theloniusfleabag Posted September 19, 2004 Report Posted September 19, 2004 Dear Hugo, The tyrant's excuse. If you have to violate basic human rights to do something, what you are doing is misguided and almost certainly evil.Well, there's the cases of gov't control being heavy handed and repressive, and there are cases of the gov't protecting people from their own idiocy. Not being allowed to fire your assault rifle in the air to celebrate a football game win, for example. Yes, people do risk death from both themselves and the police in matters such as these.certain institutions are forbidden by threat of violence and death from withdrawing from those institutions.'Withdrawing from those institutions' would require one to denounce one's citizenship, and/or refusing to pay taxes, based on the 'disagreeable usage'. You would 'risk violence or death' only by the degree with which you opposed. Quote Would the Special Olympics Committee disqualify kids born with flippers from the swimming events?
August1991 Posted September 20, 2004 Report Posted September 20, 2004 IMV, the government, like the free market, a happy family or a well-run business, can be a source of good. Explain how. In two ways. I'll start with Thelonious Monk's good example: Not being allowed to fire your assault rifle in the air to celebrate a football game win, for example. Hugo would have a private police force that would assess and collect damages when a falling bullet maimed your child. True, in theory, it could work. And in theory, General Motors employees could be entirely organized as self-employed contractors meeting every morning in a Detroit parking lot. General Motors would be a large "labour market". Hugo, why do large corporations exist? (Admit it Hugo, corporations are mini-totalitarian states. But not for the world and society, for their employees.) So Hugo, why do corporate employees accept this? IOW, Hugo does not consider the cost of organizing society without a government. I'll admit the government is a costly solution but Hugo proposes a theoretical alternative that would probably be more costly in practice. Second, there may be reasons I would accept now to constrain my future actions - voluntarily accept now that I may be placed in prison in the future. Here is an example: As a condition of marriage, I purchased a life insurance policy. (This used to be known as a dowry.) IOW, an individual's relationship with society is a long term contract - and the government is a handy way to organize this. ---- I can manage my own affairs on my own. But I do enjoy the help of others sometimes - as a minimu, I feel less lonely. The key issue, it seems to me, is whether people have reached their potential in their dealings with others. Markets are not the only way for people to interact. Families and firms (friendship) offer another way. Goevrnment offers another way to interact. ---- Was the 19th century or the 20th century more productive in ideas for humankind? There has been nuclear power, the laser, the transistor, and so forth.These are all examples of practical applications. A physicist of the early 20th century would marvel but also understand these devices. (IMV, the double helix is the 20th century's gift to the future.)Let me be explicit, all the inventions you cite of the 20th century would have happened anyway. Indeed, they may have happened better and faster if one thinks of people like Edison, Pasteur and Faraday. (In the 20th century, they would have fallen to the needs of the State military.) The individualism of the 19th. Century also did not lead to huge increases in wealth. It lead to the concentration of wealth and to falling living standards for most of the world.Hugo provided a good link in response.I will add that the 19th century was largely a peaceful century - excepting the US Civil War. But that war had for effect to abolish slavery. The 20th century was the bloodiest in all human history. It recalls the Enclosures and Goldsmith's "Deserted Village" only now, peoples are losing more than their plot of land.Ill fares the land... Indeed. People suffer when there is a lack of clear ownership.I'm sure the notion of "this is mine" predates any idea of trade. This notion is part of our sense of fairness. Thou shalt not steal. Trade came later, and terms of trade last. Then numbers "3 for 2", then words as trade became complex. "3 cows for 2 sheep". Quote
Hugo Posted September 20, 2004 Author Report Posted September 20, 2004 there are cases of the gov't protecting people from their own idiocy. That was the excuse of Hitler and Stalin too - people don't understand why National Socialism/Communism is good for them, we have to impose it by force for their own good. This argument can be summarised as, "I know what's good for other people more than they do, and I should have the right to use force against them to ensure what I know is the best outcome for them." 'Withdrawing from those institutions' would require one to denounce one's citizenship, and/or refusing to pay taxes, based on the 'disagreeable usage'. Go ahead and try it. I guarantee they won't just say, "well, alright then." They will issue fines. If you don't pay up, they will imprison you. If you resist arrest, they will use force against you. If you resist force with force, they will kill you. John Singer was shot dead by a deputy sherriff in 1979 because he refused to submit to a court order that he cease homeschooling his children and resisted repeated attempts by local police to arrest and incarcerate him. Note that John Singer never committed any aggression against the police or anyone else, and after the first court hearing he retreated to his farm and did not leave it until he had been killed. Hugo would have a private police force that would assess and collect damages when a falling bullet maimed your child. This is a strawman argument, August, and you should know better. Why would any sane stadium owner permit any kind of weapon inside his premises? They don't allow