Welcome! These forums will be deactivated by the end of this year. The conversation continues in a new morph over on Discord! Please join us there for a more active conversation and the occasional opportunity to ask developers questions directly! Go to the PS+ Discord Server.

New political views

210 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Last post

Wed, 2014-01-29 18:07

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

New political views

Now, for those of you that have seen me post, you know that I'm of the Anarcho-Capitalist camp. Truth be told though, this isn't a view I've had for that long. It wasn't that long ago that I was the biggest flag waving, my country can do no wrong, jingoist that wouldn't be out of place in the junta. I won't go into the details of my switch around, but it didn't happen all at once, nor is it a position I take (or leave) lightly. I know not everyone here is for anarchy, or even my preferred stratagem of it, but for those that are. Is this a position you've long held, or is it recent? How do you deal with holding a position that others may fear or may never be put into practice? I'm not asking because I am ashamed, I've just never shifted my politics to be quite so radical.

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Thu, 2014-01-30 17:44

Smokeskin

I went from libertarian

I went from libertarian minarchist to anarcho-capitalist. At some point, it was just like a veil dropped. It wasn't just that I thought that the state banned too much, collected too many taxes, wasted too much money, delivered services of too low quality. No, the state itself was completely and utterly wrong. Everything it did was oppressive, it robbed and extorted with threats of violence. Even the smallest law, break that, and they will fine you. Fail to pay that, they will say now you owe us more money. Then they will come and try and rob you off your possessions. If you protect your property, armed men in dark uniforms will come and rob your stuff. If you protect yourself against them, they will kill you, or wound you and lock you in small room for decades. Every little thing that politicians decide we must do is an exercise of violence. That's what politics is. Once I got that, the anarcho-capitalists I had been reading about, suddenly what they said made sense. Truth be told, I've always considered myself a utilitarian. I consider anarcho-capitalism to be mostly a deontological position, which doesn't sit completely right with me. Many of the things that I value in a society, like how the poor and needy should be treated, might not be done very well in an anarcho-capitalist society. I hope that a combination of higher economic growth and jobs for many more people because of no minimum wage would solve most, and that charity from good people would handle the rest, but I don't know. The freeloader problem is real. I hope that the ideas of peer pressure and ostracization will work, and that the freeloaders won't just form their own little social circle - but often, I think that I don't really care about that, let them - my joy of giving is no less real just because someone else doesn't. I once heard someone say that beggars sell clear conscience and he bought that sometimes. I don't see anarcho-capitalism being implemented either, but that is the case for many political views. Their dream society will never come true. But we can get there. I was at a meeting with one of the members of parliament from our libertarian party, and someone asked him how low the individual members of the party felt the taxes should go, how small the government should be. He answered that there were wildly different views in the party, but they could still easily cooperate because so far they agreed on the direction, and the first stepping stone (the proposals from their party programme). I think that's how we have to deal with our ancap views and how we approach other people with it. We try to get us towards a better and more free society. Instead of going on about anarcho-capitalism, which is so far from understandable for someone so deep in their statist, democratic brainwashing as most people are, I try to talk (calmly) about how politics is violence. How that it might just seem to be a little thing to pass a law about something inconsequential - but someone will break that law, and they will get arrested and incarcerated, kidnapped and robbed of their freedom, for doing something that they didn't think was wrong. Or they'll get fined and extorted to pay through the threat of violence. When politics is violence, and it is, don't we have to be more careful about how and how often we wield? Shouldn't it be the exception, reserved for something truly important? Imagine a man, lying in the desert, close to dying of thirst. Another man walks by with much more water than he needs. Is it ok to pull out your gun and threaten him to hand over a bottle to save the dying man? Many would say that it is. But what if the thirsting man was in his home and had plenty of water, but he was thirsting for beer. Would it then be ok to use a gun to threaten other people with plenty of beer to give their beer to the man who only had water? Is it? And if it is not, why is it then ok to do it a few steps removed, through a politician, a tax man and a police officer? In discussions on actual anarcho-capitalism (which I don't recommend with anyons but the genuinely interested and openminded) it is paramount that you learn how the current institutions would work (and work much better) in ancap society. Take consumer protection. In a democracy, producers will often bribe politicians to not ban their deceitful practices, or at best politicians will always lack behind the latest schemes as it takes them years to solve anything, and you only get a one-size-serves-all solution. And consumers in democracies have no alternative. In ancap society, consumer protection codes would be something you signed on to, and agreed to with the seller when making a purchase, and there would be several providers. They would compete for different spots on the price-quality curve for example, and you could choose one that matched what you wanted, and your neighbor something else. Of course, everyone couldn't have their own code, but even with just a few providers, a lot of people would be much closer to what they liked. And as private companies, these providers would compete in getting protection against new schemes and harmful substances on the market as soon as possible. It's very important that people understand that ancap has almost all the same institutions as modern democracies, and they work better. It also makes for great arguments for liberalization. Second, charity. We don't want people to starve on the streets (at least I don't) - that's a common misconception. Just like so many people are willing to vote for politicians who want to collect taxes for welfare benefits to poor people, the same voters should be willing to pay that tax amount directly to the poor or charities in ancap societies.

Fri, 2014-01-31 03:28

thezombiekat thezombiekat's picture

The reason I cannot get

The reason I cannot get behind the ann-caps as described in eclipse phase is that in that society I, and many of my friends would either be dead or have committed significant crime to survive, There is no state. No law but contracts and property ownership. If you have no skill with significant demand. And no reserves of assets to fund an education. Then you will be unemployed and starving. Or employed in a job that offers only minimal pay and no chance of advancement. In this situation you can only, await death, turn to crime, or if you got ‘lucky’ continue to work in a mind crushing menial position until you succumb to insanity or your body succumbs to ill use. When I was young I was educated by the state. That education got me a job that used skills and allowed skill growth. I happily payed a portion of my earnings to the state so that the new youngsters could share that opportunity, so that the state could provide a health care system that will take care of important medical issues for me in the future regardless of whether I am in the future able to afford private health insurance (I also have private health insurance because I can afford it and prefer the faster treatment and cover for less essential services). For myself maybe my parents could have provided an adequate education. But it would have been very difficult for them. For many of my friends had the state not provided them with an education they would now have no education. There is one job I know of in the western world that can be done by somebody who lacks even a primary school education, prostitute and then only if your pimp can keep the books. Even farming, an occupation that existed well before education has come to require literacy and numeracy skills for accounting and machine maintenance. Lacking state sponsored education I expect extropia will soon (20-40AF) contain a significant underclass of people born poor, who never where able to afford mesh inserts, who have so little education they are literally good for nothing.

Fri, 2014-01-31 09:49

nezumi.hebereke nezumi.hebereke's picture

My original leanings when I

My original leanings when I was young was the individual above all. I spent time in the Soviet Union, and that was a pretty formative few years. I'm also a pretty strong believer in systems. Capitalism works because it is an efficient way of distributing resources to meet demands. Capitalism is not inherently good or bad, it's just a system that you can use or not use. If you create a successful system, things will work. If you just throw money at something, it will not work. My issue though is that you can't let the system control you. For example, imagine there are a number of stores. If a store finds an unethical way to cut costs, for instance via slave labor, it will push down its prices. In a simple town, it might be easy to avoid that store, but in our modern world, we're so far dispossessed from our producers, it's really no longer possible. All we see is price, unit quality, etc. If one store uses that unethical method, it now has a competitive edge. The other stores can't compete unless they also follow that method, forcing everyone to go into slavery or die. This is where the state comes in. I don't give the state a lot of credit, but this seems an ideal situation for it. The state outlaws an unethical behavior and enforces it. Now no one has to engage in that unethical behavior to keep their edge. Similarly, you need a basic level of law in order to sustain free trade. If theft is legal, I'm never going to buy anything, which means the producers go out of business. In order to determine what is permissible behavior, I hire a representative, who goes and discusses this with other representatives. And they choose more representatives to enforce it. I don't have the time to weigh in on every assault and murder. So I do see a value in having a state. HOWEVER, the state can easily get out of control. Freeloaders, ineffective infrastructure, corruption, etc. are examples of the state growing too big for its britches. When there is a question about whether something should be implemented, the default answer should be 'no'. If I had to label myself, I'd say I'm a libertarianism who recognizes the threat of economic coercion. If you're too poor to afford food or education, you can't be free. Even with the concept of minimal government, I can't turn down a guaranteed win. Every $1 spent on highways is $2 in profits for everyone. Every $1 spent on education is a $6 profit for everyone (even if you didn't go to school). I'm okay with the government handling the no-duh investments for me. My ideal government would serve the following roles only: 1) Establishing the baseline lawset to protect people from assault, slavery, etc. and enforce it 2) Make no-duh investments with my money that are beyond the means of individuals (including providing a forum for establishing technical standards, maintaining diplomatic relations with other nations, protecting the country from attack) 3) Promote the primacy of the individual Eclipse Phase introduces two central conceits to make anarchism possible; incredible communication networks with muses, that permit real-time voting on issues without interfering in my having a life, and unlimited food/energy/necessary resources. Without those, I don't think modern anarchism can be competitive. You spend too much energy on maintaining the community, you don't have enough left over to be productive.

Fri, 2014-01-31 11:13

Smokeskin

nezumi.hebereke wrote:

nezumi.hebereke wrote:
Eclipse Phase introduces two central conceits to make anarchism possible; incredible communication networks with muses, that permit real-time voting on issues without interfering in my having a life, and unlimited food/energy/necessary resources. Without those, I don't think modern anarchism can be competitive. You spend too much energy on maintaining the community, you don't have enough left over to be productive.

I'll just start from the back, because we need to distinguish between anarcho-capitalism, and most other forms of anarchism. I agree that the other forms of anarchism suffer from a whole host of problems because they don't have capitalism. That's not necessarily that big an issue if you have EP tech levels, but in our current world, it is. Anarcho-capitalism is a different beast. There are objections to be made against it, but they're very different from the difficulties with productivity and decision processes that plague other forms of anarchism.

nezumi.hebereke wrote:
My issue though is that you can't let the system control you. For example, imagine there are a number of stores. If a store finds an unethical way to cut costs, for instance via slave labor, it will push down its prices. In a simple town, it might be easy to avoid that store, but in our modern world, we're so far dispossessed from our producers, it's really no longer possible. All we see is price, unit quality, etc. If one store uses that unethical method, it now has a competitive edge. The other stores can't compete unless they also follow that method, forcing everyone to go into slavery or die. This is where the state comes in. I don't give the state a lot of credit, but this seems an ideal situation for it. The state outlaws an unethical behavior and enforces it. Now no one has to engage in that unethical behavior to keep their edge.

I'm not sure that is the case in the globalized world. Very few nations if any require that imported goods have been produced ethically. You also mention slave labor - that's not accepted in ancap society.

nezumi.hebereke wrote:
Similarly, you need a basic level of law in order to sustain free trade. If theft is legal, I'm never going to buy anything, which means the producers go out of business.

Ancap recognizes private property rights, so theft is no more an issue than under a state.

nezumi.hebereke wrote:
In order to determine what is permissible behavior, I hire a representative, who goes and discusses this with other representatives. And they choose more representatives to enforce it. I don't have the time to weigh in on every assault and murder.

Is that your experience of living in a democracy? The representative I've voted for, so far he's come back to me and said "yeah, you know that stuff you hired me to do, it didn't really work out. Sorry. So, you're going to have to do what these other guys' representatives say. First on the list is handing over 70% of your pay. And they hired some other representatives and gave them guns to make sure you pay up." And a lot of people find that the very guy they chose to represent them, once he's elected, he becomes interested in other things and just does something totally different than what he promised before the election. My experience of living in a democratic state has rarely been that the state acts on my behalf, but mostly that the state uses threats of violence to ensure that I do what other people think I should do.

nezumi.hebereke wrote:
So I do see a value in having a state. HOWEVER, the state can easily get out of control. Freeloaders, ineffective infrastructure, corruption, etc. are examples of the state growing too big for its britches. When there is a question about whether something should be implemented, the default answer should be 'no'.

I completely, completely agree. I mean, as an ancap I'd go further, but the state should do absolutely as little as possible. It should run as little as possible - if you want universal health care, just give the money to people for the treatment and let them figure out where and how they want to treated. That's a much more effective way of making sure that the patients get what they want and need, instead of some lethargic government run health care system.

nezumi.hebereke wrote:
If I had to label myself, I'd say I'm a libertarianism who recognizes the threat of economic coercion. If you're too poor to afford food or education, you can't be free. Even with the concept of minimal government, I can't turn down a guaranteed win. Every $1 spent on highways is $2 in profits for everyone. Every $1 spent on education is a $6 profit for everyone (even if you didn't go to school). I'm okay with the government handling the no-duh investments for me.

I agree that education is often a no-brainer investment. The reason private companies aren't involved much in it is that the state keeps private investors out of the market with laws against high interest loans and indenture.

nezumi.hebereke wrote:
My ideal government would serve the following roles only: 1) Establishing the baseline lawset to protect people from assault, slavery, etc. and enforce it 2) Make no-duh investments with my money that are beyond the means of individuals (including providing a forum for establishing technical standards, maintaining diplomatic relations with other nations, protecting the country from attack) 3) Promote the primacy of the individual

That would make me very happy :) However, I have a hard time seeing such a government existing. Politicians tend to promise lots of gifts to different voter groups, ban what some people have a bias against, propose new laws and regulation to deal with any tragedy that hits the media, etc. And that system just keeps on rolling, leading to continually bigger government, more spending and taxes, more regulations and bans. It also seems to me that all of the things you mention would be done better in ancap.

Fri, 2014-01-31 12:18

bibliophile20 bibliophile20's picture

Personally, I see ancap as

Personally, I see ancap as something that would only work if you took a set population of highly trained immortals and set them off by themselves somewhere, each with the same amount of starting capital, and didn't have to interact with anyone else that wasn't also voluntarily an ancap. But that's just my perspective. I'll admit that my own belief in the free market has been heavily damaged by how it is practiced in the United States, where, as it has been recently put, "if terrorists poisoned the water of 300,000 people, we'd have already invaded the wrong country. But, since it's a corporation, it's business as usual." However, this is not a thread to debate the relative merits and politics of ancap, or any other political system. This is instead a thread to discuss how we each arrived at our own political beliefs. So, let me tie in what I wrote above into my own statement. Personally, I'm a bit eclectic. I see the attraction of anarcho-socialism, but I feel that it throws the baby out with the bathwater in getting rid of all hierarchical models. My personal ideal is a midway approach between the anarchists, Titan's Commonwealth and the argonauts--a place that has a written set of formalized law, to prevent mob justice from taking hold, but also a place where the spirit of the ideals is judged to be more important than the law. The letter of the law is lower than the spirit, and all of our tools that we have created are used in a fashion that betters everyone. Also, a place where the ideals and values are ones that I can agree with. In the US, Money and Wealth have, since before this country's founding, been the sole overriding defining social Value--above religious affiliation, above freedom, above liberty. The Almighty Dollar is the god that this country worships. Now, maybe that's changing, maybe that's not. But everything in this country is tied to that single, heh, accounting of a person's worth. "How much do you make?" is the question for determining a person's relative social status. Not the quality of their character, not the contents of their mind, not the kindness that they have shown to others or lack thereof. Wealth is what matters, and all other measures--religion, race, culture, creed--are secondary (still very important secondaries, but secondaries nonetheless). Knowledge and education have to be "justified" and "worth it" in order to pursue, instead of knowledge and learning for their own sakes. Knowledge is never worth it, unless it can be profited from. Decency towards our fellow man is looked upon as a moral failing, because those poor people are poor as a moral failing. Healing the sick and making sure that they can afford the medicines and treatments that will allow them to live? Blasphemy! These are the things that I am reacting against and that inform my own views. I would prefer to live in a society where my contributions and quality of character are what are judged, and not be judged at how well I can game a rigged system into channeling money into my own pocket. I would prefer to live in a society where learning and knowledge are their own rewards, and not just an expense that has to be justified for whatever job I try to land. I would prefer to live in a culture where decency and kindness are rewarded, and conspicuous displays of wealth, or piety, or ideology are discouraged. And I look at the "free" market and see the best democracy money can buy. I see people like the Koch Brothers channeling millions into the pockets of candidates that will destroy every protection people and the environment have managed to construct against the all-consuming maw of unrestricted industry. I see people who played craps with the world economy get rewarded with multi-million dollar bonuses and millions of their employees get treated like disposable kleenex. I see the freedom of the individual trampled and tossed aside in the name of profits for a corporation. For the "free" market, we have people like J. Clifford Forrest, the owner of "Freedom Industries", the company whose market was so free, that they never had to worry about the effects of spilling a toxic chemical into the water of a third of a million people. It's okay for him. He's declaring bankruptcy, so that Freedom Industry's liabilities and debts will be wiped clean... leaving Mountaineering Funding, LLC, which, coincidentally, is also controlled by someone named J. Clifford Forrest, to snap up all of Freedom Industries' assets, without all of that nasty legal baggage. And I see that these people would loooove to live in a society where the law is literally bought and paid for moreso than it already is. I would prefer to live in a place where the spirit is higher than the letter, and someone that harms others makes restitution, and the practices of usury, garnishment, and all of those fun tricks and associated methods are looked upon as being on the same level as child abuse.

