Milton Friedman on government and private enterprise

[wufwugy]

7 minutes long. Great stuff. Many different points that you may think are cool or stupid. I don't want to sully it with my crappy commentary. Watch and say stuff.

[Savy]

Answers to the first and third questions were good, the second was very wishy washy.

[rong]

Answers to the first and third questions were good, the second was very wishy washy.

I'm not so sure. His answer to the third question, answered first, was pretty bad to imo. By saying that a 40% tax having benefit means that therefore a 100% tax must also then be beneficial is a bit of a straw man. The original question was really asking if there is a benefit to having some central government chosing how to allocate a portion of resources as opposed to just individiuals, and it was kind of skated over by saying well you wouldn't think 100% is good so how can 40%.

[Savy]

I'm not so sure. His answer to the third question, answered first, was pretty bad to imo. By saying that a 40% tax having benefit means that therefore a 100% tax must also then be beneficial is a bit of a straw man. The original question was really asking if there is a benefit to having some central government chosing how to allocate a portion of resources as opposed to just individiuals, and it was kind of skated over by saying well you wouldn't think 100% is good so how can 40%.

I honestly don't see how that was his question but at the same time it seemed a really stupid question so admittedly maybe I've misunderstood.

That being said he does later speak about how he doesn't think government choosing how money is spent is necessarily a bad thing he just seems a fan of localism in that respect.

[wufwugy]

I'm not so sure. His answer to the third question, answered first, was pretty bad to imo. By saying that a 40% tax having benefit means that therefore a 100% tax must also then be beneficial is a bit of a straw man. The original question was really asking if there is a benefit to having some central government chosing how to allocate a portion of resources as opposed to just individiuals, and it was kind of skated over by saying well you wouldn't think 100% is good so how can 40%.

The questioner posited that it could be that the inefficiency of being taxed could spur greater net benefit by incentivizing people to be even more productive and innovative than otherwise. I agree with you in that Friedman's initial response didn't address this perfectly since it could be posited that there are diminishing returns, i.e., this effect is positive at 20% tax rate but not at 80% tax rate. However, as Friedman gets further into explaining it, he makes a good point in that the inefficiency of the tax portion is just, well, inefficient, and intuitively and arithmetically it could be shown that having a smaller and smaller portion of people in this bracket puts a larger portion of people in the more efficient bracket, and thus generates greater net benefit.

The notion is debunked in a pretty straightforward way, but that's because it's about the idea that the case of inefficiency creates a consequence of greater efficiency elsewhere. However, had the question been a bit different, like "are there certain functions that are best when monopolized and inefficient?" I think we'd have a more compelling idea on our hands.

[wufwugy]

Answers to the first and third questions were good, the second was very wishy washy.

I liked the second the best. I love the point that only people make value judgments. It is not because of government that people want safe-to-eat food; it is because of the values of people that people want safe-to-eat food. This is why I think the debate between governments and free markets boils down in a large way to efficiency. What most efficiently enacts the value judgments of people?

[a500lbgorilla]

it is because of the values of people that people want safe-to-eat food.

Didn't coke say in court something to the affect of "No one would make the mistake of thinking Vita-waters were healthy"? I know people who made that mistake. I made that mistake.

People only want to believe their food is safe to eat, whether it is or not is a whole other matter.

[wufwugy]

People only want to believe their food is safe to eat, whether it is or not is a whole other matter.

How do people believe if food is safe to eat? By the results and expectations. If the FDA was worthless and gave retarded evaluations and people were getting sick left and right when consuming items the FDA approves, people would stop listening to the FDA. Even a government monopoly depends on perceptions of the people.

[a500lbgorilla]

How do people believe if food is safe to eat? By the results and expectations. If the FDA was worthless and gave retarded evaluations and people were getting sick left and right when consuming items the FDA approves, people would stop listening to the FDA. Even a government monopoly depends on perceptions of the people.

Yeah, gov'ts are made by people and serve people, you know?

[Savy]

I liked the second the best. I love the point that only people make value judgments. It is not because of government that people want safe-to-eat food; it is because of the values of people that people want safe-to-eat food. This is why I think the debate between governments and free markets boils down in a large way to efficiency. What most efficiently enacts the value judgments of people?

The second question was him talking about countries which have exhibited a certain behaviour and how they did as a result. At least that's the wishy washy part I'm talking about.

[a500lbgorilla]

I watched and paused when I had something to say:

I think the guys questions are great, though in the third part he misses the point of the theft.

The point of the theft is that you can't stop it - you'll never bring it to 0, because the basic currency of the natural world is some form of violence and what makes a gov't is by winning the last war and/or preventing the next. Everything Milton talks about forgets this. He presumes a Safe World. It's funny, I just saw a video by some famous actor talking about how people evolved with animals and the environment, but then turned around and punished them - as if we were co-operating the whole time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVE6eZCJZv8#t=1m57s

"Spending isn't good, what's good is producing" But you produce to be consumed so that you can consume in turn. If there's no one else to buy from you, you're wasting a lot of your own time producing.