weapons now, or even outside food - why do you think this would change suddenly? It's no big deal to install metal detectors and hire security guards to enforce this, many stadiums already have these. Furthermore, if any stadium did allow assault weapons inside, who would be crazy enough to go there? Anyone who valued their life would stay away, and anyone who'd like to carry an assault weapon into a stadium and use it must bear in mind that he'd be surrounded by people who also had assault weapons and the will to use them. Such a stadium would go out of business rapidly - problem solved. The anarchist view of law and crime is generally preventative rather than retributive, which is why it's difficult for a lot of people to comprehend. Our justice system focuses not on preventing crime but punishing it after it happens. Hugo, why do large corporations exist? Because of government. The reason why the stock corporation is the dominant, nay, exclusive form of large business organisation is because of a 19th-century American law which allows such a corporation certain benefits, such as legal personhood and limited liability. The stock corporation doesn't exist because it's naturally superior, it exists because the state has made it artificially superior. The huge size of corporations is also due to government. People take the path of least resistance. If you have to give up A to get X, or A and B to get X, you'll only give up A. Right now, the best way to get ahead in the business world is to get the government to help you, with subsidies, protective tarriffs, exclusive contracts and so forth. This means that companies who are large enough to afford effective lobbying will get ahead. Without government, companies are forced to compete on fair terms and the large bureacracy and inefficiency of big firms would work against them. Consider that in corporate headquarters such as the Sears Tower or the Chrysler building, there are thousands of people who draw very substantial salaries but have nothing to do with either production or retail of the company's products. That is inefficiency, dead weight. Small businesses don't have that problem. In a truly free economy we would see many kinds of business organisations - workers collectives, small-business federations, and many more (I don't believe for a second that what I cannot imagine cannot be imagined by anybody else either). All would get a fair shot at business. As it is, that won't happen because the government plays favourites. why do corporate employees accept this? Because there is no alternative. They cannot set up collectives, sole-trader federations or anything else because the state has rendered such organisations uncompetitive. IOW, Hugo does not consider the cost of organizing society without a government. On the contrary, I don't think you consider the cost of organising society with a government. I know that you think the free market provides better goods and services at lower prices than state-run industry does. Why do you suddenly lose faith in your own beliefs when it comes to services such as law enforcement? Second, there may be reasons I would accept now to constrain my future actions - voluntarily accept now that I may be placed in prison in the future. Such ideas are the mainstay of anarchist law. However, the fact is that you never voluntarily accepted any of the government's decrees. You were coerced into them. IOW, an individual's relationship with society is a long term contract - and the government is a handy way to organize this. Read No Treason by Lysander Spooner. The social contract is a swindle. The only contract that is valid is one that you enter into voluntarily. To say that a contract can be entered into involuntarily or before your birth is to say that slavery is permissible. Goevrnment offers another way to interact. There's no interaction. Try and strike a deal with the taxman if you don't believe me. Families and business will compromise with you, try and take your needs into account. Government has no interest in you as an individual and will do whatever will win the next election, no matter how much that hurts you. Let me be explicit, all the inventions you cite of the 20th century would have happened anyway. I do actually agree with you, August, I was just playing devil's advocate. In my opinion, we are at present coasting off the impetus built up in the 18th and 19th centuries. Once that inertia is spent, economic and social collapse is assured as long as government continues on this socialist model, just as socialism collapsed before. Quote
theloniusfleabag Posted September 20, 2004 Report Posted September 20, 2004 Dear Hugo, Why would any sane stadium owner permit any kind of weapon inside his premises?I actually never thought of a stadium, I was thinking of one's own backyard. Once the bullet leaves the yard, it enters public domain, and then, the world of law. QUOTE there are cases of the gov't protecting people from their own idiocy. That was the excuse of Hitler and Stalin too - people don't understand why National Socialism/Communism is good for them, we have to impose it by force for their own good. It seems that you think any sort of law assumes the excesses of totalitarianism ala Hitler and Stalin. "Today its speed limits, which means tomorrow its the gas chamber". They will issue fines. If you don't pay up, they will imprison you. If you resist arrest, they will use force against you. If you resist force with force, they will kill you.Not if you win. Besides, this is the essence of property ownership.However, the fact is that you never voluntarily accepted any of the government's decreesChoosing to stay in a country and abide by it's laws is a form of voluntary acceptance of those laws. As to Anarchy, there is nothing more base (and foolish) than to say, "every man for himself, no laws or guidelines save what you impose on yourself". Quote Would the Special Olympics Committee disqualify kids born with flippers from the swimming events?