—

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -Benjamin Franklin

Fri, 2014-01-31 14:10

Smokeskin

Bibliophile, I don't

Bibliophile, I don't recognize ancap in what you say. The problem you see with the free market doesn't come from it being free - it comes from the opposite. The law is less bought in ancap than in the democracy you live in, not more. In ancap, you don't have politicians that make laws to help and shield the rich and powerful. The current legal system is very complex and slow, and to operate in it you need to have deep pockets, expertise and the patience and money to wait out the process. Ordinary people can be buried in legal costs and forced to wait longer than they can afford if they take it to trial - and in this way they are often forced to not sue at all or accept an unfair settlement that they'd never take if we had a simple, efficient system. In ancap, you don't have politicians, bought and paid for, who make such systems. You have common law. You seem to have a problem with limited liability, and rightly so. It is an abomination. That could never happen in ancap. Sure, you could agree contractually to limited liability with your creditors and trading partners. But people you hurt, when they come to sue you, you can't just say "it wasn't me!" and then point to some legal construct. Doesn't that strike you as insane being able to do that? Yet that is what our politicians have decided that should protect corporations and business leaders. Imagine if us ordinary people could do that - punch someone in the face and then point to a piece of paper and say "punish that". But a CEO, that is in his power thousandfold, as long as he uses chemicals, drugs or machines. Ancap is not about giving more power to the rich. It is about giving it back to the ordinary people by removing the concentration of power that is the state and politicians, and ending their game of playing favors for themselves and the elite. They would no longer get to control the law and have a monopoly on violence. It is the law and the police that protect people like J. Clifford Forrest from justice, not the market. It makes me a bit sad how the very things that us ancaps want removed from the system - the rigging in the rigged free market and the hurt that comes from it - are those we are accused of wanting more of.

Sat, 2014-02-01 01:29

thezombiekat thezombiekat's picture

Smokeskin wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:
You also mention slave labor - that's not accepted in ancap society.

not technically slave labor. in that they use the term indenture instead and it is eather voluntary or a criminal punishment. as a criminal punishment i have less of a problem with it but there is no difference between a voluntary indenture and the voluntary slavery described in the bible. also there is the arguably more reprehensible practice of wage slavery. where an employ is payed far below the amount needed to maintain himself so that he will perform work in exchange for dying slightly slower than if he had absolutely nothing. with no social security, no minimum wage law and a surplus of labor this is exactly what happens.

Quote:
I completely, completely agree. I mean, as an ancap I'd go further, but the state should do absolutely as little as possible. It should run as little as possible - if you want universal health care, just give the money to people for the treatment and let them figure out where and how they want to treated. That's a much more effective way of making sure that the patients get what they want and need, instead of some lethargic government run health care system.

universal health care is one of my favorats because it is easy to compare healthcare systems in different countries. the problem with handing people money is that an individual with a pile of cash has very little bargaining power. and frequently when you need medical attention you are in no fit state to shop around. every day people get in care crashes and don't regain consciousness until they have received thousands of dollars worth of care. it doesn't matter if the next hospital was $2000 cheaper the patient had no say in where they went. now if the ambulance company and the hospital are both private what is to stop the more expensive hospital sliding $200 to the ambulance company to always bring people to them. in Australia we have universal health care (we also have private health insurance to get private rooms, avoid waiting lists and get access to things not covered by the government, like my chiropractor) the PBS (prescription benefit scheme) has strong bargaining power to get drugs at good prices because it buys truly vast quantities of drugs. and having a hospital run my the government as a service rather than a profit making entity means patients get tests and procedures based on whether the doctor thinks it is a good for the patent rather than weather the patient can pay for it. i hear stories from America of patents being given expansive cat scans because the machine needs to make money. that doesn't sound efficient, just profitable. if you look at what happens on the wards in a public hospital there is very little inefficiency, staff are always busy (more so than in private hospitals), fixtures are usually a mix of new medical devices (keeping up with technology) and items that look old and well used items (that haven't changed in a long time) and everything in between. nothing is replaced for the sake of replacing it. it is possible that there is some wast in the management (i have never been to hospital management offices) but what there is not is profit taking. a private hospital has a mandate to make money and use it in a way that will have no benefit to patients, if the government is ultimately paying for the treatment this looks like an inefficiency to me. in Australia the government contributes to the cost of visiting a GP. many GPs accept this rate, others charge a little more. as a result when an Australian gets sick they go to a GP (there are lots of them) and receive treatment soon after getting sick. the PBS subsidizes the cost of prescription drugs so you can always afford your treatment (there is the occasional exception but it is very rare). because people get treatment early most diseases are cured more quickly using less medication and no expensive hospital time. ultimately the the strongest argument is this. America dose not have universal health care, Australia dose. the Australian government spends less per capita on health care than the American government dose. Australia's total spending on healthcare (public and private combined) per capita is less than America and Australians get better healthcare than Americans.

Sat, 2014-02-01 01:51

ShadowDragon8685 ShadowDragon8685's picture

I would like to preface this

I would like to preface this by saying that it was suggested I take a look at this thread by Bibliophile, so if this leads us down the road to the orange text being brought out, there's a healthy dose of "This was partly your fault." Smokeskin: In anarcho-capitalism, the law is [b]literally[/b] bought and paid for. There are no protections against usurious contracts being signed and enforced at the point of a mercenary's gun except the negotiating power of the parties involved. Which is [i]fine[/i] if both parties have equal negotiating power. But when they don't, you're going to get abhorrent abuses. Let's look at my favorite example. Let's say that Pataa (Party A) is a guy with a few thousand credits and a gambling problem. He finds himself in an ancap casino, Patab (Party B,) seeking to engage their services. How much negotiating power does Pataa have to make this a fair contract? About nil. First off, all of the ancap casinos will have the collaboration power to enforce a minimum set of "fuck you" on low-rollers like Pataa, so he can't go shopping around for different casinos. [i]Every one of them has the singular goal of separating him from his credits as efficiently as possible.[/i] And let's not forget that "choosing not to engage a casino at all" is not an option. Pataa has a gambling problem, he has to see those dice roll! He's convinced - [i]convinced![/i] that this time, the RNG will come up in his favor, he'll make it [i]big[/i]. So he puts his electronic John Handcock on the dotted line after some very, very perfunctory checking to make sure that it doesn't have a bodily harm default clause. It doesn't, so he's good. He proceeds into the casino, and for the next few hours he has the time of the life. The casino keeps him there by dropping him a carrot every now and then - remember, there's no gambling commission to enforce the fairness or even actual randomness of this game, and buried in the fine print is a clause stating that the casino will not adjust the odds at play to be less in Pataa's favor than the minimum stipulated. Not said, but implied, is that there's nothing saying they won't adjust the odds to be [i]more[/i] in his favor. They want him there. They want him to experience the roller-coaster like ride of boom and bust, making sure his booms never dishonestly go above what he started with, but letting the dice fall where they may otherwise, until he's too involved in the gambling; too distracted by the sexy - which, given that this is a freewheeling ancap hab, may very well involve an indentured slave in a pleasure pod outright snaking his/her/its hand into his trousers and masturbating him at the tables; too plied by the alcohol and brainbenders to be thinking [i]anything[/i] like rationally. Then it happens. He rolls big and blows it all. He's down to zero, but he's having so much [i]fun[/i], and the whispering of the pleasure pod in his ear tells him that he's had big luck before... He can take a line of credit! That's easy, of course - he'll take a line of credit, he'll hit big, and when he's above his initial funds, he'll walk, and maybe use the proceeds to drag that minxy little pleasure pod into one of their back rooms and plow her good as a celebration. Of course, now he's in the hole - he's been seperated from his own money, but there's more value to extract here - [b]much[/b] more value to extract. The kid gloves come off, the artificial booms grow less frequent, but the credit keeps coming in, and before he knows it, Pataa is fifty thousand credits in the hole. Now the ride comes to an end. A couple of Furies in dark suits ask him to please accompany them to discuss his financial situation. Of course, he can refuse! But he doesn't, because again, the sexy. He is taken into a back room, where he's sat down with an accountant in a Slyph morph, who explains to him in no uncertain terms exactly where he stands: He's gone deeply into debt, and he needs to pay up, now. Of course, Pataa can't pay 50,000 credits. Even if he drains everything he has, he has maybe 10K. That's a start, of course, they'll take that now, if he agrees, and put it toward his debt, but that's not enough. He's deep enough in the hole that even forfieting his morph to them won't dig him out - that's worth maybe 20K. At this point, he balks. He doesn't want to give up his morph. That's fine, the casino says. There are other options. One of those options is that he can indenture himself to the casino. Given the amount of credits he's into them for, he'll be at it for a year per 10K he's into them for. Of course, this is Extropia. There's no [i]law[/i] of course, they can't [i]force[/i] him to sign. But he already signed one contract which states that the accepted way to handle incurring a debt he can't already cover is to sign an indenture contract. Of course, he can refuse - he can run. They certainly aren't going to stop him from walking out that door. This is Extropia, nobody is coerced to do anything! Preventing him from leaving would be coercion. But, if he does that, then in he's in breach of his contract with the casino. They will take the case to a freelance Extropian judge - who, by the way, is waiting to take the case the moment he walks out the door without settling things - who will judge precisely according to the terms of the contract Pataa signed. Unfortunately, the terms of the contract he signed state that he should indenture himself immediately in order to pay off his fantastically huge debt. Now, if he chooses not to follow the Judge's ruling, of course, they can't [i]make[/i] him. This is Extropia! You can't coerce people into doing [i]anything![/i] But he will have an outstanding judicial judgement against him. His security contracts will be null and void. He will be in Extropia [i]without any protection contracts.[/i] Literally everyone on the street will be free to do to him whatever they see fit, and if some otherwise samaritan-minded person gets it into their head to come to his aid, the security contractors will attack his would-be saviors in defense of his attackers, who have valid protection contracts on their persons. Now, his imagination as regards what will happen is bad enough - anyone can attack him, can raid his place for his things, etcetera, but the casino maven explains exactly what will happen: They won't get the chance. The judge is also jury and executioner - the moment he reneges on his contract with the Patab casino, the judge is free to grab him. The casino will hire the judge - instantaneously - to grab him and drag him back. There, he will be forcibly seperated from his morph, which will be the judge's payment for the capture of the rogue contract-breaker, and he will be sold into infomorph slavery to the ID Crew, with whom the casino has a standing understanding as regards deadbeats. That sounds nasty, and it is. But hey, nobody will have [i]coerced[/i] him into doing anything! That's just the consequences of winding up without protection contracts on Extropia. But hey, there are alternatives - for instance, he can follow the terms of the contract he already signed and sign an indenture contract. Yeah, he's signing that fucking contract. So now he's a gambling addict indentured to a casino, people who are experts at getting people to do stupid things against their own self-interest. They'll have [i]all sorts[/i] of new and exciting ways for him to fuck himself over, like gambling against his remaining indenture time - risk adding to your hitch for the chance to get it released all at once! They basically own him, now. Because they had all the negotiating power. [b]This is why ancapitalism is a fucking abomination.[/b] The nature of capitalism is like gravity and mass. Those with the most money accumulate more money, those with less money find it sucked away towards those with the most money. Government regulations are the only thing standing between those with the capital and those without, and even as half-assed as they stand now, they're far and away better than unregulated fucking capitalism.

—

Skype and AIM names: Exactly the same as my forum name. [url=http://tinyurl.com/mfcapss]My EP Character Questionnaire[/url] [url=http://tinyurl.com/lbpsb93]Thread for my Questionnaire[/url] [url=http://tinyurl.com/obu5adp]The Five Orange Pips[/url]

Sat, 2014-02-01 01:51

#10

thezombiekat thezombiekat's picture

Smokeskin wrote:Ancap is not

Smokeskin wrote:
Ancap is not about giving more power to the rich. It is about giving it back to the ordinary people by removing the concentration of power that is the state and politicians, and ending their game of playing favors for themselves and the elite. They would no longer get to control the law and have a monopoly on violence. It is the law and the police that protect people like J. Clifford Forrest from justice, not the market.

but the state dose not act exclusively for the rich. the politicians have been bribed and they are favoring the rich over the poor but there is still a minimum wage. there is still some social security. there is still tax payed by the rich. there are still minimum safety requirements in industry. there is still some protection for striking workers. the rich and powerful want none of those things. and in ancap society none of them exist. in ancap society if somebody signs a contract waving all liability for industrial accidents and accepting that no safety equipment will be provided and he will be payed half the cost of the cheapest rental property in town that contract is legal and binding. he will do the work, get the pay and have a high chance of dying. but people will sign that contract because unemployment is high and its better to live on the street eat and have a high chance of death than simply starve to death on the street. without someone to guarantee some minimum level of survival people will have to accept whatever horrific or criminal situation gives them the possibility of survival. but who in an ancap society will bear the considerable cost of providing this minimum.

Sat, 2014-02-01 04:16

#11

Smokeskin

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:I

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:
I would like to preface this by saying that it was suggested I take a look at this thread by Bibliophile, so if this leads us down the road to the orange text being brought out, there's a healthy dose of "This was partly your fault." Smokeskin: In anarcho-capitalism, the law is [b]literally[/b] bought and paid for. There are no protections against usurious contracts being signed and enforced at the point of a mercenary's gun except the negotiating power of the parties involved. Which is [i]fine[/i] if both parties have equal negotiating power. But when they don't, you're going to get abhorrent abuses.

The law is absolutely not bought and paid for in ancap, and it is absolutely not recognized as acceptable to force someone to sign at the barrel of a gun. I suggest you look into the non aggression principle and voluntaryism to get into the underlying ideas of ancap. Threatening or forcing anyone to do anything is absolutely out of bounds, and a contract entered under those terms would not be recognized.

Quote:
Let's look at my favorite example. Let's say that Pataa (Party A) is a guy with a few thousand credits and a gambling problem. He finds himself in an ancap casino, Patab (Party B,) seeking to engage their services. How much negotiating power does Pataa have to make this a fair contract? About nil. First off, all of the ancap casinos will have the collaboration power to enforce a minimum set of "fuck you" on low-rollers like Pataa, so he can't go shopping around for different casinos. [i]Every one of them has the singular goal of separating him from his credits as efficiently as possible.[/i]

A few things. Paataa is free to fuck up his own life if that's what he chooses. That will mean that some people end up hurting themselves, but that also means that everyone else is free from a state trying to "protect" them. You don't get a ban on alcohol like the US had that gave rise to organized crime. You don't get drug laws that squander incredible amounts of resources on the drug war, that get teens with promising futures thrown in jail and their life potential diminished by a criminal just for getting caught smoking weed, we don't get the massive crime from competing gangs, we don't get so many people in jail for victimless crimes (hah! there's an oxymoron), we don't get the high drug prices that come from the police keeping all law-abiding citizens and corporations out of the drug trade. And let's be real. People like Paataa, they aren't really helped by the casino's being forced to play fair. People like Paataa, they get helped by loan sharks, who afterwards don't care an iota about the agreement. They just want their money, and the vig goes up and up, and he gets his fingers broken and ends up dead one day. If you're so deep in your addiction that you're willing to sign up for indenture, you're going to fall prey to the much worse criminal element that inevitably pop up when you put in bans. The ban solution just doesn't work, as has been proved time and time again. Paataa does have options though. He could sign a contract with his security provider to forcibly keep him out of casinos. He could even go to extremes like have them break his fingers for going in, instead of that happening when he's in hopeless debt. As for all the casinos agreeing to terms that screw over low rollers - remember that there's not a limited amount of gambling licenses. Everyone can open a casino and attract the low rollers with better terms.

Quote:
And let's not forget that "choosing not to engage a casino at all" is not an option. Pataa has a gambling problem, he has to see those dice roll! He's convinced - [i]convinced![/i] that this time, the RNG will come up in his favor, he'll make it [i]big[/i]. So he puts his electronic John Handcock on the dotted line after some very, very perfunctory checking to make sure that it doesn't have a bodily harm default clause. It doesn't, so he's good.

That's gross neglience on his part. Any even remotely responsible ancapper will have a consumer protection code subscription that they'll want applied to any such contract they sign. Whenever you want to think about ancap, you should imagine that ancap has almost all the same institutions as modern society. Of course ancappers don't have to be lawyers and spend hours pouring over contracts for every trivial transaction. Of course they have consumer rights - they're just offered on the private market and agreed to on a case by case basis. Walking into a contract without your consumer rights signed on is like going for a drive without wiping the snow from the windshield.

Quote:
He proceeds into the casino, and for the next few hours he has the time of the life. The casino keeps him there by dropping him a carrot every now and then - remember, there's no gambling commission to enforce the fairness or even actual randomness of this game, and buried in the fine print is a clause stating that the casino will not adjust the odds at play to be less in Pataa's favor than the minimum stipulated. Not said, but implied, is that there's nothing saying they won't adjust the odds to be [i]more[/i] in his favor. They want him there. They want him to experience the roller-coaster like ride of boom and bust, making sure his booms never dishonestly go above what he started with, but letting the dice fall where they may otherwise, until he's too involved in the gambling; too distracted by the sexy - which, given that this is a freewheeling ancap hab, may very well involve an indentured slave in a pleasure pod outright snaking his/her/its hand into his trousers and masturbating him at the tables; too plied by the alcohol and brainbenders to be thinking [i]anything[/i] like rationally.

For a lot of people, that sounds like fun. Paataa has every option to protect himself, many more than in a democracy because he can have his security contractor use force in him to control his addiction or pick a consumer protection that adresses his issues, but he has apparently chosen not to. Should Paataa's desire to ruin his life overrule everyone else's chance to have fun, and create a criminal gambling and loan sharking environment because that props up when you try to "help" Paataa by forcing him to deal with them instead, and create drug gangs and drug wars and millions in prison for victimless crimes (because it's not just gamblers you need to "help", you also need to "help" drug addicts)?

