Originally Posted by fruitcake

How do you define wealth? In the old days it was simple, just count how many horses a man owns.
But we live in a more complex world today.

An important distinction needs to be made here.
Income and Net worth are two different things.
An extreme example would be Steve Jobs who "technically" has an income of $1 but a net worth of billions.
Income taxes are expensive so the rich have a strong incentive to engage in financial wizardry.
Because of this, you cannot measure a rich man's wealth by looking at income.

How do you judge a man's wealth?
a) if he's middle class look at his income
b) if he's rich look at his net worth

That is what I did. Rich means you have suffiicent investment income on which to live a comfortable life. As a rule of thumb about $5 million in assets is the borderline between rich and affluent (the top of the middle classes). If one has guaranteed income from pensions, social security, an inherited annuity, or in-kind benefits like paid health care that reduces the investment income required, then the required amount of assets to be rich is reduced. For example, if you are a veteran and get free health care and a pension, you can deduct the cost of these from the amount of income for a comfortable life (I am assuming 200K). And the amount of assets needed is then less.

I am middle class now, by my definition. If I can stay working until I choose to retire, we will at that point be rich. We won't have $5 million, but my wife and I will both have a Pfizer pension and retiree health benefits; Social Security and Medicare may still be there. With this set of circumstances we won't need $5 million in assets, but perhaps only three.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Whenever it was supported by the force of law, or by trade restrictions, or the like. So like, pretty much all the time. (Assuming, of course, that, among those upon whose backs the administration of the laws was lain, could be found at least one or two who found slavery abhorrent...)

I don't buy it. Slave trading was a profitable endeavor. Businessmen did not need to recieve a subsidy to undertake it. People opposed to slavery were not required to buy slaves or to have anything to do with slavery. In fact, where slavery opponents existed in significant numbers slavery was made illegal. That is a subsidy levied on supporters of slavery by opponents. So I think you have it the other way around.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I don't buy it. Slave trading was a profitable endeavor. Businessmen did not need to receive a subsidy to undertake it.

You are using a definition of 'subsidy' that is both unnecessarily restrictive, and simply false.
The costs associated with protecting the institution of slavery (even the very basic costs of ensuring that a slave who attempted escape would be returned to his master) are borne by the executive organs of government. That is, the people as a whole are made to bear paying for the costs of keeping a slave the property of his master; were it not for the executive organs, a potential slavemaster would be on his own to keep his slaves from freeing themselves -- a significant cost were it not socialized. And socializing private costs is the definition of subsidizing.

People opposed to slavery were not required to buy slaves or to have anything to do with slavery.

Blatantly false, as the above demonstrates

In fact, where slavery opponents existed in significant numbers slavery was made illegal. That is a subsidy levied on supporters of slavery by opponents. So I think you have it the other way around.

Ah yes, so a prohibition on murder is a subsidy for the non-murdered levied on those who would prefer to kill at random? Your attempt at reversal comes to gibberish... Non-slavery (like non-murder) is the null-position.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You are using a definition of 'subsidy' that is both unnecessarily restrictive, and simply false.
The costs associated with protecting the institution of slavery (even the very basic costs of ensuring that a slave who attempted escape would be returned to his master) are borne by the executive organs of government. That is, the people as a whole are made to bear paying for the costs of keeping a slave the property of his master; were it not for the executive organs, a potential slavemaster would be on his own to keep his slaves from freeing themselves -- a significant cost were it not socialized. And socializing private costs is the definition of subsidizing.

Not only executive, but also judicial. Of course the legalization of the master-slave relationship contrary to the will and interest of the slave required enforcement by government. That of course implies that the government had to outlaw activities that compromised slavery -- like aiding the escapes of slaves. States of course prosecuted those who helped slaves escape and sent them to prison.

With the Fugitive Slave Act the US government imposed costs of enforcing the legal reality of slavery upon states that did not tolerate slavery. That Illinois outlawed slavery no longer meant anything to a slave escaping Missouri. People who opposed to slavery still maintained the Underground Railway now in violation of Federal law.

