Question about fundamental societal construction

[wufwugy]

Would you rather

(1) Live in a society where it is illegal for a man to beat his children

(2) Live in a society where it is not illegal for a man to beat his children but also not illegal for you to put a bullet in his brain?

What I'm getting at: does society function better when the role of the individual and the community is to defer to protectors determined by the law, or does society function better when the role of the individual and the community is to take responsibility for itself?

I think it is obvious where I stand, and I would very much like to know where you guys stand and the rationale why. This is an extremely hard question to answer, where any answer is speculation, but it is fundamental to how we organize ourselves


edit: it should be noted that in option two I'm not claiming the response to a man beating his children is to kill him. I'm suggesting the course of action taken against him is what those around him deem fitting

[OngBonga]

Wuf you confuse me. One minute you're trumpeting how capitalism works and is the best thing ever, then the next minute you appear to be advocating anarchy.

Anyway, #2.

[wufwugy]

Wuf you confuse me. One minute you're trumpeting how capitalism works and is the best thing ever, then the next minute you appear to be advocating anarchy.

Anyway, #2.

Capitalism is anarchy without the naivete. Capitalism is when you believe constructs should adhere to value determined by choice. Anarchism is when you're a child who hates the idea of structure

[OngBonga]

Capitalism is anarchy without the naivete. Capitalism is when you believe constructs should adhere to value determined by choice. Anarchism is when you're a child who hates the idea of structure

What are you talking about?

Capitalism is private ownership for profit.

Anarchy is absolute freedom from government control. Is has nothing to do with being a child who doesn't like structure. Structure always exists because without structure there is disorder, which is contrary to the will of the masses. Order will always prevail, even in an anarchistic environment. What happens if government collapses? Shit hits the fan. The stupid people will start stealing and fighting, while the smart people start forming communities to protect their families, homes and farms. Order will emerge from the chaos. It will take time, but anarchism does not imply lack of structure, it implies lack of authority. If you assume that lack of authority equals lack of structure, then it's you who is naive.

Capitalism doesn't go hand in hand with anarchism because capitalism creates a system in which those with much capital are able to control the needs of those who have little. That is contrary to the principles of anarchism. Capitalism is every man for himself... anarchism is community. They are polar opposites.

[wufwugy]

anarchism does not imply lack of structure, it implies lack of authority. If you assume that lack of authority equals lack of structure, then it's you who is naive.

Structure and authority go hand in hand. Mandated authority is different. Capitalists promote authority by choice, not by mandate. Anarchists assume no authority even by choice. It is a naive view of the world, and I think it is why the majority of anarchists tend to be naive youths.

Capitalism doesn't go hand in hand with anarchism because capitalism creates a system in which those with much capital are able to control the needs of those who have little. That is contrary to the principles of anarchism. Capitalism is every man for himself... anarchism is community. They are polar opposites.

I was presenting why they're opposites.

Capitalism is the organizing principle anarchism thinks it is. Anarchism is what you get when you have a drum circle that thinks the chief organizing principle should be a lack of an organizing principle.

[Renton]

The second case would always result in a societal state where child abuse is at least de facto illegal. The role of child abuse in determining the state of the human race at large is well established by psychologists. It would simply be in the economic interests of everyone to have intervening forces in the cases of fathers who beat their children. I know you probably didn't mean anything by it, but I think it was an interesting subconscious slip that the abuser in your example is a man. I don't have the numbers right in front of me but I'm pretty damn sure a huge majority of child abuse is perpetrated by mothers.

Anyway bottom line is that child abuse is a massive problem and if there's a state-like entity it should be near the top of its priority list to solve (if not at the very top). In a free society, state or no state, people own themselves and this includes children, though there is certainly a question of parents' responsibility. This is tricky territory for libertarians, but one place where they all agree is that child abuse (whether physical or psychological) is a violation of the principle of non-aggression. Bottom line though is that where something is valued, something is provided, and this is primarily what differentiates societal organization between free individuals from societal organization between the state and it's inhabitants. In the latter case, laws are created on flawed premises, with little regard to the value they provide to people or to the long-term consequences, since states have a way of only caring about the present or the near future. States are simply ill-equipped to make effective laws about anything really, including child abuse, much less enforce the law.

Sorry to jump right into the dichotomy, but really embedded in the question is "which way works better?" since they both attempt to solve the problem and inevitably come up short. No system is perfect.

[OngBonga]

(2) Live in a society where it is not illegal for a man to beat his children but also not illegal for you to put a bullet in his brain?

This is anarchism. This is lack of authority. This is absolute freedom.

[wufwugy]

This is anarchism. This is lack of authority. This is absolute freedom.

I really don't want to botch this explanation since this is at the crux of the confusion about authority.

Freedom does not mean the lack of authority. It means the ability to choose authority. We do this all the time in all sorts of ways, except for in ways that the government makes it illegal. The capitalist tries to stop the government from making choice illegal

Anarchism is a unicorn. It is the idea that there is no consequence.

[Renton]

Ong can you please stop mis-characterizing capitalism? There are a million and one examples of collaborations for mutual benefit in a free market. And how does one with capital "control the needs" of others with less capital? Needs are subjective to each individual and capital is a means of fulfilling the needs and desires of others, in exchange for (gasp!) profit. The simplest definition of capital is "property which is used to create other property." It can be a loan that generates interest, or a tool or machine that increases your efficiency, or intensive training to increase your productivity. Capitalism is by far the most anarchic economic system in world history and is responsible for every good thing that has ever existed in the last 250 years.

[wufwugy]

The simplest definition of capital is "property which is used to create other property."

I would like to add that your ability to flex your arm is your capital. Any resource/action that can produce is capital

The basic idea is that there's a guy on some land where nobody else is, and he decides to work the land to grow crops to feed and trade for goods. He used his human capital. Philosophically, this includes everything from drawing breath to pushing a plow. If it was a resource or behavior that produced something that is valued over what went into making it, it's capital

[OngBonga]

Ong can you please stop mis-characterizing capitalism?

