Capitalism vs. Socialism

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: chess9

We are all socialists in America.

-Robert

We are about as much socialists in this country as we are capitalists.

Our society is a direct mixing of these two economic ideologies. This debate is a reflection of where every individual feels the line between these two systems needs to be drawn.

As many people have pointed out already?.a compromise between these two needs to be upheld; for both Capitalism and Socialism in its unrefined form would destroy current day America as we know it.

robbase29a-

you have made some very valid points...

Wrong, socialism destroys, capitalism builds. Hence, pure capitalism would bring more prosperity to this country than could be imagined.

Edit: N/M you were referring to the other rob.

 

[3chordcharlie]

You want good economic arguments?

Try this course: http://economics.uwaterloo.ca/ug-winter04/401W04how.htm

Read the text; read every article listed here, and finally understand why your 'a priori' theory fails to be proven on any level.

You aren't even managing a minor in economics, and you claim to know everything about how an economy should be organized?

You are unbelievable.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
You want good economic arguments?

Try this course: http://economics.uwaterloo.ca/ug-winter04/401W04how.htm

Read the text; read every article listed here, and finally understand why your 'a priori' theory fails to be proven on any level.

You aren't even managing a minor in economics, and you claim to know everything about how an economy should be organized?

You are unbelievable.

Link to them and I might read them. I am not going to spend $$$ or time to seek them out. I will tell you right now that I reject Keynesianism and or neo-Keynesianism, as do many other economists.

I don't claim to know everything about how an economy should be "organized." My premise is very simple: end all government intervention in the economy. This is not a question of how the economy should be "organized," this is simply saying that it doesn't need to be "organized."

In fact, I am half way through my major which is computer science, and I will be a practictioner of what is known as crypto-anarchism. Crypto-anarchism is usage of the Internet for anarchistic means. For instance, I will be depositing a good deal of my paychecks in a Gold Money account. This way I will increase my financial privacy and I will be removing a good deal of my wealth outside of the Federal Reserve System at the same time. More on crypto-anarchism.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
You want good economic arguments?

Try this course: http://economics.uwaterloo.ca/ug-winter04/401W04how.htm

Read the text; read every article listed here, and finally understand why your 'a priori' theory fails to be proven on any level.

You aren't even managing a minor in economics, and you claim to know everything about how an economy should be organized?

You are unbelievable.

Link to them and I might read them. I am not going to spend $$$ or time to seek them out. I will tell you right now that I reject Keynesianism and or neo-Keynesianism, as do many other economists.

I don't claim to know everything about how an economy should be "organized." My premise is very simple: end all government intervention in the economy. This is not a question of how the economy should be "organized," this is simply saying that it doesn't need to be "organized."

In fact, I am half way through my major which is computer science, and I will be a practictioner of what is known as crypto-anarchism. Crypto-anarchism is usage of the Internet for anarchistic means. For instance, I will be depositing a good deal of my paychecks in a Gold Money account. This way I will increase my financial privacy and I will be removing a good deal of my wealth outside of the Federal Reserve System at the same time. More on crypto-anarchism.

My arguments have nothing to do with keynes. NOTHING. They have to do with the ridiculous set of assumptions that are needed for your micro-economics model to pan out into a stable 'equilibrium', let alone an efficient one. If you can't be bothered to search out criticism of your adopted 'religion' then why would I take the time to find the material for you? "Link to them and I MIGHT read them"? How arrogant can you be with so little research under your belt. I've read large segments of the stuff you link to, and didn't pronounce it to be crap until I'd had a good look at the quality and thoroughness of what you offered.

It's ironic that you are the one advocating sweeping change to the economy, and you can't be bothered to look up the problems with your heroes' models! You haven't answered a single one of my criticisms except by appealing back to the very same authority I was questioning WITH CAUSE in the first place! I explain why monopoly/cartel pricing is a real phenomenon, and you simply repeat the claim that there is no such thing!

Someone who couldn't take the time to amass enough credits for a minor in unedergraduate economics shouldn't likely go around calling themself an economist unless they bring some serious, respected work to the table. I don't call myself an economist, but you've made it quite clear over the last week that I have a great deal more exposure to economics than you do. This doesn't in and of itself make me right or you wrong; but it's highly presumptuous on your part to believe you now know everything you need to know about economics, which is exactly what you're caiming.

Put your money wherever the hell you want, within the confines of the law of the land. In fact go ahead and stop paying taxes, stop using the roads, don't go to school, etc. Your position is one of greed, hypocricy, and ignorance of history. But I can't change that, because you have no interest in anything except a 'neat party-trick' model of how an economy should work.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
You want good economic arguments?

Try this course: http://economics.uwaterloo.ca/ug-winter04/401W04how.htm

Read the text; read every article listed here, and finally understand why your 'a priori' theory fails to be proven on any level.

You aren't even managing a minor in economics, and you claim to know everything about how an economy should be organized?

You are unbelievable.

Link to them and I might read them. I am not going to spend $$$ or time to seek them out. I will tell you right now that I reject Keynesianism and or neo-Keynesianism, as do many other economists.

