Political Crossfire Forums

[LeopardPM]

to quote some of his stuff, he is very thorough and smart:

Anarchy and Efficient Law
More than twenty years ago, Professor (now Judge) Richard Posner suggested that many features of the common law could be explained by the conjecture that it was a set of legal rules that maximized economic efficiency.[0] To what degree the conjecture is correct is still a matter of debate, but, true or false, it has played a major role in the development of the economic analysis of law.

One weakness in Posner's argument was and is the absence of a plausible mechanism to generate efficient Common Law.[1] What he and his supporters offer instead is extensive analysis of the common law as it actually exists, designed to show that its rules are close to the rules that would have been chosen by an economist attempting to maximize economic efficiency. Lacking a compelling theory, they offer empirical evidence--although a considerable addition of economic theory is required to argue that the rules observed to exist are the efficient ones.

My project in this chapter is the mirror image of Posner's. The legal system I will be describing does not exist, so I cannot observe its rules.[2] What I will be proposing is a theoretical analysis of why that legal system, if it existed, could be expected to generate efficient rules.[3]



Law as a Private Good
Imagine a society with no government. Individuals purchase law enforcement from private firms. Each such firm faces possible conflicts with other firms. Private policemen working for the enforcement agency that I employ may track down the burglar who stole my property only to discover, when they try to arrest him, that he too employs an enforcement agency.

There are three ways in which such conflicts might be dealt with. The most obvious and least likely is direct violence-a mini-war between my agency, attempting to arrest the burglar, and his agency attempting to defend him from arrest. A somewhat more plausible scenario is negotiation. Since warfare is expensive, agencies might include in the contracts they offer their customers a provision under which they are not obliged to defend customers against legitimate punishment for their actual crimes. When a conflict occured, it would then be up to the two agencies to determine whether the accused customer of one would or would not be deemed guilty and turned over to the other.

A still more attractive and more likely solution is advance contracting between the agencies. Under this scenario, any two agencies that faced a significant probability of such clashes would agree on an arbitration agency to settle them-a private court. Implicit or explicit in their agreement would be the legal rules under which such disputes were to be settled.

Under these circumstances, both law enforcement and law are private goods produced on a private market. Law enforcement is produced by enforcement agencies and sold directly to their customers. Law is produced by arbitration agencies and sold to the enforcement agencies, who resell it to their customers as one characteristic of the bundle of services they provide.[4]

The resulting legal system might contain many different law codes. The rules governing a particular conflict will depend on the arbitration agency that the enforcement agencies employed by the parties to the conflict have agreed on. While there will be some market pressure for uniformity, it is logically possible for every pair of enforcement agencies to agree on a different arbitration agency with a different set of legal rules.[5]

Indeed, one could have more diversity than that. Suppose there is some small group within the population with specialized legal requirements. An example might be members of a religious sect that forbade the taking of oaths, in a society where conventional legal procedure required such oaths. Such a group might have its own enforcement agency and let that agency negotiate appropriate legal rules on its behalf. Alternatively, an agency might produce a specialized product for members of the group by negotiating agreements under which those customers, if involved in litigation, were not required to swear the usual oaths.

As this example suggests, the potential legal diversity of such a system is very large; in principle, a different set of legal rules might apply between every pair of persons. In practice, such diversity will be constrained by costs of negotiation and by costs of legal diversity. The transaction costs of separately negotiating a different law code between every pair of persons would be prohibitively high, so it is likely that each pair of enforcement agencies will agree on a single law code interpreted by a single arbitration agency, with provisions for occasional variances of the sort described above.

Legal diversity has substantial costs. If, for example, contract terms enforceable against customers of agency A may be unenforceable against customers of B, that makes it more difficult and expensive for firms to draw up satisfactory contracts. Such costs will provide an incentive for arbitration agencies to adopt more uniform law, to be balanced against the incentive for non-uniform law provided by the differing desires of different customers.

[sapphire7]

Quote:
your conclusions are wrong here - order is created on the market, not necessitating government
Government is simply order that is established by a community. Even if I were refering to a complete government, there is at least one instance in which it expanded from simple economics to a more completed government. The EU came in part out of the European Economic Community, which was generally just economic in function (also being called the Common Market). Would the EEC be an example of "order created on the market"?


Quote: capitalism 'caused' poverty? Gee, is there poverty in non-capitalistic countries? Thi is a common misunderstanding of socialists - they think the 'cause' of poverty is lack of wealth - that is the definition of poverty, not its cause. The cause of lack of wealth can be due to many factors, some controllable, some not. The factors controllable are: productivity, thriftiness, resposible decision making, oppression (usually in the form of government, but also includes private such as robbery, assualt, murder, etc), etc. Uncontrollable factors might include: weather/natural disasters, disease or other illnesses, etc.
I'm sorry, wording can really hurt; I should have included currency being used to obtain a human's essential needs as a source of poverty, excuse my generalization. That would help account for other countries also having poverty as well. Now, as for the factors of poverty, which you have intelligently listed (that isn't sarcasm), of course a person's sloth and ineptness contributes to poverty, but at least the unlucky ones should be supported in case something random were to happen. Those people have to depend on food drives, soup lines, and other services that are only provided if communities see fit to help. If the government also helps these people in a similar way, well then, good! If not, it should be something to be considered.


Quote: OMG! The absolute horror of the fact that my 'needs' might induce someone else to cater to them in search of profit!!!! Gee, unless people were willing to all be my slave and provide for my needs without compensation (wait! this is socialism in a nutshell: slavery!), then profit sounds like a natural solution to my dilema (the dilema being that I have a need that I would rather have someone else take care of....).

OMG! Doesn't a person deserve to live if at least he/she contributes to his/her society? And how about people as a whole? Gee, unless people were willing to help each other through their collective labor, which might be paid not in money, but in necessities such as water, food, shelter, etc., thus maintaining a stable society that doesn't hunger, thirst, or lack other necessites(wait! this is socialism in a nutshell: social contracts!), then profit of currency sounds like the only other way that one can support his family and provide all their needs by paying money, which in some cases no money is under one's possession to pay with. Even when trying to seek work, if one runs out of money, they start living on welfare which may or may not be only loans unless one is retired, under pension, or certain other circumstances. If one can provide for his family adequately enough in most unfortunate circumstances through welfare, then at least the government has been able to do this much for those in poverty. If not...then, maybe, a change is in order.


Quote: So, healthcare is a 'big one' on your list? Are you saying that just because a person is alive and human, that other people must provide for their health? At the first level, this would make doctors slaves, demanding they labor without compensation. If the situation is abstracted a bit (just enough to blind the socialists), and doctors are compensated but not by the person requesting the service, but by some government who in turn enslaves its population to raise the compensation, it is STILL an immoral situation! A 'need' on my part does NOT constitute an obligation on your part (or anyone else's part for that matter). We all have 'needs', and it is our responsibility to provide for these needs ourselves through our own labors or through other methods (like friends, family, mutual aid societies, etc).

What is it about 'profit' that you don't seem to like? Do you realize that every action you take, you do so in search of 'profit'? (sometimes its a psychic profit like alturism, or love, or the feeling of satisfaction, or reputation, or honor, or friendship, or respect, etc - but there is always a profit else you wouldn't take any action at all.) Would you get up from your easy chair where you were nice and comfortable to expend the labor to go to the fridge and get yourself a beer (or other favorite beverage) if you didn't think your situation would be improved from doing so (profiting)? You make it sound like a dirty word, and the truth is totally opposite, profit is what we all desire. Don't get all caught up in thinking of profit in terms of money (which has its own bad stigma from the phrases like 'money is the root of all evil'), profit has a wide and varied definition which is not evil, nor bad, or even undesirable.