Why not ask wuf to stop mis-characterising anarchism?

And how does one with capital "control the needs" of others with less capital?

I have to pay for shelter, clothing, food, water, and all my other NEEDS. And when I do, someone makes a profit, because they "own" the needs that I am "purchasing". That is control.

It can be a loan that generates interest

This simple short sentence demonstrates everything wrong with capitalism.

Capitalism is by far the most anarchic economic system in world history and is responsible for every good thing that has ever existed in the last 250 years.

It's also responsible for everything bad that's happened, like... WWI, WWII, and the current state of affairs. Do you think we wouldn't have nice things if not for capitalism? Do you think that people would not invent things if they can't make money from it? That's naivity. Who invented the light bulb? One of the most famous inventors of all time. Edison. Capitalism is the reason he was more famous than Tesla. But of course Tesla was way ahead of Edison... he just wasn't American with powerful capitalist friends.

Capitalism has held us back for 250 years.

[Renton]

I have to pay for shelter, clothing, food, water, and all my other NEEDS. And when I do, someone makes a profit, because they "own" the needs that I am "purchasing". That is control.

A need is a abstract concept, it is not a physical object. And the vast majority of "needs" are actually desires. All a human being *needs* is air to breathe, water to drink, food to eat, and shelter in places with inhospitable weather, perhaps healthcare as well but if you're interested, I can get more into why these needs become progressively more shifted into the grey area of being desires. In the pre-capitalistic shit-hole of abject misery that was the human race prior to around 1750, a large percentage of humans couldn't even provide for their true needs, much less such superficial desires as a comfortable home, recreation or intellectual edification. In fact, people would not even live to participate in that society because of premature death, infant mortality, or their mothers dying in childbirth before they had a chance to be born at all.

The free market mechanism of fulfilling the needs and desires of others in exchange for profit is empowering to consumers, not enslaving them as you seem to believe. Sellers do not "control" the needs of anyone, they compete with one another for the privilege of providing a desired good or service to a consumer, and the consumer has the discretion of which to choose a different seller, or whether to substitute a different good or service for the provided one, or to not consume at all.

This simple short sentence demonstrates everything wrong with capitalism.

If you don't want to borrow money from me, then you're free to abstain. What in the world is wrong with loaning an individual or a business money in exchange for interest? If it occurs through voluntary exchange, then both parties are better off. Do you know how much investment capital had to change hands in order for all of the awesome shit you take advantage of every day to exist at all? I'm sorry but you're going to need to defend this statement, it isn't a pillar that stands on its own logic.

It's also responsible for everything bad that's happened, like... WWI, WWII, and the current state of affairs. Do you think we wouldn't have nice things if not for capitalism? Do you think that people would not invent things if they can't make money from it? That's naivity. Who invented the light bulb? One of the most famous inventors of all time. Edison. Capitalism is the reason he was more famous than Tesla. But of course Tesla was way ahead of Edison... he just wasn't American with powerful capitalist friends.

Capitalism has held us back for 250 years.

WWI and by extension WWII couldn't have occurred if not for capitalism. You're correct there. Capitalism provided the nearly limitless wealth and prosperity that gave nation-states the sheer capacity for mobilizing, feeding, clothing, and arming millions of soldiers. It also provided the massive boost in population growth during the 19th century that allowed those soldiers to be born at all. And finally, it provided the means for nations like Germany and Japan to rebuild and become economic mammoths since then in spite of the catastrophic human loss and capital damage they suffered during those wars. But you can't lay the entire blame for these wars at the feet of capitalism. Nationalism and statism played larger roles.

As to whether technological advance and innovation can occur outside of a free market context, sure it can. It's just much slower.

[OngBonga]

What in the world is wrong with loaning an individual or a business money in exchange for interest?

It eventually causes the collapse of the entire economic system. Watch this space. UK and USA, our economies are done, whether it be 1 year or 20. Our economies are on the brink of collapse because we're borrowing money to pay our interest. Our current government have spent more money than all our governments of the last century. That's austerity? No, that's compound interest. It is unsustainable. When you lend money to someone for interest, you are in effect creating money from thin air, which in turn causes a devaluation of the entire currency. That's assuming the currency is actually based on something, like gold. Of course, that's no longer the case. Capitalism has gotten to the point where our currencies are based on nothing more than the value we grant it. It's fiat. That's thanks to lending for profit. That's because we're printing money to create money. When you take a loan out from the bank, do you think thay actually set aside some gold? No, they just add some noughts to your account, and charge you interest. Money is created from thin air. That's why capitalism cannot sustain itself. That's why we're at war with shitholes like Syria and Iraq. That's why we've been at war for the last century. That's why capitalism is doomed to failure. Sooner or later the system comes crashing down.

I hope I'm wrong.

[Renton]

It eventually causes the collapse of the entire economic system. Watch this space. UK and USA, our economies are done, whether it be 1 year or 20. Our economies are on the brink of collapse because we're borrowing money to pay our interest. Our current government have spent more money than all our governments of the last century. That's austerity? No, that's compound interest. It is unsustainable. When you lend money to someone for interest, you are in effect creating money from thin air, which in turn causes a devaluation of the entire currency. That's assuming the currency is actually based on something, like gold. Of course, that's no longer the case. Capitalism has gotten to the point where our currencies are based on nothing more than the value we grant it. It's fiat. That's thanks to lending for profit. That's because we're printing money to create money. When you take a loan out from the bank, do you think thay actually set aside some gold? No, they just add some noughts to your account, and charge you interest. Money is created from thin air. That's why capitalism cannot sustain itself. That's why we're at war with shitholes like Syria and Iraq. That's why we've been at war for the last century. That's why capitalism is doomed to failure. Sooner or later the system comes crashing down.

I hope I'm wrong.

