The Free Market [Archive] - Ron Paul Forums / Liberty Forest

noxagol

11-03-2008, 08:32 PM

Individual members of government do care at least to the extent that they get re-elected. They must work together as a group to ensure this. Thus, there certainly is a vested interest for government to cater to the people. Additionally, I believe Ron Paul does care to see the people satisfied - do you believe otherwise?

But they don't have to try that hard because they stack the decks in their favor. When you REAL opponents, the ones who seek to shrink the state, have to climb Mt Everest while you only have to climb your front step to win, not much risk to doing dumb thins.

Governments may have a monopoly on the use of force internally, but what about external? Let's take an example of a woman in a physically abusive relationship. The man is using force internally to the relationship against which she cannot fight, but he is unable to impose force externally against every other man. She is free to seek out another man or no man. Thus, this "monopoly" does not show difference and the free market principles still apply.

The answer is in the question here. The abuse of the husband is force because surely the wife is not consenting to it. Thus, she has the right to use force against here husband and also has the right to employ others to act in her stead or assist her. THIS is the ONLY role for government.

Also, your whole argument is based on the assumption that we choose were to live, which is false. I did not choose to be born here in America and I lack the means to leave it. Also, leaving here requires I go somewhere else which requires the permission of another state to let me live in its territory, not guaranteed. I am a prisoner of circumstance in which all choice is removed from me by the state. Also, your comparison is not real competition of voluntary interactions as a free-market dictates. It exists on the ability of one group to impose their will on another group with no cost to themselves other than to put a check mark next to the guy who promises to take the most from everyone that is not them and give it to them.

Finally, like government, business is not limited to interacting with those that voluntarily choose such interaction. For example, a debt collection agency could force someone to repay a debt that wasn't being voluntarily repaid.

In this case, the debtor has previously agreed to pay the amount back and it is within the creditor's rights to force repayment since the debtor has previously agreed to such action.

ronpaul4pres

11-03-2008, 09:04 PM

But they don't have to try that hard because they stack the decks in their favor. When you REAL opponents, the ones who seek to shrink the state, have to climb Mt Everest while you only have to climb your front step to win, not much risk to doing dumb thins.

I contend that does not matter. All I had to show was that there is at least a small amount of reciprocation to refute the previous point. As long as there exists a smidgen of competition, then the free market rules apply in whole.

The answer is in the question here. The abuse of the husband is force because surely the wife is not consenting to it. Thus, she has the right to use force against here husband and also has the right to employ others to act in her stead or assist her. THIS is the ONLY role for government.

The US government has intervened in cases of other abusive governments to protect the people. Whether the US should have is not the question: it is proof that governments act as if in the free market.

Also, your whole argument is based on the assumption that we choose were to live, which is false. I did not choose to be born here in America and I lack the means to leave it. Also, leaving here requires I go somewhere else which requires the permission of another state to let me live in its territory, not guaranteed. I am a prisoner of circumstance in which all choice is removed from me by the state. Also, your comparison is not real competition of voluntary interactions as a free-market dictates. It exists on the ability of one group to impose their will on another group with no cost to themselves other than to put a check mark next to the guy who promises to take the most from everyone that is not them and give it to them.

For you to suggest you do not have the means to leave this country does not hold up to reason. We have destitute people with no money coming from Mexico into this country. Furthermore, you're not restricted to the Americas: the cost of an airplane ticket to another continent is well within the reach of even the poorest Americans.

The fact that you're able to communicate to me proves that you have the ability to earn a living and buy a ticket out of here. You do have the opportunity to leave to another country, who charges less of your freedoms, if you so choose.

In this case, the debtor has previously agreed to pay the amount back and it is within the creditor's rights to force repayment since the debtor has previously agreed to such action.

Fine, but let's say a man agreed to the contract he did not repay. Let's say he has a wife. She volunteered to be married to the husband, but she did not volunteer to go through the hassle and embarrassment of a debt collection. Thus, private relationships can lead to involuntary ones - disproving the previous point.

nickcoons

11-03-2008, 09:58 PM

Individual members of government do care at least to the extent that they get re-elected. They must work together as a group to ensure this. Thus, there certainly is a vested interest for government to cater to the people.

But in catering to some people, they initiate force against others. This is something that businesses in a free market cannot do. In fact, they do not have to provide an "acceptable" level of freedoms to everyone. All they need to do is promise to provide unearned benefits to 51% of the people at any excruciating costs of freedom the remaining 49%.

Additionally, I believe Ron Paul does care to see the people satisfied - do you believe otherwise?

No, I agree with your assessment of Ron Paul, but he is an anomaly.

Governments may have a monopoly on the use of force internally, but what about external?

Be careful. I said that they have a legal monopoly on the initiation of force.

Let's take an example of a woman in a physically abusive relationship. The man is using force internally to the relationship against which she cannot fight, but he is unable to impose force externally against every other man. She is free to seek out another man or no man. Thus, this "monopoly" does not show difference and the free market principles still apply.

I'm not really sure your example relates. My guess is that the husband represents the state, and the wife represents the average citizen, so I'll go on that. In reality, the wife does not have the choice of "another man or no man".. that is, we have the choice of "another state", but we do not have the choice of "no state."

I suppose that it can be argued that an individual can search the planet for an untouched island. This person can settle on the island, taking huge amounts of supplies with them in order to get their new life started, and then be completely self-sufficient from that point forward; growing/hunting their own food, creating their own electricity, purifying water, etc. This is much harder to attain then simply purchasing a plane ticket to a foreign country, because it includes not only large amounts of wealth but also skills that most people don't have. However, for those have these capabilities, I suppose they are choosing the loss of certain freedoms in exchange for having to start life from scratch, literally.

I inferred a premise from your original post which may not have actually been there. I understood that you were implying that governments that exist as they do should exist that way, because they sprung up in the free market of the governmental industry. But like any industry, even taking every business that exists does not mean that the best possible business exists yet within that pool.

Finally, like government, business is not limited to interacting with those that voluntarily choose such interaction. For example, a debt collection agency could force someone to repay a debt that wasn't being voluntarily repaid.

You're blurring the lines between "initiation of force" and "retaliatory force" and you're calling it just "force." Retaliatory force us justified.

You can take on a debt in one of two ways; either voluntarily by borrowing, or by negligent or other harmful actions. If you enter into a contract to borrow money and then do not live up to the terms of the contract (like not paying it back), you are initiating force against the other party's property, and the debt collector that they hire is using retaliatory force. The process is similar if you take on a debt from negligent or harmful actions.

sailor

11-04-2008, 08:43 AM

However, there are no freer countries in which to live.

Hahahaha. Haha! HA!!

No freer state?

Are you insane?

ronpaul4pres

11-04-2008, 05:16 PM

Hahahaha. Haha! HA!!

No freer state?

Are you insane?

Please note from my comment above that I took some liberty with the word "freer" to mean "the lowest cost". If you can name another country that has a lower cost than the one in which you live, then who is the one who is insane?

ronpaul4pres

11-04-2008, 05:49 PM

I'm really enjoying our discussion!

But in catering to some people, they initiate force against others. This is something that businesses in a free market cannot do. In fact, they do not have to provide an "acceptable" level of freedoms to everyone. All they need to do is promise to provide unearned benefits to 51% of the people at any excruciating costs of freedom the remaining 49%.

I disagree: have you ever really enjoyed a particular product (a food item, TV program, etc.) that went away because some other item outsold it? Thus, in the business environment, the majority "took" your favorite product from you. That is the free market at work.

No, I agree with your assessment of Ron Paul, but he is an anomaly.

Of course, but it does prove that Congress is inherently not 100% against the people.

I inferred a premise from your original post which may not have actually been there. I understood that you were implying that governments that exist as they do should exist that way, because they sprung up in the free market of the governmental industry. But like any industry, even taking every business that exists does not mean that the best possible business exists yet within that pool.

I really like that last sentence. That gives Free Marketeers hope. What I'd like to get across is that just like people complained about $4/gallon gasoline but had to pay it, I think some people here have to realize that the government is charging the "correct" Free Market price. For example, if we're becoming more Socialist, perhaps that's because there are plenty of even more Socialist countries.

If people would like to lower the "price" of government, then what are they doing to encourage it?

You're blurring the lines between "initiation of force" and "retaliatory force" and you're calling it just "force." Retaliatory force us justified.

You can take on a debt in one of two ways; either voluntarily by borrowing, or by negligent or other harmful actions. If you enter into a contract to borrow money and then do not live up to the terms of the contract (like not paying it back), you are initiating force against the other party's property, and the debt collector that they hire is using retaliatory force. The process is similar if you take on a debt from negligent or harmful actions.

I concede this; however, I believe my other example to the other poster covers this (let's say a man agreed to the contract he did not repay. Let's say he has a wife. She volunteered to be married to the husband, but she did not volunteer to go through the hassle and embarrassment of a debt collection. Thus, private relationships can lead to involuntary ones - disproving the previous point.)

Conza88

11-04-2008, 07:28 PM

The STATE does NOT own the land...

Property is derived from the homesteading principle.

THE STATE can fuck off, because it is the one who is infringing on peoples rights. It AIN'T the other way round...

ronpaul4pres

11-05-2008, 12:48 AM

Ron Paul once said that he wished he were President of Switzerland (nobody would know who he was, slightly more honest monetary policy I believe..)

Hmm...maybe it's time to learn German and put the Free Market to work? :p

nickcoons

11-05-2008, 01:45 AM

I'm really enjoying our discussion!

Then I guess we're both in the right place :).

I disagree: have you ever really enjoyed a particular product (a food item, TV program, etc.) that went away because some other item outsold it? Thus, in the business environment, the majority "took" your favorite product from you. That is the free market at work.

The main thing that's important to keep in mind is that there is a fundamental difference between the way government works and the way a business works. The government can, without legal repercussions, initiate force against an individual or group; and government is unique in that it is the only institution that can do that. In fact, defining government solely as "the institution with a legal monopoly on the initiation of force" is a very complete definition of government.

If the government decides to steal my property from me because the majority deems it proper, then I will be forced to forfeit my property, at gunpoint if necessary. On the other hand, if a product on the market is discontinued because its manufacturer deems it unprofitable to pursue, then nothing is "taken" from me because it was not mine to begin with. When you use the word "took" (in quotes), it was not being used as the way something is normally taken, because in reality nothing was taken. It's the same as saying that jobs are being "stolen" when manufacturers ship them overseas. It's an improper use of the word "stolen."

When something is "taken" or "stolen" from me, that act comes with certain criteria. I must own the item being taken from me. If not, then I have no claim over the item for someone else to take. In owning the item, I have acquired it by exchanging value for value (that is, I gave up something like time, or I gave up money which I acquired by giving up time), or it was given to me by someone who did make that exchange. So when that is taken, it is the equivalent of taking that which I gave up in order to acquire it, which means the time (a portion of my life) that was exchanged to acquire it.

On the other hand, if what was "taken" from me was the ability to make an exchange with a party because that party has decided not to engage in such an exchange, then nothing has really been taken, because there was nothing that I owned to be taken.

I really like that last sentence. That gives Free Marketeers hope. What I'd like to get across is that just like people complained about $4/gallon gasoline but had to pay it, I think some people here have to realize that the government is charging the "correct" Free Market price.

I think that claim makes certain assumptions.

We know that in a free market, the barrier to entry is minimal. Anyone can generally come along and start a business that competes with an existing business, and if the latter business provides better products and services and/or lower costs than the former that the latter will attract customers away from the former.

We also know that these businesses can use any method they'd like in order to attract new customers so long as they don't initiate force against anyone.

When looking at governments around the world, I don't see a low barrier to entry into the marketplace of governments, nor do I see governments competing sans force against each other. It may be true that from the individual's point of view they are going to choose the government that they like best, taking into account costs (i.e. I might find a government that's marginally better than the US, but the costs involved with moving there and significantly disrupting my life may make those benefits insignificant). But from the supply side of the equation, competition seems to be kept at bay because those involved will not only suppress new competition but will use force against their existing competition.

From here it may be argued that at the government level (if government were seen as the citizens of the world) that the planet is an anarcho-capitalist society, proving that anarcho-capitalism wouldn't work well because we know how poorly governments get along with each other. But this attributes characteristics of individuals to governments that they don't have. For instance, the most efficient way for an individual to acquire something is to produce it, or produce something else and exchange for it. This costs less effort than taking it by force, so most people will take the path of least resistance and produce instead of steal. But governments are in a unique position because they have the legal authority to steal, so they can engage in activities (like war) that no individual would partake in if they had to bare the costs.

For example, if we're becoming more Socialist, perhaps that's because there are plenty of even more Socialist countries.

I wouldn't hesitate to argue that the view of the government is a reflection of its population. This is why we need to educate people to the benefits of freedom in order to elect liberty candidates, not the other way around.

If people would like to lower the "price" of government, then what are they doing to encourage it?

Answering that question would require that I speak for others, which I'm not prepared to do.

For myself, I host a new radio show which I'll be working on expanding out into other markets. In 2010, I'm running for the US Congress. It would be great to win, but the primary reason is because it gives me a stage from which to educate.

I concede this; however, I believe my other example to the other poster covers this (let's say a man agreed to the contract he did not repay. Let's say he has a wife. She volunteered to be married to the husband, but she did not volunteer to go through the hassle and embarrassment of a debt collection. Thus, private relationships can lead to involuntary ones - disproving the previous point.)

In a free society, the wife would not be obligated for her husband's debts, nor would she have to bear the obligation of going through the debt collection process. Actually, even as it is today, people are not responsible for their spouse's debts unless they're cosigners (which means they would have agreed to the consequences of contract breach).

PeterWellington

11-05-2008, 05:30 AM

I've thought about government in a very similar way; as a type of rogue company. The discussion ronpaul4pres and nickcoons are having reminds me a lot of when people talk about "natural" vs. "artificial". Some people will say something like a watch is artificial because it's man-made while others will say everything is natural, as human beings are a part of nature. I think both sides can be right depending on how the terms are defined, and I think that's the case here as well. I think you're both making useful distinctions.

nickcoons seems to be going by the traditional definitions of government and free market, which I find useful in understanding the problem (of the evils of government). ronpaul4pres seems to be looking at things from the perspective that government is another player in the market, which I find useful in addressing the problem (of how to pursue freedom from government).

But to answer the original question, I'd say the government is able to take away our freedoms because most people don't recognize it as such. In fact, they demand it. Most people think Ron Paul is a nut, and if you're an anarchist, you're an even bigger nut. Sadly, most people just aren't ready for freedom yet.

But the good news is we don't need everyone, we don't even need a majority. We just need enough people willing to stop supporting the shitty company (that is government) and start our own company (through secession or a new territory).

haaaylee

11-05-2008, 03:52 PM

The US government has intervened in cases of other abusive governments to protect the people. Whether the US should have is not the question: it is proof that governments act as if in the free market.

The Governments used to force. They were not asked to come help.

For you to suggest you do not have the means to leave this country does not hold up to reason. We have destitute people with no money coming from Mexico into this country. Furthermore, you're not restricted to the Americas: the cost of an airplane ticket to another continent is well within the reach of even the poorest Americans.

Open Borders. It is much harder to get into an overseas country. And especially to become a citizen of it.

Fine, but let's say a man agreed to the contract he did not repay. Let's say he has a wife. She volunteered to be married to the husband, but she did not volunteer to go through the hassle and embarrassment of a debt collection. Thus, private relationships can lead to involuntary ones - disproving the previous point.

Good reasoning for the Government not being involved in Marriage.

Andrew-Austin

11-05-2008, 04:11 PM

What rightful claim does the state have over all of our land? You would have to come up with some mystical, nonsensical excuse to say the state preempts all individuals, that it has a right to exist/be on this land more so than individual persons.

ronpaul4pres

11-05-2008, 08:24 PM

Thanks again for this great discussion!

The main thing that's important to keep in mind is that there is a fundamental difference between the way government works and the way a business works. The government can, without legal repercussions, initiate force against an individual or group; and government is unique in that it is the only institution that can do that. In fact, defining government solely as "the institution with a legal monopoly on the initiation of force" is a very complete definition of government.

If the government decides to steal my property from me because the majority deems it proper, then I will be forced to forfeit my property, at gunpoint if necessary. On the other hand, if a product on the market is discontinued because its manufacturer deems it unprofitable to pursue, then nothing is "taken" from me because it was not mine to begin with. When you use the word "took" (in quotes), it was not being used as the way something is normally taken, because in reality nothing was taken. It's the same as saying that jobs are being "stolen" when manufacturers ship them overseas. It's an improper use of the word "stolen."

