NationStates Jolt Archive

... with his own party.

The Republican Party has been hijacked by new interest groups that are completely at odds with traditional republican principles. The Bush administration has become an (dangerous) embarassment to those of us who have chosen to stick by genuine conservative ideas. These factions are attacking the party on two main fronts:
First there are the neo-conservatives. No doubt the Republican Party has always supported a strong military but the uses for which these “neocons” wish to use it flies in the face of not only the traditional principles of the party but more importantly those of the American people. It is most unfortunate that George W. Bush has chosen to to betray the sensible policies of his father´s administration. George H.W. Bush deserves more credit than is usually given. his administration´s handling of the Gulf War was superb. While using American military strength to assert the sovereignty of our allies he also chose not to go on a reckless nation-building venture and publicly stated the reasons for not doing so. And how did the American people respond? We ran him out on a rail for reasons that now seem to pale in comparison to the atrocious policies of Bush 43. But yet, we reelected “W”. I guess what Winston Churchill said was true, that “the best case against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter”.
Yet George W. Bush has chosen to pursue this same nation-building policy that his father condemned not so many years ago. The really sad part is that the Iraq venture would almos be excusable if the Executive Branch had handled it with anything approaching competence. Thank God for the ability of distinguished non-civilian military leaders like General Tommy Franks who rejected Donald Rumsfeld´s plan to invade Iraq with a micro-force of less than 100,000, which would certainly have left us with an even poorer situation than we have right now. The spectacular success of the initial combat operations that destroyed the conventional Iraqi armed forces is a victory owed to our men in uniform... in command aswell as on the ground and not to Rummy and his cronies at the Dep. Of Defense. Shame on the administration for cementing it´s incompetence by dismissing a distinguished military leader and statesman; Colin Powell (to them just a relic of the old foreign policy establishment). If this was so bad, then why did we follow the president into such a disaster? Because he said Hussein had “WMDs”. If ever such an idea warranted the word of the year- “truthiness”. Or maybe we should just call it a lie.
The second faction is the (predominantly Christian) religious right. I don´t have a problem with religion in government per se, as long as it doesn´t cross constitutional lines. However, this new fundamentalist religious faction has a dangerous authoritarian bent which has little respect for the principles of personal liberty that are a part of traditional conservatism. While I believe traditional values are a way to building a stronger nation, the government is an instrument to allow such values, not to impose them on the many states and the people. I was pleased to see a few good conservatives stand up to the Gay Marriage Ban Amendment proposal instead of indulging themselves in the political feast that the New Religious Right has offered them.
On the economic front the president has proven to be a double edged sword. The Bush tax cuts have helped turn the recession inherited from the final days of the Clinton administration around. On the other hand he inflated the bureaucracy accordingly. Don´t give the “we needed new orgaizations to deal with the terrorist threat” either. The Department of Homeland security is a cute little facade that was created to give the appearance of doing something and has gained little ground except for hyping media reports of “possible terrorist threats”. Ofcourse we must thank them for uncovering the “plot” to blow up the Sears Tower. Wait, what plot was that? Oh, it´s the one perpetrated by a bunch of stoners hanging out in a warehouse in Florida who were caught when they tried to buy dangerous materials to carry out this plot. What dangerous materials were these? Boots. Is there a color on the terror-alert scale for “completely hyped and fabricated threat”?
Not that the Democrats reading this should start to get cocky. Their party is in worse shape if anything. Their party platform is so incredibly vacuous that the Dems would be run out of office if it wasn´t for the unpopularity of our current chief executive. The 2006 elections are no compensation for the republican sweep in 2004 either. How the democrats have failed to capitalize on this president´s weakness still amazes me. Ofcourse, any party that nominates a candidate for president for little more than the fact that he or she seems “electable” deserves to lose. I disagree with almost everything that Howard Dean stould and stands for but for Pete´s sake... at least he had a little depth and flare as a candidate (“and then we´re going to Washington DC to take back the White House!...Yaaaaaaah!!). But if Kerry-types float your boat, go for it.
All in all I´d like to end on a positive note. There is some indication that George W. Bush and the Congressional delegation that rose to power in 2004 has “shocked” the Republican Party back into the right direction. Frist, Hastert, and DeLay are gone (although the fiscal conservatives who tried to move in to fill their places were largely rejected) and Rumsfeld got the boot too. Although I have some qualms about John Boehner, I think Mitch McConnell will be a competent leader (even if he´s a little dirty... but hey... all politicians are). 2008 is seeing a long list of relatively anti-Bush Republicans leading the way. However, the problem is still there and the question still must be begged... how did we go from being the parties of Eisenhowever and Kennedy to being the parties of Bush and Kerry? Does the Republican Party represent true conservatism anymore... and for that matter, do the Democrats represent true liberalism?

As a lifelong Democrat, I'd like to say ... "Bring me a Southern governor in 2008!"


And, my conservative friend, smirking that "all politicians are dirty" is what got your guys in trouble. Perhaps you ought to demand squeaky-clean rather than wink at a little dirt. And before you mention him, I'd like to take full credit for William Jefferson, who kept 90 grand in the freezer. Brilliant!

Not another one of these! I need a drink...or 30..:headbang:

It took you this long to notice?

It took you this long to notice?

Things were pretty giddy until last year, permanent majority and all that. Sometimes it takes a while for the edfice to fall. Shoot, took me years to realize that the Democrats have no spine, I kept hoping ...

Both parties are the tools of statists who wish to coerce everyone into following their twisted worldview in which they are in control of everyone else. The only thing that ranks the Republicans ever so slightly higher than the Democrats is that they aren't as quick to take away the last shreds of property rights that remain. Also, Bush is having so much trouble in Iraq because he thinks that it is democracy that makes people free, when in actual fact democracy is the most aliberal form of government imaginable and will only cause decay wherever it is inflicted.

As a lifelong Democrat, I'd like to say ... "Bring me a Southern governor in 2008!"


And, my conservative friend, smirking that "all politicians are dirty" is what got your guys in trouble. Perhaps you ought to demand squeaky-clean rather than wink at a little dirt. And before you mention him, I'd like to take full credit for William Jefferson, who kept 90 grand in the freezer. Brilliant!

I would like to note, for the record, however, that even though Dollar Bill won reelection, Nancy Pelosi has said he's still gone from the Ways and Means Committee. No juicy appointments for the dirty one.

haha

/in a nelson stylee

It took you this long to notice?

My words exactly.

*waits for more people to realise we're in a post-political world now*

Both parties are the tools of statists who wish to coerce everyone into following their twisted worldview in which they are in control of everyone else. The only thing that ranks the Republicans ever so slightly higher than the Democrats is that they aren't as quick to take away the last shreds of property rights that remain. Also, Bush is having so much trouble in Iraq because he thinks that it is democracy that makes people free, when in actual fact democracy is the most aliberal form of government imaginable and will only cause decay wherever it is inflicted.

Democracies hardly causes decay wherever it is inflicted. The US has been one for over two centuries, and since the beginning the US has expanded in land, population, and economic power.
Can you give evidence that democracy is the most illiberal? The other form of governments in history have hardly been liberal for the most part.

*waits for more people to realise we're in a post-political world now*

Elaborate please

*waits for more people to realise we're in a post-political world now*

you mean like politics doesn't exist now, it's just showmanship and grandstanding and lobbying.

... with his own party.

The Republican Party has been hijacked by new interest groups that are completely at odds with traditional republican principles.

Welcome to 2001. I believe there is a remedial course getting started for those who have missed out on what the century has brought us so far.

Both parties are the tools of statists who wish to coerce everyone into following their twisted worldview in which they are in control of everyone else. The only thing that ranks the Republicans ever so slightly higher than the Democrats is that they aren't as quick to take away the last shreds of property rights that remain. Also, Bush is having so much trouble in Iraq because he thinks that it is democracy that makes people free, when in actual fact democracy is the most aliberal form of government imaginable and will only cause decay wherever it is inflicted.

Greill, you ignorant slut...

... with his own party. Hgue snip

What took you so long? My wife and I bailed before the election. Write the RNC, send them your card, and re-register as an Inedpendant. I gurantee it will make you feel better. :fluffle:

Both parties are very similar, and they actually like each other to a degree, there's a reason thrid parties get killed, the Republicans and Democrats beat them to pieces then start acting different. What we need is the Federalist party or a completely new party that can stand it's own against the Republicans and Democrats. I think the main difference is Democrats are pro civil rights and all that jazz, while Republicans are more geared towards corporations. Correct me if I am wrong.

I hope you all will take this moment of clarity; use it constructively to reject the current status quo of corrupt party politics; and elect me your God-Emperor.

I shall rule you firmly but fairly with an iron fist and an army of Fish Speakers.

I hope you all will take this moment of clarity; use it constructively to reject the current status quo of corrupt party politics; and elect me your God-Emperor.

I shall rule you firmly but fairly with an iron fist and an army of Fish Speakers.

All in favor say I.

Aye!

(Yeah, I'm kinda tired of the way the party's being run too. The current administration is making us look bad. Midterm elections have shown us that people are sick of Republicans, and hopefully that's the kick in the pants this party needs to get back on track.)

That's funny: I never saw the Republican party as anything but a bunch of thugs. My father was a republican when I was a kid and he complained about what a bunch of crooks they were. Things never change, do they?

Democracies hardly causes decay wherever it is inflicted. The US has been one for over two centuries, and since the beginning the US has expanded in land, population, and economic power.
Can you give evidence that democracy is the most illiberal? The other form of governments in history have hardly been liberal for the most part.

The idea that the US' economic, land, and population growth is caused by democracy is a causal fallacy. The real reason for the above is a strong tradition of property rights and individual liberty that has been resilient to erosion by democracy. Democracy is the most illiberal because it is the form of government that allows for the fastest growth of the state, because it uses ignorant people as a tool for the government to gain power at the expense of other institutions and at the cost of the people themselves (People think they are the government in a democracy, thus lessening their alertness to depredation by the government. In actual fact, the career politicians and their rent-seeking supporters are the real government, stealing from the people to serve their aims. No, the governments of the past have not been liberal, but because the other governments depended on a sort of political class that was distinct from the producing class, they would have to be careful in how far they would expand their power less they anger the people. Some people have traditions of stronger liberty and others have weaker traditions of liberty; democracy, because of its deadly flaws, is a negative to liberty, it just so happens that certain countries fall further down because of it than others.

Greill, you ignorant slut...

No to both (I'm not exactly a hit with the ladies.)

...how did we go from being the parties of Eisenhowever and Kennedy to being the parties of Bush and Kerry?

I attribute it to the rise of the Christianity in politics.

