NationStates Jolt Archive

One tactic of statists to attempt to justify the state is the so-called “social contract.” Supposedly, people surrender their rights to the government in exchange for services, thus justifying the state’s expropriation through taxes and its other coercive measures. However, social contract is a myth, as shall be shown below.

There are two types of contract- explicit contract and implicit contract. Explicit contract is the type of contract that is signed directly, while implicit contract is inherent in one’s actions. It is easy to debunk an explicit theory of social contract. Seeing as how I did not sign the US Constitution, I am not beholden to it. So, statists instead say that social contract is implicit. A common example to try to support this is as follows; When you walk into a restaurant and choose something to eat off of the menu, you are implicitly agreeing to the restaurant’s demands and should pay. So, if you live in a country and use its services, you are implicitly agreeing to the country’s demands and should pay taxes.

This example does not adequately support the statist claims of social contract. Even if the state did own the country, it does not follow the conduct of the restaurant. The restaurant cannot charge you regardless of whether or not you order; the restaurant cannot draft you to go and bomb the other restaurants; the restaurant cannot dictate what you must eat and then make you pay for it whether you like it or not; the restaurant cannot outlaw all of the other restaurants and punish you if you go there anyway. The state, however, can charge you whether or not you use its schools or how much you use its roads, it can conscript you, it can make you pay for projects that you vote against, and it can make monopolies on services, especially in arbitration and law enforcement. So the analogy of the restaurant and the state falls flat on its face.

But then again, the state does not even own the country, so the analogy is not applicable at all. If the state did own the country, there would be no need for a social contract. The country would be the state’s property, and would be its own to use as it wishes. A private property state would be possible, but its existence would depend on its status as privately-owned property, not as an agreement, explicit or implicit, between the governor and the governed.

But then the question arises if this is really a state. After all, one also can own one’s house or shoes, but one would have to be eccentric indeed if one were to declare oneself “The Viscount of 1234 Orchard Avenue,” or “The Emperor of the Brown Armani Loafers.” People do not apply for “citizenship” to the 21st street apartment complex, so why should one apply for citizenship to a privately owned country, which could be used effectively as an enormous rental complex? In effect, the only difference between owning one’s own country and owning one’s own room is scale. There may, of course, also be the difference that states have existed on conquest, but illicit activity is not enough to create a state- the police do not search for His Lordship the mugger, after all. The owner of this country need not subjugate himself to a governor, but can rather govern himself- effectively, he and everyone in his country live in anarchy. So on a high scale of private property, there is no need for a state, and thus no need for a social contract. But is there need for a state, and thus a social contract, on the smaller scales of private property?

This brings us to the public property state. It is inherent in a public property state that those who govern are not the owners of the country but the caretakers (George W Bush cannot go and sell the United States, since he is not the one that owns it.) But if those who compose the state do not own the country, then who owns the country? The state, by itself, cannot own a country. It does not truly exist- you cannot meet, converse with, touch or actually do anything with a state. Rather, it is an abstraction for those that compose it. But we said before that those who compose the state do not own the country. Who, then, owns the country? Is it unowned, then? If the country is unowned, then by necessity the state cannot own it, and thus the state cannot exert any powers since it has nothing. But obviously the country IS owned; not in its entirety, but rather in pieces by the various property owners inside of it.

Which brings us back to the concept that the governors of a nation are the caretakers, not the owners. If they truly are the caretakers of the country which is owned, then each and every property owner, who all effectively own the country, will have given them permission to be the caretakers of their property. This is not a “social contract”, but rather an individual agreement. If the property owners did not give the governors permission to be caretakers of their property, then they are not the legitimate caretakers of the property. So what does this mean? It means, as owners of their property, the governed have the right to withdraw caretaker privileges from the state. If they do not have this right, then they do not own their property; rather, the state does. But since the public property state does not own their property, as established above, the state does not have this right.

So, then, how is it that in today’s public property states, the true property owners have their right of stripping the state of its caretaker status, the right to secession, taken away, when the state does not own their property? There is only one method in which any person can have property owned by another without the other’s consent- force. And, indeed, whenever a state faces a secession, its most common recourse is force- consent of the governed be damned! It is only through violence that the state continues its existence and domination, not because of any social necessity or voluntarism.

Thus, we can see that social contract is an outright myth. If there really were a contract between the governor and the governed, then the governed would be able to withdraw their support from the government, as is their right as the true owners of the government. But instead, the governor forces the governed to obey him, for the governor brooks no secession if he can. The correct analogy, therefore, is not that of a restaurant and the state, but of a territorial gangster and the state. The gangster does not own the street he operates on, but forces those who do to pay him money or he will punish them. So does the state, which does not own the country, but forces its people to pay it or it will punish them. The only difference is scale, and it’s about time that someone put this mega-gangster out of business.

the state is not a restaurant, the rest of your discussion therefore is not worth discussing.

I think there is a social contract, but it is a well-balanced one. The problem with statists is that they see the social contract as an absolute surrender of liberty in order to achieve perfect order and security. That is not what our founders intended. I think that the contract entails giving up the most harmful of "freedoms" (right to steal, right to kill, etc.), to achieve order, but that we expect that, by giving up that freedom to the government to have order, the government must work to protect our remaining freedoms.

Oh man, once this little essay gets out, like, the state will disappear and like, anarchy and peace, man.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

When the evil heirarchy disappears from your magic, you and yours will be my first slaves / dinner / harem.

All the high-school essays on anarchism in the world dont stop bullets, bombs, knives, hatchets, clubs and stones.

The essential, distinguishing quality of government can be summed up in a sentence:

Government is the protection of the weak from the strong.

That's funny because one of the main reasons for social contract theory is to explain why we consider things such as murder, lying, and stealing wrong, and not as a direct support for states.

Thus, we can see that social contract is an outright myth. If there really were a contract between the governor and the governed, then the governed would be able to withdraw their support from the government, as is their right as the true owners of the government.No, this is false. Social contract theory is not about a contract between governor and governed, it's about how people interact with eachother. You built up a strawman argument and claim that that disproves social contract theory as a whole.

The essential, distinguishing quality of government can be summed up in a sentence:

Government is the protection of the weak from the strong.

that's fucking stupid as hell. unless one wants to posit that stalin and pals were 'the weak'.

that's fucking stupid as hell. unless one wants to posit that stalin and pals were 'the weak'.

Perhaps they forgot 'should be'?

Government is the protection of the weak from the strong.
As much of a socialist as I am, I do have to point out that this isn't really right. History and modern politics alike are full of examples of Governments that stay in power through oppression. Even democratically elected Governments act on behalf of the majority, leaving many unheard and ignored in minorities.

that's fucking stupid as hell. unless one wants to posit that stalin and pals were 'the weak'.

I dont hold stalin up as an example of good government, rather as quite the opposite - the harshest perversion of government.

Try again.

I dont hold stalin up as an example of good government, rather as quite the opposite - the harshest perversion of government.

Try again.

Well you said:
Government is the protection of the weak from the strong.

So the misunderstanding is perhaps reasonable.

As much of a socialist as I am, I do have to point out that this isn't really right. History and modern politics alike are full of examples of Governments that stay in power through oppression. Even democratically elected Governments act on behalf of the majority, leaving many unheard and ignored in minorities.


Government doesnt always protect the weak from the strong, but it is the only construction capable of doing so.

The absence of government means the absence of laws and of law enforcement.

When a construction is made to protect the weak from the strong, a social contract is formed and a government exists.

Government doesnt always protect the weak from the strong, but it is the only construction capable of doing so.

The absence of government means the absence of laws and of law enforcement.

When a construction is made to protect the weak from the strong, a social contract is formed and a government exists.
What about Family and Community? These things do not depend on governance in order to provide defense of their more vulnerable members. The existence of social convention of communal support, even without the formal legal structure that would call a Government into existence, is sufficient, one would think.

I dont hold stalin up as an example of good government, rather as quite the opposite - the harshest perversion of government.

so you do admit that stalin (and every single tyrant throughout history, while we're at it) was in fact the ruler of a government? then how do you reconcile that with your previous statement,

The essential, distinguishing quality of government can be summed up in a sentence:

Government is the protection of the weak from the strong.

as they would appear to be governments that lack "the essential, distinguishing quality of government". and, indeed, most governments that have ever existed have lacked this quality, even in principle. and those few that hold it in principle largely do not enact it at any fundamental level. quite the conundrum there.

The state owns you. Be glad that it takes care of its property for the most part.

*yawns*

I was going to point out that your "argument" is full of holes, false premises and meaningless analogies, but others have done so very nicely already.

If you're an anarcho-capitalist (which is downright idiotic, as New Granada accuately demonstrates in a single line), then stop using anything that is funded even in part by tax money. I'm sure you've gone to the effort of finding out exactly what public services are tax-funded, hmm?

You know the funniest thing about this?
The social contract, when first conceived, was a massive step forward. Before it was conceived, the state DID own the country, including it's citizens. The social contract said that the state actually had responsibilities, which were all that justified it's existance, and that it did not rule over the people because it had a right to, but because they allowed it in exchange for establishing order.

Also, you can say that the social contract is illigitimate, but unless you want to pretend that the enlightenment never happened, you cannot call it a myth.

Government doesnt always protect the weak from the strong, but it is the only construction capable of doing so.

is this definitionally, or the result of some logical necessity, or something else?

'cause it seems to me that government, particularly in the state, is nothing but the codification and institutionalization of a particular tiny group as 'the strong' dominating 'the weak' - and sort of incindentally fighting off other up and coming 'strongs' that might try to join in the domination game.

The quality is essential and distinguishing because it is sufficient for government to exist. It isnt a necessary quality though.

that literally means it is neither essential nor distinguishing.

This example does not adequately support the statist claims of social contract. Even if the state did own the country, it does not follow the conduct of the restaurant. The restaurant cannot charge you regardless of whether or not you order; the restaurant cannot draft you to go and bomb the other restaurants; the restaurant cannot dictate what you must eat and then make you pay for it whether you like it or not; the restaurant cannot outlaw all of the other restaurants and punish you if you go there anyway. The state, however, can charge you whether or not you use its schools or how much you use its roads, it can conscript you, it can make you pay for projects that you vote against, and it can make monopolies on services, especially in arbitration and law enforcement. So the analogy of the restaurant and the state falls flat on its face.

Do you have 5 gunshot wounds right now? If not, you have utilized a service provided to you by the state and as such should be charged for it.

so you do admit that stalin (and every single tyrant throughout history, while we're at it) was in fact the ruler of a government? then how do you reconcile that with your previous statement,



as they would appear to be governments that lack "the essential, distinguishing quality of government". and, indeed, most governments that have ever existed have lacked this quality, even in principle. and those few that hold it in principle largely do not enact it at any fundamental level. quite the conundrum there.

The quality is essential and distinguishing because it is sufficient for government to exist. It isnt a necessary quality though.

Governments not bent toward perverse tyranny enact the protection of the weak at the most fundamental level - they act to punish and therefore deter murderers, thieves, rapists, slavemongers, &c.

Condemning the institution of government because of the bent and perverse bad apples is no better or more sensible than condmening the drinking of water because people sometimes drown.

Every community in human history, without fail, has formed a heirarchy and government of some form as it has grown. Family, band, clan, tribe, on and on until you get to what we see today.

you are aware, of course, that this gives the anarcho-capitalists more than enough room to dismiss your criticism as utterly irrelevant, as they don't want to abolish government at all under the definition you are using. neither do actual anarchists for that matter.

What about Family and Community? These things do not depend on governance in order to provide defense of their more vulnerable members. The existence of social convention of communal support, even without the formal legal structure that would call a Government into existence, is sufficient, one would think.

A family can only be so big, ditto a 'community.'
Every community in human history, without fail, has formed a heirarchy and government of some form as it has grown. Family, band, clan, tribe, on and on until you get to what we see today.

When people trade off the unlimited right to be violent in exchange for security from violence, they have ratified a social contract and established a government.

Oh man, once this little essay gets out, like, the state will disappear and like, anarchy and peace, man.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

When the evil heirarchy disappears from your magic, you and yours will be my first slaves / dinner / harem.

All the high-school essays on anarchism in the world dont stop bullets, bombs, knives, hatchets, clubs and stones.

The essential, distinguishing quality of government can be summed up in a sentence:

Government is the protection of the weak from the strong.

When it comes down to it, most anarchists (particularly left-wing anarchists) don't want to abolish government, they want to abolish the State. It's not a rejection of government, but removing the hierarchy and power structures that prevent Statist government from fulfilling its duty of promoting equality. Instead of relying on a periodically accountable strong man to protect us from other strongmen, why don't we instead greatly reduce inequalities of power, and organize together to prevent the strong from bullying the weaker?

Discussions of political theory here make my brain turn into oatmeal and start oozing out of my ears.

Instead of relying on a periodically accountable strong man to protect us from other strongmen, why don't we instead greatly reduce inequalities of power, and organize together to prevent the strong from bullying the weaker?

'cause that's too sensible

'cause that's too sensible

Oh silly me! I forgot that sensible=radical. ;)

Wait. I thought the government had the monopoly on the legitmate use of coercion. So where is the contract?

Also, the state does own everything and everyone it has not alienated. That is why it is sovereign. Any appearances to the contrary are just co-incidental and not the natural state of affairs.

When it comes down to it, most anarchists (particularly left-wing anarchists) don't want to abolish government, they want to abolish the State. It's not a rejection of government, but removing the hierarchy and power structures that prevent Statist government from fulfilling its duty of promoting equality. Instead of relying on a periodically accountable strong man to protect us from other strongmen, why don't we instead greatly reduce inequalities of power, and organize together to prevent the strong from bullying the weaker?

the problem is it's NOT the government's job to promote equality.

It is the government's job to protect a certain minimally sustainable level of existance, and a legally equal playing field. After that you're on your own.

When it comes down to it, most anarchists (particularly left-wing anarchists) don't want to abolish government, they want to abolish the State. It's not a rejection of government, but removing the hierarchy and power structures that prevent Statist government from fulfilling its duty of promoting equality. Instead of relying on a periodically accountable strong man to protect us from other strongmen, why don't we instead greatly reduce inequalities of power, and organize together to prevent the strong from bullying the weaker?
Because it usually takes a charismatic leader to get things done, except in those rare cases where the vast majority already agree on exactly what needs to be done. Especially in emergency situations, someone needs to be almost unconditionally in charge. If (and I know this didn't happen) during hurricane Katrina, the president wants to rent every bus in the area, roll them into New Orleans, and move those people out, he needs to be able to do that without people bickering about it for days.

The truth is, humanity has never survived in large groups without a degree of strong man leadership.

Heirarchy and power structures are the framework for efficiency, and as can be seen from the world-historical luxury of even the poor in the developed world, are hugely beneficial.

When people "organize together" they form a heirarchy if they hope to be effective.

In some other world, people might just get along, but in the real world they dont.

A government shouldnt promote equality, it should promote wellbeing.

This is all true. But none of it implies a contract of any sort.

When it comes down to it, most anarchists (particularly left-wing anarchists) don't want to abolish government, they want to abolish the State. It's not a rejection of government, but removing the hierarchy and power structures that prevent Statist government from fulfilling its duty of promoting equality. Instead of relying on a periodically accountable strong man to protect us from other strongmen, why don't we instead greatly reduce inequalities of power, and organize together to prevent the strong from bullying the weaker?

Heirarchy and power structures are the framework for efficiency, and as can be seen from the world-historical luxury of even the poor in the developed world, are hugely beneficial.

When people "organize together" they form a heirarchy if they hope to be effective.

In some other world, people might just get along, but in the real world they dont.

A government shouldnt promote equality, it should promote wellbeing.

This is all true. But none of it implies a contract of any sort.

The contract is understood by everyone capable of understanding it. You pay taxes, and get to live in the country, under the protection of it's police forces and army, with access to it's publicly educated workforce, it's roads, it's cities that are not choked with crime and poverty, ect. If you want to opt out of the social contract, you can always leave the country.

that literally means it is neither essential nor distinguishing.

For clarity's sake I will amend the maxim to say:

The ess. & dist. feature of legitimate government is the protection of the weak from the strong.

This by way of renouncing the unlimited right to violence for protection from the same.

The contract is understood by everyone capable of understanding it. You pay taxes, and get to live in the country, under the protection of it's police forces and army, with access to it's publicly educated workforce, it's roads, it's cities that are not choked with crime and poverty, ect. If you want to opt out of the social contract, you can always leave the country.

No. Not everyone is free to leave the country forever. Part of the "social contract" is limitations of the movement of people.

In fact, society is nothing like a contract whatsoever. There is no negotiation on the terms, no one enters into it freely, the conditions can change without the assent of either party and without notice &c.

It's a rubbish analogy. Intellectual laziness at its finest.

This is all true. But none of it implies a contract of any sort.

That particular post wasnt referring to social contract, some of the others were.

Trading the unlimited right to violence for protection from violence is the ratification of the social contrat.

Trading the unlimited right to violence for protection from violence is the ratification of the social contrat.

It's not a trade though. Say I don't 'trade' my unlimited right to violence - which arguably can't be given up anyway - it's not like the sovereign modifies its position with respect to me.

It's one thing to argue that a benign kleptocracy is better than any available alternative. It's entirely another to suggest that there is anything contractual going on.

No. Not everyone is free to leave the country forever. Part of the "social contract" is limitations of the movement of people.

In fact, society is nothing like a contract whatsoever. There is no negotiation on the terms, no one enters into it freely, the conditions can change without the assent of either party and without notice &c.

It's a rubbish analogy. Intellectual laziness at its finest.

I believe that the conditions changing without assent or notice of the populace would be a flagrant breach of the social contract. The contract is not between you (as an individual) and the government, but between the populace and the government. The social contract came out of the enlightenment as the idea that the people create the government to serve them. Before that, the state, (most often the king, or the nobility) DID own you.

If it's an intellectually lazy analogy, certainly you can come up with a better one?

The social contract is not a contract between governed and governor, it is a contract between the individuals of society, in order to set up a governing set of rules.

