Brexit

[wufwugy]

A quote from an alleged criminal defense attorney in reddit thread I'm reading:

In my jurisdiction, if over $25k is seized, no criminal conviction is necessary for the DA to keep the money, which is entirely backwards. We will still have the civil trial, but it's by a lesser standard than a criminal trial (beyond a reasonable doubt vs. clear and convincing evidence). There was a movement to reform the asset forfeiture laws, but the DA's association opposed it and effectively killed the reform, their reasoning being that DA offices and police departments allocate and rely on asset forfeiture for a part of their budgets, which is essentially admitting that they have a cash incentive to rob people.

Hmmmm. Here we have a man of da law claim that a situation in which da law takes more than that which is implied to be fair is robbing people. Yet it's legal. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Have I hmmmmmmmmmmmed enough? Maybe I should hmmmmmmmmmmmmm some more.

[OngBonga]

My issue with this is the people in charge pushing for this want EU laws to not exist so they can basically attempt to repeal peoples human rights and so they can wank over the queen a bit more whilst taking away peoples rights to do things. If they were pushing it through as some libertarian issue I'd be much more on board but they just want the power for themselves not so they can give it to us.

Can you imagine a parliament led by Boris Johnson with a large proportion of UKIP. I dread to think.

Have you noticed that over the last decade or so, companies have started employing people on zero hour contracts? Europe is doing fuck all to protect worker's rights. People are afraid to take a shit break for fear of losing their job.

I couldn't give a monkeys about Boris and UKIP, they can be booted out in 2 years or whatever. If we're gonna have to wait until 2050 until the next EU vote, well it's a really easy decision to be quite honest. We fucked up in the 70's by joining, and anyone who actually voted in that referendum will tell you that it was sold purely as a trade bloc, that there was no hint of political and legal integration. We were lied to then. I know many people who intend to vote out based purely on that lie in the 70's... what are they lying about now? This is our last chance to get out before it's too late.

[OngBonga]

Then why don't you rush in with your queen at the start?

Not because it's uneconomical. I will be not be poorer if I throw my queen away, my opponent will not be wealthier. Well, not unless we're playing for money, which then brings ecnomics into the picture.

There is no production, consumption or transfer of wealth in chess. If you want to say the chess rating is economics, then that's better. But even then it's a bit thin because there's no consumption... one does not "spend" rating points, it is merely a comparison of ability, and even then a bad one (see the game savy linked as an example).

Saying everything is economics is as daft as saying everything is politics. Me having a shit is neither economics nor politics.

[OngBonga]

If governments paid for everybody's food, nobody would voluntarily pay for food, but that doesn't mean that people need governments to pay for food. If governments paid for food long enough, lots of people would probably think that they need governments to do so in order to survive.

But food is an essential need. Military is not. People will pay for food if it is not given to them, because they know they have to. Who is going to voluntarily pay for the military?

I get that bin collections can be done by private companies, and anyone who wants their bin emptied will have to pay. But I can't see people being happy to pay a direct charge for the military. If it's an enforced payment, it's tax, and if it's not enforced, noone will fucking pay it and we won't have a military. Instead we'll have a bunch of muppets with guns who think they're a military.

I asked who pays for the military for a reason. It's probably the best example of something that people will not pay for in an economy without tax.

[spoonitnow]

A quote from an alleged criminal defense attorney in reddit thread I'm reading:



Hmmmm. Here we have a man of da law claim that a situation in which da law takes more than that which is implied to be fair is robbing people. Yet it's legal. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Have I hmmmmmmmmmmmed enough? Maybe I should hmmmmmmmmmmmmm some more.

some people are just never going to get it

[OngBonga]

A quote from an alleged criminal defense attorney in reddit thread I'm reading:



Hmmmm. Here we have a man of da law claim that a situation in which da law takes more than that which is implied to be fair is robbing people. Yet it's legal. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Have I hmmmmmmmmmmmed enough? Maybe I should hmmmmmmmmmmmmm some more.

Are you really pretending that you don't know the difference between what you describe here and tax, in order to prove a point that has been refuted several times already?

[OngBonga]

I asked who pays for the military for a reason. It's probably the best example of something that people will not pay for in an economy without tax.

To add to this... let's assume wuf waves his magic wand and suddenly we live in a world without tax. Everything that tax used to pay for becomes privatised, and citizens have to pay to have their bins emptied, or to call the fire brigade. Well, the military became privatised too, because tax isn't paying for it. So how does the military operate when it has no funding from government? It will need to find a proftable way to operate. Yeah, that sounds pretty tasty to me. A military that needs to find money somehow.

Tax would be replaced by extortion. And you'd still have to pay to get your bins emptied.

[wufwugy]

Not because it's uneconomical. I will be not be poorer if I throw my queen away, my opponent will not be wealthier. Well, not unless we're playing for money, which then brings ecnomics into the picture.

There is no production, consumption or transfer of wealth in chess. If you want to say the chess rating is economics, then that's better. But even then it's a bit thin because there's no consumption... one does not "spend" rating points, it is merely a comparison of ability, and even then a bad one (see the game savy linked as an example).

Saying everything is economics is as daft as saying everything is politics. Me having a shit is neither economics nor politics.

Economics is not about money. Read a principles of microeconomics textbook and you will learn very little about money. Instead you'll learn value assessment. ECON 101 is basically a life philosophy class.

You don't rush out with your queen because of cost-benefit analysis. This analysis includes opportunity cost and marginalism and dominant strategy and a host of other things. It's all economics. A common meme among economics instructors is the idea that economics teaches you a way of thinking in the realm of decision making.

[wufwugy]

But food is an essential need. Military is not. People will pay for food if it is not given to them, because they know they have to. Who is going to voluntarily pay for the military?

I get that bin collections can be done by private companies, and anyone who wants their bin emptied will have to pay. But I can't see people being happy to pay a direct charge for the military. If it's an enforced payment, it's tax, and if it's not enforced, noone will fucking pay it and we won't have a military. Instead we'll have a bunch of muppets with guns who think they're a military.

I asked who pays for the military for a reason. It's probably the best example of something that people will not pay for in an economy without tax.

Security is equally essential as food.

How can it be the case that millions of people willingly pay billions annually for catastrophe insurance or tithes or to activism, yet they couldn't do the same for security?