They demand that their wedge issues be addressed, even though these issues rarely have significant impact or importance in our daily lives...much less so than say, the economy or the environment.

And of course, the Republicans were only too glad to extend a hand to the Christians...after all, they were still reeling from Watergate, and hadn't sniffed a majority in Congress in quite a while.

Shit's been going downhill ever since...it's all about who can out-shout the other now. Practical solutions to real problems no longer win elections...it's all about "energizing your base" with stupid issues that no longer matter when the election is over.

Want proof? When do you hear a politician talk about abortion...except around election time?

If you are unhappy with the current administration, do what I did - move overseas ;) (true fact, btw)

Truth is, the minute GWB won the first time, I knew America was in trouble. Now, the economy is in tatters, the entire world thinks America is a cruel, monopolising, colonising bully, with bad taste and too many obese people who listen to power hungry evangalists who cannot even understand basic scientific principles, national debt is sky-high, crime is growing, and you are losing freedoms left and right. Poeple in the states are fearful, the gun-death rate is thousands of times higher than any non-warring state in the world (the USA is the most dangerous peacetime nation in the history of the world - for the average moke), and children are not learning in schools, as the literacy rate drops - taxes and interest rates are rising to pay for an illegal, immoral war (granted Saddam deserved it, but the rest of the population most certainly DID NOT). Religion is high on the agenda, and cilil rights are not - starting to sound a bit Orwellian to me!

Perhaps it is time to re-think things a bit, eh? ;)

The idea that the US' economic, land, and population growth is caused by democracy is a causal fallacy. The real reason for the above is a strong tradition of property rights and individual liberty that has been resilient to erosion by democracy. Democracy is the most illiberal because it is the form of government that allows for the fastest growth of the state, because it uses ignorant people as a tool for the government to gain power at the expense of other institutions and at the cost of the people themselves (People think they are the government in a democracy, thus lessening their alertness to depredation by the government. In actual fact, the career politicians and their rent-seeking supporters are the real government, stealing from the people to serve their aims. No, the governments of the past have not been liberal, but because the other governments depended on a sort of political class that was distinct from the producing class, they would have to be careful in how far they would expand their power less they anger the people. Some people have traditions of stronger liberty and others have weaker traditions of liberty; democracy, because of its deadly flaws, is a negative to liberty, it just so happens that certain countries fall further down because of it than others.

I didn't say Democracy caused the US' expansion. I pointed out the fact that they coincided. The growth of the state has been much faster in the non-democratic Communist countries than in democratic countries. Democracy isn't hostile to liberalim ,and it just isn't conducive to it either.

I didn't say Democracy caused the US' expansion. I pointed out the fact that they coincided. The growth of the state has been much faster in the non-democratic Communist countries than in democratic countries. Democracy isn't hostile to liberalim ,and it just isn't conducive to it either.

Well if you just said "Hey, they coincided", that's kind of pointless, since that expansion could have been greater without democratic fettering. Also, the state has expanded massively since the birth of democracy (In the 1800's, kingdoms rarely had over 10% GDP of government spending; now it can be over 50% in some cases. Same thing with government employment; government employment as a percentage of the workforce was in the low single digits, but in some places it is now 15% of the population.) Additionally, the communist countries were a type of democracy, as are many dictatorships (Iran, Iraq, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, etc.) They all claimed to represent some fictitious "voice of the people", and had to rely on their support like any populist demagogue, unlike monarchies and oligarchies. They are what are known as totalitarian democracies, the ultimate culmination of what democratic government creates; tyranny by a minority that fools the majority into giving them everything they want.

Well if you just said "Hey, they coincided", that's kind of pointless, since that expansion could have been greater without democratic fettering. Also, the state has expanded massively since the birth of democracy (In the 1800's, kingdoms rarely had over 10% GDP of government spending; now it can be over 50% in some cases. Same thing with government employment; government employment as a percentage of the workforce was in the low single digits, but in some places it is now 15% of the population.) Additionally, the communist countries were a type of democracy, as are many dictatorships (Iran, Iraq, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, etc.) They all claimed to represent some fictitious "voice of the people", and had to rely on their support like any populist demagogue, unlike monarchies and oligarchies. They are what are known as totalitarian democracies, the ultimate culmination of what democratic government creates; tyranny by a minority that fools the majority into giving them everything they want.

Saying it coincided isn't pointless. You said democracy only causes decay where ever it is inflicted. The US's expansion is hardly decay even if growth was fettered.
All governments rely on the people's support. If everyone else rebelled against the monarch or the oligarchy then they would lose. If your contention is that governments that require popular support/apathy/belief are democracies then all government is democracy. Your 'voluntary association' governments need popular support. So do most of the various anarcho's. Democracy effectively becomes meaningless.

Holy massive block of text! :eek:


Didn't read all of that, but I'm amazed you just now came to the realization that the Republicans are not conservative any more.

http://www.thackermountain.com/jacket/kinkyfriedman.jpg

He's why I like Independants.

Saying it coincided isn't pointless. You said democracy only causes decay where ever it is inflicted. The US's expansion is hardly decay even if growth was fettered.
All governments rely on the people's support. If everyone else rebelled against the monarch or the oligarchy then they would lose. If your contention is that governments that require popular support/apathy/belief are democracies then all government is democracy. Your 'voluntary association' governments need popular support. So do most of the various anarcho's. Democracy effectively becomes meaningless.

It decayed away possible growth; ergo, it is a form of decay. But the problem with the popular support of a democracy is that they are fooled into thinking that they 'are' the government and that the government 'serves' them, while their pockets are picked and they're fitted for their shackles. Yes, oligarchies and monarchies do require popular support, but that's because, in a monarchy or oligarchy, the common folk would know clearly that the government is not composed of them and that whatever it plans it most likely isn't any good for them. But in a democracy, the view of the people turns from keeping the depredations of a bunch of bullies to a minimum to believing that this group of nice fellows who are just like them are out to help, even when they're just as bad as, if not worse than, the thugs. This is more in line with an active, as opposed to passive, popular support, in which the people are tricked into supporting their government rather than struggling not to be coerced too much.

And yes, my voluntary associations do need popular support. But they must have voluntary support from each and every individual, not the micro-majority of them. So it's not a democracy with a "voice of the people" abstraction either.

It decayed away possible growth; ergo, it is a form of decay. But the problem with the popular support of a democracy is that they are fooled into thinking that they 'are' the government and that the government 'serves' them, while their pockets are picked and they're fitted for their shackles. Yes, oligarchies and monarchies do require popular support, but that's because, in a monarchy or oligarchy, the common folk would know clearly that the government is not composed of them and that whatever it plans it most likely isn't any good for them. But in a democracy, the view of the people turns from keeping the depredations of a bunch of bullies to a minimum to believing that this group of nice fellows who are just like them are out to help, even when they're just as bad as, if not worse than, the thugs. This is more in line with an active, as opposed to passive, popular support, in which the people are tricked into supporting their government rather than struggling not to be coerced too much.

And yes, my voluntary associations do need popular support. But they must have voluntary support from each and every individual, not the micro-majority of them. So it's not a democracy with a "voice of the people" abstraction either.

It posibly decayed potential growth. You can not prove that there would have been more growth without it. Nor can I prove that because of democracy there was more growth. In the totalitarian democracies the people didn't and do not believe the government served them any more than the subjects of monarch believed the ruler ruled by divine right. Your voluntary associations require only as much popular as any other government to function. If they required support of all members of the society then it would collapse. Sooner or later an individual would decide not to support it.

It posibly decayed potential growth. You can not prove that there would have been more growth without it. Nor can I prove that because of democracy there was more growth. In the totalitarian democracies the people didn't and do not believe the government served them any more than the subjects of monarch believed the ruler ruled by divine right. Your voluntary associations require only as much popular as any other government to function. If they required support of all members of the society then it would collapse. Sooner or later an individual would decide not to support it.

No, it did decay potential growth; you don't need empirical evidence to prove this. It can be concluded in a rationalistic fashion a priori through certain immutable principles. For example, inefficient yes and no votes. For simplicity's sake, let's say that there is a democracy of three perfectly informed people, with decisions being made with majority, and not individual, decision. Person B and C decide that they don't want to clean their gardens, but rather want to make Person A do it. Person A would make $2000 in the time it would take Person B and C's garden, while Person B and C would each gain $50 by not having to hire someone to clean their gardens. Person A votes against the measure because it will cost him $2000, the money he would have gotten doing what he wants to. Person B and C vote for the measure, because it gives them benefits of $50. There is obviously an aggregate loss because of collective, and not individual, decision-making.

There is also inefficient yes-votes; Person A will gain $2000 from a measure, while Person B and C will lose $50 each from the measure. Person A votes for it, Person B and C will lose $50. The measure fails. Individual decision would also work better in this situation, as Person A could pay Persons B and C compensation from his massive gain of $2000 to compensate for their loss, i.e. Person A gives each of them $100 so that they each have benefits of $50, and Person A still has benefits of $1800. There, individual choice still works the best. Through this simple demonstration that individual decision always creates the maximum benefit for all individuals, and that collective decision through democracy causes inefficiency, we can therefore conclude that democracy would erode potential growth in any country on which it was inflicted.

Also, I find it incredibly naive that you think that the peoples in the totalitarian democracies all believed they were being oppressed and that they thought people in power were bad guys. I guess all those propaganda posters, Triumph of the Will, etc. etc. were all just made for fun and had absolutely no impact on the people of these countries, by your logic. The more dangerous thing about totalitarian democracies is that while in a monarchy the monarch had to bow down before God, in a totalitarian democracy the state IS God to the people, for all intents and purposes.

Also, the voluntary associations would, in fact, require more public support than other governments, since anyone could leave. In effect, each person in the association would be there because they would want to be there. If it shrinks government, fine; that's what the individuals want. There is no problem in this.

Well if you just said "Hey, they coincided", that's kind of pointless, since that expansion could have been greater without democratic fettering. Also, the state has expanded massively since the birth of democracy (In the 1800's, kingdoms rarely had over 10% GDP of government spending; now it can be over 50% in some cases.
That is a good thing, because democracies, unlike monarchies, serve the interests of their people better.

http://www.thackermountain.com/jacket/kinkyfriedman.jpg

He's why I like Independants.

Well, I would have said the same when it was just Berny Sanders. Now it's him and Lieberman, so I'd have to say that I like about half of them.

That is a good thing, because democracies, unlike monarchies, serve the interests of their people better.

If that is so, can I help serve you by taking more of your stuff than the other guy, and then giving this stuff to my buddies?

