NationStates Jolt Archive

Nicolas Sarkozy, who had been railing about the State spending too much, and who had promised to solve this by "not spending a single euro in vain", decreasing the number of civil servants by half, and making poor people pay more for health care, now wants to fill his own pockets with tax money by more than doubling his own salary.

Nice.

(link (http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-823448,36-972267@51-882765,0.html); link 2 (http://www.lejdd.fr/cmc/scanner/economie/200744/une-hausse-de-140pour-cent-du-salaire-de-sarkozy_67868.html?popup))

is he likely to get away with that?

is he likely to get away with that?

140%? Not likely.

140%? Not likely.

i would hope not anyway.

The guy wants 140% over what the former mayor of Paris was making? Sounds very pompous to me. The guy shouldn't take a pay raise at all but a pay cut to demonstrate how serious he is on cutting spending.

Of course he does.

He's a capitalist.

I've been saying it for years, but I'll say it again.

Sarko is a douchebag.

The guy shouldn't take a pay raise at all but a pay cut to demonstrate how serious he is on cutting spending.

Indeed. Especially since he doesn't need a big salary: all his expenses are already paid for with public money; his salary is an additional bonus. But that won't happen.

Of course he does.

He's a capitalist.

:rolleyes:

Nicolas Sarkozy, who had been railing about the State spending too much, and who had promised to solve this by "not spending a single euro in vain", decreasing the number of civil servants by half, and making poor people pay more for health care, now wants to fill his own pockets with tax money by more than doubling his own salary.

Nice.

(link (http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-823448,36-972267@51-882765,0.html); link 2 (http://www.lejdd.fr/cmc/scanner/economie/200744/une-hausse-de-140pour-cent-du-salaire-de-sarkozy_67868.html?popup))

Ok...that's fucked up.

Indeed. Especially since he doesn't need a big salary: all his expenses are already paid for with public money; his salary is an additional bonus. But that won't happen.

And besides, if he can afford to rent that ridiculous yacht he vacationed on in Malta, he probably doesn't even really need that salary.

Erm, is there any links in english?

The French unemployment rate is so high because (in addition to myriad other socialist-initiated follies) there are a shortage of jobs due to the high wages offered by the state; the obvious means of rectifying this imbalance would be to either eliminate the state bureaucracy altogether or to significantly reduce state employees' salaries. On the other hand, there are a multitude of highly qualified people who are not running for the French presidency; one would hope to correct this deficiency by increasing the wage for the leader, thus encouraging more competent applicants for the job.

Nicolas Sarkozy, who had been railing about the State spending too much, and who had promised to solve this by "not spending a single euro in vain", decreasing the number of civil servants by half, and making poor people pay more for health care, now wants to fill his own pockets with tax money by more than doubling his own salary.

Nice.


I dont see whats so bad about him? The State does spend too much. If France is anything like the US, you could fire 50% of all civil servants and NO-ONE would even notice. So i agree there too. Pay more for healthcare? Cry me a river for one of the most pampered cradle to grave healthcare system in the world. You should be paying more.

I watched him on 60 minutes and he wants to remove the law that prevents French people from working more then 35 hours a week. The lazy French workers are going apeshit over it and most of the French people in general support it. I say well done and welcome to the first world.

And as far as his salary, the amount most politicians get paid are ludicriously low when you look at the amount of money they handle and compare it to CEOs of companies that deal with the tiniest fraction of the budget that they deal with. Ive always been a firm believer of you get the talent levels you pay for.

You should be paying more.

Why?

The French unemployment rate is so high because (in addition to myriad other socialist-initiated follies) there are a shortage of jobs due to the high wages offered by the state; the obvious means of rectifying this imbalance would be to either eliminate the state bureaucracy altogether or to significantly reduce state employees' salaries. On the other hand, there are a multitude of highly qualified people who are not running for the French presidency; one would hope to correct this deficiency by increasing the wage for the leader, thus encouraging more competent applicants for the job.

If you must troll, do, but do it by making you sound like a jerk, not like a nutcase.

Why?

If you expect a royal pampering from birth to death, expect a bill in some form or another.

If you must troll, do, but do it by making you sound like a jerk, not like a nutcase.

It's elementary economic logic: if you wish to raise the standard of a service being performed, you increase the benefits consummate with that service. That's why the salaries of CEOs are so enormous: they provide an extremely valuable service and must be compensated for it accordingly. Why should the same concept not be applied to presidents or other top governmental leaders?

That's why the salaries of CEOs are so enormous: they provide an extremely valuable service and must be compensated for it accordingly. Why should the same concept not be applied to presidents or other top governmental leaders?

I just said the same thing and i couldnt agree more. Its what also makes our government officials vurnerable to bribery etc as well. In the US, a US senator is expected to run 2 complete and full households, one in Washington DC and one in thier home state. All for around $160k a year. Thats WAY WAY WAY underpaid and you end up only getting morons or the already wealthy willing to sign up for this program.

I just said the same thing and i couldnt agree more.

I agree, and I hate repeating what you previously said, pretty much verbatim, but since some people use my every post to castigate me for being a "troll," I sometimes have to.

If you expect a royal pampering from birth to death, expect a bill in some form or another.

The bill comes from these guys.

http://www.impots.gouv.fr/portal/dgi/home?pageId=home&sfid=00

I dont see whats so bad about him?

I wasn't criticising his general policies; my point was his hypocrisy in saying he wants to reduce State spending, then dipping into tax money to give himself a HUGE salary boost.


If France is anything like the US, you could fire 50% of all civil servants and NO-ONE would even notice.


Civil servants include teachers, hospital employees, firefighters, police and the military. He says he wants to reduce the number of State employees by 50%, but whenever a journalist has asked him what department he's going to cut so drastically into, he's always evaded the question. Does he want 50% fewer firefighters? teachers? hospital workers? police officers? what?


Pay more for healthcare? Cry me a river for one of the most pampered cradle to grave healthcare system in the world. You should be paying more.


Why? Are you jealous? Because you have to pay more, we should too, is that it?


I watched him on 60 minutes and he wants to remove the law that prevents French people from working more then 35 hours a week. The lazy French workers are going apeshit over it


Way to stereotype. :rolleyes: Do you ever think for yourself instead of parroting the ramblings of ignorant and xenophobic Anglo-Saxon media?


And as far as his salary, the amount most politicians get paid are ludicriously low when you look at the amount of money they handle and compare it to CEOs of companies that deal with the tiniest fraction of the budget that they deal with. Ive always been a firm believer of you get the talent levels you pay for.

You support an increase in salaries for all State employees?

If you expect a royal pampering from birth to death, expect a bill in some form or another.

Nobody's talking about a "royal pampering", and there are bills. Why is it you people always have to lie and distort the truth completely when you try to make a point? Is it because it's your only hope of being persuasive?

Keep your silly Anglo-Saxon regressive ideologies out of my country.



On the other hand, there are a multitude of highly qualified people who are not running for the French presidency; one would hope to correct this deficiency by increasing the wage for the leader, thus encouraging more competent applicants for the job.

Riiiight. Because clearly having all your expenses paid for by tax money for five years isn't enough of an incentive. Given the number of people who pour into the ratrace for French presidency, I cannot help but cast some doubt on the perspicacity of your analysis.

Depends on how much money he makes right now (sadly I couldn't gather any info from the links provided because I can't understand French).

Nicolas Sarkozy, who had been railing about the State spending too much, and who had promised to solve this by "not spending a single euro in vain", decreasing the number of civil servants by half, and making poor people pay more for health care, now wants to fill his own pockets with tax money by more than doubling his own salary.

Nice.

(link (http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-823448,36-972267@51-882765,0.html); link 2 (http://www.lejdd.fr/cmc/scanner/economie/200744/une-hausse-de-140pour-cent-du-salaire-de-sarkozy_67868.html?popup))
Sounds like a right-thinking kind of guy... Wouldn't nearly "more than double" be more than 200%?

I know, numbers aren't important, it's the thought that counts.
Although your lack of an ability to understand numbers makes me wonder why you're arguing about economics.

Sounds like a right-thinking kind of guy... Wouldn't nearly "more than double" be more than 200%?

I know, numbers aren't important, it's the thought that counts.
Although your lack of an ability to understand numbers makes me wonder why you're arguing about economics.

LOL. Apparently, you understand neither simple English nor simple math. He wants to increase it by 140% - which means add 140% to the existing 100%. Hence multiplying it by 2.4. Not increasing it by a mere 40%. Increasing it by 240% would mean multiplying it by 3.4.

Is that clear enough now, or would you like me to draw you a simple picture or diagram?

If he isn't guaranteed pay increases whenever he works hard, what motivation will he have for working hard?

LOL. Apparently, you understand neither simple English nor simple math. He wants to increase it by 140% - which means add 140% to the existing 100%. Hence multiplying it by 2.4. Not increasing it by a mere 40%. Increasing it by 240% would mean multiplying it by 3.4.

Is that clear enough now, or would you like me to draw you a simple picture or diagram?
Actually, I would like a picture... If you're going to post in English, couldn't you post links in the same language?

If he isn't guaranteed pay increases whenever he works hard, what motivation will he have for working hard?

An additional 140% while he's busy saying that the State should make drastic cuts in spending, and that his government "will not waste a single euro"? Are you serious?! He doesn't even need much of a salary, since all of his expenses are paid for, and his salary is merely an additional bonus!

Should I have a 140% salary increase for working hard? No, seriously?

If Chirac didn't need a salary over twice the size of normal, why does Sarkozy?

You're not bothered in the slightest by his hypocrisy and double standards? Jeebus. Now I understand how politicians get away with these things.

The French unemployment rate is so high because (in addition to myriad other socialist-initiated follies) there are a shortage of jobs due to the high wages offered by the state; the obvious means of rectifying this imbalance would be to either eliminate the state bureaucracy altogether or to significantly reduce state employees' salaries. On the other hand, there are a multitude of highly qualified people who are not running for the French presidency; one would hope to correct this deficiency by increasing the wage for the leader, thus encouraging more competent applicants for the job.If the private sector is either too lazy or too incompetent to compete with the state's salaries, then they shouldn't get enough employees to operate there businesses. If they offered a wage that was actually competitive, they would not be in this situation. They chose not to pay competitively, so it is their fault they lost most of their employees. Such is the joys of capitalism; when you make shitty business decisions, your business suffers.

Funnily enough, the British tabloids went absolutely apeshit when MPS voted themselves a 25% pay rise, and they absolutely love Sarkozy. (although I've yet to meet a frenchman who's not called him a fascist, fact) I wonder whether they might go into some sort of time paradox and all explode..?

I wasn't criticising his general policies; my point was his hypocrisy in saying he wants to reduce State spending, then dipping into tax money to give himself a HUGE salary boost.

This President has expertise that will save the government potentially BILLIONS of dollars. The voters apparently agree with his vision. To wish to charge the French government a few ten thousands more for access to this expertise isnt in any way hypocritical its business as it should be. In order to get top talent, pay top talent. Its perfectly logical.



Civil servants include teachers, hospital employees, firefighters, police and the military. He says he wants to reduce the number of State employees by 50%, ....... Does he want 50% fewer firefighters? teachers? hospital workers? police officers? what?

If only the problem with beaucracy was only how mnay firemen and police and teachers to have. Sadly most of beaucracy is paper pushers. Middle management, upper middle management, upper lower middle management, lower upper lower management, secretaries,secretaries, did i mention more secretaries, too many Assistant Vice Presidents of Asswiping Divisions,secretaries, and a fairly small amount of perfectly reasonable people with a few important and needed jobs that actually make the government function and go forward.



Why? Are you jealous? Because you have to pay more, we should too, is that it?

No its because i have a fundimental understanding that medical services dont spring out of happiness thoughts. Someone, somewhere is logically paying that bill. Who is it and how much is it really?



Way to stereotype. :rolleyes: Do you ever think for yourself instead of parroting the ramblings of ignorant and xenophobic Anglo-Saxon media?