When something is "taken" or "stolen" from me, that act comes with certain criteria. I must own the item being taken from me. If not, then I have no claim over the item for someone else to take. In owning the item, I have acquired it by exchanging value for value (that is, I gave up something like time, or I gave up money which I acquired by giving up time), or it was given to me by someone who did make that exchange. So when that is taken, it is the equivalent of taking that which I gave up in order to acquire it, which means the time (a portion of my life) that was exchanged to acquire it.

On the other hand, if what was "taken" from me was the ability to make an exchange with a party because that party has decided not to engage in such an exchange, then nothing has really been taken, because there was nothing that I owned to be taken.

OK - you got me thinking: Let's say a new sort of plague appears that affects 25% of all newborns that ends in death. Let's say a cure is found, and a company pops into existence to sell drugs to allow future newborns afflicted with the disease to live. Let's say this plague dies down and we get to a situation where only 5% of newborns are afflicted. Let's also say (quite reasonably) that the company selling these drugs goes bankrupt because their business model assumed at least a 10% affliction rate. Finally, let's say you then have a baby born with the affliction but can't purchase the needed cure (since the company went under) and your baby dies.

Some questions:

1) Was your baby's life "taken" by the negligence of another (let's say a "bean counter" at that company)? If so, would you also agree there was no force involved?
2) Would you prefer to live in a society where government would step in to "bail out" the company providing the life saving drug so that your baby may live? ...or would you prefer to live in a "principled" society and watch your baby die?

I think that claim makes certain assumptions.

We know that in a free market, the barrier to entry is minimal. Anyone can generally come along and start a business that competes with an existing business, and if the latter business provides better products and services and/or lower costs than the former that the latter will attract customers away from the former.

It is not true that there are always minimal barriers to entry. Long time players may have better economies of scale - and many even use these economies to push their existing competitors out of business. In that case, there is no way a newcomer would have a minimal barrier to entry.

We also know that these businesses can use any method they'd like in order to attract new customers so long as they don't initiate force against anyone.

When looking at governments around the world, I don't see a low barrier to entry into the marketplace of governments, nor do I see governments competing sans force against each other. It may be true that from the individual's point of view they are going to choose the government that they like best, taking into account costs (i.e. I might find a government that's marginally better than the US, but the costs involved with moving there and significantly disrupting my life may make those benefits insignificant). But from the supply side of the equation, competition seems to be kept at bay because those involved will not only suppress new competition but will use force against their existing competition.

From here it may be argued that at the government level (if government were seen as the citizens of the world) that the planet is an anarcho-capitalist society, proving that anarcho-capitalism wouldn't work well because we know how poorly governments get along with each other. But this attributes characteristics of individuals to governments that they don't have. For instance, the most efficient way for an individual to acquire something is to produce it, or produce something else and exchange for it. This costs less effort than taking it by force, so most people will take the path of least resistance and produce instead of steal. But governments are in a unique position because they have the legal authority to steal, so they can engage in activities (like war) that no individual would partake in if they had to bare the costs.

I'm not sure the "barrier" cost for government matters until you prove to me that free markets always have low barriers for any and all prospective entrepreneurs.

Regardless of that, I don't think it matters that governments are "colluding" to keep "prices" high. Collusion can happen among businesses in a Free Market, so I see this as one in the same.

I wouldn't hesitate to argue that the view of the government is a reflection of its population. This is why we need to educate people to the benefits of freedom in order to elect liberty candidates, not the other way around.

I agree wholeheartedly! But, I still say that Free Market Principles can be used to explain the current "cost" of our governance.

Answering that question would require that I speak for others, which I'm not prepared to do.

For myself, I host a new radio show which I'll be working on expanding out into other markets. In 2010, I'm running for the US Congress. It would be great to win, but the primary reason is because it gives me a stage from which to educate.

Awesome! I didn't do a complete check, but I believe all Ron Paul candidates who weren't incumbents lost yesterday. That's a sad comment on our "revolution." I sincerely hope you win the hearts and minds of your listeners, so you can win their votes.

In a free society, the wife would not be obligated for her husband's debts, nor would she have to bear the obligation of going through the debt collection process. Actually, even as it is today, people are not responsible for their spouse's debts unless they're cosigners (which means they would have agreed to the consequences of contract breach).

Well, my point is that the husband's actions have repercussions that affect the whole family not just him. The wife didn't voluntarily cause them. Let's say that one repercussion is that he can't pay rent on the house in which the whole family lives (let's say he is the sole bread winner for simplicity). Are you telling me that the landlord will kick out only the husband and let the wife stay? Or did the husband's private relationship lead to her involuntary one of getting kicked out?

ronpaul4pres

11-05-2008, 08:35 PM

I've thought about government in a very similar way; as a type of rogue company. The discussion ronpaul4pres and nickcoons are having reminds me a lot of when people talk about "natural" vs. "artificial". Some people will say something like a watch is artificial because it's man-made while others will say everything is natural, as human beings are a part of nature. I think both sides can be right depending on how the terms are defined, and I think that's the case here as well. I think you're both making useful distinctions.

nickcoons seems to be going by the traditional definitions of government and free market, which I find useful in understanding the problem (of the evils of government). ronpaul4pres seems to be looking at things from the perspective that government is another player in the market, which I find useful in addressing the problem (of how to pursue freedom from government).

That's a very interesting viewpoint, and thank you for it.

But to answer the original question, I'd say the government is able to take away our freedoms because most people don't recognize it as such. In fact, they demand it. Most people think Ron Paul is a nut, and if you're an anarchist, you're an even bigger nut. Sadly, most people just aren't ready for freedom yet.

But the good news is we don't need everyone, we don't even need a majority. We just need enough people willing to stop supporting the shitty company (that is government) and start our own company (through secession or a new territory).

The Revolutionary and Civil Wars were over secession, and they were quite bloody - I'm not looking forward to that at all.

I prefer Ron Paul's solution (in my own words): most people don't believe they're paying too much for government. It's up to us to show them there's a lower cost.

nickcoons

11-06-2008, 01:25 AM

1) Was your baby's life "taken" by the negligence of another (let's say a "bean counter" at that company)? If so, would you also agree there was no force involved?
2) Would you prefer to live in a society where government would step in to "bail out" the company providing the life saving drug so that your baby may live? ...or would you prefer to live in a "principled" society and watch your baby die?

I think you're presenting a false dichotomy, providing only two choices where there are actually more. Allow me to offer another option.

The company that developed this drug most likely put in a substantial amount of resources into research and development, which is why they needed a 10% affliction rate in order to recoup their costs. However, now that the manufacturer of this drug is bankrupt and no one is left to "own" the patent on the drug (if you support the idea of intellectual property, which I don't), another drug manufacturer can reverse-engineer the chemical formula of the drug and reproduce it, but without incurring the same research and development costs. This way, they can operate profitably without the requirement of a 10% affliction rate.

It is not true that there are always minimal barriers to entry. Long time players may have better economies of scale - and many even use these economies to push their existing competitors out of business. In that case, there is no way a newcomer would have a minimal barrier to entry.

Let's examine a large long-lived retail store that realizes it is the only one providing the products that it's providing and so starts raising its prices, and a brand new competitor who sees an opportunity to undercut their prices. So the large retail store sells its products below what it's new competitor can, and so puts the competitor out of business. While the two businesses battle for their existence, the community benefits from lowered prices.

Perhaps the newcomer eventually goes out of business because it can't sustain selling at such low prices for an extended period of time. And once that happens, the established business may raise it's prices, again enticing new competition to spring up. These up-and-down price changes in a large organization can become administratively expensive, can turn off shoppers because the business doesn't come across as reliable, and ultimately lead to a certain number of permanently lost customers due to disenfranchisement.

This isn't an argument to the barrier of entry concept, but rather the idea that a large establishment has a permanent advantage over new competition.

I'm not sure the "barrier" cost for government matters until you prove to me that free markets always have low barriers for any and all prospective entrepreneurs.

At best, the barrier to entry in a free market is equal to that of a regulated market. As soon as you have to comply with a government regulation in the course of your business, you have increased the barrier to entry. In some industries/states/localities, this can be very small. In others, it can be extensive.

I've been self-employed for nearly 12 years running a computer retail and service computer company. I live in Arizona, which is relatively lax on regulations when it comes to self-employment. When I started my company, I was working out of my bedroom. On day-one, I had to apply for a Transaction Privilege Tax license from the state and one from the city. Every month I had to file tax forms with the state and the city reporting every income transaction that occurred during that month. I could either pay someone to do this (which costs money), or I could spend time doing it myself, time that I could have otherwise spent producing (which costs money).

Nearly 12 years later as I've expanded the business, government intrusion into my affairs (and the amount of time and money I spend complying) has only increased. These are resources that could be put into production. And being in technology, I'm in a very unregulated industry.

There may be some sort of business someone can start that does not have any governmental barriers to entry, but I don't know of any.

Regardless of that, I don't think it matters that governments are "colluding" to keep "prices" high. Collusion can happen among businesses in a Free Market, so I see this as one in the same.

Governments collude to keep prices high, and they collude to prevent competition (by invading weaker countries in order to impose their will). And they have this ability only because they initiate force on their citizens.

Imagine that I was the king of the world, and what I said was final. You can either give me half of everything you own as a tax, or you can face the guillotine. Would you argue that if you gave me half of your wealth in order to save your own life that you are making that decision in a free market, because the cost in order to save your life is acceptable?

I agree wholeheartedly! But, I still say that Free Market Principles can be used to explain the current "cost" of our governance.

I don't think a free market can be defined in terms of acceptable cost. When people make choices about which government to live under, they are certainly making a choice in the market of governments, but this doesn't imply that the market is free. "Free markets" have very specific characteristics, primarily that they are absent of institutionalized force. So I think the thing that threw this whole thing out of whack was the claim that governments are operating in a free market. If you had said that governments are operating in a market (keeping the word "free" out of the equation), then I would probably be on board with that idea.

Awesome! I didn't do a complete check, but I believe all Ron Paul candidates who weren't incumbents lost yesterday. That's a sad comment on our "revolution."

I may be mistaken, but I think Ron Paul himself was the only "Ron Paul" candidate that was an incumbent.

I sincerely hope you win the hearts and minds of your listeners, so you can win their votes.

I hope so too.

Well, my point is that the husband's actions have repercussions that affect the whole family not just him.

People have repercussions on each other every day of their lives. If I'm driving down the road in one direction and you in another, and we meet at an intersection, one of us has to yield to avoid a collision. The one who yielded was affected by the one who went through the intersection.

The wife didn't voluntarily cause them. Let's say that one repercussion is that he can't pay rent on the house in which the whole family lives (let's say he is the sole bread winner for simplicity). Are you telling me that the landlord will kick out only the husband and let the wife stay? Or did the husband's private relationship lead to her involuntary one of getting kicked out?

She agreed to put herself into a situation where she was not in control of generating income needed to secure her living conditions and left it to someone else. She was voluntarily dependent.

There is no guarantee that in a society without institutionalized force that nothing bad will ever happen. On the contrary, there will be many failures, and these failures will be allowed to happen. Failure is a necessary experience in order to learn and grow. When people are hit with the fact that they are responsible for what happens to them by the choices they make, they will ultimately figure out how to make better choices, and these abilities will be taught to younger generations; just as it had been before the creation of the nanny state.

ronpaul4pres

11-07-2008, 12:58 AM

I think you're presenting a false dichotomy, providing only two choices where there are actually more.

No - I presented a particular scenario where no other company is able to come and take over creation of that drug, and I was wondering about your choice in that situation. I wondered if you might change your choice based on that particular situation.

You present another scenario below, and I'm happy to discuss it, too.

The company that developed this drug most likely put in a substantial amount of resources into research and development, which is why they needed a 10% affliction rate in order to recoup their costs. However, now that the manufacturer of this drug is bankrupt and no one is left to "own" the patent on the drug (if you support the idea of intellectual property, which I don't), another drug manufacturer can reverse-engineer the chemical formula of the drug and reproduce it, but without incurring the same research and development costs. This way, they can operate profitably without the requirement of a 10% affliction rate.

This is possible. But, what you suggest doesn't happen in zero time. By the time the other company can do as you say, the afflicted newborn might be dead.

It's possible you can come up with a third scenario in the free market that can approximate a government bailout and keep the drug production going, but the free market gives no guarantees that this will happen.

My point is to hammer home the idea that the free market is no panacea. It is neither good nor evil. I'm sure you get this, however, I believe I've proven that government "interference" is sometimes more efficient at achieving a particular objective. Of course, there may be unintended costs to this "interference" or the objective may not even be worthwhile, but I believe this "efficiency" must be conceded.

Let's examine a large long-lived retail store that realizes it is the only one providing the products that it's providing and so starts raising its prices, and a brand new competitor who sees an opportunity to undercut their prices. So the large retail store sells its products below what it's new competitor can, and so puts the competitor out of business. While the two businesses battle for their existence, the community benefits from lowered prices.

Perhaps the newcomer eventually goes out of business because it can't sustain selling at such low prices for an extended period of time. And once that happens, the established business may raise it's prices, again enticing new competition to spring up. These up-and-down price changes in a large organization can become administratively expensive, can turn off shoppers because the business doesn't come across as reliable, and ultimately lead to a certain number of permanently lost customers due to disenfranchisement.

This isn't an argument to the barrier of entry concept, but rather the idea that a large establishment has a permanent advantage over new competition.

Agreed! I hope we both agree, then:

The free market does not always promise a low entry cost.
The free market does not always impose a high entry cost.

At best, the barrier to entry in a free market is equal to that of a regulated market. As soon as you have to comply with a government regulation in the course of your business, you have increased the barrier to entry. In some industries/states/localities, this can be very small. In others, it can be extensive.

I believe we were arguing about the cost of entry to create a new government not the cost of creating a business under a particular government. I was arguing that governments are like businesses in a free market (since we don't have world government, yet :eek:) that compete for citizens. I was using free market principles to then explain why citizens pay such a high cost for their governance.

I've been self-employed for nearly 12 years running a computer retail and service computer company. I live in Arizona, which is relatively lax on regulations when it comes to self-employment. When I started my company, I was working out of my bedroom. On day-one, I had to apply for a Transaction Privilege Tax license from the state and one from the city. Every month I had to file tax forms with the state and the city reporting every income transaction that occurred during that month. I could either pay someone to do this (which costs money), or I could spend time doing it myself, time that I could have otherwise spent producing (which costs money).

Nearly 12 years later as I've expanded the business, government intrusion into my affairs (and the amount of time and money I spend complying) has only increased. These are resources that could be put into production. And being in technology, I'm in a very unregulated industry.

There may be some sort of business someone can start that does not have any governmental barriers to entry, but I don't know of any.

After reading that, I can't believe I used the words "efficient" and "government" in the same sentence earlier. :D

From what I've said just above this quote, though, I'm not sure this has relevance to our discussion. Although, I'm happy to read you're running your own business!

Governments collude to keep prices high, and they collude to prevent competition (by invading weaker countries in order to impose their will). And they have this ability only because they initiate force on their citizens.

Imagine that I was the king of the world, and what I said was final. You can either give me half of everything you own as a tax, or you can face the guillotine. Would you argue that if you gave me half of your wealth in order to save your own life that you are making that decision in a free market, because the cost in order to save your life is acceptable?

No. Please note that I'd never argue that the free market makes all costs "acceptable." Gasoline at over $4/gallon was not "acceptable" to me, but the price was determined by the free market forces. Instead, I'd use the term "fair market value."

Another point: I'm trying to make the argument that you as king would have obtained and maintained your power because of free market forces. I wouldn't coronate you king, but as long as most of my fellow citizens go along with your kingship, the cost for me to oppose you alone would be too high.

I don't think a free market can be defined in terms of acceptable cost. When people make choices about which government to live under, they are certainly making a choice in the market of governments, but this doesn't imply that the market is free. "Free markets" have very specific characteristics, primarily that they are absent of institutionalized force. So I think the thing that threw this whole thing out of whack was the claim that governments are operating in a free market. If you had said that governments are operating in a market (keeping the word "free" out of the equation), then I would probably be on board with that idea.