No, it did decay potential growth; you don't need empirical evidence to prove this. It can be concluded in a rationalistic fashion a priori through certain immutable principles. For example, inefficient yes and no votes. For simplicity's sake, let's say that there is a democracy of three perfectly informed people, with decisions being made with majority, and
not individual, decision. Person B and C decide that they don't want to clean their gardens, but rather want to make Person A do it. Person A would make $2000 in the time it would take Person B and C's garden, while Person B and C would each gain $50 by not having to hire someone to clean their gardens. Person A votes against the measure because it will cost him $2000, the money he would have gotten doing what he wants to. Person B and C vote for the measure, because it gives them benefits of $50. There is obviously an aggregate loss because of collective, and not individual, decision-making.

In the prisoner's dilemna two criminals are asked to betray their partner. They can either betray the other one or stay quiet. If both betray each othter they both get 2 years. If both cooperate they both get 6 months. If one cooperates and the other betrays the betrayer gets off free and the cooperator get 10 years. The best option for each prisoner is to betray because his sentence would be 0 or two years instead of 6 months or 10 years. The thing is the best aggregate solution is for both to cooperate. Here the best and most rational choice for each individual results in aggregate loss.

There is also inefficient yes-votes; Person A will gain $2000 from a measure, while Person B and C will lose $50 each from the measure. Person A votes for it, Person B and C will lose $50. The measure fails. Individual decision would also work better in this situation, as Person A could pay Persons B and C compensation from his massive gain of $2000 to compensate for their loss, i.e. Person A gives each of them $100 so that they each have benefits of $50, and Person A still has benefits of $1800. There, individual choice still works the best. Through this simple demonstration that individual decision always creates the maximum benefit for all individuals, and that collective decision through democracy causes inefficiency, we can therefore conclude that democracy would erode potential growth in any country on which it was inflicted.

Your solution could easily be met by collective decision making. In exchange for their votes Person A would give both $100. He could pay less for only one vote, but the other person would hold it against him in other votes so its best to placate both.

Imagine a street in which 25 people are living. There is a chance to install a CCTV system to improve security, the cost of which is $2,500. Each person may be prepared to pay $100 or more for the benefit of extra security. However, since if the system is installed everyone will still benefit, it is quite possible that some people on the street will refuse to pay.Despite the fact they may be prepared to contribute $100, they will claim that they are not prepared to pay, and instead hope that others in the street will be prepared to pay for the system anyway, and they receive the benefit for no personal expense.The result is that it is possible no system will be installed. This is despite the fact that allocative efficiency would be improved.

The only solution to the problem would be to gather the 25 participants and make them behave like one customer, so the decision is reduced from 25 independent decisions to one. A vote can be taken, but if the answer is yes, everyone will be forced to pay regardless of their individual support. This is why governments almost exclusively provide for public services such as military defense and police service.

Also, I find it incredibly naive that you think that the peoples in the totalitarian democracies all believed they were being oppressed and that they thought people in power were bad guys. I guess all those propaganda posters, Triumph of the Will, etc. etc. were all just made for fun and had absolutely no impact on the people of these countries, by your logic. The more dangerous thing about totalitarian democracies is that while in a monarchy the monarch had to bow down before God, in a totalitarian democracy the state IS God to the people, for all intents and purposes.

What I think is that most people are usually jaded and cynical when it comes to government. Some leader might tuck it away for awhile but it always come back.

Monarchs did not have to bow down to God. They, often, did have to share power with with the Church, but that only makes them an oligarchy.

Also, the voluntary associations would, in fact, require more public support than other governments, since anyone could leave. In effect, each person in the association would be there because they would want to be there. If it shrinks government, fine; that's what the individuals want. There is no problem in this.

The problem is how does one have authority over others. If an idividual does not consent to the authority of an association then how can an association solve disputes, crime, ect?

In the prisoner's dilemna two criminals are asked to betray their partner. They can either betray the other one or stay quiet. If both betray each othter they both get 2 years. If both cooperate they both get 6 months. If one cooperates and the other betrays the betrayer gets off free and the cooperator get 10 years. The best option for each prisoner is to betray because his sentence would be 0 or two years instead of 6 months or 10 years. The thing is the best aggregate solution is for both to cooperate. Here the best and most rational choice for each individual results in aggregate loss.

They wouldn't need collective decision making if they can make deals with each other in compensation for one another's cooperation. And if they can't make deals with each other, then they sure as heck couldn't hope to make a collective decision.

Your solution could easily be met by collective decision making. In exchange for their votes Person A would give both $100. He could pay less for only one vote, but the other person would hold it against him in other votes so its best to placate both.

The vote is unnecessary in a situation in which individual decision-making rules supreme where each individual consents because he perceives a benefit to him. If Person A gives the two other $100 to help him, then there is no need for a vote.

Imagine a street in which 25 people are living. There is a chance to install a CCTV system to improve security, the cost of which is $2,500. Each person may be prepared to pay $100 or more for the benefit of extra security. However, since if the system is installed everyone will still benefit, it is quite possible that some people on the street will refuse to pay.Despite the fact they may be prepared to contribute $100, they will claim that they are not prepared to pay, and instead hope that others in the street will be prepared to pay for the system anyway, and they receive the benefit for no personal expense.The result is that it is possible no system will be installed. This is despite the fact that allocative efficiency would be improved.

Ah, yes, the age-old lighthouse example. (Did you know that for a long time most lighthouses were owned by private merchants who desired the benefits of a lighthouse for themselves, and were able to get returns from those who benefitted through various private methods, such as a port charges? Just thought you might be interested.)

Anyway, back to your example. So some people do not want to pay up for the CCTV, because they feel that other people will pay for them. Assuming that all of the other people do not see a benefit for this system enough that they will cover the charge themselves, there is one of many ways around this externality dilemma. Someone could initiate a contract where X number, 25 to take your example, must sign the contract. If 25 people sign the contract, each person must pay $100 dollars to construct a new CCTV program. If there are less than 25 people that sign the contract, each person who signed gets $20. It would be in the rational interest of each person to sign this contract; if the contract does not have enough signatures, they get $20. If the contract does have enough signatures, it will cost them $100, but they will get the CCTV in exchange. All in all, a win-win situation, with no need to coerce people into paying for something they may potentially not want.

What I think is that most people are usually jaded and cynical when it comes to government. Some leader might tuck it away for awhile but it always come back.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.

Monarchs did not have to bow down to God. They, often, did have to share power with with the Church, but that only makes them an oligarchy.

They at least had to make the outward appearance of bowing before God. For example, in the Habsburg funerals

The late Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, the great Catholic Liberal historian and polymath, would tell of the funerals of Habsburg kings. The procession, after the funeral Mass, would arrive at the mausoleum and a high court official would knock with his staff on the bronze doors. Who goes there? said a monk from inside. His Imperial Majesty Francis Joseph II, Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary, and so on through all the grand names and titles. Silence. Again, the knock, again the inquiry, again the long and proud recitation. Silence. The third time, in response, the official would say, Francis Joseph, a poor sinner. And the huge bronze doors would swing open.

But the rulers of democratic states claim their power from an intrinsic force, a so-called "voice of the people", which is constituted by, from, and of the people. This elevates them to an effectively divine status, in which everything they do is blessed. This is just one way in which democracies are more totalitarian than other states.

The problem is how does one have authority over others. If an idividual does not consent to the authority of an association then how can an association solve disputes, crime, ect?

They can still do so because of certain immutable principles, and the sovereignty of the individuals. This is pre-legal- a natural law. Thus, how you can enforce laws, seeing as how natural law is the source of the right of association and thus has supremacy over it while later human constructs do not.

They wouldn't need collective decision making if they can make deals with each other in compensation for one another's cooperation. And if they can't make deals with each other, then they sure as heck couldn't hope to make a collective decision.

I never mentioned collective decision making. The point was point was what is rational for each individual is not rational for the whole. It is rational for each to betray the other but it results in an agregate loss.

The vote is unnecessary in a situation in which individual decision-making rules supreme where each individual consents because he perceives a benefit to him. If Person A gives the two other $100 to help him, then there is no need for a vote.

If one of the other persons decide the 50 dollar profit is not worth it then the measure fails. An agregate loss is created. Collective action would have maximised aggregate gain. I'm not advocating collective action for everything, just pointing out that individual action wont always maximize aggregate gains and sometimes collective action will.

Ah, yes, the age-old lighthouse example. (Did you know that for a long time most lighthouses were owned by private merchants who desired the benefits of a lighthouse for themselves, and were able to get returns from those who benefitted through various private methods, such as a port charges? Just thought you might be interested.)

You do realize there are more things described as public goods than lighthouses. Furthermore, the point isn't that "public goods" wont be produced. Its that they wont be produced in the optimal amount.


Anyway, back to your example. So some people do not want to pay up for the CCTV, because they feel that other people will pay for them. Assuming that all of the other people do not see a benefit for this system enough that they will cover the charge themselves, there is one of many ways around this externality dilemma. Someone could initiate a contract where X number, 25 to take your example, must sign the contract. If 25 people sign the contract, each person must pay $100 dollars to construct a new CCTV program. If there are less than 25 people that sign the contract, each person who signed gets $20. It would be in the rational interest of each person to sign this contract; if the contract does not have enough signatures, they get $20. If the contract does have enough signatures, it will cost them $100, but they will get the CCTV in exchange. All in all, a win-win situation, with no need to coerce people into paying for something they may potentially not want.

It depends on their expectations. If they think its likely to suceed they might want to keep $100. If they don't they'll sign. No guarantees.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.

What I mean is only young children in think that government is a wholely benign entity.

They at least had to make the outward appearance of bowing before God. For example, in the Habsburg funerals

But the rulers of democratic states claim their power from an intrinsic force, a so-called "voice of the people", which is constituted by, from, and of the people. This elevates them to an effectively divine status, in which everything they do is blessed. This is just one way in which democracies are more totalitarian than other states.

And democratic leaders have to give the appearence of fulfilling the popular will to some degree. Who thinks everything the state does is blessed? Just about everyone has something to complain about. The arguement for deomcracy isn't that its the best possible form of government. Its that its the best practical form of government.

They can still do so because of certain immutable principles, and the sovereignty of the individuals. This is pre-legal- a natural law. Thus, how you can enforce laws, seeing as how natural law is the source of the right of association and thus has supremacy over it while later human constructs do not.

People disagree on what constitutes natural law or even if natural law exists. That won't change any time soon. In practical terms natural law is whatever people say it is.

I never mentioned collective decision making. The point was point was what is rational for each individual is not rational for the whole. It is rational for each to betray the other but it results in an agregate loss.

Maybe, but the prisoners do not have the luxury of perfect information of what one another is going to do. Thus, their decisions are rational, and cannot really be expected to be better, seeing as how they lack omniscience. It sucks, but that's the way it is; imperfect knowledge is more at fault here than individual decision making.

