Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Gun Control

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2011 11:29:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I have long been in favour of gun control, however statistics seem to show that private gun ownership lowers the crime rate. Is this the case, do I need to change my mind, is there a valid counter-argument?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2011 11:32:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I wouldn't believe any statistics because there are too many factors influencing the outcome. For example, society may have gotten safer because they relaxed gun control, or they may have relaxed gun control because society got safer.

The theory that gun control prevents crime is sound, but at the end of the day you have an unknown number of potential criminals sitting at home not committing crimes. You can't measure them.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2011 11:51:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I wrote a quick little matlab loop.

policy=rand(10,50);
outcome=rand(10,50);

for i = 1:50
x=corrcoef(policy(:,i),outcome(:,i));
coefficient(i)=x(2);
end

So given random policy and outcome fluctuations (no causality), taken for 10 years over 50 states, what do we observe?

The maximum correlation is about 0.7

The minimum correlation is about -0.7

So if you cherry pick data, you can say "oh, in this state the policy looks like its working really well/bad"

=a joke
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2011 11:55:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/14/2011 11:29:55 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I have long been in favour of gun control, however statistics seem to show that private gun ownership lowers the crime rate. Is this the case, do I need to change my mind, is there a valid counter-argument?

It depends. Consider that it's possible that private ownership does not fluctuate with the legislation; if that were the case, then crime rates would reduce purely by the merit that those that own guns would longer be committing crimes.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2011 12:05:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You know, the people who really murder with firearms tend to use illegal firearms anyway.

I'm for gun control as long as by "gun control" you mean giving everyone a gun. People are less likely to fvck with one another if they know the other person and everyone around them has a gun.

Plus, think of how much more interesting bar fights will become.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2011 2:41:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/14/2011 11:29:55 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I have long been in favour of gun control, however statistics seem to show that private gun ownership lowers the crime rate. Is this the case, do I need to change my mind, is there a valid counter-argument?:

I don't see gun control or gun freedom nearly being the problem as societal influence. The US has the highest private gun ownership, and they have a high crime rate involving guns.

Conversely, however, Russia and Mexico have some of the strictest gun laws of any nation and their homicide rate by gun are some of the highest in the world. The quaint laws certainly do nothing to curb the Russian mafia or the Mexican cartels.

Switzerland and Saudia Arabia have very lax gun restriction, and they are largely peaceable nations with a very low gun violence rate.

I think what the data shows, more than anything else, is whether or not a culture is violent or not. Guns are simply tools. People are resourceful and will find ways to get guns. If they can't get a hold of them, they'll use knives.

Knife violence in the UK, for instance, is very high. Are British citizens expected to relinquish their cutting utensils? I certainly hope not.

I don't think it is a matter of guns or gun control as much as it is the cultural climate. That plays the biggest factor, I believe.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2011 3:01:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
^ I agree
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2011 9:30:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm torn here. I am an advocate of guns and hunting, but I do want gun control. I think, after reading the post of different strictness laws, that it may be the thought of "since they don't want me to do this, so I will". I think we need to eliminate assault weapons and ammo(tracers, incendiary, etc.), and 30 round clips. We can't go overboard, though, or
We will start losing rights as Americans.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2011 11:17:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/14/2011 11:51:43 AM, Sieben wrote:
I wrote a quick little matlab loop.

policy=rand(10,50);
outcome=rand(10,50);

for i = 1:50
x=corrcoef(policy(:,i),outcome(:,i));
coefficient(i)=x(2);
end

So given random policy and outcome fluctuations (no causality), taken for 10 years over 50 states, what do we observe?

The maximum correlation is about 0.7

The minimum correlation is about -0.7

So if you cherry pick data, you can say "oh, in this state the policy looks like its working really well/bad"

=a joke

Is that for gun crime, or all crime? Because knife crime would go up in places with stricter gun laws.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2011 8:14:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
No. Its just random numbers. It shows that even if two events are totally uncorrelated, you can still get correlation by cherry picking the data.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2011 9:43:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/20/2011 9:30:20 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
I'm torn here. I am an advocate of guns and hunting, but I do want gun control. I think, after reading the post of different strictness laws, that it may be the thought of "since they don't want me to do this, so I will". I think we need to eliminate assault weapons and ammo(tracers, incendiary, etc.), and 30 round clips. We can't go overboard, though, or
We will start losing rights as Americans.