Quote:
Then it happens. He rolls big and blows it all. He's down to zero, but he's having so much [i]fun[/i], and the whispering of the pleasure pod in his ear tells him that he's had big luck before... He can take a line of credit! That's easy, of course - he'll take a line of credit, he'll hit big, and when he's above his initial funds, he'll walk, and maybe use the proceeds to drag that minxy little pleasure pod into one of their back rooms and plow her good as a celebration. Of course, now he's in the hole - he's been seperated from his own money, but there's more value to extract here - [b]much[/b] more value to extract. The kid gloves come off, the artificial booms grow less frequent, but the credit keeps coming in, and before he knows it, Pataa is fifty thousand credits in the hole. Now the ride comes to an end. A couple of Furies in dark suits ask him to please accompany them to discuss his financial situation. Of course, he can refuse! But he doesn't, because again, the sexy. He is taken into a back room, where he's sat down with an accountant in a Slyph morph, who explains to him in no uncertain terms exactly where he stands: He's gone deeply into debt, and he needs to pay up, now. Of course, Pataa can't pay 50,000 credits. Even if he drains everything he has, he has maybe 10K. That's a start, of course, they'll take that now, if he agrees, and put it toward his debt, but that's not enough. He's deep enough in the hole that even forfieting his morph to them won't dig him out - that's worth maybe 20K. At this point, he balks. He doesn't want to give up his morph. That's fine, the casino says. There are other options. One of those options is that he can indenture himself to the casino. Given the amount of credits he's into them for, he'll be at it for a year per 10K he's into them for. Of course, this is Extropia. There's no [i]law[/i] of course, they can't [i]force[/i] him to sign.

First, Paataa chose to not protect himself against all of this - he had his security contractor and his consumer protection, and he didn't use it, and then he signed some stupid shit on top. Second, how does this scene play out in the democratic world, where you're talking to some mob loan sharks instead? Something like "go rob a bank or we'll beat up your wife, and if you still refuse we'll use a power drill on your kneecaps"?

Quote:
But he already signed one contract which states that the accepted way to handle incurring a debt he can't already cover is to sign an indenture contract. Of course, he can refuse - he can run. They certainly aren't going to stop him from walking out that door. This is Extropia, nobody is coerced to do anything! Preventing him from leaving would be coercion. But, if he does that, then in he's in breach of his contract with the casino. They will take the case to a freelance Extropian judge - who, by the way, is waiting to take the case the moment he walks out the door without settling things - who will judge precisely according to the terms of the contract Pataa signed. Unfortunately, the terms of the contract he signed state that he should indenture himself immediately in order to pay off his fantastically huge debt. Now, if he chooses not to follow the Judge's ruling, of course, they can't [i]make[/i] him. This is Extropia! You can't coerce people into doing [i]anything![/i]

Of course they can make him. People have the right to enforce contracts according to the terms agreed on. You might have stipulated that debts have to collected by professionals, but that's about it.

Quote:
But he will have an outstanding judicial judgement against him. His security contracts will be null and void. He will be in Extropia [i]without any protection contracts.[/i] Literally everyone on the street will be free to do to him whatever they see fit, and if some otherwise samaritan-minded person gets it into their head to come to his aid, the security contractors will attack his would-be saviors in defense of his attackers, who have valid protection contracts on their persons.

No. The non aggression principle is still the basis. You can't just attack someone. If you do, you are opening yourself up to punishment. The problem with not having a security contract is that you don't have people on your payroll who will actually show up and protect you, and you won't have an insurance to cover legal costs of prosecuting. But if you can pay for that out of pocket, or other people offer you protection or legal aid for free, then there's absolutely no problem with that.

Quote:
Now, his imagination as regards what will happen is bad enough - anyone can attack him, can raid his place for his things, etcetera, but the casino maven explains exactly what will happen: They won't get the chance. The judge is also jury and executioner - the moment he reneges on his contract with the Patab casino, the judge is free to grab him. The casino will hire the judge - instantaneously - to grab him and drag him back. There, he will be forcibly seperated from his morph, which will be the judge's payment for the capture of the rogue contract-breaker, and he will be sold into infomorph slavery to the ID Crew, with whom the casino has a standing understanding as regards deadbeats.

Yeah, that sucks for Paataa. If you willingly go into a situation where you sign off all your rights, you're in the same situation as when you're dealing with criminals in a democracy. The main difference that in a democracy, the services that Paataa wants is only provided by criminals, so that's who he'll deal with from the beginning. In ancap, those services can be provided by legitimate companies who will honor their contract.

Quote:
That sounds nasty, and it is. But hey, nobody will have [i]coerced[/i] him into doing anything! That's just the consequences of winding up without protection contracts on Extropia. But hey, there are alternatives - for instance, he can follow the terms of the contract he already signed and sign an indenture contract. Yeah, he's signing that fucking contract. So now he's a gambling addict indentured to a casino, people who are experts at getting people to do stupid things against their own self-interest. They'll have [i]all sorts[/i] of new and exciting ways for him to fuck himself over, like gambling against his remaining indenture time - risk adding to your hitch for the chance to get it released all at once! They basically own him, now. Because they had all the negotiating power.

No, they didn't. Paataa chose this for himself. He chose to sign off his rights. He chose to walk into a casino with a reputation for doing that, instead of a casino that does it differently.

Quote:
[b]This is why ancapitalism is a fucking abomination.[/b]

Well, your version of ancap is off on several important points. Furthertmore, you have to look at the bigger picture. You have to include the criminal elements in democracies. People like Paataa who are so badly addicted would quickly turn to loan sharks and get fucked up equally bad. And a lot of people who are gambling addicts to a lesser degree would also be dealing with criminal loan sharks in democracies, where in ancap they would be dealing with legitimate companies. If you look at the drug laws, the huge cost in terms of both resources and human suffering from the law and the war on drugs is staggering. The doomed attempt at trying to protect the Paataas from themselves ends up hurting a lot of people very, very badly. Ancap is much less an abominiation than democracy. We wouldn't throw young people in jail and slap them with a criminal record for smoking a leaf.

Quote:
The nature of capitalism is like gravity and mass. Those with the most money accumulate more money, those with less money find it sucked away towards those with the most money. Government regulations are the only thing standing between those with the capital and those without, and even as half-assed as they stand now, they're far and away better than unregulated fucking capitalism.

Ancaps choose their own regulation. The power is in the individual's hands. People are not subjected to the regulation that the politicians choose, regulation that mostly go against the individual. Look at bibliofiles example of Freedom Industries and limited liability. Look at the convoluted legal system. Look at the tax loop holes, the business subsidiaries. Look at how the politicians promise you one thing, then when elected do something else. The system is not working on your behalf, but it is still forced on you. In ancap the institutions are hired by you, and if they don't work on your behalf, you'll switch. That's the power taken away from the elite and back in our hands.

Sat, 2014-02-01 05:42

#12

Smokeskin

thezombiekat wrote:Smokeskin

thezombiekat wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
You also mention slave labor - that's not accepted in ancap society.
not technically slave labor. in that they use the term indenture instead and it is eather voluntary or a criminal punishment. as a criminal punishment i have less of a problem with it but there is no difference between a voluntary indenture and the voluntary slavery described in the bible.

Well, the voluntary part does make a big difference. I don't see how you can even begin to compare something you agreed to to being kidnapped and forced to obey someone else. That's like comparing prostitution to rape. Another interesting point about slavery and indenture is how it compares to taxes. I never signed anything, but the state still takes over 70% of my pay out of my pocket, and if I try to prevent them from taking it they'll escalate to lethal force to take it from me. That's slavery, isn't it?

Quote:
also there is the arguably more reprehensible practice of wage slavery. where an employ is payed far below the amount needed to maintain himself so that he will perform work in exchange for dying slightly slower than if he had absolutely nothing. with no social security, no minimum wage law and a surplus of labor this is exactly what happens.

If you take a job, you've agreed to the terms. I don't see how reprehensible comes into it. I can't see how that could even remotely be comparable to slavery. I just don't get the double standards at work here. Agreeing to something is slavery, but when the state requires that most of the fruits of your labor go in their pockets, that's just perfectly fine?

Quote:

Quote:
I completely, completely agree. I mean, as an ancap I'd go further, but the state should do absolutely as little as possible. It should run as little as possible - if you want universal health care, just give the money to people for the treatment and let them figure out where and how they want to treated. That's a much more effective way of making sure that the patients get what they want and need, instead of some lethargic government run health care system.
universal health care is one of my favorats because it is easy to compare healthcare systems in different countries. the problem with handing people money is that an individual with a pile of cash has very little bargaining power. and frequently when you need medical attention you are in no fit state to shop around. every day people get in care crashes and don't regain consciousness until they have received thousands of dollars worth of care. it doesn't matter if the next hospital was $2000 cheaper the patient had no say in where they went. now if the ambulance company and the hospital are both private what is to stop the more expensive hospital sliding $200 to the ambulance company to always bring people to them.

Contractual agreements? Insurance companies here in Denmark have that with auto mechanics for example, that ensure fair prices. What you're talking about occur in the US because the system has been rigged by politicians in the pocket of medical and insurance industry lobbyists. It's a political problem, not a free market problem.

Quote:
in Australia we have universal health care (we also have private health insurance to get private rooms, avoid waiting lists

Yeah, that also happens in all the state run monopoly health care systems here in Europe. Overcrowded rooms (I was appaled to see how many prematurely born babies and families they stuffed in a single room when my sister recently gave birth prematurely) and long waiting lists, even for terminal diseases. Luckily, in many places they allow the private market to solve the problems with extra insurance. Of course, the problem is the monopoly health services and just getting rid of that would solve the problem. That's how they do it in France, you simply get the money required as a voucher and you're free to choose where you want to get treated. They're typically ranked no. 1 in the world on health care - they don't have waiting lists or overcrowded rooms because its a free market, and places like that don't get any customers. It takes a state monopoly to get people to accept such poor treatment.

Quote:
if you look at what happens on the wards in a public hospital there is very little inefficiency, staff are always busy (more so than in private hospitals), fixtures are usually a mix of new medical devices (keeping up with technology) and items that look old and well used items (that haven't changed in a long time) and everything in between. nothing is replaced for the sake of replacing it. it is possible that there is some wast in the management (i have never been to hospital management offices) but what there is not is profit taking. a private hospital has a mandate to make money and use it in a way that will have no benefit to patients, if the government is ultimately paying for the treatment this looks like an inefficiency to me.

I suggest you take a look at Sweden. They began privaticing their medical sector years ago, and the last I read about it was a 49% efficiency improvement. The inefficiencies that come from monopolies are typically much, much largers than the profit margins in a competitive market.

Quote:
America dose not have universal health care, Australia dose.

Neither America nor Australia are ancap, so I don't know what your point is. I know some people think America is some sort of nearly ancap society, but it is not. The political system in the US is heavily involved in regulation that benefits the corporations and the elite at the cost of the common people. That is very, very far away from ancap. Like democracies are free to choose universal health care or not, so are people in ancap. If you want universal health care, pay for it so the poor can get treated. Universal health care enjoys wide support in my country and I suppose the same is the case in your country, so it shouldn't have trouble getting financed. And I would be much happier if I could pay towards a competitive system that gave people proper treatment rather than an inefficient monopoly with long waiting lists, overcrowded rooms and ancient equipment.

Quote:
the Australian government spends less per capita on health care than the American government dose. Australia's total spending on healthcare (public and private combined) per capita is less than America and Australians get better healthcare than Americans.

Lucky you. Here in Denmark, we rank at about the same level of health care as the US in international comparisons, even though the US has many with very bad care. Here, everyone just gets substandard care. It really sucks. Everyone I know with a private insurance, when they get sick they always go "oh please let them not be able to treat me within 1 month so I can go to a private hospital on my insurance". Do you have any data on the performance of the Australian system? I've read a lot about this over the years and never heard any mention of a well functioning state monopoly health system.

Sat, 2014-02-01 07:09

#13

Smokeskin

thezombiekat wrote:Smokeskin

thezombiekat wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
Ancap is not about giving more power to the rich. It is about giving it back to the ordinary people by removing the concentration of power that is the state and politicians, and ending their game of playing favors for themselves and the elite. They would no longer get to control the law and have a monopoly on violence. It is the law and the police that protect people like J. Clifford Forrest from justice, not the market.
but the state dose not act exclusively for the rich. the politicians have been bribed and they are favoring the rich over the poor but there is still a minimum wage. there is still some social security. there is still tax payed by the rich. there are still minimum safety requirements in industry. there is still some protection for striking workers. the rich and powerful want none of those things. and in ancap society none of them exist.

Most of that stuff came into effect because of worker unions, and often after unions had already effectively achieved it already. And in many cases, unions would have more power in ancap, unlimited by regulation.

Quote:
in ancap society if somebody signs a contract waving all liability for industrial accidents and accepting that no safety equipment will be provided and he will be payed half the cost of the cheapest rental property in town that contract is legal and binding. he will do the work, get the pay and have a high chance of dying. but people will sign that contract because unemployment is high and its better to live on the street eat and have a high chance of death than simply starve to death on the street.

Well, no minimum wage would obviously mean more jobs and less unemployment. Also, why would people live on the streets? There's more jobs, higher productivity, no taxes, everything is cheaper, and all of us who want social security would continue paying to help other people avoid that. Or are you saying you are only willing to pay for the poor if there are taxes imposed?

Quote:
without someone to guarantee some minimum level of survival people will have to accept whatever horrific or criminal situation gives them the possibility of survival. but who in an ancap society will bear the considerable cost of providing this minimum.

The same who do it now - the people. And they'd be able to do it for less, they could skip all the crap that government spends money on and all the favors and special treatments to those who line the politicians' pockets and pay for their campaigns, and all the gifts to special interest groups that they buy votes for, we'd save all the money wasted on the war on drugs, and so on. Now I've answered your questions. I would like it if you would return the favor. What gives you the moral right to shove a gun in my face and say "hand over your money, I want to use it for stuff that's important to me, or I pull the trigger"?

Sat, 2014-02-01 08:52

#14

Kremlin K.O.A. Kremlin K.O.A.'s picture

Smokeskin wrote:Most of that

Smokeskin wrote:
Most of that stuff came into effect because of worker unions, and often after unions had already effectively achieved it already. And in many cases, unions would have more power in ancap, unlimited by regulation.

Are you familiar with what happens when the state does not protect unions? This is the result. Private detective army is hired to kill strikers. Can you imagine how much worse it would be if the Pinkertons were all in Reaper morphs?

Quote:
Well, no minimum wage would obviously mean more jobs and less unemployment.

At $2 per hour. Admittedly that $2 per hour is tax free, but still.

Quote:
Also, why would people live on the streets? There's more jobs, higher productivity, no taxes, everything is cheaper, and all of us who want social security would continue paying to help other people avoid that. Or are you saying you are only willing to pay for the poor if there are taxes imposed?

Out of $2 per hour? or about $168 per week? Not sure if I could afford to help those poorer than me.

Sat, 2014-02-01 10:07

#15

Smokeskin

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
Most of that stuff came into effect because of worker unions, and often after unions had already effectively achieved it already. And in many cases, unions would have more power in ancap, unlimited by regulation.
Are you familiar with what happens when the state does not protect unions? This is the result. Private detective army is hired to kill strikers.

From the wiki article, there was a state. The sheriff and deputies ordered the strikers to stop interfering with the plant's operations. The strikers threw the deputies out of town. Eventually the state sent 8,000 militia to stop the riot and remove the strikers. So there was a state and it was against the strikers. In ancap, the strikers would have protection. Just because there is no state that does not mean there are no institutions, on the contrary. People have insurance, security providers and courts to protect them, they just aren't run by the state. And they work for those that hire them, not a state run by the elite. In that particular case you linked to, it sounds like the strikers were the aggressors though, which would likely void their security contracts (and anyone they hired to fight for them would be liable for aggressive actions too).

Quote:

Quote:
Well, no minimum wage would obviously mean more jobs and less unemployment.
At $2 per hour. Admittedly that $2 per hour is tax free, but still.

Many jobs are above minimum wage now. Some jobs at the minimum wage might see less pay. A lot of jobs at pays from whatever people will accept up to the minimum wage bee created, as the minimum is also a ban on any production and services that is only profitable below the minimum wage. I don't see all jobs or that even a significant portion of them would fall below the current minimum wage. That's just not what happens when you lower the minimum wage.

Quote:

Quote:
Also, why would people live on the streets? There's more jobs, higher productivity, no taxes, everything is cheaper, and all of us who want social security would continue paying to help other people avoid that. Or are you saying you are only willing to pay for the poor if there are taxes imposed?
Out of $2 per hour? or about $168 per week? Not sure if I could afford to help those poorer than me.

Then don't. Ancaps are not going to rob you or jail you for not paying taxes.

Sat, 2014-02-01 10:35

#16

Decimator

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:Are you

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:
Are you familiar with what happens when the state does not protect unions? This is the result. Private detective army is hired to kill strikers.

So hang on here. The strikers acted to shut down someone else's property and prevent them from bringing in other workers? Am I understanding this correctly?