If one of the other persons decide the 50 dollar profit is not worth it then the measure fails. An agregate loss is created. Collective action would have maximised aggregate gain. I'm not advocating collective action for everything, just pointing out that individual action wont always maximize aggregate gains and sometimes collective action will.

There is still no need for collective action. The other person chose not to take the $50 dollar profit because he was making some other loss (likely intangible). Person A can probably find someone else to do the job, or he can offer more to the recalcitrant person to make him work. In the end, individual action is better than collective action because individual action works for the benefit of each individual, whereas collective action does not necessarily do so, and even when it does, individual action could have done it anyway.

You do realize there are more things described as public goods than lighthouses. Furthermore, the point isn't that "public goods" wont be produced. Its that they wont be produced in the optimal amount.

I know there are more public goods than lighthouses, but it's still a perfectly valid example. Also, there is no such thing as an "optimal" amount of any good, and to claim to know it is folly. It all depends on the subjective value of each person in satisfying their purposes, in the end, not Pareto optimalities.

It depends on their expectations. If they think its likely to suceed they might want to keep $100. If they don't they'll sign. No guarantees.

Maybe, but they would have some reason to not sign it, and it would probably have to be a good one to turn down a win-win situation. Not to mention that there are a whole slew of other methods of solving the problem; security insurance companies using their proceeds to build a local CCTV, getting philanthropists to do it, having a funding drive to get the money, etc. There is still no need for compulsion.

What I mean is only young children in think that government is a wholely benign entity.

I suppose, but that still doesn't make it any better that so many people do believe in the overall benevolence of democracy.

And democratic leaders have to give the appearence of fulfilling the popular will to some degree. Who thinks everything the state does is blessed? Just about everyone has something to complain about. The arguement for deomcracy isn't that its the best possible form of government. Its that its the best practical form of government.

They have to give the appearance, i.e. the imperfect information, to the populace; they don't necessarily have to do it. I'm not saying that everyone thinks that the democratic government is blessed, I'm saying that the government is too slippery and that too few people know/care about the depth of it and that its out to screw them over. Also, seeing the massive bloating of the state under democracy, I'd hardly call it the most practical form of government, seeing what it does to a nation's wealth.

People disagree on what constitutes natural law or even if natural law exists. That won't change any time soon. In practical terms natural law is whatever people say it is.

Hence why someone needs to put it down in stone, more or less. That way we could have the rules of the game set up along rational, understandable lines, and it can all be done voluntarily.

Maybe, but the prisoners do not have the luxury of perfect information of what one another is going to do. Thus, their decisions are rational, and cannot really be expected to be better, seeing as how they lack omniscience. It sucks, but that's the way it is; imperfect knowledge is more at fault here than individual decision making.

Perfect information doesn't exist. Any arguement that relies on it is pointless. Besides, If a central planner or planners had perfect information and people in general did not then central planning would be more efficient then the market.

There is still no need for collective action. The other person chose not to take the $50 dollar profit because he was making some other loss (likely intangible). Person A can probably find someone else to do the job, orhe can offer more to the recalcitrant person to make him work. In the end, individual action is better than collective action because individual action works for the benefit of each individual, whereas collective action does not necessarily do so, and even when it does, individual action could have done it anyway.

You are changing the rules of the game. You named three persons and an action that required all 3 to enact. There are no competitors for the jobs. Besides collective action is any action carried out by two or more individuals

I know there are more public goods than lighthouses, but it's still a perfectly valid example. Also, there is no such thing as an "optimal" amount of any good, and to claim to know it is folly. It all depends on the subjective value of each person in satisfying their purposes, in the end, not Pareto optimalities.

I meant optimal in terms of aggregates. If you do not believe in aggregates why did you initially start using them?

Maybe, but they would have some reason to not sign it, and it would probably have to be a good one to turn down a win-win situation. Not to mention that there are a whole slew of other methods of solving the problem; security insurance companies using their proceeds to build a local CCTV, getting philanthropists to do it, having a funding drive to get the money, etc. There is still no need for compulsion.

The reason would be, in this case, the possibility of gaining the benefits witthout paying the costs. It depends on what an individual thinks the other people will do. Insurance companies wouldn't pay for it because they aren't getting the benefits of it. Philanthropists wouldn't because the people collectively have more than enough money. They'll go to people who can't.

I suppose, but that still doesn't make it any better that so many people do believe in the overall benevolence of democracy.

When it gets right down to it most people believe in what Churchill said," Democracy is the worst system of government except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.

They have to give the appearance, i.e. the imperfect information, to the populace; they don't necessarily have to do it. I'm not saying that everyone thinks that the democratic government is blessed, I'm saying that the government is too slippery and that too few people know/care about the depth of it and that its out to screw them over. Also, seeing the massive bloating of the state under democracy, I'd hardly call it the most practical form of government, seeing what it does to a nation's wealth.

Neither did Monarchs have to actually bow down to God. Seeing as you're comparing modern governments to past governments of poorer countries and some untested libertarian utopia I see it has having worked best given the evidence.

Hence why someone needs to put it down in stone, more or less. That way we could have the rules of the game set up along rational, understandable lines, and it can all be done voluntarily.

But everyone will agree to voluntarily to the same natural laws. There are those who would like your natural law, others would want something along the lines of a Rawlsian social contract, and others would want an anarcho-communist society.

Perfect information doesn't exist. Any arguement that relies on it is pointless. Besides, If a central planner or planners had perfect information and people in general did not then central planning would be more efficient then the market.

I know that. But it still stands that the prisoner's dilemma does not have a clear solution, and that we can only solve it with the methods that we have. To have the prisoners always both say no is to have them hold perfect information, which is impossible. Therefore, given their circumstances, their decisions are ultimately optimal.

You are changing the rules of the game. You named three persons and an action that required all 3 to enact. There are no competitors for the jobs. Besides collective action is any action carried out by two or more individuals.

I said the democracy has three people, not that there are only three people. Besides, it is still admissable for the third person to disagree when presented the option, either out of apathy (too little money offered when he knows there is more), or some other intangible cost.

I meant optimal in terms of aggregates. If you do not believe in aggregates why did you initially start using them?

It's better to make my point with; I don't really believe in aggregate, but in a simple, hypothetical example with all else equal they are useful.

The reason would be, in this case, the possibility of gaining the benefits witthout paying the costs. It depends on what an individual thinks the other people will do. Insurance companies wouldn't pay for it because they aren't getting the benefits of it. Philanthropists wouldn't because the people collectively have more than enough money. They'll go to people who can't.

The insurance company would do it, because it would result in fewer costs to them having to go and break up the crime (these are security insurance companies, BTW). Therefore, they could lower their costs, charge less to get more customers, and make more money. Hence, why they would do it. You don't need coercive planning to get things done, you just need incentives.

When it gets right down to it most people believe in what Churchill said," Democracy is the worst system of government except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.

Except that's not true. The state has exploded under democracy; hence the 50% spending and 15% of people employed by the government, anchoring down the economy from what it could truly attain. Any benefits in a country with a democratic government do not come from democracy, but rather in spite of it.

Neither did Monarchs have to actually bow down to God. Seeing as you're comparing modern governments to past governments of poorer countries and some untested libertarian utopia I see it has having worked best given the evidence.

Except they have done worse. (See above)

But everyone will agree to voluntarily to the same natural laws. There are those who would like your natural law, others would want something along the lines of a Rawlsian social contract, and others would want an anarcho-communist society.

In an individualist, natural law system, there would be no conflict. The AnComs could voluntarily agree to share property, and so long as they did not take away from others without consent there would be no problem. Indeed, natural law can span multiple ideologies, and is not just limited to the libertarian worldview.

meh. I just changed my registration from Republican to nonpartisan.

eh

eh

I am a proud Republican due to the party's stance on abortion. It over rides every other issue for me.

The best way I can say it is this from Fort Liberty:

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...

The principles that made the United States of America the greatest country on the face of the earth are under attack from enemies both foreign and domestic.

Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, to secure the natural rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Muslim extremists seek to destroy our Liberty and criminalize our Pursuit of Happiness. Their chosen path to achieve these goals involves taking away the lives of many Americans.

Statists from the Democratic Party seek to destroy our Liberty with useless government intervention into our private lives and to handicap our Pursuit of Happiness with crippling taxation.

Statists from the Republican Party seek to destroy our Liberty with a different set of useless laws attacking different portions of our private lives.

The Republicans seek to protect us from foreign threats; the Democrats seek to protect us from ourselves. Who will protect us from them?

The American secession from Britain was sparked by excessive government intervention into private affairs, by unreasonable taxation, and by government from a distance. These three statements described colonial America in 1776 - and they describe modern America in 2006.

I know that. But it still stands that the prisoner's dilemma does not have a clear solution, and that we can only solve it with the methods that we have. To have the prisoners always both say no is to have them hold perfect information, which is impossible. Therefore, given their circumstances, their decisions are ultimately optimal.

Except their decisions are not optimal. The optimal is if they both cooperate.

I said the democracy has three people, not that there are only three people.Besides, it is still admissable for the third person to disagree when presented the option, either out of apathy (too little money offered when he knows there is more), or some other intangible cost.

Its still admissable but the aggregate benefit is less. Besides any hypothetical situation can be twisted if you can control the conditions. Central planning is best if the central planner has perfect information.

It's better to make my point with; I don't really believe in aggregate, but in a simple, hypothetical example with all else equal they are useful.

Ecept its bullshit because you don't believe in it.

The insurance company would do it, because it would result in fewer costs to them having to go and break up the crime (these are security insurance companies, BTW). Therefore, they could lower their costs, charge less to get more customers, and make more money. Hence, why they would do it. You don't need coercive planning to get things done, you just need incentives.

The insurance company would just charge more until they got a CCTV system. The people get the benefits whether they pay or not and if one insurance company pays for it other insurance companies get some of the benefit as well getting the free rider problem to another level.

Except that's not true. The state has exploded under democracy; hence the 50% spending and 15% of people employed by the government, anchoring down the economy from what it could truly attain. Any benefits in a country with a democratic government do not come from democracy, but rather in spite of it.

Except given the evidence it is true. We're better in our democraciess than we were in the past. You can not emprically prove beyond a reasonable doubt what you say is true or that your government would work for an extended amount of time.

Except they have done worse. (See above)

Except that people are better off now then when they were under monarchs.

In an individualist, natural law system, there would be no conflict. The AnComs could voluntarily agree to share property, and so long as they did not take away from others without consent there would be no problem. Indeed, natural law can span multiple ideologies, and is not just limited to the libertarian worldview.

Except everyone would not agree to the same natural laws or even that natural law exists.