Please cite where i stereotyped in any way? The lazy are willing to grind society to a halt with strikes and more not work to preserve thier right to not work some more. Its also a fact afaik that the majority of the French people do not like these strikes and would rather have the 40 hour workweek instead and have the services back up and functioning. If im mistaken in any of these items i would appreciate you showing me where.



You support an increase in salaries for all State employees?

I support a salary increase for all elected officials comensurate with the population and/or budget size they have authority over.



Riiiight. Because clearly having all your expenses paid for by tax money for five years isn't enough of an incentive. Given the number of people who pour into the ratrace for French presidency, I cannot help but cast some doubt on the perspicacity of your analysis.

In the US all of your expenses dont get paid for your time in office. In fact, this is how many lawmakers in the US get in trouble because they illegally mix personal business with thier "perks" of the office. This is against the law in the United States.

If the private sector is either too lazy or too incompetent to compete with the state's salaries, then they shouldn't get enough employees to operate there businesses.

The private sector cannot compete with state salaries which are forcibly subsidized by tax money. If corporations had the privilege of stealing workers' money, they would be able to afford to raise wages; however, they are unable to do so. On the other hand, the French government forcibly appropriates its citizens' money to pay state employees. That's not an "equal playing field" by any stretch of the imagination -- indeed, it's highway robbery. The horrendously inefficient morass of that is the French state would be woefully inadequate if matched against the private sector in an equal setting.

Such is the joys of capitalism; when you make shitty business decisions, your business suffers.

The French government is hemorrhaging money; however, it can continue to do so by taxing its populace into oblivion. Private businesses are not afforded that luxury; even though their models may be infinitely more streamlined than their ludicrously wasteful state counterparts, they are nonetheless unable to compete.

On the other hand, there are a multitude of highly qualified people who are not running for the French presidency; one would hope to correct this deficiency by increasing the wage for the leader, thus encouraging more competent applicants for the job.

I'm sorry, but wtf. You honestly believe that what people are looking for when considering entering politics is the politicians salary? No other perks to the job?

Riiiight. Because clearly having all your expenses paid for by tax money for five years isn't enough of an incentive. Given the number of people who pour into the ratrace for French presidency, I cannot help but cast some doubt on the perspicacity of your analysis.

Unfortunately, many of them are shockingly inept at governance. On the other hand, highly qualified individuals often decline to run. This imbalance needs to be rectified; having many poor applicants is not an adequate alternative to having few exceptional candidates.

The private sector cannot compete with state salaries which are forcibly subsidized by tax money. If corporations had the privilege of stealing workers' money, they would be able to afford to raise wages; however, they are unable to do so. On the other hand, the French government forcibly appropriates its citizens' money to pay state employees. That's not an "equal playing field" by any stretch of the imagination -- indeed, it's highway robbery. The horrendously inefficient morass of that is the French state would be woefully inadequate if matched against the private sector in an equal setting.But it happens all the time outside France, and it works just fine. Private schools are able to compete with public schools; in my province, private gas companies compete against the public gas company; in Wilgrove's state, private electric companies compete with the public electric company; etc. The private sector is able to do just fine at competing against the public sector outside of France. So does the problem lie with the concept itself, or the French?


The French government is hemorrhaging money; however, it can continue to do so by taxing its populace into oblivion. Private businesses are not afforded that luxury; even though their models may be infinitely more streamlined than their ludicrously wasteful state counterparts, they are nonetheless unable to compete.So can every other nation-state, but their private sectors are able to compete against the public sector wherever allowed. Why not in France?

But it happens all the time outside France, and it works just fine. Private schools are able to compete with public schools; in my province, private gas companies compete against the public gas company; in Wilgrove's state, private electric companies compete with the public electric company; etc. The private sector is able to do just fine at competing against the public sector outside of France.

That does not negate the inherent inequality in the situation; it is simply a testament to the efficiency of free-market capitalism that business at such an obscene disadvantage are nonetheless able to compete with the monstrous state. It's like giving an average man a head start of 50 yards in a 100-meter dash against Maurice Greene: by virtue of Greene's superiority, he will most likely emerge the victor. Nonetheless, the reality is that he was at a disadvantage from the start. In many countries and industries, Greene is able to overtake his opponent on the basis of solely his exceptional athleticism; however, France gives such an excessive handicap to the average man that it is virtually insuperable. Where else in the world are workers entitled to such extravagant benefits as in France? That's why France found itself in a horrid, downward economic spiral, leading to utter chaos -- the state could not support its precarious position indefinitely. It had ignored economic reality for far too long and had gone deeply into the red; even exorbitant taxes were insufficient to save it. In more rational countries, the public sector relies less on taxation to subsidize its inefficiency -- this model is closer to that of private enterprise than that of France. As a result, businesses elsewhere have a shot at competing with the public sector, despite their intrinsic disadvantage.

Actually, I would like a picture...


Glad to. (http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/4263/applestbdwm4.png)


If you're going to post in English, couldn't you post links in the same language?

I didn't immediately find one. Run it through Babelfish or something. :p


This President has expertise that will save the government potentially BILLIONS of dollars. The voters apparently agree with his vision. To wish to charge the French government a few ten thousands more for access to this expertise isnt in any way hypocritical its business as it should be. In order to get top talent, pay top talent. Its perfectly logical.


The salary for the President is set. He earns the same as his predecessor, who was also elected -in theory- to bring in much-needed expertise.

Don't tell me you seriously believe that earning more will make him more efficient?


If only the problem with beaucracy was only how mnay firemen and police and teachers to have. Sadly most of beaucracy is paper pushers. Middle management, upper middle management, upper lower middle management, lower upper lower management, secretaries,secretaries, did i mention more secretaries, too many Assistant Vice Presidents of Asswiping Divisions,secretaries, and a fairly small amount of perfectly reasonable people with a few important and needed jobs that actually make the government function and go forward.


I quite agree that cutting back on the number of redundent paper-pushers would be a good idea. The problem with Sarkozy is that he said "cut 50% of all State employees" because the number sounded simple and drastic and pleasing to voters, and he either has no idea what he's doing, or he doesn't want to explain it. Whenever journalists have asked (which, sadly, has not been often enough), he's avoided the question.

No its because i have a fundimental understanding that medical services dont spring out of happiness thoughts. Someone, somewhere is logically paying that bill.

Naturally. It's funded by tax. The principle has always been very explicit. Those who are healthy help pay for those who are not. It's been a fundamental principle in French society.

See, I've never been to hospital (save at birth), I've never been seriously ill, and I've never broken any bones. Hence my tax money is paying for services that I'm not using. I have no problem with that. I'd rather see my tax money go towards funding health care for people who need it than see it wasted on boosting politicians' salaries by ridiculous amounts.


Please cite where i stereotyped in any way?

Sorry if I was wrong. I've seen too many people here yammer on about how all French people are genetically lazy.


The lazy are willing to grind society to a halt with strikes and more not work to preserve thier right to not work some more.

And they have the legal right to protest.

Look, it's not a simple issue. I'm not saying public transport employees should not be required to work as long as everyone else for a full pension; my views are still hersitant on that topic. The main problem is that Sarkozy tried to bypass the normal process of negotiation and force the law through in a hurry. He knew that would result in strikes, which would cause public opinion to side with him against the strikers. He's a smart politician.


Its also a fact afaik that the majority of the French people do not like these strikes

Bugger them. Striking is a legal right.

From what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong), the right to strike is heavily restricted in the US. That's not the case in France. People have that freedom, and there's no justification for taking it away.

I was personnally affected by the latest strikes. It prevented me from going to work (I commute into the city), and now I have to catch up on lost time at work, which is an inconvenience. But I still support the right to strike.


I support a salary increase for all elected officials comensurate with the population and/or budget size they have authority over.


You wrote: "Ive always been a firm believer of you get the talent levels you pay for." To increase the efficiency of the public sector, would you, therefore, argue in favour of a salary rise for all State employees?


In the US all of your expenses dont get paid for your time in office. In fact, this is how many lawmakers in the US get in trouble because they illegally mix personal business with thier "perks" of the office. This is against the law in the United States.

Well that's not the way it works in France. Sarkozy doesn't need to pay for anything. It's paid for by tax money. He gets a salary in addition to that.

Naturally. It's funded by tax. The principle has always been very explicit. Those who are healthy help pay for those who are not. It's been a fundamental principle in French society...my tax money is paying for services that I'm not using. I have no problem with that.

So you find forcing people who assiduously adhere to a healthy lifestyle to pay exorbitant sums of money to finance the health-care required by obese loafers who smoke and drink to be morally acceptable? I do not. Those who choose to engage in deleterious activities should reap the consequences by footing the bill.

In the US all of your expenses dont get paid for your time in office. In fact, this is how many lawmakers in the US get in trouble because they illegally mix personal business with thier "perks" of the office. This is against the law in the United States.

How things work in the US is irrelevant. We're talking about France. The French president has all his expenses paid for through taxes already, plus a salary.

So you find forcing people who assiduously adhere to a healthy lifestyle to pay exorbitant sums of money to finance the health-care required by obese loafers who smoke and drink to be morally acceptable? I do not. Those who choose to engage in deleterious activities should reap the consequences by footing the bill.

Tssk. You should know better than that. You're over-simplifying the issue. One could very well reduce or remove public funding in some such cases while retaining it to help people who have fallen ill or had an accident through no fault of their own.

When someone has cancer (despite a healthy lifestyle), it is well and proper that my tax money (and everyone else's) should help pay for health care. Likewise when someone is born handicapped or ill, and so on.

When someone has cancer (despite a healthy lifestyle), it is well and proper that my tax money (and everyone else's) should help pay for health care. Likewise when someone is born handicapped or ill, and so on.

If an individual's contribution to society is sufficient to justify treating him, then he will be able to afford medical care. Otherwise, he should be left to die; his worth is outweighed by the cost that curing them would entail.

Bolivian method of reducing state expenditure and corruption: cut president's salary in half, because every other civil servant must earn less than the president, so everyone earns less without it actually being unfair.

Sarkozy method of "reducing" state expenditure: fire a bunch of state employees, then re-direct the funds into his own pockets.

If an individual's contribution to society is sufficient to justify treating him, then he will be able to afford medical care. Otherwise, he should be left to die; his worth is outweighed by the cost that curing them would entail.

Not all valuable contributions are measured in currency, despite what capitalism might tell you.

If an individual's contribution to society is sufficient to justify treating him, then he will be able to afford medical care. Otherwise, he should be left to die; his worth is outweighed by the cost that curing them would entail.

Your contribution to society is measured by how much money you have? :D

Not all valuable contributions are measured in currency, despite what capitalism might tell you.

On the contrary -- an individual with whom I am unacquainted has no intrinsic worth to me. However, I indirectly benefit from his contribution to society as measured by his salary, as it reflects his expertise and productivity.

On the contrary -- an individual with whom I am unacquainted has no intrinsic worth to me. However, I indirectly benefit from his contribution to society as measured by his salary, as it reflects his expertise and productivity.

You do know that all I need to do in this specific situation is find a single example that disproves your claim, right?

Meanwhile, your "proof by exhaustion" requires that you go through every single anecdote in human history.

I win by default.

Your contribution to society is measured by how much money you have? :D

How much money you earn, yes. However, I am cognizant of the fact that not all those who are rich earned their money, as some may have inherited it. That does not influence my assessment.

Nicolas Sarkozy, who had been railing about the State spending too much, and who had promised to solve this by "not spending a single euro in vain", decreasing the number of civil servants by half, and making poor people pay more for health care, now wants to fill his own pockets with tax money by more than doubling his own salary.
He doesn't happen to be a former CEO?

I win by default.

Have a cookie. :rolleyes:

And no, a "proof by exhaustion" is not necessary; I was simply stating my method of assessing one's worth. Since this is a subjective criteria, there can be no "proof" for it.