If the people operated under a moral social contract, then because a person is alive, and because his labor is necessary to help the efficiency of the entire society, logically other members of that community are responsible to help him like they help everyone else in a society, and in return for their efforts, they receive all that they and their families need to live only at the expense of labor (which is what most of us have to do anyway under any economic system). Profit in terms of money (which is the only form of profit I meant, I didn't say or imply the need to rid ourselves of psychic desires; perhaps from now on I will always refer to it as I have now done) is a motive for exploitation; a company wants to make a profit and does so through the system of supply and demand. They make a good looking product and advertise it to make it look effective (well, the specific article shown in the advertisement is meant to be effective at least) and they sell the product to the people. The product turns out to be really inefficient, and so the product isn't bought as often, in which case the company drops the product as soon as profits goes below their standard and starts making a "new and improved" product which is probably almost as bad as the last. If the people get fooled into thinking the original product just needs replacement, then the company thrives off of the sales. The only thing, though, that can stop this kind of trickery, is if the people notice and protest or complain about it, which exposes the company's lack of decency to the people it services, and eventually causes it to reform its ways, vainly try again to fool the people, or go under and out of business.

Please understand, I only intend to learn from you who comment on my posts, not to deal with accusations that I end up having to defend myself against and reenforce my arguments, if you said something that made sense, I have considered it and may even have added it to my understanding of politics, or in this case, economics.
I'd also like to add that the fact that you didn't make such well supported and numerous arguments against e_r (all you found was the "false definition" bit, which I believed was a bit off of original topic) leaves me wondering whether you are simply like a flood pouring into all the cracks of the argument (it's a compliment), or if you're just a cyberbully giving me a hard time because I'm a "N00b". Either I leave way too many openings for criticism, or you like to lord over those who are below you. If it's the first, I can understand because I'm very new on this forum and will eventually learn when and where to state adn support statements or keep them to mysef. If it's the second... I politely ask that you don't do so unless you can help me understand better without the sarcasm and harsh criticisms. If you can't help yourself, then I'll simply ignore you, as that is the only purpose of your posts: to negatively call my attention to you...

[Atlas Bergeron]

saphire7 wrote: I'm sorry, wording can really hurt; I should have included currency being used to obtain a human's essential needs as a source of poverty, excuse my generalization. That would help account for other countries also having poverty as well. Now, as for the factors of poverty, which you have intelligently listed (that isn't sarcasm), of course a person's sloth and ineptness contributes to poverty, but at least the unlucky ones should be supported in case something random were to happen. Those people have to depend on food drives, soup lines, and other services that are only provided if communities see fit to help. If the government also helps these people in a similar way, well then, good! If not, it should be something to be considered. and you would support theft to support what is "just"
interesting...

[LeopardPM]

sapphire7 wrote: Quote:
your conclusions are wrong here - order is created on the market, not necessitating government
Government is simply order that is established by a community. Even if I were refering to a complete government, there is at least one instance in which it expanded from simple economics to a more completed government. The EU came in part out of the European Economic Community, which was generally just economic in function (also being called the Common Market). Would the EEC be an example of "order created on the market"?
No, the EEC would not be an example of 'order created on the market'. Examples would be: language, indirect exchange (money), any one of millions of private, voluntary clubs and organizations that exist apart from government (boy scouts, elks Lodge, Shriners, Masons, Book Clubs, Fan Clubs, etc ad infinitum). All of these things are created voluntarily, they have rules ('laws'), and a key ingredient is that members are able to withdraw consent without consequence except for the denial of access to membership privileges.


Quote: Quote: capitalism 'caused' poverty? Gee, is there poverty in non-capitalistic countries? This is a common misunderstanding of socialists - they think the 'cause' of poverty is lack of wealth - that is the definition of poverty, not its cause. The cause of lack of wealth can be due to many factors, some controllable, some not. The factors controllable are: productivity, thriftiness, responsible decision making, oppression (usually in the form of government, but also includes private such as robbery, assault, murder, etc), etc. Uncontrollable factors might include: weather/natural disasters, disease or other illnesses, etc.
I'm sorry, wording can really hurt; I should have included currency being used to obtain a human's essential needs as a source of poverty, excuse my generalization. That would help account for other countries also having poverty as well.
money causes poverty? You will really have to explain this one! I made a new thread for us to discuss this: http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1700382#1700382

Quote: Now, as for the factors of poverty, which you have intelligently listed (that isn't sarcasm) Thank you, I am blushing
Quote: , of course a person's sloth and ineptness contributes to poverty, but at least the unlucky ones should be supported in case something random were to happen.
why? And what do you mean 'should'? Are you saying that other people, who took the time to plan, who held off purchasing desired goods to save for 'a rainy day', who are NOT slothful or inept, are you saying that THESE people 'should', as in be FORCED, to cover for the 'unlucky ones'?

Quote: Those people have to depend on food drives, soup lines, and other services that are only provided if communities see fit to help.
Sure, and there are other ways to prepare for possible 'bad times', ways that everyone decides to do or not: purchase insurance, form mutual aid societies, strengthen family/friend ties, strengthen communal ties, etc. One does not have to be at the mercy of charity, which in and of itself is a great part of the human condition: humans DO have empathy for each other and there is a level of help available in the worst of cases.

Quote: If the government also helps these people in a similar way, well then, good! If not, it should be something to be considered.
absolutely not! Does government make money? Is it their money? no, they stick guns in taxpayers faces and steal it out of our pockets. It is at this point where the immorality enters into the equation. It is morally wrong for me to steal from my neighbor, even if I am going to pay for my Grandma's surgery, or my niece's food or education, or whatever. When we are stolen from, we have each less money to distribute to needs that we feel are more important - this is our right, it is our property. Perhaps the money I stole from you was earmarked to pay for YOUR child's food, for your grandmother's surgery, or whatever.

Quote: OMG! The absolute horror of the fact that my 'needs' might induce someone else to cater to them in search of profit!!!! Gee, unless people were willing to all be my slave and provide for my needs without compensation (wait! this is socialism in a nutshell: slavery!), then profit sounds like a natural solution to my dilemma (the dilemma being that I have a need that I would rather have someone else take care of....).
Quote: OMG! Doesn't a person deserve to live if at least he/she contributes to his/her society?

deserve to live? The universe is out to kill us and we are obligated as living beings to try our best, each of us as we can, to avert this from occurring. I don't deserve to live anymore than anyone else, and if I cannot provide for myself either through my just efforts and labors (which include garnering charity, etc), then I guess I really don't believe that I deserve to live. Look at it this way, if you were living alone in a forest, and you failed to find/make enough food to sustain yourself, do you 'deserve' to die? It's not a moral question, its just a matter of fact of life: no labor = no food = no life. This isn't some rule created by man, it is the state of affairs in this world we live in - we MUST expend enough labor to sustain ourselves. It just so happens that by voluntarily cooperating with each other through trade, we can provide for ourselves MUCH easier than if we were alone in the world. On my own, I might have to work 8 hours a day providing: clothing, shelter, food, etc. With others to trade with, then we can take advantage of division of labor and specialization and I can provide for myself BETTER than being alone by laboring probably 1-2 hr per day with minimal skills.