If you could point me to the store where I can buy incendiary rounds I'll be on a plane there in 5 seconds. And what's bad about tracers? They help people find you?
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N
HatedeatH
Posts: 386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2011 10:22:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
A criminal will get a gun illegally even if there's strict gun laws. Allowing private citizens to have guns will allow for more protection, granted the person has their background investigated. Last thing we need is some lunatic getting a gun and going on a shoot out.
vardas0antras: If Muhammad is great then why didn't he stop 911 ?
gavin.ogden: He was too busy starting it.
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2011 7:02:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/21/2011 9:43:30 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 1/20/2011 9:30:20 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
I'm torn here. I am an advocate of guns and hunting, but I do want gun control. I think, after reading the post of different strictness laws, that it may be the thought of "since they don't want me to do this, so I will". I think we need to eliminate assault weapons and ammo(tracers, incendiary, etc.), and 30 round clips. We can't go overboard, though, or
We will start losing rights as Americans.

If you could point me to the store where I can buy incendiary rounds I'll be on a plane there in 5 seconds. And what's bad about tracers? They help people find you?

I will admit that I personally don't know where to buy them, but the shooting range I go to lists ammo you can and can't use, and this are on the list. Also, a tracer isn't so people can find you, it's so you can see where you're shooting. That's why I listed them, you don't need them for a one shot gun, they're used in machine guns that have hundreds or thousand of bullets out a minute.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2011 9:04:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/14/2011 11:32:53 AM, Sieben wrote:
I wouldn't believe any statistics because there are too many factors influencing the outcome. For example, society may have gotten safer because they relaxed gun control, or they may have relaxed gun control because society got safer.

The theory that gun control prevents crime is sound, but at the end of the day you have an unknown number of potential criminals sitting at home not committing crimes. You can't measure them.

How do you suggest we gather evidence as to whether gun control effectively reduces crime in a significant way?
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2011 9:55:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/22/2011 9:04:48 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/14/2011 11:32:53 AM, Sieben wrote:
I wouldn't believe any statistics because there are too many factors influencing the outcome. For example, society may have gotten safer because they relaxed gun control, or they may have relaxed gun control because society got safer.

The theory that gun control prevents crime is sound, but at the end of the day you have an unknown number of potential criminals sitting at home not committing crimes. You can't measure them.

How do you suggest we gather evidence as to whether gun control effectively reduces crime in a significant way?

Ceteris parabis experiments. But you can't really have those...

The question doesn't really matter to me. It comes down to interpersonal comparisons of utility - saying that the people harmed by guns are "hurt more" than the people helped by guns.

What you need to have is a way for people to choose which laws they live under by having competing legal jurisdictions. Of course no one wants to get raped, so they would all have laws against rape. But if some people wanted to have guns, they'd move to that jurisdiction, and by moving there, they have demonstrated that they prefer to live in a society with gun proliferation over one without. Similarly with people who move to gun-free zones.

I think the result would prove that both policies work... because all the hippy liberals would be in the gun free zone, and all the people who know how to use guns responsibly would be in the gun proliferation zone.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2011 9:58:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/21/2011 10:22:41 PM, HatedeatH wrote:
A criminal will get a gun illegally even if there's strict gun laws. Allowing private citizens to have guns will allow for more protection, granted the person has their background investigated. Last thing we need is some lunatic getting a gun and going on a shoot out.

correction

some criminals will get a gun illegally, even if there are strict gun laws...

Many petty criminals will not, as subconsciously, people weigh the pros and cons to their actions, along with the odds of being caught (for most cases, and to a certain degree).

When a criminal is looking to get some money to go buy some more meth, if they think A) I have no chance at actually getting away with it, and will go to jail for at least 10 years, then they aren't going to do it. If they think B) I will likely get away, but if I don't I'll only go to jail for 6 months, then they are more likely to do it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2011 10:17:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/20/2011 9:30:20 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
I'm torn here. I am an advocate of guns and hunting, but I do want gun control.:

I think even the most staunch NRA representative wants some gun control. I highly doubt that they want violent felons to have weapons, because they've now lost their privilege. I think the question it comes back to is how much gun control hinders peaceable citizens versus how many people can procure arms with or without these laws.

After all, a criminal, by definition, is someone who doesn't obey the law! Are they going to care about your little law? Absolutely not. Who, then, are those most affected by these restrictions? The very people who the Constitution afforded the right in the first place!

Mark my words though, the US government isn't stupid. The American citizen is so strapped right now, there absolutely would be a revolution if they tried to strike down the 2nd Amendment. You have to think, most police and military would revolt too, because these are people who are also citizens that would be affected by such a landmark decision. I would absolutely revolt, no questions asked while echoing Charleton Heston's phrase, "From my cold, dead hands," come pry this gun from my grasp. It's the only way you'll get it.

