Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

David Friedman

Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2010 8:21:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Is more awesome than his father.

His speech at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum 2010. This is part 1 of 7 of "Market Failure", in which he describes that the free rider problem / the prisoner's dilemma / stuff like that and how it affects the public markets (the government) more than the private market.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2010 8:28:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I already watched it. And yes, it is very, very good.
"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
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2010 8:43:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
For Volkov, in part 3 Dr. Friedman explains how democracy suffers from Market Failure.
"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
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2010 8:48:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/30/2010 8:43:43 PM, Reasoning wrote:
For Volkov, in part 3 Dr. Friedman explains how democracy suffers from Market Failure.

Volkov's not about to listen lol.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2010 8:58:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/30/2010 8:48:54 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Volkov's not about to listen lol.

Indeed. I've read some articles with David Friedman, though I'm not too sure if it was the same one. Assuming it is, however, I find nothing very convincing about his statements.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2010 8:59:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/30/2010 8:58:17 PM, Volkov wrote:
Indeed. I've read some articles with David Friedman, though I'm not too sure if it was the same one. Assuming it is, however, I find nothing very convincing about his statements.

It's a speech not an article...

It's not something that you can find unconvincing, either. It is objective fact. Democracy is one big market failure.
"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
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2010 9:01:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/30/2010 8:59:56 PM, Reasoning wrote:
It's a speech not an article...

I said that I've read articles by David Friedman before, not that this one was.

It's not something that you can find unconvincing, either. It is objective fact. Democracy is one big market failure.

I had no idea it was supposed to be anything close to a market, I thought it was a form of governance.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2010 9:04:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/30/2010 9:01:09 PM, Volkov wrote:
It's not something that you can find unconvincing, either. It is objective fact. Democracy is one big market failure.

I had no idea it was supposed to be anything close to a market, I thought it was a form of governance.

Had you listened to Dr. Friedman you would know that Market Failure doesn't apply only to markets as they are generally conceived but to all areas of human action, and yes not only government but especially government.
"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
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2010 9:06:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/30/2010 9:04:29 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Had you listened to Dr. Friedman you would know that Market Failure doesn't apply only to markets as they are generally conceived but to all areas of human action, and yes not only government but especially government.

Then I'd have to respectfully disagree with him, even though I've yet to hear his argument.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2010 9:10:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/30/2010 9:06:59 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/30/2010 9:04:29 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Had you listened to Dr. Friedman you would know that Market Failure doesn't apply only to markets as they are generally conceived but to all areas of human action, and yes not only government but especially government.

Then I'd have to respectfully disagree with him, even though I've yet to hear his argument.

It isn't something you can disagree about. 2+2=4 and democracy suffers from market failure.

Start the video at about 2:00.
"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
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2010 9:29:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/30/2010 9:10:03 PM, Reasoning wrote:
It isn't something you can disagree about. 2+2=4 and democracy suffers from market failure.

Start the video at about 2:00.

I listened all the way through, and I wasn't convinced, once again.

Not that it does not fall under the term "market failure" - that's somewhat correct. Just that I see no problem with it. It is what it is, in other words. In fact, that's just human nature. You can't please everyone, you know. (Oh wait, you don't, you're a socialist.)

Democracy at least offers the chance for any group to attempt to gain the "net benefit." Though the United States' flawed "democracy" is a bad example, in an ideal situation, democracy offers the chance for everyone to fight for their interests through the pursuit of electing sympathetic legislators, rather than fighting each other in a war.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2010 9:57:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/30/2010 9:29:34 PM, Volkov wrote:
I listened all the way through, and I wasn't convinced, once again.

I am glad that you listened but I am disturbed that you did not understand it.

Not that it does not fall under the term "market failure" - that's somewhat correct.

Uhmm, yes it does.

"In economics, a market failure occurs when there is an inefficient allocation of goods and services in a market." - Wikipedia[1]

"A market is any one of a variety of different systems, institutions, procedures, social relations and infrastructures whereby persons trade, and goods and services are exchanged, forming part of the economy." - Wikipedia[2]

The political arena, then, falls within the definition of a market and, as Friedman and many other economists have shown, it allocates goods and services quite inefficiently.

