Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

anarcho-capitalism: I need your help

darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2011 1:18:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm taking an economics and the law class. There is a lot of class discussions in it. Just for the fun of it, I feel like taking the position of an anarcho-capitalist, so I need some literature that comes up with good arguments for it.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2011 2:44:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you read only one thing:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2011 2:51:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you'd like to read more than one thing:

Chapter 12 of For a New Liberty ('Police, Law, and the Courts') http://mises.org...

Anarchic law http://randybarnett.com...

Ch. 10 of http://mises.org... (national defense and public goods theory) This one would probably be extremely helpful if it's an economics class, as public goods theory is the usual justification for government intervention.

National Defense http://mises.org...
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2011 4:01:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Either way, anarcho-capitalism fails but anarcho-technocracy on the other hand can work but not anarcho-capitalism.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2011 7:12:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/9/2011 5:41:19 PM, Sieben wrote:
The whole question of national defense is totally moot. See the existence of microstates.

Like Costa Rica?
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2011 7:41:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/9/2011 7:12:42 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 2/9/2011 5:41:19 PM, Sieben wrote:
The whole question of national defense is totally moot. See the existence of microstates.

Like Costa Rica?

Like Monaco. Like iceland. Like every country that COULD be taken over by one of the superpowers but for some strange reason isn't.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2011 7:50:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
How much are you willing to read? I mean, I have book recommendations but if you only want articles and things you can skim through quickly, then that should be pretty sufficient.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2011 9:20:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/9/2011 7:50:02 PM, annhasle wrote:
How much are you willing to read? I mean, I have book recommendations but if you only want articles and things you can skim through quickly, then that should be pretty sufficient.

I'll probably only read articles. It depends how satisfactory the articles can answer economic problems and how well I can defend myself in a debate. Mainly on why anarchy is superior at solving market failures rather then government.

Just for the record I'm not anarcho-capitalist. I just like playing devil's advocate.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2011 9:29:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/9/2011 9:20:32 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/9/2011 7:50:02 PM, annhasle wrote:
How much are you willing to read? I mean, I have book recommendations but if you only want articles and things you can skim through quickly, then that should be pretty sufficient.

I'll probably only read articles. It depends how satisfactory the articles can answer economic problems and how well I can defend myself in a debate. Mainly on why anarchy is superior at solving market failures rather then government.
Caplan points out that government is really just a political market. So there are market failures inside and outside of politics.

Extra-political market failures might be the inability to provide public goods like roads or something. Political market failures might be failure of the electorate to control their representatives.

See the critique of democracy here http://www.cato-unbound.org...

So basic statist logic relies on showing how incentives of participants lead to failure, but those same incentives lead to even worse failure under statism.

Just for the record I'm not anarcho-capitalist. I just like playing devil's advocate.
Booo.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2011 3:05:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/9/2011 7:41:37 PM, Sieben wrote:

Like Monaco. Like iceland. Like every country that COULD be taken over by one of the superpowers but for some strange reason isn't.

Monaco and Iceland have national defense; Costa Rica does not. You said that national defense is totally moot, but there are plenty of nations that would be taken over without military support. South Korea would be gone without a sophisticated military, Costa Rica is currently having border issues with Nicaragua, and Iran might attack Israel without the fear of severe repercussions, etc.

Sure, some nations don't always require large scale national defense, but the question is not totally moot; that's for sure.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2011 3:25:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/10/2011 3:05:02 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 2/9/2011 7:41:37 PM, Sieben wrote:

Like Monaco. Like iceland. Like every country that COULD be taken over by one of the superpowers but for some strange reason isn't.

Monaco and Iceland have national defense; Costa Rica does not. You said that national defense is totally moot, but there are plenty of nations that would be taken over without military support. South Korea would be gone without a sophisticated military, Costa Rica is currently having border issues with Nicaragua, and Iran might attack Israel without the fear of severe repercussions, etc.

Sure, some nations don't always require large scale national defense, but the question is not totally moot; that's for sure.

Oh right its not totally moot because "what if you needed national defense". Superb reasoning.

What I meant of course was that asymmetries in power don't lead to automatically being taken over. Indeed, countries with tiny militaries may as well have no national defense at all, so something else must be keeping them safe.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2011 3:31:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/10/2011 3:05:02 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 2/9/2011 7:41:37 PM, Sieben wrote:

Like Monaco. Like iceland. Like every country that COULD be taken over by one of the superpowers but for some strange reason isn't.

Monaco and Iceland have national defense; Costa Rica does not. You said that national defense is totally moot, but there are plenty of nations that would be taken over without military support. South Korea would be gone without a sophisticated military, Costa Rica is currently having border issues with Nicaragua, and Iran might attack Israel without the fear of severe repercussions, etc.

