NationStates Jolt Archive

It has often been said that "Taxation is Robbery". Do you agree with this statement? If you do, you might like to approve the "Ban Taxation!" proposal, which would make it illegal for any UN Member nation to have a tax rate above 0%.

It's definitely robbery, but some level of taxation will be necessary to maintain public goods...

It's morally wrong and makes a government illegitimate... but there has never been a moral and legitimate government, and there probably will never be.

Not too many nations would like to ban taxation since taxation is the only way, for most, to make money.

It has often been said that "Taxation is Robbery". Do you agree with this statement? If you do, you might like to approve the "Ban Taxation!" proposal, which would make it illegal for any UN Member nation to have a tax rate above 0%.

well, its robbery, yes, but if you abolished it, then you would be facing a crisis because you couldnt pay for anything - no military, no government, no libraries, no government TV/radio channels, no council workers (ie no cleaners, dustbin men etc), no postal workers visa vi no mail, no education system......

overall, i think we have a fair deal....

TAXATION IS ROBBERY BUT THATS OKAY BECAUSE LAND OWNERSHIP DOESNT EXIST SO THE STATE CAN DO WHATEVER IT WANTS TO YOU SINCE IT ISNT YOUR LAND!!!

The Holocaust was 100% justified because the Jews could theoretically have left whenever they wanted, all they had to do was abandon all of their land and property, but since they didn't own it in teh first place since property is theft and land belongs to Big Brother!


[OOC: You can extract money from criminals, though yes, taxation is necessary, even if it is evil]

It has often been said that "Taxation is Robbery". Do you agree with this statement? If you do, you might like to approve the "Ban Taxation!" proposal, which would make it illegal for any UN Member nation to have a tax rate above 0%.

well, its robbery, yes, but if you abolished it, then you would be facing a crisis because you couldnt pay for anything - no military, no government, no libraries, no government TV/radio channels, no council workers (ie no cleaners, dustbin men etc), no postal workers visa vi no mail, no education system......

overall, i think we have a fair deal....

Yeah! :twisted: what wouls happen if there were no military, police force, roads, etc. :lol:

Yeah! :twisted: what wouls happen if there were no military, police force, roads, etc. :lol:

SOME level of taxation may be necessary, even desirable (this should be very low... the US can easily run on a 4% flat tax), but IT'S STILL ROBBERY.

It is a necessary evil which should be used with restraint.

It is a necessary evil which should be used with restraint.

And a lot of it.

It has often been said that "Taxation is Robbery". Do you agree with this statement? If you do, you might like to approve the "Ban Taxation!" proposal, which would make it illegal for any UN Member nation to have a tax rate above 0%.

well, its robbery, yes, but if you abolished it, then you would be facing a crisis because you couldnt pay for anything - no military, no government, no libraries, no government TV/radio channels, no council workers (ie no cleaners, dustbin men etc), no postal workers visa vi no mail, no education system......

Non sequitur. There's no reason to assume that there is any link requiring a government to have a military or postal system or educational syste, etc.

Okay I'll give you education and post office, but since a legitimate government claims a monopoly on force to prevent anarchy, it does have to fund the military and police.

Yeah! :twisted: what wouls happen if there were no military, police force, roads, etc. :lol:

SOME level of taxation may be necessary, even desirable (this should be very low... the US can easily run on a 4% flat tax), but IT'S STILL ROBBERY.

What if a junkie says "Hey man, I had to mug that guy! It was NECESSARY for me to rob him because I need money to buy heroin!"? Hey, you think that some robbery is necessary and desirable. How can you put a junkie in jail for robbery when you approve of robbery?

Also, you are DEAD WRONG when you say that governments need to pay for military, police, ect ect ect. In the Rouge Nation of Beable, we let BIKER GANGS take care of all our security needs, and it works JUST FINE!

Yeah! :twisted: what wouls happen if there were no military, police force, roads, etc. :lol:

SOME level of taxation may be necessary, even desirable (this should be very low... the US can easily run on a 4% flat tax), but IT'S STILL ROBBERY.

What if a junkie says "Hey man, I had to mug that guy! It was NECESSARY for me to rob him because I need money to buy heroin!"? Hey, you think that some robbery is necessary and desirable. How can you put a junkie in jail for robbery when you approve of robbery?

Also, you are DEAD WRONG when you say that governments need to pay for military, police, ect ect ect. In the Rouge Nation of Beable, we let BIKER GANGS take care of all our security needs, and it works JUST FINE!

Hey mine too :lol:

Property is theft. Taxation may be robbery but it is robbing you of that which you have no moral right to own and in theory at least doing it for the greater good. Thus it is justified and necessary.

Speaking of robbery, I heard that someone robbed TGM of his delegate position.

Property is theft. Taxation may be robbery but it is robbing you of that which you have no moral right to own and in theory at least doing it for the greater good. Thus it is justified and necessary.

Speaking of robbery, I heard that someone robbed TGM of his delegate position.

Yeah, it was a bloody coup. I was briefly exiled but public support forced him to let me return. I will take up the reins of power again in a few days.

All rights are constructs of society.
thus
Property rights are constructed by society.
and
Society (generally) has constructed property rights in such a way that they are subject to representative governmental modification.
and
Soceity has deemed taxes acceptable by way of representaive government
Thus
Tax is acceptable
and
Tax is legal
Thus
Tax is not robbery

Property is theft. Taxation may be robbery but it is robbing you of that which you have no moral right to own and in theory at least doing it for the greater good. Thus it is justified and necessary.

Speaking of robbery, I heard that someone robbed TGM of his delegate position.

So, are you saying we have no moral right to own anything privately, including the money we earn, even if we pay for it with the money we earn? Gee, your premises are screwed. :?

All rights are constructs of society.
thus
Property rights are constructed by society.
and
Society (generally) has constructed property rights in such a way that they are subject to representative governmental modification.
and
Soceity has deemed taxes acceptable by way of representaive government
Thus
Tax is acceptable
and
Tax is legal
Thus
Tax is not robbery

By your same logic:

All rights are constructs of society.
thus
The right to life is constructed by society.
and
Society (generally) has constructed the right to life in such a way that it is subject to governmental modification.
and
Some societies have deemed ethnic cleansing acceptable by way of government
Thus
Ethnic cleansing is justified
and
Ethnic cleansing is legal
Thus
Ethnic cleansing is not murder

In other words, just because society "generally accepts" something doesn't make it right.

In other words, just because society "generally accepts" something doesn't make it right.

It makes it right within that society. If you asked a Nazi if the Holocaust was right, he'd say it was. However, other societies are obviously quite able to intervene if that offends them on their own (constructed) moral grounds. Welcome to relativism.

All rights are constructs of society.
thus
The right to life is constructed by society.
and
Society (generally) has constructed the right to life in such a way that it is subject to governmental modification.
and
Our society has deemed ethnic cleansing unacceptable by way of government
and
Our society has deemed ethnic cleansing worthy of intervention by way of government
Thus
Ethnic cleansing is unjustified
and
Ethnic cleansing is illlegal
and
We are justified in intervening in matters of ethnic cleanisng

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

All rights are constructs of society.
thus
The right to life is constructed by society.
and
Society (generally) has constructed the right to life in such a way that it is subject to governmental modification.
and
Our society has deemed ethnic cleansing unacceptable by way of government
and
Our society has deemed ethnic cleansing worthy of intervention by way of government
Thus
Ethnic cleansing is unjustified
and
Ethnic cleansing is illlegal
and
We are justified in intervening in matters of ethnic cleanisng

Yup... Back in the medeival times it was considered acceptable for nobles to kill who they wanted when they wanted as long as they didn't anger the king. This was considered moral and just. And now we look back on it and think about how awful and how we are a moral society. Yet 1000 years from now people will look at our society and think about how corrupt and immoral it was.

In democracies the people decide what to spend their money on. So if the society as a whole decides to have taxes it is perfectly acceptable. If its a dictatorship it doesnt much matter whether its theft or not since the people don't have any say in the matter anyways.

Property is theft. Taxation may be robbery but it is robbing you of that which you have no moral right to own and in theory at least doing it for the greater good. Thus it is justified and necessary.

No moral right to own?

You mind 'splainin' that?

All rights are constructs of society.
thus
Property rights are constructed by society.
and
Society (generally) has constructed property rights in such a way that they are subject to representative governmental modification.
and
Soceity has deemed taxes acceptable by way of representaive government
Thus
Tax is acceptable
and
Tax is legal
Thus
Tax is not robbery

Non sequitur.

Just because someone says that it is "legal" doesn't not make it "robbery", no matter what terms it is couched in.

Unless and until the government demonstrates that it has title to the money, it is robbery. Creating some law claiming that it has the right is not the same as the demonstration thereof.

Furthermore, there is no epistemic or metaphysical reason why the majority should rule, so it simply begs the question in the first place.

All rights are constructs of society.
thus
Property rights are constructed by society.
and
Society (generally) has constructed property rights in such a way that they are subject to representative governmental modification.
and
Soceity has deemed taxes acceptable by way of representaive government
Thus
Tax is acceptable
and
Tax is legal
Thus
Tax is not robbery

Non sequitur.

Just because someone says that it is "legal" doesn't not make it "robbery", no matter what terms it is couched in.

Unless and until the government demonstrates that it has title to the money, it is robbery. Creating some law claiming that it has the right is not the same as the demonstration thereof.

Furthermore, there is no epistemic or metaphysical reason why the majority should rule, so it simply begs the question in the first place.
Not really, as it was a purely positivist rationalization anyways- tax is legal, so tax isn't theft.

Taxation is Robbery?

Well I'm quite sure that makes all those that seem to agree with this premise accessories to the crime. It is taxation that has given the vast majority of the participants in the UN the ability (or not) to spell for instance, for through taxation your educations were paid for (either directly or indirectly). So there is certain amount of hypocrisy floating around here.

Anyway, from a neo-liberal perspective (erg, I feel dirty already) taxation is merely a user-pays system for the use and access to services provided by the state. It is really much the same as the taxes you pay to banks to ‘look’ after your money isn’t it. I suppose also, from this ideological cesspit, it also justifies the spending of citizens money to already rich companies and individuals in the form of subsidies and favours given. For those of you reared on the honeypot, enjoy your disdain for your ill-gotten circumstances.

From a communist position the question is the fair and equitable distribution of the kitty to those areas most needed by society.

What is money anyway?

Money is an idea created by the people, accepted on good faith by the same, but in complete reality (outside our society) completely worthless.

I once read these three lines:

Property Is Theft.
Property Is Slavery.
Property Is Freedom.

Seems contradictory doesn't it?
Think about it for a while.

In reality, 'money' is only good if both the people and government both accept it for what it is.

If the government creates that idea to lessen the general transaction costs inherent in lesser ways of trading goods (gold coins created for use in place of bartering), then who's to say that they don't have the right to modify or regulate their intellectual property? Don't artist's today have the same right? Can't any artist who creates their own work and obtains the copyrights to it change their own work later on?

Why does taxation have to be legal or illegal, mora or immoral, robbery or not?

Labeling taxation robbery of the citizen implies that the government is taking something from the people that the people own of their own accord. If the government stole every citizen's homemade pottery, that would be robbery, for it is a tangible, physical good of definite value to the citizen and his ability to maintain his own good. But money? How can you steal something that doesn't really exist? It's like kidnapping all the angels from the head of a pin.

All rights are constructs of society.
thus
Property rights are constructed by society.
and
Society (generally) has constructed property rights in such a way that they are subject to representative governmental modification.
and
Soceity has deemed taxes acceptable by way of representaive government
Thus
Tax is acceptable
and
Tax is legal
Thus
Tax is not robbery

Non sequitur.

Just because someone says that it is "legal" doesn't not make it "robbery", no matter what terms it is couched in.

Unless and until the government demonstrates that it has title to the money, it is robbery. Creating some law claiming that it has the right is not the same as the demonstration thereof.

Furthermore, there is no epistemic or metaphysical reason why the majority should rule, so it simply begs the question in the first place.
Not really, as it was a purely positivist rationalization anyways- tax is legal, so tax isn't theft.

Which is the point I made: positivist rationalizations have no place here.

Which is the point I made: positivist rationalizations have no place here.

I disagree. Positivism is back, baby!

They just call it post-modernism now.

All rights are constructs of society.
thus
Property rights are constructed by society.
and
Society (generally) has constructed property rights in such a way that they are subject to representative governmental modification.
and
Soceity has deemed taxes acceptable by way of representaive government
Thus
Tax is acceptable
and
Tax is legal
Thus
Tax is not robbery

Non sequitur.

Just because someone says that it is "legal" doesn't not make it "robbery", no matter what terms it is couched in.

Unless and until the government demonstrates that it has title to the money, it is robbery. Creating some law claiming that it has the right is not the same as the demonstration thereof.

Furthermore, there is no epistemic or metaphysical reason why the majority should rule, so it simply begs the question in the first place.

But if the government creates the money, doesn't it then, for all intents and purposes, have the title to the money it created? I asked and answered the same question in my last post, albeit in more words. Why should it have to demonstrate a title if it creates the property? The form of money itself is branded with the stamp of the entity that created it.

But if the government creates the money, doesn't it then, for all intents and purposes, have the title to the money it created? I asked and answered the same question in my last post, albeit in more words. Why should it have to demonstrate a title if it creates the property? The form of money itself is branded with the stamp of the entity that created it.

Interesting post, but not entirely accurate, as the state did not actually 'invent' money. Trade based on items with inherent value does not recquire state intervention, i.e. gold based trade and POW cigarette economies. 'Floating' currencies evolve, from my albeit limited understanding, from these trade systems.

All rights are constructs of society.
thus
Property rights are constructed by society.
and
Society (generally) has constructed property rights in such a way that they are subject to representative governmental modification.
and
Soceity has deemed taxes acceptable by way of representaive government
Thus
Tax is acceptable
and
Tax is legal
Thus
Tax is not robbery

Non sequitur.

Just because someone says that it is "legal" doesn't not make it "robbery", no matter what terms it is couched in.

Unless and until the government demonstrates that it has title to the money, it is robbery. Creating some law claiming that it has the right is not the same as the demonstration thereof.

Furthermore, there is no epistemic or metaphysical reason why the majority should rule, so it simply begs the question in the first place.

But if the government creates the money,

Government fiat currency isn't money. It's an illusory substitute for money.

You may think it's money. They government may tell you that it looks, acts, and smells like money.

But it's not.

doesn't it then, for all intents and purposes, have the title to the money it created? I asked and answered the same question in my last post, albeit in more words. Why should it have to demonstrate a title if it creates the property? The form of money itself is branded with the stamp of the entity that created it.

When the government steps in and mandates a paper specie without backing, that's not money. That's fraud.

Non sequitur. There's no reason to assume that there is any link requiring a government to have a military or postal system or educational syste, etc.

well, i thought everyone knows that these establishments are run off government funds. the government could never run these things off their alternative (and minimal) sources of cash........

Okay I'll give you education and post office, but since a legitimate government claims a monopoly on force to prevent anarchy, it does have to fund the military and police.

would the monopoly on force be strong enough to keep up your military and police for hundreds, thousands of years afterwards?? and what would you do if you made this tax changes, and lost your education, mail, etc etc

Edit: double post, sorry....

Non sequitur. There's no reason to assume that there is any link requiring a government to have a military or postal system or educational syste, etc.

well, i thought everyone knows that these establishments are run off government funds. the government could never run these things off their alternative (and minimal) sources of cash........

But what about those things requires a government? I don't see that there is anything special about them that requires a government to make them exist.

You may think it's money. They government may tell you that it looks, acts, and smells like money.

But it's not.

What the difference? If it looks and acts like money, that's all I nned.

doesn't it then, for all intents and purposes, have the title to the money it created? I asked and answered the same question in my last post, albeit in more words. Why should it have to demonstrate a title if it creates the property? The form of money itself is branded with the stamp of the entity that created it.

When the government steps in and mandates a paper specie without backing, that's not money. That's fraud.[/quote]

Historically incorrect, as well as economically. Prior to NIxon's abbrogation of the BRetton-Woods agreement, paper money was convertible to gold via the American dollar. Even after, you can still buy goods based on the dollar, since effectively the dollar is 'credible'. I'm not sure how this is fraud, since your dollar has value, and you can echange for good, services, or commodities as you see fit. Even if you look at government mandated evaluations, it's still up to the individual to invest it as he/she sees fit.

You may think it's money. They government may tell you that it looks, acts, and smells like money.

But it's not.

What the difference? If it looks and acts like money, that's all I nned.

A dream can feel real. But it's not, is it?

doesn't it then, for all intents and purposes, have the title to the money it created? I asked and answered the same question in my last post, albeit in more words. Why should it have to demonstrate a title if it creates the property? The form of money itself is branded with the stamp of the entity that created it.

When the government steps in and mandates a paper specie without backing, that's not money. That's fraud.

Historically incorrect,

No, it's quite correct. Read Rothbard's The Case Against The Fed and What Has Government Done To Our Money

as well as economically. Prior to NIxon's abbrogation of the BRetton-Woods agreement, paper money was convertible to gold via the American dollar.

In theory, but not in practice. FDR banned the possession of gold tender, effectively.

Even after, you can still buy goods based on the dollar, since effectively the dollar is 'credible'. I'm not sure how this is fraud, since your dollar has value,

It has the illusion of value. It's just paper with no backing.

But what about those things requires a government? I don't see that there is anything special about them that requires a government to make them exist.

ok, you could privitise them, but that could all-too-easily lead to chaos, as you would start getting commercial competition between these systems.....

can you imagine TV adverts trying to persuade you to come to an "EducationRoolz" school, followed by ones saying, "no, come to our "Learning Co" school!!!

and then of course, because they wont have billions behind them like the Govt does with taxes, those companies will have to charge for everything - thousands of £s yearly charges to go to nursery(kindergarten) and then that number growing every year; several £s to send an letter, rental fees for library books etc etc......you would find yourself waaaay more sqeezed for cash than before.....

doesn't it then, for all intents and purposes, have the title to the money it created? I asked and answered the same question in my last post, albeit in more words. Why should it have to demonstrate a title if it creates the property? The form of money itself is branded with the stamp of the entity that created it.

thats a good point, imagine if the national mint was privatised - imagine all the competition between these companies legally creating money - and then competing between each other to see who can have the lowest rates, while making the most profit.....

Paper specie without physical backing maybe fraud if it isn't accepted by the people who are intended to use the money, but if the people accept the money in the place of goods, and the money is created by the state, then how is that fraud?

Of course money is an illusion...that's the point I attempted to make in my first post. If the populace participates with the government in that illusion, then it becomes worth something in the minds of both parties, even if it is an illusion.

The first version of the modern 'greenback' appeared during the Civil War because the Union's gold reserves could not handle the cost of waging such an enveloping conflict. When the greenback was created, it was the government stepping in and creating a currency. As time went on, the greenback became tied to no hard substance, such as gold or silver, especially after FDR.

So, the USD is technically a creation of the United States of America. Wholly owned and operated by the same. So why shouldn't that give them the right to regulate what happens with said intellectual property?

But what about those things requires a government? I don't see that there is anything special about them that requires a government to make them exist.

ok, you could privitise them, but that could all-too-easily lead to chaos, as you would start getting commercial competition between these systems.....

Non sequitur slippery slope. There's no reason why competition would lead to chaos.

[snip]

can you imagine TV adverts trying to persuade you to come to an and then of course, because they wont have billions behind them like the Govt does with taxes, those companies will have to charge for everything - thousands of £s yearly charges to go to nursery(kindergarten) and then that number growing every year; several £s to send an letter, rental fees for library books etc etc......you would find yourself waaaay more sqeezed for cash than before.....

Unsupported assertion, and quite frankly, eduction is expensive now BECAUSE of the government. And without taxes, people would have a greater percentage of their income to spend on thing.

doesn't it then, for all intents and purposes, have the title to the money it created? I asked and answered the same question in my last post, albeit in more words. Why should it have to demonstrate a title if it creates the property? The form of money itself is branded with the stamp of the entity that created it.

thats a good point, imagine if the national mint was privatised - imagine all the competition between these companies legally creating money - and then competing between each other to see who can have the lowest rates, while making the most profit.....

There have been private mints in the history of the United States. Worked out just fine.

Seems history---is not with you.

Seems history---is not with you.

not really....being british i know little of the american govt.....(sorry)

Paper specie without physical backing maybe fraud if it isn't accepted by the people who are intended to use the money, but if the people accept the money in the place of goods, and the money is created by the state, then how is that fraud?

It's foisted on them by the government, ergo fraud. They are BANNED from using certain other actual monies for exchange, as well.

Of course money is an illusion...that's the point I attempted to make in my first post. If the populace participates with the government in that illusion, then it becomes worth something in the minds of both parties, even if it is an illusion.

Thank you for proving my point: that it's an illusion. It's not real. It's just something that the people have resigned themselves to having because they are forbidden from an alternative.

The first version of the modern 'greenback' appeared during the Civil War because the Union's gold reserves could not handle the cost of waging such an enveloping conflict.

You might wish to go back even more, to the War for American Independence and the Continental note.

The people who founded this country were rightly suspicious of paper currency.

When the greenback was created, it was the government stepping in and creating a currency. As time went on, the greenback became tied to no hard substance, such as gold or silver, especially after FDR.

Which means: fiat currency.

So, the USD is technically a creation of the United States of America. Wholly owned and operated by the same. So why shouldn't that give them the right to regulate what happens with said intellectual property?

Intellectual property is bullshit. There's no such thing.

Also, money isn't just something that you get to simply invent. The market processes seive out items used as currency and those left are the money. It's not something that a government gets to set. Otherwise, you do get horrible inflationary bends, such as in post-WW1 Poland and Weimar Germany.

Seems history---is not with you.

not really....being british i know little of the american govt.....(sorry)

And that's supposed to be an excuse...how?

Look, it has nothing to do with you being British and everything to do with doing the research, ok?

What is money anyway?

...In reality, 'money' is only good if both the people and government both accept it for what it is...

Why does taxation have to be legal or illegal, mora or immoral, robbery or not?

Labeling taxation robbery of the citizen implies that the government is taking something from the people that the people own of their own accord...

Yes, good points. It would also imply that the government is taking something from the people against the will of the people. In free societies, the people, as a whole, have agreed to the social contract of taxation. Therefore, on the whole, taxation is simply a contract, and can in theory be broken (with consequences) or renegotiated by either party at any time. It is inherently legal from this perspective.

Individuals who choose not to participate in the contract are free to follow other routes - i.e. challenging the binding ability of the contract on individuals, lobbying for changes to the contract, etc.. The people legitimize the government, and have the power to delegitimize (is that a word?) it. If you live in a democracy, and believe that the system of taxation should be radically restructured, then you hold the key to your own cell, so to speak.

Taxation without inebriation?

Intellectual property is bullshit. There's no such thing.

Explain this. If I'm not mistaken, a copyright is a protection of intellectual property. So if there is no intellectual property, then there shouldn't be any copyrights, correct?

You might wish to go back even more, to the War for American Independence and the Continental note.

The people who founded this country were rightly suspicious of paper currency.

True, they were. But having multiple forms of currency in order to do business doesn't make much sense does it? It would be like the railroads before standardization in the 1880's...there were 5 different gauges from the east coast to the west coast...meaning 5 different stops to unload and reload goods to ship them from coast to coast. This situation is supremely inefficient, as is having to change currency when moving from state to state, as it used to be in the US during the Articles of Confederation and in Europe before the introduction of the euro.

And the euro...what is that but a created currency?

Also, money isn't just something that you get to simply invent. The market processes seive out items used as currency and those left are the money. It's not something that a government gets to set. Otherwise, you do get horrible inflationary bends, such as in post-WW1 Poland and Weimar Germany.

I don't hear about 'horrible inflationary bends' as you stated. If I am not mistaken, and I could be, the euro is beating the USD on the global market.

Intellectual property is bullshit. There's no such thing.

Explain this. If I'm not mistaken, a copyright is a protection of intellectual property. So if there is no intellectual property, then there shouldn't be any copyrights, correct?

Correct, although you can set up a system which acts as if there is such a thing as a copyright. But patents and the like...you can't patent a process. You can own X, Y, and Z. You can't own the process to make X, Y, and Z into AB.


You might wish to go back even more, to the War for American Independence and the Continental note.

The people who founded this country were rightly suspicious of paper currency.

True, they were. But having multiple forms of currency in order to do business doesn't make much sense does it?

And why would there be multiple forms?

It would be like the railroads before standardization in the 1880's...there were 5 different gauges from the east coast to the west coast...meaning 5 different stops to unload and reload goods to ship them from coast to coast.

Notice though that a standard guage and even time was done WITHOUT A GOVERNMENT DIRECTIVE.

This situation is supremely inefficient, as is having to change currency when moving from state to state, as it used to be in the US during the Articles of Confederation and in Europe before the introduction of the euro.

Why would you have to change currency? Private mints would coin money, and private banks would have exchange rates between them.

And the euro...what is that but a created currency?

AKA fiat currency.

Also, money isn't just something that you get to simply invent. The market processes seive out items used as currency and those left are the money. It's not something that a government gets to set. Otherwise, you do get horrible inflationary bends, such as in post-WW1 Poland and Weimar Germany.

I don't hear about 'horrible inflationary bends' as you stated. If I am not mistaken, and I could be, the euro is beating the USD on the global market.

Did I state it was happening now?

No.

But it has in the past, and will continue to do so.

Intellectual property is bullshit. There's no such thing.

Explain this. If I'm not mistaken, a copyright is a protection of intellectual property. So if there is no intellectual property, then there shouldn't be any copyrights, correct?

Correct, although you can set up a system which acts as if there is such a thing as a copyright. But patents and the like...you can't patent a process. You can own X, Y, and Z. You can't own the process to make X, Y, and Z into AB.

I never said anything about a process.

Multiple forms of currency arise when multiple institutions establish a currency for use by their constituents. Henceforth, multiple currencies.

It is true that standard gauge and time zones were set by the companies, not by the government. However, in this specific case, the railroad companies and government can be almost interchangeable. Standard gauge arose to solve coordination issues, as did time zones. Government uses a certain currency to do the same thing.

Why would you have to change currency? Private mints would coin money, and private banks would have exchange rates between them.

Explain to me how, in this situation, you would not have to change currencies? What happens when you travel around the country?

I like how you blatantly ignore the fact that with a single currency, it becomes easier to conduct business across the board.

Please reiterate your stand on taxation, if you will.

Intellectual property is bullshit. There's no such thing.

Explain this. If I'm not mistaken, a copyright is a protection of intellectual property. So if there is no intellectual property, then there shouldn't be any copyrights, correct?

Correct, although you can set up a system which acts as if there is such a thing as a copyright. But patents and the like...you can't patent a process. You can own X, Y, and Z. You can't own the process to make X, Y, and Z into AB.

I never said anything about a process.

I was giving an example.

Multiple forms of currency arise when multiple institutions establish a currency for use by their constituents. Henceforth, multiple currencies.

Which happens in a market. But when a government mandates a currency, backed by nothing, that is force. That is fraud.

It is true that standard gauge and time zones were set by the companies, not by the government. However, in this specific case, the railroad companies and government can be almost interchangeable.

No, it was done in via the market process. The companies realized that cooperation was better. So they made a standard and it helped them all.

Standard gauge arose to solve coordination issues, as did time zones. Government uses a certain currency to do the same thing.

Fiat currency is extramarket.

Why would you have to change currency? Private mints would coin money, and private banks would have exchange rates between them.

Explain to me how, in this situation, you would not have to change currencies?

You can use the exchange rates.

What happens when you travel around the country?

Same as now.


I like how you blatantly ignore the fact that with a single currency, it becomes easier to conduct business across the board.

I like how you just lied about that.

Please reiterate your stand on taxation, if you will.

You know my stand.

No, taxation isn't robbery - it's necessary in order to maintain the services people demand.

In real life, the amount of taxation probably is robbery (in my country anyway), but as nation leaders we all have the chance to make sure our civilized societies don't fall prey to that kind of government crime.

Keep takes down!!

But if the government creates the money, doesn't it then, for all intents and purposes, have the title to the money it created? I asked and answered the same question in my last post, albeit in more words. Why should it have to demonstrate a title if it creates the property? The form of money itself is branded with the stamp of the entity that created it.

Read what Jesus said about it:

Luke 20:21 And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou
sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of
any, but teachest the way of God truly:

20:22 Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no?

20:23 But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why
tempt ye me?

20:24 Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They
answered and said, Caesar's.

20:25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the
things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

20:26 And they could not take hold of his words before the people:
and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace.
[KJV]

If a government creates and expedites a fraud, such as a fiat currency, then charges a tax on that, can it really be robbery though?

It seems to me that your contention is that when the state taxes the people in the currency the state created, it is still robbery.

Wow, what a bunch philosophical nonsense.

Assuming you live in a democracy, (which I bet most people on this forum do), you have the theoretical power to determine them your self. If anything, they are a volunteered contribution to the greater good.
Sure, you may not like every single law that passes in a democracy, but at least it will be supported by the majority of the population. And you always have the freedom to move. (as for totalitarian regimes, the case is different)

Using the logic shown in this thread, punishing crime by sentencing people to jail is kidnapping. So let's stop that right now! In fact, everything a democratic goverment does (the majority of the population) is an act of violence. When you vote, you execute power.

Let me be the first in this thread to say I don't mind taxes. Taxes paied my education, my hospital bills, they will keep me alive should I get sick or incapacitated, they protect my home and my country, they fund my pension and some day, they will even pay my coffin.

Sure, I don't have as much economical freedom as our American friends here. But I will gladly give up part of my freedom, to assure that everyone can have these benefits. Which in turn means less crime, more educated people, and a more pleasant country to live in.

If thats robbery well, go ahead!

Wow, what a bunch philosophical nonsense.

That's what politics should be about.

Assuming you live in a democracy, (which I bet most people on this forum do), you have the theoretical power to determine them your self. If anything, they are a volunteered contribution to the greater good.

Sounds suspiciously like utilitarianism.