[wufwugy]

Are you really pretending that you don't know the difference between what you describe here and tax, in order to prove a point that has been refuted several times already?

What's the difference?

[wufwugy]

To add to this... let's assume wuf waves his magic wand and suddenly we live in a world without tax. Everything that tax used to pay for becomes privatised, and citizens have to pay to have their bins emptied, or to call the fire brigade. Well, the military became privatised too, because tax isn't paying for it. So how does the military operate when it has no funding from government? It will need to find a proftable way to operate. Yeah, that sounds pretty tasty to me. A military that needs to find money somehow.

Tax would be replaced by extortion. And you'd still have to pay to get your bins emptied.

Fantastic news! That means the companies would have to compete to please the customer.


To understand this more deeply, note that governments have their power from legitimacy. It is not strictly because of their use of force, but because the people legitimize them. I'm not making this up; it's one of the first taught principles in polisci. This means that it is not reasonable to extrapolate the behavior of a non-legitimized force company. If security was put entirely on the markets overnight and they needed to find a way to profit, they couldn't just band together and force people to give them enough money because that behavior would bankrupt them.

If a government shows up to your door, looking to take you to prison, it doesn't matter how costly you make it for them, because their revenue stream is mandated and that mandate is legitimized by the society at large. They can hardly lose. Your home could be a fortress and you could cause millions in damage to them, yet it would negatively affect their balance sheet in no way. But when there is no legitimized force entity, these costs matter and if they ignored them they would lose. These private companies you think would become extortionists would simply not. This model has played out pretty much billions of times before.

Security is not unique. The same principles apply to all other goods and services.

[OngBonga]

Economics is not about money. Read a principles of microeconomics textbook and you will learn very little about money. Instead you'll learn value assessment. ECON 101 is basically a life philosophy class.

You don't rush out with your queen because of cost-benefit analysis. This analysis includes opportunity cost and marginalism and dominant strategy and a host of other things. It's all economics. A common meme among economics instructors is the idea that economics teaches you a way of thinking in the realm of decision making.

I might rush out with my queen in the opening. It depends on what my opponent does.

Economics is "the social science that describes the factors that determine the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services". That's literally copy/pasta'd from google.

Tell me where the consumption of goods and/or services applies to chess.

You can say it has similarities to economics, because it does, but to say it is economics... well that's like saying tax is theft. It's ignorant to definition.

Economics is not about money.

Economics is about wealth, and the transfer of. Money is a common measure (though of course not the only one) of wealth. When money is involved, then it's economics. When something else of real value is involved, it's economics. Does a queen have real value? No, it has a perceived value relative to its purpose, which is only useful in helping to assess who is currently winning a game of chess. You can't trade your queen for bread, not unless it's a really nice chess piece made of ivory. And even then it's the ivory that has the value, not the queen.

The real value of the queen itself is zero, exactly the same as the pawn.

Security is equally essential as food.

This is obviously not true. I might or might not survive without security. I definitely will not survive without food.

Besides, military is not what provides security. Law enforcement is what does that. There's another thing that many people will be reluctant to pay for in a world without tax. How can it be fair if some people pay and some don't? Is it the case where only those who pay for policing are allowed access to protection from criminals?

Some people probably will pay into the military if it were privatised, but not nearly enough to make it economically viable. The military can only exist where there is either tax or extortion. Otherwise soldiers don't get paid, and they go get a job as a fork lift truck driver instead.

How can it be the case that millions of people willingly pay billions annually for catastrophe insurance or tithes or to activism, yet they couldn't do the same for security?

You're missing a very important point here.

I don't have insurance. Well, I might be covered on my landlord's insurance, but let's say I'm not. If my house burns down, I lose everything.

If I'm insured, all is good. If I'm not, boo fucking hoo.

How does this apply to the "security" of military? If I say fuck off I'm not paying for that, do they allow the Germans to invade my house but not my neighbour's? How can they protect people who pay, while ignoring those who don't?

What's the difference?

One is a payment that is (supposedly) fairly applied to all, while the other is not. One is tax and the other is extortion. You do know the difference between tax and extortion, don't you?

Fantastic news! That means the companies would have to compete to please the customer.

Tell me how an unfunded military, with no national competition I might add, will fund itself in a "fantastic" way.

[wufwugy]

Economics is "the social science that describes the factors that determine the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services". That's literally copy/pasta'd from google.

Economics branches into two: micro and macro. From micro wiki: "studies the behavior of individuals and firms in making decisions regarding the allocation of limited resources." Allocating limited resources is exactly what you do when you play chess.

Economics is about wealth, and the transfer of. Money is a common measure (though of course not the only one) of wealth. When money is involved, then it's economics.

Economics is not only when money is involved. Every economist I know of makes this claim.

When something else of real value is involved, it's economics. Does a queen have real value? No, it has a perceived value relative to its purpose, which is only useful in helping to assess who is currently winning a game of chess.

There is no real value. All value is perceived. In a monetary market economy, "real" does not mean "true," but "perceived non-inflation value." The "real value" of gold can be zero.

You can't trade your queen for bread, not unless it's a really nice chess piece made of ivory. And even then it's the ivory that has the value, not the queen.

You're crossing two different economies: the economy of your chess game and the monetary market economy.

This is obviously not true. I might or might not survive without security. I definitely will not survive without food.

You wouldn't survive without security.

Besides, military is not what provides security. Law enforcement is what does that.

These are two different levels of security.

There's another thing that many people will be reluctant to pay for in a world without tax. How can it be fair if some people pay and some don't? Is it the case where only those who pay for policing are allowed access to protection from criminals?

So you don't think it's fair that only those who pay for food have access to it?

The funny thing is that security is probably naturally easier to acquire than food. The most basic level of food requires far more capital than the most basic level of security.

Some people probably will pay into the military if it were privatised, but not nearly enough to make it economically viable.

Is this claim not specious in a world where millions voluntarily devote their lives and many billions in overall capital annually to global security? You'd be hard-pressed to find an issue cared more about than security.

You're missing a very important point here.

I don't have insurance. Well, I might be covered on my landlord's insurance, but let's say I'm not. If my house burns down, I lose everything.

If I'm insured, all is good. If I'm not, boo fucking hoo.

How does this apply to the "security" of military? If I say fuck off I'm not paying for that, do they allow the Germans to invade my house but not my neighbour's? How can they protect people who pay, while ignoring those who don't?