Sure, some nations don't always require large scale national defense, but the question is not totally moot; that's for sure.

That's actually one of the major flaws of Anarcho-Capitalism in my eyes. Obviously, without a state there's not much in the way of military and there are many countries, as you said, that would cease to exist without proper military protection.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2011 3:36:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think a lot of people have posted articles on how you could do large scale defense under ancap. I'm just saying its not a particularly important.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2011 3:48:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/10/2011 3:25:41 PM, Sieben wrote:

Oh right its not totally moot because "what if you needed national defense". Superb reasoning.

What I meant of course was that asymmetries in power don't lead to automatically being taken over. Indeed, countries with tiny militaries may as well have no national defense at all, so something else must be keeping them safe.

Typically, it's the bigger nations that do have national defense whom provide that protection. But, you're forgetting that there are more often squabbles in between smaller nations, such as North and South Korea, or Costa Rica and Nicaragua. It isn't just a matter of everyone having to defend themselves against the US or China; if that was the case, then it would be moot to even pay for national defense.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2011 3:53:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/10/2011 3:48:20 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

Typically, it's the bigger nations that do have national defense whom provide that protection. But, you're forgetting that there are more often squabbles in between smaller nations, such as North and South Korea, or Costa Rica and Nicaragua. It isn't just a matter of everyone having to defend themselves against the US or China; if that was the case, then it would be moot to even pay for national defense.

You should ask why there are squabbles and why the nations resort to warfare instead of something less economically retarded. Hint: they are states.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2011 4:00:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/10/2011 3:53:23 PM, Sieben wrote:

You should ask why there are squabbles and why the nations resort to warfare instead of something less economically retarded. Hint: they are states.

With Costa Rica, it's because there's a dispute over natural resources -- a river in particular. With South Korea, it's because Kim Jong Ill is a psychopath. With Israel, it's because Ahmadinajad is partially nuts and mostly because Israel is a Jewish state that was slammed on Palestine in 1947, which is currently under apartheid.

The reasons vary, but the point is that when it comes down to it, national defense is not universally moot by any stretch of the imagination.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2011 4:55:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/10/2011 4:00:12 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 2/10/2011 3:53:23 PM, Sieben wrote:

With Costa Rica, it's because there's a dispute over natural resources -- a river in particular.
Do you remember my discourse about natural goods vs produced goods? Relevant.

With South Korea, it's because Kim Jong Ill is a psychopath.
And if aliens invaded you'd need defense against them too.

With Israel, it's because Ahmadinajad is partially nuts and mostly because Israel is a Jewish state that was slammed on Palestine in 1947, which is currently under apartheid.
If Isreal desired peace they'd probably just leave and relocate to Iowa. But they want their land. Another natural resource. We don't like to play zero sum games in anarchy... its not particularly efficient.

The reasons vary, but the point is that when it comes down to it, national defense is not universally moot by any stretch of the imagination.
I didn't say it was universally moot. NOTHING is universally moot. Maybe child molestation could save the world for some stupid reason. Of course I am speaking practically.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2011 6:36:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/9/2011 9:29:59 PM, Sieben wrote:
See the critique of democracy here http://www.cato-unbound.org...

But that has nothing to do with what you were talking about. That's about how stupid voters are and the reasons for it, not the political market or the independence of representatives. Caplan was obviously correct in his uncontroversial assertion that laymen know less than experts, but he failed to turn it into a convincing argument for capitalism. His inquiry into why voters are less rational than consumers is like the inquiry into why a bowl of water with a goldfish in it weighs no more than one without: I doubt the premise! Even his single example, alcohol abuse, is actually a counterexample: the average member of his electorate of interest, independently of socioeconomic rank, does abuse alcohol. That such excess which is uncontroversially irrational from a health standpoint is irrational from any standpoint may not be obvious to cheerleaders like Caplan, but it's certainly obvious to the recipents of his cheers: the capitalists, in this case the advertisers who consciously and necessarily appeal to irrationality, which is to say make irrational. Also, the implied premise that voting defines leftism, exchange defining capitalism, is false. Shareholders vote, though they often trade their votes for bigger shares (democrats aren't, as a rule, against vote-trading, which, taken to its logical conclusion, removes the crux of Caplan's argument, the uncertainty, from voting). And it's only the social democrats who assume capitalism and therefore political solutions to its inevitable crises and inequities; participatory planning, by contrast, entirely reconceives markets such that the crises and inequities don't arise in the first place.

So basic statist logic relies on showing how incentives of participants lead to failure, but those same incentives lead to even worse failure under statism.