Sure, you may not like every single law that passes in a democracy, but at least it will be supported by the majority of the population. And you always have the freedom to move. (as for totalitarian regimes, the case is different)

But why should we move?

Using the logic shown in this thread, punishing crime by sentencing people to jail is kidnapping.

I support a fine-based system.

So let's stop that right now! In fact, everything a democratic goverment does (the majority of the population) is an act of violence. When you vote, you execute power.

Democracy is bad.

Let me be the first in this thread to say I don't mind taxes. Taxes paied my education, my hospital bills, they will keep me alive should I get sick or incapacitated, they protect my home and my country, they fund my pension and some day, they will even pay my coffin.

That's pretty sad how you think that theft really is good.

Wow, what a bunch philosophical nonsense.

That's what politics should be about.

Assuming you live in a democracy, (which I bet most people on this forum do), you have the theoretical power to determine them your self. If anything, they are a volunteered contribution to the greater good.

Sounds suspiciously like utilitarianism.

Sure, you may not like every single law that passes in a democracy, but at least it will be supported by the majority of the population. And you always have the freedom to move. (as for totalitarian regimes, the case is different)

But why should we move?

Using the logic shown in this thread, punishing crime by sentencing people to jail is kidnapping.

I support a fine-based system.

So let's stop that right now! In fact, everything a democratic goverment does (the majority of the population) is an act of violence. When you vote, you execute power.

Democracy is bad.

Let me be the first in this thread to say I don't mind taxes. Taxes paied my education, my hospital bills, they will keep me alive should I get sick or incapacitated, they protect my home and my country, they fund my pension and some day, they will even pay my coffin.

That's pretty sad how you think that theft really is good.

I don't concider it theft. I concider it a rational distribution of wealth to insure stability, safety and protection for everyone. My self included.

You sound suspiciously like an anarchist. I'm happy to live in a country that evolved past "the guy with the biggest club or checkbook is right"

I would hate to live in a minimalistic free for all society.

Wow, what a bunch philosophical nonsense.

That's what politics should be about.

Assuming you live in a democracy, (which I bet most people on this forum do), you have the theoretical power to determine them your self. If anything, they are a volunteered contribution to the greater good.

Sounds suspiciously like utilitarianism.

Sure, you may not like every single law that passes in a democracy, but at least it will be supported by the majority of the population. And you always have the freedom to move. (as for totalitarian regimes, the case is different)

But why should we move?

Using the logic shown in this thread, punishing crime by sentencing people to jail is kidnapping.

I support a fine-based system.

So let's stop that right now! In fact, everything a democratic goverment does (the majority of the population) is an act of violence. When you vote, you execute power.

Democracy is bad.

Let me be the first in this thread to say I don't mind taxes. Taxes paied my education, my hospital bills, they will keep me alive should I get sick or incapacitated, they protect my home and my country, they fund my pension and some day, they will even pay my coffin.

That's pretty sad how you think that theft really is good.

I don't concider it theft. I concider it a rational distribution of wealth to insure stability, safety and protection for everyone. My self included.

There's only one means to do that: the market system. All else is theft.

You sound suspiciously like an anarchist.

Anarchocapitalist, to be precise.

I'm happy to live in a country that evolved past "the guy with the biggest club or checkbook is right"

That's a wonderful strawman and emotive crap. Thank you for exposing your ignorance for all to see.

I would hate to live in a minimalistic free for all society.

Me too. That's why I'm for anarchy and not chaos, which is what you have conflated with anarchy.

See what happens when you do no research?

You can call me ignorant or whatever, I'm not going to sink to that level of debate.

And yes, I associate anarchy with chaos, not because they are necessarily the same thing but because one tends to lead to the other. If you have any examples of an anarchy functioning in any country in the world. Feel free to post it.

"Theft" or not, I think a completely unregulated market is a bad thing. Because it leads to a huge disparity between haves and havenots, which leads to crime, which in turn affects me negatively.

You can call me ignorant or whatever, I'm not going to sink to that level of debate. But if you continue your condescending crap I'm going to stop replying.

And yes, I associate anarchy with chaos, not because they are necessarily the same thing but because one tends to lead to the other. If you have any examples of an anarchy functioning in any country in the world. Feel free to post it.

"Theft" or not, I think a completely unregulated market is a bad thing. Because it leads to a huge disparity between haves and havenots, which leads to crime, which in turn affects me negatively.

Hey BAAWA, all seriousness aside, did you ever read The Illuminati Trilogy?

You can call me ignorant or whatever, I'm not going to sink to that level of debate.

Sink to what level? You are ignorant in the true sense of the word: not knowing. It's not sinking to some level.

And yes, I associate anarchy with chaos, not because they are necessarily the same thing but because one tends to lead to the other.

No, they do not.

If you have any examples of an anarchy functioning in any country in the world. Feel free to post it.

Saga-period Iceland and the "wild west" of the US, which wasn't wild.

"Theft" or not, I think a completely unregulated market is a bad thing. Because it leads to a huge disparity between haves and havenots, which leads to crime,

No, it doesn't

And why shouldn't there be some disparity?

Hey BAAWA, all seriousness aside, did you ever read The Illuminati Trilogy?

No.

Your examples are pretty weak, I remain unconvinced that an anarchy could function in a society as complex as one we live in today. And I certainly wouldn't want to live in any of your examples.

And yes, poverty leads to crime, to suggest anything else is ignorance.

Some disparity is unavoidable (and to a degree necessary), but I believe the goverment should do much to bridge the gap between rich and poor.

I'm going to sleep now - Will check on this thread tomorrow.

Your examples are pretty weak

I am unconvinced that you even know anything about my examples. So don't play as if you know anything about them unless and until you demonstrate said knowledge. Capice?

And yes, poverty leads to crime, to suggest anything else is ignorance.

Nicely unsupported. I'll dump that on the trashheap with the rest of the unsupported assertions I've seen throughout the years like "guns cause crime" and "you can only be moral with a god". Reality bears those statements as false, just as it bears your statement as false.

Some disparity is unavoidable (and to a degree necessary), but I believe the goverment should do much to bridge the gap between rich and poor.

The government should do nothing at all and shouldn't exist.

Oh cut the pseudo-intellectual crap already. Your pathetic attempts at bullying me out of the debate do not impress me in the least.

I admit, I haven't quite finished my thesis on 800'th century Iceland just yet, and almost all my knowledge of the "wild west" comes from movies. I reckon thats the case for most who read this thread.

So why don't YOU, oh-fact-happy-one enlighten us troglodytes to just how the society in Iceland functioned 1200 years ago, and how it could be applied to modern days society. Until you do, I'll concider it a empty argument.

As for poverty causing crime and criming causing even more poverty, I find that so self-evident that I'm not even going to bother.

But I am curious, please tell us all what is the cause of crime, afterall if you can dismiss anything I say as false. Surely you must be able to prove it. Capice?

And yes, poverty leads to crime, to suggest anything else is ignorance.

Nicely unsupported. I'll dump that on the trashheap with the rest of the unsupported assertions I've seen throughout the years like "guns cause crime" and "you can only be moral with a god". Reality bears those statements as false, just as it bears your statement as false.



Please, allow me. Quoting results of the 1998 study by Fajnzylber, P., D. Lederman and N. Loayza of The World Bank, Office of the Chief Economist, Latin America and the Caribbean Region, "What causes violent crime?": This study of the determinants of violence finds that income inequality raises crime rates, deterrence effects are significant, crime tends to be counter-cyclical, and criminal inertia is significant.

Quoting results of 1993 paper by Hsieh, C. and M.D. Pugh, "Poverty, income inequality, and violent crime: a meta-analysis of recent aggregate data studies", Criminal Justice Review, 18(2): 182-202: This paper reports on 34 aggregate data studies that almost all find a positive correlation between violent crime on one hand and poverty and income inequality on the other.

There are any number of additional studies that I'm sure, with your ability to perform research, you are aware of. The issue that most of the studies deal with is not necessarily poverty, but income inequality, a condition that would be, in all likelihood (can't provide an example as an anarchocapitalist society has never, to my knowledge, successfully existed - if you have any post-1800 examples I've missed, please feel free to correct me) rampant in an anarchocapitalist zone. (I struggled for the right word there - you couldn't call it an anarchocapitalist "society", certainly not "government"; perhaps "culture", "region"? Please help me here).

The fact is, it seems to me, that anarchocapitalism is an intellectual construct only, one that is limited to Sci-Fi and Fantasy literature. It's a haven for those who do not have the inclination to step into the muck and mire of the real world and slog through the difficult business of solving actual problems. If I'm out of line here I apologize - it's just that I've never seen the rhetoric of anarchocapitalism applied anywhere outside of the gaming community.

It seems that a lot of the people in here never heard of the concept called The Social Contract, which happens to stand at the base of every modern system of government.

In brief, the relationship between the citizens of a country and that country's government can be seen as a contract - a social contract. Each of the two parties has its rights and obligations: The government provides security, welfare and public services to the citizens. In return, the citizens pay taxes.

Taxation is not "theft". Taxation is part of the deal you have with your government. You honor your end of the deal, and the government honor their end.

Individuals who choose not to participate in the contract are free to follow other routes - i.e. challenging the binding ability of the contract on individuals, lobbying for changes to the contract, etc.. The people legitimize the government, and have the power to delegitimize (is that a word?) it. If you live in a democracy, and believe that the system of taxation should be radically restructured, then you hold the key to your own cell, so to speak.

I still have to give my money I could be mugged and try to fight it off, but the mugger is stronger and wins it is still robbery. Also the people never agreed to this in the first place, income tax was illegal so said the Supreme Court, so the government made an amendment so they could do it anyway, and a good portion of those people lost seats on the next election. The last thing I would say to you is that I don’t live in a democracy.

No, taxation isn't robbery - it's necessary in order to maintain the services people demand.

Well there are some ways around an income tax, which is what I believe is being brought up here. For one you could have services fees for the police, firefighters, phones, roads, ect. The other way is change the tax system right now a bill is being pigeonholed in Congress, and I pray it sees the light of day, (or that I didn’t miss it’s death that would be sad). www.Fairtax.net

20:25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the
things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

So I should be paying George Washington a large amount of money?

Assuming you live in a democracy, (which I bet most people on this forum do), you have the theoretical power to determine them your self. If anything, they are a volunteered contribution to the greater good.
Sure, you may not like every single law that passes in a democracy, but at least it will be supported by the majority of the population. And you always have the freedom to move. (as for totalitarian regimes, the case is different)

Well for one I thank goodness don’t live in a democracy, I don’t think anyone here does, I’m not aware that a democracy exists anymore. There is nothing volunteered about it the government takes it or I do jail time. Finally back to democracy they scare the sh*t out of me, the majority of the people support it, it should happen? If the majority of the people wanted to see you drawn and quartered do you think it should happen? If you give people all the power and we will fall there are that many stupid people in the world.

Let me be the first in this thread to say I don't mind taxes. Taxes paied my education, my hospital bills, they will keep me alive should I get sick or incapacitated, they protect my home and my country, they fund my pension and some day, they will even pay my coffin.

Sure, I don't have as much economical freedom as our American friends here. But I will gladly give up part of my freedom, to assure that everyone can have these benefits. Which in turn means less crime, more educated people, and a more pleasant country to live in.

If thats robbery well, go ahead!

So in summary you don’t mind that the government takes care and will take care of you even if you don’t do anything, and you are happy if others get a better shot if it means you loose more money and the chance to better you life. Well why didn’t you say so, put your address right here so I can come and take your stuff and a good portion of your bank account I will then pass it around to some people at my college who will then benefit much better, it doesn’t matter that I just screwed you over for the greater good and all that.

I don't concider it theft. I concider it a rational distribution of wealth to insure stability, safety and protection for everyone. My self included.

So the government taking money someone earned and giving to someone who did not is not theft, but if I cut out he middle man and do it myself it is theft?

It seems that a lot of the people in here never heard of the concept called The Social Contract, which happens to stand at the base of every modern system of government.

In brief, the relationship between the citizens of a country and that country's government can be seen as a contract - a social contract. Each of the two parties has its rights and obligations: The government provides security, welfare and public services to the citizens. In return, the citizens pay taxes.

Taxation is not "theft". Taxation is part of the deal you have with your government. You honor your end of the deal, and the government honor their end.

Ah Social Contract good stuff, you do forget the whole if we don’t like it we can overthrow the government part. The Social Contract was the founding premise behind the American Revolution. What it truly says is that we give up some freedom for protection, but if we don’t like what the government is doing we can get rid of it, since in democracy there is no political party who would ever think about getting rid of the income tax we don’t have a way to get rid of the government so the Social Contract is null and void as we can’t do a thing about the rather large bully who gets to say everything. Again www.Fairtax.net write somebody anybody it funds programs and you only pay taxes if you really want to, of course it will be shot down by people who just want to leech off the government. Maybe not if enough people write.

I think we probably do need some sort of tax or levy on things we may all use but this is just where the injustice starts...... we pay for all this shit we may never use in a lifetime...roads we may never drive on, hospitals we may never have need to attend.. If there was no tax we should have the extra money to pay for these things when and if we need it . This allows society to decide and pay as they go for things they use... sort of like tolls but you only pay for what you use ..instead of a whole bunch of stuff you may never....

This way if you use certain roads a lot you pay a toll if you need to go to hospital you pay at the time you need to go , if you go to jail you work while your in there to pay for it , if you need a police officer or someone to protect you you pay as you go or own a gun to blow away anyone that gives you the shits.... People can survive on islands and those who don't are the weakest links. Say good buy to the weakest links and spend your hard earned on yourselves and your family. This way if you don't have the money to do something you don't do it . Instead of pay as you earn tax we should just have pay as you use....Some people use a lot more than others...............

GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENT - The government announced today that it is changing its mascot to a condom because it more clearly reflects the government's political stance. A condom stands up to inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks and finally, gives you a sense of security while you're being screwed!

Oh cut the pseudo-intellectual crap already.

(ring ring)

Hello, Mr. Pot? This is Mr. Kettle. You're black.


I admit, I haven't quite finished my thesis on 800'th century Iceland just yet, and almost all my knowledge of the "wild west" comes from movies. I reckon thats the case for most who read this thread.

Sounds like YOUR problem to me. Maybe YOU should do something about it--like RESEARCH.

So why don't YOU, oh-fact-happy-one enlighten us troglodytes to just how the society in Iceland functioned 1200 years ago, and how it could be applied to modern days society.

Because it had no government. It had a fine-based system of legal codes. And it worked.


As for poverty causing crime and criming causing even more poverty, I find that so self-evident that I'm not even going to bother.

You keep claiming that, but it's not self-evident. So unless and until you provide some evidence, I will consider it junk.

But I am curious, please tell us all what is the cause of crime,

The desire for something quick and to not respect someone's property rights.

And yes, poverty leads to crime, to suggest anything else is ignorance.

Nicely unsupported. I'll dump that on the trashheap with the rest of the unsupported assertions I've seen throughout the years like "guns cause crime" and "you can only be moral with a god". Reality bears those statements as false, just as it bears your statement as false.



Please, allow me. Quoting results of the 1998 study by Fajnzylber, P., D. Lederman and N. Loayza of The World Bank, Office of the Chief Economist, Latin America and the Caribbean Region, "What causes violent crime?": This study of the determinants of violence finds that income inequality raises crime rates, deterrence effects are significant, crime tends to be counter-cyclical, and criminal inertia is significant.

So why wasn't crime sky-high during depression-era USA?

BOING! Kills the argument.

I love how reality will do that.

As for finding an anarchocapitalist system past the 1800s:

The "wild west" of the US. And why would it matter anyway?

The fact is, it seems to me, that anarchocapitalism is an intellectual construct only,

Then why has it existed?

one that is limited to Sci-Fi and Fantasy literature.

Ah. Nice poisoning the well fallacy.

Do try again--without the fallacy.

It seems that a lot of the people in here never heard of the concept called The Social Contract, which happens to stand at the base of every modern system of government.

In brief, the relationship between the citizens of a country and that country's government can be seen as a contract - a social contract. Each of the two parties has its rights and obligations: The government provides security, welfare and public services to the citizens. In return, the citizens pay taxes.

Taxation is not "theft". Taxation is part of the deal you have with your government. You honor your end of the deal, and the government honor their end.

I never signed a contract with the government, and the government can't get the social contract unless it owns the land in the first place, which it didn't.

Try again.

And yes, poverty leads to crime, to suggest anything else is ignorance.

Nicely unsupported. I'll dump that on the trashheap with the rest of the unsupported assertions I've seen throughout the years like "guns cause crime" and "you can only be moral with a god". Reality bears those statements as false, just as it bears your statement as false.



Please, allow me. Quoting results of the 1998 study by Fajnzylber, P., D. Lederman and N. Loayza of The World Bank, Office of the Chief Economist, Latin America and the Caribbean Region, "What causes violent crime?": This study of the determinants of violence finds that income inequality raises crime rates, deterrence effects are significant, crime tends to be counter-cyclical, and criminal inertia is significant.

So why wasn't crime sky-high during depression-era USA?

BOING! Kills the argument.

I love how reality will do that.

I like your sound effects :roll: They add a real level of, what? sophistication to your argument. I assume you're referring to *The* Great Depression? The arguable apex of organized crime in the United States? That Great Depression? Al Capone? Any bells ringing yet? How about the Ku Klux Klan - any crime under that hood? They reached the height of their influence in America in or around 1924 (that was smack dab in the middle the decade in which the bottom 80 percent of all income-earners would be removed from the tax rolls completely due to what? No income!). Kills the argument?!? You're killing me. :lol:

As for finding an anarchocapitalist system past the 1800s:

The "wild west" of the US. And why would it matter anyway?

For someone who demands such rigor in the arguments of your fellow debaters, that's a prett vague reference. I'm fairly sure "anarchocapitalist" does not appear anywhere in the description of the "wild west" in any American History texts I've perused. If I'm wrong, though, I would appreciate a specific reference so that I can do a little catching up.

And why would it matter? To review that piece of my argument, it would serve as an example of the successful application of the principles you are advocating. Like the Soviet Union would provide a useful example of the application of communism.

The fact is, it seems to me, that anarchocapitalism is an intellectual construct only,

Then why has it existed?

I'm sorry - I've missed something. Are you referring to the "wild west" here again? A reference to any text would be greatly appreciate here.

one that is limited to Sci-Fi and Fantasy literature.

Ah. Nice poisoning the well fallacy.

It wasn't my intention to poison any wells. I'm actually a fan of the Sci-Fi and Fantasy genres. They are great vehicles for the exploration of ideas that cannot, for one reason or another, be explored in the here and now. Like anarchocapitalism, for example.

Do try again--without the fallacy.

Not sure what fallacy you're referring to here. A little help?

And yes, poverty leads to crime, to suggest anything else is ignorance.

Nicely unsupported. I'll dump that on the trashheap with the rest of the unsupported assertions I've seen throughout the years like "guns cause crime" and "you can only be moral with a god". Reality bears those statements as false, just as it bears your statement as false.



Please, allow me. Quoting results of the 1998 study by Fajnzylber, P., D. Lederman and N. Loayza of The World Bank, Office of the Chief Economist, Latin America and the Caribbean Region, "What causes violent crime?": This study of the determinants of violence finds that income inequality raises crime rates, deterrence effects are significant, crime tends to be counter-cyclical, and criminal inertia is significant.

So why wasn't crime sky-high during depression-era USA?

BOING! Kills the argument.

I love how reality will do that.

I like your sound effects They add a real level of, what? sophistication to your argument. I assume you're referring to *The* Great Depression? The arguable apex of organized crime in the United States?

...because of the 18th Amendment, which actually works against the claim because the gangsters each had tons of money, which means that they shouldn't have committed crimes against each other.

That and the 21st Amendment went into effect about the time that FDR came into office, so.....

Try again.

How about the Ku Klux Klan - any crime under that
hood?

And that has to do with income disparity----how?

Oh wait--it doesn't.

The claim was the income disparity causes crime.

Now you're talking about crime without income disparity.

Hmmmmm.

Sounds like your changing the topic.

Not good for you.

As for finding an anarchocapitalist system past the 1800s:

The "wild west" of the US. And why would it matter anyway?

For someone who demands such rigor in the arguments of your fellow debaters, that's a prett vague reference.

No, it's not.

I'm fairly sure "anarchocapitalist" does not appear anywhere in the description of the "wild west" in any American History texts I've perused.

Because you haven't perused the proper ones.

American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West
Anderson, T. and Hill, P.J. (Vol. 3 Num. 1) (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf)


And why would it matter? To review that piece of my argument, it would serve as an example of the successful application of the principles you are advocating.

Funny--we were talking about income disparity causing crime, and then you switch to if there was an anarchocapitalist system anywhere. Odd.

one that is limited to Sci-Fi and Fantasy literature.

Ah. Nice poisoning the well fallacy.

It wasn't my intention to poison any wells.

Your problem.

I'm actually a fan of the Sci-Fi and Fantasy genres. They are great vehicles for the exploration of ideas that cannot, for one reason or another, be explored in the here and now. Like anarchocapitalism, for example.

But they can.

To recap:

1. You said that an argument that poverty leads to crime was unsupported.

2. I provided you with some support.

3. Time passes.

4. More time passes.

5. You refute the supporting texts by claiming that crime did not peak during the Great Depression (I believe the exact argument was "so why wasn't crime sky high during the great depression...[wait for it]...BOING!"

6. I respond, including references to the rampant crime and the organizations who perpetuated it during said era.

7. You argue - and correct me if I'm wrong - that organized crime is not tied to poverty because the more successful gangsters had a lot of money? This is your position? I will point out the obvious here: where did the vast majority of these gangsters come from if not from poverty?

8. You argue that the Klu Klux Klan was not linked to income disparity. I disagree - the Klan was made possible by the huge income disparity between blacks and whites, in particular during the 1920's, when, as I pointed out, the organization reached the height of its influence.

9. I called you out (a bit childishly, I admit) on your broad reference to the "wild west" as an example of a successful anarchocapitalist society. You inexplicably denied that the phrase "wild west" was overly broad.

10. I politely asked for reference material, which you thoughtfully provided. I thank you and look forward to the reading.

11. You seemed agitated that the discussion held more than one thread (i.e. the linkage of income disparity and crime and the feasability of implementing a modern anarchocapitalist system.) I apologize - I will try to maintain a more tightly focused stream of conversation soas no to cause any more unnecessary anxiety.

Try to hold it together, my brother.

Peace -
Idumea

I never signed a contract with the government, and the government can't get the social contract unless it owns the land in the first place, which it didn't.
The contract is this tiny little thing called "The Constitution". I don't expect you've heard of it... :roll:

And the contract is not about land. It's about the government guaranteeing your security and giving you public services in exchange to taxes.

If there was no tax we should have the extra money to pay for these things when and if we need it . This allows society to decide and pay as they go for things they use... sort of like tolls but you only pay for what you use ..instead of a whole bunch of stuff you may never....

This way if you use certain roads a lot you pay a toll if you need to go to hospital you pay at the time you need to go...
Oh yeah, what a wonderful idea! And what happens to the people who are too poor to pay for those things, Einstein? Should a poor man die in the street of a horrible disease if he can't afford to go to one of your private hospitals?

20:25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the
things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

So I should be paying George Washington a large amount of money?


No, check the other side. See that pyramid with an eye in it? You should be paying the Illuminati a lot of money.

If there was no tax we should have the extra money to pay for these things when and if we need it . This allows society to decide and pay as they go for things they use... sort of like tolls but you only pay for what you use ..instead of a whole bunch of stuff you may never....

This way if you use certain roads a lot you pay a toll if you need to go to hospital you pay at the time you need to go...
Oh yeah, what a wonderful idea! And what happens to the people who are too poor to pay for those things, Einstein? Should a poor man die in the street of a horrible disease if he can't afford to go to one of your private hospitals?

No of course not! He should die at home because he can't afford to pay the toll to die in the street.

Also, if "taxation is robbery", then does using a road which has been paid for through the proceeds of taxation make one an accessory after the fact to robbery? If somebody believes that taxation is robbery, how can they live in a society where so many things are paid for by taxation without becoming part of the crime of robbery? It's like "receiving stolen goods", isn't it?

No of course not! He should die at home because he can't afford to pay the toll to die in the street.

Also, if "taxation is robbery", then does using a road which has been paid for through the proceeds of taxation make one an accessory after the fact to robbery? If somebody believes that taxation is robbery, how can they live in a society where so many things are paid for by taxation without becoming part of the crime of robbery? It's like "receiving stolen goods", isn't it?

A pay-per-view society like yours cannot work. Hospitals need funding no matter if people are sick or not. You need to have the capacity available and thus constant funding. It's too late (and expensive) to build hospitals when the need appears. Or what about your brilliant example about roads. Some roads are far more used than others, but they all take the same money to maintain.

There are some tasks in society that are just more rational and cheaper to pay for over taxes. It's common sense really.

I think there is no real philosophical basis for taxation. It exists for a purely practical reason - it works. No one wants to have there property stolen for a start and if the government didn't exist or couldn't afford to protect peoples property the only people who would be able to hold property would be those strong enough to protect it. i.e. everyone would get a lot poorer except the richest and most ruthless who would still probably live in fear of there lives. e.g. the Biker Gangs of N.S or the fuedal system of medieval Europe and beyond.

This is one reason why people seem to think that property rights deprive the poor piss me off. If there were no property rights there would be much greater inequality. The millionaire can afford a bodyguard but everyone else would get mugged and burgled and could do nothing about it.

In fact, it’s worse than that. If there were no property rights you would be forced from your house by some big hard bastard with a big hard gang. In order to have somewhere to live you would have to swear allegiance to some other big hard bastard and then he’ll rent you a house he just stole of someone else and you’d very quickly end up with the feudal system.

Taxation of the people is what funds the running of a country.

Without it the nation would fall.

To recap:

1. You said that an argument that poverty leads to crime was unsupported.

Which was countered by your own example of gangster on gangster crime, which shouldn't be if poverty leads to crime, given that the gangsters were quite wealthy.

[snip]

5. You refute the supporting texts by claiming that crime did not peak during the Great Depression (I believe the exact argument was "so why wasn't crime sky high during the great depression...[wait for it]...BOING!"

Which it wasn't, actually.

6. I respond, including references to the rampant crime and the organizations who perpetuated it during said era.

Interestly enough--not because of poverty. Fancy that. I mean, if you want to support the claim of poverty causing it, shouldn't you support that, rather than wealthy people commiting crimes? In fact, shouldn't wealthy people never commit crimes?

Not to mention that crime wasn't sky-high.

7. You argue - and correct me if I'm wrong - that organized crime is not tied to poverty because the more successful gangsters had a lot of money?

Did they have a lot of money?

Yes.

So how could they commit crime? Isn't crime tied to poverty? Isn't that your contention as well?

This is your position? I will point out the obvious here: where did the vast majority of these gangsters come from if not from poverty?

I will point out the obvious here: the gansters lived in relative splendor. So how could they commit crimes if they were wealthy?

Stop evading.

8. You argue that the Klu Klux Klan was not linked to income disparity. I disagree

The Klan is about racist idiots, not income disparity.

9. I called you out (a bit childishly, I admit) on your broad reference to the "wild west" as an example of a successful anarchocapitalist society. You inexplicably denied that the phrase "wild west" was overly broad.

Because it isn't.

11. You seemed agitated that the discussion held more than one thread (i.e. the linkage of income disparity and crime and the feasability of implementing a modern anarchocapitalist system.)

Because the two are separate, and the latter seems like a, oh--what's the term. Oh yes: red herring.

You don't want to commit a fallacy, do you?

I never signed a contract with the government, and the government can't get the social contract unless it owns the land in the first place, which it didn't.
The contract is this tiny little thing called "The Constitution".

Sorry, but that's not the contract. Try again.

And the contract is not about land. It's about the government guaranteeing your security and giving you public services in exchange to taxes.

Services for which

1. I can't go elsewhere for because the government makes it illegal to do so.
2. I don't want many of the services.
3. It is about land, because the government claims title to the land to be able to extract the taxes and protect me.

If there was no tax we should have the extra money to pay for these things when and if we need it . This allows society to decide and pay as they go for things they use... sort of like tolls but you only pay for what you use ..instead of a whole bunch of stuff you may never....

This way if you use certain roads a lot you pay a toll if you need to go to hospital you pay at the time you need to go...
Oh yeah, what a wonderful idea! And what happens to the people who are too poor to pay for those things, Einstein? Should a poor man die in the street of a horrible disease if he can't afford to go to one of your private hospitals?

Emotive plea. Try again.

To recap:

1. You said that an argument that poverty leads to crime was unsupported.

Which was countered by your own example of gangster on gangster crime, which shouldn't be if poverty leads to crime, given that the gangsters were quite wealthy.

I don't believe I said anything about "gangster on gangster crime". I believe you are being intentionally obtuse here, since I do not believe you to be stupid. Crime is fed by income disparity. Young immigrants (staying with the Depression-era example) grew up in relative if not literal poverty, and saw or heard about the incredible excesses of the rich (i.e. Roaring 20's). There has been study upon study, two of which I've already specifically referred to in this thread, that comfirm the relationship between crime and income disparity; the example we're discussing fits this mold, as relatively impoverished immigrants sought to improve their quality of life by turning to crime. You are focusing on crime perpetuated by the handful of infamous crime bosses of the era (who themselves came from relative poverty and became wealthy only by turning to crime - thereby proving the point) and purposely ignoring the thousands of men and women who did not and never would become wealthy who worked within or outside the boundaries of organized crime. The wealthy or middle class children of the era by and large did not turn to crime, because they did not need to. That is the point.

5. You refute the supporting texts by claiming that crime did not peak during the Great Depression (I believe the exact argument was "so why wasn't crime sky high during the great depression...[wait for it]...BOING!"

Which it wasn't, actually.