I don't claim to know everything about how an economy should be "organized." My premise is very simple: end all government intervention in the economy. This is not a question of how the economy should be "organized," this is simply saying that it doesn't need to be "organized."

In fact, I am half way through my major which is computer science, and I will be a practictioner of what is known as crypto-anarchism. Crypto-anarchism is usage of the Internet for anarchistic means. For instance, I will be depositing a good deal of my paychecks in a Gold Money account. This way I will increase my financial privacy and I will be removing a good deal of my wealth outside of the Federal Reserve System at the same time. More on crypto-anarchism.

My arguments have nothing to do with keynes. NOTHING. They have to do with the ridiculous set of assumptions that are needed for your micro-economics model to pan out into a stable 'equilibrium', let alone an efficient one. If you can't be bothered to search out criticism of your adopted 'religion' then why would I take the time to find the material for you? "Link to them and I MIGHT read them"? How arrogant can you be with so little research under your belt. I've read large segments of the stuff you link to, and didn't pronounce it to be crap until I'd had a good look at the quality and thoroughness of what you offered.

Ok, link to it and I'll read it. My lack of "research" has to do with the fact that econ is not my major, and the reason why it isn't is because the econ being taught in the universities is B.S.

It's ironic that you are the one advocating sweeping change to the economy, and you can't be bothered to look up the problems with your heroes' models! You haven't answered a single one of my criticisms except by appealing back to the very same authority I was questioning WITH CAUSE in the first place! I explain why monopoly/cartel pricing is a real phenomenon, and you simply repeat the claim that there is no such thing!

No, I didn't say that monopoly doesn't exist. I said that it only exists at the hand of government intervention. Non government enforced cartels are unstable, and not very practical, even one of my non-Austrian econ profs admitted this.

Someone who couldn't take the time to amass enough credits for a minor in unedergraduate economics shouldn't likely go around calling themself an economist unless they bring some serious, respected work to the table.

I don't ever recall calling myself an economist, in fact I clearly stated that I am halfway through a computer science degree. Furthermore, why would I even bother getting my minor in something when I disagree with half of what my profs said? If I could get a minor in Austrian economics I might consider it, but that isn't going to be possible.

I don't call myself an economist, but you've made it quite clear over the last week that I have a great deal more exposure to economics than you do. This doesn't in and of itself make me right or you wrong; but it's highly presumptuous on your part to believe you now know everything you need to know about economics, which is exactly what you're caiming.

If you have so much "exposure" in economics why do you make ridiculous claims for which you cannot find any support? You still have not provided any support for your claim that calculation would not be possible under anarcho-capitalism. If your support is in the materials you listed, link to them. I granted you this courtesy.

Put your money wherever the hell you want, within the confines of the law of the land. In fact go ahead and stop paying taxes, stop using the roads, don't go to school, etc. Your position is one of greed, hypocricy, and ignorance of history. But I can't change that, because you have no interest in anything except a 'neat party-trick' model of how an economy should work.

I know that my view is in the minority to say the least, but it is not one of greed, hypocrisy and ignorance of history. Therefore, I will still continue to present my arguments, mainly because they made so much sense when I read them, I hope that others will be able to see the light as well. For people who have had years of statist propaganda mental conditioning I can understand that they appear to be "garbage."

Anyways, prior to adopting my current ideology which is anarchist libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism, I believed in a certain degree of government myself. I also believed in a lot of the things that I have now found out to be lies. My tranformation really began years ago when I started thinking about inflation. I first started wondering why prices always rise, and why inflation always occurs every year. At the time I did not know the true source of inflation but I always imagined an economic system in which the money supply remained fixed, because I came to the conclusion that the actual quantity of money in a particular economy is arbitrary. Years went by and I thought about this off and on, until one day I decided to do some research on the subject to get to the heart of inflation and its cause. The turning point came when I did a google search on inflation and came across an article by a Fed scholar named Laurence Ball. In this 1993 article, called "What Causes Inflation?" in Business Review, Ball said this:

While economists disagree about many issues, there is near unanimity about this one: continuing inflation occurs when the rate of growth of the money supply consistently exceeds the growth rate of output.

Aha, I found the culprit at last: government & the Fed. When my suspicions about inflation proved correct, I decided to read up more on the Fed. I came across a book called "The Case Against the Fed" by Murray Rothbard. I ordered this book off Amazon.com and read it. After reading that book I decided that the Federal Reserve truly was a scam. That book led me to mises.org and some other libertarian web sites. After reading quite a bit of material on libertarian ideology, and Austrian economics I was hooked. I felt like I had emerged from the dark cave that Plato talked about in his "Allegory of the Cave." Everything made so much sense, and the philosophy/economics seemed so consistent. After reading up more on the monetary history of the United States, I felt betrayed.

I discovered that the Supreme Court basically nullified an important clause in the Constitution which clearly states that the money of the United States shall be gold and silver. This clause was nullified in a case in the late 1800s called Julliard v. Greenman. Of course years after that, the Federal Reserve was established under the guise of deceit, but I won't go into detail on that. Years later in 1963 the government started issuing Federal Reserve "Notes" that had the same distinct likeness of previously issued notes but simply lacked the words "WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND." In 1968 the government ceased redeeming the older notes for gold or silver. It was obvious to me that the government simply removed any barrier to inflation, and in the '70s the government took full advantage of this and hyperinflation ensued.

