in which brute says things about libertarianism

Should you squeeze the toothpaste tube in the middle or from the end?
User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by BRUTE » Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:11 pm

that set of rules seems to completely allow for 0% growth ever

Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Mister Imperceptible » Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:05 am

Capital preservation supersedes growth for Mister Imperceptible.

A 50% loss requires a 100% return afterward to achieve 0%. The last correction was 57%. ABCT suggests this correction should be worse, because intervention has been greater.

According to my extremely amateur analysis, current market valuations suggest typical investment strategies will suffer a 50% loss or worse in the upcoming downturn. Financial advisors are not required to be fiduciaries, so the strategies they peddle should be viewed with extreme skepticism. They have no “skin in the game.”

Holdouts should resist capitulation.

I’m studying the idea of investing 5-10% of my capital in call options to capture continued irrationality in the markets, per Taleb/Mandelbrot. @Gen-X has been an influence as well regarding options trading.

I don’t know what is going to happen but it seems that central banks hope to keep the market juiced long enough so everyone gets amnesia, believes “this time is different,” and capitulates. I want to open myself up to positive convexity only. Ownership of gold bullion is economic independence, provides dry powder and major nominal upside in the event of further currency devaluation. Call options can enable capture of upward stock market price movements while retaining independence from market meltdowns. Best return per unit of risk, per my amateur analysis.

See page 32 of 61: http://www.people.hbs.edu/rmerton/retur ... option.pdf

I don’t claim to have a crystal ball, rather I just refuse to be a puppet.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by BRUTE » Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:34 am

Mister Imperceptible wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:05 am
Capital preservation supersedes growth for Mister Imperceptible.
this presumes existence of capital to begin with.

Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Mister Imperceptible » Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:08 am

Hey, I’m just trying to make the most of this computer simulation.

User avatar
Jin+Guice
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:15 am

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Jin+Guice » Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:36 pm

Sorry for the lapse, I've been on vacation. Also, we can't have the argument I was hoping to have since you're not a neoclassicist and I'm not an Austrian. The language always gets in the way, hence the assumptions or axioms. Even the word assumption is tricky. The word assumption sounds bad, but we need shared assumptions to have a discussion. We also need shared language.

Anyway... before I start asking questions I want to lay out some more observations I've had from my debates with the communists* and also state my current beliefs so you know where I'm coming from. I'm making all of this up from observation so feel free to add to it or disagree with it. There are 3 ways to argue something, theory based, reality based and implementation based. The communists go on about how communism is great in theory all day. Marx Marx Marx... This is a theory based argument. They will then give examples of how the USA does shitty things so capitalism is terrible. This is a reality based argument. Conveniently they claim that Russia wasn't truly communist so nothing they did counts. A theoretical argument will almost always trump a reality based argument because reality is messy and theories are clean. I sometimes then point out that communism is impossible to implement if all these countries that claim to be communist aren't really communist. The communists then claim that, conveniently, some small groups, which the average person doesn't know much about, are totally pulling off communism and everything is great and everyone is 100% happy. The Zappatistas and Native Americans are popular here. This is the implementation argument. I don't think it generally advances the conversation when one person is arguing theory and the other person started using reality based arguments. I wouldn't say we should ban it completely, there is some intersection, but I would like to avoid arguments like the one above.

*The communists in this case are friends of mine who claim to be communists, which is almost all of my friends. Paradoxically, none of them act on this belief.

Implementation is what has mostly been argued in this thread. I might use some implementation arguments but I'm going to argue that even though libertarianism is better it's impossible to implement. This argument is not interesting to me currently.


I believe that a mixed system is best. What do I mean by this? I mean a system that mixes free market capitalism with some government control. I'm aware that this is the current system and that it's not necessarily going great. I don't think going full communist or full libertarian would make it better. I think it is best to default to a free market solution because they are often better but there are numerous instances where this fails and government intervention is necessary. I am very liberal on social matters. However, I don't think personal freedom should be absolute, mostly because I believe my personal freedom infringes on yours at some point.

