Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Milton Friedman on government and private enterprise

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 226 to 300 of 389
  1. #226
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    This is demonstrably false. You may not think it's cost efficient for you to change other aspects of your life to affect a change on this issue, but you definitely have a whole range of choices on how you respond to this law.

    You have the choice to move to a jurisdiction where people are not put in prison for smoking weed - like Colorado. You don't even have to make the decision whether to switch nationalities, which is also your free law-market option, and move to Amsterdam or some other nation where people are not persecuted for this. I know you said its not viable for you, but plenty of people find this to be a perfectly viable solution every day. It is your perspective of your costs and benefits which makes in inviable to you, not the geography of it all, or some innate nature of people or law.

    You have the choice of where you live and where you pay "mandatory" taxes. There are places where you can live where there are no taxes, as I'm sure you know. You just choose to consider those places unviable... but those places are perfectly viable to the people who live there.

    Why would you even suggest that is your only choice? Would you let yourself be manipulated by statements like these? Why do you use manipulative statements which are at odds with demonstrable reality? Is it to manipulate?
    Dude... you pay for this protection by Portugal by becoming a Portuguese citizen. Just because you have chosen that this is inconvenient to you doesn't mean that it is not your option.
    Trading one government for another government is not consumer choice.

    I am not arguing for me to be capable of moving from the jurisdiction of one government to the jurisdiction of another. I am not arguing for an ability to affect government policy. I already have both of those. I am instead arguing for the ability to affect law the same way I affect other elements of my life with consumer choice. When I am capable of choosing between multiple law entities by swiping a credit card or writing a check, I will have something resembling a competitive market of law.
  2. #227
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Yes and we'd be OK.

    Are you suggesting that people do or do not murder because of laws?
    I am not convinced.
    I think deterrence is bs, even for known laws.

    But people do get punished because of laws. People can rely on contracts because of laws.
    Last edited by JKDS; 07-28-2016 at 04:08 PM.
  3. #228
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    I think deterrence is bs, even for known laws.
    You may need to explain what you mean, because from my perspective deterrence is real. Let's take the most simple example: why do I drive the speed limit? Because I don't want to get pulled over and/or get a ticket and/or generate greater liability through fault in a collision. These laws look pretty deterrent to me.
  4. #229
    I would be influenced by the punishment. The occasion that I speed would turn into the never that I speed if the punishment when caught was death.

    Perhaps you're thinking of misused deterrence. For example, 30 year sentences instead of 5 year sentences for selling dope may not be that much of a deterrent for all sorts of reasons.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 07-28-2016 at 04:58 PM.
  5. #230
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    I got interrupted by the court, lemme make a complete post about it in a bit
  6. #231
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    why do I drive the speed limit?
    This is America. The single most often posted laws (speed limits) are the ones we follow the least.

    20 bucks says you don't drive the speed limit, like over 20% of the time.

    EDIT: I mean you speed like 80% of the time like the rest of us freedom-loving patriots.
  7. #232
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I would be influenced by the punishment. The occasion that I speed would turn into the never that I speed if the punishment when caught was death.

    Perhaps you're thinking of misused deterrence. For example, 30 year sentences instead of 5 year sentences for selling dope may not be that much of a deterrent for all sorts of reasons.
    minor crimes should carry the death penalty.
  8. #233
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Trading one government for another government is not consumer choice.
    What? Why not?

    Trading Coke for Pepsi or Tab, etc. is still a consumer choice, right? What's the difference?

    Is it that you want to have no cola/no gov't? That's an option, too. There are places you can be where there is either no gov't or no gov't that will ever show up to enforce anything.

    I don't see how this is not a consumer choice. What elements does it lack from every other consumer choice? Just because it's on a different scale and the cost is in geographically realigning yourself doesn't matter, does it? It's still a cost for a benefit, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I am not arguing for me to be capable of moving from the jurisdiction of one government to the jurisdiction of another. I am not arguing for an ability to affect government policy. I already have both of those.


    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I am instead arguing for the ability to affect law the same way I affect other elements of my life with consumer choice. When I am capable of choosing between multiple law entities by swiping a credit card or writing a check, I will have something resembling a competitive market of law.
    How would that work? You get pulled over for speeding, and you tell the cop... "Haha, buddy, my license says I'm allowed to drive up to 100 mph in any 65 mph zone. Suck it."

    You want to live in a place where it is not legal for you to do XYZ, but it is legal for others to do XYZ?

    Doesn't this kinda lead to a place where the more money you have, the fewer laws you have to follow, since you have the buying power to purchase more rights?

    Is there not immense consumer benefit in establishing a basic set of rights by an over-state which has a limited set of powers over the state? You know... something like a limited national government which can make some laws up to a point, but which ultimately yields to the local power of state laws? Those states then contain more local districts to which the state is the over-state, but within the region, like a city, they have their own laws, too?

    I'm looking around and seeing this as my environment and that it is the result of free market decisions being made by generations and upkept by the current generation choosing to remain.
  9. #234
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Now if only we had the choice to send our money to Portugal instead of Uncle Sam, so that when an agent of Uncle Sam puts handcuffs on one of us for smoking weed on his own back porch, the full force of Portugal comes down on Uncle Sam to protect its insured. Then millions of others who agree with Portugal's policies send their money to Portugal instead of Uncle Sam, and Uncle Sam quickly finds that it's losing billions in funds and it has no choice but to stop putting people in prison for smoking weed.
    I'm not too interested about Uncle Sam nor Portugal for that matter. Portugal is a good example of a government changing it's policies to end war on drugs, showing that it's entirely possibly for a government to do that.

    Regarding the free market of laws, if I got it right, the people with the most money could directly dictate which laws trump others. I think that's the dictionary definition of a plutocracy without the inconvenience of lobbying. Could you explain why this is a good thing?
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  10. #235
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    This is America. The single most often posted laws (speed limits) are the ones we follow the least.

    20 bucks says you don't drive the speed limit, like over 20% of the time.

    EDIT: I mean you speed like 80% of the time like the rest of us freedom-loving patriots.
    A+. I'm loling. For being the primo anti-government guy I am, I obey government like a boring ass dweeb. I probably speed like 10% of the time. I straight up do my best to drive as close to the limit as I can unless I'm in a really frustrated mood (which is like once every two months).

    I remember the last time I got pulled over. The cop was pretty harsh with me, but I admitted every ounce of guilt I had and he immediately perked up. It's like he was expecting me to defy him. No way. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. He was super pleased that I admitted guilt and that I accepted his authority to justly punish me. Not only did he not give me a ticket, but he didn't even give me a warning. He merely said the type of thing I was doing is something cops give tickets for.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 07-28-2016 at 10:26 PM.
  11. #236
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    minor crimes should carry the death penalty.
    I cannot tell you how many teenagers would die in Empire de Wufwugy. Any fucknuts think it's gangster to holler at some pedestrian while zooming by at 175% the speed limit? Have you met my friend? We call him The Chair.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 07-29-2016 at 12:04 AM.
  12. #237
    I'm serious.