Except their decisions are not optimal. The optimal is if they both cooperate.

They're optimal to them; hence why they do it.

Its still admissable but the aggregate benefit is less. Besides any hypothetical situation can be twisted if you can control the conditions. Central planning is best if the central planner has perfect information.

The aggregate benefit is lower because to force them to do it would not be mutually beneficial; hence why the person will ultimately refuse to do it (they would rather do something else that's more important to them).

Ecept its bullshit because you don't believe in it.

Again, it's a rhetorical device of everything else equal, and that it shows that there will otherwise be no mutual benefit because there is inadequate benefit for all parties involved.

The insurance company would just charge more until they got a CCTV system. The people get the benefits whether they pay or not and if one insurance company pays for it other insurance companies get some of the benefit as well getting the free rider problem to another level.

Er, no. If they feel that the returns on implementing the CCTV, which is a form of capital investment, is high enough, they will do it. The free-rider problem is irrelevant; they get the benefit they want, and that's all that matters.

Except given the evidence it is true. We're better in our democraciess than we were in the past. You can not emprically prove beyond a reasonable doubt what you say is true or that your government would work for an extended amount of time.

It doesn't matter if it's better than a hypothetical system of government; it's worse than the other, actually tested governments. Hence why I keep reiterating the bloated state that has occurred under democracies. With that in mind, I don't need to prove my hypothetical state, because it is already obvious that what is had is an inferior product.

Except that people are better off now then when they were under monarchs.

No, they aren't. If we had the same economies as monarchs had, we would have much lower taxes, much lower debt, much lower regulation, much fewer labor resources diverted to the government, and on and on. In fact, we're worse off for having democracy; any benefit that we've gained since then is in spite of democracy, not for it.

Except everyone would not agree to the same natural laws or even that natural law exists.

Then if they feel the need to go around attacking people or stealing or whatnot, they can go to jail. We don't need everyone to agree to natural law for it to function.

They're optimal to them; hence why they do it.

They are not optimal on the whole on though.

The aggregate benefit is lower because to force them to do it would not be mutually beneficial; hence why the person will ultimately refuse to do it (they would rather do something else that's more important to them).

Agreed, but that's not denying that they'd still be better off on the whole.

Again, it's a rhetorical device of everything else equal, and that it shows that there will otherwise be no mutual benefit because there is inadequate benefit for all parties involved.

Again, it shows that

Er, no. If they feel that the returns on implementing the CCTV, which is a form of capital investment, is high enough, they will do it. The free-rider problem is irrelevant; they get the benefit they want, and that's all that matters.

Except they might not want the benefit at all because they can not receive all the benefits. The personal return might not be enough because other insurance companies would free ride off the benefits without incurring the costs. The thing with public goods is that when compulsory payment for them is put in place there is more of that good and most people, and most economists, would agree that they are better off than at the level provided voluntarily.

It doesn't matter if it's better than a hypothetical system of government; it's worse than the other, actually tested governments. Hence why I keep reiterating the bloated state that has occurred under democracies. With that in mind, I don't need to prove my hypothetical state, because it is already obvious that what is had is an inferior product.

But even those actual tested governments didn't make the cut. They died out everywhere or almost everywhere. Secondly, the state may have bloated but so did the economy. We're better off than we were. Thirdly, you lack a product.

No, they aren't. If we had the same economies as monarchs had, we would have much lower taxes, much lower debt, much lower regulation, much fewer labor resources diverted to the government, and on and on. In fact, we're worse off for having democracy; any benefit that we've gained since then is in spite of democracy, not for it.

Except that democracy has spread and monarchy has withered. We don't have the governments of the monarchs had because people decided they did not want them. The benefits that have been gained have both been because of and in spite of democracy.

Then if they feel the need to go around attacking people or stealing or whatnot, they can go to jail. We don't need everyone to agree to natural law for it to function.

Then we come to the majority/minority dichotomy. You still need a majority of people to believe in natural law versus those who don't. Even among those who believe in natural law there will be competing versions of it. No immutable principles to guide us all.

They are not optimal on the whole on though.

Because to expect that optimality is not reasonable.

Agreed, but that's not denying that they'd still be better off on the whole.

In your opinion, yes. But the individual is ultimately the sole decider of what's good for him; everything else is just opinion. He obviously finds more utility in doing something else than he is being offered to perform this chore.

Again, it shows that

I'll just assume that you meant the sentence ending to be "Greill is totally awesome!" ;)

Except they might not want the benefit at all because they can not receive all the benefits. The personal return might not be enough because other insurance companies would free ride off the benefits without incurring the costs. The thing with public goods is that when compulsory payment for them is put in place there is more of that good and most people, and most economists, would agree that they are better off than at the level provided voluntarily.

You might want to put up Christmas decorations to make your house look nice. That would also make the rest of the neighborhood look nice. Is the fact that people get to "free-ride" off of your Christmas decorations make you not want to put them up in the first place?

Also, it doesn't matter to the insurance company if other people free-ride off of their work; if they get a satisfactory return because of their CCTV investment, then they'll do it. The other specifics don't matter.

But even those actual tested governments didn't make the cut. They died out everywhere or almost everywhere. Secondly, the state may have bloated but so did the economy. We're better off than we were. Thirdly, you lack a product.

They were violently stopped by democratic governments (Austria-Hungary in particular; they were probably more liberal than their democratic neighbors, seeing as how they didn't go around punishing dissenters and renaming foods like the US did. We can also include Germany in this example, and perhaps Russia, but all that happened there was that they changed from totalitarian monarchy to totalitarian democracy (though I would note that they were exporting grain in the Czar's days, but after all the communist damage they are now importing it.)) The state bloats at the expense of the economy; if I get shot in the leg, but become a great runner, did the bullet help me to achieve this? The inferior product, finally, is democracy, which has failed to live up to any expectations.

Except that democracy has spread and monarchy has withered. We don't have the governments of the monarchs had because people decided they did not want them. The benefits that have been gained have both been because of and in spite of democracy.

Democracy spread because it was an easier tool with which to manipulate the masses, and the monarchies were aggressively destroyed by the democracies. Since then, people have been pushed further into serfdom by democracy than the monarchs could have ever dreamed.

Then we come to the majority/minority dichotomy. You still need a majority of people to believe in natural law versus those who don't. Even among those who believe in natural law there will be competing versions of it. No immutable principles to guide us all.

That's why we have jurisprudence, precedence, the right of secession and the right to bear arms. That way, we can best flesh out these immutable principles by reason, and protect ourselves against those who would force us into serving them. That is the surest recipe for liberty.

Because to expect that optimality is not reasonable.

Agreed. It still is the optimality, however.


In your opinion, yes. But the individual is ultimately the sole decider of what's good for him; everything else is just opinion. He obviously finds more utility in doing something else than he is being offered to perform this chore.

In actuality. Aggregate benefits and all.

I'll just assume that you meant the sentence ending to be "Greill is totally awesome!" ;)

Sorry. Mind wondered.

You might want to put up Christmas decorations to make your house look nice. That would also make the rest of the neighborhood look nice. Is the fact that people get to "free-ride" off of your Christmas decorations make you not want to put them up in the first place?

No, the fact that there are pretty houses that I can enjoy without the expenses of decorations or the labor necessary putting them up would.

Its all about incentives. If somebody can enjoy something without paying for it then they probably wont pay for it. Why invent something if someone else can sell it without incuring the costs of research? Why pay for a military when someone else will and you get to enjoy it for free? Why train an employee when that employee wont last long and other companies will be the primary beneficiary of said training? People will still invent, give money to a military service, and train employees but not as much.

Also, it doesn't matter to the insurance company if other people free-ride off of their work; if they get a satisfactory return because of their CCTV investment, then they'll do it. The other specifics don't matter.

But will they get a satisfactory rate of return? Other insurance companies can now lower their rates too and they won't have to pass the price of the CCTV onto their customers either.

They were violently stopped by democratic governments (Austria-Hungary in particular; they were probably more liberal than their democratic neighbors, seeing as how they didn't go around punishing dissenters and renaming foods like the US did. We can also include Germany in this example, and perhaps Russia, but all that happened there was that they changed from totalitarian monarchy to totalitarian democracy (though I would note that they were exporting grain in the Czar's days, but after all the communist damage they are now importing it.)) The state bloats at the expense of the economy; if I get shot in the leg, but become a great runner, did the bullet help me to achieve this? The inferior product, finally, is democracy, which has failed to live up to any expectations.

Austria-Hungary was broken up after fighting in WWI. They were hardly a victim. Second, monarchies hardly arose due to their peaceful ways. They conquered their way to power. If you got shot in the leg and afterward became a great runner then I'd would probably think the bullet had something to do with it. After your wound healed it may slightly altered how the musclemass around it worked giving superior performance. Democracy has killed off the competition, improved living standards, and increased human liberty, in general.

Democracy spread because it was an easier tool with which to manipulate the masses, and the monarchies were aggressively destroyed by the democracies. Since then, people have been pushed further into serfdom by democracy than the monarchs could have ever dreamed.

It spread because it was a fitter form of government. Since then people are freer than ever before.

That's why we have jurisprudence, precedence, the right of secession and the right to bear arms. That way, we can best flesh out these immutable principles by reason, and protect ourselves against those who would force us into serving them. That is the surest recipe for liberty.

Which means immutable principles will never be discovered because they are so mutable. It also almost guarantees conflict, sometimes violent, between your volgovs, voluntary governments. Return to statism is inevitable either voluntarily or by being conquered.

Agreed. It still is the optimality, however.

With perfect information, yes. But there's no perfect information, so...

In actuality. Aggregate benefits and all.

But it's not an optimality, because the one feels he would be at a loss doing this thing, as opposed to doing something else more valuable to him.

Sorry. Mind wondered.

'Tis OK. :)

No, the fact that there are pretty houses that I can enjoy without the expenses of decorations or the labor necessary putting them up would.

But that's not a problem, because ultimately the individual (the decorator) is satisfied; it doesn't really matter if other people will not put up something. Each individual is thus achieving what they desire, and the free-rider problem is no problem at all.

Its all about incentives. If somebody can enjoy something without paying for it then they probably wont pay for it. Why invent something if someone else can sell it without incuring the costs of research?

You can have a contract that people can't steal your invention from you, like a EULA or something along those lines.

Why pay for a military when someone else will and you get to enjoy it for free?

Well, if we had security insurance companies, people would have an interest in protecting property that could be destroyed in an invasion. They would pay money to defense groups to provide greater security. Think of it this way; if I had insurance worth $1 million against human violations of property, the insurance company could spend up to $1 million to make deterrents against crime, invasion, etc., and still make a profit by not having to reimburse me. Thus, no free-rider problem.