Even as that, I don't see it as that useful of a model or very representative of modern society.

that's fucking stupid as hell. unless one wants to posit that stalin and pals were 'the weak'.

I thought this initially, but his statement might actually hold true when one consideres where the strength of any society lies.

It's not a trade though. Say I don't 'trade' my unlimited right to violence - which arguably can't be given up anyway - it's not like the sovereign modifies its position with respect to me.

It's one thing to argue that a benign kleptocracy is better than any available alternative. It's entirely another to suggest that there is anything contractual going on.

So you don't believe that there is a tacit agreement between the governed and the government?

Thats all the "social contract" boils down to, a tacit understanding of the renunciation of some rights in consideration of certain benefits.

I believe that the conditions changing without assent or notice of the populace would be a flagrant breach of the social contract. The contract is not between you (as an individual) and the government, but between the populace and the government.

So we can consider the 'new deal' a flagrant breach then? Or did 100% of the people vote for it. Society changes fundamentally all the time. Absent however in those circumstances is universal consent.


The social contract came out of the enlightenment as the idea that the people create the government to serve them. Before that, the state, (most often the king, or the nobility) DID own you.

I know where the idea came from. :rolleyes: I'm just saying that its not right.

And in any event, the state still does own you. Sovereign immunity and all that. I'm not saying that the governed have no influence on the state. I'm just saying that they do not consent to the actual government in the first place.

If it's an intellectually lazy analogy, certainly you can come up with a better one?

I don't need an analogy. I understand quite well how the thing itself works.

If you're an anarcho-capitalist (which is downright idiotic, as New Granada accuately demonstrates in a single line), then stop using anything that is funded even in part by tax money.

What would be the point of that?

One would be better served to stop paying taxes.

So you don't believe that there is a tacit agreement between the governed and the government?
Suppose my parents assert a right of ownership over me, by means of a tacit agreement (I use their resources, they take this as a sign that I acquiesce to their owning me). Is this contract in any way based on consent, or is it based on utter nonsense? I'll answer. Nonsense.

If you're an anarcho-capitalist (which is downright idiotic, as New Granada accuately demonstrates in a single line)
Yes, because being a socialist is the only intelligent thing a person can do. After terminating their cerebral functions at any rate. Good luck with it.

The social contract is not a contract between governed and governor, it is a contract between the individuals of society, in order to set up a governing set of rules.

Even as that, I don't see it as that useful of a model or very representative of modern society.

The government is composed of individuals in society, &c.

Distinction here without a difference.

It probably isnt the most accurate model, but it stays basic and does provide a compelling argument for the just power of legitimate government.

Without government, there is little to keep people from inflicting whatever injuries they want on whoever they want beyond their physical ability to do so. Not all governments have done a good job of this, but that doesn't mean it isn't largely true. Government even in the local sense is still government.

Sure, you can argue "what about family and community," but that just makes me think of the Mafia. Some families are larger than others and more likely to be violent to suit their ends. The conclusion of that is that the mafia just becomes your new government.

So you don't believe that there is a tacit agreement between the governed and the government?

Thats all the "social contract" boils down to, a tacit understanding of the renunciation of some rights in consideration of certain benefits.

Ah, well you've said two different things there, haven't you?

Do people understand that they surrendered certain freedoms? Yes, for the most part they do.

However, I don't think agreement ever enters into it. The choice is somewhat forced upon them isn't it?

I'm not going to argue that the world would be better off with no government. That's silly. I'm just saying that it isn't a contract and it is not freely entered into or ratified. The vast, vast majority of people get the government that is thrust upon them, regardless of their opinions about it, and they jolly well have to like it.

The government is composed of individuals in society, &c.

Distinction here without a difference.

The social contract in theory would preexist the dichotomy of governed and governor, as it would preexist the establishment of government.

Government is erected by the social contract, the agreement on acceptable behavior between the individuals interacting within a society.

It is the social contract that would establish a governor and a governed, but it seems irrational that someone entering society would allot themselves in the role of governed.

Finally, it is not analogous to our individual role in society as it reverses roles. It is not the aggregate individual preference that determines the way in which society conducts itself, but the way in which society conducts itself that determines the aggregate individual preference.

It probably isnt the most accurate model, but it stays basic and does provide a compelling argument for the just power of legitimate government.

Why does legitimate government need a theoretical superstructure in the first place? Surely it can be evaluated on an ad hoc basis. It either functions to maximize well being or it doesn't. The philosophical justifications for setting up a monopoly of coercive power in the first place are really irrelevant.

Social contracts.

Hobbes: Your ancestors enter into a contract. This contract is absolute and cannot be seceded from by your ancestors or you. Be greatful your life wasn't nasty, brutish and short.

Locke: Your ancestors entered into a contract so that there could be a neutral arbiter of disputes. You are guarenteed a minimum set of rights - namely property. If you are disatisfied you have the right to take the government to task. ie. revolt, protest, whatever. If don't perform any sort of protest then quit your bitching.

Rousseau - I skipped this class.

Ah, well you've said two different things there, haven't you?

Do people understand that they surrendered certain freedoms? Yes, for the most part they do.

However, I don't think agreement ever enters into it. The choice is somewhat forced upon them isn't it?

I'm not going to argue that the world would be better off with no government. That's silly. I'm just saying that it isn't a contract and it is not freely entered into or ratified. The vast, vast majority of people get the government that is thrust upon them, regardless of their opinions about it, and they jolly well have to like it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. They can always move to another country if they don't like it. Only Nazi Germany and the USSR have ever denied their citizens that right.

Or you could always get a nice boat and set sail for the sea, stopping only to pick up supplies. Then you don't have to pay anyone's taxes!

The fact is, you simply cannot live in this country without benefiting from social services paid for by taxes, so it would make sense that you can't live in this country without helping to pay for those services.

But you don't have to pay taxes until you're an adult.
And once you're an adult, you can leave.
I've heard Canada's nice this time of year.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. They can always move to another country if they don't like it. Only Nazi Germany and the USSR have ever denied their citizens that right.

Well that's just wrong. Nazi germany actively encouraged some people to leave in its formative years. Of course, they found out there was no-where to go *shakes fist at FDR * but whatever.

The USSR, being a member of the UN, officially never denied its citizens the right of exit after WWII.

Or you could always get a nice boat and set sail for the sea, stopping only to pick up supplies. Then you don't have to pay anyone's taxes!

So if you don't agree, then no land for you!. Obviously this is a voluntary arrangement.

The fact is, you simply cannot live in this country without benefiting from social services paid for by taxes, so it would make sense that you can't live in this country without helping to pay for those services.

Did I suggest otherwise? This is irrelevant.

But you don't have to pay taxes until you're an adult.

Also wrong.

And once you're an adult, you can leave.

Tell that to the people in the deportation holding pens.

So if you don't agree, then no land for you!. Obviously this is a voluntary arrangement.
That is. However, that isn't quite what happens. The government does not simply refuse to protect you and your property if you want to secede and tax-rebel. It will actively crush any opposition. That is what makes it an involuntarily formed "contract".

One tactic of statists to attempt to justify the state is the so-called “social contract.” Supposedly, people surrender their rights to the government in exchange for services, thus justifying the state’s expropriation through taxes and its other coercive measures.

No

I'm not finding a quote today, but I seem to recall that Ben Franklin posited that religion was intended to compell behaviors in society which the government cannot. The state can't force us to honor our mother & father, or stop us from coveting, but religion can convince most of us to do so. Or to try to do so.

One's religious affiliation, or lack thereof, is a choice -- people convert or leave or join religions even when they were born into another religious tradition, and often live by the customs of a religion they have chosen to join (i.e. my formerly protestant, now Muslim friend) or remain involved in (my family).

Making religion more of a social contract than government, I'd say.

Ah, well you've said two different things there, haven't you?

Do people understand that they surrendered certain freedoms? Yes, for the most part they do.

However, I don't think agreement ever enters into it. The choice is somewhat forced upon them isn't it?

I'm not going to argue that the world would be better off with no government. That's silly. I'm just saying that it isn't a contract and it is not freely entered into or ratified. The vast, vast majority of people get the government that is thrust upon them, regardless of their opinions about it, and they jolly well have to like it.

I dont think i've ever seen someone defend an explicit social contract, since it isnt a contract in the strict legal sense.

Even if people have the government thrust upon them, they make the same tradeoff that everyone else does.

In a stable legitimate government, the social contract, tacit and abstract as it may be, is affirmed by people abiding by the laws, it is a default position.

Do you have 5 gunshot wounds right now? If not, you have utilized a service provided to you by the state and as such should be charged for it.

They never asked me whether or not I want the service. I can't very well be charged for something that I didn't ask for in the first place. In fact, I want someone else to protect me other than the government, like an insurance service. If the government wanted to get my money legitimately, they could do this instead of just taking a random amount of my money. If they want me to pay for the roads, then they should actually charge me for them in a real contract instead of just taxing me a certain amount. Same with any other public services- I'll be glad to contract to decide a price on how to buy it, so there's really no need for taxes. But there are still taxes despite this. Why is this? Because the state isn't really out to provide services for people, it is out to serve itself.

Yes, because being a socialist is the only intelligent thing a person can do. After terminating their cerebral functions at any rate. Good luck with it.

False dichotomy. There's far more than just anarcho-capitalism and socialism. Congratulations! You just ensured that no one will ever take you seriously in this thread.

Why does legitimate government need a theoretical superstructure in the first place? Surely it can be evaluated on an ad hoc basis. It either functions to maximize well being or it doesn't. The philosophical justifications for setting up a monopoly of coercive power in the first place are really irrelevant.

It doesnt need one per se, but as you can see from this thread, some people are less concerned with its utility than they are with petulance over whether it is theoretically justifiable in any circumstance.

The social contract is an answer to the question "what is the theoretical superstructure of legitimate government."

In a stable legitimate government, the social contract, tacit and abstract as it may be, is affirmed by people abiding by the laws, it is a default position.

Which would make stalinism legitimate, because people affirmed it by abiding by its laws. Or north Korea.

I don't think it's a useful way of looking at government. Whether or not people 'affirm' it is irrelevant. It should be judged solely on the outcome.

They never asked me whether or not I want the service. I can't very well be charged for something that I didn't ask for in the first place. In fact, I want someone else to protect me other than the government, like an insurance service. If the government wanted to get my money legitimately, they could do this instead of just taking a random amount of my money. If they want me to pay for the roads, then they should actually charge me for them in a real contract instead of just taxing me a certain amount. Same with any other public services- I'll be glad to contract to decide a price on how to buy it, so there's really no need for taxes. But there are still taxes despite this. Why is this? Because the state isn't really out to provide services for people, it is out to serve itself.
Not to mention things such as the draft. How does a social "contract" justify these?


The social contract is an answer to the question "what is the theoretical superstructure of legitimate government."
How is it legitimate? It amounts to your ancestors signing away your right to disagree to something, even though they do not have ownership rights over you. If it is a theoretical basis, it is a weak one at best.

If the draft increases the wellbeing of the least-well-off, you could say that it is obligatory.
I could argue genetically engineering the least-well-off to be willing slaves (I'm aware of the contradiction) will help both them and the majority of society. You're also assuming that the given social "contract" has utilitarian bases, which it may not.

Not to mention things such as the draft. How does a social "contract" justify these?

You could say that the social contract doesnt justify the draft, and that the draft is illegitimate without any contradiction.

On the other hand, you could say that having established a democracy and decided as a populace to have a draft, that the draft is legitimate.

If the draft increases the wellbeing of the least-well-off, you could say that it is obligatory.

Depends of course on the circumstances.

Since you (or your parents) have already paid it through taxation, you owe nothing beyond that point to the government.

Ever heard of something called "maintinence"?

False dichotomy. There's far more than just anarcho-capitalism and socialism. Congratulations! You just ensured that no one will ever take you seriously in this thread.
The individual is a) socialist, b) vehemently anti-capitalist, c) supportive of drones like Chavez. That eliminates pretty much every right-wing ideology out there. So no, it isn't.

Not to mention things such as the draft. How does a social "contract" justify these?


How is it legitimate? It amounts to your ancestors signing away your right to disagree to something, even though they do not have ownership rights over you. If it is a theoretical basis, it is a weak one at best.

You agree to the same contract every day that you follow the laws and remain in the country.

You have the right to disagree, but you've taken benefit by reaping the fruit your forebears have sown and are obliged in consideration of that either to comply, change the contract or leave.

SC theory need not be hobbesian, locke's formulation is much more flexible.

They never asked me whether or not I want the service. I can't very well be charged for something that I didn't ask for in the first place. In fact, I want someone else to protect me other than the government, like an insurance service. If the government wanted to get my money legitimately, they could do this instead of just taking a random amount of my money. If they want me to pay for the roads, then they should actually charge me for them in a real contract instead of just taxing me a certain amount. Same with any other public services- I'll be glad to contract to decide a price on how to buy it, so there's really no need for taxes. But there are still taxes despite this. Why is this? Because the state isn't really out to provide services for people, it is out to serve itself.

So you believe that the government should contract w/ each and every single person who may possible use a road in order to build it?

So basically you want a society in where nothing gets done.

You agree to the same contract every day that you follow the laws and remain in the country.
Then address my earlier argument on a parent taking your stay in their house as a tacit agreement to their permanent ownership over you.

You have the right to disagree, but you've taken benefit by reaping the fruit your forebears have sown and are obliged in consideration of that either to comply, change the contract or leave.
Since you (or your parents) have already paid it through taxation, you owe nothing beyond that point to the government, if you wish to stop taking advantage of the services it provides.

SC theory need not be hobbesian, locke's formulation is much more flexible.
Still doesn't make it theoretically sound.

Which would make stalinism legitimate, because people affirmed it by abiding by its laws. Or north Korea.

I don't think it's a useful way of looking at government. Whether or not people 'affirm' it is irrelevant. It should be judged solely on the outcome.


It could be argued that because the russians didnt rise up to destroy the communists, that their government was legitimate. If the russians were willing to put it with it, this line of reasoning leads, can it be said that they really deserved any better?

Could also argue that there was no social contract in communist russia because the communists ruled by massacre, and simply overawed the people into obeying.

If the social contract is thought to be formed just prior to legitimate government coming into existance, then a military dictatorship like that of the communists could be said to have come into existance without a contract, and therefore not to operate under a contract at all and to be illegitimate.

So you believe that the state should contract w/ each and every single person who may possible use a road in order to build it?

So basically you want a state in where nothing gets done.

You changed the terms on him, so I fixed it to make it an accurate interpretation.

It could be argued that because the russians didnt rise up to destroy the communists, that their government was legitimate. If the russians were willing to put it with it, this line of reasoning leads, can it be said that they really deserved any better?

Could also argue that there was no social contract in communist russia because the communists ruled by massacre, and simply overawed the people into obeying.


So it's really indeterminate, at best, whether or not any given society operates under a social contract. Arguably then the whole idea is superfluous to the concept of legitimate government and therefore should be discarded.

As I said, societies should be judged upon their outcome, not their philosophical underpinnings.

Then address my earlier argument on a parent taking your stay in their house as a tacit agreement to their permanent ownership over you.


Since you (or your parents) have already paid it through taxation, you owe nothing beyond that point to the government, if you wish to stop taking advantage of the services it provides.


Still doesn't make it theoretically sound.


1) This example doesnt bear on the argument, the government doesnt claim any "permanent ownership" of you. You're free to leave whenever you like if you don't care for the terms of the exchange. You're just not free to take benefit without giving something up in consideration.

1) This example doesnt bear on the argument, the government doesnt claim any "permanent ownership" of you. You're free to leave whenever you like if you don't care for the terms of the exchange. You're just not free to take benefit without giving something up in consideration.
It does not explain how the government came to possess such power in the first place. That is the problem. What the social "contract" theory argues for is tantamount to one's ancestors signing away their progeny's right to disagree and not enter the contract (which I suppose works for ones such as Hobbes', but not Locke's). They have no such right though, as they do not own their progeny. If the "contract" truly were one, it'd allow one to stop utilising government services and thereby secede.

To clarify something, when does someone first make this tacit agreement?

The social contract in theory would preexist the dichotomy of governed and governor, as it would preexist the establishment of government.

Government is erected by the social contract, the agreement on acceptable behavior between the individuals interacting within a society.

It is the social contract that would establish a governor and a governed, but it seems irrational that someone entering society would allot themselves in the role of governed.

Finally, it is not analogous to our individual role in society as it reverses roles. It is not the aggregate individual preference that determines the way in which society conducts itself, but the way in which society conducts itself that determines the aggregate individual preference.

...

The essential, distinguishing quality of government can be summed up in a sentence:

Government is the protection of the weak from the strong.

Thus the government becomes the strong.

To the OP:

Government is not a contract. It is an establishment. We are only as free as our government permits; however, we are also endowed with rights by virtue of being. Government is a restriction on those rights, in exchange for the protection afforded from our natural state of chaos. Humans, by nature being selfish, and thus without regard for others' wellbeing (when in conflict with our own interests) in our natural condition, are prevented from looking only to serve our own self-interest, as survival requires, through the establishment of government. Government thus forces us together, creates a group identity and gives reason to support others within the state.

However, the international state system is anarchic in both principle and implementation, with each state, rather than each individual, serving its own self-interest under the collective guidance of government.

'cause that's too sensible

'cause it doesn't work

They never asked me whether or not I want the service. I can't very well be charged for something that I didn't ask for in the first place. In fact, I want someone else to protect me other than the government, like an insurance service. If the government wanted to get my money legitimately, they could do this instead of just taking a random amount of my money. If they want me to pay for the roads, then they should actually charge me for them in a real contract instead of just taxing me a certain amount. Same with any other public services- I'll be glad to contract to decide a price on how to buy it, so there's really no need for taxes. But there are still taxes despite this. Why is this? Because the state isn't really out to provide services for people, it is out to serve itself.
It's called efficency. One, if you had to sign a legal contract every time you drove, you'd never get anywhere. Think about where you live, you have local roads, county roads, state roads, and (possibly) federal highways/interstates. You'd have to sign with each and every entity every time you wanted to leave your driveway. Moving over the border to a new town/county/state would require the same paperwork (all done at different local offices open Mon-Fri from 9 to 5 with an hour off for lunch).