Sat, 2014-02-01 11:26

#17

bibliophile20 bibliophile20's picture

Okay. Oy. Well, back in we

Okay. Oy. Well, back in we go. So, first off, I have this to say regarding the above arguments: good points from everybody, although less vitriol and aggression from certain individuals would be preferred (not you, Smokeskin; you've done a very good job putting those suggestions from sysop into practice. So this is positive conditioning for the win! ^_^ ). Secondly, I think we need to make a distinction between two points being debated. One is the idealized models of theoretical ancap, which, as has been pointed out, has never truly been put into practice with all of its theoretical models ever, much less in the absence of a state. And point two, the realities of the corporate oligarchies and crony capitalism structures presently in place in the real world and through the last few centuries of history. Theoretical ancap is, let's be fair, an untested model. The other is a true record of abuses perpetuated on everyone that was and is not a mass holder of capital because the holders of capital could do so in the absence of laws, regulations and enforcement against such behavior. Now, in my own opinion, the only way ancap could be made to work was by an involved and educated group (because they all need to be well versed in contract law and its potential abuses) that did not have any excess, unemployed population (because then you can drive wages into the bottom) and was completely voluntarily engaged in this as a way of life and had a way of peacefully and nonviolently removing those that did not wish to participate out of the system (freedom of association and choice), instead of forcing them to participate in a system that they were not invested in or prepared for dealing with. It requires the constant vigilance of well-educated, rational actors who are dealing in good faith, and who know that any attempts at doing dirty tricks will be noticed by the other guy, because he is just as smart (or has access to just as smart), and that will get you a reputation for dealing dirty, meaning that it is more worth it, in the long run, to deal fairly. Take away any of those factors--rational, well-educated, good faith, long term view, just enough population--and ancap will begin to collapse into financial feudalism as the dirty deals force out the good deals. Again, this is from my perspective, but I have not yet seen any convincing arguments for how all of those factors can be compensated for. And here's the thing--I've been well trained by my parents on financial matters. Not as well as some, but I know how to optimize my expenditure values and maximize my gains per dollar when I go shopping, to pick one example. And I notice, as I go through the grocery stores making the valuation comparisons, that very few people do it. It takes time, effort, and training, and not everyone has that. As a social experiment, it's fascinating. As a one-size-fits-all approach for all human beings everywhere, it cannot be made to work in the long term without massive changes in social structure in the areas of social values, educational systems and many, many other areas of life. However, if some people would regard this as a utopia--and there are obviously some that this appeals to--it must also be recognized that for others it would be the deepest pit of Hell. I would be one of the latter. Living your entire life dealing with contract law? Having to spend every day fixating on money and keeping up with the registry of latest dirty trick innovations so I would know what to avoid? Having to make a contract and potentially a lawsuit for every aspect of my daily life? I'll pass, thank you. But if a group of true believing ancappers decided that they wished to try and create Extropia IRL, I'd be the first to wish them good luck. As for the other point to discuss, this is the issue: the wealthy in real life don't want theoretical ancap, with all of its theoretical protections against abuse and giving power to the people. They want all of the power and the ability to abuse whoever they wish, when they wish, in the pursuit of gaining as much wealth as they can, and damn the effects and long term repercussions on everyone else. They want to be aristocrats again, and see the Song Of Ice And Fire's culture of abusive nobility as an ideal. What few protections have been put into place against those desires of theirs, especially in the United States, they are spending millions--probably billions over the last few years, ever since Citizens United was ruled--trying to get those few protections against using and abusing the populace as they see fit removed. See the Koch Brothers, who give the concept of Libertarianism a bad name just by the sheer virtue of their existence and the sum total of their actions, because they do not act in good faith and do not have a long term view beyond "more money, more power." I could go on all day on this, but I just woke up, grabbed my smartphone, checked my mail... and headed over to my computer to read and see if there were any fires that needed to be put out. :p So, this ended up much longer than I thought it was going to, and I'm going to go have... brunch? heh.

—

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -Benjamin Franklin

Sat, 2014-02-01 11:44

#18

thezombiekat thezombiekat's picture

Smokeskin wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:
Well, the voluntary part does make a big difference. I don't see how you can even begin to compare something you agreed to to being kidnapped and forced to obey someone else. That's like comparing prostitution to rape.

Slavery has not always been people kidnaped and forced to work. The laws in the old testament regarding slavery where a Hebrew owns another male Hebrew required the slave willingly sell himself into slavery (usually to pay of a debt but no rules about his reasons) was fixed term and had rules about maximum harm the master may inflict on the slave (ok a man could sell his daughter and there was no maximum time for gentile slaves, they were dicks, so for now I am talking specifically about a Hebrew male slave). So it covered all the points making your indenture ok, but it is still considered slavery. The Norse had a similar set of rules surrounding slavery, and it is still considered slavery. You seem to be saying that indentured service isn’t as bad as American historical slavery so it isn’t slavery. Well the enslavement of Africans in America is close in the running for worst form of slavery practiced in history and thus should not be used as the base line.

Quote:
Another interesting point about slavery and indenture is how it compares to taxes. I never signed anything, but the state still takes over 70% of my pay out of my pocket, and if I try to prevent them from taking it they'll escalate to lethal force to take it from me. That's slavery, isn't it?

You have however benefited from those taxes. I assume your city has most of these services, fire departments, roads without tolls (at least local roads), rubbish collection, public education options (and partial public funding to private education), water and sewage, a court of law (where for most cases you pay only for your own lawyer), police (you don’t like them but they did deal with the mugger that otherwise would have robbed you). Social security (unemployed people are less likely to turn to crime if the government gives them enough to eat, and you would have been a victim). Mental health services (do you want to have to deal with people with untreated mental health issues), Ok 70% taxrate on total income would seriously hurt. In AU the top tax bracket is 45% but you only pay that on earnings above $AU180,000. By which point you can afford anything you could reasonably need and a lot of stuff you only want. Those people are rich and it’s not unreasonable for the rich to contribute a bit extra. 70% seems a bit steep unless its a marginal tax rate only for the filthy rich. But it would want to be a marginal rate, not on total earnings and only applicable to people with a huge income. Your country may have some issues with its efficient use of funds, but don’t let’s throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Quote:
If you take a job, you've agreed to the terms. I don't see how reprehensible comes into it. I can't see how that could even remotely be comparable to slavery.

But your agreement was coerced. Not by any action of the employer but by the fact that failure to sign means starvation. When you’re at the bottom of the wealth scale, unemployed and without assets you do whatever you have to, just to stay alive. Unless there is a shortage of labour (a situation that hasn’t existed for unskilled labour since the Second World War, and that was an aberration) there is an inherent inequality of bargaining position between the person who is willing and able to do a job, and the person who has money and wants work done. While the person who has been offered the price of a tin of beans for each days hard, dangerous labour is allowed to turn down the job, and is allowed to quit. He can’t do ether because to do so has consequences just as bad as if the employer held a gun to his head and demanded he work. That said no individual or company should be required to bear the cost of supporting these people. So we have a state collect a portion of each person’s earnings and use that money to provide a minimum income so people can afford to say ‘no, that work is too unsafe, that is not enough money for me to live on, I will look somewhere else’. safety laws and minimum wages protect uneducated workers from being tricked into exploitative situations.

Quote:
I just don't get the double standards at work here. Agreeing to something is slavery, but when the state requires that most of the fruits of your labor go in their pockets, that's just perfectly fine?

When a person is forced into agreeing to unfair working conditions and pay (wether by a lack of other survivable options, trickery or force used by the employer) the fruits of the labour are spent for the benefit of the employer only. When the fruits of your labour are taken by the state they are spent to benefit the society of which you are a part. Most people receive better value in government services than they would have been able to obtain independently. Take roads for example. If every road was a private toll way you would have arrangements with dozens of road owners to get to work. And you couldn’t change road provider for the road beside your house without going to the expense of moving. Even signing a fair pricing contract before moving in won’t protect you if they go bankrupt. Whoever purchased the road at the liquidation can set any price he wants. Now consider the fire department. Having several competing fire departments serving your area of the city would decrease the number of people in your area served by the same fire service as you. So assuming similar efficiency levels ether each person will have to pay more or there would be less fire trucks. Probably a little of each. The city will in likely wind up with twice as many fire trucks as under a state monopoly. But only a quarter of them will be interested if your house caches fire. Then there is the problem of what happens to your house if you’re neighbour’s house caches fire and he has no coverage at all. If the fire is not fought on his property while small there is a serious danger that the fire will spread to your house. If your fire service is linked to your fire insurance (which would be smart on your part) then your fire department may just put out the fire before it gets to be a threat to your house. Now you’re paying for your freeloading neighbour’s fire service. Now let’s consider social security. You may never have needed to claim it (I am guessing if you pay a 70% tax rate you’re doing pretty well for yourself) but the fact that it exists offers you a level of protection against misfortune. You pay now to provide minimum welfare for the less fortunate in your society but you can be shore that should the worst happen and you lose your job and are unable to support yourself you will at least have the unemployment benefit. And if by perverse fate several of your friends and family fall upon hard times at the same time you won’t have to support them alone (now looking after more than your share of the unemployed). The state you payed taxes to all that time will look after them. (if your generous you might give them a bit extra, but it limits what you will need to do to keep them safe)

Quote:
Contractual agreements? Insurance companies here in Denmark have that with auto mechanics for example, that ensure fair prices. What you're talking about occur in the US because the system has been rigged by politicians in the pocket of medical and insurance industry lobbyists. It's a political problem, not a free market problem.

What of those that could not afford insurance. A given procedure is far more expensive for an individual to purchase than for an insurance company. To the extent that those that cannot afford insurance almost certainly cannot afford care. Do we allow these people to die for want of a shot of penicillin?

Quote:
Yeah, that also happens in all the state run monopoly health care systems here in Europe. Overcrowded rooms (I was appaled to see how many prematurely born babies and families they stuffed in a single room when my sister recently gave birth prematurely) and long waiting lists, even for terminal diseases. Luckily, in many places they allow the private market to solve the problems with extra insurance. Of course, the problem is the monopoly health services and just getting rid of that would solve the problem. That's how they do it in France, you simply get the money required as a voucher and you're free to choose where you want to get treated. They're typically ranked no. 1 in the world on health care - they don't have waiting lists or overcrowded rooms because its a free market, and places like that don't get any customers. It takes a state monopoly to get people to accept such poor treatment.

The waiting lists usually are not much of a problem in Australia. Ok they could be shorter but if you need immediate treatment you get it, there aren’t enough aged care or hospice beds but most of those are private anyway, the only thing the government predominantly runs itself is the hospitals. The waiting lists are for things that improve quality of life, rather than things that allow you to live and function. Now when my father was looking at a lung transplant there was only one hospital where it could be done, it was a public hospital but there was no question of waiting for access (waiting for an organ but that’s no different public or private, too few people die with usable organs and donate them). So for this service there was a monopoly no amount of money could get it for you anywhere else, nobody else was set up to do it. Now if it had been private owned then a purely profit driven company would have had a monopoly with all the problems that includes. But if there was competition, another hospital set up to perform transplants in the city, then nether would have been able to get enough patients, because there are not enough patients in town to justify two lung transplant clinics, competition sounds rather inefficient now. (And you can’t have the transplant team doing something else. they need to be available if an organ becomes available).

Quote:
I suggest you take a look at Sweden. They began privaticing their medical sector years ago, and the last I read about it was a 49% efficiency improvement. The inefficiencies that come from monopolies are typically much, much largers than the profit margins in a competitive market.

The inefficiencies of a monopoly come from a desire to maximise profit (you can only justify so many price rises for extra profit but if your costs double you can still justify a 10% profit so you double your fees and double your profit). This is absent in a government monopoly because profit isn’t even a thing. There has been a problem with government inefficiency with government departments seeing the government’s general revenue as an unlimited resource, and public servants (particularly senior public servants) developing a sense of entitlement. In Australia this has been significantly curtailed by a series of investigations, efficiency drives and budget cuts (I think they went to fast with the last round. There may still be some fat to cut but it would take serious work to find it, not a declaration from the government that they must spend 5% less, that just leads to cuts in services). Where this government inefficiency is severe you can get short term savings by privatising. The profit taken will be less than the inefficiency. But a better solution would be for the government to employ the type of person that can make a company efficient, and totally restructure the entire organisation along lines closer to a private company while retaining government control. This way “efficiency” can be optimised while being measured as “cost to government to achieve patient outcomes” instead of “amount of money that we are able to keep”. In a profit mediated hospital it is not worth changing a dressing more regularly to get a patient out a day early because you can charge the patient (or his insurer, or the government) for an extra day if he stays.

Quote:
Like democracies are free to choose universal health care or not, so are people in ancap. If you want universal health care, pay for it so the poor can get treated. Universal health care enjoys wide support in my country and I suppose the same is the case in your country, so it shouldn't have trouble getting financed.

This makes little sense. How can I alone decide to have universal health care? I can’t afford to fund it. No individual or private organisation can. Maybe you’re thinking of a charity that asks for donations and offers healthcare for all. This is unlikely to work because for every person who fails to contribute the burden is heavier on the others so more will fail to contribute. And if there are several such charities competing then they will lose the bargaining strength of a large customer when dealing with the suppliers and have to spend money (or donated labour) soliciting donations. There is also the problem that I don’t know how much I should be giving for health care, how much for education, how much for roads, how much for the fire department. I know all these things are important and it is important to me they are available to all, but I don’t have time to work out there relative costs and what my fair contribution is. The effort in working it all out would be worth more than what I pay now in taxes, and I would probably forget something really important but with low visibility.

Quote:
And I would be much happier if I could pay towards a competitive system that gave people proper treatment rather than an inefficient monopoly with long waiting lists, overcrowded rooms and ancient equipment.

So there would be many hospitals owned by deferent companies competing to attract patients and the state (or voluntary contribution universal health service) would pay them. This is how the GP system works in Australia. And it works because there are lots of GPs and when you go to a GP you have time to choose which you will go to. The government gives a fixed fee to a GP for each appointment (more if it’s more than 15 min) some accept the fixed rate (and tend to get a lot of customers) some charge a bit more. Some are nice to see, some try to push you out of the office quickly. You can really make a choice, and it is easy to change your mind nest time. When you visit a hospital it’s usually a serious problem, and there are only 1-3 hospitals within practical range. You go to the closest one if it is an emergency (or whatever one the ambulance picks). Or the one that has the specialist you need if it is a chronic condition, only occasionally do you actually have a practical choice of where to go for a specific hospital procedure. Once your in a hospital for all they tell you what they are doing unless you’re a medical professional you will have limited understanding of what they are doing, “we will blah and blah, then you should be better, there is a 5% chance of blah complications, .1% of death but if we do nothing you will have Blah Blah blah you won’t be able to walk and you will die in 6 months”. You’re not going to understand what they are doing in any detail. You assess the consequences described to you, not the procedures, if the doctor needs to sell some more CAT scans he will tell you a cat scan could help fine tune your treatment (always true, if only just), you don’t know why but even a chance of better treatment sounds good. If you don’t like what the doctor has said what are you going to do. Changing hospital is a big thing. If you have a chronic condition then a new doctor is going to have to get up to speed on your case. He may want to do some more tests re-run tests, all this costs money. If you are having an emergency it is even worse. Changing hospitals wastes time and if you’re having an emergency time is a precious commodity, and how will you get there. Ambulances don’t just drive you to another hospital because you’re unhappy (maybe private ones would for a fee, but your insurance won’t cover it) if you drive (or have a friend take you) your now away from medical care for a significant time (20-40min depending on traffic from my closest hospital to the second closest) and you’re having an emergency. You can only break the effects of a monopoly if there is a real ability to choose a different provider. Unfortunately there is not scope for enough hospitals and it is too hard to change hospital for there to be real competition. So something other than profit has to control their behaviour.

Smokeskin wrote:
Most of that stuff came into effect because of worker unions, and often after unions had already effectively achieved it already. And in many cases, unions would have more power in ancap, unlimited by regulation.

Historically unions have only ever had power when ether the state protected them, or there was a shortage of the type of labour that the members where providing. Without state protection and with a surplus of unskilled labour striking workers will be fired, organisers will be attacked. Low end labourers won’t be able to afford security contractors for their picket line. They can probably bring basic weapons. Blocking access to a factory is a breach of common law (denying somebody access to their property) the employer has a judge issue some fines and an order to disperse. If this is not obeyed his security contractor sends in a couple of squads of armed drones, the employer is paying for a message. A bloodbath on the union side. No casualties among the security.

Quote:
Well, no minimum wage would obviously mean more jobs and less unemployment. Also, why would people live on the streets? There's more jobs, higher productivity, no taxes, everything is cheaper, and all of us who want social security would continue paying to help other people avoid that. Or are you saying you are only willing to pay for the poor if there are taxes imposed?

How much should I pay to each service, there will be a service to help me with that? Without contributions from everybody those that do contribute will have to shoulder a greater burden. Say I contribute 10% to an assortment of social programs. That means I and my business have 10% less profit to compete with Mr Asshole, a 10% disadvantage between competing businesses will be crippling I will be out competed and join those who I was helping, with that many fewer successful philanthropists, there will be even less available for the poor, the burden on those that are still willing and able to contribute will grow and the advantage to the uncaring becomes larger.

Quote:
Now I've answered your questions. I would like it if you would return the favor. What gives you the moral right to shove a gun in my face and say "hand over your money, I want to use it for stuff that's important to me, or I pull the trigger"?