A brilliant and persuasive four word response. :roll:

Whether or not crime was "sky high" (by which I assume you mean higher than other eras on a per capita basis) is not the point. The point is crime and income disparity is linked. Income disparity, like poverty, is a chronic condition. The Depression was an event, and by definition not chronic. The reason crime and income disparity are linked is because, in part, people raised in relative poverty see no hope of elevating themselves by following society's rules. Specific historical events may or may not cause a spike in crime depending mostly on the length of the event.

6. I respond, including references to the rampant crime and the organizations who perpetuated it during said era.

Interestly enough--not because of poverty. Fancy that. I mean, if you want to support the claim of poverty causing it, shouldn't you support that, rather than wealthy people commiting crimes? In fact, shouldn't wealthy people never commit crimes?

Not to mention that crime wasn't sky-high.

See above.

7. You argue - and correct me if I'm wrong - that organized crime is not tied to poverty because the more successful gangsters had a lot of money?

Did they have a lot of money?

Yes.

So how could they commit crime? Isn't crime tied to poverty? Isn't that your contention as well?

This is your position? I will point out the obvious here: where did the vast majority of these gangsters come from if not from poverty?

I will point out the obvious here: the gansters lived in relative splendor. So how could they commit crimes if they were wealthy?

Stop evading.

Again, you are being intentionally obtuse. When we say that crime is linked to income disparity, in no way does that imply that rich people cannot also commit crime. You answer arguments that have not been advanced.

8. You argue that the Klu Klux Klan was not linked to income disparity. I disagree

The Klan is about racist idiots, not income disparity.

I'm sorry, but that is too simple - your love of short, definitive prose is getting in the way of potentially intelligent responses. The Klan were racists? You think? Racism is fueled by many things: ignorance, fear, and income disparity are a few. The last is supported by several studies, one of the most recent coming from Canada (see "Canada's Creeping Economic Apartheid" by by Grace-Edward Galabuzi, 2001).

9. I called you out (a bit childishly, I admit) on your broad reference to the "wild west" as an example of a successful anarchocapitalist society. You inexplicably denied that the phrase "wild west" was overly broad.

Because it isn't.

Ok. Not worth spending any more time here.

11. You seemed agitated that the discussion held more than one thread (i.e. the linkage of income disparity and crime and the feasability of implementing a modern anarchocapitalist system.)

Because the two are separate, and the latter seems like a, oh--what's the term. Oh yes: red herring.

You don't want to commit a fallacy, do you?

If a fallacy is a misconception caused by incorrect reasoning, I'm missing your point. Within this thread and during a discussion on the linkage between crime and income disparity you proudly proclaimed yourself to be an anarchocapitalist. Your beliefs as an anarchocapitalist are central to the conversation; were you not so self-labeled the two ideas may in fact be separate. Since you are thus self-proclaimed, however, to attack the reasonableness of the philisophical base from which you launch your arguments is definitely in play.

Oh yeah, what a wonderful idea! And what happens to the people who are too poor to pay for those things, Einstein? Should a poor man die in the street of a horrible disease if he can't afford to go to one of your private hospitals?

You now there are these things called charities that over 78% of Americans give money to and over 50% give time to. These things just might be able to help pay the bill, and they don’t loose millions each year like the government.

My last thing poverty may or may not cause crime, I will admit it causes some like every other thing in this world, but how does someone paying an income tax actually solve it? ( I might have missed that, but there is no way I am reading five pages for a third time)

My last thing poverty may or may not cause crime, I will admit it causes some like every other thing in this world, but how does someone paying an income tax actually solve it? ( I might have missed that, but there is no way I am reading five pages for a third time)

I think that the tie in is that income tax helps to fund social programs that work to alleviate the impacts of poverty.

The concept of taxes was obviously not broadly enough explained, judging by some of these arguments.

Taxation started out as a recognition of public services that everyone used. Hence people agreed to contribute to a public fund and appoint public servants to oversee the use of the funds to perform the tasks that were too large for the individual - keeping roads paved, for instance.

However over time, governments have become so large that this basic concept is lost in the haystack. Taxation in its own merits is not robbery by any means, it's a necessary agreement for larger societies. However, through its abuses, it may appear to be robbery.

The concept of taxes was obviously not broadly enough explained, judging by some of these arguments.

Taxation started out as a recognition of public services that everyone used. Hence people agreed to contribute to a public fund and appoint public servants to oversee the use of the funds to perform the tasks that were too large for the individual - keeping roads paved, for instance.

However over time, governments have become so large that this basic concept is lost in the haystack. Taxation in its own merits is not robbery by any means, it's a necessary agreement for larger societies. However, through its abuses, it may appear to be robbery.

Well spoken, good Aegonia! I agree that modern governments are huge and inefficient and need to be held to better account for waste and abuse. I think you've refocused the problem statement nicely; the solution is not the labeling of taxes as robbery nor is it the elimination of taxes. I don't pretend to have a perfect solution, but believe that if one exists it revolves around the idea of accountability, not every man and woman for him and herself.

I’m telling you people the Fair Tax of 2001 would fun social projects yet not tax your income. It is similar to a service fee, but not quite there, really read up and then yell at someone to pass this thing.

To recap:

1. You said that an argument that poverty leads to crime was unsupported.

Which was countered by your own example of gangster on gangster crime, which shouldn't be if poverty leads to crime, given that the gangsters were quite wealthy.

I don't believe I said anything about "gangster on gangster crime".

Al Capone.

Do you not recall mentioning him?

Didn't he have his rivals killed?

Didn't he run the Chicago Northside mob?

Wasn't he really wealthy?

Why then would he commit crime?

Crime is fed by income disparity.

Then why do wealthy people commit crimes?

Stop evading.

Young immigrants (staying with the Depression-era example) grew up in relative if not literal poverty, and saw or heard about the incredible excesses of the rich (i.e. Roaring 20's). There has been study upon study, two of which I've already specifically referred to in this thread, that comfirm the relationship between crime and income disparity;

I've yet to see that they did. I read what you wrote. But I saw no link. Seriously. No link at all.

the example we're discussing fits this mold, as relatively impoverished immigrants sought to improve their quality of life by turning to crime. You are focusing on crime perpetuated by the handful of infamous crime bosses of the era

One of whom you named. So you get to deal with it.

(who themselves came from relative poverty and became wealthy only by turning to crime - thereby proving the point) and purposely ignoring the thousands of men and women who did not and never would become wealthy who worked within or outside the boundaries of organized crime.

Not ignoring it at all. But if poverty causes crime THEN WHY THE HELL HAVE WEALTHY PEOPLE COMMITTED CRIMES?

Sheesh. You'd think you'd have an answer to that.

5. You refute the supporting texts by claiming that crime did not peak during the Great Depression (I believe the exact argument was "so why wasn't crime sky high during the great depression...[wait for it]...BOING!"

Which it wasn't, actually.

A brilliant and persuasive four word response.

It is.

Whether or not crime was "sky high" (by which I assume you mean higher than other eras on a per capita basis) is not the point.

Certainly is. Given that there was rampant poverty during the depression and given that crime didn't soar out of control or even rise significantly, I'd say that shoots down the idiotic notion of poverty causing crime.

Or don't you grasp historical evidence?

The point is crime and income disparity is linked. Income disparity, like poverty, is a chronic condition. The Depression was an event, and by definition not chronic.

1. Poverty causes crime (according to you)
2. The depression was rife with poverty.
3. The crime rate did not significantly go up during the depression.
4. Can you fill in the conclusion, or should I hit you with the obvious again?

The reason crime and income disparity are linked is because, in part, people raised in relative poverty see no hope of elevating themselves by following society's rules. Specific historical events may or may not cause a spike in crime depending mostly on the length of the event.

Considering that the depression lasted about 14 years.......

6. I respond, including references to the rampant crime and the organizations who perpetuated it during said era.

Interestly enough--not because of poverty. Fancy that. I mean, if you want to support the claim of poverty causing it, shouldn't you support that, rather than wealthy people commiting crimes? In fact, shouldn't wealthy people never commit crimes?

Not to mention that crime wasn't sky-high.

See above.

As should you.

7. You argue - and correct me if I'm wrong - that organized crime is not tied to poverty because the more successful gangsters had a lot of money?

Did they have a lot of money?

Yes.

So how could they commit crime? Isn't crime tied to poverty? Isn't that your contention as well?

This is your position? I will point out the obvious here: where did the vast majority of these gangsters come from if not from poverty?

I will point out the obvious here: the gansters lived in relative splendor. So how could they commit crimes if they were wealthy?

Stop evading.

Again, you are being intentionally obtuse.

No, I'm not. You're intentionally evading.

When we say that crime is linked to income disparity, in no way does that imply that rich people cannot also commit crime.

Then you need to change your tune, since you've got it oversimplified.

8. You argue that the Klu Klux Klan was not linked to income disparity. I disagree

The Klan is about racist idiots, not income disparity.

I'm sorry, but that is too simple

No, it's quite true and factual. The short and simple answer here is correct. The KKK started not because of income disparity, but because of carpetbaggers and the like. Then it was reborn as an anti-black, anti-catholic movement. Had NOTHING TO DO WITH INCOME DISPARITY.

Had everything to do with idiotic tribalistic notions.

11. You seemed agitated that the discussion held more than one thread (i.e. the linkage of income disparity and crime and the feasability of implementing a modern anarchocapitalist system.)

Because the two are separate, and the latter seems like a, oh--what's the term. Oh yes: red herring.

You don't want to commit a fallacy, do you?

If a fallacy is a misconception caused by incorrect reasoning, I'm missing your point.

Do you know what a red herring is?

The topic is about poverty causing income disparity. Has nothing to do with anarchocapitalism at this point.

What about that AREN'T you understanding?

My last thing poverty may or may not cause crime, I will admit it causes some like every other thing in this world, but how does someone paying an income tax actually solve it? ( I might have missed that, but there is no way I am reading five pages for a third time)

I think that the tie in is that income tax helps to fund social programs that work to alleviate the impacts of poverty.

Like the TRILLIONS of dollars poured into Great Society programs and the like?

Doesn't the US still have people in poverty?

How does throwing stolen money at the problem solve it, given that it hasn't yet and we've spent an obscene amount on it.

Young immigrants (staying with the Depression-era example) grew up in relative if not literal poverty, and saw or heard about the incredible excesses of the rich (i.e. Roaring 20's). There has been study upon study, two of which I've already specifically referred to in this thread, that comfirm the relationship between crime and income disparity;

I find this to be extremely xenophobic and parochial.

My parents came to the US as first-generation immigrants with only a few hundred US$. Instead of going around robbing people, my dad actually went to college while my mom supported him on a minimum wage job, then my mom went to college while my dad had a university grant, which is why they are making so much money now.

Your depiction of poor immigrants as criminals is detestable at the least.

Even if poverty increases the chance of crime, the actual action of a crime is still a voluntary personal decision.

Many poor people become filthy rich while still following society's rules... just look at Carnegie who grew up in a sweatshop with no formal education. Only instead of mugging people, he actually worked. Instead of spending his pocket change on crack, he spent it on books.

It makes it right within that society. If you asked a Nazi if the Holocaust was right, he'd say it was. However, other societies are obviously quite able to intervene if that offends them on their own (constructed) moral grounds. Welcome to relativism.

So basically... if a country believes that another country is immoral... it is justified in going to war with that country?

My last thing poverty may or may not cause crime, I will admit it causes some like every other thing in this world, but how does someone paying an income tax actually solve it? ( I might have missed that, but there is no way I am reading five pages for a third time)

I think that the tie in is that income tax helps to fund social programs that work to alleviate the impacts of poverty.

Like the TRILLIONS of dollars poured into Great Society programs and the like?

Doesn't the US still have people in poverty?

How does throwing stolen money at the problem solve it, given that it hasn't yet and we've spent an obscene amount on it.

The thing is poverty programs DONT WORK. The government spends more than DOUBLE what is needed every year to lift every poor person out of poverty. We spend more on welfare than EVERY other country in the world combined. Yet the percentage of people in poverty only increases. Why? Two reasons:

a) Government mismanagement. This is why our education system is failing.
b) Complacency. Welfare pays more than the starting salary for a teacher in TEN states. It pays more than the first-year salary for a secretary in THIRTY states. In almost every state welfare gives MORE health and security benefits than a poor person could get for actually working. Hawaii, the most generous state, has a welfare system with $38,000 worth of direct handouts... this is MORE than what the AVERAGE American makes. Add on to that the indirect benefits, and a Hawaiian on welfare is easily making the equivalent of $60,000-$75,000 in pretax income. This is more than the average Ivy League graduate makes out of college.

A little bit of welfare might help the poor, but our government has overdone it to the point where it is actually in your self-interest to be a bum rather than to get a job. The solution to poverty is LESS funding for welfare, not more.

It's a clear and obvious example of the Tragedy of teh Commons.

TGM, while I totally agree with you, I still think you're a pain in the ass.:)

Young immigrants (staying with the Depression-era example) grew up in relative if not literal poverty, and saw or heard about the incredible excesses of the rich (i.e. Roaring 20's). There has been study upon study, two of which I've already specifically referred to in this thread, that comfirm the relationship between crime and income disparity;

I find this to be extremely xenophobic and parochial.

My parents came to the US as first-generation immigrants with only a few hundred US$. Instead of going around robbing people, my dad actually went to college while my mom supported him on a minimum wage job, then my mom went to college while my dad had a university grant, which is why they are making so much money now.

That's admirable. From what I've read about your father from your posts he sounds like an admirable man, and you're right to hold him up as a model. Your point here, however, is anecdotal and argument solely via personal experience (which I believe is an excellent example of parochial thinking).

Your depiction of poor immigrants as criminals is detestable at the least.

I don't think any reasonable person would read through this thread and find the quote you selected above to be xenophobic or detestable. If so, then I apologize from the bottom of by soul - your interpretation was not at all what I intended. I strongly doubt, however, that you believe your own accusation - it strikes me as juvenile button pushing. In no way did I say or mean to say that all poor immigrants are criminals. This line of attack is transparently disingenuous.

Even if poverty increases the chance of crime, the actual action of a crime is still a voluntary personal decision.

Of course you're right - point taken. I'm all for personal responsibility, and individuals being held responsible for their actions. The fact that crime and income disparity demonstrate a positive correlation should by no means act as an excuse for individuals who commit crimes.

Many poor people become filthy rich while still following society's rules... just look at Carnegie who grew up in a sweatshop with no formal education. Only instead of mugging people, he actually worked. Instead of spending his pocket change on crack, he spent it on books.

Another fine example of someone overcoming odds which are stacked against them. But your example also serves to further my point - it is the proverbial exception that proves the rule.

My last thing poverty may or may not cause crime, I will admit it causes some like every other thing in this world, but how does someone paying an income tax actually solve it? ( I might have missed that, but there is no way I am reading five pages for a third time)

I think that the tie in is that income tax helps to fund social programs that work to alleviate the impacts of poverty.

Like the TRILLIONS of dollars poured into Great Society programs and the like?

Doesn't the US still have people in poverty?

How does throwing stolen money at the problem solve it, given that it hasn't yet and we've spent an obscene amount on it.

So if you can't eradicate poverty then you turn your back on it and pretend it isn't there. As long as you, the rugged individualist, are doing okay, then that means that it's possible for everyone to follow your lead. [shrug] You are the brick wall, I am the rubber ball. I agree to disagree with you.

But if poverty causes crime THEN WHY THE HELL HAVE WEALTHY PEOPLE COMMITTED CRIMES?

Sheesh. You'd think you'd have an answer to that.

Oh BAAWA, what could possibly have made you this way? No one is claiming that poverty is causitive. Income disparity and crime have a positive correlation. Can you see the difference? In places where income disparity continues to exist over the course of generations (btw, 14 years is a blip on the radar screen of this discussion), it is *probable* that low income and crime positively correlate. Please stop asking that question - it's making me tired.

Al Capone. I mentioned him, yes. Now, does the mention of Al Capone = "gangster on gangster crime?". Honestly, now. Al Capone, as an example or figurehead, in the context he was used, represents the crime which was rampant during an era we were discussing. You keep insisting that I am arguing crime and poverty exist in a one-to-one ratio. Please hear me now and know this forever: this is not my argument. My argument is this: it is probable that in places and times in which income disparity exists over time, crime will exist in some proportional measure. This is not a blanket statement that applies to all places and all times - providing examples of places or times in which income disparity was wide and crime did not exist in any substantial way (if there ever was any such place or any such time) does not negate the basic premise.

Honestly BAAWA, you are certainly a handful! I hope we're communicating a bit better than this a few months from now!

Peace,

Idumea

The reason crime and income disparity are linked is because, in part, people raised in relative poverty see no hope of elevating themselves by following society's rules. Specific historical events may or may not cause a spike in crime depending mostly on the length of the event.

Considering that the depression lasted about 14 years.......

Actually, in regards to the US, which I believe is our reference point, the depression was much shorter than 14 years. Traditionally it is considered to have begun in 1929 with the stock market crash, and ended in 1941 with the entry into WW2. While recesionnary effects were certainly noticeable before this time, it didn't really become a true depression until the system actually collapsed.

IMO, the depression was really over in 1939, as the economy began to recover with the war in Europe leading to a rapidly expanding economy.

So the Depression was only 12 years long at the most, more reallistically 10years.

As a side note, I'd like to point out that while the corrolation between crime and poverty isn't nessecarily certain, there is a very obvious link between poverty and social instability, as is demonstrated in the post depression autarkies.

My last thing poverty may or may not cause crime, I will admit it causes some like every other thing in this world, but how does someone paying an income tax actually solve it? ( I might have missed that, but there is no way I am reading five pages for a third time)

I think that the tie in is that income tax helps to fund social programs that work to alleviate the impacts of poverty.

Like the TRILLIONS of dollars poured into Great Society programs and the like?

Doesn't the US still have people in poverty?

How does throwing stolen money at the problem solve it, given that it hasn't yet and we've spent an obscene amount on it.

So if you can't eradicate poverty then you turn your back on it and pretend it isn't there.

Strawman.

I expect better from you.

My last thing poverty may or may not cause crime, I will admit it causes some like every other thing in this world, but how does someone paying an income tax actually solve it? ( I might have missed that, but there is no way I am reading five pages for a third time)

I think that the tie in is that income tax helps to fund social programs that work to alleviate the impacts of poverty.

Like the TRILLIONS of dollars poured into Great Society programs and the like?

Doesn't the US still have people in poverty?

How does throwing stolen money at the problem solve it, given that it hasn't yet and we've spent an obscene amount on it.

So if you can't eradicate poverty then you turn your back on it and pretend it isn't there.

Strawman.

I expect better from you.

So how exactly do we remedy crime/poverty without spending money?

Taxation is NOT robbery. That's all there is to it.

But if poverty causes crime THEN WHY THE HELL HAVE WEALTHY PEOPLE COMMITTED CRIMES?

Sheesh. You'd think you'd have an answer to that.

Oh BAAWA, what could possibly have made you this way? No one is claiming that poverty is causitive.

Actually, someone did.

Income disparity and crime have a positive correlation.

I believe the studies you mentioned were about poverty.

Can you see the difference? In places where income disparity continues to exist over the course of generations (btw, 14 years is a blip on the radar screen of this discussion), it is *probable* that low income and crime positively correlate. Please stop asking that question - it's making me tired.

No. I'm going to continue to ask it until you answer it. It's quite a valid question.

Al Capone. I mentioned him, yes. Now, does the mention of Al Capone = "gangster on gangster crime?".

Did he not have that type of crime committed?

Honestly, now. Al Capone, as an example or figurehead, in the context he was used, represents the crime which was rampant during an era we were discussing.

Which shouldn't be, given that he was wealthy.

You keep insisting that I am arguing crime and poverty exist in a one-to-one ratio.

You are, actually, despite your attempt to weasel out.

My last thing poverty may or may not cause crime, I will admit it causes some like every other thing in this world, but how does someone paying an income tax actually solve it? ( I might have missed that, but there is no way I am reading five pages for a third time)

I think that the tie in is that income tax helps to fund social programs that work to alleviate the impacts of poverty.

Like the TRILLIONS of dollars poured into Great Society programs and the like?

Doesn't the US still have people in poverty?

How does throwing stolen money at the problem solve it, given that it hasn't yet and we've spent an obscene amount on it.

So if you can't eradicate poverty then you turn your back on it and pretend it isn't there.

Strawman.

I expect better from you.

So how exactly do we remedy crime/poverty without spending money?

Crime and poverty are two different items. For crime, a private police force would do. That's not throwing money at the problem. That's actually doing something about it.

As for poverty, private charities and agencies which would actually help people, rather than keep them in some vicious circle of "welfare payments" would work.

I must say that taxation is sensible, and that the goverment is better at handling economy than the ordinary man. If someone feel that taxation is a crime, then I would have to say that I feel having more money than you can ever spend in a life time is a greater crime. How could someone need more than 100 million dollars during their lifetime, while others can barely manage to survive?

Here in scandinavia we have a pretty high taxation due to an socialdemocratic tradtions and still we have some of the best societies in the world according to the UN. With taxation the goverment can coordinate better respondes to poverty, crime etc, better than a large number of indepent organizations could do.

I must say that taxation is sensible, and that the goverment is better at handling economy than the ordinary man.

And this is why we loose millions of dollars each year.

I must say that taxation is sensible, and that the goverment is better at handling economy than the ordinary man.

And this is why we loose millions of dollars each year.

And exactly how are they lost?
Do your goverment have some hole where they dump the money just to not use them?

Yes, they loose money, it just disappears, they waste money in finds where nothing happens they pay contractors for projects in advance then cancel the project but don't get the money back. Why bother with getting it back its easier to tax some more, its only a few million we get billions a year, and since all politicians are like this the people can't get rid of them.

So what you are saying is that when goverment pours money into industry it will just magically vanish without a trace, instead of being put back in circulation? :wink:

Crime and poverty are two different items. For crime, a private police force would do. That's not throwing money at the problem. That's actually doing something about it.

As for poverty, private charities and agencies which would actually help people, rather than keep them in some vicious circle of "welfare payments" would work.

So basically we'd just close our eyes and hope someone else helps out. THIS is a textbook freerider example.

Moreover, we'd have no assurance that anyone would be helped.

Private security agency are clearly only going to protect those that pay for it, which smacks of gangsterism.

I really don't think this is realistic.

It's definitely robbery, but some level of taxation will be necessary to maintain public goods...

It's morally wrong and makes a government illegitimate... but there has never been a moral and legitimate government, and there probably will never be.
Hey I so much agree with that last statement! That's worthy of coming from an anarchist, TGM! :D On your first statement taxation is *not* necessary to maintain "public goods"; it is only if you have a state. Maintaining public goods is perfectly organisable by people without a state, a government and hence taxation.

Crime and poverty are two different items. For crime, a private police force would do. That's not throwing money at the problem. That's actually doing something about it.

As for poverty, private charities and agencies which would actually help people, rather than keep them in some vicious circle of "welfare payments" would work.

So basically we'd just close our eyes and hope someone else helps out.

Nice strawman. Want to try again?

Moreover, we'd have no assurance that anyone would be helped.

Reality makes no such assurance that you will even wake up. You could suffer an aneuyrism (if I've spelled that correctly and I don't feel like looking it up).

Private security agency are clearly only going to protect those that pay for it,

Are they?

which smacks of gangsterism.

Except, of course, that it doesn't, since it's contractual and not extorted.
Want to try again without the load of crap?

So what you are saying is that when goverment pours money into industry it will just magically vanish without a trace, instead of being put back in circulation?

What I am saying is they did not give the money away they gave it for a service to be rendered, and then forgot about it. If you ever forgot about your house being painted, but already paid you didn’t just give some money to a painter you lost it.
On another note I think this is a good time to do a rant it is rather short. I hate smiley icons, people use them in fun but it is words, and how am I supposed to know you are just doing some kidding. So many people write a blatant insult and then put a smiley on the end to make it not a flame, and I think it’s just stupid. If you want to say something say it don’t go Oh you idiot :P , just say I think you have no idea what you are talking about, and thus think you are an idiot. Then deal with the consequences. (this may or may not refer to anyone in this thread again I forget what was said on page 2 and three and as most of it was directed to BAWAA there is no way I am reading it again.)

So basically we'd just close our eyes and hope someone else helps out.

Nice strawman. Want to try again?

Not really, since you're not explaining your rationale. There is no reason, epistomologically speaking, that we would expect anyone to help anyone else. If you disagree, explain, and in the intrest of education, perhaps you'd grant us with more than a single sentence?

Moreover, we'd have no assurance that anyone would be helped.

Reality makes no such assurance that you will even wake up. You could suffer an aneuyrism (if I've spelled that correctly and I don't feel like looking it up).

In a state, ideally we can be assured that at the very least our rights will be defended. I'm not sure what your point is here.

Private security agency are clearly only going to protect those that pay for it,

Are they?

Of course. In a pure capitalist society, we should expect these agencies only to protect those who can afford it..
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages
If the police are profit oriented, we must expect similar behaviour.


which smacks of gangsterism.

Except, of course, that it doesn't, since it's contractual and not extorted.
Want to try again without the load of crap?

Why wouldn't it be extorted? There would be no institution in place to prevent it.

So basically we'd just close our eyes and hope someone else helps out.

Nice strawman. Want to try again?

Not really, since you're not explaining your rationale.

I did.

There is no reason, epistomologically speaking, that we would expect anyone to help anyone else.

And no reason not to, either.

Maybe you should try to have some reason why you think that no one would help anyone else without being forced to, given that reality would fly in the face of your claim.


Moreover, we'd have no assurance that anyone would be helped.

Reality makes no such assurance that you will even wake up. You could suffer an aneuyrism (if I've spelled that correctly and I don't feel like looking it up).

In a state, ideally we can be assured that at the very least our rights will be defended.

Same with anarchocapitalism. However, the sorry history of the state shows a rampant disregard for the rights of the individual governed.



Private security agency are clearly only going to protect those that pay for it,

Are they?

Of course. In a pure capitalist society, we should expect these agencies only to protect those who can afford it..

Should we?

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages
If the police are profit oriented, we must expect similar behaviour.

Should we?

Why?


which smacks of gangsterism.

Except, of course, that it doesn't, since it's contractual and not extorted.
Want to try again without the load of crap?

Why wouldn't it be extorted?

Why would it be?

You claim it. You show it.

There would be no institution in place to prevent it.

Oh, how about the fact that there are other choices. That a company using force to keep customers will no longer have the customers.

Look Zippy, you might want to think before you post.

And no reason not to, either.

Maybe you should try to have some reason why you think that no one would help anyone else without being forced to, given that reality would fly in the face of your claim.


It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages

As I'm sure you're aware, this a quote from Adam Smith himself, father of capitalism as we understand it. Just as we wouldn't expect the butcher to give us our dinner, we wouldn't expect the private policeman to give away the fruit of his own labor- i.e. security/protection. People may help each other, but it cannot be expected in an anarchocapitalist situation.


which smacks of gangsterism.

Except, of course, that it doesn't, since it's contractual and not extorted.
Want to try again without the load of crap?

Why wouldn't it be extorted?

Why would it be?

You claim it. You show it.

Extortion could easily occur since the individual without a hired security firm has no way of resisting the coercive forces of anybody. The most powerful firm could litterally 'muscle out' the competition, cornering the market. It might not occur, but it very easily could, and makes sense from a purely self-interested perspective. Another possible scenario is the cooperation of security firms, diviing up areas to minimize conflict and maximize profits.


There would be no institution in place to prevent it.

Oh, how about the fact that there are other choices. That a company using force to keep customers will no longer have the customers.

Look Zippy, you might want to think before you post.

It would make sense that the largest firm would forcibly eliminate the competition. There might not BE alternatives. There is also no real option to 'go without'.

And no reason not to, either.

Maybe you should try to have some reason why you think that no one would help anyone else without being forced to, given that reality would fly in the face of your claim.


It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages

As I'm sure you're aware, this a quote from Adam Smith himself, father of capitalism as we understand it.

Ummm, no, he isn't. Nor do I hold to many of Smith's ideas, anyway.

So why do you think that humans are inherently callous and evil (hey, if you can strawman, why can't I?)

Why do you want to force people to help others?

which smacks of gangsterism.

Except, of course, that it doesn't, since it's contractual and not extorted.
Want to try again without the load of crap?

Why wouldn't it be extorted?

Why would it be?

You claim it. You show it.

Extortion could easily occur since the individual without a hired security firm has no way of resisting the coercive forces of anybody.

Quite false.

The most powerful firm could litterally 'muscle out' the competition,

And this wouldn't be noticed by anyone else?

And the other firms wouldn't put a stop to it?

You seem to have this very Hobbesian view of humanity, which is not borne out by reality. Change your view.

cornering the market. It might not occur, but it very easily could, and makes sense from a purely self-interested perspective. Another possible scenario is the cooperation of security firms, diviing up areas to minimize conflict and maximize profits.

Or just being competitive and letting the market forces work.


There would be no institution in place to prevent it.

Oh, how about the fact that there are other choices. That a company using force to keep customers will no longer have the customers.

Look Zippy, you might want to think before you post.

It would make sense that the largest firm would forcibly eliminate the competition.

No, it wouldn't

Nice try, Zippy. Next time, you might want to not beg the question.

Oh BAAWA, what could possibly have made you this way? No one is claiming that poverty is causitive.

Actually, someone did.

Perhaps someone did, but I've been trying to be careful to say "income disparity" rather than poverty.

Income disparity and crime have a positive correlation.

I believe the studies you mentioned were about poverty.

They were focused primarily on income disparity as it relates to crime.

Can you see the difference? In places where income disparity continues to exist over the course of generations (btw, 14 years is a blip on the radar screen of this discussion), it is *probable* that low income and crime positively correlate. Please stop asking that question - it's making me tired.

No. I'm going to continue to ask it until you answer it. It's quite a valid question.

Never said it wasn't a valid question, but I feel that I have answered it. Unless this discussion is going to degenerate into a "did not" "did to" ping pong match, I think it's best to move on. (just in case however, let me be the first to say "did to, infinity")

Al Capone. I mentioned him, yes. Now, does the mention of Al Capone = "gangster on gangster crime?".

Did he not have that type of crime committed?

