeskin wrote:

I agree, but that wasn't my point. My point was that because of the status quo the required type of reform will be very difficult, since we need the people in power to willingly surrender their benefits. Unfortunately, the same mechanisms pose a problem for implementing anarchism or even approaching minarchism. The good thing about anarchism is that once the problem is fixed, it stays fixed. If you just remove the current corruption with adressing the incentive structure that created the corruption, you're going to see the problem pop up later on.

Agreed. It would be interesting to try and come up with theoretical regulations which might produce disincentives for corruption. Perhaps finding a way to pit politicians and judges against each other even when it isn't election season might be an interesting way to do it. Term limits for more positions of authority would be a very nice thing... if you can't eliminate corruption, you can at least keep people cycling to reduce its impact. I just wish there was a way to experiment with new economic models. The problem with an economic model is that it is hard to produce within the confines of any other model. An anarcho-capitalist micro-nation would still be beholden to the regulations and taxes of the society above it. An anarcho-socialist micro-nation would still be beholden to the property rights and money system. There's no way for either to thrive. Maybe we should start investing in boats. Lots of boats. International water is still free.

Decivre wrote:

I just wish there was a way to experiment with new economic models. The problem with an economic model is that it is hard to produce within the confines of any other model. An anarcho-capitalist micro-nation would still be beholden to the regulations and taxes of the society above it. An anarcho-socialist micro-nation would still be beholden to the property rights and money system. There's no way for either to thrive.

Except for - you guessed it - ancap.

It's rather hard to do proper scientific methodology with political and economic methods, because you cannot eliminate outside variables. So this all tends to be in the realm of speculation, logical process, and circumstantial evidence.

Decivre wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

Except for - you guessed it - ancap.

Even ancap can't thrive anywhere. How can you test out a subsociety based on the premise that there is no law but civil agreement, when every nation beholds you to the laws provided by the state, often overriding civil agreement? If you live in "an ancap society where civil agreement is everything, but we still have to obey the greater law of the nation we reside in", then congratulations. You aren't in an ancap society.

That's not what I said. You asked "if only there was a place where we were free to do experiments". Ancap society would be such a place. We're not going to tax you, or force you to do anything (to the limits of the non-agression principle or some such of course, you can't do experiments like "I want to be an evil overlord", at least not unless you get some willing followers).

Decivre wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

That's not what I said. You asked "if only there was a place where we were free to do experiments". Ancap society would be such a place. We're not going to tax you, or force you to do anything (to the limits of the non-agression principle or some such of course, you can't do experiments like "I want to be an evil overlord", at least not unless you get some willing followers).

We could say the same thing about nearly any anarchist structure. One of the inherent advantages of a stateless system is that the concept of the "nation" is not defined by traditional boundaries or infrastructure, but rather by the presence of participants. If you were inside an anarcho-socialist society, you could easily create an ancap nation by simply settling down where no anarcho-socialists currently reside. Vice versa is equally true.

Yeah, that seems more a function of anarchism than of capitalism or socialism. And really, even in an ancap society it wouldn't necessarily work to try anything else, given society as a whole still requires money in ancap. And few areas have the resources to be fully self-sufficient. So our little anarcho-socialist commune would still need to use money to exist under ancap. So no, it still doesn't really work.