|
asdf32 posted:They both appeal to middle class first worlders. That's a new one.
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:37 |
|
|
Ratoslov posted:Heck, socialism has almost never been popular with middle-class Americans. Time was when 'socialist' was practically synonymous with 'labor-unionist'. Unions weren't really the problem with the middle class- unions are critically necessary to protecting worker's rights. The problem was the hard-right wing federal and upper class elements' efforts to associate socialism with communism because of the Great Red Scare that still persists today. Which is hilariously/disgustingly ironic given how often we see those same right wing elements praise societies which maintain a significant amount of their communistic pasts, like China and Russia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
You say socialism is not popular in America. But it is, actually. As long as it is called something else and not given to black people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 08:05
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:They both appeal to middle class first worlders. That isn't really true, middle class persons are probably the greatest enemies of socialism. As they tend to have the most to lose should revolution arise, they tend to throw it under the bus at the first opportunity and thus a Social democrat was born. Though you missed my point, you can't just say "it will make everything better" that doesn't work, you have to give them a reason why it will be. Even if that reason is really vague, hence me using freedom and economic balance. Both have their appeals and both are vague. CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 13:36 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
President Kucinich posted:I'd personally join the Beautiful Buff Men Brigade DRO as an insurance adjuster and spend my days roaming the country side, putting people's property in figure 4 leglocks while my companions tombstone the emaciated farmers populating the country side while wooing all the pretty ladies with our muscles. Bob le Moche posted:I really hope that authors or game or movie writers have been following this thread for inspiration because holy poo poo is there potential for some awesome DRO-land dystopian sci fi Anarcho-capitalist Ken MacLeod had a buff, gay DRO with a shirtless uniform in his sci-fi novels, called the "Rough Traders".
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:That's a new one. Ok so the actual current support base for socialism/leftism is what? And don't answer by telling me it's the people you think would benefit from socialism. That's not necessarily the current base. CharlestheHammer posted:That isn't really true, middle class persons are probably the greatest enemies of socialism. As they tend to have the most to lose should revolution arise, they tend to throw it under the bus at the first opportunity and thus a Social democrat was born. Have you not read this thread? It's filled with reasons why society is going to be a ton better for everyone if only we throw off the shackles of the state. No it doesn't make sense. But the people saying it believe those reasons. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:You say socialism is not popular in America. But it is, actually. As long as it is called something else and not given to black people. Welfare isn't the same as socialism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Ok so the actual current support base for socialism/leftism is what? And don't answer by telling me it's the people you think would benefit from socialism. That's not necessarily the current base. Edit: Though if you cleave out social issues then it changes demographically a bit. asdf32 posted:Have you not read this thread? It's filled with reasons why society is going to be a ton better for everyone if only we throw off the shackles of the state. No it doesn't make sense. But the people saying it believe those reasons. Of course they think its better, they just funnel everything through freedom. That is the why its better, sure it doesn't make any sense, but it is an answer. They don't say everything will be better just because, but because you will be more free. CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
Socialism is the distribution of government resources for the good of the commons, hope that helps.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah but I'm genuinely curious why he thinks competing systems of law won't heavily favor those that benefit the rich. Sorry my post was long, but if I just asked that simple question, I'd get back "ah but in a free market, a rational person wouldn't agree to use those courts, so they wouldn't QED", but since a rational corporation would obviously only want to use those courts I felt like I needed really drill down into whether my DRO would really risk a war for me when it would be obviously unprofitable, so not only would I be unable to find another DRO willing to do it, but even by insisting I risk getting my coverage revoked (which is an instant death sentence). I'll try and answer this question. Why wouldn't a private system of "common" law that emerges on the market also simply favor the wealthy just as most State monopolized legal systems do? The reason is that for a DRO to have any authority or jurisdiction over you, you have to voluntarily become a client. Why would you agree to a contract with a DRO that has a history of biased decisions in favor of the wealthy? In a competitive market why would you choose to be represented by a DRO that has proven itself to have taken bribes? For a DRO to be profitable, it needs to have a broad base of clients and a reputation for objectivity in its decision making. If some large company bought off a DRO, then all the working class clients who were customers of that DRO would vacate and choose to be represented by a different DRO. This would make it VERY difficult for a system of private law to be tilted towards benefitting the elite. That is not to say that mistakes won't be made and poorly run DRO's that make bad verdicts won't exist for a time before they inevitably lose all their customers and go into bankruptcy, but the incentives in a market such as this would lead to a more fair and equitable justice system. The main factor that separates State monopolized legal services and private law and arbitration is that the State monopolized legal system forces everyone to be represented by the same institution no matter how unfair their verdicts are, no matter how bought and paid for the judges are, no matter how corrupt the police departments are, no matter how unequal the application of justice may be. In a private, competing, private law and arbitration system such as the one I am proposing, the masses of the people will be funding their own provision of justice. What this means is that disputes and use of force will tend to be over actual violations of property rights. What if a large business wants to get away with some sort of crime. Let's suppose that they then buy off a DRO to represent them. How would this help them? These corrupt and bought off DRO's would quickly lose their non-rich clients and their reputation would suffer on the market, no longer would they be seen as impartial and reliable as an arbitrator of justice. Then let's suppose I had a legal dispute with a company who was represented by a bought and paid for corrupt DRO. However, MY DRO was no corrupt since I would only be paying for representation by a DRO that I felt was impartial and fair. If I was innocent of any wrongdoing, then presumably my fair and impartial DRO would find me innocent while the corrupt DRO representing the large business would find me guilty. Since this can happen, it would be stipulated in our contract with the DRO that in the event of such a case, a private independent third party arbitrator would step in and decide who was right. Each client of a DRO would already agree to the third party arbitrator and have ensured that they are fair and unbiased. Given that fact, the third party arbitrator would likely find me innocent if I had done nothing wrong and the corrupt bought off DRO would have no power over me. And when the corruption of the DRO who has taken bribes is well known, its reputation will be destroyed. Remember that from these various DRO institutions and the legal precedent that emerges, a common law and standard in society develops over time. Consumers will expect DRO's and private courts to comply with the commonly understood standard of law and justice. A DRO who deviates from this standard too often and provides unfair and unjust rulings will become marginalized and lose all their clients. The most profitable businesses are those that serve the middle class and the poor. Since the market rewards profit seekers who in tern need to satisfy consumers, then it would be a poor business strategy to serve only the rich. Compare the annual profits of Rolls Royce and Wal Mart or McDonalds and you will see the competitive advantage of a business model that provides goods and services to the poor and working class versus catering only to the super wealthy. So it is quite unreasonable to expect that private business enterprises, whether DRO, private security or anything else would last long by serving the very wealthy no matter how many bribes are offered. Without a monopoly on the use of coercion, forced taxation for funding and generations of propaganda reinforcement, such corruption and unequal application of a legal system would be extremely limited in comparison to any State monopolized justice system. Remember that we are making a comparison. The question is not whether or not any potential flaws could ever exist in a free society and its legal system, the question is whether such potential flaws are more or less likely than under existing or hypothesized State monopolized legal systems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