What incentives? The source you provided doesn't charge statism with perverse incentives.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2011 6:46:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/10/2011 6:36:50 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 2/9/2011 9:29:59 PM, Sieben wrote:
See the critique of democracy here http://www.cato-unbound.org...

But that has nothing to do with what you were talking about. That's about how stupid voters are and the reasons for it, not the political market or the independence of representatives. Caplan was obviously correct in his uncontroversial assertion that laymen know less than experts, but he failed to turn it into a convincing argument for capitalism.

The article is not a constructive of capitalism. That's why I said "for the critique of democracy, see here"

His inquiry into why voters are less rational than consumers is like the inquiry into why a bowl of water with a goldfish in it weighs no more than one without: I doubt the premise! Even his single example, alcohol abuse, is actually a counterexample: the average member of his electorate of interest, independently of socioeconomic rank, does abuse alcohol.
Okay. But his point is that there is an actual force to stop people from becoming acoholics - i.e. its negative effects. So if they're not paying attention, they'll get screwed. But if you aren't paying attention in politics, the outcome is basically the same as it was before.

That such excess which is uncontroversially irrational from a health standpoint is irrational from any standpoint may not be obvious to cheerleaders like Caplan, but it's certainly obvious to the recipents of his cheers: the capitalists, in this case the advertisers who consciously and necessarily appeal to irrationality, which is to say make irrational.
Okay. Alcohol is bad for your health. That doesn't mean its a poor choice.

Also, the implied premise that voting defines leftism, exchange defining capitalism, is false. Shareholders vote, though they often trade their votes for bigger shares (democrats aren't, as a rule, against vote-trading, which, taken to its logical conclusion, removes the crux of Caplan's argument, the uncertainty, from voting). And it's only the social democrats who assume capitalism and therefore political solutions to its inevitable crises and inequities;
Actually Caplan thinks that capitalism is a system of private property rights. What people choose to do WITHIN those property rights is always capitalist. So a bunch of hippies smoking pot in their back yard voting on who should be the leader of their tribe is "capitalist".

participatory planning, by contrast, entirely reconceives markets such that the crises and inequities don't arise in the first place.
Oh good. You've decided to use the "can" argument. Congratulations on descending to the level of thought where game theory, institutional analysis, and public choice theory doesn't exist.

So basic statist logic relies on showing how incentives of participants lead to failure, but those same incentives lead to even worse failure under statism.

What incentives? The source you provided doesn't charge statism with perverse incentives.

The incentives of voters to not pay attention and vote irrationally.
The incentives of state actors to abuse their power. Cus you know, they have the power of the state.
The incentives of narrow interests to co opt the state in the face of an impotent voter base.

etc etc

And btw? Thanks for a giant TLDR rant. Next time you might consider paragraphs.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2011 10:44:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/10/2011 3:31:39 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/10/2011 3:05:02 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 2/9/2011 7:41:37 PM, Sieben wrote:

Like Monaco. Like iceland. Like every country that COULD be taken over by one of the superpowers but for some strange reason isn't.

Monaco and Iceland have national defense; Costa Rica does not. You said that national defense is totally moot, but there are plenty of nations that would be taken over without military support. South Korea would be gone without a sophisticated military, Costa Rica is currently having border issues with Nicaragua, and Iran might attack Israel without the fear of severe repercussions, etc.

Sure, some nations don't always require large scale national defense, but the question is not totally moot; that's for sure.

That's actually one of the major flaws of Anarcho-Capitalism in my eyes. Obviously, without a state there's not much in the way of military and there are many countries, as you said, that would cease to exist without proper military protection.

Here, let me post this (even though LF did on the FIRST PAGE): http://mises.org...
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2011 11:21:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/10/2011 6:46:05 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 2/10/2011 6:36:50 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
But that has nothing to do with what you were talking about. That's about how stupid voters are and the reasons for it, not the political market or the independence of representatives. Caplan was obviously correct in his uncontroversial assertion that laymen know less than experts, but he failed to turn it into a convincing argument for capitalism.

The article is not a constructive of capitalism. That's why I said "for the critique of democracy, see here"

But the topic is anarcho-capitalism, not democracy and certainly not its narrow definition by you/Caplan.

His inquiry into why voters are less rational than consumers is like the inquiry into why a bowl of water with a goldfish in it weighs no more than one without: I doubt the premise! Even his single example, alcohol abuse, is actually a counterexample: the average member of his electorate of interest, independently of socioeconomic rank, does abuse alcohol.
Okay. But his point is that there is an actual force to stop people from becoming acoholics - i.e. its negative effects. So if they're not paying attention, they'll get screwed. But if you aren't paying attention in politics, the outcome is basically the same as it was before.