    I'm not serious. But good goddamn do we need some selective breeding. I'm joking. I'm Bob Saget on stage saying I poked Kimmy Gibbler in the ass.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 07-29-2016 at 12:05 AM.
  13. #238
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    What? Why not?

    Trading Coke for Pepsi or Tab, etc. is still a consumer choice, right? What's the difference?

    Is it that you want to have no cola/no gov't? That's an option, too. There are places you can be where there is either no gov't or no gov't that will ever show up to enforce anything.

    I don't see how this is not a consumer choice. What elements does it lack from every other consumer choice? Just because it's on a different scale and the cost is in geographically realigning yourself doesn't matter, does it? It's still a cost for a benefit, right?
    If you want a banana, go to Guatemala. Bananas don't grow in Missouri; therefore, Missourians can't have them. What's the use of Guatemala sending bananas to Missouri? If Missourians wanted bananas they would just move to Guatemala.

    While there is a very mild element of competition by there being multiple governments in the world, the competition is pretty tiny beans compared to the type we expect regarding other industries.

    How would that work? You get pulled over for speeding, and you tell the cop... "Haha, buddy, my license says I'm allowed to drive up to 100 mph in any 65 mph zone. Suck it."
    Where a dispute arises, the contracted law companies would negotiate on the behalf of myself and the offended. The strength of the negotiation from either side would depend on what sells best. Let's say instead the example is one of me driving 65 through a neighborhood with lots of children with posting of 20 mph. Let's say my contracted company is new and has the (foolish) policy of saying 65 through a 20 posting is totes cool beans. But my company doesn't make that much money because only dickheads pay for that bullshit policy, while the offended's company gets boatloads of money from people who wish to enforce the speed limit in residential areas. Then the offended's company puts a bunch of capital behind punishing me while my company negotiates for some reasonable punishment. And after this disastrous affair, my company stops supporting such a silly policy since it's a money loser for them.

    The key is that people pay for what they value. Humans -- we have morals and we're good at expressing them. We don't need to vote for a politician once every two years to express our morals.

    Doesn't this kinda lead to a place where the more money you have, the fewer laws you have to follow, since you have the buying power to purchase more rights?
    Great concern. I'll address this later in my response to Cocco_Bill.

    Is there not immense consumer benefit in establishing a basic set of rights by an over-state which has a limited set of powers over the state? You know... something like a limited national government which can make some laws up to a point, but which ultimately yields to the local power of state laws? Those states then contain more local districts to which the state is the over-state, but within the region, like a city, they have their own laws, too?
    It's a standard idea. The reason I don't believe it is because I can't justify it. In economics, they teach that monopolies are bad. This means to me that monopolies are bad. Since the power that industries integral to the health of humankind have is derived from them being (mostly) free (like food, clothing, and shelter), I see no reason why the remaining similar industries can't also be free (like security, money, regulation, and law). Personally, for me to leave this position, I would need to see a compelling case for why monopolies on these are good.

    I'm looking around and seeing this as my environment and that it is the result of free market decisions being made by generations and upkept by the current generation choosing to remain.
    The incentive to remain is off the charts. How many people fathom the idea of anything different?
    Last edited by wufwugy; 07-29-2016 at 12:01 AM.
  14. #239
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    I'm not too interested about Uncle Sam nor Portugal for that matter. Portugal is a good example of a government changing it's policies to end war on drugs, showing that it's entirely possibly for a government to do that.
    Possible, but not the norm. I want a system that makes positive development the norm.

    Regarding the free market of laws, if I got it right, the people with the most money could directly dictate which laws trump others. I think that's the dictionary definition of a plutocracy without the inconvenience of lobbying. Could you explain why this is a good thing?
    Two words: three words: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    The rich already get away with shit. They get away with shit and shit and shit. When was the last time a powerful person at the heart of the shit went to prison? Bernie Madoff? He wasn't at the heart of anything; he was a scapegoat who only got his just desserts because he ripped off loads of rich people with an axe to grind. Clearly our current system does not standardize law.

    In a free market of laws, the small people would wield a far greater proportion of influence. We can see this by comparing how much the political system rewards rich people with how much the food industry rewards rich people. Politics heavily favors the rich while the food industry couldn't give a flying fuck about the rich. Food companies make their money from us normies; richies influence food policies by a big fat zilch percent.

    Rich people can't compete with the ordinary masses when there isn't a government giving carve-outs to rich people.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 07-28-2016 at 11:55 PM.
  15. #240
    btw you guys are awesome. want you to know that. ideas are like fire: sometimes they get stamped out; sometimes they kill the forest, only to bring new vibrant life that the trees of the forest suppressed.
  16. #241
    Renton is a valued voice in the mosh pit that is my "what do you mean I shouldn't have eaten that entire cookie?!?!" spew.
  17. #242
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Possible, but not the norm. I want a system that makes positive development the norm.
    Once again, I'm not arguing for the US government, I'm arguing for a government that works. Portugal, at least regarding drug policy, shows that it can exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The rich already get away with shit. They get away with shit and shit and shit. When was the last time a powerful person at the heart of the shit went to prison? Bernie Madoff? He wasn't at the heart of anything; he was a scapegoat who only got his just desserts because he ripped off loads of rich people with an axe to grind. Clearly our current system does not standardize law.

    In a free market of laws, the small people would wield a far greater proportion of influence. We can see this by comparing how much the political system rewards rich people with how much the food industry rewards rich people. Politics heavily favors the rich while the food industry couldn't give a flying fuck about the rich. Food companies make their money from us normies; richies influence food policies by a big fat zilch percent.

    Rich people can't compete with the ordinary masses when there isn't a government giving carve-outs to rich people.
    Let me rephrase. You do realize a rich person cannot eat a million times more than a poor person, but he can have a million times more effect on laws? The free market of laws would just make this easier and faster, without the need to go through lobbying.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  18. #243
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    @bananas comment: Emphasis on
    Quote Originally Posted by MMM
    Just because it's on a different scale and the cost is in geographically realigning yourself doesn't matter, does it? It's still a cost for a benefit, right?
    Bananas are transportable. Though, from what I've heard, the laughable excuse for a tasteless fruit I so love to eat in Missouri is nothing compared to a banana picked and eaten ripe from the tree in Guatamala. So in that sense, there are banana products and experiences which are simply unavailable to me in Missouri, but from which I am free to benefit if I pay the cost of traveling to Guatamala.