You answered your own question when you claimed you're probably covered by landlord's insurance.

In a security free market, one way many people would be covered is by the cost being baked into regional residency.

One is a payment that is (supposedly) fairly applied to all, while the other is not. One is tax and the other is extortion. You do know the difference between tax and extortion, don't you?

Both the forfeiture and tax laws in that scenario apply equally to all.

Tell me how an unfunded military, with no national competition I might add, will fund itself in a "fantastic" way.

Tell me why it's important to denounce the lessons of economics?

[OngBonga]

Economics is not only when money is involved.

I didn't say it was. I said when anything of real value is involved.

There is no real value. All value is perceived. In a monetary market economy, "real" does not mean "true," but "perceived non-inflation value." The "real value" of gold can be zero.

If the real value of gold is zero, then it has zero economic value. Just like the queen.

You're crossing two different economies: the economy of your chess game and the monetary market economy.

The "economy" of my chess game is pseudoeconomics. There is no production, no distribution of wealth. That's what economics is. The only similarity to my game of chess and the real world of economics is that a chess piece has a perceived value... but that value cannot be transfered. Thus, it's value is "perceived", while money has "real" value in that it is fiat currency... it has real value because other people are willing to accept is as payment. Can I send you a "worthless" wooden queen through the post in exchange for ten bucks? It's exactly as worthless as the ten bucks, according to your economics, because both have the same "real value" - zero.

You wouldn't survive without security.

I could suvive without military protection, which is the context I was thinking of when discussing "security".

These are two different levels of security.

There are many more than two.

So you don't think it's fair that only those who pay for food have access to it?

Now I didn't say that. You're missing the point, once again. If there are people who don't pay into the privatised police, then they are not entitled to protection from criminals, right? So, the world just got better for criminals. This is the consequence of a privatised police force, which happens when tax is taken out of the picture. Society is negatively impacted upon.

Is this claim not specious in a world where millions voluntarily devote their lives and many billions in overall capital annually to global security? You'd be hard-pressed to find an issue cared more about than security.

Are you assuming that EVERYONE will willingly pay into the military? Here's news for you... I wouldn't. So what's the military going to do about that? How is it fair that I continue to be protected by them when I don't pay?

You answered your own question when you claimed you're probably covered by landlord's insurance.

Bollocks. I might not be insured. I literally do not know and it doesn't matter. If I'm not, that's my own tough luck, I won't get a payout if I lose all my stuff. How does this apply to the military? You've totally dismissed my point here with absolute crap.

Both the forfeiture and tax laws in that scenario apply equally to all.

Nope. Is there a requirement that anyone with $25k sat around has to hand it in to the police? No. So the only people at risk are those who get investigated by police... therefore, in order for it to be fairly applied to all, one is totally reliant on the impartial nature of the police.

Tell me why it's important to denounce the lessons of economics?

YOUR lessons of economics. I denounce these lessons because they are utter crap.

[wufwugy]

YOUR lessons of economics. I denounce these lessons because they are utter crap.

I'm an econ undergrad who tries to unpack stuff I learn in school and from the writings/lectures of famous economists. I do this because I love the subject, I don't mind hanging around this place, and I consider economics the most important subject not widely taught.

I didn't say it was. I said when anything of real value is involved.

If the real value of gold is zero, then it has zero economic value. Just like the queen.

There is no "real" value. All value is perceived.

The "economy" of my chess game is pseudoeconomics. There is no production, no distribution of wealth.

Did you miss my post on microeconomics?

Economists and intro economics textbooks teach that economics applies to things like chess.

I could suvive without military protection, which is the context I was thinking of when discussing "security".

No you couldn't.

Now I didn't say that. You're missing the point, once again.

You said this: "How can it be fair if some people pay and some don't?"

What you are implying is unfair is already applied to food. Why is this fair when applied to food but not security?

If there are people who don't pay into the privatised police, then they are not entitled to protection from criminals, right?

You're entitled to what your resources produce.

Today, the vast majority of security comes by personal agency, not government nor private security forces. Food is probably a more difficult market to engage in since the capital requirements are probably higher. For example, growing your own food to sustain your life is much harder than protecting your house from thugs. The former requires a tremendous amount of time and land and skill. The latter, well, usually requires a gun, dogs, and the bodies of those who reside there. It is easier to make the case for how a security free market can work than a food one, and yet we have a food one and it works phenomenally.

Are you assuming that EVERYONE will willingly pay into the military? Here's news for you... I wouldn't. So what's the military going to do about that? How is it fair that I continue to be protected by them when I don't pay?

You don't pay taxes and the military protects you.

Nope. Is there a requirement that anyone with $25k sat around has to hand it in to the police? No. So the only people at risk are those who get investigated by police... therefore, in order for it to be fairly applied to all, one is totally reliant on the impartial nature of the police.

The law applies equally to all.

[OngBonga]

The law applies equally to all.

If we were talking about them taking money off people who were found guilty of a crime, then yes this would be true. But when innocent people can still have money confiscated, then law is not being applied equally to all. Some people will have a higher chance of being (wrongly) investigated than others... especially given that the police have a vested interest in actually finding large amounts of money. Those who are more likely to have lots of legitimate money lying around the house would be more likely to be investigated. That isn't law applying equally to all.

I would not have faith in the police to act properly where they can confiscate money without being able to prove it's the proceeds of crime. Anyone who does is extremely naive.

No you couldn't.

How come everyone in Liechtenstein isn't dead then? This is a tiny country (61 square miles) in the middle of Europe. They have police and SWAT, but no military. Their constitution does allow for an army in times of war, but this has never happened. Yes, that's right, a nation the size of a city with no military that borders both France and Germany managed to stay neutral in two world wars. But you insist I couldn't survive if not for the protection that the British military offer me.

No nation is going to invade Britain, whether we have a military or not. How would that be in the interest of the invading nation? We have very few resources compared to larger nations, and the population would not accept the invaders, resulting in guerilla warfare. There's just no point. It would be an economic and humanitarian disaster for both nations

Militaries are not for the protection of the population, they are for advancing national economic and political interests around the world.

Did you miss my post on microeconomics?

When I read "microeconomics", I think "pseudoeconomics". The economics of chess applies only to chess. Therefore, it's not real economics. There is no production, no distribution of wealth. There is only an attempt to assign value to pieces in an effort to strategise more effectively. Is there an economic lesson to be learned there? Sure. But it's pseudoeconomics because there is no transfer of wealth.