Quote: And how about people as a whole? Gee, unless people were willing to help each other through their collective labor, which might be paid not in money, but in necessities such as water, food, shelter, etc., thus maintaining a stable society that doesn't hunger, thirst, or lack other necessities(wait! this is socialism in a nutshell: social contracts!), then profit of currency sounds like the only other way that one can support his family and provide all their needs by paying money, which in some cases no money is under one's possession to pay with.
do you understand that such a system of barter would not be efficient enough to sustain the current population, by a long shot? What if I have a ton of water, I don't want to be paid in more water, I want new furniture! Socialism has no way of gauging prices, of calculating whether or not a particular endeavor is beneficial or not, it will ALWAYS be vastly inefficient and ultimately fail.

And, more to the point, what if someone doesn't labor at all? Just chooses to sit around and watch the clouds all day... would they still garner their rations of food and water under socialism?


Quote: If one can provide for his family adequately enough in most unfortunate circumstances through welfare, then at least the government has been able to do this much for those in poverty.
The point is that this person is NOT providing adequately enough - it is OTHERS that are not only providing for themselves, but for this non-productive person/family!


Quote: If not...then, maybe, a change is in order.
oh yes, it most definitely is in order! Stop the immoral theft, the assault, the violation of property rights.... let's get rid of government and provide for ourselves in the market!

Quote: So, healthcare is a 'big one' on your list? Are you saying that just because a person is alive and human, that other people must provide for their health? At the first level, this would make doctors slaves, demanding they labor without compensation. If the situation is abstracted a bit (just enough to blind the socialists), and doctors are compensated but not by the person requesting the service, but by some government who in turn enslaves its population to raise the compensation, it is STILL an immoral situation! A 'need' on my part does NOT constitute an obligation on your part (or anyone else's part for that matter). We all have 'needs', and it is our responsibility to provide for these needs ourselves through our own labors or through other methods (like friends, family, mutual aid societies, etc).

What is it about 'profit' that you don't seem to like? Do you realize that every action you take, you do so in search of 'profit'? (sometimes its a psychic profit like altruism, or love, or the feeling of satisfaction, or reputation, or honor, or friendship, or respect, etc - but there is always a profit else you wouldn't take any action at all.) Would you get up from your easy chair where you were nice and comfortable to expend the labor to go to the fridge and get yourself a beer (or other favorite beverage) if you didn't think your situation would be improved from doing so (profiting)? You make it sound like a dirty word, and the truth is totally opposite, profit is what we all desire. Don't get all caught up in thinking of profit in terms of money (which has its own bad stigma from the phrases like 'money is the root of all evil'), profit has a wide and varied definition which is not evil, nor bad, or even undesirable.

Quote: If the people operated under a moral social contract, then because a person is alive, and because his labor is necessary to help the efficiency of the entire society, logically other members of that community are responsible to help him like they help everyone else in a society, and in return for their efforts, they receive all that they and their families need to live only at the expense of labor (which is what most of us have to do anyway under any economic system).
But you understand that we, as humans, are not equal in our physical natures: some are stronger, some smarter, some cautious, some risktakers, etc, etc. So, each person has different levels of possible productivity... now how to harness this? Do we give everyone an equal share of 1 part water, 1 loaf of bread, 1 tent to sleep in, no matter how much labor they 'provide to society'? Doesn't the person who labors 8 hrs deserve more than the person who labors only 1? If each day, everyone gets exactly the same, the everyone will work the exact MINIMUM possible to obtain their 'share'. Socialism doesn't work for humans, only ants and bees and such.

What exactly is a 'Moral Social Contract'?


Quote: Profit in terms of money (which is the only form of profit I meant, I didn't say or imply the need to rid ourselves of psychic desires; perhaps from now on I will always refer to it as I have now done) is a motive for exploitation; a company wants to make a profit and does so through the system of supply and demand. They make a good looking product and advertise it to make it look effective (well, the specific article shown in the advertisement is meant to be effective at least) and they sell the product to the people. The product turns out to be really inefficient, and so the product isn't bought as often, in which case the company drops the product as soon as profits goes below their standard and starts making a "new and improved" product which is probably almost as bad as the last. If the people get fooled into thinking the original product just needs replacement, then the company thrives off of the sales. The only thing, though, that can stop this kind of trickery, is if the people notice and protest or complain about it, which exposes the company's lack of decency to the people it services, and eventually causes it to reform its ways, vainly try again to fool the people, or go under and out of business.
wow! We really need to work on your views of 'business' and profit! You actually believe that all businesses are continually committing fraud and deception? Think about this, if this were the case, what would happen if one company decided that it actually would provide a good product, that did everything that it advertised? Wouldn't that company be rewarded by customers who appreciated the honesty AND the well made product? Wouldn't the competitors of this company quickly go out of business because no one trusted them or their products or their advertisements and everyone would purchase their products from Mr. Honest Company, right?

Quote: Please understand, I only intend to learn from you who comment on my posts, not to deal with accusations that I end up having to defend myself against and reinforce my arguments, if you said something that made sense, I have considered it and may even have added it to my understanding of politics, or in this case, economics.
I am sorry for the way I might come across, I have been posting in forums for quite some time now and am use to people 'violently' defending their positions, name-calling, and otherwise insulting. It has perhaps hardened me, and I take my pot-shots every now and then as well... just don't take it personal - I really do appreciate that you are open minded to learning and discussing, these things are not just 'theory', but are knowledge which can help each of us in real life, economics is important. Hang in there, Sapphire, and forgive any rudeness that you might read from me or others - just chalk it up to impatience and the whole problem of anonymity over the net... I am not rude in person at all, and I really would never insult you either - you, as a person, don't deserve it.

Quote: I'd also like to add that the fact that you didn't make such well supported and numerous arguments against e_r (all you found was the "false definition" bit, which I believed was a bit off of original topic)
I looked back through the thread and I could not find anyone named 'e_r'? But, I don't dispute what you say - sometimes I am tired or just in a bad mood and not thinking straight and I can make some really stupid statements... afterall, I am only human!

Quote: leaves me wondering whether you are simply like a flood pouring into all the cracks of the argument (it's a compliment),
Thank you! :!oops:

Quote: or if you're just a cyberbully giving me a hard time because I'm a "N00b".
nope, don't mean to bully you, I apologize if I came across that way... perhaps I need to rethink my typing...

Quote: Either I leave way too many openings for criticism, or you like to lord over those who are below you. If it's the first, I can understand because I'm very new on this forum and will eventually learn when and where to state adn support statements or keep them to mysef. If it's the second... I politely ask that you don't do so unless you can help me understand better without the sarcasm and harsh criticisms. If you can't help yourself, then I'll simply ignore you, as that is the only purpose of your posts: to negatively call my attention to you...
lets start over...
Hi! My name is Michael, I am recently turned 40 years old, own a small, but mildly successful business, and I study Austrian Economics as a hobby. I enjoy debating in online forums because I do learn, I also laugh, and it helps keep up my typing and language skills (I find that I need to refer to a dictionary or Wikipedia more than a few times each night). I have met friends, and met those which irritate me to no end as well. I am not here to make your life unpleasant, and I hope I can be of some influence in your discovery into the world of economics. Thank you for taking the time to type out your feelings above as I sometimes forget that real people are reading these things...

