Question about fundamental societal construction

[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.

[wufwugy]

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.

I should add that there isn't a global monopoly, just regional ones. I'm not sure how what you said means you need a monopoly. Are organizations and communities incapable of protecting themselves without mandated revenues?

Is it safe to say that freedom of choice makes regions less violent?

[a500lbgorilla]

I should add that there isn't a global monopoly, just regional ones. I'm not sure how what you said means you need a monopoly. Are organizations and communities incapable of protecting themselves without mandated revenues?

They aren't incapable of it, no. Until the Mongol Hoarde appears on the horizon.

Is it safe to say that freedom of choice makes regions less violent?

Fun choice of words.

The whole point of governments is to establish the fewest number of hegemonic killers. Then letting those under them live their lives in relative order and safety. That's why we fought a war to establish America. Just as England did before us. Just as... pick a country.

You can't have civilization until the brutality is taken off the table. If you leave people the opening, some violent motherfucker is gonna find a way to ride or die - the incentives are too great and the checks so few as to be none but matching them blow for blow.

[wufwugy]

They aren't incapable of it, no. Until the Mongol Hoarde appears on the horizon.



Fun choice of words.

The whole point of governments is to establish the fewest number of hegemonic killers. Then letting those under them live their lives in relative order and safety. That's why we fought a war to establish America. Just as England did before us. Just as... pick a country.

You can't have civilization until the brutality is taken off the table. If you leave people the opening, some violent motherfucker is gonna find a way to ride or die - the incentives are too great and the checks so few as to be none but matching them blow for blow.

I think we are slightly off topic. The point you are arguing is a valid one, but it is not one I want to engage much. The reason is that the view that societies couldn't sustain lack of monopolies hinges upon the view that markets don't work well enough. I would rather make a case for markets working then use that to inform whether or not a market-based society is sustainable

So let's assume Option 2 is a society without government. For whatever reason, let's assume that no new government is taking its place. If you were to say that you would prefer to live in Option 2, I think it would mean that it's because you think markets work better. And then we could work on the question of sustainability




At the risk of being a hypocrite and staying off-topic, I think a stateless society is mega sustainable. I think if the US government auctioned off all of its nukes and other military hardware, it wouldn't open the door for any different violent regimes. I think many different groups, from the Chamber of Commerce to the NRA to Google, would have incredible capital incentives to not only make sure those nukes are purchased by friendlies, but that all nukes, even Russia's, are eliminated.

The fundamental reason why is that markets are interested in money; whereas states are interested in power. Capitalists are interested in cutting deals where everybody wins; states are interested in cutting deals where the other guy loses. Fundamentally I think this is why the US and Russia are never going to come to terms enough to eliminate all nukes. If entities whose lives depend on production and consumption had final say, they would be falling over themselves to get rid of such a risk. I think it is safe to say that it wasn't that long ago that we exited the era where the world was run by states and into the era where capital runs the world. In this era, states are obsolete and a hindrance

Anyways, I don't think I could convince you of that view if you didn't already believe that markets work better and that there isn't an inherent difference between, say, a monopoly on food and a monopoly on violence. Hell, we've already seen how many millions of people starve to death when the state runs its food industry. Why are we not living in a situation where our monopoly on violence isn't causing us just as much harm?

[a500lbgorilla]

So let's assume Option 2 is a society without government. For whatever reason, let's assume that no new government is taking its place. If you were to say that you would prefer to live in Option 2, I think it would mean that it's because you think markets work better. And then we could work on the question of sustainability

That's fine, but with all these assumptions, let's recognize that we're writing fiction and not analyzing reality. Not to say that's a mistake, because big problems require great imagination no matter what.

At the risk of being a hypocrite and staying off-topic, I think a stateless society is mega sustainable. I think if the US government auctioned off all of its nukes and other military hardware, it wouldn't open the door for any different violent regimes. I think many different groups, from the Chamber of Commerce to the NRA to Google, would have incredible capital incentives to not only make sure those nukes are purchased by friendlies, but that all nukes, even Russia's, are eliminated.

I disagree. People will always be people. They were formed in a violent environment and will continue to be crafted for one.

The fundamental reason why is that markets are interested in money; whereas states are interested in power. Capitalists are interested in cutting deals where everybody wins; states are interested in cutting deals where the other guy loses.

And capitalists have always live under states. They're collecting scraps.

Anyways, I don't think I could convince you of that view if you didn't already believe that markets work better and that there isn't an inherent difference between, say, a monopoly on food and a monopoly on violence. Hell, we've already seen how many millions of people starve to death when the state runs its food industry. Why are we not living in a situation where our monopoly on violence isn't causing us just as much harm?

I have deeply enjoyed these challenging discussions (Renton included). It's forced me to tease out why I 'don't like' many aspects of economics. It's helped me accept rather then wrestle with statements like these:

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.

So yes, I accept that competition for my dollar drives competitors to become more appealing to me, the dollar-holder. And from that, I accept that markets are very effective distributors of scarce resources.

Clearly, I have a lot to learn about economic fundamentals. And I think you've got a few things to learn about people. They aren't rational. They will violate a non-aggression pact. They don't always benefit from mutually agreed trades (gamblers agreeing to put a coin into that blinking machine).

I don't have a point. I'm in a consumption mode right now.