You're wrong because most of what you're referring to is the debt that states incur, which will come crashing down, I agree 100%. It's obviously a huge problem when a state runs a massive deficit for decades and passes the cost of paying that debt, with interest, onto future generations. But it isn't usury that causes this, it is the state that does. And when the state controls the money supply, they are able to pass hidden taxes in form of accelerated inflation.

I can debunk the claim that usury inevitably results in collapse by explaining in basic terms what wealth is. Wealth is essentially all of the accumulated stuff that people ascribe value to. Land, TVs, computers, raw materials, precious metals, candy bars, whisky, etc. Wealth is also all of the accumulated capital that exists in a society. As I stated before, capital is just stuff that helps to produce more stuff. All of the above can exist without currency, its just not as efficient to trade barter-style as it is to trade with currency.

Most of your paragraph is terminally flawed because of the belief that wealth and capital are somehow constant; that economics is a zero-sum game. That every economic transaction either benefits one person to the detriment of the other, or causes the two parties to break exactly even. This is simply not the case. It is a well-established and easily-proven fact that wealth can be created. That is why we have skyscrapers and billions of tons of food for everyone to eat when we had neither of these things a couple hundred years ago. It's also why there are currently about 40,000 commercial aircraft in the world and that number is expected to double within 20 years as more people will be able to afford to fly.

So applying this concept to currency and loans, here's a simple example. Suppose you have an idea to start a business, but no money to realize that idea. I, on the other hand, have a lot of money but no ideas. You come to me with your idea, I like your idea, and I offer to loan you 10 million dollars at 7% annual interest, based on my confidence that your idea is profitable enough that the 7% interest covers my risk that you will default on your loan, plus a profit. The profit is obviously there to cover my opportunity cost and time expenditure, as I could have used that 10 million dollars for a limitless number of other profitable endeavors. Now the decision is back on you: Is your business idea sound enough that the 10 million dollar investment will build equity for you for a return of greater than 7%? If yes, you accept; if no you reject or try to negotiate a lower rate.

Now if you accept, that when two parties agree to such terms, that it's quite likely that they both benefit in the long run from that agreement (probabilistically speaking, you'd say its >50% chance of this), then we're already most of the way to proving the statement that wealth has been created here. But you might argue that that your business will only survive because of products that you sell to consumers, and that those sales are exploitative to consumers. However, in each transaction with your consumers, what I just described is happening on a smaller scale; two parties, acting voluntarily to trade things with one another that you reciprocally believe is worth less than the thing you are receiving.

And this isn't even accounting for the extraction of resources, which continually adds wealth to a society. Those may be physical resources like ores, water, oil, and gas, but they may also be labor. Wealth is continually being created by all of the shit we do every day and all of the shit we pull out of the ground and put to work for us to make our lives more efficient and meaningful.

So to speak to the idea of money being created out of "thin air" whenever a loan is lent, yes that's absolutely true. But the loans are created based on the absolute increase of wealth that will result from what is done with those loans. The money in an economy has subjective worth, as you said it "is based on nothing more than the value we grant it." Yes, as with every single thing in the economy, individuals decide the value of it. This is the way it should be, since the value of no thing can truly be known. I'm sure typewriters were quite valuable before computers came out and became cheap. I'm also sure horses were quite valuable before automobiles were rolling out of assembly lines by the thousands.

[wufwugy]

It eventually causes the collapse of the entire economic system. Watch this space. UK and USA, our economies are done, whether it be 1 year or 20. Our economies are on the brink of collapse because we're borrowing money to pay our interest. Our current government have spent more money than all our governments of the last century. That's austerity? No, that's compound interest. It is unsustainable. When you lend money to someone for interest, you are in effect creating money from thin air, which in turn causes a devaluation of the entire currency. That's assuming the currency is actually based on something, like gold. Of course, that's no longer the case. Capitalism has gotten to the point where our currencies are based on nothing more than the value we grant it. It's fiat. That's thanks to lending for profit. That's because we're printing money to create money. When you take a loan out from the bank, do you think thay actually set aside some gold? No, they just add some noughts to your account, and charge you interest. Money is created from thin air. That's why capitalism cannot sustain itself. That's why we're at war with shitholes like Syria and Iraq. That's why we've been at war for the last century. That's why capitalism is doomed to failure. Sooner or later the system comes crashing down.

I hope I'm wrong.

I have good news, no serious economist agrees with this view. Besides, if this view was correct, we would have seen the collapse many decades ago

[wufwugy]

It's also responsible for everything bad that's happened, like... WWI, WWII, and the current state of affairs. Do you think we wouldn't have nice things if not for capitalism? Do you think that people would not invent things if they can't make money from it? That's naivity. Who invented the light bulb? One of the most famous inventors of all time. Edison. Capitalism is the reason he was more famous than Tesla. But of course Tesla was way ahead of Edison... he just wasn't American with powerful capitalist friends.

Capitalism has held us back for 250 years.

Invention is not distribution. Inventions mean shit without a price mechanism to allow for distribution.

Before capitalism, new stuff didn't happen that much. Everybody was a farmer, as they had been for thousands of years, and those who weren't were people with a set of skills (like smithing and painting) that worked only when contracted by an aristocrat. Capitalism (and sorta mercantilism a little earlier) brought a system of property and price, which is what created entrepreneurship and gave them a system by which to create and distribute products and services

What do you think you would be doing if this was 250 years ago?

[OngBonga]

It is a naive view of the world, and I think it is why the majority of anarchists tend to be naive youths.

This is just outright wrong. The majority of anarchists tend to be crusties, ie dreadlocked stoners who listen to punk and ska in their 30's and 40's. The kids you refer to are people who think they're anarchists but actually they're just dicks who want to do as they please, they call themselves anarchists in a pathetic attempt to justify their behaviour. But it's a distortion of the meaning of anarchism. To be an anarchist, not only do you do as you please, you also accept responsibility for you actions. That's not naive youth territory.