"(gov't spending is ok)... which is why we want gov't expenditure at as local a level as possible" For some things. Some expenses must necessarily be born across the entire nation.

His answer to the first part is "of course" and that's wrong. He cites most of human history and I counter cite it for why he's wrong.

Oh, his sense of history is post 1800 onward. Funny, I thought Economics was of interest to the strength of nations til back to the 1500s when Spain had so much silver from the New World that they became the premiere power in Europe and spurred their rivals to colonize the world.

"We express values through co-operation" Thought so. Guy thinks the world is co-operative and that competition always expresses itself ontop of this basic tenet. I think it's the other way 'round.

[wufwugy]

I watched and paused when I had something to say:

I think the guys questions are great, though in the third part he misses the point of the theft.

The point of the theft is that you can't stop it - you'll never bring it to 0, because the basic currency of the natural world is some form of violence and what makes a gov't is by winning the last war and/or preventing the next. Everything Milton talks about forgets this.

It's not evident in this video, but Friedman is a "the federal government should tax and spend on national defense" guy. After I put some thought into it, it is possible I will disagree with his logic (or maybe I'll agree with it), but it basically goes that he thinks the federal government should do nothing other than protect national security and constitutional liberties. Everything else should be handled by local governments; the more local the better.

"Spending isn't good, what's good is producing" But you produce to be consumed so that you can consume in turn. If there's no one else to buy from you, you're wasting a lot of your own time producing.

Maybe it's best to think of consumption as an effect or as dependent on production. One can only consume that which is produced. Take a steak dinner for example. Your desire to consume a steak dinner does not create a steak dinner. You have no increase in well-being just by wanting a steak dinner. It is only after production of a steak dinner that the potential for greater well-being is created.

His answer to the first part is "of course" and that's wrong. He cites most of human history and I counter cite it for why he's wrong.

Yeah, it would be "most of modern history." It's only after free enterprise became culturally accepted that it began determining the directions of the countries that accept it.

"We express values through co-operation"

He didn't say that. He said, "The question is 'what is the most effective way in which, we as people, can jointly, cooperatively, express our values?'" He's basically saying that the question is about how societies best organize. Friedman makes the case that value judgments are by people, and that there isn't something unique about governments that would have them create value judgments that people can't.

[a500lbgorilla]

It's not evident in this video, but Friedman is a "the federal government should tax and spend on national defense" guy.

I wiki'd him and it says he was for volunteer armies.

After I put some thought into it, it is possible I will disagree with his logic (or maybe I'll agree with it), but it basically goes that he thinks the federal government should do nothing other than protect national security and constitutional liberties. Everything else should be handled by local governments; the more local the better.

I agree that the state should centrally focus itself with security, but the funny thing about security is that it can be upset from without and within. It's my sense that this was the end-game of the constitutional authors - a state that satisfies those within enough to go along and threatens those without to never try any funny stuff. Of course, those without and within can be driven to anger very easily, so it's a tight path to tread.

Maybe it's best to think of consumption as an effect or as dependent on production. One can only consume that which is produced. Take a steak dinner for example. Your desire to consume a steak dinner does not create a steak dinner. You have no increase in well-being just by wanting a steak dinner. It is only after production of a steak dinner that the potential for greater well-being is created

I imagine it like an ecosystem, where the waste of one is the nourishment of another. Of course, that's just my imagination.

Yeah, it would be "most of modern history." It's only after free enterprise became culturally accepted that it began determining the directions of the countries that accept it.

Cherry picking nonsense. We were still civilized humans in 1491.

He didn't say that. He said, "The question is 'what is the most effective way in which, we as people, can jointly, cooperatively, express our values?'" He's basically saying that the question is about how societies best organize. Friedman makes the case that value judgments are by people, and that there isn't something unique about governments that would have them create value judgments that people can't.

If he says so.

[a500lbgorilla]

Yeah, it would be "most of modern history." It's only after free enterprise became culturally accepted that it began determining the directions of the countries that accept it.

Just want to double down on this.

It's a big mistake to focus on that era when free enterprise really shined as your inspiration for future plans. The history of life is long and deep and has a lot to teach. Something came before that era and something will come after.

[wufwugy]

Just want to double down on this.

It's a big mistake to focus on that era when free enterprise really shined as your inspiration for future plans. The history of life is long and deep and has a lot to teach. Something came before that era and something will come after.

It should be noted that he doesn't say that this is why we don't need armies today. He was responding to the question of whether or not there are examples of countries being driven by free enterprise.

