Question to pvn and other anarcho-capitalists

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
P.S. Sheetwise- the introduction of Rawls' Veil of Ignorance and maxgold's citation of the law of diminishing marginal utility is getting closer to a critique of supply-side economics

[/ QUOTE ]

I did some quick reading and I admit Im not quite seeing how Rawls Veil of Ignorance applies to supply-side (in other words, classic [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ) economics. Hope this question doesnt completely derail your thread.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Somalia is truly heaven on Earth. Speaking of that, what the hell are you doing here in the statist USA, pvn? When are you packing up, leaving the hellish oppression you've been subjected to here in the US, and moving there?


[/ QUOTE ]

I you give Somalia as the prototype for anarcho-capitalism, I trust you'll allow me to give Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia as prototypes for governments.

I agree with John Locke that good governance is a consequence of a rational and moral populace. Thus, if a variant of irrational and immoral ethics becomes dominant in a culture, such as in Somalia, Iran, Nazi Germany, etc, then all bets are off -- it will be a nasty place to live regardless of how the institutions of governance are organized.

The real question is what is the proper function of a government (or anarcho-capitalist justice agency), and how is it's authority justified?

I claim that anarcho-capitalism is the only system of governance fully consistent with the ethics of individual rights, and further, that this system will be the most stable, or robust, to the corruption of those who seek authoritative power.

I believe pvn's point about Somalia is that given the dominant tribal culture there, the natural mechanisms of anarcho-capitalism nevertheless work to render a very bad situation a little better.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
What percentage of the population is better off if you re-institute slavery? 90%?

[/ QUOTE ]
Arguably, slavery is a better deal for the slave than the slave-owner. It's a better argument given that 1A is such a jerk.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I did some quick reading and I admit Im not quite seeing how Rawls Veil of Ignorance applies to supply-side (in other words, classic ) economics. Hope this question doesnt completely derail your thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it applies perfectly, but here it goes anway:

If you were to put yourself behind Rawls Veil of Ignorance (that is, if you had no idea what conditions you were going to be born into - if you had no idea of your capabilities, skills, talents, etc.) - you would decide to live in the society that most values equality as its highest virtue - and not happiness.

So, while I likely won't try to do it here - some have defended progressive tax systems using Rawls Veil of Ignorace - as progressive tax systems do a far better job of promoting equality than do regressive taxes. The veracity of such claims are beyond me, but certainly, an acceptance of progressive tax systems does much to undermind tax paradigms that supply-side economists favor (that is, a decrease in the tax rate for societies prolific producers, correct?)

Frankly, I don't really have a sufficient knowledge of economics, so I'm not the best person to defend such claims; but I'm certain they exist. I can certainly try my best to defend them, but I likely won't be doing those arguments justice.

My threads about Society 1 and Society 2 were merely meant to provide a challenge to utilitarianism (although I'll freely admit there's much about utilitarianism that is compelling, and my challenge does nothing to invalidate utilitarianism - only to throw a wrench in the wheel, so to speak).

As others have mentioned here, I think it's difficult to prove that increased GDP is necessarily corrollary to increased happiness...but call that another debate I'm not particularly equipped for.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
You are making a huge mistake here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. Don't forget the equation is based on a given premise -- that government is evil. I was pointing out an incorrect conclusion which came from that premise, not addressing the premise itself (which of course can be done but that's a different matter).

If government is evil, then removing it must increase overall EV.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Society 1: = 1000 points

[...]

Society 2: 999 points

[...]

A utilitarian is forced to accept Society 1, despite the fact that it subjects a good deal of people to the most torturous life imaginable. Certainly, Society 2 denies everyone the chance at a constant orgasm...but it’s the more desirable society, IMO - even if it concedes that some measure of pain and suffering will be experienced by all. And I think it’s a challenge utilitarianism doesn’t successfully answer. While not being an outright rejection of Mill, I think it presents a conundrum for utility hawks – is utility vulture-ing as justifiable as it initially appears?

In other words, I think many of us who have a hard time accepting absolutist morality also have a hard time embracing utilitarianism, given some scenarios we might be able to create that so violate our intuitions – like the one I presented.

[/ QUOTE ]

Utilitarianism clearly can be used to justify many undesirable, unjust outcomes.

However, your example cases are flawed because they assume that the distribution of "points" is static and unchangable. Maybe these two cases are the same "society" at different points in time. This is more than just a quibble, but the point you're trying to make is still valid - strict utilitarianism is more (vastly) more flawed than your example.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
The real question is what is the proper function of a government (or anarcho-capitalist justice agency),

[/ QUOTE ]

'Anarcho-Capitalist Justice Agency' sounds a lot like a state to my ears.

[ QUOTE ]
I claim that anarcho-capitalism is the only system of governance fully consistent with the ethics of individual rights, and further, that this system will be the most stable, or robust, to the corruption of those who seek authoritative power.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't seem to be the case in Somalia, does it?

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
... you would decide to live in the society that most values equality as its highest virtue - and not happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why?

[ QUOTE ]
... as progressive tax systems do a far better job of promoting equality than do regressive taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Equality for who? Reverse the distribution in Society 1 and that would not be true. Your choice of progressive and regressive ignores equal. A non-progressive tax rate, given any adjustment for personal exemption becomes progressive, albeit slight.

[ QUOTE ]
... tax paradigms that supply-side economists favor (that is, a decrease in the tax rate for societies prolific producers, correct?)

[/ QUOTE ]
How about a single tax rate in which the state has no interest in prolific or non-prolific production.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's difficult to prove that increased GDP is necessarily corrollary to increased happiness...

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe it's simply a byproduct.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
What percentage of the population is better off if you re-institute slavery? 90%?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably much less since most leftists and liberals (as well as some conservatives and others) would feel physical pain if that were to materialize, just from empathy for the slaves. Chances are the material benefits would not be enough to compensate.

Then there would be many who wouldn't take advantage of it because of their circumstances, competition or other reasons.

My estimate is more like 25%.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with John Locke that good governance is a consequence of a rational and moral populace. Thus, if a variant of irrational and immoral ethics becomes dominant in a culture, such as in Somalia, Iran, Nazi Germany, etc, then all bets are off -- it will be a nasty place to live regardless of how the institutions of governance are organized.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. And Somalia clearly falls into this category. Note that Somalia descended into chaos because the population there didn't have enough respect for law and order for *the original government* to resist failure.

I clearly alluded to this in my first post: "For a given example to be valid, you would have to show that anarcho-capitalism failed in a situation where goverment would have succeeded."

[ QUOTE ]
I believe pvn's point about Somalia is that given the dominant tribal culture there, the natural mechanisms of anarcho-capitalism nevertheless work to render a very bad situation a little better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. The situation in Somalia is A) better than it was before, under government; B) improving more rapidly than its neighbors with similar "starting conditions" but with state "leadership". It's not "good" but it's better than the alternatives.

The conditions in the US are vastly different than they are in Somalia (due to a number of factors, but among them are a *less* oppresive governmental tradition, a history of individualism, and a culture of entrepreneurship); implying that the US government's instant disappearance would result in Somalia-like conditions here can only be explained by poor thought or mischievous lying.