Structure and authority go hand in hand.

Only because authority is the only structure you know. Lack of authority does not imply lack of structure. I have no regard whatsoever for authority, but my life does not lack structure. It's not authority that stops me doing bad things... it's morals.

Anarchism is what you get when you have a drum circle that thinks the chief organizing principle should be a lack of an organizing principle.

You have a very poor understanding of anarchism.

Freedom does not mean the lack of authority. It means the ability to choose authority.

And this is where you show it. Authority is not freedom, auhtority restricts freedom. Choosing authority is not freedom. What is authority? The power to enforce obedience. How in fuck's name is enforced obedience freedom? Absolute freedom is the total absence of such concepts.

[wufwugy]

This is just outright wrong. The majority of anarchists tend to be crusties, ie dreadlocked stoners who listen to punk and ska in their 30's and 40's.

Like I said, naive youths. I guess since they're not technically youths we can call them naive wannabe youths

Only because authority is the only structure you know. Lack of authority does not imply lack of structure. I have no regard whatsoever for authority, but my life does not lack structure. It's not authority that stops me doing bad things... it's morals.

Please digest what I mean by authority by choice vs authority by mandate.

You choose authorities in your life all the time. If you've ever chosen to see a doctor, purchase a good, or settle a dispute with a friend, you have relegated to authorities. What we want is a society where everybody can choose how to organize their authorities, not one where the authority is chosen for everybody

You have a very poor understanding of anarchism.

And this is where you show it. Authority is not freedom, auhtority restricts freedom. Choosing authority is not freedom. What is authority? The power to enforce obedience. How in fuck's name is enforced obedience freedom? Absolute freedom is the total absence of such concepts.

The third sentence on the wiki entry for anarchism:

While anti-statism is central,^[11] anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.

It is a myth that a society could function without hierarchies. Even the most egalitarian societies humans have ever found (foragers) have hierarchies.

It is not a matter of disagreeing with anarchism, but a matter of acknowledging that it isn't even a valid concept in the first place. Anarchism is like if you're pro-star but anti-fusion

[Sin Uggla]

Back to top, clearly number (1).
How could one possibly think that number (2) would work?

[wufwugy]

Back to top, clearly number (1).
How could one possibly think that number (2) would work?

I think number (2) would work because it already works in every area where the law doesn't reach. We have discovered that we don't need laws to produce a flourishing food system, so why do we need laws to produce a flourishing medical system? What is unique about medicine that makes it something that an institution of monopoly on law needs to be a part of that isn't true of food?

Is an institution that a wide swath of different and unrelated people vote for once every two years better at producing results than the people on the ground with the most skin in the game? If it is, then doesn't that mean that McDonald's would provide us a better product if it received revenues from us by mandate and distributed its product by assessments of need?

[Sin Uggla]

I think number (2) would work because it already works in every area where the law doesn't reach. We have discovered that we don't need laws to produce a flourishing food system, so why do we need laws to produce a flourishing medical system? What is unique about medicine that makes it something that an institution of monopoly on law needs to be a part of that isn't true of food?

Is an institution that a wide swath of different and unrelated people vote for once every two years better at producing results than the people on the ground with the most skin in the game? If it is, then doesn't that mean that McDonald's would provide us a better product if it received revenues from us by mandate and distributed its product by assessments of need?

Geez, where have you been when they taught history in school ?
It's generally considered one of the best developments of our civilization that rules have been established that allow everybody to live in peace, that the weak are protected against despotism, and overcoming the dictatorship of the strongest.

[wufwugy]

Geez, where have you been when they taught history in school ?
It's generally considered one of the best developments of our civilization that rules have been established that allow everybody to live in peace, that the weak are protected against despotism, and overcoming the dictatorship of the strongest.

The legal mechanism by which the US Constitution provides those freedoms to US citizens is making regulation of them by the government illegal. We are granted freedom of speech and a speedy trial because it is illegal for the government to regulate or deny them. The only operational difference between the constitutional era and the previous one is that in the previous one it was legal for the government to do anything but in the constitutional era there are a handful of things it is illegal for the government to do.

It is not by the hand of the government that we have freedoms, but by the restrictions of the hand of government.

[OngBonga]

How could one possibly think that number (2) would work?

Does (1) work?

[Sin Uggla]

Does (1) work?

Yes it does. This is what most modern societies are based on.
Do you think (2) would work?

[spoonitnow]

There's nothing inherently wrong with beating children.

[Sin Uggla]

There's nothing inherently wrong with beating children.

What about beating men ?

[spoonitnow]

What about beating men ?

Same.

And lol at people not understanding how totally and completely fucked they would be right now if it wasn't for capitalism.

[rong]

In number 2 wouldn't a bunch of people scared of being shot group together and come to a common agreement to live in peace and not shoot each other, maybe even have a punishment for doing so, possibly even write these rules down and agree for all to abide by them and maybe make it so changing the rules would require a vote between all of them, maybe even agree that someone might need to take on the role of protector of the group to guard everyone from the guys who might shoot them (for no reason if they wanted as its perfectly legal to shoot anyone), maybe even pay this protector money because of the risk, possibly ensure that anyone who wants to join your mini society where it's safe from being shot probably has to pay some form of fee to live with you which would cover the cost of arming and paying the protector(s) and possibly the people responsible for finding the protector and administrating his pay.

Hold on, isn't that what happened and what led to no 1?

[wufwugy]

In number 2 wouldn't a bunch of people scared of being shot group together and come to a common agreement to live in peace and not shoot each other, maybe even have a punishment for doing so, possibly even write these rules down and agree for all to abide by them and maybe make it so changing the rules would require a vote between all of them, maybe even agree that someone might need to take on the role of protector of the group to guard everyone from the guys who might shoot them (for no reason if they wanted as its perfectly legal to shoot anyone), maybe even pay this protector money because of the risk, possibly ensure that anyone who wants to join your mini society where it's safe from being shot probably has to pay some form of fee to live with you which would cover the cost of arming and paying the protector(s) and possibly the people responsible for finding the protector and administrating his pay.