Have a cookie. :rolleyes:

And no, a "proof by exhaustion" is not necessary; I was simply stating my method of assessing one's worth. Since this is a subjective criteria, there can be no "proof" for it.

No, you said, and I quote:


If an individual's contribution to society is sufficient to justify treating him, then he will be able to afford medical care.

That, however, is false. Out of six billion people, there will be at least one person who has contributed to society sufficiently to justify treating him, without being able to afford medical care.

Your claim requires that everyone who has ever contributed enough to be justified in treating him, should also be able to afford it. However, that is false.

Sarkozy should suggest that the pay raise go into effect with the next presidential election. Then the proposal can be debated, and he wouldn't seem like such a money grubber. But to suggest that Sarkozy's pay increase affects the state's budget in any way is ridiculous. Whenever a leader takes a pay dicrease, it is only symbolic of his willingness to cut spending, it doesn't actually help. The budget of a country like France is in the trillions. A few hundred thousand euro has no affect on the state.

How much money you earn, yes. However, I am cognizant of the fact that not all those who are rich earned their money, as some may have inherited it. That does not influence my assessment.

I have a great deal of difficulty imagining someone so dead inside.

On the contrary -- an individual with whom I am unacquainted has no intrinsic worth to me. However, I indirectly benefit from his contribution to society as measured by his salary, as it reflects his expertise and productivity.

You believe the only worthwhile contributions to society are economic?

A few hundred thousand euro has no affect on the state.

People really need to learn that states are made up of many people and every person has an effect. A few hundred thousand euro does have an effect, because if you use the same argument every time, you end up paying hundreds of millions extra, because you wanted to pay every state employee 100 euroes more because "it has no effect on the state".

If an individual's contribution to society is sufficient to justify treating him, then he will be able to afford medical care. Otherwise, he should be left to die; his worth is outweighed by the cost that curing them would entail.

Then this is where we have a fundamental disagreement of principle.

People really need to learn that states are made up of many people and every person has an effect. A few hundred thousand euro does have an effect, because if you use the same argument every time, you end up paying hundreds of millions extra, because you wanted to pay every state employee 100 euroes more because "it has no effect on the state".

But he isn't suggesting a pay raise for anyone else, only himself, and that has no effect. He can still cut the state's budget, even though he may get a pay raise.

No, you said, and I quote:



That, however, is false. Out of six billion people, there will be at least one person who has contributed to society sufficiently to justify treating him, without being able to afford medical care.

Your claim requires that everyone who has ever contributed enough to be justified in treating him, should also be able to afford it. However, that is false.


A single person out of everyone who has ever lived who would have contributed to justify treating their medical problems though they couldn't afford it. Like Jesus Christ for instance, if one believes in him (as many conservatives do).

People really need to learn that states are made up of many people and every person has an effect. A few hundred thousand euro does have an effect, because if you use the same argument every time, you end up paying hundreds of millions extra, because you wanted to pay every state employee 100 euroes more because "it has no effect on the state".

Furthermore, Sarkozy said himself he would not waste "a single Euro."

Guys, give it a year or so, the French will be rioting to have Royal.

You believe the only worthwhile contributions to society are economic?

To society as a conceptual entity? Yes. That is not to say that non-economic benefits are simply illusory, however. On the contrary, they are very much real, but directed solely towards individual members of society. For example, I'm sure that the bonds between relatives possess some emotional worth; nonetheless, this abstract value is distinct from my sphere of interaction with society -- it does not affect me. Thus, I disregard it. On the other hand, physical (ie, economic) contributions have an objective worth which can be easily assessed and quantified; it is this in which I am interested. You cannot ask more of society than what you give to society -- the common units here are monetary in nature. You are not automatically entitled to life if you are unable to repay to society that which you take from it; once you have exhausted all you contributions to society, you have no more right to expect society to help you in any way whatsoever. If that entails dying, so be it.

To society as a conceptual entity? Yes. That is not to say that non-economic benefits are simply illusory, however. On the contrary, they are very much real, but directed solely towards individual members of society. For example, I'm sure that the bonds between relatives possess some emotional worth; nonetheless, this abstract value is distinct from my sphere of interaction with society -- it does not affect me. Thus, I disregard it. On the other hand, physical (ie, economic) contributions have an objective worth which can be easily assessed and quantified; it is this in which I am interested. You cannot ask more of society than what you give to society -- the common units here are monetary in nature. You are not automatically entitled to life if you are unable to repay to society that which you take from it; once you have exhausted all you contributions to society, you have no more right to expect society to help you in any way whatsoever. If that entails dying, so be it.

What about Mozart or Bach?

Or my other example, Jesus.

What about Mozart or Bach?

Or my other example, Jesus.

If they were impecunious, then someone else would have to finance their health-care should they have contracted a serious illness. If they had produced nothing of objective worth nor created emotional wealth that could be translated into a monetary form, then society would have no obligation to them.

If they were impecunious, then someone else would have to finance their health-care should they have contracted a serious illness. If they had produced nothing of objective worth nor created emotional wealth that could be translated into a monetary form, then society would have no obligation to them.

So Mozart, Bach and Jesus Christ wouldn't be deserving of medical care even though none of them would be able to afford it?

To society as a conceptual entity? Yes. That is not to say that non-economic benefits are simply illusory, however. On the contrary, they are very much real, but directed solely towards individual members of society. For example, I'm sure that the bonds between relatives possess some emotional worth; nonetheless, this abstract value is distinct from my sphere of interaction with society -- it does not affect me. Thus, I disregard it. On the other hand, physical (ie, economic) contributions have an objective worth which can be easily assessed and quantified; it is this in which I am interested. You cannot ask more of society than what you give to society -- the common units here are monetary in nature. You are not automatically entitled to life if you are unable to repay to society that which you take from it; once you have exhausted all you contributions to society, you have no more right to expect society to help you in any way whatsoever. If that entails dying, so be it.

You must be a hoot at parties.

You can't ask more of society than what you give to society, so children are presumably to be blamed for not going out and working in banking or something?

Everyone should be paid according to the job they are asked to do. Running a nation as large as France is a big job and should have a big salary. Of course, we could drastically cut the pay we give politicians to absolutely ensure that only those that are both very rich and altruistic, or just highly corrupt, get the job.

240k is not that much money. It isnt like he is asking for a multi-million euro income. Just because his living expenses are covered does not mean that the state pays for everything - I am assuming that it does not make his debt payments or pay for maintenance on his home or whatever else he owns.

You could actually raise everyone's salary and end up with a cheaper and more efficient country - just make it competitive. The better employees get raises while the inefficient and incompetent get fired. The end result would be better paid employees but with a smaller total payroll and better services as well.

I would rather thrive in a society than survive in an economy!

Everyone should be paid according to the job they are asked to do. Running a nation as large as France is a big job and should have a big salary. Of course, we could drastically cut the pay we give politicians to absolutely ensure that only those that are both very rich and altruistic, or just highly corrupt, get the job.

240k is not that much money. It isnt like he is asking for a multi-million euro income. Just because his living expenses are covered does not mean that the state pays for everything - I am assuming that it does not make his debt payments or pay for maintenance on his home or whatever else he owns.

You could actually raise everyone's salary and end up with a cheaper and more efficient country - just make it competitive. The better employees get raises while the inefficient and incompetent get fired. The end result would be better paid employees but with a smaller total payroll and better services as well.

Vladimir Lenin never got paid more than a Petrograd worker, by his own request.

It's not like he really needs to earn more money right now. He's got plenty, but no time to spend it.

Methinks this is not the smartest political move ever conceived. He oughta wait until a few years time when France is booming.

It's not like he really needs to earn more money right now. He's got plenty, but no time to spend it.

Methinks this is not the smartest political move ever conceived. He oughta wait until a few years time when France is booming.
Yeah right, more like when the rich are richer, the poor are poorer, inflation and unemployment are out of control, rioting in the streets etc.

You can't ask more of society than what you give to society, so children are presumably to be blamed for not going out and working in banking or something?

Children are an exception to this rule as they will gain the capacity to positively contribute to society although they make lack the ability to do so at the present time. As such, they must be nurtured and this skills hones to prepare for their forthcoming entry into the workforce. This is a form of "capital investment" that will yield large dividends in the future and thus a prudent approach.

If paying the head of government more wages encourages more competition, then how come in Singapore which features one of the highest paid prime minister posts in the world (if not the highest) political competition is one of the lowest of any democratic state?

Sorry, wait, people are saying that increasing the wage of the head of the government leads to more competition? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Some people need a grip on reality.

Yeah right, more like when the rich are richer, the poor are poorer, inflation and unemployment are out of control, rioting in the streets etc.
Yeah, then. Shouldn't take too long, considering what a model France is in areas like unemployment, rioting, and youth- and immigrant poverty.

Oh, and inflation...as long as everyone keeps telling Sarko to bugger off when he tries to get his grubby fingers on the ECB, it's not gonna happen.

Sorry, wait, people are saying that increasing the wage of the head of the government leads to more competition? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Some people need a grip on reality.

Indeed.

On the other hand, there are a multitude of highly qualified people who are not running for the French presidency; one would hope to correct this deficiency by increasing the wage for the leader, thus encouraging more competent applicants for the job.

Indeed.

Oh, it's the same guy as all the "if you don't have money you're obviously a crap human being" stuff? That makes sense as his world view is bizzare.

Oh, it's the same guy as all the "if you don't have money you're obviously a crap human being" stuff? That makes sense as his world view is bizzare.

You assume he actually HAS said world view.

If paying the head of government more wages encourages more competition, then how come in Singapore which features one of the highest paid prime minister posts in the world (if not the highest) political competition is one of the lowest of any democratic state?

Because Singapore has a number of laws that make the PAP (the primary political party), the de facto power.

Oh, it's the same guy as all the "if you don't have money you're obviously a crap human being" stuff?

I never claimed that; many great men have been penniless and devoted themselves the non-economic pursuits. Jesus, for example, prized eternal salvation over monetary gain -- this is obviously the correct decision. Yet, should society be expected to support such a transient who contributes nothing concrete to it in return? Of course not -- "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto G-d what is G-d's." Rewards in heaven are distinct from those on earth; consequently, one's worth to society does not represent one's worth as a human being. G-d may care about the latter; not being omnipotent and omniscient, I care about the former.

I never claimed that; many great men have been penniless and devoted themselves the non-economic pursuits. Jesus, for example, prized eternal salvation over monetary gain -- this is obviously the correct decision. Yet, should society be expected to support such a transient who contributes nothing concrete to it in return? Of course not -- "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto G-d what is G-d's." Rewards in heaven are distinct from those on earth; consequently, one's worth to society does not represent one's worth as a human being. G-d may care about the latter; not being omnipotent and omniscient, I care about the former.

I don't believe in God and yet I somehow seem to be able to distinguish between how much someone can pay for something and how much someone deserves something.

Because Singapore has a number of laws that make the PAP (the primary political party), the de facto power.

Political competition need not come from another party - competition can exist within the party as well. In Singapore, one would expect many capable people within the People's Action Party to be vying for the top job, if financial reward were motivating them. This is not the case.

I don't believe in God and yet I somehow seem to be able to distinguish between how much someone can pay for something and how much someone deserves something.

How much someone "deserves" something is subjective. However, what someone is entitled to on the basis of his labor is refreshingly objective: you can take from society the equivalent of what you give to it, but not once cent more. Crisp, concise, and simple.

Blargh, this makes me sad. I was liking Sarkozy, too. :(

How much someone "deserves" something is subjective. However, what someone is entitled to on the basis of his labor is refreshingly objective: you can take from society the equivalent of what you give to it, but not once cent more. Crisp, concise, and simple.

And creates a horrible world that no one with an ounce of humanity would ever want to live in. yaaay.

And creates a horrible world that no one with an ounce of humanity would ever want to live in. yaaay.

Capitalism vs Socialism again? I thought you people would get tired of realizing that neither side is ever going to win this debate.