Hugo Posted September 20, 2004 Author Report Posted September 20, 2004 I actually never thought of a stadium, I was thinking of one's own backyard. Once the bullet leaves the yard, it enters public domain, and then, the world of law. I've highlighted the crucial flaw in your argument. For this to happen as you've said would mean I was moving my property - my bullet - onto somebody else's property (what is not my property must be somebody else's, because under anarchism everything is private property or unclaimed wilderness). Once that happens, I've committed the crime of trespass. He whose land my bullet flew onto has had his property and his rights violated according to anarchist law and I can and should be punished, even if my bullet never hit anybody. It seems that you think any sort of law assumes the excesses of totalitarianism ala Hitler and Stalin You're dodging my point. Imposing law to "protect people from their own idiocy" - your words - not only implies that you consider yourself some kind of Nietzchean ubermensch in that you are far wiser than any of your fellow men, but also that you have the right to impose your will upon them in the name of their own good. Correct? Because if you do not acknowledge that you are wiser and better than all of your fellow men, then you have to leave them alone and refrain from trying to impose your values and your ideas upon them by force. Not if you win. Besides, this is the essence of property ownership. No, it is the essence of theft. Taxation is stealing, and if you deny that, define taxation in such a way that it doesn't also describe high-minded theft. Court cases over taxation are not about retaining your rights to your property, they are about specifying the amount of money the government may steal from you. Show me a court case where a citizen has won complete freedom from taxation. Choosing to stay in a country and abide by it's laws is a form of voluntary acceptance of those laws. Would you have said that to Iraqis pre-2003? That by remaining in Iraq, they are voluntarily accepting their rape, torture and murder in their thousands? As to Anarchy, there is nothing more base (and foolish) than to say, "every man for himself, no laws or guidelines save what you impose on yourself". Then you are very ignorant of anarchism. The key tenet of anarchy is not "every man for himself", but the Non-Aggression Principle which goes, according to L. Neil Smith, like this: No one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to delegate its initiation. Quote
August1991 Posted September 20, 2004 Report Posted September 20, 2004 I actually never thought of a stadium, I was thinking of one's own backyard. Once the bullet leaves the yard, it enters public domain, and then, the world of law.I've highlighted the crucial flaw in your argument. No, you haven't Hugo and I fear you still don't get it.[Hugo, you are too literal-minded, and too theoretical. I too wasn't thinking of a stadium. I was thinking of Middle Eastern countries where people fire in the air to celebrate.] He whose land my bullet flew onto has had his property and his rights violated according to anarchist law and I can and should be punished, even if my bullet never hit anybody.In practice, how to punish?Yes. in theory, law could be privately enforced. But it would be too costly to do it that way. Let me jump to the chase and perhaps save ourselves some trouble. Hugo, why do large corporations exist?Because of government.That's simply wrong.Corporations exist because they offer a cheaper way to conduct transactions than going through a market. Hugo, have you ever heard of "transaction costs"? Until you understand this concept, there is almost no point in having a discussion. To wit: IOW, Hugo does not consider the cost of organizing society without a government. On the contrary, I don't think you consider the cost of organising society with a government. I know that you think the free market provides better goods and services at lower prices than state-run industry does. Why do you suddenly lose faith in your own beliefs when it comes to services such as law enforcement? If it were costless to transact through markets, then I would agree with you. But it is not costless to transact through markets. why do corporate employees accept this?Because there is no alternative. They cannot set up collectives, sole-trader federations or anything else because the state has rendered such organisations uncompetitive.The State? Do you blame the State for all the "costs" in this world?In fact, the alternatives you describe would be too costly. (I won't even get into the issue of risk...) The reason why the stock corporation is the dominant, nay, exclusive form of large business organisation is because of a 19th-century American law which allows such a corporation certain benefits, such as legal personhood and limited liability. The stock corporation doesn't exist because it's naturally superior, it exists because the state has made it artificially superior.That is simple nonsense. Limited liability corporations are an ideal way to transfer risk and they ultimately amount to option markets. Do you know the difference between a bond and share?The only contract that is valid is one that you enter into voluntarily. To say that a contract can be entered into involuntarily or before your birth is to say that slavery is permissible.If you choose to live in Canada. then you do so voluntarily. And you accept the consequences of the contract offered to you.I would go further though. I would still argue that you would accept the contract before your birth. Taxation is stealing, and if you deny that, define taxation in such a way that it doesn't also describe high-minded theft.Is the entry ticket to a cinema theft? How is a tax different?I think BD suggested that if you don't like Canadian taxes then you are welcome to move to Somalia or Russia where effective tax rates are much lower. ----- Two last points Hugo. First, I don't think the State should take half of our income. But neither do I think the State should not exist at all. Second, we don't live in a theoretical world. We live in a real world that is not frictionless. In such a world, it is best not to be an ideologue. Quote