What you are implying is unfair is already applied to food. Why is this fair when applied to food but not security?

But I can be deprived of food. I cannot be completely deprived of military protection. This is the difference I'm trying to point out. It's got nothing to do with what I think is unfair, and everything to do with the practical application of a military only for those who pay their share.

This is why a military cannot operate without some form of enforced payment from all. Either everyone pays their bit, or none do.

You don't pay taxes and the military protects you.

Of course I pay tax. Just because I happen to receive more off the government than I pay in tax, doesn't mean I'm free of the tax burden. My income is still deducted tax, I still pay VAT on anything I consume, I pay yet more tax on baccy and alcohol.

And I have worked in the past, it's only really the last five years or so I've abandoned the idea of working, so there is a very good chance that I'm still a net contributer to the public purse.

But this is besides the point. The tax system is (supposedly) applied equally to all... I know that if I work, I have to pay tax, and the more I earn, the more tax I pay. If I earn £100k a year, I pay the same tax as someone else who earns £100k. And (nearly) everyone is entitled to claim the benefits I claim if they are not working.

So while I might not currently be a net contributer, society assumes that I will be over my lifespan, and protects me.

It's certainly a better system that expecting those who want a military to pay for it, while allowing those who don't to benefit from its existence regardless (assuming there is a benefit, which I'm unconvinced of).

There is no "real" value. All value is perceived.

You're simply being flippant here. The "perceived" value of a chess piece is obviously a very different concept to the "perceived" value of a ten dollar bill. One has no actual value in the real world, while the other does. That is what I mean by "real" value.

The value of a ten dollar bill is very much real, at least at this moment in time.

[wufwugy]

If we were talking about them taking money off people who were found guilty of a crime, then yes this would be true. But when innocent people can still have money confiscated, then law is not being applied equally to all. Some people will have a higher chance of being (wrongly) investigated than others... especially given that the police have a vested interest in actually finding large amounts of money. Those who are more likely to have lots of legitimate money lying around the house would be more likely to be investigated. That isn't law applying equally to all.

I would not have faith in the police to act properly where they can confiscate money without being able to prove it's the proceeds of crime. Anyone who does is extremely naive.

This is how the law works across the board.

How come everyone in Liechtenstein isn't dead then? This is a tiny country (61 square miles) in the middle of Europe. They have police and SWAT, but no military. Their constitution does allow for an army in times of war, but this has never happened. Yes, that's right, a nation the size of a city with no military that borders both France and Germany managed to stay neutral in two world wars. But you insist I couldn't survive if not for the protection that the British military offer me.

The city is defended by military. In Euro wars it was militaries from both sides, and now it is mostly the US military.

No nation is going to invade Britain, whether we have a military or not. How would that be in the interest of the invading nation? We have very few resources compared to larger nations, and the population would not accept the invaders, resulting in guerilla warfare. There's just no point. It would be an economic and humanitarian disaster for both nations

Britain has tons of resources.

With the bold, do you find it strange that you argue against private security by using private security?

Militaries are not for the protection of the population, they are for advancing national economic and political interests around the world.

They're both.

When I read "microeconomics", I think "pseudoeconomics". The economics of chess applies only to chess. Therefore, it's not real economics. There is no production, no distribution of wealth. There is only an attempt to assign value to pieces in an effort to strategise more effectively. Is there an economic lesson to be learned there? Sure. But it's pseudoeconomics because there is no transfer of wealth.

The bold is economics in what you're calling "real."

Do you find it a problem that you are arguing a position that all economists call wrong?

But I can be deprived of food. I cannot be completely deprived of military protection.

You can.

This is the difference I'm trying to point out. It's got nothing to do with what I think is unfair, and everything to do with the practical application of a military only for those who pay their share.

Why is this practical application relevant for security and not food?

This is why a military cannot operate without some form of enforced payment from all. Either everyone pays their bit, or none do.

Just like clothes and houses, right?

You're equating "payment" with "payment for only this." The world we live in is one where everybody pays for things like clothes, food, and security (except for those who are net subsidized). It's just that the former two are mostly done so in a free market and the latter is done so in a mostly monopoly market. Since it is fact that markets provide more positive results when free than when monopoly, why do you prefer monopoly over free?

You're simply being flippant here. The "perceived" value of a chess piece is obviously a very different concept to the "perceived" value of a ten dollar bill. One has no actual value in the real world, while the other does. That is what I mean by "real" value.

The value of a ten dollar bill is very much real, at least at this moment in time.

Your chess piece has >0 value in the monetary market economy.

A price tag is only a useful way to measure value. One of the very first concepts taught in economics curriculum is that value does not require a price tag. For example, if in this moment in time, I value taking a sip of coffee more than going to take a piss, I am engaging economics. This is not me making stuff up. I'm pulling directly from the lessons taught in the first week of intro econ.

[Keith]

not sure, only skimmed ong/wuf discussion on non tax funded military. Don't you just have to look at every country where militias control districts instead of national governments to see that the militias are usually pseudo dictatorships taking food, money women etc with the threat of a gun.
seperate dilemma for Ong , what if dutch drug laws were part of eu lawmaking , would you be voting to stay in ?

[OngBonga]

Britain has tons of resources.

Not really. We have depleting oil reserves, some shale gas, a fair amount of mineable metals, loads of limestone, rock salt and clay... these resources can be found in greater abundance in plenty of places around the world that would be much easier to invade than the UK, military or not. We're an island for a start, plus we have high population density, particularly in the south. We're unarmed, although I'd expect that to change if there is no military.

With the bold, do you find it strange that you argue against private security by using private security?

Ah, but there's a difference. One is an organised, paid private security which exists "just in case", while the other is a spontaneous, unpaid and unorganised military that is responding to a crisis.

They're both.

Yeah there's that naivity. When was the last time the USA military protected you as opposed to advancing American interests?

The bold is economics in what you're calling "real."

No it's not. It's what I'd call perceived, because it's only relative to the game in question, and even then two people may disagree as to the value. A queen is apparently worth nine pawns. Well, three pawns can beat a queen in some endgames. So those values only give us a vague idea.

Let me clarify what I mean by "real" and "perceived" value so you can stop making bad assumptions.

