Question about fundamental societal construction

[wufwugy]

If I stabbed you in the chest, the state would put me in jail. I can't be more violent than the state. Motherfucker's got an army. And a navy. And...

Can that be the answer for why we use violence less these days since it has been like this for a long, long time.

They don't require being taxed. They're just gonna be taxed by the guy that makes the laws. Because no one else can knock him off the throne.

So why is not everything a monopoly? What you are saying necessarily means that the holders of the violence monopoly would use that to monopolize more things. Why is Silicon Valley not a government-sponsored monopoly on software?

What makes security the one and only thing that markets can't handle?

And you don't.

Precisely

Funny word there; responsibility.

Call it self-interest. Thaddeus would rather call it that

Remove the italics and add the bold: As best as I think I know how to know, I know they aren't.

As to what they are doing, I dunno. Earning a wage, I guess.

I don't believe you believe this. It means you're saying an entire profession with a wide variety of academics and professionals and deep channels are a bunch of headless chickens. It is accurate to say that the social sciences don't have the luxury of easy-bake oven experiments, but I think it's specious to suggest engineers are nobler people than economists

[Renton]

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

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

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

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

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

[a500lbgorilla]

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

I haven't perfected the technique yet.

[a500lbgorilla]

I don't believe you believe this. It means you're saying an entire profession with a wide variety of academics and professionals and deep channels are a bunch of headless chickens. It is accurate to say that the social sciences don't have the luxury of easy-bake oven experiments, but I think it's specious to suggest engineers are nobler people than economists

Hey man, we all think crazy thoughts.

[a500lbgorilla]

Still though, top thread.

[eberetta1]

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

[Renton]

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

one of my most epic posts about capitalism

[a500lbgorilla]

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

[Renton]

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

[wufwugy]

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

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

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

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

[Jack Sawyer]

Would you rather

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

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

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

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


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

Alright, to get this straight:

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

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

Is this correct? Or did you mean:

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

Or

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

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



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

[wufwugy]

Alright, to get this straight:

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

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

Is this correct? Or did you mean:

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

Or

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

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



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

I tried clarifying with the edit

Basically the difference is this:

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

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


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

[rong]

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

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

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

[wufwugy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[wufwugy]

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

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


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

[a500lbgorilla]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

And so we get all this shit.

[a500lbgorilla]

Remember, we're not all Elon Musk.

[wufwugy]

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

Option 1 is like if people you never met and never will meet had final say on whether or not you hire the contractor in the first place.

This goes to the points I was earlier making to Ong. An absence of government doesn't mean no more authority, just a change in how authorities are chosen. When you hire a contractor, you are still the decider. When the government does anything that involves you, you were not the decider. It could be said you were 1/200MM the decider. The denominator is however many people voted for the politicians that put the policy in place.

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

This is exactly what we want. A person close to the situation made a judgment and others close to the situation made judgments about that person's credibility. Government policy can't do this, which is why we see such crazy things as millions in prison over weed. If we replaced the sick person in the show with everybody who smoked weed and ended up in prison, we would find that the choices made by House and the sick person's family would look nothing like putting him in prison.

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

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

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

And so we get all this shit.

The problem of violence hasn't been solved. Terrorism is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the amount of violence that governments use on their own people.

Conservatives love the state just as much as liberals. I suspect it is because of that nifty adage: the devil you know is better than the devil you don't. This is internalized, and we all end up rationalizing every which way that we think the state does good even though those rationalizations are total contradictions to the way we think about everything else

[wufwugy]

Remember, we're not all Elon Musk.

I'm not sure what you mean

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm not sure what you mean

Read his AMA

This dude is next level.

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/commen...et_company_ama

Like his blood is Ritalin.

[wufwugy]

nigga i already read that shits. just not sure why you brought him up

[a500lbgorilla]

His blood is Ritalin.

[a500lbgorilla]

The problem of violence hasn't been solved. Terrorism is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the amount of violence that governments use on their own people.

If you got rid of every gov't, where do you think all that violent power will go?

edit my typos have been pretty bad today

[wufwugy]

If you got ride of every gov't, where do you think all that violent power will go?

The same place it has gone (and is continuing to go) in countries that have large economies functioning mainly on capitalist principles. It couldn't be done overnight of course.

This goes with what I was getting at when I asked you why things are less violent these days. I think the answer is capitalism, and I think the monopoly on violence is an obsolete vestige that would not be replaced in these regions if they were to be deconstructed.