No - I still believe national governments are operating in a free market. We don't have world government, yet. But, even if we did, I'd argue the world government was operating in a free market as a monopoly! :)

Two things:

1) IMPORTANT: I think you're putting "government" at the same level as "free market" - as if we can only have one or the other (perhaps this is my fault from my earlier arguments). Instead, I have come to believe the free market transcends government and is always there. Government just "gets in the way," so it appears there is no free market to us even though it is there. Let me give you an example: our federal government may use its powers to impose a minimum wage. However, I can name several ways free market forces work against this goal:

Corporations can hire illegal immigrants
Corporations can move to China and hire workers for 10x less
Corporations may be forced to lay people off to be able to pay the higher wages causing previously employed people to now have no wages

The government may try to manipulate the market, sometimes it is more successful than other times, and the end result may be much different than if the government didn't get involved, but the free market always wins (because the government itself operates in a free market).

In fact, if this were not true, then there would be absolutely no hope for us to go back to limited government. As much as we complain, the government does not have 100% control over our lives - even 1% freedom is enough to give the possibility for change.

Let me use an analogy: let's think of the "market" as water. I may build a canal to get a piece of the market to flow in a direction beneficial to me. You may dig a large hole to create a pond to capture a piece of the market for yourself. Another's pond may dry up if the rain doesn't come. And, the government may build a dam to restrict flow of a larger piece of the market. The government is not the water (the market), but it exists to direct its flow.

2) I believe it is not government that imposes its will but the collective - the society.

Proof: Let's assume a society exists with no government. Let's say that the murder rate is high and there is general chaos. Let's also assume that the members of this society don't like this chaos and think of a solution: they realize that murder is not good for the society. The people come to an agreement that they will not murder each other and punish those that commit this act. Private protection agencies and courts appear to sell services to enforce this agreement.

Great! Everything is working well. The society starts to flourish once the crime rate drops. But, one day, Joe the Murderer is born. He has a mental condition such that murder brings him immense pleasure. However, he lives in a society that enforces punishment for murder. From his perspective, he's very unhappy and feels like his freedom to murder has been unjustly taken from him.

Thus, society has imposed its collective will on Joe the Murderer. They've taken away his freedom to go on a murdering rampage. This was not the work of government with an institutionalized force.

Sure, a government may become corrupt to not truly represent the collective views of society, but I would claim that a society that continues to allow the government to operate in that fashion takes on those views. We must not think that government is inherently evil or bad. If we see bad results from its action (or inaction), then it's up to us to point that out and make it clear.

I may be mistaken, but I think Ron Paul himself was the only "Ron Paul" candidate that was an incumbent.

Ron Paul endorsed some incumbent candidates: http://www.libertypac.net/html/links.html

My facts were wrong yesterday - I was quoting a Daily Paul post. The link above has the complete list. But, on the federal level, it still seems that only incumbents won, sadly.

People have repercussions on each other every day of their lives. If I'm driving down the road in one direction and you in another, and we meet at an intersection, one of us has to yield to avoid a collision. The one who yielded was affected by the one who went through the intersection.

Exactly! Government doesn't impose its will to take away your freedom to always drive through intersections without stopping - society does.

She agreed to put herself into a situation where she was not in control of generating income needed to secure her living conditions and left it to someone else. She was voluntarily dependent.

Well, what if she didn't work because she was ill?

There is no guarantee that in a society without institutionalized force that nothing bad will ever happen. On the contrary, there will be many failures, and these failures will be allowed to happen. Failure is a necessary experience in order to learn and grow. When people are hit with the fact that they are responsible for what happens to them by the choices they make, they will ultimately figure out how to make better choices, and these abilities will be taught to younger generations; just as it had been before the creation of the nanny state.

Agreed!

nickcoons

11-07-2008, 02:03 AM

No - I presented a particular scenario where no other company is able to come and take over creation of that drug, and I was wondering about your choice in that situation. I wondered if you might change your choice based on that particular situation.

Okay, I understand what you're getting at here. No, I wouldn't change my choice. If a government bailout is provided as the solution, then it necessarily requires the initiation of force on others (unless it's funded entirely by voluntary means; given the unlikelihood of this, I wouldn't consider it). It seems that no matter how noble the intent of a government solution, the cure is worse than the disease.

This is possible. But, what you suggest doesn't happen in zero time. By the time the other company can do as you say, the afflicted newborn might be dead.

It may be that the "saving" drug company sees the impending doom of the original manufacturer of the drug and is able to strike a deal to take over production seamlessly. But I'm not trying to imply that the free market will always provide perfection. Just that free market answers are almost always better than government answers, and this is never definitively known ahead of time. If nothing else, we should play the odds and go with free market solutions every time in order to get the highest level of success.

It's possible you can come up with a third scenario in the free market that can approximate a government bailout and keep the drug production going, but the free market gives no guarantees that this will happen.

Government provides no such guarantees either.

My point is to hammer home the idea that the free market is no panacea. It is neither good nor evil. I'm sure you get this, however, I believe I've proven that government "interference" is sometimes more efficient at achieving a particular objective. Of course, there may be unintended costs to this "interference" or the objective may not even be worthwhile, but I believe this "efficiency" must be conceded.

I see that point. Government interference is often efficient at achieving a particular objective, but rarely is it efficient at achieving the desired objective. As I mentioned above, since the outcome can't possibly be known ahead of time, choosing the government solution is a longshot and should probably never be pursued.

Agreed! I hope we both agree, then:

The free market does not always promise a low entry cost.
The free market does not always impose a high entry cost.

Yes, I would agree. But I'd probably also throw in that (not taking subsidies into account), that the free market always provides an equal or lower entry cost.

I believe we were arguing about the cost of entry to create a new government not the cost of creating a business under a particular government.

The principles are the same.

I was arguing that governments are like businesses in a free market (since we don't have world government, yet :eek:) that compete for citizens. I was using free market principles to then explain why citizens pay such a high cost for their governance.

The point I was trying to make in my last message was that I would agree that governments are competing in a market, but they are not competing in a free market. To make sure we're on the same page, I define a free market as a market that is absent of institutionalized initiation of force and fraud. I don't think our world's governments are playing by those rules.

Every decision that we make is a market-based decision; what choice will yield the most desirable outcome at any given point in time? If I'm in the process of being mugged, I have several choices. I can comply and part with my wallet, I can resist and choose to fight, I can attempt an escape, etc. This is a market of sorts where I am attempting to make the choice that will yield the best possible outcome. But given that the scenario is not absent the initiation of force or fraud, this is not a free market.

So I would agree with the premise that governments of the world operate in a market, but I don't think this could be called a free market.

From what I've said just above this quote, though, I'm not sure this has relevance to our discussion. Although, I'm happy to read you're running your own business!

I was just trying to illustrate the increased barriers of entry in the presence of government.

No. Please note that I'd never argue that the free market makes all costs "acceptable." Gasoline at over $4/gallon was not "acceptable" to me, but the price was determined by the free market forces. Instead, I'd use the term "fair market value."

This is where I would argue that the price of gasoline was determined by market forces, but not by free market forces. I think the crux of our disagreement is that you're using the term "free market" where I would only describe what you're referring to using the term "market."

I believe it is not government that imposes its will but the collective - the society.

I agree with this. I think I mentioned previously that government is a reflection of the general will of the people being governed (usually). If this is intended to get to your point that the way to change government is to change the minds of the people, then I would agree with that as well.

Sure, a government may become corrupt to not truly represent the collective views of society, but I would claim that a society that continues to allow the government to operate in that fashion takes on those views. We must not think that government is inherently evil or bad. If we see bad results from its action (or inaction), then it's up to us to point that out and make it clear.

Hence our activism :).

Exactly! Government doesn't impose its will to take away your freedom to always drive through intersections without stopping - society does.

I think there are several ways laws like this come about. The method you're alluding to would be something like people in society being fed up with collisions at intersections, so they'd call for the government to put up and enforce stop signs.

On the other hand, it is not unheard of (:rolleyes:) for government to use propaganda to persuade society to adopt a certain mentality that leads to the creation of new laws that impose on our freedoms (Patriot Act, DHS, etc). In fact, it may be that this method is far more frequently used than the former.

Well, what if she didn't work because she was ill?

Then what would her alternatives have been? If she never married her husband, then she wouldn't have had the opportunity to live in an apartment expense-free to begin with. What she was getting out of the arrangement was not an entitlement, so there's no recourse for her if that arrangement evaporates.

ronpaul4pres

11-09-2008, 06:57 PM

Okay, I understand what you're getting at here. No, I wouldn't change my choice. If a government bailout is provided as the solution, then it necessarily requires the initiation of force on others (unless it's funded entirely by voluntary means; given the unlikelihood of this, I wouldn't consider it).

You state that the "initiation of force on others" must never be used. However, I wonder if a successful society depends upon the limited and proper use of the "initiation of force."

Let's take an example: let's say I own land upon which a natural threat appears through no fault of anyone. Let's say this threat doesn't hurt me but significantly hurts my neighbors (and you're a neighbor). Let's say I don't want to get rid of this threat because its removal (not its existence) would greatly adversely affect me. Finally, let's say I do not depend on trade with my neighbors (so you have no leverage over me). What is your recourse but to initiate force against me?

That's not to say that when a society accepts the use of force as a tool that this tool would never be abused. But, it is a useful tool to have.

It seems that no matter how noble the intent of a government solution, the cure is worse than the disease.

I would grant that there are always negative consequences for every positive gain, but I will not concede that the cost of a government solution always outweighs the benefits (e.g. we do need an army). But, to your point, there are many Americans who don't realize the negative consequences, and that must be corrected.

It may be that the "saving" drug company sees the impending doom of the original manufacturer of the drug and is able to strike a deal to take over production seamlessly. But I'm not trying to imply that the free market will always provide perfection. Just that free market answers are almost always better than government answers, and this is never definitively known ahead of time. If nothing else, we should play the odds and go with free market solutions every time in order to get the highest level of success.

I'm not willing to concede that a 100% free market guarantees the highest level of success in all situations. In times of war, for instance, you don't want several individual armies acting on your behalf but rather a centralized effort.

Government provides no such guarantees either.

I would agree that there's no certainty the government would step in and do a bailout; I only was making an argument on the statement that they would.

I see that point. Government interference is often efficient at achieving a particular objective, but rarely is it efficient at achieving the desired objective. As I mentioned above, since the outcome can't possibly be known ahead of time, choosing the government solution is a longshot and should probably never be pursued.

I disagree.

First, I would agree, like I said above, you can always point to negative consequences of certain actions, but the government is not an institution separate from the people - it is a construct of society. Society will find a solution - either through government or through no government. The existence of government does not mean it would necessarily find a different solution than without government.

Second, we have multiple levels of government: federal, state, and local. Ron Paul taught that the more divisive the issue, the closer it should be to local government to resolve the issue. He did not suggest that government should be completely removed from solving issues; he taught that our federal government should not be involved in as many issues as it is today. For instance, while he is opposed to abortion, he doesn't want to enforce his views on a federal level - but he has no problem enforcing this at lower levels.

Yes, I would agree. But I'd probably also throw in that (not taking subsidies into account), that the free market always provides an equal or lower entry cost.

I don't think so. While you may be able to find examples where governments cause a higher cost of entry, I can find examples where governments make it easier by making it harder for existing actors to corner a particular part of the market (e.g. Microsoft being forced to un-bundle Internet Explorer from their OS).

The principles are the same.

The point I was trying to make in my last message was that I would agree that governments are competing in a market, but they are not competing in a free market. To make sure we're on the same page, I define a free market as a market that is absent of institutionalized initiation of force and fraud. I don't think our world's governments are playing by those rules.

Every decision that we make is a market-based decision; what choice will yield the most desirable outcome at any given point in time? If I'm in the process of being mugged, I have several choices. I can comply and part with my wallet, I can resist and choose to fight, I can attempt an escape, etc. This is a market of sorts where I am attempting to make the choice that will yield the best possible outcome. But given that the scenario is not absent the initiation of force or fraud, this is not a free market.

So I would agree with the premise that governments of the world operate in a market, but I don't think this could be called a free market.

I like your mugging example, but I don't believe your citizenship is the same thing. If it is not a free market, who is forcing you or defrauding you to be a citizen of The United States? ...and how?

Please be careful in your answer as I previously presented Joe the Murderer, who was born into a society without government but one that agreed that there should be no murder. He didn't have a choice into what society he was born, but who is keeping him there?

I was just trying to illustrate the increased barriers of entry in the presence of government.

Right, but my point was that there's a huge difference between a barrier of entry for a business operating under government and the barrier of entry outside of a particular government.

This is where I would argue that the price of gasoline was determined by market forces, but not by free market forces. I think the crux of our disagreement is that you're using the term "free market" where I would only describe what you're referring to using the term "market."

Maybe - but, where do you see force or fraud in the gasoline price example that makes it not a free market?

I agree with this. I think I mentioned previously that government is a reflection of the general will of the people being governed (usually). If this is intended to get to your point that the way to change government is to change the minds of the people, then I would agree with that as well.

Yes!

Agreeing to this also means we have power over government.

This is why I started the whole argument. I've read posts from so many others here who have a fatalistic attitude towards government: that it is inherently evil and all the world's evils will go away if government goes away. That could not be further from the truth.

If we want to live in a community - a society - we must agree to certain ground rules, which by definition means we are not free to do anything and everything we would like. It's not government that takes away freedoms - it is society.

I joined this revolution to support "limited" not "no" government. There are plenty of voices here that are extremely anti-government, which is not Ron Paul's message. I'm afraid this is working against our cause.

Hence our activism :).

Exactly! :)

I think there are several ways laws like this come about. The method you're alluding to would be something like people in society being fed up with collisions at intersections, so they'd call for the government to put up and enforce stop signs.

In my intersection example, I was stating that your "freedom" to drive through intersections unimpeded would be "taken away" by society. The example you give is a good example of a solution involving government. But, my point is that society would impose a solution even without government.

On the other hand, it is not unheard of (:rolleyes:) for government to use propaganda to persuade society to adopt a certain mentality that leads to the creation of new laws that impose on our freedoms (Patriot Act, DHS, etc). In fact, it may be that this method is far more frequently used than the former.

Well, it is our job to spread information and ideas as well. By definition that is propaganda:

1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/propaganda

My point is not to defend Patriot Act, DHS, etc. but to argue that the tool (disseminating information) isn't the problem - it's the misuse of the tool that is the problem. For example, guns don't kill people - people kill people.

Then what would her alternatives have been? If she never married her husband, then she wouldn't have had the opportunity to live in an apartment expense-free to begin with. What she was getting out of the arrangement was not an entitlement, so there's no recourse for her if that arrangement evaporates.

Right - but you said "every other individual and group can only interact with other individuals and groups on a voluntary basis." I was showing that she had an involuntary interaction with the husband's landlord.

If that doesn't make sense, let me try another example: let's say there's a tornado and my tree falls into your property. Let's say you need it removed to continue your own cleanup effort, so you come to speak with me to have it removed. Was our interaction voluntary or involuntary?

nickcoons

11-10-2008, 01:47 AM

You state that the "initiation of force on others" must never be used. However, I wonder if a successful society depends upon the limited and proper use of the "initiation of force."

Let's take an example: let's say I own land upon which a natural threat appears through no fault of anyone. Let's say this threat doesn't hurt me but significantly hurts my neighbors (and you're a neighbor). Let's say I don't want to get rid of this threat because its removal (not its existence) would greatly adversely affect me. Finally, let's say I do not depend on trade with my neighbors (so you have no leverage over me). What is your recourse but to initiate force against me?

That's not to say that when a society accepts the use of force as a tool that this tool would never be abused. But, it is a useful tool to have.

Let's say that you have a tree on your land and by no fault of your own your tree falls and lands on my property. It is your responsibility to remove it, because you've damaged my property. While your intentions were not malicious such as they might be in a mugging, it is an initiation of force on your part because intentions aren't relevant to the principles. And equally, you are responsible for repairing the damage that your property (and by extension, you) has done to my property (and by extension, me) all the same. Additionally, I am justified in using retaliatory force in requiring that you repair the damage.

Now if we were good neighbors, this would probably go no further than me politely asking you to fix the damage, you complying, and us going forward being good neighbors. Given the vagueness of your criteria, I can't really even guess what else you're hinting at.. unless it's something crazy like a wormhole or something :D.

I would grant that there are always negative consequences for every positive gain, but I will not concede that the cost of a government solution always outweighs the benefits (e.g. we do need an army). But, to your point, there are many Americans who don't realize the negative consequences, and that must be corrected.

Two points:

We may need an army, but a Switzerland-style citizen army (which doesn't need to be inherently government-sponsored) seems to have proven to be far more effective than a US-style centralized army.

I didn't mean to say that the government solution always outweighs the free market solution, but I think it does almost every single time. It can't be known until after the fact which solution was best. Given the uncertainty, it's a fair bet to go for the free market solution.