I will answer. In fact it was in answering the pervious point that I worked it out in succinct format. The majority of people want to contribute, but if the contribution is not evenly distributed then those who contribute less will have a strong advantage over those who contribute more. All it would take is a few selfish individuals to contribute nothing and use their strong competitive advantage to increase their fortunes. Many others will say “I cannot operate with such a disadvantage, better to keep myself successful than join the ranks of the poor, better to fail to contribute than to be a drain.” And they won’t be wrong, but they wil join the selfish in driving others down. Some will say “if others will not help I will give more” they will help the poor for a time but join them soon. Those that continue to contribute what they can will fall more slowly. But there contributions will be insufficient to be of much help, and there business (or investments) will not grow, eventually those too will fail, having strived for good but ultimately been insufficient to stem the tide. In order for the contributions to be fair. To allow people to strive and grow the contributions must be the same from each person, and each business. Each must contribute according to their ability, not their full work but a portion of it in portion to the surplus they have above what they truly need. If the contributions are voluntary. If each person assesses for themself what he should give it will be the generous who are punished. And the crewel who are strengthened. This will lead to a world we cannot allow. Dose the world work this way now. Not really. The tax systems have become so complex that there are many ways to avoid paying your fair share. The wealthy frequently pay less tax than their servants. And they do not make up any significant part in donations to organisations that provide alternative services to society. But that simply proves that there are those that wish to contribute less than their fair share. If we give them leave to do so, they will contribute nothing at all. If we do not take action against those that refuse to contribute we allow those that care nothing for their community to take the benefits the rest of us pay to provide for society. In doing so, those that wish to contribute in a different way are denied the opportunity. Maybe they could do some things better. I think a funder chooses universal health care or social security system would suffer from a too many cooks problem. But the real problem is that it cannot be implemented without granting licence for the selfish to fail to contribute, or to ‘contribute’ in ways that only benefit themselves. 8 pages. if anybody read this whole thing let me know

Sat, 2014-02-01 13:08

#19

Smokeskin

bibliophile20 wrote:Okay. Oy

bibliophile20 wrote:
Okay. Oy. Well, back in we go. So, first off, I have this to say regarding the above arguments: good points from everybody, although less vitriol and aggression from certain individuals would be preferred (not you, Smokeskin; you've done a very good job putting those suggestions from sysop into practice. So this is positive conditioning for the win! ^_^ ). Secondly, I think we need to make a distinction between two points being debated. One is the idealized models of theoretical ancap, which, as has been pointed out, has never truly been put into practice with all of its theoretical models ever, much less in the absence of a state. And point two, the realities of the corporate oligarchies and crony capitalism structures presently in place in the real world and through the last few centuries of history. Theoretical ancap is, let's be fair, an untested model. The other is a true record of abuses perpetuated on everyone that was and is not a mass holder of capital because the holders of capital could do so in the absence of laws, regulations and enforcement against such behavior.

That is just not the case. When people think something happens in the absence of laws and regulation, what really happens is that first the state stripped the people of power with the state monopoly on violence, and then they let those with capital screw over the people without any options to fight back. Look at your Freedom Industries case. Do you think common law would let them hide behind limited liability? Counter to what some people think, corporations pay a very small part of the taxes. Almost everything is income tax and VAT. All those cops and soldiers and judges are paid for by people. People have A LOT more income can corporate profits. The people can afford security contractors.

Quote:
Now, in my own opinion, the only way ancap could be made to work was by an involved and educated group (because they all need to be well versed in contract law and its potential abuses) that did not have any excess, unemployed population (because then you can drive wages into the bottom) and was completely voluntarily engaged in this as a way of life and had a way of peacefully and nonviolently removing those that did not wish to participate out of the system (freedom of association and choice), instead of forcing them to participate in a system that they were not invested in or prepared for dealing with. It requires the constant vigilance of well-educated, rational actors who are dealing in good faith, and who know that any attempts at doing dirty tricks will be noticed by the other guy, because he is just as smart (or has access to just as smart), and that will get you a reputation for dealing dirty, meaning that it is more worth it, in the long run, to deal fairly.

You need to know as much about it as you need to know about the inner workings of your computer. Legal protection and security is a product that you buy - your providers are the experts, not you. Just like it works with all the myriad complex products and services you buy now. How many of those do you have a deep understanding of?

Quote:
As a social experiment, it's fascinating. As a one-size-fits-all approach for all human beings everywhere, it cannot be made to work in the long term without massive changes in social structure in the areas of social values, educational systems and many, many other areas of life. However, if some people would regard this as a utopia--and there are obviously some that this appeals to--it must also be recognized that for others it would be the deepest pit of Hell. I would be one of the latter. Living your entire life dealing with contract law? Having to spend every day fixating on money and keeping up with the registry of latest dirty trick innovations so I would know what to avoid? Having to make a contract and potentially a lawsuit for every aspect of my daily life? I'll pass, thank you.

I understand how that would be annoying to almost everyone. Which is why people will be ready to help you with that. The stuff you have the state handle now, they'll handle for you. That's what the "capitalism" part is about, people and companies selling you services, including the ones that the state has a monopoly on in democracies. We're just so indoctrinated with the idea of the state monopoly that we can't imagine anyone else doing it. I've said it several times before in this thread - ancap is not "you're on your own". You buy services from institutions that will largely resemble the those the state provides. If you ever catch yourself thinking "but if the state wasn't there to help me with this I'd be screwed, so ancap can't work" then you're not thinking ancap.

Quote:
As for the other point to discuss, this is the issue: the wealthy in real life don't want theoretical ancap, with all of its theoretical protections against abuse and giving power to the people. They want all of the power and the ability to abuse whoever they wish, when they wish, in the pursuit of gaining as much wealth as they can, and damn the effects and long term repercussions on everyone else. They want to be aristocrats again, and see the Song Of Ice And Fire's culture of abusive nobility as an ideal. What few protections have been put into place against those desires of theirs, especially in the United States, they are spending millions--probably billions over the last few years, ever since Citizens United was ruled--trying to get those few protections against using and abusing the populace as they see fit removed.

And in a democracy, they succeed to a very large degree. There's a small circle of people they need to buy to get control of the entire monopoly on legal services and violence. Democracy with its concentration of power is what allows them to screw us over, not the money of the wealthy or the free market.

Quote:
See the Koch Brothers, who give the concept of Libertarianism a bad name just by the sheer virtue of their existence and the sum total of their actions, because they do not act in good faith and do not have a long term view beyond "more money, more power."

Well, I say let them make all the money they can. In a free market, they'll make their money delivering the best products at the price. But in a regulated market, where they can lie about what they're selling or harm people, and because of some legal trickery dodge responsibility so people can't sue them for it - that's where they'll screw us over. And as a matter of fact, you are getting screwed over in a democracy - not an ancap society.

Sat, 2014-02-01 13:48

#20

thezombiekat thezombiekat's picture

“Legal protection and

“Legal protection and security is a product that you buy” “You buy services from institutions that will largely resemble those the state provides.” What will I use to buy these services? I have been fairly close to the bottom. Many of my friends have been at the bottom for extended periods. No job. No highly marketable skills. No assets. The only reason these people are still alive, and are now constructive members of society is because we have a welfare system. If only a welfare system was implemented then you could take that money and buy legal protection, security, enough education that you don’t stay on the bottom forever (if welfare is giving you enough for that). I doubt this would be the best way but it could work. For a welfare system to work however the burden must be carried by all who have the means. Otherwise it drags the fortunes of good people who contribute by choice and allows cruel people who ignore the plight of the less fortunate to use the money they could have donated to strengthen their investment portfolio, or their financial empire. It is the crewel who see their fortunes grow.

Sat, 2014-02-01 14:03

#21

bibliophile20 bibliophile20's picture

Quote:You need to know as

Quote:
You need to know as much about it as you need to know about the inner workings of your computer. Legal protection and security is a product that you buy - your providers are the experts, not you.

And, as the Snowden leaks show, what protections do the average consumers have when those expert providers decide to create a cabal and mutual protection society that they know will never be discovered, because they control access to the secrets that need education to discern? (And they can engage in disinformation and character assassination campaigns against any one individual who does discover the truth and attempts to reveal it. Afterall, they're they experts, and you trust them, don't you? Why should you trust this other person? They're clearly trying to disrupt the system and create chaos). If people give their trust to someone that abuses it, and are not themselves capable of discerning the truth buried in the legalese of the EULA and other agreements of that ilk, how long will it take a conspiracy to realize that they can get people to willingly sell them their souls--if they bury the anima-theft down on page 12,981, section 237, subsection Q, line 8? This is what I mean by rational actors being needed. People are irrational. I still use Google, despite knowing that every act I do online is recorded and monetized for their benefit and tracked by the NSA. People still use Facebook, despite the even worse records of the same sorts of deeds there.

Quote:
Just like it works with all the myriad complex products and services you buy now. How many of those do you have a deep understanding of?

A fairly good number, actually. But I've been deliberately educating myself, and surrounding myself with friends that I can ask questions about their areas of expertise for free. Most people don't have those advantages. And I've seen far too many people assume that the experts are advising in good faith and been burned or taken advantage of.

—

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -Benjamin Franklin

Sat, 2014-02-01 14:09

#22

Smokeskin

@zombiekat

@zombiekat My income tax is not 70%, and I make significantly less than average wage (I got wiped out by the financial crisis and is starting up a new business, and that's hard). But you have to factor in VAT, car tax, gas tax, energy tax, sugar tax, fat tax, light bulb tax, etc. At the high end of the income scale, people are over 80% here (unless they decide to enter the investing class and eliminate much of it). I'll wait with responding to your other points. I think I've answered even your hard questions, but you haven't really answered mine. I asked you what gave you the moral right to shove a gun in my face and say "hand over your money so I can use them for something that's important to me, or I'll pull the trigger"? What you answered was "If I don't force you to pay, no one else will pay either". That's circular reasoning, and not an explanation for why you have the moral right to extort me, anyone or everyone at the barrel of a gun. I just looked up the Australian state's spending on cultural activities. It's nearly 7 billion Australian dollars. Let's take that in particular. What gives you the right to extort money from me to pay for cultural activities?

Sat, 2014-02-01 14:16

#23

Smokeskin

bibliophile20 wrote:Quote:You

bibliophile20 wrote:
Quote:
You need to know as much about it as you need to know about the inner workings of your computer. Legal protection and security is a product that you buy - your providers are the experts, not you.
And, as the Snowden leaks show, what protections do the average consumers have when those expert providers decide to create a cabal and mutual protection society that they know will never be discovered, because they control access to the secrets that need education to discern? (And they can engage in disinformation and character assassination campaigns against any one individual who does discover the truth and attempts to reveal it. Afterall, they're they experts, and you trust them, don't you? Why should you trust this other person? They're clearly trying to disrupt the system and create chaos). If people give their trust to someone that abuses it, and are not themselves capable of discerning the truth buried in the legalese of the EULA and other agreements of that ilk, how long will it take a conspiracy to realize that they can get people to willingly sell them their souls--if they bury the anima-theft down on page 12,981, section 237, subsection Q, line 8? This is what I mean by rational actors being needed. People are irrational. I still use Google, despite knowing that every act I do online is recorded and monetized for their benefit and tracked by the NSA. People still use Facebook, despite the even worse records of the same sorts of deeds there.

That sounds like an argument I'd use against states, that governments come up with such plots. But an ancap society that has no government and no NSA, who would be there to coerce corporations to hand over information?

Quote:

Quote:
Just like it works with all the myriad complex products and services you buy now. How many of those do you have a deep understanding of?
A fairly good number, actually. But I've been deliberately educating myself, and surrounding myself with friends that I can ask questions about their areas of expertise for free. Most people don't have those advantages. And I've seen far too many people assume that the experts are advising in good faith and been burned or taken advantage of.

I'm not saying people won't ever be burned in ancap. That happens today, and it will keep on happening. However, in ancap, consumer protection is a product exposed to competition, and the provides are not limited by the slowness of the legislative branch, and not limited by the vested interests of the politicians and their backers. Consumer protection would be better, not worse, as it could rapidly adapt to the newest ways of luring people to part with their money for nothing.

Sat, 2014-02-01 14:31

#24

bibliophile20 bibliophile20's picture

Quote:That sounds like an

Quote:
That sounds like an argument I'd use against states, that governments come up with such plots. But an ancap society that has no government and no NSA, who would be there to coerce corporations to hand over information?

Who said anything about coercion? Most of those corporations were voluntarily in on it. And as who would be there to hand information over to? Each other. That's what I meant when I said a cabal. If a group of well-connected businessmen decide that they've had enough of this ancap business and want to start aggregating power and control so that they can be lords, who is to stop them from making secret deals with each other that benefit each other and not the consumer? What prevents them from seizing control and inserting self-beneficial language when the people writing the contracts and the people checking those contracts are in cahoots with each other to create as broad a powerbase as possible, because their goal is not profit, but control and power? They are acting in a way to maximize their long term powerbase, not their short term profits, so they are acting against the central concept of ancap.

—

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -Benjamin Franklin

Sat, 2014-02-01 17:12

#25

Smokeskin

I thought you meant how the

I thought you meant how the NSA got them to put in back doors in software and let the NSA access the customer data and communications. I didn't know about any intercorporate deal to share info. Is that illegal today? Will it be stopped by the government? I'm very interested on your thoughts on the Freedom Industries case and others like it. What prevents the leaders and corporations from being held responsible?

Sat, 2014-02-01 18:38

#26

sysop

The sort of inter-corporate

The sort of inter-corporate sharing and coordination behavior bib is talking about is the root of why the US put in the Anti-trust laws way back when - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_dealing . Doesn't mean it doesn't still happen, but hypothetically at least it's illegal in the US. Not sure on where you are, but I'd assume there's something on the books about it there. In more modern time-periods - companies sell information to each other *all* *the* *time*. That's the core of advertising. There was a company I used to work on that transferred user behaviors on their sites regularly to their advertising partners to coordinate advertising, knowing full well that information would get resold to a few dozen other companies as well. It's legal, if a moral grey area. There's other forms of inter-corporation dealings many of which can slide easily into insider trading, and market fixing practices. If they could do it more, legally, they totally would. Your data is absolutely being shared Right Now and not because the NSA insisted on it. Data mining is a dirty business, and there's a number of times I've had to ask "uh, guys, is that... legal?" when dealing with someone asking for sensitive internal data. (thank god I no longer work there) The point is: that at a corporate level there's a strong incentive to switch from competitive mode to cooperative mode after you've achieved a certain critical mass of capital and influence. (What that point exactly is is related to the market the corporation is in.) It becomes cheaper - or at least easier - to prevent others from competing with you than to continue to compete against existing rivals and new ones. Assuming that idea is that capitalism is best exemplified by a lot of competition in an effort to most efficiently create the best service available at the lowest possible cost. Given that capitalism drives invention, lowers prices, etc. But that's in an ideal world - much like a frictionless vacuum in physics. When you don't see a lot of competition its a red-flag that something in the system is *not* right and you're no longer experiencing actual capitalism, but instead have switched over to oligarchy. So when a company is in competitive mode - things are going fairly well. They're playing by the rules. It's when they switch to working together, in an anti-trust way, that you're falling away from capitalism and now into oligarchy directions. Which is where most of the issues pointed out so far really seem to come in. And they are very much legitimate concerns - you've got to plan for the long run here. Large corporations operate on 100 year plans, and so should members of an ancap society. So the question is: How would ancap - without introducing an outside neutral third party - prevent that slip from competitive mode to cooperative in their market? How would you avoid losing the root idea of capitalism and not becoming anoligarchy?

—

I fix broken things. If you need something fixed, mention it [url=/forums/suggestions/website-and-forum-suggestions]on the suggestions board[/url]. [color=red]I also sometimes speak as website administrator and/ moderator.[/color]

Sat, 2014-02-01 18:56

#27

Kremlin K.O.A. Kremlin K.O.A.'s picture

In answer to your first

In answer to your first paragraph. Some of those deals cross the lines of anti-trust laws. (The law sets designed to stop monopolies and oligopolies from forming) In your earlier post you mentioned the state actions in the story I linked. While those did happen, it was the middle of the story I wanted you to look at. After the sheriff backed off and said 'screw it, we're outta here.' The company hired 'private detectives' (basically Pinkerton mercs) to retake the place by force. The major reason this failed is due to the limitations on the levels of force the company could hire.... due to state restrictions on how much firepower private companies could have. Remove those restrictions, and you get a situation where they could have hired a few cannons, used grapeshot and wiped out most of the people huddled together. Fast Forward to EP tech levels and you could hire 300 'detectives' in Reaper morphs with quad microwave stunners. In other words, in an AnCap version of those events, the company would have broken the union faster. Also, serious question, what gives money value in an AnCap world?

Sat, 2014-02-01 21:36

#28

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Sigh . . .

Why is it every time I start a thread on this site, it becomes a damn debate?! I was looking for some solace on taking a radical stance and seeing if anyone had a similar experience. I was NOT trying to say anarcho-capitalism is perfect or better than it's counterparts.

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Sat, 2014-02-01 21:39

#29

sysop

Ok ok - good point - we are

Ok ok - good point - we are getting away from the internal PoV of transitioning from one political or social perspective to another. Might be time to spin the ancap conversation off into it's own thread so this one can get back to the more personal accounting of philosophical epiphanies. :)

—

Sat, 2014-02-01 22:50

#30

bibliophile20 bibliophile20's picture

Steel Accord wrote:Why is it

Steel Accord wrote:
Why is it every time I start a thread on this site, it becomes a damn debate?!

I don't always agree with you, SA, but I gotta say: you ask damn good questions. :) (Also, I tried!)

—

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -Benjamin Franklin

Sat, 2014-02-01 23:43

#31

thezombiekat thezombiekat's picture

Smokeskin wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:
I asked you what gave you the moral right to shove a gun in my face and say "hand over your money so I can use them for something that's important to me, or I'll pull the trigger"? What you answered was "If I don't force you to pay, no one else will pay either". That's circular reasoning, and not an explanation for why you have the moral right to extort me, anyone or everyone at the barrel of a gun.

Not nobody, some, the best amongst us, will destroy themselves trying to carry the burden alone. The right claimed comes not from myself but from everybody. The vast majority of people want essential services provided reliably and without reliance on individual finances. And even more people consider the best way to fund this taking an equal portion of each person’s income (other options include just printing money to pay for government spending). Those who want these services held in common cannot deny them to the person who refuses to pay. And if not all contribute the competitive disadvantage to those that do contribute will be too great. A kind of social Darwinism will make kindness extinct. So all must pay, or leave, in most democracies you are free to leave.

