Comment thread for Anarcho-Libertarian Coliseum debate

[Ar-Adunakhor]

That's irrelevant to the point that the government doesn't own him and has no apriori authority The fact that he doesn't like all other places is just too fucking bad for him. The competition between social structures failed to produce his favored one, so I guess he'd have to live with it.

What foolishness is this Stas? All he has to do is wait and the market will provide for his demand!

[K. A. Pital]

And a free market society would enforce what it does not permit in a very similar way to how most of today's countries enforce what they don’t permit: through courts and security services. The difference is that instead of having a government monopoly on these services which everyone must pay for, in a free market society consumers would have a choice in which courts and security services they want to pay to represent them.

How would they drag a person to court, who is unwilling to go? Use force? I.e. muggers - "private security"?

Today's world already has private security services and arbitration courts in many fields, and they work just fine.

In a government framework, as he admitted himself all private activity runs in it. Try to find working courts in a currently existing anarchy. Mob rule and lynchings do poorly as a justice system.

Voluntaryism is a framework in which people are free to enter into, and enforce, contractual obligations.

People must really know your framework sucks - were it so good, most people would already abandon government and form voluntary anarchies everywhere.

Rules can most certainly exist without a government (and better rules at that): you make and use rules in your own life every day without government involvement.

Rules can only exist up to point of enforcement without an enforcing institution. It's all well if you want to debate, but what if that is a scientific conference, and, say, several scientists work on a project but suddenly a few bail out and start spreading pseudo-science. The conference would penalize them and strip them of their qualifications. Rules which are not enforced are only good until no one breaks them I can't believe Volly is such a tool.

But to be sure, a free market provides superior incentives to consequently produce the superior effects.

List the incentives which produce superior motivation. Sadly, I think one Nobel laureate already laid those pathetic claims to rest, by showing that profit and non-profit incentives do not always impact the efficiency of an operating organization.

Supply and demand is what set the stage for the creation of the first flying machine.

Really? Tell me about it.

Well for example we can look at prohibition in the 1920s.

Really? How about looking to some other example? For example, the NVA coming over and kicking the Khmer Rouge out of Cambodia? Was that an ill action of the government? And if a government builds a hospital, it's a good aim and a good result. Eh, Volly?

And if you intend to eventually do so, then you’ll also have to explain why the very notions of private property and self-ownership are false, unrealistic, or utopian.

There is no significantly powerful and well-off anarchic society. Else Volly, you'd already move there. This is why it is a utopia.

[TC Pilot]

And after the first half of Round 2, the score remains Surlethe: 1 Voluntaryist: 0

[Gerald Tarrant]

What is a market failure? Markets don't fail any more than gravity fails or the law of conservation of matter/energy fails.

And finally, you must explain how your society deals with market failures.

WTH?

How can he be unaware of failures like: "Tragedy of the commons", externalities, and public goods. That's introductory Econ (usually a freshman intro course) stuff.

[Zixinus]

His overall tactic seems to be refuse to accept any point and shove it back to his turf. That turf is "government are always evil while private corporations are always better". The fact that he refuses to use the dictionary definition of government shows it.

The biggest logical flaw I see that he doesn't realise that there is no incentive for private entities to hold their regulations and how much they want to create a monopoly.

I swear there must be a microchip in his brain that intercepts certain words until his definition is given. He actually believes he is winning.

He has to learn what Stockholm Syndrome is clinically. Not just "the captive falls in love with its captor" but actual mental processes undergoing there.

Edit:

WTH?

How can he be unaware of failures like: "Tragedy of the commons", externalities, and public goods. That's introductory Econ (usually a freshman intro course) stuff.

Or what about the that merry little time between the two world wars where the USA's economy made a metaphorical jump into a deep, deep gutter?

It was highly likely he doesn't know economics. He's an anarchists.

[Darth Servo]

Or what about the that merry little time between the two world wars where the USA's economy made a metaphorical jump into a deep, deep gutter?

According to his last post, its either one of the checks and balances of the free market system or it doesn't exist.

What is a market failure? Markets don't fail any more than gravity fails or the law of conservation of matter/energy fails.

...

Also, by "pitfalls of a free market" I am assuming you mean the risk of "going out of business" as it were? If so, then I should notify you that the risk of going out of business (pitfall of a free market) is a good thing! It is one of the checks and balances that are so important to progress.

...

The pitfalls of the market, like evolution's natural selection, are vital to the progress of a society. Without the pitfalls of the market, progress is inhibited. And if a given entity is unable to fail by its own merits, then it will instead drag the entire society down with it, for that society cannot rid itself of that inadequate entity nor its inferior product/service. The very mechanism of progress is removed when market forces are removed.