Only if the given office basically has no power, in which case the decision is as unimportant as how to spend $0, the irrationality is basically rational, and others have basically no reason to complain; or if the basic democratic principle of free nomination of candidates is being violated, in which case the decision is as unimportant as whether to excessively drink Budweiser or excessively drink Coors, or if the basic democratic principle of allocation of votes in proportion to affectedness is being violated, in either of which cases the given voter is again being basically rationally irrational and others have reason to complain about the violation of democratic principles only.

If, on the other hand, the given office does have power (say, power comparable to the combined capitalists), and that power is over the given voter as well as others, and nomination is unrestricted, the given voter has, in having the power of the office divided by the number of votes (an intuitive truism that's unsurprisingly game theoretically sound) substantial power (continuing with the above example, power comparable to that of average wealth). That his power is divided between a small probability of having all the power (being critical to the outcome) and a large probability of having none makes no difference to the expected value of the vote (thus the incentive to be rational about it) until we factor in risk aversion. But even risk aversion is only relevant if votes aren't allowed to be traded (in elections, they aren't; in legislatures and shareholders' meetings, they are). If votes are allowed to be traded, exhaustive negotiation eliminates the uncertainty and turns that commodity the vote into one having more in common with money than either has with lottery tickets.

That such excess which is uncontroversially irrational from a health standpoint is irrational from any standpoint may not be obvious to cheerleaders like Caplan, but it's certainly obvious to the recipents of his cheers: the capitalists, in this case the advertisers who consciously and necessarily appeal to irrationality, which is to say make irrational.
Okay. Alcohol is bad for your health. That doesn't mean its a poor choice.

If drinking alcohol in the quantities it's currently drunk in weren't irrational, money wouldn't be wasted on suggestive advertising (lest those other market agents, the advertisers, be open to the accusation of irrationality). The mere fact of its rationality would be enough to pursuade, and advertising would be a matter of information. You might call it competition between brands, but that means people are irrationally choosing between brands. You might say the different brands are basically the same, but that means the existence of different brands, the duplicate infrastrure and competitive advertising, is a waste. Anyway, the rationality of present levels of the consumption of addictive substances generally is contradicted by the consumers themselves, who embarrassingly admit when surveyed that they want to cut down or quit. Participatory planning facilitates such rational action without dictating it; capitalism does not.

Also, the implied premise that voting defines leftism, exchange defining capitalism, is false. Shareholders vote, though they often trade their votes for bigger shares (democrats aren't, as a rule, against vote-trading, which, taken to its logical conclusion, removes the crux of Caplan's argument, the uncertainty, from voting). And it's only the social democrats who assume capitalism and therefore political solutions to its inevitable crises and inequities;
Actually Caplan thinks that capitalism is a system of private property rights. What people choose to do WITHIN those property rights is always capitalist. So a bunch of hippies smoking pot in their back yard voting on who should be the leader of their tribe is "capitalist".

That's my point. For Caplan's argument to be relevant to the topic at hand, it would have to focus on (permanent) private property rights. For the reason you mention, a vote's infrequency of being effective relative to money (or, in collectivist economics, credits) has nothing to do private property rights.

participatory planning, by contrast, entirely reconceives markets such that the crises and inequities don't arise in the first place.
Oh good. You've decided to use the "can" argument. Congratulations on descending to the level of thought where game theory, institutional analysis, and public choice theory doesn't exist.

I'm very well-versed in game theory in particular, which is why your/Caplan's analysis stuck out like a sore thumb. So your ceasing to theory-drop and commensing with explaining (game theoretically in particular) the fallacy of participatory economics, were you really able to do so, would certainly be met with reading and comprehension.

The incentives of voters to not pay attention and vote irrationally.

In case you don't get the picture yet, any such "incentive" lies in the vote's worthlessness, as in a small sum of money, and is proportional to the "incentive" for its potential (a potential that's corrrespondingly unlikely to be actualized) victims not to care.

The incentives of state actors to abuse their power. Cus you know, they have the power of the state.

You mean the so-called "monopoly on violence"? What monopoly? Last time I checked there were countless "monopolies", one for each of the estates called territories. Abolish the states, thus the territories, and you only unleash the middle management, the Blackwaters and soforth. To simply end the power of the state, which without exception evolved from something smaller and more numerous (as surely as we evolved from bacteria), is at once to elevate those living fossils of its former self to states, which is not an absolute term but a relative one: highest level boss.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2011 11:44:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/10/2011 4:55:47 PM, Sieben wrote:

Do you remember my discourse about natural goods vs produced goods? Relevant.

Yeah, but reality is devouring your discourse in this case. The river is a natural resource, and Nicaragua wants it.

And if aliens invaded you'd need defense against them too.

Don't be ridiculous. This is not hypothetical; the only thing holding Kim Jong Ill back is a harsh military response -- being destroyed.