    Governments are not transportable. They exist in a geographic region, and cannot be transported into another government's geographic region w/o extensive politicing or warring. This is by design and meets a perceived cost-benefit analysis of people being egocentric/ethnocentric beings.

    I still don't see how it's different.
    How is it different?
  19. #244
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    This argument is weak sauce, and you should really have seen it.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Where a dispute arises, the contracted law companies would negotiate on the behalf of myself and the offended. The strength of the negotiation from either side would depend on what sells best. Let's say instead the example is one of me driving 65 through a neighborhood with lots of children with posting of 20 mph. Let's say my contracted company is new and has the (foolish) policy of saying 65 through a 20 posting is totes cool beans. But my company doesn't make that much money because only dickheads pay for that bullshit policy, while the offended's company gets boatloads of money from people who wish to enforce the speed limit in residential areas. Then the offended's company puts a bunch of capital behind punishing me while my company negotiates for some reasonable punishment. And after this disastrous affair, my company stops supporting such a silly policy since it's a money loser for them.

    The key is that people pay for what they value. Humans -- we have morals and we're good at expressing them. We don't need to vote for a politician once every two years to express our morals.
    "But my company doesn't make that much money because..."
    ... they didn't charge enough for what they were offering.
    Why is your company run by idiots?
    At any rate, there will be a company which charges enough to offer that service, even if your company goes under for being ignorant of their business environment and operating costs.


    "while my company negotiates for some reasonable punishment"
    to whom?

    Who is this implicit 3rd party which is adjudicating this dispute and meting out punishments?


    "The key is that people pay for what they value."
    Exactly. People with the most money pay for their values to supersede other people's values.
    Poor people effectively have no right to their values, since they can't afford them.

    How much for one murder? Just one. Not a killing spree. Surely there's a price for this. What is it? Some company will offer this service, since it would meet some demand. How much for a rape? How much for ... ? These dark sides of humanity exist in a suppressed world. EDIT: They will definitely be present in a world where they are sanctioned.

    It's ugly to want a world where someone could purchase the right to abuse or hurt another person as a perfectly legal state of affairs.
    Sorry... I don't mean to insult, but it takes me to a dark place to think of these issues.

    EDIT: I didn't mean to say you're ugly. I'm sure you're sexxy as ever! (Prob. not as sexxy as me, though.)
    Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 07-29-2016 at 10:17 AM.
  20. #245
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    You may need to explain what you mean, because from my perspective deterrence is real. Let's take the most simple example: why do I drive the speed limit? Because I don't want to get pulled over and/or get a ticket and/or generate greater liability through fault in a collision. These laws look pretty deterrent to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I would be influenced by the punishment. The occasion that I speed would turn into the never that I speed if the punishment when caught was death.

    Perhaps you're thinking of misused deterrence. For example, 30 year sentences instead of 5 year sentences for selling dope may not be that much of a deterrent for all sorts of reasons.
    Alright, so. Long post.

    Deterrence in the legal setting is usually used to describe punishments. The conversation goes like this:

    A: Should we sentence people to 5, or 10 years in jail for aggravated assault?
    B: Lets do 10 years, assault is horrible and we want to deter it as much as possible.
    A: Alright, 10 it is.

    Or like this

    A: We should abolish the death penalty for murder.
    B: But we want to deter murder

    The problem is with the evidence. If things like the death penalty deterred murder, then the States who have it should have less murders than the states that dont. Thats not the case. Last I checked, theres no correlation at all. And it makes sense when you think about it. For extreme punishments, like death or life in prison, if you want to kill someone badly enough to risk one...its not really a stretch to risk the other.

    However, it goes deeper. Contrary to television and movies, most murders are not by serial killers. You've got gang violence (where the need to follow orders or not look like a pussy trump any consequences). You've got adultery (where the crossed lover just goes bananas, without thinking of the consequences). You've got murders by the drugged or mentally handicapped (who cant even think of punishment). You've got accidents and self defense (no consequence thought of). Except for gangs (who dont care), most of these killings are heat of the moment, unthinking acts. Theyre horrible acts, but people arent engaging in a stoic Spock-like utilitarian debate before committing it.

    TLDR, nobody sits there going "well, if murder was punished for 20 years, id do it. But 21years is just too much".

    As far as the extent punishment goes, most are not influenced by it. Even in your speeding example, you do not know the cost of a ticket. Is it $50? $300? How many points on your license will you get? Will your insurance go up? You have guesses to these questions, but without looking it up you are blind to it. The actual punishment is not on your radar. (I routinely look at the fines for criminal speeding in my State, but ive not memorized them. Who would?)

    This is why deterrence is bogus. There are too many laws for people to know what is illegal. The punishments are too varried and complicated for anyone to know what they are. (In fact, the punishment for murder varries widely based on circumstance. Years are added or subtracted based on criminal history, if there was a deadly weapon, the discretion of the prosecutor, and many more factors. This makes the punishment hard to predict without actually looking at the police report).

    -----

    You bring up a good point about general deterrence though. I confess to being sloppy about that. I do believe that some general deterrence does exist. Further, some evidence supports it. When gun laws were passed so that drug crimes were penalized much worse if a weapon was involved, organized crime saw a decline in gun use.

    Even so, the exact value of that deterrence is unknown. People do engage in the risk calculus to figure out if they should commit some crimes. Speeding is one, DUI and copyright infringement are others. But the question usually boggles down to enforcement, not illegality. Its also pretty hard to tell if compliance with the law is because of the law itself, or because its consistent with a person's own beliefs. Most people dont think murder is appropriate conduct; so are they not murdering because of the law or because of their beliefs?
  21. #246
    So basically you're saying small crimes should carry the death penalty, fantastic deterrent for things like speeding, littering, graffiti & general nuisance crimes that cost society.

    Worse crimes aren't as open and closed so the death penalty isn't easily applied.

    I agree. I mean I don't actually agree as the pushing of a lot of laws that exist/ed are why change happens but that process would just change I imagine.
    Last edited by Savy; 07-29-2016 at 01:44 PM.
  22. #247
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    The closest thing to a pure free market was the gilded age, and while things weren't perfect in those days, it was the most dramatic accumulation of wealth, median living standards, and technological advance probably in human history. It's hard to call almost any market in our age completely free because there's always central banking and controlled interest rates at the heart of the system, which affect every facet of everything.
    Hong Kong probably edges it out, as it actively had a lassie-faire gov't that really only cared to maintain the region as a port of entrance for lucrative trade with the far East and didn't give a hoot what happened with the Chinese people that chose to live there, so long as they kept to themselves and obeyed the law.