I would agree that there's no certainty the government would step in and do a bailout; I only was making an argument on the statement that they would.

What I'm suggesting is that there's no certainty that even if government did step in that they would be at all successful in accomplishing the desired goal. Their handling of Katrina is a fairly good example. In the coming months and years, we'll likely see that the various financial bailouts are also good examples where government did act and not only didn't fix the problem but also made things far worse.

First, I would agree, like I said above, you can always point to negative consequences of certain actions, but the government is not an institution separate from the people - it is a construct of society. Society will find a solution - either through government or through no government. The existence of government does not mean it would necessarily find a different solution than without government.

Unfortunately, society at large is not charged with finding solutions; elected representatives are. While over an extended period of time it can be said that government actions reflect, in general, the sentiments of society; it would not be correct to say that elected representatives are always (or even often) acting in a way society would act had they been provided the opportunity to seek a solution without their elected representatives. If that were the case, then politicians would always do what the majority of constituents wants and no politician or group of politicians would have an approval rating below 50%.

Second, we have multiple levels of government: federal, state, and local. Ron Paul taught that the more divisive the issue, the closer it should be to local government to resolve the issue. He did not suggest that government should be completely removed from solving issues; he taught that our federal government should not be involved in as many issues as it is today. For instance, while he is opposed to abortion, he doesn't want to enforce his views on a federal level - but he has no problem enforcing this at lower levels.

Actually, he does have a problem enforcing it at lower levels. I recall an interview where he said it was a social ill and should be handled by pregnant woman and their families, not by government. But as a federal official, and even as a candidate for federal office, he would be remiss in his duties if he tried to impose such bans on lower levels of government.

I don't think so. While you may be able to find examples where governments cause a higher cost of entry, I can find examples where governments make it easier by making it harder for existing actors to corner a particular part of the market (e.g. Microsoft being forced to un-bundle Internet Explorer from their OS).

That never actually happened; IE can't be separated from Windows :D.

While the general public views the existence of antitrust laws as a benefit for competition and sometimes even necessary, they don't actually work out that way in the end.

I like your mugging example, but I don't believe your citizenship is the same thing. If it is not a free market, who is forcing you or defrauding you to be a citizen of The United States? ...and how?

I wasn't indicating that the citizen is forced into citizenship like a victim is forced into a mugging. I was arguing that governments don't operate in a free market because the rules of the free market are not being followed. But they are most certainly operating in a market.

Please be careful in your answer as I previously presented Joe the Murderer, who was born into a society without government but one that agreed that there should be no murder. He didn't have a choice into what society he was born, but who is keeping him there?

No one is keeping him there.

Right, but my point was that there's a huge difference between a barrier of entry for a business operating under government and the barrier of entry outside of a particular government.

Not really.. in either case, the rules of the free market are not being followed.

Maybe - but, where do you see force or fraud in the gasoline price example that makes it not a free market?

Government uses force to tax citizens and uses those funds to give subsidies to oil companies, giving them an unfair advantage over alternative fuel sources.

Agreeing to this also means we have power over government.

Collectively we do, if we can build a big enough collective.

This is why I started the whole argument. I've read posts from so many others here who have a fatalistic attitude towards government: that it is inherently evil and all the world's evils will go away if government goes away. That could not be further from the truth.

Oh, I don't know about that. I think the idea that all of the world's evils will go away if government goes away is overly simplistic. But much of the world's death and destruction is caused by government, and much of it would go away if government went away. Government is the institution with a legal monopoly on the initiation of force, which itself is inherently evil. If government's job was nothing more than protecting individuals from the initiation of force and fraud, then I would have no problems with it. I don't know whether or not it's possible for such a government to exist.

If we want to live in a community - a society - we must agree to certain ground rules, which by definition means we are not free to do anything and everything we would like. It's not government that takes away freedoms - it is society.

And it is our job to educate people that using aggression against our neighbors will give us the opposite of our desired results; and then form government in that image if at all possible.

Healing Our World (http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/rutoc.html)

I joined this revolution to support "limited" not "no" government. There are plenty of voices here that are extremely anti-government, which is not Ron Paul's message. I'm afraid this is working against our cause.

Ron Paul's message is more generically about freedom. Whether that can be done with small government or no government is not really a concern of mine, so long as we do it.

In my intersection example, I was stating that your "freedom" to drive through intersections unimpeded would be "taken away" by society. The example you give is a good example of a solution involving government. But, my point is that society would impose a solution even without government.

Without government, roads wouldn't be public property, they'd be privately owned. It would then be the property owner, not society, that would create the rules of how to handle vehicles approaching an intersection. If the road was publicly owned, then it would have been created by a group very much resembling government. So when you say that it's society or government that creates the rules, you're implying public property, property normally owned, built, and/or maintained by stolen funds, so it is government all the same.

Well, it is our job to spread information and ideas as well. By definition that is propaganda:

I should have been more specific and said that they are spreading "lies".

Right - but you said "every other individual and group can only interact with other individuals and groups on a voluntary basis." I was showing that she had an involuntary interaction with the husband's landlord.

Ahh.. I see where the confusion is. When I say that, I mean that the terms by which people interact with each other must be voluntary to be legitimate by a free society (non-legitimate interactions are those where the initiation of force or fraud has been used) . This doesn't mean that all interactions must be explicit. For example, if I get a job as a cashier at McDonald's, I am voluntarily interacting with customers in the sense that I am agreeing to interact with any customers that come my way. But I am not having to explicitly indicate that I am going to interact with any specific customers, because I can't possibly know that in advance.

Likewise, if I move into an apartment with a significant other and agree to do so without taking on any obligations to pay the rent, I am agreeing to any future interactions that result as a consequence of my spouse's actions or inactions under the terms of the apartment lease, such as being thrown out by the landlord for non-payment of rent.

If that doesn't make sense, let me try another example: let's say there's a tornado and my tree falls into your property. Let's say you need it removed to continue your own cleanup effort, so you come to speak with me to have it removed. Was our interaction voluntary or involuntary?

If we're following the rules of a free society, you're going to remove it of your own accord without me having to do anything, because you'll see that it's to your benefit (in multiple ways) to correct the damage that your property has done to mine, which was an initiation of force (not malicious, but again that's not what's important). If I have to put forth an effort to get you to do what you should do on your own, then I have used the equivalent of retaliatory force.

The term "force" in this example may seem overkill, but dismissing any connotations of severity assigned to the word, it accurately describes the situation.

ronpaul4pres

11-10-2008, 10:49 PM

Let's say that you have a tree on your land and by no fault of your own your tree falls and lands on my property. It is your responsibility to remove it, because you've damaged my property. While your intentions were not malicious such as they might be in a mugging, it is an initiation of force on your part because intentions aren't relevant to the principles. And equally, you are responsible for repairing the damage that your property (and by extension, you) has done to my property (and by extension, me) all the same. Additionally, I am justified in using retaliatory force in requiring that you repair the damage.

Now if we were good neighbors, this would probably go no further than me politely asking you to fix the damage, you complying, and us going forward being good neighbors. Given the vagueness of your criteria, I can't really even guess what else you're hinting at.. unless it's something crazy like a wormhole or something :D.

Let's say you raise certain animals and some predators to your animals take up residence on my property, they don't bother me, and it's costly to me to remove them. Those animals are not my property.

Or, let's say we live and work in a community for 20 years and build up reserves for retirement. Let's say those reserves are in gold, which we use as money. Let's say I accidentally come across significant amounts of gold on my property, extract the gold, and start spending significantly, which causes inflation (and I'm ignorant enough to not realize I'm causing this). This means you and the rest of our neighbors would have to continue working beyond your planned date to retire, whereas I'm able to retire early. Are you going to claim I used force against you? What would you do?

Two points:

We may need an army, but a Switzerland-style citizen army (which doesn't need to be inherently government-sponsored) seems to have proven to be far more effective than a US-style centralized army.

I didn't mean to say that the government solution always outweighs the free market solution, but I think it does almost every single time. It can't be known until after the fact which solution was best. Given the uncertainty, it's a fair bet to go for the free market solution.

Tell me: why does Ron Paul support a limited federal government as opposed to no government? What does federal government do more efficiently than no government?

What I'm suggesting is that there's no certainty that even if government did step in that they would be at all successful in accomplishing the desired goal. Their handling of Katrina is a fairly good example. In the coming months and years, we'll likely see that the various financial bailouts are also good examples where government did act and not only didn't fix the problem but also made things far worse.

Unfortunately, society at large is not charged with finding solutions; elected representatives are. While over an extended period of time it can be said that government actions reflect, in general, the sentiments of society; it would not be correct to say that elected representatives are always (or even often) acting in a way society would act had they been provided the opportunity to seek a solution without their elected representatives. If that were the case, then politicians would always do what the majority of constituents wants and no politician or group of politicians would have an approval rating below 50%.

I think part of the answer to my question above is that the average citizen shouldn't be involved in everyday dealings of governance. It's not efficient - would you want 300 million people watching C-SPAN or working? In fact, weren't the Founders afraid of ordinary citizens acting in mob rule?

(that's not to say that more activism by the citizens than what we currently have wouldn't be good)

Perhaps we should agree there is no "perfect" solution when humans are involved.

Actually, he does have a problem enforcing it at lower levels. I recall an interview where he said it was a social ill and should be handled by pregnant woman and their families, not by government. But as a federal official, and even as a candidate for federal office, he would be remiss in his duties if he tried to impose such bans on lower levels of government.

Well, OK, that still is a good example, though - he taught to move more divisive issues down the government chain closer to the people, and you can't get closer than that!

That never actually happened; IE can't be separated from Windows :D.

...so they claim. :) Actually, the government did win concessions in this anti-trust case, and my point is that government stepped in to act on behalf of the consumer.

I wasn't indicating that the citizen is forced into citizenship like a victim is forced into a mugging.

I know.

I was arguing that governments don't operate in a free market because the rules of the free market are not being followed. But they are most certainly operating in a market.

In the market of national governments, which government is committing fraud and/or what institution has a monopoly on the use of force?

Government uses force to tax citizens and uses those funds to give subsidies to oil companies, giving them an unfair advantage over alternative fuel sources.

Granted, but that cannot be used to explain the recent rise and fall of the price of oil, which was all I was getting at.

Oh, I don't know about that. I think the idea that all of the world's evils will go away if government goes away is overly simplistic.

I'm glad you agree!

But much of the world's death and destruction is caused by government, and much of it would go away if government went away. Government is the institution with a legal monopoly on the initiation of force, which itself is inherently evil. If government's job was nothing more than protecting individuals from the initiation of force and fraud, then I would have no problems with it. I don't know whether or not it's possible for such a government to exist.

The very human emotions that caused the death and destruction would not disappear if government did, so I find it hard to believe that death and destruction is unique to government.

And it is our job to educate people that using aggression against our neighbors will give us the opposite of our desired results; and then form government in that image if at all possible.

Healing Our World (http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/rutoc.html)

Thanks. I've bookmarked that site and will read more later.

Without government, roads wouldn't be public property, they'd be privately owned.

Not necessarily. I live in a community with public areas. Would you call the board a "government?" Or, a better example, the Native Americans did not believe in land ownership - the land was for all to use.

Ahh.. I see where the confusion is. When I say that, I mean that the terms by which people interact with each other must be voluntary to be legitimate by a free society (non-legitimate interactions are those where the initiation of force or fraud has been used) . This doesn't mean that all interactions must be explicit. For example, if I get a job as a cashier at McDonald's, I am voluntarily interacting with customers in the sense that I am agreeing to interact with any customers that come my way. But I am not having to explicitly indicate that I am going to interact with any specific customers, because I can't possibly know that in advance.

Likewise, if I move into an apartment with a significant other and agree to do so without taking on any obligations to pay the rent, I am agreeing to any future interactions that result as a consequence of my spouse's actions or inactions under the terms of the apartment lease, such as being thrown out by the landlord for non-payment of rent.

If we're following the rules of a free society, you're going to remove it of your own accord without me having to do anything, because you'll see that it's to your benefit (in multiple ways) to correct the damage that your property has done to mine, which was an initiation of force (not malicious, but again that's not what's important). If I have to put forth an effort to get you to do what you should do on your own, then I have used the equivalent of retaliatory force.

The term "force" in this example may seem overkill, but dismissing any connotations of severity assigned to the word, it accurately describes the situation.

Understood.

nickcoons

11-12-2008, 02:13 AM

Let's say you raise certain animals and some predators to your animals take up residence on my property, they don't bother me, and it's costly to me to remove them. Those animals are not my property.

Protecting my animals from other animals that are their natural predators would be similar to protecting my animals from rain and lightening; in both cases this would be my responsibility. I think the fact that this predator makes its way to my property by way of your property isn't relevant. It's my responsibility to protect my property from acts of nature where my property becomes damaged by unowned (the predator) property.

Given, "nature" is technically anything that exists, so I'm drawing a line that separates humans from the rest of nature.

In writing this, it occurs to me that one could infer that this explanation would negate my tree example (if you recall, that you would be responsible if a tree on your property fell and damaged my property) because this would be an act of nature. However, if there is a tree on your property, it is probably more clearly understood that you own the tree; as opposed to the predatory animal which you do not own.

Or, let's say we live and work in a community for 20 years and build up reserves for retirement. Let's say those reserves are in gold, which we use as money. Let's say I accidentally come across significant amounts of gold on my property, extract the gold, and start spending significantly, which causes inflation (and I'm ignorant enough to not realize I'm causing this). This means you and the rest of our neighbors would have to continue working beyond your planned date to retire, whereas I'm able to retire early. Are you going to claim I used force against you? What would you do?

I would not claim that you used force against me. It was my choice to store my wealth in gold, and in doing so I accept the responsibilities (including that gold may lose its value). The same is true if I store my wealth in dollars, real-estate, or seashells.

On a side note, what you described is an accurate simplification of why inflation occurs, and very similar to an article that I wrote about two weeks ago:

How Inflation Happens and Why It's Bad (http://www.nickcoonsforcongress.com/blog/view.php?id=19)

Tell me: why does Ron Paul support a limited federal government as opposed to no government?

I don't know.

What does federal government do more efficiently than no government?

Steal :D

I think part of the answer to my question above is that the average citizen shouldn't be involved in everyday dealings of governance. It's not efficient - would you want 300 million people watching C-SPAN or working? In fact, weren't the Founders afraid of ordinary citizens acting in mob rule?

Yes, I wasn't saying that national decisions should be made democratically among citizens. I share the same fears as the founders.

For a law to be valid, I believe it has to meet the following criteria:

- It must be for the sole purpose of protecting individuals from the initiation of force.
- It must not impose an initiation of force in order to carry out the law.

Given that very narrow criteria, there really aren't that many valid laws. Any law that violates one or both of those criteria is in conflict with the legitimate function of government. All other issues that need resolution should be handled on a voluntary basis by those wishing to take part in the process.

Perhaps we should agree there is no "perfect" solution when humans are involved.

Yes, we can agree on that.

Well, OK, that still is a good example, though - he taught to move more divisive issues down the government chain closer to the people, and you can't get closer than that!

I'm fine with incrementalism, as long as it's moving in the right direction.

...so they claim. :)

The software can be hacked to remove it, but this isn't a result of the anti-trust case. These hacks existed before.

Actually, the government did win concessions in this anti-trust case, and my point is that government stepped in to act on behalf of the consumer.

And what benefit did the consumer realize from this action?

This has been my day job (http://www.redsevenlinux.com/) for almost the past 12 years, so I'm fairly involved with these issues on a daily basis. I've seen no improvements or increase in choice as a result of this case. And if you follow the link at the beginning of this paragraph, you'll see that I stand to gain from anything that injures Microsoft. I don't let their software near any of my systems.

In the market of national governments, which government is committing fraud and/or what institution has a monopoly on the use of force?

Which government is notcommitting force? Switzerland maybe.

Granted, but that cannot be used to explain the recent rise and fall of the price of oil, which was all I was getting at.

But it does explain why there were no cost-effective alternatives for you to turn to when the price of gasoline increased beyond $4/gallon.

The very human emotions that caused the death and destruction would not disappear if government did, so I find it hard to believe that death and destruction is unique to government.

It isn't, but it is easy through government.

There are several hundred thousand US troops in the Middle East right now. The reason they're there is because the government paid to transport them there, purchased their weapons and equipment, and pays their salaries with stolen funds. In the absence of government, the only way we'd have "troops" there is if every person who wanted to be there purchased their own plane ticket, weapons and equipment, and did so without the incentive of any salary (or giving up an existing salary). What is the likelihood of having several hundred thousand people volunteer to do that? Or, what is the likelihood of finding enough people to donate on an ongoing basis the funds needed to do this in the absence of government?