In short, he just completely pretends that economic recessions and depressions simply don't happen.

[Gerald Tarrant]

WTH?

How can he be unaware of failures like: "Tragedy of the commons", externalities, and public goods. That's introductory Econ (usually a freshman intro course) stuff.

Or what about the that merry little time between the two world wars where the USA's economy made a metaphorical jump into a deep, deep gutter?

Sorry to nitpick, but "market failures" are general instances when a free market fails to provide the optimum solution to a problem. Most econ folks agree that there are only 3 or 4, and the business-cycle isn't really lumped in with them.

The great depression isn't really a "market failure" as it was almost certainly worsened by incorrect interventions, the Smoot-Halley Tarriffs, price fixing, etc. General business cycle downturns do suck, and seem to be a continual feature of free market economies, but the depth and length of the Great Depression aren't entirely indicative of market failures. To be sure the four year depression before FDR took office indicates that free market solutions aren't a panacea, but the recession of 1937 also showed that more control doesn't guarantee a business-cylce-free economy. That's why business-cycles aren't really called market failures, as they are exhibited by both more free and more socialist economies. See both Japan's and Germany's multi-year slumps for example. I just have trouble labeling the business cycle a market failure if it's a feature of both freer and more controlled economies.

It was highly likely he doesn't know economics. He's an anarchists.

Agreed.

[brianeyci]

Anybody notice the nice little rhetorical trick he pulled? Athiests deny the existence of all gods, so anarchists deny the existence of all governments. Therefore, it's improper to compare anarchy to different kinds of governments. Sounds sooooooo convincing.

Nevermind that athiesm is lack of belief in a god, and anarchy is a value system. You sure can be an athiest without considering all forms of religion, because athiesm is the default logical position. Meanwhile anarchy is not the default logical position. The rhetorical trick is just a way of shifting burden of proof. He had better be prepared to compare anarchy to a Constitutional Monarchy and Republic for starters.

[Zixinus]

Sorry to nitpick, but "market failures" are general instances when a free market fails to provide the optimum solution to a problem. Most econ folks agree that there are only 3 or 4, and the business-cycle isn't really lumped in with them.

[snip]

I just have trouble labeling the business cycle a market failure if it's a feature of both freer and more controlled economies.

What is the difference between a "business cycle" and a market failure aside that a business cycle can happen in less capitalists countries?

[J]

What is the difference between a "business cycle" and a market failure aside that a business cycle can happen in less capitalists countries?

It's easier to use examples, a business cycle is the natural up & down of business; for instance someone finds a new way of making money, then everyone jumps aboard the bandwagon until the market is oversaturated at which point the weaker parties are washed out and the market drops & levels out until the next bright idea comes along to repeat the cycle.

A market failure is when a company such as Standard Oil corners the market and uses its powers to do whatever it damn well pleases, without anyone being able to do anything about it. Or, what's happening now with financial institutions, they've made a big mess and now they're trying to force the government and taxpayers to bail them out.

[Simplicius]

Anybody notice the nice little rhetorical trick he pulled? Athiests deny the existence of all gods, so anarchists deny the existence of all governments. Therefore, it's improper to compare anarchy to different kinds of governments. Sounds sooooooo convincing.

Nevermind that athiesm is lack of belief in a god, and anarchy is a value system. You sure can be an athiest without considering all forms of religion, because athiesm is the default logical position. Meanwhile anarchy is not the default logical position. The rhetorical trick is just a way of shifting burden of proof. He had better be prepared to compare anarchy to a Constitutional Monarchy and Republic for starters.

The atheist's position is an easy one because all forms of god are equally nonevident. Tragically for the anarchist, many different forms of government are very evident, and each produces its own set of actual outcomes which our friend here will have to address.

His comparison is entirely improper, however, as he and his brethren believe very much in an unsubstantiated myth which they support with circular reasoning, simple repetition, cherry-picked examples, and denial. Market fundamentalism is still fundamentalism.

Why is it a red herring to point out Stockholm Syndrome in relation to being ruled by others?

Does anyone else here get the urge to strangle him just enough that oxygen starvation-induced brain damage causes him to forget this phrase forever?

[Gerald Tarrant]

What is the difference between a "business cycle" and a market failure aside that a business cycle can happen in less capitalists countries?

This is why I apologized for nit-picking. Market failures is actually the title given to three or four specific well understood failings of unregulated markets.