    Though, even the boom periods came coupled with social problems that couldn't be ignored by successive British governors.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tung_Wah_Hospital

    Funny how the free market was perfectly happy with piles of dead and dying.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  23. #248
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    There's a difference between teaching someone that they shouldn't do something and using the threat of death to make them not do something. A father can forbid his son to do something because the son is under the father's care and support. At the very least, father's house - father's rules must be followed. Using the parent and dependent child analogy to describe the state's relationship to its citizens is kind of gross. It doesn't fit anyway because with your parents you eventually become emancipated from them to live your own adult life and make your own adult choices. The nanny state holds you in the pen from the cradle to the grave.
    Why? I otherwise agree with the premise. I wasn't using it as an analogy and don't know why you took it that way, I was merely giving situations where one entity maybe can forbid another from taking risks.

    Of course not. But I think the state has a way of delaying or preventing the lessons from being learned. The consequences for the mistakes are blunted or even misdirected so they seem to come from different causes and affect different people. A clear example of this is the state debt. The overspending is a huge mistake and the consequences are being delayed decades so that people who are in an entirely different generation will have to pay the consequences.
    I think the lessons are particularly difficult to learn but they are learned through gov't in some form. How else could you explain the Constitution if not capable men tasked with devising a robust system of gov't and learning from the lessons of the past?

    I think your expectation of how quickly all things can be improved is warped by how quickly some things can be improved - like microwaves and telegraphs.


    Maybe it's not a miracle cure. It was certainly a powerful weapon that was made politically inconvenient to use. Mozambique, Belize, and Bolivia were all pressured to stop using it or otherwise lose their aid grants.
    And why were they pressured to stop their use? Clearly the price point was desirable, but something else stopped them. Why would something else stop them? I hope you take some time to give the other side an honest chance, because it seems clear to me that DDT had a definitive impact on the environment that wasn't being captured in the market-price.

    Admittedly, it isn't possible to know the extent of the harm caused by the ban, or indeed even if there was great harm caused at all. Either way, it is clear that the preferences of white people in the U.S. and Europe were imposed upon much poorer and more desperate people in the third world. Rich people can afford to be risk-averse. Poor people don't have that luxury.
    Because the white people used it first, before its true costs became apparent. Then when it's true costs were known, the approach to its use changed with new information.


    The drawbacks weren't known and dangerous. They were only speculative. If you read the context of the ban, it's pretty obvious that it was more political than scientific. Rachel Carson's book, which has since been widely discredited, set off the environmental movement and a wave of hysteria that led eventually to the ban. There's really not much evidence to suggest that any humans died from exposure to it, and many of the threats to wildlife have been discredited as well. The current opinions have settled into, mainly, people who think the chemical is worth using to preserve human life and people who think it shouldn't be, primarily due to threat to wildlife. It's really only the crackpots who are continuing to argue that it's a threat to human beings.
    If you read the context of the ban, she interviewed scientists all over the place and brought a wealth of information to bear in her book. You package that up as sensational claptrap and another examples of the failing of gov't policy.

    There are better examples for you to go to - like the gov't push for Positive Train Control in response a couple of sensationalized accidents. Proper control systems are comparatively very cheap and very nearly just as good, but Positive Train Control does absolutely everything and so the gov't pushes for it because the emotions of the nation demanded it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_S...nt_Act_of_2008


    Yeah in the hour it takes to research it to the 80% level to be aware-but-not-expert, it just seems to be mildly hurtful to humans and environments. Again, probably not a panacea to cure malaria and no drawbacks at all, but a clear example of politics costing human lives.
    How do you know you're 80% aware? You see a small problem here where I see a big one. I don't think I'm close to 80% aware. The stuff lasts for a long time and accumulates upwards in the environment, what the long term consequences are are difficult to tell. How can you claim that you're close to 80% aware? Certainly it's not persuasive enough to stop someone from buying it and using it when faced with the obvious problem of malaria, but the consequences of its use are still well out of reach for almost everyone.

    No, DDT was developed privately in 1874, long before the wars. Its insecticidal properties were discovered by a private pharmaceutical company that still exists today. The chemist got a Nobel prize for that. Certainly, it was put into practice by militaries during WWII, though.

    But let's say a state did create it. Of course, that's going to happen from time to time since the state has tons of resources and human ingenuity at its disposal. There are a lot of things that the state does that prevents the private sector from participating entirely. Or the state throws so many resources at the thing that no private company could hope to compete.
    Fair enough. Was their any use of it prior to the army purposing it?

    Yeah, again, it was free market. As for your second point, that just seems absurd. Sick people have able family and friends who want to make them well, who will work to get the money for the medicine and treatment to make them well.
    Life has a funny way of being pretty absurd. See the post I just made.


    You're kind of proving my point. Why do you think a committee would be any better at knowing what the true consequences of DDT use are? It's just a few appointed people. The free market is 7 billion people. As I said the other day, the only way to know if the benefits exceed the costs is to allow people the choice whether to use it or not. Each person has a unique set of needs and desires. A unique tolerance for risk. Let them make the call how they use their own property (including their bodies).
    Get a few capable people to really bash out the problem, provided with time and all the information available and they'll make a better decision that 7 billion people acting through a price-point mechanism every time.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  24. #249
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    In the example of the Hong Kong Hospital, the English Governor was forced to team up with wealthy chinese to build a hospital to deal with widespread sickness. These people didn't have anyone to care for them, since HK was the place chinese people came to take risks, engage in small ball - quick return enterprises, and build up their nut. No one was going to help sick people if they didn't have to, even though there was something which could be done to help them.

    It took some non-free-market entity to step in and do something for them.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  25. #250
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    So basically you're saying small crimes should carry the death penalty, fantastic deterrent for things like speeding, littering, graffiti & general nuisance crimes that cost society.

    Worse crimes aren't as open and closed so the death penalty isn't easily applied.

    I agree. I mean I don't actually agree as the pushing of a lot of laws that exist/ed are why change happens but that process would just change I imagine.
    Well, an extreme penalty may make people pay attention. But a large amount of people don't even know if they're in a death penalty state.

    For speeding, do you know what speed could land you in jail? Do you know for how long?
  26. #251
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    As I said the other day, the only way to know if the benefits exceed the costs is to allow people the choice whether to use it or not.
    This is what's absurd and where we fundamentally disagree. It is not the only way to know if the benefit exceeds the cost, it's the only way to know if the local benefits out weight the market-costs. The difference is enormous.

    Each person has a unique set of needs and desires. A unique tolerance for risk. Let them make the call how they use their own property (including their bodies).
    No they don't. They have short-hand methods for solving problems that they rely on constantly. Only when you force them to labor through the higher functions will they ever choose outside of that mode.

    Spend an hour and read about it to get an 80% grasp.

    https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast.../dp/0374533555

    I'd be interested to hear your criticisms on this.

    Or this.