When I (not me literally, but figuratively) can make a decision like this and spread the "pain" out over a large group of other people so that the impact on me personally is insignificant, and I can do it by making a mark on a piece of paper, it's far more likely to happen.

Not necessarily. I live in a community with public areas. Would you call the board a "government?"

I'm assuming you're referring to something like an HOA. If that's the case, then I would call the "public" areas private property, which are owned by the individual home-owners collectively because each of you purchased a share in the property when purchasing your own property. And I would not call the board a government, because it exists by the voluntary consent of the property owners.

A development of this type starts out with a single property owner (the developer) owning all of the property. As the property owner of all of the homes, he can place whatever deed restrictions on the property that he likes. For instance, creating CC&Rs that future owners of the property must agree to in order to purchase the property.

On the other hand, a government such as a local municipality has no such ownership of the property that they claim to have jurisdiction over, nor did they ever have ownership of that property.

Or, a better example, the Native Americans did not believe in land ownership - the land was for all to use.

This is a whole other issue, because it's completely opposed to the idea of property rights. If you can't own land, then you can't own anything (other than perhaps yourself), because everything comes from land. Everything that everyone owns is owned by that person because they created it, or because they traded with someone who created it. The reason the original creator of raw materials has ownership is because he has a claim on the land from which it came.

I own my home because I bought it from someone who bought building materials from someone who bought raw materials from someone who owns land where the raw materials were mined or grown. Without the ability to own land, the person that originally extracted the raw materials would have no claim of ownership over those materials, and therefore couldn't transfer ownership of those materials to someone else. It wouldn't mean that the materials couldn't be transferred, but it would mean that ownership that he didn't have couldn't be transferred; which would ultimately lead to me not having any rightful ownership claim on my house. If the land is for all to use, then by extension, so is my house.

Now it could be argued that the one who extracts raw materials from land owns the raw materials because he is the one that put the effort into extracting them. I would argue that it is this same act that gives him a claim on previously unclaimed land, because his effort has put the land to use.

ronpaul4pres

11-13-2008, 08:23 PM

I would not claim that you used force against me. It was my choice to store my wealth in gold, and in doing so I accept the responsibilities (including that gold may lose its value). The same is true if I store my wealth in dollars, real-estate, or seashells.

On a side note, what you described is an accurate simplification of why inflation occurs, and very similar to an article that I wrote about two weeks ago:

How Inflation Happens and Why It's Bad (http://www.nickcoonsforcongress.com/blog/view.php?id=19)

That's a good article.

I'm not so sure you'd have a "cavalier" attitude about me "stealing" all those years of your life if this were to actually happen - especially when I'd be "stealing" from everyone in the town. I'd be the "richest" person in town, but I'd be adding absolutely no productive effort nor improving anyone's life (especially in the likely case that I'd stop working/inventing).

As another point, was it really your choice to store your wealth in gold or society's (the collective's) choice?

Or, how about this example: let's say land is at a premium, and the town depends on successful utilization of the land. Let's say I don't grow some crops that year and the town goes on the brink of starvation. Let's say I do it again the next year - growing only enough food to sustain myself (I could even be doing this maliciously) - and a few die. Obviously, it is in the town's interest to kick me off my land and have another grow crops for everyone. What would you suggest be done?

In the market of national governments, which government is committing fraud and/or what institution has a monopoly on the use of force?

Which government is notcommitting force? Switzerland maybe.

This is the central theme of my argument, and I'd like to come to an agreement on it. I still claim governments are competing in a free market because no government has a monopoly on the use force against any other government. I don't think government->citizen force matters but rather government->government force (or lack thereof) matters for free markets at the government level.

jeepndesert

11-14-2008, 01:16 PM

seems like we got a rothbard v. rothbard debate brewing over switzerland.

free market, utilitarian, and georgist principles are all valid principles and should be united before you can get any meaningful debate.

until you do so, you'll always get the flawed welfare state.

jeepndesert

11-14-2008, 01:23 PM

This is a whole other issue, because it's completely opposed to the idea of property rights. If you can't own land, then you can't own anything (other than perhaps yourself), because everything comes from land. Everything that everyone owns is owned by that person because they created it, or because they traded with someone who created it. The reason the original creator of raw materials has ownership is because he has a claim on the land from which it came.

I own my home because I bought it from someone who bought building materials from someone who bought raw materials from someone who owns land where the raw materials were mined or grown. Without the ability to own land, the person that originally extracted the raw materials would have no claim of ownership over those materials, and therefore couldn't transfer ownership of those materials to someone else. It wouldn't mean that the materials couldn't be transferred, but it would mean that ownership that he didn't have couldn't be transferred; which would ultimately lead to me not having any rightful ownership claim on my house. If the land is for all to use, then by extension, so is my house.

Now it could be argued that the one who extracts raw materials from land owns the raw materials because he is the one that put the effort into extracting them. I would argue that it is this same act that gives him a claim on previously unclaimed land, because his effort has put the land to use.

why can't you tax the land and natural resources and redistribute those taxes back to everyone so everyone has equal access to the land and natural resources?

free market principles of private property and native american views of land are both valid and compatible.

thomas paine wrote agrarian justice to address this issue a long time ago though in itself it has some flaws because it ignores utilitarian principles -- people spend their money to buy land on a new corvette thinking mcdonalds will take of them. give them a monthly check to pay for a mortgage, pay rent, pay for natural resources, you'll guarantee that they won't spend their rights away and come back with their hand out because it is incrementally handed to them.

henry george is probably the figure-head for this. however, his ideas are often bastardized because people get focused that the taxes are to punish the excessive use of the land and natural resources by a single individual and to promote making it more affordable to others by the increase of supply of a taxed and punished commodity in the market. this is a true and valid component, but it still misses the point because it doesn't hand people the money to buy their own share. they still have to work as a slave to acquire their own god's green earth or modern equivalent to work for someone else rather than themselves.

it isn't a new idea. it is just a frequently ignored or bastardized idea because a person debates for a principle against other principles rather than debate the validity and merging of the principles.

the public education system came from the misapplication of these principles. don't give the people land, give them an education so they're smart enough of a slave to work for someone else so that they can buy their own land. the welfare state come from misapplication of these principles. local government have property and sales taxes but don't redistribute it back to the people except through things like public education. it's all bastardization and misapplication of these principles.

promoting free market principles and private property rights without the correct application of utilitarian and georgist principles is the promotion of slavery and not libertarian because you are promoting the use of force with government private property laws. you're basically allowing the strong to work and steal the habitat of humanity from those that just want to live the life they didn't sign any contract to live when they were born.

sailor

11-14-2008, 03:37 PM

Please note from my comment above that I took some liberty with the word "freer" to mean "the lowest cost".

So what now? USA taxes the least? I assure you that is not so. Ever heard of tax havens? And anyways USA taxes far more than you think but it is done through the printing presses.

If you can name another country that has a lower cost than the one in which you live, then who is the one who is insane?

So what? I`m insane if I haven`t fucked off to a freer state jet? I`m not a deserter buddy. I wanna make *my land* free. Can`t fight the good fight from abroad.

ronpaul4pres

11-14-2008, 05:00 PM

So what now? USA taxes the least? I assure you that is not so. Ever heard of tax havens? And anyways USA taxes far more than you think but it is done through the printing presses.

Who said "cost" means "taxes?"

So what? I`m insane if I haven`t fucked off to a freer state jet? I`m not a deserter buddy. I wanna make *my land* free. Can`t fight the good fight from abroad.

All land has a price. Your land is no different.

nickcoons

11-15-2008, 10:31 PM

I'm not so sure you'd have a "cavalier" attitude about me "stealing" all those years of your life if this were to actually happen

Probably not, because it would potentially have a drastic and negative effect on my life. I might have a much more subjective reaction, but that doesn't really change anything.

especially when I'd be "stealing" from everyone in the town. I'd be the "richest" person in town, but I'd be adding absolutely no productive effort nor improving anyone's life (especially in the likely case that I'd stop working/inventing).

You would only be rich if people continued to believe that gold was a good store of wealth after realizing what you had done. For them to not realize it, you'd have to introduce your new gold slowly into the economy so that no one noticed. This cautious approach of yours would very much lessen the impact that your gold would have on my wealth. If you decided to keep it completely secret and simply hoard it, then it would have no impact on my at all.

As another point, was it really your choice to store your wealth in gold or society's (the collective's) choice?

I don't understand how it would be anyone's choice but my own, unless the government played favorites toward gold like they do now with the dollar.

What if you had a business making some gizmo that everyone loved and you were selling so many of these that your income was substantial. You forecasted for your retirement and put together your plans based your revenue and the continued need for your gizmos int he market. Then I come along and invent and sell something that is so much better than your gizmo and makes it obsolete (like a computer to a typewriter) so that you're sales decrease to almost nothing. This puts a damper on your retirement plans as your income stream dries up.

Would you argue that I've used force against you? Would you argue that force should be used against me so that your income can be sustained? Have I "stolen" from you? I would answer "no" to all of these questions, and I don't see this as being fundamentally different than your gold example.

Or, how about this example: let's say land is at a premium, and the town depends on successful utilization of the land. Let's say I don't grow some crops that year and the town goes on the brink of starvation. Let's say I do it again the next year - growing only enough food to sustain myself (I could even be doing this maliciously) - and a few die. Obviously, it is in the town's interest to kick me off my land and have another grow crops for everyone. What would you suggest be done?

I don't see this as being very realistic, because it assumes the following must also be true:

- That no other arable land exists that the people of the town could use.
- That you're the only farmer providing food to the townspeople, such that they have no one else to go to.
- That you have the ability to be completely self-sustaining (don't think for a minute that the townspeople won't reciprocate).

While the second and third are possibilities, I don't think the first has ever happened in the history of the world.

This is the central theme of my argument, and I'd like to come to an agreement on it. I still claim governments are competing in a free market because no government has a monopoly on the use force against any other government. I don't think government->citizen force matters but rather government->government force (or lack thereof) matters for free markets at the government level.

From that perspective, I suppose it could be said that governments exist in a free market amongst themselves.

nickcoons

11-15-2008, 10:41 PM

why can't you tax the land and natural resources and redistribute those taxes back to everyone so everyone has equal access to the land and natural resources?

That depends on the context. Government can and does do what you're suggesting. If you're asking why it can't be done in a free market, then the answer would be because taxes and free markets are incompatible.

free market principles of private property and native american views of land are both valid and compatible.

Then perhaps I misunderstand Native American views of land. As I understand it, land cannot be privately owned. If that is true, then their views cannot be compatible with free market principles of private property.

the public education system came from the misapplication of these principles. don't give the people land, give them an education so they're smart enough of a slave to work for someone else so that they can buy their own land.

To "give" something (which is to transfer ownership), like land, you must own it, otherwise you have no authority to give it. Who do you propose is in charge of giving land?

promoting free market principles and private property rights without the correct application of utilitarian and georgist principles is the promotion of slavery and not libertarian because you are promoting the use of force with government private property laws.

Please clarify what you mean by "government private property laws". Are they different than private property laws that libertarians believe in?

you're basically allowing the strong to work and steal the habitat of humanity from those that just want to live the life they didn't sign any contract to live when they were born.

I think you're using the term "steal" haphazardly rather than what it actually means. If I buy land, I buy it from someone who owns it, who bought it from someone who owns it, etc.. all the way back to the first person who claimed ownership of it because they put it to use. Nobody has used force and nobody has stolen anything.

jeepndesert

11-16-2008, 02:25 PM

Then perhaps I misunderstand Native American views of land. As I understand it, land cannot be privately owned. If that is true, then their views cannot be compatible with free market principles of private property.

If I understand the definition of bonehead, you're a bonehead. I understand that I'm probably not communicating clearly enough so please try to catch the ball even if my words don't make the perfect throw.

You merge the concepts into a utilitarian outcome where private property rights, namely the right to your labor, and the right to exist on the land, namely redistribution of land wealth, both coexist in a happy melting pot of rights.

To "give" something (which is to transfer ownership), like land, you must own it, otherwise you have no authority to give it. Who do you propose is in charge of giving land?

I propose a tax system like the Fair Tax, the national sales tax. However, land value taxes, a 10% corporate tax, and various excise taxes, such as gas tax to pay for roads, non-renewable natural resource taxes, and fair trade tariffs are used to increase the tax refund from $200/month up to $600-800/month.

This monthly check from the government to every America is the modern equivalent of 40 acres and a mule that we all have the right to use to live for ourselves.

People have used their labor to buy land and have invested their labor in the land. That is why you have to accept the reality and use utilitarian principles.

I guess I didn't really answer your question. I'm not a lawyer nor do I care to form mathematical proofs of induction to make rather innocent statements. You'll just have to stop being a bonehead and try to understand what I'm trying to say rather than play stupid, irrelevant, boneheaded definition games.

Please clarify what you mean by "government private property laws". Are they different than private property laws that libertarians believe in?

Private property rights are valid because people have the right to own themselves and their labor. And such rights are secured by the government. We are talking about the same rights.

However, there has to be a distinction to be made when it comes to natural resources and land because you don't have the same type of principled right to land and natural resources as you do with your labor. All private property ownership of land and natural resources is merely a utilitarian convenience for division of said land and natural resources.

You can't ignore this distinction because that is where the free market and private property rights start to fail libertarian principle. You have to come up with another utilitarian convenience to make it to where everyone can own an equal piece of the earth while you secure one's rights of themselves and their labor.

They may sell it and become screwed under a Thomas Paine "Agrarian Justice" plan. That is why you ensure it with a monthly check from the government. Then, they choose how much they want to work and how valuable of a piece of land they want to own or rent.

I think you're using the term "steal" haphazardly rather than what it actually means. If I buy land, I buy it from someone who owns it, who bought it from someone who owns it, etc.. all the way back to the first person who claimed ownership of it because they put it to use. Nobody has used force and nobody has stolen anything.

Am I using the term "bonehead" haphazardly?

Private ownership of land is merely a utilitarian convenience to protect private ownership of labor when it comes to land use and to divide the land. It is a good convenience and should be kept. Anarcho-capitalism and private property laws do have a lot of merits, even in terms of land. However, alone, it does not address the issue that everyone has the human right to land and natural resources.

To deny this means that a person must work for someone else in order to buy a piece of land so that they can work for themselves. This is slavery. This is serfdom. This violates the principle of libertarianism.

I'm surprised we didn't get this right because of the tenant farming in Europe. It was obviously a form of slavery back then. However, I suppose since the land was plentiful in America, they didn't give as much thought to it as they should have given to it.

The founding fathers weren't perfect. I think missing this important distinction was their biggest failure because I'm forced to debate this issue almost nearly alone to even people claiming to be Libertarians; and because it ultimately would lead to our dysfunctional, flawed, and haphazard welfare state as people tried to correct the results of this anti-libertarian injustice unwittingly in the wrong way.

States and local governments were close, but off the mark, in their implementation of real estate taxes and sales taxes to pay for public education. They should have redistributed that money back to the people so they could choose the education right for them and ultimately to pay rent or own their own home in whatever career was suitable for them.

Rothbard and others do address these issues, but they address them incorrectly because they address them narrowly from the perspective of justifying the pure anarcho-capitalism, free market system, until they are blue in the face or fall asleep rather than recognize the utilitarian aspects of their model and recognize the other justified systems that can aid in their reasoning under the Libertarian principle.

Today, it is really because we've latched onto a simplified system to almost meet the Libertarian principle rather than synthesize principles and systems to better meet the Libertarian principle.

jeepndesert

11-16-2008, 03:28 PM

Let me try to use abstracted math to explain this.

Adam Smith = anarcho-capitalism = free market = private property = right to labor
Henry George = geoism = right to land and natural resources

In grade school you should learn the following:
Adam Smith = Libertarian Principle

In high school you should learn the following:
Adam Smith + Henry George = Better Libertarian Principle

In college you should learn the following:
Adam Smith + Henry George + Other Stuff = Best Libertarian Principle

Other stuff starts to recognize the various other factors of the real world that don't fit neatly into the models.

This other stuff includes J.S. Mill. It should probably be introduced in high school so you can get a start on understanding that simple models don't equal the real world.

This other stuff includes Karl Marx because robber barons will and do gain dangerous power even with secured libertarian principles and because corporations can form that can commit crimes without anyone being held liable. A brief introduction should also be presented in high school because someone people are too stupid or lazy to make it through college.