People will not be able to choose a pro-poor DRO because rich people will buy out all of the competitive DROs the same way they buy out all of the competitive politicians. There would be no meaningful oversight of bribery because an atmosphere of silent complacency is better for corporation's bottoms lines. For example Microsoft doesn't call out Apple's connections to Foxcon because waged slavery is the industry standard. Bribery would be even more of an industry standard than it is now if laws against it weren't actively being enforced by the State. Miltank fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Then let's suppose I had a legal dispute with a company who was represented by a bought and paid for corrupt DRO. However, MY DRO was no corrupt since I would only be paying for representation by a DRO that I felt was impartial and fair. If I was innocent of any wrongdoing, then presumably my fair and impartial DRO would find me innocent while the corrupt DRO representing the large business would find me guilty. Since this can happen, it would be stipulated in our contract with the DRO that in the event of such a case, a private independent third party arbitrator would step in and decide who was right. Each client of a DRO would already agree to the third party arbitrator and have ensured that they are fair and unbiased. Given that fact, the third party arbitrator would likely find me innocent if I had done nothing wrong and the corrupt bought off DRO would have no power over me. Unless, of course, the third-party arbitrator is also bought and paid for by the corrupt DRO without you knowing about it. And this also assumes that your own DRO wouldn't be bribed to throw you under the bus. Hell, it assumes that you know that the corrupt DRO is corrupt in the first place. How would you know this? The DRO is certainly not going to advertise this, and it will also go to great lengths to ensure that people do not slander their name. You're falsely assuming a perfect set of knowledge, which you don't even have now. You will almost certainly not have near as much knowledge in your own system. -EDIT- Actually, I don't think you've ever addressed this, and I think it's important.  Jrod, how do you get information about companies that you choose to do business with in your ideal society? How can you verify that these sources are accurate and correct?
Who What Now fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:It still boggles my mind how people assume regulations are the source of all evils, like the current levels of oversight just sprung into existence alongside their related industries instead of being created as responses to all the well-documented abuses that occurred in their absence. We tried the unfettered free market thing already and it was loving horrific and the backlash against it is how we got where we are now. I don't assume regulations are the source of all evil. The initiation of violence, however, is immoral. State imposed regulations on the private economy are immoral because they necessitate the use of coercion. Even when the State is legitimately punishing someone who has violated the rights of another, they have to use coercion to confiscate the property of others through taxation to finance the police action. I cannot logically and consistently defend an institution that must necessarily violate private property rights ostensibly to protect private property rights. I've said it before but the problems that we faced in our history of large business and industry creating pollution, harming people, and violating rights had everything to do with the failure to understand and defend private property rights. This should have been corrected through the courts making decisions to force payment of restitution to the victims of aggression. The creation of "Progressive" regulations were motivated for other reasons. Here is a ten minute clip of Murray Rothbard speaking on the original of Progressive Regulations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62rI8OYFzGg Have you all hear of Gabriel Kolko? He was a Marxist historian who nonetheless did great work exposing the true motivations behind State intervention into the economy at the beginning of the 20th century. In short, the State intervened on behalf of big business that desired to protect their profits and hurt their competitors. We moved from a somewhat free economy to a pseudo fascist economy over the course of three decades or so, from Woodrow Wilson through FDR. Kolko would no doubt claim that this was what Capitalism leads to so his final conclusions would be different from myself, but his analysis is spot on perfect. His historical work debunking the Progressive era is something that all people should expose themselves to. quote:Gabriel Kolko, the influential New Left historian whose Railroads and Regulation (1965) and The Triumph of Conservatism (1963) offered a radical challenge to the prevailing, “public interest” account of business regulation, died yesterday. Murray Rothbard admired Kolko and helped popularize Kolko’s view that “progressive” regulations were nearly always the joint work of protectionist business leaders and self-aggrandizing politicians. As Rothbard wrote in “Left and Right”: Here is an article written by Kolko about the New Deal: quote:The New Deal Illusion Remember that Kolko is a leftist so you shouldn't dismiss his analysis out of hand like you would Rothbard's or other libertarian thinkers. Coincidentally Rothbard greatly admired Kolko and built upon and expanded his historical analysis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
You didn't answer my question, jrodefeld, that was just a repetition of "well on the free market no one would do business with a company that required them to give up their right to legal recourse", but I already pre-provided an example of people doing just that today with binding arbitration, which demonstrably favors the corporations who pay the bills (because an arbitrator with a reputation for losing too much money for the corporation employing it would lose business). Why would removing even the shallow state protections against that kind of exploitation improve the situation. It would obviously be in the best interests of the top 10% (who own more than 50% of the wealth in America) to select DROs that recognize limited liability corporations. The only way for Everyman DRO to enforce full liability on the owners and shareholders would be to go to war with them, and according to you war is unprofitable if you win and disastrous if you lose (as Everyman DRO would, since even if it was the #1 DRO among the bottom 40% of people, that's less than 2% of the wealth in this country that they can access). Why would any DRO go to war with the LLC-recognizing DRO's (and as you've noted the LLC's would all band together against an aggressor who did not recognize the rights of corporate persons)? They wouldn't, and they wouldn't need to since going without a DRO is a death sentence, the poor has to choose some DRO so why not compete in other areas because you already know they'll never be able to find a competitor who will fight against LLC's and even if they did, the LLC's would crush that foolish company. You keep saying "no one would do business with a company that favored the wealthy" but the wealthy sure as gently caress would, and since they command most of the wealth, a perfectly free market is obviously going to favor them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:
Because all good things are an emergent property of True Libertarian Society.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't assume regulations are the source of all evil. The initiation of violence, however, is immoral. State imposed regulations on the private economy are immoral because they necessitate the use of coercion. Even when the State is legitimately punishing someone who has violated the rights of another, they have to use coercion to confiscate the property of others through taxation to finance the police action. All of this is nothing but trite, meaningless garbage. No one cares what these people think or what they have to say. We only care about what you think and what you have to say. If you cannot think for yourself or articulate your beliefs in your own words then what are you doing here? If all you're interested in doing is the internet equivalent of Jehovah's Witnesses going door to door handing out copies of The Watchtower then why they hell don't you actually print out Mises.org articles and hand them out at street corners for real? You'd at least be much more intellectually honest in that endeavor, unlike here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Here's a report about binding arbitration. Note specifically that arbitration agreements almost always bar consumers or employees from joining class action lawsuits against the company (oops, there goes Libertopia's one recourse against externalities), that arbitrators are chosen by the companies with consumers having no say and arbitrators are paid up to $10,000/hr, and that the most popular arbitration services rule in the company's favor 95% of the time. And these are deals that people "voluntarily" agree to today because all (for example) credit card companies require them so it's either agree or go without credit, and you're telling me that in Libertopia people will refuse to contract with DROs over these issues when it's either agree or be instantly banned from operating in society and subject to violent crime?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Even if everything JRod posted worked out like he thinks it would (hint: it wouldn't), what happens when I'm trying to sue a company for dumping toxic waste onto my lawn? My DRO finds them guilty, theirs finds them innocent, and they refuse to pick an arbitrator that would find their client guilty. So, what now? We just sit around never being able to settle on an arbitrator, the company wins by default since the lawsuit never goes anywhere unless it goes to an arbitrator that finds them innocent anyway. Going back to the situation where the company is suing me and we're picking an arbitrator, the company's DRO could also threaten my DRO by treating them and all their employees as a rogue DRO if they don't pick the arbitrator of their choice and now we're back to "what happens when my DRO decides I'm a financial liability because of events outside of my control?" Even if my former DRO lost customers after letting me lose the lawsuit, better losing some customers than getting blacklisted from every major company forever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Even if everything JRod posted worked out like he thinks it would (hint: it wouldn't), what happens when I'm trying to sue a company for dumping toxic waste onto my lawn? My DRO finds them guilty, theirs finds them innocent, and they refuse to pick an arbitrator that would find their client guilty. So, what now? We just sit around never being able to settle on an arbitrator, the company wins by default since the lawsuit never goes anywhere unless it goes to an arbitrator that finds them innocent anyway. Your DRO decides for itself how much it's going to pay you in damages for failing to enforce its judgment and then cancels you for being a difficult customer and exposing them to the liability of a possible war with Freedom Industries' DRO. No other DRO will cover the "pre-existing condition" of your dispute with your former DRO or Freedom Industries, and you find that even without it, your former DRO has branded you a bad customer and you can't get coverage at any price you could afford. The Kovenant Kommunity shows up to evict you that afternoon for not retaining DRO coverage in accordance with your HOA and exposing the community to risk. You either die of exposure or join up with Crips DRO. All other customers of your former DRO read about your story and decide they're better off eating the damage of toxic waste on their lawn and other depredations of the rich rather than lose their DRO's coverage against criminals too poor to challenge the DRO, not to mention the risk of getting banned from polite society for pissing off their DRO. And thus your former DRO was saved from having to pay out millions in claims with their only recourse being a war with the DROs retained by the top 10%, praise Rothbard 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
A thought just occurred to me. Would overfishing be considered an act of aggression?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:A thought just occurred to me. Would overfishing be considered an act of aggression?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
I want to say something about what Caros said a few threads back. He was making the claim that without social services, especially Social Security and Medicare but also food stamps and the like, the poor and old would be destitute, in grinding poverty or dying prematurely in great numbers. I made a comment about the generosity of the American people and citing the statistic that in 2013, private citizens donated around 400 billion dollars to charity. The response was one that I consider absolutely absurd. I was told that to prevent the old, poor and sick from falling into destitution, private charity would need to match the United States government dollar for dollar or at least approach that to be considered as a reasonable alternative. This is absurd for a number of reasons but I think there is a fundamental lack of economic understanding when making a case about the absolute necessity of the welfare State. In the first place, to imagine that private charity would need to match social security payments dollar for dollar is absurd on the face of it. Social security of course is deducted from your paycheck without your permission every year of your working life. Some people may get a little more than they put in and some a little less but without first expropriating every American to fund social security, most Americans could save this money on their own for their own retirement. But the bigger fundamental problem I see is that you are not thinking like an economist. It's not just the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy either. It is the subject of opportunity cost. In a free economy, voluntary transactions are made for mutual benefit of both parties. As an economy expands, the pie grows and every person living in that society will enjoy a higher standard of living and more goods and services at lower prices. In a free economy when an entrepreneur creates an idea and offers it to others on the market or an inventor invents a new energy source or more efficient method of production, they bring something into existence. When the State spends money on something it is redistributive. Politicians are not creating new wealth but rather shifting existing wealth around. But there are opportunity costs. So if I choose to invest my money into opening a bakery and coffee shop, I am purposefully NOT spending my money on something else. I could have given that money to charity, I could have done many different things but I chose to bet on a business idea that may or may not be successful. If we are interested in human welfare and progressing as a society as quickly as possible, then we would want to spend our money and use our resources towards the most urgent ends, right? The only way to know how to allocate scarce resources effectively and efficiently is by the use of the profit and loss system on the market. Profit and loss are signals that consumers send to entrepreneurs and business leaders that express their preferences. Each of us has a different preference order in which we rank our most urgent needs. We need food and water first, so we make sure that we can buy that before we spent our money on less urgent ends. We would probably prefer a good house or apartment before a frivolous purchase. Healthcare is fairly high on the preference order for most Americans. The market ensures that we have enough food through the system of profit and loss. Since businesses know that there is profit to be made in growing, harvesting and delivering groceries to the masses they invest their resources in making that happen. The amount of demand in a sector of the economy shows itself in the amount of profits being made in satisfying that sector of the economy. If there is no profits being made in a part of the economy, it sends the signal that there isn't much demand and that resources should be reallocated towards serving a different line of production. It goes without saying that the State doesn't have any similar way of telling whether what it provides is desired by consumers or if the money they spent would not be better spent on another line of production. This information problem or calculation problem as Mises termed it, explains the historical failure of socialism. The decisions on government spending are always arbitrary and this leads to gross inefficiencies and misallocated scarce resources. What you have to ask yourself is what are the opportunity costs that the State created by taxing away all the wealth from the private economy and spending it on its various programs? Over the last eighty years or so, an unimaginable amount of money has been expropriated and spent on boondoggles and politically motivated subsidies to industry. Where would that money have been spent otherwise? What are the opportunity costs of spending the money and using the resources in the way that the US government did? Let's take an example. Think about the Apollo Space Program. This is much celebrated by Statists since it represents a "successful" government program. We put people on the moon for heaven's sake! But what are the opportunity costs for spending this ungodly amount of money and resources on a space program of that size? How many poor people could have been clothed and fed with the money that was redistributed from the private sector and spent on this NASA program? How many preventable deaths could have been avoided if we simply allowed the profit and loss system to determine the allocation of scarce resources? It goes without saying that the economy