Since we debate on this a lot, maybe it would help if you knew something about me. I support armies big time. Some people probably think that because I'm libertarian, I'm also a pacifist and have pie-in-the-sky views about human nature like so many other libertarians seem to. Not so. I think people should be free to choose the security they want, but this does not mean that I would agree with people who would choose weak security. I favor violence with extreme prejudice against organizations like ISIS. I believe one of the necessary facets of security is strength. In a free market of security, I would heavily support missile defense systems, gangster ass marines hellbent on eradicating jihadists from the face of the earth, and hegemonic pressure on other regions to adopt my values of individual liberty and the freedom to choose.

[a500lbgorilla]

I think people should be free to choose the security they want

I think they should fall into the best security. I'm the sort of guy that flows into any situation and just makes the best of it and I try to keep it that way for others. I'd prefer for people to just find themselves in a great situation and take it for granted.

[MadMojoMonkey]

In his Brittain example, he ignores the fact that the gov't was only taking 10% taxes from its citizens, but massively exploiting many other people around the globe to subsidize them. I don't think it makes sense to draw an invisible line around Brittish citizens as the sole source of the Brittish economic wealth during that period.


@rilla's "We express values through co-operation" comment:
I agree that this is not the whole truth. We also express our values through theft, punishment, neglect, etc. We express our values equally much through cooperation and non-cooperation.

When Milt talks about values, he seems to be assuming that we only value "good" behaviors. He seems to miss the fact that we also value selfishness and greed, deception and fraud, brutality and coercion, etc.


Milt's statement to the fact that we must be diligent to control the gov'ts we make, lest they consider us outsiders and succeed at controlling us is gold.

[wufwugy]

In his Brittain example, he ignores the fact that the gov't was only taking 10% taxes from its citizens, but massively exploiting many other people around the globe to subsidize them. I don't think it makes sense to draw an invisible line around Brittish citizens as the sole source of the Brittish economic wealth during that period.

If you asked him this, he would likely make the point that the exploitation was relatively unproductive (just more productive than otherwise). Economically, Great Britain, at the height of its power, was still quite unproductive relative to today. The treatment of its subjects didn't give the empire an advantage that we would have today if only we exploited like they did. If I were to make an argument around this and the tax rate, I would say that this means that since GB got away with a 10% tax rate even though it was way more unproductive than we are today, it means that the optimal rate of today is lower.

@rilla's "We express values through co-operation" comment:
I agree that this is not the whole truth. We also express our values through theft, punishment, neglect, etc. We express our values equally much through cooperation and non-cooperation.

When Milt talks about values, he seems to be assuming that we only value "good" behaviors. He seems to miss the fact that we also value selfishness and greed, deception and fraud, brutality and coercion, etc.

I briefly addressed this to Rilla. As far as I can tell, Friedman isn't saying there are particular values, but is addressing a principle regarding how values are formed and managed. He certainly doesn't believe things like people aren't greedy. I've posted a video a few times here where he makes the case that one reason why governments create problems is because people are greedy and selfish and corrupt, and governments allow those values to be more greatly expressed.

Milt's statement to the fact that we must be diligent to control the gov'ts we make, lest they consider us outsiders and succeed at controlling us is gold.

It is.

If you'll allow me to enter the arena of my personal opinion: my problem is that I don't think government can be kept from continually growing. The history since the western societies adopted the Enlightenment principles of democracy and capitalism and overall governmental restraint has been a gradual deletion of that restraint and a gradual increase in the size and power of these governments. I believe this is a phenomenon given the nature of politics and bureaucracy. Politicians and bureaucrats are better at increasing their powers than citizens are at stopping the increase. More important than fiddling with government, I think is reforming society and doing away with our desire for government, because if we don't do that, we're gonna always have this phenomenon of politicians and bureaucrats putting upward pressure on their own authority over everybody else.

[a500lbgorilla]

Almost too much, but pretty cool

[a500lbgorilla]

All this History were people making choices, you can't discount it as simply a relic of a time when people weren't proper people who enjoyed proper rights like proper free choice.

People have always been people.

[wufwugy]

Rilla, a while back we had a debate on this line. I believe it is true that governments used to be more efficient at security than enterprise. My explanation is that back in these historical times, measuring invasion potential was too poor to be reliable and was ultimately quite inefficient. But assuming high invasion potential, which is what the governments that eventually became the most successful did, was very efficient.

I've argued that I think this paradigm is flipped in the modern west today. Enterprise is pretty good at measuring risk now, and it's always getting better. In fact, governments use these risk assessment techniques for their own benefit. Enterprise is capable of understanding the low risk of invasion from Canada and the high risk of invasion from jihadists.

Does this point make sense?

[a500lbgorilla]

Rilla, a while back we had a debate on this line. I believe it is true that governments used to be more efficient at security than enterprise. My explanation is that back in these historical times, measuring invasion potential was too poor to be reliable and was ultimately quite inefficient. But assuming high invasion potential, which is what the governments that eventually became the most successful did, was very efficient.