Such contributed to the Civil War by creating regional antipathies. People proud that their states had abolished slavery now had contempt for a Federal government that seemed to have sold out to the slave-owning interests, and slave-owners disdained a Federal government too weak to enforce an Act that protected what some considered the highest expression of property -- that a person could own another person.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

With the Fugitive Slave Act the US government imposed costs of enforcing the legal reality of slavery upon states that did not tolerate slavery.

True... but I was talking about a more fundamental thing. Even prior to the Fugitive Slave Act, the cost of maintaining slaves was lain on part on the shoulders of those who opposed slavery. One can easily find in every slave state at any time (for which records are accessible) people -- taxpayers -- who were morally opposed to slavery. Who, nonetheless, were forced to pay to support the institution.

That's what I was saying about slavery under statist systems being more feasible, since it is subsidized even by those who abhor it. Whereas in a stateless scenario, those who would be slavemasters would have to bear the full costs of that endeavor themselves -- not to mention the fact that those who found the institution morally objectionable would be free to oppose it (think the Underground Railroad, only above-ground and widely advertised) so making it even less cost-effective to keep slaves.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You are using a definition of 'subsidy' that is both unnecessarily restrictive, and simply false.
The costs associated with protecting the institution of slavery (even the very basic costs of ensuring that a slave who attempted escape would be returned to his master) are borne by the executive organs of government. That is, the people as a whole are made to bear paying for the costs of keeping a slave the property of his master; were it not for the executive organs, a potential slavemaster would be on his own to keep his slaves from freeing themselves -- a significant cost were it not socialized. And socializing private costs is the definition of subsidizing.

That is true of property in general. Enforcing property rights has a cost. In the sense you are using, those with less property subsidize those with more. Do you agree with this?

Ah yes, so a prohibition on murder is a subsidy for the non-murdered levied on those who would prefer to kill at random? Your attempt at reversal comes to gibberish... Non-slavery (like non-murder) is the null-position.

We aren't talking about murder. And its not random. When did you start employing strawmen?

Try substituting owning livestock for owning slaves. That is a better analogy:

So a prohibition on animal slaughter is a subsidy for the vegans levied on those who like to eat meat.

Originally Posted by The Rani

What??? That's the most bizarre use of the word "subsidy" that I've ever heard.

That's because Mike appears to have made it up on the fly solely to support his contention that legalizing slavery under a state system does not constitute subsidizing it. Holding to that improper use of the concept will require ever increasing contortions on his part. But if Not Stepping Down from a stated position is important enough to a person, in my experience there are no ends to the contortions they are willing to undergo...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

That's because Mike appears to have made it up on the fly solely to support his contention that legalizing slavery under a state system does not constitute subsidizing it.

I made no such contention.

Justin said this single self-contradictory statement:

And the advantage to the market anarchist paradigm being that no one would argue that slavery is a necessary feature of society

(as fruitcake is doing on another thread, to use one example),

nor would it be subsidized on the backs of those who found it abhorrent.

Justin first asserts parthenthetically that the market anarchist paradigm has the advantage that no one can argue that slavery is a necessary feature of society.

He then asserts the somebody is doing just that, invalidating his first assertion. Frankly I don't see how anything can have the advantage that is cannot be argued by somebody.

He then has a second clause where he asserts that slavery in a market anarchist paradigm would not be subsidzed by those who found it abhorent.

I have no problem with this statement. It makes sense and it is even true, but it agrees with my earlier assertion (to which this post was an objection) that slavery would be present in a market anarchist system. I said nothing about legalizing slavery. Justin brought up legalization in the sense that in an anarchy slavery (or anything else) would not be formally illegal. It might be taboo, but it would not be illegal.

I didn't see how owning slaves constituted a subsidy for slave owners from people (presumably non-slaveowners) who found slavery abhorrent. I was thinking of cash subsidies, tax abatements or explict forms of rent-seeking.

Justin argued that when the state enforces the property rights of slaveowners, there is an indirect subsidy.

He is right, but this sort of subsidy applies to all kinds of property not just slaves. Is he then arguing against owning other things besides slaves? I am simply trying to understand his position.