Sure. He committed that type of crime amongst many others. My point was that in the context in which I used the reference, it's a groin-pulling stretch to say that I was referring only to gangster-on-gangster crime, and not crime in general.

You keep insisting that I am arguing crime and poverty exist in a one-to-one ratio.

You are, actually, despite your attempt to weasel out.

If I did imply that (though I don't believe I did), it was unintentional and poor communication of an idea on my part. I've tried to be careful to say that they were correlated, which literally means that they demonstrate a propensity to move together. I know it's easier to argue against a definitive statement that poverty causes crime, so I understand your wanting to frame the issue that way. Unfortunately, though, I don't believe that that statement has been demonstrated to be factual, and so you're stuck with disputing my actual, stated position, that the two correlate.

To claim that taxation is robbery is like saying that the sky is lime-green :roll:.

A government must tax its people because it provides them a place to work, so they (the government) must in turn take a little something back, as a sign of "gratitude" from its citizens.

Since when did the government own all the land, last time I checked people had bought the land for themselves.

Ummm, no, he isn't. Nor do I hold to many of Smith's ideas, anyway.

So why do you think that humans are inherently callous and evil (hey, if you can strawman, why can't I?)

Why do you want to force people to help others?

I think that since capitalism is a fundementally self-interested system, we must assume that people within a capitalist structure will act in a self-interested way.

I think that while not everyone is callous or evil, I think there is a significant portion of a given population which is likely to behave in such a way, and thus any planning we do must incorporate the likely of these type of people exploiting the 'system' in question. If we assume that everyone is benevolent and trustworthy, we can forgo capitalism entirely, and assume an uncoruptable communal society, if we so desired. Believing people to be universally benign is foolish.

Just as a point of interest, who do you believe is the orginator of modern capitalism if not Smith?

Extortion could easily occur since the individual without a hired security firm has no way of resisting the coercive forces of anybody.

Quite false.

Care to explain? A professional security agency seems more than a match for any individual.


The most powerful firm could litterally 'muscle out' the competition,

And this wouldn't be noticed by anyone else?

And the other firms wouldn't put a stop to it?

You seem to have this very Hobbesian view of humanity, which is not borne out by reality. Change your view.

They would if they could, possibly. However, assuming one firm is significantly larger, they may not be able to. I would say you have a very naive view of reality which is equally not born out by reality.


cornering the market. It might not occur, but it very easily could, and makes sense from a purely self-interested perspective. Another possible scenario is the cooperation of security firms, diviing up areas to minimize conflict and maximize profits.

Or just being competitive and letting the market forces work.

Why would they want that? They'd make far more profit if they controlled the market.


It would make sense that the largest firm would forcibly eliminate the competition.

No, it wouldn't

Nice try, Zippy. Next time, you might want to not beg the question.
That's not a refutation.

:shock: :lol: :lol: 8) 8) :? :P :oops: :roll: :twisted: HI :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :evil: I'M ANGRY PLEASE DON'T REVOKE MY NATION I BEG OF YOU GOOD PEOPLE

8) :twisted: DEMON X :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Actually, the way I look at it is taxes are kind of a trade off between providing everything yourself and having the government "help."

Oh BAAWA, what could possibly have made you this way? No one is claiming that poverty is causitive.

Actually, someone did.

Perhaps someone did, but I've been trying to be careful to say "income disparity" rather than poverty.

Still doesn't explain why wealthy people commit crimes.

Can you see the difference? In places where income disparity continues to exist over the course of generations (btw, 14 years is a blip on the radar screen of this discussion), it is *probable* that low income and crime positively correlate. Please stop asking that question - it's making me tired.

No. I'm going to continue to ask it until you answer it. It's quite a valid question.

Never said it wasn't a valid question, but I feel that I have answered it.

I, OTOH, do not.

Al Capone. I mentioned him, yes. Now, does the mention of Al Capone = "gangster on gangster crime?".

Did he not have that type of crime committed?

Sure. He committed that type of crime amongst many others. My point was that in the context in which I used the reference, it's a groin-pulling stretch to say that I was referring only to gangster-on-gangster crime, and not crime in general.

Since I never said that you were only referring to that, you might want to kill that strawman.

You keep insisting that I am arguing crime and poverty exist in a one-to-one ratio.

You are, actually, despite your attempt to weasel out.

If I did imply that (though I don't believe I did), it was unintentional and poor communication of an idea on my part. I've tried to be careful to say that they were correlated, which literally means that they demonstrate a propensity to move together. I know it's easier to argue against a definitive statement that poverty causes crime, so I understand your wanting to frame the issue that way. Unfortunately, though, I don't believe that that statement has been demonstrated to be factual, and so you're stuck with disputing my actual, stated position, that the two correlate.

Thank you for explaining.

Ummm, no, he isn't. Nor do I hold to many of Smith's ideas, anyway.

So why do you think that humans are inherently callous and evil (hey, if you can strawman, why can't I?)

Why do you want to force people to help others?

I think that since capitalism is a fundementally self-interested system, we must assume that people within a capitalist structure will act in a self-interested way.

That borders on a fallacy of division. However, acting in a self-interested way doesn't of course mean that you can't help others or act in a benevolent way. You border on implying that someone acting in self-interest can never help anyone at all, which is a load of dingo's kidneys.

I think that while not everyone is callous or evil, I think there is a significant portion of a given population which is likely to behave in such a way, and thus any planning we do must incorporate the likely of these type of people exploiting the 'system' in question.

Only if there is a system. Like, for instance, a state.

If we assume that everyone is benevolent and trustworthy, we can forgo capitalism entirely, and assume an uncoruptable communal society, if we so desired.

Actually, that's not the case. It's a nice lie of the communists, though.

At any rate, we don't assume that. Ever hear of Game Theory? Prisoner's Dilemma? I'll explain it if you haven't.

Just as a point of interest, who do you believe is the orginator of modern capitalism if not Smith?

I never said anything about that specific point. However, I am of the Austrian School of economics. Mises. Böhm-Bawerk. Menger. Hayek. Rothbard. etc.

Extortion could easily occur since the individual without a hired security firm has no way of resisting the coercive forces of anybody.

Quite false.

Care to explain? A professional security agency seems more than a match for any individual.

Against their own interest. They start acting like a bully, and people will go to other agencies.

Did you fail Business 101? The scenario you have is akin to having McDonalds intentionally poison the customers. Totally whacked.


The most powerful firm could litterally 'muscle out' the competition,

And this wouldn't be noticed by anyone else?

And the other firms wouldn't put a stop to it?

You seem to have this very Hobbesian view of humanity, which is not borne out by reality. Change your view.

They would if they could, possibly.

And why couldn't they?

However, assuming one firm is significantly larger, they may not be able to. I would say you have a very naive view of reality which is equally not born out by reality.

No, my view is one not hijacked by a strawman pop-culture POV.


cornering the market. It might not occur, but it very easily could, and makes sense from a purely self-interested perspective. Another possible scenario is the cooperation of security firms, diviing up areas to minimize conflict and maximize profits.

Or just being competitive and letting the market forces work.

Why would they want that? They'd make far more profit if they controlled the market.

No, they would not.


It would make sense that the largest firm would forcibly eliminate the competition.

No, it wouldn't

Nice try, Zippy. Next time, you might want to not beg the question.
That's not a refutation.

Do you know what petittio principii is?

Then you know why I didn't have to provide an answer.

That borders on a fallacy of division. However, acting in a self-interested way doesn't of course mean that you can't help others or act in a benevolent way. You border on implying that someone acting in self-interest can never help anyone at all, which is a load of dingo's kidneys.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that if we're looking at something from a theoretical standpoint, it seems foolish to say people are all benevolent and want to help other, while simulateneously saying that as capitalist, their actions can be best explained through self-interest.


I think that while not everyone is callous or evil, I think there is a significant portion of a given population which is likely to behave in such a way, and thus any planning we do must incorporate the likely of these type of people exploiting the 'system' in question.

Only if there is a system. Like, for instance, a state.

I would think anarcho-capitalism IS a system. Using your example of Saga Iceland, there certainly were systems of government and trade in place, even formal insititutions (the lawspeaker, for instance, was essentially a judge for the entire area). Since market is a specific economic system, clearly we should be able to apply this term to anarcho capitalism.


If we assume that everyone is benevolent and trustworthy, we can forgo capitalism entirely, and assume an uncoruptable communal society, if we so desired.

Actually, that's not the case. It's a nice lie of the communists, though.

At any rate, we don't assume that. Ever hear of Game Theory? Prisoner's Dilemma? I'll explain it if you haven't.

Prisoner's Dillemma nessecitates a state, the idea being that unless the prisoners have some reason to trust each other, they cannot assume the other will 'keep their bargain', so to speak, and thus they must pick the option that gives them the maximum utility given the other breaks the bargain; they cannot choose the option that gives them the absolute maximum utility, as it also may result in the lowest utility outcome.


Extortion could easily occur since the individual without a hired security firm has no way of resisting the coercive forces of anybody.

Quite false

Care to explain? A professional security agency seems more than a match for any individual.
Against their own interest. They start acting like a bully, and people will go to other agencies.

Did you fail Business 101? The scenario you have is akin to having McDonalds intentionally poison the customers. Totally whacked.

Not really. In a standard buisness model we ignore coercive elements. If, given your example, McDonalds literally killed their competitors, or forcible took over all food alternatives, then there wouldn't be much of a choice, would there?


No, my view is one not hijacked by a strawman pop-culture POV.

Blood diamonds in Sierra Leone- no state, warlords vying for control of limite resources. Clearly this is a real-life example of a state of nature. There are many, many more.

[mallberta]
profit if they controlled the market.

No, they would not.[/quote]

How do you figure? Monopolies extract huge profits at the cost of the consumer.



It would make sense that the largest firm would forcibly eliminate the competition.

No, it wouldn't

Nice try, Zippy. Next time, you might want to not beg the question.
That's not a refutation.

Do you know what petittio principii is?

Then you know why I didn't have to provide an answer.
Doesn't apply- at what point am I assuming the conclusion in the premise?
If you prefer-
The largest firm would forcibly eliminate the competition if it served to increase profits, as increasing profits is the goal of a firm.

That borders on a fallacy of division. However, acting in a self-interested way doesn't of course mean that you can't help others or act in a benevolent way. You border on implying that someone acting in self-interest can never help anyone at all, which is a load of dingo's kidneys.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that if we're looking at something from a theoretical standpoint, it seems foolish to say people are all benevolent and want to help other, while simulateneously saying that as capitalist, their actions can be best explained through self-interest.

Why?


I think that while not everyone is callous or evil, I think there is a significant portion of a given population which is likely to behave in such a way, and thus any planning we do must incorporate the likely of these type of people exploiting the 'system' in question.

Only if there is a system. Like, for instance, a state.

I would think anarcho-capitalism IS a system. Using your example of Saga Iceland, there certainly were systems of government and trade in place, even formal insititutions (the lawspeaker, for instance, was essentially a judge for the entire area). Since market is a specific economic system, clearly we should be able to apply this term to anarcho capitalism.

*sigh*

You conflate system with concept.


If we assume that everyone is benevolent and trustworthy, we can forgo capitalism entirely, and assume an uncoruptable communal society, if we so desired.

Actually, that's not the case. It's a nice lie of the communists, though.

At any rate, we don't assume that. Ever hear of Game Theory? Prisoner's Dilemma? I'll explain it if you haven't.

Prisoner's Dillemma nessecitates a state, the idea being that unless the prisoners have some reason to trust each other, they cannot assume the other will 'keep their bargain', so to speak, and thus they must pick the option that gives them the maximum utility given the other breaks the bargain; they cannot choose the option that gives them the absolute maximum utility, as it also may result in the lowest utility outcome.

Which is why you go for the minimax or tit-for-tat strategy. Sooner or later, the constant defectors find that they can't make it, because no one will play with them.


Extortion could easily occur since the individual without a hired security firm has no way of resisting the coercive forces of anybody.

Quite false

Care to explain? A professional security agency seems more than a match for any individual.
Against their own interest. They start acting like a bully, and people will go to other agencies.

Did you fail Business 101? The scenario you have is akin to having McDonalds intentionally poison the customers. Totally whacked.

Not really.

Yeah really.

In a standard buisness model we ignore coercive elements. If, given your example, McDonalds literally killed their competitors, or forcible took over all food alternatives, then there wouldn't be much of a choice, would there?

And how many people would patronize McDonalds, knowing their tactics?

Did you forget about that?


No, my view is one not hijacked by a strawman pop-culture POV.

Blood diamonds in Sierra Leone- no state, warlords vying for control of limite resources. Clearly this is a real-life example of a state of nature. There are many, many more.

The US and Canada. In a state of nature (no government to make them get along). They get along.

[mallberta]
profit if they controlled the market.

No, they would not.[/quote]

How do you figure? Monopolies extract huge profits at the cost of the consumer.

You mean "coercive monopolies", which only exist via GOVERNMENT FIAT.



It would make sense that the largest firm would forcibly eliminate the competition.

No, it wouldn't

Nice try, Zippy. Next time, you might want to not beg the question.
That's not a refutation.

Do you know what petittio principii is?

Then you know why I didn't have to provide an answer.

Doesn't apply- at what point am I assuming the conclusion in the premise?

You assume homo homini lupus est

If you prefer-
The largest firm would forcibly eliminate the competition if it served to increase profits, as increasing profits is the goal of a firm.

How could it increase profits while expending resources in eliminating the competition via force?

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that if we're looking at something from a theoretical standpoint, it seems foolish to say people are all benevolent and want to help other, while simulateneously saying that as capitalist, their actions can be best explained through self-interest.

Why?

Self interest and charity are, generally speaking, at odds. Capitalism assumes conceptually that:
1)I'd rather be happy than otherwise
2) More of a good is better than less
Charity may or may not apply to the first assumption, but certainly is at odds with the second. This clearly causes a problem. We cannot assume that charity will occur, especially to a significant degree, and especially in terms of other social groups.


*sigh*

You conflate system with concept.

How so? Market is a system. Ask any economist. Anarcho-capitalism demands market, thus at the very least it contains system elements.

When it comes to terminology, what would you prefer? Theoretical framwork?



Which is why you go for the minimax or tit-for-tat strategy. Sooner or later, the constant defectors find that they can't make it, because no one will play with them.

Two things-
In the prisoner's dillemma (the one I"m familiar with, and the one with the clearest application to a state of nature problem), the losers are exectued. Thus in the long run, the only people left standing would be the defectors. I'm guessing the situtation you're reffering to would be one where the losers get a longer sentence, or some other punitive action? I'm not sure how that would apply to a state of nature... could you clarify?

Second, I don't understand how a minimax strategy would work in this case. I'm just not that familiar with the complexities of this problem.
In a standard buisness model we ignore coercive elements. If, given your example, McDonalds literally killed their competitors, or forcible took over all food alternatives, then there wouldn't be much of a choice, would there?

And how many people would patronize McDonalds, knowing their tactics?

Did you forget about that?

As I said in my post, if they removed all their competitors there wouldn't be much choice. This example would work better with a utility firm, but still applies if McDonald's eliminated other options.


No, my view is one not hijacked by a strawman pop-culture POV.

Blood diamonds in Sierra Leone- no state, warlords vying for control of limite resources. Clearly this is a real-life example of a state of nature. There are many, many more.

The US and Canada. In a state of nature (no government to make them get along). They get along.
One could easily argue that this is because, in effect, the US represents the authority. Canada clearly does not represent a threat, having made agreements with the US, and the US can enforce these agreements. This is really not an accurate analogy since State of Nature assumes basic equality, while there is clearly no equality in this relationship. A better example is the Cold War, where two (arguably) equal powers were at odds.
How do you figure? Monopolies extract huge profits at the cost of the consumer.

You mean "coercive monopolies", which only exist via GOVERNMENT FIAT. [[/quote]

This is 'begging the question'. You assume coercive monopolies exist only via government fiat. This seems especially interesting given your prior reference to the Wild West being an anarcho-capitalist society, which clearly contained regional monopolies.



You assume homo homini lupus est
Actually, I'm accepting that people may indeed be each others wolves. We want peace, prepare for war etc, etc, etc. Conversely, aren't you assuming they that aren't?

How could it increase profits while expending resources in eliminating the competition via force?

The resulting monopoly would allow drastic increases in price.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that if we're looking at something from a theoretical standpoint, it seems foolish to say people are all benevolent and want to help other, while simulateneously saying that as capitalist, their actions can be best explained through self-interest.

Why?

Self interest and charity are, generally speaking, at odds.

No, they aren't.

Capitalism assumes conceptually that:
1)I'd rather be happy than otherwise
2) More of a good is better than less
Charity may or may not apply to the first assumption, but certainly is at odds with the second.

No it isn't.

Why don't you try actually backing your claims so that I don't have to simply gainsay you?


*sigh*

You conflate system with concept.

How so? Market is a system. Ask any economist. Anarcho-capitalism demands market, thus at the very least it contains system elements.

Not of the equivocation that you want.


Which is why you go for the minimax or tit-for-tat strategy. Sooner or later, the constant defectors find that they can't make it, because no one will play with them.

Two things-
In the prisoner's dillemma (the one I"m familiar with, and the one with the clearest application to a state of nature problem), the losers are exectued.

That's not the one I've read.

Thus in the long run, the only people left standing would be the defectors. I'm guessing the situtation you're reffering to would be one where the losers get a longer sentence, or some other punitive action? I'm not sure how that would apply to a state of nature... could you clarify?

Can't you extend the concept? If you constantly defect, no one will want to deal with you.

Second, I don't understand how a minimax strategy would work in this case. I'm just not that familiar with the complexities of this problem.

It's essentially tit-for-tat.

In a standard buisness model we ignore coercive elements. If, given your example, McDonalds literally killed their competitors, or forcible took over all food alternatives, then there wouldn't be much of a choice, would there?

And how many people would patronize McDonalds, knowing their tactics?

Did you forget about that?

As I said in my post, if they removed all their competitors there wouldn't be much choice.

That assumes they can and would.

This example would work better with a utility firm, but still applies if McDonald's eliminated other options.

Utility firms, at least in the United States (and most of the rest of the world), are state-mandated monopolies.


No, my view is one not hijacked by a strawman pop-culture POV.

Blood diamonds in Sierra Leone- no state, warlords vying for control of limite resources. Clearly this is a real-life example of a state of nature. There are many, many more.

The US and Canada. In a state of nature (no government to make them get along). They get along.

One could easily argue that this is because, in effect, the US represents the authority.

No.

Canada clearly does not represent a threat, having made agreements with the US, and the US can enforce these agreements.

So can Canada. It's like two individuals making an agreement.

[snip]

How do you figure? Monopolies extract huge profits at the cost of the consumer.

You mean "coercive monopolies", which only exist via GOVERNMENT FIAT.

This is 'begging the question'. You assume coercive monopolies exist only via government fiat.[/quote]

Show me one that hasn't, and show how entry to the market can be prohibited any other way than via government fiat.

This seems especially interesting given your prior reference to the Wild West being an anarcho-capitalist society, which clearly contained regional monopolies.

You're equivocating natural vs coercive.



You assume homo homini lupus est

Actually, I'm accepting that people may indeed be each others wolves. We want peace, prepare for war etc, etc, etc. Conversely, aren't you assuming they that aren't?

No.

]How could it increase profits while expending resources in eliminating the competition via force?

The resulting monopoly would allow drastic increases in price.

Would they?

Do you have any clue as to anything about monopolies, or are you simply spouting crap you learned from TV and movies about "evil capitalists"?

Capitalism assumes conceptually that:
1)I'd rather be happy than otherwise
2) More of a good is better than less
Charity may or may not apply to the first assumption, but certainly is at odds with the second.

No it isn't.

Why don't you try actually backing your claims so that I don't have to simply gainsay you?


You could, of course, say what you think. It's a remarkable feat of obtusion that we've spent several pages in discussion and I have NO idea what you really think. I have no idea how an anarcho capitalist society would work, because you haven't made any positive statements since we've begun.



Not of the equivocation that you want.


How do you know what I want? I just want to be able to clearly identify this theory. Again, what would you prefer?

Two things: In the prisoner's dillemma (the one I"m familiar with, and the one with the clearest application to a state of nature problem), the losers are exectued.

That's not the one I've read.

THat's the standard Hobbbesian one.

Thus in the long run, the only people left standing would be the defectors. I'm guessing the situtation you're reffering to would be one where the losers get a longer sentence, or some other punitive action? I'm not sure how that would apply to a state of nature... could you clarify?

Can't you extend the concept? If you constantly defect, no one will want to deal with you.

If you use an execution model, clearly this doesn't apply. Using a different model, wouldn't the initial defectors have a huge 'headstart' anyways? This clearly depends on the values given for the different options. It also assumes exogenous knowledge, which is not, in my limited experience, a part of game theory.


Second, I don't understand how a minimax strategy would work in this case. I'm just not that familiar with the complexities of this problem.

It's essentially tit-for-tat.

I don't understand. In the model I'm familiar with, the two prisoners have no way of telling what the other decides... how can you apply tit-for-tat here?


As I said in my post, if they removed all their competitors there wouldn't be much choice.

That assumes they can and would.

Of course it does. That they could seems fairly evident; since coercive force can be purchased via security firms, the actor with the most capital could p[otentially remove it's competitors. Given that a firm exists to increase shareholder profit, if removing competitors would increase returns, it seems likely that it would indeed do so.

This example would work better with a utility firm, but still applies if McDonald's eliminated other options.

Utility firms, at least in the United States (and most of the rest of the world), are state-mandated monopolies.

Non sequitor. The example works better with limited site-specific factors than with manufacturing or service.


No, my view is one not hijacked by a strawman pop-culture POV.


[quote=Mallberta]One could easily argue that this is because, in effect, the US represents the authority.

No.


Why not? Unlike a state of nature, the relationship between Canada and the US is not one of relative equals. MOreover, the US does take advantage of it's larger economy and military to gain concessions from Canada- look at the softwood lumber disputes.

Canada clearly does not represent a threat, having made agreements with the US, and the US can enforce these agreements.

So can Canada. It's like two individuals making an agreement.

Canada cannot enforce any agreements with the US, short of appealing to a higher authority like the WTO.



Show me one that hasn't, and show how entry to the market can be prohibited any other way than via government fiat.

In a situation where governments have a monopoly on coercive force, only governments are able to create monopolies (in general). However, if this force monopoly doesn't exist, or is incomplete, private monopolies can and do occur. Monopolies don't recquire government, they recquire the use of coercive methods.

Example of non-government mandated monopoly- drug trade. Organized crime eliminates the comptetionn forcibly in order to gain a monopoly. A particularly salient example would be Sammy Gravano's ecstasy ring in Austin TX.

Somalia- Private armies stockpiling food, selling it at exagerated prices.

There's two, I'll think of more...



Actually, I'm accepting that people may indeed be each others wolves. We want peace, prepare for war etc, etc, etc. Conversely, aren't you assuming they that aren't?

No.

Then what do you assume? Explain your position...


Would they?

Do you have any clue as to anything about monopolies, or are you simply spouting crap you learned from TV and movies about "evil capitalists"?

What are you talking about? That was very ungrounded and unnecessary.
IF the demand for a good is relatively inelastic, an artifical raise in price increases total revenue. Forming a monopoly wouldn't always be profitable, but certainly sometimes it woiuld be.

Oh BAAWA, what could possibly have made you this way? No one is claiming that poverty is causitive.

Actually, someone did.

Perhaps someone did, but I've been trying to be careful to say "income disparity" rather than poverty.

Still doesn't explain why wealthy people commit crimes.

I'm not trying to explain why wealthy people commit crimes; I'm sure that you're bringing this up for a reason, though. Let me know what you're thinking in regards to how wealthy people commiting crimes undermines my argument that crime and income disparity are correlated, and I'll take it from there.

No.

Then what do you assume? Explain your position...



You're DREAMING if you think you're going to have a sensible conversation with BAAWA. All BAAWA ever does is claim that everything he/she doesn't agree with is a "debating fallacy", and refuse to discuss it. I could write a Perl script to generate posts which would be indistinguishable from BAAWA's posts.

HASTY GENERALIZATION!

STRAW MAN!!!1!

CIRCULAR REASONING!!

AD VERECUNDIAM!!

NON SEQUITUR!!

RED HERRING!

AD HOMINEM!

SLIPPERY SLOPE!!

BEGGING THE QUESTION!!1!

See? You can't tell the difference, can you? What you don't understand is that BAAWA is SO MUCH SMARTER than everybody else, and why should he do your research for you? Why should he bother to try to refute your fallacious arguments with logical discourse when he can just shout "AMPHIBOLOGY!!" and pretend it doesn't exist? Maybe if you were as smart and well educated as BAAWA you would understand this.

Capitalism assumes conceptually that:
1)I'd rather be happy than otherwise
2) More of a good is better than less
Charity may or may not apply to the first assumption, but certainly is at odds with the second.

No it isn't.

Why don't you try actually backing your claims so that I don't have to simply gainsay you?


You could, of course, say what you think.

In fact, I have.

It's a remarkable feat of obtusion that we've spent several pages in discussion and I have NO idea what you really think.

Because you haven't read anything.

I have no idea how an anarcho capitalist society would work, because you haven't made any positive statements since we've begun.

Because making anything beyond generalizations is impossible.


Not of the equivocation that you want.


How do you know what I want? I just want to be able to clearly identify this theory. Again, what would you prefer?

I would prefer that you read what I write.


Two things: In the prisoner's dillemma (the one I"m familiar with, and the one with the clearest application to a state of nature problem), the losers are exectued.

That's not the one I've read.

THat's the standard Hobbbesian one.

Wasn't around in Hobbes' day, IIRC.


Thus in the long run, the only people left standing would be the defectors. I'm guessing the situtation you're reffering to would be one where the losers get a longer sentence, or some other punitive action? I'm not sure how that would apply to a state of nature... could you clarify?

Can't you extend the concept? If you constantly defect, no one will want to deal with you.

If you use an execution model, clearly this doesn't apply.

I don't.

Using a different model, wouldn't the initial defectors have a huge 'headstart' anyways?

Depends on what the consequences are.

This clearly depends on the values given for the different options. It also assumes exogenous knowledge, which is not, in my limited experience, a part of game theory.

Actually, it presumes no such thing.


Second, I don't understand how a minimax strategy would work in this case. I'm just not that familiar with the complexities of this problem.

It's essentially tit-for-tat.

I don't understand. In the model I'm familiar with, the two prisoners have no way of telling what the other decides... how can you apply tit-for-tat here?

That's because you're familiar with the wrong and outdated model.


As I said in my post, if they removed all their competitors there wouldn't be much choice.

That assumes they can and would.

Of course it does. That they could seems fairly evident; since coercive force can be purchased

Coercive retributive, not coervice initiatory.

Big difference.

via security firms, the actor with the most capital could potentially remove it's competitors.

Why?

Given that a firm exists to increase shareholder profit,

The firm exists to stay in business and make money. It can't do that if it bullies people and they leave.

Business 101: if you lose your customers, you go out of business. Q.E. MF. D.

if removing competitors would increase returns, it seems likely that it would indeed do so.

How---Hobbesian. You really must grow up and out of the 1600s. This is 2003.


This example would work better with a utility firm, but still applies if McDonald's eliminated other options.

Utility firms, at least in the United States (and most of the rest of the world), are state-mandated monopolies.

Non sequitor.

*boggle*

No, it's not, you utter git. Since the utility firms are state-mandated monopolies.....

Can you take it from there? Or are you too stupid? Seriously, I ask this.

The example works better with limited site-specific factors than with manufacturing or service.

Care to explain?


No, my view is one not hijacked by a strawman pop-culture POV.


One could easily argue that this is because, in effect, the US represents the authority.

No.


Why not?

Why could it be?

Unlike a state of nature, the relationship between Canada and the US is not one of relative equals.

Ah, you are so one-dimensional in your thought.

Doesn't Canada have items that the US wants and vice-versa?

MOreover, the US does take advantage of it's larger economy and military to gain concessions from Canada- look at the softwood lumber disputes.

Look at what Canada gives us in return: Alanis and Celine Dion

Canada clearly does not represent a threat, having made agreements with the US, and the US can enforce these agreements.

So can Canada. It's like two individuals making an agreement.

Canada cannot enforce any agreements with the US, short of appealing to a higher authority like the WTO.

ipso facto, the US.


Show me one that hasn't, and show how entry to the market can be prohibited any other way than via government fiat.

In a situation where governments have a monopoly on coercive force, only governments are able to create monopolies (in general). However, if this force monopoly doesn't exist, or is incomplete, private monopolies can and do occur.

Those are called natural monopolies, and are non-coercive.

Monopolies don't recquire government, they recquire the use of coercive methods.

No, they do not.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msS9.html

And scroll down to Chapter 24.

http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap16sec6.asp

I would also ask you about a railroad that develops in a rural area. There are no other railroads around it. It is a natural railroad monopoly. Did it use coercion to be a natural monopoly? NO!

You need to junk your Marxian nonsense.

Example of non-government mandated monopoly- drug trade.

If it's a monopoly, why are there many players?

There wouldn't be this drug trade were it not for the government.

Somalia- Private armies stockpiling food, selling it at exagerated prices.

There's no monopoly there, and there wouldn't be a problem if the UN would stay out of things.


Actually, I'm accepting that people may indeed be each others wolves. We want peace, prepare for war etc, etc, etc. Conversely, aren't you assuming they that aren't?

No.

Then what do you assume?

Nothing.



Would they?

Do you have any clue as to anything about monopolies, or are you simply spouting crap you learned from TV and movies about "evil capitalists"?

What are you talking about?

Just what I said. Thanks for cutting the context, though. It was quite intellectually dishonest of you to do that.

IF the demand for a good is relatively inelastic,

Ah yes. Classical econ. Crap. Junk.

Oh BAAWA, what could possibly have made you this way? No one is claiming that poverty is causitive.

Actually, someone did.

Perhaps someone did, but I've been trying to be careful to say "income disparity" rather than poverty.