    Transcript here: http://www.rbcpa.com/mungerspeech_june_95.pdf
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  27. #252
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    I wonder if gov't could learn the lessons that Charlie Munger learned. I'm only thinking about specifically the structure of American gov't. Maybe some of the scholar-governors of China or chill Swedes could do it, but in order to hold power in our current democracy, you can't have a long-view of anything - any proper long view is too exposed to demagoguery.
    Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 07-29-2016 at 04:41 PM.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  28. #253
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4230

    This guy, with his head screwed on right, thinks DDT is an example of regulatory mistakes in the wake of sensational public outcry.

    No wonder why old people will mock you for thinking Climate Change is a real problem we need to address.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  29. #254
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    I've read the first 1/3 or so of TFAS. I always seem to have more "fun" things to read so it gets shelved.

    I think voluntary interaction is much better than coercion for reconciling the psychological shortcomings of human beings. It would take pages and pages of text for me to explain why I think that, though, so we should probably just agree to disagree.

    This is what's absurd and where we fundamentally disagree. It is not the only way to know if the benefit exceeds the cost, it's the only way to know if the local benefits out weight the market-costs. The difference is enormous.
    Benefit is subjective. Cost is subjective. The truth of this forms the cornerstone of economics. It's also the basis for which the state fails at providing economic value to a system. It attempts to find the "true value" of something, like the integrity of the environment, for example, and the problem is that no such true value exists. In reality, that value is going to be rather high for rich people who care about the environment, and rather low for the rest of the population that is just trying to make a better life for their kids.
  30. #255
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    I've read the first 1/3 or so of TFAS. I always seem to have more "fun" things to read so it gets shelved.

    I think voluntary interaction is much better than coercion for reconciling the psychological shortcomings of human beings. It would take pages and pages of text for me to explain why I think that, though, so we should probably just agree to disagree.



    Benefit is subjective. Cost is subjective. The truth of this forms the cornerstone of economics. It's also the basis for which the state fails at providing economic value to a system. It attempts to find the "true value" of something, like the integrity of the environment, for example, and the problem is that no such true value exists. In reality, that value is going to be rather high for rich people who care about the environment, and rather low for the rest of the population that is just trying to make a better life for their kids.
    Agreed, and since everything is subjective, economics can't declare laws nor predict outcomes. No one knows what the market will decide and it's an article of faith to think it will always decide "best", whatever that subjectively means, especially considering the nature of people and how they decide.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  31. #256
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    I think voluntary interaction is much better than coercion for reconciling the psychological shortcomings of human beings.
    Just to add, I agree, I just don't think it scales the whole way up.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  32. #257
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Also, why does the son have to obey the father?
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  33. #258
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Just to add, I agree, I just don't think it scales the whole way up.
    Charles Munger made two interesting points. Firms, he said, exist in some part because trust is more efficient than distrust. He also said that the cash register was the greatest business invention in history as money stopped disappearing from the till almost overnight.

    It seems to me that your beliefs in the market are based on this idea of efficient trust, and I'm wondering about how effective the cash registers would be.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  34. #259
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Also, why does the son have to obey the father?
    If some key presumptions are made, then a couple of reasons. I previously said father's house, father's rules, and you asked why that is. It seems obvious. The house is the father's private property. He's the state as far as the house is concerned and the laws are what he chooses them to be. Any who reside may obey the laws, or leave at will. To disregard his rules and remain would be to commit aggression against him. The son also depends on the father for nutrition, education, safety, and love. There's a tacit contract there.

    Once the son is no longer dependent, I don't see why he has to obey any longer.
  35. #260
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    There's a point where the son might find some of the father's rules unjust or even backwards and stifling, and they may be, but he'll still follow them for coercive reasons - if he doesn't like it he can leave. While he's still dependent upon his father to survive, this is a threat.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  36. #261
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    There's a point where the son might find some of the father's rules unjust or even backwards and stifling, and they may be, but he'll still follow them for coercive reasons - if he doesn't like it he can leave. While he's still dependent upon his father to survive, this is a threat.
    Many choose to run away from home only to find that the police escort them back into the abusive situation they were trying to escape. It's a rough world.
  37. #262
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    It goes the other way too. What happens when the father judges that the son is too much of a burden to support?

    http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/l...he-felt-burden

    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    As for your second point, that just seems absurd. Sick people have able family and friends who want to make them well, who will work to get the money for the medicine and treatment to make them well.
    Do they?

    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    The son also depends on the father for nutrition, education, safety, and love. There's a tacit contract there.
    Who enforces this contract and what happens when this contract is suddenly revoked?
    Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 07-30-2016 at 12:01 PM.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  38. #263
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    It goes the other way too. What happens when the father judges that the son is too much of a burden to support?

    http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/l...he-felt-burden

    Do they?
    You made a general statement about the sick not being able to pay for treatment. I made a general statement that they, by-and-large, can. Of course, there are people who have no one. In the first world, they are statistically a blip, and I'm not in favor of blowing a third of the GDP to remedy a blip.

    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Who enforces this contract and what happens when this contract is suddenly revoked?
    The non-aggression principle applies to the kid. And besides, he won't be a minor forever.
  39. #264
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    This is what's absurd and where we fundamentally disagree. It is not the only way to know if the benefit exceeds the cost, it's the only way to know if the local benefits out weight the market-costs. The difference is enormous.
    Get a few capable people to really bash out the problem, provided with time and all the information available and they'll make a better decision that 7 billion people acting through a price-point mechanism every time.
    And why were they pressured to stop their use? Clearly the price point was desirable, but something else stopped them. Why would something else stop them? I hope you take some time to give the other side an honest chance, because it seems clear to me that DDT had a definitive impact on the environment that wasn't being captured in the market-price.
    Prices are the most efficient mechanism by which values are reflected. This is the case at every level. There are not cases in which a piece of knowledge or externality is credible and understood yet prices do not react.
  40. #265
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Let me rephrase. You do realize a rich person cannot eat a million times more than a poor person, but he can have a million times more effect on laws? The free market of laws would just make this easier and faster, without the need to go through lobbying.
    We already have the situation you describe we don't want. Economic theory and history show that the freer the market, the less power wielded by the powerful elite.
  41. #266
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    You made a general statement about the sick not being able to pay for treatment. I made a general statement that they, by-and-large, can. Of course, there are people who have no one. In the first world, they are statistically a blip, and I'm not in favor of blowing a third of the GDP to remedy a blip.



    The non-aggression principle applies to the kid. And besides, he won't be a minor forever.
    The non-aggression principle applies to no one.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  42. #267
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Prices are the most efficient mechanism by which values are reflected. This is the case at every level. There are not cases in which a piece of knowledge or externality is credible and understood yet prices do not react.
    By which market-values are reflected.