Black Dog Posted September 20, 2004 Report Posted September 20, 2004 Ahem. Speaking of Iraq (not that anyone was), there's talk that a quick exit is likely for the U.S. Whether Bush or Kerry is elected, the president or president-elect will have to sit down immediately with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The military will tell the election winner there are insufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to wage effective war. That leaves three realistic options: Increase overall U.S. military strength to reinforce Iraq, stay with the present strength to continue the war, or get out. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Guest eureka Posted September 21, 2004 Report Posted September 21, 2004 Hugo! If you want nasty, you can have nasty: only I don't think you have the intelligence to sustain it. You have not won a single debate with me even though you only debate what you think you know all there is to know. You are an eristic debater who debates only to bolster his ego and not to learn. I stopped debating certain things with you because you simply become too irrational to give any point to the exercise. If you want to debate with me on even terms, you may have to spend the next ten or so yesrs educating and informing yourself. And, with that, you will have to open your mind to allow the new information to distill into wisdom. To give you a little start in how to think, I will refer you back to my definition of democracy (it was mine,BTW: paraphrased from an article I wrote long ago). You replied that Blacks were a minority and are still a minority. You could not grasp the implication of my definition, obviously. Some Blacks are Episcopalian; some are Southern Baptist. Some Blacks are Republicans; some Blacks are Democrats. There are a myriad other possibilities. Majorities are never set in stone: they shift, as I said. Is that too much for you? Then, as I also said, Despotism is not the same as totalitarianism. Not at all. In the most despotic societies of the past, the influence of the state has been hardly felt by the masses. Totalitarianism, which is an ism that invades every aspect of civic life, is virtually a twentieth century creation. Democracy did exist prior to that. Someone pointed to Rome. There are a hundred others. Democracy is also, as I tried to teach you in another debate, not limited to your simplistic ideas. Ignore me if you wish. It would not trouble me at all. I think, though, that your pretense would come from fear of exposure. Quote
Hugo Posted September 21, 2004 Author Report Posted September 21, 2004 Ignore me if you wish. Done. Get back under your bridge. Still not a cited fact or single piece of evidence, I see. Turn off your TV and go read a book. I was thinking of Middle Eastern countries where people fire in the air to celebrate. And you are citing the failure of Middle Eastern state police to stop this as a reason why we need state police? In practice, how to punish? What you should be asking is why and how the state could do it any better. The failures of the state justice system are many. The police are undermanned and underfunded, the courts hand down seemingly random, inconsistent and nonsensical judgements, the victims of crime are never even listened to, let alone compensated, and so it goes on. Like all state-run institutions, the Canadian justice system is like a bad hangover from the USSR. It looks jarringly out of place in our modern, high-tech, free-market world, like the dilapidated roads, run-down power stations, chronically underachieving schools, and everything else the government puts its dead hand upon. Yes. in theory, law could be privately enforced. But it would be too costly to do it that way. Well, this runs completely counter to everything else you've ever argued in this forum. You have always said that the free market provides more and better for less, but suddenly when it comes to security (which is a commodity like any other), you do a complete about-face and argue that only the state can provide more and better for less. Can you explain the self-contradiction? Why are your economic policies capitalist in some areas, Marxist in others? Corporations exist because they offer a cheaper way to conduct transactions than going through a market. Yes, as I already said, because they can get a cheaper-than-market way to do business by interacting with the government. If there was only a free market, how could anybody get a cheaper way to conduct transactions than going through a market? Hugo, have you ever heard of "transaction costs"? Until you understand this concept, there is almost no point in having a discussion. Consider that free enterprise has a motive to reduce transaction costs and the state does not. As far as government is concerned, its income is practically unlimited. This is as true for commodities like security as it is for commodities like foodstuffs. If it were costless to transact through markets, then I would agree with you. But it is not costless to transact through markets. This still doesn't explain your self-contradiction. The State? Do you blame the State for all the "costs" in this world? I blame the state for amplifying the bad aspects of human nature and I blame the state for the large majority of human misery and suffering in history. That is simple nonsense. Limited liability corporations are an ideal way to transfer risk and they ultimately amount to option markets. Limited liability corporations are an ideal way to negate risk, August. You see, the corporation has legal personhood and can be held accountable, but the corporation does not exist. You can't point to anything and say, "That's the corporation." What limited liability does is take responsibility away from individuals and give it to an abstract concept. Therefore, it's hardly surprising when individuals act in an unethical fashion. Take an example. The Niagara Textile Corporation dumps a load of toxic chemicals in the Niagara River. Under limited liability, the corporation can be fined, so they just pay their fines and do it again, because presumably