So how they accomplish their goals is through slow, methodical, and deliberate attempts to erode gun ownership little by little.

If you place a frog in a boiling pot of water, he'll immediately jump out. But if you slowly turn up the heat, he isn't aware that he's boiling to death. Legislatures have to introduce slow provisions in order to take away gun rights without causing a panic. And even then we have watchdogs who monitor some of these nefarious means.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2011 10:45:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Conversely, however, Russia and Mexico have some of the strictest gun laws of any nation and their homicide rate by gun are some of the highest in the world. The quaint laws certainly do nothing to curb the Russian mafia or the Mexican cartels.

Mexican Drug cartels exist because of drug laws, not because of guns.
no comment
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2011 10:46:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/22/2011 9:55:40 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 1/22/2011 9:04:48 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/14/2011 11:32:53 AM, Sieben wrote:
I wouldn't believe any statistics because there are too many factors influencing the outcome. For example, society may have gotten safer because they relaxed gun control, or they may have relaxed gun control because society got safer.

The theory that gun control prevents crime is sound, but at the end of the day you have an unknown number of potential criminals sitting at home not committing crimes. You can't measure them.

How do you suggest we gather evidence as to whether gun control effectively reduces crime in a significant way?

Ceteris parabis experiments. But you can't really have those...

The question doesn't really matter to me. It comes down to interpersonal comparisons of utility - saying that the people harmed by guns are "hurt more" than the people helped by guns.

Interpersonal comparisons of utility, unfortunately, are what experts are calling "f*cking hard".

What you need to have is a way for people to choose which laws they live under by having competing legal jurisdictions. Of course no one wants to get raped, so they would all have laws against rape. But if some people wanted to have guns, they'd move to that jurisdiction, and by moving there, they have demonstrated that they prefer to live in a society with gun proliferation over one without. Similarly with people who move to gun-free zones.

We already have that. It's called "different national governments". :P

Honestly, though, I think it's a little hard to say that the problem can be resolved merely by competing legal jurisdictions, since what kinds of laws are in place isn't necessarily a primary motivator for where a person moves to. I mean, if the economy is bad, and I'm taking out loans to pay my mortgage, get through college, or just buy groceries, I'm not going to pick up my entire life, leave my friends, possibly family, try to sell my house, and goodness knows what else.

You can say "well, ultimately, people are still able to do what they want to do without coercion, so it's okay", but that fails to account for the fact that A) it's a system which doesn't guarantee results as good as it seems to promise by proposing such solutions, so it's a false sense of security and B) people are, for all intents are purposes, "locked" into some places, not by violence or coercion, but by circumstances that could leave them worse off if they abandoned it.

I think the result would prove that both policies work... because all the hippy liberals would be in the gun free zone, and all the people who know how to use guns responsibly would be in the gun proliferation zone.

Lol. I think you're making a few assumptions there.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2011 10:52:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/22/2011 10:46:29 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Interpersonal comparisons of utility, unfortunately, are what experts are calling "f*cking hard".
Or fundamentally bunk. Happiness is a fundamentally individual experience. There can be no "group" happiness.

We already have that. It's called "different national governments". :P
And it works to a certain extent. It should be made to work even more under anarchy! Where territories are drawn up over homesteading, rather than arbitrary authoritarianism.

Honestly, though, I think it's a little hard to say that the problem can be resolved merely by competing legal jurisdictions, since what kinds of laws are in place isn't necessarily a primary motivator for where a person moves to. I mean, if the economy is bad, and I'm taking out loans to pay my mortgage, get through college, or just buy groceries, I'm not going to pick up my entire life, leave my friends, possibly family, try to sell my house, and goodness knows what else.
The idea is that you wouldn't move to Mexico, but from Austin to Dallas, or North Austin to South Austin.

You can say "well, ultimately, people are still able to do what they want to do without coercion, so it's okay", but that fails to account for the fact that A) it's a system which doesn't guarantee results as good as it seems to promise by proposing such solutions, so it's a false sense of security and B) people are, for all intents are purposes, "locked" into some places, not by violence or coercion, but by circumstances that could leave them worse off if they abandoned it.

Consumer lock-in has its advantages and disadvantages. In the case, the advantage of settling down could be all sorts of subjective things, while the disadvantage would be less ability to change providers of law. You just have to choose which means more to you.