Real - has trading value, contributes to an idividual's wealth.
Perceived - no trading value, does not contribute to an individual's wealth.

My queen is worth fuck all, but my ten pound note is not.

Do you find it a problem that you are arguing a position that all economists call wrong?

Not at all. Do you find it a problem that you think all economics agree on any given subject matter? Is it a problem that you haven't asked every economist in the world? Is it a problem that you can't tell the difference between perceived and real value?

You can.

Ok, I can. I can't be deprived of military protection if my next door neighbour is protected though. The only way I can be deprived of military protection is by living in a nation with no military.

Why is this practical application relevant for security and not food?

I you are stood next to me, buy a sandwich and eat it, do I benefit?

For fuck's sake.

Just like clothes and houses, right?

Right. So Dan next door pays for the military, and I don't. How do you propose the miltary provides for Dan but not me?

If I don't buy a house, then I don't get the benefits of owning a house.

Since it is fact that markets provide more positive results when free than when monopoly, why do you prefer monopoly over free?

Military is not something that can be opened up to competition, because military isn't supposed to be a profitable venture. It's not about providing a service to consumers. It's supposed to be about providing national protection from the next Hitler.

How do you propose the military makes money? What service can it provide to those who pay and deny to those who don't?

Your chess piece has >0 value in the monetary market economy.

No it doesn't. The stuff it's made of might, but what's the difference between a bishop and a queen? Let's assume they are made of the same material and weigh the same... they are precisely equal in value in the monetry market, while differing in value on the board. There's your "real" and "perceived" value. The queen only exists because we call it a queen and assign it a range of moves. The wood it's made from exists whether you give it a name and a purpose, or not.

[wufwugy]

Don't you just have to look at every country where militias control districts instead of national governments to see that the militias are usually pseudo dictatorships taking food, money women etc with the threat of a gun.

This happens in regions that are war torn and that have an extraordinary amount of outside, often dysfunctional, pressure and influences. These regions are in the hangover from colonialism and have been forcibly reorganized in ways that breed dysfunction. They don't have any history of the work ethic or capitalism. Their laws are an absolute mess and squash reform. In an ironic way, even supposedly positive outside influences have sent them backwards, like with how clothing charity demolished indigenous textiles. By itself, that isn't a bad thing, but it's a part of the whole puzzle: in these areas there is greater marginal benefit to use force to control resources than to use voluntary commerce. This is because they have virtually no indigenous business forces and are meekly agrarian at best. Combine this with easy access to high-powered firearms, and you have a disaster.

These regions are like if aliens landed in Britain and gave everybody death rays, divided everybody into groups based on the aliens' arbitrary ideas, and the aliens themselves adhered to different standards. I wouldn't recommend a free market for security in this situation.

If you apply the ideas to relatively peaceful, ordered, civil economies with intense dependence on voluntarism already, it becomes a whole different story. It has gotten to the point where it is more profitable in these places to be peaceful than to be violent. This actually isn't that unlike how Switzerland was protected in the world wars. It's where both sides kept their money. To each side, it was more profitable to leave Switzerland out of it, and so they did. In current day, rich capitalists benefit more by selling their products than they would by violence. This also means that they benefit more by protecting their products than others do by using violence to take their products.

This wouldn't be likely true in every instance, but it would likely be in aggregate, at least in the civilized West. Nobody knows if the West could handle it now, but the idea is baked into economic theory so much so that a large number of economists are more or less anarcho-capitalists.

[wufwugy]

...

You win. I can only take so much of you saying that it doesn't matter the way something works just because you feel like it should be different.

[OngBonga]

You win. I can only take so much of you saying that it doesn't matter the way something works just because you feel like it should be different.

Haha tax equals theft.

[OngBonga]

I you are stood next to me, buy a sandwich and eat it, do I benefit?

Answer that one wuf.

[OngBonga]

Then answer this one...

If you are stood next to me, and buy military protection, do I benefit?

[OngBonga]

Then provide me with an economically viable model for a military to operate where there is no tax income.

[OngBonga]

Then I'll shut up.

[wufwugy]

I applaud your ability to blow off what you don't want to hear.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I can only take so much of you saying that it doesn't matter the way something works just because you feel like it should be different.

lol

SMH



Morpheus meme saying "I know exactly what you mean" doesn't want to play nice and be in this post.

***
Wait, there's another one!

I applaud your ability to blow off what you don't want to hear.

lol

SMH

lol

SMH

[wufwugy]

...

I do my best to substantiate my arguments and to never continue through a line of reasoning without diffusing a direct counterpoint. Please let me know if I ever fail at either one.

[Savy]

Back on topic please.

Anyone know any good end game books/websites/places you can run drills?

[wufwugy]

like, on ur mom?

[Savy]

like, on ur mom?

your mum isn't part of anyone's endgame

[OngBonga]

I applaud your ability to blow off what you can't be arsed to respond to.

fyp

It's not about wanting to hear anything, it's about me arguing with you about something I don't give a flying fuck about, but you do.

I'm not an economics student, I'm pretty much talking out of my arse. That said, I still feel like I won this one, because you don't seem to understand that real value and perceived value are different things, which results is real economics on the one hand, and pseudo economics on the other. The economics of chess is completely perceived. The economics of gold is totally real. It's astonishing that an economics student attempts to blur the lines here to prove his point that "everything is economics".

I applaud your persitence. I'd have given up long ago, knowing that you can never beat me in an argument even when you're right, because I win just by arguing.

[OngBonga]

your mum isn't part of anyone's endgame

I'm thinking about Bottom, something like "I'd get my bishop out and give her a good chessing".

[wufwugy]

I'm not an economics student, I'm pretty much talking out of my arse. That said, I still feel like I won this one, because you don't seem to understand that real value and perceived value are different things, which results is real economics on the one hand, and pseudo economics on the other. The economics of chess is completely perceived. The economics of gold is totally real. It's astonishing that an economics student attempts to blur the lines here to prove his point that "everything is economics".

You win because I'm absolutely floored that you can, with a straight face, say that that which is taught in the very first week of economics is somehow not economics.

[OngBonga]

You win because I'm absolutely floored that you can, with a straight face, say that that which is taught in the very first week of economics is somehow not economics.

Yeah well maybe you'll learn in your last week of economics that they're talking more shite than stoners who are talking out their arse.

What is economics, wuf?

[wufwugy]

What is economics, wuf?