After looking at the monetary history of the United States I started questioning the sacred cow known as representative democracy. After some thought I came to a few conclusions about representative democracy. In short, I concluded that the process itself is fraud, and what it has created is simply a string of rackets which we would call criminal in any other context outside of government.

Therefore, when I look at the history of the United States government now I see little else than lies, deceit and criminal activity. I see an ignorant populace which wants the government to provide for it and keep it safe from anything that could bring "harm," businessmen who want the government to provide them with bailouts and protection from competition, and academics who believe in social engineering and perceive the government as the means of forcing society to conform to their ideology.

So there it is. That is in a nutshell my background leading up to my "radical" views today. All I can do now is continue on in life, get my degree, tell other people my views and simply try to limit the impact the government has on my life as much as I possibly can.

What saddens me about coming full circle as an anarchist libertarian is that one of my uncles is a high ranking member of the House of Representatives. Needless to say I can no longer support my uncle politically, for his job is exactly what I want to see eliminated. That's what the government does though, it takes good men like my uncle and puts them in an immoral institution.

 

[robbase29a]

Hey dissapate... why don't you take a whole bunch of anarchist friends and start over on an island somewhere? No, I'm not trying to dis you... I'm serious. Then you can figure out how do deal with law enforcement, roads, defense, and a big one... planning.

I do agree with you on some parts though. Our lives are over-regulated. There are plenty of things that I don't like about our government, and lots of things that they spend OUR money on programs that I totally dislike. So I just want you to know that i'm not against you completely. And just a little political plug for everyone out there - that is why I'm voting for George W. Bush. If you listen to his nomination acceptance speech at the RNC, you will discover that he is for the privatization of a lot of things (that need to be privatized), while Kerry is for higher taxes (which means bigger government).

There are very good reasons why our government decided to use paper and other types of coin instead of gold. And another thing... inflation isn't bad. Low inflation is just as bad as high inflation. It's all a part of the economic balance.

No government is not the answer to our problems. We need to reform the way our current government works so that we can enjoy the freedoms that should be entitled to us.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: robbase29a
Hey dissapate... why don't you take a whole bunch of anarchist friends and start over on an island somewhere? No, I'm not trying to dis you... I'm serious. Then you can figure out how do deal with law enforcement, roads, defense, and a big one... planning.

I am doing that in "a way." I have joined and donated to the Free State Project. It is a non-profit organization that is trying to get libertarians to move to New Hampshire. I will be moving to NH hopefully soon after I finish my degree. New Hampshire has the second lowest tax burden in the U.S., with no state income tax and no sales tax, as a result its economy is growing quite rapidly.

I do agree with you on some parts though. Our lives are over-regulated. There are plenty of things that I don't like about our government, and lots of things that they spend OUR money on programs that I totally dislike. So I just want you to know that i'm not against you completely. And just a little political plug for everyone out there - that is why I'm voting for George W. Bush. If you listen to his nomination acceptance speech at the RNC, you will discover that he is for the privatization of a lot of things (that need to be privatized), while Kerry is for higher taxes (which means bigger government).

Do not be fooled. George W. Bush is no friend of liberty. He has grown the size of domestic programs, passed the Patriot Act and has run up an enormous deficit for a very expensive war.

There are very good reasons why our government decided to use paper and other types of coin instead of gold. And another thing... inflation isn't bad. Low inflation is just as bad as high inflation. It's all a part of the economic balance.

You are right, there are very good reasons why our government decided to put us all on paper. They are very good reasons if you are a politician or a bank, but very bad reasons if you are outside their club. Let me explain. Inflation is basically used as a hidden wealth transfer, from the citizens to those who are well connected to the government i.e. banks, government "employees," and government contractors. As Austrian economists point out there is no benefit to society for constantly expanding the money supply, in fact this has greatly adverse affects on the economy. It is actually much more desirable to have a fixed money supply in a growing economy. What happens in that situation is that real gains in productivity are reflected in lower prices. Imagine that, going to the grocery store and seeing prices fall and fall and fall!

No government is not the answer to our problems. We need to reform the way our current government works so that we can enjoy the freedoms that should be entitled to us.

Government reform is virtually impossible without major limits being imposed upon it. Why? Because politicians are human and they act out of self interest, when they are given power they exploit, exploit & exploit some more. Nobel winning economist James Buchanan illustrated this in his groundbreaking work on public choice theory. However, I do not think that the government will ever limit itself. Under our system of government, it would have to be the government that passed these limits. It will never happen. That is why government must be simply eliminated. However, the other way of limiting government is to educate people on how awful it really is. If enough people get pissed off, bureaucrats will not be able to exploit as much. The problem is that far too many people fall into the trap of thinking that the way to reduce government is to become a part of it. This simply does not work, the government is only a tool of coercion & social engineering, and people who join it quickly get caught up in that coercion. Therefore, these people get caught up in the political process when they should really be focusing their efforts on education.