Advanced regions are already rapidly disassembling the amount of violence the people choose to do. We know it's not because of anything the state has done because the state is doing the same thing it has always done.

It also goes to my point about how we are in the transition between eras. The former era is one where violence is the ultimate arbiter; the one we're transitioning into is where violence holds little power. Profits are taking over the way the world runs, and profits hate violence more than just about anything.

[a500lbgorilla]

I really disagree. I think if we take a look back on history, we'll see that violence always works. No matter the set up, violence will always threaten it.

People today choose to be less violent, because they can't be more violent than the really violent ones. "Oh alright, I'll try producing and trading instead."

[a500lbgorilla]

Remember there was that quote about Europe pre the world wars where someone said "No one would ever disturb this set up because we're all making too much money!" (I'm recalling this from one of the Dan Carlin podcasts).

[a500lbgorilla]

I really disagree. I think if we take a look back on history, we'll see that violence always works. No matter the set up, violence will always threaten it.

People today choose to be less violent, because they can't be more violent than the really violent ones. "Oh alright, I'll try producing and trading instead."

And it's as if you're suggesting that people will eventually just forget how to be violent.

[a500lbgorilla]

Though, it has been a good move consolidating violence from local fiefdoms to regional gov'ts. Maybe we should be pushing for a one world gov't, that only taxes us to keep killers from killing. And then underneath: libertarian utopia!

[wufwugy]

Remember there was that quote about Europe pre the world wars where someone said "No one would ever disturb this set up because we're all making too much money!" (I'm recalling this from one of the Dan Carlin podcasts).

But they weren't making too much money. The health of capital pre-WW1 was nothing like it is today.

WW1 was caused primarily by dysfunctional state policy (secret alliances). WW2 was caused primarily by people not making any money (mostly Germans).


Look at Russia. Western militaries have done a big fat nothing against Russia's aggression, yet today Putin's regime is in a hell-place and its aggression is almost entirely subdued. All because of economics. If Putin wanted to, he could full speed ahead try to take over Europe, yet even if no state-backed military intervened even slightly, he would get utterly crushed and his regime would crumble

The monopoly on violence is doing nothing to stop violence

[wufwugy]

And it's as if you're suggesting that people will eventually just forget how to be violent.

I'm not. I'm suggesting people are losing the incentives to be violent. It's happening at a swift pace

[wufwugy]

Though, it has been a good move consolidating violence from local fiefdoms to regional gov'ts. Maybe we should be pushing for a one world gov't, that only taxes us to keep killers from killing. And then underneath: libertarian utopia!

I have always argued the monopoly on violence is good for the non-capitalist world. I don't know if that's true, but I have always argued it

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm not. I'm suggesting people are losing the incentives to be violent. It's happening at a swift pace

I suggest the incentives are too great. If you could violently take over a top economy, it would be hugely profitable. Rome made an empire out of that game.

[wufwugy]

I suggest the incentives are too great. If you could violently take over a top economy, it would be hugely profitable. Rome made an empire out of that game.

Exactly!

But you can't. Not anymore. Companies that make up a top economy already have too great an incentive to let that happen. This is why I have posted several times that I think if all US nukes were auctioned, we would actually see the world eliminate all its nukes. The Chamber of Commerce and many other huge factions would have overwhelming incentive to eliminate that gargantuan risk. They would offer other holders of nukes terms they can't refuse. Not to repeat myself: capitalists like it when both parties win; states like it only when the other party loses.

Besides, it's not like Russia wants its nukes. It feels like it needs them because other states also have nukes. States have everything backwards. They create tension and violence merely by existing.


Also, taking over a top economy wouldn't be profitable. It would be a colossal sink. That sort of stuff was only true when everybody was a farmer and states could control all things by taxing farmers. It should be telling that rich organizations have zero desire to take over economies. Only states want to do that. Taking over economies destroys profits

[wufwugy]

^^note that i didn't say that we should eliminate all nukes except for russia's. that would be a disaster

the salve to the problem of nukes is to let capital price it out. this happens with everything. im not sure what makes violence so special that it cant be priced out

[a500lbgorilla]

Exactly!

But you can't. Not anymore. Companies that make up a top economy already have too great an incentive to let that happen.

Ah yes, because history never repeats itself.

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

And people today are just too rich and smart and evolved to fall into that same old rut.

[a500lbgorilla]

Or are you saying that great corporations will want to form big armed forces to protect their ecosystem, then when they have there will be no reason to sit on them so they'll wage wars for profit?

It's called America, and it is amazing.

[wufwugy]

Ah yes, because history never repeats itself.