would look far different without State intervention and its expropriation of the private economy. I can surmise that resources would have been allocated more efficiently, to more urgently desired ends. The economy would have expanded more and the total wealth of society would be far greater had the State been far more restrained throughout the 20th century. What this would mean is that there would be less poor people, healthcare would be less expensive and the more urgent of peoples preference orders would be satisfied, i.e. there would be little if any hunger. If you really think about the situation like an economist would, you would see how absurd it is to think that private charity would ever need to match the US government dollar for dollar in replacing existing welfare programs. What we really need is to understand how economies grow, how wealth is created, why the profit and loss system is so important in the allocation of scarce resources, and how the phenomenon of opportunity cost factors into what we choose to use our finite resources for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't assume regulations are the source of all evil. The initiation of violence, however, is immoral. State imposed regulations on the private economy are immoral because they necessitate the use of coercion. Even when the State is legitimately punishing someone who has violated the rights of another, they have to use coercion to confiscate the property of others through taxation to finance the police action. Here, I'll repeat this for the upteenth time since you've still refused to acknowledge that I have said anything on the subject. Taxation is not theft. No one is violating property rights because as per the property rights decided by our society, your taxes do not belong to you. Attempting not to pay your taxes is you stealing from others, not you attempting not to be stolen from. quote:I've said it before but the problems that we faced in our history of large business and industry creating pollution, harming people, and violating rights had everything to do with the failure to understand and defend private property rights. This should have been corrected through the courts making decisions to force payment of restitution to the victims of aggression. quote:Dear Mr. Klaumer: So JRod, this is the second time you've brought up Gabriel Kolko in a thread, and you didn't answer my questions last time so I'll ask them again. Why do you think you can separate the work of this man from its core concepts. Specifically, you are attempting to cherry pick out sections of his work that directly prove that capitalism is a flawed ideology rife with incestuous relationships between itself and business which suggests that socialism is the only way to go, and you are attempting to use those same sections to prove... that capitalism is the only real economic system that works and that we should go full-throated capitalism immediately. I personally think that Mr. Kolko's assumptions about the Great Depression are wrong. I think that his take on it is the ultra-left wing version in the same way that I think many of your earlier posts have shown the ultra-right wing capitalist version. Both bear little resemblance to historical fact and exist solely to attempt to warp historical events to try and prove their ideology superior. I feel it is also important to note that I don't dismiss your Mises.Org articles out of hand like you misleadingly suggest. When you post a Mises link I tell you why it is wrong in specific, and then I also endeavor to tell you why it is wrong in general, which in most cases has to do with the author being so far up the rear end of his own ideology that he is willing to outright lie in an attempt to make his point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
I like that he proceeds to consistently ignore evidence that consumers and employees "voluntarily" agree to private arbitration that is overwhelmingly biased in favor of the rich, considering it sufficient to say "that thing that happens all the time could never really happen" and leave it at that. Hey VitalSigns, gently caress off with that evidence poo poo, I already logically know that no one would ever agree to biased arbitration, therefore it's not real so on to the next subject please. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Before I reply to that entire wall of  up there, I want to re-post the comment he is talking about. Unlike his argument mine has numbers, statistics and well thought out logic and I think that is important to remember before we talk about "philosophy"jrodefeld posted:What moral claim does anyone else have on my justly earned property? Whether or not a wealth transfer is popular or not has no bearing on the legitimacy of the transfer. And why on earth would you assume that the private sector who need to match the State dollar for dollar in replacing State monopolized social services with private alternatives? Considering that we already both seem to agree that property is simply a development of hairless monkey society to determine who gets what, I'd say we have plenty of moral claim. Under you system, probably not much but then again I don't exactly care about the moral system of a serial killer when it comes to whether murder is or is not appropriate now do I? The moral system used by the VAST majority of the world views taxation as perfectly legitimate in the form of a democratic system of government. If you don't like that, that is absolutely fine and you are well within your rights to attempt to change the moral perspective of society to be in line with your views. Wishing or saying does not make that so however. As for why I would assume the private sector would need to match the state dollar for dollar... basic math would be a start. Social security for example pays out in such a way that it is almost dollar for dollar in and out. If we acknowledge that many people rely solely on social security for their income, then we are going to need to replicate that, and in a situation where it is dollar for dollar you're going to need to be in the same general ballpark. Social Security isn't buying anything, its giving cash payouts and those cash payouts are going to need to be of that same value whether it is run publicly or privately. That or old people starve. Medicare on the other hand, is incredibly efficient as other posters have mentioned. For the people it covers medicare is several times more efficient than any private insurer in the US, I'm honestly being generous in suggesting that they merely need to match dollar for dollar. Fun fact, each eligible worker in the us would have to pay roughly $9,677 in charity to maintain just these programs, while the median amount of taxes paid in america for a household is about $12,000 or so. This is of course before paying for your DRO, every other form of insurance, the military, and so forth that you'd need to live. I'm sure people would be HAPPY to just give that money away. quote:Do you honestly have such a low opinion of our species that you think the only feasible way we have prevent our grandparents corpses from piling up on the streets is to point guns at everyone and steal their property, give it to an "elite" who are above the moral laws that govern mere mortals and permit them to redistribute it in politically motivated ways? Before Social Security 67% of our elderly lived in poverty. So... yeah, I think that social security has massively decreased poverty amongst the elderly, and the only way to run such massive social insurance program is to have everyone involved. No I don't think that involves pointing guys at everyone since that is a false comparison, I could easily ask you whether you think pointing guns at people is the only way to secure private property, since that is the end result if someone doesn't stay off your land is it not? quote:Furthermore how can you prove that you are not falling for the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy? Sure people are doing better now than they were a century ago but how do you know that this progress is due to State actions? And, more importantly, how can you be sure that had the market worked in the absence of State intervention, high taxation and redistribution, that poverty rates wouldn't have continued to decline at a faster rate than under the Great Society and War on Poverty? You know its actually kind of cute to me that you seem to have learned a new word. Was it from west wing? Or did you pick it up all on your lonesome. All I know is that you're not really using it in the method for which it was intended. At the risk of Tu quoque, you have no evidence to back up your assertion that I am incorrect, which is the problem with you simply declaring it a fallacy. For Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc to function you need to be able to show or at least convincingly suggest that my reading of it is wrong, or that yours is somehow more correct. You cannot do that, on the other hand, I can. Take social security. Currently 50% of our elderly rely on social security as their primary source of income, and another 25% will likely rely on it once their savings run out. If poverty among the elderly had simply fallen as a result of the almighty market, then we would see many more people who live off of their own incomes and merely take SS as a bonus that is offered to