 

[robbase29a]

You still haven't answered my questions... what will you do with roads, law enforcement, defense, education and planning? .. BTW you're wrong about inflation, but this is not the right place to give you an economics lesson. One more thing... I don't agree with all of Bush's policies.. but he IS for a smaller government and more privatization, unlike Kerry who is for a bigger government, more taxes, and a smaller private sector... and right now the only thing that I can do about it is vote.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: robbase29a
You still haven't answered my questions... what will you do with roads, law enforcement, defense, education and planning?

Fair questions, here are some links to materials that will answer them for you.

For roads see Walter Block's articles on privatizing roads here. (scroll down)

For security/defense see Hoppe's The Myth of National Defense

For education see Walter Block's articles on education (from same link above), and Rothbard's
Education, free & compulsory

For a general utilitarian case for anarcho-capitalism see David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom

As for planning, I don't really know what you mean by that.

.. BTW you're wrong about inflation, but this is not the right place to give you an economics lesson. One more thing... I don't agree with all of Bush's policies.. but he IS for a smaller government and more privatization, unlike Kerry who is for a bigger government, more taxes, and a smaller private sector... and right now the only thing that I can do about it is vote.

In what way am I wrong about inflation? Please explain. I'm sorry but the facts do not support your claim. Bush is NOT for smaller government in any sense of the word. Here is the raw data. Kerry would do nothing to shrink government either, no doubt, hence I see little difference between Kerry and Bush.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Do you know why there is always positive inflation?

Time for another history lesson:

The US federal election in 1896 was decided on the basis of support for making silver 'currency' which it was not at any time. Because of the gold standard, population increase, and little gold production, the per capita money supply was falling, and deflation was rampant.

Guess what happens when a modet amount of deflation occurs in an economy? People who have borrowed money go bankrupt. It is much easier for lending institutions and borrowers to coordinate actions in an economy with a small amount of inflation that one with a small amount of defaltion; can you imagine the 'profit-making, equilibrium interest rate' being negative 5%?

Fortunately, there was a gold rush shortly afterward, and inflation returned to the economy. It certainly doesn't appear to me that silver was ever allowed to 'back' money in the American economy.

I don't see the link between gold and inflation that you are claiming; tieing the money supply to gold is simply a much less stable version of the fed, which was established with a mandate of slight, positive inflation, was it not? Since you can't keep the money supply constant, or even constant per capita, and since you can't control the changes in the velocity of money and you can't control the reserve rates of partial-reserve banks (and I assume you wouldn't dream of trying to do so anyway, since they should be free to do what they want, right?), you adopt a monetary policy which targets slight positive inflation, because that's a target you can generally accomplish, and offers the most stability of the various things that you can in fact accomplish.

I don't understand the point of your support for the gold standard, but it clearly has nothing to do with inflation; if it does, it is highly illogical.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: robbase29a
You still haven't answered my questions... what will you do with roads, law enforcement, defense, education and planning?

Fair questions, here are some links to materials that will answer them for you.

For roads see Walter Block's articles on privatizing roads here. (scroll down)

For security/defense see Hoppe's The Myth of National Defense

For education see Walter Block's articles on education (from same link above), and Rothbard's
Education, free & compulsory

For a general utilitarian case for anarcho-capitalism see David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom

As for planning, I don't really know what you mean by that.

.. BTW you're wrong about inflation, but this is not the right place to give you an economics lesson. One more thing... I don't agree with all of Bush's policies.. but he IS for a smaller government and more privatization, unlike Kerry who is for a bigger government, more taxes, and a smaller private sector... and right now the only thing that I can do about it is vote.

In what way am I wrong about inflation? Please explain. I'm sorry but the facts do not support your claim. Bush is NOT for smaller government in any sense of the word. Here is the raw data. Kerry would do nothing to shrink government either, no doubt, hence I see little difference between Kerry and Bush.

The "Road Socialism" article (which, I'll admit, I chose to read because of the inflammatory title) claims that all responsibility for highway fatalities rests with the government, and that alcohol abuse, speeding, and all other causes of highway death are somewhat illusory, because really it is the government's fault!

And the analogy is that if I shoot you, I can't claim the bullet killed you (even though it did the dirty work) because obviously it was me who pulled the trigger with intent. So now drunk drivers are bullets from guns fired by the government.

This is some high-quality stuff!

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: robbase29a
You still haven't answered my questions... what will you do with roads, law enforcement, defense, education and planning?

Fair questions, here are some links to materials that will answer them for you.

For roads see Walter Block's articles on privatizing roads here. (scroll down)

For security/defense see Hoppe's The Myth of National Defense

For education see Walter Block's articles on education (from same link above), and Rothbard's
Education, free & compulsory

For a general utilitarian case for anarcho-capitalism see David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom

As for planning, I don't really know what you mean by that.

.. BTW you're wrong about inflation, but this is not the right place to give you an economics lesson. One more thing... I don't agree with all of Bush's policies.. but he IS for a smaller government and more privatization, unlike Kerry who is for a bigger government, more taxes, and a smaller private sector... and right now the only thing that I can do about it is vote.

In what way am I wrong about inflation? Please explain. I'm sorry but the facts do not support your claim. Bush is NOT for smaller government in any sense of the word. Here is the raw data. Kerry would do nothing to shrink government either, no doubt, hence I see little difference between Kerry and Bush.