    No one seems to want to claim that "true" values are a real thing. So what values could the market possibly reflect but the values that the mechanisms of the market produce?
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  43. #268
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    You made a general statement about the sick not being able to pay for treatment. I made a general statement that they, by-and-large, can. Of course, there are people who have no one. In the first world, they are statistically a blip, and I'm not in favor of blowing a third of the GDP to remedy a blip.
    They by and large can't. Without their own medical insurance, they can not pay for these things. Children may tend to parents, but there is a natural dynamic for parents to sacrifice for kids and for kids to sacrifice their parents for their own benefit.

    If only you had finished those books that talked about the shortcomings of human psychology, you'd learn about how easily people dismiss contrary evidence and constantly embrace supportive evidence. Every time I try to jolt you with examples from the world that question your beliefs, you wrap them up and brush them aside. God forbid you're a human like me with all those same psychological shortcomings.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  44. #269
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    @bananas comment: Emphasis on

    Bananas are transportable. Though, from what I've heard, the laughable excuse for a tasteless fruit I so love to eat in Missouri is nothing compared to a banana picked and eaten ripe from the tree in Guatamala. So in that sense, there are banana products and experiences which are simply unavailable to me in Missouri, but from which I am free to benefit if I pay the cost of traveling to Guatamala.

    Governments are not transportable. They exist in a geographic region, and cannot be transported into another government's geographic region w/o extensive politicing or warring. This is by design and meets a perceived cost-benefit analysis of people being egocentric/ethnocentric beings.

    I still don't see how it's different.
    How is it different?
    I am not arguing for transportable government. I am arguing against government itself. Let's transport and transact law the way we do the other aspects of our lives that have prospered because of how freely we transport and transact them.

    "But my company doesn't make that much money because..."
    ... they didn't charge enough for what they were offering.
    Why is your company run by idiots?
    At any rate, there will be a company which charges enough to offer that service, even if your company goes under for being ignorant of their business environment and operating costs.
    It is but one of the uncountable iterations of the type of thing that can happen.

    "while my company negotiates for some reasonable punishment"
    to whom?

    Who is this implicit 3rd party which is adjudicating this dispute and meting out punishments?
    An arbitrator that the two companies and the consumers of the companies' policies agreed upon beforehand.

    "The key is that people pay for what they value."
    Exactly. People with the most money pay for their values to supersede other people's values.
    Poor people effectively have no right to their values, since they can't afford them.
    This effect is far less in a free market. Indeed it's so much less that it could be argued that it's subverted and that the rich almost totally lose their disproportionate influence. Like I mentioned, we see this type of thing already in every area in which we have relatively free markets. Review the food example. If law were funded by choice, it would too favor the masses.

    How much for one murder? Just one. Not a killing spree. Surely there's a price for this. What is it? Some company will offer this service, since it would meet some demand. How much for a rape? How much for ... ? These dark sides of humanity exist in a suppressed world. EDIT: They will definitely be present in a world where they are sanctioned.

    It's ugly to want a world where someone could purchase the right to abuse or hurt another person as a perfectly legal state of affairs.
    You do a pretty great job of describing our current system.
  45. #270
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    The non-aggression principle applies to no one.
    Not in terms of it being a magic shield that wards him against harm, in terms of justifying the use of force against the father.
  46. #271
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    By which market-values are reflected.

    No one seems to want to claim that "true" values are a real thing. So what values could the market possibly reflect but the values that the mechanisms of the market produce?
    Price is a quantification of human values. This means that when a new piece of information is quantified and it's credible, prices react to reflect it. We're not going to find situations in which a committee knows and credibly expresses a "truth" yet prices don't.
  47. #272
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    Not in terms of it being a magic shield that wards him against harm, in terms of justifying the use of force against the father.
    In absolutely no terms. The non-aggression principle applies to no one. Even when you extend trust to someone and implicitly extend the idea of non-aggression, it can be revoked immediately and at any time. It's pure folly.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  48. #273
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Price is a quantification of human values. This means that when a new piece of information is quantified and it's credible, prices react to reflect it. We're not going to find situations in which a committee knows and credibly expresses a "truth" yet prices don't.
    Are you arguing that it's a true price or a subjective price? If it's a subjective price, then already it's scope-limited by how it's made.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  49. #274
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Are you arguing that it's a true price or a subjective price? If it's a subjective price, then already it's scope-limited by how it's made.
    Which is why I call it the market-price. It's the price that the market develops. Stop trying to make it bigger than it is by claiming it quantifies human values, whatever those may be. Just let it be what it is - the price that the market mechanism derives for any good or service.

    It does nothing more than try to extend the auction hall as far as it can go, and as Charlie Munger pointed out - there are great examples of people bidding foolishly and at very high stakes at the auction.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  50. #275
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Are you arguing that it's a true price or a subjective price? If it's a subjective price, then already it's scope-limited by how it's made.
    It's all subjective, just like values.

    I'm making this point because your premise is having cake and eating it too. Implicit to your argument is the idea that things like how a committee of scientists can come to a consensus on DDT research and that humans can value this is in such a way that prices don't. That isn't the case; markets are the most efficient method we know about regarding reacting to this kind of stuff.
  51. #276
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    They by and large can't. Without their own medical insurance, they can not pay for these things. Children may tend to parents, but there is a natural dynamic for parents to sacrifice for kids and for kids to sacrifice their parents for their own benefit.
    1) The modern financial system greatly discourages the saving of money. This compels people to choose to spend their money on shit in the here and now instead of saving for retirement. It exacerbates the problem of sick people not being able to take care of themselves.

    2) The modern medical system greatly increases the cost of healthcare to all. See the pennies-on-the-dollar cost of basic medicine and care in poor countries compared to rich countries.

    3) In spite of this, most in the first world can still afford insurance, but choose not to buy it anyway. Probably for a combination of reasons 1 and 2. And possibly because they have the false sense that the safety net will take adequate care of them if they're unlucky enough to become seriously ill.

    If only you had finished those books that talked about the shortcomings of human psychology, you'd learn about how easily people dismiss contrary evidence and constantly embrace supportive evidence. Every time I try to jolt you with examples from the world that question your beliefs, you wrap them up and brush them aside. God forbid you're a human like me with all those same psychological shortcomings.
    I don't know what you want me to say. People are going to get sick and die in a free society, just as they do now. I don't think someone stabbing his autistic son 100 times is indicative of a need for a coercion-based solution to autism in society. It just indicates that he was a crazy son of a bitch. Millions of families of autistics get by without causing a god damn bloodbath.

    Is there another example you'd like me to address directly?
  52. #277
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It's all subjective, just like values.

    I'm making this point because your premise is having cake and eating it too. Implicit to your argument is the idea that things like how a committee of scientists can come to a consensus on DDT research and that humans can value this is in such a way that prices don't. That isn't the case; markets are the most efficient method we know about regarding reacting to this kind of stuff.
    It is the case. If a council of scientists could be trusted with deciding on whether DDT was a go/no go product, and they volleyed their decision to some other political body which could craft and enforce laws - by nature of those laws, the values of the markets would change.