The study of the production and consumption of goods and services is the study of the allocation of limited resources.

[OngBonga]

The study of the production and consumption of goods and services is the study of the allocation of limited resources.

The "allocation of limited resources" is just a way of saying "to distribute wealth" but in a manner that might apply to chess. Only it doesn't apply to chess, because the "allocation of limited resources" in chess applies to you and you only, in the game in question only. It's not like there's fewer queens in the world than there are chess players, and the "allocation of limited resources" applies to the distribution of the queens. The queen is not a limited resource... except in the game in question of course. That's why it's pseudo economics... it isn't relevant to the real world, only the world in which the game of chess is happening. If you "allocate your limited resources" poorly in a game of chess, you can start another game with a full set of pieces. So how limited if the resource? It isn't limited because it isn't a real resource. Thus, the economics of chess is pseudo economics.

[OngBonga]

Thanks for indulging me wuf.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I do my best to substantiate my arguments and to never continue through a line of reasoning without diffusing a direct counterpoint. Please let me know if I ever fail at either one.

You're quite good at the substantiating bit. The other part is maybe best something you do on your own time. When you're pondering these topics alone, then you have to provide your own counterpoints. When you've entered into a conversation with another person, I think you'd be better served by focusing on the nuanced ways in which their response is not the direct counterpoint you were expecting.

Or maybe, ask them if they think your counterpoint is adequate and engage them in that way.

Try to convey a sense that you're as interested in their views as you want them to be in your views.


Just my 2 cents. From one accidental lecturer to another.

[wufwugy]

The "allocation of limited resources" is just a way of saying "to distribute wealth" but in a manner that might apply to chess. Only it doesn't apply to chess, because the "allocation of limited resources" in chess applies to you and you only, in the game in question only. It's not like there's fewer queens in the world than there are chess players, and the "allocation of limited resources" applies to the distribution of the queens. The queen is not a limited resource... except in the game in question of course. That's why it's pseudo economics... it isn't relevant to the real world, only the world in which the game of chess is happening. If you "allocate your limited resources" poorly in a game of chess, you can start another game with a full set of pieces. So how limited if the resource? It isn't limited because it isn't a real resource. Thus, the economics of chess is pseudo economics.

The fundamental rules that economists use to model the real world are the ones derived from games like chess.

[wufwugy]

Or maybe, ask them if they think your counterpoint is adequate and engage them in that way.

I can do that. It would be a seriously effective tool, actually.

[OngBonga]

The fundamental rules that economists use to model the real world are the ones derived from games like chess.

Bollocks. You're trying to apply real world economics to a game.

There is no consumption of goods and/or services, no distribution of wealth. There is merely assigning values and attempting to use those values to maximise one's chances of success. That alone is not economics, and to anyone who insists it is, well have fun spending your money on useless crap before resigning and starting again.

[wufwugy]

Bollocks. You're trying to apply real world economics to a game.

There is no consumption of goods and/or services, no distribution of wealth. There is merely assigning values and attempting to use those values to maximise one's chances of success. That alone is not economics, and to anyone who insists it is, well have fun spending your money on useless crap before resigning and starting again.

That is economics.

Every transaction is a value assessment. Macroeconomics is the study of how this stuff works on the huge scale. Microeconomics is the study of how this stuff works on a small scale.

[wufwugy]

Thanks for indulging me wuf.

I think you, along with most people on this forum, are smarter than I am. My comparative advantage is thoughtfulness. I don't mean in that I'm nice to people (like I'm being thoughtful of their feelings) but that when I care about an abstract subject, I think upon it a bitchload, and thus can present it rhetorically as if I'm not a total retard.

[wufwugy]

Or maybe, ask them if they think your counterpoint is adequate and engage them in that way.

seriously you should not have told me this. im gonna fucking abuse it. it's an absolutely brilliant way to find points of agreement instead of just having two foes swinging from their heels.

yall are fuckin doomed as i'll getcha to agree with me using this supreme rhetorical tactic

[JKDS]

Idk enough about economics to say if it is or isnt everything. I agree that game theory applies to both.

Ong's point about benefiting from a military he chooses not to pay for is a solid one though. As far as I can tell, Libertarians dont have a good answer for this. Its not just military either, but all things which might benefit a community at large. We all might agree that having a military to protect our town is good, but how will you force me to contribute when I'd rather just ride everyone's coattails? If the answer is "pay for the military protection, or leave the community", it sounds a lot like a tax.

[MadMojoMonkey]

yall are fuckin doomed as i'll getcha to agree with me using this supreme rhetorical tactic

I can't speak for everyone, but I can't think of a single time someone tricked me into agreeing with them and I actually walked away agreeing with them.

If you're actually listening to their answers and trying to learn with them, then I'm sure it will be a massive improvement on the doomage.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Idk enough about economics to say if it is or isnt everything.

I know enough about physics to say that physics is every thing, but not everything.

EDIT: If economics is the study of how and why humans (or, more broadly, minds) make choices, then it's about a lot of things, for sure.

[JKDS]

I can't speak for everyone, but I can't think of a single time someone tricked me into agreeing with them and I actually walked away agreeing with them.

Of course you dont, you were tricked!

[wufwugy]

If the answer is "pay for the military protection, or leave the community", it sounds a lot like a tax.

Excellent point. The distinguishing element is that when the will of the community is funded by mandate, the overall results are much different than when the will of the community is funded by choice. When the will of the community is funded by mandate, it doesn't matter how much it costs to kick you out, you will be kicked out and the costs displaced for later. But when the community funds the will to kick you out voluntarily, you only get kicked out when the benefits outweigh the costs. This means that efficiency is the limiting factor, which means that the market will be competitive and, in aggregate, people will be free to make positive marginal choices.

I suspect this did not answer your concern at all, though. So let me know where my explanation fails.

Ong's point about benefiting from a military he chooses not to pay for is a solid one though. As far as I can tell, Libertarians dont have a good answer for this. Its not just military either, but all things which might benefit a community at large. We all might agree that having a military to protect our town is good, but how will you force me to contribute when I'd rather just ride everyone's coattails?

The benefits to community at large is not a problem to free market proponents. Adam Smith first introduced the idea that society benefits from free market behavior.