He also made a strawman analogy equating owning slaves to murdering people.

I replied that a better analogy would be owning food animals to owning slaves. I rephrased Justin's statement.

The Rani just jumped in with no context and replied as if I was making this point, instead of Justin.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...Of course the legalization of the master-slave relationship contrary to the will and interest of the slave required enforcement by government...

-Actually, you can have slavery without a governement enforcing it or even tolerating it (think of any number of cases you hear about when some psycho kidnaps and enslaves someone for years). But it is a lot more difficult to enslave anyone, and the numbers that one master can watch are limited.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

...Even prior to the Fugitive Slave Act, the cost of maintaining slaves was lain on part on the shoulders of those who opposed slavery. One can easily find in every slave state at any time (for which records are accessible) people -- taxpayers -- who were morally opposed to slavery. Who, nonetheless, were forced to pay to support the institution...

The 1850 Fugitive Slave Act provided:

1) Involuntary use of US Marshalls to hunt down fugitive slaves at taxpayer expense (it was against the law for the US Marshall to refuse). This was the only runaway property protected (subsidized) in such a manner; imagine a farmer trying to demand help form a US Marshall because his cow had wandered off.

2) Private citizens could be forced to join posses designed to catch fugitive slaves (see above).

It probably was the worst piece of legislation is US history.

Imagine the competition for that title.


---

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

-So cry many Boomers (self-professed Lefties, mostly) whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows. [/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I have no problem with this statement. It makes sense and it is even true, but it agrees with my earlier assertion (to which this post was an objection) that slavery would be present in a market anarchist system.

Yeah, maybe in backward societies with little care for basic human rights (this isn't any different than under the State), but today, with the values most people share? Not a chance.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I tried to get Matt (or any other libertarian / anarchist) to nominate specific departments of specific levels of government that could best be eliminated or privatized. I've got no takers. All I've been able to get is a broad opinion that the government must go, but nothing in the way of how specific jobs being performed by government might be eliminated or privatized save on an absurdly broad hand waving level.

I think you're confusing two questions (and Matt's response did as well). The appropriate response to hyper-specific "but who will make shoes?" style questions is dismissal. That sort of question presupposes precisely the sort of social engineering which only managerialist ideologies think is necessary. Libertarians believe in emergent order in society and those questions rather miss the point.

OTOH, a question along the lines of "What parts of the state should be first to go?" does deserve a specific answer.* That is the sort of question which will point out the worst features of the current system, who are appropriate libertarian allies, etc.

Perhaps the reason you feel you haven't gotten an answer is because you've always asked questions of the first type (or at least sounded like you were). It's also possible you've missed the quite numerous policy suggestions given by libertarians, but that seems unlikely. You and I have personally discussed American foreign policy and I have given suggestions (non-intervention, ~75% force reductions, reliance on nuclear deterrence and free trade) that fall far short of anarchism. So, it's simply not true that libertarians fail to give policy suggestions short of a maximalist turn-government-off-like-a-switch position.

This argument strikes me as a rhetorical move rather than an honest assessment of libertarianism. Do you really feel questions have gone unanswered?



* And disputes about these sorts of questions help define the differences between left and right-libertarians.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

I think you're confusing two questions (and Matt's response did as well). The appropriate response to hyper-specific "but who will make shoes?" style questions is dismissal. That sort of question presupposes precisely the sort of social engineering which only managerialist ideologies think is necessary. Libertarians believe in emergent order in society and those questions rather miss the point.

OTOH, a question along the lines of "What parts of the state should be first to go?" does deserve a specific answer.* That is the sort of question which will point out the worst features of the current system, who are appropriate libertarian allies, etc.

Perhaps the reason you feel you haven't gotten an answer is because you've always asked questions of the first type (or at least sounded like you were). It's also possible you've missed the quite numerous policy suggestions given by libertarians, but that seems unlikely. You and I have personally discussed American foreign policy and I have given suggestions (non-intervention, ~75% force reductions, reliance on nuclear deterrence and free trade) that fall far short of anarchism. So, it's simply not true that libertarians fail to give policy suggestions short of a maximalist turn-government-off-like-a-switch position.