Quote:
I just looked up the Australian state's spending on cultural activities. It's nearly 7 billion Australian dollars. Let's take that in particular. What gives you the right to extort money from me to pay for cultural activities?

The question of what exactly the government should fund is a point of contention. I just looked at a breakdown of the 2013 Australian federal budget. It puts arts and culture at 1.18 billion. Or 0.30% of the budget that I personally disagree with. One of the downsides of living in a democracy is that you have to put up with other people getting a say. I contribute to things they want that I don’t, they contribute to things I want that they don’t. The vast majority of the budget is going on things I consider essential. Perhaps it would be better if government spending was restricted to essential services that are ether not used by a person (eg. defence) are used by all but irregularly and are expensive when needed (eg. health, education). Are used by all constantly and tracking individual usage is impractical (eg. roads), are used by a few but benefit all (independent statistics) Whether these services should be provided directly by the government or provided by private industry with funding and regulation from the government is a separate question. I am coming to believe that private industry is better where there can be real competition. And direct state control is better where the nature of the industry means you get more of a localize monopoly than true competition.

Sun, 2014-02-02 03:22

#32

Smokeskin

sysop wrote:

sysop wrote:
So the question is: How would ancap - without introducing an outside neutral third party - prevent that slip from competitive mode to cooperative in their market? How would you avoid losing the root idea of capitalism and not becoming an oligarchy?

On intellectual property rights, there are different opinions within ancap. I'm personally in the camp that don't accept any IP rights outside of a contractual agreement. I haven't seen an actual poll, but for what it's worth it seems to be the most common view. IP like patents and copyright are the source of many companies' secure position, which allows price gouging. That would disappear in ancap, and it is a lot harder to screw over customers when a competitor can enter the market freely. Another source of secure positions are licensing requirements. It's a lot easier to make a price cartel when you have the state and its monopoly on violence to prevent competitors from entering the market to bother you. There could still be problems with cartels though. Some markets will naturally have only a few major players - maybe the product is only worth it if it has a large market share (like social media and operating systems - though they wouldn't be anywhere near as comfortable with no IP rights on their software and formats), or the initial investment is huge or the marginal cost of production drops steeply (in a globalized world, and in ancap without trade barriers and IP rights, again it will be tough). But even though cartels would have a harder time in ancap if they tried price gouging or something similar, the problem wouldn't go away. The obvious solution is the consumer protection rights. With a clause in there that opens up for anti-trust class action law suits, and say gave my consumer rights provider the right to sue on my and its other subscribers' behalf for a percentage of the winnings, I'd argue that would be a much more aggressive anti-trust entity than the state. And the money would go in our pocket, instead of the fine going to the state. The same goes for rules against sharing data and such. Of course, companies could refuse to accept such consumer rights. If that's actually a valid strategy, I don't know. Would Facebook have gotten off the ground if its users had experienced that when signing up it said "We are in violation of your chosen consumer rights, you need to waive them"? And this is ancap, where anti-trust buster news looks like "Airline companies found guilty of price cartel - the 53% of their customers who had clauses against it in the consumer rights will now be getting money back and their of the fine." People will know that going into a deal unprotected sucks - it gives the other party the right to screw you, and you lose out on financial compensation if they do. If the corporations win that one, and trusts and cartels become accepted by the public, then there's not much to do about it. It would then be one of the things that became worse under ancap. On the plus side, we'd still be free of all the monopolies and cartels created by the state through patents and licensing regulation. And the war on drugs. And letting companies harm people and then hide behind limited liability and "it wasn't illegal". And all the other harm the state does. Ancap should be evaluated on the sum of the pluses and minuses, not just the minuses.

Sun, 2014-02-02 03:47

#33

Smokeskin

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:
In your earlier post you mentioned the state actions in the story I linked. While those did happen, it was the middle of the story I wanted you to look at. After the sheriff backed off and said 'screw it, we're outta here.' The company hired 'private detectives' (basically Pinkerton mercs) to retake the place by force. The major reason this failed is due to the limitations on the levels of force the company could hire.... due to state restrictions on how much firepower private companies could have. Remove those restrictions, and you get a situation where they could have hired a few cannons, used grapeshot and wiped out most of the people huddled together. Fast Forward to EP tech levels and you could hire 300 'detectives' in Reaper morphs with quad microwave stunners.

No matter who you hire or what their equipment is, you're still responsible for your actions. The non-aggression principle still applies, and you're still liable for any damages you cause. If the plant owners did use excessive and/or unwarranted force, they'd be held responsible afterwards. If you look at it today, the law and the state does hardly anything to protect people up front - the system mostly works because of the deterrent from getting caught afterwards.

Quote:
Also, serious question, what gives money value in an AnCap world?

Whatever people choose. Today, most currencies like the US dollar are fiat money with nothing actually backing them. A lot of ancaps find that there's something wrong with that and they think money should be backed by something tangible. I personally don't care. I don't see a huge problem with fiat money, the system seems to work well enough with it, but if something else is better and that is apparent to people, then the market will work it out.

Sun, 2014-02-02 04:30

#34

Smokeskin

thezombiekat wrote:Smokeskin

thezombiekat wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
I asked you what gave you the moral right to shove a gun in my face and say "hand over your money so I can use them for something that's important to me, or I'll pull the trigger"? What you answered was "If I don't force you to pay, no one else will pay either". That's circular reasoning, and not an explanation for why you have the moral right to extort me, anyone or everyone at the barrel of a gun.
The right claimed comes not from myself but from everybody. The vast majority of people want essential services provided reliably and without reliance on individual finances.

Hey, I want essential services provided to the needy too. And I'm willing to pay for it. We don't disagree there. But what I'm not ready to do is force other people to do it at gunpoint. But you seem to believe that you the right to do that. If you don't have that right, how can you transfer it to your proxies, the taxman and police officer, who do it on your behalf? If you don't have that right, how can 1 million or 100 million of you have that right combined?

Quote:
So all must pay, or leave, in most democracies you are free to leave.

If you can make a moral case for why you're allowed to rob me, this works. If you can't make that moral case, what you're saying is no different than the mafia. "If you don't like paying protection money, find somewhere else than New Jersey to run a shop."

Quote:

Quote:
I just looked up the Australian state's spending on cultural activities. It's nearly 7 billion Australian dollars. Let's take that in particular. What gives you the right to extort money from me to pay for cultural activities?
The question of what exactly the government should fund is a point of contention. I just looked at a breakdown of the 2013 Australian federal budget. It puts arts and culture at 1.18 billion. Or 0.30% of the budget that I personally disagree with. One of the downsides of living in a democracy is that you have to put up with other people getting a say. I contribute to things they want that I don’t, they contribute to things I want that they don’t. The vast majority of the budget is going on things I consider essential. Perhaps it would be better if government spending was restricted to essential services that are ether not used by a person (eg. defence) are used by all but irregularly and are expensive when needed (eg. health, education). Are used by all constantly and tracking individual usage is impractical (eg. roads), are used by a few but benefit all (independent statistics)

Your bureau of statistics lists it at just below 7 billion: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/757882C98977D0F2CA257BB900113BF2?opendocument. But the exact figure doesn't matter much. What you're arguing for here is what you accept. You are of course free to sign a "social contract" with the government and pay your taxes to them and have them distribute the money in ways you don't agree with. But why should I be forced to do that? I disagree with many things you said. I don't see any reason why I should pay for other people's cultural activities. I don't think it is reasonable at all that I pay for rich people's health care or education. The question remains: What gives you the right to force me at gunpoint to pay for stuff that is important to you? And we can even expand it to why you're fine with extorting me to pay for government spending that you think is unreasonable.

Sun, 2014-02-02 06:05

#35

thezombiekat thezombiekat's picture

You ask by what right.

You ask by what right. Suggesting you’re working under a rights based ethical philosophy. Under that framework I cannot justify it because rights based frameworks focus only on what everybody should have without giving consideration to where it will come from. I justify it under a consequential ethical philosophy. By showing the harm that would come to the majority if we did not. I justify it under a deontological ethical philosophy (reluctantly because I prefer consequential systems) by saying that everybody has a duty to contribute to the welfare of society. “I don't think it is reasonable at all that I pay for rich people's health care or education.” This is where we see a difference between how things do work now, and how a tax funded system should work. Anybody richer than you should be paying more tax than you. And accordingly contributing more to the health department than you. But you both have the same access to health department services. You defiantly did not pay for the rich persons care. The fact that rich people are allowed to pay less tax is a tax system failing to work. This can be shown by the fact that when you look at the tax rates it says rich people should pay more tax. In order to pay less tax they have to be quite sneaky. Spending the money on “expenses” that somehow manage to return the money to them. oh as to the amount spent on cultural. i was looking at the federal budget. your reference probably includes state budget spending.

Sun, 2014-02-02 07:14

#36

Smokeskin

thezombiekat wrote:You ask by

thezombiekat wrote:
You ask by what right. Suggesting you’re working under a rights based ethical philosophy. Under that framework I cannot justify it because rights based frameworks focus only on what everybody should have without giving consideration to where it will come from. I justify it under a consequential ethical philosophy. By showing the harm that would come to the majority if we did not.

Do you think that applies to cultural activities? What harm would come to the majority if the state didn't sponsor that? Is that harm equivalent to using violence against people, robbing and extorting them?

Quote:
“I don't think it is reasonable at all that I pay for rich people's health care or education.” This is where we see a difference between how things do work now, and how a tax funded system should work. Anybody richer than you should be paying more tax than you. And accordingly contributing more to the health department than you. But you both have the same access to health department services. You defiantly did not pay for the rich persons care. The fact that rich people are allowed to pay less tax is a tax system failing to work. This can be shown by the fact that when you look at the tax rates it says rich people should pay more tax.

So what you're saying is "I'm going to rob you to pay for health care. Most of the money will go to people who don't need it and don't deserve it, but that's ok because I'm going to rob them for an even greater amount." That seems to be an excessive and unnecessary application of violence to me. It does not seem to be based on the needs of anyone, and given that the whole system is based on coercion I can't see any ethical justifaction for it. Is it really just "well we're the politicians, we like having big budgets and lots of employees, and since we have all the guns you have to comply with our wishes and whims"? And then we consider that it is followed up by: "oh and by the way, the elite in the investing class, the system is set up so they don't get robbed, but we'll give them money for health care anyway even though they're really rich." If we were down to a welfare state that took care of those too poor to afford basic necessities, I'm not sure I'd care. Taxes for that would be one of those things that I maybe disagreed with in principle, but in actuality it worked out well enough. But now, even those good intentions have been corrupted and turned into something very different, haven't they? Does the system make sense to you?

Sun, 2014-02-02 09:03

#37

thezombiekat thezombiekat's picture

Smokeskin wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:
Do you think that applies to cultural activities? What harm would come to the majority if the state didn't sponsor that? Is that harm equivalent to using violence against people, robbing and extorting them?

As I said before I am not convinced the cultural expenditure is justified. The system as it runs now is not the ideal one I want. The one I want just continues to fund itself through tax.

Quote:
So what you're saying is "I'm going to rob you to pay for health care. Most of the money will go to people who don't need it and don't deserve it, but that's ok because I'm going to rob them for an even greater amount." That seems to be an excessive and unnecessary application of violence to me. It does not seem to be based on the needs of anyone, and given that the whole system is based on coercion I can't see any ethical justification for it.

I think of the tax to essential services more like a compulsory insurance program, where everybody in the country is covered by the insurance and your premium is means tested. Everybody has to be covered because as a society we can’t bring ourselves to leave somebody to die because they could not, or would not, pay the premium. I have explained the consequences of voluntary contribution. I should also note that if you buy privet health insurance you don’t lose the benefit of your contribution to the government health spending. If you go to a private hospital for a procedure that is covered under the public system the government contributes the same amount of money it would have spent if you had gone to a public hospital.

Quote:
Is it really just "well we're the politicians, we like having big budgets and lots of employees, and since we have all the guns you have to comply with our wishes and whims"?

Well no. at least in Australia the vast majority of people demand these services. Any government that dropped say the health budget and dropped everybody’s tax by 16% would absolutely loose the next election. People argue about priorities within the health budget, and the size of the health budget. And whether the hospitals should be government run or private business funded by the government. And finding 2 people that agree on all those points would be hard. Almost none of the voters want 16% of their tax money back but loose access to the public health system. Now the government dose fund things many people don’t want, and most just don’t care about. And dose many things inefficiently. But I never argued that the current system was the best. Just that it raises funds for essential services in the best way.

Quote:
And then we consider that it is followed up by: "oh and by the way, the elite in the investing class, the system is set up so they don't get robbed, but we'll give them money for health care anyway even though they're really rich."

Think I mentioned the problem with the rich having ways to avoid paying their fair share as a large part of why the current system is not my ideal system. Now I don’t actually have a system for dealing with the investing class that works. You need to allow tax deductions for legitimate business expenses otherwise an investor would quickly wind up paying more tax than his net income. And the immoral tricks they pull are designed to technically fit within the legal definition of a legitimist business expense. And then there are the other types of tricks. Every one of which is carful sculpted to technically meat the definition of another legitimate activity.

Quote:
If we were down to a welfare state that took care of those too poor to afford basic necessities, I'm not sure I'd care. Taxes for that would be one of those things that I maybe disagreed with in principle, but in actuality it worked out well enough. But now, even those good intentions have been corrupted and turned into something very different, haven't they? Does the system make sense to you?

I agree that the current system is not working well. It is suffering a sickness but many aspects of it are trying to do something good. Basic necessities such as food, shelter (air) are not enough. The necessities of a developed society include power, communications, healthcare and education. Although it would not be an inherent problem for the government to provide these with funding rather than supplying them directly. There are also issues of natural monopolies such as roads, power and communications delivery (only one set of poles and wires) not shore how you would prevent privet monopoly problems with them if they are not state controlled.

Sun, 2014-02-02 11:12

#38

Kremlin K.O.A. Kremlin K.O.A.'s picture

Smokeskin wrote:Kremlin K.O.A

Smokeskin wrote:
Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:
In your earlier post you mentioned the state actions in the story I linked. While those did happen, it was the middle of the story I wanted you to look at. After the sheriff backed off and said 'screw it, we're outta here.' The company hired 'private detectives' (basically Pinkerton mercs) to retake the place by force. The major reason this failed is due to the limitations on the levels of force the company could hire.... due to state restrictions on how much firepower private companies could have. Remove those restrictions, and you get a situation where they could have hired a few cannons, used grapeshot and wiped out most of the people huddled together. Fast Forward to EP tech levels and you could hire 300 'detectives' in Reaper morphs with quad microwave stunners.
No matter who you hire or what their equipment is, you're still responsible for your actions. The non-aggression principle still applies, and you're still liable for any damages you cause. If the plant owners did use excessive and/or unwarranted force, they'd be held responsible afterwards. If you look at it today, the law and the state does hardly anything to protect people up front - the system mostly works because of the deterrent from getting caught afterwards.

After my 300 reapers take out the union strike (which included the union members families, btw) Who is there with standing to claim compensation for any breach of contract I made?

Quote:

Quote:
Also, serious question, what gives money value in an AnCap world?
Whatever people choose. Today, most currencies like the US dollar are fiat money with nothing actually backing them. A lot of ancaps find that there's something wrong with that and they think money should be backed by something tangible. I personally don't care. I don't see a huge problem with fiat money, the system seems to work well enough with it, but if something else is better and that is apparent to people, then the market will work it out.

You may want to look into Modern Monetary Theory. Taxes are what gives fiat money value. Because the currency of the nation is what you pay taxes in, it creates an enforced demand for the currency. This props up its value. To understand what happens to a fiat currency without a tax demand backing it... look to Bitcoin.

Sun, 2014-02-02 12:24

#39

thezombiekat thezombiekat's picture

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:
After my 300 reapers take out the union strike (which included the union members families, btw) Who is there with standing to claim compensation for any breach of contract I made?

If that was the whole endeavour, I would expect the bad press to be a major down side. But that’s not how I would expect a labour dispute to go. This is. Workers decide that they should do something about the contracts that they feel are exploitative. Employer referees them to the contract they signed and the quitting clause there in. Workers refuse to perform work until they get fair pay and conditions, the word Strike is used. Employer refers them to the contract they signed and the fired for breach of contract clause there in and explains that they are no longer permitted on his property. New workers are employed under the exploitative contract, they agree because the alternative is starvation. Ex-employs believe they have been treated unfairly and stage a picket. Disrupting the functioning of their former workplace by occupying the aria immediately in front of it. The do not commit violence but do engage in verbal abuse, the word scab is used, loudly. The employer sends his security contractor to ask the ex employs to leave. He does so in a blunt and uncaring fashion, he does not listen to arguments from the ex-employs, there is a chance he will be attacked (he is being payed danger money) The ex-employs continue their picket. The employer calls in his legal service, and begins proceedings against a group of people who are obstructing access to his property. He cites a previous case where a van blocking a driveway was required to be moved. And the fact that the exploitative employment contract was voluntary and he was able to quickly replace the workers by offering an identical contract. The employer has deliberately chosen a strong legal service that does not recognise unions or a right to strike. The ex-employs have been working under an exploitative contract, their legal service was chosen for being cheap. The judge rules that the ex-employs must leave, and leaves a hefty fine. The employer may wave the fine so he looks generous (it’s not like they could afford it anyway and he thinks they wont leave) If the ex employs leave they have lost their jobs, they are free to starve (and possibly deal with a fine) I will assume they stay (remember that for all the steps we haven’t used much time, in EP this could have been under an hour since the strike started) The employer dose nothing effective until this had dragged on significantly longer than is usual for a disruption. If possible until other business not party to the original contract are affected (deliveries of supplies turned away. Business that rely on this business for supplies do without (or at least look like they might). During this time the employer sends an occasional security contractor to remind the ex-employs they are required to leave. The security contractors will not be polite (it would be nice if the strikers started a fight). In EP, on Extropia we are probably talking about most of a day. The employer calls the same judge as before and points out that the order has been ignored (judges will always hate it when there orders are ignored) and request permission to use force to end this disruption not just to his business, but the economy as a whole in a manner that will ensure that in future people will honer there contracts, respect property and obey judges rulings. Considering the employer had this all planed out when choosing his legal provider the judge will grant permission and make a short speech thanking the employer for taking the burden upon himself to stabilise society in the face of obstructionist layabouts who break contracts and disobey judge’s rulings. Now come the 300 reapers. And it will be a long time before anybody else tries to strike for better conditions.