them. Instead if we were to take Social Security out of the equation we'd see poverty rates rise pretty quickly back to where they were before the introduction of said program. Another example would be Great Society era welfare programs. These programs unequivocally reduced poverty when they were introduced, but as I mentioned, were cut down by people like you more concerned with budgets than the poor. If poverty was on a continuous downward slope it would have gone down and stayed down, instead it went down with great society programs, and then wack-a-moled back up as the funding for those programs was cut. quote:It is not as if poverty rates were stagnant for the first fifty to sixty years of the twentieth century and only started to shift once government intervened. It is a matter of historical record that the poverty rate fell substantially every single decade. Someone up thread covered this. The short version is that you're wrong, but I've spent about an hour and a half telling you so about a variety of things and I have work to do. You wouldn't believe them anyways because statistics and evidence don't matter much to you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Miltank posted:People will not be able to choose a pro-poor DRO because rich people will buy out all of the competitive DROs the same way they buy out all of the competitive politicians. There would be no meaningful oversight of bribery because an atmosphere of silent complacency is better for corporation's bottoms lines. This is so stupid. How do you think the rich get rich? The unjust rich are those that use the power of the State to expropriate the citizens, while the just rich are those who trade voluntarily on the market and satisfy consumers. By taking away that State and rejecting the legitimacy of the use of force, the wealthy gain wealth through satisfying consumers. Unless the rich have a steady stream of new profits and revenue, then their wealth will soon be consumed and they will fall into the middle class or even into poverty. If the "rich" all thought they would collude and piss off everyone else then that would be disastrous to their bottom line. The middle class will, by definition, always outnumber the wealthy many times over. The middle class and poor will make up the majority of the customer base in any economy and so entrepreneurs will ALWAYS seek profits by appealing to those people. Like I said previously, it is very unprofitable to serve only the very rich. The only reason these higher end products even exist (Rolls Royce, high end audio equipment, yachts, etc) is that the companies that produce them also sell so many other, cheaper and affordable items to the poor and middle class they can afford to have a few flagship luxury items available, even though they don't sell many of them. It would clearly be a failed business strategy and self defeating for DRO's to collude and serve only the very wealthy. They would lose their client base and the people would choose other, grassroots arbitrators to resolve their disputes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:A thought just occurred to me. Would overfishing be considered an act of aggression? Because no company would ever delightedly take bigger short-term profits at the cost of catastrophic long-term losses, all owners of private fishing grounds would sign an interlocking series of contracts to limit fishing and ensure there are plentiful populations of fish for centuries to come. Every single example you point to where this has never ever happened even in the absence of government regulation of the fishing industry, and that the lack of such restrictions has led universally to the collapse of fish populations is obviously because the law didn't respect private property enough.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The middle class will, by definition, always outnumber the wealthy many times over. The middle class and poor will make up the majority of the customer base in any economy and so entrepreneurs will ALWAYS seek profits by appealing to those people. Like I said previously, it is very unprofitable to serve only the very rich. Come the gently caress on 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
Jrod how will the grassroots arbitrators compete when they have very little starting capital and the colluding DROs have enough to outfit legions of mercenaries with the best of equipment? In the absence of a State to collude with and exploit, why would the wealthy not simply create a new State that they control directly?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
You know, Jrodefeld, I could literally respond to everything you say with "But what you say wouldn't happen already happens today, so why would it be any different," but then you'd just pull something out of your rear end to try and justify your habit of making baseless proclamations and treating them just like facts. So, I'll try to engage with you. jrodefeld posted:I'll try and answer this question. Why wouldn't a private system of "common" law that emerges on the market also simply favor the wealthy just as most State monopolized legal systems do? All this talk of DROs is fun and all that, but that's like talking about getting married to a girl after you sent her a message on OkCupid. Let's start with the beginning - How does a DRO have any legitimacy? I mean, if I can start my own DRO, how do I ensure that it has any legitimacy? Where does the authority come from? What's going to compel a person to follow the rulings of a DRO? Ignoring all of that, once we got them, a good DRO is going to favor the rich and make it look like they are also working for the working classes. So yeah, when someone goes too far and acts like an idiot and kills a peasant and eats his heart to gain his strength, we'll send that dude to "Prison." But we can still find a way to favor the rich without making it look like we're pissing on the poor. But utilizing the media, we could send propaganda out there to make it clear that our rulings help everyone, since we prevent the job creators from being ruled against by people who are trying to take down the rich for being rich. And you say something enough, with enough conviction, you can get people to believe anything. See Fox News and how they run things. Thirdly, all things aren't equal. As I said before, the richest Americans make far more money than I will make in a lifetime, and thus, have more money to pump into the DRO system. This isn't a tangible product like pants. This is a service. And in your society, money will be power. And since the rich will have more purchasing power in the DRO market than the working classes, it will be easy to game the system in their favor. For example, if I own a company, and I'm represented by DRO A, I would make it a requirement that if you work at my company, you have to be represented by DRO A. We see that with binding arbitration! quote:In a private, competing, private law and arbitration system such as the one I am proposing, the masses of the people will be funding their own provision of justice. What this means is that disputes and use of force will tend to be over actual violations of property rights. What if a large business wants to get away with some sort of crime. Let's suppose that they then buy off a DRO to represent them. How would this help them? These corrupt and bought off DRO's would quickly lose their non-rich clients and their reputation would suffer on the market, no longer would they be seen as impartial and reliable as an arbitrator of justice. This is circular reasoning. Since DROs need to be fair, they will be fair, and if they are unfair, they will cease to exist. That's your logic right there. DROs need to be profitable. Which means they need to be beneficial to people who will provide them with money. The best DROs will be beneficial to people who can provide them with a lot of money for their services, while convincing the people they aren't beneficial for that they are beneficial for those people. I'm going to counter your counterargument before you make it, because it's that predictable. Yes. Someone can blow the lid off the whole thing. Except, if modern society hasn't taught you anything, it's that people are loving ignorant and gullible. You tell people to microwave their brand new phones to charge them, you'll get people putting their phones in a microwave. All my DRO will do is just label the whistleblowers as cranks, and bury the story with positive stories about how we helped the common man by protecting their jobs. quote:Then let's suppose I had a legal dispute with a company who was represented by a bought and paid for corrupt DRO. However, MY DRO was no corrupt since I would only be paying for representation by a DRO that I felt was impartial and fair. I'm going to stop you there and just laugh at how ridiculous that statement is. Yes. People are going to decide, en masse, that it is better to play by the rules and be fair and equitable than it is to be cut-throat and do what it takes to get ahead. Because people are going to be totally rational, and that their rational self interest will say "Hey, it's not going to work out in my favor to pay for a DRO who's going to be partial towards me?" Can I ask a serious question: are you loving serious, are you talking out of the world's smartest rear end, or you really that loving stupid to think that what