I think the result would prove that both policies work... because all the hippy liberals would be in the gun free zone, and all the people who know how to use guns responsibly would be in the gun proliferation zone.

Lol. I think you're making a few assumptions there.
*shrug* Don't you think both legal regimes would work?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2011 10:54:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/22/2011 10:45:24 AM, Caramel wrote:
Conversely, however, Russia and Mexico have some of the strictest gun laws of any nation and their homicide rate by gun are some of the highest in the world. The quaint laws certainly do nothing to curb the Russian mafia or the Mexican cartels.

Mexican Drug cartels exist because of drug laws, not because of guns.

No, they exist because of drug demand. They are driven underground and/or into violence because they resist the laws.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2011 11:20:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/22/2011 10:52:29 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 1/22/2011 10:46:29 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Interpersonal comparisons of utility, unfortunately, are what experts are calling "f*cking hard".
Or fundamentally bunk. Happiness is a fundamentally individual experience. There can be no "group" happiness.

I feel like my sense of humor is extra-dry whenever we talk.

We already have that. It's called "different national governments". :P
And it works to a certain extent. It should be made to work even more under anarchy!

Divide the labor too much, sh*t starts getting weird.

Where territories are drawn up over homesteading, rather than arbitrary authoritarianism.

The idea that arbitrary claims of land, themselves restricted by the drawing of arbitrary borders, is a legitimate claim of right is itself, well, arbitrary. :P

Plus, homesteading wouldn't really work like it used to when we were settling the American frontier. We already have huge settlements and property lines.

Honestly, though, I think it's a little hard to say that the problem can be resolved merely by competing legal jurisdictions, since what kinds of laws are in place isn't necessarily a primary motivator for where a person moves to. I mean, if the economy is bad, and I'm taking out loans to pay my mortgage, get through college, or just buy groceries, I'm not going to pick up my entire life, leave my friends, possibly family, try to sell my house, and goodness knows what else.
The idea is that you wouldn't move to Mexico, but from Austin to Dallas, or North Austin to South Austin.

I think you're sort of assuming that zones A) would be that small, and B) would have uniform codes, when, in reality, the theme of polycentrism would exist within zones as well, given that PSCs (private security contractors) would be pretty unlikely to have uniform sets of pseudolaws (especially where issues like pollution or other torts are concerned).

Of course, there's also that whole "laws in a zone are subject to change, which in turn might require readjustment in terms of location" thing.

You can say "well, ultimately, people are still able to do what they want to do without coercion, so it's okay", but that fails to account for the fact that A) it's a system which doesn't guarantee results as good as it seems to promise by proposing such solutions, so it's a false sense of security and B) people are, for all intents are purposes, "locked" into some places, not by violence or coercion, but by circumstances that could leave them worse off if they abandoned it.

Consumer lock-in has its advantages and disadvantages. In the case, the advantage of settling down could be all sorts of subjective things, while the disadvantage would be less ability to change providers of law. You just have to choose which means more to you.

What's the value of having that political freedom, exactly, if the benefits of laws that you don't like outweigh the value of the freedom to choose to abandon those laws? Like laws against smoking in public/unowned places, for example. Plus, moving anywhere tends to get hella expensive.

I think the result would prove that both policies work... because all the hippy liberals would be in the gun free zone, and all the people who know how to use guns responsibly would be in the gun proliferation zone.

Lol. I think you're making a few assumptions there.
*shrug* Don't you think both legal regimes would work?

Would they work? I dunno. I meant that your assumption that liberals would go to the gun-free zone and that "people who know how to use guns responsibly" would go to the proliferation zone. Like your issue with statistics, there are plenty of factors that can't really be accounted for that will mitigate the usefulness of one's de facto political liberty. Ceteris paribus, that might be right, but, otherwise... :P
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2011 11:47:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/22/2011 11:20:23 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Divide the labor too much, sh*t starts getting weird.
Because there aren't tiny functional governments.

The idea that arbitrary claims of land, themselves restricted by the drawing of arbitrary borders, is a legitimate claim of right is itself, well, arbitrary. :P
I don't think you can draw a line on a map and call that legitimate.

Plus, homesteading wouldn't really work like it used to when we were settling the American frontier. We already have huge settlements and property lines.
Its not about allocating new territory, its about re-drawing lines around old territory. Any inefficiencies in distribution of property or jurisdiction would be rectified by the market - sale to those who can put property to its most efficient uses.

