Socioeconomic Theories

[Christian Liberty]

Not intentionally. You compared it to its neighbors favorably, which implies that it's doing fairly well.



Seems like a lot of cherry-picking to me. There are 1.1 million internally-displaced people and about 1 million living in the neighboring countries, which is about 20% of the total population. I'm going to speculate that these folks left their homes for a reason.

http://www.refintl.org/where-we-work/africa/somalia

I wouldn't say "fairly well." Sub-Saharan Africa wouldn't be a great place to live, period.

But, I do think Somalia, weak example of anarchism though it is, is nonetheless proof that the higher living standards of the west can't be credited to the State.

Why do we assume that government SHOULD be a neutral or objective arbitrator?

Well, because WoZ said that's why he isn't an ancap.

I think what he meant by "neutral and objective" is that it was a fair final authority to go to, however that's defined. I don't think a "final authority" that governs fairly even 80% of the time is possible. The propensity for corruption when an organization is given absolute authority of everything in a large territorial area, including cases involving said organization, you are just asking for trouble.

 

[Christian Liberty]

This is likely where CL and I differ. He seems to lean toward anarcho-capitalism where (just about) everything is privatized.

I lean toward minarchism where courts, law enforcement and military are still legitimate government functions.

I know from the last GOP primaries we were both Ron Paul supporters. I am all for any move in that direction. We can see what works and how far it should go. I realize that without practical implementation this is all socioeconomic idealism.

But I would start by saying that taxes are too high and that the economy (and society) will be more efficient and prosperous when people keep more of the money they earn. We spend far too much on the military for starters and I think every budget should be balanced by law. I would eliminate the federal reserve banking system.

I am on the fence with public schools as I would personally have to first be able to keep more of the money I earn before I could afford any private education for my kids and believe education is the key to any society that wants to be successful in the future.

Those are just a few starting points...

Minarchism is one thing, but as long as we keep letting the government be involved in and control the education of our children, we are going to live in a government controlled society. To me public schools being abolished is not just one move in the direction of libertarianism (whether anarcho-capitalism or minarchism), it may well be THE main step necessary.

That said, I'm mostly anarcho-capitalist for ideological consistency reasons. Philosophically I can't really say a minarchist government would be justified, but if we were able to get to that point, I'd be thrilled. That's way more than I realistically think we'll accomplish in my lifetime.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'll argue the same in regard to police and the military.

Can we trust private arbitration? I can argue both sides of this one. I private arbitrator is in the business of being neutral and objective. They would be out of business if their reputation were ruined due to being exposed as corrupt.

But having government controlled courts doesn't seem like a bad alternative.

I think you're already an ancap and you just don't know it yet Use the term "voluntarist" if it makes you feel better, it means basically the same thing but it doesn't have any variants of "anarchist" in the name.

you recognize that private courts would likely be neutral and objective because they'd be exposed as corrupt and go out of business otherwise. We also know that government courts, which are funded through force, are corrupt and that the "justice" system is really more like "Just-Us" and yet they continue to function because they are funded through force. It seems pretty obvious to me which system is superior, and really, it seems like you're leaning that way to.

As for police and so forth, I think its obvious from any kind of freedom-oriented perspective that that isn't working. The US has the highest prison population in the world, and the police get away with crimes even by their own biased laws all the time.

The military would be the hardest thing to provide on the free market, but even operating on a purely pragmatic basis, the fact that large armies run by a centralized government tend to form empires, and the fact that the US doing that has led to huge reductions in American safety, tells me all I need to know.

Will add more later but I gotta go. Best of luck

 

[rexlunae]

We do.

By what means?

I don't know if anyone will. But by your same standard here, what's the difference now? How do you know that someone will not shoot both of you and take his paper and your money?

I don't know that no one will, for sure. But I know that if they do, there will generally be a response.

The market does, cause if he is selling his papers at more than what the market will tolerate, he won't be selling his paper now will he?

The market will bear a lot more when you eliminate all your competition.

Rex, don't pretend that the free market doesn’t include all the information and tools available to consumers by consumer advocates, reviews, rating systems, retailers who distribute products, insurance companies, and all of a given company’s competition.

Do you know what caveat emptor means?

Fact is Rex, the free market is really society as defined as pretty much everyone except the state.

Why exclude the state arbitrarily? And what makes you think that the society without the state is possible?

 

[rexlunae]

I wouldn't say "fairly well." Sub-Saharan Africa wouldn't be a great place to live, period.

I think that's a bit over-broad.

How about another example? The world's largest economy. The one that pulled hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. The one that has a blatant socialist agenda, and doesn't even pretend a hands-off approach. I am talking, of course, about China.

But, I do think Somalia, weak example of anarchism though it is, is nonetheless proof that the higher living standards of the west can't be credited to the State.

You were complaining about straw men....

That's just binary thinking. No one credits the state with the entirety of economic success, any more than you would credit the officials for a good football game. Government participates. It helps. It ensures that markets can exist that are safe, fair, and open. Because the mostly unacknowledged truth of ancap ideology is that markets don't stay any of those things for long, left to their own devices. Individual competitors rig the system against others if they are allowed to by any number of means.