Police wouldn't be able to your emergency without a contract, neither would fire or other emergency services. Given that you have suddenly made everything pay to play, costs would be prohibative because said services would suddenly have to charge outragious costs in order to operate (Think about the fires in California last summer, it cost well over $10 million IIRC to fight. Do you have that lying around somewhere?).

So you believe that the government should contract w/ each and every single person who may possible use a road in order to build it?

So basically you want a society in where nothing gets done.

Well, I don't see any supermarkets contracting with each and every single person who may use said supermarket in order to build it. So there must be a way around this dilemma.

Ah! I know! The government can calculate whether a road would be a wise investment, then charge people to drive on it. Problem solved.

It's called efficency. One, if you had to sign a legal contract every time you drove, you'd never get anywhere. Think about where you live, you have local roads, county roads, state roads, and (possibly) federal highways/interstates. You'd have to sign with each and every entity every time you wanted to leave your driveway. Moving over the border to a new town/county/state would require the same paperwork (all done at different local offices open Mon-Fri from 9 to 5 with an hour off for lunch).

I know that's not very efficient, and so would anyone wanting to make a living out of providing roads to the consumers. Likely, people would have some kind of travel agency that would contract with the various road owners to pay them. You'd have some kind of odometer type device that would record the miles you've driven and on which road. Probably, you'd get free miles like you get free minutes on a cellphone. There's always a way around these kinds of problems, my friend.

Police wouldn't be able to your emergency without a contract, neither would fire or other emergency services. Given that you have suddenly made everything pay to play, costs would be prohibative because said services would suddenly have to charge outragious costs in order to operate (Think about the fires in California last summer, it cost well over $10 million IIRC to fight. Do you have that lying around somewhere?).

Well then, they'd have to get a contract or make some agreement with the road owner. That solves the problem. And even if it does cost outrageous amounts, this can be minimized like other risks such as hurricanes, floods, medical expenses, etc.- insurance. So a wise company would be gathering premiums from the owners of the forest, and use these premiums if such a fire did come up. Another problem solved.

You changed the terms on him, so I fixed it to make it an accurate interpretation.

No, I didn't. His post uses the terms interchangeably. Read it.

No, I didn't. His post uses the terms interchangeably. Read it.

So you believe that the government should contract w/ each and every single person who may possible use a road in order to build it?

So basically you want a society in where nothing gets done.

You conflate the words "government" and "society".

It appears that your use of society is equivocation which you facilitate with the use of the word government.

Using the word state, which was the obvious topic of his argument makes it a rather clearer statement.

You conflate the words "government" and "society".

It appears that your use of society is equivocation which you facilitate with the use of the word government.

Using the word state, which was the obvious topic of his argument makes it a rather clearer statement.

Now read his post that I quoted. Do I have to quote the whole thing and highlight it or are you able to do it yourself?

Well, I don't see any supermarkets contracting with each and every single person who may use said supermarket in order to build it. So there must be a way around this dilemma.

Ah! I know! The government can calculate whether a road would be a wise investment, then charge people to drive on it. Problem solved.





So basically every road would be a toll road. Every bridge a toll bridge. Every police call you'll be billed for. The fire department won't show up unless you have a credit card on file. Etc. People not in the direct line of business (ie out in the country)wouldn't be afforded these as the Gov't would consider them a ""wise investment".

So basically you want the Gov't to be one giant mega-corporation that you said wouldn't happen in you happy-anarchist state.

So basically every road would be a toll road.
He mentioned alternative means of road-usage measurement.

Every bridge a toll bridge. Every police call you'll be billed for. The fire department won't show up unless you have a credit card on file. Etc. People not in the direct line of business (ie out in the country)wouldn't be afforded these as the Gov't would consider them a ""wise investment".
Hence utility bills, such as water bills. The government could extend such things to other utilities, couldn't it? It doesn't require too much imagination.

Now read his post that I quoted. Do I have to quote the whole thing and highlight it or are you able to do it yourself?

I read it.

He described ways that society would get things done in the absence of state coersion.

It is quite obvious that his attacks were against government as a facilitator of the state, not as a facilitator of society. While his usage of the word government is difficult, he differentiated between society and the state.

In your statement you used the word government's dual nature to imply that Greill's argument was for a society that could not contract services, rather than a state, and Greill never made that argument.

Well then, they'd have to get a contract or make some agreement with the road owner. That solves the problem. And even if it does cost outrageous amounts, this can be minimized like other risks such as hurricanes, floods, medical expenses, etc.- insurance. So a wise company would be gathering premiums from the owners of the forest, and use these premiums if such a fire did come up. Another problem solved.

Fire spreads. If you forgo insurance and let your forest burn, my house, which happens to be nearby, will burn with it. Things that happen to other people DO effect you. Did you ever read the book Jennifer Government? The one the creator of this website wrote? It's all about a future where exactly what you describe goes on, and it's not a pretty picture.

I really doubt that one company would have a natural monopoly on every single market- that's economically ridiculous.
If the government provided the services, it could outlaw competition and become their de jure provider. I think that's what he meant.

So basically every road would be a toll road. Every bridge a toll bridge. Every police call you'll be billed for. The fire department won't show up unless you have a credit card on file. Etc. People not in the direct line of business (ie out in the country)wouldn't be afforded these as the Gov't would consider them a ""wise investment".

Er, no. Having every road be a toll road would be as wasteful as being billed the same amount for every cell-phone call. It would be much more convenient to have a certain amount of miles pre-packaged by some agency and having an odometer type device record how far you drive- that way you are only charged how much you use. And no, that is not how the police and fire department would work. You would likely have an insurance plan against violence and fire as you would floods and hurricanes, and having police assistance and the like would be part of the pre-packaged deal so you would have less damage than more, and thus not have to reimburse you as much. I doubt that whoever would be providing these services would willfully ignore the rural market, as that would mean that someone else could take it and get their profits there instead.

So basically you want the Gov't to be one giant mega-corporation that you said wouldn't happen in you happy-anarchist state.

I really doubt that one company would have a natural monopoly on every single market- that's economically ridiculous. And I'd rather not have the government at all, as I said before. I'd just rather buy my services instead of being taxed for them whether or not or how much I use them.

Er, no. Having every road be a toll road would be as wasteful as being billed the same amount for every cell-phone call. It would be much more convenient to have a certain amount of miles pre-packaged by some agency and having an odometer type device record how far you drive- that way you are only charged how much you use. And no, that is not how the police and fire department would work. You would likely have an insurance plan against violence and fire as you would floods and hurricanes, and having police assistance and the like would be part of the pre-packaged deal so you would have less damage than more, and thus not have to reimburse you as much. I doubt that whoever would be providing these services would willfully ignore the rural market, as that would mean that someone else could take it and get their profits there instead.



I really doubt that one company would have a natural monopoly on every single market- that's economically ridiculous. And I'd rather not have the government at all, as I said before. I'd just rather buy my services instead of being taxed for them whether or not or how much I use them.

So the poor get no police protection, their homes burn in disasters and no one cares, they die in the streets and no one lifts a finger without checking a credit card first. Anarcho-capitalism seems to lack any kind of basic compassion.

Oh, and besides that, there are people who benefit from the roads besides those who drive them, like business owners. When a city improves it's transportation, it's economy gets better.

So the poor get no police protection,
Do they get much better protection now (most policemen are too afraid to step into poorer areas, let alone police them)? Furthermore, price-discrimination maximises profits. Firms do so by maximising their consumer basis. Combine that with competition in the field, and the poor would get affordable, and probably good, service.

their homes burn in disasters and no one cares, they die in the streets and no one lifts a finger without checking a credit card first. Anarcho-capitalism seems to lack any kind of basic compassion.
You're acting on the assumption that all these services are currently provided freely. They aren't. Redistrubitive taxation within each income band pays for them. You still end up paying for the service (the lowest bands and highest bands are actually the ones who pay on the whole the highest taxes).

Also, why do you assume people would suddenly become heartless and noncharitable in an anarcho-capitalist society? Do you think there will be laws against providing aid if you want? Firms already compete to provide charity (http://observer.bard.edu/articles/opinions/216) efficiently. It gives them a good image, at the very least.

Oh, and besides that, there are people who benefit from the roads besides those who drive them, like business owners. When a city improves it's transportation, it's economy gets better.
And when they're congested and run-down, then what?

I know that's not very efficient, and so would anyone wanting to make a living out of providing roads to the consumers. Likely, people would have some kind of travel agency that would contract with the various road owners to pay them. You'd have some kind of odometer type device that would record the miles you've driven and on which road. Probably, you'd get free miles like you get free minutes on a cellphone. There's always a way around these kinds of problems, my friend.
Again, cost prohibative. Try doing this yourself, write down just how many miles you walk/drive/ride a day (Since governments are now taxing roads, your feet ain't free bud. It cost money to build them sidewalks and road ways so you're trapped on YOUR poperty unless you pay to get off it). It might surprise you just how many you eat up per day. Imagine the buracracy needed to keep track of such movement of everyone (We'll ignore the privacy issues here) and the need to bill, go after non-payers and the like. Not to mention the joys of living in such a system where you can't just get onto the freeway and go somewhere (and living in Japan, I know how much fun that is. All expressways in Japan are tolled, with a very heavy one, and JapanHighway is private, not government).

Well then, they'd have to get a contract or make some agreement with the road owner. That solves the problem. And even if it does cost outrageous amounts, this can be minimized like other risks such as hurricanes, floods, medical expenses, etc.- insurance. So a wise company would be gathering premiums from the owners of the forest, and use these premiums if such a fire did come up. Another problem solved.
And if no one owns the forest, then what? No, letting it burn ain't a wise idea because fires spread, rapidly.

So the poor get no police protection

And they get such great protection now, with the drug dealers and gangbangers infesting the cities. In an insurance system of police protection, the consumers of said insurance would have every desire to lower the risk in their community so as to reduce their costs, as would the insurance providers who want to break into new markets and get more money with less risk. This, as opposed to the currently economically flawed system wherein crime can rise but the police will still get their funding no matter how inefficient they are. (Not to mention that they'll probably get away with getting MORE money to combat it, thus providing a bigger drain on the taxpayer with little in returns.)

their homes burn in disasters and no one cares,

Why would they all start burning down all of a sudden? They may not have much money, but that inherently means that they have less to insure. That means they can afford such insurance and get reimbursed for their damages.

they die in the streets and no one lifts a finger without checking a credit card first. Anarcho-capitalism seems to lack any kind of basic compassion.

Why do you think that charity and the like would just suddenly end in an anarcho-capitalist society- why would people change so drastically?

Oh, and besides that, there are people who benefit from the roads besides those who drive them, like business owners. When a city improves it's transportation, it's economy gets better.

So it would be in the interest of the business owners to invest in roads to get their profits. And improving roads may cost an economy more than it gains- if Hicktown USA upgraded its almost unused dirt road to a 16 lane highway with all sorts of gadgets, it may help the few passerbys that use the road but the costs would be unreasonable. Roads, like all other goods, should be placed at the disposal of the consumer for the most efficient usage.

Again, cost prohibative. Try doing this yourself, write down just how many miles you walk/drive/ride a day (Since governments are now taxing roads, your feet ain't free bud. It cost money to build them sidewalks and road ways so you're trapped on YOUR poperty unless you pay to get off it). It might surprise you just how many you eat up per day. Imagine the buracracy needed to keep track of such movement of everyone (We'll ignore the privacy issues here) and the need to bill, go after non-payers and the like. Not to mention the joys of living in such a system where you can't just get onto the freeway and go somewhere (and living in Japan, I know how much fun that is. All expressways in Japan are tolled, with a very heavy one, and JapanHighway is private, not government).

I would be surprised if sidewalks would be charged too, since people wouldn't be walking as far as they drive, and, as you said, it could be difficult, but I suppose that a clever road entrepeneur could find a way. And cell phone companies can charge you for how many minutes you talk, so road companies should be able to charge you for how much driving you do without you needing to write it down and also in an economically efficient manner.

And if no one owns the forest, then what? No, letting it burn ain't a wise idea because fires spread, rapidly.

Well, let's see.

The fire going out of control is a risk.

The risk could cause damage to those who are insured.

The insurance company wants to make sure the insured do not have damages, so they don't have to lose money.

The fire is a risk that can cause damages to the insured, making the insurer pay up.

The insurer will put the fire out before it spreads.

Problem solved!

Er, no. Having every road be a toll road would be as wasteful as being billed the same amount for every cell-phone call. It would be much more convenient to have a certain amount of miles pre-packaged by some agency and having an odometer type device record how far you drive- that way you are only charged how much you use. And no, that is not how the police and fire department would work. You would likely have an insurance plan against violence and fire as you would floods and hurricanes, and having police assistance and the like would be part of the pre-packaged deal so you would have less damage than more, and thus not have to reimburse you as much. I doubt that whoever would be providing these services would willfully ignore the rural market, as that would mean that someone else could take it and get their profits there instead.



I really doubt that one company would have a natural monopoly on every single market- that's economically ridiculous. And I'd rather not have the government at all, as I said before. I'd just rather buy my services instead of being taxed for them whether or not or how much I use them.

So all you're doing is replacing one set of Gov't beaurocracy for another. One that is "for profit". You still have to be able to afford the "insurance". People who have to drive a distance to work are penalized. As stated, businesses get the value of the roads for free unless you have some other form of "contract" (AKA taxation) that charges them anyway.

Do they get much better protection now (most policemen are too afraid to step into poorer areas, let alone police them)? Furthermore, price-discrimination maximises profits. Firms do so by maximising their consumer basis. Combine that with competition in the field, and the poor would get affordable, and probably good, service.

You have some proof of this?


You're acting on the assumption that all these services are currently provided freely. They aren't. Redistrubitive taxation within each income band pays for them. You still end up paying for the service (the lowest bands and highest bands are actually the ones who pay on the whole the highest taxes).

No, they're not "free". However, they're distributed more evenly w/ universal access.

Also, why do you assume people would suddenly become heartless and noncharitable in an anarcho-capitalist society? Do you think there will be laws against providing aid if you want? Firms already compete to provide charity (http://observer.bard.edu/articles/opinions/216) efficiently. It gives them a good image, at the very least.

No assumption at all. Just looking at history. What has and is happening.


And when they're congested and run-down, then what?

Then there are appeals to other levels of Gov't. In G's "happy anarchist" state, an area that couldn't afford roads or wasn't a "wise investment" would be sucking.

You have some proof of this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination#Explanation

It's one of the best means of maximising profits. The bulk of firms boost their profits by targetting as many consumers as possible, not by failing to serve half the market, thereby creating an opening for some other profit-motivated form.

No, they're not "free". However, they're distributed more evenly w/ universal access.
In which case demand exceeds supply due to artificially low prices, leading to low quality services. What good is a product that doesn't get the job done?

No assumption at all. Just looking at history. What has and is happening.
You're evading my question. Why would people in an anarcho-capitalist society suddenly become uncharitable? Furthermore, if people are indeed becoming more uncharitable, why would they allow government to force them to be charitable in a democracy?

Then there are appeals to other levels of Gov't. In G's "happy anarchist" state, an area that couldn't afford roads or wasn't a "wise investment" would be sucking.
Communities wouldn't develop in areas where roads couldn't go then, unless those forming them didn't mind doing without such goods (the typical pattern is for the community to spring up after the road comes by). Most such areas already have roads though, for better or for worse. All this will mean is such areas will not form until such time that building a road becomes a good investment. The government is expropriating my money - if the investment isn't good, I don't want it touching it.

Appealing to government, by the way, will not help overcome a basic law of economics: scarcity. The government may well end up having to charge for roads eventually for reasons of efficiency; that, or settling for congested, rundown roads.

So all you're doing is replacing one set of Gov't beaurocracy for another. One that is "for profit". You still have to be able to afford the "insurance". People who have to drive a distance to work are penalized. As stated, businesses get the value of the roads for free unless you have some other form of "contract" (AKA taxation) that charges them anyway.

Yes, you do have to be able to afford the insurance, but the company would want to price it so as to get the largest market share with the minimum risk and maximum profit. Also, it is stupid to have to charge someone just for getting the "benefit" of a good- how reasonable would it sound to have to pay someone for the "value" of having a nicely decorated home, or wearing nice perfume? It's nonsensical.

Also, why do you assume people would suddenly become heartless and noncharitable in an anarcho-capitalist society? Do you think there will be laws against providing aid if you want? Firms already compete to provide charity (http://observer.bard.edu/articles/opinions/216) efficiently. It gives them a good image, at the very least.
1. Most people would have to be heartless and noncharitable in order to want to implement an anarcho-capitalist society.

2. In some instances being charitable would be against self-interest in a competitive situtation.

And if no one owns the forest, then what? No, letting it burn ain't a wise idea because fires spread, rapidly.
I'm beginning to get the impression that Greill and the other anarcho-capitalists couldn't give two shits about how their ideology is supposed to apply to reality.

1. Most people would have to be heartless and noncharitable in order to want to implement an anarcho-capitalist society.
Not really. They'd just have to see a benefit in it over the status quo. Perhaps they'd like a say in how their money is spent. One needn't be heartless. Your assumption is like me saying that everyone would have to be altruistic to enter a socialist society. That is silly.

2. In some instances being charitable would be against self-interest in a competitive situtation.
And in others it wouldn't. Just like it is now.

I'm beginning to get the impression that Greill and the other anarcho-capitalists couldn't give two shits about how their ideology is supposed to apply to reality.
Pretty much. And to them, I post this: http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp12102002.shtml

How anarchy would really work.

Not really. They'd just have to see a benefit in it over the status quo. Perhaps they'd like a say in how their money is spent. One needn't be heartless. Your assumption is like me saying that everyone would have to be altruistic to enter a socialist society. That is silly.
Try surviving on other people's charity for a while, you'll find that most don't give a fuck.

