Don't forget Leaders. Without beaucoup leaders we wouldn't have anyone to tell us what is good and bad. Like drugs.Originally Posted by TheTexan
The wisdom of Swordy:
On bringing the troops home
On fighting corruption:
Fascism Defined
Is Hank really using the Roads argument? Thanks for the LULZ!
The wisdom of Swordy:
On bringing the troops home
On fighting corruption:
Fascism Defined
Not everything is an argument. Some things are just statements, especially statements that imply "there is no point in arguing" lol. Only a little logic is a dangerous thing, good enough to bully the less educated but no one else.
Carthago Delenda Est
Yes. The solution is for them to take money from you and pay a police officer to beat you to death.
Its a dangerous job but someone has to do it.
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
I don't know how you bring yourself to read his posts. Him and that Panqui guy or whatever his name is in all of the banking threads. It hurts to try and read the mess they make with their keyboards.You were saying anarchy is the purest form of democracy.Two posts in and I have no $#@!ing clue what you're asking.
A state is not necessary for clear, functional hierarchy or sovereignty.
Then you had better be a quicker draw than I am.
We could rally around Trump. Of course, doesn't he want to hang cop killers on the front lawn of the White House? It would tie our hands, but he's the liberty candidate, right?
Is there a single person here who has claimed that? I've seen plenty of the anti-Trump people claim other people are saying that, I've yet to see it though.
Then you had better be a quicker draw than I am.
It's cute how you think would be thieves, roving gangs or dictators will give you the courtesy of of a fair fight.
It's pitiful how you think you need a state to protect you from those things.
"State" "Military" "Police" "neighborhood watch" "Gang" "Militia" - all semantics.
Hate to break it to you but others will form into groups whether you do or not, and you can call it whatever name you like, if you don't do the same they will take what they want, you and your shotgun won't last long in any scenario. Like I say, you are cute.
I've often compared the workings and results of a theoretical ancap system to that of early feudalismI grant your point re incompetence.
As for insanity, though; what if the majority shareholder is himself insane? Yes, there's a mechanism to replace him (someone buys his shares), which doesn't exist with hereditary monarchy, but if he's insane (which almost by definition means uninterested in maximizing revenue), he may well refuse: in which case the only option is a coup d'etat, as with an insane monarch.
Here are the drawbacks to the SovCorp, as I see it:
1. The very existence of multiple rulers (shareholders) creates a possibility for civil war which doesn't exist in a monarchy (the king can't fight a civil war with himself).
2. There are opportunities for cost externalization amongst the shareholders, and therefore skewed incentives. For example, suppose the majority shareholders, in addition to owning their shares in the SovCorp, also own BuildCo (a construction firm within the patch). When the SovCorp takes bids from contractors to build some new building, BuildCo isn't the low bid, but the majority shareholders accept it anyway. Why? The majority shareholders capture all of the benefits (all the additional profits to BuildCo), but bear only a fraction of the costs (losses to the SovCorp), the rest of which are borne involuntary by the other SovCorp shareholders. This is, albeit on a much smaller scale, the problem with democracy - incentives are skewed such that it becomes rational for the rulers to govern badly.
I agree that it may not be possible to solve this problem a priori.
Devil's Advocate Says: "Isn't that the same argument the ancaps use to explain why PDAs wouldn't fight with one another?"
I tend to think that war would grow the state more than the absence of inter-state competition.
Not to mention the pure destructive potential of war, esp with modern weaponry.
True, though the problem is greatly reduced in a non-democratic system where the people aren't drawn into a public brawl every 4 years.
For the lifespan of that king, anyway.
...one of the nice features of monarchy in general; if things go south, just wait a while.
I don't see a technological problem, but there is an economic problem.
When the state is beyond a size that can be directly managed by the king, he has no choice but to delegate authority; but these appointed managers don't have the same good incentives that he does, and so they themselves require management: and eventually it's impossible for the king to manage even his appointee managers, and he loses effective control (with the quality of governance suffering as a result). Ordinary corporations face the same diseconomies of scale.
But there's a solution to the problem.
Instead of delegating authority to salaried officials (who don't have proprietary incentives to govern well), divide the kingdom into parcels and auction off the governorships thereof to the highest bidder. The governors would essentially be petty kings, managing local affairs on their own with all the proprietary incentives of the king himself: whose only task now would be to collect taxes from the governors, keep the peace between them, and make sure none of them get powerful enough to challenge him. The governoships would not be hereditary, they would be alienable like any other property, to encourage competition and higher quality governance. Further stimulate competition by using the Georgist land value tax as the method of taxing the governorships. This means they self-asses the value of their governorships, but are legally required to sell at that self-assessed price should anyone offer to buy at that price (ensures a fair assessment and provides a method of removing bad and stubborn governors who might not otherwise sell).