[Edit:] I mean that this is just definitional. Three of the following four "Market Failures" are widely agreed upon. And when you say market failures economists usually think of the list first. [/Edit]

"Market failures" are well understood, also their solutions are well understood. In the case of externalities the solution is a tax or subsidy(often named a Pigovian tax). Public goods won't be created unless a government taxes people to make them. The "tragedy of the commons" happens when there are no property rights, a government can enforce those. Also I forgot to include it, but monopolies can create barriers to entry and other market inefficiencies unless someone with more power regulates or breaks them up. (Not everyone considers monopolies a market failure <shrug>). The first three market failures are uncontroversial and agreed upon.

The business-cycle isn't so well understood. There really aren't any appropriate predictors for it. Paul Krugman has been continually decrying the de-regulation of the Bush Administration for the last 6 years, and he's predicted recession for the start of each of the last six years. That he was fundamentally right about the cause, doesn't mean he knew when it would kick off. In general, the factors that turn a small down-turn into a recession aren't known, and there's multiple interpretations of the theory of the business cycle. Just for example, the Austrian school

The Austrian School of economics rejects the suggestion that the business cycle is an inherent feature of an unregulated economy and argues that it is caused by intervention in the money supply. Austrian School economists, following Ludwig von Mises, point to the role of the interest rate as the price of investment capital, guiding investment decisions. In an unregulated (free-market) economy, it is posited that the interest rate reflects the actual time preference of lenders and borrowers.

Business cycle stuff gets lots of study and debate; market failures, not so much. I just think calling the business-cylce a market failure opens up a whole area of debate that's unimportant. I haven't met anyone (except for now Voluntaryist) who thinks the "market failures" can be fixed without government intervention, I haven't met anyone (except for now Voluntaryist) who even questions the problems of "market failures".

I think because this is wandering away from the point of the thread, that any further discussion ought to be by PM.

[Darth Wong]

Why is it a red herring to point out Stockholm Syndrome in relation to being ruled by others?

Does anyone else here get the urge to strangle him just enough that oxygen starvation-induced brain damage causes him to forget this phrase forever?

Perhaps it would be better to simply throw his declarative statements back at him, slightly reformed: "Why is it a red-herring to point out Stockholm Syndrome in relation to being bullied with impunity by corporations and rich people?"

[brianeyci]

The atheist's position is an easy one because all forms of god are equally nonevident. Tragically for the anarchist, many different forms of government are very evident, and each produces its own set of actual outcomes which our friend here will have to address.

His comparison is entirely improper, however, as he and his brethren believe very much in an unsubstantiated myth which they support with circular reasoning, simple repetition, cherry-picked examples, and denial. Market fundamentalism is still fundamentalism.

I wonder why he hasn't mentioned the Spanish anarchists or any of the organized anarchist groups in the past. Part of me wants to say because he hasn't done any homework, but another part says it's because he's pretending to be an anarchist and is a troll. We'll wait to see tomorrow I suppose, the unveiling.

Why is it a red herring to point out Stockholm Syndrome in relation to being ruled by others?

Does anyone else here get the urge to strangle him just enough that oxygen starvation-induced brain damage causes him to forget this phrase forever?

Apparently he doesn't understand that Stockholm Syndrome has at least two, possibly three states.

A. Person who was kidnapped against his will.

B. Person then sympathizes with the kidnapper, doing his bidding.

C. Later, after escaping, person comes to terms with helping the person who has harmed him.

A doesn't fucking exist in most sane people -- we all hate taxes and whine about how bad government is, but most are not stupid enough to say we don't need government. C is especially important, especially the "harm" part which he has to prove. Or else it's not Stockholm Syndrome, but just somebody going willingly along with a plan. Which shoots his everybody is just a Voluntarist inside waiting to come out hypothesis to shit, so I can see why he doesn't want to admit it.

[Darth Servo]

Today's world already has private security services and arbitration courts in many fields, and they work just fine. Indeed, the proliferation of private security firms and arbitration courts is a testament to the effectiveness of these private competitive services instead of a tax-funded state monopoly that does the same.

You're being held at gun point. Who would you rather have respond, a well trained state police officer or a rent-a-cop? Voluntard chooses the latter.

[aerius]

Private security works just great, if you can afford it. Funny how celebrities, VIPs, large companies, and governments are the only ones that can hire private security. Of course, under vollywhacknut's system, competition will obviously make quality private security firms affordable for everyone. How that's supposed to happen is never explained, it's just assumed to be true.

[Terralthra]

Private security works just great, if you can afford it. Funny how celebrities, VIPs, large companies, and governments are the only ones that can hire private security. Of course, under vollywhacknut's system, competition will obviously make quality private security firms affordable for everyone. How that's supposed to happen is never explained, it's just assumed to be true.