The "Road Socialism" article (which, I'll admit, I chose to read because of the inflammatory title) claims that all responsibility for highway fatalities rests with the government, and that alcohol abuse, speeding, and all other causes of highway death are somewhat illusory, because really it is the government's fault!

And the analogy is that if I shoot you, I can't claim the bullet killed you (even though it did the dirty work) because obviously it was me who pulled the trigger with intent. So now drunk drivers are bullets from guns fired by the government.

This is some high-quality stuff!

I didn't see that claim anywhere in the entire article. What the article says is that the government has done a piss poor job of managing the roads. It is absolutely true. Thousands of people drive home drunk every night and only a very small fraction are actually caught. Funny you should mention guns and bullets, Block uses that very analogy in the paper.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Funny you should mention guns and bullets, Block uses that very analogy in the paper.

Of course I mentioned it - I read the article!

The analogy is flawed to the point of absurdity. When was the last time bullets made a moral choice on whether or not to drive drunk?

How could you read the analogy, and miss the claim? They were in the same two paragraph section!

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Do you know why there is always positive inflation?

Time for another history lesson:

The US federal election in 1896 was decided on the basis of support for making silver 'currency' which it was not at any time. Because of the gold standard, population increase, and little gold production, the per capita money supply was falling, and deflation was rampant.

Guess what happens when a modet amount of deflation occurs in an economy? People who have borrowed money go bankrupt. It is much easier for lending institutions and borrowers to coordinate actions in an economy with a small amount of inflation that one with a small amount of defaltion; can you imagine the 'profit-making, equilibrium interest rate' being negative 5%? Fortunately, there was a gold rush shortly afterward, and inflation returned to the economy. It certainly doesn't appear to me that silver was ever allowed to 'back' money in the American economy.

People who borrow money during times of falling prices do not go bankrupt, nor do falling prices cause depression.

The Anatomy of Deflation

The Blessings of Deflation

Deflation and Depression: Where is the Link?



I don't see the link between gold and inflation that you are claiming; tieing the money supply to gold is simply a much less stable version of the fed, which was established with a mandate of slight, positive inflation, was it not? Since you can't keep the money supply constant, or even constant per capita, and since you can't control the changes in the velocity of money and you can't control the reserve rates of partial-reserve banks (and I assume you wouldn't dream of trying to do so anyway, since they should be free to do what they want, right?), you adopt a monetary policy which targets slight positive inflation, because that's a target you can generally accomplish, and offers the most stability of the various things that you can in fact accomplish.

I didn't mention anything about gold. However, I would like to say that you are wrong. The world supply of gold, and increases of the supply of gold have been stable for years now. As I said before, adopting a policy of inflation has no benefit to society, it only harms. It does not bring stability, it does not "grease the wheels of the economy," it is simply used as a wealth transfer from us to the government & the banks. While it is used as a wealth transfer there are a variety of adverse effects on the economy at the same time, but the politicians don't care about that.

As for fractional reserve banking, that industry, if it every sprang up under anarcho-capitalism would eventually completely fail. Why? Because in order for the scam to work a cartel has to be formed. Cartels in the free market are highly unstable, and just don't work. It needs the full force of government for it to be successfully pulled off. This is the whole reason why the Federal Reserve was established in the first place.


I don't understand the point of your support for the gold standard, but it clearly has nothing to do with inflation; if it does, it is highly illogical.

I don't support any standard. My position is simple: get the government out of the currency & banking industry and get rid of all legal tender laws. Therefore, I think that people should adopt any kind of currency that they want, but under anarcho-capitalism gold would probably be the #1 most common currency, will silver right behind.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Funny you should mention guns and bullets, Block uses that very analogy in the paper.

Of course I mentioned it - I read the article!

The analogy is flawed to the point of absurdity. When was the last time bullets made a moral choice on whether or not to drive drunk?

How could you read the analogy, and miss the claim? They were in the same two paragraph section!

Block's analogy was not that "drunk drivers are bullets fired by the government." His analogy is simply that we don't blame proximate causes in other situations i.e. when someone is murdered, or when a restaurant closes. We blame the murderer and the restaurant manager. However, when it comes to fatalities on the road, economists out there are blaming the proximate causes, but not the manager itself: government.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Funny you should mention guns and bullets, Block uses that very analogy in the paper.

Of course I mentioned it - I read the article!

The analogy is flawed to the point of absurdity. When was the last time bullets made a moral choice on whether or not to drive drunk?

How could you read the analogy, and miss the claim? They were in the same two paragraph section!

Block's analogy was not that "drunk drivers are bullets fired by the government." His analogy is simply that we don't blame proximate causes in other situations i.e. when someone is murdered, or when a restaurant closes. We blame the murderer and the restaurant manager. However, when it comes to fatalities on the road, economists out there are blaming the proximate causes, but not the manager itself: government.

You deny the analogy, and then 'clarify' it by stating exactly what I said!

1. Bullets are only the proximate cause of shooting deaths.
2. Drunk driving is NOT simply the proximate cause of deaths from drunk driving!
3. The analogy fails very very badly!