And creates a horrible world that no one with an ounce of humanity would ever want to live in. yaaay.

On the contrary -- it promotes a highly efficient world in which economic well-being reaches astounding highs and individuality is revered.

Capitalism vs Socialism again? I thought you people would get tired of realizing that neither side is ever going to win this debate.

Who said anything about socialism? Not letting people die isn't socialist.

On the contrary -- it promotes a highly efficient world in which economic well-being reaches astounding highs and individuality is revered.

Don't know about individuality when the rich will just break free of the rest of society killing any concept of meritocracy.

Don't know about individuality when the rich will just break free of the rest of society killing any concept of meritocracy.

The free market is a potent tool for allocating labor efficiency; the concept of meritocracy is intrinsic to its smooth functioning. A capitalist has a vested economic interest in hiring the most highly qualified person as an employee and offering him a substantial salary; being driven by a desire for maximizing profit, he will seek to attain the ideal level of production and the best-trained workforce. Simply "breaking free" of society would directly conflict with his best interest; thus, he would not pursue that course of action. However, if he did so, that would not impair the functionality of the system, as a replacement could easily be found. Despite the unflattering portrayals of a capitalist system by fiendish communists, it is a highly effective machine for generating wealth.

Who said anything about socialism? Not letting people die isn't socialist.

No, but the coerced redistribution of wealth to achieve that end is socialist in nature.

The free market is a potent tool for allocating labor efficiency; the concept of meritocracy is intrinsic to its smooth functioning. A capitalist has a vested economic interest in hiring the most highly qualified person as an employee and offering him a substantial salary; being driven by a desire for maximizing profit, he will seek to attain the ideal level of production and the best-trained workforce. Simply "breaking free" of society would directly conflict with his best interest; thus, he would not pursue that course of action. However, if he did so, that would not impair the functionality of the system, as a replacement could easily be found. Despite the unflattering portrayals of a capitalist system by fiendish communists, it is a highly effective machine for generating wealth.

No, what you're doing is seeing the benefits of unrestricted captalism but what you've done is also included advantages of the current - restricted - system that would be lost with your changes.

No, but the coerced redistribution of wealth to achieve that end is socialist in nature.

So is a police force by that logic

So is a police force by that logic

So would be taxation, public property, government, welfare, universal national healthcare and social security.

Also FreedomAndGlory, to have meritocracy you can't give people an unfair advantage, to have a society that advantages based on merit then you would have to eliminate inheritance, corruption and all forms which would give an individual a greater quality of opportunity than anyone else. Crony capitalism is essentially what exists today and a corporatism that merges state and corporate interests, a free market requires equal competition.

So would be taxation, public property, government, welfare, universal national healthcare and social security.
A lot of those do in fact serve income transfer roles though, some explicitly so.

Crony capitalism is essentially what exists today and a corporatism that merges state and corporate interests, a free market requires equal competition.
Yeah. On the other hand, a while ago I created a thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=524833) asking people whether they would support a free market if it started completely fairly. They still don't, so your argument (sadly) loses a lot of steam.

I can understand criticism of the current system. I can't understand criticism of the principle (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=524908) in itself.

Yeah. On the other hand, a while ago I created a thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=524833) asking people whether they would support a free market if it started completely fairly. They still don't, so your argument (sadly) loses a lot of steam.

I can understand criticism of the current system. I can't understand criticism of the principle (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=524908) in itself.

Does this hypothetical system refresh itself for each new generation? Sort of like starting a new level on a computer game? If not, seems like all you're doing is deferring the massive lack of meritocracy.

Does this hypothetical system refresh itself for each new generation? Sort of like starting a new level on a computer game? If not, seems like all you're doing is deferring the massive lack of meritocracy.
It wouldn't. Inheritances are gifts, so unless you outlaw all gifts and require everything always to be bought and sold for money, there'd be some lagged effect.

But that wasn't the point of the thread, the whole exercise was ultimately about the tendency of the market to produce pareto optimal and core optimal allocation outcomes. Rejecting this system I proposed means that either you reject the ability of a truly free market to produce those outcomes (in which case that microeconomics thread would have provided answers if I'd had the nerve to finish it despite having no audience), or you don't care about pareto- or core optimality, which means you need some alternative standard (which is necessarily far more subjective than those two).

Not that that is really the topic of the thread. :p

So is a police force by that logic

No -- an overarching legal entity is necessary to ensure that the basic prerequisites for a free market are met (ie, compliance with the concept of private property, a certain degree of order in society, protection from crime, etc.). Capitalism cannot function in an anarchic world.

Also FreedomAndGlory, to have meritocracy you can't give people an unfair advantage

Ah, but I don't want to foster a notion of sameness -- meritocracy is not derived from a misguided notion of forcibly placing all on the same footing. We can't handicap those who are ahead of us, either by stripping them of their wealth or intelligence. Rather, a meritocracy it is predicated on the theory that all deserve a chance to do with their life what they may. We all have the potential to become successful; whether we dedicate ourselves fully to this objective or not will determine our place in life. The fundamental basis in such a society is that one advances based on merit, not extraneous circumstances -- and this holds true even if one is entitled to a better education than an equally-intelligent but more poorly-educated person. Corruption is mostly innocuous in such a system and tends to occur only at the higher echelons; thus, it is unimportant.

A lot of those do in fact serve income transfer roles though, some explicitly so.


Yeah. On the other hand, a while ago I created a thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=524833) asking people whether they would support a free market if it started completely fairly. They still don't, so your argument (sadly) loses a lot of steam.

I can understand criticism of the current system. I can't understand criticism of the principle (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=524908) in itself.
Well I think one criticism might be that an outside force (like government regulation) would be needed to ensure a truly free market, otherwise big corporations with unfair advantages would create monopolies.

No -- an overarching legal entity is necessary to ensure that the basic prerequisites for a free market are met (ie, compliance with the concept of private property, a certain degree of order in society, protection from crime, etc.). Capitalism cannot function in an anarchic world.



Ah, but I don't want to foster a notion of sameness -- meritocracy is not derived from a misguided notion of forcibly placing all on the same footing. We can't handicap those who are ahead of us, either by stripping them of their wealth or intelligence. Rather, a meritocracy it is predicated on the theory that all deserve a chance to do with their life what they may. We all have the potential to become successful; whether we dedicate ourselves fully to this objective or not will determine our place in life. The fundamental basis in such a society is that one advances based on merit, not extraneous circumstances -- and this holds true even if one is entitled to a better education than an equally-intelligent but more poorly-educated person. Corruption is mostly innocuous in such a system and tends to occur only at the higher echelons; thus, it is unimportant.

That's where your argument goes awry, if individual freedom requires that you cannot penalize someone who already has got the advantage unfairly, then your argument accepts that monopolies will naturally occur. So my question is, does a 'free' market in your opinion extend to the freedom of one company or corporation becoming the one monopoly and thus eliminating the economic freedom of everyone else?

No -- an overarching legal entity is necessary to ensure that the basic prerequisites for a free market are met (ie, compliance with the concept of private property, a certain degree of order in society, protection from crime, etc.). Capitalism cannot function in an anarchic world.


"No, but the coerced redistribution of wealth to achieve that end is socialist in nature."

Would it not be a coerced redistribution of wealth from individual to police?

"No, but the coerced redistribution of wealth to achieve that end is socialist in nature."

Would it not be a coerced redistribution of wealth from individual to police?

One could also argue that capitalism is coerced (even forced) redistribution to the rich.

One could also argue that capitalism is coerced (even forced) redistribution to the rich.

Na, if it's not legislated it's not a problem.

The classic example was when a libertarian refused to agree that (in a fully privatised capitalist nation) someone bought all the land around someones house that would qualify as a restriction of freedom. The person was free to leave their house, they argued, they would have to negotiate their way out.

Aside from meritocracy, few libertarians seem to be aware that crippling monopolies and information asymmetries are held off by current government intervention. The free market always drives down price, they argue but don't think of areas such as water supply.

Basically capitalism will result in a system like feudalism. The hierarchies will be there, underpinned by a lack of opporunity. The force used to collect taxes will be gone but force will still underpin the system (stop the poor from using force to reclaim wealth from rich). It's a disaster of an idealogy and doesn't even have misplaced faith in humanity to excuse itself. It's the most vile and bleak set of ideas you could ever see.

Children are an exception to this rule as they will gain the capacity to positively contribute to society although they make lack the ability to do so at the present time. As such, they must be nurtured and this skills hones to prepare for their forthcoming entry into the workforce. This is a form of "capital investment" that will yield large dividends in the future and thus a prudent approach.

What about children with terminal illnesses?

If you're willing to make an exception because children have the potential to contribute to society in the future, shouldn't you make an exception for everyone who isn't retired?

I never claimed that; many great men have been penniless and devoted themselves the non-economic pursuits. Jesus, for example, prized eternal salvation over monetary gain -- this is obviously the correct decision. Yet, should society be expected to support such a transient who contributes nothing concrete to it in return? Of course not -- "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto G-d what is G-d's." Rewards in heaven are distinct from those on earth; consequently, one's worth to society does not represent one's worth as a human being. G-d may care about the latter; not being omnipotent and omniscient, I care about the former.

According to your own logic, though, Jesus still isn't worthy of medical care.

What about children with terminal illnesses?


Along with children that aren't very smart they will be thrown onto the fires of the rich.

If anything, he should slash his salary.

No -- an overarching legal entity is necessary to ensure that the basic prerequisites for a free market are met (ie, compliance with the concept of private property, a certain degree of order in society, protection from crime, etc.). Capitalism cannot function in an anarchic world.



Ah, but I don't want to foster a notion of sameness -- meritocracy is not derived from a misguided notion of forcibly placing all on the same footing. We can't handicap those who are ahead of us, either by stripping them of their wealth or intelligence. Rather, a meritocracy it is predicated on the theory that all deserve a chance to do with their life what they may. We all have the potential to become successful; whether we dedicate ourselves fully to this objective or not will determine our place in life. The fundamental basis in such a society is that one advances based on merit, not extraneous circumstances -- and this holds true even if one is entitled to a better education than an equally-intelligent but more poorly-educated person. Corruption is mostly innocuous in such a system and tends to occur only at the higher echelons; thus, it is unimportant.

It's not a fair race if some people start ahead of others, is it?

The classic example was when a libertarian refused to agree that (in a fully privatised capitalist nation) someone bought all the land around someones house that would qualify as a restriction of freedom. The person was free to leave their house, they argued, they would have to negotiate their way out.
Easier would be to simply specify in the initial purchasing contract a clause that would allow you uninterrupted and uninfringed use of the property. If that's a standard clause, everyone would be aware that there may be a need for someone to cross your property in order to get to theirs, and no one can buy a property with the expectation of locking someone else in.

That clause would then be enforced either by private or public police, depending on your political position.

Aside from meritocracy, few libertarians seem to be aware that crippling monopolies and information asymmetries are held off by current government intervention. The free market always drives down price, they argue but don't think of areas such as water supply.
Now, be fair. Most monopolies are state-created. Most regulation of natural monopolies is badly done. There are pretty good arguments that the extra profits made by monopolies are in fact Schumpeterian rents.

So you're hardly telling the whole story.

As for information asymmetry, the solution to that is to make information more widely available, not to regulate the hell out of everything.

Basically capitalism will result in a system like feudalism.
That's a non-sequitur.

Easier would be to simply specify in the initial purchasing contract a clause that would allow you uninterrupted and uninfringed use of the property. If that's a standard clause, everyone would be aware that there may be a need for someone to cross your property in order to get to theirs, and no one can buy a property with the expectation of locking someone else in.

If the purchase of the property around yours is done entirely independent of you then there's nothing you can put in a contract

That clause would then be enforced either by private or public police, depending on your political position.


Now, be fair. Most monopolies are state-created. Most regulation of natural monopolies is badly done. There are pretty good arguments that the extra profits made by monopolies are in fact Schumpeterian rents.