YES!!

Hold on, isn't that what happened and what led to no 1?

No. There is one difference and it makes all the difference: in your first paragraph, the members still have choice. In option 1, there is no choice because the law is backed by monopoly. In your paragraph, if somebody doesn't want to be a part of that system, he doesn't have to because there is no monopoly of law that requires it of him. In your paragraph, if the community has to deal with a hardass who wants to go against the community, they would end up having to kick him out or buy him out. In option 1, this hardass is put in prison.


I believe we already function the way you described in your paragraph in all sorts of ways that we take for granted and we don't have legal mandates for them.

[rong]

Lol wuf, there is no choice. The community that these guys created now has rules and you have a choice of obeying them and staying or deciding they're not for me and leaving. It just so happens that community grew very large. You could always head to Africa. I hear parts of it are a lot like the wild west that a lack of enforced laws would create.

[wufwugy]

Lol wuf, there is no choice. The community that these guys created now has rules and you have a choice of obeying them and staying or deciding they're not for me and leaving.

For the most part, that's the effect, but not entirely

I grew up in a pretty rural area. Miles and miles of roads unmonitored by the state. We had a road association where people who lived on them would pool money together for upkeep of the roads. It worked quite well. There were some people who chose to pay more and some people who didn't pay anything. Those who didn't pay anything weren't kicked out, but they were certainly encouraged to pay.

It just so happens that community grew very large. You could always head to Africa. I hear parts of it are a lot like the wild west that a lack of enforced laws would create.

That is not an option and you know it. Also Africa is nothing like the Wild West

Size of the community certainly is a factor, but it is the creation of mandates where disobedience is punished by mandate (and funding of enforcers by mandate) that extracts choice from the equation.

[Sin Uggla]

I grew up in a pretty rural area. Miles and miles of roads unmonitored by the state. We had a road association where people who lived on them would pool money together for upkeep of the roads. It worked quite well. There were some people who chose to pay more and some people who didn't pay anything. Those who didn't pay anything weren't kicked out, but they were certainly encouraged to pay.

No kidding...
And those who couldn't be encouraged to pay were shot in the head, because you were allowed to do so ?

[wufwugy]

No kidding...
And those who couldn't be encouraged to pay were shot in the head, because you were allowed to do so ?

Do you not think it is specious to think that people who otherwise wouldn't murder would become murderers if it was legal?

This is sorta like the Christians' argument that if somebody doesn't believe in god, they don't have a motive to not do bad things. Just like it being abstractly okay for atheists to murder in some sense doesn't create murdering atheists, it not being illegal to kill somebody wouldn't make it more likely that you're going to do it. Murder is something that the overwhelming majority of people very much have a desire to not do, and in a case where it isn't illegal it's also not illegal for somebody to stop you from murdering them.

I'm not making a pro-killing-people argument. We already have a system where we believe it is okay to kill people when it is relegated in certain ways (to law enforcement in all sorts of situations, to self-defense, etc). I'm trying to make an argument that it would work better to have a system that doesn't fund killing by legal mandate

[rong]

Why isn't Africa an option? I really don't get it. Unless you think in order for the society to work it's important to have a place you can go if you dont want to be part of it. But that causes lots of problems itself.

[wufwugy]

Why isn't Africa an option? I really don't get it. Unless you think in order for the society to work it's important to have a place you can go if you dont want to be part of it. But that causes lots of problems itself.

Africa isn't stateless and the burden of moving there is so high that it's unreasonable. Moving a few miles down the road is an entirely different thing. Additionally, even if Africa was purely stateless, it would still be better to live in the West. A place with a better organizing principle doesn't mean it is a better place to live. The organizing principle is only one factor of many. Besides, Africa doesn't have a better organizing principle as is

[a500lbgorilla]

2 can't exist. If you can shoot anyone in the head, that includes government busybodies. Exceptions will be made. You can't shoot lawmen and lawmakers and lawmaintainers. And then what good are the headshooter laws when your target might be ultralegal?

[wufwugy]

2 can't exist. If you can shoot anyone in the head, that includes government busybodies. Exceptions will be made. You can't shoot lawmen and lawmakers and lawmaintainers. And then what good are the headshooter laws when your target might be ultralegal?

Assume tax revenue is zero, so there are no government busybodies because there is no government

[a500lbgorilla]

Assume tax revenue is zero, so there are no government busybodies because there is no government

Alright, then someone is gonna get real good at shooting people in the head and he's gonna start collecting taxes.

[wufwugy]

Alright, then someone is gonna get real good at shooting people in the head and he's gonna start collecting taxes.

In a dramatic enough shift, probably. That seems to be why states became a thing in the first place.

Put it on a hundred year plan. Let's say the US government passed an amendment that gradually reduced taxes to zero and sold off all assets to private handlers over the course of the next hundred years. Do you think that if this was successfully carried out, it would create a scenario where another monopoly on violence would arise?

I don't think it would, but I also don't want to argue that point because it's major speculation. What I'm trying to get at is for those who support Option 1 to give reasons why it is better to have a monopoly on violence than to not have a monopoly on violence.

[a500lbgorilla]

In a dramatic enough shift, probably. That seems to be why states became a thing in the first place.

Put it on a hundred year plan. Let's say the US government passed an amendment that gradually reduced taxes to zero and sold off all assets to private handlers over the course of the next hundred years. Do you think that if this was successfully carried out, it would create a scenario where another monopoly on violence would arise?

I don't think it would, but I also don't want to argue that point because it's major speculation. What I'm trying to get at is for those who support Option 1 to give reasons why it is better to have a monopoly on violence than to not have a monopoly on violence.