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

And people today are just too rich and smart and evolved to fall into that same old rut.

I don't have to know anything about the Carthagian economy to know that it doesn't qualify for anything I've said. I would use it, as well as so many others, as examples for why militaristic states used to be a good thing. That was back in a time when the only way to assess an existential risk from outside aggressors was to merely assume it was huge.

[wufwugy]

Or are you saying that great corporations will want to form big armed forces to protect their ecosystem, then when they have there will be no reason to sit on them so they'll wage wars for profit?

It's called America, and it is amazing.

You beg the question. Corporations do not protect their ecosystems by creating a monopoly on violence.

Besides, in an economy like ours, they simply couldn't. The risk would be about as high as the probability of the sun rising tomorrow. Few would take it on for that reason, and those who did would be crushed by the incentives of everybody else

[wufwugy]

It should be noted that most people who are against the state are so domestically. They believe that outside threats are of a different nature, which is a valid argument, but I'm not sure a sound one.

I think if the West cut its military budgets down to 10% of what they are now, it would still fully defend from outsiders. I think if the militaries were disbanded, >10% of the current budget would be raised/donated annually by charity/militia organizations

China would probably ramp up its spending (but maybe not). Its hegemony wouldn't expand to the West though, and it would have a helluva time expanding anywhere, really. I think the Cold War demonstrated that capitalism is what won, not military prowess.

I guess what I'm saying is that you want a state in order to stabilize all regions into capitalism. But once a region is stable, it isn't at threat from another stable region. This would mean that the West could eliminate state policies on domestic issues, and the rest of the world could do so as well after they develop traditions of stability

[CoccoBill]

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

I call red herring.

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

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

[wufwugy]

I call red herring.

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

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

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

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

[jackvance]

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

The US might be overdoing it on the printing money aspect though. The petrodollar isn't going to be around forever. Here's an interesting video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P02vjiEZyUs

[CoccoBill]

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

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

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

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

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

[wufwugy]

The US might be overdoing it on the printing money aspect though. The petrodollar isn't going to be around forever. Here's an interesting video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P02vjiEZyUs

I don't know of any serious economists who put much credence into the petrodollar conjecture. It isn't that much of a benefit, if it at all. The US doesn't "print money" any more than several other countries, and there is no noticeable correlation between petro status and more wealth creation vs non-petro status and less wealth creation

We should call "printing money" "loose monetary policy" instead. The US doesn't do as much of that as people say. If it did, inflation would be higher. Lots of other indices would be different than they are. The bottom line is that monetary policy (looseness or tightness of) is not determined by the monetary base

Also the main difference between the Fed and ECB is that the Fed has looser policy. It isn't a whole lot looser, but it's definitely looser. Europe's economy is in disaster state compared to the US, and most serious economists from many different persuasions say the primary reason why the US is doing so much better is that the ECB's policy is overly tight and the Fed's is not

[wufwugy]

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

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

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

I don't know what you're getting at. There is very little market for security since the government monopolizes most of it

You're euphemizing what you support and dysphemizing what you don't. The dichotomy is not "organized reliable rule following police" versus "angry mobs"

Have you considered some of the points for why markets more effectively organize societies than states?

[a500lbgorilla]

I don't know what you're getting at. There is very little market for security since the government monopolizes most of it

There's very little market without security.

[wufwugy]

Correct. There's basically no market without security.

I don't think that fact tells us much about what the market for security can do though

[jackvance]

I don't know of any serious economists who put much credence into the petrodollar conjecture. It isn't that much of a benefit, if it at all. The US doesn't "print money" any more than several other countries, and there is no noticeable correlation between petro status and more wealth creation vs non-petro status and less wealth creation

For sure the video is doing some exaggerating (ww3!) but what I found most interesting is that they actually give a comprehensive explanation for all the wars the US has been fighting. And there isn't really an alternate explanation that makes sense, weapons of mass destruction that didn't even exist, what? I've now seen first hand what oil money can do and it's astounding. If the US is really fighting wars to be able to control oil then maybe there's a bit more to it than we think?

[a500lbgorilla]

Correct. There's basically no market without security.

I don't think that fact tells us much about what the market for security can do though

It does tell you how security supercedes markets though

[wufwugy]

It does tell you how security supercedes markets though

Security is a necessary condition for a healthy market. I see no reason why a healthy market couldn't provide its own security

I think what I'm saying boils down to the view that people should buy their security, and what you're saying boils down to the view that people should buy the representatives who buy their security for them. What is there about government backed security that is fundamentally more capable than private?