I've argued that I think this paradigm is flipped in the modern west today. Enterprise is pretty good at measuring risk now, and it's always getting better. In fact, governments use these risk assessment techniques for their own benefit. Enterprise is capable of understanding the low risk of invasion from Canada and the high risk of invasion from jihadists.

Does this point make sense?

I hear you, but I don't think that people in a position to make these choices think the same. I'm still of the magical belief that when given access to the inner thoughts and fully secured documents of a nation, you have to adjust your beliefs. This is why politicians always disappoint - when faced with the realities of the task, the demands of the people get moved to the backburner.

I also think that efficiency isn't the metric that we should apply to every aspect of human endeavor. Sometimes you need to waste a lot of effort for no assumed good just to see what happens.

And I see you're still of the magical belief that western enterprise is getting better every day at measuring risk. You nor I have any idea what measuring risk is about. What I do know is that western enterprise uses gov'ts to cement their endeavors, so it seems like a bit of ignorance to think Silicon Valley "gets the world" better than anyone else.

[wufwugy]

I also think that efficiency isn't the metric that we should apply to every aspect of human endeavor. Sometimes you need to waste a lot of effort for no assumed good just to see what happens.

In general, think throwing a lot of capital at a problem is efficient.

And I see you're still of the magical belief that western enterprise is getting better every day at measuring risk. You nor I have any idea what measuring risk is about. What I do know is that western enterprise uses gov'ts to cement their endeavors, so it seems like a bit of ignorance to think Silicon Valley "gets the world" better than anyone else.

I really like this point. I think that this is ultimately why people want government to run security, to the point that if we all woke up in a totally free market tomorrow, we would quickly create another government with the main intention of "keeping us safe." When you can say "there are these people that are tasked only with keeping me safe and nothing else and there is no way to change that since it's set in the stoniest stone that ever stoned," you can go to bed easy. It's concrete. You don't have to think about it and you can rely on it even if it isn't exactly true. You know that you and everybody around you have no choice but to support this particular version of security, so you have little uncertainty.

The idea that a competitive market of security is a more reliable way to create a secure society is hardly convincing because it's too abstract and counter-intuitive.

[a500lbgorilla]

I think that this is ultimately why people want government to run security, to the point that if we all woke up in a totally free market tomorrow

What do you see when you think of waking up to a fully-clean slate world? Would we ever speak type to each other again?

[wufwugy]

What do you see when you think of waking up to a fully-clean slate world? Would we ever speak type to each other again?

I'm not sure what you mean by fully clean slate.

For obvious reasons, it would initially be incredible chaos. I do not recommend going clean slate overnight.

[a500lbgorilla]

When you can say "there are these people that are tasked only with keeping me safe and nothing else and there is no way to change that since it's set in the stoniest stone that ever stoned," you can go to bed easy. It's concrete. You don't have to think about it and you can rely on it even if it isn't exactly true. You know that you and everybody around you have no choice but to support this particular version of security, so you have little uncertainty.

The idea that a competitive market of security is a more reliable way to create a secure society is hardly convincing because it's too abstract and counter-intuitive.

Yeah, I've dug down deep in that epistemological hole when I was big into atheism. I'm still of the opinion that pragmatism is the way. Whatever works is what I want.

[a500lbgorilla]

I've argued that I think this paradigm is flipped in the modern west today.

And, I just want to point out, that if a paradigm has been flipped, it's because we discovered oil. We can pump real, hard, manual labor out of the deep rocks and the world is still readjusting.

Paradigms don't flip because everyone sees a better religion, be it Taoism, Stoicism, or Free-marketism.

[wufwugy]

And, I just want to point out, that if a paradigm has been flipped, it's because we discovered oil. We can pump real, hard, manual labor out of the deep rocks and the world is still readjusting.

Paradigms don't flip because everyone sees a better religion, be it Taoism, Stoicism, or Free-marketism.

I think the market economy would have grown without oil, but yeah, it had a colossal effect.

[a500lbgorilla]

I think the market economy would have grown without oil, but yeah, it had a colossal effect.

No way.

You cross oceans by wind without oil (or coal). And the winds don't sheppard you everywhere.

[a500lbgorilla]

No way.

You cross oceans by wind without oil (or coal). And the winds don't sheppard you everywhere.

Plus, before oil and coal there were slaves and mules. People always want cheap labor and don't particularly care about the source.

[wufwugy]

I certainly do not think human nature has changed one bit.

[a500lbgorilla]

I swear I remember hearing about how Congress was all of the opinion that Wall Street perfectly understood risk all the way up to the 2008 market-readjustment.

[Savy]

I swear I remember hearing about how Congress was all of the opinion that Wall Street perfectly understood risk all the way up to the 2008 market-readjustment.

They did. There was no risk for them.

[a500lbgorilla]

They did. There was no risk for them.