Yes, violence is the ultimate power. Money or Beauty or Rhetoric can move people to act, but no where near as effectively as the threat of death. Especially the threat of death that you can't possibly match as unlike the nuke on nuke MADness of the cold war.

[a500lbgorilla]

This thread is one of the best in a long time.

[rong]

I wonder if one day we'll describe money in the same way as violence is n rillas post above?

[a500lbgorilla]

I wonder if one day we'll describe money in the same way as violence is n rillas post above?

Spoiler alert

Spoiler: Show

no

[rong]

Can you have capitalism without fractional reserve banking?

[rong]

Can you have capitalism without fractional reserve banking?

Can anyone answer this? Is it a fundamental part of a capitalist system?

[wufwugy]

Can anyone answer this? Is it a fundamental part of a capitalist system?

I don't see why you couldn't haven capitalism without fractional reserve banking. I don't think you'd want to though. It would be kinda like jogging without moving your arms or ankle joints. Sure you can do that but it doesn't work that well

[Renton]

Can anyone answer this? Is it a fundamental part of a capitalist system?

I think capitalism could function without fractional reserve banking, but I doubt we'd want it to. Banks being able to lend liberally from their reserves stimulates entrepreneurship by driving down interest rates. If banks could only lend 50% or whatever of what they hold, then interest rates would skyrocket and it would be very difficult to start or expand a business. It would also be very expensive to hold your money in a bank at all, and interest rates paid out to savings and bonds would plummet.

The problem with fractional reserve banking as it is currently practiced is in the manner with which states interact with banks. If the state didn't control the money supply, the interest rates, and the deposit insurance of banks, then this would not be a problem. Banks would lend as much of their money as they could based on risk which they assess, and banks would pay premiums to private deposit insurance firms based on that risk. The riskier banks would pay higher premiums, and the banks that lend the optimal amount and make the highest EV decisions would compete favorably with other banks in the long run.

I am of the view that there is nothing inherently wrong with a currency that is not backed by commodity. As I mentioned in the long-winded reply to ong's anti-usury post, money has individually subjective value like everything else in existence. I suspect that in a stateless society each bank would issue it's own bank notes and those notes would have value in trade interactions based on the reputation of those banks. The money supply in a growing economy can and should expand because there is more wealth and capital accumulation. The mechanism of that expansion is what really matters, and when states do it arbitrarily, that is obviously a major problem.

[OngBonga]

I don't know, do I look like a fucking economist?

If you can't, then it shows that capitalism is fundamentally flawed. I mean I was thinking the problem with capitalism was people, rather than the system.

[OngBonga]

A currency should be based on a reserve, such as gold, in order to protect against hyperinflation. If there is x amount of dollars based on x amount of gold, then you get paid y/x for your work and that figure remains fixed. But if the banks can lend you money and charge interest, then they are creating money. x just became a larger number. But if the currency is based on gold, the the value of y/x gold just decreased, because the same amount of reserves are propping up an inflated currency.

Do you people really not see the problem here? Our currencies are based on shit.

[rong]

The currencies are effectively based on future taxes from a growing population.

[OngBonga]

The currencies are effectively based on future taxes from a growing population.

Well this isn't sustainable either.

[OngBonga]

A currency should be based on a nation's reserves, and nothing else.

If it's based on a growing population paying more tax, well you're assuming that growth continues forever. Our population is a little under 70m. How much bigger can it get? We're a relatively small island, with fucking mountains and horrendous weather spread across vast swathes of the north. If we're propping up our currency based on future taxes, we're in even more shit than I realised.

[wufwugy]

A currency should be based on a nation's reserves, and nothing else.

If it's based on a growing population paying more tax, well you're assuming that growth continues forever. Our population is a little under 70m. How much bigger can it get? We're a relatively small island, with fucking mountains and horrendous weather spread across vast swathes of the north. If we're propping up our currency based on future taxes, we're in even more shit than I realised.

You're talking baseless ideas. When we compile the data and apply the economic theories, we see that dumping the gold standard was one of the best moves governments have ever made and that central banks with sophisticated and mobile monetary regimes have been able to avoid economic woes to degrees unprecedented.

There is an argument to be made for a private money system. I agree with it. None of the successful ones would look like your idea of gold backing. Even Bitcoin functions far more like Australia's central bank regime than it does a gold standard

[wufwugy]

Rilla, one of the coolest concepts in economics I think. It pertains to virtually anything outside of economics too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

It's basically the perceived costs of doing something instead of something else.

[a500lbgorilla]

Rilla, one of the coolest concepts in economics I think. It pertains to virtually anything outside of economics too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

It's basically the perceived costs of doing something instead of something else.

This is like double nonsense. Costs are already perceived. They can't be precisely measure. But now you're 'measuring' a perceived perceived thing?

[wufwugy]

This is like double nonsense. Costs are already perceived. They can't be precisely measure. But now you're 'measuring' a perceived perceived thing?

The statement works without the word "perceived" too. I wanted to be clear that costs are perceived

[a500lbgorilla]

Once again, just to re-establish. I'm in a mode of accepting and consuming economic thought.

[a500lbgorilla]

To be slightly less of a douche-bag: As every example is brought to you by the Human Brain. Which I know is not the best observer. What it senses and what it believes are not what is.

[Renton]

To be slightly less of a douche-bag: As every example is brought to you by the Human Brain. Which I know is not the best observer. What it senses and what it believes are not what is.

If you're gonna go epistemological out this bitch, I'm gonna bow out of that part of the discussion, I think. I'm no philosopher.

I think its a pretty big cop-out to use the fact that the economy is interconnected and complex to invalidate well-established economic concepts though, especially those which are observable at the micro-level. I think it's substantially less of a cop out to be skeptical of the claim that micro-economic concepts scale perfectly, but you aren't even giving me and wufwugy that much slack here.