[a500lbgorilla]

Security can't always be bought. Welcome to World History. A game not of who trades best, but of who kills best.

[a500lbgorilla]

If I was the greatest Security Firm in the world, I would conquer the world and claim it's wealth. Mongols Inc.

[wufwugy]

For sure the video is doing some exaggerating (ww3!) but what I found most interesting is that they actually give a comprehensive explanation for all the wars the US has been fighting. And there isn't really an alternate explanation that makes sense, weapons of mass destruction that didn't even exist, what? I've now seen first hand what oil money can do and it's astounding. If the US is really fighting wars to be able to control oil then maybe there's a bit more to it than we think?

Oh it's definitely for oil. But oil != petrodollar

I think the short of why the US puts so much military hardware into the Middle East is that whoever controls oil controls the world. I couldn't find it again, but there was a glorious map on r/mapporn a while back showing the Heartland Theory. It was developed around the world wars (I don't recall if before, during, or after), but it was focused on Russia and global control. It hypothesized that whomever controls Asia controls the world, and it has been a piece of the heart of the West's foreign policy since.

As WW2 was ending and Russia was rising up, the West knew that control of oil was essential to maintaining security against Russia. Ever since, it has still mostly been about that. The Cold War formed the makeup of the modern world to degrees far greater than most people seem to acknowledge. Since the collapse of the USSR, it has still been about maintaining supply controls and keeping any other national or rogue actors from challenging US interests (Truman Doctrine) and the West's peace

It should be noted that even though it's the US military that does it, western Europe is just as much a part of it. Europe is indirectly subsidized by the US (heavily IMO) in several ways, one of which is military. Yes European countries have militaries, but they're quite small compared to what they would otherwise be since the US has turned itself into a juggernaut who guarantees the safety of all its allies

[wufwugy]

I want to respond but I'll have to later. I'm going out

[a500lbgorilla]

Whatever response you give is going to try to shoehorn the world into the narrative of economics. And there are so many other narratives to hear.

[Savy]

Whatever response you give is going to try to shoehorn the world into the narrative of economics. And there are so many other narratives to hear.

Surely you're not saying how people act depends on how they as individuals decide to view the world as opposed to how the majority of people view the world.

[CoccoBill]

I don't know what you're getting at. There is very little market for security since the government monopolizes most of it

You're euphemizing what you support and dysphemizing what you don't. The dichotomy is not "organized reliable rule following police" versus "angry mobs"

Have you considered some of the points for why markets more effectively organize societies than states?

You say that as if that's a bad thing, that's what I'm getting at. There are plenty of examples around the world and from history when violence hasn't been monopolized. I'm quite happy to live in a country and era where it is.

I think you're doing the exact same. You're equating every organized, trained and supervised security force with corruption and oppression, and untrained armed vigilante mobs with your friendly local neighborhood patrols.

Have you stopped beating your wife? No, I haven't seen any actual evidence showing what you claim, just theories based on what I think are false premises. You skipped my question, why don't people buy insurance off craigslist?

I think the core problem here is you're disillusioned with your current government and attribute all that's evil in the world to it. What you fail to see IMO is that a government is an inevitable outcome of a society. It's just a management structure. On a smaller scale, a city council is a government, or the town elder. Likewise with the board of directors or the CEO. Are you saying all forms of management and structure are bad and if not, at what point exactly do they all become incompetent?

[Renton]

You say that as if that's a bad thing, that's what I'm getting at. There are plenty of examples around the world and from history when violence hasn't been monopolized. I'm quite happy to live in a country and era where it is.

I think you're doing the exact same. You're equating every organized, trained and supervised security force with corruption and oppression, and untrained armed vigilante mobs with your friendly local neighborhood patrols.

Have you stopped beating your wife? No, I haven't seen any actual evidence showing what you claim, just theories based on what I think are false premises. You skipped my question, why don't people buy insurance off craigslist?

I think the core problem here is you're disillusioned with your current government and attribute all that's evil in the world to it. What you fail to see IMO is that a government is an inevitable outcome of a society. It's just a management structure. On a smaller scale, a city council is a government, or the town elder. Likewise with the board of directors or the CEO. Are you saying all forms of management and structure are bad and if not, at what point exactly do they all become incompetent?

He's saying that the distinction is the monopoly. The lack of competing alternatives, and the lack of choice as to which alternative is used. In a prosperous modern economy, where there is a market for security, a market for police, and a market for dispute arbitration, firms will emerge that compete with one another.