This argument strikes me as a rhetorical move rather than an honest assessment of libertarianism. Do you really feel questions have gone unanswered?



* And disputes about these sorts of questions help define the differences between left and right-libertarians.

Indeed. I also share the goal of making this nation less militaristic. My disputes with the RL's are almost always in economics.

The longer this discussion goes on the more I'm convinced that the Anarchist program is an unworkable fantasy. Especially as I have started reading Amartya Sen's new book The Idea of Justice. IMO, I shall repeat again, states are the INEVITABLE emergent feature in a complex society. All proposals for stateless societies are unworkable, unstable, unachievable, or actually ARE states. They are "utopias" in the most literal sense, "nowheres", like the imaginary idealized universes often used by science writers to help explain General Relativity.

Amartya Sen makes a distinction between what he calls "transcendental institutionalism", thinking in terms of an ideal perfectly just society, and a perspective based on comparisons of how justice is actually realized in real societies, and to a large degree criticizes the former. I would place the various "Anarchistic Societies" in the former category.

Originally Posted by Odin

IMO, I shall repeat again, states are the INEVITABLE emergent feature in a complex society.

The history doesn't completely support this idea (even if it almost always holds); what makes you so sure about the future? It doesn't seem like monopolies on legitimate uses of force are conceptually required by complexity theory, or even that all signs forever point to the development of the state. The world is covered is in states, but this development took place within specific contexts. We'll be faced with different scenarios in the future; maybe there will be no desire, or even the possibility, for such a monopoly to exist in the future.

Anyway, this says little about the legitimacy of the State. But I would add that if the State is illegitimate, then we probably can accurately state that people ought to be living in anarchy.

Amartya Sen makes a distinction between what he calls "transcendental institutionalism", thinking in terms of an ideal perfectly just society, and a perspective based on comparisons of how justice is actually realized in real societies, and to a large degree criticizes the former. I would place the various "Anarchistic Societies" in the former category.

Well I think when addressing practicalities of a system, we should be charitable but not utopian. I think John Locke and Robert Nozick balanced this nicely in their critiques of anarchism. Order emerges without anyone directing it; that doesn't mean that there won't be serious problems within a system, but we shouldn't discount human ingenuity and formal mechanisms for dealing with potential issues. After all, that's how things tend to work nowadays.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

I think you're confusing two questions (and Matt's response did as well). The appropriate response to hyper-specific "but who will make shoes?" style questions is dismissal. That sort of question presupposes precisely the sort of social engineering which only managerialist ideologies think is necessary. Libertarians believe in emergent order in society and those questions rather miss the point.

Sorry, I don't think you have justified dismissal. Shoes, of course, have been made by private enterprise all along. Shoemaking has seldom if ever been a function of the government. However, there are other questions which genuinely of concern. Who will deter aggression? Who will suppress criminal activity? Who will maintain the parks? Who will pave the roads?

Currently, the government performs so many functions that an exhaustive list and set of plans would be too much to ask. A representative sample would be nice. I don't get Matt's bottom up approach. Libertarians will start maintaining the roads so governments will discover they will no longer need to do so? Libertarians will start providing health care, so government oversight and support of health care won't be necessary?

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

OTOH, a question along the lines of "What parts of the state should be first to go?" does deserve a specific answer.* That is the sort of question which will point out the worst features of the current system, who are appropriate libertarian allies, etc.

I would not ask what should go first without a discussion about what should replace it or why replacement is not necessary. Before I would go over the edge of a cliff, I would inquire about the relative merits of ropes, hang gliders and parachutes. It isn't enough to say that standing on the edge of a cliff might be dangerous, thus we should leap. The learning to fly on the way down approach seems non-intuitive.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Perhaps the reason you feel you haven't gotten an answer is because you've always asked questions of the first type (or at least sounded like you were). It's also possible you've missed the quite numerous policy suggestions given by libertarians, but that seems unlikely. You and I have personally discussed American foreign policy and I have given suggestions (non-intervention, ~75% force reductions, reliance on nuclear deterrence and free trade) that fall far short of anarchism. So, it's simply not true that libertarians fail to give policy suggestions short of a maximalist turn-government-off-like-a-switch position.