I'm not used to arguing libertarians and I don't know much about libertarianism. This is why I wanted to argue neoclassical market theory, which I know a lot about. I had assumed this was also central to libertarianism but I assumed wrong.

Here is what I think I know about libertarians: They believe in a governmentless society and they believe in an unencumbered free market economic system.

One final note, I am asking these questions because I believe they highlight why we need some government. The burden of proof on libertarianism is not to show that libertarianism is perfect, it is to show why it is better than some government. I am not however defending the current system. I am defending a theoretical system that involves some government, just as I think you are defending a theoretically libertarian system.


Here are my questions:

1) 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?

2) How do you break up monopolies?

3) How do you deal with information asymmetries?

4) Who enforces property rights?

I'll think of more after you answer those. Feel free to lob questions my way or answer with questions.

One final non-attack question. Are there any examples of libertarian or near libertarian governments (or whatever you would call them)?



Totally 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?

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by BRUTE » Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:12 am

Jin+Guice wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:36 pm
I'm not used to arguing libertarians and I don't know much about libertarianism. This is why I wanted to argue neoclassical market theory, which I know a lot about. I had assumed this was also central to libertarianism but I assumed wrong.
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.

Jin+Guice wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:36 pm
Here is what I think I know about libertarians: They believe in a governmentless society and they believe in an unencumbered free market economic system.
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.
Jin+Guice wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:36 pm
1) 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?
the music situation literally happened to brute last week. despite there existing a massive government, it was not resolved in a reasonable fashion.

externalities are an example of market failures. markets can definitely fail. but that doesn't mean that government would have fixed the same issue better. comparisons have to be made between the market solutions that actually exist, and the government solutions that actually exist. not between market solutions that actually exist and a perfect world in which the government would've done the right thing for once.

for example, pollution does exist despite governments in most countries. and, in fact, the more government-laden countries seem to have bigger pollution problems than the more liberal ones (e.g. china, USSR back in the day).

there do exist free-market solutions to externality problems. e.g. HOAs, contracts, private courts, agreements between clans, tradition & culture, shunning... can brute prove that every single pollution incident would be prevented by them? no.
Jin+Guice wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:36 pm
2) How do you break up monopolies?
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 are not worried about monopolies unless those actually present worse options to the consumers. so if Amazon were to really make all humans much happier than they would've otherwise been, there isn't a problem for Austrians. only when Amazon starts abusing its power is there a problem, and even then, they argue that it is much harder to abuse and maintain monopolies than commonly assumed, at least in absence of government granted privileges.
Jin+Guice wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:36 pm
3) How do you deal with information asymmetries?
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.
Jin+Guice wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:36 pm
4) Who enforces property rights?
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.

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.
Jin+Guice wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:36 pm
One final non-attack question. Are there any examples of libertarian or near libertarian governments (or whatever you would call them)?
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.

for anarcho-capitalism, there isn't any modern day shining city on a hill. David D. Friedman lists a few examples in his book, if brute recalls correctly. he is especially fond of medieval iceland, which apparently had implemented a decentralized law and law enforcement system for approximately 1,000 years, which apparently did not seem to lead to any more chaos than usual in those times.

another example is Somalia - now no ancap is arguing that Somalia rocks and all humans should live there, merely that anarchist Somalia has fared better in various outcomes than neighboring regions that did have governments at the time. measures like education, child mortality, income growth, and so on. so the argument isn't that anarcho-capitalism will solve everything, merely that it seems to have fared slightly better than neighboring government-led countries.
Jin+Guice wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:36 pm
Totally 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?
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.

Optimal_Solution
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 4:56 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Optimal_Solution » Mon Oct 08, 2018 9:34 am

Jin+Guice wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:36 pm
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?
That sounds like "ad hominem" and "poisoning the well".

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by BRUTE » Sat Oct 13, 2018 3:53 pm

Jin+Guice wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:36 pm
Chicago vs Austrian
https://mises.org/wire/market-isnt-scho ... us-chicago

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by BRUTE » Sat Oct 20, 2018 12:56 pm

another good one on what's wrong with the neoclassical school:
https://mises.org/wire/problem-prescrip ... -economics

Post Reply