Your argument that governments are inevitable probably held some water in eras of human history prior to the present. But we're so interconnected now. There are so many symbiotic economic exchanges in the current global economy that you just don't have the capacity for warlords to emerge. We can already see the entire concept of a nation-state crumbling before our eyes. Maybe this is the natural progression of societal organization. Maybe it was necessary to go from the hunter-gatherer tribal phase through the pharoah/caesar phase, kings/nobility phase, colonial phase, and representative democracy phases and now this is what's next. It started with power as a singularity and it progressed to a more and more equitable distribution of power. The natural next step is to have a incrementally weakening state.

[CoccoBill]

Security firms (think G4S, Securitas etc), private military contractors and so on seem to be doing really well, I wouldn't call security a true monopoly. Law enforcement yes, security no.

You may or may not be right, and to be fair I'm not equipped to argue that. I do however disagree with the direction we're headed, to more and more condensation of power. Within societies wealth and power condensing to the top. Nation coalitions and unions spreading and new ones emerging. Multinational corporations killing competition and gaining more market share globally.

[a500lbgorilla]

Your argument that governments are inevitable probably held some water in eras of human history prior to the present. But we're so interconnected now. There are so many symbiotic economic exchanges in the current global economy that you just don't have the capacity for warlords to emerge.

Until some insurance firm discovers that standing armies are ridiculous expenses and marching armies are enormously profitable. And so should begin the Insurance Firm Wars.

I'm being sarcastic, but here's the basic rub: You assume people will find no need for violence when free trade reigns, I assume people will always try to find a use for violence and it will prove useful.

edit: Back to the sarcasm, imagine the world after the wars: gov't literally only collects taxes to justify standing armies and doesn't pretend to handle anything else.

edit edit: until some noisy motherfuckers say, "hey, that standing army could also put out fires in their downtime!"

[a500lbgorilla]

Surely you're not saying how people act depends on how they as individuals decide to view the world as opposed to how the majority of people view the world.

Nah, people will act the way they will act and others will try to describe it. Someone's world view might be seen to drive their actions, but I don't worry about that nonsense. Remember Sadam Hussein claimed he acted in the interests of Iraq before he was hanged.

[jackvance]

Remember Sadam Hussein claimed he acted in the interests of Iraq before he was hanged.

Was he wrong, I mean look at the place now..

[a500lbgorilla]

Was he wrong, I mean look at the place now..

but I don't worry about that nonsense.

The world ain't a game of right or wrong - just what is.

edit afterall, life has always been a game of co-operation and violence. https://gfycat.com/ImperfectOrnateDanishswedishfarmdog

Gaia is one tough bitch.

[wufwugy]

Security can't always be bought. Welcome to World History. A game not of who trades best, but of who kills best.

If I was the greatest Security Firm in the world, I would conquer the world and claim it's wealth. Mongols Inc.

All security is bought. When the government uses police or military to secure you, they have bought it with your taxes. The fundamental difference is the same as I said earlier: either you can buy your own security or you can buy representatives who buy it for you. Your argument favors the latter. I'm asking you why you favor the latter. What is it about you not being allowed to make choices for your security better than you being allowed to make choices for your security?

[a500lbgorilla]

Ain't nobody buy Genghis Khan.

[a500lbgorilla]

But I keep forgetting. People change and the modern world plays by different rules.

[wufwugy]

Until some insurance firm discovers that standing armies are ridiculous expenses and marching armies are enormously profitable. And so should begin the Insurance Firm Wars.

They're not enormously profitable. I think this is a crux in our disagreement. I do not think it is accurate to say that profit-seeking entities view marching armies and conquest as profitable. Every example I can think of in history shows its an enormous cost sink and that the real motives for armies and conquest is power. Going back to the British Empire, conquest was a total fucking disaster for its profits. Governments don't do profits, and profits aren't what comes out of conquest. Perhaps if you go back to such a primitive society as, say, during the Mongol Empire, it could be said that profits came out of control of a simple sector of raw resources. But that is not a concern today. There are magnitudes more types of resources and competition. Conquest is not profitable and the last thing you will ever see is the Insurance Firm Wars.

The key is that you're equating profits with legal power. All the stuff Dan Carlin talks about is societies that organize around legal power. Societies that organize around profits are fundamentally different. I do not think it is that illuminating to use pre-free-market-capitalism or anti-free-market-capitalism societies as examples of problems in free-market-capitalist societies

[wufwugy]

But I keep forgetting. People change and the modern world plays by different rules.