So you're hardly telling the whole story.

So you've chosen to ignore the whole point. That makes sense, because it's crippling to your argument

As for information asymmetry, the solution to that is to make information more widely available, not to regulate the hell out of everything.

Yeah, and who's going to this? :D

That's a non-sequitur.

I don't know why we bother posting arguments. Let's all right "no!" "yes!" "no!" "yes!" "incorrect" "correct". That's productive.

.

I agree with that last bit Sirmomo1, NL has a terrible habit of using vague phrase-mongering in place of real points in debate. And that itself is the point that libertarians hate because they can't answer it, that without regulation natural monopolies will eventually turn a 'free' market into a unitary one, NL's only response to your point was that 'all monopolies are created by governments' and an awkward and deliberate avoidance of the correct point made by Sirmomo1.

NL answers the information asymmetry question by saying that all information must be made available, and was rightly refuted; in actual fact if aforementioned monopoly came to power it would logically hide most information to stop any potential competition, thus Sirmomo's correct point about capitalism leading to a monopolistic mercantilistic feudalism. NL cannot refute the point that in a libertarian system the interest of natural monopoly is too drive their unfair advantage so their competitors cannot compete with them and are eliminated, so unless NL can provide a basis upon which all society can be wiped clean of all unfair advantages so we all start at the same mark -wiping out all inheritance etc (which could not be done without a government in the first place - LOL) his point remains refuted.

My question has yet to be answered also, does libertarian individual freedom extend to the extent of allowing the freedom of one company to become a monopoly and thus destroy the freedom of everyone else for choice and free competition?

If the purchase of the property around yours is done entirely independent of you then there's nothing you can put in a contract.
Sure there is. As I said, it would be a general clause, a general understanding, perhaps also enforced by the private road owners who want to maximise traffic on their roads (and therefore would make sure that the terms of their use make it possible to have as many customers as possible).

Right now, you can't sell something if you don't own it, and the law stipulates several criteria of ownership. In the case of land, that includes the right to actually get there. I don't see why that can't still be the case - remember, even anarcho-capitalism doesn't say "no law", it just says "no government law". Private courts and private police forces would dish out the law which gives them customers, which (the proponents argue, anyways) would approach an objective, fair law because otherwise half the customers would go missing.

I'm not an anarchist, but you're not being fair in your attack.

So you've chosen to ignore the whole point. That makes sense, because it's crippling to your argument.
I'm not ignoring it, I'm adding to it.

Whether or not you support anti-monopoly action depends on whether or not you think orthodox, marginal microeconomics tells you the whole story. A Schumpeterian would argue that non-natural monopolies exist because people made a good invention and did a better job than their competition. So the extra profits are the payoff of the entrepreneurial initiative the person has shown. And with time, monopolies disappear again because someone else makes an even better invention.

Shutting down that payoff would mean a reduced incentive to go out and invent stuff and deprive us of those inventions, eradicating progress in the process.

So just because someone is not in favour of a government regulating monopolies doesn't mean that person is unaware of them, or doesn't care, which was what you were originally saying.

As for natural monopolies, I think we need to approach the idea from a new angle. It is in fact impractical to have three different waterpipe systems. However, waterpipes and water provision are not one and the same thing. If an enterprise owns the pipes, it can organise a market for pipe usage, which means the final consumer faces a competitive market from which to choose.

I'm not convinced that a private company would want to simply run the pipes and organise the market (it would presumably face some regulatory constraints and little opportunity for expansion), and I'm not convinced government is actually capable of doing it without screwing everything up through pork-barrel spending and underinvestment.

I'd suggest that investors after a stable and long-term security could buy the pipe systems, because they're predictable and should provide quite steady cash flows.

Yeah, and who's going to this? :D
Bloomberg, for all I care.

I don't know why we bother posting arguments. Let's all right "no!" "yes!" "no!" "yes!" "incorrect" "correct". That's productive.
But that's what it was! You said a few things, and then came to a conclusion that had nothing to do with it. You left out a bunch of steps before you can claim that capitalism ends up as quasi-feudalism.

By the way, I don't even disagree with you if you mean pure anarcho-capitalism. But that doesn't mean you can claim whatever you want and I won't ask you to justify it, because there is some chance that your reasoning is different from mine.

NL's only response to your point was that 'all monopolies are created by governments' and an awkward and deliberate avoidance of the correct point made by Sirmomo1.
I don't think I said that. I said most monopolies are created by government, and that is true. Either they are state-companies, or they were set up as state-companies and retain their dominant position (alá Telstra) or they are protected by laws they managed to wrest out of the government.

There are very few monopolies that have actually gotten their position and are holding it through nothing but merit.

...in actual fact if aforementioned monopoly came to power it would logically hide most information to stop any potential competition...
I'm not sure you actually know what information asymmetry is. The sort of data you're talking about would either be available because it's necessary to attract investors, or really isn't the business of anyone else, including the customer.

But what we're talking about is the fact that some people don't make good decisions because they lack information, for example because they don't know there is a better product available at the next shop. Some of that you just can't help, but for example testing products and publishing lists of what is available is something the market can and does do. And if you want public exposure for your product, you can't go ahead and hide it.

And then there's the other part of information asymmetry, which is all about negotiations and whether or not their outcome is economically optimal. The three guys who won the Nobel Economics Prize this year in that area, by thinking about and designing rules for a negotiation process that lead people to release just the right amount of information to each other to get the right outcome. But whether government can actually do that - I don't think so, the guys themselves agreed that it's a theoretical matter right now, not a practical one.

My question has yet to be answered also, does libertarian individual freedom extend to the extent of allowing the freedom of one company to become a monopoly and thus destroy the freedom of everyone else for choice and free competition?
As I said, that depends on what school of libertarian thought you belong to. What they all have in common though is the acknowledgement that monopolies don't just appear out of nothing - they're either the result of consumers consistently choosing them over their competition, or government intervention.

Sarkozy seems like a prick.

Sarkozy is exactly the type of fake Capitalist that I hate. A true Capitalist president would call for eliminating his pay, not raising it because the government has no right to steal money (even if they call it by the euphemism "taxation"). Sarkozy should just admit that he is a National Socialist (Nazi) and stop pretending to be pro-market.

Sure there is. As I said, it would be a general clause, a general understanding, perhaps also enforced by the private road owners who want to maximise traffic on their roads (and therefore would make sure that the terms of their use make it possible to have as many customers as possible).
Suppose you are a private road owner who has just purchased all the roads around the house of a certain person - let's call him John Smith. Now, John Smith did not own the roads, therefore he was not able to interfere with your purchase. His house does not come equipped with a helicopter, so he cannot leave his property without crossing your property (the roads).

Since you have the right to do whatever you wish with your property and there is no government regulation, you could replace the roads around John Smith's house with a fence (after all, you have the right to build a fence on your own property, right?). This fence could have only one gate, and you could present John Smith with the following ultimatum:

"I have here a contract saying that you agree to be my personal servant until the end of your days and obey my every command. Sign it. If you do not, I will deny you access to my property; you will be trapped inside your house and you will die of starvation."

Thus, through a perfectly consensual property purchase that involved no initiation of force whatsoever, you have effectively made John Smith your slave. He can serve you, or he can die. Moreover, he cannot leave his plot of land without your permission; he is bound to the land, so perhaps a more appropriate term for his situation is serfdom.

And that, my friend, is the capitalist road to serfdom.

Why can this happen? Because property is power; property is force; property means the right to use force to prevent other people from touching the things you own. So, if you own certain key assets, you can have the power of life and death over some people.

Suppose you are a private road owner who has just purchased all the roads around the house of a certain person - let's call him John Smith.
So? John Smith's ownership contract clearly states that he has the right to go to and leave his property unimpeded. The ownership contract for the roads clearly states that adjacent property owners must be able to go to and leave their properties unimpeded, where applicable.

As I said, it's a general clause. A general understanding, required and enforced by the courts (whether public or private) in order to make sure the system can continue to work.

So? John Smith's ownership contract clearly states that he has the right to go to and leave his property unimpeded. The ownership contract for the roads clearly states that adjacent property owners must be able to go to and leave their properties unimpeded, where applicable.

As I said, it's a general clause. A general understanding, required and enforced by the courts (whether public or private) in order to make sure the system can continue to work.

You're assuming too much. John Smith only has rights to his own property and isn't involved in the purchase of the adjacent properties by the other party.

If anything, he should slash his salary.

If anything, he should slash his own neck.

Sarkozy is exactly the type of fake Capitalist that I hate. A true Capitalist president would call for eliminating his pay, not raising it because the government has no right to steal money .
This post filed under: Rant with no logical content

"I have here a contract saying that you agree to be my personal servant until the end of your days and obey my every command. Sign it. If you do not, I will deny you access to my property; you will be trapped inside your house and you will die of starvation."

Thus, through a perfectly consensual property purchase that involved no initiation of force whatsoever, you have effectively made John Smith your slave. He can serve you, or he can die. Moreover, he cannot leave his plot of land without your permission; he is bound to the land, so perhaps a more appropriate term for his situation is serfdom.

And that, my friend, is the capitalist road to serfdom.

Why can this happen? Because property is power; property is force; property means the right to use force to prevent other people from touching the things you own. So, if you own certain key assets, you can have the power of life and death over some people.
Most legal systems recognize that a contract or agreement forced under duress is invalid and unenforceable. Even in the absence of a centralized government, I doubt you could get everyone else to agree that it is a valid contract.

Contracts have to be enforced - I believe that whoever attempted something like this would find it very difficult to get any cooperation from anyone else.

This is a rather pathetic straw man.

Sarcozy is fighting for the same goal that every president or prime minister in Europe is fightining,to make the poor poorer and the rich richer.He wants the French workers to work more,with lower salaries and with fewer rights.

Fucking liberalists,half are already rich,other half are just extremely stupid.

Most legal systems recognize that a contract or agreement forced under duress is invalid and unenforceable. Even in the absence of a centralized government, I doubt you could get everyone else to agree that it is a valid contract.

Contracts have to be enforced - I believe that whoever attempted something like this would find it very difficult to get any cooperation from anyone else.

This is a rather pathetic straw man.

The owner of the house being surrounded isn't entering into any contract. The land around his house isn't his, the one buying it up is doing so from a third party.

Unless of course you want to argue that we have to get permission from third parties to purchase something?

So my question is, does a 'free' market in your opinion extend to the freedom of one company or corporation becoming the one monopoly and thus eliminating the economic freedom of everyone else?

The assertion that monopolies result in the deprivation of economic freedom among the masses is false. A company cannot hold a legally-guaranteed monopoly and all have the basic economic right to challenge such a corporation's dominance; however, if they are unable to do so because their business model is less efficient, then they will fail. That's the nature of capitalism: the strong thrive; the weak do not.

Would it not be a coerced redistribution of wealth from individual to police?

Yes, but a police force would be necessary to safeguard that wealth in the first place and establish a legal framework whereby the right to private property would be enshrined. The end, in this case, is free-market in nature; capitalism cannot exist in a moral vacuum, being bludgeoned into submission by lawless hoodlums.

Yes, but a police force would be necessary to safeguard that wealth in the first place and establish a legal framework whereby the right to private property would be enshrined. The end, in this case, is free-market in nature; capitalism cannot exist in a moral vacuum, being bludgeoned into submission by lawless hoodlums.

I don't think so. The nature of capitalism, as you said, is for the strong to survive and the weak to perish. If you're not strong enough to defend your wealth yourself, you don't deserve to have it.

What about children with terminal illnesses?

Society owes them nothing, of course.

If you're willing to make an exception because children have the potential to contribute to society in the future, shouldn't you make an exception for everyone who isn't retired?

No; it is assumed that if they have the capacity to be sufficiently productive in the future, then they can take out a loan for the amount necessary to cover their necessary, immediate expenditures. If they fail to meet this threshold, then it is unreasonable to suggest that they will certainly be able to repay the debt they will incur. The same principle does not apply to children, as their potential can only be determined through an adequate education.