You also have to talk about how to protect and secure Adam Smith and Henry George idealogy in the real world, and talk about the various other topics that don't fit neatly into models.

jeepndesert

11-16-2008, 03:55 PM

Or maybe I should try a legal game from a lawyer's perspective to explain my point....

WHEREAS, I'm smart, and you are a bonehead.

WHEREAS, humans have the right to exist on land and use natural resources.

WHEREAS, humans have the right to his own labor.

WHEREAS, no human should have to use his own labor to acquire land suitable for making his own living.

WHEREAS, current land already has significant investment of labor.

WHEREAS, we have a corrupted and flawed system.

WHEREAS, the free market system is a convenient utilitarian system to protect private property rights of labor.

WHEREAS, the free market system and tax systems can be a convenient utilitarian system to protect man's right to his own labor, to give him the right to exist on land, and to own his own land, in which his labor may be attached.

WHEREAS, people are being born into this world all the time and will need land and natural resources for themselves without having to be a slave to another.

WHEREAS, we should respect current private property rights and begin to make the system just for everyone within one month.

WHEREAS, sales taxes are a convenient utilitarian method to tax consumption of natural resources and use of land.

WHEREAS, land taxes are a convenient utilitarian method to tax the consumption of available land into private ownership.

WHEREAS, you can go to dictionary.com if you are confused about the definitions of words used.

THEREFORE, we should redistribute land and natural resource wealth from every human and back to every human through land taxes and sales taxes and monthly refunds to secure the rights of man to own his own labor, the right to exist on land and use natural resources, and to secure his labor which may be attached to land and natural resources.

WHEREAS, I'm not perfect nor a lawyer, AND THEREFORE, you'll have excuse where I did not form words legally perfect to express myself and go fuck yourself.

jeepndesert

11-16-2008, 04:12 PM

Finally, I'll just be concise and to the point....

1. Humans have the right to their own labor.

2. Private property rights are justified to secure the rights of humans to own their own labor.

3. Humans have the right to land and natural resources.

4. Private property rights are merely a convenience to secure rights of labor that may be attached to land and natural resources.

5. Man should not have to use his own labor to acquire land and natural resources from others since he too was born into this world and has the right to survive in this world on the land with it's natural resources without being a slave to another.

6. We have to come up with a system to where every human is guaranteed all points throughout their life the best we can.

7. Go fuck yourself if you don't understand that land wealth redistribution is justified to give everyone the right to put their feet on the ground and is much better than our current dysfunctional welfare state.

nickcoons

11-16-2008, 04:24 PM

(Mindless name-calling snipped for brevity and civility).

I propose a tax system like the Fair Tax, the national sales tax. However, land value taxes, a 10% corporate tax, and various excise taxes, such as gas tax to pay for roads, non-renewable natural resource taxes, and fair trade tariffs are used to increase the tax refund from $200/month up to $600-800/month.

And by what right does government have to steal? That's what a tax is. You can try to make the argument that theft-by-government is a utilitarian necessity, but you can't really argue that it's not theft.

Private property rights are valid because people have the right to own themselves and their labor. And such rights are secured by the government. We are talking about the same rights.

We're in agreement here. But the following is where our agreement ends.

However, there has to be a distinction to be made when it comes to natural resources and land because you don't have the same type of principled right to land and natural resources as you do with your labor. All private property ownership of land and natural resources is merely a utilitarian convenience for division of said land and natural resources.

It is not a utilitarian convenience, it is an extension of natural rights. When I mix my labor with some natural resource, I own the end product.

Anarcho-capitalism and private property laws do have a lot of merits, even in terms of land. However, alone, it does not address the issue that everyone has the human right to land and natural resources.

To deny this means that a person must work for someone else in order to buy a piece of land so that they can work for themselves. This is slavery. This is serfdom. This violates the principle of libertarianism.

You're assuming first that all natural resources are owned, and second that one must own land in order to work for themselves. Owning land is a choice, and is not necessary in order to work for one's self. I worked for myself for several years before I owned any land. As it is not a requirement for existence and survival, but rather a choice, it is not slavery for someone to be required to purchase land from someone else if they want to own it.

The founding fathers weren't perfect. I think missing this important distinction was their biggest failure because I'm forced to debate this issue almost nearly alone to even people claiming to be Libertarians; and because it ultimately would lead to our dysfunctional, flawed, and haphazard welfare state as people tried to correct the results of this anti-libertarian injustice unwittingly in the wrong way.

I'm not sure how you can accuse others of merely claiming to be libertarian while at the same time proposing a whole slew of taxes.

This other stuff includes Karl Marx because robber barons will and do gain dangerous power even with secured libertarian principles and because corporations can form that can commit crimes without anyone being held liable.

Please explain this. Liability-deflecting entities are a creation of the state. In a libertarian free market, a corporation can not commit crimes without anyone being held liable. Every individual is responsible for their actions.

jeepndesert

11-16-2008, 04:27 PM

I'm pretty fucking stupid, and I can understand this. Is the human species really that retarded?

I'm pretty fucking delusional, and I can see this clearly. Is the human species really that delusional that they fucking jump through an infinite hoops just to attempt to justify their simplified model of the world?

[MOD: Redacted, insult]

nickcoons

11-16-2008, 04:27 PM

7. Go fuck yourself if you don't understand that land wealth redistribution is justified to give everyone the right to put their feet on the ground and is much better than our current dysfunctional welfare state.

If this is your way of saying that we should agree to disagree, then I'm on-board.

jeepndesert

11-16-2008, 04:28 PM

(Mindless name-calling snipped for brevity and civility).

Sorry, you are mindless, and thus, you can go fuck yourself. I refuse to engage in a dialog with someone as retarded as yourself.

nickcoons

11-16-2008, 04:29 PM

I refuse to engage in a dialog with someone as retarded as yourself.

Likewise.

jeepndesert

11-16-2008, 04:45 PM

It is not a utilitarian convenience, it is an extension of natural rights. When I mix my labor with some natural resource, I own the end product.

So mixing your labor with the Earth allows you to suddenly claim ownership of the Earth. Who says that some human born after you doesn't have rightful claim to the land you built something upon and to the natural resources you consumed.

You are promoting LAND SLAVERY. You are claiming ownership of the land out of your retarded ass just because you happen to find it first or because you worked as a slave to buy it from someone who ultimately STOLE it from God and mankind himself.

I'm not sure how you can accuse others of merely claiming to be libertarian while at the same time proposing a whole slew of taxes.

I just checked dictionary.com. Libertarian is not defined as without taxation.

The point is that you don't understand libertarian concepts which justify the use of taxation to redistribute land wealth in order to honor private ownership of labor while honoring the rights of all humans to stand upon the Earth and use it to survive.

Please explain this. Liability-deflecting entities are a creation of the state. In a libertarian free market, a corporation can not commit crimes without anyone being held liable. Every individual is responsible for their actions.

I shouldn't have brought up advanced topics of reality when you can't even understand the basics.

Google Henry George and learn some of the basics. This stuff is common sense, pun intended, to me and to Thomas Paine. I don't understand why it isn't clear to other humans.

I give up trying to teach it to someone who doesn't understand the difference between anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism.

Name-calling probably didn't help, but your attitude deserved it.

heavenlyboy34

11-16-2008, 04:49 PM

So mixing your labor with the Earth allows you to suddenly claim ownership of the Earth. Who says that some human born after you doesn't have rightful claim to the land you built something upon and to the natural resources you consumed.

You are promoting THEFT. You are claiming ownership of the land out of your retarded ass just because you happen to find it first or because you worked as a slave to buy it from someone who ultimately stole it from God and mankind himself.

I just checked dictionary.com. Libertarian is not defined as without taxation.

The point is that you don't understand libertarian concepts which justify the use of taxation of redistribution of land wealth in order to honor the merits of private ownership of labor.

You should try reading some books by libertarians before jumping to such conclusions. Start with "The Market For Liberty (http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/)".

jeepndesert

11-16-2008, 05:04 PM

you can go fuck yourself and your anarcho-capitalism propaganda.

this stuff is very basic and common sense. i don't need books which spread anarcho-capitalism propaganda to learn and understand.

you don't understand private property rights.

perhaps i should write a 800-page text explaining the topic so that people like yourself can learn something simple the hard way rather than listening and accepting a very valid point the easy way.

close your mind. ignore valid points. continue to believe in your narrow and false paradigm that you try to validate by consuming countless hours of propaganda that support your paradigm rather than challenge it.

how many texts by clueless anarcho-capitalists have you read? how many hours do you spend at lewrockwell.com? how many hours do you spend slobbering over rothbard's endless debates with himself as he tries to convince himself that anarcho capitalism is the cure all?

how many hours do you spend to even give thought to other views?

and go fuck yourself.

heavenlyboy34

11-16-2008, 05:08 PM

you can go fuck yourself and your anarcho-capitalism propaganda.

this stuff is very basic and common sense. i don't need books which spread anarcho-capitalism propaganda to learn and understand.

you don't understand private property rights.

perhaps i should write a 800-page text explaining the topic so that people like yourself can learn something simple the hard way rather than listening and accepting a very valid point the easy way.

close your mind. ignore valid points. continue to believe in your narrow and false paradigm that you try to validate by consuming countless hours of propaganda that support your paradigm rather than challenge it.

and go fuck yourself.

:rolleyes: Apparently I understand it better than you do.

ronpaul4pres

11-16-2008, 05:43 PM

Probably not, because it would potentially have a drastic and negative effect on my life. I might have a much more subjective reaction, but that doesn't really change anything.

My point was that it very well might change something. Let's say I refuse to sell a life saving drug to you because you're a political opponent, and I similarly promise to blacklist anyone who tries to re-sell my drug to you. There comes a point when strict adherence to property rights is more destructive than it is helpful.

You would only be rich if people continued to believe that gold was a good store of wealth after realizing what you had done. For them to not realize it, you'd have to introduce your new gold slowly into the economy so that no one noticed. This cautious approach of yours would very much lessen the impact that your gold would have on my wealth. If you decided to keep it completely secret and simply hoard it, then it would have no impact on my at all.

Of course, you present a much smarter way to spend the gold in my example assuming I didn't want to upset the natural order, but maybe I would have had reason to cause inflation? Maybe those who were smart and saved were political opponents, and I wanted to undermine their ability to fight me.

I don't understand how it would be anyone's choice but my own, unless the government played favorites toward gold like they do now with the dollar.

I asked that question because you wouldn't have chosen to store your wealth in gold if nobody else traded it. It was society's perception of the value of gold that influenced your decision. Perhaps you would have had no other "choice" but gold.

What if you had a business making some gizmo that everyone loved and you were selling so many of these that your income was substantial. You forecasted for your retirement and put together your plans based your revenue and the continued need for your gizmos int he market. Then I come along and invent and sell something that is so much better than your gizmo and makes it obsolete (like a computer to a typewriter) so that you're sales decrease to almost nothing. This puts a damper on your retirement plans as your income stream dries up.

Would you argue that I've used force against you? Would you argue that force should be used against me so that your income can be sustained? Have I "stolen" from you? I would answer "no" to all of these questions, and I don't see this as being fundamentally different than your gold example.

Well, my example was about a storage of wealth from work already done and your example is about future earnings. I see those as two very different things:

In your example, society advances due to the better gizmo you produced (as an aside, our inventiveness is why I believe we have natural deflation not the constant inflation we see by the Fed). It also forces me to not get lazy and continue to invent. I see it as benefit.
In my example, society does not advance. People may see rising wages and an appearance of success, but as Ron Paul supporters, we know this to be false. I see it as one person taking advantage of everyone else.

I would answer "no" to your questions for your example, but I'm not so sure about my example. Especially in the case where inflation is done on purpose, I would see my example as a use of force.

I don't see this as being very realistic, because it assumes the following must also be true:

- That no other arable land exists that the people of the town could use.
- That you're the only farmer providing food to the townspeople, such that they have no one else to go to.
- That you have the ability to be completely self-sustaining (don't think for a minute that the townspeople won't reciprocate).

While the second and third are possibilities, I don't think the first has ever happened in the history of the world.

Oh, I don't know about that. Even without such an example, though, here's an article on possible future food production problems:

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL0223173420080702

As we've seen with the credit markets, the screw-ups of a handful of people could have major consequences.

From that perspective, I suppose it could be said that governments exist in a free market amongst themselves.

Great! I think that concludes my proof that free markets gave us our current government. Thankfully, though, those same free market forces will continue to act to improve government over the long term.

jeepndesert

11-16-2008, 05:51 PM

:rolleyes: Apparently I understand it better than you do.

well, i hate to inform you but the earth is flat because I made it flat.

because i put my labor into making it flat by saying it is flat, i own it. you are now evicted from the earth.

consider this your final notice. you have 90 days to get off my planet.

heavenlyboy34

11-16-2008, 05:56 PM

well, i hate to inform you but the earth is flat because I made it flat.

because i put my labor into making it flat by saying it is flat, i own it. you are now evicted from the earth.

consider this your final notice. you have 90 days to get off my planet.

You own the small portion of the earth that you flattened. Stay on your land and we'll all be better (and saner) for it.

nickcoons

11-16-2008, 07:57 PM

My point was that it very well might change something.

What I mean is that my reaction to it doesn't change the reality of what it is.

Let's say I refuse to sell a life saving drug to you because you're a political opponent, and I similarly promise to blacklist anyone who tries to re-sell my drug to you. There comes a point when strict adherence to property rights is more destructive than it is helpful.

That is, if you believe in the concept of intellectual property. I don't.

Of course, you present a much smarter way to spend the gold in my example assuming I didn't want to upset the natural order, but maybe I would have had reason to cause inflation? Maybe those who were smart and saved were political opponents, and I wanted to undermine their ability to fight me.

I think you're missing my point. If you flooded the market with gold and began causing inflation, I think people would begin to see it as dwindling in value and begin using other stores of wealth. If you wanted to perpetuate the continued value of gold, and therefore the store of your own wealth, you would have to be smart about it and not intentionally cause inflation.

I asked that question because you wouldn't have chosen to store your wealth in gold if nobody else traded it. It was society's perception of the value of gold that influenced your decision. Perhaps you would have had no other "choice" but gold.

Society assigns value to gold because of its rarity and usefulness. It's a malleable metal. It's an excellent conductor of electricity. It doesn't tarnish. Many people that wear jewelry can wear only gold jewelry because they have physical reactions to other metals.. and on and on. It's not arbitrary that civilization for thousands of years as deemed gold to be valuable. It's not just a perception of value.

Of course, as even a not-so-bright financial advisor would tell you, don't put all your eggs in one basket. Keep your wealth scattered among different types of assets so that no single upset can claim your savings.

Well, my example was about a storage of wealth from work already done and your example is about future earnings. I see those as two very different things:

In your example, society advances due to the better gizmo you produced (as an aside, our inventiveness is why I believe we have natural deflation not the constant inflation we see by the Fed). It also forces me to not get lazy and continue to invent. I see it as benefit.
In my example, society does not advance. People may see rising wages and an appearance of success, but as Ron Paul supporters, we know this to be false. I see it as one person taking advantage of everyone else.

I would answer "no" to your questions for your example, but I'm not so sure about my example. Especially in the case where inflation is done on purpose, I would see my example as a use of force.

Point taken. But we must look at what wealth is. It's not something so simple as gold. While several bricks of gold might make for a large sum of purchasing power in much of society, that same asset is virtually worthless in the middle of the desert. I may trade tens of thousands of dollars worth of gold for a glass of water.

If I own something that decreases drastically in value, even if the decrease can be attributable to some action that someone else took, it does not necessarily mean that they have initiated force against me. You may own some land a build a house on it, and perhaps your house is very valuable because it's the only one in the vicinity. I may purchase land neighboring yours and build 20 more houses, which would decrease the demand and therefore value of your house. But I have not used force against you even though my actions caused you to suffer a loss. Wealth is not an entitlement.

Oh, I don't know about that. Even without such an example, though, here's an article on possible future food production problems:

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL0223173420080702

I don't think the article provides enough information on which to create a theory. It indicates that land degradation is driven mainly by poor management. Those that manage land poorly are usually those that don't own it and therefor have no stake in its quality, such as governments.

As we've seen with the credit markets, the screw-ups of a handful of people could have major consequences.

The "handful of people" are politicians who use force via central economic planning. This is a good argument for why government should not have the legal ability to initiate force.

ronpaul4pres

11-16-2008, 09:03 PM

That is, if you believe in the concept of intellectual property. I don't.

Not necessarily: secrecy can sometimes be used in place of IP. Regardless, I could come up with any number of examples to show where the decision of one negatively affects others. There is nothing inherent to property rights that suggest property would always be used most efficiently.