No, this is false. Social contract theory is not about a contract between governor and governed, it's about how people interact with eachother. You built up a strawman argument and claim that that disproves social contract theory as a whole.


You are cofusing Rousseau's theory of social contract with Locke's. John Locke was talking about an agreement between government and the governed. Rousseau was referring to a consensus among citizens.

Try surviving on other people's charity for a while, you'll find that most don't give a fuck.
Then what makes you think this will magically change in a democracy? If they don't give a fuck, they can easily just stop caring for the needy.

Ownership is only as strong as the ability to enforce it, and, while the government may not have established a formal agreement with the people concerning the ownership of its land, it is the only institution with the resources capable of backing up its claim. Since none of us possesses enough resources (i.e. weapons, people, machines) to be able to contest these claims, we just allow the government to make laws for us because we know it has the power to enforce them.

Now, in the theoretical view of the modern nation-state, the government serves the people and the people serve the government. This means that the government will offer programs such as social assistance, education and military protection in exchange for service from its own people, mostly in the form of taxation (in the early days of the nation-state, the people were required to serve in the army as well). It is a reciprocal agreement which we may all not "agree with" but accept believing otherwise would be much worse.

It's from here where democracy emerges- well, if the state has the ability to make decisions concerning my life, I should be able to make decisions concerning how the state operates, namely to be able to elect the people who will- in effect- "run my life".

In fact, society is nothing like a contract whatsoever. There is no negotiation on the terms, no one enters into it freely, the conditions can change without the assent of either party and without notice &c.

This is incorrect, at least in theory. In the concept of a Parliamentary democracy- the form of government in much of the Western world- we believe that every citizen has the right to have equal input in government decisions but because each citizen has different needs to address, it would be more efficient for each of them to be able to elect a handful of representatives ("Parliament") to pass laws and regulations in their name than to have each citizen vote on or propose laws. So, in theory, we are able to remove from power those who pass laws we do not agree with so that we can install people in power who will pass laws favourable to us. So, in theory, if we hate income tax, we should be able to remove the people who passed such a law from power and install in power those who will remove it. In practice we all know this doesn't happen, because narrowing down 300 or so "Parliament members" able to make the decisions for us means having to interweave through different views to find representatives who are qualified enough to address each and everyone one of those concerns; and this is impossible.

Again, cost prohibative. Try doing this yourself, write down just how many miles you walk/drive/ride a day (Since governments are now taxing roads, your feet ain't free bud. It cost money to build them sidewalks and road ways so you're trapped on YOUR poperty unless you pay to get off it). It might surprise you just how many you eat up per day. Imagine the buracracy needed to keep track of such movement of everyone (We'll ignore the privacy issues here) and the need to bill, go after non-payers and the like. Not to mention the joys of living in such a system where you can't just get onto the freeway and go somewhere (and living in Japan, I know how much fun that is. All expressways in Japan are tolled, with a very heavy one, and JapanHighway is private, not government).

To add to this, there are important roads and services in areas where the population isn't large enough to be able to sustain the maintenance required to upkeep those services. Highways 11 and 17 in Ontario are prime examples- they are the only through routes that connect Manitoba to the rest of the province and, by extension, the rest of Canada. These are important routes connecting the mining and logging communities of northern Ontario with the south, as well as connecting the shipping lanes across Canada. Yet, only 550,000 of Ontario's 12 million people live along the majority of those routes, so to expect 550,000 people to upkeep those routes would mean charging them prohibitive rates. So it's easier to tax the residents of Toronto, Sudbury, North Bay, Barrie, Ottawa et. all to upkeep those roads- because they need those roads so that goods can be shipped to them- instead of charging the residents of northern Ontario, who could not possibly afford the roads.

Not really. They'd just have to see a benefit in it over the status quo. Perhaps they'd like a say in how their money is spent. One needn't be heartless. Your assumption is like me saying that everyone would have to be altruistic to enter a socialist society. That is silly.
They would, which is why socialism doesn't work.

And in others it wouldn't. Just like it is now.
Obviously. But the situations where it would not be in self-interest to give, could be the most crucial for the needy. That is why we need a social safety net which provides a minimal standard of living, below which nobody may fall.

Yes, you do have to be able to afford the insurance, but the company would want to price it so as to get the largest market share with the minimum risk and maximum profit. Also, it is stupid to have to charge someone just for getting the "benefit" of a good- how reasonable would it sound to have to pay someone for the "value" of having a nicely decorated home, or wearing nice perfume? It's nonsensical.

So you're saying that these "private security insurance companies" would insure people in these high crime areas and that would "maximize profits" and "reduce risk"?

Your analogies are the nonsensical things here.

To add to this, there are important roads and services in areas where the population isn't large enough to be able to sustain the maintenance required to upkeep those services. Highways 11 and 17 in Ontario are prime examples- they are the only through routes that connect Manitoba to the rest of the province and, by extension, the rest of Canada. These are important routes connecting the mining and logging communities of northern Ontario with the south, as well as connecting the shipping lanes across Canada. Yet, only 550,000 of Ontario's 12 million people live along the majority of those routes, so to expect 550,000 people to upkeep those routes would mean charging them prohibitive rates. So it's easier to tax the residents of Toronto, Sudbury, North Bay, Barrie, Ottawa et. all to upkeep those roads- because they need those roads so that goods can be shipped to them- instead of charging the residents of northern Ontario, who could not possibly afford the roads.
Indeed, however most proponents of anarchy tend to live in cities for some reason.

the state is not a restaurant, the rest of your discussion therefore is not worth discussing.
Thread over.

They would, which is why socialism doesn't work.
Not really. If everyone thought they could benefit from it, they would follow it.

Obviously. But the situations where it would not be in self-interest to give, could be the most crucial for the needy. That is why we need a social safety net which provides a minimal standard of living, below which nobody may fall.
Situations, such as?

Thats because anarcho-anything is based on a deranged sense of ethics.
Do you conflate different with "deranged"?

Instead of maximizing good, they want to minimize inequality and minimize "heirarchy."
Yes, it seems you do. If it isn't utilitarian, it's "deranged".

Try surviving on other people's charity for a while, you'll find that most don't give a fuck.

Yeah, like my family.

Oh. Wait. They did take care of me out of charity.


1. Most people would have to be heartless and noncharitable in order to want to implement an anarcho-capitalist society.

No, I desire it because I feel that the state is too heartless and noncharitable to be allowed to continue to exist.

2. In some instances being charitable would be against self-interest in a competitive situtation.

Maybe, but people are still charitable now regardless- why would they just stop being charitable all of a sudden?

1. Most people would have to be heartless and noncharitable in order to want to implement an anarcho-capitalist society.

2. In some instances being charitable would be against self-interest in a competitive situtation.


I'm beginning to get the impression that Greill and the other anarcho-capitalists couldn't give two shits about how their ideology is supposed to apply to reality.

Thats because anarcho-anything is based on a deranged sense of ethics.

Instead of maximizing good, they want to minimize inequality and minimize "heirarchy."

Their ideology doesnt have anything to do with reality, it is a fantasy-land dream, which is why so few adults are anarchists.

So you're saying that these "private security insurance companies" would insure people in these high crime areas and that would "maximize profits" and "reduce risk"?

Your analogies are the nonsensical things here.

You read what I said selectively. Had you read it properly, this might be what you said.

So you're saying that these "private security insurance companies" would reduce risk, then insure people and that would maximize profits?

Your analogies are most sensible.

No, I desire it because I feel that the state is too heartless and noncharitable to be allowed to continue to exist.
I can accept this argument coming from someone like Tolstoy, but you?

So you're actually arguing that it's better to leave the lives of the weakest and neediest in society to the whims of the wealthier members of society, than to guarantee the weak a certain standard of living? And you're trying to claim to be more charitable?

Maybe, but people are still charitable now regardless- why would they just stop being charitable all of a sudden?
Because they couldn't afford to be in some situations. We need a social safety net.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination#Explanation

It's one of the best means of maximising profits. The bulk of firms boost their profits by targetting as many consumers as possible, not by failing to serve half the market, thereby creating an opening for some other profit-motivated form.

Yet if those consumers aren't able to afford a product, they don't get it or they can only afford lower quality. Now you're talking about tiered "protection insurance" that would most likely be even worse than the protection you claim they're not getting now.


In which case demand exceeds supply due to artificially low prices, leading to low quality services. What good is a product that doesn't get the job done?

Um, no. That's not the way public services work.


You're evading my question. Why would people in an anarcho-capitalist society suddenly become uncharitable? Furthermore, if people are indeed becoming more uncharitable, why would they allow government to force them to be charitable in a democracy?

People aren't being "forced" now. However, when they are forced to pay astronomical amounts of money for even the most basic of services, feeding themselves becomes a priority.


Communities wouldn't develop in areas where roads couldn't go then, unless those forming them didn't mind doing without such goods (the typical pattern is for the community to spring up after the road comes by). Most such areas already have roads though, for better or for worse. All this will mean is such areas will not form until such time that building a road becomes a good investment. The government is expropriating my money - if the investment isn't good, I don't want it touching it.

So the cities would collapse as goods aren't able to get to them, the people spread out, trying to eke out a living on other claimed land, small towns are left out in the cold because they can't afford road upkeep.

Nice world you want to live in.

Appealing to government, by the way, will not help overcome a basic law of economics: scarcity. The government may well end up having to charge for roads eventually for reasons of efficiency; that, or settling for congested, rundown roads.

So roads are a scarcity now? If there is a scarcity of a good, the international system that is currently in place has the capacity to fulfill that need. You break down that system by making lots of tiny, independent governments or whatever you like to call them, and the scarcities will increase.

Yeah, like my family.

Oh. Wait. They did take care of me out of charity.




No, I desire it because I feel that the state is too heartless and noncharitable to be allowed to continue to exist.



Maybe, but people are still charitable now regardless- why would they just stop being charitable all of a sudden?

Because they're having to spend the majority of their income on basic goods and facitilies that the "for profit" companies are now providing and they're diminished to subsistence living.

Why would anyone want to run a "private security insurance company" when he could just have slaves?

If you can pacify people by force of arms, you can make them all your slaves and whores.

They tried this "private security insurance company" thing before, it was called feudalism and serfdom.

You read what I said selectively. Had you read it properly, this might be what you said.

No, you're ignoring reality. So now the "private insurance companies" are going to clean out crime free of charge to "reduce risks"? Or are they going to charge the people for that as well? How are they going to "reduce risks" in a high crime /poor economic area and still "maximize profits"?

As an aside, you may want to read the forum rules on rewording posts.

Yet if those consumers aren't able to afford a product, they don't get it or they can only afford lower quality. Now you're talking about tiered "protection insurance" that would most likely be even worse than the protection you claim they're not getting now.
If they don't get their money's worth, someone else will seize the opportunity to provide a better service. Not a good business motive. The firm will have large profits, which it can reinvest in itself to insure it provides the best quality to deter competitors from taking its share of the market.

Um, no. That's not the way public services work.

That is how economics works though. And public services are not immune to its laws. If demand exceeds supply, and nothing is done to restrict supply, quality will suffer.

People aren't being "forced" now. However, when they are forced to pay astronomical amounts of money for even the most basic of services, feeding themselves becomes a priority.
If I were poor, I'd consider near 40% of my income (the total burden of taxes on lowest income band) to be astronomical. Furthermore, people are forced. Don't think so? Don't pay taxes.

So the cities would collapse as goods aren't able to get to them, the people spread out, trying to eke out a living on other claimed land, small towns are left out in the cold because they can't afford road upkeep.
Except most roads already exist, minimising entry costs into the market. Try again.

So roads are a scarcity now? If there is a scarcity of a good, the international system that is currently in place has the capacity to fulfill that need.
Then why hasn't it?

You break down that system by making lots of tiny, independent governments or whatever you like to call them, and the scarcities will increase.
Contrary to the laws of economics, of course.

Because they're having to spend the majority of their income on basic goods and facitilies that the "for profit" companies are now providing and they're diminished to subsistence living.

I'm not sure which part of the quote you're referencing, but I'm going to guess it was the last sentence, on "Why would people stop being charitable."

In response, I would note that government takes up a very large percentage of people's incomes, but they are still charitable. The for profit companies would have to compete with one another and keep their costs low, so necessarily they would act to keep their prices low to get as big a market share as possible. But even so, you seem to insinuate that those "diminished to subsistence living," i.e. the poor, are uncharitable. This, of course, is ridiculous.

Indeed, however most proponents of anarchy tend to live in cities for some reason.

Which would collapse as goods such as food would no longer be able to be deleivered as the roads have collapsed because farmers are unable to pay the mileage fees and the gangs take over the streets as private security companies charge outrageous fees to "protect" people in high crime areas.

I'm not sure which part of the quote you're referencing, but I'm going to guess it was the last sentence, on "Why would people stop being charitable."

In response, I would note that government takes up a very large percentage of people's incomes, but they are still charitable. The for profit companies would have to compete with one another and keep their costs low, so necessarily they would act to keep their prices low to get as big a market share as possible. But even so, you seem to insinuate that those "diminished to subsistence living," i.e. the poor, are uncharitable. This, of course, is ridiculous.

The Gov't, on average, takes about 30% or less for the majority of people. Now you want to add in mileage, protection, roads, etc w/ "for profit" agencies.

You also don't know the difference between "poor" and "subsistence living".

Which would collapse as goods such as food would no longer be able to be deleivered as the roads have collapsed because farmers are unable to pay the mileage fees and the gangs take over the streets as private security companies charge outrageous fees to "protect" people in high crime areas.

Indeed, because anarchism puts people's wellbeing second and ideology first.

Then what makes you think this will magically change in a democracy? If they don't give a fuck, they can easily just stop caring for the needy.
The difference is the government provides the safety net.

They tried this "private security insurance company" thing before, it was called feudalism and serfdom.

I was actually just thinking that the kind of society that would develop following some mass adoption of anarchism would very much resemble Western Europe in the immediate centuries following the collapse of Roman authority.

Personally, I don’t see how these people think that any sort of technological advancement could occur at all under anarchism. Most new technologies today are the result of many people working at many different locations that rely on the kind of communication networks only large stable governments can maintain and/or protect.

Indeed, however most proponents of anarchy tend to live in cities for some reason.

Makes sense. It's easy to live in New York or Toronto- more likely, the affluent areas, because they probably don't deal with government services (such as public transit) everyday- and see something like a long stretch of road on the other side of the country as "irrelevant to pay for" because they don't use it. Yet they don't see that indirectly they do need those roads, because those roads carry the goods they use everyday. Government services are not always readily visible but many are extremely vital.

Yeah, like my family.

Oh. Wait. They did take care of me out of charity.
Or like mine? Oh wait, no one came running up to help put food on the table day after day. During Christmas there was charity, but that doesn't help make the electricty bill.

But a government program designed to help single mothers did... Hmm...

Unless the "private security company" has formed a monopoly. But that wouldn't happen would it. Historical precedent plays no part in reality.
What makes the industry a natural monopoly? If it isn't one, competing firms will quickly put an end to the situation.

And yet it has a better chance of being corrected by an organized gov't than by a collection of individuals.
Incidentally, government is a collection of individuals. Now prove that assertion.

Never paid taxes before have you? The majority of the "poor" do not pay that much in taxes if any at all. Look up EIC if you don't beleive me.

Actually, they do. Check their total tax burdens according to statistics agencies.


And they magically stay in that condition. Try again.
Poor service = low profits.

You think everything you're using right now comes from a short distance away? Really? Think that computer your on was made in your country?
Answer my question. Why haven't roads been ameliorated by international government systems.

Only in happy-anarchy land.
If demand exceeds supply, and nothing is done to constrain supply, poor quality results. It's an economic fact.

If they don't get their money's worth, someone else will seize the opportunity to provide a better service. Not a good business motive. The firm will have large profits, which it can reinvest in itself to insure it provides the best quality to deter competitors from taking its share of the market.

Unless the "private security company" has formed a monopoly. But that wouldn't happen would it. Historical precedent plays no part in reality.

That is how economics works though. And public services are not immune to its laws. If demand exceeds supply, and nothing is done to restrict supply, quality will suffer.

And yet it has a better chance of being corrected by an organized gov't than by a collection of individuals.

If I were poor, I'd consider near 40% of my income (the total burden of taxes on lowest income band) to be astronomical. Furthermore, people are forced. Don't think so? Don't pay taxes.

Never paid taxes before have you? The majority of the "poor" do not pay that much in taxes if any at all. Look up EIC if you don't beleive me.


Except most roads already exist, minimising entry costs into the market. Try again.

And they magically stay in that condition. Try again.


Then why hasn't it?{/quote]

You think everything you're using right now comes from a short distance away? Really? Think that computer your on was made in your country?


[QUOTE=Europa Maxima;12245308]Contrary to the laws of economics, of course.

Only in happy-anarchy land.

Because... (and you never seem to get this part) the systems are set up to prevent the majority from abusing the minority.
A majority can change this. If the democracy is really one at all, they can anyway.

Don't try blame your faulty reasoning on me.

Provided the majority wants it to. If it were uncharitable, it wouldn't want this to happen. Now explain why this happens.
Because... (and you never seem to get this part) the systems are set up to prevent the majority from abusing the minority.

And yet a democracy has set up the system we have now.
If by democracy you mean a majority (because the term has no meaning otherwise), that refutes the assertion that most people don't give a fuck about others.

I was actually just thinking that the kind of society that would develop following some mass adoption of anarchism would very much resemble Western Europe in the immediate centuries following the collapse of Roman authority.

I think of it more like Yemen or large parts of Africa where corporations control the few areas of natural resources, stripping them, and warlords/tribes control the rest of the "country".

Such wonderful places.

Where are all the "private security companies" and wonderfully maintained roads? There should be no scarcity of anything according to happy-anarchist economics.

I was actually just thinking that the kind of society that would develop following some mass adoption of anarchism would very much resemble Western Europe in the immediate centuries following the collapse of Roman authority.