No risk to Bear Stearns?

[wufwugy]

I swear I remember hearing about how Congress was all of the opinion that Wall Street perfectly understood risk all the way up to the 2008 market-readjustment.

A monopoly getting something wrong. Whodathunk?

No risk to Bear Stearns?

So, there was a lot more going on. The short of it is that the mortgage environment was ruled by incentives to pass mortgages out willy-nilly by government policies. It was believed that mortgage debt wasn't a problem due to a misuse of a particular economist's theorem (I forget the name). The theorem says more or less that the risk of people dumping their mortgages is weirdly low. The theorem is correct for the most part, but politicians abused it far beyond its intentions and created a situation in which it eventually became +EV for people to start dumping mortgages. Anyways, I digress.

After a while of the unusual mortgage debt, people started noticing that this didn't make sense. This caused a subprime mortgage recession. It was small, happened long before the financial crisis, and didn't spill into other sectors. Oil started going up, the Fed began fearing inflation, and NGDP growth expectations took a hit. This was too much for Bear and had to go. It can be argued the Fed did the right thing by making its sale very painful (so as to avoid the moral hazard of the other banks looking for a sweet deal). But then the Fed started fucking up. Oil began skyrocketing and the Fed was deathly afraid of inflation (as it has been since Stagflation), so it went full speed ahead with tight monetary policy and NGDP growth expectations took a huge hit. That is when the shit hit the fan. Growth expectations were too low, the economy took a hit from this, which meant that the biggest risk at the margins would be first to go (mortgages). People started dumping mortgages to counter their reduction in incomes and expectations and banks balance sheets turned into a nightmare.

You can blame the Fed. This is what happens when money is a monopoly. Money monopolists are gangster at creating intense crises and deep recessions. Well, not all of them. The Reserve Bank of Australia has a phenomenal track record. They've more or less figured out that central banks must stabilize NGDP no matter what.

[a500lbgorilla]

You can blame the Fed. This is what happens when money is a monopoly.

How many bitcoins do you own?

[wufwugy]

How many bitcoins do you own?

I want a currency free market. Bitcoin does not exist within a currency free market.

Even if it was legal to use your own currency, it can't gain traction since the incentive to use the government's instead is off the chart. A currency backed by taxes is far more stable than anything that could enter a market that isn't backed by taxes.

[a500lbgorilla]

I want a currency free market. Bitcoin does not exist within a currency free market.

Even if it was legal to use your own currency, it can't gain traction since the incentive to use the government's instead is off the chart. A currency backed by taxes is far more stable than anything that could enter a market that isn't backed by taxes.

What do I trade my labor for in a currency-free market?

[a500lbgorilla]

Bitcoin does not exist within a currency free market.

Literally no pleasing you.

[wufwugy]

Yes the world would be way behind if not for oil. It is by far the most important natural resource for production.

[a500lbgorilla]

It seems like the first innovation to trade was to put shiny metal as the universal I.O.U for all trades. Why bring my pigs to market and haggle with everyone for milk, bread, blankets, and whores, when I can just ask for small gold coins that everyone agrees are desirable?

[wufwugy]

To be clear, a currency-free market is idiotic. A free market of currency is good stuff.

[a500lbgorilla]

Yeah, I just got that. My bad. Still, currency underlies all trade, and you want currency to be subject to market forces. It's literally chaos the whole way down.

So how many bitcoin do you own?

[a500lbgorilla]

Yeah, I just got that. My bad. Still, currency underlies all trade, and you want currency to be subject to market forces. It's literally chaos the whole way down.

It's funny too, to see that currency is basically traded on a health and stability market today. As if people want a basic I.O.U unit that every can trust and believe in.

[wufwugy]

It's funny too, to see that currency is basically traded on a health and stability market today. As if people want a basic I.O.U unit that every can trust and believe in.

Yeah people want that. It doesn't change the situation that central banks like the Fed do not have nearly the pressures they need to improve that their hypothetical free market versions would.

[a500lbgorilla]

Yeah people want that. It doesn't change the situation that central banks like the Fed do not have nearly the pressures they need to improve that they would in a free market.

Yeah, well, I bow down to my back point that I think I'd believe differently if exposed to the problems of the central bank.

I should probably read some biographies by bankers and presidents, honestly.

[wufwugy]

Yeah, well, I bow down to my back point that I think I'd believe differently if exposed to the problems of the central bank.

I should probably read some biographies by bankers and presidents, honestly.

Two quotations from a speech in 2002 in honor of Milton Friedman given by future Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke:

I can think of no greater honor than being invited to speak on the occasion of Milton Friedman’s ninetieth birthday. Among economic scholars, Friedman has no peer. …

Today I’d like to honor Milton Friedman by talking about one of his greatest contributions to economics, made in close collaboration with his distinguished coauthor, Anna J. Schwartz. This achievement is nothing less than to provide what has become the leading and most persuasive explanation of the worst economic disaster in American history, the onset of the Great Depression – or, as Friedman and Schwartz dubbed it, the Great Contraction of 1929-33.