I think you're sort of assuming that zones A) would be that small,
I don't know how big they would be. It depends on consumer preference for change, economies of scale, etc.

and B) would have uniform codes, when, in reality, the theme of polycentrism would exist within zones as well, given that PSCs (private security contractors) would be pretty unlikely to have uniform sets of pseudolaws (especially where issues like pollution or other torts are concerned).
The codes wouldn't be uniform insofar as heterogeneity was demanded by consumers. The codes would be uniform insofar as it helped jurisdictions attract consumers.

Consumer lock-in has its advantages and disadvantages. In the case, the advantage of settling down could be all sorts of subjective things, while the disadvantage would be less ability to change providers of law. You just have to choose which means more to you.

What's the value of having that political freedom, exactly, if the benefits of laws that you don't like outweigh the value of the freedom to choose to abandon those laws? Like laws against smoking in public/unowned places, for example. Plus, moving anywhere tends to get hella expensive.

Moving anywhere is expensive under the current paradigm. But that paradigm can change. You should also consider that the majority of people free ride off the marginal independents who DO change providers. For example, the majority of people might be totally committed to McDonalds, but if McD's can increase revenue by appealing to "swing" customers, they'll improve their services for everyone.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2011 12:32:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/22/2011 11:47:05 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 1/22/2011 11:20:23 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Divide the labor too much, sh*t starts getting weird.
Because there aren't tiny functional governments.

"Functional" isn't a very good criterion.

The idea that arbitrary claims of land, themselves restricted by the drawing of arbitrary borders, is a legitimate claim of right is itself, well, arbitrary. :P
I don't think you can draw a line on a map and call that legitimate.

Then allocation through homesteading has some problems, doesn't it?

Plus, homesteading wouldn't really work like it used to when we were settling the American frontier. We already have huge settlements and property lines.
Its not about allocating new territory, its about re-drawing lines around old territory

So, you call government drawing of borders and boundaries arbitrary, and hope to rectify the problem by basically redrawing the same lines, but without the government behind it? That sounds like you're trying to make a statement, rather than find a solution to the problem of arbitrary property lines.

Any inefficiencies in distribution of property or jurisdiction would be rectified by the market - sale to those who can put property to its most efficient uses.

1. Actually, sale to those who pay the most for it, which is connected only by speculation to the use(s) to which the land will then be put. The seller doesn't really give two sh*ts about how the land it used

2. Sale presupposes owners, which presupposes that you've already redrawn property lines, which means that the market isn't going to rectify anything.

3. Assuming ideal conditions, "efficient" might be an accurate descriptor in terms of profitability. Other types of efficiency, like environmental efficiency, are quite suspect.

I think you're sort of assuming that zones A) would be that small,
I don't know how big they would be. It depends on consumer preference for change, economies of scale, etc.

Then it's hard to say what kind of burden would be put on residents, isn't it?

and B) would have uniform codes, when, in reality, the theme of polycentrism would exist within zones as well, given that PSCs (private security contractors) would be pretty unlikely to have uniform sets of pseudolaws (especially where issues like pollution or other torts are concerned).

The codes wouldn't be uniform insofar as heterogeneity was demanded by consumers. The codes would be uniform insofar as it helped jurisdictions attract consumers.

Assuming PSCs (or "jurisdictions", whatever that actually entails) are perfectly responsive to consumer demand. I mean, if you have groups of a few city blocks where the rules are different because PSCs managed to get their hands on jurisdiction (which is basically a government), things are going to get really inefficient and annoying.

Consumer lock-in has its advantages and disadvantages. In the case, the advantage of settling down could be all sorts of subjective things, while the disadvantage would be less ability to change providers of law. You just have to choose which means more to you.

What's the value of having that political freedom, exactly, if the benefits of laws that you don't like outweigh the value of the freedom to choose to abandon those laws? Like laws against smoking in public/unowned places, for example. Plus, moving anywhere tends to get hella expensive.

Moving anywhere is expensive under the current paradigm. But that paradigm can change. You should also consider that the majority of people free ride off the marginal independents who DO change providers. For example, the majority of people might be totally committed to McDonalds, but if McD's can increase revenue by appealing to "swing" customers, they'll improve their services for everyone.

I don't think McDonald's is a good example, since their service is providing death on a bun.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2011 12:54:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/22/2011 12:32:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/22/2011 11:47:05 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 1/22/2011 11:20:23 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Divide the labor too much, sh*t starts getting weird.
Because there aren't tiny functional governments.

"Functional" isn't a very good criterion.
Neither is "weird". Maybe this? http://en.wikipedia.org...

