Just How Stupid Are We?

[Kshartle]

And my overall point is... How do you convince a neighbor to give up on supporting government when they want there to be violent consequences for the asshole who disobeys a private or public rule. It seems like an incredible waste of time.

I don't. It's a waste of my time trying to convince people who are not receptive to the argument. The only reason to do it at all is try try to sharpen my arguments or test ideas in the rough and tumble world of debate (like I've just done with my Reputation Report idea).

Yes. It's a waste of time except to sharpen arguments. I would have given up on discussing it with a lot of you except for sport and to sharpen arguments. Some people get the concept much faster and it really comes naturally to them so that's more fertile ground.

[moda0306]

So if 5 different electricity companies want to run power to my neighborhood and have to pay for all the overhead, are you sure this is not what economists call a "natural monopoly," where the overhead costs involved with doing business are so high, and steady service is so important to the economy, that one company does it better even without competition?

Free market monopolies are great. That means no one else has figured out how to offer a better combination of service and price.

The idea that a group of guys with guns can declare they have the right to certain economic activity alone and this can somehow lower prices is nonsense.

Finally, an Austrian willing to admit that monopolies are possible in the absence of (traditional) government.



Usully monopolies may have at ONE point gotten to where they are because of quality service, but you obviously haven't been exposed to the economics of monopolies.  They exist and perpetuate because of their self-fulfilling bargaining power.  They then don't have to have better ideas or service, but just lower overhead, and a willingness to drop their price only long enough to put someone else ou of business whose overhead is too high at that price.

[Pointedstick]

So if 5 different electricity companies want to run power to my neighborhood and have to pay for all the overhead, are you sure this is not what economists call a "natural monopoly," where the overhead costs involved with doing business are so high, and steady service is so important to the economy, that one company does it better even without competition?

I've got this case covered in the book too. The road companies would actually want to lay five different water, sewer and electrical lines so that they could rent them out to up to five different utility companies per service. In fact, the more redundant pipes and wires they put under the streets, the more they stood to gain as additional utility companies moved into town.

Your next question is going to concern road monopolies, I can tell. I'll get back to you on that one! Still working on it.

[Kshartle]

So, I guess I just don't understand KShartle's mission of turning every conversation about government into a conversation about how useless and terrible government is with its "threat of force". I mean, we all get the concept already. But, as we've basically all agreed here, even non-government solutions typically involve the threat of force. So, I don't know why these private solutions are so much better than a government solution in terms of violence. At the end of the day, they both result in the threat of force by some private or public institution.

This statement proves you don't get it. I don't give a rip about government. It's the use of violence to solve problems. Either you haven't been listening or still don't understand. How many times do I have to repeat the same thing?

Why do you think violence is a good way to solve problems? When do you think it's a justified to force someone to do what you want and when do you think that makes things better?

[Gumby]

If, for instance, an unemployed and penniless murderer is apprehended and his victim's life is decided by a mediator to have been worth $8 million

What if an unemployed and penniless hobo is murdered. In our society, the government investigates those murders too. Am I mistaken that in your society someone needs to launch their own private investigation? I think the murdered hobo wouldn't have any advocates to launch such an investigation.

[moda0306]

Maybe I was wrong... murder will only be easy if you're victim is poor, and you know any investigation will be nonexistant.

Unfortunately, this is likely to be more true than we would prefer. However, in that respect, it would be like life in government societies. It's pretty common knowledge that justice isn't  income blind, so we shouldn't pretend that the status quo is some kind of magnificent achievement.

Degrees of injustice matter when we're getting into the nastier areas of life.  Having a society where the only missing girls on Fox News are blond, white, rich girls, and one where nobody even investigates a murder unless a family pays for it, which can't even really bring about punishment anyway (while a weathy person could hire the investigation and probably get away with ordering a hit on the guy), are two VERY different societies. 

[Kshartle]

Finally, an Austrian willing to admit that monopolies are possible in the absence of (traditional) government.

I wouldn't call myself an Austrian but I certainly understand that monopolies are possible without violence. They are beneficial though and not destructive, and probably quite rare.

[Gumby]

So, I guess I just don't understand KShartle's mission of turning every conversation about government into a conversation about how useless and terrible government is with its "threat of force". I mean, we all get the concept already. But, as we've basically all agreed here, even non-government solutions typically involve the threat of force. So, I don't know why these private solutions are so much better than a government solution in terms of violence. At the end of the day, they both result in the threat of force by some private or public institution.