 

[genuineoriginal]

In what way should the government not be neutral or objective?

_____
neutral
1. not siding with any party to a war or dispute
_____​

With our current system, our courts are not neutral.
The courts side with the government (prosecutor) over the individuals (defense).
Should this be changed?

Also, a free-market court would side with the wealthy over the poor.

_____
objective
4. not influenced by personal feelings or prejudice; unbiased: an objective opinion.
_____​

Our courts have been reaching the objective opinion that perverse sexual behavior should be protected.
Is this the objectiveness you are looking for in government?

 

[Quincy]

This is likely where CL and I differ. He seems to lean toward anarcho-capitalism where (just about) everything is privatized.

I lean toward minarchism where courts, law enforcement and military are still legitimate government functions.

I know from the last GOP primaries we were both Ron Paul supporters. I am all for any move in that direction. We can see what works and how far it should go. I realize that without practical implementation this is all socioeconomic idealism.

But I would start by saying that taxes are too high and that the economy (and society) will be more efficient and prosperous when people keep more of the money they earn. We spend far too much on the military for starters and I think every budget should be balanced by law. I would eliminate the federal reserve banking system.

I am on the fence with public schools as I would personally have to first be able to keep more of the money I earn before I could afford any private education for my kids and believe education is the key to any society that wants to be successful in the future.

Those are just a few starting points...

You and I see eye to eye on minarchism. I think it would work great, because under a smaller federal government, we could give states sovereignty. States can then compete against each other to improve education, technology and many other elements that society consist of. At the moment, there is little difference between states. What we have consist more of districts where everyone has to work within Washington's guidelines. At some point, we've stopped being Californians, New Yorkers, etc etc and became 'muricans. Hail to the LCD!

I like to think this viewpoint makes a person an"anti-bureaucrat". The middle line between the lowered expectations of the LCD and the naivety of anarchism.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I think that's a bit over-broad.

How about another example? The world's largest economy. The one that pulled hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. The one that has a blatant socialist agenda, and doesn't even pretend a hands-off approach. I am talking, of course, about China.

At the cost of how many innocents? Mao killed what, 30 million?

China improved so much because it went from straight communism to state capitalism, the latter of which still sucks but it doesn't suck quite as much as communism.

 

[rexlunae]

At the cost of how many innocents? Mao killed what, 30 million?

Which had nearly nothing to do with their present success. Mao's economic ideas didn't work.

I'm not endorsing the entire Chinese Communist model. The Chinese state is highly repressive, and I suspect needlessly so. There are historical reasons for that, in addition to it being nearly universal for communism. But neither should you completely dismiss their example.

China improved so much because it went from straight communism to state capitalism, the latter of which still sucks but it doesn't suck quite as much as communism.

If that sucks, what does success look like? They've lifted half a billion people out of poverty in a few decades. That's about the population of Europe. No other civilization has ever done anything even remotely like that. And the government has been an indispensable part of that.

What works best is not an extreme capitalism or an extreme collectivism, but rather a compromise between the two that's committed to broad-based wealth and also rewarding success. The US is drifting toward the former slowly but surely, shedding our middle class all the way.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Which had nearly nothing to do with their present success. Mao's economic ideas didn't work.

I'm not endorsing the entire Chinese Communist model. The Chinese state is highly repressive, and I suspect needlessly so. There are historical reasons for that, in addition to it being nearly universal for communism. But neither should you completely dismiss their example.



If that sucks, what does success look like? They've lifted half a billion people out of poverty in a few decades. That's about the population of Europe. No other civilization has ever done anything even remotely like that. And the government has been an indispensable part of that.

What works best is not an extreme capitalism or an extreme collectivism, but rather a compromise between the two that's committed to broad-based wealth and also rewarding success. The US is drifting toward the former slowly but surely, shedding our middle class all the way.

You know what? There's really no point in debating this with an atheist. Of course you have no moral problem with controlling millions of people and extoling their oppressors for their success, even when said regime has murdered Christians and murdered dissidents. If you were a Christian and you posted something like this I'd probably be far harsher, but since you're an atheist I expect no different. Good day.

 

[rexlunae]

You know what? There's really no point in debating this with an atheist.

So...your problem is with my lack of religion, so you can't discuss economics with me. That makes tons of sense.

Of course you have no moral problem with controlling millions of people and extoling their oppressors for their success, even when said regime has murdered Christians and murdered dissidents.

Of course I have a problem with oppression and with the murder of dissidents. And by the way, there have been tons of Christians killed by Somali dissidents (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/wo...rgeting-christians-kill-dozens-resort-n131846), as well as tons of political murder, and you don't seem to be too bothered by idealizing that. If we refuse to examine any case where oppression has ever occurred, and that isn't perfect, we won't have anything to examine at all. I'm not idealizing the Chinese system. I'm suggesting that it is just possible that they have something to teach us about running an economy.

If you were a Christian and you posted something like this I'd probably be far harsher, but since you're an atheist I expect no different.

I think you just don't know how to deal with it, so you're taking the escape hatch from the conversation. Suit yourself, but don't make it something it's not.

Good day.