Sun, 2014-02-02 12:49

#40

bibliophile20 bibliophile20's picture

Smokeskin wrote:I thought you

Smokeskin wrote:
I thought you meant how the NSA got them to put in back doors in software and let the NSA access the customer data and communications. I didn't know about any intercorporate deal to share info. Is that illegal today? Will it be stopped by the government?

Sysop beat me to it and said what I was going to say in a much more comprehensive manner.

Quote:
I'm very interested on your thoughts on the Freedom Industries case and others like it. What prevents the leaders and corporations from being held responsible?

In two words? Financial coercion. Why do these companies keep getting away with it? Because they're "job creators", and they keep threatening to pack up and leave for warmer--or at least less restrictive--regulatory climates every time we press them to assume responsibility for their messes, and that means that the penurious level of employment that the do actually provide would supposedly dry up and leave more people in poverty. And, in West Virginia, the poverty rate was and is appalling, even from before the financial crisis. They have a poverty rate of 17.6%, as compared to 14.9% nationwide, so that threat is taken seriously. For another view, there's about 1.85 million people in West Virginia, with the median yearly income being $40,400, and the per capita income being a mere $22,500 (which is below the poverty line for a family of 4). So, that means that half of the state's population makes less than $40k per year, and half of the state's population makes more than $40k per year. But if you took the aggregate income of everyone in the state and divided it up equally, there would only be a little over half of that median. Now, I may have only passed statistics by sheer raw determination and running up into the wall until it gave way, but even I can tell that that's a really, really skewed distribution. There are some really, really rich people, and nearly 1 out of five in poverty. And that's why the threats of "well, we'll just take our toys and leave. So there," are so effective. Because the threat of financial coercion, of "Well, we'll just pack and leave you all to starve" is so very effective. Sure, it's not a gun to the head, but guns are quick and direct means of coercion. Starvation, dying of thirst (heh) and, the annual classic, getting your heat shut off in the middle of winter because you didn't pay the (privatized) company's bill and freezing to death... those are much more... lingering. >:-\ Here. I use feedly as my RSS reader. I went back over just the last two and half weeks. Here are some articles I've tagged under "Capitalism Run Amok" and "Class Warfare": [url=http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/01/how-silicon-valley-conspir... Silicon Valley Conspired to Pay Workers Less So That CEOs Could Make More[/url] [url=http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01/26/3205861/pharmaceutical-ceo-ca... CEO: Cancer Drug Is Only For Westerners Who Can Afford It[/url] [url=http://thinkprogress.org/education/2014/01/30/3225621/utah-school-lunch/... School Threw Out Students’ Lunches Because They Were In Debt[/url] [url=http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/unemployment-benefits-food-s... Unemployment Benefits' Big Bang for the Buck[/url] (Basically, the return on investment that you, as a citizen, get as part of the social safety net... and how what's actually passed to cut taxes for corporations takes money out of the economy) [url=http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/01/24/3203471/wall-street-landlord... Street’s Frightening New Plan To Become America’s Landlord[/url] [url=http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/01/if-ceos-think-consumer-dem... CEOs Think Consumer Demand Is a Problem, They Should Demand Economic Policies That Address It[/url] (hmm... odd. For some reason, CEOs think that there isn't enough money in circulation to buy their products... how odd... could it be because...) [url=http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/01/20/3184011/statistic-world-2014... 85 richest people own the same amount of wealth as the 3.5 Billion poorest people[/url]? [url=http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/01/16/3171251/walmart-leaked-power...’s Walmart’s Internal Guide To Fighting Unions And Monitoring Workers[/url] Note that this is just a tithe of the articles I have saved from only the last two and a half weeks. I have much, much, much more where that came from...

—

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -Benjamin Franklin

Sun, 2014-02-02 14:51

#41

Smokeskin

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:
After my 300 reapers take out the union strike (which included the union members families, btw) Who is there with standing to claim compensation for any breach of contract I made?

Your security and arbitration provider would still be obliged to sue and punish them. Any post-mortem damages would go to whoever you specified in your will.

Kremlin K.O.A wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

Kremlin K.O.A wrote:
Also, serious question, what gives money value in an AnCap world?
Whatever people choose. Today, most currencies like the US dollar are fiat money with nothing actually backing them. A lot of ancaps find that there's something wrong with that and they think money should be backed by something tangible. I personally don't care. I don't see a huge problem with fiat money, the system seems to work well enough with it, but if something else is better and that is apparent to people, then the market will work it out.
You may want to look into Modern Monetary Theory. Taxes are what gives fiat money value. Because the currency of the nation is what you pay taxes in, it creates an enforced demand for the currency. This props up its value. To understand what happens to a fiat currency without a tax demand backing it... look to Bitcoin.

Economics isn't a hard science - an economic theory is much closer to the layman's understanding of the word "theory" than a scientists understanding of the word. From what I could google, Modern Monetary Theory is not even a recognized, mainstream economic theory. It is not the modern theory of money, it is just what some guy decided to call his hypothesis. Here's an The Economist article on Modern Monetary Theory: http://www.economist.com/node/21542174 Warren Mosler, an innovative carmaker, a successful bond-investor and an idiosyncratic economist, moved to St Croix in 2003 to take advantage of a hospitable tax code and clement weather. From his perch on America's periphery, Mr Mosler champions a doctrine on the edge of economics: neo-chartalism, sometimes called “Modern Monetary Theory”. The neo-chartalists believe that because paper currency is a creature of the state, governments enjoy more financial freedom than they recognise. The fiscal authorities are free to spend whatever is required to revive their economies and restore employment. They can spend without first collecting taxes; they can borrow without fear of default. Budget-makers need not cower before the bond-market vigilantes. In fact, they need not bother with bond markets at all. On the surface of it, it seems more ideologically inspired than anything.

Sun, 2014-02-02 17:36

#42

Smokeskin

bibliophile20 wrote:Smokeskin

bibliophile20 wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
I'm very interested on your thoughts on the Freedom Industries case and others like it. What prevents the leaders and corporations from being held responsible?
In two words? Financial coercion. Why do these companies keep getting away with it? Because they're "job creators", and they keep threatening to pack up and leave for warmer--or at least less restrictive--regulatory climates every time we press them to assume responsibility for their messes, and that means that the penurious level of employment that the do actually provide would supposedly dry up and leave more people in poverty.

You think it is coercion. I think it is mostly bribes. What it comes down to is the same though - the politicians are so often serving the corporations' agenda and going against the population. Is the solution more regulation? The politicians have that option now, but as we agree, they're serving corporate interests instead. There's no reason to assume that's ever going to change. Getting the corporations to behave? Hah. They're only going to play nice if that's how they make the most money, and as long as they can control the politicians, they're going to keep on steamrolling the community. The politicians, the state and its monopoly on violence is the essence of the problem. It's the fixable part of the problem. We need to end the system where we're all paying for police and judges, and then they spend their time protecting the corporations. We need a system where the judges work for us, where the security forces are hired by us - the people. Democracy, we tried that and it ended up corrupted - maybe its greed, maybe its fear, but something is keeping the politicians from serving our interests. They need to go.

Quote:
Here. I use feedly as my RSS reader. I went back over just the last two and half weeks. Here are some articles I've tagged under "Capitalism Run Amok" and "Class Warfare": [url=http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/01/how-silicon-valley-conspir... Silicon Valley Conspired to Pay Workers Less So That CEOs Could Make More[/url]

I'm not sure I see the problem. It sounds exactly like union tactics, just aimed in the other direction. Are you against unions too? And of course, the employees and their unions are free to demand contracts that cover such stuff and give them the right to sue for losses and penalties. If the companies are in breach of contract, they deserve what's coming for them.

Quote:
[url=http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01/26/3205861/pharmaceutical-ceo-ca... CEO: Cancer Drug Is Only For Westerners Who Can Afford It[/url]

I and most ancaps don't believe in intellectual property rights, which includes patents. Anyone is free to manufacture the drug and sell it at any price they want to. Again, it is the law that keeps poor people from getting products at a fair price.

Quote:
[url=http://thinkprogress.org/education/2014/01/30/3225621/utah-school-lunch/... School Threw Out Students’ Lunches Because They Were In Debt[/url]

The article states that the reason they threw out the food was because of health regulations - they're not allowed it to serve to someone else. In ancap, we would have been free to serve it to someone else if both parties wanted to. The law is the problem.

Quote:
[url=http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/unemployment-benefits-food-s... Unemployment Benefits' Big Bang for the Buck[/url] (Basically, the return on investment that you, as a citizen, get as part of the social safety net... and how what's actually passed to cut taxes for corporations takes money out of the economy)

Yeah, it's really stupid. If we compare it to ancap, I think that food stamps and helping unemployed people which show high return on investment are the likely recipients for charity, and pretty close to no one will pay anything to subsidize the rich and corporations. Sort of the opposite of many political decisions.

Quote:
[url=http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/01/24/3203471/wall-street-landlord... Street’s Frightening New Plan To Become America’s Landlord[/url]

One of the main problems with the justice system in most democracies is that it is slow and cumbersome and non-userfriendly in the way that only a monopoly can be. This means that if your landlord doesn't fix your leaking pipe, you might have a legitimate claim, but it will take far too long and cost too much compared to just fixing it yourself. That's why we need to end the state monopoly on the legal system. It needs to be a competitive market. Affordable housing is a problem in many places. Zoning laws that keep the supply of plots down to keep the value of existing property up is a main problem. You can't annoy all those real estate owners (both investors and private home owners) with competition that will drive their wealth down and expect to win the next election, can you?

Quote:
[url=http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/01/if-ceos-think-consumer-dem... CEOs Think Consumer Demand Is a Problem, They Should Demand Economic Policies That Address It[/url] (hmm... odd. For some reason, CEOs think that there isn't enough money in circulation to buy their products... how odd... could it be because...) [url=http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/01/20/3184011/statistic-world-2014... 85 richest people own the same amount of wealth as the 3.5 Billion poorest people[/url]?

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say with these two.

Quote:
[url=http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/01/16/3171251/walmart-leaked-power...’s Walmart’s Internal Guide To Fighting Unions And Monitoring Workers[/url]

You have unions and employees on one side, and companies and managers on the other. Both sides are going to want to get more for themselves. Of course the company has a playbook. And of course the union has the same - how it helps its members with wage negotiations, how it makes a strike hurt the company the most without liability, how it maximizes propaganda towards customers, and so on. Did the article refer to some court rulings that had prevented the Walmart employees from unionizing? What's up with that, that's illegal now? I thought it was only some federal governments that had banned unions for government employees? I don't really keep up with American politics (except for watching Jon Stewart, if that counts), but it seems that a lot of real bastards get elected over there.

Sun, 2014-02-02 18:15

#43

Smokeskin

thezombiekat wrote:Smokeskin

thezombiekat wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
Do you think that applies to cultural activities? What harm would come to the majority if the state didn't sponsor that? Is that harm equivalent to using violence against people, robbing and extorting them?
As I said before I am not convinced the cultural expenditure is justified. The system as it runs now is not the ideal one I want.

How serious do you believe the need has to be before it is justified to extort money for it at gunpoint? Life or death? Serious impairment of life quality? Minor inconvenience? If you're not convinced that something like cultural expenditure is justified, are you okay with the system extorting money for it at gunpoint? if someone is generally a nice, helpful guy, but sometimes he robs people to pay for his opera ticket, do you find that morally wrong?

thezombiekat wrote:

Quote:
So what you're saying is "I'm going to rob you to pay for health care. Most of the money will go to people who don't need it and don't deserve it, but that's ok because I'm going to rob them for an even greater amount." That seems to be an excessive and unnecessary application of violence to me. It does not seem to be based on the needs of anyone, and given that the whole system is based on coercion I can't see any ethical justification for it.
I think of the tax to essential services more like a compulsory insurance program, where everybody in the country is covered by the insurance and your premium is means tested. Everybody has to be covered because as a society we can’t bring ourselves to leave somebody to die because they could not, or would not, pay the premium.

But that isn't relevant to giving health care to the rich. What's the justification for that?

thezombiekat wrote:

Quote:
Is it really just "well we're the politicians, we like having big budgets and lots of employees, and since we have all the guns you have to comply with our wishes and whims"?
Well no. at least in Australia the vast majority of people demand these services. Any government that dropped say the health budget and dropped everybody’s tax by 16% would absolutely loose the next election.

Mob rule doesn't have any moral authority. We have to judge their actions on their own merit, or we'd be unable to condemn the Nazis in pre-WWII Germany or the recent actions of Mursi in Egypt. I can see how the politicians in power would want to hold on to their lucrative government positions though. But to me that doesn't really justify the wrong that they're doing

thezombiekat wrote:

Quote:
If we were down to a welfare state that took care of those too poor to afford basic necessities, I'm not sure I'd care. Taxes for that would be one of those things that I maybe disagreed with in principle, but in actuality it worked out well enough. But now, even those good intentions have been corrupted and turned into something very different, haven't they? Does the system make sense to you?
I agree that the current system is not working well. It is suffering a sickness but many aspects of it are trying to do something good.

But what if the sickness is the concentration of power itself? What if that old adverb is true, that power really does corrupt? Is it then a good idea to strip the citizens of power, strip them of their ability to chose freely, and force them to live at the whims of a few hundred people? And what if the good the politicians do is just the bare minimum they have to do to satisfy the people's wishes for good deeds? Our desire for fair treatment of everyone? What if we could actually manage that on our own? Will the corporations just be the next power players? The corporations only pay a very minor part of the taxes for all the roads, police officers and judges - it is the people that pay almost all of the taxes. Why can't we band together, like so many do with unions, and match their power? We have the financial means to do so - we're already paying for both them and us - but they don't. The corporations seem strong now because the state has a monopoly on violence and the legal system and it rarely uses it to our advantage. If we could choose, would we choose to pay for security providers that didn't serve our interests fairly?

Sun, 2014-02-02 23:59

#44

Kremlin K.O.A. Kremlin K.O.A.'s picture

Smokeskin wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:
The article states that the reason they threw out the food was because of health regulations - they're not allowed it to serve to someone else. In ancap, we would have been free to serve it to someone else if both parties wanted to. The law is the problem.

Only if you think the problem with the scenario was wasted food, instead of, say, starving children.

Mon, 2014-02-03 02:14

#45

Smokeskin

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
The article states that the reason they threw out the food was because of health regulations - they're not allowed it to serve to someone else. In ancap, we would have been free to serve it to someone else if both parties wanted to. The law is the problem.
Only if you think the problem with the scenario was wasted food, instead of, say, starving children.

The headline was that the food was thrown out. And if we're at the point where ancap restaurants have to serve food to customers who don't pay or you're going to think ancap won't work, then we might as well quit now because I'm never going to convince you. The problem of starving children should be handled by welfare payouts, not by forcing restaurants to serve them.

Mon, 2014-02-03 03:10

#46

thezombiekat thezombiekat's picture

Smokeskin wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:
How serious do you believe the need has to be before it is justified to extort money for it at gunpoint? Life or death? Serious impairment of life quality? Minor inconvenience?

This is how I would like to decide what is a need worthy of socialised assistance. Life and death, avoiding serious harm that restricts ability to support yourself (e.g. treatment to prevent you getting a disability). Limited assistance in improving your ability to support yourself in lasting ways (e.g. education, but you can’t spend your whole life at uni doing one degree after another and never using them). Access to minimum communications infrastructure needed to conduct business (if you don’t have a phone a potential employer can’t call you to offer you a job interview and you remain unemployed, you can use the internet at the unemployment office to look for a job, but you will be kicked off if they catch you reading RPG forums)

Quote:
But that isn't relevant to giving health care to the rich. What's the justification for that?

Again speaking in terms of the way the system should work. The justification for giving health care to the rich is that they need it just as much as the poor. They might be able to afford to pay for it themselves but they did already pay for it in taxes, and they paid more than the poor so it would be a real dick move to say they get no benefit from taxes. Today there is the problem that the investing class can gain unfair reductions in there tax bill (many do not and restrict themselves to taking deductions as they were intended, .

Quote:
But what if the sickness is the concentration of power itself? Will the corporations just be the next power players?

