Question about fundamental societal construction

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

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

Anyway, #2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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

Anyway, #2.

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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

---

What are you talking about?

Capitalism is private ownership for profit.

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

I was presenting why they're opposites.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Structure and authority go hand in hand.

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

You have a very poor understanding of anarchism.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Ong can you please stop mis-characterizing capitalism?

---

Why not ask wuf to stop mis-characterising anarchism?

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

It can be a loan that generates interest

---

This simple short sentence demonstrates everything wrong with capitalism.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Capitalism has held us back for 250 years.

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

Quote:

---

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

---

Does (1) work?

There's nothing inherently wrong with beating children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

This simple short sentence demonstrates everything wrong with capitalism.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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

Capitalism has held us back for 250 years.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Does (1) work?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

There's nothing inherently wrong with beating children.

---

What about beating men ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

You have a very poor understanding of anarchism.

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

---

The third sentence on the wiki entry for anarchism:

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sin Uggla

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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

Capitalism has held us back for 250 years.

---

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sin Uggla

What about beating men ?

---

Same.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

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

---

YES!!

Quote:

---

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

---

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


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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sin Uggla

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sin Uggla

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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

---

Fun choice of words.

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

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

---

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

I hope I'm wrong.

Can you have capitalism without fractional reserve banking?

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

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

---

Well this isn't sustainable either.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

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

---

Spoiler alert

http://i413.photobucket.com/albums/p...DejaQCapta.jpg

Spoiler: Show

no

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

Can you have capitalism without fractional reserve banking?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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

I hope I'm wrong.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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

I hope I'm wrong.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

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



Fun choice of words.

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

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

---

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

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




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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by "Renton

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

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

---

Just for the hell of it. I recognize that this is intellectually robust, but it strikes me as some bullshit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Just for the hell of it. I recognize that this is intellectually robust, but it strikes me as some bullshit.

---

I guess I'll go ahead and say why.

Time isn't something you spend. It ticks away from you outside of your control.

Opportunity is not something you spend. Any guy should be able to remember the opportunities he's squandered with girls because he didn't recognize them. edit: you didn't choose to spend them, they were simply lost.

Limitless number of other profitable endeavors? There's a limit. Fuck, the limit might even be 1. My idea or no idea, beotch.

All in all, it sounds like someone trying to maneuver a negotiation and not a description of how things really are.

edit: Which is to say, I still find ways to wrestle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Clearly, I have a lot to learn about economic fundamentals. And I think you've got a few things to learn about people. They aren't rational. They will violate a non-aggression pact.

---

People who will be willing to use violence to secure their ends are the reason why there is a robust market in security, and I don't mean just the kind that states claim to give to citizens. Corner stores in tough neighborhoods invest in closed-circuit cameras, bulletproof glass, and security guards. But these stores still exist because they can turn a profit in spite of all of the risk factors that increase their costs. No doubt the violence causes a drain on the growth potential of that local economy, but the store wouldn't exist for long if it had an unsuccessful business model, and the bulletproof glass manufacturer contributes to the possibility that even a community wracked by violence can experience economic growth and capital accumulation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

They don't always benefit from mutually agreed trades (gamblers agreeing to put a coin into that blinking machine).

---

Who are you to say what constitutes a personal benefit to someone else? Maybe playing the slot machines in Atlantic City for the weekend helps people relieve the stress and boredom of their day jobs? The value person A ascribes to an activity will not necessarily be the same as person B's valuation of the same activity.

By your apparent standards of what constitutes wealth creation, a million things people pay for from nightclub tabs to massages to a tickets to the opera would be net losers for society. And yet they are not. No doubt, someone with a pathology or addiction of some kind can squander resources, I won't deny that. But there's simply no way to valuate things from the top-down and there's overwhelming data to suggest that free-market economies trend toward wealth creation over time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

People who will be willing to use violence to secure their ends are the reason why there is a robust market in security, and I don't mean just the kind that states claim to give to citizens. Corner stores in tough neighborhoods invest in closed-circuit cameras, bulletproof glass, and security guards. But these stores still exist because they can turn a profit in spite of all of the risk factors that increase their costs. No doubt the violence causes a drain on the growth potential of that local economy, but the store wouldn't exist for long if it had an unsuccessful business model, and the bulletproof glass manufacturer contributes to the possibility that even a community wracked by violence can experience economic growth and capital accumulation.

---

What about corner stores in Donetsk?

Quote:

---

Who are you to say what constitutes a personal benefit to someone else? Maybe playing the slot machines in Atlantic City for the weekend helps people relieve the stress and boredom of their day jobs? The value person A ascribes to an activity will not necessarily be the same as person B's valuation of the same activity.

---

Lotsa maybes. Let's just go with an objective measure: they're wagering money to win money. Do they end up with more money?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

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

---

I think regions that have embraced capitalism are less violent and more secure than all others. I think that necessarily means that violence is not the ultimate deciding factor and instead can be mitigated.

Quote:

---

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

---

I totally understand your point, and it is technically correct, but I think it is also correct to say that capitalism operates outside of states. It isn't through bureaucratic direction that capitalists have created new things, new industries, new environments, new cultures. Yet it is in areas where the state intervenes that capitalism has had great difficulty creating new stuff

Is there something special about why capitalists require being taxed and subjected to absolute law in order to secure their environments?

Quote:

---

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

---

That's great. I love them as well.

If I'm trying to get anything out of you, it's for you to tease out why monopolies work well for violence yet not for anything else.

Quote:

---

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

---

I don't think economics denies this. It tries to account for it as best it can. Standard risk-reward assessment. They say the coursework that econ students take after the rationality stuff is irrationality stuff.

Quote:

---

Just for the hell of it. I recognize that this is intellectually robust, but it strikes me as some bullshit.

---

I think the type of statement is accepted since the denominator is all possible options. Values and costs and all the above are inherently relative. To be specific about what Renton said, he had the so-called default option of investing the 10 million into a virtually risk-free but low-return product (say, government bonds). He feels that he would need 7% return on the higher risk investment in order to cover the opportunity cost of not investing in the default option. The same applies to whatever else he may have wanted to invest in

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

I guess I'll go ahead and say why.

Time isn't something you spend. It ticks away from you outside of your control.

Opportunity is not something you spend. Any guy should be able to remember the opportunities he's squandered with girls because he didn't recognize them. edit: you didn't choose to spend them, they were simply lost.

Limitless number of other profitable endeavors? There's a limit. Fuck, the limit might even be 1. My idea or no idea, beotch.

All in all, it sounds like someone trying to maneuver a negotiation and not a description of how things really are.

edit: Which is to say, I still find ways to wrestle.

---

I really have no idea what you are trying to say here. There are two opportunity costs that I as the lender incur in making this transaction.

1) My time, which could have been spent in a meeting with a different potential entrepreneur, or spent with my wife and kids for recreation, or spend doing heroin, or whatever. Time does not have value, but a person's time certainly does. A venture capitalist's time could be worth thousands of dollars per hour depending on the value of his expertise in loaning his investor's money.

2) The money, which could be earning interest with someone else. It is a well-established fact that money in the present is worth more than money in the future, all other variables remaining constant. Interest relates these two values and is price-coordinated in a free market. As it turns out, central banking subverts this mechanism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

What about corner stores in Donetsk?

---

Let's say the US military auctions off all handware. Do you think Russia and China could/would invade San Fransisco?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I think regions that have embraced capitalism are less violent and more secure than all others. I think that necessarily means that violence is not the ultimate deciding factor and instead can be mitigated.

---

Not being smirky but I'm watching Planet Earth right now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2ZW0EvMzSM

Violence is the deciding factor. Nothing can supersede it. The only thing that can deter it is either minimizing it or matching it.

Quote:

---

I totally understand your point, and it is technically correct, but I think it is also correct to say that capitalism operates outside of states. It isn't through bureaucratic direction that capitalists have created new things, new industries, new environments, new cultures. Yet it is in areas where the state intervenes that capitalism has had great difficulty creating new stuff

Is there something special about why capitalists require being taxed and subjected to absolute law in order to secure their environments?

---

It's not about capitalists. It's about people.

Quote:

---

That's great. I love them as well.

If I'm trying to get anything out of you, it's for you to tease out why monopolies work well for violence yet not for anything else.

---

Alright, first thought: Necessity. If I can kill you and you can't kill me, why rest on that? Why not use that to get what I want? Like your wife. She's cute. Give her to me.

Youtube = Braveheart Right of First Night. (couldn't find it)

Quote:

---

I don't think economics denies this. It tries to account for it as best it can. Standard risk-reward assessment. They say the coursework that econ students take after the rationality stuff is irrationality stuff.

---

I recognize this. But in doing so, they're writing a story and not crafting an understanding.

Quote:

---

I think the type of statement is accepted since the denominator is all possible options. Values and costs and all the above are inherently relative. To be specific about what Renton said, he had the so-called default option of investing the 10 million into a virtually risk-free but low-return product (say, government bonds). He feels that he would need 7% return on the higher risk investment in order to cover the opportunity cost of not investing in the default option. The same applies to whatever else he may have wanted to invest in

---

I know in his shoes, I'd decline many investment that didn't measure up, along these same lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

I really have no idea what you are trying to say here. There are two opportunity costs that I as the lender incur in making this transaction.

1) My time, which could have been spent in a meeting with a different potential entrepreneur, or spent with my wife and kids for recreation, or spend doing heroin, or whatever. Time does not have value, but a person's time certainly does. A venture capitalist's time could be worth thousands of dollars per hour depending on the value of his expertise in loaning his investor's money.

2) The money, which could be earning interest with someone else. It is a well-established fact that money in the present is worth more than money in the future, all other variables remaining constant. Interest relates these two values and is price-coordinated in a free market. As it turns out, central banking subverts this mechanism.

---

Yeah, intellectually robust, but I still find ways to wrestle. This is why I like experiments. They're a great way to bring everyone back to center.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Yeah, intellectually robust, but I still find ways to wrestle. This is why I like experiments. They're a great way to bring everyone back to center.

---

You act as if there aren't billions of observable examples of this in everyday life. I haven't visited theoryland even once during this thread.

edit: okay, i did once

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

I suspect that in a stateless society each bank would issue it's own bank notes and those notes would have value in trade interactions based on the reputation of those banks.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

You act as if there aren't billions of observable examples of this in everyday life. I haven't visited theoryland even once during this thread.

---

I do.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Violence is the deciding factor. Nothing can supersede it. The only thing that can deter it is either minimizing it or matching it.

---

Doesn't that mean that we should always use violence?

Why do we use violence less these days?

Quote:

---

It's not about capitalists. It's about people.

---

Is there something special about why people require being taxed and subjected to absolute law in order to secure their environments?

Quote:

---

Alright, first thought: Necessity. If I can kill you and you can't kill me, why rest on that? Why not use that to get what I want? Like your wife. She's cute. Give her to me.

---

But I can kill you. At the very least, it is my responsibility and that of my family, friends, and community to stop you. It is likewise your responsibility and that of your friends, family, and community to not go to war over your dick

I think our minds are often stuck in the way the world worked in an era where there were no markets. When everybody's a farmer and anything bigger only came at the behest of the ruling aristocracy, the way people got their way with outsiders is by violence. But today it's not like that. Hell, we can say it wasn't like that before large states were a thing. Tribal life also doesn't have absolute law and isn't that violent. All this great violence we're talking about is perpetuated by states

I live in a region where there is almost no violent crime (with large population). How can that be? Nobody ever sees the cops except when they're driving the main roads or stopping people for not wearing seat belts. Who is stopping all the violence? Could it be that the community is full of a bunch of people who know they would be creating too big of problems for themselves by being violent? Could it be that they have jobs and friends and a good third of them have big ass dogs and firearms, and nobody even sees value in crime?

Quote:

---

I recognize this. But in doing so, they're writing a story and not crafting an understanding.

---

Do you really think they're not trying to craft an understanding?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Doesn't that mean that we should always use violence?

Why do we use violence less these days?

---

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...

Quote:

---

Is there something special about why people require being taxed and subjected to absolute law in order to secure their environments?

---

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.

Quote:

---

But I can kill you.

---

And you don't.

Quote:

---

At the very least, it is my responsibility

---

Funny word there; responsibility.

Quote:

---

Do you really think they're not trying to craft an understanding?

---

Remove the bold (edit ugh): 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.