Just that I see no problem with it. It is what it is, in other words. In fact, that's just human nature.

What's just human nature? To be rational and not spend dozens of hours researching who to vote for?

Democracy at least offers the chance for any group to attempt to gain the "net benefit." Though the United States' flawed "democracy" is a bad example, in an ideal situation, democracy offers the chance for everyone to fight for their interests through the pursuit of electing sympathetic legislators, rather than fighting each other in a war.

Behold as Rothbard logic smashes the statist fallacy!

"There is, moreover, another flaw in the "peaceful-change" argument for democracy, this one being a grave self-contradiction that has been universally overlooked. Those who have adopted this argument have simply used it to give a seal of approval to all democracies and have then moved on quickly to other matters. They have not realized that the "peaceful-change" argument establishes a criterion for government before which any given democracy must pass muster. For the argument that ballots are to substitute for bullets must be taken in a precise way: that a democratic election will yield the same result as would have occurred if the majority had had to battle the minority in violent combat. In short, the argument implies that the election results are simply and precisely a substitute for a test of physical combat. Here we have a criterion for democracy: Does it really yield the results that would have been obtained through civil combat? If we find that democracy, or a certain form of democracy, leads systematically to results that are very wide of this "bullet-substitute" mark, then we must either reject democracy or give up the argument.

How, then, does democracy, either generally or in specific countries, fare when we test it against its own criterion? One of the essential attributes of democracy, as we have seen, is that each man have one vote. But the "peaceful-change" argument implies that each man would have counted equally in any combat test. But is this true? In the first place, it is clear that physical power is not equally distributed. In any test of combat, women, old people, sick people, and 4F's would fare very badly. On the basis of the "peaceful-change" argument, therefore, there is no justification whatever for giving these physically feeble groups the vote. So, barred from voting would be all citizens who could not pass a test, not for literacy (which is largely irrelevant to combat prowess), but for physical fitness. Furthermore, it clearly would be necessary to give plural votes to all men who have been militarily trained (such as soldiers and policemen), for it is obvious that a group of highly trained fighters could easily defeat a far more numerous group of equally robust amateurs.

In addition to ignoring the inequalities of physical power and combat fitness, democracy fails, in another significant way, to live up to the logical requirements of the "peaceful-change" thesis. This failure stems from another basic inequality: inequality of interest or intensity of belief. Thus, 60 percent of the population may oppose a certain policy, or political party, while only 40 percent favor it. In a democracy, this latter policy or party will be defeated. But suppose that the bulk of the 40 percent are passionate enthusiasts for the measure or candidate, while the bulk of the 60 percent majority have only slight interest in the entire affair. In the absence of democracy, far more of the passionate 40 percent would have been willing to engage in a combat test than would the apathetic 60 percent. And yet, in a democratic election, one vote by an apathetic, only faintly interested person offsets the vote of a passionate partisan. Hence, the democratic process grievously and systematically distorts the results of the hypothetical combat test.

It is probable that no voting procedure could avoid this distortion satisfactorily and serve as any sort of accurate substitute for bullets. But certainly much could be done to alter current voting procedures to bring them closer to the criterion, and it is surprising that no one has suggested such reforms. The whole trend of existing democracies, for example, has been to make voting easier for the people; but this violates the bullet-substitute test directly, because it has been made ever easier for the apathetic to register their votes and thus distort the results. Clearly, what would be needed is to make voting far more difficult and thus insure that only the most intensely interested people will vote. A moderately high poll tax, not large enough to keep out those enthusiasts who could not afford to pay, but large enough to discourage the indifferent, would be very helpful. Voting booths should certainly be further apart; the person who refuses to travel any appreciable distance to vote would surely not have fought in his candidate's behalf. Another useful step would be to remove all names from the ballot, thereby requiring the voters themselves to write in the names of their favorites. Not only would this procedure eliminate the decidedly undemocratic special privilege that the State gives to those whose names it prints on the ballot (as against all other persons), but it would bring elections closer to our criterion, for a voter who does not know the name of his candidate would hardly be likely to fight in the streets on his behalf. Another indicated reform would be to abolish the secrecy of the ballot. The ballot has been made secret in order to protect the fearful from intimidation; yet civil combat is peculiarly the province of the courageous. Surely, those not courageous enough to proclaim their choice openly would not have been formidable fighters in the combat test." - Murray Rothbard

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
"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
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2010 10:01:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/30/2010 9:06:59 PM, Volkov wrote:
Then I'd have to respectfully disagree with him, even though I've yet to hear his argument.