… As everyone here knows, in their “Monetary History” Friedman and Schwartz made the case that the economic collapse of 1929-33 was the product of the nation’s monetary mechanism gone wrong. Contradicting the received wisdom at the time that they wrote, which held that money was a passive player in the events of the 1930s, Friedman and Schwartz argued that “the contraction is in fact a tragic testimonial to the importance of monetary forces.”

Indeed, since the large banks felt confident that the Fed would protect them if necessary, the weeding out of small competitors was a positive good, from their point of view.

The Bernank is basically saying that the Fed caused the Great Depression by mismanagement of monetary policy (via too contractionary of policy) and financial regulation (via the moral hazard of the Fed having regulatory supremacy).

[wufwugy]

Yeah, I just got that. My bad. Still, currency underlies all trade, and you want currency to be subject to market forces. It's literally chaos the whole way down.

So how many bitcoin do you own?

Currency is already subject to market forces. Central banks daily do things in an attempt to accommodate.

A free market of currency would be more efficient at finding the cream of the crop. Issuers of currency would not be able to get away with the extreme malpractice of the Fed or ECB (yes it's extreme; that ain't hyperbole).

Why would I own bitcoin?

[a500lbgorilla]

Currency is already subject to market forces. Central banks daily do things in an attempt to accommodate.

A free market of currency would be more efficient at finding the cream of the crop. Issuers of currency would not be able to get away with the extreme malpractice of the Fed or ECB (yes it's extreme; that ain't hyperbole).

Why would I own bitcoin?

Bitcoin is all about what you're about. It's valued on its protocol alone, as opposed to shininess. edit: and can't be controlled. (though, it can. I mean it's a stupid point to bring up bitcoin, only to show an example of how the best punch your belief in a free-market currency ends up when exposed to reality)

Yes, state-issued money is exposed to the "market forces" and what does the "free market" desire of its money? Oh right, someone to lay some foundation in the world.

It's fun to think about the slippery problem of nailing down human desire into one measurable thing.

[wufwugy]

Bitcoin is all about what you're about.

I'm about no government intervention, not choosing something because from one perspective the government intervenes less in it.

It's valued on its protocol alone, as opposed to shininess. edit: and can't be controlled. (though, it can. I mean it's a stupid point to bring up bitcoin, only to show an example of how the best punch your belief in a free-market currency ends up when exposed to reality)

Bitcoin exists in a market in which it is unlikely to be capable of being anything other than niche. It can't compete with a tax-backed currency in most ways. It can mainly do certain things that tax-backed ones can't or don't.

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm about no government intervention, not choosing something because from one perspective the government intervenes less in it.

Gov't can't not intervene. You have to accept that it has a role in the lives and occurrences of those it governs.

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm waiting to hear about alternatives.

[wufwugy]

You use alternatives on a daily basis.

[a500lbgorilla]

Alternatives to the United States of America?

No i don't.

All the nonviolent interactions in my life happens under the umbrella of the violence authority.

[a500lbgorilla]

Wait, wait, wait.

I only said violence was the most decisive, not the it was the most used or most warranted or the choice you should make in every situation.

Just that if you absolutely have to settle something for good, nothing does it better than violence.

So, I'm waiting for alternatives to violence for the most decisive method for settling conflict or dispute.

[wufwugy]

Again, you use alternatives every day. Violence has a terrible track record of being the "most decisive" method to end conflict.

[Savy]

Again, you use alternatives every day. Violence has a terrible track record of being the "most decisive" method to end conflict.

I don't think you understand how violent I am on a daily basis.

[a500lbgorilla]

Again, I didn't say it's the thing you use on the scale of your life to make decisions, I said it was the most decisive method.

If two parties argue over ownership of a lake, they could flip a coin - but if someone disputes the results of the coin flip, they could hold a vote, and when the vote comes out 1-1, they could take it to a third party, and when someone doesn't like how it was adjudicated, he can just stab the other party and claim the lake.

I'm not saying its the most stable choice, or wisest choice, or most common choice - just that of all the ways to settle a dispute violence is the most decisive.

Tell me one method that is as decisive or more decisive than violence. Just one. I use so many in my day to day life this should be trivial, right?

[a500lbgorilla]

Again, you use alternatives every day. Violence has a terrible track record of being the "most decisive" method to end conflict.

PS There are boarders of nations that were drawn by the drunken hand an English commander because violence was so decisive in the fates of the people of that region.

[a500lbgorilla]

I'll just cut to the chase - you can't use examples of your day to day life because you live in a nation of laws. Every escalation of any dispute will eventually run into the authority of the State - it will either decide the resolution or it will decide which method will be used for resolution. If you don't like how the State handles it, what choice is left to you? What methods did the South use?