PS: By the way, if you are interested in understanding economics and the vocabulary used in economic discussions, I would suggest my personal favorite (note: this is a biased suggestion, there are many different schools of thought when it comes to things 'economical' - hence all the argument!): Mises University Online and here is a suggestion for some light and easy reading: Economics in One Lesson and here is an online FREE ODF version of the book: Economics in One Lesson PDF

[sapphire7]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: saphire7 wrote: I'm sorry, wording can really hurt; I should have included currency being used to obtain a human's essential needs as a source of poverty, excuse my generalization. That would help account for other countries also having poverty as well. Now, as for the factors of poverty, which you have intelligently listed (that isn't sarcasm), of course a person's sloth and ineptness contributes to poverty, but at least the unlucky ones should be supported in case something random were to happen. Those people have to depend on food drives, soup lines, and other services that are only provided if communities see fit to help. If the government also helps these people in a similar way, well then, good! If not, it should be something to be considered. and you would support theft to support what is "just"
interesting...

Hold up... explain this to me how I have just supported theft without meaning to... (gosh, I must leave way too many cracks in my statements, you people are good!!!)

[LeopardPM]

sapphire7 wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: saphire7 wrote: If the government also helps these people in a similar way, well then, good! If not, it should be something to be considered. and you would support theft to support what is "just"
interesting...

Hold up... explain this to me how I have just supported theft without meaning to... (gosh, I must leave way too many cracks in my statements, you people are good!!!)

the only way government can help people, is from stealing from other people.

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

LeopardPM wrote: sapphire7 wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: saphire7 wrote: If the government also helps these people in a similar way, well then, good! If not, it should be something to be considered. and you would support theft to support what is "just"
interesting...

Hold up... explain this to me how I have just supported theft without meaning to... (gosh, I must leave way too many cracks in my statements, you people are good!!!)

the only way government can help people, is from stealing from other people.

And the only way governments can exist is by expropriating the people they intend to "help".

[sapphire7]

LeopardPM wrote:

money causes poverty? You will really have to explain this one! I made a new thread for us to discuss this: http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1700382#1700382


Quote: , of course a person's sloth and ineptness contributes to poverty, but at least the unlucky ones should be supported in case something random were to happen.
why? And what do you mean 'should'? Are you saying that other people, who took the time to plan, who held off purchasing desired goods to save for 'a rainy day', who are NOT slothful or inept, are you saying that THESE people 'should', as in be FORCED, to cover for the 'unlucky ones'?


Quote: If the government also helps these people in a similar way, well then, good! If not, it should be something to be considered.
absolutely not! Does government make money? Is it their money? no, they stick guns in taxpayers faces and steal it out of our pockets. It is at this point where the immorality enters into the equation. It is morally wrong for me to steal from my neighbor, even if I am going to pay for my Grandma's surgery, or my niece's food or education, or whatever. When we are stolen from, we have each less money to distribute to needs that we feel are more important - this is our right, it is our property. Perhaps the money I stole from you was earmarked to pay for YOUR child's food, for your grandmother's surgery, or whatever.


Quote: OMG! Doesn't a person deserve to live if at least he/she contributes to his/her society?

deserve to live? The universe is out to kill us and we are obligated as living beings to try our best, each of us as we can, to avert this from occurring. I don't deserve to live anymore than anyone else, and if I cannot provide for myself either through my just efforts and labors (which include garnering charity, etc), then I guess I really don't believe that I deserve to live. Look at it this way, if you were living alone in a forest, and you failed to find/make enough food to sustain yourself, do you 'deserve' to die? It's not a moral question, its just a matter of fact of life: no labor = no food = no life. This isn't some rule created by man, it is the state of affairs in this world we live in - we MUST expend enough labor to sustain ourselves. It just so happens that by voluntarily cooperating with each other through trade, we can provide for ourselves MUCH easier than if we were alone in the world. On my own, I might have to work 8 hours a day providing: clothing, shelter, food, etc. With others to trade with, then we can take advantage of division of labor and specialization and I can provide for myself BETTER than being alone by laboring probably 1-2 hr per day with minimal skills.

Quote: And how about people as a whole? Gee, unless people were willing to help each other through their collective labor, which might be paid not in money, but in necessities such as water, food, shelter, etc., thus maintaining a stable society that doesn't hunger, thirst, or lack other necessities(wait! this is socialism in a nutshell: social contracts!), then profit of currency sounds like the only other way that one can support his family and provide all their needs by paying money, which in some cases no money is under one's possession to pay with.
do you understand that such a system of barter would not be efficient enough to sustain the current population, by a long shot? What if I have a ton of water, I don't want to be paid in more water, I want new furniture! Socialism has no way of gauging prices, of calculating whether or not a particular endeavor is beneficial or not, it will ALWAYS be vastly inefficient and ultimately fail.

And, more to the point, what if someone doesn't labor at all? Just chooses to sit around and watch the clouds all day... would they still garner their rations of food and water under socialism?


Quote: If the people operated under a moral social contract, then because a person is alive, and because his labor is necessary to help the efficiency of the entire society, logically other members of that community are responsible to help him like they help everyone else in a society, and in return for their efforts, they receive all that they and their families need to live only at the expense of labor (which is what most of us have to do anyway under any economic system).
But you understand that we, as humans, are not equal in our physical natures: some are stronger, some smarter, some cautious, some risktakers, etc, etc. So, each person has different levels of possible productivity... now how to harness this? Do we give everyone an equal share of 1 part water, 1 loaf of bread, 1 tent to sleep in, no matter how much labor they 'provide to society'? Doesn't the person who labors 8 hrs deserve more than the person who labors only 1? If each day, everyone gets exactly the same, the everyone will work the exact MINIMUM possible to obtain their 'share'. Socialism doesn't work for humans, only ants and bees and such.

What exactly is a 'Moral Social Contract'?


Quote: Profit in terms of money (which is the only form of profit I meant, I didn't say or imply the need to rid ourselves of psychic desires; perhaps from now on I will always refer to it as I have now done) is a motive for exploitation; a company wants to make a profit and does so through the system of supply and demand. They make a good looking product and advertise it to make it look effective (well, the specific article shown in the advertisement is meant to be effective at least) and they sell the product to the people. The product turns out to be really inefficient, and so the product isn't bought as often, in which case the company drops the product as soon as profits goes below their standard and starts making a "new and improved" product which is probably almost as bad as the last. If the people get fooled into thinking the original product just needs replacement, then the company thrives off of the sales. The only thing, though, that can stop this kind of trickery, is if the people notice and protest or complain about it, which exposes the company's lack of decency to the people it services, and eventually causes it to reform its ways, vainly try again to fool the people, or go under and out of business.
wow! We really need to work on your views of 'business' and profit! You actually believe that all businesses are continually committing fraud and deception? Think about this, if this were the case, what would happen if one company decided that it actually would provide a good product, that did everything that it advertised? Wouldn't that company be rewarded by customers who appreciated the honesty AND the well made product? Wouldn't the competitors of this company quickly go out of business because no one trusted them or their products or their advertisements and everyone would purchase their products from Mr. Honest Company, right?

Quote: Please understand, I only intend to learn from you who comment on my posts, not to deal with accusations that I end up having to defend myself against and reinforce my arguments, if you said something that made sense, I have considered it and may even have added it to my understanding of politics, or in this case, economics.
I am sorry for the way I might come across, I have been posting in forums for quite some time now and am use to people 'violently' defending their positions, name-calling, and otherwise insulting. It has perhaps hardened me, and I take my pot-shots every now and then as well... just don't take it personal - I really do appreciate that you are open minded to learning and discussing, these things are not just 'theory', but are knowledge which can help each of us in real life, economics is important. Hang in there, Sapphire, and forgive any rudeness that you might read from me or others - just chalk it up to impatience and the whole problem of anonymity over the net... I am not rude in person at all, and I really would never insult you either - you, as a person, don't deserve it.