you're describing is a universe that exists in everything but your weird wet dreams? I know you're willing to say anything to win an argument, but come on. You're trying to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge with magic beans thrown into the pot! If I'm paying money, I'm going to pay money to people who are going to get me the best I can get for my money. Which means, the people who are going to give me the most favorable conditions in a DRO court! quote:If I was innocent of any wrongdoing, then presumably my fair and impartial DRO would find me innocent while the corrupt DRO representing the large business would find me guilty. Since this can happen, it would be stipulated in our contract with the DRO that in the event of such a case, a private independent third party arbitrator would step in and decide who was right. Each client of a DRO would already agree to the third party arbitrator and have ensured that they are fair and unbiased. Given that fact, the third party arbitrator would likely find me innocent if I had done nothing wrong and the corrupt bought off DRO would have no power over me. How is this contract being enforce? Who is enforcing the decision of the independent third party arbitrator. How does a biased DRO and an unbiased DRO agree that a third party arbitrator is unbiased? How the hell would that work? What's to keep me from paying off the third party arbitrator after the decisions been made? What if I discover wrongdoing with the third party arbitrator. What if my DRO disagrees with the third-party arbitrator's decision. Do we end up with the DRO form of Operation White Shadow, where the world becomes an ever ending chain of DROs settling the same dispute forever and ever, because who's going to make me abide by your decision? quote:And when the corruption of the DRO who has taken bribes is well known, its reputation will be destroyed. Remember that from these various DRO institutions and the legal precedent that emerges, a common law and standard in society develops over time. Consumers will expect DRO's and private courts to comply with the commonly understood standard of law and justice. A DRO who deviates from this standard too often and provides unfair and unjust rulings will become marginalized and lose all their clients. Once again, only if people are weighing all information fairly, and there is no such thing as a partial media in your world. Or assuming that there exist a DRO that can survive in this climate that hasn't already been bought up by the richest people. quote:The most profitable businesses are those that serve the middle class and the poor. Since the market rewards profit seekers who in tern need to satisfy consumers, then it would be a poor business strategy to serve only the rich. Compare the annual profits of Rolls Royce and Wal Mart or McDonalds and you will see the competitive advantage of a business model that provides goods and services to the poor and working class versus catering only to the super wealthy. This a terrible comparison on so many levels. First off, McDonalds and Rolls Royce are two vastly different companies in different markets appealing to different demographics. Even there, McDonalds and Rolls Royce produce products, not services. Products, by their nature, are limited and it doesn't really matter how much money you have. Beyond socio-economic factors, the amount of money I have doesn't impact how much I eat at McDonalds. Just because I make 10,000 times more money than you do doesn't mean I'm going to eat 10,000 times as many Chicken McNuggets that you do. In fact, we'll probably eat the same. However, a DRO is a service, not a product. In this case, while I do want the money of the poor and middle-classes, appealing to the rich will get me more money because they have more to give. They have vastly more to give because of the way income disparity works. To the rich, it's an investment in protecting their assets, while for me, it's an investment in protecting my rear end. quote:So it is quite unreasonable to expect that private business enterprises, whether DRO, private security or anything else would last long by serving the very wealthy no matter how many bribes are offered. Without a monopoly on the use of coercion, forced taxation for funding and generations of propaganda reinforcement, such corruption and unequal application of a legal system would be extremely limited in comparison to any State monopolized justice system. The problem here is that it's unreasonable because you need it to be unreasonable. This service is taking the place of a government, and ignoring the incredibly important basic questions like "How does any of this loving work," we need to look at society. Money is power, and people with power tend to try and consolidate power to make themselves more powerful. Why wouldn't that happen in a free-market system without a State? Please. Without pulling poo poo out of your rear end or relying on circular reasoning, how would any of this actually work?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This is so stupid. How do you think the rich get rich? The unjust rich are those that use the power of the State to expropriate the citizens, while the just rich are those who trade voluntarily on the market and satisfy consumers. There is no such thing as a "just" rich person. All the rich, without fail, got to where they are by unjustly stealing and exploiting from as many people as they could. One cannot both be moral and wealthy, and that you in fact equate the two as being inseparable shows your own morality is naive at best and much more likely repugnant at worst.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Unless, of course, the third-party arbitrator is also bought and paid for by the corrupt DRO without you knowing about it. And this also assumes that your own DRO wouldn't be bribed to throw you under the bus. Hell, it assumes that you know that the corrupt DRO is corrupt in the first place. How would you know this? The DRO is certainly not going to advertise this, and it will also go to great lengths to ensure that people do not slander their name. That is a very good question. For a DRO it would be very easy. All their decisions and verdicts would be publicly available. Not only because the DRO themselves would want to make their record available (who would want to be a client of a DRO who hides their past verdicts?) but also because the clients of a DRO would tell others about their treatment. They would especially be vocal if they felt they were wronged and treated unfairly. I'm sure there would be websites that rank DROs and compare their track record for just verdicts. I also suspect that there will be a possibility of appeal. If you felt your verdict was unfair you could appeal to another private arbitrator who was not connected with the DRO that rendered the verdict. If they overturned the previous verdict you would clear your name and the reputation of the DRO would be damaged. But it would cost more for you and the punishment or fine you make could escalate if you are found guilty again, since you would be drawing out the process. Why would you assume that I would have less knowledge in a free society? You realize you are talking about the State, which is the most private and secretive institution on the planet, which routinely hides relevant information from the public. They are not exactly volunteering information to the people that they need to make informed decisions. There would be private health inspectors, consumer seal of approval and rating agencies, and sources like that whose sole job on the market would be to help consumers make informed decisions about the businesses they interact with. I find it hard to believe that in this age of information, with smartphones and the internet constantly evolving, that a lack of information would be a major problem. There is no guarantee that everything you read will be accurate and true, but people are constantly growing more sophisticated in fact checking and verifying the accuracy of sources. If I hear a claim about some world event on CNN, I can usually check and verify the validity of that claim with a high degree of accuracy in less than five minutes online. Having a State is no guarantee of accurate information to say the least. The FDA allows deadly drugs on the market all the time, for just one example.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:There is no such thing as a "just" rich person. All the rich, without fail, got to where they are by unjustly stealing and exploiting from as many people as they could. One cannot both be moral and wealthy, and that you in fact equate the two as being inseparable shows your own morality is naive at best and much more likely repugnant at worst. Just to elaborate, this is the case because it is impossible to be morally wealthy in an unfair society. If this isn't immediately clear, here's an analogy: Imagine that 10 people - who currently live in poverty - are participating in a race where the winner receives 10 million dollars. 5 of the racers are injured/disabled. It should be immediately obvious that it would be very immoral of the winner of the race to keep the 10 million dollars; not only are his fellow racers in poverty, but many of them suffered from a serious disadvantage. (I would actually argue that it would also be immoral even if the race was fair, but it's especially immoral when it isn't.) It is for this reason that I honestly consider the very wealthy to be complete and utter scum. This includes ones that give to charity; they still choose to retain most of their wealth and could effortlessly alleviate the suffering of literally thousands of people. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:There is no such thing as a "just" rich person. All the rich, without fail, got to where they are by unjustly stealing and exploiting from as many people as they could. One cannot both be moral and wealthy, and that you in fact equate the two as being inseparable shows your own morality is naive at best and much more likely repugnant at worst. Jesus agrees with you! I doubt you care, I just think that's funny.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
