Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Economy

yet there exist non profit corporations or similar, if the government dissapear good people may decide to organize and fill the vacuum.

I read the logic of political survival, great book.

I have no doubts the best government is the one they concluded, but even that government may be a danger to other countries (some wars of agression have been democratically aproved).

And the private sector means not evil corporations, but any one of us as consumers and producers.

As I said, most of the arguments are in Man, Economy and State plus Power and Market.

Before reading that book I consider the state a necessary evil, now I am not so sure if it is "necessary".

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano
Quote from Stef on September 4, 2020, 11:15 pm

I read the logic of political survival, great book.

I have no doubts the best government is the one they concluded, but even that government may be a danger to other countries (some wars of agression have been democratically aproved).

You're truly a man of wisdom, Stef!

Quote from Stef on September 4, 2020, 11:15 pm

And the private sector means not evil corporations, but any one of us as consumers and producers.

Absolutely, absolutely, it's a left-wing distortion to see corporations as evil.

Still, we could argue that once bottom line is one of the top priorities, most of often the top priority, plus when your consumers are a bunch of random, nameless people... That's a recipe that doesn't usually get the best out of people.

It's that "may" that leaves

Quote from Stef on September 4, 2020, 11:15 pm

Yet there exist non profit corporations or similar, if the government dissapear good people may decide to organize and fill the vacuum.

Yeah, it's that "may" that I'm not too confident about.

The way I see it, people are your best friends. But under some circumstances, they can become your worst enemies.
A supra-partes government helps to expand the rewards for collaboration -friends-, and discourage the opportunities for defecting -enemies-.

That being said... I'm also open to change my mind. And I'll definitely look into the book you mention, and thank you for the advice. I'm very happy to see it's available in audiobook, so I added it to my reading list.

The tragedy of the commons problem: governments help solve it

Another "plus" for governments (or any body that can enforce rules and regulations).

When people have access to finite resources, as it's the case for many of the world's resources, everyone has an incentive to take as much as possible -see the Easter island history-.

That's where a government can step in and do what's good for everyone, rather than allowing everyone to rush towards future poverty and dejection.

The environment, and environment-related regulations, are an example of helpful government intervention.
Preserving wildlife is another.
And so is global warming. People complain that we're not doing enough, I don't know about that. But for sure we wouldn't have done anything without governments and international agencies to coordinate governments' efforts.

Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

The Tragedy Of The Commons Problem: Governments Help Solve It

one of the worst cases is when government owns a good and then lease it, cause then corporations will exploit it to the fullest with no care of the future preservation of the good, and they have a limited time to do so.

Or if the politicians in turn do something to make sure the good will "explode" when it is in the hands of the next government if they think the opossition will win in the next elections, cause voters may consider guilty the actual government and not the preceding ones who really planted the seeds of destruction.

Cool the book exist as an audiobook, hope you enjoy it!

 

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano
Quote from Kellvo on September 4, 2020, 6:17 pm

Government is a tool used by those who inevitably have self-interest at heart; while it can benefit the masses, it can easily be turned against them as well. It can be used for robbery as Anon said, as well as provide a structure for win-win solutions as Lucio shows.

(...)

Independence starts with strong individuals who take responsibility for bettering their lives; conversely, totalitarianism begins when individuals are weak and look to a strong 'other' to save them instead of having faith in themselves.

Government has its uses, but it behaves like any other organism; it inevitably seeks to propagate itself, often at the cost of others. It's up to individuals to be as strong and self-reliant as they can, while seeking mutual cooperation from a position of strength, and have the will and means to make sure the government continues to hold up its end of the bargain as well.

Great message, Kellvo.

I'm largely in line with what you say.

Governments can go both ways: taking value, or adding value.
Since, like anything else, it's comprised of people who are largely driven by self-interest, it's important that the self-interest of those in charge of that government align with the population (not to say there is no individual who'd serve the people even at a personal cost, but you just shouldn't count on that to happen).

And I also agree with the ultimate individuals' responsibility.
That's why I'm not willing to accept a view that frames me as oppressed by taxation or governments -as much as I'd always reject complaining and/or feeling victim of a "feminized" society, to go back to a previous topic-.

Stef has reacted to this post.
Stef
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on September 4, 2020, 4:44 pm

“the robbery analogy doesn't hold in my opinion. Taxes are an exchange.”

 

If there is no choice in the matter I wouldn’t call it an exchange, because exchanges by definition always happen in mutual agreement, otherwise f.e. rape would count as an exchange too (and aparently there are rape-victims who got an orgasm during rape, yet that doesn’t mean rape were aokay or that they benefitted from it whatsoever).

 

Or if a carjacker takes your car and gives you a bike and a banana in return, it doesn’t become a valid “exchange” just because you got something rather than nothing.

 

The coercion is precisely the difference between voluntary funding and getting robbed or consensual sex and rape. Everything circumstancial can be exactly the same, and the coersion immediately changes the whole thing in the most fundamental way to something extremely evil and criminal.

 

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on September 4, 2020, 4:44 pm

but being part of a huge society also comes with its advantages.”