This statement proves you don't get it. I don't give a rip about government. It's the use of violence to solve problems. Either you haven't been listening or still don't understand. How many times do I have to repeat the same thing?

Why do you think violence is a good way to solve problems? When do you think it's a justified to force someone to do what you want and when do you think that makes things better?

Sorry, KShartle, but the point is that we've already all shown that even private solutions are enforced by the threat of violence.

And it's not just me who thinks that. If you read Pointedstick's response he agreed and said...

I just don't understand KShartle's mission of turning every conversation about government into a conversation about how useless and terrible government is with its "threat of force". I mean, we all get the concept already. But, as we've basically all agreed here, even non-government solutions typically involve the threat of force. So, I don't know why these private solutions are so much better than a government solution in terms of violence. At the end of the day, they both result in the threat of force by some private or public institution.

I totally agree. It frustrates me to no end. I don't think he realizes that he's actually sabotaging himself.

So, you can attack me all you want, but the truth is that very few of us understand why you spend so much time harping on the government to a bunch of people who already want a more limited government. Especially since non-government rules/solutions have a threat of violence behind them as well.

[moda0306]

Finally, an Austrian willing to admit that monopolies are possible in the absence of (traditional) government.

I wouldn't call myself an Austrian but I certainly understand that monopolies are possible without violence. They are beneficial though and not destructive, and probably quite rare.

Well since property itself is very likely to come about without some arbitrary, illegitimate claims backed by violence, I'd have a lot of trouble agreeing that monopolies are possible without violence.

[Pointedstick]

More book pastebombs…

Maybe I was wrong... murder will only be easy if you're victim is poor, and you know any investigation will be nonexistant.

Unfortunately, this is likely to be more true than we would prefer. However, in that respect, it would be like life in government societies. It's pretty common knowledge that justice isn't  income blind, so we shouldn't pretend that the status quo is some kind of magnificent achievement.

Degrees of injustice matter when we're getting into the nastier areas of life.  Having a society where the only missing girls on Fox News are blond, white, rich girls, and one where nobody even investigates a murder unless a family pays for it, which can't even really bring about punishment anyway (while a weathy person could hire the investigation and probably get away with ordering a hit on the guy), are two VERY different societies. 

In the Private Society, an investigation force would still be needed to track down the perpetrator in cases where a crime is committed out of sight and the perpetrator has fled. People could engage the services of private investigators or even private investigation firms in response to crimes committed against them. Many such investigators and firms would likely adopt popular policies such as not being paid unless they found the perpetrator or recovered the stolen property, similar to how many lawyers operate their firms in today's government societies. This “private investigator”? system still functions smoothly in many government societies today in cases when the official police force is uninterested in the matter or proves incompetent, offering hundreds of years of evidence for private investigators' ability to find hidden criminals and solve difficult crimes.

If, for instance, an unemployed and penniless murderer is apprehended and his victim's life is decided by a mediator to have been worth $8 million

What if an unemployed and penniless hobo is murdered. In our society, the government investigates those murders too. Am I mistaken that in your society someone needs to launch their own private investigation? I think the murdered hobo wouldn't have any advocates to launch such an investigation.

In cases of murder, the victim's relatives or friends would be the ones to hire the investigators. In the absence of friends or relatives, anybody else interested in the matter could hire the investigator, taking on both the cost of the investigation and also the compensatory reward should the murderer be found and forced to pay, essentially “homesteading”? the criminal proceedings in the extremely rare cases when the victim was someone with nobody who particularly cared about their death.

[Gumby]

In cases of murder, the victim's relatives or friends would be the ones to hire the investigators. In the absence of friends or relatives, anybody else interested in the matter could hire the investigator, taking on both the cost of the investigation and also the compensatory reward should the murderer be found and forced to pay, essentially “homesteading”? the criminal proceedings in the extremely rare cases when the victim was someone with nobody who particularly cared about their death.

Eh... sounds like sociopaths would have a very easy time killing hobos that didn't have friends or families.

[Pointedstick]

Eh... sounds like sociopaths would have a very easy time killing hobos that didn't have friends or families.

Again, that's pretty much the situation today. The worst two-legged predators have always preyed upon those on the margins of society with few family connections. Runaways, prostitutes and homeless people are at great risk of victimization despite the government justice system. Many of these crimes are actually never solved, tragically enough. What you fear is already a major problem today, sadly. 