Sigged.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2010 10:11:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/30/2010 9:57:01 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Not that it does not fall under the term "market failure" - that's somewhat correct.

Uhmm, yes it does.

Will you please reread what I said.

What's just human nature? To be rational and not spend dozens of hours researching who to vote for?

It's human nature to be selfish, vote for who serves your interests best, and leave others who don't win out of it to rot.

Behold as Rothbard logic smashes the statist fallacy!

That was absolutely stupid, lol.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2010 10:12:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/30/2010 10:01:23 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 3/30/2010 9:06:59 PM, Volkov wrote:
Then I'd have to respectfully disagree with him, even though I've yet to hear his argument.

Sigged.

I was being a smart arse, Kenyon. But you can sig it if you want. I'll be watching you, though.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2010 11:15:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I found the lecture very interesting, actually. He talked about some stuff I've been thinking about for quite a while but haven't been able to fully articulate. I also learned some formal terms, which is cool.

But I gotta disagree with Friedman on Democracy. Yeah, it's not in the rational self-interest for people to perpetually and thoroughly follow the doings of their political leaders. But that's why we have the media, which itself has checks on its biases or lack thereof. And while we may not check into every vote every one of our politicians cast, we vote based off their purported ideology. And what if they aren't consistent with what they say they are? Well, then different forms of media can tell us.

He also talked about how only half of his students know who their congressman is. Well, the solution here is to promote political awareness--not to shuck the whole concept. Like in his example about the spear warriors, if we all stand together instead of running away, we are more powerful than we are alone. What we gotta do is to get more and more of us politically aware and involved.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 2:29:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/30/2010 10:12:13 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/30/2010 10:01:23 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 3/30/2010 9:06:59 PM, Volkov wrote:
Then I'd have to respectfully disagree with him, even though I've yet to hear his argument.

Sigged.

I was being a smart arse, Kenyon. But you can sig it if you want. I'll be watching you, though.

Funny, I thought a smartass was all you could be. In fact, I've yet to see evidence to the contrary.

Oh wait, I remember now! You're also a dumbass. Spewing out crap like
The government provides food by allowing farmers to harvest their crop

And I got the evidence too. And I have it all screenshotted even if it gets taken down. But since it aint down yet, I'll post the link.

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

At 3/30/2010 11:15:12 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
I found the lecture very interesting, actually. He talked about some stuff I've been thinking about for quite a while but haven't been able to fully articulate. I also learned some formal terms, which is cool.

But I gotta disagree with Friedman on Democracy. Yeah, it's not in the rational self-interest for people to perpetually and thoroughly follow the doings of their political leaders. But that's why we have the media, which itself has checks on its biases or lack thereof.
lol? While the media indeed has checks on itself if we take the whole range, a certain bias almost always wins out, and whaddya know, they're always from the same groups! The same few big companies.... hmm hmm hmm. AND, most of these "checks on itself" are on the internet, which not a lot of people see. Kind of dishonest to say the media "checks itself" if the checking isn't really done on the media that gets to the most people. And how very interesting as well, the interwebs news tends to check "itself" a hell of a lot more than the mainstream! And the mainstream not only does not check each other, they pretty much all say the same thing, or if they don't, they completely ignore each other, as in the case of liberal vs conservative news. Checks, huh? Gimme a break.

Unless you meant that individual companies/groups check their own information for biases. In which case I really don't have much to say to you.

And while we may not check into every vote every one of our politicians cast, we vote based off their purported ideology.
I am having a hard time not thinking you are completely naive. And this is by what I think is conventional standards. Most people accept that politicians say one thing and do another. You clearly don't even have that traditional wisdom.

And what if they aren't consistent with what they say they are? Well, then different forms of media can tell us.
You're like, the new Volkov. That's not a compliment, just so we're clear. And I'm talking about the old Volkov, before the dumbass was also a smartass.