Why train an employee when that employee wont last long and other companies will be the primary beneficiary of said training?

Pay them more and give more benefits to prevent employee turnover.

People will still invent, give money to a military service, and train employees but not as much.

But they can devise solutions to various so-called externalities to prevent any problems, and thus invent, fund a military, and train employees.

But will they get a satisfactory rate of return? Other insurance companies can now lower their rates too and they won't have to pass the price of the CCTV onto their customers either.

If they catch someone on TV, they can charge the non-clients a higher amount since they would not have security insurance to otherwise pay for it, plus they would be the first ones to confiscate property and jail the criminals and make them work in prison. So they will be the overall winners, even if the other insurance companies have some benefits.

Austria-Hungary was broken up after fighting in WWI. They were hardly a victim. Second, monarchies hardly arose due to their peaceful ways. They conquered their way to power. If you got shot in the leg and afterward became a great runner then I'd would probably think the bullet had something to do with it. After your wound healed it may slightly altered how the musclemass around it worked giving superior performance. Democracy has killed off the competition, improved living standards, and increased human liberty, in general.

Well, they were a victim, since they were partitioned by the Allies after the war and forced to cede land to Italy, among other things. Also, I never said monarchies are peaceful; they, like all states, are inherently violent. Additionally, you're taking my bullet example a little too literally. Democracy, again, has not been the cause behind improved living standards and increased human liberty; rather, with the expansion of the state from democracies ranging from totalitarian to marginally liberal, it has fettered these things and barely allowed them to grow, if not decrease.

It spread because it was a fitter form of government. Since then people are freer than ever before.

It spread because it looked like a fitter form of government to the masses, while serving as a better tool of oppression to the political elites. Once more, it has not made people freer because of itself.

Which means immutable principles will never be discovered because they are so mutable. It also almost guarantees conflict, sometimes violent, between your volgovs, voluntary governments. Return to statism is inevitable either voluntarily or by being conquered.

But there are incentives to cooperate with just rulings. For example, if I am a jerk and I break contracts constantly, and I refuse arbitration/refuse to obey reasonable court orders to which I consented, what will happen? For one, my security insurance company will stop protecting me, because they know I am too great a liability for revenge. Secondly, the other insurance companies will go for compensation to follow through with the court order. Thirdly, even if they don't stop me, no credit group will want to deal with me, because I am a liability. Ultimately, it is incentives that will keep this system running.

-snip-



-snip-


This whole controversy is easily resolved through simple empirical observation. Carefully note which countries tend to do the best in terms of GDP (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html), GDP per capita (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html), infant mortality rates (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html), and life expectancy at birth (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html).

Then carefully note what kind of governance the majority of these countries tend to implement. Also carefully note which countries are listed as "free" (indicating high levels of political and civil rights/freedoms) in the 2006 Freedom House survey data (http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/pdf/Charts2006.pdf). Again, carefully note what type of governance these countries tend to implement.

The conclusion that the statement that "democracy is illiberal" is false appears inescapable. The idea that the dictatorships of Soviet Communism or Nazi Germany were "democratic" in any way is plainly asinine (sorry, but it is). Yes, dictators have claimed to act in the name of the people. But...They were liars! Politicians lie! Especially those prone to totalitarianism! :eek: :eek: :eek:

It's shocking, I know. :p

Not another one of these! I need a drink...or 30..:headbang:

agreed

I am a proud Republican due to the party's stance on abortion. It over rides every other issue for me.
I'm also very against abortion, but fortunately not American.

I have strong opinions on the Republicans though.

Don't their compassionless, anti-poor policies bother you? Does the Iraq war not make you sick? Do you actually think that they care about getting rid of abortion?

This whole controversy is easily resolved through simple empirical observation. Carefully note which countries tend to do the best in terms of GDP (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html), GDP per capita (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html), infant mortality rates (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html), and life expectancy at birth (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html).

Then carefully note what kind of governance the majority of these countries tend to implement. Also carefully note which countries are listed as "free" (indicating high levels of political and civil rights/freedoms) in the 2006 Freedom House survey data (http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/pdf/Charts2006.pdf). Again, carefully note what type of governance these countries tend to implement.

The conclusion that the statement that "democracy is illiberal" is false appears inescapable. The idea that the dictatorships of Soviet Communism or Nazi Germany were "democratic" in any way is plainly asinine (sorry, but it is). Yes, dictators have claimed to act in the name of the people. But...They were liars! Politicians lie! Especially those prone to totalitarianism! :eek: :eek: :eek:

It's shocking, I know. :p

OK, you compared a bunch of democracies, totalitarian and liberal, with each other. What was that supposed to prove? All of these governments were public, supposedly owned by the people (which, ultimately, none are; it just depends whether the political class is the caretaker (democracy) or owner (monarchy)), and rely upon deceiving the public into trusting the government which they believe are 'theirs'. The demagogues of Athens were the embodiment of the failures of democracy, as are the totalitarian democracies of past and present. All of the politicians, from democracies liberal and totalitarian, are all the same, as are the essences of their systems; it only depends what flavor, liberal or totalitarian, they are.

With perfect information, yes. But there's no perfect information, so...

Even without perfect information its still the optimal.

But it's not an optimality, because the one feels he would be at a loss doing this thing, as opposed to doing something else more valuable to him.
Its optimal because the aggregate benefits are the higher.

But that's not a problem, because ultimately the individual (the decorator) is satisfied; it doesn't really matter if other people will not put up something. Each individual is thus achieving what they desire, and the free-rider problem is no problem at all.

Except everyone is worse off than if everybody put up Christmas decorations. Everyone may decide not to put any up. I hope you realize I don't care about

You can have a contract that people can't steal your invention from you, like a EULA or something along those lines.

Except now innovation will be slowed now because of excessive intellectual property contracts.

Well, if we had security insurance companies, people would have an interest in protecting property that could be destroyed in an invasion. They would pay money to defense groups to provide greater security. Think of it this way; if I had insurance worth $1 million against human violations of property, the insurance company could spend up to $1 million to make deterrents against crime, invasion, etc., and still make a profit by not having to reimburse me. Thus, no free-rider problem.

But will people pay enough for adequate protection if they think they can free-ride off others? Your $1 million may not be enough and people can get the benefit eithout any cost. The free-rider problem still exists.

Pay them more and give more benefits to prevent employee turnover.

Its likely that the employer is the one laying off workers rather than employees quitting. Temp and part-time jobs are on the rise. The average amount of time that one stays at a firm is decreasing.

But they can devise solutions to various so-called externalities to prevent any problems, and thus invent, fund a military, and train employees.

Or they wont and we'll all be worse off.

If they catch someone on TV, they can charge the non-clients a higher amount since they would not have security insurance to otherwise pay for it, plus they would be the first ones to confiscate property and jail the criminals and make them work in prison. So they will be the overall winners, even if the other insurance companies have some benefits.

Non-clients wouldn't pay any amount. No contract. Why would criminals go to jail? If they have the money for restitution then they'd pay for it, if not then either part of there wages would be garnished or other work would be found.

Well, they were a victim, since they were partitioned by the Allies after the war and forced to cede land to Italy, among other things. Also, I never said monarchies are peaceful; they, like all states, are inherently violent. Additionally, you're taking my bullet example a little too literally. Democracy, again, has not been the cause behind improved living standards and increased human liberty; rather, with the expansion of the state from democracies ranging from totalitarian to marginally liberal, it has fettered these things and barely allowed them to grow, if not decrease.

Barely allowed them to grow? The economy has increased greatly since deomcracy was instituted. To say that there is no connection is silly.

It spread because it looked like a fitter form of government to the masses, while serving as a better tool of oppression to the political elites. Once more, it has not made people freer because of itself.

It spread because it was fitter. It did make people freer. We are freer because of democracy.

But there are incentives to cooperate with just rulings. For example, if I am a jerk and I break contracts constantly, and I refuse arbitration/refuse to obey reasonable court orders to which I consented, what will happen? For one, my security insurance company will stop protecting me, because they know I am too great a liability for revenge. Secondly, the other insurance companies will go for compensation to follow through with the court order. Thirdly, even if they don't stop me, no credit group will want to deal with me, because I am a liability. Ultimately, it is incentives that will keep this system running.

There are incentives to cooperate with rulings whether they are just or not. Court orders may not be consented to. If two courts/volgovs/whatever can't make a peacrful resolution they a violent. Ultimately its a fractious system that will turn back into statism eventually.

Even without perfect information its still the optimal.

No, it's not, because without perfect information we must try and intuit what is best for us. Therefore, it is the optimality.

Its optimal because the aggregate benefits are the higher.

No, because the person who is not working finds something that is of higher benefit than taking the money to work with the other people.

Except everyone is worse off than if everybody put up Christmas decorations. Everyone may decide not to put any up. I hope you realize I don't care about

They are worse off in one respect if no one puts up ornaments, but they are better off in that they pursue an interest which they feel is of higher benefit. I don't realize that you don't care about whatever you were going to list, because I don't know what that is. :)

Except now innovation will be slowed now because of excessive intellectual property contracts.

No, it will be faster because people will feel more security in inventing, and thus put more resources into it to gain the gains that would be available to it.

But will people pay enough for adequate protection if they think they can free-ride off others? Your $1 million may not be enough and people can get the benefit eithout any cost. The free-rider problem still exists.

How would they get the benefit of having insurance for protection if they don't have insurance for protection? If there is an invasion or a crime happen, they are out of luck and must pay up for any protection they receive and also to reimburse their losses. There is no free-rider problem, only penalties for those who do not pay.

Its likely that the employer is the one laying off workers rather than employees quitting. Temp and part-time jobs are on the rise. The average amount of time that one stays at a firm is decreasing.

OK, if the employer is the one laying off workers, then it doesn't matter if someone else takes the workers from them; they don't care about them anymore. Thus, no free-rider.

Or they wont and we'll all be worse off.

But they will, because that's in their best interest. So then we're better off.

Non-clients wouldn't pay any amount. No contract. Why would criminals go to jail? If they have the money for restitution then they'd pay for it, if not then either part of there wages would be garnished or other work would be found.

They would have to pay a large sum, if they want any protection and they call the police without having insurance for them. The criminals would go to jail to keep them off the streets and raise costs for the insurance companies, plus they could work for them and possibly make a profit.

Barely allowed them to grow? The economy has increased greatly since deomcracy was instituted. To say that there is no connection is silly.

With the obscene inflation rates, cumbersome regulations, confiscatory taxes, low savings rates, and reallocation of resources to political, as opposed to economic, means, the economies has been lucky to squeeze in any growth. There is indeed a relation between this burden and democratic government.