[Kshartle]

Sorry, KShartle, but the point is that we've already all shown that even private solutions are enforced by the threat of violence.

So, you can attack me all you want, but the truth is that very few of us understand why you spend so much time harping on the government to a bunch of people who already want a more limited government. The private solutions have violence behind them as well.

You're still justifying the use of force against people by saying some people will use force. You're still being part of the problem. Your argument makes no sense. We need an agency of violence and theft to protect us from the violent and theives. - It makes no sense.

I point out that government solutions are violent solutions because lot's of people don't get that they are supporting violence. I've said about a billion times that gubmit is the symptom not the cause.  You are the one who is focused on government. You are projecting that onto me. Saying murder is bad so you're going to support beatings instead.......good luck making that case. How do you think that works out for everyone?

We support limited government.....ahahahah....how's that working out. That will never work. Have you seen the size and reach of the government lately?

The limited government position might as well be named limited murder or limited rape. Stick to principles. Either it's right to initiate force against a human or it's wrong. Either it's destructive or constructive. Supporting it a little is hypocritical failure.

[Libertarian666]

Eh... sounds like sociopaths would have a very easy time killing hobos that didn't have friends or families.

Again, that's pretty much the situation today. The worst two-legged predators have always preyed upon those on the margins of society with few family connections. Runaways, prostitutes and homeless people are at great risk of victimization despite the government justice system. Many of these crimes are actually never solved, tragically enough. What you fear is already a major problem today, sadly. 

Of course at least one of those groups would not be particularly vulnerable to victimization without a government "justice" system.

[Kshartle]

Finally, an Austrian willing to admit that monopolies are possible in the absence of (traditional) government.

I wouldn't call myself an Austrian but I certainly understand that monopolies are possible without violence. They are beneficial though and not destructive, and probably quite rare.

Well since property itself is very likely to come about without some arbitrary, illegitimate claims backed by violence, I'd have a lot of trouble agreeing that monopolies are possible without violence.

I am not surprised if you think property comes from illegitimate claims backed by violence.

[Xan]

I wouldn't call myself an Austrian but I certainly understand that monopolies are possible without violence. They are beneficial though and not destructive, and probably quite rare.

Well since property itself is very likely to come about without some arbitrary, illegitimate claims backed by violence, I'd have a lot of trouble agreeing that monopolies are possible without violence.

I am not surprised if you think property comes from illegitimate claims backed by violence.

But isn't that what you think, too?  You think that you can walk onto an unclaimed piece of land, claim it, and then keep trespassers off with violence.  Or "defensive force" as you put it.

[Kshartle]

Eh... sounds like sociopaths would have a very easy time killing hobos that didn't have friends or families.

Again, that's pretty much the situation today. The worst two-legged predators have always preyed upon those on the margins of society with few family connections. Runaways, prostitutes and homeless people are at great risk of victimization despite the government justice system. Many of these crimes are actually never solved, tragically enough. What you fear is already a major problem today, sadly. 

Yes. When the dominant morality is that it's wrong to initiate force against other people and problems should always be solved with negotiation and cooperation......murders will be a fraction of what they are....so will the poor.

When the job of investigating a crime is no longer monoplolized by the state....it will be much more effective and much less expensive. When all property is owned rather than occupied by the state....people will have cameras observing their stuff. Murders will not be as easy to get away with, let alone commit.

[Gumby]

You're still justifying the use of force against people by saying some people will use force. You're still being part of the problem. Your argument makes no sense. We need an agency of violence and theft to protect us from the violent and theives. - It makes no sense.

We don't? Please explain how a neighborhood or village enforces rules, or protects itself from violence, without the threat of violence.

I've said about a billion times that gubmit is the symptom not the cause.  You are the one who is focused on government. You are projecting that onto me.

Are you even listening to yourself?? In the first half of that sentence, you say "I've said about a billion times that gubmit...". And then you say I'm focussed on the government? You're contradicting yourself. You can't claim you've said something a billion times in one breath and then say you're not focussed on it in the next breath.

I'm simply saying that we are tired hearing about the flaws of the government over the "billions" of times you've just admitted to talking about it. It's exhausting and everyone is tired of it — even the moderators think you focus on it too much.

If you want to focus on violence, fine. But, then do us all a favor and focus on violence and the nature of non-violent public and private rule enforcement.

[Kshartle]

Well since property itself is very likely to come about without some arbitrary, illegitimate claims backed by violence, I'd have a lot of trouble agreeing that monopolies are possible without violence.