the cost of the fine multiplied by the probability of being caught is cheaper than the cost of disposing of the chemicals properly, or they wouldn't have done it. If, however, the individuals in the corporation remain liable for their actions, then law agencies can identify the men who did the dumping and the executive who signed the order to do it and charge them personally. This makes it much less likely that the corporation will do it again. Executives don't mind a $2m fine amortized over the entire company, because they can share that cost with employees, customers and so forth, but they mind a $2m fine extracted from their personal bank account. If you choose to live in Canada. then you do so voluntarily. And you accept the consequences of the contract offered to you. I would go further though. I would still argue that you would accept the contract before your birth. Obviously you didn't read the link I gave you. Let's make an analogy. Say I sign a contract with some people, before your birth, that you are going to be my slave forever. Is that binding? Is it fair and just? The social contract idea hinges upon the idea that people of no relation to you, generations ago, can make a contract that you can be held to. The only just contract is one that you yourself consent to. Is the entry ticket to a cinema theft? How is a tax different? Because the ticket is optional. Nobody forces you to buy it. However, there are men with guns and prisons forcing you to pay your taxes. I think BD suggested that if you don't like Canadian taxes then you are welcome to move to Somalia or Russia where effective tax rates are much lower. And I presume you'd argue that segregation laws were perfectly alright, because blacks were free to move to California or New England? First, I don't think the State should take half of our income. But neither do I think the State should not exist at all. Actually, you do, you just can't let go of your preconceptions enough to admit it. Your self-contradictory arguments speak for themselves. You are like an old Polish housewife, asking who will produce bread if there is no state to do it. Second, we don't live in a theoretical world. We live in a real world that is not frictionless. In such a world, it is best not to be an ideologue. And who else would you have said that to? Thomas Jefferson? Martin Luther King? Mahatma Gandhi? Quote
Hugo Posted September 21, 2004 Author Report Posted September 21, 2004 Ahem. Speaking of Iraq (not that anyone was), there's talk that a quick exit is likely for the U.S. I think the most likely outcome is a central and ineffective government, that resides in Baghdad and controls Baghdad alone. Outside of the capital, tribalism will probably prevent any kind of unification, at least on a national scale. Any Iraqi nation-building will have to respect tribal boundaries, so it's unlikely that there would be a unified Iraq again without ruthless central control, as was offered by Saddam. This is, once again, a hangover from colonialism. Just as in Africa, the division of territory along lines arranged by Western colonial powers rather than along local tribal and political divisions has caused many groups with deep enmity to be thrust together. I think what the US (and to a lesser extent the UN) is doing is simply a repetition of this colonial fallacy. Rather than confront the problems inherent in Iraq and Afghanistan that would prevent effective nation-building, they choose to ignore them in the hopes that they can somehow forge an effective nation-state within colonial borders with no consideration to ethnic divisions. I also worry that Iraq's neighbours (many of whom have suffered at Iraq's hands in the past) will look upon the disorder and the withdrawal of US troops as an opportunity to expand their borders. Iran and Syria would almost certainly love to add a slice of Iraqi territory to their own, and a weakened Iraqi state left without an effective military or even effective control over its own territory would be a golden opportunity. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait probably fear US repercussions too much to try a similar annexation, though they would doubtless like to. Quote
August1991 Posted September 21, 2004 Report Posted September 21, 2004 If you want nasty, you can have nasty: only I don't think you have the intelligence to sustain it.Eureka, avoid the unbecoming innuendo.To give you a little start in how to think, I will refer you back to my definition of democracy (it was mine,BTW: paraphrased from an article I wrote long ago).Huh? Article? Where? I was thinking of Middle Eastern countries where people fire in the air to celebrate.And you are citing the failure of Middle Eastern state police to stop this as a reason why we need state police?The Middle East is a good example of your private militias - effective in enforcing other types of criminal behaviour but not this sort.The failures of the state justice system are many. The police are undermanned and underfunded, the courts hand down seemingly random, inconsistent and nonsensical judgements, the victims of crime are never even listened to, let alone compensated, and so it goes on.The failures of a private police force would probably be greater. Hugo, screw ups happen, things go wrong.Information plays a large part in transaction costs and criminality is often a question of information. Yes. in theory, law could be privately enforced. But it would be too costly to do it that way.Well, this runs completely counter to everything else you've ever argued in this forum. You have always said that the free market provides more and better for less, but suddenly when it comes to security (which is a commodity like any other), you do a complete about-face and argue that only the state can provide more and better for less.Because I'm not a single-minded ideologue. I take a pragmatic view of social problems.In an ideal world, everything could be transacted through costless spot markets. Well, that is obviously impossible because we need to deal with time. So, we need forward transactions - but now we face a problem of costly information. Because of these costs, otherwise good