Still doesn't explain why wealthy people commit crimes.

I'm not trying to explain why wealthy people commit crimes;

You need to.

I'm sure that you're bringing this up for a reason, though. Let me know what you're thinking in regards to how wealthy people commiting crimes undermines my argument that crime and income disparity are correlated, and I'll take it from there.

Note bolded.

If you can't grasp it, note bolded.

If you still can't grasp it, note bolded.

[snip whining]



If I wanted any lip from you, I'd pull down my pants.

[snip whining]



If I wanted any lip from you, I'd pull down my pants.

AD HOMINEM!!!1!

It has often been said that "Taxation is Robbery". Do you agree with this statement? If you do, you might like to approve the "Ban Taxation!" proposal, which would make it illegal for any UN Member nation to have a tax rate above 0%.

A good many of the citizens of the Carver States are refugees from nations which practiced taxation. Whereas we recognize the need for the funding of basic services, we also recall the waste and graft that turned taxation into a nightmare and crushed many of us. With that in mind we allow only a limited "as needed" funding for specific programs and services (and the maintenance of same), and even this must receive an overwhelming vote of support from the population. The use of all funds taken in such efforts must be documented 100%. Failure to do so, or any attempt by anyone to suggest a permanent tax, is punishable by death!

We do not claim our system is perfect, or free of problems. There are, in point of fact, numerous problems. But we remember the alternative and press on.

[snip whining]



If I wanted any lip from you, I'd pull down my pants.

AD HOMINEM!!!1!

If I wanted to hear from an asshole, I would fart.

[snip whining]



If I wanted any lip from you, I'd pull down my pants.

AD HOMINEM!!!1!

If I wanted to hear from an asshole, I would fart.

AD HOMINEM!!11!!!!! SLIPPERY SLOPE!!!!!!!

Still doesn't explain why wealthy people commit crimes.

I'm not trying to explain why wealthy people commit crimes;

You need to.

I'm sure that you're bringing this up for a reason, though. Let me know what you're thinking in regards to how wealthy people commiting crimes undermines my argument that crime and income disparity are correlated, and I'll take it from there.

Note bolded.

If you can't grasp it, note bolded.

If you still can't grasp it, note bolded.

Just not happy if you're not being provocative, are you? In this case, though, I was genuinely trying to understand your position. I understand now that you just don't grasp the basics of the statistics. Correlation is a basic statistical term, and I forget sometimes that not everyone has been exposed to statistics. You seem to be thinking in terms of singular causation - i.e. if income disparity is correlated with crime, then there can be no other cause. If this were the case you'd be making a strong point by pointing out the fact that wealthy people also commit crimes. I'm talking in terms of correlation, in which the emphasis is on the degree to which a linear model may describe the relationship between two variables. Variable A (income disparity), and Variable B (crime) are probablistically linked. This does not preclude Variable B from being linked to other probabilistic causes (plain greed, passion, and, like Chris Rock says, just plain crazy).

I have been trying to communicate the idea that income disparity is probablistically linked to (or, said another way, is correlated with) crime. I have never intended to say that income disparity is the sole cause of crime - in fact I've gone out of my way to make sure you understood that I was not saying this. Crime can have many probablistic links, some of which of course apply to the wealthy.

Just not happy if you're not being provocative, are you? In this case, though, I was genuinely trying to understand your position. I understand now that you just don't grasp the basics of the statistics. Correlation is a basic statistical term, and I forget sometimes that not everyone has been exposed to statistics. You seem to be thinking in terms of singular causation - i.e. if income disparity is correlated with crime, then there can be no other cause. If this were the case you'd be making a strong point by pointing out the fact that wealthy people also commit crimes.

He also doesn't seem to understand that Al Capone got rich by committing crimes. I think the basic problem with your viewpoint, noble Idumea, is that you look at statistics which show a correlation between crime and being poor, and think "that's the story! That's what's happening!"

But you ignore that wealthy people do commit crimes, such as Al Capone for one example. But that example is obvious. Think about the hidden crimes, such as rich company owners who do things (or omit to do things) which cause their workers to die in industrial accidents for example. If I pushed somebody off a roof, I'd be charged with murder. If a company neglects to properly train an apprentice plumber in roof safety, or neglects to issue appropriate safety equipment, and the apprentice falls off the roof and is killed, there's a reasonable chance that nobody will be charged with murder, and nobody will go to jail.

You should also take into account that rich people can afford the best lawyers, and therefore are less likely to be convicted of crimes they might have committed, like if they can't put on a pair of gloves or something. Because hey, if the glove don't fit, you must acquit!

[snip more whining]



Not my fault that you are so inept at debate that you can't grasp anything about fallacies.

Here, let me point you to The Nizkor Project List of Fallacies (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies) so that you can learn.

Still doesn't explain why wealthy people commit crimes.

I'm not trying to explain why wealthy people commit crimes;

You need to.

I'm sure that you're bringing this up for a reason, though. Let me know what you're thinking in regards to how wealthy people commiting crimes undermines my argument that crime and income disparity are correlated, and I'll take it from there.

Note bolded.

If you can't grasp it, note bolded.

If you still can't grasp it, note bolded.

Just not happy if you're not being provocative, are you?

I'd like you to answer the question.

In this case, though, I was genuinely trying to understand your position.

And I'm trying to understand why wealthy people commit crimes if there is a statistical link between income disparity and crime.

I understand now that you just don't grasp the basics of the statistics.

Actually, I do. I have a degree in math.

So why do wealthy people commit crimes if there is a statistical link between income disparity and crime?

[snip your weasel-crap]

It wasn't an answer.

Taxation is robbery, in a Robin Hood 'stealing from the rich and giving to the poor' way.

And the positive correlation between income disparity and crime is because the poor are more likely to steal from the wealthy seeing it as their means of escaping poverty.

Taxation is robbery, in a Robin Hood 'stealing from the rich and giving to the poor' way.

And the positive correlation between income disparity and crime is because the poor are more likely to steal from the wealthy seeing it as their means of escaping poverty.

*nods*

The poor are often unable to hold down a decent job, for various reasons.

*hounds Kaze Progressa, and grins evilly*

I know who you are.....

Still doesn't explain why wealthy people commit crimes.

I'm not trying to explain why wealthy people commit crimes;

You need to.

I'm sure that you're bringing this up for a reason, though. Let me know what you're thinking in regards to how wealthy people commiting crimes undermines my argument that crime and income disparity are correlated, and I'll take it from there.

Note bolded.

If you can't grasp it, note bolded.

If you still can't grasp it, note bolded.

Just not happy if you're not being provocative, are you?

I'd like you to answer the question.

In this case, though, I was genuinely trying to understand your position.

And I'm trying to understand why wealthy people commit crimes if there is a statistical link between income disparity and crime.

I understand now that you just don't grasp the basics of the statistics.

Actually, I do. I have a degree in math.

So why do wealthy people commit crimes if there is a statistical link between income disparity and crime?

[snip your weasel-crap]

It wasn't an answer.

Actually, the Wealthy commiting crimes are fairly easy to explain.
Happiness!
What you don't understand?
Its simple, why would you feel the need to commit a crime if you are happy?
You'd be contempt(spelling may be off)or happy so to speak and want to stay what made you happy.
You wouldn't try to change this by stealing or other crimes because they would interfere what could be making you happy.

The problem?
A good many wealthy and rich people turn to money as a substitute or as a means of happiness.
And for the most part it rarely functions as such.
The reason many non-born rich aren't as a greedy is that they had to turn for something else for happiness and mostly don't turn to money once they are rich.
While this cannot be said for all, it works in 9/10 cases.

So why do wealthy people commit crimes if there is a statistical link between income disparity and crime?

[snip your weasel-crap]

It wasn't an answer.

I'm feeling pretty dense right now. What does the statistical link between income disparity and crime have to to with the wealthy and causes related to crimes they commit? They are two distinctly different issues. I could do some research for you and come back with a specfic answer to your question, but I honestly don't see how this question relates to my point. Are you trying to say that the fact that wealthy people commit crimes somehow nullifies my position that crime and income disparity are linked? If so, please help me to understand why you believe that to be true. And BTW, what does "[snip your weasel-crap]" mean, exactly?

Just not happy if you're not being provocative, are you? In this case, though, I was genuinely trying to understand your position. I understand now that you just don't grasp the basics of the statistics. Correlation is a basic statistical term, and I forget sometimes that not everyone has been exposed to statistics. You seem to be thinking in terms of singular causation - i.e. if income disparity is correlated with crime, then there can be no other cause. If this were the case you'd be making a strong point by pointing out the fact that wealthy people also commit crimes.

He also doesn't seem to understand that Al Capone got rich by committing crimes. I think the basic problem with your viewpoint, noble Idumea, is that you look at statistics which show a correlation between crime and being poor, and think "that's the story! That's what's happening!"

But you ignore that wealthy people do commit crimes, such as Al Capone for one example. But that example is obvious. Think about the hidden crimes, such as rich company owners who do things (or omit to do things) which cause their workers to die in industrial accidents for example. If I pushed somebody off a roof, I'd be charged with murder. If a company neglects to properly train an apprentice plumber in roof safety, or neglects to issue appropriate safety equipment, and the apprentice falls off the roof and is killed, there's a reasonable chance that nobody will be charged with murder, and nobody will go to jail.

You should also take into account that rich people can afford the best lawyers, and therefore are less likely to be convicted of crimes they might have committed, like if they can't put on a pair of gloves or something. Because hey, if the glove don't fit, you must acquit!

Thank you, good Beable - I was beginning to think I was losing my mind. I completely agree with everything you just posted. I'm not ignoring the fact that crimes are also committed by the wealthy, though; I'm not addressing that point at the moment because I don't see how it has anything to do with my "crime is correlated with income disparity" argument. Income disparity is only one probable cause of crime - there are obviously others, but those don't have anything to do with the "are taxes robbery?" question. The effects of income disparity, on the other hand, can arguably be lessened via state and federal progams that are funded by taxation.

How do you know what I want? I just want to be able to clearly identify this theory. Again, what would you prefer?

I would prefer that you read what I write.

I am reading what you are writing; all I am asking is what term you would prefer instead of system; concept doesn't seem applicable since you've argued this historically as well as theoretically.


THat's the standard Hobbbesian one.

Wasn't around in Hobbes' day, IIRC.

Let me clarify; when discussing Hobbes, this is the model I've used, since clearly the consequence of 'losing' in a Hobbesian state of nature is death, not less utility.


If you use an execution model, clearly this doesn't apply.

I don't.

That your perogative, but it seems rather arbitrary.

Using a different model, wouldn't the initial defectors have a huge 'headstart' anyways?


This clearly depends on the values given for the different options. It also assumes exogenous knowledge, which is not, in my limited experience, a part of game theory.

Actually, it presumes no such thing.

It assumes both prisoners have knowledge of each others past history. This is exogenous knowledge.


I don't understand. In the model I'm familiar with, the two prisoners have no way of telling what the other decides... how can you apply tit-for-tat here?

That's because you're familiar with the wrong and outdated model.

How can a game theory model be 'wrong'?

Moreover, if both prisoners are aware of each others descions, the model itself isn't about trust in contract, it's about empirical observation.


Of course it does. That they could seems fairly evident; since coercive force can be purchased

Coercive retributive, not coervice initiatory.

Big difference.

Begs the question; why not coercive initiatory?

The firm exists to stay in business and make money. It can't do that if it bullies people and they leave.

Business 101: if you lose your customers, you go out of business. Q.E. MF. D.

So it's really a matter of accounting. If you stand to make more money through coercive force, you have no moral or contractual reason to avoid using force.
A firm can bully whoever it wants as long as they're not potential customers.
if removing competitors would increase returns, it seems likely that it would indeed do so.

How---Hobbesian. You really must grow up and out of the 1600s. This is 2003.


This example would work better with a utility firm, but still applies if McDonald's eliminated other options.

Utility firms, at least in the United States (and most of the rest of the world), are state-mandated monopolies.

Non sequitor.

*boggle*

No, it's not, you utter git. Since the utility firms are state-mandated monopolies.....

Can you take it from there? Or are you too stupid? Seriously, I ask this.

Actually it is a non-sequitor. You gave an example of how, in a situation without authority McDonald's would behave. I gave a rationale, and explained how I though it could be a better example if utility firms were used rather than service firms. You then said ulitility firms are state-mandated monopolies, which they are, but not in the context we were discussing. Clearly in an example which assumes no state, they cannot be state mandated monopolies. You're use of empirical knowledge thus has no bearing on this element of the discussion.


The example works better with limited site-specific factors than with manufacturing or service.

Care to explain?


Monopolies are always more effective for site specific resources than otherwise; it is easier to coercively hold a mine, for example, than a factory, as the factory depends on a network of materials and other firms, while the mine is relatively independent.

Unlike a state of nature, the relationship between Canada and the US is not one of relative equals.

Ah, you are so one-dimensional in your thought.

Doesn't Canada have items that the US wants and vice-versa?

MOreover, the US does take advantage of it's larger economy and military to gain concessions from Canada- look at the softwood lumber disputes.

Look at what Canada gives us in return: Alanis and Celine Dion

Canada clearly does not represent a threat, having made agreements with the US, and the US can enforce these agreements.

So can Canada. It's like two individuals making an agreement.

Canada cannot enforce any agreements with the US, short of appealing to a higher authority like the WTO.

ipso facto, the US.


Your entire argument here is flawed to the extreme.
1) The state is not analogous to the individual. By implying that nations should behave as individuals would within a state of nature, your clearly making an error.

2) In the Hobbesian state of nature, Hobbes rationalizes that every actor can kill every other; this is the foundation of equality. Canada cannot 'kill' the US, and thus the relationship cannot be in any way similar to that of individuals within the state of nature.

3) The US can, should they desire, force their demands on Canada through agressive military or economic actions. Canada cannot do the same; moreover, Canada stands to lose much more than the US if this kind of conflict were to occur.

There is clearly no Hobbesian parrallel here. Again, if you look at relatively equal powers, you DO see a more Hobbesian pattern of behaviour (again, the Cold War).




Example of non-government mandated monopoly- drug trade.

If it's a monopoly, why are there many players?

There wouldn't be this drug trade were it not for the government.

In the specific example I gave you, Sammy 'The Bull' Gravano coercively removed the other 'players' in the Austin ecstacy market.

You may be right about the government creating black markets; however you explicitly used the term 'fiat'- clearly the government did not explictly create this monopoly.

Moreover, you cannot prove your statement empirically whatsoever.

I do understand how natural monopolies occur. I never stated they didn't.
Somalia- Private armies stockpiling food, selling it at exagerated prices.

There's no monopoly there, and there wouldn't be a problem if the UN would stay out of things.


What are you talking about?

Just what I said. Thanks for cutting the context, though. It was quite intellectually dishonest of you to do that.

What was the context? You also tend to cut out sections of my arguments.


IF the demand for a good is relatively inelastic,

Ah yes. Classical econ. Crap. Junk.

Gee, that's helpful. Care to elaborate?

So why do wealthy people commit crimes if there is a statistical link between income disparity and crime?

[snip your weasel-crap]

It wasn't an answer.

I'm feeling pretty dense right now. What does the statistical link between income disparity and crime have to to with the wealthy and causes related to crimes they commit?

Why would they commit crimes if they are wealthy?

Look, if there's a statistical correlation between income disparity and crime, why are wealthy people committing crimes?

It's a simple question

Why would they commit crimes if they are wealthy?

Look, if there's a statistical correlation between income disparity and crime, why are wealthy people committing crimes?

It's a simple question

You claim to have a "degree in math" and you imply that a statistical correlation between income disparity and crime means that wealthy people wouldn't commit crimes? HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW!!! WHAT A BOZO!

Here are some other claims which make as much sense as what you do:

"Let's say that there is a statistical correlation between poverty and disease. Does that mean that rich people never get sick?"

"HAY L00KIT ME!!1! I'VE GOT A DUHGREE IN ROCKET SCIENCE AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE M00N IS!!1!"

"I'VE GOT A DEGREE IN GEOLOGY BUT I'VE NEVER SEEN A ROCK!!1"

"I'VE GOT A LAW DEGREE! WHAT IS THIS 'COURTHOUSE' OF WHICH YOU SPEAK??"

You are a very sad individual, BAAWA, if that IS your REAL name!! Stop wasting everybody's time with your foolishness.

How do you know what I want? I just want to be able to clearly identify this theory. Again, what would you prefer?

I would prefer that you read what I write.

I am reading what you are writing; all I am asking is what term you would prefer instead of system; concept doesn't seem applicable since you've argued this historically as well as theoretically.

It applies just fine.


THat's the standard Hobbbesian one.

Wasn't around in Hobbes' day, IIRC.

Let me clarify; when discussing Hobbes, this is the model I've used, since clearly the consequence of 'losing' in a Hobbesian state of nature is death, not less utility.

We're not speaking about Hobbes in this instance.


If you use an execution model, clearly this doesn't apply.

I don't.

That your perogative, but it seems rather arbitrary.

No, it doesn't. That's the current model used. Maybe you need to have a refresher course.


This clearly depends on the values given for the different options. It also assumes exogenous knowledge, which is not, in my limited experience, a part of game theory.

Actually, it presumes no such thing.

It assumes both prisoners have knowledge of each others past history. This is exogenous knowledge.

No, it's not. It's part of the system.


I don't understand. In the model I'm familiar with, the two prisoners have no way of telling what the other decides... how can you apply tit-for-tat here?

That's because you're familiar with the wrong and outdated model.

How can a game theory model be 'wrong'?

THE WRONG ONE, NOT WRONG, YOU ILLITERATE GIT.

Moreover, if both prisoners are aware of each others descions, the model itself isn't about trust in contract, it's about empirical observation.

Can't have one without the other. Just like love and marriage (or so the song says).


Of course it does. That they could seems fairly evident; since coercive force can be purchased

Coercive retributive, not coervice initiatory.

Big difference.

Begs the question; why not coercive initiatory?

It begs no such question, actually.

But to humor you: initiatory force is breaking the agreement.

The firm exists to stay in business and make money. It can't do that if it bullies people and they leave.

Business 101: if you lose your customers, you go out of business. Q.E. MF. D.

So it's really a matter of accounting. If you stand to make more money through coercive force, you have no moral or contractual reason to avoid using force.

But you wouldn't stand to make more money. You would lose money because people are not stupid, as you think.

A firm can bully whoever it wants as long as they're not potential customers.

Why wouldn't they be potential customers, or customers of someone else who would take offense, and would let it be known to the other similar agencies, who in turn would no longer want to do business with that agency.

It's called "reputation".



This example would work better with a utility firm, but still applies if McDonald's eliminated other options.

Utility firms, at least in the United States (and most of the rest of the world), are state-mandated monopolies.

Non sequitor.

*boggle*

No, it's not, you utter git. Since the utility firms are state-mandated monopolies.....

Can you take it from there? Or are you too stupid? Seriously, I ask this.

Actually it is a non-sequitor.

Actually, it isn't. You are the one who spoke of utility firms, and I pointed out that they are state-mandated monopolies. So if there would happen to be a non sequitur, it would be on YOUR part for bringing up utility firms in the first place!

You gave an example of how, in a situation without authority McDonald's would behave. I gave a rationale, and explained how I though it could be a better example if utility firms were used rather than service firms. You then said ulitility firms are state-mandated monopolies, which they are, but not in the context we were discussing.

No, not in the context YOU had thought but didn't express.

So it's YOUR fault for being sloppy.


The example works better with limited site-specific factors than with manufacturing or service.

Care to explain?


Monopolies are always more effective for site specific resources than otherwise; it is easier to coercively hold a mine, for example, than a factory, as the factory depends on a network of materials and other firms, while the mine is relatively independent.

And what has this to do with anything?

[snip]


Canada clearly does not represent a threat, having made agreements with the US, and the US can enforce these agreements.

So can Canada. It's like two individuals making an agreement.

Canada cannot enforce any agreements with the US, short of appealing to a higher authority like the WTO.

ipso facto, the US.


Your entire argument here is flawed to the extreme.

*laughs*

It's YOUR argument. I just pointed out that since Canada couldn't do it, neither could the US.

You're not trying to pin your argument on me, are you? That would be---intellectually dishonest.

1) The state is not analogous to the individual. By implying that nations should behave as individuals would within a state of nature, your clearly making an error.

Nations have governments, and the governments have to get along somehow. How to get them to get along? Oh wait--a supergovernment.

That's Hobbes, baby. Like it or lump it.

2) In the Hobbesian state of nature, Hobbes rationalizes that every actor can kill every other; this is the foundation of equality. Canada cannot 'kill' the US, and thus the relationship cannot be in any way similar to that of individuals within the state of nature.

Nor can the US "kill" Canada.

3) The US can, should they desire, force their demands on Canada through agressive military or economic actions. Canada cannot do the same; moreover, Canada stands to lose much more than the US if this kind of conflict were to occur.

As does the US.

There is clearly no Hobbesian parrallel here.

Clearly, there is. There is no government to make the US and Canada get along.


Example of non-government mandated monopoly- drug trade.

If it's a monopoly, why are there many players?

There wouldn't be this drug trade were it not for the government.

In the specific example I gave you, Sammy 'The Bull' Gravano coercively removed the other 'players' in the Austin ecstacy market.

Why? Because the government essentially created that black market.

You're not helping your case. A gang war isn't good for you.

You may be right about the government creating black markets; however you explicitly used the term 'fiat'- clearly the government did not explictly create this monopoly.

Clearly it did with its ban on certain drugs.

Moreover, you cannot prove your statement empirically whatsoever.

Certainly I can. Look at what happened to certain crime rates before, during, and after "Prohibition" in the US.

I rest my case.

I do understand how natural monopolies occur. I never stated they didn't.

You essentially stated that all monopolies are coercive. Natural monopolies are NOT.



IF the demand for a good is relatively inelastic,

Ah yes. Classical econ. Crap. Junk.

Gee, that's helpful. Care to elaborate?

It's horrid junk that thinks in terms of equations and curves, and not with the subjective value-preference of the individual.

Why would they commit crimes if they are wealthy?

Look, if there's a statistical correlation between income disparity and crime, why are wealthy people committing crimes?

It's a simple question

You claim to have a "degree in math" and you imply that a statistical correlation between income disparity and crime means that wealthy people wouldn't commit crimes

Nope. I never implied that.

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW. WHAT AN IDIOT FOR CREATING A STRAWMAN.

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW. WHAT AN IDIOT FOR CREATING A STRAWMAN.

AD HOMINEM!!!!!111!!11!!!!!111!!!

[nothing of value]



That about sums it up.

We do not feel that taxation is robbery. Our citizens pay taxes, and in return, we, as the government, protect their rights and persons. Taxes are a necessary component of any organized society, since they pay for the "organized" part. Without taxes, our society would have no way to enforce any of its laws and decisions. It would collapse, and anarchy would result -- constant warfare, semi-corporate factions battling amongst each other, millions suffering and hundreds of thousands dying. Our citizens seem to feel that taxes are worth it.

Office of the Governor

We do not feel that taxation is robbery. Our citizens pay taxes, and in return, we, as the government, protect their rights and persons. Taxes are a necessary component of any organized society, since they pay for the "organized" part. Without taxes, our society would have no way to enforce any of its laws and decisions.

Blatant question begging and non sequitur. There is no relation at all between taxes and laws, and there's no reason why there couldn't be organization without a government.

It would collapse, and anarchy would result -- constant warfare, semi-corporate factions battling amongst each other, millions suffering and hundreds of thousands dying.

That's CHAOS, not anarchy.

Please learn the difference between chaos and anarchy.

I am reading what you are writing; all I am asking is what term you would prefer instead of system; concept doesn't seem applicable since you've argued this historically as well as theoretically.

It applies just fine.

So you'd prefer 'concept' then? Fine.


Let me clarify; when discussing Hobbes, this is the model I've used, since clearly the consequence of 'losing' in a Hobbesian state of nature is death, not less utility.

We're not speaking about Hobbes in this instance.

I was under the impression we were; I suggested Hobbesian theory would make anarcho capitalsim fairly weak in concept, I asked you how you would respond to that crtiticism, and you responded simply 'prisoner's dillemma'.


That your perogative, but it seems rather arbitrary.

No, it doesn't. That's the current model used. Maybe you need to have a refresher course.

Gee, I just had this discussion in a political theory class a month ago... is it possible that there could be more than one way to look at this problem? I would suspect your model is the one used by anarchists (though not exclusively), not nessecarily everybody else in the freaking world. MOreover, unless you can explain some reason why the model I suggested doesn't apply to a state of nature, I don't seen any reason to use your model.

It assumes both prisoners have knowledge of each others past history. This is exogenous knowledge.

No, it's not. It's part of the system.

Depends on how you define the system. In my experience it's been a closed system, where the prisoners are considered to have no knowledge of the other's history or actions, which would be true in a Hobbesian state of nature.


That's because you're familiar with the wrong and outdated model.

How can a game theory model be 'wrong'?

THE WRONG ONE, NOT WRONG, YOU ILLITERATE GIT.

Easy there junior. You weren't clear. Moreover, I still see no reason to use your model. I did some research, and actually the system I described is far more prevalent than your own; mine actually being the original, and still considered valid, system devised by the Rand Corporation in the 50s.


Moreover, if both prisoners are aware of each others descions, the model itself isn't about trust in contract, it's about empirical observation.

Can't have one without the other. Just like love and marriage (or so the song says).

Maybe in a real-life situation, but not in the prisoner's dillemma. If both prisoners can respond to eacho thers actions. it actually defeats the purpose of the problem.


It begs no such question, actually.

But to humor you: initiatory force is breaking the agreement.

Which agreement? The social contract?

But you wouldn't stand to make more money. You would lose money because people are not stupid, as you think.


Again, I'd say that depends on the people, the market, and most importantly the completeness of the monopoly. If a firm has a total monopoly on all water pumps, for instance, it doesn't really matter what the people think; they're stil going to have to buy water.


A firm can bully whoever it wants as long as they're not potential customers.

Why wouldn't they be potential customers, or customers of someone else who would take offense, and would let it be known to the other similar agencies, who in turn would no longer want to do business with that agency.
It's called "reputation".


Depends on the nature of the agressive firm. If, for instance, they're in the buisness of iniatory force (i.e. mercenaries), their repuation for violence might be an asset.



So it's YOUR fault for being sloppy.

Man, I was very clearly discussing conceptually, then you randomly jumped in with a (debatable) empirical comment that had nothing to do with what I was discussing. HOw is this anything to do with ME being sloppy? I would think it would reflect more on your on incomplete reading of my argument.


Monopolies are always more effective for site specific resources than otherwise; it is easier to coercively hold a mine, for example, than a factory, as the factory depends on a network of materials and other firms, while the mine is relatively independent.

And what has this to do with anything?

I said a coercive monopoly works better with a site specific factor, you asked me to explain, so I did. If you don't want to know, don't ask.


It's YOUR argument. I just pointed out that since Canada couldn't do it, neither could the US.

You're not trying to pin your argument on me, are you? That would be---intellectually dishonest.
[

HOw is it my argument? You're the one who's trying to make states analogous to individuals, not me. I'm not claiming anything of the kind.



Nations have governments, and the governments have to get along somehow. How to get them to get along? Oh wait--a supergovernment.

That's Hobbes, baby. Like it or lump it.


Really? Perhaps you could direct me to a passage where he discusses international relations?


2) In the Hobbesian state of nature, Hobbes rationalizes that every actor can kill every other; this is the foundation of equality. Canada cannot 'kill' the US, and thus the relationship cannot be in any way similar to that of individuals within the state of nature.

Nor can the US "kill" Canada.

I disagree, but that's beside the point. The fact that they cannot kill each other only strengthens the argument that states =/= individuals.


3) The US can, should they desire, force their demands on Canada through agressive military or economic actions. Canada cannot do the same; moreover, Canada stands to lose much more than the US if this kind of conflict were to occur.

As does the US.

Maybe you should reread that... they can't bhoth stand to lose much more than each other; they both stand to lose, but the US loses far less.


There is clearly no Hobbesian parrallel here.

Clearly, there is. There is no government to make the US and Canada get along.

Sure. But the US and Canada aren't individuals. Are you actually reading any of this?

Why? Because the government essentially created that black market.

You're not helping your case. A gang war isn't good for you.

THe balck market is created as a consequence of government legislation, not by explicit government fiat. MOreover, a gang war doesn't hurt me at all:
A) If the state was 'perfect', and had a total monopoly on coercive force, there would be no gang war or monopoly.
B) Where the state's coercive power comes short, coercive monopolies can and do occur.


You may be right about the government creating black markets; however you explicitly used the term 'fiat'- clearly the government did not explictly create this monopoly.

Clearly it did with its ban on certain drugs.

see above.


Moreover, you cannot prove your statement empirically whatsoever.

Certainly I can. Look at what happened to certain crime rates before, during, and after "Prohibition" in the US.

I rest my case.

Doesn't apply. You suggested black markets wouldn't exist outside of a government society. Unless you're going back to Iceland again, I doubt you can prove this.


I do understand how natural monopolies occur. I never stated they didn't.

You essentially stated that all monopolies are coercive. Natural monopolies are NOT.

You're right; let me rephrase. Unnatural monopolies are the result of coercive action.



It's horrid junk that thinks in terms of equations and curves, and not with the subjective value-preference of the individual.
Thats kind of the point of economics, as I'm sure you're aware. We create general laws that, though they're not universally correct, do explain economic results and processes in general terms. It's very difficult to theorize about any subjective measure. To it's credit, economic 'laws' are generally born out by reality.

Also, as a point of interest, I think you should refrain from using Saga Iceland as an example of anarcho-capitalism when apparently slightly less than half the population had any real rights/freedoms, including unrestricted rights over presonal property.