If Isreal desired peace they'd probably just leave and relocate to Iowa. But they want their land. Another natural resource. We don't like to play zero sum games in anarchy... its not particularly efficient.

Yeah, and if South Korea wanted peace, they could just relocate to Kansas. Should everyone who's challenged or threatened just give up their land? No.

I didn't say it was universally moot. NOTHING is universally moot. Maybe child molestation could save the world for some stupid reason. Of course I am speaking practically.

Okay, then it's not practically moot either. I listed 3 scenarios just off the top of my head, and if I research all the conflicts currently going on, I could probably find 50 examples of nations needing national defense, and that's just what I would be able to find. You get the idea.
juvanya
Posts: 613
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 1:49:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/9/2011 1:18:08 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I'm taking an economics and the law class. There is a lot of class discussions in it. Just for the fun of it, I feel like taking the position of an anarcho-capitalist, so I need some literature that comes up with good arguments for it.
Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
What is Seen and What is Not Seen by Frederic Bastiat (read online here http://bastiat.org... or you can buy it in any of several formats)

Those are two decently easy reads to start with, altho Ive only read the latter. If you want more after that, message me since I might forget this thread.
juvanya
Posts: 613
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 1:50:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/9/2011 4:01:54 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Either way, anarcho-capitalism fails but anarcho-technocracy on the other hand can work but not anarcho-capitalism.
Ancap doesnt fail at all. It works better than any system theorized and possible. Altho technically ancap is a misnomer. The correct term is "free market anarchy".
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 1:55:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 1:50:59 AM, juvanya wrote:
At 2/9/2011 4:01:54 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Either way, anarcho-capitalism fails but anarcho-technocracy on the other hand can work but not anarcho-capitalism.
Ancap doesnt fail at all. It works better than any system theorized and possible. Altho technically ancap is a misnomer. The correct term is "free market anarchy".

<shrugs> Ancap is shorter. :P
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 8:29:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/10/2011 11:21:40 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:

But the topic is anarcho-capitalism, not democracy and certainly not its narrow definition by you/Caplan.

You can't just say "anarcho capitalism is good" - its good compared to what? Democracy.

Only if the given office basically has no power, in which case the decision is as unimportant as how to spend $0, the irrationality is basically rational, and others have basically no reason to complain; or if the basic democratic principle of free nomination of candidates is being violated, in which case the decision is as unimportant as whether to excessively drink Budweiser or excessively drink Coors, or if the basic democratic principle of allocation of votes in proportion to affectedness is being violated, in either of which cases the given voter is again being basically rationally irrational and others have reason to complain about the violation of democratic principles only.

Uhh, did you read the article? Voter irrationality is not caused by impotent legislatures or corrupt politicians. It is caused by the fact that votes have a 1/10,000,000 chance of mattering. Conversely, your decision on whether to drink alcohol has a 1/1 chance of mattering. So which one are you going to pay attention to?

If, on the other hand, the given office does have power (say, power comparable to the combined capitalists), and that power is over the given voter as well as others, and nomination is unrestricted, the given voter has, in having the power of the office divided by the number of votes (an intuitive truism that's unsurprisingly game theoretically sound)

No they don't. Its winner take all. The chances that an individual vote will change an election are zero.

substantial power (continuing with the above example, power comparable to that of average wealth). That his power is divided between a small probability of having all the power (being critical to the outcome) and a large probability of having none makes no difference to the expected value of the vote (thus the incentive to be rational about it) until we factor in risk aversion. But even risk aversion is only relevant if votes aren't allowed to be traded (in elections, they aren't; in legislatures and shareholders' meetings, they are). If votes are allowed to be traded, exhaustive negotiation eliminates the uncertainty and turns that commodity the vote into one having more in common with money than either has with lottery tickets.

I'm probably not wrong, but I believe free market economists support markets for votes.

If drinking alcohol in the quantities it's currently drunk in weren't irrational, money wouldn't be wasted on suggestive advertising (lest those other market agents, the advertisers, be open to the accusation of irrationality).
Money is not "wasted" on advertising. In fact, advertising allows many public goods be produced like radio broadcasts and television shows.

The mere fact of its rationality would be enough to pursuade, and advertising would be a matter of information.
No. Rationality in this context doesn't mean beep boob bop 2+2=4 end statement. Maybe some people enjoy the image of beer commercials. So what? They're buying beer and an image. Beer and images are both valuable to the consumer.

You might call it competition between brands, but that means people are irrationally choosing between brands. You might say the different brands are basically the same, but that means the existence of different brands, the duplicate infrastrure and competitive advertising, is a waste. Anyway, the rationality of present levels of the consumption of addictive substances generally is contradicted by the consumers themselves, who embarrassingly admit when surveyed that they want to cut down or quit.