In Cambodia we have tuk-tuks, basically they're these open-air motorbike carriages that are used for transportation. There are tuk-tuks in other countries as well, such as in Thailand or in Vietnam, and they behave quite differently. When I lived in Thailand, there were fewer tuk-tuks readily available, and I have much lower leverage in negotiating fares. I essentially had to take the offer I was given because otherwise I would have needed to wait to find another. In Cambodia, on the other hand, the streets are littered with parked tuk-tuks, and you get offered rides even when you don't want them. Naturally, I am much more able to negotiate low prices for rides here than I was in Thailand. This would be an observable case of supply and demand at work. In Thailand there was what an economist would call a seller's market, while in Cambodia it is more of a buyer's market.

Now the more I infer from these examples about the broader economic conditions of these countries, the more I would be guilty of moving into theoryland. But you don't have to go that far into theoryland to infer a lot of really accurate economic data about these two countries just from the observations of prices, supply, and demand of a pair of analogous services or products.

[a500lbgorilla]

I feels yeah. That's why I think it's a good choice for me to move into a consumption mode. Just let Sowell and whoever else roll over me and see what dreams may come. I'd be a fool to think you don't have some understanding to offer me.

I haven't perfected the technique yet.

[a500lbgorilla]

Still though, top thread.

[eberetta1]

I prefer option one. I cannot trust option 2 to work.

[wufwugy]

I prefer option one. I cannot trust option 2 to work.

Are you saying you trust everybody you don't know more than you trust yourself, your friends, your family, your acquaintances, and your community?

Option 1 means the decision-makers for people are greatly dispersed onto others. So things that are legal or illegal for you are created almost entirely by people who don't know you and so separate from you that they almost couldn't care less. Option 2 means that the closer things are to you, the more power they hold in your life. Option 1 means much power is held over you from afar

I think people put way too much faith into the power of their bi-yearly vote.

[CoccoBill]

Are you saying you trust everybody you don't know more than you trust yourself, your friends, your family, your acquaintances, and your community?

I call red herring.

I think most people wouldn't trust a police force they employ through craigslist. When the unknown police force adheres to a strict code of conduct set by people the person voted for, are held responsible and if needed punished for their actions, and the system has been shown to work over a few centuries, they might answer differently. Add "in theory" or "most of the time" tags where suitable, but that's the basic gist of it.

And before you start showing examples of the failings of the US police forces, that's just one example from many. There are plenty of examples that they can and do operate smoothly.

[wufwugy]

I call red herring.

I think most people wouldn't trust a police force they employ through craigslist. When the unknown police force adheres to a strict code of conduct set by people the person voted for, are held responsible and if needed punished for their actions, and the system has been shown to work over a few centuries, they might answer differently. Add "in theory" or "most of the time" tags where suitable, but that's the basic gist of it.

And before you start showing examples of the failings of the US police forces, that's just one example from many. There are plenty of examples that they can and do operate smoothly.

im not sure what youre getting at. people dont pick insurance companies over craigslist. private security and arbitration is basically insurance

police hasnt been proven to work. if anything, it has been "proven" to not work since crime is associated more with the intervention of the monopoly on violence

[CoccoBill]

im not sure what youre getting at. people dont pick insurance companies over craigslist. private security and arbitration is basically insurance

police hasnt been proven to work. if anything, it has been "proven" to not work since crime is associated more with the intervention of the monopoly on violence

Exactly, why don't people pick insurance companies over craigslist? Is it perhaps because you can't trust them to operate according to a code of conduct and no one is overseeing their operations?

1. A member of the community is robbed because he doesn't have the physical nor economical means to protect himself.
2. People around him decide they'll join together to protect the weak members, since they realize the same could happen to them or someone they care about.
3. ...
4. Police force

There's plenty of studies showing increasing police presence in an area decreases crime. There's nothing inherently different between safety provided by a police force or an angry local mob, apart from the police force being more organized, reliable and following a set of rules.

[Renton]

http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...12#post2223412

one of my most epic posts about capitalism

[a500lbgorilla]

Also makes me wonder about wood->animals->coal->oil for wealth creation. Oil is pretty special for its abundance and easy release energy density. Damn 7th grade unit on the Industrial Revolution is failing me now.

[Renton]

If the emerging world economy was an 8 bit era arcade game, oil is like one of those powerups that wipes the screen and gives you like 100k points head start over your buddy.

[Jack Sawyer]

Would you rather

(1) Live in a society where it is illegal for a man to beat his children

(2) Live in a society where it is not illegal for a man to beat his children but also not illegal for you to put a bullet in his brain?

What I'm getting at: does society function better when the role of the individual and the community is to defer to protectors determined by the law, or does society function better when the role of the individual and the community is to take responsibility for itself?

I think it is obvious where I stand, and I would very much like to know where you guys stand and the rationale why. This is an extremely hard question to answer, where any answer is speculation, but it is fundamental to how we organize ourselves


edit: it should be noted that in option two I'm not claiming the response to a man beating his children is to kill him. I'm suggesting the course of action taken against him is what those around him deem fitting

Alright, to get this straight:

in #1, if you beat your child you go to jail

In #2, if you berat your child, you will not go to jail, but people around you will kill you

Is this correct? Or did you mean:

In #2, the method to discipline your child is to put a pullet in his brain, therefore your child will be super behaved because there is the impending threat of death;

Or

In #2, you don't have to beat up your child, because society will kill him if it grows up behaving badly

If you mean that because others will kill you therefore you cannot beat your children, because it is legal to kill people for any reason, many more shit than beating your children will become problematic there. If you mean it's legal to kill people only when they beat children then the amount of plants that will be involved will be amazing.



But at this point I'm not really sure what you mean.Please clarify

[wufwugy]

Alright, to get this straight:

in #1, if you beat your child you go to jail

In #2, if you berat your child, you will not go to jail, but people around you will kill you

Is this correct? Or did you mean:

In #2, the method to discipline your child is to put a pullet in his brain, therefore your child will be super behaved because there is the impending threat of death;

Or

In #2, you don't have to beat up your child, because society will kill him if it grows up behaving badly

If you mean that because others will kill you therefore you cannot beat your children, because it is legal to kill people for any reason, many more shit than beating your children will become problematic there. If you mean it's legal to kill people only when they beat children then the amount of plants that will be involved will be amazing.