The whole reason we have taxation is to keep our countrys $ balance in check, if you look over in countrys like Qatar who do not have taxes you will also notice that there economy is one of the best in the world thriving on the natural gases, they do not need money from other nations and do not need to make any sort of "Big spending" because they are just fine so there fore they have no need for taxes while on the other hand in the US we have a debt of some "sort" and that is why we need taxes so that we are a self relying nation mostly and that we can spend our money on things, we don't make enough money world wide what kinda stuff do you see 'Made in US' ... i rest my case

We do not feel that taxation is robbery. Our citizens pay taxes, and in return, we, as the government, protect their rights and persons. Taxes are a necessary component of any organized society, since they pay for the "organized" part. Without taxes, our society would have no way to enforce any of its laws and decisions. It would collapse, and anarchy would result -- constant warfare, semi-corporate factions battling amongst each other, millions suffering and hundreds of thousands dying. Our citizens seem to feel that taxes are worth it.

Office of the Governor

Indeed. I would add that while there are circumstances in which taxation could be robbery; in the case of a dictatorship, for example, in which the people governed do not consent to be ruled, taxation would certainly be a violation of rights. Where the people have elected a representative government, or where they directly vote on taxes, it is hard to label taxation for the public good "robbery."

We do not feel that taxation is robbery. Our citizens pay taxes, and in return, we, as the government, protect their rights and persons. Taxes are a necessary component of any organized society, since they pay for the "organized" part. Without taxes, our society would have no way to enforce any of its laws and decisions.

Blatant question begging and non sequitur. There is no relation at all between taxes and laws, and there's no reason why there couldn't be organization without a government.

History suggests that organization without a central government of one sort or another is not practical. With no central authority, individuals will gradually band together into more local authorities, which, in our case at least, can easily be more opressive and corrupt than the central government was, and which will likely fight each other constantly, destroying civilization.

As to laws and taxes, there is a very direct relation between taxes and whether laws are enforced or not. A police department with a budget of 0 would have a very hard time protecting our citizens.

Office of the Governor

We do not feel that taxation is robbery. Our citizens pay taxes, and in return, we, as the government, protect their rights and persons. Taxes are a necessary component of any organized society, since they pay for the "organized" part. Without taxes, our society would have no way to enforce any of its laws and decisions.

Blatant question begging and non sequitur. There is no relation at all between taxes and laws, and there's no reason why there couldn't be organization without a government.

History suggests that organization without a central government of one sort or another is not practical. With no central authority, individuals will gradually band together into more local authorities, which, in our case at least, can easily be more opressive and corrupt than the central government was, and which will likely fight each other constantly, destroying civilization.

Actually, the history of Saga-period Iceland shows differently.

And there's no reason why a market economy couldn't provide such things.

As to laws and taxes, there is a very direct relation between taxes and whether laws are enforced or not. A police department with a budget of 0 would have a very hard time protecting our citizens.

Why do the police have to rely on a government for existence?

Are youproposing a privatised police force? A privatised fire department? "Yes, we would gladly pull you out of the burning building and save you from a fiery death... but you see, there's a problem with your credit card..." Frankly, we really don't see how such services could be nearly as effective in privatised form as they are when they are supported by a government.

As to "saga-period" Iceland, as our historians recall, that was not quite the most peaceful region in the world at the time. Where do you suppose most people would prefer to live -- saga-period Iceland, or a modern democratic nation-state with moderate taxes and a centralised government? Of course, there are many alternatives in between those two extremes, but we think you will find most people leaning towards the centralised government end of that spectrum.

Office of the Governor

Let me clarify; when discussing Hobbes, this is the model I've used, since clearly the consequence of 'losing' in a Hobbesian state of nature is death, not less utility.

We're not speaking about Hobbes in this instance.


I was under the impression we were;

I was under the impression we were speaking of game theory and PD.

I suggested Hobbesian theory would make anarcho capitalsim fairly weak in concept, I asked you how you would respond to that crtiticism, and you responded simply 'prisoner's dillemma'.

No, I asked if you knew what it was, and if not, then I would explain it.


That your perogative, but it seems rather arbitrary.

No, it doesn't. That's the current model used. Maybe you need to have a refresher course.

Gee, I just had this discussion in a political theory class a month ago... is it possible that there could be more than one way to look at this problem?

Is it possible that you just don't like the fact that I was using a different model?

I would suspect your model is the one used by anarchists (though not exclusively), not nessecarily everybody else in the freaking world. MOreover, unless you can explain some reason why the model I suggested doesn't apply to a state of nature, I don't seen any reason to use your model.

Funny, we weren't talking about the state of nature.

It assumes both prisoners have knowledge of each others past history. This is exogenous knowledge.

No, it's not. It's part of the system.

Depends on how you define the system. In my experience it's been a closed system, where the prisoners are considered to have no knowledge of the other's history or actions, which would be true in a Hobbesian state of nature.

Can't happen unless it's a first meeting.


That's because you're familiar with the wrong and outdated model.

How can a game theory model be 'wrong'?

THE WRONG ONE, NOT WRONG, YOU ILLITERATE GIT.


Easy there junior. You weren't clear.

AAMOF, I was.

Moreover, I still see no reason to use your model. I did some research, and actually the system I described is far more prevalent than your own;

No, that's not what I've read.



Moreover, if both prisoners are aware of each others descions, the model itself isn't about trust in contract, it's about empirical observation.

Can't have one without the other. Just like love and marriage (or so the song says).

Maybe in a real-life situation, but not in the prisoner's dillemma.

Which is a model of a real-life situation. You'll notice that I didn't exclusively rely on PD. Why are you trying to?

It begs no such question, actually.

But to humor you: initiatory force is breaking the agreement.

Which agreement? The social contract?

Between the individuals. Between the companies.


But you wouldn't stand to make more money. You would lose money because people are not stupid, as you think.


Again, I'd say that depends on the people, the market, and most importantly the completeness of the monopoly.

Which is just presuming your own conclusion. Bad.


A firm can bully whoever it wants as long as they're not potential customers.

Why wouldn't they be potential customers, or customers of someone else who would take offense, and would let it be known to the other similar agencies, who in turn would no longer want to do business with that agency.
It's called "reputation".


Depends on the nature of the agressive firm.

No, it doesn't.

If, for instance, they're in the buisness of iniatory force (i.e. mercenaries), their repuation for violence might be an asset.

And we're not speaking of mercs. Funny that you feel the need to red herring.



So it's YOUR fault for being sloppy.

Man, I was very clearly discussing conceptually, then you randomly jumped in with a (debatable) empirical comment that had nothing to do with what I was discussing.

Not the way I saw it.


Monopolies are always more effective for site specific resources than otherwise; it is easier to coercively hold a mine, for example, than a factory, as the factory depends on a network of materials and other firms, while the mine is relatively independent.

And what has this to do with anything?

I said a coercive monopoly works better with a site specific factor, you asked me to explain, so I did. If you don't want to know, don't ask.

I still don't see the explanation.


It's YOUR argument. I just pointed out that since Canada couldn't do it, neither could the US.

You're not trying to pin your argument on me, are you? That would be---intellectually dishonest.
ta"]HOw is it my argument?

BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONE WHO CAME UP WITH IT, YOU IDIOT.

You're the one who's trying to make states analogous to individuals, not me. I'm not claiming anything of the kind.

You're the one who made the claim about Canada not being able to do something. That's YOUR argument. Get it?


Nations have governments, and the governments have to get along somehow. How to get them to get along? Oh wait--a supergovernment.

That's Hobbes, baby. Like it or lump it.


Really? Perhaps you could direct me to a passage where he discusses international relations?

*sigh* I see "extending the concept" is lost on you.


2) In the Hobbesian state of nature, Hobbes rationalizes that every actor can kill every other; this is the foundation of equality. Canada cannot 'kill' the US, and thus the relationship cannot be in any way similar to that of individuals within the state of nature.

Nor can the US "kill" Canada.

I disagree, but that's beside the point. The fact that they cannot kill each other only strengthens the argument that states =/= individuals.

The governments are individual entities. For all intents and purposes, they are individuals, just like corporations are treated as individuals.

Or don't you like that interesting little twist?


3) The US can, should they desire, force their demands on Canada through agressive military or economic actions. Canada cannot do the same; moreover, Canada stands to lose much more than the US if this kind of conflict were to occur.

As does the US.

Maybe you should reread that... they can't bhoth stand to lose much more than each other; they both stand to lose, but the US loses far less.

Oh, not so. Reputation is something very dear.


There is clearly no Hobbesian parrallel here.

Clearly, there is. There is no government to make the US and Canada get along.

Sure. But the US and Canada aren't individuals.

The analog holds.

Are you actually not grasping that?


Why? Because the government essentially created that black market.

You're not helping your case. A gang war isn't good for you.

THe balck market is created as a consequence of government legislation, not by explicit government fiat.

The legislation IS government fiat.

MOreover, a gang war doesn't hurt me at all:

Certainly does.

A) If the state was 'perfect', and had a total monopoly on coercive force, there would be no gang war or monopoly.

Perfection is an anti-concept.

B) Where the state's coercive power comes short, coercive monopolies can and do occur.

I challenge you to name ONE coercive monopoly that was such without government fiat.

Hint: can't be done. No such beast has EVER existed. EVER.

[snip]


Moreover, you cannot prove your statement empirically whatsoever.

Certainly I can. Look at what happened to certain crime rates before, during, and after "Prohibition" in the US.

I rest my case.

Doesn't apply.

Certainly does.

You suggested black markets wouldn't exist outside of a government society.

I did? Where?


I do understand how natural monopolies occur. I never stated they didn't.

You essentially stated that all monopolies are coercive. Natural monopolies are NOT.

You're right; let me rephrase. Unnatural monopolies are the result of coercive action.

Thank you.


It's horrid junk that thinks in terms of equations and curves, and not with the subjective value-preference of the individual.

Thats kind of the point of economics,

No it's not. That's HISTORY, not ECONOMICS. Economics deals with the interactual of beings who have values and value certain things, wishing to trade. Economics can use history, but it's not history.

as I'm sure you're aware. We create general laws that, though they're not universally correct, do explain economic results and processes in general terms. It's very difficult to theorize about any subjective measure. To it's credit, economic 'laws' are generally born out by reality.

The best ones take into account human action.

Also, as a point of interest, I think you should refrain from using Saga Iceland as an example of anarcho-capitalism when apparently slightly less than half the population had any real rights/freedoms, including unrestricted rights over presonal property.

Your point?

Are youproposing a privatised police force? A privatised fire department? "Yes, we would gladly pull you out of the burning building and save you from a fiery death... but you see, there's a problem with your credit card...

Is a nice little piece of fiction, cobbled together by someone who doesn't think before he writes.

Such things as insurance would be more common. You might want to look into that.

" Frankly, we really don't see how such services could be nearly as effective in privatised form as they are when they are supported by a government.

Argument from personal incredulity doesn't impress me.

As to "saga-period" Iceland, as our historians recall, that was not quite the most peaceful region in the world at the time. Where do you suppose most people would prefer to live -- saga-period Iceland, or a modern democratic nation-state with moderate taxes and a centralised government?

Nice apples-and-oranges. How about comparing Saga-period Iceland to Continenta Europe during that time?

Of course, there are many alternatives in between those two extremes, but we think you will find most people leaning towards the centralised government end of that spectrum.

You're not trying to argue from numbers, are you?

[BAWAA]
Between the individuals. Between the companies.
[/quote]

I'm going to leave the PD stuff behind; clearly we were arguing about two different points.

What agreement between companies? As there isn't an implicit tacit consentual contract, there may not be a contract to break.


Again, I'd say that depends on the people, the market, and most importantly the completeness of the monopoly.

Which is just presuming your own conclusion. Bad.

In what sense?



And we're not speaking of mercs. Funny that you feel the need to red herring.

We can't talk about mercenaries? Why not? The difference between a security firm and a mercenary groups is debatable, possibly negligible, especially in practive.




So it's YOUR fault for being sloppy.

Man, I was very clearly discussing conceptually, then you randomly jumped in with a (debatable) empirical comment that had nothing to do with what I was discussing.

Not the way I saw it.

I think if you'll reread it's fairly clear. I'm sorry if I wasn't entirely clear however.


I said a coercive monopoly works better with a site specific factor, you asked me to explain, so I did. If you don't want to know, don't ask.

I still don't see the explanation.

The connection being that clearly reputation is important for McDonalds, but not nearly so important for a buisness with less reliance on other firms, who's holdings are more defendable, and especially those providing either:
1) Utilities and goods for which thre is a relatively inelastic demand; less options for substitution. IF there's only one firm providing electricity, you may do buisness with them despite a dubious record- it's better than freezing.
2) Firms producing primary goods for consumption in distant areas- consumers who are sufficiently detached from the community bneing expolited may not care about the reputation of the offending firm.



BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONE WHO CAME UP WITH IT, YOU IDIOT.

You're the one who's trying to make states analogous to individuals, not me. I'm not claiming anything of the kind.

You're the one who made the claim about Canada not being able to do something. That's YOUR argument. Get it?

OK, and I stand by that argument. If you think that Canada can coercively force itself on the US with any degree of success, you clearly have no concept of reality.



*sigh* I see "extending the concept" is lost on you.

THat's inaccurate. HObbes expressly defines the state as 'more than the sum of it's parts'. The sovereign is not party to the laws of nature. Humans behave in a selfinterested way; states may or may not behave in the interests of the people (and are, in HObbes opinion, more concerned about the desires of the Sovereign) A clear understanding of Hobbes clearly leads to the conclusion that the state cannot be consider a macrocosm of the individual. Reverse the order, and it becomes even more apparent- the individual does not behave as the state (the human condition is not a state of conflicting desires in Hobbes' world view). It is a false analogy in this case.


The governments are individual entities. For all intents and purposes, they are individuals, just like corporations are treated as individuals.

Or don't you like that interesting little twist?


Again, that's not the way Hobbes sees it. I think its fallacious to conceptualize states as individuals in any case: (would anarchy then be considered murder? :wink: ) I would argue that while people are primarily rational actors, states, particularly representative democratic states, are pluralist in nature.

Maybe you should reread that... they can't bhoth stand to lose much more than each other; they both stand to lose, but the US loses far less.

Oh, not so. Reputation is something very dear.

You would thus say that a loss of reputation is worse than the loss of sovereignity? I would be inclined to disageree.

The analog holds.

Are you actually not grasping that?

Addressed above

A) If the state was 'perfect', and had a total monopoly on coercive force, there would be no gang war or monopoly.

Perfection is an anti-concept.

You assume perfect competition. (Price Making firms would have very, very interesting effects on economies so totally vunerable as those in an anarcho-capitalist society)

B) Where the state's coercive power comes short, coercive monopolies can and do occur.

I challenge you to name ONE coercive monopoly that was such without government fiat.

Hint: can't be done. No such beast has EVER existed. EVER.

[snip]
[/quote]

If by fiat you mean the consequence of any legislation, whether monopoly wast the intention or otherwise, I cannot. THis doesn't prove that monopolies would not occur without government intervention however.


Thats kind of the point of economics,

No it's not. That's HISTORY, not ECONOMICS. Economics deals with the interactual of beings who have values and value certain things, wishing to trade. Economics can use history, but it's not history.

Did I make historical claims on this point? No. You said monopolies wouldn't make money, I pointed out that assuming inelastic demand, they would, which is true. You could debate the elasticity of demand, but this is a pretty clear concept.
as I'm sure you're aware. We create general laws that, though they're not universally correct, do explain economic results and processes in general terms. It's very difficult to theorize about any subjective measure. To it's credit, economic 'laws' are generally born out by reality.

The best ones take into account human action.

The one I brought up DOES. I said assuming inelastic dmeand, there would be an increase in total revenue- if the amount desired does not decrease in proportion to the raise in price, there is an increase in TR. YOu're problem shouldn't be this statement; rather you should be arguing that it's not likely demand would remain inelastic.

Also, as a point of interest, I think you should refrain from using Saga Iceland as an example of anarcho-capitalism when apparently slightly less than half the population had any real rights/freedoms, including unrestricted rights over presonal property.

Your point?
One would expect rights to be universal in an anarchic capitalist society, rather than limited to a minority. Even property rights were possessed by a small minority. It's not a very convincing or coneptually correct example.

Right...

I have a suggestion, I'm not sure you'd be amenable, but I though I'd bring it up. This discussion has gotten fairly specific; how owuld you feel about leaving these particular points behind?

Is it correct to say that the only universal statement you'd make about a society is that freedom should be maximized no matter what?

It has often been said that "Taxation is Robbery". Do you agree with this statement? If you do, you might like to approve the "Ban Taxation!" proposal, which would make it illegal for any UN Member nation to have a tax rate above 0%.
I wouldn't go as far to say that taxation is robbery. A little is needed for a government to fund itself. However, it is my choice on what to do with my money, and I really wouldn't appreciate the government coming in to take it.

It has often been said that "Taxation is Robbery". Do you agree with this statement? If you do, you might like to approve the "Ban Taxation!" proposal, which would make it illegal for any UN Member nation to have a tax rate above 0%.
I wouldn't go as far to say that taxation is robbery. A little is needed for a government to fund itself. However, it is my choice on what to do with my money, and I really wouldn't appreciate the government coming in to take it.

Anthrus I believe that taxation is robbery but that it a low amount of it is also necessary at the same time. I believe this is your point of view?

It has often been said that "Taxation is Robbery". Do you agree with this statement? If you do, you might like to approve the "Ban Taxation!" proposal, which would make it illegal for any UN Member nation to have a tax rate above 0%.
I wouldn't go as far to say that taxation is robbery. A little is needed for a government to fund itself. However, it is my choice on what to do with my money, and I really wouldn't appreciate the government coming in to take it.

Anthrus I believe that taxation is robbery but that it a low amount of it is also necessary at the same time. I believe this is your point of view?
Yes, it pretty much is.

YARRR!!! I'LL BE ROBBIN' YE!!

BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONE WHO CAME UP WITH IT, YOU IDIOT.



YARRR! BAAWA BE A LICE-INFESTED SCALLYWAG WHO IS NOT EVEN A MEMBER OF THE UNITED NATIONS!! DON'T ARGUE WITH THE SCURVY DOG, KEELHAUL HIM!!

The taxes paid to the government of the Eredron Republic is, of course, not robbery, as the government rules with the consent of the people.

It has often been said that "Taxation is Robbery". Do you agree with this statement? If you do, you might like to approve the "Ban Taxation!" proposal, which would make it illegal for any UN Member nation to have a tax rate above 0%.
I wouldn't go as far to say that taxation is robbery. A little is needed for a government to fund itself. However, it is my choice on what to do with my money, and I really wouldn't appreciate the government coming in to take it.

I agree with you that the concept of taxation as robbery is a faulty one. I look at taxes as the dues that citizens pay in order to be a part of an advanced society. I think the only bit we wold disagree on is the rate of taxation. It's fair to say that I would go with a much higher tax rate than either you or TGM. :lol:

So why do wealthy people commit crimes if there is a statistical link between income disparity and crime?

[snip your weasel-crap]

It wasn't an answer.

I'm feeling pretty dense right now. What does the statistical link between income disparity and crime have to to with the wealthy and causes related to crimes they commit?

Why would they commit crimes if they are wealthy?

Look, if there's a statistical correlation between income disparity and crime, why are wealthy people committing crimes?

It's a simple question

It is a simple question. Just not in the way that you meant.

Look, it's possible for a statistical correlation to exist between income disparity and crime and for wealthy people to commit crimes. That's not opinion, it's just a fact. If you don't believe me, go ask one of your old Stats professors.

Anthrus I believe that taxation is robbery but that it a low amount of it is also necessary at the same time. I believe this is your point of view?

If taxation is robbery and taxation is necessary for the government to function, then it follows that the government is an illegal entity, and has no right to exist. Do yo agree?

HOW MANY TIMES MUST U CAPITALISTS BE TOLD TAX IS NOT ROBBERY.it is an essential part of socity that makes sure that every one recives some level of equality and quite often you recive more than u put in or at least an equal amount. I mean how would u feel if u had to bury your own garbage so stop being so selfish and take a wider look at things.
From your communist comrade in charge of the worlds most free marxist state
The Chancellor of Englesreich

It might be essential but it's still robbery.

You see, government is illegal. It's just a street gang only with bigger guns. It doesn't have a right to exist. But it IS the lesser of two evils.

So why do wealthy people commit crimes if there is a statistical link between income disparity and crime?

[snip your weasel-crap]

It wasn't an answer.

I'm feeling pretty dense right now. What does the statistical link between income disparity and crime have to to with the wealthy and causes related to crimes they commit?

Why would they commit crimes if they are wealthy?

Look, if there's a statistical correlation between income disparity and crime, why are wealthy people committing crimes?

It's a simple question

It is a simple question. Just not in the way that you meant.

And how did I mean it?

Look, it's possible for a statistical correlation to exist between income disparity and crime and for wealthy people to commit crimes. That's not opinion, it's just a fact. If you don't believe me, go ask one of your old Stats professors.

Just asking a question. That's all.

HOW MANY TIMES MUST U CAPITALISTS BE TOLD TAX IS NOT ROBBERY.it is an essential part of socity that makes sure that every one recives some level of equality and quite often you recive more than u put in or at least an equal amount.

Taxes aren't necessary at all. Legal codes take care of equality.

I mean how would u feel if u had to bury your own garbage

So no taxes = no garbage pickup? What a complete non sequitur begged question!

so stop being so selfish and take a wider look at things.

Nothing wrong with wanting to keep your own property.

Oh--please don't try the Proudhonian stolen concept of "property is theft", either. Won't work.

let me pose a question, if you live in a society in which property does not exist, then are the other people in the society stealing from you? No because the concept of personal property is created by each society.

Now if you live in a society which has created a government, they have also established a way for the government to be funded. And since society has created property they can also decide if some percentage of your property belongs to the group while you keep the rest. Just as it can decide that you in fact don't have any property but you can share in everyone elses. So taxes are not in fact theft.

Also society determines what is and is not a crime. This is witnessed by the varying laws throughout the world. So since society determines what is and is not a crime then it is also up to each society to define what constitutes a crime and what does not constitute a crime. If a society determines that theft is a crime, it can also determine what exactly theft is and that picking someones pocket is theft, while taxes are not theft. And since society has made this determination and society has also made the determination that governments can legally tax their citizens taxation is not theft since the society which permits it does not think it is.

[snip]

What agreement between companies? As there isn't an implicit tacit consentual contract, there may not be a contract to break.

There isn't one? Hmmmm.

Why not?


Again, I'd say that depends on the people, the market, and most importantly the completeness of the monopoly.

Which is just presuming your own conclusion. Bad.

In what sense?

Of even presuming a monopoly.

And we're not speaking of mercs. Funny that you feel the need to red herring.

We can't talk about mercenaries? Why not? The difference between a security firm and a mercenary groups is debatable, possibly negligible, especially in practive.

The difference is huge. One works in a legal framework and contract law. The other is non-legalframework hired guns.


I said a coercive monopoly works better with a site specific factor, you asked me to explain, so I did. If you don't want to know, don't ask.

I still don't see the explanation.

The connection being that clearly reputation is important for McDonalds, but not nearly so important for a buisness with less reliance on other firms, who's holdings are more defendable, and especially those providing either:
1) Utilities and goods for which thre is a relatively inelastic demand; less options for substitution. IF there's only one firm providing electricity, you may do buisness with them despite a dubious record- it's better than freezing.

Why would there be only one firm for that?

2) Firms producing primary goods for consumption in distant areas- consumers who are sufficiently detached from the community bneing expolited may not care about the reputation of the offending firm.

You recall the flap over the Kathy Lee Gifford line of clothing supposedly being made in "sweatshops"? Yeah, I remember it too.

I remember how the line of clothing suffered a drop-off in sales afterward.

Seems history isn't in agreement with you.



BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONE WHO CAME UP WITH IT, YOU IDIOT.

You're the one who's trying to make states analogous to individuals, not me. I'm not claiming anything of the kind.

You're the one who made the claim about Canada not being able to do something. That's YOUR argument. Get it?

OK, and I stand by that argument. If you think that Canada can coercively force itself on the US with any degree of success, you clearly have no concept of reality.

Must you always think in terms of a military? Are you that single-minded?



*sigh* I see "extending the concept" is lost on you.

THat's inaccurate. HObbes expressly defines the state as 'more than the sum of it's parts'. The sovereign is not party to the laws of nature.

Just one of Hobbes' consistency errors, mind you.

Humans behave in a selfinterested way; states may or may not behave in the interests of the people (and are, in HObbes opinion, more concerned about the desires of the Sovereign)

Meaning: it behaves as the sovereign wishes, i.e. his INDIVIDUAL desires.

A clear understanding of Hobbes clearly leads to the conclusion that the state cannot be consider a macrocosm of the individual. Reverse the order, and it becomes even more apparent- the individual does not behave as the state (the human condition is not a state of conflicting desires in Hobbes' world view). It is a false analogy in this case.

But since it is about the sovereign.....


The governments are individual entities. For all intents and purposes, they are individuals, just like corporations are treated as individuals.

Or don't you like that interesting little twist?


Again, that's not the way Hobbes sees it.

It is from a conclusion Hobbes hadn't thought of when he wrote what he did. Just as Rand had her anarchocapitalist enclave in Galt's Gulch, Hobbes has his individual-as-State in the Sovereign. L'etat, c'est moi.

I think its fallacious to conceptualize states as individuals in any case: (would anarchy then be considered murder? :wink: ) I would argue that while people are primarily rational actors, states, particularly representative democratic states, are pluralist in nature.

In modern democratic states, the idea of the government and people being unified as a singular for the nation is complete.


Maybe you should reread that... they can't bhoth stand to lose much more than each other; they both stand to lose, but the US loses far less.

Oh, not so. Reputation is something very dear.

You would thus say that a loss of reputation is worse than the loss of sovereignity?

If the US attacks, it would lose what little of its reputation it has left.

Understand?



A) If the state was 'perfect', and had a total monopoly on coercive force, there would be no gang war or monopoly.

Perfection is an anti-concept.

You assume perfect competition.

No. I just remove the undue and unjust crap.

(Price Making firms would have very, very interesting effects on economies so totally vunerable as those in an anarcho-capitalist society)

And why is that?

B) Where the state's coercive power comes short, coercive monopolies can and do occur.

I challenge you to name ONE coercive monopoly that was such without government fiat.

Hint: can't be done. No such beast has EVER existed. EVER.

[snip]


If by fiat you mean the consequence of any legislation, whether monopoly wast the intention or otherwise, I cannot.

As I knew.

THis doesn't prove that monopolies would not occur without government intervention however.

1. Argument from ignorance fallacy variant.

2. STOP BEING SO DAMNED SLOPPY. REFER TO IT AS A COERCIVE, NOT JUST "MONOPOLY". THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NATURAL AND COERCIVE, AS YOU YOURSELF NOTED.


Thats kind of the point of economics,

No it's not. That's HISTORY, not ECONOMICS. Economics deals with the interactual of beings who have values and value certain things, wishing to trade. Economics can use history, but it's not history.

Did I make historical claims on this point?

I pointed out the charts and graphs and such, and you said "that's the point", which was agreeing that charts and graphs and such should be used.

No. You said monopolies wouldn't make money,

No, I never said that.

I pointed out that assuming inelastic demand, they would, which is true. You could debate the elasticity of demand, but this is a pretty clear concept.
[quote=Mallberta]as I'm sure you're aware. We create general laws that, though they're not universally correct, do explain economic results and processes in general terms. It's very difficult to theorize about any subjective measure. To it's credit, economic 'laws' are generally born out by reality.

The best ones take into account human action.

The one I brought up DOES. I said assuming inelastic dmeand, there would be an increase in total revenue- if the amount desired does not decrease in proportion to the raise in price, there is an increase in TR. YOu're problem shouldn't be this statement; rather you should be arguing that it's not likely demand would remain inelastic.

My apologies. I misspoke.


Also, as a point of interest, I think you should refrain from using Saga Iceland as an example of anarcho-capitalism when apparently slightly less than half the population had any real rights/freedoms, including unrestricted rights over presonal property.

Your point?

One would expect rights to be universal in an anarchic capitalist society,

Would one? Why?

rather than limited to a minority. Even property rights were possessed by a small minority. It's not a very convincing or coneptually correct example.

Certainly is.

Right...

I have a suggestion, I'm not sure you'd be amenable, but I though I'd bring it up. This discussion has gotten fairly specific; how owuld you feel about leaving these particular points behind?

I think we've taken it as far as we can. Fine.

Is it correct to say that the only universal statement you'd make about a society is that freedom should be maximized no matter what?

Liberty should be.

[snip]

What agreement between companies? As there isn't an implicit tacit consentual contract, there may not be a contract to break.

There isn't one? Hmmmm.

Why not?

You've stated previously that the only contracts which arise through direct and explicit consent can be considered legitimate. Consequently, there cannot be a wide ranging, binding contract which covers the actions of all individuals and corporations, i.e. a social contract, unless this consent is taken from all parties. I would think it's unlikely, and impractical, to assume that each and every firm will enter into contract with each other firm; thus there may not be a contract to break.


In what sense?

Of even presuming a monopoly.

Not really. We were discussing the potential gains of a prospective coercive monopoly; i.e. we were assuming that this kind of monopoly is indeed possible.


And we're not speaking of mercs. Funny that you feel the need to red herring.

We can't talk about mercenaries? Why not? The difference between a security firm and a mercenary groups is debatable, possibly negligible, especially in practive.

The difference is huge. One works in a legal framework and contract law. The other is non-legalframework hired guns.

I would again expect that a legal framework would be impossible in as much as every party must explictly consent to it in order for it to be both legitimate and binding. Thus the 'legality' of a firm is dictated solely by the contracts it has entered into. If it has no established contract with a given party, no action the firm commits against this party can be considered illegal.


The connection being that clearly reputation is important for McDonalds, but not nearly so important for a buisness with less reliance on other firms, who's holdings are more defendable, and especially those providing either:
1) Utilities and goods for which thre is a relatively inelastic demand; less options for substitution. IF there's only one firm providing electricity, you may do buisness with them despite a dubious record- it's better than freezing.

Why would there be only one firm for that?