The logic, as far as I can tell, appears to be that you're taxed right now to pay for a public security force, but if you weren't taxed, you could put that money towards a private security force, which will of course be more efficient because it has to compete with other private security forces. And somehow make a profit. For less cost to the consumer.

[Darth Servo]

The logic, as far as I can tell, appears to be that you're taxed right now to pay for a public security force, but if you weren't taxed, you could put that money towards a private security force, which will of course be more efficient because it has to compete with other private security forces. And somehow make a profit. For less cost to the consumer.

And feed the fact cat CEO and board of directors and the stock holders.

USPS delivers a letter from me to my parents home in 2-3 days for $0.41
FedEx delivers that same letter with 2-day delivery for $14.04
UPS delivers that same letter with 2-day delivery for $16.95

[Lusankya]

You'd think that if affordable private security for everyone was feasable, then you'd have people in poor, high-crime areas lining up to hire them. There's nothing stopping them from hiring private security, and surely there would be enough demand in the area. Now, granted, there's probably not that much government policing going on these areas, but there's more of that than there is private security. I wonder why that is.

But remember, when you're in trouble, don't dial 911. Instead just call (636)555-3472.

[wjs7744]

How can he be unaware of failures like: "Tragedy of the commons", externalities, and public goods. That's introductory Econ (usually a freshman intro course) stuff.

The most obvious explanation would of course be that he has never taken an economics course in his life, as also evidenced by his numerous childish assumptions about business (such as his ignorance of the cost of market entry, or that the perfect model of supply and demand is actually realistic). And he's getting boring now, just repeating things that were shot down in the HoS thread. I guess it will still be interesting to see if Surlethe responds differently than we did first time around.

[Darth Wong]

The biggest problem isn't his failure to take an economics course. It's the fact that he doesn't recognize challenges to the axiomatic "truths" upon which his argument hinges. For example, he will simply declare that unregulated industries always outperform regulated ones, or that industries with no government participation are invariably superior to industries which are government funded or subsidized. Others will post rebuttals to these claims, often including working examples which defy his predictions. He will simply handwave away these examples by casually categorizing them as either free-market or government in order to suit his conclusion (without ever having produced a coherent litmus test to determine which category something actually belongs in), and then restate his axiomatic "truths".

[Oskuro]

I feel his obsessive redefinition of the term "government" does indeed seem to follow in his axiomatic (almost dogmatic) approach.

He has defined an opponent, and named it "government". His whole argument hinges on demonstrating the evils of said opponent, for that reason he strives to paint it as a monolithic entity whose failings are endemic to all government types. In essence, he is equating government to God (any god), and arguing, as any of us would argue, against the usefulness of this mythological entity.

From such a perspective, atheism, as the rejection of the figure of deities as part of a moral system, does indeed look similar to anarchy as a rejection of the figure of government (or more exactly, of a hierarchy) as part of a socio-economical system.

Unfortunately, that simplification seems to be his mistake. Even if you have a deity, without a set of rules, laws, and a moral code, you do not have a religion. Likewise, even with (or without) a government, you need laws, rules and regulations to define a socio-economical system.

Volly fails to realize that a government is just a functional part of a political system, just as a board of directors is a functional part of a company. The government itself is NOT the system. To be more correct, Volly should be arguing against specific social, economical or political models, rather than put them all on the same sac and then expect to defeat them all in one fel swoop.

I'm guessing he's entrenching himself in this definition of government to avoid having to actually do his homework on all the socio-economical and political systems out there. Anyway, it's way easier to just blame all those close-minded governmentalists for pretty much everything, from taxes to Paris Hilton.



Anyway, apologies for any redundancy... And by the way, doesn't it sound a bit like he wants to score brownie points with the board by mentioning how his ideas are so similar to atheism?

[Zixinus]

And the biggest error I find that he does not believe that these private entities will try to eliminate each other's competition in an underhanded way, as they try to do right now. He will either assume that the magical Free Market will somehow take care of that or that it won't happen.

[Patrick Degan]

And the biggest error I find that he does not believe that these private entities will try to eliminate each other's competition in an underhanded way, as they try to do right now. He will either assume that the magical Free Market will somehow take care of that or that it won't happen.

Naturally. No matter how much Volleyball blathers to the contrary, his anarchistic utopia requires the same conditions to work as a communist one: an ideal world populated by perfect people behaving perfectly.

[Zixinus]

Also, on the topic of anarchist-libertarianism, isn't it the "new communism" in sci-fi? As in, the ideal society? I recall several members talking about how some books spend an inopportune amount of time talking about how great said anarcho-liberal society would be.