Personally, I don’t see how these people think that any sort of technological advancement could occur at all under anarchism. Most new technologies today are the result of many people working at many different locations that rely on the kind of communication networks only large stable governments can maintain and/or protect.


Indeed, it isnt an accident that the world moved from anarchy to order and not back.

If they were willing to think that far ahead, as to worry about technology, then they wouldnt be anarchists in the first place.

A majority can change this. If the democracy is really one at all, they can anyway.

Don't try blame your faulty reasoning on me.


And yet a democracy has set up the system we have now.

Indeed, it isnt an accident that the world moved from anarchy to order and not back.

If they were willing to think that far ahead, as to worry about technology, then they wouldnt be anarchists in the first place.

Wonder how many logistics companies would stay in business after passing on the mileage fees? People outside CA or FL would never see an orange again.

Wonder how many logistics companies would stay in business after passing on the mileage fees? People outside CA or FL would never see an orange again.
Outprice yourself and you destroy yourself. Not very clever. A firm doing so would be inviting its own suicide, at the hands of competitors.

Wonder how many logistics companies would stay in business after passing on the mileage fees? People outside CA or FL would never see an orange again.

Well, the people in new mexico might, but only if the orange trucks paid my personal fee when they went through my domain here in arizona.

His Grace Lord New Granada demands you pay the fee, he is the Private Security Insurance Agent for The Royal Grand Duchy of New Granada Arizona.

Well, the people in new mexico might, but only if the orange trucks paid my personal fee when they went through my domain here in arizona.

His Grace Lord New Granada demands you pay the fee, he is the Private Security Insurance Agent for The Royal Grand Duchy of New Granada Arizona.

You could even alter the fee, say that you require a cut of the oranges for them to pass through. So Californians would have to grow more oranges just for the amount they need to reach New Mexico to actually get there.

A majority can change this. If the democracy is really one at all, they can anyway.

Don't try blame your faulty reasoning on me.
I know you know how the system works and that it isn't a 'pure' democracy. Attempting to split hairs isn't going to earn you points.

If anything else, consider an earlier post about representative democracy. It answers your question very well.

If anything else, consider an earlier post about representative democracy. It answers your question very well.

Not to toot my own horn, but are you referring to mine?

What makes the industry a natural monopoly? If it isn't one, competing firms will quickly put an end to the situation.

And history has shown that successful businesses w/o oversight remove competition. Hence monopolies.

Incidentally, government is a collection of individuals. Now prove that assertion.

Following rules, laws, and guidelines set up by society. Not acting indivually. Try again.


Actually, they do. Check their total tax burdens according to statistics agencies.

No they don't. I make under $25k/year, live comfortably, and get back more than I pay in. Keep trying.


Poor service = low profits.

SO where are people getting the money to afford these wonderful services? Think companies care that much? Think they won't provide poor services w/ high prices to people that have to have said service?


Answer my question. Why haven't roads been ameliorated by international government systems.

Because your question is stupid. It makes no sense and doesn't deserve an answer.


If demand exceeds supply, and nothing is done to constrain supply, poor quality results. It's an economic fact.

Which doesn't answer the original reply at all. You assert that a stable state breaking up into little micro-nations will be able to maintain the same levels of logistics and commerce. Guess what? History has shown that to be false.

Well, the people in new mexico might, but only if the orange trucks paid my personal fee when they went through my domain here in arizona.

His Grace Lord New Granada demands you pay the fee, he is the Private Security Insurance Agent for The Royal Grand Duchy of New Granada Arizona.

Like I said. I don't think the average person will be able to afford $20 an orange.

Of course you'll be paying $50 a bushel for grain.

I know you know how the system works and that it isn't a 'pure' democracy. Attempting to split hairs isn't going to earn you points.
If people need to be forced to contribute it isn't a democracy at all. It's a form of totalitarianism at best. That isn't so though. Most people think the government is using their tax-dollars to provide them services as well as provide for the needy. Why pay twice for something?

Not to toot my own horn, but are you referring to mine?
Yup, but given the time warps currently going on I forgot where that post wandered off to. :p

And history has shown that successful businesses w/o oversight remove competition. Hence monopolies.
With firms competing against them? Only if a) it's a natural monopoly and/or b) regulation exists to keep competition out.

Following rules, laws, and guidelines set up by society. Not acting indivually. Try again.

The only way to correct the situation is to act according to the laws of economics. If government does not do so, it will not correct it.

No they don't. I make under $25k/year, live comfortably, and get back more than I pay in. Keep trying.

Prove that they don't.

SO where are people getting the money to afford these wonderful services? Think companies care that much? Think they won't provide poor services w/ high prices to people that have to have said service?

Do yourself a favour and study some basic economics, please. High prices and poor services do not maximise profits in the longrun.

Because your question is stupid. It makes no sense and doesn't deserve an answer.
The truth is, you can't answer it. Fine.

Which doesn't answer the original reply at all. You assert that a stable state breaking up into little micro-nations will be able to maintain the same levels of logistics and commerce. Guess what? History has shown that to be false.
Erm, not really. Firms, if there is an interest in doing so, can work out deals between each other to facilitate movement and thereby maximise profits. Railroad firms did so.

You could even alter the fee, say that you require a cut of the oranges for them to pass through. So Californians would have to grow more oranges just for the amount they need to reach New Mexico to actually get there.

Slaves

If people need to be forced to contribute it isn't a democracy at all. It's a form of totalitarianism at best. That isn't so though. Most people think the government is using their tax-dollars to provide them services as well as provide for the needy. Why pay twice for something?

Only in your definition of a "democracy". Pure democracy is tyranny by the majority.

Yup, but given the time warps currently going on I forgot where that post wandered off to. :p

Thank you. :) Jolt still has some fixing to do with these warps though.

Anyway, this is what I wrote:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12245216&postcount=103

You could even alter the fee, say that you require a cut of the oranges for them to pass through. So Californians would have to grow more oranges just for the amount they need to reach New Mexico to actually get there.

Of course in the real world, The people would say "Fuck it", reduce production to maintain the local economy, and not bother shipping them at all because it's not economically feasible as so few people in NM could then afford the oranges.

With firms competing against them? Only if a) it's a natural monopoly and/or b) regulation exists to keep competition out.
Not if one of those security companies gets in its head to take out any new companies that start up. I assume they have all the tanks and shit, unless those magically disappeared along with the state as well.

Only in your definition of a "democracy". Pure democracy is tyranny by the majority.
It is. Now why would the majority provide aid to anyone if it didn't want to? It has the power not to.

Of course in the real world, The people would say "Fuck it", reduce production to maintain the local economy, and not bother shipping them at all because it's not economically feasible as so few people in NM could then afford the oranges.

Which, in turn, would require New Mexico to have to produce their own oranges, even though they live in the same country as California.

With firms competing against them? Only if a) it's a natural monopoly and/or b) regulation exists to keep competition out.

False. All a successful company has to do is temporarily reduce prices, undercutting the competition and then jack them back up again after it's solidified the market. That's not even including "mafia" tactics. But no business would do that, right? That's never happened before, has it?


The only way to correct the situation is to act according to the laws of economics. If government does not do so, it will not correct it.

Your economics are faulty. Your reply also has nothing to do w/ what you're replying to. What does that have to do w/ gov't acting in accordance w/ laws and a groupd if individuals acting independantly? Oh, right. Nothing.


Prove that they don't.

Earned Income Credit. Do some reading. Now you get to prove the "poor" pay 40%. Go ahead. I'll wait.

Do yourself a favour and study some basic economics, please. High prices and poor services do not maximise profits in the longrun.

Do yourself a favor and study some history as well as basic economics. You obviously know little about either. Just look at the coal mine towns and how wonderful their economies were.

The truth is, you can't answer it. Fine.

The truth is, you're just rambling. You keep changing topics in your replies and demand a response to it.


Erm, not really. Firms, if there is an interest in doing so, can work out deals between each other to facilitate movement. Railroad firms did so.

Under duress by the Gov't to standardize guages. Look at the logistics between the North and South during the US civil war.

Of course all those railroads eventually became monopolies, jacking up the prices for non-preffered customers (ie those not belonging to other monopolies they had deals w/) until the Gov't stepped in to stop them.

Thanks for proving my point.

Which, in turn, would require New Mexico to have to produce their own oranges, even though they live in the same country as California.

Locally, yes. It would still be local as large parts of NM aren't good for orange growing.

Only in your definition of a "democracy". Pure democracy is tyranny by the majority.

In an abolsutely "pure" version of democracy, everything would decided by consensus, because the idea of democracy is that the country's decisions are made by all the people. In practice this is impossible. So it gets twisted to a majority and, later still, to a Parliamentary system.

I posit that the majority of people who disapprove of democracy do not feel the democratic states they live in serve them, so it's easier to rail against the system instead of using it to their advantage (because a democracy allows change through the election of different officials). The system is flawed, yes, but every system has its flaws. Doesn't mean it can't be effective.

So you're actually arguing that it's better to leave the lives of the weakest and neediest in society to the whims of the wealthier members of society, than to guarantee the weak a certain standard of living? And you're trying to claim to be more charitable?

No, I'm arguing that the government isn't necessary to guarantee a minimum standard of living. People will help the poor, as they do now and have been doing. This would create a link of brotherhood between the needy and those who help the needy moreso than the anonymous redistribution by government.

No, you're ignoring reality. So now the "private insurance companies" are going to clean out crime free of charge to "reduce risks"? Or are they going to charge the people for that as well? How are they going to "reduce risks" in a high crime /poor economic area and still "maximize profits"?

If it's economically logical to clean out the area by their own power, then yes, they would so. They could begin an ad campaign for people to form neighborhood watches, and offer lowered premiums on their insurance policies if they'd do so. They could offer a variety of incentives to get them to do things to reduce risks, such as encouraging them to install home alarms or offering rewards for catching criminals. All of these things are relatively cheap but reduce risk, thus making the insurance policies more affordable for the poor, high-crime areas.

As an aside, you may want to read the forum rules on rewording posts.

I posted your actual post first- there would be very little opportunity for any confusion. Not that I actually said anything objectionable.

The Gov't, on average, takes about 30% or less for the majority of people. Now you want to add in mileage, protection, roads, etc w/ "for profit" agencies.

You don't think that a third of your money is that big a chunk? Wow. And the costs for the for-profit agencies would naturally tend to decrease so as to compete with other firms and increase market share. So it would be less than 30% in the end.

You also don't know the difference between "poor" and "subsistence living".

I do, actually, but your line of logic was that "if you have less excess money, you are less charitable a person." This, again, is not true.

It is. Now why would the majority provide aid to anyone if it didn't want to? It has the power not to.

Only in a pure democracy. I guess all those that the majority don't consider "worthy" are just shit out of luck.

One tactic of statists to attempt to justify the state is the so-called “social contract.” Supposedly, people surrender their rights to the government in exchange for services, thus justifying the state’s expropriation through taxes and its other coercive measures. However, social contract is a myth, as shall be shown below.

There are two types of contract- explicit contract and implicit contract. Explicit contract is the type of contract that is signed directly, while implicit contract is inherent in one’s actions. It is easy to debunk an explicit theory of social contract. Seeing as how I did not sign the US Constitution, I am not beholden to it. So, statists instead say that social contract is implicit. A common example to try to support this is as follows; When you walk into a restaurant and choose something to eat off of the menu, you are implicitly agreeing to the restaurant’s demands and should pay. So, if you live in a country and use its services, you are implicitly agreeing to the country’s demands and should pay taxes.

This example does not adequately support the statist claims of social contract. Even if the state did own the country, it does not follow the conduct of the restaurant. The restaurant cannot charge you regardless of whether or not you order; the restaurant cannot draft you to go and bomb the other restaurants; the restaurant cannot dictate what you must eat and then make you pay for it whether you like it or not; the restaurant cannot outlaw all of the other restaurants and punish you if you go there anyway. The state, however, can charge you whether or not you use its schools or how much you use its roads, it can conscript you, it can make you pay for projects that you vote against, and it can make monopolies on services, especially in arbitration and law enforcement. So the analogy of the restaurant and the state falls flat on its face.

But then again, the state does not even own the country, so the analogy is not applicable at all. If the state did own the country, there would be no need for a social contract. The country would be the state’s property, and would be its own to use as it wishes. A private property state would be possible, but its existence would depend on its status as privately-owned property, not as an agreement, explicit or implicit, between the governor and the governed.

But then the question arises if this is really a state. After all, one also can own one’s house or shoes, but one would have to be eccentric indeed if one were to declare oneself “The Viscount of 1234 Orchard Avenue,” or “The Emperor of the Brown Armani Loafers.” People do not apply for “citizenship” to the 21st street apartment complex, so why should one apply for citizenship to a privately owned country, which could be used effectively as an enormous rental complex? In effect, the only difference between owning one’s own country and owning one’s own room is scale. There may, of course, also be the difference that states have existed on conquest, but illicit activity is not enough to create a state- the police do not search for His Lordship the mugger, after all. The owner of this country need not subjugate himself to a governor, but can rather govern himself- effectively, he and everyone in his country live in anarchy. So on a high scale of private property, there is no need for a state, and thus no need for a social contract. But is there need for a state, and thus a social contract, on the smaller scales of private property?

This brings us to the public property state. It is inherent in a public property state that those who govern are not the owners of the country but the caretakers (George W Bush cannot go and sell the United States, since he is not the one that owns it.) But if those who compose the state do not own the country, then who owns the country? The state, by itself, cannot own a country. It does not truly exist- you cannot meet, converse with, touch or actually do anything with a state. Rather, it is an abstraction for those that compose it. But we said before that those who compose the state do not own the country. Who, then, owns the country? Is it unowned, then? If the country is unowned, then by necessity the state cannot own it, and thus the state cannot exert any powers since it has nothing. But obviously the country IS owned; not in its entirety, but rather in pieces by the various property owners inside of it.

Which brings us back to the concept that the governors of a nation are the caretakers, not the owners. If they truly are the caretakers of the country which is owned, then each and every property owner, who all effectively own the country, will have given them permission to be the caretakers of their property. This is not a “social contract”, but rather an individual agreement. If the property owners did not give the governors permission to be caretakers of their property, then they are not the legitimate caretakers of the property. So what does this mean? It means, as owners of their property, the governed have the right to withdraw caretaker privileges from the state. If they do not have this right, then they do not own their property; rather, the state does. But since the public property state does not own their property, as established above, the state does not have this right.

So, then, how is it that in today’s public property states, the true property owners have their right of stripping the state of its caretaker status, the right to secession, taken away, when the state does not own their property? There is only one method in which any person can have property owned by another without the other’s consent- force. And, indeed, whenever a state faces a secession, its most common recourse is force- consent of the governed be damned! It is only through violence that the state continues its existence and domination, not because of any social necessity or voluntarism.

Thus, we can see that social contract is an outright myth. If there really were a contract between the governor and the governed, then the governed would be able to withdraw their support from the government, as is their right as the true owners of the government. But instead, the governor forces the governed to obey him, for the governor brooks no secession if he can. The correct analogy, therefore, is not that of a restaurant and the state, but of a territorial gangster and the state. The gangster does not own the street he operates on, but forces those who do to pay him money or he will punish them. So does the state, which does not own the country, but forces its people to pay it or it will punish them. The only difference is scale, and it’s about time that someone put this mega-gangster out of business.

Sociopath!:mad: Haven't the likes of you filled our heads with rebellion and specious propaganda enough!?!?!?!?!

No, I'm arguing that the government isn't necessary to guarantee a minimum standard of living. People will help the poor, as they do now and have been doing. This would create a link of brotherhood between the needy and those who help the needy moreso than the anonymous redistribution by government.
This is what always happens when governments collapse. Just look at early feudalism!
If it's economically logical to clean out the area by their own power, then yes, they would so. They could begin an ad campaign for people to form neighborhood watches, and offer lowered premiums on their insurance policies if they'd do so. They could offer a variety of incentives to get them to do things to reduce risks, such as encouraging them to install home alarms or offering rewards for catching criminals. All of these things are relatively cheap but reduce risk, thus making the insurance policies more affordable for the poor, high-crime areas.
Why can't they do those things now?
Besides, all the small arms and alarms in the world won't protect you from tanks and such.
It's why your little revolution will never be successful and if, by some miracle, it ever is, the ones who end up with the big guns (that would be the ones with the money, though I hardly understand how you could have a modern economy without fiat) would soon take over and demand to "protect" you from the other guys with big guns.

If it's economically logical to clean out the area by their own power, then yes, they would so. They could begin an ad campaign for people to form neighborhood watches, and offer lowered premiums on their insurance policies if they'd do so. They could offer a variety of incentives to get them to do things to reduce risks, such as encouraging them to install home alarms or offering rewards for catching criminals. All of these things are relatively cheap but reduce risk, thus making the insurance policies more affordable for the poor, high-crime areas.

All of which takes money that alot of people don't have. You assume they're "relatively cheap" but have offered no evidence. Basically, the people are on their own.

I posted your actual post first- there would be very little opportunity for any confusion. Not that I actually said anything objectionable.

Objectionable isn't the point.



You don't think that a third of your money is that big a chunk? Wow. And the costs for the for-profit agencies would naturally tend to decrease so as to compete with other firms and increase market share. So it would be less than 30% in the end.

It's less than 30% now for the majority of people. Nothing you've posted yet has provided any evidence whatsoever that prices would go down in your mythical world.



I do, actually, but your line of logic was that "if you have less excess money, you are less charitable a person." This, again, is not true.

I didn't say that. Try again. What I said was that if everything you have is going towards providing the absolute basics, you don't have anything left to give away.

In an abolsutely "pure" version of democracy, everything would decided by consensus, because the idea of democracy is that the country's decisions are made by all the people. In practice this is impossible. So it gets twisted to a majority and, later still, to a Parliamentary system.

I posit that the majority of people who disapprove of democracy do not feel the democratic states they live in serve them, so it's easier to rail against the system instead of using it to their advantage (because a democracy allows change through the election of different officials). The system is flawed, yes, but every system has its flaws. Doesn't mean it can't be effective.