I'm not suggesting there should be no property rights, but there should be allowances in society to deal with clear abuses.

I think you're missing my point. If you flooded the market with gold and began causing inflation, I think people would begin to see it as dwindling in value and begin using other stores of wealth. If you wanted to perpetuate the continued value of gold, and therefore the store of your own wealth, you would have to be smart about it and not intentionally cause inflation.

I understand your point - I'm just making the point that property rights don't necessarily protect you. In the simplest form of my example I could be irrational and decide to spend every ounce of gold I find on my property (not unlike lottery winners who soon go back to being broke). Whether I do it maliciously or not does not negate the fact that I seriously hurt the futures of those who saved their wealth in gold.

Society assigns value to gold because of its rarity and usefulness. It's a malleable metal. It's an excellent conductor of electricity. It doesn't tarnish. Many people that wear jewelry can wear only gold jewelry because they have physical reactions to other metals.. and on and on. It's not arbitrary that civilization for thousands of years as deemed gold to be valuable. It's not just a perception of value.

Granted gold has useful physical properties, but you later give an excellent example of it being purely a perception (trading "large" amounts of gold for a glass of water in the desert).

Point taken. But we must look at what wealth is. It's not something so simple as gold. While several bricks of gold might make for a large sum of purchasing power in much of society, that same asset is virtually worthless in the middle of the desert. I may trade tens of thousands of dollars worth of gold for a glass of water.

If I own something that decreases drastically in value, even if the decrease can be attributable to some action that someone else took, it does not necessarily mean that they have initiated force against me. You may own some land a build a house on it, and perhaps your house is very valuable because it's the only one in the vicinity. I may purchase land neighboring yours and build 20 more houses, which would decrease the demand and therefore value of your house. But I have not used force against you even though my actions caused you to suffer a loss.

Let's say we live in a small town and I'm the only medical doctor. You don't own me or my productive effort, so I could theoretically refuse to treat you and let you die. Inaction can be just as bad as action.

Or, to your example, let me modify the parameters a little: let's say you could have made more profit by building elsewhere but decided to build around me to purposely decrease the value of my house. Is that a use of force?

Wealth is not an entitlement.

Well - be careful. I think we both agree that money is useful as well as its stability.

I don't think the article provides enough information on which to create a theory. It indicates that land degradation is driven mainly by poor management. Those that manage land poorly are usually those that don't own it and therefor have no stake in its quality, such as governments.

You assume all land owners are bright and act rationally.

The "handful of people" are politicians who use force via central economic planning. This is a good argument for why government should not have the legal ability to initiate force.

That's an example, but I meant it much more broadly. Politicians are governments don't have a monopoly on evil - nor are they inherently evil.

For example, credit ratings agencies are a "handful" of people and royally helped screw things up for us. They aren't part of government.

jeepndesert

11-16-2008, 09:20 PM

i think gold is most useful as a metal you store in a warehouse so that you can trade goods and services. that statement was loaded with sarcasm since i really think gold has limited utility as a conductor and as tacky jewelry.

it is a waste of a warehouse, but the world isn't perfect.

we freak out when the value of paper inflates less than 3% in a year and inflates more than 6% in a year.

nothing like a 20% swing in the price of gold to send all the financial analysts to a mental institution.

when did a dollar earned today ideally become $0.94-0.97 earned next year? something about money being a commodity and not a means of exchange. something about debt issuance. something about inflation and deflation, price indexes, demand side economics, etc.

can't we manage a means of exchange to where a dollar earned today is the same as a dollar earned next year?

while gold is fairly stable in price. it isn't that stable. and eventually you'll need a huge warehouse and implement fractional gold reserves and use some equivalent creature from jekyll island to manage the value. private wealthy interests can still manipulate the value of gold with limited oversight like how the commodity called the privately owned and managed debt-based fiat dollar is managed today.

perhaps my questions are too loaded because i really don't fully understand monetary policy to give the complete solution while still addressing the desire to provide credit without an equal amount in deposits. i'm just addressing the surface and asking why.

commodity-based currencies scare me as much as debt-based fiat currencies.

i'll try really hard to just shut up and leave my opinions at that.....

nickcoons

11-16-2008, 09:36 PM

Not necessarily: secrecy can sometimes be used in place of IP. Regardless, I could come up with any number of examples to show where the decision of one negatively affects others. There is nothing inherent to property rights that suggest property would always be used most efficiently.

I'm not suggesting there should be no property rights, but there should be allowances in society to deal with clear abuses.

I think this is an instance where a Thomas Jefferson quote comes in handy:

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

At no point do I claim that a full respect of property rights is utopia or perfection, because there's not such thing. Just that it's the system that allows for the most good.

Let's say we live in a small town and I'm the only medical doctor. You don't own me or my productive effort, so I could theoretically refuse to treat you and let you die. Inaction can be just as bad as action.

Requiring that you treat me would be making a slave out of you.

Or, to your example, let me modify the parameters a little: let's say you could have made more profit by building elsewhere but decided to build around me to purposely decrease the value of my house. Is that a use of force?

No. How could it be?

You assume all land owners are bright and act rationally.

Not all, but enough.

That's an example, but I meant it much more broadly. Politicians are governments don't have a monopoly on evil - nor are they inherently evil.

There are things inherent in government that almost necessarily leads it to evil. For instance, government can initiate force without having to accept the negative consequences of its actions. Individuals outside of government cannot.

For example, credit ratings agencies are a "handful" of people and royally helped screw things up for us. They aren't part of government.

How did credit reporting agencies screw things up for people?

jeepndesert

11-16-2008, 10:00 PM

how can you not believe in intellectual property rights?

if someone writes a book, can someone else just copy the book and sell that book?

if someone writes software, can someone else just copy the file and sell the software?

this is an example of a complicated issue, among other issues, where you just seem to curl up and resort to a black/white simple answer because it is the "better" answer of the black and white answers without even considering the complications and gray answers. in this case, you aren't even close.

maybe i'm missing something here and misunderstand the context of where one can say, "i don't believe in intellectual property rights."

i agree with most if not all on some level of ronpaul4pres.

ronpaul4pres

11-16-2008, 10:19 PM

I think this is an instance where a Thomas Jefferson quote comes in handy:

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

At no point do I claim that a full respect of property rights is utopia or perfection, because there's not such thing. Just that it's the system that allows for the most good.

That's a great Jefferson quote. He talks about degrees of freedom - not absolutes. I was attempting to point out that exceptions might be needed to property rights. Surely, you could point to abuses wherever there are exceptions; however, I hope I pointed to abuses without such exceptions.

Requiring that you treat me would be making a slave out of you.

What if I refused to treat you but public opinion of me dropped such that I could no longer purchase my daily needs. Am I not a slave to society?

Or, to your example, let me modify the parameters a little: let's say you could have made more profit by building elsewhere but decided to build around me to purposely decrease the value of my house. Is that a use of force?

No. How could it be?

OK - let's say you weren't doing something willingly for me, so I exacted revenge. For example, let's say you bought on credit and I lowered the value of your property just enough such that you no longer met the minimum requirements for equity and you lose the property.

There are things inherent in government that almost necessarily leads it to evil. For instance, government can initiate force without having to accept the negative consequences of its actions. Individuals outside of government cannot.

Well, theoretically, the individuals in government are held to accountability. Senator Stevens of Alaska comes to mind.

How did credit reporting agencies screw things up for people?

Sub-prime mortgages were bundled with prime mortgages and sold to investors as Mortgage Backed Securities. They were bundled such that the rating agencies rated the combined MBS as AAA, but we found out what they were really worth when everything blew up. I don't fault the agencies as sole actors in this mess, but that was certainly a contribution in the financial meltdown in which we find ourselves.

nickcoons

11-16-2008, 11:55 PM

That's a great Jefferson quote. He talks about degrees of freedom - not absolutes. I was attempting to point out that exceptions might be needed to property rights.

And I was using Jefferson's quote to illustrate that exceptions to property rights are not needed. It is what I would call an inconvenience of "too much liberty."

What if I refused to treat you but public opinion of me dropped such that I could no longer purchase my daily needs. Am I not a slave to society?

Why? Because your intentionally malicious actions (by your admission) caused the general public to have a negative view of you and decide to not interact with you?

OK - let's say you weren't doing something willingly for me, so I exacted revenge. For example, let's say you bought on credit and I lowered the value of your property just enough such that you no longer met the minimum requirements for equity and you lose the property.

I don't borrow money (anymore). However, I've purchased (and sold) a lot of real-estate, as well as other items on credit in the past. I have never heard of a lender having such thing as a minimum equity requirement. People are upside down in loans all the time, and they don't lose their property because of that fact, they lose their property because they stop making their payments. Additionally, it wouldn't make sense for a bank to repossess something because the value of it fell.. what would they do with it? If it's less than what's owed, they can't sell it for what they're owed.

Well, theoretically, the individuals in government are held to accountability. Senator Stevens of Alaska comes to mind.

He's more the exception than the rule. The hundreds of Congressmen and Senators that empowered government agencies with further abilities to initiate force when they voted for the Patriot Act comes to mind.

Sub-prime mortgages were bundled with prime mortgages and sold to investors as Mortgage Backed Securities. They were bundled such that the rating agencies rated the combined MBS as AAA, but we found out what they were really worth when everything blew up. I don't fault the agencies as sole actors in this mess, but that was certainly a contribution in the financial meltdown in which we find ourselves.

Their actions were a result of the Federal Reserve's monetary policies.

If the government's policy is to provide food for people who can't afford it, they may do this by issuing food stamps to someone who makes below a certain annual wage/salary. If restrictions are put on how food stamps can be used, such that they can be used to purchase only food items that the government deems "necessary".. for instance, they may say you can purchase strawberries but not raspberries. Just because someone makes below a certain amount doesn't mean they can't afford food, but government wants to "make sure" by issuing food stamps to them. Now that they can have strawberries for free, they're less likely to buy raspberries even if they were purchasing them before.

Do you blame the decline of raspberry sales (and the decrease in revenue to raspberry farmers) on the success of strawberry farmers, or on the government?

ronpaul4pres

11-17-2008, 06:51 PM

And I was using Jefferson's quote to illustrate that exceptions to property rights are not needed. It is what I would call an inconvenience of "too much liberty."

I understood your intent, but Jefferson used words such as "rather" and "too much" and "too little." He leaves open the possibility of choosing a different course of action when the cost outweighs the benefit.

Why? Because your intentionally malicious actions (by your admission) caused the general public to have a negative view of you and decide to not interact with you?

It doesn't matter whether maliciousness was intended or not - it depends how the public perceived my (in)action. In any case, you didn't answer my question: are we not slaves to society?

I believe I already successfully argued that there is a cost associated with living in a society, but here's another argument: let's take the simplest form of society: two people. Let's examine a two person society: a married couple. To live together, they must be willing to make concessions to the other. When single, they each had more personal freedom (agreed?), but they chose to form a union, which brought more security and pleasure than the personal freedoms they left behind.

I don't borrow money (anymore). However, I've purchased (and sold) a lot of real-estate, as well as other items on credit in the past. I have never heard of a lender having such thing as a minimum equity requirement. People are upside down in loans all the time, and they don't lose their property because of that fact, they lose their property because they stop making their payments. Additionally, it wouldn't make sense for a bank to repossess something because the value of it fell.. what would they do with it? If it's less than what's owed, they can't sell it for what they're owed.

I was thinking of this happening indirectly. I assume you're familiar with PMI and its requirement to be paid when the owner has less than 20% equity. Let's say someone had 25% equity and the value of their property dropped such that the owner only had 19% equity after the drop. It is conceivable that someone could be spending everything he makes just to get by and an additional monthly charge in the form of PMI could be the straw that broke the camel's back.

Back to the question: let's say I know that dropping the value of your property will hurt you (financially or otherwise), and I act in ways to drop the value of your property. Am I using force against you?

I say "yes" because you have been forced to do something you would not otherwise have. It may be more difficult, but it is surely possible for one to operate within the rules of the game to get another to bend to your will. A simplified example of this is a game of chess.

He's more the exception than the rule. The hundreds of Congressmen and Senators that empowered government agencies with further abilities to initiate force when they voted for the Patriot Act comes to mind.

OK, but the fact that they haven't been held accountable doesn't mean that they cannot be.

Their actions were a result of the Federal Reserve's monetary policies.

If the government's policy is to provide food for people who can't afford it, they may do this by issuing food stamps to someone who makes below a certain annual wage/salary. If restrictions are put on how food stamps can be used, such that they can be used to purchase only food items that the government deems "necessary".. for instance, they may say you can purchase strawberries but not raspberries. Just because someone makes below a certain amount doesn't mean they can't afford food, but government wants to "make sure" by issuing food stamps to them. Now that they can have strawberries for free, they're less likely to buy raspberries even if they were purchasing them before.

Do you blame the decline of raspberry sales (and the decrease in revenue to raspberry farmers) on the success of strawberry farmers, or on the government?

To answer your question, I'd strongly tend to believe the government is to blame. But, if you replace "raspberry" with "alcohol" and ask the same question, I'd tend to say that alcohol producers are to blame (because I'd agree alcohol isn't a necessity).

However, I do not see how this relates to the ratings agencies.

Regardless, let's get back to the original question: is it possible for a small group to affect a larger group without government? Yes. Let's go back to my married couple example, and let's say they have children. It is entirely possible for one parent to, say, gamble away a paycheck and screw things up for the whole family. Or, let's say a CEO makes a bad bet on future directions in the market and is forced to lay off employees when the market moves in an opposite direction. It surely doesn't take government to screw things up for a larger population (even if they usually do! :D).

AntiTroll

11-17-2008, 07:54 PM

This debate will not end unless you read Market Anarchism as Constitutionalism (http://praxeology.net/Anarconst2.pdf).

Roderick Long has wrote this excellent piece about the contradictions of the state, and refutes the common misconceptions of anarchism. This is an excellent refutation and this is a must read for all non-anarchists!

So read Market Anarchism as Constitutionalism (http://praxeology.net/Anarconst2.pdf) instead of arguing this counterproductive debate with ronpaul4pres.:rolleyes:

ronpaul4pres

11-17-2008, 08:31 PM

mediahasyou

11-18-2008, 06:30 PM

The correct price is zero.

ronpaul4pres

11-18-2008, 06:47 PM

The correct price is zero.

I find it hilarious for you to say that when your signature has this quote:

"That government is best, which governs least." - Thomas Jefferson

If the "correct" price is zero, wouldn't Jefferson have instead said:

That government is best, which governs zero.

Conza88

11-18-2008, 07:08 PM

I find it hilarious for you to say that when your signature has this quote:

"That government is best, which governs least." - Thomas Jefferson

If the "correct" price is zero, wouldn't Jefferson have instead said:

That government is best, which governs zero.

I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.

HENRY DAVID THOREAU, Civil Disobedience, first paragraph, Walden and Civil Disobedience, ed. Owen Thomas, p. 224 (1966). This essay was first published in 1849.

ronpaul4pres

11-18-2008, 09:51 PM

I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.

HENRY DAVID THOREAU, Civil Disobedience, first paragraph, Walden and Civil Disobedience, ed. Owen Thomas, p. 224 (1966). This essay was first published in 1849.

Make no mistake: I agree with the Jefferson quote, but I find it difficult to follow it to the extreme: anarchy. It's an interesting topic to discuss in theory, but I'd like to see it work in practice. Can you point to any existing anarchical society?

Conza88

11-18-2008, 10:06 PM

Make no mistake: I agree with the Jefferson quote, but I find it difficult to follow it to the extreme: anarchy. It's an interesting topic to discuss in theory, but I'd like to see it work in practice. Can you point to any existing anarchical society?

http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html#part18

17. Have there been any anarcho-capitalist societies?

Yes, more or less. Since both anarchism and capitalism are theoretical models, it's hard to claim that any real situation is 100% stateless and 100% free market capitalist. But there are various societies that were, for all intents and purposes, stateless, and societies that implemented anarcho-capitalist "programs" such as private law. Here is a short list:

* Celtic Ireland (650-1650)
In Celtic Irish society, the courts and the law were largely libertarian, and operated within a purely state-less manner. This society persisted in this libertarian path for roughly a thousand years until its brutal conquest by England in the seventeenth century. And, in contrast to many similarly functioning primitive tribes (such as the Ibos in West Africa, and many European tribes), preconquest Ireland was not in any sense a "primitive" society: it was a highly complex society that was, for centuries, the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe. A leading authority on ancient Irish law wrote, "There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justice... There was no trace of State-administered justice."
* Icelandic Commonwealth (930 to 1262)
David Friedman has studied the legal system of this culture, and observes:

The legal and political institutions of Iceland from the tenth to the thirteenth centuries ... are of interest for two reasons. First, they are relatively well documented; the sagas were written by people who had lived under that set of institutions and provide a detailed inside view of their workings. Legal conflicts were of great interest to the medieval Icelanders: Njal, the eponymous hero of the most famous of the sagas, is not a warrior but a lawyer--"so skilled in law that no one was considered his equal." In the action of the sagas, law cases play as central a role as battles.