It spread because it was fitter. It did make people freer. We are freer because of democracy.

It spread at gunpoint and because it was easier to dupe people into supporting a democratic tyrant than a monarchical tyrant. And no, we're not freer because of democracy, with the almighty state hovering over us and ruling us.

There are incentives to cooperate with rulings whether they are just or not. Court orders may not be consented to. If two courts/volgovs/whatever can't make a peacrful resolution they a violent. Ultimately its a fractious system that will turn back into statism eventually.

Yes, there are incentives with all, but in a voluntary system you don't have to follow all rulings (you should if it's just, because it's far more beneficial for you. But on the other hand, you have the power to resist unjust rulings, unlike in a statist government). The whatevers will always try to work together, because to do otherwise would be costly, and they do not have the ability to coerce resources out of the public like coercive governments do. It will not turn into statism, because it is a system with incentives to prevent such a return.

History will say Bush is a good or bad president depending on how iraq turns out, and it all would have gone find if rumsfeld's dickishness personality trait didn't get in the way.

2002: Mr dickishness:OMG LETS GO IN WITH 90 000 MEN, ITLL BE FUN!!!!!!!!!
General Franks:No
DICKISHNESS: OK OK OK LETS GO IN WITH 140 000 MEN ITLL BE AS FUN
Franks:No
Bush: yeh 140 000 is heaps!thats enough
2003-2006: Iraq gets worse and worse because of rumsfeld's idiotic doctrine.
2006-Onwards: IF we manage to get more troops on the ground iraq will stop detoriating, their army will eventually get it together and we might salvage a little good out of a very bad situation.

I was a republican, but the bush administration (not so much bush himself but certain dickish people around him) have done a poor job. Mccain,Rumseld and the other idiots in the republican party are pretty much rolling out the red carpet for Hillary, throwing rose petals infront of her path, and putting expensive candy on her pillow for '08.

No, it's not, because without perfect information we must try and intuit what is best for us. Therefore, it is the optimality.

Except the optimality is the least amount of time and is 1 year combined.

No, because the person who is not working finds something that is of
higher benefit than taking the money to work with the other people.

The optimal is the higher aggregate. If the person doesn't work the aggregate is lower.

They are worse off in one respect if no one puts up ornaments, but they are better off in that they pursue an interest which they feel is of higher benefit. I don't realize that you don't care about whatever you were going to list, because I don't know what that is. :)

Except they thought they could get the higher benefit by mooching off their neighbors. I meant I don't care about free-riding off Christmas decorations.

No, it will be faster because people will feel more security in inventing, and thus put more resources into it to gain the gains that would be available to it.

Someone invents the microchip and has an eula agreement with anybody who uses a product with a microchip in it. Because of the eula no one can make a better microchip without getting permission from the first guy because all future microchip improvements ultimately are derived from the first one.

How would they get the benefit of having insurance for protection if they don't have insurance for protection? If there is an invasion or a crime happen, they are out of luck and must pay up for any protection they receive and also to reimburse their losses. There is no free-rider problem, only penalties for those who do not pay.

If an invasion happens its unlikely to stopped only at certain properties leaving the free riders without protection. More likely it will be stopped before it gets to a large concentration of property and people. Thus people will free ride.
Another example is a nuclear bomb. A nuke is heading to a city, some people pay for protection and some don't, the effects of the nuke can not be effectively screened so that only those who payed are protected.

OK, if the employer is the one laying off workers, then it doesn't matter if someone else takes the workers from them; they don't care about them anymore. Thus, no free-rider.

The problem is that they won't get trained. Job training is supposed to improve productivity. An economy with more productive workers is better than one with less productive workers. Those firms that offer no training free-ride off those who did, but if every firm offered job training then everyone benefits. Because the primary benefactors of the training are other firms then there will be less training.

QUOTE]But they will, because that's in their best interest. So then we're better off.[/QUOTE]

Or it wont be possible to take care of all the externalities voluntarily. So we're worse off.


They would have to pay a large sum, if they want any protection and they call the police without having insurance for them. The criminals would go to jail to keep them off the streets and raise costs for the insurance companies, plus they could work for them and possibly make a profit.


They have insurance just not from the CCTV buyer.

Jailing the offenders if they have enough money for restitution is slavery. Even if they don't any work they are forced into would have to be payed at a market rate.

With the obscene inflation rates, cumbersome regulations, confiscatory taxes, low savings rates, and reallocation of resources to political, as opposed to economic, means, the economies has been lucky to squeeze in any growth. There is indeed a relation between this burden and democratic government.

With rising living standards. increasing technical innovation, higher life expectancies, lower infant mortality rates democracy has sure made us worse. :rolleyes:

It spread at gunpoint and because it was easier to dupe people into supporting a democratic tyrant than a monarchical tyrant. And no, we're not freer because of democracy, with the almighty state hovering over us and ruling us.

Unlike monarchy which was spread at sword point. The state is hardly almighty, governments rise and fall. Democracy has made us freer.

Yes, there are incentives with all, but in a voluntary system you don't have to follow all rulings (you should if it's just, because it's far more beneficial for you. But on the other hand, you have the power to resist unjust rulings, unlike in a statist government). The whatevers will always try to work together, because to do otherwise would be costly, and they do not have the ability to coerce resources out of the public like coercive governments do. It will not turn into statism, because it is a system with incentives to prevent such a return.

You have the power to resist unjust rulings in statist government. Its just that the vast majority of the time it is futile. The whatevers wont always work together any more than any 2 countries. Whats just or unjust will still be primarily based on popular opinion not natural laws. Demogogues won't disapear. If anything they'll have more power. A system of incentives can be inadequate. Statism will reappear one way or the other.

The Republicans started giving me the creeps back when Reagan started courting the Moral Majority.
Since I could vote, I've voted Democratic except when the Democrat was obviously incompetent or a crook. Yes, we have them too.

The Republicans started giving me the creeps back when Reagan started courting the Moral Majority.
Since I could vote, I've voted Democratic except when the Democrat was obviously incompetent or a crook. Yes, we have them too.

The whole moral majority expression always freaks me out, especially since I consider most of it to be neither.

Except the optimality is the least amount of time and is 1 year combined.

It may be the least amount of time, but it's not rational to assume that's it's an achievable optimum. It is not possible without perfect information.

The optimal is the higher aggregate. If the person doesn't work the aggregate is lower.

But he has another reason not to perform the work; he can gain a higher benefit by doing something else, which is exactly why he's refusing the work.

Except they thought they could get the higher benefit by mooching off their neighbors. I meant I don't care about free-riding off Christmas decorations.

But it still doesn't matter, because the individual who sets up the ornaments is the one that receives the benefit; it doesn't matter about who else gets any benefit.

Someone invents the microchip and has an eula agreement with anybody who uses a product with a microchip in it. Because of the eula no one can make a better microchip without getting permission from the first guy because all future microchip improvements ultimately are derived from the first one.

But to maximize revenue the inventor of the microchip would act so as to allow improvements, and to renegotiate the EULA with them. There is no problem.

If an invasion happens its unlikely to stopped only at certain properties leaving the free riders without protection. More likely it will be stopped before it gets to a large concentration of property and people. Thus people will free ride.
Another example is a nuclear bomb. A nuke is heading to a city, some people pay for protection and some don't, the effects of the nuke can not be effectively screened so that only those who payed are protected.

OK, but if the people who don't have insurance get nuked then they don't get any compensation for their loss. The people who do have insurance do. If there is a war going on the people who lose their property to invasion and have no insurance lose out. The people with insurance gain. There is no free-rider problem.

The problem is that they won't get trained. Job training is supposed to improve productivity. An economy with more productive workers is better than one with less productive workers. Those firms that offer no training free-ride off those who did, but if every firm offered job training then everyone benefits. Because the primary benefactors of the training are other firms then there will be less training.

But it is nonsensical that the other firms are the other ones that benefit. To prevent turnover, the firms will pay wages that are matched to productivity, so that other companies cannot bid them away. There is no free-rider problem here either.

Or it wont be possible to take care of all the externalities voluntarily. So we're worse off.

But they will, because that's how they'll keep making money. No problem there.

They have insurance just not from the CCTV buyer.

Jailing the offenders if they have enough money for restitution is slavery. Even if they don't any work they are forced into would have to be payed at a market rate.

They do have insurance, but if they want any of the evidence from the CCTV insurance company they will have to buy it from them, which will cost them more money than if they had insurance. So the CCTV buyer wins. Also, there is no amount of monetary restitution for intentional aggression such as murder, enslavement, and theft, so they will have to go to jail; otherwise we would have rich people running around murdering and writing checks.

With rising living standards. increasing technical innovation, higher life expectancies, lower infant mortality rates democracy has sure made us worse. :rolleyes:

All of which were achieved in spite of democracy's bloated inefficiencies that I listed prior.

Unlike monarchy which was spread at sword point. The state is hardly almighty, governments rise and fall. Democracy has made us freer.

No. It. Hasn't. The democratic state is more powerful and more controlling of its people than it ever was under monarchy; to say that this coercion has made people freer is downright ludicrous.

You have the power to resist unjust rulings in statist government. Its just that the vast majority of the time it is futile. The whatevers wont always work together any more than any 2 countries. Whats just or unjust will still be primarily based on popular opinion not natural laws. Demogogues won't disapear. If anything they'll have more power. A system of incentives can be inadequate. Statism will reappear one way or the other.

It will stand up, because the system depends on the desire of individuals to be free, which is an unquenchable desire. Through this immutable force, people CAN put an end to statism and keep it from resurging, and put the demagogues who rule in democracy back in their place.

It may be the least amount of time, but it's not rational to assume that's it's an achievable optimum. It is not possible without perfect information.

The fact that it is not rational does not change the fact that it is the optimum.

But he has another reason not to perform the work; he can gain a higher benefit by doing something else, which is exactly why he's refusing the work.

But it still lowers the aggregate, hence it isn't optimal.

But it still doesn't matter, because the individual who sets up the ornaments is the one that receives the benefit; it doesn't matter about who else gets any benefit.

But it does matter. Why pay for the benefit when you can get it for free?

But to maximize revenue the inventor of the microchip would act so as to allow improvements, and to renegotiate the EULA with them. There is no problem.

But maximising revenue for himself and maximising innovation are two different things. He allow some innovation but less than without the eula. He'll grow fat from the monopoly rents.

OK, but if the people who don't have insurance get nuked then they don't get any compensation for their loss. The people who do have insurance do. If there is a war going on the people who lose their property to invasion and have no insurance lose out. The people with insurance gain. There is no free-rider problem.