People's behavior says otherwise. They're probably just having some social anxiety over their drinking because they're constantly told its bad its bad it will cause your health to explode. That might be true, but most people don't have the courage to go against the grain and admit that they prefer to drink alcohol even if it has health problems.

Participatory planning facilitates such rational action without dictating it; capitalism does not.

Bwahahaha another "my system CAN work" argument. Let me know when you want to do some actual analysis.

Actually Caplan thinks that capitalism is a system of private property rights. What people choose to do WITHIN those property rights is always capitalist. So a bunch of hippies smoking pot in their back yard voting on who should be the leader of their tribe is "capitalist".

That's my point. For Caplan's argument to be relevant to the topic at hand, it would have to focus on (permanent) private property rights. For the reason you mention, a vote's infrequency of being effective relative to money (or, in collectivist economics, credits) has nothing to do private property rights.

People like, spend money within property rights. Even unlibertarian property rights.

participatory planning, by contrast, entirely reconceives markets such that the crises and inequities don't arise in the first place.
Oh good. You've decided to use the "can" argument. Congratulations on descending to the level of thought where game theory, institutional analysis, and public choice theory doesn't exist.

I'm very well-versed in game theory in particular, which is why your/Caplan's analysis stuck out like a sore thumb.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA You didn't even understand the article!

So your ceasing to theory-drop and commensing with explaining (game theoretically in particular) the fallacy of participatory economics, were you really able to do so, would certainly be met with reading and comprehension.

Well you haven't described "participatory economics", you've just kind of said "my system can do THIS and my system can do THAT". Well fuckadoodledoo son. Serial killers CAN stop killing. The rich people CAN donate all their money to the poor. Idealistic hypotheticals don't pass for political philosophy.

The incentives of voters to not pay attention and vote irrationally.

In case you don't get the picture yet, any such "incentive" lies in the vote's worthlessness, as in a small sum of money, and is proportional to the "incentive" for its potential (a potential that's corrrespondingly unlikely to be actualized) victims not to care.

Actually people don't regularly waste small amounts of money more than they waste votes. If I sold my vote for $50, I'd get a lot more mileage out of it.

The incentives of state actors to abuse their power. Cus you know, they have the power of the state.

You mean the so-called "monopoly on violence"? What monopoly? Last time I checked there were countless "monopolies", one for each of the estates called territories.
I didn't call it a monopoly on violence. I'm not arguing against monopoly. I'm arguing against aggression.

Abolish the states, thus the territories, and you only unleash the middle management, the Blackwaters and soforth. To simply end the power of the state, which without exception evolved from something smaller and more numerous (as surely as we evolved from bacteria), is at once to elevate those living fossils of its former self to states, which is not an absolute term but a relative one: highest level boss.

Good analysis. Good. Another "Can" argument. Except you forgot that there's a difference between how states are funded and how private corporations are funded which makes a large difference in terms of how aggressive it pays to be.

But seriously. What the hell is wrong with you lefty types. You can't format your posts into paragraph form. You can't say anything in less than a novel. Charlesb does it. Caramel does it. And now you do it. Did I miss "annoying self righteous leftist day" at school?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 4:23:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 8:29:27 AM, Sieben wrote:
Uhh, did you read the article? Voter irrationality is not caused by impotent legislatures or corrupt politicians. It is caused by the fact that votes have a 1/10,000,000 chance of mattering. Conversely, your decision on whether to drink alcohol has a 1/1 chance of mattering. So which one are you going to pay attention to?

How can I know which to pay more attention to when I don't even know who the candidates are or the power of the office I'm voting on? A 1/10,000,000 chance of being critical to the downfall of the Nazi Party, the true analogy to excessive drink, might be worth considerable attention, especially if I'm a Jew. Thankfully, people vote rationally enough that the Nazi Party isn't even in the mix; my choices are reduced to two parties of only about 10,000,000 times the difference in consequence to me of the two front-runners in the decision of what to spend my money on instead of excessive drink (likely two brands of the same product; even likelier two products of the same utility).

No they don't. Its winner take all. The chances that an individual vote will change an election are zero.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I'm probably not wrong, but I believe free market economists support markets for votes.

The mere fact that they can conceive of markets for votes makes a red herring of Caplan's diatribe on the untradable vote. Call it a "can" argument, but do so hypocritically, as "anarcho-capitalism" itself implies, among other "cans", the infamously absurd notion that capitalism can exist elsewhere than at the end of a gun's barrel.

Money is not "wasted" on advertising. In fact, advertising allows many public goods be produced like radio broadcasts and television shows.