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Funny you should mention guns and bullets, Block uses that very analogy in the paper.

Of course I mentioned it - I read the article!

The analogy is flawed to the point of absurdity. When was the last time bullets made a moral choice on whether or not to drive drunk?

How could you read the analogy, and miss the claim? They were in the same two paragraph section!

Block's analogy was not that "drunk drivers are bullets fired by the government." His analogy is simply that we don't blame proximate causes in other situations i.e. when someone is murdered, or when a restaurant closes. We blame the murderer and the restaurant manager. However, when it comes to fatalities on the road, economists out there are blaming the proximate causes, but not the manager itself: government.

You deny the analogy, and then 'clarify' it by stating exactly what I said!

1. Bullets are only the proximate cause of shooting deaths.
2. Drunk driving is NOT simply the proximate cause of deaths from drunk driving!
3. The analogy fails very very badly!

I disagree on #2. Drunk driving is a recurring problem, of which the government has done little to prevent or stop. Therefore, it is a proximate problem, that is caused by mis-management of the roads. In any event, you are hung up on a relatively trivial portion of the article. Block makes the case later on that private road ownership would be much more responsive to problems such as drunk driving. Do you deny his claim?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate


People who borrow money during times of falling prices do not go bankrupt, nor do falling prices cause depression.

Wrong. People who borrow money before a deflationary period are faced with lower income, but not with lower payments. They may not all go bankrupt, but statistically, at least some of them will. I didn't get in to the causes of depression; don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't mention anything about gold. However, I would like to say that you are wrong. The world supply of gold, and increases of the supply of gold have been stable for years now. As I said before, adopting a policy of inflation has no benefit to society, it only harms. It does not bring stability, it does not "grease the wheels of the economy," it is simply used as a wealth transfer from us to the government & the banks. While it is used as a wealth transfer there are a variety of adverse effects on the economy at the same time, but the politicians don't care about that.

You did mention gold, and you were in desperate need of a history lesson on why the gold standard was problematic. The reason allowing silver to back currency was the major issue of 1896 was that borrowers at that time were being hammered by deflation, which was raising their real debt level to unservicable levels.

As for fractional reserve banking, that industry, if it every sprang up under anarcho-capitalism would eventually completely fail. Why? Because in order for the scam to work a cartel has to be formed. Cartels in the free market are highly unstable, and just don't work. It needs the full force of government for it to be successfully pulled off. This is the whole reason why the Federal Reserve was established in the first place.

Why would it not work? All it requires is a bank to maintain sufficient reserves to handle all expected, reasonable demand for held assets. You don't need a cartel to allow banks to work on a partial-reserve system. You would need regulation to stop them from doing so, since it is obviously the most profitable choice. Even withuot the assumption of 'Most borrowed money being re-deposited' which would probably still hold, but which I'm willing to sacrifice here, it still makes sense to lend out as much of your held assets as you can without endangering your ability to service the owners of those assets.

I don't support any standard. My position is simple: get the government out of the currency & banking industry and get rid of all legal tender laws. Therefore, I think that people should adopt any kind of currency that they want, but under anarcho-capitalism gold would probably be the #1 most common currency, will silver right behind.

Why? Really - why is gold logical? Because people like it?

Gold is not an obvious choice, and calling the supply 'stable' is highly artificial; don't forget your own market forces determine how much of the world's known gold reserves are harvested each year. Maybe we should just return to a nice simple barter system.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

I disagree on #2. Drunk driving is a recurring problem, of which the government has done little to prevent or stop. Therefore, it is a proximate problem, that is caused by mis-management of the roads. In any event, you are hung up on a relatively trivial portion of the article. Block makes the case later on that private road ownership would be much more responsive to problems such as drunk driving. Do you deny his claim?

No, it is not trivial; it is the entire basis for the argument that the government is a bad manager, and it is incorrect; drunk drivers cause drunk driving. You'll have better luck blaming a lack of societal pressure than blaming the government for drunk driving. You can insert speeding, and other driver-caused problems here; my counter-argument remains substantially unchanged.

In fact, why should drunk driving be illegal at all? Why should the government be allowed to stop me? Can't rational agents make their own judgement of whether it is a good idea to drive in their current state of drunkeness? What's that you say? Other people are affected? Did I hear you use the word 'externality'?

Yes, I do disagree with the claim; private road owners would do whatever was most profitable. This is the entire thrust of your philosophy; that if everyone does best for themself, everyone will be as well off as possible. I can't imagine any reason to crack down on drunk driving unless there were regulated penalties for this, or the problem became so rampant that drunk drivers caused frequent, money-costing road closures.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate


People who borrow money during times of falling prices do not go bankrupt, nor do falling prices cause depression.

Wrong. People who borrow money before a deflationary period are faced with lower income, but not with lower payments. They may not all go bankrupt, but statistically, at least some of them will. I didn't get in to the causes of depression; don't put words in my mouth.

