educate a liberal

[US Conservative]

[ QUOTE ]
Pork is definately on both sides, I'm more dissapointed in the Republicans though because I expect pork from democrats. I will never ever ever ever become a lib, the more I learn aboutu economics the more crazy the left becomes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Libs are responsible for almost all pork spending, they can't balance a budget like Reagan or either of the Bushes.

[tylerdurden]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that the existence of free riders per se is a showstopper problem. The mere fact that some might get a benefit without paying is not enough to say that a given plan will be a failure.

If defense specialists are funded by insurance companies, free riders do get some benefit (by the standard operations of defense forces, the society overall is more secure) without paying, but they don't get the benefits of compensation for losses if they actually suffer damages. There's still incentive to purchase a defense policy.

Further, defense agencies will be forced by economic reality to "internalize the externalities" - if a company has policies on thousands of individuals, it has an economic incentive to use its revenue to stop criminals, since the potential payout to their policyholders is very large if they don't act.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes.

See this PDF


[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting piece, but it seems to have a number of shortcomings...

It assumes that loss of property value is the primary reason to avert an attack -- a very simplistic assumption indeed that ignores a host of intangibles for which there is no hope of ever creating a market simply because they are mainly in the realm of the subconscious.

It also highlights the efficiencies ie. negation of transaction costs as being a key factor in making necessary defense spending achievable without the coercive powers of the state involved. IMO transaction inefficiencies are not a key component of military spending.

It also assumes that an organization such as an insurance company could singlehandedly organize a military when it sees a financial incentive to do so.

Same goes for a tycoon who buys up threatened property from risk-averse people who are happy to accept money in exchange for not having any place to live.

These last two make the whole piece look completely ludicrous and not much more than a mental masturbation exercise. Wait for the threat to impact market prices and THEN start recruiting and training military personnel, procuring and developing weaponry, gathering intelligence etc. I mean WTF has this guy been smoking!?

Or if the personnel and equipment were already there before the insurance company or tycoon saw the opportunity, who was controlling it and why!?

[polarbear]

[ QUOTE ]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

Not the partisanship, but specific requirements. For example, do they vote on it? How wasteful does a law need to be before they deem it pork?

Upon further reflection, a nonpartisan agreement on these definitions that is satisfactory to all is unrealistic.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

If 1% of congressional spending is "pork", then 99% of congressional spending is "fiscally responsible". This has numerous absurd implications, such as the current tax schedule being "reasonable". Of course it depends on the definitions of "pork", "fiscally responsible", "reasonable", if the first two are mutually exculsive, etc.

So what I'm really looking for is a nonpartisan summary of all bills passed by Congress. I would use the actual bills or summaries, but the bills are in lawyerese and the summaries provided by Congress are insufficient. Where can I find such a resource?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, do they vote on it? How wasteful does a law need to be before they deem it pork?

[/ QUOTE ]
1) I don't know, but I'd assume so.
2) Again, not sure. They outlined the specific criteria they use to judge whether a project is pork or not. I don't think there's a concrete line that says "when project x spends over y dollars, it's pork". I could be wrong though.

[ QUOTE ]
If 1% of congressional spending is "pork", then 99% of congressional spending is "fiscally responsible".

[/ QUOTE ]
Not necessarily. There can be a difference between pork and ineffecient spending. Plus, what you might consider "pork" may actually not meet CAGW's criteria. Then you start to wander further into subjective territory.

[ QUOTE ]
So what I'm really looking for is a nonpartisan summary of all bills passed by Congress. I would use the actual bills or summaries, but the bills are in lawyerese and the summaries provided by Congress are insufficient. Where can I find such a resource?

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess it depends on what you're looking for in particular. You'll probably have to dig around, especially with such a tall order as "all bills passed by Congress".

[Darryl_P]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I misused the word "divorce". I meant it to indicate the permanent breaking up of the parents of a child who were living together in a relationship, not the termination of any sort of state-sponsored or other explicit contract. My bad for not being clear.

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]
I suppose if both parties agreed then that would work, but what if they didn't?