As a site specific limited resources, it is not unreasonable to think a situation may arise where only one, or a handful, of individuals, would have control over this resources. Moreover, even if other accesses to electricity are available, their affordability as a substitution will have incredible impact over their success as an alternative- if the purchasing the alternative electricity from the more ethical firm is prohibitively expensive, it seems likely that most individuals will continue to buy the 'blood electricity', so to speak.

2) Firms producing primary goods for consumption in distant areas- consumers who are sufficiently detached from the community bneing expolited may not care about the reputation of the offending firm.

You recall the flap over the Kathy Lee Gifford line of clothing supposedly being made in "sweatshops"? Yeah, I remember it too.

I remember how the line of clothing suffered a drop-off in sales afterward.

Seems history isn't in agreement with you.

Actually, if you'll recall, the sweatshop scandals disappeared as quickly as they arose. There has been a continuing increase in this kind of production. I would attribute this to a kind of 'desensitization'. Certainly the vast majority of consumer clothes are produced through this kind of process. (Just as a note, I'm not really opposed to sweatshops on principle).



OK, and I stand by that argument. If you think that Canada can coercively force itself on the US with any degree of success, you clearly have no concept of reality.

Must you always think in terms of a military? Are you that single-minded?
Not unless we're discussing the coercive powers of states; clearly militaries ARE the most relevant source of hard power, almost by definitions. All I'm saying is that in a Hobbesian sense, Canada and the US aren't equals.


THat's inaccurate. HObbes expressly defines the state as 'more than the sum of it's parts'. The sovereign is not party to the laws of nature.

Just one of Hobbes' consistency errors, mind you.

Yes and no. Because he doesn't make the sovereign accountable to the people, nor does he make the sovereign infallible, we must logically assume that rather than acting in the best interest of the nation, the sovereign will act in his own best interest- the two aren't the same. A sovereign may decide to drain the coffers of the nation for his own interest- I'm not sure how an individual could drain it's own coffers, so to speak. Because Hobbes doesn't assume states will act in the self-interest of the state itself, it's really not an error, so much as a very cynical analysis of the nature of absolute rulers.


Humans behave in a selfinterested way; states may or may not behave in the interests of the people (and are, in HObbes opinion, more concerned about the desires of the Sovereign)

Meaning: it behaves as the sovereign wishes, i.e. his INDIVIDUAL desires.

Which clearly aren't nessecarily those of the state. How many corrupt sovereigns have stolen from their own people, hurting the state as a unit?


A clear understanding of Hobbes clearly leads to the conclusion that the state cannot be consider a macrocosm of the individual. Reverse the order, and it becomes even more apparent- the individual does not behave as the state (the human condition is not a state of conflicting desires in Hobbes' world view). It is a false analogy in this case.

But since it is about the sovereign.....

You tried to extend the analogy to indicate states would act as individuals; they do not. Sovereigns (though he doesn't explicitly describe this) would act as individuals, and thus not nessecarily in the rational self-interest of the state. Thus we cannot assume, through a Hobbesian gaze, that states will act as individuals.


It is from a conclusion Hobbes hadn't thought of when he wrote what he did. Just as Rand had her anarchocapitalist enclave in Galt's Gulch, Hobbes has his individual-as-State in the Sovereign. L'etat, c'est moi.

I think this is a reasonable conclusion had Hobbes made the Leviathan a representative or direct democracy. The Sovereign is not an 'individual-as-state': he's out for himself, not the state which he controls. If we assume that the state directly represents the interests of the people, than I would whole-heartedly agree with you.


I think its fallacious to conceptualize states as individuals in any case: (would anarchy then be considered murder? :wink: ) I would argue that while people are primarily rational actors, states, particularly representative democratic states, are pluralist in nature.

In modern democratic states, the idea of the government and people being unified as a singular for the nation is complete.

I disagree, especially in terms of liberalism. Though some thinkers do have that sort of ideology, (Rousseau and Hegel in particular) modern liberal thinkers such as Rawls see the government as the more or less neutral body which ensures that the people can live their lives as they see fit, given maximum equal freedom and equality of opportunity.



Maybe you should reread that... they can't bhoth stand to lose much more than each other; they both stand to lose, but the US loses far less.

Oh, not so. Reputation is something very dear.

You would thus say that a loss of reputation is worse than the loss of sovereignity?

If the US attacks, it would lose what little of its reputation it has left.

Understand?

I'm not saying the US doesn't lose- clearly both parties do. From an economical aspect, the US loses less, having a larger domestic market, and, as the world's single largest investor, considerable international clout regardless of reputation. From a military perspective, the US clearly wins. From a political perspective, the US would be essentially intact, the Canada a veritable fiefdom. I don't see why you're arguing they both lose equally.

From a personal standpoint, I'm not sure how much regard the US has for reputation anyways, having a largely neo-realist administration.


(Price Making firms would have very, very interesting effects on economies so totally vunerable as those in an anarcho-capitalist society)

And why is that?


States can use fiscal and monetary policies to reduce shocks on an international market. Monetary systems based on a fixed good have neither the flexibility of exchange nor the liquidity to do so. If you look at Britain under a fixed gold standard during the interwar period, this is clear. (incidentally, this is also one of the reason the Reichbank and the French banks were very reluctant to 'go on to' gold)


Did I make historical claims on this point?

I pointed out the charts and graphs and such, and you said "that's the point", which was agreeing that charts and graphs and such should be used.

They certainly can be used. Graphs and charts give visual interprations of mathematical principles. You can graph markets based on empirical observations as well as mathematical principles.


One would expect rights to be universal in an anarchic capitalist society,

Would one? Why?

How do you have an ideal capitalist society where property rights are restricted to a certain group of individuals, who are socially understood to be able to dominate a different group of individuals, simply by virtue of cirumstance of birth?

rather than limited to a minority. Even property rights were possessed by a small minority. It's not a very convincing or coneptually correct example.

Certainly is.

In which case we could argue that, under anarcho-capitalism, slavery would be acceptable, since rights aren't extended to each individual.


Is it correct to say that the only universal statement you'd make about a society is that freedom should be maximized no matter what?

Liberty should be.

What specifically do you mean by liberty (especially in terms of difference from freedom) and how do you arrive at this conclusion?

The government of the Drama Isles supports taxation. True, taxation is indeed a way for a government to control its populace. The higher the taxes, the lower the spending power of the people, which will generally make your economy weak - EXCEPT if the taxes you take go to services.

Taxes are a way for government to provide for the general welfare, the common defense, etc. Services, such as police, firefighters, military, health-care (if you're like Canada or UK), all PROTECT citizens.

Once again, you guys do what you want, but the Drama Isles will moderately tax its citizens at the not unreasonable rate of 12%.

I think its weird the United States became a nation to escape taxation in the first place and yet here they are charging the citizens several different taxes I dont think its right to have more than onw tax at a time I mean a lot of my pay check goes to the government to spend on stuff I dont like I think the citizens should be able to vote on where they think the money should go.

I think its weird the United States became a nation to escape taxation in the first place and yet here they are charging the citizens several different taxes I dont think its right to have more than onw tax at a time I mean a lot of my pay check goes to the government to spend on stuff I dont like I think the citizens should be able to vote on where they think the money should go. The issue was not to "escape taxation" but rather have "taxation with representation". I agree that, as a U.S. citizen too, it is significantly frustrating to see taxation policy and spending priorities as they currently (and in the past...) exist. However, that's how our "representative democracy" works on a day-to-day basis and it's encumbent upon all of us to become involved in order to dilute the interests that have brought us to this point. Without going into the Hobbesian or Hegelian dissertations regarding state/individual relationships, taxes are the pricetag of civilization. The dynamics of their rate is the grist of politics.

It might be essential but it's still robbery.

You see, government is illegal. It's just a street gang only with bigger guns. It doesn't have a right to exist. But it IS the lesser of two evils.

That's not necessarily true. If all people who are ruled (for lack of a better term) by the government freely enter into an agreement with the government to be ruled then there's nothing necessarily illegal about that.

Taxation is not robbery. It is merely the government relocating money so that it may be used for the benefit of the people. Your taxes pay for public schools, the military, etc. etc. Such institutions are in place for the people to either benefit the people or mantain the government. Without taxes, the government would have to feed off of businesses, and then businesses would rule the nation. Or, the country would slump into anarchy. Taxation is you paying the government to maintain public aesthetics, public institutions, public cleanliness, and keep you safe. You basically are helping the government maintain your rights and privileges as citizens. You're investing in your future and in your quality of life. Besides, as a citizen, it is your duty.

It might be essential but it's still robbery.

You see, government is illegal. It's just a street gang only with bigger guns. It doesn't have a right to exist. But it IS the lesser of two evils.

That's not necessarily true. If all people who are ruled (for lack of a better term) by the government freely enter into an agreement with the government to be ruled then there's nothing necessarily illegal about that.

Whether or not government is illegal is irrelevant--Government is. Societies have sprung up and said that in order to make social and technological progress, we have to band together--and in order for us to band together effectively, we have to agree to some rules. Now you can argue the relative merits and faults of the types of governments that exist, but the fact is that government exists in some form, even in hunter-gatherer societies. The minute you get people living and working together, some form of de facto government is there--because it must be.

Why taxation is theft:

I go to work. I earn money. Since I have accumulated that money by exchanging my labor for money that originally belonged to an employer in a voluntary mutual agreement, then (assuming that my employer obtained it legitimately, and so on up the line) that money is morally mine. I have earned it, and I have obtained it with the consent of its prior owner. To take what is mine from me without my consent is theft.

But I do consent, because after all I'm free to leave society at any time, you say? Ok, fine. But I live on property that I own. Since I obtained that property with the voluntary consent of the prior owner (most likely by trading something I had of value for it, although he could have given it to me or left it to me in his will--it really doesn't matter as long as he consented to it), then (assuming, of course, that the prior owner obtained it legitimately, and so on up the line) the property on which I live is morally mine. I own it, completely, totally, and unquestionably. Now, there is no such thing as "conditional" ownership of property--either I own it and I'm free to do as I please with it or I'm not. Since I own this property, then I have the right to do as I please with it--including live on it--without implicitly consenting to have a portion of my wealth taken from me at regular intervals. Since this property is mine, since this wealth is mine, I control it subject to no conditions save that I do not use it to cause harm to another person or his property. I have no moral obligation to abandon or give up, in whole or in part, what I have legitimately accumulated simply because of where it and I happen to be physically located except with my explicit consent.

Therefore, taxation is theft, period.

Why taxation is theft:

I go to work. I earn money. Since I have accumulated that money by exchanging my labor for money that originally belonged to an employer in a voluntary mutual agreement, then (assuming that my employer obtained it legitimately, and so on up the line) that money is morally mine. I have earned it, and I have obtained it with the consent of its prior owner. To take what is mine from me without my consent is theft.

But I do consent, because after all I'm free to leave society at any time, you say? Ok, fine. But I live on property that I own. Since I obtained that property with the voluntary consent of the prior owner (most likely by trading something I had of value for it, although he could have given it to me or left it to me in his will--it really doesn't matter as long as he consented to it), then (assuming, of course, that the prior owner obtained it legitimately, and so on up the line) the property on which I live is morally mine. I own it, completely, totally, and unquestionably. Now, there is no such thing as "conditional" ownership of property--either I own it and I'm free to do as I please with it or I'm not. Since I own this property, then I have the right to do as I please with it--including live on it--without implicitly consenting to have a portion of my wealth taken from me at regular intervals. Since this property is mine, since this wealth is mine, I control it subject to no conditions save that I do not use it to cause harm to another person or his property. I have no moral obligation to abandon or give up, in whole or in part, what I have legitimately accumulated simply because of where it and I happen to be physically located except with my explicit consent.

Therefore, taxation is theft, period.

All this proves is that you cannot make an argument without claiming your opinions are fact. Go take a journalism class or something, your just getting boring now.

Have any of you who are supporting laissez faire even opened a history book? I'll sum it up for you

Laissez Faire Capitalism not only failed it failed miserably. Workers will inevitably form unions and demand the government regulate businesses, if the government refuses the workers will overthrow it and put in one that will.

Surely if you had at least a high school education you would know this has been done. Do you really want to send the world over 100 years back so we can relive incidents like the hay-market rebellion?

Do you want to give rise to another wave of communist dictatorships?

Because these things are inevitable when anyone tries to institute a laisez faire capitalistic system.

Why taxation is theft:

I go to work. I earn money. Since I have accumulated that money by exchanging my labor for money that originally belonged to an employer in a voluntary mutual agreement, then (assuming that my employer obtained it legitimately, and so on up the line) that money is morally mine. I have earned it, and I have obtained it with the consent of its prior owner. To take what is mine from me without my consent is theft.

YARRRR!! SO WHY DON'T YE STOP PAYIN' THEM TAXES THEN, YE LIME-SUCKIN' DECK SWABBER??

Oh dear, 194 posts. I am sorry for not being able to read all of them. And would probably in ending up in hearing nothing I hadn't already heard from my friends. But my excuses for possible repeating something. However I thought it shouldn't scare me away from giving my little imput.

Is taxation robbery?

It is a view point commenly proposed by people who don't like taxes at all. It is not theft as according to law, but it might be for ethical reasons, and yes in some cases it morally could be considered theft. In the case when it starts to look like protection money. Pay taxes or go to jail. (as variant of being shot by the mop). This is a very fair argument certainly when the government uses that money to make the personal friends of the leader instead on spending it in benefit of the people who gave the money.

However I don't think that taxes in its essential are theft.

There name three ethical arguments for taxation I can think of right now.

The old form sprung up multiple times in history. I take for example the european mediaval ages. (source: father who was a mediaval fanatic and made an extensive study I am stuck with now that he has passed away). This form of taxation sprung up because a particular choice people made. When a nobleman did somebody a favor there where to forms of payment. One way was to just donate a good sum of money at once to compensate. The other option was to permanetly pay a small fixed sum. Because of short sided ignorance of some of these people a lot choice the second one. While an advantage at first it resulted in (sometimes generations later because of inherentance) that people had to pay lords a fair sum of money while gettting nothing in return. This was just payment for favors generations ago. While seeming unfair it was just good business from the family of the lords, and bad business of the other. In the early stages the lords had to give to there people to become liked enough to have the support to be come king or something like that, but at the end the money was flowing from the people to the noblemen. Some nobles did so well because of that they got higher and higher in status. Though it might seem unfair after a couple of centuries, it actually quite is, after all they had a choice.

The second form is more morally acceptable. This version is what taxes should be looked at now I think. It grew out of the first form, but I like to compare that as the small forward thrust wings for water skiing the first insects had before learning how to fly.

This idea behind taxes would be the pooling of money. The easiest small scale example is how me and my friends bought beer when we went out. Instead of everybody having to buy for ourselves, we pooled some money from which beer was bought all evening. Adding more money when the pool ran out. Since we all drunk about as much, it was a good system, because it was much more efficient. Ofcourse when some people stopped drinking less or no alcohol tension started to rise. Tension not unlike the complains on the government right now.

An example more in the view of government is like a village that wants to build a road to a nearby village to improve trade. Since non of the citizens is rich enough to build the road it could not be build. However the whole village decides to pool there resources and put one person or organisation in charge of building that road. Choicing the government as organisation is actually a quite reasonable choice. Certainly in a democracy you actually have a vote in how the money is handled. The pool in this case is controlled by the entire village. And the government can go on nicely in building the road for the benifit of the whole village.

If one villager would have been rich enough and he had build the road, afcourse he would have wanted something back for it. So he had to make a toll. Well in the end you are paying anyway, but now you are paying "taxes" to that individual builder. Nobody would call that theft, and it would be lots and lots more uncomfortable. Actually this :P is how the first "taxes" came in existence, see first form with the noblemen.

Then at last I want to say number three. Some people think that the money they earn is the money they earn and they have every right of it because they worked for it. This is however, sorry, a bit unawareness. It is true that you did somework for it. But where it not for the government you would never have been able to earn it. There would be no road to go to work, no electrictiy to run the machines, you would have had no education to perform the work, and ,what I think is the main job of governement, there would be no protection. Not from having the work place destroyed from angry people, or people with egoistic intentions stronger than you (now called criminals) or protections from groups of people stronger than you (now called other nations). Other than that, if you had got the money there was no protection at all for having you keep that money. Thiefes or tugs could come any time to take it away, so could neighbouring nations or tribes. You could afcourse trust your own on your own strength to get all those things, but then you would not be able to go to work since most of the time you would have to spend fending of others. And if you would pay others to make all those things happen, you end up paying them "taxes" and you are just as worse off.

However if you pay other citizens you have no control or saying about it anymore and are completely at there mercy. In a democratic government however you have a nice neat vote over how those things have to happen. So in my opinion taxes and democracy is the perfect combination.

Why taxation is theft:

I go to work. I earn money. Since I have accumulated that money by exchanging my labor for money that originally belonged to an employer in a voluntary mutual agreement, then (assuming that my employer obtained it legitimately, and so on up the line) that money is morally mine. I have earned it, and I have obtained it with the consent of its prior owner. To take what is mine from me without my consent is theft.

But I do consent, because after all I'm free to leave society at any time, you say? Ok, fine. But I live on property that I own. Since I obtained that property with the voluntary consent of the prior owner (most likely by trading something I had of value for it, although he could have given it to me or left it to me in his will--it really doesn't matter as long as he consented to it), then (assuming, of course, that the prior owner obtained it legitimately, and so on up the line) the property on
which I live is morally mine. I own it, completely, totally, and unquestionably. Now, there is no such thing as "conditional" ownership of property--either I own it and I'm free to do as I please with it or I'm not. Since I own this property, then I have the right to do as I please with it--including live on it--without implicitly consenting to have a portion of my wealth taken from me at regular intervals. Since this property is mine, since this wealth is mine, I control it subject to no conditions save that I do not use it to cause harm to another person or his property. I have no moral obligation to abandon or give up, in whole or in part, what I have legitimately accumulated simply because of where it and I happen to be physically located except with my explicit consent.

Therefore, taxation is theft, period.

blah, blah, blah, assumption, assumption, assumption.

YOu cannot prove any of the morals. I guarantee it.

blah, blah, blah, assumption, assumption, assumption.

YOu cannot prove any of the morals. I guarantee it.

I don't think the assumptions are such a big problem. I see it more as a long way of describing right of property, possesion right or however the official name is I think adam smith has giving it.

Since I own this property, then I have the right to do as I please with it--including live on it--without implicitly consenting to have a portion of my wealth taken from me at regular intervals. Since this property is mine, since this wealth is mine, I control it subject to no conditions save that I do not use it to cause harm to another person or his property. I have no moral obligation to abandon or give up, in whole or in part, what I have legitimately accumulated simply because of where it and I happen to be physically located except with my explicit consent.

Therefore, taxation is theft, period.

I do however consider the conclusion funny. The fact that you say you own it, is not a nature law. It is a human law. Supported and enforced by the people and the government. Considering that some humans love stealing, lets say just the government. Ergo if the government says it is oke that it takes some of your money, it is just as legal as you owning the thing in the first place. I am pretty sure this was already said however ;).

Afcourse the perfect counter would be to say that it is not a law of man, nor nature, but a law of god. But then I ask you, why does god applied on some places and not on others :P. However you have freedom of religion and to think whatever you like :).

For the ones that have that believe, I want to comfort you for the fact that god often seems to allow people to come with a big gun and take everything you got. God be be so unfair.

I think taxation isn't robbery because my government says so.

Yes, but that doesn't over rule peoples sense of morals, ethics and justic automatically.

Some nationse consider capital punishment not murder. But some people might disagree. Some nations consider torturing not inhuman, but that doesn't stop UNICEF from saying it is :).......so :P

I think the people who voted yes are talking about the ethical thing, I hope they kinda figured out by now they cannot use the current lawsystem to send the governement to jail for it :P

but it is needed, even in its crappiness. Big oppressive government is the problem. We are able to do a more than adequate job on a 6% flat tax. Small government is the key.

Hillbilly

[quote=Idumea][quote=BAAWA]
So why do wealthy people commit crimes if there is a statistical link between income disparity and crime?

[snip your weasel-crap]

It wasn't an answer.

I'm feeling pretty dense right now. What does the statistical link between income disparity and crime have to to with the wealthy and causes related to crimes they commit?

Why would they commit crimes if they are wealthy?

Look, if there's a statistical correlation between income disparity and crime, why are wealthy people committing crimes?

It's a simple question

Look, it's possible for a statistical correlation to exist between income disparity and crime and for wealthy people to commit crimes. That's not opinion, it's just a fact. If you don't believe me, go ask one of your old Stats professors.

Just asking a question. That's all.

Yes, I know - sorry for being snappish. I've been trying to answer your question, and feeling frustrated that I haven't been able to communicate more effectively. But I'm happy to try again. You want to know that, if there is a correlation between income disparity and crime, why then would wealthy people commit crime. Okay, here goes.

I'll start by saying again that individual crimes will be uniquely motivated. Crimes of the wealthy, for example, might be motivated by greed, lust, fear, ignorance, etc.. Your question seems to be seeking to link motivations of individuals to collective trends, and seems to imply that absent such a link, the collective trends are meaningless. What I've been trying to tell you is that there is no link implied between motivations of individuals (i.e. "wealthy people committing crimes") and large-scale trends taken from statistically valid samples of the population (i.e."a statistical correlation between income disparity and crime"). Your question is so difficult to answer because it assumes a link that does not exist, and so to answer your question I first have to make you understand that the question is nonsensical.

I hope that helps - I'm sure others are tiring of this particular back and forth. :wink:

blah, blah, blah, assumption, assumption, assumption.

YOu cannot prove any of the morals. I guarantee it.

I don't think the assumptions are such a big problem. I see it more as a long way of describing right of property, possesion right or however the official name is I think adam smith has giving it.

Since I own this property, then I have the right to do as I please with it--including live on it--without implicitly consenting to have a portion of my wealth taken from me at regular intervals. Since this property is mine, since this wealth is mine, I control it subject to no conditions save that I do not use it to cause harm to another person or his property. I have no moral obligation to abandon or give up, in whole or in part, what I have legitimately accumulated simply because of where it and I happen to be physically located except with my explicit consent.

Therefore, taxation is theft, period.

I do however consider the conclusion funny. The fact that you say you own it, is not a nature law.
But it is.

blah, blah, blah, assumption, assumption, assumption.

YOu cannot prove any of the morals. I guarantee it.

I don't think the assumptions are such a big problem. I see it more as a long way of describing right of property, possesion right or however the official name is I think adam smith has giving it.

Since I own this property, then I have the right to do as I please with it--including live on it--without implicitly consenting to have a portion of my wealth taken from me at regular intervals. Since this property is mine, since this wealth is mine, I control it subject to no conditions save that I do not use it to cause harm to another person or his property. I have no moral obligation to abandon or give up, in whole or in part, what I have legitimately accumulated simply because of where it and I happen to be physically located except with my explicit consent.

Therefore, taxation is theft, period.

I do however consider the conclusion funny. The fact that you say you own it, is not a nature law.
But it is.

I believe this explains Ithuanias debating style.

"You, the rest of the world, and the legal system are the ones refusing to accept reality. Not me."-Ithuania

blah, blah, blah, assumption, assumption, assumption.

YOu cannot prove any of the morals. I guarantee it.

I don't think the assumptions are such a big problem. I see it more as a long way of describing right of property, possesion right or however the official name is I think adam smith has giving it.

Since I own this property, then I have the right to do as I please with it--including live on it--without implicitly consenting to have a portion of my wealth taken from me at regular intervals. Since this property is mine, since this wealth is mine, I control it subject to no conditions save that I do not use it to cause harm to another person or his property. I have no moral obligation to abandon or give up, in whole or in part, what I have legitimately accumulated simply because of where it and I happen to be physically located except with my explicit consent.

Therefore, taxation is theft, period.

I do however consider the conclusion funny. The fact that you say you own it, is not a nature law.
But it is.

I love you Ithuania :P. This is so cute :D.

I would call this an axioma collision. It can only be broken if we are willing to accept on both sides the possibility that what we personally accept to be absolutely true, might not be.

I am quite convinced of my statement because of my little bit research, colleges about touching subject, and extensive figuring out on the creation of laws of man including personal experiences. (it cannot be called experiment I am afraid). However no thing of this means bull unless you have an increadable faith in me :P.

I will do an attempt on going a bit deeper on that statement. If you would be so kind to do so with yours.

What is a nature law? what is a human law?

A nature law would be for something like, an effect that appears predictably (though in science it is mostly 100% of the time) and that can not by a human be decided that it no longer applies. We can use technology or whatever to work with it, but it will not shut off just because we decided it.

A human law however can. Lets take a community. If for example one individual decided that there are not anymore such thing as private property and that he has access to everything, and everything he has others can use. He will get into serious trouble with his neighbours. So it seems that he can not will it away.

Now lets say all people in that community think that on the same time. They use whatever they please, they let use whatever they please. If two people want to use it at the same time, they flip a coin. At that point even if it was a law of nature it would within that community have no longer any effect at all. Because nobody is going to enforce it. Nor support it. Nor even think about it. But you could say that everything in that community is owned by the community. Sort of community property.

I think you know an example in your close to you, take for exampled married couples. Who owns darn what ;). They own it together. So now it these things are owned by the entire community, together.

Actually something like this has happened in the passed in primivite cultures. They didn't flipped a coin however, they used I think whom ever is holding it can hold and use it until he puts it down. But I got this from a reliable source.

An other comparison would be if something is owned by a company. The company is owned by the shareholders. On a way they own the factory together too.

Anyways back to the tought game.
So it is community property. Now lets say a hurdle of communities all stopped following the nature law at the same time. Actually the effect now increases the all those communities. Even if you take from an other community, who the bloody is going to care. Now lets take a small nation. They all stopped using that law at the same time. Between that nation there is nothing left of the effect of that law anymore. Now take a continent. Or at the end the entire world. Now all human beings on that world no longer apply the law if they do it all at the same time. Now lets say the animals get even more pathetic in this matter than they already are. Who is going to care.

Even stronger if you would start screaming around mine mine mine, everybody would think you are crazy. And probably give you a good smacking to for being so annoying. Anyways, the moment you would leave something alone someone else would take it :P. Since you are not around, what are you gong to do. Attack everybod who "steals" from you, they think you suddenly have become madly agressive and consider you a threat and retaliate by attacking you back, and you end up death.

But I just noticed, the entire effect of the law just disseapered, just by making the thought experiement to let everybody stop following that law at the same time. Well we can all stop thinking about gravity. That is not going to disseapear however. But it is no problem to stop acting on some idea of property. You can do it in a marriage too, so why not somewhere else.

I am also thinking of other examples but I don't know the laws exactly enough to know when I make a mistake. But I know one very clear example. When you find an abondand ship on the middle of the ocean it is yours. It becomes your property. If however after 3 days it appears somebody was still on board, it wasn't. Because it wasn't abondond. But for 3 days you thought it was. Other than that, if it was a nature law, how come people can decided whether you own a ship if it is abondend at sea, but you don't own a house when it is empty for a while and you walk in it. And not just that. If humans stick there head together and agreed on something else, the ship would suddenly be no longer yours but still belong to the original owner ;).

Oh I have a way if you have trouble imagening people no longer applying the law. Say somebody god brain damage, amnesia and that little bit of knowledge he forgets. Just one person would soon be reminded again of it by other people. But say, and it is tought experiment so this is actually possible, all people bumb there heads on the same time. If they all forget. Who is going to remind them?

I hope that this thought experiment gives you an idea of difference between human law and natural law.

In both cases if one stops believing it he gets into trouble.
But in human law, if all humans stop thinking about it at the same time, it no longer ceases to do anything.
However in nature law, even if all humans stop thinking about it pretending it doesn't exist any more, or you forgot all together it existed, you still fall to your doom when you step off a cliff :).

We all think so on April 15.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

Grin sounds like an armagadon prediction :)
Don't worry. I am not yet ready to activate it. Luckily there enough dates for me to pick from :)

But look at the bright side. At least you get to feel how it is to live every day like it is your last day :). An advice given to so many people.

Though be prepared to continue wherever that will be.
I don't think it will appreasiat it much if you burn your bridges in this life.

[snip]

What agreement between companies? As there isn't an implicit tacit consentual contract, there may not be a contract to break.

There isn't one? Hmmmm.

Why not?

You've stated previously that the only contracts which arise through direct and explicit consent can be considered legitimate. Consequently, there cannot be a wide ranging, binding contract which covers the actions of all individuals and corporations, i.e. a social contract, unless this consent is taken from all parties.

Which is what I said.

I would think it's unlikely, and impractical, to assume that each and every firm will enter into contract with each other firm;

I, OTOH, find it completely likely and utterly practical. It's called "planning for contingencies".



In what sense?

Of even presuming a monopoly.

Not really. We were discussing the potential gains of a prospective coercive monopoly; i.e. we were assuming that this kind of monopoly is indeed possible.

You'd smuggled in that such would be the only type.


And we're not speaking of mercs. Funny that you feel the need to red herring.

We can't talk about mercenaries? Why not? The difference between a security firm and a mercenary groups is debatable, possibly negligible, especially in practive.

The difference is huge. One works in a legal framework and contract law. The other is non-legalframework hired guns.

I would again expect that a legal framework would be impossible in as much as every party must explictly consent to it in order for it to be both legitimate and binding.

Why wouldn't they?

Thus the 'legality' of a firm is dictated solely by the contracts it has entered into. If it has no established contract with a given party, no action the firm commits against this party can be considered illegal.

False. That's tantamount to saying that if I don't have a contract with you not to take my things, it's not theft for you to take them without my consent.

Load of ultra-positivistic garbage. Don't try it again.


The connection being that clearly reputation is important for McDonalds, but not nearly so important for a buisness with less reliance on other firms, who's holdings are more defendable, and especially those providing either:
1) Utilities and goods for which thre is a relatively inelastic demand; less options for substitution. IF there's only one firm providing electricity, you may do buisness with them despite a dubious record- it's better than freezing.

Why would there be only one firm for that?