No, you are wrong. Professor Reisman explains why debt is not a problem under falling prices in his lecture The Economics of Inflation. The same argument is in his tome "Capitalism," but I can't find it right now. Incomes would not go down under an economic system of falling prices. Look at #3 on the left hand side at the bottom of Reisman's article on deflation. It says under falling prices:

A rise in the real incomes of virtually all members of the economic system, who can take advantage of the lower prices with the same aggregate money incomes; or who can take advantage of a lesser decline in prices accompanied by greater aggregate money incomes.

I didn't mention anything about gold. However, I would like to say that you are wrong. The world supply of gold, and increases of the supply of gold have been stable for years now. As I said before, adopting a policy of inflation has no benefit to society, it only harms. It does not bring stability, it does not "grease the wheels of the economy," it is simply used as a wealth transfer from us to the government & the banks. While it is used as a wealth transfer there are a variety of adverse effects on the economy at the same time, but the politicians don't care about that.

You did mention gold, and you were in desperate need of a history lesson on why the gold standard was problematic. The reason allowing silver to back currency was the major issue of 1896 was that borrowers at that time were being hammered by deflation, which was raising their real debt level to unservicable levels.

I mentioned gold before, but not in the posts immediately preceding your post directed at me. As I said before I am not an advocate of the gold standard. In fact, the gold standard was never 100% backing. It was something like 20 or 30% backing. I was merely bringing up the point that the government removed all backing from the currency in a fraudulent fashion, and that the Supreme Court has virtually nullified the clause of the Constitution which requires gold and silver coinage to be the official currency of the country.

As for fractional reserve banking, that industry, if it every sprang up under anarcho-capitalism would eventually completely fail. Why? Because in order for the scam to work a cartel has to be formed. Cartels in the free market are highly unstable, and just don't work. It needs the full force of government for it to be successfully pulled off. This is the whole reason why the Federal Reserve was established in the first place.

Why would it not work? All it requires is a bank to maintain sufficient reserves to handle all expected, reasonable demand for held assets. You don't need a cartel to allow banks to work on a partial-reserve
system. You would need regulation to stop them from doing so, since it is obviously the most profitable choice. Even withuot the assumption of 'Most borrowed money being re-deposited' which would probably still hold, but which I'm willing to sacrifice here, it still makes sense to lend out as much of your held assets as you can without endangering your ability to service the owners of those assets.

Yes, it does require a cartel. This is explained in Rothbard's "The Case Against the Fed," which is unfortunately not available online for free download. Basically, it requires a cartel because without a cartel different banks with different currency would demand that the gold be redeemed when they received notes from other banks.

I don't support any standard. My position is simple: get the government out of the currency & banking industry and get rid of all legal tender laws. Therefore, I think that people should adopt any kind of currency that they want, but under anarcho-capitalism gold would probably be the #1 most common currency, will silver right behind.

Why? Really - why is gold logical? Because people like it?

Gold is not an obvious choice, and calling the supply 'stable' is highly artificial; don't forget your own market forces determine how much of the world's known gold reserves are harvested each year. Maybe we should just return to a nice simple barter system.

The main reasons why gold has been a popular form of money is that it is "pretty," malleable, very durable and has a high value to weight ratio. How is calling the supply of gold 'stable' highly artificial? It is indeed a stable supply, even compared to some other metals. How much gold that is mined each year is indeed subject to market forces, but unlike fiat it requires some hard work to produce.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

I disagree on #2. Drunk driving is a recurring problem, of which the government has done little to prevent or stop. Therefore, it is a proximate problem, that is caused by mis-management of the roads. In any event, you are hung up on a relatively trivial portion of the article. Block makes the case later on that private road ownership would be much more responsive to problems such as drunk driving. Do you deny his claim?

No, it is not trivial; it is the entire basis for the argument that the government is a bad manager, and it is incorrect; drunk drivers cause drunk driving. You'll have better luck blaming a lack of societal pressure than blaming the government for drunk driving. You can insert speeding, and other driver-caused problems here; my counter-argument remains substantially unchanged.

Uh ok, way to completely ignore Block's main argument.

In fact, why should drunk driving be illegal at all? Why should the government be allowed to stop me? Can't rational agents make their own judgement of whether it is a good idea to drive in their current state of drunkeness? What's that you say? Other people are affected? Did I hear you use the word 'externality'?

No, you did not hear the word externality. This is a simple concept, under a system of private road ownership the managers of such roads would seek to eliminate drunk driving on their roads. The government "seeks" to do so as well, but since the government is not governed by the principles of profit and loss, it does a much poorer job. It has little incentive to stop drunk driving.

Yes, I do disagree with the claim; private road owners would do whatever was most profitable. This is the entire thrust of your philosophy; that if everyone does best for themself, everyone will be as well off as possible. I can't imagine any reason to crack down on drunk driving unless there were regulated penalties for this, or the problem became so rampant that drunk drivers caused frequent, money-costing road closures.

If you disagree with this claim I suggest you read up on Buchanan's work on public choice theory.

 

[CWRMadcat]

I don't support any standard. My position is simple: get the government out of the currency & banking industry and get rid of all legal tender laws. Therefore, I think that people should adopt any kind of currency that they want, but under anarcho-capitalism gold would probably be the #1 most common currency, will silver right behind.