I am not surprised if you think property comes from illegitimate claims backed by violence.

But isn't that what you think, too?  You think that you can walk onto an unclaimed piece of land, claim it, and then keep trespassers off with violence.  Or "defensive force" as you put it.

Xan we've covered all this in previous threads. If you read through them and want to build on what's there that's fine. I'm not starting this one over.

[Kshartle]

I've said about a billion times that gubmit is the symptom not the cause.  You are the one who is focused on government. You are projecting that onto me.

Are you even listening to yourself?? In the first half of that sentence, you say "I've said about a billion times that gubmit...". And then you say I'm focussed on the government? I'm simply saying that we are tired hearing about the flaws of the government over the "billions" of times you've just admitted to talking about it. It's exhausting and everyone is tired of it — even the moderators think you focus on it too much.

Which one is more important......cancer, or your hair falling out from khemo? If you guys are discussing ways to make your hair fall out less....or what wig to put on...it seems a little silly. So I point out the problem is the cancer. You can't seem to understand the cause of the hair falling out and want to focus there. When I tell you it's falling out because you have cancer you say I'm too focused on stopping hair from falling out. I really don't care about the hair. I care about the cancer. You're projecting.

Cancer = the use of force against people
Hair falling out = government

[Xan]

Xan we've covered all this in previous threads. If you read through them and want to build on what's there that's fine. I'm not starting this one over.

We've "covered it" in that fundamental flaws in your entire worldview have been pointed out to you, and you've attempted to paper over and ignore them.  That doesn't mean you're not building your mansion on a bed of quicksand, because that's exactly what you're doing.

[Gumby]

I've said about a billion times that gubmit is the symptom not the cause.  You are the one who is focused on government. You are projecting that onto me.

Are you even listening to yourself?? In the first half of that sentence, you say "I've said about a billion times that gubmit...". And then you say I'm focussed on the government? I'm simply saying that we are tired hearing about the flaws of the government over the "billions" of times you've just admitted to talking about it. It's exhausting and everyone is tired of it — even the moderators think you focus on it too much.

Which one is more important......cancer, or your hair falling out from khemo? If you guys are discussing ways to make your hair fall out less....or what wig to put on...it seems a little silly. So I point out the problem is the cancer. You can't seem to understand the cause of the hair falling out and want to focus there. When I tell you it's falling out because you have cancer you say I'm too focused on stopping hair from falling out. I really don't care about the hair. I care about the cancer. You're projecting.

Cancer = the use of force against people
Hair falling out = government

Well, you can certainly claim that you're focussed on the "cacner", but I think everyone agrees here that you focus on the "hair falling out" part waaay too much. I think, as PS pointed out, it sabotages your argument.

[Kshartle]

Eh... sounds like sociopaths would have a very easy time killing hobos that didn't have friends or families.

Again, that's pretty much the situation today. The worst two-legged predators have always preyed upon those on the margins of society with few family connections. Runaways, prostitutes and homeless people are at great risk of victimization despite the government justice system. Many of these crimes are actually never solved, tragically enough. What you fear is already a major problem today, sadly. 

Of course at least one of those groups would not be particularly vulnerable to victimization without a government "justice" system.

They would all be less vulnerable if the dominant morality was the non-agression principle. If it was so dominante that we got to the point where government was completely dismantled......they would really be less vulnerable.

Of course government is just the sympton not the cause.

[Pointedstick]

Kshartle, I would like to posit that I have been more convincing to Moda, Gumby, and Xan in this thread than you've been. If I am correct in that assertion, and if your goal is to either convince people of your point of view, or sharpen your arguments (which would be demonstrated by successfully convincing people of your point of view), what can you learn from my discussion style? Because it sure looks to me like you're alienating everyone you talk to here because your approach is not working. Perhaps it's time to change it?

[Kshartle]

Xan we've covered all this in previous threads. If you read through them and want to build on what's there that's fine. I'm not starting this one over.

We've "covered it" in that fundamental flaws in your entire worldview have been pointed out to you, and you've attempted to paper over and ignore them.  That doesn't mean you're not building your mansion on a bed of quicksand, because that's exactly what you're doing.

I would love it if you could point out a fundamental flaw. Then I could learn something.

Please point out to me when it's acceptable to inititate force against someone and who should have that right?

Please explain to me why someone else should be in charge of your life and make rules for you without your voluntary consent?