How come when you say that, I feel like you're getting ready to burn an effigy or something?

 

[WizardofOz]

Not exactly going out on a limb there.

Do you agree that taxes should be lower? A lot of people argue that taxes are too low.

So when you say balance the budget, are you including the sales of treasuries?

Yes

Is your main beef that you don't have enough money right now?

:doh: No.

I don't want poor people to be locked out of education opportunities, which will only perpetuate their poverty.

It's a problem when a child cannot be educated solely due to his or her parent's economic status.

 

[WizardofOz]

Minarchism is one thing, but as long as we keep letting the government be involved in and control the education of our children, we are going to live in a government controlled society. To me public schools being abolished is not just one move in the direction of libertarianism (whether anarcho-capitalism or minarchism), it may well be THE main step necessary.

That said, I'm mostly anarcho-capitalist for ideological consistency reasons. Philosophically I can't really say a minarchist government would be justified, but if we were able to get to that point, I'd be thrilled. That's way more than I realistically think we'll accomplish in my lifetime.

I think you're already an ancap and you just don't know it yet

Something like "I was a minarchist until I ran out of excuses" - Scott Horton

How will be poor be educated in an AC society?

 

[WizardofOz]

you recognize that private courts would likely be neutral and objective because they'd be exposed as corrupt and go out of business otherwise.

I can argue both sides of this one. I am not sure why people trust government courts more or less than private courts. Where the paycheck comes from does not determine likelihood of bias or corruption.

I have no problem with courts remaining a government function.

Besides, this is so far down the rabbit hole. I am more interested in the baby steps we can be taking now. Want to implement your ideal society? What is the first viable step?

As for police and so forth, I think its obvious from any kind of freedom-oriented perspective that that isn't working. The US has the highest prison population in the world, and the police get away with crimes even by their own biased laws all the time.

Yes, I have a big problem with the current state of law enforcement in the US.

If a city or state could only afford what was needed (local citizens and businesses hire a police force) then there wouldn't be such overkill. If crime wasn't an issue, funded would slow. If crime picked up, funding would increase.

Either way, I have no problem with police being a government function but it should be economically self-sustainable.

The military would be the hardest thing to provide on the free market, but even operating on a purely pragmatic basis, the fact that large armies run by a centralized government tend to form empires, and the fact that the US doing that has led to huge reductions in American safety, tells me all I need to know.

Will add more later but I gotta go. Best of luck

Balancing a budget by law would force a huge cut in military spending. It's outrageous how much we spend on military.

But again, it's a legitimate government function.

 

[rexlunae]

you recognize that private courts would likely be neutral and objective because they'd be exposed as corrupt and go out of business otherwise.

You are assuming that the parties to the suit desire neutrality. But that isn't true. They desire to win. Thus the party with more leverage to choose the venue would want to pick one which they think will favor them. This already happens to some degree with state-run courts, but think how much worse the problem could be if it were an open market.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Do you agree that taxes should be lower? A lot of people argue that taxes are too low.

How many of them are arguing that they themselves are not paying enough in taxes?
Or are they arguing that other people are not paying enough in taxes?

It's a problem when a child cannot be educated solely due to his or her parent's economic status.

If you have a problem with it, open your own wallet to fix the problem instead of someone else's wallet.

 

[genuineoriginal]

It's outrageous how much we spend on military.

But again, it's a legitimate government function.

Isn't it odd that the Founding Fathers of the United States of America did not believe that a standing army was a legitimate federal government function (but it did allow for a standing Navy).

The Founding Fathers believed in each of the individual states maintaining an organized (not state funded) militia funded by the private citizens that the states mandated to be members of that militia. Each citizen in the militia was responsible for purchasing and maintaining their own weapons and ammunition.

 

[Jose Fly]

Do you agree that taxes should be lower? A lot of people argue that taxes are too low.

Some are too high, some are too low. But I am not opposed to the idea of taxation as a whole.

Yes

That's good.

I don't want poor people to be locked out of education opportunities, which will only perpetuate their poverty.

It's a problem when a child cannot be educated solely due to his or her parent's economic status.

Good. We agree on that.

 

[WizardofOz]

How many of them are arguing that they themselves are not paying enough in taxes?

I'm pretty sure PureX has argued that tax rates should be higher :idunno:

Or are they arguing that other people are not paying enough in taxes?

They would be arguing that everyone should be paying more in taxes.

If you have a problem with it, open your own wallet to fix the problem instead of someone else's wallet.

You're missing the point. If there are no public schools, how does an impoverished kid from Detroit get educated?

Isn't it odd that the Founding Fathers of the United States of America did not believe that a standing army was a legitimate federal government function (but it did allow for a standing Navy).

Which would indicate that the military is a legitimate government function. We can split hairs over which branch is legitimate if you'd like but you're not exactly countering my general point.

The Founding Fathers believed in each of the individual states maintaining an organized (not state funded) militia funded by the private citizens that the states mandated to be members of that militia. Each citizen in the militia was responsible for purchasing and maintaining their own weapons and ammunition.

Sounds good to me...

 

[WizardofOz]

Some are too high, some are too low.

Fair enough...which are too high and which are too low?