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes!

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


[/ QUOTE ]

OK I suppose I exaggerated a bit with the "blinded" term. A good pimp knows he must work hard to keep the love juices flowing so even if he achieves the pinnacle of love one day, he must have a maintenance plan because time will slowly erode the love if it is not nurtured.

The state provides stiff competition not only via its feminist laws but also via the media which is an important manipulation tool the state uses to maintain its power.

Leave your woman alone for an hour and she'll probably turn on the tv where she'll be bombarded with imagery of gorgeous happy women living independent autonomous lives in a multitude of ads, sitcoms, movies, soaps, etc. Then she'll go the hairdresser and talk about those tv shows with a woman who is very skilled at pretending she's happy but not so skilled at averting subconscious stimuli so your woman will think an independent member of her species with whom she spent some pleasant moments also espouses feminist values, even if she never came out and said she does.

Then next time you see her she will put questions to you relating to how much she needs to depend on you vs. how many ways she could depend on herself or others. You, wanting good sex and not wanting to contract prostate cancer, realize it's important to keep her under your control but for every two hours you leave her alone, that's another two hours of energy you need to spend on her to undo all the stimuli she's been exposed to.

So basically you're battling the state (and the population at large) for the control of the soul of your woman -- if you're the pimp type that is. The currently very powerful western states put up a formidable battle indeed, but it is fully understandable since why wouldn't everyone fight for their own interests!? Some of us can do OK on our own or in small groups but the majority needs to band together in as large a group as possible and for those there exists the state.

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I'm following you here. How would such a thing work and who finances it?

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it CAN happen but definitely not just as easily based on my long-windedness above.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. The point I am trying to make is that the current state system is (nearly) the most efficient way to uphold the interests of the majority. I'm not too happy with it since I would gain tremendously from anarcho-capitilasm (as I assume you would too), but we would first have to do something about those pesky masses who are happy to have the state imposing restrictions and extorting money from us.

Believe me, I WANT to believe but my rationality is not letting me at the moment. If you can say something to debunk my skepticism by pointing out oversights of mine or any other info. I have not considered I'd greatly appreciate it.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
The more I think about this arugement, the more bogus it appears. If I get pulled over,

[/ QUOTE ]

If you get pulled over, you were driving on state controlled roads and, by your mere presence, consented to their authority. If you don't want to submit to police authority on the road, get off it.

[ QUOTE ]
and the cop asks me if he can search my vehicle, I will clearly state that I do not consent to such a search.

[/ QUOTE ]

You’re hypothetical situation presupposes something illegal. The state has provided protections against such searches. So this seems rather asinine to me.

Regardless, would anarcho-capitalism provide such protections?

It sounds to me as if, in an anarcho-capitalist society, to prevent such searches, you would need your own cadre of protectors. You would still be susceptible to those with a larger cadre of protectors, though. I fail to how such a society descends into anything other than warlord-ism.

[ QUOTE ]
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).

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, are such searches not illegal already? If you don’t consent, yet the officer continues to search, then he’s breaking the law and will be subject to reprimand/punishment. This hypothetical story isn’t working.

[ QUOTE ]
Not resisting is not the same as consenting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it is – think about what oppression is – no one who is actually oppressed would be so cavalier about it as you are. If you’re oppressed, you’re under so much duress from the cruel and arbitrary nature of state authority that you would use any means available to release yourself from oppression. It wouldn't be something you would accept lying down.

Let's not insult those who are actually living under harsh oppression right now in numerous places around the world by claiming that Americans are somehow oppressed.

Your expected rebuttal here is going to be something along the lines of "but it's all a matter of degree" - but to claim Americans are oppressed makes the word 'oppressed' so vacuous in meaning that it becomes synonymous with "inconvenienced" or “annoyed”.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
If you get pulled over, you were driving on state controlled roads and, by your mere presence, consented to their authority. If you don't want to submit to police authority on the road, get off it.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, fine. I'm sitting at home and a cop knocks on my door. Better? Am I consenting to the authority of the state merely by existing? Is the status quo automatically legitimate merely by the fact that it is the status quo?