What about satellite radio, cable TV and independent media? Two things: even if advertising were necessary for you to watch American Idol or Fox News or whatever, that would hardly justify all the other irrational choices it's causing you to make; and if such programs are actually useful, they'll move to one of the media I mentioned, in advertising's absence, and do well collecting user fees.

No. Rationality in this context doesn't mean beep boob bop 2+2=4 end statement. Maybe some people enjoy the image of beer commercials. So what? They're buying beer and an image. Beer and images are both valuable to the consumer.

That makes no sense. Individually buying the beer is not a contractual prerequisite to watching or enjoying the images. Buying the beer is a separate action, following the images and caused by the suggestive method advertisers admittedly (though obviously not in the commercials!) employ. What you would do if you were an advertiser isn't particularly relevant.

People's behavior says otherwise. They're probably just having some social anxiety over their drinking because they're constantly told its bad its bad it will cause your health to explode. That might be true, but most people don't have the courage to go against the grain and admit that they prefer to drink alcohol even if it has health problems.

What's rational about being scared of the non-existent social stigma of an anonymous answer? What's rational about anxiety over the small proportion of messages that tell alcohol's health effects as opposed to associating it with all the beautiful women it evidently really does net you? What's rational about buying aids to quit smoking?

Bwahahaha another "my system CAN work" argument. Let me know when you want to do some actual analysis.

But I've already begged you to cease talking yourself up and attempt to demonstrate such analytical skills. In this case, the advantage of participatory planning is very simple. Each year, one plans how much alcohol (or beer, or pilsner, or Coors) they'll consume that year. One's not necessarily beholden to one's plan, but as long as one's made it one has the option of indicating that one would like to be beholden to it.

In the case of alcohol and other addictive substances, there's no question that that would be a common choice. Every January, the nation already Resolves to quit or cut down on one thing or another; by February, natural mood swings have caused people to falter, hate themselves (February Resolutions have no charm) and revert to their normal consumption patterns. Capitalism is the system of irrationality, the impulse that defines day-to-day consumption; collectivism is the system of rationality, the reason that informs planning.

Indeed, capitalism doesn't work for the same reason voting in large elections doesn't work: you say market choices have certain consequences, but that's not really the case; a 6-pack of beer (or whatever the average unit is) is as unlikely to be critical to serious health problems as a vote is to the outcome of a large election. Collectivism deals not in 12-packs but in years, quantities rather likely to be consequential.

People like, spend money within property rights. Even unlibertarian property rights.

"Unlibertarian" is irrelevant. The question is whether it's capitalist, which is to say the property rights are permanent.

Well you haven't described "participatory economics", you've just kind of said "my system can do THIS and my system can do THAT". Well fuckadoodledoo son. Serial killers CAN stop killing. The rich people CAN donate all their money to the poor. Idealistic hypotheticals don't pass for political philosophy.

It's only hypothetical if we demand scale of its examples, which is certainly a sense in which anarcho-capitalism is hypothetical. The relevant question isn't can the system do this or that, it's will the system do it under less restrictive assumptions than capitalism, a question asked and answered in The Political Economy of Parecon, which like all Parecon literature is available to anyone with an internet connection. I'm not going to go through every irrelevant nuance; you must have had a specific reason for implying Parecon is game theoretically unsound, and it's only that specific reason I'm interested in addressing.

Good analysis. Good. Another "Can" argument. Except you forgot that there's a difference between how states are funded and how private corporations are funded which makes a large difference in terms of how aggressive it pays to be.

What difference? A state is funded by charging its tenants for the right to be on its land, same as a landlord does.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 5:56:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 4:23:49 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 2/11/2011 8:29:27 AM, Sieben wrote:
Uhh, did you read the article? Voter irrationality is not caused by impotent legislatures or corrupt politicians. It is caused by the fact that votes have a 1/10,000,000 chance of mattering. Conversely, your decision on whether to drink alcohol has a 1/1 chance of mattering. So which one are you going to pay attention to?

How can I know which to pay more attention to when I don't even know who the candidates are or the power of the office I'm voting on?
That is not his, or my argument.

A 1/10,000,000 chance of being critical to the downfall of the Nazi Party, the true analogy to excessive drink,
The whole point is that this is not an analogy to excessive drinking. If you are wrong about your vote, nothing will happen. If you are wrong about alcohol, your life could be destroyed.

might be worth considerable attention, especially if I'm a Jew. Thankfully, people vote rationally enough that the Nazi Party isn't even in the mix;
It isn't? I know it by another name.

No they don't. Its winner take all. The chances that an individual vote will change an election are zero.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Dude. The 10,000,000 figure is the MARGIN by which votes are decided in America. Not the total population. But by all means. Maybe there are only 1000 critical voters. What is 1/1000? Still almost zero.