The idea that arbitrary claims of land, themselves restricted by the drawing of arbitrary borders, is a legitimate claim of right is itself, well, arbitrary. :P
I don't think you can draw a line on a map and call that legitimate.

Then allocation through homesteading has some problems, doesn't it?
Well I subscribe to the use-theory of homesteading. Its not about lines, its about activities. So if someone's farming land, fine, they have a right to continue doing so unmolested, but other people can use the same geographic space insofar as it does not interfere with the farming. For example, radio broadcasts travel through the land. Planes might travel over it. Etc.

Its not about allocating new territory, its about re-drawing lines around old territory

So, you call government drawing of borders and boundaries arbitrary,
The reason its arbitrary is not because of lines or borders per se, its the REASON behind the lines. Government just claims a bunch of land and people for itself with no valid reason. Homesteaders have to use the land before they have claims. This is not a redrawing of existing state lines, because homesteading rights are totally unrecognized by the state's legal system.

Any inefficiencies in distribution of property or jurisdiction would be rectified by the market - sale to those who can put property to its most efficient uses.

1. Actually, sale to those who pay the most for it, which is connected only by speculation to the use(s) to which the land will then be put. The seller doesn't really give two sh*ts about how the land it used
Err, so?

2. Sale presupposes owners, which presupposes that you've already redrawn property lines, which means that the market isn't going to rectify anything.
No it doesn't. http://en.wikipedia.org...

3. Assuming ideal conditions, "efficient" might be an accurate descriptor in terms of profitability. Other types of efficiency, like environmental efficiency, are quite suspect.
Yeah. Just when the market is about to work out, there's always some hitch. Its not environmental enough, or pedophiles might get away with photoshopping justin bieber. The only criterion by which you can judge society is voluntarism. Everything else is just an interpersonal comparison of utility.

Then it's hard to say what kind of burden would be put on residents, isn't it?
Its pretty reasonable that more competition = less burden than the status quo. Its like, I can't prove that life would be better without telecom monopolies, but there are good reasons for thinking so.

The codes wouldn't be uniform insofar as heterogeneity was demanded by consumers. The codes would be uniform insofar as it helped jurisdictions attract consumers.

Assuming PSCs (or "jurisdictions", whatever that actually entails) are perfectly responsive to consumer demand. I mean, if you have groups of a few city blocks where the rules are different because PSCs managed to get their hands on jurisdiction (which is basically a government), things are going to get really inefficient and annoying.
Inefficient to who? Annoying to who? Consumers? I already explained why the market wouldn't systematically produce handicapping law.

Moving anywhere is expensive under the current paradigm. But that paradigm can change. You should also consider that the majority of people free ride off the marginal independents who DO change providers. For example, the majority of people might be totally committed to McDonalds, but if McD's can increase revenue by appealing to "swing" customers, they'll improve their services for everyone.

I don't think McDonald's is a good example, since their service is providing death on a bun.
Okay. Microsoft vs Apple. Anything. Any product will have a group of loyal consumers and a group of "swing" consumers. The company will focus on the swing consumers and make the product better for them, and the loyalists will free ride off the benefits.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2011 12:58:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/22/2011 12:33:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Also, you sort of dodged the questions about 1) torts, and 2) what the value of total political freedom is.
Historically, fraternal societies handled torts. Basically a fraternal society is a reputation mechanism. They have a good reputation so they can do business with other fraternal societies. They keep individual members in line to preserve their reputation, etc.

But its all about repeat iterations. Rights are a prisoner's dilemma. If the world were going to end tomorrow, everyone would "defect" and start stealing everything they could. But because people desire repeat relations with each other, rights arise.

And the value of total political freedom? Dunno. I'd imagine a lot of jurisdictions would be pretty totalitarian for the Mirza types. You just have to let people choose which legal system they fall under because utility is subjective. There's no "right" amount of political freedom.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2011 1:33:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/22/2011 12:54:26 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 1/22/2011 12:32:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/22/2011 11:47:05 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 1/22/2011 11:20:23 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Divide the labor too much, sh*t starts getting weird.
Because there aren't tiny functional governments.

"Functional" isn't a very good criterion.
Neither is "weird". Maybe this? http://en.wikipedia.org...

Maybe we should try to flesh out a criterion based on what the goal for government is? (After all, a government well-versed in indiscriminate genocide seems to be counter to the spirit of "functionality".)