Second, medieval Icelandic institutions have several peculiar and interesting characteristics; they might almost have been invented by a mad economist to test the lengths to which market systems could supplant government in its most fundamental functions. Killing was a civil offense resulting in a fine paid to the survivors of the victim. Laws were made by a "parliament," seats in which were a marketable commodity. Enforcement of law was entirely a private affair. And yet these extraordinary institutions survived for over three hundred years, and the society in which they survived appears to have been in many ways an attractive one . Its citizens were, by medieval standards, free; differences in status based on rank or sex were relatively small; and its literary, output in relation to its size has been compared, with some justice, to that of Athens. - David Friedman, Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: A Historical Case

* Rhode Island (1636-1648)
Religious dissenter Roger Williams, after being run out of theocratic puritan Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636, founded Providence, Rhode Island. Unlike the brutal Puritans, he scrupulously purchased land from local indians for his settlement. In political beliefs, Williams was close to the Levellers of England. He describes Rhode Island local "government" as follows: "The masters of families have ordinarily met once a fortnight and consulted about our common peace, watch and plenty; and mutual consent have finished all matters of speed and pace." While Roger Williams was not explicitly anarchist, another Rhode Islander was: Anne Hutchinson. Anne and her followers emigrated to Rhode Island in 1638. They bought Aquidneck Island from the Indians, and founded the town of Pocasset (now Portsmouth.) Another "Rogue Island" libertarian was Samuell Gorton. He and his followers were accused of being an "anarchists." Governor Winthrop of Massachusetts Bay called Gorton a "man not fit to live upon the face of the earth," Gorton and his followers were forced in late 1642 to found an entirely new settlement of their own: Shawomet (later Warwick). In the words of Gorton, for over five years the settlement "lived peaceably together, desiring and endeavoring to do wrong to no man, neither English nor Indian, ending all our differences in a neighborly and loving way of arbitration, mutually chosen amongst us."Pf
* Albemarle (1640's-1663)
The coastal area north of Albemarle Sound in what is now northeastern North Carolina had a quasi-anarchistic society in the mid-17th century. Officially a part of the Virginia colony, in fact it was independent. It was a haven for political and religious refugees, such as Quakers and dissident Presbyterians. The libertarian society ended in 1663, when the King of England granted Carolina to eight feudal proprietors backed by military.Pf
* Holy Experiment (Quaker) Pennsylvania (1681-1690)
When William Penn left his Quaker colony in Pennsylvania, the people stopped paying quitrent, and any semblance of formal government evaporated. The Quakers treated Indians with respect, bought land from them voluntarily, and had even representation of Indians and Whites on juries. According to Voltaire, the Shackamaxon treaty was "the only treaty between Indians and Christians that was never sworn to and that was never broken." The Quakers refused to provide any assistance to New England's Indian wars. Penn's attempt to impose government by appointing John Blackwell, a non-Quaker military man, as governor failed miserably.Pf
* The American "Not so Wild" West - various locations
Most law for settlements in the American West was established long before US government agents arrived. Property law was generally defined by local custom and/or agreement among the settlers. Mining associations established orderly mining claims, cattlemen's associations handled property rights on the plains, local "regulators" and private citizens provided enforcement. Yet most movie-watching people are surprised to learn that crime rates were lower in the West than the "civilized" East. Cf: The American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not so Wild, Wild, West
* Laissez Faire City
A more recent unsuccessful attempt to start a new country, LFC attempted to lease a hundred square miles of land from a third-world State in order to start an anarcho-capitalist society, taking Hong Kong as a guide. When that fell through, some members moved to Costa Rica, where the State is relatively weak, there is no standing army, and what little State interference there can usually be "bought off." There remain small libertarian communities in the central valley (Curridabat) and on the Pacific coast (Nosara).

Andrew Ryan

11-18-2008, 10:13 PM

You're an anarchist Conza?

Conza88

11-18-2008, 10:16 PM

You're an anarchist Conza?

No. I despise anarchists.

I'm an anarcho-capitalist / minarchist / libertarian... - (Underlined) is when I am talking to sheeple, or the profoundly uninformed. I'm more than happy to take any path to less government, less state... more freedom and liberty.

:)

ronpaul4pres

11-18-2008, 10:36 PM

http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html#part18

OK - but what such society currently exists? If one does exist, how large is it? Can it thrive with, say, one million people living in that society?

nickcoons

11-19-2008, 07:17 PM

It doesn't matter whether maliciousness was intended or not - it depends how the public perceived my (in)action. In any case, you didn't answer my question: are we not slaves to society?

No, you chose to take a profession in medicine and focus on that entirely. If others in society don't want to purchase your services, you are free to make other choices, such as hunt or farm for your own food. While this may not sound very appealing, in practical terms, you'd have to be a jerk of enormous proportions if you were good at what you did and everyone shunned you anyway.

I believe I already successfully argued that there is a cost associated with living in a society,

In society as we know it, there is. We live under the premise of a social contract, to which everyone is born with an obligation to be sacrificed to some degree for the benefit of others that are perceived as being more needy.

But if we're talking about a free society, then the only costs are those of voluntary consumption. I may choose to pay for someone else to grow my food instead of growing it myself, for instance.

but here's another argument: let's take the simplest form of society: two people. Let's examine a two person society: a married couple. To live together, they must be willing to make concessions to the other. When single, they each had more personal freedom (agreed?), but they chose to form a union, which brought more security and pleasure than the personal freedoms they left behind.

Before answering this, I'd like to clarify the term "freedom" (or "freedoms"). You seem to be using it generically to mean "the ability to do whatever one wants." I would qualify that by adding "...as long as force is not initiated against anyone else." When you say that the individuals in a marriage had more "freedoms" when single, I assume you're referring to things like dating other people, making financial decisions independently, that sort of thing. But I would contend that freedom is not quantified by the number of things we're allowed to do.

In a marriage contract, it's common for the terms to include that the two remain faithful to each other. Both people still have their same rights; that is, to take any action so long as force is not initiated against anyone else (in the case of infidelity, breech of contract). There are certain specific actions that people do give up, so I agree with what I think you're trying to say in this instance, but I would not call that conceding freedom.

I was thinking of this happening indirectly. I assume you're familiar with PMI and its requirement to be paid when the owner has less than 20% equity.

That's becoming less common (or perhaps until recently), but I understand your point.

Let's say someone had 25% equity and the value of their property dropped such that the owner only had 19% equity after the drop. It is conceivable that someone could be spending everything he makes just to get by and an additional monthly charge in the form of PMI could be the straw that broke the camel's back.

Putting aside for the moment that this person probably would not have qualified for this loan (or maybe he would have a few years ago :D), when someone borrows money, they agree to the terms. If the terms indicate that they may need to pay PMI under certain conditions, then they accept that risk going into it.

Back to the question: let's say I know that dropping the value of your property will hurt you (financially or otherwise), and I act in ways to drop the value of your property. Am I using force against you?

I say "yes" because you have been forced to do something you would not otherwise have. It may be more difficult, but it is surely possible for one to operate within the rules of the game to get another to bend to your will. A simplified example of this is a game of chess.

I would say that this is not force. Let's say that you and I were neighbors and both had our houses for sale. Let's say that in order to assist in selling my house, I increase the curb appeal with a fresh coat of paint and other superficial improvements. Because of this, potential buyers are more attracted to my house than to yours, which causes you to have to lower your asking price to get people interested. This has cost you a quantifiable amount of money. Have I initiated force against you?

The problem is that in both your case and mine, I haven't done any damage to your property. Arguing that I have initiated force against you not only doesn't work philosophically, but it doesn't work practically either. It's far too subjective allowing neighbors to sue each other for damage because they're increasing the value and attractiveness of their own homes.

My home has lost about $100k in value over the last year. Has someone initiated force against me? Who can I sue?

I own my home, not the value of my home, so I am not entitled to any particular value. So if I lose value, nothing that is mine has been stolen from me. All I own is the physical property, whose value may change on a whim. Value can increase or decrease for any number of reasons, most of which are unintended. Home values often increase very little with superficial remodeling, most home value changes are due to changes in the market, not because of some intentional action on the part of a home owner or his neighbors.

OK, but the fact that they haven't been held accountable doesn't mean that they cannot be.

Given that there is very little incentive for most people to hold them accountable, they likely will not be any time soon on any large scale.

To answer your question, I'd strongly tend to believe the government is to blame. But, if you replace "raspberry" with "alcohol" and ask the same question, I'd tend to say that alcohol producers are to blame (because I'd agree alcohol isn't a necessity).

So you think the government is to blame only because raspberries are more of a necessity than alcohol?

Regardless, let's get back to the original question: is it possible for a small group to affect a larger group without government? Yes.

Of course. A relatively small group of people at Microsoft have affected much of the world.

Let's go back to my married couple example, and let's say they have children. It is entirely possible for one parent to, say, gamble away a paycheck and screw things up for the whole family.

It's possible only because one spouse gives up their rights to control their property, or they choose to combine their property such that it's jointly owned. There is a prerequisite of an agreement for this to happen.

Or, let's say a CEO makes a bad bet on future directions in the market and is forced to lay off employees when the market moves in an opposite direction. It surely doesn't take government to screw things up for a larger population (even if they usually do! :D).

No, of course not. I don't think I'm claiming that people's actions can affect other peoplpe.

Conza88

11-20-2008, 07:29 AM

OK - but what such society currently exists? If one does exist, how large is it? Can it thrive with, say, one million people living in that society?

:rolleyes:

ronpaul4pres

11-21-2008, 12:01 AM

No, you chose to take a profession in medicine and focus on that entirely. If others in society don't want to purchase your services, you are free to make other choices, such as hunt or farm for your own food. While this may not sound very appealing, in practical terms, you'd have to be a jerk of enormous proportions if you were good at what you did and everyone shunned you anyway.

"Unlikely" doesn't mean "impossible," which would be necessary to refute my claim.

My point is that most humans are not self-sufficient (e.g. they don't produce all the food they eat) (I'm not saying they couldn't be self-sufficient - I'm just stating their current state). We realize that for the benefit of everyone, it is more efficient if we depend on one another. The farmer depends on the doctor to heal him, and the doctor depends on the farmer for his food. That's a direct example; we can have indirect dependencies as well, and our society has an extremely complex web of dependencies.

For those people that are not self-sufficient, they are bound to the choices of others. That is to say we never have 100% control over our own lives - not even in a so-called "free" society. The best we can do is come close to 100%, but there is no such thing as absolute personal freedom in society.

"What if I choose not to live in a society?" you ask? Given that self-sufficiency has a non-zero cost (e.g. purchase/claim land, invest time to learn how to farm, invest significant time in food production instead of other pursuits, etc.), that choice comes at a very expensive cost (I'm not saying some aren't willing to pay it, it's just that most of us don't).

In society as we know it, there is. We live under the premise of a social contract, to which everyone is born with an obligation to be sacrificed to some degree for the benefit of others that are perceived as being more needy.

But if we're talking about a free society, then the only costs are those of voluntary consumption. I may choose to pay for someone else to grow my food instead of growing it myself, for instance.

My claim is that every society (including a "free" society) has an underlying cost. Every human has the need to eat, and since the vast majority of us don't grow what we eat, we're at the mercy of others (they're at our mercy, too, so there's some balance).

Before answering this, I'd like to clarify the term "freedom" (or "freedoms"). You seem to be using it generically to mean "the ability to do whatever one wants." I would qualify that by adding "...as long as force is not initiated against anyone else." When you say that the individuals in a marriage had more "freedoms" when single, I assume you're referring to things like dating other people, making financial decisions independently, that sort of thing. But I would contend that freedom is not quantified by the number of things we're allowed to do.

In a marriage contract, it's common for the terms to include that the two remain faithful to each other. Both people still have their same rights; that is, to take any action so long as force is not initiated against anyone else (in the case of infidelity, breech of contract). There are certain specific actions that people do give up, so I agree with what I think you're trying to say in this instance, but I would not call that conceding freedom.

Your definition of "freedom" is compatible with mine. However, I'd like to make clear that I don't believe we're born with one static Freedom. I believe that we have a set of many freedoms that may change over time.

This makes sense when we think of the whole life cycle. When we're born, we have very little freedom. We do little more than eat, breath, cry, and soil our diapers. As the baby grows older on towards being an adult, it gains many freedoms (crawl around the house, stay at home without a baby sitter, drive a car, etc.).

Any two consenting adults have the freedom to have sex. I believe this conforms to your definition of "freedom" because "consenting" fits within the requirement of "...as long as force is not initiated against anyone else." But, entering into marriage is a "loss" of the freedom to have sex with whomever one chooses.

And, the loss of particular freedom is a good thing because of the freedom that one gains. It makes sense that freedoms are gained when you think of a married couple as more than just the sum of the individual parts.

Back to the question: let's say I know that dropping the value of your property will hurt you (financially or otherwise), and I act in ways to drop the value of your property. Am I using force against you?

I say "yes" because you have been forced to do something you would not otherwise have. It may be more difficult, but it is surely possible for one to operate within the rules of the game to get another to bend to your will. A simplified example of this is a game of chess.

I would say that this is not force. Let's say that you and I were neighbors and both had our houses for sale. Let's say that in order to assist in selling my house, I increase the curb appeal with a fresh coat of paint and other superficial improvements. Because of this, potential buyers are more attracted to my house than to yours, which causes you to have to lower your asking price to get people interested. This has cost you a quantifiable amount of money. Have I initiated force against you?

I'm not claiming that the loss of value is an indication of force. I'm stating that the implications from the loss of value proves force. If I were to extend my chess analogy, I would claim that you used "legal force" against me. You didn't cheat the rules, but you surely "forced" me into a situation I didn't want. :)

If you define "force" as purely "illegal", then I'd have to agree with your conclusion of "no" for both your an my examples. However, I'm not so sure we can think in black & white terms. A good example for this is Blockbusting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbusting). Real estate agents played by the rules, but there was something clearly immoral about the whole thing.

The problem is that in both your case and mine, I haven't done any damage to your property. Arguing that I have initiated force against you not only doesn't work philosophically, but it doesn't work practically either. It's far too subjective allowing neighbors to sue each other for damage because they're increasing the value and attractiveness of their own homes.

I agree with your statement below that "I own my home, not the value of my home," but I would also be quick to point out that "damage" doesn't have to be purely physical. While I also agree with you that we shouldn't allow neighbors to sue others in your example, I wouldn't completely rule out such action (I can't think of a situation right now, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist).

My home has lost about $100k in value over the last year. Has someone initiated force against me? Who can I sue?

Alan Greenspan! :D

I own my home, not the value of my home, so I am not entitled to any particular value. So if I lose value, nothing that is mine has been stolen from me. All I own is the physical property, whose value may change on a whim. Value can increase or decrease for any number of reasons, most of which are unintended. Home values often increase very little with superficial remodeling, most home value changes are due to changes in the market, not because of some intentional action on the part of a home owner or his neighbors.

Agreed.

Given that there is very little incentive for most people to hold them accountable, they likely will not be any time soon on any large scale.

Sure, but we have power to hold some accountable. That's reason enough for some hope.

So you think the government is to blame only because raspberries are more of a necessity than alcohol?

Perhaps I shouldn't have said that - government shouldn't be dictating what is "necessary."

I should note, though, you specifically chose "raspberry" since it shares many traits to "strawberry." I couldn't see how alcohol manufacturers would be hurt in that example.

Of course. A relatively small group of people at Microsoft have affected much of the world.

It's possible only because one spouse gives up their rights to control their property, or they choose to combine their property such that it's jointly owned. There is a prerequisite of an agreement for this to happen.

No, of course not. I don't think I'm claiming that people's actions can affect other peoplpe.

I'm glad we agree on that. I was making the point because you said "The 'handful of people' are politicians who use force via central economic planning. This is a good argument for why government should not have the legal ability to initiate force." Given that a "handful of people" can screw things up with or without force - I'm not sure there is such a "good argument" as you claim.