deals fall through. So, people start looking for other ways to transact. For example, they trade within a family, within a corporation or through a government. Markets fail for a reason. These non-market solutions are imperfect but better than no solution at all. That is the essence of my argument in favour of a State judiciary. That plus the fact that there are judgment-proof individuals. If there was only a free market, how could anybody get a cheaper way to conduct transactions than going through a market?Hugo, are you that thick? Even free markets are costly to transact through.It would be prohibitively expensive given current technology to transact through free markets for all the activities required in the manufacture of a car. As a result, voluntarily people sign long term contracts and enter into master-slave (employer-employee) relationships. Internally, General Motors ressembles a Soviet Ministry of Automobile Production. Here's an idea Hugo: Why do firms have in-house legal counsel on salary? Why not contract out? Consider that free enterprise has a motive to reduce transaction costs and the state does not.Everyone has an incentive to reduce transaction costs because their reduction amounts to free lunch for the State or you or me. Now whether the incentives are accurate or not is another question.I blame the state for amplifying the bad aspects of human nature and I blame the state for the large majority of human misery and suffering in history.Guns don't kill people. People kill people.Limited liability corporations are an ideal way to negate risk, August.Negate risk? Tell that to the creditors in the case of bankruptcy and the shareholders at all times.If I lend you my car, and you kill someone with it, should I be held responsible? Well, if I were, people wouldn't lend cars very often, would they. Otherwise good deals wouldn't occur. The world would be a poorer place. Limited liability solves that problem. My liability is limited to the loss of a car. Take an example. The Niagara Textile Corporation dumps a load of toxic chemicals in the Niagara River. Under limited liability, the corporation can be fined, so they just pay their fines and do it again, because presumably the cost of the fine multiplied by the probability of being caught is cheaper than the cost of disposing of the chemicals properly, or they wouldn't have done it.Dumb example. The fine, in a private judicial system, would be based on damages. If the damage is less than the prevention cost, the Niagara Textile would be wise to pollute - the world would be a better place.I think what you mean is that a corporation could incur greater damages than its entire value. Forced into bankruptcy and liquidated (note that shareholders and creditors lose everything), there would still be insufficient value to pay a fine. (I think this happened to Cessna.) This refers to being judgment-proof. It happens now in many civil suit cases. If it were a criminal case, then the convicted person would go to jail. Limited liability does not absolve people from criminal liability. The social contract idea hinges upon the idea that people of no relation to you, generations ago, can make a contract that you can be held to. The only just contract is one that you yourself consent to.My sense of a social contract is the one you would have signed before you were born, and before knowing what the conditions of your birth would be. For example, we don't choose our parents and we don't choose our body. You could have been born blind to alcoholic parents. I think BD suggested that if you don't like Canadian taxes then you are welcome to move to Somalia or Russia where effective tax rates are much lower.And I presume you'd argue that segregation laws were perfectly alright, because blacks were free to move to California or New England?How do you feel about gated communities, Hugo? What about private clubs that restrict membership?Let me be more direct: You choose in part the jurisdiction you wish to live in - and the State provided benefits/taxes that go with your choice. There is probably more choice in the US than in Canada. Of course, your choice is based on may other factors too. You object to the coercive nature of State-citizen relations. It must be so because that is why the State exists. The State allows citizens to sign long term contracts collectively. Like marriage, and corporations, this is beneficial in some circumstances where markets don't function because of high transaction costs. Let me give you a very practical example: State-organized health insurance. I am willing to admit that changes in technology may change market transaction costs in the future. Markets are the ideal way to co-operate, but they are sometimes a prohibitively costly method. And who else would you have said that to? Thomas Jefferson? Martin Luther King? Mahatma Gandhi?I wonder why the world is the way it is as well as imagining a better world.I think the State in modern societies is too preponderant. But the State nevertheless offers a way to transact beneficially when free markets fail. Quote
Hugo Posted September 21, 2004 Author Report Posted September 21, 2004 The Middle East is a good example of your private militias - effective in enforcing other types of criminal behaviour but not this sort. So, you believe the warlords and militias in the Middle East are paid for by voluntary contracts with the Middle Eastern people? I submit to you that these miltias and warlords are just state governments writ small, and that their money and power are extracted by extortion rather than free exchange. The failures of a private police force would probably be greater. I'm not interested in what you think would "probably" happen. I'm interested in what you can prove, and you can't prove this. I can, however, tell you that the murder rate in 19th Century England, under public law enforcement, was not much different from that a century before under private law enforcement. A further example of a society without any government law enforcement whatsoever, but with rights and rights protection at least as good, and usually better, than any contemporary society, is Iceland. Hugo, screw ups happen, things go wrong. But you don't think government can screw things up or cause them to go wrong? Or you don't think that the arbitrary power invested in government makes their screwups more dangerous? It would be prohibitively expensive given current technology to transact through free markets for all the activities required in the manufacture of a car. As a result, voluntarily people sign long term contracts Voluntarily. That word destroys your own argument. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Government is people with guns and arbitrary power. Negate risk? Tell that to the creditors in the case of bankruptcy and the shareholders at all times. But these are not the people making the direct decisions in the company, are they? The shareholders elect directors who appoint executives. If the damage is less than the prevention cost, the Niagara Textile would be wise to pollute - the world would be a better place. Wrong. If the damage to the individual who ordered the company to pollute was less than the benefit to the individual, they would be wise to pollute. Limited liability corporations make that condition a near-certainty. My sense of a social contract is the one you would have signed before you were born, and before knowing what the conditions of your birth would be. Contract: 1a. An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law. How can I agree to something before I have the capacity to agree to anything? For example, we don't choose our parents and we don't choose our body. You could have been born blind to alcoholic parents. Maybe my parents were blind alcoholics. I shouldn't be bound to be raised by them if I don't want to be, nor should I be bound to the arbitrary power of a state if I don't want to be. The analogy with one's body is false. You don't own your body or have any contract with your body, you are your body. How do you feel about gated communities, Hugo? What about private clubs that restrict membership? No complaints from me. You choose in part the jurisdiction you wish to live in - and the State provided benefits/taxes that go with your choice. Here's the problem. If you argue that by remaining in the country, I agree to the state's power, then it must be your contention that the Canadian government owns Canada and every single piece of property in it, because nobody can place conditions on the use of property they don't own, nor can they claim some jurisdiction over or the right to dispose of what they don't own. The State allows citizens to sign long term contracts collectively. Like marriage, and corporations, this is beneficial in some circumstances where markets don't function because of high transaction costs. Marriage and corporations are not market failures, they are just markets with high transaction costs. Marriage particularly so. This is because they are not based on exchange of money. Let me give you a very practical example: State-organized health insurance. You believe that state-organized health insurance has overcome all problems that a market might have and has been more successful at providing goods and services than a free market could have been? Explain how. I think the State in modern societies is too preponderant. But the State nevertheless offers a way to transact beneficially when free markets fail. Free markets don't fail, August, and even if they did in some parallel universe, that's no excuse for coersion and violence. Also, define how the state offers a way to transact beneficially. Quote
Guest eureka Posted September 21, 2004 Report Posted September 21, 2004 In the Listener magazine some thirty odd years ago. I will say no more than that since I do not intend to identify myself to the nuts around. My message to Hugo was not innuendo. It is a direct response to his insults that are intended to cover his inability to respond. Quote
theloniusfleabag Posted September 21, 2004 Report Posted September 21, 2004 Dear Hugo, I think what the US (and to a lesser extent the UN) is doing is simply a repetition of this colonial fallacy. Rather than confront the problems inherent in Iraq and Afghanistan that would prevent effective nation-building, they choose to ignore them in the hopes that they can somehow forge an effective nation-state within colonial borders with no consideration to ethnic divisions.I tend to agree with you here. Afghanistan has been an example of this for centuries. No one has been able to occupy (and unify) Afghanistan for about 500 years, I think.As to the debate about 'Anarchy' being a viable alternative, I suggest you take that to another thread. I'd be happy to go there and rend it asunder. Quote Would the Special Olympics Committee disqualify kids born with flippers from the swimming events?
Hugo Posted September 21, 2004 Author Report Posted September 21, 2004 As to the debate about 'Anarchy' being a viable alternative, I suggest you take that to another thread. I'd be happy to go there and rend it asunder. You can give it a shot. I'm fully confident you won't be able to, though. I have started another thread and indulged Eureka in a reply there. Quote
Hugo Posted September 21, 2004 Author Report Posted September 21, 2004 I tend to agree with you here. Afghanistan has been an example of this for centuries. No one has been able to occupy (and unify) Afghanistan for about 500 years, I think. I seem to remember that Iraq is actually quite similar, even under Saddam's rule. Were there not Kurdish areas that refused to submit to Baghdad authority in the North? Quote
theloniusfleabag Posted September 22, 2004 Report Posted September 22, 2004 Dear Hugo, Were there not Kurdish areas that refused to submit to Baghdad authority in the North?Yes, and they received a delivery of mustard gas for their troubles. Many say 'Saddam gassed his own people' as a sign of his brutality, but fail to acknowledge that 'gasees' were Kurdish separatists, who wished to secede from Iraq by force of arms and take their oilfields with them. That doesn't make the method right, but makes the motive understandable to the west. Quote Would the Special Olympics Committee disqualify kids born with flippers from the swimming events?