Yes and Yes. The problem is that power grants the ability to gain power. With a small advantage you make a profit and gain a moderate advantage, which you use to make a profit and get a large advantage which you use to make a profit and gain a huge advantage, which you use to make a profit and gain an overwhelming advantage. Democracy was supposed to prevent this this by handing huge amounts of power to a few people chosen by the population, most of whom are not individually powerful. This power is unusual in that isn’t really yours, you don’t get to keep it for long, so you can’t build on it. In theory leaders will be chosen who are good for everybody and prevent overwhelming advantages from occurring. In practise large groups of human beings are rather stupid and not at all hard to manipulate. I think democracy slowed down the accumulation of power by the rich. But it defiantly didn’t eliminate it. In order for a system to prevent the accumulation of overwhelming and abuseable power it would be necessary to prevent power from being used to acquire power in feedback loop fashion. Or enforce a firm cap on the total power one may control. I have never seen a description of a political or economic system that would achieve this and work with available technology (anarcho socialism with a reputation economy achieves it. But at a minimum requires near post scarcity supplies of essential resources and may have other problems).

Mon, 2014-02-03 17:31

#47

ShadowDragon8685 ShadowDragon8685's picture

Smokeskin wrote:Kremlin K.O.A

Smokeskin wrote:
Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
The article states that the reason they threw out the food was because of health regulations - they're not allowed it to serve to someone else. In ancap, we would have been free to serve it to someone else if both parties wanted to. The law is the problem.
Only if you think the problem with the scenario was wasted food, instead of, say, starving children.
The headline was that the food was thrown out. And if we're at the point where ancap restaurants have to serve food to customers who don't pay or you're going to think ancap won't work, then we might as well quit now because I'm never going to convince you. The problem of starving children should be handled by welfare payouts, not by forcing restaurants to serve them.

The only way any person could see the [b]food being thrown out[/b] as the problem instead of, I dunno, food being snatched from the hands of hungry children, is if they're a [i]sociopath![/i] It doesn't even hold with ancap ideals! Ancapitalism requires that all actors participating in a system be doing so of their own volition, with rationality and education about the system they're working in. It also presumes that they're free to make their own decisions and choices. Guess what kids aren't known for? Rationality, education, and control of their own finances. So even under Anarcho-Capitalist ideals, [i]this is indefensible[/i], because it is punishing some actors for the failures of others - their parents, who in many cases were too distracted by things like the daily grind to even realize they were in debt! But that's not even the point. That's [b]not even[/b] the bloody point at work here, and you [i]know it![/i] That's why you built a straw-man out of the resource-waste to attack. At least, I hope that's what you did, because the alternative - that it genuinely was the only thing that leapt out at you as wrong about that article - is that you are a complete and [i]utter[/i] sociopath, and quite frankly I'd rather the disingenuous debate tactics. Let me spell it out to you, assuming, for your sake, you have sufficient capacity to empathize with your fellow human beings that you have the faculty to grasp the emotional and human toll this event would wreak. Do you know what it's like to be a child - an [i]elementary[/i] school student, no less - and sit down to eat with a full lunch tray and have an adult snatch it from your hands and bin it? I fucking [b][i]do[/i][/b], and nigh-on two [b]decades[/b] later, it's the one event from those years I remember at all! In fact, I do say it partly contributes to my terrible eating habits. Everyone said after that that I eat way the hell too fast - if I'm [b]not[/b] the first one to finish my meal, it's an event uncommon enough to be commented upon! It is a miserable experience, traumatic and devastating for a ten-year-old. It won't kill anyone, even that young, but it is an emotionally thrashing event that can and will stick with people for literal decades. And this one will be magnified because in this information-soaked age, there's [i]no way[/i] those students' fellows won't learn that the reason they had that very public event was because they couldn't pay. You know what else kids at that age are, besides irrational, uneducated and not in control of any finances? [i]Complete and total monsters.[/i] The emotional toll from that event [u]will[/u] be magnified by their fellow students harassing them, bullying them, teasing them. It will be [i]merciless[/i], and the school will be nigh-powerless to stop it. Not that they'd likely be inclined to do so, because they pulled this fantastically shittacular stunt in the first place and only backpedaled - and only then so far as to say that the matter should have been better handled - when it brewed a shitstorm that hit the national news. That's not the reaction of an entity that knows it has done shameful deeds worthy of contrition and feels remorse for itself, that's the reaction of a public-relations organ going into full damage control mode and is trying to decide who exactly they can shove under the bus. Hopefully, you can actually grok that.

—

Mon, 2014-02-03 17:50

#48

bibliophile20 bibliophile20's picture

Smokeskin wrote:Kremlin K.O.A

Smokeskin wrote:
Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:
Only if you think the problem with the scenario was wasted food, instead of, say, starving children.
The headline was that the food was thrown out. And if we're at the point where ancap restaurants have to serve food to customers who don't pay or you're going to think ancap won't work, then we might as well quit now because I'm never going to convince you. The problem of starving children should be handled by welfare payouts, not by forcing restaurants to serve them.

If that is what you think, Smokeskin, than you completely missed what I was trying to say when I linked to that article. So, I'm going to be blunt and straight up here. I linked to that article and to all of the articles that I posted links to as a Criticism of how real-world capitalism and its resulting fetishization of wealth and the parallel demonization of the poor are far-reaching, damaging on every level to our society and encourage sociopathic behaviors. That is what I was trying to say. I was NOT criticising AnCap, because there is not enough hard data to actually criticise AnCap with, just theoretical objections. Please note the differences. You asked me what my opinion was regarding the Freedom Industries case was--a real world, crony-capitalism, corporate oligarchy case. I gave you my opinion. You then turned around and tried to interpret as a criticism of AnCap--repeatedly. I, and others, are doing are our best to separate the two points. We ask that you join us in that separation, and to stop taking every opportunity to either: act defensively about perceived criticisms of AnCap or to explain how, theoretically, AnCap will fix all of the problems that we face. Please learn to separate the two points--Criticism of AnCap vs. Criticism of Real Life Capitalism--or this conversation is going to spiral downhill quickly. Please stop telling us how great life will be under AnCap, and instead try and share with us the horror and anger provoked by the actions that these articles document. I posted those articles very deliberately. Real Life Capitalism is prone to abuses and outright sociopathy. I posted those articles to point this out, with the examples of: A current anti-trust case, showing how a cabal of well-connected businessmen screwed over their workers by engaging in price-fixing of wages. An outright sociopathic action by a wealthy corporation, who deem that a human life is only worth it if they can pay. A group of children being publicly shamed for being poor, out of no action of their own, in front of their peers. A review of how the social safety net actually helps keep money in the economy, and those government actions, however inefficient, keep the dynamic connections of a modern economy flowing with fuel. Another attempt by a cabal to be able to dictate the price and supply of that basic human need--shelter--by using their wealth and leverage to engage in an attempted large scale monopoly action. A genuine bit of irony, of CEOs not understanding that there isn't any money in the economy with which to buy their products, because half of all of the money in the world is being hoarded away and removed from the economy by a fractionally small minority, thereby denying that money its basic function: to act as a medium of trade. And, finally, how the largest private employer in the United States routinely passes out information to its management tier instructions on how to repress workers' rights and propagandize against the mere idea that these are people who have the legal right to bargain collectively. That was what I was trying to say. Criticisms of how Real World Capitalism Runs Amok, not criticisms on how AnCap--which clearly doesn't apply here--might work in these situations. So, if you don't understand the difference that I am trying to illustrate with these by this point, then, well, to borrow your own words, "then we might as well quit now because I'm never going to convince you."

—

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -Benjamin Franklin

Mon, 2014-02-03 18:01

#49

bibliophile20 bibliophile20's picture

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:
The only way any person could see the [b]food being thrown out[/b] as the problem instead of, I dunno, food being snatched from the hands of hungry children, is if they're a [i]sociopath![/i] It doesn't even hold with ancap ideals! Ancapitalism requires that all actors participating in a system be doing so of their own volition, with rationality and education about the system they're working in. It also presumes that they're free to make their own decisions and choices. Guess what kids aren't known for? Rationality, education, and control of their own finances. So even under Anarcho-Capitalist ideals, [i]this is indefensible[/i], because it is punishing some actors for the failures of others - their parents, who in many cases were too distracted by things like the daily grind to even realize they were in debt! But that's not even the point. That's [b]not even[/b] the bloody point at work here, and you [i]know it![/i] That's why you built a straw-man out of the resource-waste to attack. At least, I hope that's what you did, because the alternative - that it genuinely was the only thing that leapt out at you as wrong about that article - is that you are a complete and [i]utter[/i] sociopath, and quite frankly I'd rather the disingenuous debate tactics. Let me spell it out to you, assuming, for your sake, you have sufficient capacity to empathize with your fellow human beings that you have the faculty to grasp the emotional and human toll this event would wreak. Do you know what it's like to be a child - an [i]elementary[/i] school student, no less - and sit down to eat with a full lunch tray and have an adult snatch it from your hands and bin it? I fucking [b][i]do[/i][/b], and nigh-on two [b]decades[/b] later, it's the one event from those years I remember at all! In fact, I do say it partly contributes to my terrible eating habits. Everyone said after that that I eat way the hell too fast - if I'm [b]not[/b] the first one to finish my meal, it's an event uncommon enough to be commented upon! It is a miserable experience, traumatic and devastating for a ten-year-old. It won't kill anyone, even that young, but it is an emotionally thrashing event that can and will stick with people for literal decades. And this one will be magnified because in this information-soaked age, there's [i]no way[/i] those students' fellows won't learn that the reason they had that very public event was because they couldn't pay. You know what else kids at that age are, besides irrational, uneducated and not in control of any finances? [i]Complete and total monsters.[/i] The emotional toll from that event [u]will[/u] be magnified by their fellow students harassing them, bullying them, teasing them. It will be [i]merciless[/i], and the school will be nigh-powerless to stop it. Not that they'd likely be inclined to do so, because they pulled this fantastically shittacular stunt in the first place and only backpedaled - and only then so far as to say that the matter should have been better handled - when it brewed a shitstorm that hit the national news. That's not the reaction of an entity that knows it has done shameful deeds worthy of contrition and feels remorse for itself, that's the reaction of a public-relations organ going into full damage control mode and is trying to decide who exactly they can shove under the bus. Hopefully, you can actually grok that.

[color=orange]ShadowDragon8685, you are out of line and warned. I understand that this is an emotional hot button topic for you, but that does not give you license to imply that Smokeskin, or any other poster on this forum, is a sociopath or an idiot. Direct or implied personal attacks on other posters will not be tolerated. Feel free to pick apart the arguments of others and show how they are in error, but do that to the arguments. Do not do it to the people posting those arguments.[/color] [color=orange]Strike One.[/color]

—

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -Benjamin Franklin

Tue, 2014-02-04 05:30

#50

Smokeskin

ShadowDragon8685 wrote

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
The article states that the reason they threw out the food was because of health regulations - they're not allowed it to serve to someone else. In ancap, we would have been free to serve it to someone else if both parties wanted to. The law is the problem.
Only if you think the problem with the scenario was wasted food, instead of, say, starving children.
The headline was that the food was thrown out. And if we're at the point where ancap restaurants have to serve food to customers who don't pay or you're going to think ancap won't work, then we might as well quit now because I'm never going to convince you. The problem of starving children should be handled by welfare payouts, not by forcing restaurants to serve them.
The only way any person could see the [b]food being thrown out[/b] as the problem instead of, I dunno, food being snatched from the hands of hungry children, is if they're a [i]sociopath![/i]

I realize that this issue is personal for you, so I'm going to ignore the character attacks. I hope you realize that I'm not in any way condoning the experience you had. Let's look at the actual scenario. A kid walks up to the counter and asks for their food. The paren'ts haven't paid. There are two options: 1) The parents doesn't want their kid to get food from the cafeteria anymore, so they're giving them a lunchbox from home instead. If the cafeteria sells the kid food and sends the bill to the parents, they're going to be mad. 2) The parents wanted them to get food but didn't pay. I'm sure they knew they had to pay, but they didn't, and I'm sure they knew the consequences of not paying. If they ease up on the consequences and keep on giving food to the non-paying children, how many of them will never pay? How many more will stop paying? And suddenly the cafeteria is running at a loss. So it has to reduce the quality of the food and the sizes of the servings, so many of the responsible parents starts giving them wholesome lunchboxes from home instead, leading to even less revenue for the cafeteria. So now the cafeteria closes down. Also, I think we shouldn't blow this out of proportion. There's not a starvation problem here. There's not even a fully skipped meal - the article says the kids got fruit and milk instead. This isn't child abuse.

Quote:
It doesn't even hold with ancap ideals! Ancapitalism requires that all actors participating in a system be doing so of their own volition, with rationality and education about the system they're working in. It also presumes that they're free to make their own decisions and choices. Guess what kids aren't known for? Rationality, education, and control of their own finances. So even under Anarcho-Capitalist ideals, [i]this is indefensible[/i], because it is punishing some actors for the failures of others - their parents, who in many cases were too distracted by things like the daily grind to even realize they were in debt!

Parents are responsible for taking care of their own children. As I have stated previously, I would happily pay towards welfare even if not forced to do so. I'm well aware that there are many people who are not able to earn enough to make ends meet and don't have friends or family that can help, and upright citizens need to take care of that. But when people have to option to care well for their children and don't live up that responsibility, because they're too irresponsible, stupid, lazy or busy, there are ways to remedy that. They range from a helping hand to ultimately taking their children away, but none of them involve a moral obligation for individual stores to serve their children for free.

Quote:
But that's not even the point. That's [b]not even[/b] the bloody point at work here, and you [i]know it![/i] That's why you built a straw-man out of the resource-waste to attack. At least, I hope that's what you did, because the alternative - that it genuinely was the only thing that leapt out at you as wrong about that article - is that you are a complete and [i]utter[/i] sociopath, and quite frankly I'd rather the disingenuous debate tactics. Let me spell it out to you, assuming, for your sake, you have sufficient capacity to empathize with your fellow human beings that you have the faculty to grasp the emotional and human toll this event would wreak. Do you know what it's like to be a child - an [i]elementary[/i] school student, no less - and sit down to eat with a full lunch tray and have an adult snatch it from your hands and bin it? I fucking [b][i]do[/i][/b], and nigh-on two [b]decades[/b] later, it's the one event from those years I remember at all! In fact, I do say it partly contributes to my terrible eating habits. Everyone said after that that I eat way the hell too fast - if I'm [b]not[/b] the first one to finish my meal, it's an event uncommon enough to be commented upon! It is a miserable experience, traumatic and devastating for a ten-year-old. It won't kill anyone, even that young, but it is an emotionally thrashing event that can and will stick with people for literal decades. And this one will be magnified because in this information-soaked age, there's [i]no way[/i] those students' fellows won't learn that the reason they had that very public event was because they couldn't pay. You know what else kids at that age are, besides irrational, uneducated and not in control of any finances? [i]Complete and total monsters.[/i] The emotional toll from that event [u]will[/u] be magnified by their fellow students harassing them, bullying them, teasing them. It will be [i]merciless[/i], and the school will be nigh-powerless to stop it. Not that they'd likely be inclined to do so, because they pulled this fantastically shittacular stunt in the first place and only backpedaled - and only then so far as to say that the matter should have been better handled - when it brewed a shitstorm that hit the national news. That's not the reaction of an entity that knows it has done shameful deeds worthy of contrition and feels remorse for itself, that's the reaction of a public-relations organ going into full damage control mode and is trying to decide who exactly they can shove under the bus. Hopefully, you can actually grok that.

I can easily relate to that. I was bullied extensively myself, and that sticks with you. I think it is likely that is where my exceptionally strong feelings on oppression come from. The jock types picked on me for being the skinny math wiz. I started my son on judo when he was 4, in part to protect him from that. I don't know a universal solution to the problem though - forcing everyone, or even just the bullied kids, to learn self defense seems excessive. And unlikely to work. I tried the martial arts as solution when I was younger, but it wasn't motivated so I didn't learn well enough and didn't stick to it long enough. When I was 14, I was ready for it and picked up thai boxing, and that worked. I have no idea how to universally solve the problems you describe. How do you fix that some people will exercize bad judgment and have terrible customer service, even to the degree that it marks someone for life? How do you fix the problem in the article, of parents not paying for the cafeteria food?

Tue, 2014-02-04 05:52

#51

ShadowDragon8685 ShadowDragon8685's picture

I'm not going to do a point

I'm not going to do a point-by-point breakdown, because if I do, the orange text is coming out again. Instead, I'm going to hit the last point only, the hopefully most important one.

Smokeskin wrote:
I have no idea how to universally solve the problems you describe. How do you fix that some people will exercise bad judgment and have terrible customer service, even to the degree that it marks someone for life? How do you fix the problem in the article, of parents not paying for the cafeteria food?

You keep serving them food, and make more and more effort to contact the parents. You keep serving the food to the child, as if nothing is amiss whatsoever, and you keep contacting them to get them to pay up. If you can't contact them through ordinary means after a more-than-generous period of two months, you take [i]extraordinary[/i] means, even if that means you send someone to physically speak with them when they're at work. If they didn't realize their child's lunch money was in arrears, such as by not knowing they were required to pay, or believing they were settled and they were not, and can't pay immediately, you let them pay it off slowly. If they can pay, but [i]won't[/i], because, for instance, they be assholes [i]par excellence[/i], you take advantage of the governmental monopoly on force and garnish their wages. If they can't pay, period, you [i]eat the damn loss[/i] and take whatever steps are required to put them in the rights with whatever free lunch program is available. Under [b]no circumstances whatsoever[/b] is it acceptable to deny the same lunch every other student gets to any one student on account of their parents' failure or inability to pay. There is no excuse for that, no reason for that, and it is not acceptable. It's even [b]less[/b] acceptable to serve them, only to snatch the trays from their hands and bin the food right in front of them - you know what that is? For all their CYA about "the cafeteria workers couldn't tell which students not to serve," that's bullshit. That was sending a [b]fucking message[/b] by emotional manipulation of the students, and that is [i]not bloody acceptable[/i] under any circumstances.

—

Pages

Topic locked