Just like how modern warfare plays by different rules. Or how communication is different. Or farming. Or education.

Ain't nobody buy Genghis Khan.

But we do buy the US military, which makes Khan look like a toddler

[a500lbgorilla]

We are way far apart on this.

[wufwugy]

I think you're doing the exact same. You're equating every organized, trained and supervised security force with corruption and oppression, and untrained armed vigilante mobs with your friendly local neighborhood patrols.

Thank you for saying this, because I am not saying that. I am not arguing for the virtue of the people in a system, but for the system itself. Competition is the vehicle by which standards are improved. Government doesn't have much to compete with because it is a monopoly and its revenues are mandatory. Private capitalist entities die if they can't beat the competition. This is why we could elect 100 Einsteins to the US Senate and it would still be dysfunctional, yet an entire region of a bunch of average people who organize on self-interest without any legal authority are able to create an extremely functional system.

I think the core problem here is you're disillusioned with your current government and attribute all that's evil in the world to it. What you fail to see IMO is that a government is an inevitable outcome of a society. It's just a management structure. On a smaller scale, a city council is a government, or the town elder. Likewise with the board of directors or the CEO. Are you saying all forms of management and structure are bad and if not, at what point exactly do they all become incompetent?

I'm not disillusioned with my government. I think I probably prefer the US government to any of the other current renditions. That includes the ones the left-wing call Utopia, like Scandinavia. I think Scandinavia is heavily subsidized by the US economy. I think if it wasn't for the areas in which the US has relatively free markets, Europe would be far poorer, with far lower technology

There is still a reason why if you want to create something new, you go to the US. I don't mean to say that this is always the case, as there are some sectors (at least I think so) in different European countries that have strong entrepreneurial tendencies. But France, for example, would probably be a disaster without all the subsidization it gets from less authoritarian regions that create new technologies.

This is a really complex issue though. Something as simple as the culture of entrepreneurship can make so much difference. I recall Shane Smith saying he could never have gotten where he is now if the US was like Canada

[wufwugy]

We are way far apart on this.

We don't have to be.

Why are all the companies in Silicon Valley better served by having no choice over their security than having choice over their security? Your argument is essentially that without the US government collecting and allocating taxes by force, Silicon Valley would be taken over by conquest. Why is it that Silicon Valley can't protect itself from conquest by choice?

[a500lbgorilla]

It can try.

There's a reason state's claim sole ownership of lethal authority - because they took it and no one else has taken it from them.

I'm not arguing for what's best, we'll never live in best.

[JKDS]

I've been wanting to respond to this thread for awhile, but couldnt really see how to approach it. I think I know why.

When you talk about abolishing police and replacing them with paid security, you're talking about a massive change to the way society is run. As in, hundreds of thousands of things would need to be changed/adjusted in order for such a switch to occur, much less work. Problems like organized crime, corruption, the reach of such a system on small towns, and the effect on the poor are just the tip of the iceberg here.

But you're also talking about things that we already have. You talk about having a say in laws/security, but we do. You talk about tiny communities managing problems instead of massive ones, but we have that as well (we could go tinier I guess, but we have towns of a few hundred people with their own police force and counsel etc). Its confusing what the actual changes would be, and its hard to talk about it without more.

Im not sure what would stop a monopoly of security either, and im not sure what would prevent them from creating their own society / government. You might argue that countries dont matter in this day and age, but people living in anti-fun korea would say otherwise. You must surely then concede that governments need ways of protecting themselves, or else other governments could take over (like the security corporation). If thats the case, then this is really just an argument of scope, and what you really want is just a smaller DoJ etc while keeping everything else the same.

[wufwugy]

There's a reason state's claim sole ownership of lethal authority - because they took it and no one else has taken it from them.

That's a good point to make, but I think it also shows why the state isn't good for security. Nobody takes it from the state because there is no market in it. The US government has effectively priced out its competition. This means that private entities could as well. Considering how the markets handle costs and innovation, it would be cheaper and more effective too.

On a different note, the US government actually didn't take it from another. The story of US governments has more to do with non-government entities stopping the British government entities, and then a very slow and gradual increase in governmental authority (mainly federal).

I see no reason to believe that Silicon Valley would be at threat if it no longer was mandated to pay for protection. I don't believe it is necessary to always have a racket

[JKDS]

Are governments not in competition with each other wuf? States compete for businesses, residents, tourism, and more. No state wants to be "50th in education" or "1st in crime". National governments are clearly in competition, ie the cold war. So the point that governments are not incentivized to work hard doesnt seem to hold merit.