This argument strikes me as a rhetorical move rather than an honest assessment of libertarianism. Do you really feel questions have gone unanswered?

I confess I have not been fully following the anarchist - libertarian thread here. If you could provide a few links to real policy discussion along the above nature, I'll play a bit of catch up. Still, I have recently asked for a reasonable path, and not gotten meaningful responses.

Looking at history, one can find examples of transforming a culture and / or its ruling authority through violent revolution, and through the ballot box. I can sort of guess what might be done using those tools. What I am generally getting from our anarchists here is a proposal for transformation by wishful thinking. There seems to be an acceptance of the Marxist notion that after the capitalist class is overthrown, the state will spontaneously fade away, except overthrowing the capitalist class is not necessary. I remain dubious.

I could sympathize to some extent your policy proposals, such as non-intervention, ~75% force reductions, reliance on nuclear deterrence and free trade. I have concerns about failed states however. Looking at the real world, where there is no effective state there is anarchy in the ugly sense of the word rather than the idealistic daydream sense. I dislike genocide, ethnic cleansing, organized rape and political famine. In an era where weapons of mass destruction might be covertly delivered, I do not believe it prudent to let terror, despair and anger thrive. Someday, I would like to see each area of the world capable of policing itself and supporting its people. At that point I'll join you in endorsing appropriate steps towards disarmament. However, disarming in the middle of a crisis period might not be optimal timing.

I also include evolutionary behaviorism as a valid perspective. Humans share many basic drives that are also observable in animals. Man is a social animal. He forms groups. There is a competition for leadership. Groups claim territories. There is competition both within a group and with other groups. If there are insufficient resources to support a group, there is apt to be conflict with other groups.

These drives evolved for valid reasons. I do not believe these reasons have vanished. There are still resource and territorial shortages. As populations are increasing, as land and resources are being over utilized, the human condition is arguably getting worse rather than better. While these shortages persist, the ancient instinctive drives suggesting how conflicts between groups are to be resolved are going to be part of the picture.

In short, humans form groups, select leaders, and strive to get what they need to establish a workable life style. Among the results are ethnic cleansing, genocide, organized rape and political famines. I would strive towards achieving said workable lifestyle within the parameters of how humans really behave. (As FDR said, "Freedom from want, everywhere in the world.") The notion that everyone will spontaneously start getting along doesn't seem plausible. There will be a considerable amount of blood, toil, sweat and tears involved.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Sorry, I don't think you have justified dismissal. Shoes, of course, have been made by private enterprise all along. Shoemaking has seldom if ever been a function of the government. However, there are other questions which genuinely of concern. Who will deter aggression? Who will suppress criminal activity? Who will maintain the parks? Who will pave the roads?

People, Bob. People. The same entity that did those things (or their period-corollaries) over and over again at times in the past. The same that does them now, where there is no government taking it from their hands.

Your refusal to see this in no way invalidates the fact.

Kurt put it absolutely right -- dismissal is the only appropriate response to question-begging. To do otherwise would be as counter-productive as attempting to engage an Intelligent-Designist who asks, if God didn't design all living things, who did?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

People, Bob. People. The same entity that did those things (or their period-corollaries) over and over again at times in the past. The same that does them now, where there is no government taking it from their hands.

We are the government.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Sorry, I don't think you have justified dismissal. . . Who will deter aggression? Who will suppress criminal activity? Who will maintain the parks? Who will pave the roads?

Sure I have. All of the things you've just mentioned have historically been handled without government, just not in recent Western society. There are, to my mind, two cogent arguments against the argument for unplanned social systems. The first is the argument that this was possible before, but is not any more due to complexity. That argument is very weak though, as modern research shows that networks handle complexity better than heirarchies. The second is that while any particular function may be handled by a networked system, you can't have the entire economy function that way at the same time (i.e. some amount of heirarchy is always necessary, the question is where best to put it). That second argument is much stronger, strong enough to make me step back from full endorsement of anarchism.