That was my original point. The state exists because violence is the most decisive method for resolving disputes and conflicts. The state won the last war that matters and/or prevents the next. The state manages its regions principally on its violent authority. When Hitler's private party had a bigger standing army than the State of Germany, well Hitler's private party became the State of Germany.

Violence is not an absolute method nor is it perfect, fair, balanced, productive, constructive, pretty, or anything else - it's just the most decisive method.

Every other method needs at least one party to choose to stop the dispute (likely in favor of the other) - violence makes the choice for them.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The state exists because violence is the most decisive method for resolving disputes and conflicts.

I rather think states exist (or would exist) regardless of the method of achieving and maintaining that status. If the "most decisive method" was not violence, I suspect that states would choose whatever that method happens to be. I don't think the demand for government would go away. I think the need for a state goes deeper than violence (and protection from violence).

[wufwugy]

I've been responding to the usage of the word "decisive." I can't think of a word that describes the element of violence we're discussing.

Violence does not have that great of a track record of "settling an issue" or "producing a definite result" except for in certain types of scenarios (typically when it's violence vs violence and one side loses). The most decisive way for me to get a McDonald's cheeseburger is not to jump over the counter and start punching people and forcing them to make me a cheeseburger.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The most decisive way for me to get a McDonald's cheeseburger is not to jump over the counter and start punching people and forcing them to make me a cheeseburger.

I don't see how this is related to the conversation.

They want to sell you their cheeseburgers, so it's a perfectly moot point that you can find a cooperative way to get one of their cheeseburgers from them.

The point is that when resolving conflicts, where no compromise is acceptable to either party, then what actually decides the outcome? What if you want to pay for your Mc D's cheeseburgers using Hardee's cheeseburger wrappers? I'm pretty sure that if you refuse to leave their establishment, and you demand they accept your trash as money, that there will be a violent outcome. Either you abandon your claim (changing the subject to something else entirely) or you will have no option other than to commit violence to coerce them to act in your favor, or the police will come to coerce you into acting in accordance with their favor.


No one is making the argument that violence is the most equitable way to resolve issues. Nor are we saying that violence is a preferred method of interaction in our daily lives. We're only saying that all the other forms of conflict resolution break down when violence enters the picture. Violence wins as it trumps rational behavior. You can't reason with violence; you can only out-violent it or concede to it's demands.

[MadMojoMonkey]

How is violence most decisive at resolving a car sales negotiation?

... because dead salesmen offer free cars?

Why do salesmen not fear that violence? Because they have the cops on their side. Many people may choose non-violent methods and pay for cars, but some people will not. Those who do not want to pay for cars will have few options to obtain cars in non-violent ways.

Rilla is. I also am, at least in some instances. An entity doesn't try to take something over with violence if it perceives doing so is not at least neutral EV. In some cases, killing people and subjugating other people is +EV; in some cases maintaining peace and a goods and services market is +EV.

Well, you and rilla can have that conversation; I've not weighed in on it. I feel confident that rilla isn't arguing that violence gives the best outcome in general, merely that in some cases it is the most +EV as well as the most decisive (which I would agree with).

At any rate: None of that matters in saying, "for any peaceful resolution, a violent event could have forced a one-sided result." It's not stipulating that one-sided results are good. It's just ... I already said it.

Here:

We're only saying that all the other forms of conflict resolution break down when violence enters the picture. Violence wins as it trumps rational behavior. You can't reason with violence; you can only out-violent it or concede to it's demands.

[wufwugy]

... because dead salesmen offer free cars?

So, this whole thing is stemming from the usage of "decisive." I've taken it to mean "settling an issue" or "producing a definite result." You guys are thinking of it in terms of ultimateness, where if we assume everything else fails, then we use violence.

If I am looking to "settle an issue" or "produce a definite result" regarding a car sales negotiation, I will do something like show up with enough money to pay for the car. What I will not do is show up with a gun and demand the car. I won't start punching the salesman. I won't rally a band of my buddies and try to take over the dealership. In the scenario of getting a car from a dealership, violence is not the most decisive method.

I do not know why Rilla chose to use the word "decisive." I decided to point out why that word doesn't work because his usage of it could be informing his views. Granted, I haven't found a better word, and there doesn't seem to be a word that describes what he's thinking.

[wufwugy]

I agree with all of that. My issue was with the terminology. If we're looking for the most decisive way for me to get a cheeseburger from McDonald's, it isn't with violence.

I don't deny the "ultimateness" of violence, or whatever it may be called. Where Rilla and I get into it is that he thinks this means there will always be one entity at the top of the violence food chain or a struggle to be at the top of the violence food chain; whereas I think there are situations where the top of the food chain isn't just one violent entity, but can be many entities that maintain peace for the purpose of mutual benefit.