The idea that arbitrary claims of land, themselves restricted by the drawing of arbitrary borders, is a legitimate claim of right is itself, well, arbitrary. :P
I don't think you can draw a line on a map and call that legitimate.

Then allocation through homesteading has some problems, doesn't it?
Well I subscribe to the use-theory of homesteading. Its not about lines, its about activities. So if someone's farming land, fine, they have a right to continue doing so unmolested, but other people can use the same geographic space insofar as it does not interfere with the farming. For example, radio broadcasts travel through the land. Planes might travel over it. Etc.

1. What confers a "right" to use something, whether that be land, space, or airwaves?

2. If that's the case, then purchasing land wouldn't really confer ownership rights, since a person could buy a huge parcel of land and never use it--like someone who buys, say, 30 acres of land, uses one or two to build a house, and lets the rest sit for aesthetic value, perhaps mowing a few of the acres closest to the house.

Its not about allocating new territory, its about re-drawing lines around old territory

So, you call government drawing of borders and boundaries arbitrary,
The reason its arbitrary is not because of lines or borders per se, its the REASON behind the lines. Government just claims a bunch of land and people for itself with no valid reason. Homesteaders have to use the land before they have claims.

Government isn't, in its own right, a conscious, breathing, living entity. It's more or less a system of laws created and executed by conscious, breathing, living entities. Laws are engineered by people and administered by people, which means that people have to precede government, which means that government does not, out of the blue, claim right over land or people. People show up, claim habitation rights over (ideally) unowned land, establish a general border where their civilization ends, and then, if we're looking at basic democracy or republicanism, will turn to some kind of leadership to organize and regulate the activities of the population. This means that A) government primarily claims jurisdiction over land, through general consent, rather than ownership. In other words, of the many people using/inhabiting the land, a few step up without a lot of objection or are nominated to organize things. In order to have the power to organize effectively, then, they have to "claim" people in the sense of exercising sole jurisdiction and excluding other organizations from exercising power. Two organizations, whether PSCs or states, can't exercise jurisdiction over the same individual or area.

This is not a redrawing of existing state lines, because homesteading rights are totally unrecognized by the state's legal system.

How do you propose we go from our current stage of development to a tabula rasa state of use-theory homesteading?

Any inefficiencies in distribution of property or jurisdiction would be rectified by the market - sale to those who can put property to its most efficient uses.

1. Actually, sale to those who pay the most for it, which is connected only by speculation to the use(s) to which the land will then be put. The seller doesn't really give two sh*ts about how the land it used
Err, so?

I'm just pointing out that "sale to those who can put property to its most efficient uses" probably isn't going to happen as much as people hope, which means the market's alleged rectification of inefficiencies in distribution and use becomes a bit suspect.

2. Sale presupposes owners, which presupposes that you've already redrawn property lines, which means that the market isn't going to rectify anything.
No it doesn't. http://en.wikipedia.org...

How is that link relevant?

3. Assuming ideal conditions, "efficient" might be an accurate descriptor in terms of profitability. Other types of efficiency, like environmental efficiency, are quite suspect.
Yeah. Just when the market is about to work out, there's always some hitch.

Or the point that "about to work out" wasn't actually the condition that the market was in in the first place.

Its not environmental enough, or pedophiles might get away with photoshopping justin bieber.

You're really appealing to ridicule on that one. In other words, try again.

The only criterion by which you can judge society is voluntarism. Everything else is just an interpersonal comparison of utility.

Why can we only judge by voluntarism?

Then it's hard to say what kind of burden would be put on residents, isn't it?
Its pretty reasonable that more competition = less burden than the status quo. Its like, I can't prove that life would be better without telecom monopolies, but there are good reasons for thinking so.

Burden-wise, it might be a difference in kind, rather than degree.

The codes wouldn't be uniform insofar as heterogeneity was demanded by consumers. The codes would be uniform insofar as it helped jurisdictions attract consumers.

Assuming PSCs (or "jurisdictions", whatever that actually entails) are perfectly responsive to consumer demand. I mean, if you have groups of a few city blocks where the rules are different because PSCs managed to get their hands on jurisdiction (which is basically a government), things are going to get really inefficient and annoying.
Inefficient to who? Annoying to who? Consumers? I already explained why the market wouldn't systematically produce handicapping law.

Inefficient and annoying to everyone involved.

Moving anywhere is expensive under the current paradigm. But that paradigm can change. You should also consider that the majority of people free ride off the marginal independents who DO change providers. For example, the majority of people might be totally committed to McDonalds, but if McD's can increase revenue by appealing to "swing" customers, they'll improve their services for everyone.