But at this point I'm not really sure what you mean.Please clarify

I tried clarifying with the edit

Basically the difference is this:

(1) If your neighbor beats his kid, the only legal recourse anybody has is getting law enforcement involved.

(2) If your neighbor beats his kid, the legal recourse is whatever those around him choose.


It's sorta like this: let's say you and your gf get in an argument. Would you rather (1) the argument is resolved by the government or (2) the argument is resolved by you, your gf, and/or those around you or close to the situation? The obvious answer is 2; everybody will pick that. The example in the OP is not inherently different unless you think that there is something unique about violence that people cannot resolve violent conflicts like they do anything else, and instead they need an outsider with total control to do it.

[rong]

The argument being resolved by those around you? I mean, really, this is just stupid. People can not be trusted to either act rationally or even figure out the optimal decision. People are fucking dumb. In many examples of the above a bunch of dumb people will be deciding things and there would be no possible way to enforce change or even attempt to nudge your mini society in the direction of it.

You could basically argue that every society started off as number 2. Before there were rules and enforcement of rules. Look how many of them turned out. A few ended up with some form of democracy which typically reaches ideas like human rights and relative freedom. Some end up with dictators and hell for the population.

Given the choice, I'd take number 1 every time, because if I take number 2 I'm just hoping it tends towards number 1 eventually.

[wufwugy]

The argument being resolved by those around you? I mean, really, this is just stupid. People can not be trusted to either act rationally or even figure out the optimal decision. People are fucking dumb. In many examples of the above a bunch of dumb people will be deciding things and there would be no possible way to enforce change or even attempt to nudge your mini society in the direction of it.

Your argument is that it is better to have people who do not know you or don't care make decisions that affect you than people who do know you and do care. Even if we agree that people are dumb, and that there are many dumb people close to you, you are still arguing that it is better for people who live across the country, who you have never met and never will meet, have just as much say as you have on certain issues that affect you yet do not affect him

The difference between 1 and 2 is not whether we will give power to some people, it's about which people. Option 1 disperses the power and makes policy and "justice" as unaffected by your desires as possible. Option 2 brings it a little closer to home and gives you and people who know you and care about you have more say than Option 1

You could basically argue that every society started off as number 2. Before there were rules and enforcement of rules. Look how many of them turned out. A few ended up with some form of democracy which typically reaches ideas like human rights and relative freedom. Some end up with dictators and hell for the population.

Given the choice, I'd take number 1 every time, because if I take number 2 I'm just hoping it tends towards number 1 eventually.

This applies to only tribes. States with law for all have been the standard in all societies that are not tiny tribes. It is not that we have been Option 2 most of the time and we have improved to Option 1, but that civilization has always been Option 1. Also democracy isn't what it's cracked up to be. There are just as many examples of democracies destroying their societies as there are successful ones. The cause of improvement in societies appears to be less about democracy and more about private ownership of property.

[wufwugy]

I want to be super clear: Option 1 is saying other people are better at knowing what you need than you are. Option 2 is saying you are better at knowing what you need than other people are.

But it's not just that, it's that Option 1 is saying other people who will never know anything about you are better at knowing what you need than those who know lots about you and are close to you


When we say the government should be the decider over people, say, smoking pot, we are doing nothing different than if we say the government should be the decider over what time people go to bed. Our relegation of authority is the same in both scenarios. You would not relegate the authority for what kind of music you can have on your playlist to politicians determined by all the UK voters, so why do you think it is better to relegate the authority for handling a neighbor who beats his kid to those same voters? If you heard about a guy in Virginia who beat his kid and his neighbors didn't like it, would you say "all the voters of the US should decide what happens here" or would you say "the family, friends, and/or neighbors should handle it"?

[a500lbgorilla]

I want to be super clear: Option 1 is saying other people are better at knowing what you need than you are. Option 2 is saying you are better at knowing what you need than other people are.

But it's not just that, it's that Option 1 is saying other people who will never know anything about you are better at knowing what you need than those who know lots about you and are close to you


When we say the government should be the decider over people, say, smoking pot, we are doing nothing different than if we say the government should be the decider over what time people go to bed. Our relegation of authority is the same in both scenarios. You would not relegate the authority for what kind of music you can have on your playlist to politicians determined by all the UK voters, so why do you think it is better to relegate the authority for handling a neighbor who beats his kid to those same voters? If you heard about a guy in Virginia who beat his kid and his neighbors didn't like it, would you say "all the voters of the US should decide what happens here" or would you say "the family, friends, and/or neighbors should handle it"?

You don't want to say this though. When I hire a contractor to build me a house, I'm saying he knows what I need better than I. He may bring me decisions and ask for my sign off but there are decisions I can not possibly make better than him.

I wish I could find it but there's a scene in House where Dr Foreman basically says to some parents, "It's crazy to think you'll understand what I'm saying and make an informed decision, so here it is: It's dangerous and you should do it."

Also, I remember conservative talk radio and this was a very persuasive point. Yes, gov't sucks a lot but don't lose sight of the fact that it's necessary. It solves a big problem with violence. Gov'ts struggle with violence is still seen today with the Charlie Hebdo nonsense. Some muzzies want to control how other people act and so they use violent force. The whole of France rises up and says, "we prefer our gov't being the violent ones thank you very much!"

And when you've got a gov't taking care of the violence problem, people will start asking it to take care of other problems... like stealing, and building roads, and preventing teen pregnancy because it's well positioned to.

Remember what that one guy said from that one link you once shared: A gov't of the people by the people requires the people to be the boss, and being the boss is a responsibility and people are too lazy for that shit.

And so we get all this shit.