About the specific scenario, the most probable option is that the military level protection we're discussing would be baked into residence costs. If we take the idea of renting an apartment in a free market of security, the landlord would have a security contract and would pass the costs to the renter. It would be no different than today, where some renters who don't pay directly for utilities because the landlord does while he bakes the costs into the rent itself.

Outside of that, security in a free market would be reorganized. Exactly how? My guess is that people would buy insurance from various companies with various degrees of security. All the insurance companies would likely be contracted into large anti-war companies, and some more proprietary companies would include private security. Really, it would be analogous to how insurance works today.

[wufwugy]

I can't speak for everyone, but I can't think of a single time someone tricked me into agreeing with them and I actually walked away agreeing with them.

If you're actually listening to their answers and trying to learn with them, then I'm sure it will be a massive improvement on the doomage.

DOOM!!


The saying goes: you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Fly, my pretties!

[wufwugy]

I know enough about physics to say that physics is every thing, but not everything.

EDIT: If economics is the study of how and why humans (or, more broadly, minds) make choices, then it's about a lot of things, for sure.

Dude I said "evarthing." That's, like, me, um, saying that, um, you can apply economics to a cuntload of things, but, applying it to, um, every single thing on God's Green might take some 'splainin'.

[wufwugy]

i cant believe oskar hates the word brexit. i kinda like it. i join words all the time. like moron+oskar=moroskar

[MadMojoMonkey]

DOOM!!


The saying goes: you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Fly, my pretties!

Damn if you didn't bring back a childhood memory of the TV show Cheers.


Sam: you catch more flies with honey than vinegar
Woody: You catch even more with fresh cow shit.

(prob a paraphrase, but still funny.)

[MadMojoMonkey]

i cant believe oskar hates the word brexit. i kinda like it. i join words all the time. like moron+oskar=moroskar

got me.

[JKDS]

Excellent point. The distinguishing element is that when the will of the community is funded by mandate, the overall results are much different than when the will of the community is funded by choice. When the will of the community is funded by mandate, it doesn't matter how much it costs to kick you out, you will be kicked out and the costs displaced for later. But when the community funds the will to kick you out voluntarily, you only get kicked out when the benefits outweigh the costs. This means that efficiency is the limiting factor, which means that the market will be competitive and, in aggregate, people will be free to make positive marginal choices.

I suspect this did not answer your concern at all, though. So let me know where my explanation fails.

Are you suggesting that the source of funding determines whether a cost/benefit analysis is used?

The benefits to community at large is not a problem to free market proponents. Adam Smith first introduced the idea that society benefits from free market behavior.

About the specific scenario, the most probable option is that the military level protection we're discussing would be baked into residence costs. If we take the idea of renting an apartment in a free market of security, the landlord would have a security contract and would pass the costs to the renter. It would be no different than today, where some renters who don't pay directly for utilities because the landlord does while he bakes the costs into the rent itself.

Outside of that, security in a free market would be reorganized. Exactly how? My guess is that people would buy insurance from various companies with various degrees of security. All the insurance companies would likely be contracted into large anti-war companies, and some more proprietary companies would include private security. Really, it would be analogous to how insurance works today.

I'm sure Adam Smith did, but he's dead. Look where his ideas got him!

Back to the quote: Suppose the renters did this, and had security contracts. In exchange, the Military vows to not let a bomber fly over these buildings and bomb them. However, I happen to have a home right next door to one of these renters. The problem is that I never agreed to pay for any security. I'd rather pay for more expensive food then get protection from bombers. Besides, the renter next door has protection! Should a bomber ever go near my house, it would necessarily be going near the renter's as well. He paid for security, so that security will deal with it.

Unless I were literally forced to pay for military, no matter if I actually agreed to pay, I see no reason why I ever would. I'll just live next to this renter, and benefit from his security.

Even with insurance, I'd opt for the insurance company that didnt force me to pay for military protection. Or I'd opt out of insurance all together.

[wufwugy]

I always thought Norm was unique, Cliff was kind of a doofus, and Kirstie Alley didn't show enough skin nor act slutty enough for me to care about her. Whenever I could sneak it in, Unhappily Ever After was my jam.

[wufwugy]

Are you suggesting that the source of funding determines whether a cost/benefit analysis is used?

No. Just that efficiency level is different.

I'm sure Adam Smith did, but he's dead. Look where his ideas got him!

I lol'd. We're alive and he's not. Sucker!

Back to the quote: Suppose the renters did this, and had security contracts. In exchange, the Military vows to not let a bomber fly over these buildings and bomb them. However, I happen to have a home right next door to one of these renters. The problem is that I never agreed to pay for any security. I'd rather pay for more expensive food then get protection from bombers. Besides, the renter next door has protection! Should a bomber ever go near my house, it would necessarily be going near the renter's as well. He paid for security, so that security will deal with it.

I love this example, and I think it is something that private companies (and the government) deals with constantly. It's basically an example of something that slips into the margins. The insurance companies couldn't find a way to make them pay and the residents found a way to not pay. The key is that this happens on the margins. This type of thing has a constant arms race which we see in action in industry today.

Unless I were literally forced to pay for military, no matter if I actually agreed to pay, I see no reason why I ever would. I'll just live next to this renter, and benefit from his security.

And the more people who do this, the lower the marginal benefit to you (them) and the higher the marginal benefit to the insurance company to figure out a way to get consumers' money. It's the story of competition and innovation.

Even with insurance, I'd opt for the insurance company that didnt force me to pay for military protection. Or I'd opt out of insurance all together.

If you could then you should. The awesomeness of the free market is that companies don't make money unless the customers thinks they receive greater value from the companies' goods or services. This means that if you live in a free market where a type of insurance is not valued that highly by consumers, it will either disappear or it will improve to the point that it provides enough value for profitable consumption.

[OngBonga]

That is economics.

Right. So the volume control on my hifi is my hifi.

The blood coursing through my body is my body.

The dregs in the bottom of my cup of tea is my cup of tea.

What you've done wuf is define economics for me, and then tell me that anything that doesn't fit that definition is still economics.

Where's the transfer of wealth, the consumption of goods and services, in chess? There isn't any. So are these factors economics? You're saying both yes and no.

[OngBonga]

I know enough about physics to say that physics is every thing, but not everything.

Everything is physics because everything is either physical, or the result of something physical. Even chess. When I'm trying to plan ahead, and using my imagination to move pieces, I'm using physical matter (my brain) to create the thoughts.