Hugo Posted September 22, 2004 Author Report Posted September 22, 2004 'gasees' were Kurdish separatists, who wished to secede from Iraq by force of arms and take their oilfields with them. That doesn't make the method right, but makes the motive understandable to the west. Well, it's my opinion that if one believes in self-government, one must respect the right of people to secede from a government, as the Chechens, the Kurds, and the American Confederacy had the right, which was denied to them by violence of the central government. Central government generally doesn't like secession. It is a challenge both to their power and to the "rightness" of their government, after all, if they were governing in a perceptibly just and fair manner who could want to secede? I think this pattern will probably be repeated. The Kurds will want to secede again and other groups, like the Marsh Arabs, might follow suit. Unless the new Iraqi Constitution includes right of secession (and it is by no means certain that it will, or even that it will be federal in the first place) it will be interesting to see how the new Iraqi government deals with this. Either they will allow secession and Iraq will balkanize into a few small, ethnically contiguous states or they will not, in which case we can look forward to at least a few years of Iraqi civil war and probably a longer period of terrorism, as Russia is undergoing now. Quote
theloniusfleabag Posted September 22, 2004 Report Posted September 22, 2004 Dear Hugo, Either they will allow secession and Iraq will balkanize into a few small, ethnically contiguous states or they will not, in which case we can look forward to at least a few years of Iraqi civil war and probably a longer period of terrorism, as Russia is undergoing now.You are quite right. Furthermore, I was told a while ago by an Arabic (Sikh) friend of mine, that this was the intentional tactic by the US all along. He told me that there is an old phrase in his culture, "to drop a bucket of popcorn amongst the monkeys". The same tactic is working in Afghanistan. Quote Would the Special Olympics Committee disqualify kids born with flippers from the swimming events?
August1991 Posted September 22, 2004 Report Posted September 22, 2004 The Kurds will want to secede again and other groups, like the Marsh Arabs, might follow suit.The Kurds have so far not made efforts to secede. I think that is the indication that this provisional government is on the right track.Bush in his UN speech made a direct reference to an Iraqi federal state. Lebanon, to a degree, is an example of a functioning Arab "democratic" state. IMV, I honestly see no reason why Iraq cannot become a functioning, pluralist federal state with a leader who is not in position for life. I was told a while ago by an Arabic (Sikh) friend of mine, that this was the intentional tactic by the US all along.Arabic Sikh? Huh?I am happy to see this thread get back to the original question: whether Iraq will ever be democratic. Hugo, I'll start another thread in the Philosophy section to respond to points in your post above. I will note here though that I agree with your idea of secession. The State derives its utility (and I guess its legitimacy) from our willingness to pay taxes. That is, we choose not to secede. Quote
August1991 Posted October 25, 2006 Report Posted October 25, 2006 I was told a while ago by an Arabic (Sikh) friend of mine, that this was the intentional tactic by the US all along. He told me that there is an old phrase in his culture, "to drop a bucket of popcorn amongst the monkeys". The same tactic is working in Afghanistan.I'm sure the White House considered this and I believe it was listed as the "worst case scenario". (According to Chretien, Bush Jnr was reasonable and holding back Americans' desire to attack after the attacks in September 2001.) IMV, Iraq has achieved better than the American worst case scenario. Northern Iraqis, Christians and Kurds, and Southern Iraqis live better now than before. It is Sunni Iraqis who live worse - the White Rhodesians of Westmount who lose along with their accolytes. So, what of radical Islamofascism? As opposed to the Cold War where Americans created encircling treaties, the Americans have now seemingly foisted an endless civil war on their enemy - "popcorn among the monkeys", as you say. The Islamists are killing each other. Even the Soviets rarely did that. Is Iraq the worst case scenario? I don't think so. The Kurds and 'Marsh Arabs' know otherwise. Northern Iraqis and Southern Iraqis are looking wryly at Baghdad. South Africa has as many whites as Iraq has Sunnis. The fall of Saddam was the fall of apartheid. I think all Arabs will eventually figure this out and get it right. But I'm an optimist - while admitting that it's their struggle, not mine. Quote
Riverwind Posted October 25, 2006 Report Posted October 25, 2006 As opposed to the Cold War where Americans created encircling treaties, the Americans have now seemingly foisted an endless civil war on their enemy - "popcorn among the monkeys", as you say. The Islamists are killing each other. Even the Soviets rarely did that.After the fact justifications to excuse a complete failure. Bush and co expected to be able to roll into Iraq set up a puppet democracy and pull most troops out within a couple years. There is no way they 'planned' to create the chaos today as part of a 'war on terror'. Furthermore, the argument that the Islamic radicals are too busy fighting in Iraq to attack western targets is also wrong as the people of Madrid and London can attest. In those cases the war in Iraq inspired home grown terrorists to plan their own attacks - attacks that likely would never have happened if the Americans had stayed out of Iraq. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Figleaf Posted October 25, 2006 Report Posted October 25, 2006 IMO someone in the Bushist administration should serve hard time for bringing about the deaths of U.S. military people in the Iraq fiasco. Let's look at a quick round-up of the justifications tendered for the exercise: 1. Connection to al queda. FALSE 2. Weapons of mass destuction. FALSE 3. Establishment of democracy. IMPRACTIBABLE 4. The 'flypaper' theory. IMPLAUSIBLE & DISPROVED In each case the administration was warned to expect exactly that outcome by virtually every credible external source. Yet they proceeded anyway. There should be limits on what stupidity can excuse, and the Bushist regime has exceeded them. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.