But, to argue that I have to explain how a network will solve a problem does miss the point. The whole reason to have a network is because individual nodes in the network (i.e. single persons like us) are not capable of optimizing the problem. Only the interactions of all of the people in the network produce a solution. In other words, if I could tell you with great certainty how precisely to structure the provision of a particular social good, then why not use a hierarchical system with me in charge?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I don't get Matt's bottom up approach. Libertarians will start maintaining the roads so governments will discover they will no longer need to do so? Libertarians will start providing health care, so government oversight and support of health care won't be necessary?

Not precisely. Matt seems to be endorsing agorism, which is basically the market anarchist equivalent of syndicalism (i.e. you focus on building institutions that will exist in the new society so that they can supplant the old when the old system collapses). I actually have strong objections to the viability of this strategy as it is in the nature of states to deny people the opportunity to build alternative organizations. Also, the goal is not to convince the government that its services are no longer necessary but to convince the public.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I would not ask what should go first without a discussion about what should replace it or why replacement is not necessary.

Let me answer this using roads as an example. I don't know exactly how roads would be built without state subsidies. I can, however, speculate. I know that prior to the 20th century roads we're either private access roads built by landowners, public rights-of-way jointly maintained by communities or toll roads maintained by their owner. I suspect a similar patchwork to occur. As for why it is necessary, there are a number of reasons why subsidized transport is pernicious. The most important is that it externalizes some of the costs of shipping products onto taxpayers. This increases the optimal area over which a firm can operate, contributing to large firm size, oligopoly pricing of goods and oligopsony in the labor market. From an aesthetic standpoint, subsidized transport homogenizes commerce diminishing the local character of communities. Highway subsidies = fast food and big box stores.

(This is just an example of how one could address your questions. An extended discussion of road building is not necessary.)

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I confess I have not been fully following the anarchist - libertarian thread here. If you could provide a few links to real policy discussion along the above nature, I'll play a bit of catch up. Still, I have recently asked for a reasonable path, and not gotten meaningful responses.

Part of the issue is that the libertarian approach to policy often entails digging into the complex effects of current policies and recommending what to remove. The default presumption in our current society is to figure out what rules to add. Can you not agree that changing the rules in a subtractive fashion is just as much a policy recommendation as doing so in an additive fashion? In both cases, you are describing the effects of current policy and recommending a change intended to produce better results. Also, would you not agree that if the subtraction occurred in a different order than simply rolling back chronologically that the results would be different from any society previously experienced?*

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

There seems to be an acceptance of the Marxist notion that after the capitalist class is overthrown, the state will spontaneously fade away, except overthrowing the capitalist class is not necessary. I remain dubious.

Inconsistent programs are the rule not the exception in politics. Using the example above, modern liberals gripe all the time about our homogenous consumer culture, and yet also praise "infrastructure improvements" that structurally support that monoculture and arguably created it in the first place.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I have concerns about failed states however. Looking at the real world, where there is no effective state there is anarchy in the ugly sense of the word rather than the idealistic daydream sense.

As an aside, I've noted previously that anarchy is rarely used to simply mean "no rulers." It usually refers to one of three things:

1) The time before history, i.e. the "state of nature" of the Enlightenment philosophers. This leads to the criticism of anarchism as primitivism.
2) A hypothetical post-history of near perfect social harmony. This leads to the criticism of anarchism as utopian.
3) An interruption in history where chaos reigns. This leads to the criticism that anarchists promote upheaval for the sake of upheaval.

IMO, only the second criticism of anarchism is valid, since advocacy of "going back to nature" or violent revolution are both rare and non-essential to the concept. The idea of a better future, however, is essential to anarchism and thus it is forever subject to charges of utopianism. OTOH, all the good ideas in politics have been attacked as utopian, so that doesn't really kill the concept.

To be clear, I am not really an anarchist. I think that violence, coercion and heirarchy will probably always be present and frequently have competitive advantage over peace, cooperation and networks. However, I think the trend is toward ever decreasing influence of the former -- so having a conception of anarchy (def. #2) is useful as a guide star.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

These drives evolved for valid reasons. I do not believe these reasons have vanished. There are still resource and territorial shortages. As populations are increasing, as land and resources are being over utilized, the human condition is arguably getting worse rather than better.