[ QUOTE ]
You’re hypothetical situation presupposes something illegal. The state has provided protections against such searches. So this seems rather asinine to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet this happens all the time. Police search vehicles without probable cause by either intimidating people into waiving their rights or by outright violation of them.

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, would anarcho-capitalism provide such protections?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, in a stateless society, there won't be any public roads to be on. Your argument that by being on a state-owned road, I consent to the authority of the state is not quite the same because the state-sanctioned police force has "authority" everywhere in their jurisdiction, on private or public land.

Second of all, there's much less incentive for a private police force to search your property. What would they be looking for? Since there's no "contraband" in a stateless society, what could you have that they'd be looking for?

Thirdly, there's stronger disincentives to violate your property by force. A state-sanctioned police officer might get a slap on the wrist, but they might break a big case, so the downside risk is small and the upside gain is large. A private police force has virtually zero upside to search, and a huge downside, since they depend on private interests to fund them and being seen as a thug is bad for business.

[ QUOTE ]
It sounds to me as if, in an anarcho-capitalist society, to prevent such searches, you would need your own cadre of protectors. You would still be susceptible to those with a larger cadre of protectors, though. I fail to how such a society descends into anything other than warlord-ism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Organized crime, whether it's a street gang or a warlord, only exists where there is profit to be made. How does a warlord profit in a stateless society? What can the warlord offer that "legitimate" businesses can't provide when there's no state to create black markets in contraband? Who's going to do business with a warlord? Without cashflow, from where will the warlord draw his power?

Anarchro-capitalism cannot *eliminate* warlordism, but it can make it unprofitable, which is better than any government can do.


[ QUOTE ]
Let's not insult those who are actually living under harsh oppression right now in numerous places around the world by claiming that Americans are somehow oppressed.

[/ QUOTE ]

So any amount of oppression is OK as long as there is somewhere where it's worse?

[tylerdurden]

Darryl_P,

I'm still not quite sure exactly where you're going with this. The state can't prevent one from falling under someone else's spell. It can't help one out of that situation unless either 1) the state invasively monitors such situations or 2) the individual requests help. In the cases where the individual initiates the request for help, I don't see why the state is the only entity that can provide assistance.

[Darryl_P]

PVN,

I suppose I'm making certain assumptions about you and I seeing certain things the same way which evidently are incorrect. A key one here is the incredible power of the media to infiltrate average peoples' subconsciouses and effectively rule their lives by shaping their values and incentivizing them to not think too much for themselves, and this power being used and controlled by the state to further its self-serving goals.

If this assumption is weakened then the whole argument I've given so far falls apart I agree.

In a nutshell my position is that the majority of people in a western society like the USA, say, benefit from the existence of the state, (and since it's a negative sum game, those who lose out must on average lose much more than what the beneficiaries gain on average) and while it may not be the only way for the beneficiaries to all get the benefits they are getting, I would argue it is very close to being the most efficient, reason being that these are the weaker people who need to band together in huge numbers to be able to impose their will on the stronger ones. Their only advantage is their number so they must use this to the fullest. Banding together to create a monolithic body to uphold their interests in a very wide spectrum of important activities seems like the logical way to go for them.

In a sense the state can be considered a private enterprise owned by the voters. Apart from its huge size, very wide scope of activities, and the different names given to its activities than the corporate world (ie. its policies are called "laws", and much deception is employed to achieve its goals because of the lower wealth and lower sophistication of its owners), how is it different philosophically from a private enterprise like a mafia for example?

It could just be that we do have anarchy right now and this one huge mafia has a monopoly in several fields of activity. You and I are, after all, free to set up a competing entity if we like. Of course we would need formidable power to overcome the aggression that we will experience when our desire to compete becomes clear. Alternatively we could make a very long-term plan involving future generations to infiltrate the state and take it down from within. In any case the task would be monumental but we are indeed free to do it and while extremely difficult, it would not be impossible.

What do you think of this semi-twisted but imo not inaccurate perspective?