I can't think of anything that doesn't fall into the realm of physics.

EDIT: If economics is the study of how and why humans (or, more broadly, minds) make choices, then it's about a lot of things, for sure.

But that isn't what economics is.

[OngBonga]

About the specific scenario, the most probable option is that the military level protection we're discussing would be baked into residence costs.

This is a stealth tax.

[wufwugy]

Ong, I think if you investigated some of the core concepts of economics, like opportunity cost and marginalism for starters, you might get a better understanding of what I'm referring to.

This is a stealth tax.

It's no different than how when you buy weed, the transportation costs are baked into its price. I'll venture a guess and say that you wouldn't call that a stealth tax.

[OngBonga]

It's no different than how when you buy weed, the transportation costs are baked into its price. I'll venture a guess and say that you wouldn't call that a stealth tax.

So you're saying that military protection is a vital element of housing? That one cannot have housing without a military?

Ong, I think if you investigated some of the core concepts of economics, like opportunity cost and marginalism for starters, you might get a better understanding of what I'm referring to.

I don't disagree that chess shares some core concepts with economics. That doesn't make it economics. The Earth has many similarities with Venus. Does that mean the study of Venus is geography? No, because geography is the study of Earth's landscapes and cultures.

While chess shares core concepts with economics, it's also missing some. Thus, it's not economics, it's something close to it.

[OngBonga]

I'd also like to point out that I pay £30 for an eighth of weed, regardless (that's the correct word) of how much distance it has travelled to reach me. Usually it's locally sourced, but maybe it comes from Birmingham, 20+ miles down the road, or perhaps even Holland. I wouldn't even know, I don't discuss this with my dealer because it's not the kind of things dealers should be talking about with their customers.

[wufwugy]

So you're saying that military protection is a vital element of housing? That one cannot have housing without a military?

It was just one guess of one way that it could work. There are many possibilities.

I don't disagree that chess shares some core concepts with economics. That doesn't make it economics. The Earth has many similarities with Venus. Does that mean the study of Venus is geography? No, because geography is the study of Earth's landscapes and cultures.

Venusian geography is geography. The idea that geography is necessarily only regarding Earth is a trivial distinction. Geography historically and typically regards Earth because Earth makes up the vast majority of lands and their features. The distinguishing element of geography is that it studies lands and their features, not that it studies Earth. So when the studying of Earth element is the one that holds you up, you're engaging in what is often derided as just arguing semantics, meaning you're hung up on an unimportant triviality.

While chess shares core concepts with economics, it's also missing some. Thus, it's not economics, it's something close to it.

Economists describe economics in its most fundamental terms as being about making choices with limited resources. This means that when you have limited resources and you are making choices, you're doing economics. If you don't like this, then, well, that's that.

[spoonitnow]

Chess, like virtually every game, sport and contest ever invented, falls under the heading of economics. Every single piece of analysis and evaluation is the distribution and use of limited resources.

[a500lbgorilla]

Games are simply competitive rules-spaces. Set up the rules, dictate how action progresses, and compete.

Any competition with rules falls under Economics?

All of the Olympic games are simply a live-run of Economic theory?

No wonder why Economists argue over everything. They bite off way more than they can chew.

[spoonitnow]

No wonder why Economists argue over everything. They bite off way more than they can chew.

tbh it's not far from the truth

[wufwugy]

Games are simply competitive rules-spaces. Set up the rules, dictate how action progresses, and compete.

Any competition with rules falls under Economics?

All of the Olympic games are simply a live-run of Economic theory?

No wonder why Economists argue over everything. They bite off way more than they can chew.

While in theory, games like American football could be modeled, our ability to do so is so primitive that it's probably best described useless. Instead, what you may see is discussion of football in economic terms, like choosing one play over another due to greater marginal benefit. Basic economic principles have more obvious value when applied to training, like how Green Bay could have a comparative advantage when practicing plays that are more difficult to pull off in bad weather.

[JKDS]

It still seems that the solutions for community based values, like a military, are to force everyone into paying.

[Savy]

It still seems that the solutions for community based values, like a military, are to force everyone into paying.

I don't get why people think that because you aren't paying taxes you get the amazing ability to do whatever you like. There would be places to live with varying degrees of everything and you wouldn't be able to pick and choose everything to your exact wants. The point is you get to make the decisions on what you do. No one is saying you must do something.

[wufwugy]

I don't get why people think that because you aren't paying taxes you get the amazing ability to do whatever you like. There would be places to live with varying degrees of everything and you wouldn't be able to pick and choose everything to your exact wants. The point is you get to make the decisions on what you do. No one is saying you must do something.

A small supporting point: a bunch of neighborhoods in places that my sister and her husband are looking to move to have HOAs. These block things like her husband riding his quad or collecting recyclables openly in his yard. So the'yre not going to move to a place that has an HOA.

[wufwugy]

It still seems that the solutions for community based values, like a military, are to force everyone into paying.

There just ends up being more choice when the market is competitive.

Let's use an analogy with, say, clothing. I have the choice to make my own clothes, but I don't because doing so would be a colossal opportunity cost. I have the choice to buy American made, but I don't because I don't particularly care about that sort of patriotism. I have a choice to buy hipster style clothing, but I don't because I don't like the style. I have a choice to buy online, but I don't because it's too much of a hassle. I have a choice to go cheap and do Target, which is where I get my jeans because they have one style I like and buying them is a swift experience. But their shirts leave me wanting. TJ Maxx is okay, but again their shirts leave me wanting. I tend to take my business to Kohl's for shirts because they're not too expensive, have some reasonable styles, and have enough quality in cut that they don't shrink or wear out easily. Contrast this to if clothing was paid for by taxes and run by the government. I'd have probably none of these choices. The costs would be high, quality low, and variation low.

The difference between these two different paradigms is the former is "monopolistic competition" and the latter is "monopolistic." Monopolistic competition isn't perfect, but when economists like Milton Friedman write books like Free to Choose, they're discussing the reasons why monopolistic competition markets reduce costs, raise innovation, raise quality, and raise variety, which ultimately makes for a vibrant and improving economy while monopolistic ones do not.

[wufwugy]

It still seems that the solutions for community based values, like a military, are to force everyone into paying.

A different response to this: well, sorta.

In a totally free market, everybody would still be subject to law. But when the payments are voluntary, the law would organize differently, in a way that better reflects consumer desires.