I don't think McDonald's is a good example, since their service is providing death on a bun.
Okay. Microsoft vs Apple. Anything. Any product will have a group of loyal consumers and a group of "swing" consumers. The company will focus on the swing consumers and make the product better for them, and the loyalists will free ride off the benefits.

Or the loyalists will get pissed off about the changes, but won't really be in a position to do anything about it or stop using those goods/services.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2011 2:44:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/22/2011 1:33:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Maybe we should try to flesh out a criterion based on what the goal for government is? (After all, a government well-versed in indiscriminate genocide seems to be counter to the spirit of "functionality".)
My answer is just going to be voluntarism. But you're raising this issue because you think economies of scale are necessary for governance. First, I've shown this to be false with my examples of tiny governments. Second, even if an economy of scale were desirable, it doesn't follow that the market creation of large jurisdictions has the same outcome as barbarian conquests forming them.

1. What confers a "right" to use something, whether that be land, space, or airwaves?
Use. You can use something if it doesn't infringe on what someone else is doing.

2. If that's the case, then purchasing land wouldn't really confer ownership rights, since a person could buy a huge parcel of land and never use it--like someone who buys, say, 30 acres of land, uses one or two to build a house, and lets the rest sit for aesthetic value, perhaps mowing a few of the acres closest to the house.
So?

Government isn't, in its own right, a conscious, breathing, living entity. It's more or less a system of laws created and executed by conscious, breathing, living entities.
No it isn't. Pizza hut has rules but it is not a government.

This means that A) government primarily claims jurisdiction over land, through general consent, rather than ownership.
Historically, no.

In other words, of the many people using/inhabiting the land, a few step up without a lot of objection or are nominated to organize things. In order to have the power to organize effectively, then, they have to "claim" people in the sense of exercising sole jurisdiction and excluding other organizations from exercising power.
You don't see how its a giant moral hazard if one man can claim another? If there's an institution with a captive base of consumers?

Two organizations, whether PSCs or states, can't exercise jurisdiction over the same individual or area
Both PSCs and states have exercised jurisdiction over the same individuals and areas in the past. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... and probably some others.

Two PSCs can overlap jurisdiction in the same way that my apartment has rules set down by my, and also rules set down by the apartment complex, and also rules set down by the city, etc.

How do you propose we go from our current stage of development to a tabula rasa state of use-theory homesteading?
My incremental plan is to break the US back into 50 or so states.

I'm just pointing out that "sale to those who can put property to its most efficient uses" probably isn't going to happen as much as people hope, which means the market's alleged rectification of inefficiencies in distribution and use becomes a bit suspect.
Property will be put to its most profitable uses, where profit is subjective. For example, if someone really likes their home, they probably won't sell it. That's profitable for them. But if they don't like it, and someone else wants to turn it into a wildlife preserve or a factory, its also profitable for them in both ways. Its all about voluntarism.

How is that link relevant?
It shows how property rights aren't necessary to protect use?

Yeah. Just when the market is about to work out, there's always some hitch.

Or the point that "about to work out" wasn't actually the condition that the market was in in the first place.
The point is that "work out" is bunk. Its a utilitarian argument in disguise.

Its not environmental enough, or pedophiles might get away with photoshopping justin bieber.

You're really appealing to ridicule on that one. In other words, try again.
I'm arguing that you're running the Utopia fallacy against me.

Why can we only judge by voluntarism?
Voluntarism is a necessary condition to know if arrangements are preferable. So you might also use other things, but you have to include voluntarism.

Its pretty reasonable that more competition = less burden than the status quo. Its like, I can't prove that life would be better without telecom monopolies, but there are good reasons for thinking so.

Burden-wise, it might be a difference in kind, rather than degree.
You don't think having more choices in law is better than having a few regional/ethnic monopolies?

Inefficient to who? Annoying to who? Consumers? I already explained why the market wouldn't systematically produce handicapping law.

Inefficient and annoying to everyone involved.
Bolded.

Okay. Microsoft vs Apple. Anything. Any product will have a group of loyal consumers and a group of "swing" consumers. The company will focus on the swing consumers and make the product better for them, and the loyalists will free ride off the benefits.

Or the loyalists will get pissed off about the changes, but won't really be in a position to do anything about it or stop using those goods/services.
If they're pissed off, they aren't loyalists anymore. They create a demand for a different product. Aka a profit opportunity for someone to satisfy their wants...
Things that are so interesting:

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