[a500lbgorilla]

I agree with all of that. My issue was with the terminology. If we're looking for the most decisive way for me to get a cheeseburger from McDonald's, it isn't with violence.

You're thinking too small with the cheeseburgers and McD's because, as MMM said, McD's wants you to have the burger. You choose to agree to their terms for the trade. There's no need to consider escalating the dispute over the cheeseburger because there is no dispute. There's no need to worry about deciding anything. As an example, it completely misses the point.

I don't deny the "ultimateness" of violence, or whatever it may be called. Where Rilla and I get into it is that he thinks this means there will always be one entity at the top of the violence food chain or a struggle to be at the top of the violence food chain; whereas I think there are situations where the top of the food chain isn't just one violent entity, but can be many entities that maintain peace for the purpose of mutual benefit.

I think MMM put it better. Whatever the most decisive method is, that would be the basis of States. Just happens to be violence in the world we live in.

[wufwugy]

You're thinking too small with the cheeseburgers and McD's because, as MMM said, McD's wants you to have the burger. You choose to agree to their terms for the trade. There's no need to consider escalating the dispute over the cheeseburger because there is no dispute. There's no need to worry about deciding anything. As an example, it completely misses the point.

Things were decided. It was decisive. I haven't misunderstood the point you are trying to make; I've shown how the way you have made it doesn't work.

[a500lbgorilla]

Things were decided. It was decisive. I haven't misunderstood the point you are trying to make; I've shown how the way you have made it doesn't work.

Violence could have still decided the situation.

Think of any situation where there is dispute without agreement and you'll see what you're missing.

[wufwugy]

Violence could have still decided the situation.

Think of any situation where there is dispute without agreement and you'll see what you're missing.

You're equating a situation in which there is no effective conflict resolution except violence with every situation in which there is conflict.

But it can only step in because its the military.

It's the only force legitimate in the eyes of the people. This does not mean that the only way for people to view an entity as legitimate is for that entity to tax them.

Even when nonmilitary entites step in for coups, they have to do it violently.

I wouldn't have suggested otherwise.

Yes there is. Not every dispute can be settled through agreement or through an aligning of wants and demands with resources, and in those situations, violence still can decide. What happens when a privately-funded security force is all of the sudden best situated to decide the outcome of the biggest conflicts within or without of a society?

You're assuming that it is always more profitable to conduct security through coercion than through voluntarism.

There are people that expressly do not give the US gov't any legitimacy yet the gov't still has authority over them. I'm sure JKDS has heard a bunch of great stories about these kooks.

"The people" does not equate to "some of the people." "The people" more or less means "enough people with enough power to direct policy."

[MadMojoMonkey]

Things were decided. It was decisive. I haven't misunderstood the point you are trying to make; I've shown how the way you have made it doesn't work.

I think you changed the subject by talking about a situation without any conflict or disagreement then said that you resolved the potential conflict by not starting it.

There's no conflict there. There's nothing to resolve. You decisively cooperated. That's off topic.

[wufwugy]

I think you changed the subject by talking about a situation without any conflict or disagreement then said that you resolved the potential conflict by not starting it.

There's no conflict there. There's nothing to resolve. You decisively cooperated. That's off topic.

I realized this not too long before you pointed it out. Good eye. The McDonald's example is not one so much of resolving conflict, but of being decisive. Examples that include both are innumerable, and I should have chosen one of them instead. The ways political parties choose nominees are examples of more decisively resolving conflict than using violence. A negotiation in a board room or at the car sales level are conflicts resolved most decisively without violence. Most families and friends do not use violence to resolve conflict most decisively.

[a500lbgorilla]

Great example unfolding right now - what decides who's in charge of Turkey?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...rd-in-ankara1/

[wufwugy]

Great example unfolding right now - what decides who's in charge of Turkey?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...rd-in-ankara1/

I have never once declared that having violence might doesn't provide greater power. If you examine the details of this situation in Turkey more closely, it starts to help my argument that peace can be freely chosen. The Turkish military has a history of stepping in when the politicians get too authoritarian and dissembling of national and economic ideals. There is no reason to believe that a privately-funded security force couldn't exist for the same reasons.

[a500lbgorilla]

I have never once declared that having violence might doesn't provide greater power. If you examine the details of this situation in Turkey more closely, it starts to help my argument that peace can be freely chosen. The Turkish military has a history of stepping in when the politicians get too authoritarian and dissembling of national and economic ideals.

But it can only step in because its the military. Even when nonmilitary entites step in for coups, they have to do it violently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storming_of_the_Bastille

There is no reason to believe that a privately-funded security force couldn't exist for the same reasons.

Yes there is. Not every dispute can be settled through agreement or through an aligning of wants and demands with resources, and in those situations, violence still can decide. What happens when a privately-funded security force is all of the sudden best situated to decide the outcome of the biggest conflicts within or without of a society?