Quote: I'd also like to add that the fact that you didn't make such well supported and numerous arguments against e_r (all you found was the "false definition" bit, which I believed was a bit off of original topic)
I looked back through the thread and I could not find anyone named 'e_r'? But, I don't dispute what you say - sometimes I am tired or just in a bad mood and not thinking straight and I can make some really stupid statements... afterall, I am only human!

Quote: leaves me wondering whether you are simply like a flood pouring into all the cracks of the argument (it's a compliment),
Thank you! :!oops:

Quote: or if you're just a cyberbully giving me a hard time because I'm a "N00b".
nope, don't mean to bully you, I apologize if I came across that way... perhaps I need to rethink my typing...

Quote: Either I leave way too many openings for criticism, or you like to lord over those who are below you. If it's the first, I can understand because I'm very new on this forum and will eventually learn when and where to state adn support statements or keep them to mysef. If it's the second... I politely ask that you don't do so unless you can help me understand better without the sarcasm and harsh criticisms. If you can't help yourself, then I'll simply ignore you, as that is the only purpose of your posts: to negatively call my attention to you...
lets start over...
Hi! My name is Michael, I am recently turned 40 years old, own a small, but mildly successful business, and I study Austrian Economics as a hobby. I enjoy debating in online forums because I do learn, I also laugh, and it helps keep up my typing and language skills (I find that I need to refer to a dictionary or Wikipedia more than a few times each night). I have met friends, and met those which irritate me to no end as well. I am not here to make your life unpleasant, and I hope I can be of some influence in your discovery into the world of economics. Thank you for taking the time to type out your feelings above as I sometimes forget that real people are reading these things...

PS: By the way, if you are interested in understanding economics and the vocabulary used in economic discussions, I would suggest my personal favorite (note: this is a biased suggestion, there are many different schools of thought when it comes to things 'economical' - hence all the argument!): Mises University Online and here is a suggestion for some light and easy reading: Economics in One Lesson and here is an online FREE ODF version of the book: Economics in One Lesson PDF

First, please pardon me for anything hurtful I might have said, defending one's opinion can cause one to think they are talking to a bunch of words...

I have previewed that new thread of yours and will consider speaking in more detail there, but you will learn from this post that I actually gave the wrong message on my views of money.
On "order in market": Ahh... so order is the organization of people into groups and languages. And what is indirect exchange? I'm curious...

On support for the unlucky: Maybe it wouldn't be such a good idea to FORCE people to give charity to the unfortunate. But I myself hate forcing people to do anything that imposes on their rights, I should have said something softer like "obliged" to describe it. Even then, with people who would rather not give charity shouldn't have to. I do like what some organizations do for the needy in Africa, Central and South America, and other impoverished countries, and I feel that the same applies here, though it would be nice for it to present itself even more.

On government sticking guns at people's faces: Serious question: does the government make the money? I thought it did. And if it didn't, then I agree that what is the people's should be kept by the people, including that which belongs to individuals.

On deserving to live: I agree with most, if not all, of what you said, excuse me. I just think that those who labor for society shouldn't be kept from receiving something in return. I plan to explain this when I have more time.

On the system of barter: I haven't explained everything there is to explain in what kind of system this would operate under, and I can tell you, it isn't the one we live under right now. I can explain this, but I need time I simply don't have at this particular moment. I'll tell you later...

On those who do nothing to help society and do not seek to help society: they wouldn't be given anything because they didn't earn it or at least seek a job to earn it. Then selfless organizations may help such people, but otherwise we all have to pull our weight to survive, even under this system we currently live under, right? ( You said this yourself, I believe, talking about "deserving to live"...)

On equal shares for labor: There are aspects about these kind's of things that I have already theorized about how to deal with them. I simply don't have the time to explain this though...maybe some other time...

On business and profit: I don't mean ALL businesses, just those that do such things. As for the last thing you said, the other companies might not go out unless they insist on being underhanded. If they desired to stay in business, though, they would compete with "Mr. Honest Company" by becoming honest companies themselves and rivaling the original honest company as one that provides good quality products. They would make good products and maybe lower the price to compete with the original. This then leads the original honest company to create as good a product or better at an equal or lesser expense than the other companies. This then becomes a chain in which genuinely beneficial products become better and/or cheaper for people to buy, yet still giving companies a proper amount of profit to support itself.

On our reconciliation: Hello, my name is Joshua and I'm (guess what) 16 years old. However, I seem to associate better with adults than peers, so I often like engaging in mature and intelligent conversation. This is now my hobby, talking on this forum. This may be a shock to you, and I completely understand if you feel that way. I can see you are a man of well-established principles and I respect your political wisdom in this matter. I'm also here to learn and "discover the balance point of politics" as my little qoute thingy says. I plan to discuss the subject of money with you on that forum that this exchange has created soon and I hope to learn more about the subject as it progresses. And by the way, I probably have to rethink my typing more than you do, this forum is tough to secure an argument!!! :-(

P.S. : I really do take any inspiring info you have offered me and I have bookmarked those links you gave me to view at some point when I have time.
(I do go to school, as you might imagine... )
Pleased to meet you!!! :-D

[LeopardPM]

Hi Joshua and welcome!

I am glad to have met you. In this forum and many others online you will find alot of folks who strongly present their views and all sound very knowledgeable - some of these folks you can learn from, and some are just good debaters, so I would caution you to take any new concept you find, roll it over in your mind, test it out, look it up and see what the counter-point is before swallowing it as gospel. This includes any info you glean from me, as I am just as biased as the next guy - just ask Rue or Roy, they will tell you as much! There are countless enjoyable hours ahead of you as you discover different ways to interpret the world and the various philosophies that man has come up with to justify or explain his own actions - I warn you that it all can be VERY addictive, I couldn't tell you how many hours/days/weeks of my life I have spent tap-tap-tapping away on the keyboard in discussions with others. Also realize that people love to adorn themselves with various labels and titles: "I am an Anarchist/Socialist and damn proud of it!, "I am a GeoLibertarian!", "I am a NeoMarxist with Capitalistic leanings!", "I am always right and that means you are therefore always wrong", etc etc etc. Don't let the labels and self-glamorizing intimidate you, these are all just folks, some 16 years old, and some perhaps 80 yrs old just like you, with the same insecurities and doubts that every human deals with. So, learn to use logic to delve into the truth of matters, figure out what you believe and why, and be ready to defend your position from every angle - it will probably cause you to continually reform your position with stronger, and closer to the truth, theories until you have come up with your very own personal philosophy through which your views of the world around you will forever be changed (probably for the better).

In response to some of your points:
Indirect-Exchange is the economic term for the use of money. Instead of exchanging your goods (say you grow wheat) directly with others to obtain goods you desire (lets say you want a horse so you trade wheat for a horse - this is Direct Exchange), you exchange your goods with another, more accepted commodity, and use that to trade for your desired goods (you exchange wheat with money, then exchange the money with the person to buy his horse... Indirect Exchange). This method allows a much broader system of trade to develop since you now don't have to find those few folks who happen to have horses AND desire wheat in exchange.