I don't think so. The nature of capitalism, as you said, is for the strong to survive and the weak to perish. If you're not strong enough to defend your wealth yourself, you don't deserve to have it.

I'm referring to economic capitalism; you're talking of some horrid social variant. The two are distinct entities, as the former fosters economic growth and efficiency while the latter promotes solely physical strength while utterly disregarding the economic aspect of society.

According to your own logic, though, Jesus still isn't worthy of medical care.

Yes -- that's what my whole post was about.

You're assuming too much. John Smith only has rights to his own property and isn't involved in the purchase of the adjacent properties by the other party.
And yet, I wouldn't put it beyond the people in the community to recognise this difficulty and create a law that prevents it. It's not that big an assumption, it just requires them to think.

By the way, how would such a situation be handled at the moment? If someone buys a block of land, and someone else buys all the blocks around it, would there not be some contract clause that requires accessibility for the former?

Oh, and the contract under duress Entropic Creation meant is the slavery one the encircler tries to force on the encircled.

And yet, I wouldn't put it beyond the people in the community to recognise this difficulty and create a law that prevents it. It's not that big an assumption, it just requires them to think.

By the way, how would such a situation be handled at the moment? If someone buys a block of land, and someone else buys all the blocks around it, would there not be some contract clause that requires accessibility for the former?

Oh, and the contract under duress Entropic Creation meant is the slavery one the encircler tries to force on the encircled.

The purchase of the land around his own is technically none of his business as it is not his land that is being purchased.

And wouldn't making a law against such a practice be interfering in trade?

The purchase of the land around his own is technically none of his business as it is not his land that is being purchased.
Sure it's his business. His ownership of his land depends on his ability to access it (since that is one criterion for ownership).

So he is clearly affected. We know that once the guy is encircled, a contract pushed upon him would be signed under duress. We know the road operator has no interest in seeing potential customers cut off. We know the encircler would now have to be worried of someone encircling him in turn.

How the encircler could get any benefit out of this whole deal isn't entirely clear to me, nor why property owners would happily live with the risk of this happening when they could easily prevent it.

And wouldn't making a law against such a practice be interfering in trade?
No more than requiring a provision that there aren't any outstanding loans on the good that is being traded.

Sure it's his business. His ownership of his land depends on his ability to access it (since that is one criterion for ownership).

One criterion of ownership is the ability to exclude others' use of said property.

How the encircler could get any benefit out of this whole deal isn't entirely clear to me, nor why property owners would happily live with the risk of this happening when they could easily prevent it..

I think that if it was legal to encircle others in a libertarian state then after the first incident or first few incidents there would be standard clauses to allow others to use one's property if enclosed, but that wouldn't effect contracts dated before it becomes standard.

One criterion of ownership is the ability to exclude others' use of said property.



I think that if it was legal to encircle others in a libertarian state then after the first incident or first few incidents there would be standard clauses to allow others to use one's property if enclosed, but that wouldn't effect contracts dated before it becomes standard.

Possibly, but even in that case, those first unlucky few would be so fucked.

Possibly, but even in that case, those first unlucky few would be so fucked.

That was basically my point.

One criterion of ownership is the ability to exclude others' use of said property.
Well, let's put it this way: if someone wants to blow up a nuclear warhead on his property that would, strictly speaking, be within his rights as the owner of the property and the warhead.

But realistically, the externalities are rather extreme, and people would notice as much. Perhaps some sort of intrinsic, unbounded property right exists, but in the real world people would most likely be willing to limit their right somewhat in order to make sure their ownership won't be abruptly cut off.

I think that if it was legal to encircle others in a libertarian state then after the first incident or first few incidents there would be standard clauses to allow others to use one's property if enclosed, but that wouldn't effect contracts dated before it becomes standard.
Yes. However, contract law also contains provisions of "Common Mistake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake_%28contract_law%29)" and the like or "Force Majeure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_majeure)" clauses, which could then come into effect. If the guy bought the property (and the other guy sold it) in the expectation that there would be free access to the property, then the premises under which they signed the contract were in fact faulty and the contract could be voided.

This assumes of course that when this libertarian society starts there are no people as smart as us who think of a problem and propose solutions before it happens.

Well, let's put it this way: if someone wants to blow up a nuclear warhead on his property that would, strictly speaking, be within his rights as the owner of the property and the warhead.

But realistically, the externalities are rather extreme, and people would notice as much. Perhaps some sort of intrinsic, unbounded property right exists, but in the real world people would most likely be willing to limit their right somewhat in order to make sure their ownership won't be abruptly cut off.

If people want to limit their property rights in a libertarian society I don't see why they couldn't contractually limit their rights, but we're assuming that at least at first they don't.

Yes. However, contract law also contains provisions of "Common Mistake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake_%28contract_law%29)" and the like or "Force Majeure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_majeure)" clauses, which could then come into effect. If the guy bought the property (and the other guy sold it) in the expectation that there would be free access to the property, then the premises under which they signed the contract were in fact faulty and the contract could be voided.

I don't see how either of those binds the encircler at all. At most it means the encircled is entitled to the money he spent on his property from the previous owner. It does not bind the noncontractual party of the encircler in any way unless he was the previous owner.

This assumes of course that when this libertarian society starts there are no people as smart as us who think of a problem and propose solutions before it happens.

It assumes that most people don't plan for all possible contigencies. I would think most people would think that this situation would never happen. In any case, since we don't live in a libertarian society the point is null.

At most it means the encircled is entitled to the money he spent on his property from the previous owner.
Yes. He's not tied to the now useless property, so no one got hurt.

By the way, even if we said the two are going to negotiate, due to the fact that a contract that looks like it was signed under duress is going to end up biting you, the terms have to be quite equal. It seems that the most likely outcome would be that the encircler would become a road-provider, or enter a joint venture with the encircled to construct and run the road.

Yes. He's not tied to the now useless property, so no one got hurt.

So he's not tied. This still doesn't show that the encircler has any obligation to let him use his property. To force the encircler to let the man through one has initiated force against the encircler.

By the way, even if we said the two are going to negotiate, due to the fact that a contract that looks like it was signed under duress is going to end up biting you, the terms have to be quite equal. It seems that the most likely outcome would be that the encircler would become a road-provider, or enter a joint venture with the encircled to construct and run the road.

Given that the encircler was just enforcing his property rights I don't see how this society is not made less libertarian if the above occurs.

Given that the encircler was just enforcing his property rights I don't see how this society is not made less libertarian if the above occurs.
Look, he's not simply enforcing his property rights, he is acquiring them to hurt someone else, intentionally and for no other reason. That's the presumption here, otherwise it really is just a matter for negotation between the parties.

To finish: this is a clash of property rights, in which the ownership of one thing infringes on the ownership of another. There are three ways to sort this: either it goes in favour of the encircler, stripping the encircled of his property right; it goes the other way around; or the two negotiate and meet somewhere in the middle (both retaining the right to their property, but voluntarily offering something to the other).

None of these is necessarily morally superior to the other, but from a sheer practical, functional perspective the first way just doesn't seem like a good option. I trust people will be able to realise as much and act accordingly.

Look, he's not simply enforcing his property rights, he is acquiring them to hurt someone else, intentionally and for no other reason. That's the presumption here, otherwise it really is just a matter for negotation between the parties.

The harm the encircler is doing has nothing to do with intiating force. Buying property and excluding others from their use is perfectly consistent with libertarian principles. Coercing people into positive obligations is not.

To finish: this is a clash of property rights, in which the ownership of one thing infringes on the ownership of another. There are three ways to sort this: either it goes in favour of the encircler, stripping the encircled of his property right; it goes the other way around; or the two negotiate and meet somewhere in the middle (both retaining the right to their property, but voluntarily offering something to the other).

The encircler is not technically infringing on the encirled negative rights, He may be infringing on some political philosophy's positive rights but that has nothing to do with a libertarian society.

None of these is necessarily morally superior to the other, but from a sheer practical, functional perspective the first way just doesn't seem like a good option. I trust people will be able to realise as much and act accordingly.

I do not see them conforming to strict libertarian principles if they realise the latter.

I think this discussion has conclusively demonstrated that the libertarian answer to the encircling problem is to (hypocritically) withdraw from their defense of private property as an absolute right and concede that society (or at least a third party) may legitimately interfere in a voluntary private transaction between two individuals.

Neu Leonstein, in particular, has conceded the existence of at least two positive rights:

Well, let's put it this way: if someone wants to blow up a nuclear warhead on his property that would, strictly speaking, be within his rights as the owner of the property and the warhead.

But realistically, the externalities are rather extreme, and people would notice as much. Perhaps some sort of intrinsic, unbounded property right exists, but in the real world people would most likely be willing to limit their right somewhat in order to make sure their ownership won't be abruptly cut off.
1. The right to interfere with another person's use of their private property when this use causes negative externalities.

Sure it's his business. His ownership of his land depends on his ability to access it (since that is one criterion for ownership).

So he is clearly affected. We know that once the guy is encircled, a contract pushed upon him would be signed under duress.
2. The right to interfere with another person's use of their private property when this use enables them to tell people "be my slave or starve to death".

Right #1 justifies all sorts of regulations to protect the environment, but it is right #2 that I am most interested in.

Suppose that instead of the encircling situation, we have a small town built around a desert oasis, and the inhabitants of the town do not possess any means of transport that could take them to another water source in a reasonable amount of time. Now suppose one individual owns the sole water source in town. This individual has the power to tell all others "become my slaves or die". We are dealing with essentially the same problem as in the encircling scenario: One individual owns a piece of property, and some other individual(s) require access to this property in order to continue living.

Now, according to Neu Leonstein, any contract signed by the townsfolk agreeing to bind themselves in eternal servitude in exchange for water is a contract forced under duress, which makes it null and void. This is because they bought their houses in town with the expectation of having access to a water source.

Now suppose we replace the water source in my example with something else that is strictly required in order to live - such as, say, a source of employment of income.

And all of a sudden we have a business owner (admittedly a monopolistic business owner) with the same power of life and death over the townsfolk - "work for me or die". This looks far less like an unusual situation and far more like everyday capitalism. Yet Neu Leonstein's definition of force and duress could be extended to make the relationship between employer and employee illegitimate. Thus it would require some kind of regulatory agency, be it a formal government or informal social structures...

Whoops. So much for laissez-faire capitalism.

The French unemployment rate is so high because (in addition to myriad other socialist-initiated follies) there are a shortage of jobs due to the high wages offered by the state; the obvious means of rectifying this imbalance would be to either eliminate the state bureaucracy altogether or to significantly reduce state employees' salaries. On the other hand, there are a multitude of highly qualified people who are not running for the French presidency; one would hope to correct this deficiency by increasing the wage for the leader, thus encouraging more competent applicants for the job.

Or they could switch to a 30 hour work week and increase the mandated vacation time so that more people have to be hired to fill in the shifts

Actually, I would like a picture... If you're going to post in English, couldn't you post links in the same language?
Psh, it's not like French is a hard language to learn.

If he isn't guaranteed pay increases whenever he works hard, what motivation will he have for working hard?Motivation? the motivaton to keep his Job.

And they all want to keep it, because they all apply for re-election.

I think this discussion has conclusively demonstrated that the libertarian answer to the encircling problem is to (hypocritically) withdraw from their defense of private property as an absolute right and concede that society (or at least a third party) may legitimately interfere in a voluntary private transaction between two individuals.
I did nothing of the kind.

1. The right to interfere with another person's use of their private property when this use causes negative externalities.
I didn't say that. I said that people would be willing to behave appropriately, that is, limit the externalities they cause, in return for others doing the same. It doesn't mean that their property right doesn't exist, it means they are voluntarily acting a certain way so as to allow for peaceful coexistence with others.