Oh, I don't say our system is perfect. Far from it. It's far better than a pure democracy though.

All of which takes money that alot of people don't have. You assume they're "relatively cheap" but have offered no evidence. Basically, the people are on their own.

How would a voluntary neighborhood watch association be expensive? I don't see the logic behind what you're saying. It would reduce risks, and, with the help of the insurance company, could help even more. This would help to offer insurance at a much lower price than could otherwise be had. That, along with discriminatory pricing, would bring coverage to the people of that neighborhood. It is inherent in the laws of economics, but it seems you're too blind to realize that.

Objectionable isn't the point.

Then what IS your point? There must be some reason why you felt the need to tell me this.

It's less than 30% now for the majority of people. Nothing you've posted yet has provided any evidence whatsoever that prices would go down in your mythical world.

Then obviously you know nothing of economics, as I've referenced competition and market share, as has Europe Maxima. In your words, "try again."

I didn't say that. Try again. What I said was that if everything you have is going towards providing the absolute basics, you don't have anything left to give away.

I've actually lived with people in South America who were about as close to subsistence as one can get, and they were some of the most generous people I've ever seen. Your assumption is out and out wrong and prejudiced in the extreme.

Where are they paying twice for something?
Tax spent on the poor and then giving charity is paying twice for something.

And the being forced is the social contract (going back to the OP). The idea being we give up some to gain more. If you don't like it, change it.
Sigh, I think we've deviated. My point is if a majority were truly uncharitable it simply could change the contract. It certainly has the power to.

If people need to be forced to contribute it isn't a democracy at all. It's a form of totalitarianism at best. That isn't so though. Most people think the government is using their tax-dollars to provide them services as well as provide for the needy. Why pay twice for something?
Where are they paying twice for something?

And the being forced is the social contract (going back to the OP). The idea being we give up some to gain more. If you don't like it, change it.

Thus, we can see that social contract is an outright myth. If there really were a contract between the governor and the governed, then the governed would be able to withdraw their support from the government, as is their right as the true owners of the government.

Of course you can withdraw your support from the government. It's called "voting with your feet"...if you don't support a government you terminate your citizenship with that government and live elsewhere.

Ideally, I feel like a utopian society would allow people who wish to leave a country to found their own societies, which can be communist or anarchist or anything, so long as their own societies do not interfere with the activities of others. Of course it's not like that in the real world, there is limited land and limited resources, therefore a limit to society. Nonetheless, there remain a plentitude of democratic countries to choose from if you are discontended with your own government.

How would a voluntary neighborhood watch association be expensive? I don't see the logic behind what you're saying. It would reduce risks, and, with the help of the insurance company, could help even more. This would help to offer insurance at a much lower price than could otherwise be had. That, along with discriminatory pricing, would bring coverage to the people of that neighborhood. It is inherent in the laws of economics, but it seems you're too blind to realize that.

That "voluntary neighborhood watch" only works if there's someone to report it to. Since the gangs control the area, how long do you think that;s going to last? The people still have to be able to afford the insurance in the first place.

You're to blind of actual economics in liue of your "happy fantasy world" to realize what things are really like.



Then what IS your point? There must be some reason why you felt the need to tell me this.

As in changing posts tends to get the mods irritated. Trying to be nice. Don't worry. That won't happen again.



Then obviously you know nothing of economics, as I've referenced competition and market share, as has Europe Maxima. In your words, "try again."

Three words: Earned Income Credit. As in the other thread, you assume there's going to be competition and that these new monopolies will care about "market share" when they control an industry.

Do some reading.



I've actually lived with people in South America who were about as close to subsistence as one can get, and they were some of the most generous people I've ever seen. Your assumption is out and out wrong and prejudiced in the extreme.

That's nice. Alledged personal analogies really don't mean much, especially when you throw out the nice little ad hominems along w/ them . Now have these people support national level charities. Have them completely support another family down on their luck for an extended period of time. Have them get enough to afford that lifesaving operation. There's reasons these things exist.

Do yourself a favour and study some basic economics, please. High prices and poor services do not maximise profits in the longrun.

Companies typically *do* charge the highest possible price they can get away with. Yes, there's a point where the people won't pay for something no matter how much they need it (because it's too shoddy), but without competition, companies do not have an incentive to offer a superior product. Take a look at the Toronto Maple Leafs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Maple_Leafs). Us Torontonians love our hockey (I'm not a Leaf fan, but most of the city are) so the games are regularly sold out (in fact, there's a 14-year waiting list for season tickets). Prices are typically the highest in the National Hockey League, yet the last time Toronto won a title was in 1967. The Maple Leafs have for years charged exhorbitant prices for- frankly- an inferior product because there are enough Leaf fans that'll buy tickets to keep their profits high. Since the closest competition the Leafs have market-wise is Buffalo, NY (about a three-hour drive), Leaf brass can get away with charging the prices that they do because they know there's enough fans that'll buy enough tickets to sell out their games no matter how good the team is. If there was a second team in Toronto- and believe me, there are enough hockey fans for that to happen- and it started winning titles, then the Leafs would be forced to offer a superior product, because the only fans the Leafs would be drawing would be the diehards, and there's not enough of those to sell out the Air Canada Centre.

I know hockey isn't an "essential service", but the Leafs are an example of an inferior product at an exhorbitant price because of a monopoly in their area. Yes, Torontonians may choose not to follow hockey (although I doubt that- hockey is so deeply rooted in Canadian culture that it would take a cultural revolution for that to happen), but my point isn't about hockey- it's about the negative effects of a corporate monopoly. Think about the effect it would have if such a system were in place for food- something we all need. The rich would be the only ones capable of being able to afford it, leaving the rest to eat the scraps or- eventually- just steal the food. Yes, you can throw in a few competing companies (which would require enforcing competition, ergo a government), but that can only go so far- eventually there will be an equilibrium point where each company can "get away" with whatever prices they are offering so that each can stay profitable. If that equilibrium point is low, we all win. If it's high, we lose.

*snip*.
Greill posted both the posts you quoted, not me. Check them.

How would a voluntary neighborhood watch association be expensive? I don't see the logic behind what you're saying. It would reduce risks, and, with the help of the insurance company, could help even more. This would help to offer insurance at a much lower price than could otherwise be had. That, along with discriminatory pricing, would bring coverage to the people of that neighborhood. It is inherent in the laws of economics, but it seems you're too blind to realize that.
And those people who flee beyond the boundries of the neighborhood?

Your utopia (which is what it is) might work on a local, small level. But once you leave the village, it falls to pieces under its own weight. The other system that works like that is communism.

That "voluntary neighborhood watch" only works if there's someone to report it to. Since the gangs control the area, how long do you think that;s going to last? The people still have to be able to afford the insurance in the first place.

...and, I should add, they're only effective as long as the people in the area want to use them (under Greill's system, anyway). If I have sufficient weapons to protect myself, I'm not entering a neighbourhood watch no matter how dangerous my area is.

Not at all. You can CHOSE to contribute to charity, or how you do so. You don't HAVE to.
Clearly.

The problem with your analogy is you assume that everyone makes contrabutions,
No, I go with the assumption that most people assume that they contribute via taxation to the welfare of the poor.

The question I asked was rather simple though: why would an uncharitable majority allow redistribution of income to the poor if it were in its power to stop this?

One tactic of statists to attempt to justify the state is the so-called “social contract.” Supposedly, people surrender their rights to the government in exchange for services, thus justifying the state’s expropriation through taxes and its other coercive measures. However, social contract is a myth, as shall be shown below.

There are two types of contract- explicit contract and implicit contract. Explicit contract is the type of contract that is signed directly, while implicit contract is inherent in one’s actions. It is easy to debunk an explicit theory of social contract. Seeing as how I did not sign the US Constitution, I am not beholden to it.

I applied for and recieved US citizenship. I directly signed the contract.

Your parents signed it for you prior to your reaching the age of majority. It's called a birth cirtificate. If you want out of the contract you have the option of going anywhere else in the world and handing in your US passport.

There is however a movement in Congress to charge you taxes for 10 additional years once you have done so. That IMO would be complete bullshit.

Greill posted both the posts you quoted, not me. Check them.

Cutn'paste error. Fixed.

Tax spent on the poor and then giving charity is paying twice for something.
Not at all. You can CHOSE to contribute to charity, or how you do so. You don't HAVE to.

The problem with your analogy is you assume that everyone makes contrabutions, which they don't. Or that they contrabute equally, which they don't. Or give equally to all those in need, which they don't. Or even that all who are in need require the same things, which they don't as well. The ammount that goes to welfare out of your taxes isn't all that high (excluding social security), as a matter fo fact, you could probably double it if you put a $10 bill in the bucket of a Salvation Army Santa.

That's the point, a little from everyone makes up a whole hell of a lot more than if we hope that everyone would donate on their own.

And those people who flee beyond the boundries of the neighborhood?

Your utopia (which is what it is) might work on a local, small level. But once you leave the village, it falls to pieces under its own weight. The other system that works like that is communism.

And even the villages w/ form governments. And unless they're all of exact like-mindedness, there's going to be tyranny of the majority and "forcing" people to do shares of work, etc. that they might not agree w/.

That's the point, a little from everyone makes up a whole hell of a lot more than if we hope that everyone would donate on their own.

Especially considering that not everyone will want to donate.

That "voluntary neighborhood watch" only works if there's someone to report it to. Since the gangs control the area, how long do you think that;s going to last? The people still have to be able to afford the insurance in the first place.

The voluntary neighborhood watch could use the insurance company to detain the criminals and seize their assets. The insurance company would have an interest in getting any money the gangsters have, and would be willing to work with non-subscribers. Problem solved.

You're to blind of actual economics in liue of your "happy fantasy world" to realize what things are really like.

Oh, give me a break. You've been throwing out nothing but this pop pseudo-economics this entire time, I have to wonder how much time you've actually spent studying the subject.

Three words: Earned Income Credit. As in the other thread, you assume there's going to be competition and that these new monopolies will care about "market share" when they control an industry.

Er... what does Earned Income Credit have to do with *anything* we're discussing? As for your monopoly example, it was inherent that they still cared about market share. For example, Standard Oil reduced the price of a gallon of kerosene from half a dollar to a nickel. Wordprocessor prices had been climbing before Microsoft entered the field, from $300 in 1990 to $50 by 1997. The American Tobacco Company droped prices from $2.77 in 1895 to $2.20 in 1907. And why did they do this? Market share.

Do some reading.

Already did, thank you.

That's nice. Alledged personal analogies really don't mean much, especially when you throw out the nice little ad hominems along w/ them . Now have these people support national level charities. There's reasons these things exist.

They do not need to support national level charities, as they are charitable enough at a local level, which is evidence enough that despite their subsistence level they are still charitable, despite what you say.

Especially considering that not everyone will want to donate.
Check my response to Nervun.

The voluntary neighborhood watch could use the insurance company to detain the criminals and seize their assets. The insurance company would have an interest in getting any money the gangsters have, and would be willing to work with non-subscribers. Problem solved.

And how many are killed by the gang-bangers before hand? Why would the company even bother? You think Gang-bangers are rich? Think again.



Oh, give me a break. You've been throwing out nothing but this pop pseudo-economics this entire time, I have to wonder how much time you've actually spent studying the subject.

More than you apparently. Your happy-land has no precedent in history or current world where my examples all have sources.



Er... what does Earned Income Credit have to do with *anything* we're discussing? As for your monopoly example, it was inherent that they still cared about market share. For example, Standard Oil reduced the price of a gallon of kerosene from half a dollar to a nickel. Wordprocessor prices had been climbing before Microsoft entered the field, from $300 in 1990 to $50 by 1997. And why did they do this? Market share.

% of taxes. You must never have paid them. Or you're just not keeping up w/ the discussion.

Prices have been "Climbing" from $300 to $50? Really?

And this has nothing to do w/ cheaper electronics components and mass manufacture combined w/ ease of logistics. All things you'ld do away w/. Really. Do some reading.



Already did, thank you.

Apparently not. See above.



They do not need to support national level charities, as they are charitable enough at a local level, which is evidence enough that despite their subsistence level they are still charitable, despite what you say.

Then they're not at subsistence level, are they? Of course you ignored every other point. Of course the people they don't like or have access to are shit out of luck.

The question I asked was rather simple though: why would an uncharitable majority allow redistribution of income to the poor if it were in its power to stop this?
Which has been answered a number of times about how we're in a system that protects the rights of the manority against the tyrany of the majority.

But, leaving that neither you nor Greill have addressed the issue of how a system such as your would not collaspe under its own weight. Let's assume that we abolish the safety nets. And lets assume that everyone suddenly has a burst of charity and starts giving and helping to the poor. Now what? Who gets the money, how is it handled? If its only can food drives, there's going to be a whole lot of areas that haven't been addressed, so then what?

What are the area responsibilities? Or do you assume that everyone will just go out and haul in a poor person/family and take care of their wants and needs?

Which has been answered a number of times about how we're in a system that protects the rights of the manority against the tyrany of the majority.
So long as the majority acquiesces. It. Does. Not. Have. To. The reason it does is because it believes that tax contribution goes to the welfare of the poor, as well as buying it whatever services government provides it with.

Or do you assume that everyone will just go out and haul in a poor person/family and take care of their wants and needs?
Which brings in charitable institutions, such as philanthrocapitalist firms, which compete on the basis of providing aid efficiently. These exist and have existed for a long time.

And how many are killed by the gang-bangers before hand? Why would the company even bother? You think Gang-bangers are rich? Think again.

The gangbangers would have possessions, and they could be made to do labor in a prison.

More than you apparently. Your happy-land has no precedent in history or current world where my examples all have sources.

Oh, really? Please do tell your sources.

% of taxes. You must never have paid them. Or you're just not
keeping up w/ the discussion.

I did pay them, but it was not easy to tell what context your remark was in. Regardless, it would still be easier to pay the competitively priced services than to continue paying the government for goods of negligible quality.

Prices have been "Climbing" from $300 to $50? Really?

Bah, I fucked that up. I meant to say that they had been climbing before 1990, which was the year that Word was introduced, and after that they dropped to $50 in 1997.

And this has nothing to do w/ cheaper electronics components and mass manufacture combined w/ ease of logistics. All things you'ld do away w/. Really. Do some reading.

Wrong. If Microsoft's high market share allowed it to be the price-fixer, they would keep the high prices and get bigger profits. But obviously, they were worried about their market share, thus working to lower the prices so that competitors would not drive them out. So you are wrong about your price-fixing myth, and you are the one who needs to do some reading.

Then they're not at subsistence level, are they? Of course you ignored every other point. Of course the people they don't like or have access to are shit out of luck.

But they ARE at subsistence point- they make a hand-to-mouth living. Yet they still work to take care of one another regardless. And I'm not sure that you made other points in the first place.

Which brings in charitable institutions, such as philanthrocapitalist firms, which compete on the basis of providing aid efficiently. These exist and have existed for a long time.
And who do not answer the needs of many people.

Take dipers for example. So, again, what is going to happen?

The simple answer is that, at some point, the poor are going to revolt. There's only so far you can push someone before they push back- history shows that time and again. An unchecked environment leads to abuses of power which, if continued long enough, can lead to a revolt to "change the social order".
Which is an incentive to provide charity. Why would this just disappear along with government?

Oh, really? Please do tell your sources.
You're nearly as bad as an adherent to religion. The one making the extraordinary claim must provide evidence, not the other way around.

Even communists have you beat here because they can point to small tribes and temporality successful communes for historical precedent.
However, there has never been a society with a free market that lacked a stable government that did not lack stability and even hope.

And who do not answer the needs of many people.
Given that government is currently absorbing a large share of people's income for that purpose, that is logical. As I said, next to no one will pay twice for something.

Take dipers for example. So, again, what is going to happen?
Assuming these firms receive an increase in contributions due to the elimination of taxation and people remaining charitable, they will have to be efficient in dealing with the problems they seek to tackle, or face losing contributions to more efficient competitors.

http://observer.bard.edu/articles/opinions/216

The voluntary neighborhood watch could use the insurance company to detain the criminals and seize their assets. The insurance company would have an interest in getting any money the gangsters have, and would be willing to work with non-subscribers. Problem solved.

Not really- that would still involve having the neighbourhood watch having to subscribe to the insurance company because a company is well within its rights to say "no, I'm not rendering service to someone who's not paying for it". I've never known a company that will offer a service without profiting on it in some way, and this is no different.

Er... what does Earned Income Credit have to do with *anything* we're discussing? As for your monopoly example, it was inherent that they still cared about market share. For example, Standard Oil reduced the price of a gallon of kerosene from half a dollar to a nickel. Wordprocessor prices had been climbing before Microsoft entered the field, from $300 in 1990 to $50 by 1997. The American Tobacco Company droped prices from $2.77 in 1895 to $2.20 in 1907. And why did they do this? Market share.

If I'm not mistaken, in 1997 there still was Corel Wordperfect and other word processing products. Furthermore, with Office dominating the field, the price tag is now US$399 (http://www.microsoft.com/office/editions/howtobuy/standard.mspx) (Standard Edition). The lowest figure is US$149 (http://www.microsoft.com/office/editions/howtobuy/student.mspx) for the Student version and the highest is US$639 (http://www.microsoft.com/office/editions/howtobuy/smallbusiness/management/default.mspx) (Small Business Management Edition).

No, I go with the assumption that most people assume that they contribute via taxation to the welfare of the poor.

The question I asked was rather simple though: why would an uncharitable majority allow redistribution of income to the poor if it were in its power to stop this?

The simple answer is that, at some point, the poor are going to revolt. There's only so far you can push someone before they push back- history shows that time and again. An unchecked environment leads to abuses of power which, if continued long enough, can lead to a revolt to "change the social order".

The gangbangers would have possessions, and they could be made to do labor in a prison.

Enough to offset the cost of stopping them? Really? Glad you now support slave labor as the prisons would be privatized.

