educate a liberal

[BCPVP]

Boy, I hope this is a liberal in disguise...

[Darryl_P]

On the issue of marriage, divorce and child custody, I can see how a private arrangement works if both parties are willing to enter such a contractual arrangement before having children. But what about the (imo typical) case in which there would be no such contract?

The way I see marriage is that it benefits the system first and foremost. The system needs to keep tabs on everyone so it uses violence to force people to give information about who a child's parents are. This, in turn, allows it to pinpoint who it needs to use force against should the child prove to be a burden on others.

The system also needs everyone to be as economically productive as possible so it can extort the maximum amount possible. Women being major players in the workforce is key here since they are the ones who, absent appropriate brainwashing, are the most susceptible to choosing to remain unemployed.

Without the state mechanism there is nothing to stop me from behaving like a pimp with my women and exploiting the fact that they rely solely on me for financial security. I'd make sure they stay in the home, use the fact that they are in love with me to make them not want to seek other means of security, just feeding them the minimum amount of money to satisfy the essentials but taking care to continue their absolute dependence on me.

The current state system prevents this by giving her several options to invoke force against me and to access some of the cash the state has extorted from others. The others benefit as well since she will be coerced to work once my influence is marginalized and that gets her to become useful to them.

The question here is how the same result can be achieved via private means? We are assuming a woman who has been blinded by love and a ruthless man who exploits her to the max. The force needed to "correct" the situation (I put it in quotes because the values of Islamic nations for example don't acknowledge that there is anything to correct here) has to come from the community or society at large. So the state system appears to be the most efficient mechanism for that. Am I missing something here? Again, my imagination has reached is limit and so I'd appreciate some help in envisioning a workable system using only private means.

I should say that I am all for pure, unbridled capitalism with nobody extorting money from me, keeping tabs on me etc., but I fail to see how it can be good for the current populace of western nations to stop using collective force on me to keep me from maximizing my prospects in the various win-lose situations I find myself in.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, the old "love it or leave it" arguement. I knew you were eventually going to bring this up. Recognizing that the current US government is oppressive in no way implies that there is somewhere else that is less oppressive. If there were, I would indeed move.

Do you completely agree 100% with everything the government does? If not, why don't you pack up and move? Put your money where your mouth is? Is it impossible in your worldview to have ideals, yet accept a reality which is less than perfect when compared to those ideals? Should one just give up rather than work to improve things? Your defeatist attitude, to be frank, sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

You 'knew' I was going to bring this up? Perhaps you should have been better prepared then.

This isn't a 'love it or leave it' argument - it really is how Locke argued that states legitimize their authority; the state doesn't need your explicit consent, just your tacit consent. You've given your tacit consent when you make use of any property under the jurisdiction and its laws, whether this involves enjoying the ownership of the land, or as Locke puts it, "barely travelling freely on the Highway." They don't need your name on the Constitution - you're here, you've consented.

Your tacit consent clearly comes with qualifications - it does not preclude the possibility of disobedience or disagreement with the state - only that once you claim that government has violated your natural rights or exceeds the limits of its authority, you're obligated to revolt - either by leaving, or witholding your taxes, or storming the gates of power torch in hand.

You clearly haven't read some of the works which are fundamental to understanding even basic things about government and authority - this isn't a knock against you - only that, before you start saying how unreasonable I am, you would be better served by going to your local library or other such place, so that when we continue this discussion, I don't have to address every silly quibble you can invent that have by and large been addressed by political theorists long ago.

Locke's works are available free all over the internet. Try here for the Second Treatise of Government, which is the Locke work I've been referring to in my posts:

Secont Treatise of Government

[polarbear]

The FAQ section states pork projects have to meet at least one (or two?) of the seven listed criteria. I still can't figure out who decides which bills fit these criteria. But there's a link that's down and it could be in there.

By their account, pork expenditures totalled between $10 billion and $27 billion every year from 1995-2005, or roughly 1% of the total budget. I doubt either party is this responsible.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying such a military could come about with private contributions alone?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

See this PDF

[ QUOTE ]
The conventional argument for government provision of defense is that military expenditures exhibit large positive externalities. As the Coase Theorem demonstrates, in a world of zero transactions costs, individuals could sign binding contracts and achieve an efficient level of defense expenditures without coercion. The present paper shows that the institutions of insurance and call options could allow private markets in the real world to approximate the zero transactions cost outcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't a 'love it or leave it' argument - it really is how Locke argued that states legitimize their authority; the state doesn't need your explicit consent, just your tacit consent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I reject that arguement. Just because Locke says it doesn't make it so. The state's hold of power over its people only indicates that the state has nominative control, not legitimate authority.

[ QUOTE ]
you're here, you've consented.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the status quo can never be legitimately questioned.

[ QUOTE ]
Your tacit consent clearly comes with qualifications - it does not preclude the possibility of disobedience or disagreement with the state - only that once you claim that government has violated your natural rights or exceeds the limits of its authority, you're obligated to revolt - either by leaving, or witholding your taxes, or storming the gates of power torch in hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read Locke, I just don't give him the unwavering reverence that you think he deserves.