Quote: On business and profit: I don't mean ALL businesses, just those that do such things. As for the last thing you said, the other companies might not go out unless they insist on being underhanded. If they desired to stay in business, though, they would compete with "Mr. Honest Company" by becoming honest companies themselves and rivaling the original honest company as one that provides good quality products. They would make good products and maybe lower the price to compete with the original. This then leads the original honest company to create as good a product or better at an equal or lesser expense than the other companies. This then becomes a chain in which genuinely beneficial products become better and/or cheaper for people to buy, yet still giving companies a proper amount of profit to support itself.
VERY GOOD! You just proved why businesses are NOT, by and large, fraudulent and evil: for them to earn money, they MUST cater to the market and bring to market products which DO work and are valued.


Quote: On deserving to live: I agree with most, if not all, of what you said, excuse me. I just think that those who labor for society shouldn't be kept from receiving something in return. I plan to explain this when I have more time.
Who is it that actually labors 'for society'? Society is just a label to describe a certain group of people, it is not a living being and has no wants/desires/or needs - only the individuals within a society have these things, and usually these things are different for each person within such a society. People who labor for others ARE compensated with wages (usually) - so they do get something in return for their work.

Quote: On government sticking guns at people's faces: Serious question: does the government make the money? I thought it did. And if it didn't, then I agree that what is the people's should be kept by the people, including that which belongs to individuals.
no, the government does not make ANYTHING - it is assumed to provide security and national defense, so perhaps these things could be described as products the government makes... but for the most part, government gets its funding through telling its citizens: "You owe $x tax, give it to us or go to jail or be shot"

[Atlas Bergeron]

sapphire7 wrote: On government sticking guns at people's faces: Serious question: does the government make the money? I thought it did. And if it didn't, then I agree that what is the people's should be kept by the people, including that which belongs to individuals.
if you thought this then you need to take a crash couse in history. Whenever the government has made anything, it has been through slavery. Now it is an indirect slaverly through taxation, then (i.e. egypt) it was direct slavery. In colonial periods it was a mix of the two.

The goal of Laizee Fair is to be free from slavery, which means: free from coercion (or, rather, the initation of coercion)

[gavnook]

On the issue of whose money it is, it needs to be understood that the US dollar was previously a gold-backed commidity. The money was the gold. The government did not produce the gold at all, it only printed paper bank notes. Then one day, the government forcefully confiscated everyone's gold money in exchange for paper. So, sure the government can have it's paper, but only if it gives back the gold.

[sapphire7]

Quote: Hi Joshua and welcome!

I am glad to have met you. In this forum and many others online you will find alot of folks who strongly present their views and all sound very knowledgeable - some of these folks you can learn from, and some are just good debaters, so I would caution you to take any new concept you find, roll it over in your mind, test it out, look it up and see what the counter-point is before swallowing it as gospel. This includes any info you glean from me, as I am just as biased as the next guy - just ask Rue or Roy, they will tell you as much! There are countless enjoyable hours ahead of you as you discover different ways to interpret the world and the various philosophies that man has come up with to justify or explain his own actions - I warn you that it all can be VERY addictive, I couldn't tell you how many hours/days/weeks of my life I have spent tap-tap-tapping away on the keyboard in discussions with others. Also realize that people love to adorn themselves with various labels and titles: "I am an Anarchist/Socialist and damn proud of it!, "I am a GeoLibertarian!", "I am a NeoMarxist with Capitalistic leanings!", "I am always right and that means you are therefore always wrong", etc etc etc. Don't let the labels and self-glamorizing intimidate you, these are all just folks, some 16 years old, and some perhaps 80 yrs old just like you, with the same insecurities and doubts that every human deals with. So, learn to use logic to delve into the truth of matters, figure out what you believe and why, and be ready to defend your position from every angle - it will probably cause you to continually reform your position with stronger, and closer to the truth, theories until you have come up with your very own personal philosophy through which your views of the world around you will forever be changed (probably for the better).
Thanks! I will (and already do) try to see reason and flaw when I see a particularly inspiring comment from people such as yourself. I regret that I have less time to visit this forum, even during the weekends when I'm particularly busy with other affairs in my life, but rest assured, I plan to be an active participant in this forum. Yeah, I've read some of those "I'm a something-or-other" signatures and other openly expressed opinions, and the only one that I have myself is right above my avatar. And I plan to adhere to my own label as a seeker of political balance.

Quote: In response to some of your points:
Indirect-Exchange is the economic term for the use of money. Instead of exchanging your goods (say you grow wheat) directly with others to obtain goods you desire (lets say you want a horse so you trade wheat for a horse - this is Direct Exchange), you exchange your goods with another, more accepted commodity, and use that to trade for your desired goods (you exchange wheat with money, then exchange the money with the person to buy his horse... Indirect Exchange). This method allows a much broader system of trade to develop since you now don't have to find those few folks who happen to have horses AND desire wheat in exchange.
Okay, understood. So basically currency or other representatives of value are forms of indirect-exchange. I'm thinking of a way how food and other necessities could be bought simply with a note or something specifically for food, water, etc. Perhaps I could hear what you think about that...

Quote: VERY GOOD! You just proved why businesses are NOT, by and large, fraudulent and evil: for them to earn money, they MUST cater to the market and bring to market products which DO work and are valued.

(Slaps himself in the face) Okay, but isn't it also true there ARE companies that take advantage of non-perfect products, for example: cars? Cars aren't always meant to last, especially the low-end consumer cars. My mother and father have gone through several cars before, as some (if not many)other people have probably experienced the same. Oh yeah, I forgot, car companies have to sell cars over and over again in order to survive on the market, whereas, for instance, a dry cleaner manufacturer expects their customers to continue buying their product....(Okay, I'm killing this debate because it is getting pointless...please don't reply anymore about ths particular argument, please)

Quote: Who is it that actually labors 'for society'? Society is just a label to describe a certain group of people, it is not a living being and has no wants/desires/or needs - only the individuals within a society have these things, and usually these things are different for each person within such a society. People who labor for others ARE compensated with wages (usually) - so they do get something in return for their work.
Okay, this will seem too simple, but I just want to create the base of my idea: Everyone needs food, shelter, and water (this is fact...I will for now exclude other necessities found in today's society to simplify my idea), if a group of people devoted to survival were to each do a "job" to keep the whole group alive, everyone will be provided for; some people would hunt, harvest, mill, and bake or cook to provide food, some would cut trees and gather necessary resources to build homes, and others would make wells and obtain water to keep everyone hydrated. They are working in the interest of all the others plus themselves, aren't they? And in return, sure, wages are a possibility, but in more complex situations, such as if this is a larger society, would my idea of using specific notes for food be a possibility as a "main" wage? How about if there was also money given, only it could be also used for luxuries as well as extra food and water? Give me some feedback, please, I'd like to know what someone else sees in this...
Quote: no, the government does not make ANYTHING - it is assumed to provide security and national defense, so perhaps these things could be described as products the government makes... but for the most part, government gets its funding through telling its citizens: "You owe $x tax, give it to us or go to jail or be shot
Okay, I thought producing money was a federal job. Oh well.. Say, tell me more about how a country or a society would exist under your interpretation of anarchy. If there is no government, what kind of order would best describe the organization of anarchy (besides, of course, self-rule, which I'm sure is a given under anarchy)? I've searched on wikipedia about it and discovered that, besides the fact that anarchism isn't a specific philosophy (it seems to be a general philosophy of self-rule), direct democracy is, for some reason unknown to me, a "see also" on the subject. Is that what most anarchists think here? (I'm just curious...)

P.S.: e_r is economic_reform, sorry for being lazy...

[bob.appleyard]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: The goal of Laizee Fair is to be free from slavery, which means: free from coercion (or, rather, the initation of coercion)

It's laissez faire, and it has nothing to do with being free from coercion.