The last page:SedanChair posted:Because all good things are an emergent property of True Libertarian Society. No really folks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
To all of you who can find the energy to continue debating Jrod and his ilk, I want to say- kudos to you. No really, you are incredible people to continue battering your sanity against a collection of idiots whose only answer to every single actual real world fact that has been proven beyond all shadow of a doubt by the vast majority of human history itself is "lalalala I can't hear you my fantasies of power are more important and real than your silly actual reality." Even if I weren't hosed up on painkillers I would not have the energy to bother pointing out every single glaring flaw that makes up the lion's share of this self-important, self-destructive, patently bullshit ideology. I haven't the energy anymore. And I'm someone who managed to read through the FATAL rulebook without giving my pistol a blowjob. Every one of you deserves delicious food and high paying jobs. Alas, all I have left within me is to stare blankly at the likes of Jrod and wonder how they have fallen so far into the pot of complete rejection of reality in favor of fantasies which cannot possibly work. What nightmares have these people suffered that would make them so willing, even eager, to subject themselves to a system that would inevitably and invariably turn on them faster than malignant cancers turn upon their hosts? I can no longer tell the blurry line between pity and mockery- whether I should feel sorry that these people seriously believe they would be better off in a system with no authority that can be held accountable, or whether I should mock them for the unquestionably wrong falsehoods they so happily crow to be facts simply because it makes them happy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:There is no such thing as a "just" rich person. All the rich, without fail, got to where they are by unjustly stealing and exploiting from as many people as they could. One cannot both be moral and wealthy, and that you in fact equate the two as being inseparable shows your own morality is naive at best and much more likely repugnant at worst. To be fair, it was often their grandfather that did the dirty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:That is a very good question. For a DRO it would be very easy. All their decisions and verdicts would be publicly available. Not only because the DRO themselves would want to make their record available (who would want to be a client of a DRO who hides their past verdicts?) but also because the clients of a DRO would tell others about their treatment. They would especially be vocal if they felt they were wronged and treated unfairly. I'm sure there would be websites that rank DROs and compare their track record for just verdicts. And what if I don't want my DRO to publicly broadcast the cases they take on my behalf? Does the concept of privacy of information not exist in your stateless society? Of course it doesn't, you've admitted as much before. quote:I also suspect that there will be a possibility of appeal. If you felt your verdict was unfair you could appeal to another private arbitrator who was not connected with the DRO that rendered the verdict. If they overturned the previous verdict you would clear your name and the reputation of the DRO would be damaged. But it would cost more for you and the punishment or fine you make could escalate if you are found guilty again, since you would be drawing out the process. And so once again the wealthy could just bribe the second third-party arbitrator, and not only will I be out whatever that arbitrator charged me out of pocket, but now I also run the risk of making my punishment even worse. How can you type this and not immediately realize how psychotic this sounds? quote:Why would you assume that I would have less knowledge in a free society? You realize you are talking about the State, which is the most private and secretive institution on the planet, which routinely hides relevant information from the public. They are not exactly volunteering information to the people that they need to make informed decisions. Because without the State there is no meaningful age of information, you moron. Net Neutrality would be completely and utterly eradicated in your society. This would effectively mean that any sort of replacement Market-Net programs will not allow free access to put information on it's service nor would it be cheap to view such information. Do you know what it took to make the Internet as you know it? The amount of money and effort went into laying the foundation for it? You don't just get to keep that foundation for convenience's sake in your world; that's bullshit. Your new society needs to lay brand new cables, find some way to standardize it across the continent, build cells towers, make sure that their frequencies don't interfere with one another, all of that from scratch. Do you have any idea what an undertaking that would be? So no, you don't just get to say "I'll look it up on the Internet", because that is closer to a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument than you've ever claimed; that just because easy access to information is available now does not mean that it will exist in your future society. So do some actual intellectual legwork here and think about this without a bunch of fallacious assumptions. quote:There is no guarantee that everything you read will be accurate and true, but people are constantly growing more sophisticated in fact checking and verifying the accuracy of sources. If I hear a claim about some world event on CNN, I can usually check and verify the validity of that claim with a high degree of accuracy in less than five minutes online. And, again, you can thank the DARPA for that. And you don't get to still use the Internet once it's gone. quote:Having a State is no guarantee of accurate information to say the least. The FDA allows deadly drugs on the market all the time, for just one example. Yes, they do, often because drug companies go out of their way to lie to the FDA, just like they will lie to your private inspectors. -EDIT- moller posted:To be fair, it was often their grandfather that did the dirty. And the grandson continues the exact same practices his grandfather put into motion. Passivity does not remove an ounce of culpability. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Praxeology is the best ideology: "Everything I say is true because it is true!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:37 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I want to say something about what Caros said a few threads back. He was making the claim that without social services, especially Social Security and Medicare but also food stamps and the like, the poor and old would be destitute, in grinding poverty or dying prematurely in great numbers. I made a comment about the generosity of the American people and citing the statistic that in 2013, private citizens donated around 400 billion dollars to charity. The response was one that I consider absolutely absurd. I was told that to prevent the old, poor and sick from falling into destitution, private charity would need to match the United States government dollar for dollar or at least approach that to be considered as a reasonable alternative. quote:In the first place, to imagine that private charity would need to match social security payments dollar for dollar is absurd on the face of it. Social security of course is deducted from your paycheck without your permission every year of your working life. Some people may get a little more than they put in and some a little less but without first expropriating every American to fund social security, most Americans could save this money on their own for their own retirement. You know, you throw around the word absurd a lot, but you don't actually disprove anything I said by simply screaming "ITS ABSURD, ITS ABSURD!" Also Argumentum ad lapidem or Argument to the Stone is the logical fallacy of declaring something absurd without giving proof that it is absurd. You do this a lot. I've stated several times now in this thread a very important fact. Prior to the introduction of Social Security, 67% of elderly in the US were living below the poverty line. This is an unequivocal fact. Currently that number sits around 8%, an incredible improvement in the standard of living for our elderly. Now, before you  and use post hoc ergo propter hoc! incorrectly again, lets talk current day a little more:Social Security is the major source of income for most of the elderly. Nine out of ten individuals age 65 and older receive Social Security benefits. Social Security benefits represent about 38% of the income of the elderly. Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 52% of married couples and 74% of unmarried persons receive 50% or more of their income from Social Security. Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 22% of married couples and about 47% of unmarried persons rely on Social Security for 90% or more of their income. Its pretty clear looking at those numbers that without the Security Program, our poverty level for the elderly in the US would undoubtedly be sitting in the high double digits. Perhaps not 67%, but 30%, 40%... honestly I'd peg it somewhere at or around 50%. Now you can argue that without social security taxes people would have more money, but then I simply have to refer you to the period before Social Security, wherein we had 67% poverty amongst our elderly. Those people didn't have any money being taken out of their cheques to pay for social security and yet they still had little to no funds available for retirement. It turns out that pretty much everyone except people with shittons of money have poor time preference when it comes to retirement. We can also see this same effect when we look at current investment vehicles such as 401(k)'s and other retirement saving programs which are woefully underperforming and underpaid. Even beyond that we have real world examples to look at. If you look at poverty levels out amongst the rest of the world, you'll find the exact effect which I'm talking about, wherein countries which have strong social insurance programs have very low rates of poverty amongst their elderly, while countries without these programs have elderly poverty in the large double digits. So you can say it is absurd to suggest that there would need to be a charitable organization to replace social security or medicare, but the fact is that without these programs poverty amongst the elderly would rise dramatically. While I am on the topic however, let me ask you this. I'm going to bold it because it is so important. Considering the pay-as-you-go nature of Social Security and Medicare, how would you unravel these programs in your search for libertopia? Currently there are roughly sixty million people on social security alone. As clarified above, Social Security accounts for a huge amount of the income for those sixty million. Because the system is Pay-go, stopping Social Security payments would leave the system unfunded. Moreover, anyone over the age of about... say 40, effectively depends on Social Security to be there as part of their retirement plan. Thus to be fair social security would need to keep funding people in libertopia for about.. 40-50 years if it were to meet its obligations to current and future beneficiaries. So knowing this, how would you unravel Social Security and Medicare as programs. quote:But the bigger fundamental problem I see is that you are not thinking like an economist. It's not just the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy either. It is the subject of opportunity cost. In a free economy, voluntary transactions are made for mutual benefit of both parties. As an economy expands, the pie grows and every person living in that society will enjoy a higher standard of living and more goods and services at lower prices. In a free economy when an entrepreneur creates an idea and offers it to others on the market or an inventor invents a new energy source or more efficient method of production, they bring something into existence. When the State spends money on something it is redistributive. Politicians are not creating new wealth but rather shifting existing wealth around. But there are opportunity costs. Except that the money doesn't evaporate into nothingness the moment it is paid out to people. When the government spends money on Social Security they are giving that money to people who would otherwise have far less to spend. Those people then go out and purchase things, thereby causing the big wheel of the economy to turn. An elderly person with more money might have a desire for a new type of cane that they'd wanted but couldn't afford. If enough of them have money then that money might search out innovation and someone could design a new cane and bring something into existence. And look at that, they've made something! Moreover, the suggestion that the government doesn't 'invent' things when their redistributive effort is one of the primary drivers of scientific research in the world is loving laughable. quote:So if I choose to invest my money into opening a bakery and coffee shop, I am purposefully NOT spending my money on something else. I could have given that money to charity, I could have done many different things but I chose to bet on a business idea that may or may not be successful. This is a big load of econ 101 and I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at here. Are you simply trying to inflate the word count of your posts? I think you're trying to suggest that the elderly would get fed because there would be a market to feed the desperate elderly, but you know what the problem with that is? They wouldn't have any loving money! The whole point of social security is to get money into the hands of the elderly who would otherwise be destitute so that they can meet their daily needs. Without that program the elderly would not have the money they need and the only option is charity because the business sector does not give two fucks if someone is starving unless that starving person can pay them. quote:It goes without saying that the State doesn't have any similar way of telling whether what it provides is desired by consumers or if the money they spent would not be better spent on another line of production. This information problem or calculation problem as Mises termed it, explains the historical failure of socialism. The decisions on government spending are always arbitrary and this leads to gross inefficiencies and misallocated scarce resources. Um... no? Despite the fact that Mises said something the state has plenty of ways of determining if something is desired by 'consumers'. For one thing we have these little events every couple of years wherein people vote for people who will enact, remove or otherwise push forward policies that they want. We also have massive statistics offices who's sole job is to determine the various effects of government policy and the like. They don't get it right every time, but then again businesses don't get things right all the time eitehr. Also, using "It goes without saying" is a Proof by Assertion logical fallacy. quote:What you have to ask yourself is what are the opportunity costs that the State created by taxing away all the wealth from the private economy and spending it on its various programs? Over the last eighty years or so, an unimaginable amount of money has been expropriated and spent on boondoggles and politically motivated subsidies to industry. Where would that money have been spent otherwise? What are the opportunity costs of spending the money and using the resources in the way that the US government did? Again, money is not obliterated into nothingness the moment it is redistributed by government policy. If the government takes money from a rich person and gives it to a poor person that does not mean that the money will never be used again. This is incredibly basic and it bothers me that your entire argument is based around something that does not happen. Also, saying something like "what are the opportunity costs that the State created by taxing away all the wealth from the private economy and spending it on its various programs?" is at the very least Reducto Ad Absurdum. More realistically its just you flat out Argumentum ad Lying through your teeth about facts that don't even need to be looked up. quote:Let's take an example. Think about the Apollo Space Program. This is much celebrated by Statists since it represents a "successful" government program. We put people on the moon for heaven's sake! But what are the opportunity costs for spending this ungodly amount of money and resources on a space program of that size? How many poor people could have been clothed and fed with the money that was redistributed from the private sector and spent on this NASA program? Wait are you seriously using fuckin NASA as an example of a program that is flawed? Even ignoring the fact that you're wrong about the lost opportunity cost of the money bullshit, the Appolo program created massive technological innovations that we are still benefiting from today. quote:How many preventable deaths could have been avoided if we simply allowed the profit and loss system to determine the allocation of scarce resources? I'm getting really tired of repeating myself, so I'm just going to bring up your fallacies now. This one is pretty much a proof of assertion fallacy, along with possibly Argumentum Ad Nausium quote:What this would mean is that there would be less poor people, healthcare would be less expensive and the more urgent of peoples preference orders would be satisfied, i.e. there would be little if any hunger. One more Argumentum ad Lapidem and I'm done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:54
|
|