The only time I would advocate an actual interference is if the use of the property is obviously such that the goal is to hurt others. If I use my gun in your direction, taking my gun away is a just measure in reaction to my violation of your right. If I want to trigger my nuke on my property, it is obvious that I am doing it to hurt those around me, so again others would seek to stop me because I am about to violate their rights.

The idea that someone would buy property just to fence someone in and make them their slave (a silly idea to start with) may or may not be construed as a direct attack on the encircled person's rights. If it is, the reaction is clear and the property right of the offender cannot be a valid defense. If it is not (unlikely enough according to the scenario), the encircler would lose nothing by finding an amicable agreement with the encircled, or by signing a contract that would contain a "free access" clause.

2. The right to interfere with another person's use of their private property when this use enables them to tell people "be my slave or starve to death".
I think I covered it above. You violate another person's life or freedom, you become a criminal and give up your rights in the process. That's why throwing someone in jail is not the same as kidnapping (in most cases).

Now suppose we replace the water source in my example with something else that is strictly required in order to live - such as, say, a source of employment of income.
Sorry, but that isn't the same thing. You don't have water and can't reach another source (and no one starts a supermarket selling drinks), you die. You can't find a job, you move. Or start a farm. Or beg, if you have to. Water is a basic necessity for survival. Work (among lots of other things) is a means to acquire such basic necessities, and there's lots of different ways of doing it. One can't have a monopoly on available work, even if one were the only employer in town. People can be self-employed.

Furthermore, this "dependency" relationship is a two-way street, and if this employer wants to make slavery a clause in his contract, he'll find himself out of employees.

And just as a side issue, there is such a thing as "economic duress" in Australian law, where the threatening of cancelling a contract or the like can count as serious enough blackmail to make a contract signed under such duress illegal. So once a contractual relationship exist, both sides may well be bound by certain rules of behaviour.

Look, on a super-basic level, contracts are valid if both sides believed that they would be better off signing it than without it, and if neither side defrauds or otherwise limits the other's ability to make that decision. That's a basic principle of a libertarian society. Courts, whether public or private, are going to operate under that basic rule, because they know perfectly well that the alternative is "might makes right" which is not what libertarianism is based on.

Whether or not one would be able to sign one's rights away, I don't know. I doubt it, because either it is held that you have the rights by virtue of being human, in which case you signing something doesn't make them go away, or that you don't have them by virtue of being human, in which case you don't have the authority to sign the contract in the first place since you don't "own" your rights and can't trade them.

Let's forget the details for a second, since I wasn't around to argue with them for a few days.

I think, taking the broader view, the last few pages have:

- Proven my point about libertarians ignoring crucial economic conditions that are held in place only by a (current) system of government that interferes with the economy.

- Shown that the likes of Neu are willing to make assumptions and leaps of faith because they've come to a conclusion and as far as they are concerned the evidence can fall in to line with that.

- Shown that no one can make a logically consistent argument for individual rights that doesn't end up with third parties interfering.

Lets do a test. Remove the 35 hour work week cap for one year and measure the nations GDP after this experiment. Then explain to people what your doing with all this extra money, crazy things like lowering taxes and lets all see if the French dont vote for it again the next year. Let the free market decide.

- Proven my point about libertarians ignoring crucial economic conditions that are held in place only by a (current) system of government that interferes with the economy.
Libertarians don't ignore that at all. They just don't necessarily agree that these crucial conditions are in fact positive ones.

- Shown that the likes of Neu are willing to make assumptions and leaps of faith because they've come to a conclusion and as far as they are concerned the evidence can fall in to line with that.
First of all, there has been no "evidence" presented in this thread by either side. None at all. It was a pure thought experiment.

Secondly, my assumptions are reasonable ones, and no one has seriously attacked them as being unrealistic or unnecessary:
Contracts signed under duress won't be enforced by a court, regardless whether private or public. A private court which enforces such contracts will soon find itself as nothing more than a bunch of mafia goons. Nonetheless, this is the weakest part of the anarcho-capitalist argument in my opinion.
Contracts can become invalid if the assumptions under which they were signed turn out to be wrong.
The reason a criminal can be punished is because he necessarily gives up the protection of his rights by violating those of others. Therefore the property right of the guy who buys property only to violate the right of another are not valid.
If it turns out that the ownership of certain pieces of property has significant negative externalities on others, it may (will, if the people of this society are smart - simply because it reduces court- and negotiation costs) become custom to include contract clauses that address this.
In all other cases, that is where the purpose of acquiring a property was not simply to hurt someone else, but where negative externalities exist nonetheless, the two parties can in fact negotiate, if neither side is so disadvantaged by the contract terms that a court would judge it to have been signed under duress.

- Shown that no one can make a logically consistent argument for individual rights that doesn't end up with third parties interfering.
I think I figured it out: you're attacking a strawman. Again.

You think that libertarianism doesn't have courts which require certain standards to be upheld, both with regards to general behaviour and with regards to contracting in particular.

It will not do so always, and it will almost certainly do it to a lesser extent than our courts to today, but a system of contracting necessarily requires a dispute resolution process if it is to work. So yes, the court is a third party, which represents not so much other people but acts in the interest of the preservation of the entire contracting system.

Contracts signed under duress won't be enforced by a court, regardless whether private or public. A private court which enforces such contracts will soon find itself as nothing more than a bunch of mafia goons. Nonetheless, this is the weakest part of the anarcho-capitalist argument in my opinion.

Duress is when force or coercion is used. The encircler does not use force or coercion in the libertarian sense of the word. Thus the contract is valid.

Contracts can become invalid if the assumptions under which they were signed turn out to be wrong.

This does not affect noncontractual third parties, ie the encircler.

The reason a criminal can be punished is because he necessarily gives up the protection of his rights by violating those of others. Therefore the property right of the guy who buys property only to violate the right of another are not valid.

Since the encircler is just invoking his right to exlude others from using his property his rights are still valid. He is not initiating force or violating anyone's rights.

If it turns out that the ownership of certain pieces of property has significant negative externalities on others, it may (will, if the people of this society are smart - simply because it reduces court- and negotiation costs) become custom to include contract clauses that address this.[/QUOTE]

Contract clauses are still not binding on noncontractual third parties unless you mean enshring it in law which is obstruction the choices of free individuals, thus initiating force, thus invalid.

In all other cases, that is where the purpose of acquiring a property was not simply to hurt someone else, but where negative externalities exist nonetheless, the two parties can in fact negotiate, if neither side is so disadvantaged by the contract terms that a court would judge it to have been signed under duress.

This seems like a great excuse for government intervention. A terminally ill patient spends an inordinate amount of money to be cured by a technique that is a trade secret. A judge declares that since the ill guy was so disadvantaged by the contract terms, lets say that the rate of return was extremely high, that it was signed under duress. Thus the ill guy gets a substantial refund.

Just a step away a labor law that illegalizea firing of wokers trying to form a union. It makes up for the uneven bargaining positions of labor to captial.

Duress is when force or coercion is used. The encircler does not use force or coercion in the libertarian sense of the word. Thus the contract is valid.
Recall the original scenario: he buys the land, then tells the other guy "sign or starve". He is threatening to take away a right the victim would otherwise have had.

This does not affect noncontractual third parties, ie the encircler.
No, but it means that buying the land just to fence the other guy in is not going to be successful, since the other guy would no longer be tied to the property.

Since the encircler is just invoking his right to exlude others from using his property his rights are still valid. He is not initiating force or violating anyone's rights.
Of course he is. He is violating the other guy's right to use access his property.

Contract clauses are still not binding on noncontractual third parties unless you mean enshring it in law which is obstruction the choices of free individuals, thus initiating force, thus invalid.
The clause would be something like this:

"The buyer agrees not to restrict the owners and/or users of the following properties from accessing them:
.............
.............
............."

Where there is a risk of someone being encircled (not that I can see a scenario in which this would be the case, by the way), the clause would be added. The encircler would lose nothing, unless his intention was to encircle the other guy. I don't see how the obstruction is any more than the obstruction of the individual's choice to kidnap someone else. The intention is there, as is the cause-effect relationship. Whether I use my land property or my gun property to hurt you, it's still being used as a weapon.

Sure, the clause doesn't have to be added. But in that case the encircled could sue, asking either for his own ownership to be annulled, or a court ruling requiring his own ownership to be enforced. If the court finds that the encircler has no reasonable claim to absolutely require the encircled to be encircled (and he wouldn't have), the encircled will win the case.

And to avoid all this, it might just be easier to simply have a clause like this in the contract. Or, alternatively, sign a seperate contract between the encircler and the encircled that precisely specifies the rights and obligations of both sides. Either way, in no way, shape or form would the encircler get an advantage out of buying this fence-shaped property as opposed to one with a different shape.

I think we need to specify this a bit further: Is the encircler buying the property because he wants to encircle someone, or is he buying it for another reason and the encirclement just happens accidentally as an externality? The implications are quite different.

A judge declares that since the ill guy was so disadvantaged by the contract terms, lets say that the rate of return was extremely high, that it was signed under duress.
The same thing could happen today. I'm not requiring the courts to work any differently than they do now - the judiciary is the only part of government I have enough confidence in to pretty much leave alone.

Of course, it generally doesn't happen. If you can find a case to the contrary, I'd be happy to stand corrected, but the courts don't generally presume to know fair rates of return and aren't required by law to know them.

But in principle, it is possible. Whether it is economically efficient depends on whether or not the court is any good at what it does (if Dr. Posner is the judge, it probably would be). Whether or not it is morally correct depends on your standpoint and maybe you really want a special exception to be made to the rules on duress - but at least it would work without it.

I dont see whats so bad about him? The State does spend too much. If France is anything like the US, you could fire 50% of all civil servants and NO-ONE would even notice. So i agree there too. Pay more for healthcare? Cry me a river for one of the most pampered cradle to grave healthcare system in the world. You should be paying more.

I watched him on 60 minutes and he wants to remove the law that prevents French people from working more then 35 hours a week. The lazy French workers are going apeshit over it and most of the French people in general support it. I say well done and welcome to the first world.

And as far as his salary, the amount most politicians get paid are ludicriously low when you look at the amount of money they handle and compare it to CEOs of companies that deal with the tiniest fraction of the budget that they deal with. Ive always been a firm believer of you get the talent levels you pay for.

Wow. Seconded. :D
At least they have cradle to grave health care. I'm sick of the every man for himself attitude in the States.
Not only that but 35 hours a week is absolutely nothing compared to many American's work schedules, with full-time college I work about that much..:p (Probably a good 30.)

Recall the original scenario: he buys the land, then tells the other guy "sign or starve". He is threatening to take away a right the victim would otherwise have had.

[...]

Of course he is. He is violating the other guy's right to use access his property.



I think these two statements are extremely interesting considering the libertarian idea of positive and negative rights.

Just goes to show how greedy we are, sacrificing all for the sake of items.

I think this discussion has conclusively demonstrated that the libertarian answer to the encircling problem is to (hypocritically) withdraw from their defense of private property as an absolute right and concede that society (or at least a third party) may legitimately interfere in a voluntary private transaction between two individuals.


The other way I like to get this out is to ask what would happen if a thousand dollar nuclear bomb was developed.

I think these two statements are extremely interesting considering the libertarian idea of positive and negative rights.
Well, the thing about owning property is that simply having a piece of paper saying so isn't the whole thing. There are some positive rights associated with ownership. If you have a paper saying you own the moon, that doesn't mean you actually do - you basically fulfill one of many criteria of ownership.

So yes, denying the guy access is a violation of a positive freedom. But it also takes away the guy's right to own his property, which is a violation of negative freedom.

Make of that what you will. And by the way, as a libertarian I'm not one saying positive freedom doesn't exist or doesn't matter. I just don't think that the state or society or anyone in particular can realistically expected to create it without significantly hurting others. I have never heard a good justification for doing that to innocent people, I have never heard why some would be considered so important that you sacrifice others for their sake.

