Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:11 pm
that set of rules seems to completely allow for 0% growth ever
--- The deepest and most resilient rabbit hole of FIRE plus a lot more!
there certainly are libertarians that know and care about neoclassical market theory. many Chicago school (=neoclassical) economists seem to be libertarians. an example is David D. Friedman, son of Milton Friedman, who has done lots of writing about anarcho-capitalism.
that sounds specifically like anarcho-capitalism (=zero government). not all libertarians support that. there are tons of "minarchists" (=small government libertarians). it could be argued that libertarianism is a direction on the "how much government" scale, and anarcho-capitalism is the most extreme form.
the music situation literally happened to brute last week. despite there existing a massive government, it was not resolved in a reasonable fashion.Jin+Guice wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:36 pm1) Externalities? OH FUCK, I know you've never heard that one before, because ignoring externalities is literally hitler. All kidding aside, I realize this has been discussed here already but I want to discuss it again. An externality is something inflicted on a third party not complicit in a market transactoin. Pollution is everyones favorite. Pollution obscures the fact that these can be minor and psychological though. I always play loud music in my house at night and you can't sleep in your house. How do we solve problem?
Austrians are much less worried about monopolies than the average politician. they basically argue that almost all lasting monopolies are created by government itself, e.g. through special tariffs, subsidies, banning of the competition (first class mail still wtf), intellectual "property rights", and more.
Austrians do not suggest a specific way to deal with information asymmetry. they do acknowledge that it exists, but prefer to use market mechanisms to use them for advantage. for example, famous Austrians have argued for insider information being a great thing - now the insiders profit from letting all other humans know of the inside information, thereby spreading the knowledge.
in minarchy, a minimal government. in anarcho-capitalism, there is the idea of a sort of "private law system" with "private law enforcement". brute could sign up with the Green Law Firm, and hire protection from Brown Law Enforcement. if Jin+Guice were to trespass onto brute's property under Green law, brute could have Brown remove Jin+Guice. if, under the Red law system that Jin+Guice subscribes to, the trespass would've been legal, Green and Red negotiate and maybe amend their systems to account for this new special case.
there are a few small government countries that have worked well - HK (before China annex), Singapore (more economically free than socially, brute will admit), the US before WWI.
sounds similar to poisoning the well? there must be a list of logical fallacies somewhere. brute has heard this argument recently, when a human tried to disqualify libertarianism by mentioning that most libertarians seemed to be white human males.Jin+Guice wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:36 pmTotally unrelated question that I feel like someone on this thread would know. Is there a name for when you make a vague statement about someone and then tie it to an issue and use that to completely discredit a person? Example: Candidate A said something that could be sexist. Candidate A is therefore a sexist. Therefore candidate As economic policies are invalid because you wouldn't support a sexist would you?
https://mises.org/wire/market-isnt-scho ... us-chicago
This is exactly the same as the communist argument but replace massive government with functioning market. Probably the communists aren't complaining about music, but most of the arguments I encounter are "we live in a market economy and X problem still exists, so let's talk about which form of anarcho-communism you support since you're obviously not one of those filthy fucking capitalist pigs." I assume you were making a joke, but this is a popular argument that gets used a lot in a serious context.
The private law enforcement system strikes me as rather governmental. It sounds like I live in country Red and you live in country Green. It is interesting that our countries borders are ill defined; however, this seems like it would lead to more conflict and make me likely to demand a Red army to enforce my Red rights. I will concede that the current giant governmental system is not doing a superb job and that the problem of enforcing safety without infringing upon rights is very difficult. I also don't think the giant governmental system is doing a terrible job, as in, the majority of people are safe most of the time (I'm speaking domestically for rich countries). I hadn't really considered that the government had a monopoly on violence, which they obviously do. I remain unconvinced of whether it is better to have a violence monopoly answerable to a representative government or violence competition answerable to money, though I lack experience with the latter version. I do think having uniform law, a monopoly of law if you will, for everyone in a given area, is useful.BRUTE wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:12 amin minarchy, a minimal government. in anarcho-capitalism, there is the idea of a sort of "private law system" with "private law enforcement". brute could sign up with the Green Law Firm, and hire protection from Brown Law Enforcement. if Jin+Guice were to trespass onto brute's property under Green law, brute could have Brown remove Jin+Guice. if, under the Red law system that Jin+Guice subscribes to, the trespass would've been legal, Green and Red negotiate and maybe amend their systems to account for this new special case.
the basic idea here is that, contrary to popular belief, a monopoly of violence does not resolve conflicts, it merely hides them. how conflicts get resolved without a monopoly of violence (or law) is by decentralized competition.
now anarcho-capitalism technically does not prescribe any specific solution to enforcing property rights, these are just some ideas a few ancaps had. an interesting book to read on this is The Machinery of Freedom by the aforementioned David D. Friedman. it is available for free on his website. he lays out how different issues like pollution, property rights, and even military defense could be hypothetically solved in absence of a government.