So you're saying that under your proposition, I can wake up one morning and decide to print my own currency?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: CWRMadcat

I don't support any standard. My position is simple: get the government out of the currency & banking industry and get rid of all legal tender laws. Therefore, I think that people should adopt any kind of currency that they want, but under anarcho-capitalism gold would probably be the #1 most common currency, will silver right behind.

So you're saying that under your proposition, I can wake up one morning and decide to print my own currency?

Yep. Getting people to accept it is a different story though, the first question people would ask if you marketed your currency is: what's backing it?

Actually, someone has already started printing his own currency: Bernie Nuthouse with his Liberty Dollars. Some places actually accept 'em too.

 

[robbase29a]

Dissipate... you still have yet to answer my questions... what will YOU do with roads, law enforcement, defense, education and planning? You just gave me articles... and links to where I can purchase books!

I guess I am left to extrapolate from what is said in the very brief synopsis of each topic. Roads... privatize em. Law enforcement... privatize it. Defense... you don't need it. Education.. privatize it.

Planning: here's what I mean about planning. Let's say that the ideal place for a garbage dump (or that neat coal factory) is in your back yard. What prevents the rich companies from putting it there? I definitely don't want a waste water treatment plant next to my McDonalds.

Here are other real world problems that you have in your utopia.
What happens when your local law enforcement is crooked, and they are being paid off by the mob?
Some crazy dictator decides that he wants your land. How well trained (and supplied) is your militia?
Your poor neighbor cannot afford to give her kids a Basic Elementary Education.
The company that was building a road decides to hike up the price because of unforseen problems.
And one that may hit home... macrosoft decides to undercut all of its competitors and is now the sole provider of operating systems... now the software giant is shooting prices through the roof... do you buy the next operating system or not?

This is the real world. There are crooked people and problems everywhere. I am in no way a socialist!... I actually am for more privatization than you probably think. But I just think someone needs to provide oversight to make sure that the land is running smoothly.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: robbase29a
Dissipate... you still have yet to answer my questions... what will YOU do with roads, law enforcement, defense, education and planning? You just gave me articles... and links to where I can purchase books!

These are complex topics of which I cannot do justice. That's why I gave you the links to the information on each of them.

I guess I am left to extrapolate from what is said in the very brief synopsis of each topic. Roads... privatize em. Law enforcement... privatize it. Defense... you don't need it. Education.. privatize it.

Defense would be privatized also, but that pretty much sums it up.

Planning: here's what I mean about planning. Let's say that the ideal place for a garbage dump (or that neat coal factory) is in your back yard. What prevents the rich companies from putting it there? I definitely don't want a waste water treatment plant next to my McDonalds.

Planning would be done on a local level. When you go to buy a house sometimes there are rules you have to agree to called CCRs. This is basically how a world without government would work, complete with arbitration bodies and private law enforcement. Many people fall prey to the perception that anarchy would bring a completely lawless society. This is not the case, really the only main difference under anarchy is that you would not live under any rules that you do not directly agree to.

Here are other real world problems that you have in your utopia.
What happens when your local law enforcement is crooked, and they are being paid off by the mob?

Well, the beauty of anarcho-capitalism is that the police can be directly fired by any individual. Hence, in this situation a competitor would spring up, and the corrupt firm would lose clientele.

Some crazy dictator decides that he wants your land. How well trained (and supplied) is your militia?

As well trained and supplied as you pay it to be. However, in this modern economy it is much more properous to do business with your fellow men than to pillage. Some societies would have roaming warlords, just like in Africa, but this has more to do with culture than anything else. Anarcho-capitalism does not promise utopia for everyone. For instance, utopia will not be achieved if everyone decides to rape and pillage. However, the culture of Americans for the most part is that which is ripe for capitalism and prosperity. Hence, the vast majority of the population simply would not put up with roaming warlords in the U.S., as they don't today either.

Your poor neighbor cannot afford to give her kids a Basic Elementary Education.

Education is not necessarily for every child. The idea that every child should have an education is a relatively new one. In the early days of America children often worked on farms or family businesses, and no one had a problem with that. However, education would be cheaper and better than ever before under anarcho-capitalism. Why? Because the government would be out of the picture, and there would be more propserity in America in general. Furthermore, there would be without a doubt, private charities.

The company that was building a road decides to hike up the price because of unforseen problems.

The company would seek the highest possible price it could get for its road in the first place. Any price hikes above that and revenue will decline.

And one that may hit home... macrosoft decides to undercut all of its competitors and is now the sole provider of operating systems... now the software giant is shooting prices through the roof... do you buy the next operating system or not?

I think you are referring to the predatory price doctrine? This practice is a myth. See page 399 of Capitalism for a critique of this absurd doctrine.

This is the real world. There are crooked people and problems everywhere. I am in no way a socialist!... I actually am for more privatization than you probably think. But I just think someone needs to provide oversight to make sure that the land is running smoothly.

There are crooked people and problems in government (the understatement of the century). So now you are advocating that a crooked entity oversee everyone else in order to stop other crooked people. It is exactly this kind of thinking that gave us the IRS & the Federal Reserve. The government is not an altruistic entity by any means. That is what people can't seem to grasp. The government is basically just looking out for numero uno, while at the same time trying to create the illusion that it is necessary for our survival.