Well, the thing about owning property is that simply having a piece of paper saying so isn't the whole thing. There are some positive rights associated with ownership. If you have a paper saying you own the moon, that doesn't mean you actually do - you basically fulfill one of many criteria of ownership.

So yes, denying the guy access is a violation of a positive freedom. But it also takes away the guy's right to own his property, which is a violation of negative freedom.

And you know what else is associated with ownership? The ability to deny someone access if you so choose. If access is part of the right then the right to choose who goes on your property sure as hell is too. In this context heir 'rights' are mutually exclusive. Which would seem to mean... they aren't rights at all.

Make of that what you will. And by the way, as a libertarian I'm not one saying positive freedom doesn't exist or doesn't matter. I just don't think that the state or society or anyone in particular can realistically expected to create it without significantly hurting others. I have never heard a good justification for doing that to innocent people, I have never heard why some would be considered so important that you sacrifice others for their sake.

Well this is madness. There is a pot of money owned by a man: with that pot he can buy four jaguars and save a childs life through surgery or with that pot he can say 'screw the child' and get all five jaguars. Yeah, it's much better the man gets the fifth jaguar or else that would tragic.


.

And you know what else is associated with ownership? The ability to deny someone access if you so choose. If access is part of the right then the right to choose who goes on your property sure as hell is too. In this context heir 'rights' are mutually exclusive. Which would seem to mean... they aren't rights at all.
Well, they are mutually exclusive if they both want to exercise all their rights. However, my right to buy a $1000 nuclear weapon and blow it up in my room and the right of others to life and property are also mutually exclusive. So either no one has a right to life and property, or I don't have the right to blow up a nuke in my room. The general answer is to establish that it was in fact me who caused any rights violation to occur in the first place, and to curtail my ability to do so. So as I said, it all depends on the intention of the encircler, because that determines how this property is used.

If he doesn't actually want to hurt the encircled guy, he won't lose anything by letting him cross his property. He would still have the right, but he would be happy to trade it, either for free because he's nice or for money because he could - to an extent, because otherwise it will become duress.

If he did buy the property only to hurt the encircled guy, it would be out of the question for him to allow that guy to cross it. But then he didn't actually buy it for a good reason, he bought it as a weapon. Whether I buy a pistol to shoot you or this land to fence you in comes down to the same thing. And in that case, I don't make it a secret that by endeavouring to hurt the encircled, the encircler gives up the right to this property, just like a murderer gives up most of his rights.

Well this is madness. There is a pot of money owned by a man: with that pot he can buy four jaguars and save a childs life through surgery or with that pot he can say 'screw the child' and get all five jaguars. Yeah, it's much better the man gets the fifth jaguar or else that would tragic.
That's what I mean with "I've never seen a good argument". They're always appeals to emotion, or appeals to "common sense" (there's no such thing, sense is an individual thing, we aren't telepathic) which end up with "Well, fine, we can just take the pot, it's all the poor against that rich guy".

The only thing that I can think of right now that would make sense is to talk about marginal utilities to money, and take a utilitarian stance. But that's a two-way street, and the implications scared the hell out of me when I was still a lefty, so I stayed well away from that argument.

Well, they are mutually exclusive if they both want to exercise all their rights. However, my right to buy a $1000 nuclear weapon and blow it up in my room and the right of others to life and property are also mutually exclusive. So either no one has a right to life and property, or I don't have the right to blow up a nuke in my room. The general answer is to establish that it was in fact me who caused any rights violation to occur in the first place, and to curtail my ability to do so. So as I said, it all depends on the intention of the encircler, because that determines how this property is used.

My example doesn't let you off that easy I'm afraid. It's not about whether you're allowed to set a nuclear device off (that you are not is at least one thing we all agree on) but whether or not you should be allowed to own such a devestating piece of equipment. I.e can we interfere with individual rights or are they sacred? You've already shown that you think you can intervene (see below). Once we establish that individuality rights aren't sacred it becomes a lot tougher to say things like 'taxes are stealing'.

If he doesn't actually want to hurt the encircled guy, he won't lose anything by letting him cross his property. He would still have the right, but he would be happy to trade it, either for free because he's nice or for money because he could - to an extent, because otherwise it will become duress.

If he did buy the property only to hurt the encircled guy, it would be out of the question for him to allow that guy to cross it. But then he didn't actually buy it for a good reason, he bought it as a weapon. Whether I buy a pistol to shoot you or this land to fence you in comes down to the same thing. And in that case, I don't make it a secret that by endeavouring to hurt the encircled, the encircler gives up the right to this property, just like a murderer gives up most of his rights.

For someone who is so keen on absolutes that he sees the view (stated below) that a childs life is worth more than the difference between a man owning four and five jaguars as too subjective, 'an extent' is awfully vague. Who decides the 'extent'? Who decides 'intent'? What price is too much? Isn't the whole notion of paying for access based on the idea that they can deny that access to you (or else, why pay?)?

By the way, I've been quite generous. Your "access being a part of ownership" thing is extremely questionable but I've gone along with it.

That's what I mean with "I've never seen a good argument". They're always appeals to emotion, or appeals to "common sense" (there's no such thing, sense is an individual thing, we aren't telepathic) which end up with "Well, fine, we can just take the pot, it's all the poor against that rich guy".

Then make an argument for law, for having a police force. You'll end up with appeals to "common sense" and "emotion" only you'll call them "rights"

The only thing that I can think of right now that would make sense is to talk about marginal utilities to money, and take a utilitarian stance. But that's a two-way street, and the implications scared the hell out of me when I was still a lefty, so I stayed well away from that argument.

.

My example doesn't let you off that easy I'm afraid. It's not about whether you're allowed to set a nuclear device off (that you are not is at least one thing we all agree on) but whether or not you should be allowed to own such a devestating piece of equipment. I.e can we interfere with individual rights or are they sacred?
This is a balancing act, and you know it. Yes, in principle I would support people's right to own a nuclear weapon. Yes, I also realise that once you own it, there is a big chance that no one will be able to stop you from setting it off.

The point for is clear, the point against is too. There is not much more I can say about this: whether or not you'd be happy to take the risk depends entirely on how absolute you are about property rights (as does your stance on the encircling business, ultimately). I am an absolutist when it comes to the existence of property rights, but not when it comes to the exercise of them - in other words, since we don't live in a vaccuum I think it reasonable for people to conform to certain rules of behaviour (ie accept limits on their exercise of their potential property rights) when they make as obvious sense as a rule about nuclear weapons.

You've already shown that you think you can intervene (see below). Once we establish that individuality rights aren't sacred it becomes a lot tougher to say things like 'taxes are stealing'.
Not really. The thing with my laws is: they're based on something. It's something pretty simple, it doesn't require any leaps of faith or predetermined assumptions. If I accept that I'm not allowed to buy a live nuke, I also benefit because no one will detonate one next door. It's an obvious rule that benefits me directly.

I already said that I'm not an anarchist. I'm a proponent of a nightwatchman state, which will have to be at least partly funded by compulsory taxes. The difference between that and the current system is that the only compulsory items on your tax bill will be those that benefit you directly, those that you cannot realistically opt out of. At the moment, probably 80 or more percent of the taxes you pay go to programs and agencies that you don't need and which only benefit other people. You are not asked whether you want this or not, you're not even told what you pay for.

So would my taxes be stealing? Strictly speaking: yes. But there is a reason for it, and the alternative would either be complete anarchy (Mogadishu style) or a freeloader problem of gigantic proportions.

Are the current taxes stealing? Definitely. The difference is that right now no one bothers with even acknowledging it, thereby foregoing any need to justify it. In my system, the state would know where the money comes from and it would be limited to using the money to benefit those who pay for it. Right now, the state denies that a connection between the money and the person who earns it even exists.

For someone who is so keen on absolutes that he sees the view (stated below) that a childs life is worth more than the difference between a man owning four and five jaguars as too subjective, 'an extent' is awfully vague. Who decides the 'extent'? Who decides 'intent'? What price is too much? Isn't the whole notion of paying for access based on the idea that they can deny that access to you (or else, why pay?)?
The court does. It does it right now too. As I said, whether that court is public or private isn't really important, the rules couldn't change much (provided a market for courts works).

By the way, I've been quite generous. Your "access being a part of ownership" thing is extremely questionable but I've gone along with it.
Land ownership is all about allowing you to use some piece of land to do something free of interference from others, who might have different ideas about what to do with the land. Correct?

So it is made up of a few things. There is the right to exclude others, there is also the right to "use" the land, which necessarily requires the right to access it. Even if you bought a piece of land as an investment and never set a foot on it, eventually you want to sell it to someone so they can put a house there or something. If you sell them something that does not include right of access, your ownership has no value.

Then make an argument for law, for having a police force. You'll end up with appeals to "common sense" and "emotion" only you'll call them "rights"
You guys have been making the argument for law and policing for me. People have disagreements, and without a dispute resolution procedure based on some consistent decisionmaking and -enforcing by a third party, it will be up to the two people to sort the disagreement out themselves. Unless the two are purely rational people who agree to disagree and then set out to see whether reality proves one of them right (and that is only possible in some disputes, not in the one about the land...although one might question whether the dispute would even arise between purely rational people), there is no way of getting a settlement either way without force. Of course, the police also applies force, but at least it does it consistently, it is limited and people know what to expect, while force by one party against the other just means we'll have warlords bashing the shit out of each other and no freedom at all.

Recall the original scenario: he buys the land, then tells the other guy "sign or starve". He is threatening to take away a right the victim would otherwise have had.

There is no libertarian right not to starve.

No, but it means that buying the land just to fence the other guy in is not going to be successful, since the other guy would no longer be tied to the property.

If the encircled is not bound to the property that still does not give him the right

Of course he is. He is violating the other guy's right to use access his property.

One does not have the right to access one's property if to access it one has to violate other's rights to exclude others from theirs.


The clause would be something like this:

"The buyer agrees not to restrict the owners and/or users of the following properties from accessing them:
.............
.............
............."

Where there is a risk of someone being encircled (not that I can see a scenario in which this would be the case, by the way), the clause would be added. The encircler would lose nothing, unless his intention was to encircle the other guy. I don't see how the obstruction is any more than the obstruction of the individual's choice to kidnap someone else. The intention is there, as is the cause-effect relationship. Whether I use my land property or my gun property to hurt you, it's still being used as a weapon.

Sure, the clause doesn't have to be added. But in that case the encircled could sue, asking either for his own ownership to be annulled, or a court ruling requiring his own ownership to be enforced. If the court finds that the encircler has no reasonable claim to absolutely require the encircled to be encircled (and he wouldn't have), the encircled will win the case.

And to avoid all this, it might just be easier to simply have a clause like this in the contract. Or, alternatively, sign a seperate contract between the encircler and the encircled that precisely specifies the rights and obligations of both sides. Either way, in no way, shape or form would the encircler get an advantage out of buying this fence-shaped property as opposed to one with a different shape.

I think we need to specify this a bit further: Is the encircler buying the property because he wants to encircle someone, or is he buying it for another reason and the encirclement just happens accidentally as an externality? The implications are quite different.

Both minus the accidentally part, I presume.

The same thing could happen today. I'm not requiring the courts to work any differently than they do now - the judiciary is the only part of government I have enough confidence in to pretty much leave alone.

Of course, it generally doesn't happen. If you can find a case to the contrary, I'd be happy to stand corrected, but the courts don't generally presume to know fair rates of return and aren't required by law to know them.

But in principle, it is possible. Whether it is economically efficient depends on whether or not the court is any good at what it does (if Dr. Posner is the judge, it probably would be). Whether or not it is morally correct depends on your standpoint and maybe you really want a special exception to be made to the rules on duress - but at least it would work without it.

Voiding the slave contract is fixing a fair rate of return. Apparently zero.

I will look into finding a court case that does fix a fair rate of return.

The French Republic has grown lax, back in the day if a politician ever displayed this kind of reactionary and conservative attitude he would be shot in the face or guillotined by the Jacobins, as all reactionaries should be.