[Atlas Bergeron]

bob.appleyard wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: The goal of Laizee Fair is to be free from slavery, which means: free from coercion (or, rather, the initation of coercion)

It's laissez faire, and it has nothing to do with being free from coercion. isn't that what "hand off" would mean?

[RueTheDay]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: The goal of Laizee Fair is to be free from slavery, which means: free from coercion (or, rather, the initation of coercion)

It's laissez faire, and it has nothing to do with being free from coercion. isn't that what "hand off" would mean?

Except that it's not truly "hands-off" so long as the government enforces property rights and contracts.

In many ways, libertarians remind me of creationists. "Everything must have a cause (except for God)" in many ways parallels "The government is always bad and coercive (except when it enforces property rights and contracts)". It's that "except" that always torpedoes the argument.

[Atlas Bergeron]

RueTheDay wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: The goal of Laizee Fair is to be free from slavery, which means: free from coercion (or, rather, the initation of coercion)

It's laissez faire, and it has nothing to do with being free from coercion. isn't that what "hand off" would mean?

Except that it's not truly "hands-off" so long as the government enforces property rights and contracts. it is hands off the market, hands off what does not rightfully belong to them. Property rights and contracts are not market values, they are individual rights. I did not say the government should not have a police force.

Quote: In many ways, libertarians remind me of creationists. "Everything must have a cause (except for God)" in many ways parallels "The government is always bad and coercive (except when it enforces property rights and contracts)". It's that "except" that always torpedoes the argument. there is no "except," you simply inserted one to make a more effective strawman.

[LeopardPM]

sapphire7 wrote: Okay, understood. So basically currency or other representatives of value are forms of indirect-exchange. I'm thinking of a way how food and other necessities could be bought simply with a note or something specifically for food, water, etc. Perhaps I could hear what you think about that...
well, lets think about it... say you are a farmer, and you labor in the hot sun all day and scrounge up 10 bushels of vegetables. How would you feel if someone came up and said, "Trade you this little piece of paper that says you have '10 bushel credits' for your actual 10 bushels of food' - you probably would not be too inclined to do so. So, whatever you decide to trade the product of your work for will probably something else that YOU believe has value - some furniture, a horse, maybe a truck load of bricks, jewelry, maybe an IOU from a trusted friend. These are all basically direct exchange UNLESS the item you trade for is pretty well valued and demanded by alot of other folks. For instance, say everyone likes jewelry and you know if you trade your bushels of food for jewelry that sometime later you will very easily be able to trade that jewelry for almost anything you might want: food, horse, bricks, etc. In this case, then jewelry becomes 'money' as it is being used as a method of indirect exchange. Two things to note: (1) The jewelry has a recognized tangible value to alot of people, (2) Money, no matter what form, is a commodity, just like bricks, or whatever - it is only used in a specific way is all... to effect indirect exchange.


Quote: Okay, but isn't it also true there ARE companies that take advantage of non-perfect products, for example: cars?
It is true that people in general ALL people try to get as much as possible while trading as little as possible.

Quote: Cars aren't always meant to last, especially the low-end consumer cars.
well, cars are meant for transport mainly, right? Now, there are many ways to transport via a car. You can buy a speedy car, a very safe car, a car that hauls things, a flashy car, and, as you mentioned, you can buy an INEXPENSIVE car. Each product caters to a specific type of consumer in the market as not all people can afford the various types of cars there are. Are there trade offs? sure! The speedy car might not get good gas mileage, the safe car might not be too comfortable, the car that hauls things might not be good for carrying people about, and the inexpensive car might not last as long as others (built 'cheaply'). Anyone is able to go out and purchase any car they determine they want and if they want a car which 'lasts' (as in, THAT is their most important feature) then they can find the one which does so... the fact that people go out and buy an inexpensive ('cheaper') car because they don't want to spend the money or just plain can't afford it shows what their real priorities are: they wanted inexpensive, NOT long lasting. Sure, people will always complain about features they 'wish' they could have afforded, but it is just complaining and not some drawback of the free market - EVERYTHING has a cost.

Quote: My mother and father have gone through several cars before, as some (if not many)other people have probably experienced the same.
sure! I have bought inexpensive vehicles also, AND, I usually wished that they lasted longer as well...

Quote: Oh yeah, I forgot, car companies have to sell cars over and over again in order to survive on the market, whereas, for instance, a dry cleaner manufacturer expects their customers to continue buying their product....
Does a car last as long as a house? Yet they keep building and selling houses, right? Every product has a limit to its life, and most products never reach this limit because of accident or whatever. The resulting rate defines the market in that product category. For instance, say there are 100 people, with a birth rate of 5 per year, a death rate of 3 per year, and an accident(where the cars are totalled) rate of 20 per year. This means that every year (assuming every person buys a car) that each year the total car market will be about 22 total new cars. A car company could manufacture 22 cars per year FOREVER without building in some 'fall apart after warranty expires' thing into their cars.

Quote: (Okay, I'm killing this debate because it is getting pointless...please don't reply anymore about ths particular argument, please)
its not pointless and you brought up some good points that people generally accept as truth. This is a good example of things you will learn in economics which will change your world view forever: you will be able to think through some of the urban myths that float around and people just accept - your world is already getting both clearer AND more complicated at the same time, huh? LOL! don't worry, keep asking questions.

Quote: Okay, this will seem too simple, but I just want to create the base of my idea: Everyone needs food, shelter, and water (this is fact...I will for now exclude other necessities found in today's society to simplify my idea),
yup, everyone needs those things - but wait... does everyone need the same amounts? Don't some people have high metabolisms and eat twice as much as the average yet gain no weight? And what about the different types of food... sure, we could all survive on bread and water for many years, but golly gee, I much rather would like some steak, maybe some seafood, and my cocoa-puffs each morning, right? No matter how much you try, people are never 'simple' - this is a common error as well when playing the 'if I were God' game (the game where a person tries to imagine his perfect version of society, the game you are playing here).

Quote: if a group of people devoted to survival were to each do a "job" to keep the whole group alive, everyone will be provided for; some people would hunt, harvest, mill, and bake or cook to provide food, some would cut trees and gather necessary resources to build homes, and others would make wells and obtain water to keep everyone hydrated.
sounds like alot of different types of labor involved, each with different pros and cons to it: I would want the job that I get to sit in an air-conditioned room, not get dirty, and file papers in cabinets all day long. It would suck if I got the job where I was outside, picking in the mud and hot sun, getting all sweaty, and at the end of the day I walked by a guy that got paid the exact same as me but he is walking home without a speck of dirt under his nails and looked quite refreshed.

Quote: They are working in the interest of all the others plus themselves, aren't they?
it is VERY hard to work in the interest of others - think of that most charitable of holidays: Christmas. We all go out and buy gifts to give to others, and alot of the times the people will take the gifts back and get something else. We simply do not know exactly what resides in the minds of other people, we can only guess based on what we know about them and what they say, but, our minds can change in an instant - I could say I wanted a comic book all year, then the day before christmas I decide that comic books are for little kids, or I see something else like a neat toy that aI would rather have.....

Now think about trading with people to get EXACTLY what you want. To trade with someone, you have to give them EXACTLY what they want in return, right? So, in indulging your own self-interest, you end up also providing in the interest of others.