Of course what's to stop Mega-Corp from highering a better security firm and "arresting" whoever it feels like? Or even making perfectly legal profit from arming the gangs w/ better weapons that the neighborhood watch?

Oh, really? Please do tell your sources.

As you convieniently ignore every historical reference in the last two threads. Try again.


I did pay them, but it was not easy to tell what context your remark was in. Regardless, it would still be easier to pay the competitively priced services than to continue paying the government for goods of negligible quality.

Really? You have evidence of this? Of course you don't. Because it's never happened. You were smacked down in the last thread trying to prove you could afford even electricity to your home.



Bah, I fucked that up. I meant to say that they had been climbing before 1990, which was the year that Word was introduced, and after that they dropped to $50 in 1997.

Obviously.



Wrong. If Microsoft's high market share allowed it to be the price-fixer, they would keep the high prices and get bigger profits. But obviously, they were worried about their market share, thus working to lower the prices so that competitors would not drive them out. So you are wrong about your price-fixing myth, and you are the one who needs to do some reading.

And they haven't had numerous anti-monopoly suits against them? Really? They haven't been forced to stop bundling their product so no-other one was usable w/ it? Really? We've been through this before. Using Microsoft as an example of market competition is a bad idea. Especially when you're talking about poor products and monopolies. They dropped their prices to beat out competition w/ an inferior product and attempted to make it so no others could be used w/ theirs. Yet you argue that w/o gov't oversight, they never would have done this.

Lets use Walmart as an example. Care to read up on how many times they've jacked up prices after driving out the local competition?

(oh, look, a reference example)

Care to read up on the old coal-mine towns that had sky-high prices, effectively forcing thier workers into debt?

(and another)



But they ARE at subsistence point- they make a hand-to-mouth living. Yet they still work to take care of one another regardless. And I'm not sure that you made other points in the first place.

If they have enough to support others/give away, by definition it is not subistence.

If I'm not mistaken, in 1997 there still was Corel Wordperfect and other word processing products. Furthermore, with Office dominating the field, the price tag is now US$399 (http://www.microsoft.com/office/editions/howtobuy/standard.mspx) (Standard Edition). The lowest figure is US$149 (http://www.microsoft.com/office/editions/howtobuy/student.mspx) for the Student version and the highest is US$639 (http://www.microsoft.com/office/editions/howtobuy/smallbusiness/management/default.mspx) (Small Business Management Edition).



So now G gets to reference his $50 quote.

Let's see if it happens.

Given that government is currently absorbing a large share of people's income for that purpose, that is logical. As I said, next to no one will pay twice for something.
And how much do people pay for welfare? Do you know?

Assuming these firms receive an increase in contributions due to the elimination of taxation and people remaining charitable, they will have to be efficient in dealing with the problems they seek to tackle, or face losing contributions to more efficient competitors.
Again, how do you address the problems that they are not tackling though? Because there are a lot of them, not to mention the selective nature of a number of charities.

And they haven't had numerous anti-monopoly suits against them? Really? They haven't been forced to stop bundling their product so no-other one was usable w/ it? Really? We've been through this before. Using Microsoft as an example of market competition is a bad idea. Especially when you're talking about poor products and monopolies. They dropped their prices to beat out competition w/ an inferior product and attempted to make it so no others could be used w/ theirs. Yet you argue that w/o gov't oversight, they never would have done this.

It's also worth noting that there are multiple computer manufacturing companies, so Microsoft can't charge an exhorbitant price for Windows or any of its other products because those computer companies won't be able to afford it (or else they'd have to charge prices the public would not be willing to buy). If Microsoft were the only company that made computers it would be different, because it also controls the access to its products. However, they don't manufacture computers so there's a limit to how much they can charge for Windows.

And how much do people pay for welfare? Do you know?
Not in exact amounts, no. If we factor in education, healthcare and other such things, probably a lot. People do consider these as contributions to the welfare of the poor. Hence most assume they already are helping the poor via taxation.

Again, how do you address the problems that they are not tackling though? Because there are a lot of them, not to mention the selective nature of a number of charities.
How does government (attempt to) address them? Obviously, by investigating the needs of the beneficiaries and the expectations of the donors. If government is currently fulfilling duties these charities could be addressing, they will not expand into this territory.

Enough to offset the cost of stopping them? Really? Glad you now support slave labor as the prisons would be privatized.

Of course what's to stop Mega-Corp from highering a better security firm and "arresting" whoever it feels like? Or even making perfectly legal profit from arming the gangs w/ better weapons that the neighborhood watch?

This was pretty much my concern. If the insurance companies make their money by taking the possessions of the people they 'arrest' and then hiring out their labor to prison work camps without any way to regulate them, what's to prevent them from just 'arresting' anyone with assets that they want?

Lets look at an example-Salem...accuse someone of a witch, get their property. Whole bunch of people accused of being a witch.

Yeah...no thanks.

It's also worth noting that there are multiple computer manufacturing companies, so Microsoft can't charge an exhorbitant price for Windows or any of its other products because those computer companies won't be able to afford it (or else they'd have to charge prices the public would not be willing to buy). If Microsoft were the only company that made computers it would be different, because it also controls the access to its products. However, they don't manufacture computers so there's a limit to how much they can charge for Windows.

There are computers that are specifically designed for windows products and attempts to install others don't work or have issues. Now combine that w/ the hisorical reference to the railroads and their preferencial pricing for other monopolies in comparison to competition (oh look, another reference) before the anti-trust laws and you have the same situation .

But no company would ever do that, would they?

There are computers that are specifically designed for windows products and attempts to install others don't work or have issues. Now combine that w/ the hisorical reference to the railroads and their preferencial pricing for other monopolies in comparison to competition (oh look, another reference) before the anti-trust laws and you have the same situation .

But no company would ever do that, would they?

I was thinking after I made that post that computers are pretty expensive themselves- the lowest price I've seen is $1200 (maybe even more, mine was $1200 and that was three years ago). So I wonder if Microsoft's products help drive up the price there.

The gangbangers would have possessions, and they could be made to do labor in a prison.
.

Ding ding ding ding ding we have a winner!

When you can subdue people by force "ie, pacify the 'gang bangers,'" you have unfettered access both to their property and to their labor, as slaves.

They tried this before, Grill, its called "feudalism" and "serfdom."

"We have the weapons, you do the work."

A government shouldnt promote equality, it should promote wellbeing.

wellbeing for who?

This was pretty much my concern. If the insurance companies make their money by taking the possessions of the people they 'arrest' and then hiring out their labor to prison work camps without any way to regulate them, what's to prevent them from just 'arresting' anyone with assets that they want?

I wonder what would stop an "insurance company war". Think about it- with all those weapons, an interest in snuffing out its competition and no way to ensure that the weapons are shared equally between companies, the temptation to overpower the rest is surely there.

The inequalities of power necessary for efficiency, in conjunction with good constraints, is the recipe for a society where the lowly masses are best off in comparison with other societies.
Genetically predisposing them for slavery also accomplishes that. Brave New World achieves maximum utility.

wellbeing for who?

For whom? For everyone.

Inequality which raises the good for the least-well-off is obligatory.

The inequalities of power necessary for efficiency, in conjunction with good constraints, is the recipe for a society where the lowly masses are best off in comparison with other societies.

It has been shown time and again now that communism leads to peonage and destitution, that the fantasy of communal ownership of the means of production isnt realistic, and that there are better ways to achieve the best ends.

And for our economics majors who apparently believe that the "poor" are taxed at 40%, here's some things called facts:

Federal:

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/2005taxrates.asp

States:

http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/ind_inc.html

Fica:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

So unless you're single, self-employed, earning over $50K/yr, and living in NY, you're not paying even close to 40%.

Of course then there's all those handy little credits like the EITC:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/eic_table.pdf

Oh, look, that makes negative tax rates for quite a few llow-income brackets.

Along w/ child tax credits, education credits, interest deductions on mortgages, deductions, etc.

Care to show some counter evidence?

And for our economics majors who apparently believe that the "poor" are taxed at 40%, here's some things called facts.
These do not show the aggregate net tax burden faced by members of each income band. If it were so easy as posting the figures you posted I'd have done it earlier. It isn't. I will see if I can find this online.

Another thing, why do you keep typing "poor"?

I wonder what would stop an "insurance company war". Think about it- with all those weapons, an interest in snuffing out its competition and no way to ensure that the weapons are shared equally between companies, the temptation to overpower the rest is surely there.

Well, all these people acting as individuals would spontaneously decide to all work together in harmony w/o any dissention or conflicts arising from a lack of organizational structure.

These do not show the aggregate net tax burden faced by members of each income band. If it were so easy as posting the figures you posted I'd have done it earlier. It isn't. I will see if I can find this online.

Another thing, why do you keep typing "poor"?

Go right ahead. I'll wait.

I keep typing "poor" because It's from a classic meme that compares tax rates to the top 400 earning individuals.

Not in exact amounts, no. If we factor in education, healthcare and other such things, probably a lot. People do consider these as contributions to the welfare of the poor. Hence most assume they already are helping the poor via taxation.
You think, but you do not know? You know what they say about assuming something...


How does government (attempt to) address them? Obviously, by investigating the needs of the beneficiaries and the expectations of the donors. If government is currently fulfilling duties these charities could be addressing, they will not expand into this territory.
If that WERE true, why do we have chareties at all, often times running co-currently with government programs (or as the end provider of such programs)?

Go right ahead. I'll wait.

I keep typing "poor" because It's from a classic meme that compares tax rates to the top 400 earning individuals.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/taxburdensbyincome19890201-1.pdf

Go down to page 29 (also read page 16), and check the total tax burden on the highest and lowest income classes.

Something to keep in mind when reading these figures is that redistribution takes place within bands, not from rich to poor. Therefore, mitigating factors, if any, are limited. What really happens is the productive subsidise the nonproductive (e.g. the rich subsidise other firms, the poor subsidise welfare recipients in their band and so on), burdening the productive majority.

You think, but you do not know? You know what they say about assuming something...
Does it make any difference, considering most people do act on the assumption their tax money is being used to help the needy? Feel free to provide figures on the matter if you have any. But it's not the main point - the point is whether or not people believe their money is being used in a certain way.

If that WERE true, why do we have chareties at all, often times running co-currently with government programs (or as the end provider of such programs)?
Then I ask the following: if the needs you mention are not being addressed by government, what difference will it make if it withers away? Why not get charitable firms to do so instead? If they are being met by government, how do you know this is in itself not a disincentive for these charities who focus their attention on other needs?

Inequality which raises the good for the least-well-off is obligatory.

maybe. however, the best way to raise the good for the least well-off has always been to reduce inequalities along various measures. whenever we stop doing that or start the other direction, the least well-off get left behind (at best).

The inequalities of power necessary for efficiency

which are...?
and you know this because...?

It has been shown time and again now that communism leads to peonage and destitution, that the fantasy of communal ownership of the means of production isnt realistic, and that there are better ways to achieve the best ends.

none of these things has ever been shown in the slightest

Genetically predisposing them for slavery also accomplishes that. Brave New World achieves maximum utility.

we could also periodically take the least well-off and put them into a coma with a continuous 'pleasure drip'

I guess I just don't like the concept that I have entered a "contract" just by being born. Generally, if I don't agree to something, like with a signature or a handshake upon a specific set of clauses, I don't consider it a contract.

However, social contract is a myth, as shall be shown below.

And yet after reading your essay, somehow I'm still more inclined to believe Thomas Hobbes and Rousseau...

...funny how that works. :rolleyes:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/taxburdensbyincome19890201-1.pdf

Go down to page 29 (also read page 16), and check the total tax burden on the highest and lowest income classes.

Something to keep in mind when reading these figures is that redistribution takes place within bands, not from rich to poor. Therefore, mitigating factors, if any, are limited. What really happens is the productive subsidise the nonproductive (e.g. the rich subsidise other firms, the poor subsidise welfare recipients in their band and so on), burdening the productive majority.




It is obsolete. It also takes the highest brackets and uses them as the "average" in many cases (see state sales tax). People don't pay the employer SS contribution (which are added in) and the various income tax averages don't equal today's w/ all the tax credits for lower incomes (as I've already shown) making negative tax rates for these levels (at times, 40%, completely negating the other tax burdens).

Privatizing everything would not reduce this in any way and would only increase the burden on lower incomes and reduce the availability of products and essentials.

Well, let's see.

The fire going out of control is a risk.

The risk could cause damage to those who are insured.

The insurance company wants to make sure the insured do not have damages, so they don't have to lose money.

The fire is a risk that can cause damages to the insured, making the insurer pay up.

The insurer will put the fire out before it spreads.

Problem solved!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-rider_problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-rider_problem

G seems to think that insurance companies would work different than they do now in happy-anarchy land. They don't charge sky-high premiums in risk areas or refuse to cover certain high-risk areas now do they? And all those wonderful "we cover anyone" companies are always reliable, aren't they? These companies never declare bankruptcy when disaster hit, do they?

But then G thinks that selling people into slavery to cover the costs is alright as well.

If by democracy you mean a majority (because the term has no meaning otherwise), that refutes the assertion that most people don't give a fuck about others.
I doubt that many people are claiming that. However, most people are unable to provide aid in equal proportion to all who need it, or ignorant of what the needy actually need and for what.

G seems to think that insurance companies would work different than they do now in happy-anarchy land. They don't charge sky-high premiums in risk areas or refuse to cover certain high-risk areas now do they? And all those wonderful "we cover anyone" companies are always reliable, aren't they? These companies never declare bankruptcy when disaster hit, do they?

But then G thinks that selling people into slavery to cover the costs is alright as well.

It's also worth noting that in the case of a forest fire, the company will only care once it gets close enough to a client's house or business. If the fire cannot be determined to affect a client's interest, it simply won't care.

It's also worth noting that in the case of a forest fire, the company will only care once it gets close enough to a client's house or business. If the fire cannot be determined to affect a client's interest, it simply won't care.

Think how much "complete coverage" would cost in areas like SoCal that regularly require the fire services of dozens of counties as well as federal assistance to put out fires.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-rider_problem

At least under contractualism the person can freely accept the added cost of the free rider, where under socialism he is forced to accept the added cost of the free rider at gun point.

Don't bring up the free-rider problem when you plan to enforce it.

At least under contractualism the person can freely accept the added cost of the free rider, where under socialism he is forced to accept the added cost of the free rider at gun point.

Don't bring up the free-rider problem when you plan to enforce it.

Yes, but in the case of something like installing a CCTV service, a neighbourhood has to be all in or all out- some can't just "opt out" because it would be difficult- if not downright impossible- to wire cameras in such a way that someone's house cannot be surveyed, especially if it's in the middle of the neighbourhood. The middle houses could therefore "opt out" of paying forcing homes on the outside- who will presumably profit more from the service- to pay more for the service, while the middle houses get the benefit without paying a cent.

It is obsolete. It also takes the highest brackets and uses them as the "average" in many cases (see state sales tax). People don't pay the employer SS contribution (which are added in) and the various income tax averages don't equal today's w/ all the tax credits for lower incomes (as I've already shown) making negative tax rates for these levels (at times, 40%, completely negating the other tax burdens).
Here's a newer piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/21/business/21DOUB.html), and it's accompanying graph (http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/01/20/business/21DOUBLE.chart.jpg). Your tax progression is already rather flat.

Privatizing everything would not reduce this in any way and would only increase the burden on lower incomes and reduce the availability of products and essentials.
Prove it.

I doubt that many people are claiming that. However, most people are unable to provide aid in equal proportion to all who need it, or ignorant of what the needy actually need and for what.
Government doesn't seem to be doing a particularly good job of it either, whereas many corporations and other institutions devoted to giving aid (the Mormons had an especially well thought-out workfare plan), are beginning to pick up. There is no reason to assume they wouldn't continue expanding their operations as government withered.

Here's a newer piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/21/business/21DOUB.html), and it's accompanying graph (http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/01/20/business/21DOUBLE.chart.jpg). Your tax progression is already rather flat.

And nowhere near 40%.


Prove it.

Already have. Look at history. You keep claiming happy anarchy land would be able to maintain the current economic infrastructure yet have provided no proof whatsoever.


Government doesn't seem to be doing a particularly good job of it either.

In your opinion.

Yes, but in the case of something like installing a CCTV service, a neighbourhood has to be all in or all out- some can't just "opt out" because it would be difficult- if not downright impossible- to wire cameras in such a way that someone's house cannot be surveyed, especially if it's in the middle of the neighbourhood. The middle houses could therefore "opt out" of paying forcing homes on the outside- who will presumably profit more from the service- to pay more for the service, while the middle houses get the benefit without paying a cent.

And in the real world, The community would react w/ either kicking the person/people out or penalizing them in some way.

And nowhere near 40%.
20% is still substantial.


Already have.
You have done nothing of the sort. Now prove it.

In your opinion.
Yes, you don't seem to have much tolerance for people who hold different ones to you, do you?

Yes, but in the case of something like installing a CCTV service, a neighbourhood has to be all in or all out- some can't just "opt out" because it would be difficult- if not downright impossible- to wire cameras in such a way that someone's house cannot be surveyed, especially if it's in the middle of the neighbourhood. The middle houses could therefore "opt out" of paying forcing homes on the outside- who will presumably profit more from the service- to pay more for the service, while the middle houses get the benefit without paying a cent.

Yes, I understand what the free-rider problem is.

And in the real world, The community would react w/ either kicking the person/people out or penalizing them in some way.

How?

Yes, I understand what the free-rider problem is.

I know, I just thought you were discounting it in that example and I say it applies.

And in the real world, The community would react w/ either kicking the person/people out or penalizing them in some way.

True, but that's only if they can prove they're "free riding". It's very easy to hide if you live a seculded life.

My point was that under contractualism, the individual considering the investment can also consider whether others will create added costs without adding to the investment, and proceed with this in mind.

State socialism, at its base ideology, is forcing the individual to accept the free-rider, not to do away with it.

Ah, I see; but I think no matter what system there will always be "free riders". It's an impossible problem to get rid of.

I know, I just thought you were discounting it in that example and I say it applies.