Here is where I disagree. The conditions in which people are actually in a kill-or-be-killed situation are increasingly rare.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I would strive towards achieving said workable lifestyle within the parameters of how humans really behave. (As FDR said, "Freedom from want, everywhere in the world.")

I think it could be easily argued that your FDR quote is ridiculously naive. Freedom from want?!? Anarchism is way more plausible than liberation from desire. The former requires social and economic progress -- the latter inherently requires a change in human nature. A desire to have more in life is part of the human condition.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

The notion that everyone will spontaneously start getting along doesn't seem plausible. There will be a considerable amount of blood, toil, sweat and tears involved.

I concur. The purpose of anarchism is to describe what all of that toil is for.


* I ask this last question since it is often contended that libertarians just advocate a return to some past era. Obviously if the combination of rules is different from any prior combination, then even a subtractive policy idea is progressive.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

We are the government.

Your rulers sure like you to think so. There's never been a better way of avoiding losing their place than for the ruling class to be able to hide behind "the people" as a whole. It's completely -- for all practical purposes -- removed the threat of revolution that was the only real check their power ever saw.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

People, Bob. People. The same entity that did those things (or their period-corollaries) over and over again at times in the past. The same that does them now, where there is no government taking it from their hands.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

We are the government.

Yes, government is also composed of people. However, I don't see any libertarians contending that governments can't build roads. While I do see quite a few non-libertarians contending that only governments can build roads despite the fact that believing this requires one to willfully deny history.

Your retort, Child of Socrates, does not refute Justin's point. In fact, it destroys Bob's.

To continue using the road example. There are several statements we could make about road subsidies:

1) Roads can only be provided by the state. (This is historically false.)
2) Roads can only be provided by private citizens. (Also, historically false.)
3) Adequate roads can only be provided by the state. (Arguable, and also begs the question as to precisely what is the adequate amount of roads?)
4) Subsidies will lead to more roads. (Likely, based on simple economic logic.)
5) Subsidies lead to overproduction/maldistribution of roads. (Arguable, and requires one to believe in a "correct" amount of roads.)

So, any talk about government roads vs. private roads really obscures the underlying question -- determining the optimal amount of roads. However that question is fundamentally unsolvable by a brute force approach. The number of relevant variables (all the preferences of millions of people) is massive and the solution set is infinite. Only a network process can produce an optimal result. A command system will never produce an optimal result except by pure chance. A network might also be non-optimal owing to information exchange problems and errors made by members of the network. However it can reach an optimal solution, which the command method cannot.

Now, you might argue that no social system is purely a network, that many people will delegate to others even without coercion being involved. But, so what? That still doesn't change the overall point that distributed decision making systems will optimize resources better than centralized ones.

Thus, having our road building decisions made by a handful of bureaucrats and the private contractors that bribe and influence them cannot be optimal. Removing the subsidies would vastly increase the diversity of funding sources for roads and thus distribute decisions more widely. Thus, better roads. Whether "better" would mean more or less or different roads is unknown to us mere mortals.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Your rulers sure like you to think so.

They are my employees, not my rulers.

There's never been a better way of avoiding losing their place than for the ruling class to be able to hide behind "the people" as a whole. It's completely -- for all practical purposes -- removed the threat of revolution that was the only real check their power ever saw.

They've exploited people's willingness to be bought off.

It is a sad situation, to be sure, but it does not have to continue.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

They are my employees, not my rulers.

Counterfactual (as even the most cursory of experimentation can demonstrate), but a very useful myth for those who rule.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Counterfactual (as even the most cursory of experimentation can demonstrate), but a very useful myth for those who rule.

No. I pay their salaries.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

No. I pay their salaries.

So do serfs pay their king's salary. The fact that you pay for something doesn't mean that it belongs to you.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

So do serfs pay their king's salary. The fact that you pay for something doesn't mean that it belongs to you.

The government does indeed belong to me, and to all of us.