This looks like a form of feudalism or federalism, but it's crucially different in one respect. The governors have no formal rights whatsoever, no independent political power. The division of power here is only apparent. It's not that the governors are checking each other's power or that of the king (as per the classic understanding of feudalism or federalism), it is that the absolute king is choosing to employ this pseudo-federal system as an administrative technique in order to overcome the diseconomies of scale mentioned above. Why would he choose to do this? Precisely to increase his revenues: the same reason the king of a small state governing directly would govern well. Why do I want the king to have absolute power, in the hopes he chooses this system, rather than binding him to it through genuine federalism (where the constituent parts have formal and real power to resist him)? Because federalism is unstable (tends to either break apart in civil war or evolve into centralized government anyway - often as a result of civil war) , and skews incentives like every other political order in which power is divided (cost externalization etc).
Final thought - essentially, what I want is an absolute monarch, who is a revenue maximizer, and who understands economics, because he will create a system like this, which ends up looking pretty much like patchwork + an overlord whose job is to prevent wars between the patches (not because he "has to," says some constitution, but because he recognizes that it is in his own selfish interest to do so).
Carthago Delenda Est
Anarchy means you would have every danger that you have today, with the exception of one all-powerful gang of thugs stealing your stuff and threatening to lock you in a box for doing something they don't like...
Oh, yes, you still will have murder, rape, robbery (just like we do now) but the "biggest gang" would be gone. I call that progress...
BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"
Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist
Use an internet archive site like THIS ONE
to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.
If that were true the "biggest gang" never would have formed in the first place. Go all throughout the world, most peoples were in small tribes, but they formed into bigger ones realizing they could take other peoples lands, then the ones being attacked started to band together with other victims to defend themselves, so on and so on.
There is absolutely nothing you can do to stop this from happening, no matter how many times you tear down a power structure, a new one will form, and it will grow or be absorbed by a bigger power structure.
Source?
Singapore is quite free by contemporary standards, esp. in the economic realm.
It's ranked 2nd on the Economic Freedom Index and 5th on the Property Rights Index.
You would find, for instance, that it is much easier to start and operate a business without governmental interference in Singapore than in the US.
Hence their magnificent economic progress since the pro-market reforms began in the 60s.
Now, if you choose to ignore all that, and focus on how chewing gum is outlawed, well I guess we have very different priorities.
It's AWESOME how Singapore allows economic freedom!
(unless you manufacture, wholesale or retail chewing gum, that is)
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
Well, you can chew all the gum you like in Venezuela (assuming you can find any at the nearly empty grocery).
Can you imagine Singapore's head on Venezuela's body?
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
If you mean that it would be nice to have a country as economically free as Singapore, but less socially authoritarian, of course.
Mr. Koolaid...a country that has the power to ban chewing gum bestows economic privileges. It is not economically "free".
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
I didn't say there was absolute economic freedom in Singapore.
I said it is quite economically free in comparison to other contemporary states, which is true.
longtime no see Bmore!
the way I see it (I am a Minarchist) we are on the same team. they (anarchists) DO NOT see it that way.
I still support RESTORING the CONstitution. (favored local spelling)
it is my belief that Ron Paul and the founders were also MinArchists.
what system you settle on?
I don't mind discussing other systems. like Rev3's.
I draw the line at discussing NO system as adolescent.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
"for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.
Hey! Good to see you. Who else from DP is here?longtime no see Bmore!
the way I see it (I am a Minarchist) we are on the same team. they (anarchists) DO NOT see it that way.
I still support RESTORING the CONstitution. (favored local spelling)
it is my belief that Ron Paul and the founders were also MinArchists.
what system you settle on?
I don't mind discussing other systems. like Rev3's.
I draw the line at discussing NO system as adolescent.
p.s. I already broke my promise to not debate anarchism here LOL
Last edited by ArrestPoliticians; 03-22-2016 at 05:08 PM.
Carthago Delenda Est
That's OK, we don't ever really expect or count on lawyers saying what they mean, meaning what they say, and keeping their promises.
You are probably currently living under at least four redundant levels of government. Is that enough for you, or are more levels needed or required to make you feel safe, secure, protected and comfortable?
Last edited by Ronin Truth; 03-22-2016 at 07:50 PM.
Stupid comment that doesn't even address what was being said, but I know you wanted to give your little speech, so hope it made you feel better.
REV3 and the rebel poet.
I have seen others as well. but as you say, they get tired of the vitriol.
and don't hang out much..
REV3 has a lot more class, an patience suffering fools than I do....
you know, I lurked at the DP for about a year before joining, and even then, it was to organize for the rally.
politics was a new subject for me.
I found it all VERY complicated and confusing at the time, and I was grateful for the smart people who were there.
sharing their knowledge and perspectives.
so, I chose HVACTech to let them know that I could help with a complicated and confusing subject like they helped me with!
anymore, when someone mentions Emanuel Kant in reference to natural law or Liberty... I figure they are a lawyer.
sound about right?
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
"for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.
was someone talking to YOU AZZHAT?
good thing nobody knows what YOU do eh?
dare to reveal it to me?~LULZ!~
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
"for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us