I'm probably not wrong, but I believe free market economists support markets for votes.

The mere fact that they can conceive of markets for votes makes a red herring of Caplan's diatribe on the untradable vote.
I don't think any of them want society to be organized like that. Just a better paradigm than the status quo.

Call it a "can" argument, but do so hypocritically, as "anarcho-capitalism" itself implies, among other "cans", the infamously absurd notion that capitalism can exist elsewhere than at the end of a gun's barrel.

Oh no self defense oh no.....

What about satellite radio, cable TV and independent media?
You pay for these on a monthly basis. They have been made into "private goods" via encryption technology that did not exist when conventional radio broadcasting began.

Two things: even if advertising were necessary for you to watch American Idol or Fox News or whatever, that would hardly justify all the other irrational choices it's causing you to make;
Why?

and if such programs are actually useful, they'll move to one of the media I mentioned, in advertising's absence, and do well collecting user fees.
Not everyone prefers user-fees to advertising. If they did, advertising wouldn't exist.

That makes no sense. Individually buying the beer is not a contractual prerequisite to watching or enjoying the images.
It is in the minds of consumers.

People's behavior says otherwise. They're probably just having some social anxiety over their drinking because they're constantly told its bad its bad it will cause your health to explode. That might be true, but most people don't have the courage to go against the grain and admit that they prefer to drink alcohol even if it has health problems.

What's rational about being scared of the non-existent social stigma of an anonymous answer?
They're monitoring themselves. http://en.wikipedia.org...

What's rational about anxiety over the small proportion of messages that tell alcohol's health effects as opposed to associating it with all the beautiful women it evidently really does net you? What's rational about buying aids to quit smoking?
Whether people prefer to look cool or die of cancer, I cannot say.

Bwahahaha another "my system CAN work" argument. Let me know when you want to do some actual analysis.

But I've already begged you to cease talking yourself up and attempt to demonstrate such analytical skills.
But this is not (yet) a debate over anarcho capitalism. You just had an anuerism over Caplan's article and I'm defending it. I don't need to do any more work.

In this case, the advantage of participatory planning is very simple. Each year, one plans how much alcohol (or beer, or pilsner, or Coors) they'll consume that year.
Kind of like a new years resolution. http://en.wikipedia.org...

One's not necessarily beholden to one's plan, but as long as one's made it one has the option of indicating that one would like to be beholden to it.
So you want planning but not really.

In the case of alcohol and other addictive substances, there's no question that that would be a common choice.
So? Why do we have to aggregate choices? You never explained...

Every January, the nation already Resolves to quit or cut down on one thing or another; by February, natural mood swings have caused people to falter, hate themselves (February Resolutions have no charm) and revert to their normal consumption patterns. Capitalism is the system of irrationality, the impulse that defines day-to-day consumption; collectivism is the system of rationality, the reason that informs planning.

So if people have individual rights, they'll fail in their resolutions. Instead, people should have resolutions? That doesn't make sense.

Indeed, capitalism doesn't work for the same reason voting in large elections doesn't work: you say market choices have certain consequences, but that's not really the case; a 6-pack of beer (or whatever the average unit is) is as unlikely to be critical to serious health problems as a vote is to the outcome of a large election.
No. You just broke down the choice arbitrarily into one unit of buying beer, when the relevant choice is over a lifetime.

Collectivism deals not in 12-packs but in years, quantities rather likely to be consequential.
Is this really going to be the crux of your argument? Collective-syndical-annualism?

"Unlibertarian" is irrelevant. The question is whether it's capitalist, which is to say the property rights are permanent.
That's not what capitalism means to myself or caplan. I won't bother defending fascism.

It's only hypothetical if we demand scale of its examples, which is certainly a sense in which anarcho-capitalism is hypothetical.
Iceland is pretty large... http://www.daviddfriedman.com...

The relevant question isn't can the system do this or that, it's will the system do it under less restrictive assumptions than capitalism, a question asked and answered in The Political Economy of Parecon, which like all Parecon literature is available to anyone with an internet connection. I'm not going to go through every irrelevant nuance; you must have had a specific reason for implying Parecon is game theoretically unsound, and it's only that specific reason I'm interested in addressing.

So you basically just told me to read Parecon literature. Okay. Good. But before I do that, please familiarize yourself with the full works of Ricardo, Mises and Habermas.

What difference? A state is funded by charging its tenants for the right to be on its land, same as a landlord does.
Lol. The landlord controls only that which he has homesteaded by use, and even then others are still only limited in action insofar as they would harm his property. For example, I can broadcast radio waves through a farmer's plot because I do not disrupt his activities.

The state controls everything inside a giant circle. EVERYTHINGGG
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...