As a site specific limited resources, it is not unreasonable to think a situation may arise where only one, or a handful, of individuals, would have control over this resources. Moreover, even if other accesses to electricity are available, their affordability as a substitution will have incredible impact over their success as an alternative- if the purchasing the alternative electricity from the more ethical firm is prohibitively expensive, it seems likely that most individuals will continue to buy the 'blood electricity', so to speak.

Why would that happen?

Hey--you're the one making the implicit claims. YOU get to back them, even if you're just what-iffing.



2) Firms producing primary goods for consumption in distant areas- consumers who are sufficiently detached from the community bneing expolited may not care about the reputation of the offending firm.

You recall the flap over the Kathy Lee Gifford line of clothing supposedly being made in "sweatshops"? Yeah, I remember it too.

I remember how the line of clothing suffered a drop-off in sales afterward.

Seems history isn't in agreement with you.

Actually, if you'll recall, the sweatshop scandals disappeared as quickly as they arose.

I don't recall it that way.

There has been a continuing increase in this kind of production.

And flaps about them, in cases.

I would attribute this to a kind of 'desensitization'. Certainly the vast majority of consumer clothes are produced through this kind of process. (Just as a note, I'm not really opposed to sweatshops on principle).

Ok.



OK, and I stand by that argument. If you think that Canada can coercively force itself on the US with any degree of success, you clearly have no concept of reality.

Must you always think in terms of a military? Are you that single-minded?

Not unless we're discussing the coercive powers of states; clearly militaries ARE the most relevant source of hard power, almost by definitions. All I'm saying is that in a Hobbesian sense, Canada and the US aren't equals.

And in the Hobbesian sense, as was just recently expounded by Joe Salerno at the conference I was just at, there's no real reason to not continue the analogy of nations being in anarchy with each other and thus requiring a supergovernment.


THat's inaccurate. HObbes expressly defines the state as 'more than the sum of it's parts'. The sovereign is not party to the laws of nature.

Just one of Hobbes' consistency errors, mind you.

Yes and no. Because he doesn't make the sovereign accountable to the people, nor does he make the sovereign infallible,

But everyone MUST obey him.

we must logically assume that rather than acting in the best interest of the nation, the sovereign will act in his own best interest- the two aren't the same. A sovereign may decide to drain the coffers of the nation for his own interest- I'm not sure how an individual could drain it's own coffers, so to speak.

Haven't you heard of individual bankruptcy?

Because Hobbes doesn't assume states will act in the self-interest of the state itself, it's really not an error, so much as a very cynical analysis of the nature of absolute rulers.

Yet an inconsistency.


Humans behave in a selfinterested way; states may or may not behave in the interests of the people (and are, in HObbes opinion, more concerned about the desires of the Sovereign)

Meaning: it behaves as the sovereign wishes, i.e. his INDIVIDUAL desires.

Which clearly aren't nessecarily those of the state.

He makes the rules.

He IS the state.

QED.

Want to argue with that, go ahead. You won't be able to do anything about it.

How many corrupt sovereigns have stolen from their own people, hurting the state as a unit?

Ah, now you're using more modern terms, not Hobbesian.


A clear understanding of Hobbes clearly leads to the conclusion that the state cannot be consider a macrocosm of the individual. Reverse the order, and it becomes even more apparent- the individual does not behave as the state (the human condition is not a state of conflicting desires in Hobbes' world view). It is a false analogy in this case.

But since it is about the sovereign.....

You tried to extend the analogy to indicate states would act as individuals; they do not.

Since the sovereign is an individual......

Sovereigns (though he doesn't explicitly describe this) would act as individuals, and thus not nessecarily in the rational self-interest of the state.

Since the sovereign makes the rules for the state.....


It is from a conclusion Hobbes hadn't thought of when he wrote what he did. Just as Rand had her anarchocapitalist enclave in Galt's Gulch, Hobbes has his individual-as-State in the Sovereign. L'etat, c'est moi.

I think this is a reasonable conclusion had Hobbes made the Leviathan a representative or direct democracy. The Sovereign is not an 'individual-as-state': he's out for himself, not the state which he controls.

Since the sovereign makes the rules for the state.....


I think its fallacious to conceptualize states as individuals in any case: (would anarchy then be considered murder? :wink: ) I would argue that while people are primarily rational actors, states, particularly representative democratic states, are pluralist in nature.

In modern democratic states, the idea of the government and people being unified as a singular for the nation is complete.

I disagree, especially in terms of liberalism.

I would invite you to read Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Democracy: The God That Failed

Though some thinkers do have that sort of ideology, (Rousseau and Hegel in particular) modern liberal thinkers such as Rawls see the government as the more or less neutral body which ensures that the people can live their lives as they see fit, given maximum equal freedom and equality of opportunity.

They can see it how they like. The trouble is that reality shows otherwise. How else do you get civilians being targetted in wars and politicians trying to "rally the nation"?



Maybe you should reread that... they can't bhoth stand to lose much more than each other; they both stand to lose, but the US loses far less.

Oh, not so. Reputation is something very dear.

You would thus say that a loss of reputation is worse than the loss of sovereignity?

If the US attacks, it would lose what little of its reputation it has left.

Understand?

I'm not saying the US doesn't lose- clearly both parties do. From an economical aspect, the US loses less, having a larger domestic market, and, as the world's single largest investor, considerable international clout regardless of reputation.

Canada is US' #1 trading partner. A war would cost a lot of resources, and damage that which we would trade for.

You have to look beyond the immediate.

From a military perspective, the US clearly wins. From a political perspective, the US would be essentially intact, the Canada a veritable fiefdom. I don't see why you're arguing they both lose equally.

Because the US needs Canada.

From a personal standpoint, I'm not sure how much regard the US has for reputation anyways, having a largely neo-realist administration.

Agreed.


(Price Making firms would have very, very interesting effects on economies so totally vunerable as those in an anarcho-capitalist society)

And why is that?


States can use fiscal and monetary policies to reduce shocks on an international market.

By reduce, you mean "greatly increaase", viz. Japan's near decade-long recession, the sorry state of the US $ now.

Monetary systems based on a fixed good have neither the flexibility of exchange nor the liquidity to do so. If you look at Britain under a fixed gold standard during the interwar period, this is clear. (incidentally, this is also one of the reason the Reichbank and the French banks were very reluctant to 'go on to' gold)

Actually, when you have a fixed standard that the government cannot mess with, you do not get wild inflation (recall: Weimar Germany had such hyperinflation that it took a wheelbarrow full of marks to buy a loaf of bread, and it was NOT on the gold standard).

I would invite you to read Murray Rothbard's What Has Government Done To Our Money and The Case for a 100% Gold Dollar.

I believe they are both available for PDF download from mises.org


Did I make historical claims on this point?

I pointed out the charts and graphs and such, and you said "that's the point", which was agreeing that charts and graphs and such should be used.

They certainly can be used. Graphs and charts give visual interprations of mathematical principles. You can graph markets based on empirical observations as well as mathematical principles.

And that is "history".


One would expect rights to be universal in an anarchic capitalist society,

Would one? Why?

How do you have an ideal capitalist society where property rights are restricted to a certain group of individuals, who are socially understood to be able to dominate a different group of individuals, simply by virtue of cirumstance of birth?

Because sometimes, people haven't gotten around to thinking like that yet.

I would remind you that France and Switzerland, IIRC, didn't grant women sufferage until after WW2.

rather than limited to a minority. Even property rights were possessed by a small minority. It's not a very convincing or coneptually correct example.

Certainly is.

In which case we could argue that, under anarcho-capitalism, slavery would be acceptable, since rights aren't extended to each individual.

You could, but then you'd have to back that up.


Is it correct to say that the only universal statement you'd make about a society is that freedom should be maximized no matter what?

Liberty should be.

What specifically do you mean by liberty

Here is a good start: "immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence"


(especially in terms of difference from freedom) and how do you arrive at this conclusion?

Freedom is the ability to do any action you are capable of. Liberty is more restrictive in the sense of making agreements to not do certain things in order to maximize well-being and such.

Taxation is not robbery. It is merely the government relocating money so that it may be used for the benefit of the people.

And the robber is just relocating your money so that s/he may use it for the benefit of him/herself.

No difference.

Your taxes pay for public schools, the military, etc. etc. Such institutions are in place for the people to either benefit the people or mantain the government.

The ends do not justify the means.

Without taxes, the government would have to feed off of businesses,

It does already.

and then businesses would rule the nation.

No, that wouldn't happen.

Or, the country would slump into anarchy.

Are you another one who thinks that anarchy and chaos are the same thing?

Taxation is you paying the government to maintain public aesthetics, public institutions, public cleanliness, and keep you safe. You basically are helping the government maintain your rights and privileges as citizens. You're investing in your future and in your quality of life. Besides, as a citizen, it is your duty.

I don't buy into your Kantian duty crap, nor do I feel that I should be compelled to divest myself of my money to pay for something for which I did not consent.

Have any of you who are supporting laissez faire even opened a history book? I'll sum it up for you

Laissez Faire Capitalism not only failed it failed miserably.

And what history book shows that?

Workers will inevitably form unions and demand the government regulate businesses, if the government refuses the workers will overthrow it and put in one that will.

Workers are free to form unions, but to advocate for the regulation of business is cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Surely if you had at least a high school education you would know this has been done. Do you really want to send the world over 100 years back so we can relive incidents like the hay-market rebellion?

And how was that laissez-faire?

Answer: it wasn't.

Try again.

Do you want to give rise to another wave of communist dictatorships?

That came about because of oppressive monarchies.

Because these things are inevitable when anyone tries to institute a laisez faire capitalistic system.

Nicely unsupported. Junked as a result.

I would think it's unlikely, and impractical, to assume that each and every firm will enter into contract with each other firm;

I, OTOH, find it completely likely and utterly practical. It's called "planning for contingencies".

I would think it would be hard to get that many people to agree to anything; especially in regards to divergent intrests.

Thus the 'legality' of a firm is dictated solely by the contracts it has entered into. If it has no established contract with a given party, no action the firm commits against this party can be considered illegal.

False. That's tantamount to saying that if I don't have a contract with you not to take my things, it's not theft for you to take them without my consent.

Load of ultra-positivistic garbage. Don't try it again.

I don't understand your objection. Are you advocating some kind of natural law? If so, could you explain how you determined what this law is?


As a site specific limited resources, it is not unreasonable to think a situation may arise where only one, or a handful, of individuals, would have control over this resources. Moreover, even if other accesses to electricity are available, their affordability as a substitution will have incredible impact over their success as an alternative- if the purchasing the alternative electricity from the more ethical firm is prohibitively expensive, it seems likely that most individuals will continue to buy the 'blood electricity', so to speak.

Why would that happen?

Hey--you're the one making the implicit claims. YOU get to back them, even if you're just what-iffing.

Firms as profit-maximizers may form oligopolies or monopolies. I'm not clear on your objection- are you saying this situation cannot occur or that it is unprofitable?



Actually, if you'll recall, the sweatshop scandals disappeared as quickly as they arose.

I don't recall it that way.


Really? It didn't substantially hurt any major industries.

There has been a continuing increase in this kind of production.

And flaps about them, in cases.

Yep. But no change. People simply didn't care.


And in the Hobbesian sense, as was just recently expounded by Joe Salerno at the conference I was just at, there's no real reason to not continue the analogy of nations being in anarchy with each other and thus requiring a supergovernment.

I agree; we see the most peace and stability when there is a hegemonic force. However, Hobbesian theory does not carry through entirely, as the assumptions made about the nature of individuals do not carry through to the national level. Using states as a unit to criticize Hobbes isn't consistent with his arguments.


Yes and no. Because he doesn't make the sovereign accountable to the people, nor does he make the sovereign infallible,

But everyone MUST obey him.


As long as he provides protection, yes. But Hobbes expliciltly states that not all sovereigns are created equal; he simply says we should obey him because it's better than the alternative- a war of all against all.


we must logically assume that rather than acting in the best interest of the nation, the sovereign will act in his own best interest- the two aren't the same. A sovereign may decide to drain the coffers of the nation for his own interest- I'm not sure how an individual could drain it's own coffers, so to speak.

Haven't you heard of individual bankruptcy?
While bankrupting a nation for personal gain may concievably been in an individuals best interest, bankrupting oneself seems less an aspect of rational self-interest.


Because Hobbes doesn't assume states will act in the self-interest of the state itself, it's really not an error, so much as a very cynical analysis of the nature of absolute rulers.

Yet an inconsistency.

Are you reading what I've written at all?



He makes the rules.

He IS the state.

QED.

Want to argue with that, go ahead. You won't be able to do anything about it.


Actually, in Hobbesian theory the sovereign is NOT the state; the state is composed of the citizens, who are protected against each other by the sovereign. The prinicpal is the head of the school; he is not the school. I understand your argument, but it's not true in regards to Hobbes.


How many corrupt sovereigns have stolen from their own people, hurting the state as a unit?

Ah, now you're using more modern terms, not Hobbesian.


So? I'm only allowed to 'speek in the manner inwhich his werds hath arisen'?



Since the sovereign is an individual......

Thus the sovereign is not the state. Sovereign is not representative of the whole.


Sovereigns (though he doesn't explicitly describe this) would act as individuals, and thus not nessecarily in the rational self-interest of the state.

Since the sovereign makes the rules for the state.....
Yes but they are not in the interest of the state; they are in the interest of the sovereign. Thus states will NOT behave in their own best interests, but in the interests of those that control them.


Since the sovereign makes the rules for the state.....
I'm not sure I can break this down for you any further. Please carefully read what I've written.


n modern democratic states, the idea of the government and people being unified as a singular for the nation is complete.

I disagree, especially in terms of liberalism.

I would invite you to read Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Democracy: The God That Failed

I'd invite you to read Taylor, Kimlicka or any liberal writer who addresses polyethnicity and multiculturalism within the framework of the modern state.


Though some thinkers do have that sort of ideology, (Rousseau and Hegel in particular) modern liberal thinkers such as Rawls see the government as the more or less neutral body which ensures that the people can live their lives as they see fit, given maximum equal freedom and equality of opportunity.

They can see it how they like. The trouble is that reality shows otherwise. How else do you get civilians being targetted in wars and politicians trying to "rally the nation"?

Well, for one I'd say that's not liberal democracy. I think politicians have been given altogether too much power, and the government of many nations has become increasingly detached from the people they are supposed to be representing. Reform is clearly nessecary. I think if you look at the institutions of most Liberal democracies, you will find that Rawlsian frameworks allowing a 'marketplace' of culture are very common; certainly there has been a great move away in most democracies from a hegelian sense of nationalism (though clearly not in the US).


[quote=Mallberta]I'm not saying the US doesn't lose- clearly both parties do. From an economical aspect, the US loses less, having a larger domestic market, and, as the world's single largest investor, considerable international clout regardless of reputation.

Canada is US' #1 trading partner. A war would cost a lot of resources, and damage that which we would trade for.

You have to look beyond the immediate.

From a purely economic standpoint, the US forms roughly 90% of Canada's market, while Canada provides something like 30% (these are VERY ballpark figures; I can look them up if you like.). Thus the relative opportunity cost of a stop of trade is far greater for Canada than the US. Moreover, I suppose if the US conquered Canada (God forbid) trade would continue anywas...


From a military perspective, the US clearly wins. From a political perspective, the US would be essentially intact, the Canada a veritable fiefdom. I don't see why you're arguing they both lose equally.

Because the US needs Canada.

But not as much as Canada needs the US; this much should be clear.



States can use fiscal and monetary policies to reduce shocks on an international market.

By reduce, you mean "greatly increaase", viz. Japan's near decade-long recession, the sorry state of the US $ now.

It's actually a different set of circumstances; the pre-WW1 was a trade defecit caused by adherence to the Gold standard, the Japanese defecit was caused partly by cronysim, partly by reckless speculation, and partly by an over-rapid liberalization- this is my understanding, anyways. If you like, I can give a fuller explanation; it's fairly technical however, and I'm only partway through this myself.


Actually, when you have a fixed standard that the government cannot mess with, you do not get wild inflation (recall: Weimar Germany had such hyperinflation that it took a wheelbarrow full of marks to buy a loaf of bread, and it was NOT on the gold standard).

I would invite you to read Murray Rothbard's What Has Government Done To Our Money and The Case for a 100% Gold Dollar.

I believe they are both available for PDF download from mises.org

I'll give those a look; however it is a different problem with similar symptoms; In short, pre-WW1 fixed currency nations nearly always ran trade deficits; this nessecitates austerity measures, which lead to decreased domestic spending, which causes further trade defecit. Devaluations preempted this cycle.



And that is "history".
nd no. I can tell you that, empirically speaking, demand curves are always (with a very few exceptions) downward sloping. This is a historical truth which forms an assumption most economic theories are based on- as goods get cheaper, people want more of them. Historical and anecdotal evdience is the only reason we believe this; should we discount this theory simply because it's based on empirical observation?

[quote="BAAWA"]
Because sometimes, people haven't gotten around to thinking like that yet.

I would remind you that France and Switzerland, IIRC, didn't grant women sufferage until after WW2.

And I wouldn't offer them as examples of a healthy liberal democracy; however I do see your point. I think you would have a good deal of trouble convincing a feminist IR thinker that having an oppressed gender had no effect in maintaining the stability of the culture, but I'm not equipped to argue that point. Still, something to think about.


[quote=Mallberta]In which case we could argue that, under anarcho-capitalism, slavery would be acceptable, since rights aren't extended to each individual.

You could, but then you'd have to back that up.

The obvious answer would be, as I've indicated, sex-based slavery/limitation of rights in Saga Iceland.


(especially in terms of difference from freedom) and how do you arrive at this conclusion?

Freedom is the ability to do any action you are capable of. Liberty is more restrictive in the sense of making agreements to not do certain things in order to maximize well-being and such.

How do you arrive at the conclusion this is desirable/nessecary in society? A Kantian constructivism perhaps?

Have any of you who are supporting laissez faire even opened a history book? I'll sum it up for you

Laissez Faire Capitalism not only failed it failed miserably.

And what history book shows that?

Workers will inevitably form unions and demand the government regulate businesses, if the government refuses the workers will overthrow it and put in one that will.

Workers are free to form unions, but to advocate for the regulation of business is cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Surely if you had at least a high school education you would know this has been done. Do you really want to send the world over 100 years back so we can relive incidents like the hay-market rebellion?

And how was that laissez-faire?

Answer: it wasn't.

Try again.

Do you want to give rise to another wave of communist dictatorships?

That came about because of oppressive monarchies.

Because these things are inevitable when anyone tries to institute a laisez faire capitalistic system.

Nicely unsupported. Junked as a result.

Look the fact exists that no country has been truely socialist nor completely laissez faire.

i'll deal with your idiocy one step at a time

1.) If laissez faire or something very close to it results in violent and bloody labor strikes, which result in it being overthrown, it hasn't been working so well has it? In fact one might go so far as to say that if the people refuse to accept laissez faire that it has failed. Just like if a product doesn't sell it was a failure.

I urge you to read any history book because i do not care to recite world history 101 to you.

2.) Strikes cost money, plain and simple, if a union has to go on strike every single time a corporation institutes unsafe working conditions or cuts wages below a certain level they will go bankrupt and the workers can't strike anymore.

So the unions take their case to the government and demand safe working conditions, and from this we have the OSHA standards which required by law are placed in every single workplace around the country.

Now if the government had refused to create these the workers would have overthrown it and founded another which would. This is evidenced by the numerous communist rebellions all throughout europe, some more successful then others. Karl Marx took part in a failed one, requiring him to flee to england if you care for an example.

3.) Now there is no absolute laissez faire and there is no absolute socialist, but that they can be seen as two ends of a spectrum. And since all things are relative (please say i don't need to explain relativism) the most capitalist nations/periods would be considered laissez faire and the most socialist would be called marxism.

So in the 1800's, and 1900's when there was very little government regulation of business. (Read The Jungle for an example) If there was any at all one may go so far to state that it is a laissez faire state or as close as the world will get to one.

4.) Ah, it must have been the monarchies which caused socialism, especially when capitalism/socialism aren't forms of government but forms of an economy. A government will not result in a desire for an economy change, but the way the economy is run will. In these cases 'not at all' does not portray an opressive monarchy but rather one apathetic to the peoples wishes. I'd also point out that the US too came close to becoming socialist itself.

5.) finally who are you to complain about unsupported claims when you have never used more then a one line retorts which do not deviate from 'your wrong and I'm right'

Anybody herel live in real world Australia? Huh, cause if you do do not complain...

We get taxed, sur-prise. We live in a democratically respective and controlled society. We understand the good of taxes, example, my mum has a massive heart attack, I called an ambulance which arrived within ten minutes and consequently the STATE FUNDED, VIA TAXES medical system was able to inject her with "coronary buster" drugs and administer other care. We recieved incredibly good care from our medical system... mebers of the public being provided for in stressful situations, in part funded by of coarse, taxes, another example, car I am in nearly forced of road when an egg was thrown from another car onto our windscreen, almost blinding our driver had he not reacted in time... and within seconds I was able to make an emergency call from a mobile phone and be connected to a local police station WHOSE GOVERNMENT FUNDED, VIA TAXES personel and equipment dispatched a patrol car to search out the other vehicle.

In conclusion, Its the taxes the we pay which provide these vital indispensible services which we as members of society could not otherwise provide, so what I am saying is shut up all of you ;-) taxes are like power, its all in how they are used, because money IS power, and if the taxes fund a medical system or a police station and not a swiss bank account then I don't see the problem.

- With respect to the diverse array of interlectual conversation instigators.

A representative of Komokom.

First of all, many of here are working your problems under the presupossition that the government is a business. Governement, idealistically, is not. Idealistically, a government should be here to serve the people and maintain order. Now, without government, there isn't anyone to keep order except the citizens themselves: anarchy. People generally don't do a very good job at governing themselves, unless they have a standard, either morally or governmentally but mostly morally. With nothing to restrain them or help them restrain themselves, they begin to do whatsoever they see as right in their own eyes. Anarchy does not necessarily mean chaos, but it does leave a whole lot of room for it. It would require a Utopian society. This would mean that everyone would do what is best for the common man, and then this is not anarchy, but communism. Yes, I think anarchy means chaos in some form or fashion. As far as government being funded by companies but not necessarily controlled by them, watch Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Very good demonstration about how businesses don't usually fund the government out of the generosity in their hearts (although it is possible but very unlikely). I think many people here are arguing and reasoning under the idea that man is naturally good, which is not true, but don't believe me, read history. Anyway, as far as taxes, no, they are not robbery if the government handles the money correctly. The government shouldn't make a profit or, probably, be in debt if taxes are used correctly. Think of it this way, you own a piece of America. Now, is the government handling taxes correctly, I don't know, I neither pay taxes yet, not speak solely for the government. I'd rather "give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's" than worry about being robbed as long as I see taxes as fair. Of course, you're going to do the page space consuming thing where you copy somebody's words and comment on them. You're going to try and make me look stupid by using ambiguous statements, and you probably will. But who cares, being noble is dead.

First of all, many of here are working your problems under the presupossition that the government is a business. Governement, idealistically, is not. Idealistically, a government should be here to serve the people and maintain order. Now, without government, there isn't anyone to keep order except the citizens themselves: anarchy. People generally don't do a very good job at governing themselves,

And the government is made up of what?

People.

Do I need to continue?

unless they have a standard, either morally or governmentally but mostly morally. With nothing to restrain them or help them restrain themselves, they begin to do whatsoever they see as right in their own eyes.

Which doesn't mean what you think it does.

Anarchy does not necessarily mean chaos, but it does leave a whole lot of room for it. It would require a Utopian society.

No, it wouldn't.

This would mean that everyone would do what is best for the common man,

No.

and then this is not anarchy, but communism. Yes, I think anarchy means chaos in some form or fashion. As far as government being funded by companies but not necessarily controlled by them, watch Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

A very nice example of how corrupt governments are.

[snip]

Anyway, as far as taxes, no, they are not robbery if the government handles the money correctly.

So if someone steals from you and gives it to charity, that makes it right?

The government shouldn't make a profit or, probably, be in debt if taxes are used correctly. Think of it this way, you own a piece of America.

Only if it's property.

Have any of you who are supporting laissez faire even opened a history book? I'll sum it up for you

Laissez Faire Capitalism not only failed it failed miserably.

And what history book shows that?


Surely if you had at least a high school education you would know this has been done. Do you really want to send the world over 100 years back so we can relive incidents like the hay-market rebellion?

And how was that laissez-faire?

Answer: it wasn't.

Try again.

Do you want to give rise to another wave of communist dictatorships?

That came about because of oppressive monarchies.

Because these things are inevitable when anyone tries to institute a laisez faire capitalistic system.

Nicely unsupported. Junked as a result.

Look the fact exists that no country has been truely socialist nor completely laissez faire.

i'll deal with your idiocy one step at a time

1.) If laissez faire or something very close to it results in violent and bloody labor strikes, which result in it being overthrown, it hasn't been working so well has it?

But it hasn't resulted in that. Government interference and regulation and corruptnes resulted in that.

In fact one might go so far as to say that if the people refuse to accept laissez faire that it has failed. Just like if a product doesn't sell it was a failure.

Not when governments have a stake in not having laissez-faire, which would mean that there would be no government.

I urge you to read any history book because i do not care to recite world history 101 to you.

Mysticism. Strike 1.

2.) Strikes cost money, plain and simple, if a union has to go on strike every single time a corporation institutes unsafe working conditions or cuts wages below a certain level they will go bankrupt and the workers can't strike anymore.

And it's in the best interest of the company to not have such things.

So the unions take their case to the government and demand safe working conditions, and from this we have the OSHA standards which required by law are placed in every single workplace around the country.

Which do a fat lot of good.

Now if the government had refused to create these the workers would have overthrown it and founded another which would.

No, they wouldn't.

This is evidenced by the numerous communist rebellions all throughout europe, some more successful then others. Karl Marx took part in a failed one, requiring him to flee to england if you care for an example.

Which just shows to go that Karl didn't believe his own Hegelian historical inevitability.

3.) Now there is no absolute laissez faire and there is no absolute socialist, but that they can be seen as two ends of a spectrum. And since all things are relative (please say i don't need to explain relativism) the most capitalist nations/periods would be considered laissez faire and the most socialist would be called marxism.

Not necessarily. There's welfare-warfare statism, etc.

So in the 1800's, and 1900's when there was very little government regulation of business.

Oh there was a LOT of government regulation of business. I don't know what books you've been reading, but The Jungle is, well, crap, and not indicative of reality.

4.) Ah, it must have been the monarchies which caused socialism, especially when capitalism/socialism aren't forms of government but forms of an economy.

Oh, socialism is a politico-economic system. The idea of a central planner requires a certain system, n'est-ce pas?

Oh there was a LOT of government regulation of business. I don't know what books you've been reading, but The Jungle is, well, crap, and not indicative of reality.

That's not entirely true. Government regulation varied wildly from nation to nation, and wildly from factor to factor. There wasn't that much consistentcy in the pre-war period; especially in terms of devolped vs devloping nations.

Oh, socialism is a politico-economic system. The idea of a central planner requires a certain system, n'est-ce pas?

Depends on the form socialism takes; anarcho-communism, for example, doesn't really HAVE a central planner, from my understanding, and neither does syndaclism. I agree with you largely in this count though.

Oh there was a LOT of government regulation of business. I don't know what books you've been reading, but The Jungle is, well, crap, and not indicative of reality.

That's not entirely true.

The context I gathered was the US.

Oh, socialism is a politico-economic system. The idea of a central planner requires a certain system, n'est-ce pas?

Depends on the form socialism takes; anarcho-communism, for example, doesn't really HAVE a central planner,

And is a contradiction in terms. Left-anarchism makes as much sense as square circle.

from my understanding, and neither does syndaclism. I agree with you largely in this count though.

ok.

I'll get back to you on your other post soon.

Depends on the form socialism takes; anarcho-communism, for example, doesn't really HAVE a central planner,

And is a contradiction in terms. Left-anarchism makes as much sense as square circle.

"left anarchism" is anarchism. anarcho-communism is only a contradiction in terms if you define your terms incorrectly.
see the anarchist thread (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=71742&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0) and an anarchist faq (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html)

Depends on the form socialism takes; anarcho-communism, for example, doesn't really HAVE a central planner,

And is a contradiction in terms. Left-anarchism makes as much sense as square circle.

"left anarchism" is anarchism.

No, it's not. You need some sort of central planner for any type of socialism/communism/fascism/welfare statism to work. Ergo...

anarcho-communism is only a contradiction in terms if you define your terms incorrectly.
see the anarchist thread (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=71742&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0) and an anarchist faq (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html)

Yes, I've read those. Still doesn't address the fact that such requires a central planner, i.e. a government. Meaning: left-anarchism is self-contradictory.

"left anarchism" is anarchism.

No, it's not. You need some sort of central planner for any type of socialism/communism/fascism/welfare statism to work. Ergo...

no, what i mean is that anarchism is a political movement. this movement stands for the abolition of the state and capitalism and classes. that is what it means to be an anarchist and that is what it means to want anarchism. any person that thinks they want anarchism but don't want the abolition of the state and capitalism and classes is just confused. they are like a person who doesn't think we should have a monarch or noblity calling themselves a monarchist.

anarcho-communism is only a contradiction in terms if you define your terms incorrectly.
see the anarchist thread (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=71742&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0) and an anarchist faq (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html)

Yes, I've read those. Still doesn't address the fact that such requires a central planner, i.e. a government. Meaning: left-anarchism is self-contradictory.

no, it doesn't require a central planner - though it will require planning. but there is nothing in planning that necessitates a single entity that does the planning and imposes its plan on everyone else. all complex systems require planning on some level. socialism, especially libertarian socialism, aims to open up that planning to everybody affected by the plan. this is unlike the state where your main input is to obey or not, and capitalist businesses where your choices are also obey or not. in both of these cases the "not" option is punished. the plans you have to obey come from above you and you have very little say - most often none - in what they are. that, my friend, is what makes for authority and government. not planning. the key question is how much control and power the individual has over the decisions that affect them.