It's not permitted to gather support first? Every revolutionary must effectively commit suicide.

1) If I leave, there's no possibility of change. This also presumes that there is somewhere better to go. Despite the shortcomings of the USA, I believe it's better than any other place.

2) If I withhold my taxes, I'll be incarcerated, which severely limits my ability to affect change. Plus, I'm interested in maximizing my personal liberty, so I plan on maintaining as much as I can while trying to get more. If I thought a period of incarceration might result in a freer society upon my release, this might be an attractive option, but I don't think it's a realistic approach.

3) Storming the gates is not (yet) feasible. Even if it were, I doubt I would participate in an explicity violent revolution. As I've said earlier, violence is not a preferred method of dispute resolution.

I have ideals, but that doesn't mean I actually expect that the US Government will be overthrown in my lifetime, nor does it indicate how much actual effort I'm willing to personally invest in such a goal. I'm willing to argue from an idealist viewpoint yet compromise in my day-to-day life. I guess that makes me a poor ideologue, so be it.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Your tacit consent clearly comes with qualifications - it does not preclude the possibility of disobedience or disagreement with the state - only that once you claim that government has violated your natural rights or exceeds the limits of its authority, you're obligated to revolt - either by leaving, or witholding your taxes, or storming the gates of power torch in hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

The more I think about this arugement, the more bogus it appears. If I get pulled over, and the cop asks me if he can search my vehicle, I will clearly state that I do not consent to such a search. If he then decides that he's going to search anyway, I will continue to state that I am not consenting to such a search, but I will not resist such a search. At this point I feel the government has violated my rights (more than they normally do). He's not going to let me leave, withholding my taxes will have zero postitive effect (and saying something to the effect of "I pay your salary!" is going to make things notably worse for me), and open revolt against the cop's authority is clearly a -EV option.

Not resisting is not the same as consenting.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
On the issue of marriage, divorce and child custody, I can see how a private arrangement works if both parties are willing to enter such a contractual arrangement before having children. But what about the (imo typical) case in which there would be no such contract?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, your original question was about what happens in a divorce proceeding, which implies some sort of mutual contract agreement.

I haven't thought about cases where there's no contract. In a situation where there is extended cohabitation but no explicit contract, I don't see any reason to think third party arbitration could not be effective.

There are other cases, of course. Consensual one-night-stands that result in pregnancy. Pregnancy that results from a rape. I haven't thought about these, either, but they are certainly interesting and important questions.

[ QUOTE ]
Without the state mechanism there is nothing to stop me from behaving like a pimp with my women and exploiting the fact that they rely solely on me for financial security.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, what you're saying is that the state prevents this because it sees it as a form of competition.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd make sure they stay in the home, use the fact that they are in love with me to make them not want to seek other means of security, just feeding them the minimum amount of money to satisfy the essentials but taking care to continue their absolute dependence on me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I don't see how the state prevents this. Or at least, I don't see how this is prevented in the USA.

[ QUOTE ]
The current state system prevents this by giving her several options to invoke force against me and to access some of the cash the state has extorted from others. The others benefit as well since she will be coerced to work once my influence is marginalized and that gets her to become useful to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

If she's blinded by love why would she invoke the state to use force against her man?

In a stateless society, she can still leave, and she can still pursue torts against anyone that has caused her damages, including loss of liberty.

In a stateless society, I (as a random member of that society) still benefit if she works.

[ QUOTE ]
The question here is how the same result can be achieved via private means? We are assuming a woman who has been blinded by love and a ruthless man who exploits her to the max. The force needed to "correct" the situation (I put it in quotes because the values of Islamic nations for example don't acknowledge that there is anything to correct here) has to come from the community or society at large. So the state system appears to be the most efficient mechanism for that. Am I missing something here? Again, my imagination has reached is limit and so I'd appreciate some help in envisioning a workable system using only private means.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you may be on to a good question here, but I think you're leaving something out of the scenario, because as I see what you describe can just as easily happen in a state-driven society.

Are you advocating that someone needs to be monitoring couples for such situations and intervening when they determine some line has been crossed?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I still can't figure out who decides which bills fit these criteria.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I understand. Are you worried about who specifically decides what's pork and what's not?

[ QUOTE ]
By their account, pork expenditures totalled between $10 billion and $27 billion every year from 1995-2005, or roughly 1% of the total budget. I doubt either party is this responsible.

[/ QUOTE ]
Check their numbers if you have doubts. Your cynicism (this isn't a knock or anything) may be getting the better of you.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying such a military could come about with private contributions alone?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

See this PDF

[ QUOTE ]
The conventional argument for government provision of defense is that military expenditures exhibit large positive externalities. As the Coase Theorem demonstrates, in a world of zero transactions costs, individuals could sign binding contracts and achieve an efficient level of defense expenditures without coercion. The present paper shows that the institutions of insurance and call options could allow private markets in the real world to approximate the zero transactions cost outcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

The PDF understates the impact of free-rider problems. Everyone contributing to defense is NOT an equilibrium state because any actor could refuse to contribute and benefit. It is almost impossible for the market to solve free-rider and hold-up problems.