    Again, though, I agree with the efficiency of markets, I'm questioning their nature and their limits. As I've said before, firms exist in some part because of the efficiency of trust, just like multi-celled organisms exists because co-operation was better than competition for some, but at the same time - firms must institute methods and mechanisms within themselves to maintain that efficient trust, be they cash registers or time cards or what have you. To say that markets are the best method for distributing resources is like saying that trust in each other is the best way to work, I totally agree, but I see it obviously has limits and doesn't quit fit into the world as I know it.
    Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 07-30-2016 at 04:15 PM.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  53. #278
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    In absolutely no terms. The non-aggression principle applies to no one. Even when you extend trust to someone and implicitly extend the idea of non-aggression, it can be revoked immediately and at any time. It's pure folly.
    No idea what you're talking about.
  54. #279
    To MMM an CoccoBill, I should add more about how money plays in a free market. Let's go with the example of a rich person getting in some shit and using his money to try to get out of it.

    In our current society, what would happen if the CEO of McDonald's was put on trial for child molestation, he looked super guilty by many lay and expert accounts, yet he got off by way of being so rich that he got the best lawyers or maybe he bribed some judges or jury tampered or whatever? Then he goes back to McDonald's and they keep him on as CEO. What would happen? Millions of McDonald's customers would be livid would decide Mickey D's can fuck off and instead they'll eat at Burger King or Jack in the Box or whatever. McD's would lose so much money that either they would get rid of of the CEO ASAP and go on mass apology tour and construct optics of fighting against child molestation and what have you, or they would keep the CEO and take the dire consequences of doing so, which would possibly be enough that they'd eventually go out of business.

    This process is no different than how things would work in a free market of law and a rich person uses his richness to thwart the system. Just like how consumers choose where to eat food, they also would choose which company represents their values of law the most. When the companies drop the ball so hard that they let an obvious molester off, masses of consumers of their products will go elsewhere. This would be an existential crisis and they would make changes or lose.

    In a free market of law, when something goes wrong, consumers can go elsewhere. In our current system, when something goes wrong, there's next to fuckall we can do. The free market is protective against corruption. Government endorses corruption. Let's support our own empowerment instead of our subjugation.
  55. #280
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    1) The modern financial system greatly discourages the saving of money. This compels people to choose to spend their money on shit in the here and now instead of saving for retirement. It exacerbates the problem of sick people not being able to take care of themselves.

    2) The modern medical system greatly increases the cost of healthcare to all. See the pennies-on-the-dollar cost of basic medicine and care in poor countries compared to rich countries.

    3) In spite of this, most in the first world can still afford insurance, but choose not to buy it anyway. Probably for a combination of reasons 1 and 2. And possibly because they have the false sense that the safety net will take adequate care of them if they're unlucky enough to become seriously ill.
    Most likely for the same reasons that people constantly underrate their chances at cancer, even when provided with the odds they'll get it. Again, we disagree about how people basically think.

    But still, both of us see a system that needs improving, and still, I disagree with you about what you think would fix it.

    I don't know what you want me to say. People are going to get sick and die in a free society, just as they do now. I don't think someone stabbing his autistic son 100 times is indicative of a need for a coercion-based solution to autism in society. It just indicates that he was a crazy son of a bitch. Millions of families of autistics get by without causing a god damn bloodbath.

    Is there another example you'd like me to address directly?
    Yeah

    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    There's a point where the son might find some of the father's rules unjust or even backwards and stifling, and they may be, but he'll still follow them for coercive reasons - if he doesn't like it he can leave. While he's still dependent upon his father to survive, this is a threat.
    Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 07-30-2016 at 04:16 PM.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  56. #281
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    No idea what you're talking about.
    The non-aggression principle has never and will never apply to anyone. It can't.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  57. #282
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    No idea what you're talking about.
    Are you being honest?
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  58. #283
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Yeah, I don't understand what you mean. It's an abstract concept, not a superpower. On a basic level we're arguing about how society should organize itself. How does it not apply? What does it mean for something not to apply?

    There's a point where the son might find some of the father's rules unjust or even backwards and stifling, and they may be, but he'll still follow them for coercive reasons - if he doesn't like it he can leave. While he's still dependent upon his father to survive, this is a threat.
    He chooses to stay because it's the best of bad alternatives. That's not the same as coercion. It's similar to the argument that garment workers in the third world are coerced into sewing garments, and wrong for the same reason.
  59. #284
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    The non-aggression principle applies to the kid. And besides, he won't be a minor forever.
    How can the non-aggression principle enforce a contract? Forget even the circumstances of the father and son.

    How can it ever resolve a dispute? It requires one side to eventually admit defeat without being defeated.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  60. #285
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    Yeah, I don't understand what you mean. It's an abstract concept, not a superpower. On a basic level we're arguing about how society should organize itself. How does it not apply? What does it mean for something not to apply?
    Exactly, and I'm saying there a reason why aggression keeps popping up everywhere. Because it has a place in resolving disputes. You can't just wave this bugbear away because we all agree that it tends to invite more problems than it resolves.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  61. #286
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    He chooses to stay because it's the best of bad alternatives. That's not the same as coercion. It's similar to the argument that garment workers in the third world are coerced into sewing garments, and wrong for the same reason.
    Then how are taxes coercive? The alternative to not paying them is bad, and paying them is the best of bad alternatives. How is any action coercive? When the wild-eyed junkey pokes a knife in your side and demands your wallet, giving it to him is the best of bad alternatives.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  62. #287
    We've discussed the NAP before. It is not a hard fact of nature but a choice made by parties for mutual benefit. It could be said that you use the NAP when you go to McDonalds or when you argue with a friend. The NAP is like saying if all parties agree that they all benefit by not using coercion, then they all benefit by not using coercion. This is a principle we use all the time.
  63. #288
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I am not arguing for transportable government. I am arguing against government itself. Let's transport and transact law the way we do the other aspects of our lives that have prospered because of how freely we transport and transact them.
    Don't pick nits. We're talking about your "law creation/execution/enforcement" bodies and not calling them governments, but it is at the very least strikingly similar and I don't mean to distract from the point by using a word that you can't accept. Please... we're trying to get to the core of things... don't write off my questions over a semantic misstep in my presentation.

    You're asking for these governing bodies which are not governments (GBWANGs) to have dynamic regions of enforcement, perhaps up to the level of the bubble of space surrounding their policy holders. You're asking for a monumental logistical nightmare if GBWANGs are not very plainly delineated in some way. Historically, this has been done geographically to avoid confusion and costs.