Quote: And in return, sure, wages are a possibility, but in more complex situations, such as if this is a larger society, would my idea of using specific notes for food be a possibility as a "main" wage? How about if there was also money given, only it could be also used for luxuries as well as extra food and water? Give me some feedback, please, I'd like to know what someone else sees in this...
as your system gets more complex, and you start adding in all sorts of 'exceptions' to account for the vast variety of talents, abilities, hardships, etc... your system will start to mimic exactly what the free market does all by itself. except that there will have to be some group of folks dictating how everything should be instead of having people choose and do for themselves. We all would like to make the world work like a clock, a machine, but the fatal flaw is that the world is populated by people... individuals, who are different and unique and each of whom have different desires and goals for their lives - we can't get around this. You are recreating communism in essence, trying to fix something you see as a deficiency in humans or the world in general (starvation, sickness, poverty, etc)... it can't work, its been tried, and will be tried again, but it simply CAN'T work for various reasons, one of which, you will learn in your studies, is called economic calculation. Take for instance car safety. Wouldn't it be 'best' if all cars were virtually indestructible? That way no one would get hurt or die from auto accidents, right? Well, it is basically possible, we could all drive armorered tanks with big rubber bumbers.... so why don't we? Because the risk from dying or getting injured is 'worth' appeasing OTHER desires, possibly more important than just safety. Safety is NOT our only concern: we want speed, we want comfortableness, and most important, we want OTHER things like food, housing, medical care and so we don't want all of our labors (money) to go into buying the safest of vehicles.


Quote: Okay, I thought producing money was a federal job.
well, technically, it is - the government made a law that says they are the only ones allowed to 'make money' as in, print it or create it.

Quote: Oh well.. Say, tell me more about how a country or a society would exist under your interpretation of anarchy. If there is no government, what kind of order would best describe the organization of anarchy (besides, of course, self-rule, which I'm sure is a given under anarchy)?
actually, people live in anarchy pretty much everyday. How much of your day and actions are dictated by the government or someone forcing you to do something? Anarchy would be much like our lives already are, except that everything would be more efficient, without the overhead of government not too mention the waste of government misallocation of resources. There would be a general rise in standard of living. The family unit would become more important, same with friends. Being polite and social would become more desireable. Anarchy would resemble today, yet better overall in alot of aspects.

Quote: I've searched on wikipedia about it and discovered that, besides the fact that anarchism isn't a specific philosophy (it seems to be a general philosophy of self-rule), direct democracy is, for some reason unknown to me, a "see also" on the subject. Is that what most anarchists think here? (I'm just curious...)
Democracy is evil, at least according to me. Anytime it is assumed to be OK for a majority to force the minority to conform to the will of the majority, all manner of evils will arise. But thats just my thoughts.

[Atlas Bergeron]

Firstly, I just have to say that that was by far the most objective post I have seen in a very long time on this forum. The examples were clear and concise. Beautifully crafted.

there was only one minor point I would like to note,
LeopardPM wrote: Democracy is evil, at least according to me. Anytime it is assumed to be OK for a majority to force the minority to conform to the will of the majority, all manner of evils will arise. But thats just my thoughts.
it depends on what you mean by "democracy". You must surely realize that a free market is a "democracy" since everybody is "voting with thier money" on the product which they find to be the best for themselves. But in the free market, there are automatic checks instututed--namely, that the initiation of force is not allowed. With this check in place, the free market becomes the most viruous system ever concieved of by man.
So it is true with politics, and this was Maddisson's dream. But it never came to be, he could never craft a government which used the same principals as a market. He tried and got close, the checks in the US government do indeed "prevent ambition", yet they are not perfect.

So, in closing, a pure democracy is evil, yes. It is tyranny of the majority. A democracy with checks, however, can be very good.

[LeopardPM]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: Firstly, I just have to say that that was by far the most objective post I have seen in a very long time on this forum. The examples were clear and concise. Beautifully crafted.
:!oops:
well, thank you sir! Hardly do I ever receive a compliment for my tedious hours of relentless typng - I really appreciate it!

Quote: there was only one minor point I would like to note,
Drats! Just when I was riding high...

Quote: LeopardPM wrote: Democracy is evil, at least according to me. Anytime it is assumed to be OK for a majority to force the minority to conform to the will of the majority, all manner of evils will arise. But thats just my thoughts.
it depends on what you mean by "democracy". You must surely realize that a free market is a "democracy" since everybody is "voting with thier money" on the product which they find to be the best for themselves. But in the free market, there are automatic checks instututed--namely, that the initiation of force is not allowed. With this check in place, the free market becomes the most viruous system ever concieved of by man.
So it is true with politics, and this was Maddisson's dream. But it never came to be, he could never craft a government which used the same principals as a market. He tried and got close, the checks in the US government do indeed "prevent ambition", yet they are not perfect.

So, in closing, a pure democracy is evil, yes. It is tyranny of the majority. A democracy with checks, however, can be very good.
well, two things:
(1) I hate the likening of democracy to the market, it is not simply because each and every one of us can withhold our consent (not purchase) and not be penalized (outside of lacking whatever it was we didn't want to buy). A democracy implies the use of force upon those who wish to not consent - and that is plain immoral. Now, there is a definite difference between 'government' democracy and private democracy. Sounds wierd, huh?! I just made it up, but it goes like this: a private democracy is like the Elks Club, or a book club, or a group of kids getting together to figure out what game to play. They all have rules, and if one chooses to go along with the majority, then the democracy works. It also works if one chooses NOT to go along - the one kid goes home or plays with himself, the Elks member stops being a member and doesn';t have to pay his dues anymore, etc. Sure, sometimes voting (in private affairs) is a great way to resolve potential disputes and friction - but when most people say 'democracy', they mean governmental democracy... and that is nothing like the free market.

(2) There can be no real checks upon an institution which has the only 'legitimate' use of force at its disposal - it will grow and continue to garner power because it is a human thing, and just like how innocent new forum member, sapphire7, likes to do, we ALL have our grand ideas for instituting the 'best' social organization and given the chance, we would probably each 'give it a go' (all in good intentions, mind you!) and the result would be a horrible failure of tyrannical rule and loss of interpersonal respect for each other.

I say those words, 'Democracy is Evil', exactly to illicit the knee-jerk patriotic response from my fellow slaves...er... countrymen when they view it as an attack on their beloved country - it is not... it is aimed squarely at government and the force within it, the force to do great evil. I don't see much difference between Hitler's Germany and the USA... both commit atrocities against their citizens. Now, is is US gov 'better' than a Nazi gov, or a Commie one, sure!!! I pick having the prison cell with the biggest space in it and hot and cold running water... but it is still a prison cell.

[RueTheDay]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: The goal of Laizee Fair is to be free from slavery, which means: free from coercion (or, rather, the initation of coercion)

It's laissez faire, and it has nothing to do with being free from coercion. isn't that what "hand off" would mean?

Except that it's not truly "hands-off" so long as the government enforces property rights and contracts. it is hands off the market, hands off what does not rightfully belong to them. Property rights and contracts are not market values, they are individual rights. I did not say the government should not have a police force.

There would be no market without property rights. There would be very little in the way of property rights without a government to enforce them. Thus, the "laissez-faire" economy you desire is an enigma because it could never exist without the government in the first place.

Quote:
Quote: In many ways, libertarians remind me of creationists. "Everything must have a cause (except for God)" in many ways parallels "The government is always bad and coercive (except when it enforces property rights and contracts)". It's that "except" that always torpedoes the argument. there is no "except," you simply inserted one to make a more effective strawman.

You believe the government is "bad and coercive" when it enforces property rights and contracts?