If a nuclear attack or invasion is successful the people are probably dead or conquered. The insurance company either ceased to exist or filed for bankruptcy from all the claims if any even exist. If the invasion or nuke is stopped then the free-riders benefit without paying the costs.

But it is nonsensical that the other firms are the other ones that benefit. To prevent turnover, the firms will pay wages that are matched to productivity, so that other companies cannot bid them away. There is no free-rider problem here either.

Yes there is. Turnover isn't the problem. Temps, part-timers, and contract workers are increasing. Profitable firms lay off employees. Life-time employment is a thing of the past. In the past when many workers were in one for life there was a high incentive to invest in human capital. Now that workers spend significantly less time at a single firm there is considerably less incentive to invest.

But they will, because that's how they'll keep making money. No problem there.

Unless there is no way to voluntarily handle the externalities.

They do have insurance, but if they want any of the evidence from the CCTV insurance company they will have to buy it from them, which will cost them more money than if they had insurance. So the CCTV buyer wins. Also, there is no amount of monetary restitution for intentional aggression such as murder, enslavement, and theft, so they will have to go to jail; otherwise we would have rich people running around murdering and writing checks.

With the CCTV the local crime rate would go down lowering it for everyone. People could rationally bet that a crime wouldn't happen to them. With enough people not paying

All of which were achieved in spite of democracy's bloated inefficiencies that I listed prior.

Democracies bloated inefficiencies hardly seem substanstial if so much has been done in spite of that.

No. It. Hasn't. The democratic state is more powerful and more controlling of its people than it ever was under monarchy; to say that this coercion has made people freer is downright ludicrous.[QUOTE]

Yes it has. The people have more power over there government than in the past. The democratic state has increased literacy, improved public health, and funded research that enriched our knowledge of science and technology.

[QUOTE]It will stand up, because the system depends on the desire of individuals to be free, which is an unquenchable desire. Through this immutable force, people CAN put an end to statism and keep it from resurging, and put the demagogues who rule in democracy back in their place.

You mean the unquenchable desire that makes the vast majority of people so satisfied with the status quo that they don't revolute? Statism will conttinue to exist. Those who are against democracy are demagogues themselves, trying to make the majority of people agree with them.

The fact that it is not rational does not change the fact that it is the optimum.

But it's about as meaningful as discussing what we would with superpowers.

But it still lowers the aggregate, hence it isn't optimal.

You can't prove that the other thing the person would do gives a higher aggregate.

But it does matter. Why pay for the benefit when you can get it for free?

Because you can get more benefit for yourself.

But maximising revenue for himself and maximising innovation are two different things. He allow some innovation but less than without the eula. He'll grow fat from the monopoly rents.

It's not monopoly rents, because it's not enforced by the government. It is the result of voluntary contractual relations. Without these natural contracts, there would be far less innovation because people would not feel secure in their inventing.

If a nuclear attack or invasion is successful the people are probably dead or conquered. The insurance company either ceased to exist or filed for bankruptcy from all the claims if any even exist. If the invasion or nuke is stopped then the free-riders benefit without paying the costs.

But there can still be damage from small nuclear missiles or cruise missiles or a non-successful invasion. There will be no free-riders, because those who have insurance will get compensation, and those who don't, won't. There simply is no free-rider problem in this situation.

Yes there is. Turnover isn't the problem. Temps, part-timers, and contract workers are increasing. Profitable firms lay off employees. Life-time employment is a thing of the past. In the past when many workers were in one for life there was a high incentive to invest in human capital. Now that workers spend significantly less time at a single firm there is considerably less incentive to invest.

They're increasing because of government regulation that says that you can't fire your workers. In a pure free-market, the firms would not have all of these temps etc. because they would be free to hire and fire as they will.

Unless there is no way to voluntarily handle the externalities.

But there always is.

With the CCTV the local crime rate would go down lowering it for everyone. People could rationally bet that a crime wouldn't happen to them. With enough people not paying

They may be a able to "bet", but they're still out of luck if a violent crime happens to them; all of the cards are in the CCTV's insurance company's hands, and if they want any help they have to pay them. Not to mention if they have no security insurance, they get no money back.

Democracies bloated inefficiencies hardly seem substanstial if so much has been done in spite of that.

It seems substantial because so much more could have been achieved, but democracy and its waste has ruined it all.

No. It. Hasn't. The democratic state is more powerful and more controlling of its people than it ever was under monarchy; to say that this coercion has made people freer is downright ludicrous.[QUOTE]

[quote]Yes it has. The people have more power over there government than in the past. The democratic state has increased literacy, improved public health, and funded research that enriched our knowledge of science and technology.

The people never, ever have substantial power over the state, and most certainly not in a democracy either. Power is really in the hands of the political class, who misappropriate resources to give the appearance of functioning, as opposed to actually functioning. The dysfunctional public school system, bloated socialist healthcare program, and research to appease political pressure groups has only been to strengthen the hold of the political class who pretend to represent the people.

You mean the unquenchable desire that makes the vast majority of people so satisfied with the status quo that they don't revolute? Statism will conttinue to exist. Those who are against democracy are demagogues themselves, trying to make the majority of people agree with them.

Argumentum ad populam. They don't revolt because they are living in a world of lies created by a political class that claims to represent them while they feed like parasites upon the general population. I would hardly consider myself a demagogue if I argue against democracy, unless you mean to use that term in an absurdly broad sense, and I certainly don't need to control a majority of sheep to follow my views like a democratic statist, I just need to present a different view of society to make people think; if I can do this, even if they don't agree with me, I'm happy.

Fairly eloquent and mostly accurate. Nice job. Though I don't really feel either party should indulge in legislating morality, your central theme is quite sound.

Yes, I'm back.

I suggest you join the Libertarian Party.

Ideological left-right politics is a hopelessly confusing puzzle. I therefore would have to consider myself a 'centrist', although even that is a relative an easily misinterpreted term. I prefer absolute truth.

I have only moved back to Ireland recently and so I cannot comment on what the different parties stand for there. When I lived in the UK I supported Labour (liberals) and I've supported the Tories (conservatives). Now I wouldn't have support either in the 2005 election, although if I was to vote today I may support David Cameron, who is a left-leaning conservative who will stand against Gordon Brown, an authoritarian leaning liberal (not an oxymoron when you consider the issue of gun control).

It is easy to decide if you are a liberal or a conservative when they only differ on a few main issues, such as gun control, abortion, taxes, etc., but if you ask me about 'traditional conservative values', I would say that it is a meaningless term. Consider the difference between 'human rights' and 'traditional liberties'. A proposal that say wanted to block the introduction of mandatory immigration checks could fall under either of these categories.

Take for example former home secretary and Tory leader Michael Howard. He supported the introduction of ID cards and immigration quotas during his election campaign in 2005. Consider also the CCTV cameras, DNA databases, and restrictions on the right to silence that he enacted during his tenure as home secretary in 1993-97. Any criticism of these measures on a human rights basis would probably be slagged of as 'liberal hogwash' by many conservative supporters.

Consider however that all of the above listed measures were opposed by the well-know conservative writer and journalist named Peter Hitchens. In many of his books he presented the case for opposing the measures on the basis of defending 'traditional civil liberties'. What was quite ironic was that many of the people who supported him were also people who had dubbed the critics of Michael Howard's anti-libertarian policies as 'woolly liberals'.

But it's about as meaningful as discussing what we would with superpowers.

Perhaps, but the least combined time is an objective fact.

You can't prove that the other thing the person would do gives a higher aggregate.

If so then you couldn't have proved that individual decision making always leads to maximum benefits in your

Because you can get more benefit for yourself.

You can get the same benefit without the cost.

It's not monopoly rents, because it's not enforced by the government. It is the result of voluntary contractual relations. Without these natural contracts, there would be far less innovation because people would not feel secure in their inventing.

Monopoly rent is economic rent of a monopoly whether voluntary or coerced. The only way for it not to be a monopoly is if someone invents a microchip idependently from thew first guy, which is highly unlikely. the I'm comparing it to the statist patent system, which admittedly is flawed but better than your idea.

But there can still be damage from small nuclear missiles or cruise missiles or a non-successful invasion. There will be no free-riders, because those who have insurance will get compensation, and those who don't, won't. There simply is no free-rider problem in this situation.

Unless the attacks were stopped before any property damage was done. If most people think they can have the benefits of a military force without paying for it there will be less of a military force. With a weaker military force successful attacks are more likely to occur. With a military funded by taxation there is an increased chance of having an adequate military.

They're increasing because of government regulation that says that you can't fire your workers. In a pure free-market, the firms would not have all of these temps etc. because they would be free to hire and fire as they will.

And there would still be problems. Temps, ect are increasing even in places with relatively flexible labor laws, like the US. Workers would still spend less time at a single firm than in the past and so the firm has little incentive to invest in their human capital.

But there always is.

Not to sound like the hated Bawaaknights, for his arguing style, not his ideology, but prove it.

They may be a able to "bet", but they're still out of luck if a violent crime happens to them; all of the cards are in the CCTV's insurance company's hands, and if they want any help they have to pay them. Not to mention if they have no security insurance, they get no money back.

Its a gamble either way. If the rate is say $300 per year, I go three years without a crime happening and after the 3rd year there is one and it costs me $500 for the one incident then I'm still ahead by $400. If a violent crime happened the first year I'd be down $200. The CCTV has the positive externality of lowering he crime rate making the option of not paying more attractive. If enough people opt out the CCTV will not be profitable and will be shut down raising the crime rate. This could be easily fixed if everyone had to pay for the CCTV.


It seems substantial because so much more could have been achieved, but democracy and its waste has ruined it all.

I disagree.

The people never, ever have substantial power over the state, and most certainly not in a democracy either. Power is really in the hands of the political class, who misappropriate resources to give the appearance of functioning, as opposed to actually functioning. The dysfunctional public school system, bloated socialist healthcare program, and research to appease political pressure groups has only been to strengthen the hold of the political class who pretend to represent the people.

I said the people have more power over the state. I didn't say substantial power over it. Current democratic states have there flaws but most of them can be fixed democratically.

Argumentum ad populam. They don't revolt because they are living in a world of lies created by a political class that claims to represent them while they feed like parasites upon the general population. I would hardly consider myself a demagogue if I argue against democracy, unless you mean to use that term in an absurdly broad sense, and I certainly don't need to control a majority of sheep to follow my views like a democratic statist, I just need to present a different view of society to make people think; if I can do this, even if they don't agree with me, I'm happy.

Saying that they live in a world of lies created by the political cast is similiar to saying the bourgeoisie tricked the working class into liking their own exploitation. They don't revolt because they are satisfied with the status quo, more or less. I don't see how my calling you a demagogue is any worse then you calling dictatoships democracies.