    You're effectively suggesting that I would be able to purchase the legal protections and rights offered by a GBWANG in Guatamala, but I put forth that there is a practical, geographical reason that certain services cannot be acquired equally at all places in the world.

    Now... please answer my original question and if I make a semantic misstep in the future, please just correct my usage and continue on.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It is but one of the uncountable iterations of the type of thing that can happen.
    So when you make an example, it's meant to be proof or at least to suggest the truth of your argument, but when I point out the inconsistencies with your example, it didn't matter in the first place?

    Really?

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    An arbitrator that the two companies and the consumers of the companies' policies agreed upon beforehand.
    Why on Earth would the more wealthy party agree to an arbiter which wouldn't always favor themselves? What happens when one party refuses to yield to any compromise over their legal assertions?

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    This effect is far less in a free market. Indeed it's so much less that it could be argued that it's subverted and that the rich almost totally lose their disproportionate influence. Like I mentioned, we see this type of thing already in every area in which we have relatively free markets. Review the food example. If law were funded by choice, it would too favor the masses.
    What compels you to believe this? Your intuition? ... or is there actual data which at least points in this direction?

    The food example was refuted. It is at best inconclusive.
    There are countless examples of foods which are expensive and costs prevent poor people from acquiring them. I.e. not all foods are available to all socioeconomic groups.
    There are countless dining and culinary experiences which can only be had in very specific locations at very specific times, which limits the availability no matter what. I.e. many foods can only be acquired in very specific places.

    All of which is to say that if you are suggesting the world's food situation is one of egalitarianism, I dispute this assertion entirely.

    @ bold:
    Who is "we?"
    Where are these areas?

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    You do a pretty great job of describing our current system.
    Except for the perfectly legal part. These abuses of the law are exactly that. Abuses. It is not the intended order of things as is written in the laws.

    Call me crazy, but that makes all the difference.
  64. #289
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    We've discussed the NAP before. It is not a hard fact of nature but a choice made by parties for mutual benefit. It could be said that you use the NAP when you go to McDonalds or when you argue with a friend. The NAP is like saying if all parties agree that they all benefit by not using coercion, then they all benefit by not using coercion. This is a principle we use all the time.
    Again, I agree. It's great when you can get away with it. I just don't think anyone has ever gotten away with it.

    And you don't get away with it when you go to McDs. If you choose to violate the "NAP" in that space, the US Gov't will have something to say about it. There is no NAP when you walk into McDs.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  65. #290
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    It's a principle for organizing a society. It is probably the only thing that 90+% of the people in the world could agree on. Of course, like any abstract idea, it doesn't have any intrinsic power, but it is the basis for a fair justice system. And there is a great demand for a fair justice system in society. It's the basis from which democratic governments form. No one said aggression wasn't a great tool for solving a dispute, the NAP only says that unprovoked aggression can be met justifiably with aggression.
  66. #291
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Again, I agree. It's great when you can get away with it. I just don't think anyone has ever gotten away with it.

    And you don't get away with it when you go to McDs. If you choose to violate the "NAP" in that space, the US Gov't will have something to say about it. There is no NAP when you walk into McDs.
    People get away with crime too.
  67. #292
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    It's a principle for organizing a society. It is probably the only thing that 90+% of the people in the world could agree on.
    4 people here and 2 disagree. Do the math.

    Of course, like any abstract idea, it doesn't have any intrinsic power, but it is the basis for a fair justice system. And there is a great demand for a fair justice system in society. It's the basis from which democratic governments form. No one said aggression wasn't a great tool for solving a dispute, the NAP only says that unprovoked aggression can be met justifiably with aggression.
    If it doesn't have any intrinsic power, it has no power. It's only power is through the true-believers, which means you're preaching a new religion.

    And I don't need a new religion.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  68. #293
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Then how are taxes coercive? The alternative to not paying them is bad, and paying them is the best of bad alternatives. How is any action coercive? When the wild-eyed junkey pokes a knife in your side and demands your wallet, giving it to him is the best of bad alternatives.
    There's a difference between coercion and duress and that's it.

    If he physically manipulates you into giving him your wallet... by tackling you or frisking you for it, then it's coercion.

    If he puts you in a situation where you credibly believe you will be the target of potentially lethal violence unless you comply, that's duress. You still acted voluntarily, but the law forgives you. Frequently, this extends to others... as in the Hollywood scenario of threatening violence on other people unless you comply. Again... if you believe it was a credible threat of potentially lethal violence, then your act to comply was under duress.

    Of course, JKDS could tell me this is all just wrong... but I don't mean to say wrong things, here.
  69. #294
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    People get away with crime too.
    Yup. As if they violate the principles of society and society has to find ways to survive it. It's not pretty and it definitely deserves attention, but it works.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  70. #295
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    There's a difference between coercion and duress and that's it.

    If he physically manipulates you into giving him your wallet... by tackling you or frisking you for it, then it's coercion.

    If he puts you in a situation where you credibly believe you will be the target of potentially lethal violence unless you comply, that's duress. You still acted voluntarily, but the law forgives you. Frequently, this extends to others... as in the Hollywood scenario of threatening violence on other people unless you comply. Again... if you believe it was a credible threat of potentially lethal violence, then your act to comply was under duress.

    Of course, JKDS could tell me this is all just wrong... but I don't mean to say wrong things, here.
    So its a line between them acting and you acting? Taxes are still non-coercive then?

    What happens when you and I are held at knife-point and I freeze, you take over, take my wallet from me and give it to the robbers. Did you coerce me while yourself being under duress?
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  71. #296
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Then how are taxes coercive? The alternative to not paying them is bad, and paying them is the best of bad alternatives. How is any action coercive? When the wild-eyed junkey pokes a knife in your side and demands your wallet, giving it to him is the best of bad alternatives.
    Come on, man.
  72. #297
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    So its a line between them acting and you acting? Taxes are still non-coercive then?

    What happens when you and I are held at knife-point and I freeze, you take over, take my wallet from me and give it to the robbers. Did you coerce me while yourself being under duress?
    I think you understand it the way I understand it, yes.
  73. #298
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Two people here believe that unprovoked theft or hurt shouldn't be wrong?

    edit: I don't mean that 90% of people believe in ONLY the NAP, but everyone believes the general principle that you should fuck with other people and their shit.

    I'm in a sour mood from poker, maybe I'll be back here in a day or so.
    Last edited by Renton; 07-30-2016 at 04:40 PM.
  74. #299
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    Come on, man.
    You've got to be kidding me. I made that in earnest, man.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  75. #300
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    Two people here believe that unprovoked theft or hurt shouldn't be wrong?
    I'm sorry, "wrong" is so subjective. I'm more in the realm of what works.

    For something to work in the real world is the highest standard for me.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •