Ayn Rand Philosophy, Objectivism, Science, Self-interest

I just found this:

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Princi...nomics/Utility

I recommend reading the whole thing (it's short), but here's the part about rationality (bold is mine):

Quote:

---

In economics, we usually say that an individual is "rational" if that individual maximizes utility in their decisions. That is, whenever an individual is to choose between a group of options, they are rational if they choose the option that, all else equal, gives the greatest utility. Recalling that utility includes every element of a decision, this assumption is not particularly difficult to accept. If, when everything is taken into account, one decision provides the greatest utility, which is equivalent to meaning that it is the most preferred, then we would expect the individual to take that most preferred option.

This should not necessarily be taken to mean that individuals who fail to quantify and measure every decision they make are behaving irrationally. Rather, this means that a rational individual is one who always selects that option that they prefer the most.
The rationality assumption may seem trivial, but it is basic to the study of economics. This assumption gives a basis for modeling human behavior and decision making. If we could not assume rationality, it would be impossible to say what, when presented with a set of choices, an individual would select. The notion of rationality is therefore central to any understanding of microeconomics.

---

So rational actor = not a literal puppet?

Wait, are we literally saying that all creatures are rational actors, then?

This broad definition no longer even applies specifically to humans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

So rational actor = not a literal puppet?

Wait, are we literally saying that all creatures are rational actors, then?

This broad definition no longer even applies specifically to humans.

---

We're saying that people are preferential actors and that it is rational to be preferential. In a sense, this is the most basic type of rationality. It's not a thoroughly thoughtful abstraction, but it certainly makes sense that when the options are (1) act on preference, (2) do not act on preference, or (3) act or do not act on preference randomly, then (1) is the most rational.

I don't see anything wrong with the point that it could apply to other species, other than it not being terribly useful since we're not modeling economic behavior of other species.

Free markets in a nutshell: individuals know better what's good for society than experts and collective wisdom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Free markets in a nutshell: individuals know better what's good for society than experts and collective wisdom.

---

What? You're just stating an opinion about free markets, not defining the term in any meaningful way.

Well, that's just like, your opinion. Man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Free markets in a nutshell: individuals know better what's good for society than experts and collective wisdom.

---

It's more like this: one of the most foundational theories of economics -- rational choice theory -- says that aggregate social behavior results from the behavior of individual actors.

From this emerges the reasoning that nobody has the level of expertise on your personal decisions like you do; therefore it is you who should make your decisions and bear the results. This same paradigm works at all levels, including families, businesses, and communities. Expertise and wisdom of crowds are of the utmost importance to society, but mandates and regulations dished out by a handful of bureaucrats to the enormous quantities of masses is not an effective way to engage them.

Keep in mind that those with expertise on economics are intense proponents of free markets, and that bureaucrats do not have enough expertise to command trillions of decisions from above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Free markets in a nutshell: individuals know better what's good for society than experts and collective wisdom.

---

Free markets tap the ingenuity and expertise of societies in a far more effective and efficient way than any state ever has. It doesn't take much observation of the political system to prove this; to rise in the public sector usually has very little to do with being an expert at anything other than at gaming the political system itself.

Over 10k posts in this "What is something we underappreciate" thread, and notice how every example is something that would not exist except for the efforts of free enterprise.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/c...derappreciate/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

It's more like this: one of the most foundational theories of economics -- rational choice theory -- says that aggregate social behavior results from the behavior of individual actors.

---

What's missing from this? It can't just be individual actions determine group actions.

And, surely some regulations are of great benefit to society. I'm in no position to protect myself from fraud, for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightGizmo

What? You're just stating an opinion about free markets, not defining the term in any meaningful way.

---

You may be lacking some historical context of this conversation. That is what wuf seems to claim. My personal opinion is completely and strikingly different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

It's more like this: one of the most foundational theories of economics -- rational choice theory -- says that aggregate social behavior results from the behavior of individual actors.

From this emerges the reasoning that nobody has the level of expertise on your personal decisions like you do; therefore it is you who should make your decisions and bear the results. This same paradigm works at all levels, including families, businesses, and communities. Expertise and wisdom of crowds are of the utmost importance to society, but mandates and regulations dished out by a handful of bureaucrats to the enormous quantities of masses is not an effective way to engage them.

Keep in mind that those with expertise on economics are intense proponents of free markets, and that bureaucrats do not have enough expertise to command trillions of decisions from above.

---

Each individual most likely knows best what his goals are, my point is he often doesn't know how to get there. Also, I'm not convinced that setting "policies" (whether through regulations or dynamically through free markets) for each individual based on their unique preferences is better for the society as a whole than setting them with collective goals in mind. Free market may be more effective, but it doesn't ensure movement in the right direction, collectively speaking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

You may be lacking some historical context of this conversation. That is what wuf seems to claim. My personal opinion is completely and strikingly different.

---

Oops, fair enough.

I typed this at the end after having made the post, but moved it to the front:

***The final four paragraphs are probably the most important points I've made on this subject. They gets to the heart of why my position is what it is. They are textbook economics and they gets to the heart of why economists are intense proponents of free markets, why most economists favor deregulation in most ways, and why world renowned economists like Milton Friedman say things like this famous line attributed to him: "if you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara desert, in fives years there'd be a shortage of sand."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

What's missing from this? It can't just be individual actions determine group actions.

---

Individuals act. Even large corporations are made up of the actions of each of its individuals. Economists have found no other way to mathematically represent economic behavior.

Quote:

---

And, surely some regulations are of great benefit to society. I'm in no position to protect myself from fraud, for example.

---

Standards set through free markets with regards to fraud would be of even greater benefit to society. Standards set by governments regarding a large number of regulations are quite detrimental to society. The reason for this goes back to the different types of markets identified in economics. The idea that governments should set regulations necessarily means that the regulations exist in a monopolistic market, and the idea that private entities should regulate amongst themselves necessarily means that regulations exist in a monopolistic competition market.

Monopolistic market and monopolistic competition market are the technical names of the market types learned in ECON 101. Monopolistic markets benefit only a few at the expense of many by creating scarcity and increasing prices. Governments are this kind of market, and when you look at the sectors of economies that governments regulate, it makes sense that governments are indeed this kind of market since the sectors have much greater scarcity and higher prices than sectors in freer markets. Another element of monopolistic markets is that they aren't conducive to innovation; instead they're actively inhibiting of innovation. This means that once a monopolistic market is set, it tends to stay that way for a long, long time. This dynamic is evident in government regulation, as it should be since governments are monopolistic markets.

Monopolistic competition markets make up the majority of other types of sectors. Electronics, plumbing, publishing, clothing, restaurants, are just a handful of examples of monopolistic competition markets. They're "monopolistic" because their goods and services are differentiated. Of the several characteristics that describe monopolistic competition, the main element that gives it the "competition" and thus distinguishes it from monopolistic exclusively is the market has low barriers to entry and exit of producers. While entry and exit is affected by several elements, the chief determinant is regulation by governments.

The other type of market is "perfect competition." They're rare, and exist for things like wheat, where products are not differentiated. In Utopia, all goods and services would exist in perfect competition markets, but the best that modern civilization can do now (and will be able to do for probably at least a few centuries) is turn as many of its monopolistic markets into monopolistic competition markets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Each individual most likely knows best what his goals are, my point is he often doesn't know how to get there. Also, I'm not convinced that setting "policies" (whether through regulations or dynamically through free markets) for each individual based on their unique preferences is better for the society as a whole than setting them with collective goals in mind. Free market may be more effective, but it doesn't ensure movement in the right direction, collectively speaking.

---

Who are these angels that can ensure movement in the right direction?

I'd really appreciate it if you walk through this more slowly.

So the first step is saying, "People are rational actors," where rational is a fluffy filler word which bears no meaning in the sentence. If any meaning can be attributed to the word "rational" it seems to be in the legal sense of "responsible for their," as far as I can tell.

While this is a squishy starting point, I don't disagree with the sentiment that "People do stuff and they are responsible / accountable for their own choices."


What's the next step? If it goes straight to "people know what is best for themselves," then you lost me already. There needs to be some real clarity on these terms. How many times have you been stuck in a rut and a friend says something that you immediately think is obvious and good advice? Until that moment, you did not know what was "best for yourself." You may not have even wanted to talk to that friend.


This isn't even getting to the point of people who are being taken advantage of by other people due to the free market influences. There is money to be made off of exploiting children to the point of unquestionable abuse. The free market gives this value, and leaves absolutely no incentive to regulate it in a manner which is both meaningful and possible. People who perpetuate the abuse will continue to do so as long as there is money to be made... which it always will, even if only in black markets (the most free of markets, I'd assume).

What do you have to say for this brutal nature of human desire and selfishness to create a value on the creation of human suffering? How can the free markets ever possibly curtail this?

In the third video of the OP, Yaron Brook made a comment that implied he doesn't think FDIC deposit insurance should exist. Do you believe that basic banking regulations shouldn't exist and that consumer deposits shouldn't be protected? So if a bank is mismanaged (either due to incompetence or outright corruption) and fails so completely that they cannot pay back any deposits, that the consumer is SOL and loses all of their money?

I know you did not want to read a long essay, so stopped when the post was much smaller. But as I was rereading your post to make sure I addressed your points, it more than doubled in size.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I'd really appreciate it if you walk through this more slowly.

So the first step is saying, "People are rational actors," where rational is a fluffy filler word which bears no meaning in the sentence. If any meaning can be attributed to the word "rational" it seems to be in the legal sense of "responsible for their," as far as I can tell.

While this is a squishy starting point, I don't disagree with the sentiment that "People do stuff and they are responsible / accountable for their own choices."


What's the next step? If it goes straight to "people know what is best for themselves," then you lost me already. There needs to be some real clarity on these terms. How many times have you been stuck in a rut and a friend says something that you immediately think is obvious and good advice? Until that moment, you did not know what was "best for yourself." You may not have even wanted to talk to that friend.

---

The act of being rational is the act of acting on preference; irrational would be acting against preference or randomly acting on or against preference. It is not that people know what is best for them (in the reasoned abstract sense), but that people know what they prefer (in a here and now valuation sense)*. Economics doesn't attempt to model the former but does attempt to model the latter. This is probably because modeling abstractions and thoughts and even preferences is about as impossibly hard as it gets. What economists do instead is say they can model preference indirectly by modeling consumer behavior.


*Even a state of confusion on preference is still a preference, since at that moment, the person prefers none of the options, or rather, the option of not having chosen yet.

Quote:

---

This isn't even getting to the point of people who are being taken advantage of by other people due to the free market influences. There is money to be made off of exploiting children to the point of unquestionable abuse. The free market gives this value, and leaves absolutely no incentive to regulate it in a manner which is both meaningful and possible. People who perpetuate the abuse will continue to do so as long as there is money to be made... which it always will, even if only in black markets (the most free of markets, I'd assume).

What do you have to say for this brutal nature of human desire and selfishness to create a value on the creation of human suffering? How can the free markets ever possibly curtail this?

---

This is a fantastic question. Seriously. It's the kind that I need to be able to answer. Before we get to that, I should point out that black markets are not free markets; they're the antithesis of free markets. They exist because of regulations, for regulations are what push the sectors out of normal markets and into "black" markets. Even still, most black market transactions are beneficial for all parties. They include things like construction projects that skirt useless regulations. I know a ton of people who operate with elements of the black market in construction, and they do it because the zoning and building regulations in Washington state are insane. They're "you can only have this small number of sheds on your vast plot of land because some suit-and-ties at the capitol who have never even set foot in the woods or on a farm say so" level insane.

Regarding abuse within black markets, the demand for abused goods and services (like sex slaves) exists because consumers can't get what they want in normal markets. It isn't that there is value in selling a suffering, abused sex slave, but that there is value in selling sex, and the only way to get it because of bad laws is through suffering, abused slaves.

When it comes to the very small but still existent proportion of people who desire to consume the abuse of people (like psychopaths, murderers, rapists), they can be dealt with effectively through other means that don't involve integrating them with normal people looking for something like just sex like the laws that create black markets do.

As for something like "forced" labor, it isn't actually forced. The examples in emerging economies are of people (sometimes children) choosing to improve the amount of pleasure in their lives by working and developing more wealth than they otherwise could. This is happening in real time by the millions. The narrative of abusive factories in China is wrong.

As for something like actual slave labor based on something like color, it is non-competitive and couldn't exist today simply because the products of the labor would be too expensive. The incentives for slaves to work is to not be punished. This results in really low levels of productivity. Contrast to how China sweat shop laborers are very productive; it's because their incentive is to improve their wealth and net pleasures. American slavery was beginning to struggle before the Civil War and I think that if the war had never happened, all slaves would still have eventually been emancipated since enterprise was gradually making products cheaper than plantations could.



It is basic human nature that people tend to choose to not suffer. Because the value of something is dependent on its consumption, when people have choice, they tend to choose things that provide pleasure and eschew things that provide suffering. This reduces the value of practices that cause suffering and increases the value of practices that cause pleasure. Adam Smith's most famous observation details this: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." He's saying that because people choose pleasure over suffering, producers have to provide pleasure enough that consumers will choose their services. Those that cannot, or those that dish out suffering explicitly, do not receive the consumptive choice of others, and they lose economic power that includes their own ability to consume. This is suffering to them, so their goals end up aligning with the so-called goals of society, where pleasures and positives are constructed and suffering and negatives are eschewed.

On a philosophical note, the way free markets curtail abuses is the same way governments, communities, and individuals do; it's just a more effective way on the macro level than governments. What stops people from being abused when that person is abused? That person not wanting to be abused and other people not wanting that person from being abused. This value is not exclusively incorporated at the level of government; it remains in free markets. There is not a magic reason for how the morals held by people in societies can only be distributed from a capitol building and bureaucracies, and one can see how it is easier for individuals' morals to remain relevant when they aren't distributed from a capitol building or bureaucracies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightGizmo

In the third video of the OP, Yaron Brook made a comment that implied he doesn't think FDIC deposit insurance should exist. Do you believe that basic banking regulations shouldn't exist and that consumer deposits shouldn't be protected? So if a bank is mismanaged (either due to incompetence or outright corruption) and fails so completely that they cannot pay back any deposits, that the consumer is SOL and loses all of their money?

---

I agree with him. FDIC is a fantastic example of moral hazard and unintended consequences. It incentivizes risk-taking because the government mandates bailouts. This is the exact thing that constructed the subprime housing crisis. The government had several laws on the books and institutions working (Fannie and Freddie, Community Reinvestment Act, and many others) that incentivized riskier and riskier loans. The behavior of lenders and investment banks was a symptom of this.

Banking is already intensely regulated. It is one of the most regulated industries in the world, as it was before the housing crisis and Great Recession. It does not make sense that even more regulations will somehow fix it, especially when most economists view many of its existing regulations as creating moral hazard.

Consumers (and producers of all sorts) respond differently when regulations are different. Consumers of bank deposits won't just park their money in banks to the degree that they do now if they know they're SOL if the bank is mismanaged. In a free banking system, consumers would have far greater incentives to diversify and consume insurance, and the decentralization would greatly reduce systemic risk (risk to the whole system) caused by various things like mismanagement of a group of banks.

Ofc the worst banking regulation of them all is the money monopoly. That's the real killer. It took the Fed until 2003 IIRC to finally admit that it created the Great Depression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

Free markets tap the ingenuity and expertise of societies in a far more effective and efficient way than any state ever has. It doesn't take much observation of the political system to prove this; to rise in the public sector usually has very little to do with being an expert at anything other than at gaming the political system itself.

---

The brain exists in a pristine environment. If you were to skin your thumb right now, just nick off a bit deep enough, you would not gush out blood. It would pool because your circulatory system, which moves blood through your body, at the furthest reaches merely seeps it through openings into the blood-sponge of your hand. Outside of your arteries, you're a pool of blood. There's a distinct difference when it comes a certain organ - your brain. Blood does not leak from capillaries into the brain, there's a secure border called the Blood Brain Barrier that filters only select elements to enter the august space of brainmatter.

In a similar way, free markets can't exist without the blood-brain barrier of the State. While they may be most efficient at their given task, they must be supported by manifold contraptions which preserve it, and chief among them is what is called the State.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightGizmo

If you want to try to continually improve yourself, it's best to know the direction you want to move towards.

---

gay

That's a fine analogy but the post I was replying to was implying that the state consists of experts and collective wisdom, which it just does not.

I think it's reasonable to posit that free markets wouldn't function as well without the state to maintain law and order and such. That's a different argument entirely. But CoccoBill believes that the state is the only way for groups of people to cooperate and make decisions. A socialist person who understands economics still understands the great value that comes from free markets; he just believes that certain projects need to be financed through taxation which will enhance the effectiveness of the free market. He certainly doesn't believe that the profit-and-loss system just consists of individuals winging it; that there's no incentive to be an expert in this context; that expertise and knowledge wouldn't be cultivated and accumulated under these conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

I think it's reasonable to posit that free markets wouldn't function as well without the state to maintain law and order and such.

---

Just curious, what is that reason?

Edit: I'm looking for something more than "to maintain law and order." I'm looking for why it's important for that to come from the state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Just curious, what is that reason?

Edit: I'm looking for something more than "to maintain law and order." I'm looking for why it's important for that to come from the state.

---

The reasoning behind the belief would be something along the lines of "this is the only type of free market that has been observed to flourish." Which is true. We just don't know what a completely free society would be like because it has never happened. My point was merely that it is possible to be a socialist and be aware of basic economics at the same time, and to reconcile those two things. It's incredibly rare that this happens, but in theory it is possible to happen. I suspect if all socialists were to take some econ courses, 95% of them would reject socialist theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Who are these angels that can ensure movement in the right direction?

---

No one. Figuring out the right path and the correct steps to get there is science. I far trust the collective human knowledge and understanding here over individuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

No one. Figuring out the right path and the correct steps to get there is science. I far trust the collective human knowledge and understanding here over individuals.

---

Do you find it ironic that science is fundamentally free market?

Since you do not want individuals with too much power, why do you support a system that explicitly requires a set of individuals having too much power?

Is there room for a different system, one that has demonstrated uncountable times over, that it engages human knowledge and understanding better than any others yet tried?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

But CoccoBill believes that the state is the only way for groups of people to cooperate and make decisions. A socialist person who understands economics still understands the great value that comes from free markets; he just believes that certain projects need to be financed through taxation which will enhance the effectiveness of the free market. He certainly doesn't believe that the profit-and-loss system just consists of individuals winging it; that there's no incentive to be an expert in this context; that expertise and knowledge wouldn't be cultivated and accumulated under these conditions.

---

No I wouldn't say I believe that, I believe a structured and policy-based system is needed to keep greed and selfishness at manageable levels. I also don't think I'd call myself a socialist. A government is always going to have non-experts just as free markets are going to have individuals winging it, both are people with identical genetics. You're assuming profit to be the only incentive for doing anything, and that's where I disagree strongly. A lot of people become experts for entirely different reasons, but it might be most of them are women.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Do you find it ironic that science is fundamentally free market?

Since you do not want individuals with too much power, why do you support a system that explicitly requires a set of individuals having too much power?

---

Science is a method, not an economic or political system, I think your analogy is misplaced.

I'm not sure I think members of government have too much power. Some exceptions may exist. No one should have too much power, but some people should have more power than others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Science is a method, not an economic or political system, I think your analogy is misplaced.

---

Why is it that free market principles are required to ensure the integrity and robustness of science yet not economics or politics (especially since economics and politics are sciences)? What is special about government that keeps those who have its power from needing to be challenged?

Quote:

---

I'm not sure I think members of government have too much power. Some exceptions may exist. No one should have too much power, but some people should have more power than others.

---

Many members of government have significantly more power than any members of private enterprise. If what you want is more human knowledge and less rule by individual decree, how does supporting monopoly power and opposing competition amongst the people do that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Why is it that free market principles are required to ensure the integrity and robustness of science yet not economics or politics (especially since economics and politics are sciences)? What is special about government that keeps those who have its power from needing to be challenged?

---

Which principles are these exactly? A government certainly needs a way to keep those in power in check, CoccoBillistan would probably be either ruled by a benevolent informed dictator (me), or have much stricter rules on re-elections, oversight ans transparency as current governments. The priorities get skewed if there are career politicians more interested in getting re-elected than doing their job, and external influence (campaign finance etc) should be weeded out, for example. New employees are great for companies because they bring experience and fresh ideas, but that effect is typically exhausted in a few years. After that it's better they find a new job and a fresh recruit replaces him. Same should happen in the government, if representatives and senators served say max 4 years, they might even have an incentive to get shit done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Many members of government have significantly more power than any members of private enterprise. If what you want is more human knowledge and less rule by individual decree, how does supporting monopoly power and opposing competition amongst the people do that?

---

That's debatable, the Kochs for example probably wield effective power quite similar to top brass in government. Without a government they would be the de facto government. POTUS is probably a fairly big exception, but the POTUS has significantly more relative power than his colleagues in other countries. I'm in no way against individual freedom, quite the contrary, I have fairly libertarian views when it comes to regulating individuals. If someone's actions affect only themselves they should be free to do as they please, but if they affect others, regulations are IMO needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Which principles are these exactly?

---

Ditto

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Which principles are these exactly?

---

Science is decentralized and unregulated. There is no rules committee that assigns the rules by which science must be conducted. I believe that if this were proposed, scientists, nearly without exception, would oppose it, because they have first hand experience with how important it is that science be open to all and have no bias. A regulatory bureaucracy that oversees conduction of science would very quickly spell the end of its integrity. Data would become unreliable and discovery would come to a halt.

The free reality of science allows it to exist on the merits instead of by decree. Things that are repeatable are kept and everything else is discarded. Bureaucracies do not have this. They are by nature prohibiting of the kind of openness and merit that science has in peer review and experimentation.

Quote:

---

A government certainly needs a way to keep those in power in check, CoccoBillistan would probably be either ruled by a benevolent informed dictator (me), or have much stricter rules on re-elections, oversight ans transparency as current governments.

---

The bold are mutually exclusive. Who conducts the oversight? Who keeps their power in check?

This dilemma is why even the most theoretically egalitarian government tried -- communism -- resulted in virtual dictatorial bureaucracies at the tippy top. The only way I've found to keep powers in check is the kind constructed in the United States Constitution: explicit prohibition of government intrusion into citizen space. This is where ideals of freedom of speech, assembly, the press, and religion come from. These ideals became a part of civilization through the idea that liberty does not come from government granting it, but that liberty comes from governments prohibiting themselves from infringing upon natural liberties of humans. Today, we take these liberties for granted. I hope that instead we would learn the lesson that since liberties that we today take for granted came from government prohibiting its own intrusion, we should make government further prohibited from intrusion for other things.

Quote:

---

The priorities get skewed if there are career politicians more interested in getting re-elected than doing their job, and external influence (campaign finance etc) should be weeded out, for example.

---

This "external influence" is the people. Take away the ability for people to finance campaigns however they see fit, and you will have created a ruling class of a small number of political insiders. This is because the barrier to entry to politics would be astronomical. This is the type of thing seen in the many communist countries that all failed. Finance from the people was prohibited and the ruling party basically became God.

Take a look at the last few years of elections in America. The narrative that the rich buy elections is dead.

Quote:

---

New employees are great for companies because they bring experience and fresh ideas, but that effect is typically exhausted in a few years. After that it's better they find a new job and a fresh recruit replaces him. Same should happen in the government, if representatives and senators served say max 4 years, they might even have an incentive to get shit done.

---

This is an idea worth thinking about. I can't say one way or another what the ramifications would be. I suspect that it would probably be good since it would probably greatly diminish the ability for government to intrude into peoples' lives.

Quote:

---

That's debatable, the Kochs for example probably wield effective power quite similar to top brass in government. Without a government they would be the de facto government.

---

Are you arguing that the Kochs currently wield similar power to top powers in the government or that if there was no government then the Kochs would start acting like a government? Those are two different things.

The Kochs do not hold power; they only have some ability to lobby. Do you think it would be better if the Kochs had no ability to lobby and those with power had only to answer to those with power? Many have the ability to lobby, many rival the Kochs, and the lobbying done by organizations representing "the people" have even more influence that people like the Kochs. Us having voices is not what's wrong, but the government having the ability to favor one voice over another is. It is still the case that no Koch and no NRA put people in prison, raid homes in search of weed, nor fine people for working without paying licensing fees.

Governments receive revenues from taxes; this is fundamentally different than entities that receive revenues from consumer choice. Governments hold their tax power by legitimacy, i.e., they are viewed legitimate in the eyes of the citizenry at large, so there is little revolt. In the absence of government, the Kochs wouldn't come close to having this. This topic can go a lot of directions, and I don't really want to go into them, but the point I want to make is that the idea that the Kochs would be the de facto government in the absence of government is assuming something that isn't there. If the Kochs did become a government, it would be by way of them and entire regions of people deciding to set their businesses aside and instead become government. It's not the Kochs we'd have to worry about in this scenario; it's large swaths of people who want to take other peoples' stuff and are afraid of their stuff being taken. The Kochs would actually be primary targets. Governments tend to arise from populism, and populism typically targets the rich.

Quote:

---

POTUS is probably a fairly big exception, but the POTUS has significantly more relative power than his colleagues in other countries. I'm in no way against individual freedom, quite the contrary, I have fairly libertarian views when it comes to regulating individuals. If someone's actions affect only themselves they should be free to do as they please, but if they affect others, regulations are IMO needed.

---

I'm glad you said this. Do you think it is reasonable that those who should have regulatory power should also have familiarity with the topics at hand? If so, does this suggest that only those affected by decisions should have say in decisions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Science is decentralized and unregulated. There is no rules committee that assigns the rules by which science must be conducted. I believe that if this were proposed, scientists, nearly without exception, would oppose it, because they have first hand experience with how important it is that science be open to all and have no bias. A regulatory bureaucracy that oversees conduction of science would very quickly spell the end of its integrity. Data would become unreliable and discovery would come to a halt.

The free reality of science allows it to exist on the merits instead of by decree. Things that are repeatable are kept and everything else is discarded. Bureaucracies do not have this. They are by nature prohibiting of the kind of openness and merit that science has in peer review and experimentation.

---

Pure nonsense.

There are regulatory bureaucracies AND rules committees, or something that nearly approaches them in the peer-review process and, you know, ethics.

Maybe study science before talking about its structure and nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Science is decentralized and unregulated.

---

Rilla already covered this bit, but aspects of science are both centralized and regulated. Also, decentralization and unregulation are not principles of free markets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

The bold are mutually exclusive. Who conducts the oversight? Who keeps their power in check?

---

The party tasked with oversight duties. It's much better to have limited oversight than no oversight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

This dilemma is why even the most theoretically egalitarian government tried -- communism

---

I've said this a few times before, there was nothing egalitarian about communism. It was pure oligarchical tyranny masquerading as socialism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

The only way I've found to keep powers in check is the kind constructed in the United States Constitution: explicit prohibition of government intrusion into citizen space. This is where ideals of freedom of speech, assembly, the press, and religion come from. These ideals became a part of civilization through the idea that liberty does not come from government granting it, but that liberty comes from governments prohibiting themselves from infringing upon natural liberties of humans. Today, we take these liberties for granted. I hope that instead we would learn the lesson that since liberties that we today take for granted came from government prohibiting its own intrusion, we should make government further prohibited from intrusion for other things.

---

A society will always have its elite, those with more power than others. Human greed and self-preservation will take care of that. Wealth tends to concentrate through oligarchy, meritocracy and plutocracy. If a society does not have an elected government, one will be provided for them by the powerful. The only known solution that even tries to ensure the "government" acts in the best interest of it's members, is a democratically elected government. To guarantee the government does not step into the territory you describe above, it needs to have some sort of collectively agreed contract to not do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Are you arguing that the Kochs currently wield similar power to top powers in the government or that if there was no government then the Kochs would start acting like a government? Those are two different things.

---

Both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

The Kochs do not hold power; they only have some ability to lobby. Do you think it would be better if the Kochs had no ability to lobby and those with power had only to answer to those with power? Many have the ability to lobby, many rival the Kochs, and the lobbying done by organizations representing "the people" have even more influence that people like the Kochs. Us having voices is not what's wrong, but the government having the ability to favor one voice over another is. It is still the case that no Koch and no NRA put people in prison, raid homes in search of weed, nor fine people for working without paying licensing fees.

---

A citizen's way to affect the government is by voting, each person has one vote. On top of that the Kochs of the world can throw millions into lobbying. I'm sure you would agree that's hell of a lot more powerful than one vote? I would call that much more direct power than a single senator or congressman has, since it can swing several votes.

Fortunately money equals speech only in the US and some other rampantly corrupt societies. Optimally voting should be the way to affect the government, not bribery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Governments receive revenues from taxes; this is fundamentally different than entities that receive revenues from consumer choice. Governments hold their tax power by legitimacy, i.e., they are viewed legitimate in the eyes of the citizenry at large, so there is little revolt. In the absence of government, the Kochs wouldn't come close to having this. This topic can go a lot of directions, and I don't really want to go into them, but the point I want to make is that the idea that the Kochs would be the de facto government in the absence of government is assuming something that isn't there. If the Kochs did become a government, it would be by way of them and entire regions of people deciding to set their businesses aside and instead become government. It's not the Kochs we'd have to worry about in this scenario; it's large swaths of people who want to take other peoples' stuff and are afraid of their stuff being taken. The Kochs would actually be primary targets. Governments tend to arise from populism, and populism typically targets the rich.

---

Money (or what ever currency there would be without governments) can buy favors, goods, violence etc. The person with the most currency will have the most power. Without a government maybe Kochs would have less than now, I don't know, but someone would have more than others, with no government to keep them in check.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Do you think it is reasonable that those who should have regulatory power should also have familiarity with the topics at hand?

---

Yes, obviously. Currently the way to do this is by using government advisors, who research and prepare materials for the decisionmakers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

If so, does this suggest that only those affected by decisions should have say in decisions?

---

Absolutely not. Decisions should be based on objective scientific data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Pure nonsense.

There are regulatory bureaucracies AND rules committees, or something that nearly approaches them in the peer-review process and, you know, ethics.

Maybe study science before talking about its structure and nature.

---

Why so hostile?

I'm not talking about ethics. About peer review, show me how it is only valid when done by certain people, in certain places, and using certain techniques.

Calling something decentralized and unregulated does not mean it is a mess and without structure or standards. But that stuff is different than market regulation.

My b, the Pens got crushed last night and I'm still tasting the tang.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

About peer review, show me how it is only valid when done by certain people, in certain places, and using certain techniques.

---

Well, the people and places don't matter, but the technique certainly does.

Everyone recommends the Scientific Method. Why not try it yourself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Also, decentralization and unregulation are not principles of free markets.

---

They are, which suggests you're defining them differently. In political contexts, when we say regulation and centralization, we mean things that arise from outside forces, meaning laws are passed and the market is changed regardless of the goings on in that market. Structures and standards are natural in markets.

Quote:

---

The party tasked with oversight duties. It's much better to have limited oversight than no oversight.

---

Continue with this logic. When you wish to put a check on power, how is this accomplished by using a more powerful power with no checks?

Quote:

---

I've said this a few times before, there was nothing egalitarian about communism. It was pure oligarchical tyranny masquerading as socialism.

---

Note that I said "theoretically egalitarian." Part of the theory behind communism was that it would empower the masses by using strict regulatory oversight. The results showed that the theory was wrong.

It's hard to find theoretical distinctions between communism and socialism. Marx noted that fully enacted socialism would be communism.

Quote:

---

A society will always have its elite, those with more power than others. Human greed and self-preservation will take care of that.

---

A lesson of economics that people don't wanna hear is that greed is good. Greed is why society has food abundance, central heating, cars, smart phones, you name it. It is when greed has government power that it is not good. I can further explain if you don't see the connection.

Quote:

---

Wealth tends to concentrate through oligarchy, meritocracy and plutocracy. If a society does not have an elected government, one will be provided for them by the powerful. The only known solution that even tries to ensure the "government" acts in the best interest of it's members, is a democratically elected government. To guarantee the government does not step into the territory you describe above, it needs to have some sort of collectively agreed contract to not do so. A citizen's way to affect the government is by voting, each person has one vote.

---

Is your vote more powerful when it's vague and provided once every two years or when it's specific and provided many times daily? Claiming democracy is a good is not a rebuttal to my argument since I'm miles beyond that point already by promoting democracy on steroids.

Quote:

---

On top of that the Kochs of the world can throw millions into lobbying. I'm sure you would agree that's hell of a lot more powerful than one vote? I would call that much more direct power than a single senator or congressman has, since it can swing several votes.

---

Why does this mean that the solution must be to make those with power less influenced by those without power? Kochs having lobbying power does not show a problem with them; it shows a problem with the government. Citizens should be able to influence their situation with their capital. You do it, I do it, it's about as normal as it gets. Us doing this, especially when rich people do it, is integral to societal prosperity. It's when the government steps in and gives special favors that this stops being the case.

Quote:

---

Fortunately money equals speech only in the US and some other rampantly corrupt societies.

---

What are these other societies where money is speech?

Quote:

---

Optimally voting should be the way to affect the government, not bribery.

---

First off, lobbying and bribery are two totally different things. Lobbying is an incredibly good thing; the problem is when government has power over things it shouldn't. The solution isn't to take away the lobbying.

There's too much double standard going on. Average citizens have tremendous lobbying power. A member of the NRA pays a tiny fraction of his income for a lobbying juggernaut.

Quote:

---

Money (or what ever currency there would be without governments) can buy favors, goods, violence etc. The person with the most currency will have the most power. Without a government maybe Kochs would have less than now, I don't know, but someone would have more than others, with no government to keep them in check.

---

So, you're afraid of the Kochs having too much power so you wish to create an entity with tremendously greater power? Why? Because you get the vote? But you had a much more effective vote back before you constructed the tremendously greater power in the first place. Color me confused.

Quote:

---

Absolutely not. Decisions should be based on objective scientific data.

---

Most of the time, this is not available. Which means that typically the most familiar with an issue are those most affected by it. This is not always the case, but this reality is why economics teaches it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Well, the people and places don't matter, but the technique certainly does.

Everyone recommends the Scientific Method. Why not try it yourself?

---

What techniques do you mean? Like double blinds and such? Those matter because scientists consider them important for evaluating studies. They don't exist by decree. There is no bureaucracy ruling over the entire scientific community that has a law saying that all studies must be double blind or else they're invalid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

What techniques do you mean? Like double blinds and such? Those matter because scientists consider them important for evaluating studies. They don't exist by decree. There is no bureaucracy ruling over the entire scientific community that has a law saying that all studies must be double blind or else they're invalid.

---

The idea of 'exists by decree' is baloney to me. Nothing of science exists by decree. It exists.

But there is a bureaucracy ruling over scientists and it's manned by old, successful scientists. They know science and they know how to navigate the harried waters of the unknown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

The idea of 'exists by decree' is baloney to me. Nothing of science exists by decree. It exists.

---

That was my point. Regulation, at least its meaning in a political context, is existence by decree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

But there is a bureaucracy ruling over scientists and it's manned by old, successful scientists. They know science and they know how to navigate the harried waters of the unknown.

---

I object to calling this a bureaucracy, but I do know what you're talking about. Structures and standards are natural and very important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

That was my point. Regulation, at least its meaning in a political context, is existence by decree.

---

OK.

Science also only understands things in very narrow bands, in very focused ways. The world around science stills moves forward.

Think about what the best of science can tell you about tomorrow, May 22nd 2016, and see how many details are left blank.

That no aspect of science exists "by decree" doesn't say anything about the idea of things that exist "by decree"

PS "by decree" vrs "not by decree" is a nonsense line to draw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I object to calling this a bureaucracy, but I do know what you're talking about. Structures and standards are natural and very important.

---

There are entire fields of science on fire right now arguing over the structure of the bureaucracy surrounding them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

There are entire fields of science on fire right now arguing over the structure of the bureaucracy surrounding them.

---

What bureaucracy? What fields? What are they discussing?

The peer review process. Psychology. Why people produce apparently good but ir-reproduceable science.

Plus there's also a discussion about pay-walled peer-review publications and the free labor of peers to review new science.

That's not bureaucracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

They are, which suggests you're defining them differently. In political contexts, when we say regulation and centralization, we mean things that arise from outside forces, meaning laws are passed and the market is changed regardless of the goings on in that market. Structures and standards are natural in markets.

---

Citation needed, I can't find them.

http://freemarketprinciples.com/principles.php

I digress, but I find your use of "we" here a bit amusing. "We", as in us the economists, who get it. A bit ad verecundiam, don't you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Continue with this logic. When you wish to put a check on power, how is this accomplished by using a more powerful power with no checks?

---

It doesn't have to be more powerful, it just needs to be independent. This actually works quite well in practice, similarly to corporations. Think of the internal audit function. Works much much better than no oversight at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Note that I said "theoretically egalitarian." Part of the theory behind communism was that it would empower the masses by using strict regulatory oversight. The results showed that the theory was wrong.

It's hard to find theoretical distinctions between communism and socialism. Marx noted that fully enacted socialism would be communism.

---

The Soviet Union was as much socialist as Russia is democratic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

A lesson of economics that people don't wanna hear is that greed is good. Greed is why society has food abundance, central heating, cars, smart phones, you name it. It is when greed has government power that it is not good. I can further explain if you don't see the connection.

---

Greed is also a big reason why societies have crime. Things aren't just good or evil. You're trying to paint the world black and white.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Is your vote more powerful when it's vague and provided once every two years or when it's specific and provided many times daily? Claiming democracy is a good is not a rebuttal to my argument since I'm miles beyond that point already by promoting democracy on steroids.

---

I don't see how this is relevant to my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Why does this mean that the solution must be to make those with power less influenced by those without power? Kochs having lobbying power does not show a problem with them; it shows a problem with the government. Citizens should be able to influence their situation with their capital. You do it, I do it, it's about as normal as it gets. Us doing this, especially when rich people do it, is integral to societal prosperity. It's when the government steps in and gives special favors that this stops being the case.

---

You jumped over my whole point of there always being those who are more powerful than others. A government is simply a way to keep them in check, to ensure they don't get too much power and influence over others. Lobbying undermines that. And I don't care if there would be even more stuff if free market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

What are these other societies where money is speech?

---

I first typed only the US, but then changed it since the situation is pretty similar in countries with high corruption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

First off, lobbying and bribery are two totally different things.

---

Do you find any irony comparing this to tax vs theft or abortion vs murder?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Lobbying is an incredibly good thing; the problem is when government has power over things it shouldn't. The solution isn't to take away the lobbying.

---

Now you just lost me completely. It's good that those with wealth have a disproportionate influence over others?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

There's too much double standard going on. Average citizens have tremendous lobbying power. A member of the NRA pays a tiny fraction of his income for a lobbying juggernaut.

---

How is this a good thing? Because USA has the highest gun violence stats in the world? I'd go about differently trying to solve overpopulation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

So, you're afraid of the Kochs having too much power so you wish to create an entity with tremendously greater power? Why? Because you get the vote? But you had a much more effective vote back before you constructed the tremendously greater power in the first place. Color me confused.

---

I only had a tremendously greater power in the first place if I happened to be wealthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Most of the time, this is not available. Which means that typically the most familiar with an issue are those most affected by it. This is not always the case, but this reality is why economics teaches it.

---

If the data is not available, there shouldn't be regulations regarding it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

That's not bureaucracy.

---

I didn't realize a bureaucracy required gov't. Obviously there are parts of science that exist independent of gov't.

There are also parts that don't like DARPA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Citation needed, I can't find them.

---

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/...ted-market.asp

Quote:

---

http://freemarketprinciples.com/principles.php

---

Quality page. This is largely political liberty stuff, which has a lot of crossover.

Quote:

---

I digress, but I find your use of "we" here a bit amusing. "We", as in us the economists, who get it. A bit ad verecundiam, don't you think?

---

Don't read too much into it. "We" is a commonly used pronoun when discussing norms. I'll rephrase: the meanings of regulation and centralization in political contexts are effects from government intervention.

Quote:

---

It doesn't have to be more powerful, it just needs to be independent. This actually works quite well in practice, similarly to corporations. Think of the internal audit function. Works much much better than no oversight at all.

---

If it's not more powerful, then it's not effective oversight; if it's independent, then it's not done with government influence.

The analogy of the internal audit function applied to government assumes the angels I referenced earlier. That governing body will still have total and unchecked power. Who are the angels you trust to not abuse this?

Quote:

---

The Soviet Union was as much socialist as Russia is democratic.

---

The revisionist history is astounding. The USSR was the greatest socialist experiment of all time. If you would like to discuss why this is the case, we can.

Quote:

---

Greed is also a big reason why societies have crime. Things aren't just good or evil. You're trying to paint the world black and white.

---

I'm trying to provide insight learned from economics. The lesson often gets shortened to "greed is good." The lesson is that abundance and novelty arise from competition of peoples' greed in a free market.

Quote:

---

I don't see how this is relevant to my point.

---

You extolled the virtues of voting and democracy as a contrast to my point. I pointed out that my position involves so much more selection by the people of their environments that it could be described as voting/democracy on steroids.

Quote:

---

You jumped over my whole point of there always being those who are more powerful than others. A government is simply a way to keep them in check, to ensure they don't get too much power and influence over others.

---

The government is the too much power. Square this circle for me: on the one hand you acknowledge that some have more power than others, but on the other hand you declare that the solution is to give absolute power to somebody else.

If the things you have said previously are any indication, you think the answer is democracy. But that has been demonstrably as well as theoretically inadequate. How many bureaucrats have you voted for? None. How many times a decade do you vote? Possibly a few. What level of influence have you had on the laws passed? Virtually none.

Religion isn't the only opiate of the masses; democracy is too.

Quote:

---

And I don't care if there would be even more stuff if free market.

---

Isn't that like saying "I don't care if you're right; you're still wrong"?

Quote:

---

I first typed only the US, but then changed it since the situation is pretty similar in countries with high corruption.

---

They're not remotely similar. You have equated political power derived from having the biggest armies with the liberty of people to express a point.

Quote:

---

Do you find any irony comparing this to tax vs theft or abortion vs murder?

---

Bribery and lobbying are not the same thing. There is a measure of overlap, which is where lobbying shows its problems. But they are by nature two entirely different things. One is a gift exchange and the other is education.

A government without lobbying would be a lolbad disaster because the policies would not reflect reality that much. Politicians don't have enough money (and even if they did, it would be wrong for them to do so) to hire experts on every issue they legislate on. Lobbying is where they get it from. Lobbying is a significantly important attribute that gives the people (read: you) access to influence your government. That some people have greater influence is a problem, but that arises not from the existence of lobbying, but the existence of government power in that market.

Quote:

---

Now you just lost me completely. It's good that those with wealth have a disproportionate influence over others?

---

In general terms, yes. This is an integral element of the construction of prosperity. Hierarchy based on capital is awash in the natural world.

Quote:

---

How is this a good thing? Because USA has the highest gun violence stats in the world? I'd go about differently trying to solve overpopulation.

---

Average citizens probably get more bang for their buck from lobbying than the rich do.

Look at it this way: special treatment does exist and it's a problem, but it is also not the norm. That's not to say that it's not a serious systemic issue, just to say that people misdiagnose the problems in this area. The Kochs, for example, don't lobby for special treatment. Their agenda has always been to get government out of the lives of the people. Yet they have been demonized more than any other family in the western world in the last decade because multitudes of people get the wrong information.

Quote:

---

I only had a tremendously greater power in the first place if I happened to be wealthy.

---

Another lesson of economics is that this is not the case. There is no known mechanism that has provided anywhere close to the level of power and prosperity for the poor than free markets. This is not something economists disagree on. I suspect this should be right up your alley since you care deeply about engagement of the knowledge and understanding of science and expertise.

Quote:

---

If the data is not available, there shouldn't be regulations regarding it.

---

There shouldn't be, and yet there are. Why do you think there are?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regulated-market.asp

---

Can't find anywhere a statement saying that decentralization and unregulation are principles of free markets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

If it's not more powerful, then it's not effective oversight; if it's independent, then it's not done with government influence.

The analogy of the internal audit function applied to government assumes the angels I referenced earlier. That governing body will still have total and unchecked power. Who are the angels you trust to not abuse this?

---

In case you're not familiar with internal audits, it's just an independent body within the organization that audit the processes and practices of the company, and reports to the board. They actually have zero power within the organization, they just report what's happening based on predetermined criteria and metrics. That's oversight. No angels needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

The revisionist history is astounding. The USSR was the greatest socialist experiment of all time. If you would like to discuss why this is the case, we can.

---

Even if something may be the "greatest" it doesn't make it great, or even half-assed.

https://chomsky.info/1986____/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I'm trying to provide insight learned from economics. The lesson often gets shortened to "greed is good." The lesson is that abundance and novelty arise from competition of peoples' greed in a free market.

---

I don't know, but I would wager that no economist argues that greed is universally good, just that it has beneficial properties within certain strictly defined economic scenarios. You seem to be ignoring all of the other scenarios and think greed is always and only positive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

You extolled the virtues of voting and democracy as a contrast to my point. I pointed out that my position involves so much more selection by the people of their environments that it could be described as voting/democracy on steroids.

---

I didn't say anything about the virtues of voting, I stated that the de facto way to have influence in a democracy, and lobbying is skewing that in favor of the wealthy. What you wrote was irrelevant to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

The government is the too much power. Square this circle for me: on the one hand you acknowledge that some have more power than others, but on the other hand you declare that the solution is to give absolute power to somebody else.

If the things you have said previously are any indication, you think the answer is democracy. But that has been demonstrably as well as theoretically inadequate. How many bureaucrats have you voted for? None. How many times a decade do you vote? Possibly a few. What level of influence have you had on the laws passed? Virtually none.

---

The wealthy are gonna have more power than the others no matter what. I'd much rather have some checks and balances on what they can do, than not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Isn't that like saying "I don't care if you're right; you're still wrong"?

---

Only in a world where more stuff is the only meaningful metric. I don't live in one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

They're not remotely similar. You have equated political power derived from having the biggest armies with the liberty of people to express a point.

Bribery and lobbying are not the same thing. There is a measure of overlap, which is where lobbying shows its problems. But they are by nature two entirely different things. One is a gift exchange and the other is education.

---

What do armies have to do with lobbying or corruption? In both cases political favors can be bought with money, only difference being in the USA it's legal. Like I said earlier, I'm using lobbying as an umbrella term for campaign finance, gifts to politicians, cronyism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

A government without lobbying would be a lolbad disaster because the policies would not reflect reality that much.

---

Sounds legit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Politicians don't have enough money (and even if they did, it would be wrong for them to do so) to hire experts on every issue they legislate on. Lobbying is where they get it from. Lobbying is a significantly important attribute that gives the people (read: you) access to influence your government. That some people have greater influence is a problem, but that arises not from the existence of lobbying, but the existence of government power in that market.

---

Sounds peculiar. Over here at least politicians certainly don't hire experts, they are government officials that work for them. Of course some also use paid advisors. We don't have major problems with campaign financing and politicians at least most of the time work, not just raise funds and filibuster. I've told you many times before over the years, your notion of a governments may be badly skewed because of the one you have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

In general terms, yes. This is an integral element of the construction of prosperity. Hierarchy based on capital is awash in the natural world.

---

I said disproportionate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Average citizens probably get more bang for their buck from lobbying than the rich do.

---

Average citizens don't have Super PACs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Look at it this way: special treatment does exist and it's a problem, but it is also not the norm. That's not to say that it's not a serious systemic issue, just to say that people misdiagnose the problems in this area. The Kochs, for example, don't lobby for special treatment. Their agenda has always been to get government out of the lives of the people. Yet they have been demonized more than any other family in the western world in the last decade because multitudes of people get the wrong information.

---

I don't personally know what the Kochs ultimate goals are, and it doesn't matter. They shouldn't have the level of power they do no matter what they support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Another lesson of economics is that this is not the case. There is no known mechanism that has provided anywhere close to the level of power and prosperity for the poor than free markets. This is not something economists disagree on. I suspect this should be right up your alley since you care deeply about engagement of the knowledge and understanding of science and expertise.

---

You said: "But you had a much more effective vote back before you constructed the tremendously greater power in the first place. Color me confused."
I said: "I only had a tremendously greater power in the first place if I happened to be wealthy."

I again don't see how what you said now is relevant to what we were talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

There shouldn't be, and yet there are. Why do you think there are?

---

I'm not arguing for the US government, I'm arguing for "a" government. We've only ever briefly touched on what I actually support. I've talked about outcomes, and I'm still not at all convinced free market is the silver bullet to everything, no matter how effectively it produces stuff.

We seem to be just going around in circles in the monster posts, and I don't feel you've provided any new info to me this time. I'll bail out.

I think we were getting somewhere (especially with your latest post), but I"ll respect that and not respond.

Well the hockey finals may have affected my mood, but I can't imagine anyone else enjoying reading these, so maybe lay them to rest for a while.

taxation=theft=hockey=socialism=aynrand

Now we're thinking!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Even if something may be the "greatest" it doesn't make it great, or even half-assed.

https://chomsky.info/1986____/

---

Don't feel like you have to respond to this. It's just something I wanted to address, so I'll do it now, because I believe two of the most important misconceptions in the modern world are (1) the USSR was not socialist and (2) capitalism does not empower the poor while socialism empowers the poor.

Briefly, about the second point, the consensus among economists is that free markets empower the poor. Even the most left, pro-socialist economists in the West believe this. Economists of every variety are intense advocates of free markets. It's only on certain hot political issues, like healthcare, where hard left economists, who extol the virtues of free markets for most things, say that markets shouldn't be free.

Quote:

---

Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation.

---

The quote is describing an effect, not a policy. Socialism is not an effect, but a policy. A policy that enforces social ownership does not equal the effect of social power. If Chomsky were to have a problem with my use of the word "enforces," he would unwittingly be agreeing with free markets, because the voluntary act of social ownership is a derivation of free markets.

Quote:

---

As the Marxist theoretician Anton Pannekoek observed, “this goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie,” but can only be “realized by the workers themselves being master over production.”

---

The bold is insufficient in terms because it accounts for only production. It's missing consumption and distribution. It's missing the concept of capital. It doesn't account for division of labor, economies of scale, and virtually every element integral to the scientific understanding of economics. Pannenkoek's description is humorism level wrong/debunked/outdated/unscientific.

Even so, if we dissect the statement as if it's meaningful, it begins to look remarkably like free market capitalism. Production is an effect of and dependent upon worker capital. Free market capitalism is the consensus structure that optimizes worker capital. If we were to change "production" in the quote to what it should be, "production, consumption, and capital," then the statement remarkably reflects free market capitalism.

Quote:

---

But the essential element of the socialist ideal remains: to convert the means of production into the property of freely associated producers and thus the social property of people who have liberated themselves from exploitation by their master, as a fundamental step towards a broader realm of human freedom.

---

The statement is necessarily free market capitalism because of the bold. Chomsky is describing voluntary agency. This necessarily means he is describing a free market.

Worker owned companies are 100% legal in free markets. Millions of them exist. There are a variety of reasons why economists believe not all companies are worker owned in a developed free market economy, and "exploitation" isn't on the list.

Quote:

---

A historian sympathetic to the Bolsheviks, E.H. Carr, writes that “the spontaneous inclination of the workers to organize factory committees and to intervene in the management of the factories was inevitably encouraged by a revolution which led the workers to believe that the productive machinery of the country belonged to them and could be operated by them at their own discretion and to their own advantage”

---

The bold is why the USSR system is socialism, and why Marx himself said that true socialism is communism. When you have a system where social ownership by workers is the law, a bureaucracy to enforce this is required. Some today reimagine socialism to meaning only social ownership of a company by its workers, but this was not the view of Marx and it was not the view of socialists during the Cold War. The logic is pretty straightforward: the "worker" is a class. When the philosophy is for the worker to have social ownership, it is not enough to look at individual workers and individual companies, but to view them as a whole. This necessarily means that all workers should have social ownership of all companies. How is it possible to achieve this? Central command and a stripping away of voluntarism. Ironic, I know.

I never claimed the theory of socialism differs greatly from the theory of socialism, I'm talking about the practice in the former USSR. Saying that communism/socialism is bad based on how bad things were in the Soviet Union, is like saying Russia's current economic issues are due to them embracing capitalism and democracy.