He also talked about how only half of his students know who their congressman is. Well, the solution here is to promote political awareness--not to shuck the whole concept.
But so what if they do know the name of their congressman? Still doesn't fix the incentive structure to not really care about politics. It'd be just another name floating around in their head. And no, knowing the name of the congressman does not significantly change incentives.
Like in his example about the spear warriors, if we all stand together instead of running away, we are more powerful than we are alone. What we gotta do is to get more and more of us politically aware and involved.
Did PB&J take Cody_Franklin's niche as the Fascist of DDO while I wasn't looking?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 6:42:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/31/2010 2:29:19 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Oh wait, I remember now! You're also a dumbass. Spewing out crap like
The government provides food by allowing farmers to harvest their crop

If I remember correctly, we were talking about the affects of zoning laws on the government's mandate, so you're taking it out of context in order to attempt to make me look stupid. Lo and behold, I stand by what I said in the proper context.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 7:03:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/31/2010 6:42:23 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/31/2010 2:29:19 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Oh wait, I remember now! You're also a dumbass. Spewing out crap like
The government provides food by allowing farmers to harvest their crop

If I remember correctly, we were talking about the affects of zoning laws on the government's mandate, so you're taking it out of context in order to attempt to make me look stupid. Lo and behold, I stand by what I said in the proper context.

Damn, Volkov, they are going after you.

I wonder what you really did to them?
Good luck, they are being tough!
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 8:39:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/31/2010 6:42:23 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/31/2010 2:29:19 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Oh wait, I remember now! You're also a dumbass. Spewing out crap like
The government provides food by allowing farmers to harvest their crop

If I remember correctly, we were talking about the affects of zoning laws on the government's mandate, so you're taking it out of context in order to attempt to make me look stupid. Lo and behold, I stand by what I said in the proper context.

Context makes no difference in this case; argument still rests on premise that government owns everything, which it doesn't :)
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
collegekitchen8
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 9:08:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/30/2010 9:04:29 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 3/30/2010 9:01:09 PM, Volkov wrote:
It's not something that you can find unconvincing, either. It is objective fact. Democracy is one big market failure.

I had no idea it was supposed to be anything close to a market, I thought it was a form of governance.

Had you listened to Dr. Friedman you would know that Market Failure doesn't apply only to markets as they are generally conceived but to all areas of human action, and yes not only government but especially government.

Pretty sure that should be called government failure, not market failure then.
: At 3/30/2010 12:57:51 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
: The universe is simple, It all makes sense given laws like gravity and stuff.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 11:15:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/31/2010 8:39:32 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Context makes no difference in this case; argument still rests on premise that government owns everything, which it doesn't :)

Context makes all the difference.

If I'm talking about the effects of zoning laws on the government's mandate, then it changes the premise entirely. The fact is that the government zones lands for agriculture for specific reasons, same as why it zones heavy residential or industrial areas - in order to provide space for either living, for farming, for manufacturing, for commerce, etc. It zones these areas with the specific intent to increase living space, farming, manufacturing, and commerce.

That changes the argument heavily. I'm not claiming the government owns everything - I'm saying it does direct an awful lot, and often for specific reasons.

There's a difference.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 12:37:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/31/2010 9:08:14 AM, collegekitchen8 wrote:
Pretty sure that should be called government failure, not market failure then.

It is a failure of government but it is also a form of market failure.
"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
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 12:41:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/30/2010 11:15:12 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
But I gotta disagree with Friedman on Democracy. Yeah, it's not in the rational self-interest for people to perpetually and thoroughly follow the doings of their political leaders. But that's why we have the media, which itself has checks on its biases or lack thereof. And while we may not check into every vote every one of our politicians cast, we vote based off their purported ideology. And what if they aren't consistent with what they say they are? Well, then different forms of media can tell us.

Obviously that doesn't work very well.

He also talked about how only half of his students know who their congressman is.

I don't know who "my" congressman is and I really don't care to be honest. And I'm quite interested in this stuff.

It's called rational ignorance.

Well, the solution here is to promote political awareness--not to shuck the whole concept. Like in his example about the spear warriors, if we all stand together instead of running away, we are more powerful than we are alone. What we gotta do is to get more and more of us politically aware and involved.

Except it is in the interest of each of the spear warriors to run away.
"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