My point was that under contractualism, the individual considering the investment can also consider whether others will create added costs without adding to the investment, and proceed with this in mind.

State socialism, at its base ideology, is forcing the individual to accept the free-rider, not to do away with it.

My point was that under contractualism, the individual considering the investment can also consider whether others will create added costs without adding to the investment, and proceed with this in mind.

State socialism, at its base ideology, is forcing the individual to accept the free-rider, not to do away with it.

(special note- my response should be above your post here, because of the time warps).

20% is still substantial.

Not for the amount of services available. Do you now retract your 40% claim you made earlier.


You have done nothing of the sort. Now prove it.

Read the thread. I've provided historical as well as current examples. You've provided none except your happy anarchy mythology and faulty economics.


Yes, you don't seem to have much tolerance for people who hold different ones to you, do you?

I don't have much tolerance for people that hold stupid opinions that have no support.

How?

Like maybe by consfiscating their property, kicking them out, or throwing them in jail. You know, the same way societies have been doing it for millennia.

Not for the amount of services available.
Only if it measures the true cost of those services. Not everyone receives equal benefit from them, especially not the productive.

Do you now retract your 40% claim you made earlier.
I wouldnt've used the statistics otherwise.

Read the thread. I've provided historical as well as current examples. You've provided none except your happy anarchy mythology and faulty economics.
The problem is you've still proven nothing. You cannot prove anything because there has been no true anarcho-capitalist society to compare to. All you've done is made assertions, and shown a horrid disregard for economics (for instance, when I asked why governments have yet to improve the quality of roads and mentioned the commonly known fact that if supply is fixed/limited and free at the point of consumption, and demand exceeds it, quality will fall, you just seemed to answer government will solve it. HOW?).

I don't have much tolerance for people that hold stupid opinions that have no support.
Good, the feelings are mutual.

Only if it measures the true cost of those services. Not everyone receives equal benefit from them, especially not the productive.

Prove it.



The problem is you've still proven nothing. You cannot prove anything because there has been no true anarcho-capitalist society to compare to. All you've done is made assertions, and shown a horrid disregard for economics (for instance, when I asked why governments have yet to improve the quality of roads and mentioned the commonly known fact that if supply is fixed and free at the point of consumption, and demand exceeds it, quality will fall, you just seemed to answer government will solve it. HOW?).

And why hasn't happy-anarchy land developed anywhere? Because it doesn't work. It's about as realistic as pure communism.

Why hasn't gov't "improved roads"? What would you like improved? I have a new highway being built just a few miles from me. I constantly see repairs being done on the interstates/highways/in-town when they get bad. Your post makes no sense and is just rambling. Paying taxes allows for the Gov't to maintain this national infrastructure. You just assert that people will universally come together as a bunch of individuals and keep it running. And since you admit that's never happened. The burden of proof is on you and you fail.


Good, the feelings are mutual.

And yet I'm the one providing all the real-world examples. You admit that happy-anarchy land is just a myth.

Prove it.
In order to do so competition has to be allowed on the market for these goods. What you're basically asking me to do is tantamount to asking me to prove that Apple (or any other company) could provide a better wordprocessing tool than Microsoft, which is impossible until Apple actually competes with MS.

And why hasn't happy-anarchy land developed anywhere? Because it doesn't work. It's about as realistic as pure communism.

In your opinion.

Why hasn't gov't "improved roads"? What would you like improved? I have a new highway being built just a few miles from me. I constantly see repairs being done on the interstates/highways/in-town when they get bad. Your post makes no sense and is just rambling.
Except that I study Economics and the various issues facing government provision of road, such as severe congestion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_congestion#Economic_theories_of_traffic_congestion) in urban centres, and the fact that merely increasing the road supply does not curtail demand - it aggravates it. It seems to me you're the on who's rambling and providing nothing but anecdotes.

Paying taxes allows for the Gov't to maintain this national infrastructure.
No, it doesn't. Taxation solves nothing, because roads are not charged by usage. There is nothing to discourage excess usage of them. Furthermore, people in the countryside who share this burden of taxation and do not benefit from innercity roads are the ones who shoulder most of the costs. Taxation is not the answer.

You just assert that people will universally come together as a bunch of individuals and keep it running. And since you admit that's never happened. The burden of proof is on you and you fail.
So I guess if government provided your shoes for you, you'd be arguing a market in shoes would be impossible too? Or if we lived under a totalitarian system in which all resistance were crushed, would you too be arguing that no other way of life is possible? Is standing in queues in a modern-day Soviet Russia the only way to acquire food?

And yet I'm the one providing all the real-world examples. You admit that happy-anarchy land is just a myth.
I've admitted nothing of the sort. It has not existed. That does not mean it won't. Your "real-world examples" have mostly been assertions on your part.

In order to do so competition has to be allowed on the market for these goods. What you're basically asking me to do is tantamount to asking me to prove that Apple (or any other company) could provide a better wordprocessing tool than Microsoft, which is impossible until Apple actually competes with MS.

So you can't and are just making assertions. The burden of proof is on you. There are other competing word processors. MS attempted to illegally drive them out of business.


In your opinion.

No, by historical precedent. Oh, but that's right, you don't recognize historical facts. It's all just "assertions".


Except that I study Economics

I doubt that.

and the various issues facing government provision of road, such as severe congestion in urban centres, and the fact that merely increasing the road supply does not curtail demand - it aggravates it. It seems to me you're the on who's rambling and providing nothing but anecdotes.

And yet you don't answer my question. You don't think roads are sometimes redesigned? Really? You can't even provide anecdotes to support your position.


No, it doesn't. Taxation solves nothing, because roads are not charged by usage.

*cough* TOLL ROADS *cough*


There is nothing to discourage excess usage of them. Furthermore, people in the countryside who share this burden of taxation and do not benefit from innercity roads are the ones who shoulder most of the costs. Taxation is not the answer.

Prove it. People out in the country drive longer distances. Your method would punish them and still not "get the benefit of inner city roads". And yet the people in the city are shouldering the burden for all those roads out in the country. Goes both ways. Yet everyone can use the roads. You call for de facto toll roads which cost more than the tax burden.


So I guess if government provided your shoes for you, you'd be arguing a market in shoes would be impossible too? Or if we lived under a totalitarian system in which all resistance were crushed, would you too be arguing that no other way of life is possible? Is standing in queues in a modern-day Soviet Russia the only way to acquire food?

And now we make the straw-men and red herrings. Is that the best you can do?


I've admitted nothing of the sort. It has not existed. That does not mean it won't.

Because every time anything even close has occured (Yemen, Congo, Somalia, Iraq) it's collapsed as corporations take advantage to strip the resources, warlords take over sections and assert their own rule, and people turn against eachother. You may also want to try taking some sociology or psychology courses.


Your "real-world examples" have mostly been assertions on your part.

They've been "assertions"? Really? You obviously don't study history or economics. Keep reaching. This is getting funny. The only assertion you've provided any evidence for (tax rates) has shown you to be wrong.

It seems to be the case that governments of any type have to assume that the populations they rule are consistent and fit some definition of "perfection"; tyrannies assume that people are obedient; democracies assume that people are wise and informed; pure communism assumes that people are fair; anarchism assumes that people are noncompetitive and moral; free market systems assume that people are willing to submit to darwinian processes; theocracies assume that people are unshakably devout. The inherent flaw of any government, even the best ones, is that it depends upon its citizens to conform to certain qualities that allow the government to function with a minimum of dissatisfaction. Some people will try to exert authority over other people, and those other people will try to resist that authority. History of the human race in one sentence.

As much as a free market system sounds good on paper, a business-intensive economy ironically thrives on regulation. Without regulation, you end up with monopolies and trusts, political corruption, boom-and-bust cycles, environmental collapse, and corporate states, none of which are good for the market economy.

As for the social contract, I would have to offer even another definition of what that means: a social contract is the agreement that you and your government, you and your community, you and your fellow citizens, you and your employer, etc. have to serve one another for mutual benefit, as there are needs you have that you cannot meet alone, and there are needs that the other party has that cannot be met without the cooperation of its constituents. As a result, a social contract is only possible in a transparent, open, democratic, free system. This kind of social contract does not exist in states that are corrupt, tyrannical, or chaotic, since both parties must be accountable to one another and must honor the spirit of the agreement, even if the specific terms are highly elastic (as they should be). A social contract, therefore, is not a contract in the sense of anything that can or should be written in stone, but instead is a mutual assurance of good faith between the represented and those who represent them in all their conduct to one another. It's kind of a Locke-ian definition, but less rigid. The critical aspect of such a contract being successful is that the represented must be informed of the actions the representatives are taking on their behalf, and that both parties must be willing to submit to the judgment of the other if they have violated the spirit of the contract. In terms of governments, this requires that the populace remain actively and continually informed on the state of affairs, and that they use their democratic rights fully. It also requires that the government keeps no secrets, makes its procedures, policies, and information publicly available as conveniently as possible, and that it be responsive to public pressure. Of course, what people want and what they need are not always the same...

So you can't and are just making assertions. The burden of proof is on you. There are other competing word processors. MS attempted to illegally drive them out of business.
You seem unable to handle a hypothetical example. My point is you cannot make a comparison to a non-existent product. Another law of economics.

I doubt that.
You're ignorant of how demand and supply works, no wonder you do.

And yet you don't answer my question. You don't think roads are sometimes redesigned? Really? You can't even provide anecdotes to support your position.

*cough* TOLL ROADS *cough*

Prove it. People out in the country drive longer distances. Your method would punish them and still not "get the benefit of inner city roads". And yet the people in the city are shouldering the burden for all those roads out in the country. Goes both ways. Yet everyone can use the roads. You call for de facto toll roads which cost more than the tax burden.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_congestion#Economic_theories_of_traffic_congestion

There, educate yourself (keep in mind that the argument was not that the government hasn't got ways to improve road-efficiency; rather, it's that its methods for provision of roads so far have been grossly inefficient, and that it ought to emulate a market if possible).

And now we make the straw-men and red herrings. Is that the best you can do?
Hardly. It is exactly what you're doing, assuming that a given good can only be provided by government because that is the status quo. The problem is you're too blind to see it.

Because every time anything even close has occured (Yemen, Congo, Somalia, Iraq) it's collapsed as corporations take advantage to strip the resources, warlords take over sections and assert their own rule, and people turn against eachother.
Countries with no real history of stable legal structures and freedom collapse under anarchy? How surprising...

And on Somalia:
http://www.independent.org/pdf/working_papers/64_somalia.pdf

You seem too stupid to handle a hypothetical example. My point is you cannot make a comparison to a non-existent product. Another law of economics.

And yet you're the one trying to prove that happy-anarchy land will work even though nothing similar has ever survived.

You're ignorant of how demand and supply works, no wonder you do.

You're ignorant of basic economics, history, and sociology. Try again.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_congestion#Economic_theories_of_traffic_congestion

There, educate yourself (keep in mind that the argument was not that the government hasn't got ways to improve road-efficiency; rather, it's that its methods for provision of roads so far has been grossly inefficient).

Oh, I understand congestion. You make the unsupported assertion that happy-anarchy land could fix that.


Hardly. It is exactly what you're doing, assuming that a given good can only be provided by government because that is the status quo. The problem is you're too blind to see it.

Nope, try again. I keep providing examples of what has and is happening. You keep claiming that something completely opposite will happen.


Countries with no real history of stable legal structures and freedom collapse under anarchy? How surprising...

And they've never delevoped it because of the whole anarchical principle and people taking advantage of one another. You seem to think that the societies that have developed modern economies have done so just to devolve into the cesspools that I've cited. Even though even modern societies have troubles w/ corporations trying to take advantage and abusing people. Guess you keep missing that part.

And on Somalia:
http://www.independent.org/pdf/working_papers/64_somalia.pdf[/QUOTE]

And they state it's still a shithole, just not as bad of a shithole as it was during the civil war. Why was it worse before? Because one warlord allowed corporations to strip his land and used it as his own personal bank. And who controls it during the paper era? Lots of independant warlords (ie smaller states). Not just one large one. Of course you may also want to look at the fact that they just had another civil war and have recieved tons of aid from dozens of GO's and NGO's. Try again.

Try again.
You're not worth my time. You neither read my actual arguments nor do much to refute them (an example would be you stating that more taxation will simply resolve congestion, when in fact it is nowhere that simple, then saying you're aware of congestion, or the fact that Somalia's improved situation under multiple "states" contradicts your earlier arguments on the matter). I'm done.

You're not worth my time. You neither read my actual arguments nor do much to refute them (an example would be you stating that more taxation will simply resolve congestion, when in fact it is nowhere that simple, then saying you're aware of congestion, or the fact that Somalia's improved situation under multiple "states" contradicts your earlier arguments on the matter). I'm done.

OF course you are, because you're wrong and have no support.

Did I say that "more taxation solves the problem"? Nope. Try again. I stated that if the local gov't can't afford to keep up their road system because of a local economic downturn, they can appeal to the higher level. You made up the "congestion" resolution strawman. Be disingenous on your own time.

The fact that the fighting amongst the warlords lessened and things improved a bit /= a happy anarchy state especially since they've been getting tons of resources from abroad, violence is still rampant, most of the infrastructure has collapsed, and the natural resources are being stripped methodically.

http://www.nationbynation.com/Somalia/Economy.html

It seems to be the case that governments of any type have to assume that the populations they rule are consistent and fit some definition of "perfection"; tyrannies assume that people are obedient; democracies assume that people are wise and informed; pure communism assumes that people are fair; anarchism assumes that people are noncompetitive and moral; free market systems assume that people are willing to submit to darwinian processes; theocracies assume that people are unshakably devout. The inherent flaw of any government, even the best ones, is that it depends upon its citizens to conform to certain qualities that allow the government to function with a minimum of dissatisfaction. Some people will try to exert authority over other people, and those other people will try to resist that authority. History of the human race in one sentence.

As much as a free market system sounds good on paper, a business-intensive economy ironically thrives on regulation. Without regulation, you end up with monopolies and trusts, political corruption, boom-and-bust cycles, environmental collapse, and corporate states, none of which are good for the market economy.

As for the social contract, I would have to offer even another definition of what that means: a social contract is the agreement that you and your government, you and your community, you and your fellow citizens, you and your employer, etc. have to serve one another for mutual benefit, as there are needs you have that you cannot meet alone, and there are needs that the other party has that cannot be met without the cooperation of its constituents. As a result, a social contract is only possible in a transparent, open, democratic, free system. This kind of social contract does not exist in states that are corrupt, tyrannical, or chaotic, since both parties must be accountable to one another and must honor the spirit of the agreement, even if the specific terms are highly elastic (as they should be). A social contract, therefore, is not a contract in the sense of anything that can or should be written in stone, but instead is a mutual assurance of good faith between the represented and those who represent them in all their conduct to one another. It's kind of a Locke-ian definition, but less rigid. The critical aspect of such a contract being successful is that the represented must be informed of the actions the representatives are taking on their behalf, and that both parties must be willing to submit to the judgment of the other if they have violated the spirit of the contract. In terms of governments, this requires that the populace remain actively and continually informed on the state of affairs, and that they use their democratic rights fully. It also requires that the government keeps no secrets, makes its procedures, policies, and information publicly available as conveniently as possible, and that it be responsive to public pressure. Of course, what people want and what they need are not always the same...

*claps* Best thing I've read here. Good work.

It's imperative to realize that every system has its faults and that a system is only successful in certain cases. To add to the discussion on democracy, an effectively functioning democracy requires education, because the constituents need to be able to understand the complexity of the issues at hand before they can vote on them. It also requires a politically active populace, because democracy depends on people caring about what their government is doing.

Suppose my parents assert a right of ownership over me, by means of a tacit agreement (I use their resources, they take this as a sign that I acquiesce to their owning me). Is this contract in any way based on consent, or is it based on utter nonsense? I'll answer. Nonsense.

Actually I always wondered how libertarians argued for parental authority over children. It can't be a consensual contract as minors do not have the faculties to genuinely understand or consent to it. Also, what responsibilities parents have to their children? If I do not contract with my child is it ok for me to leave them outside and let them die of exposure? I'm not doing anything explicitly to end their life ,and since I don't have any contractual obligations to him/her I don't need to help them.

*snip*
Check your TG.

Like maybe by consfiscating their property, kicking them out, or throwing them in jail. You know, the same way societies have been doing it for millennia.

And if those actions are rightly forbidden by law or other form of violence?

Check your TG.

Huh??? :confused:

Huh??? :confused:
Ah, I forget you're new. Check your telegrams.

Ah, I forget you're new. Check your telegrams.

Sorry. At first I thought it referred to my the initials of Tech-gnosis. lol. It confused me for a sec. Then I decide to check my telegrams

Actually I always wondered how libertarians argued for parental authority over children. It can't be a consensual contract as minors do not have the faculties to genuinely understand or consent to it. Also, what responsibilities parents have to their children? If I do not contract with my child is it ok for me to leave them outside and let them die of exposure? I'm not doing anything explicitly to end their life ,and since I don't have any contractual obligations to him/her I don't need to help them.

That is an interesting question. Presumably parents are under no obligation to help their children at all and children are under no obligation to obey their parents. Much like reptiles.

That is an interesting question. Presumably parents are under no obligation to help their children at all and children are under no obligation to obey their parents. Much like reptiles.

Presumably children have minor obligations to the parent so long as they use their parents resources. Its like the saying," As long as you live under my house you live under my rules." Parents though have no obligation whatsoever without some kind of contract.

And if those actions are rightly forbidden by law or other form of violence?

What law? This is mob rule/anarchy. If the non-consenters are more powerful than the majority, then they're really in charge in the first place. If they've hired some sort of "protection insurance" that allows "free-riders", then they're under the authority of a new state anyway.

Presumably children have minor obligations to the parent so long as they use their parents resources. Its like the saying," As long as you live under my house you live under my rules." Parents though have no obligation whatsoever without some kind of contract.

So presumably it is perfectly okay for parents to abandon their children. Okay. Makes sense.