 

Well I would say what is called “government” isn’t society, it’s a self-proclaimed ruling class dominating a mass of people, while claiming it where of the benefit of the people being exploited and bossed around.

(“Humans can’t rule themselves, so humans obviously need a few rulers out of this group of humans who can’t rule themselfes, who now allegedly have the right to rule over everyone at once, not just themselfes.

Also humans can’t wait to commit evil, and also can’t wait to vote for politicians to forcibly stop them from doing evil.”).

 

But apart from that, advantages compared to what?

I don’t think a mass of people that isn’t dominated and ruled by some tyrants were a bunch of caveman unable to organize and achieve anything, not even the basics. It might be exactly the opposite.

 

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on September 4, 2020, 4:44 pm

You can for example spend your whole life without caring about politics, laws, and law enforcement and someone else will still do it for you.”

 

We already touched on this very important topic over in the ‘Where to live’-thread, and with regarding traveling and Singapore as an example, I don’t know how you possibly could -spend your whole life without worrying about "laws" and "law enforcement"- when you can get literally caged for a decade(!) if you happen to have traces of THC in your system (according to their test).

 

You can also get ridiculous amounts of money extorted if you feed some pigeons or connect to a WLAN without explicit permission, or simply were gay. I think you have to worry very much and be extremely aware of what not to do.

 

You are getting bossed around up to the most ridiculous aspects of your life, f.e. the choice of color of the plant in your cigarette:

yellow/brown → “all fine”,

chunks of green → “fucking criminal, now up in the cage with you”.

 

The exact amounts of totalitarianism might vary slightly depending on where you are exactly in the world, but the general severe oppression in principal is literally everywhere.

 

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on September 4, 2020, 4:44 pm

Mitigation of business cycles and financial crisis (without central banks' intervention many financial crises would have been far worse)”

 

That’s what they claim, but how exactly do you know that were actually true?

Don’t get me started on the fraud of Fractional Reserve Banking or the scam that is inflation (if you print money you get caged, if they do it, it’s them doing you are favour and a solution to finincial crises I guess – (I might be misrepresing what you said or meant though)).

 

The infrastructural basics you named are there because otherwise there wouldn’t be a society to exploit in the first place. It doesn’t make sense to not feed or clothe a slave (or give them health-care and distractions), because they won’t be able to do work efficiently otherwise.

 

Of course it also makes a lot of sense to indoctrinate the slave so they believe they were actually "free". I think one can't possibly be more severly enslaved conceptually than that, becouse it is physical and mental and (slightly) veiled at the same time.

 

And the politicians don’t provide those, what they do is force people under the threat of severe violence*, to give them any amount of money they demand (and constantly increase these demands of course), and then spend that robbed money – and then of course take credit for what they bought with other peoples’ money, as if they were the source for it.

 

*You either comply or get killed – with many levels of aggressiveness in between from stern letters, to getting caged.

But the always underlying threat and maximum escalation that eventually will be reached if you defend against their aggression, is always death, even if it’s a parking ticket.

If that’s not one being oppressed than I don’t know what is (of course it can get even worse than that).

 

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on September 4, 2020, 4:44 pm

Organized responses to crises (for all the mishandling of Covid, do you think it would have been better without any national and international organization? I don't think so)”

 

According to their own numbers it is estimated that because of the “lockdown measures” more than 100 Millions are now or will soon be, at immediate risk to starve to death.

That isn’t taking into consideration the amount of increases in suicides, drug addictions, poverty, domestic-violence, and needless suffering in general.

 

But more fundamentally, why would one believe what the TV tells one about the newest paper-thin veil they hide their further increase of totalitarian oppression behind.

All one needs to know is that the “solution” to terrorism/war on drugs/covid/whatever happens always to be – oppress the masses even more severly (“for their safety”). Such a coincidence.

 

Shove constant hysteria down their throat, force them to wear muzzles, lock them in their home, demand they get tested by getting a stick shoved up their nose (the virus is so dangerous and deadly you need to get tested to "know" you have it), have a gun-shaped temperature-scanner pointed to their forehead whenever they enter a building, increase surveillance even more, etc. etc.

 

It’s orgasmic for the fascist control freaks and they have every incencitive to make that stuff up from scratch. Wouldn’t be the first time, would it (“weapons of mass destruction”, all kinds of false flags, etc. etc.).

 

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on September 4, 2020, 4:44 pm

A supra-partes government helps to expand the rewards for collaboration -friends-, and discourage the opportunities for defecting -enemies-.”

 

Well I’m pretty sure that’s not true for the “governments” lead by scum like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc., etc.

Many of the most brutal regimes in the disgrace that is human history have been democracies, Hitler for example was democratically "elected".

If that doesn’t count against democracy (mob rule) I don’t know what does. What else could be needed?

 

And one idiot like Hitler or Stalin isn’t even particularly dangerous on their own, but indoctrinated masses falling for these psychopaths and blindly obeying their insane orders (“just doing my job”) because they call themselfes now “government”/”authority” is what is responsible for the biggest amount of human suffering – by far.

 

Further:

  • Without “governments”, who will build the concentration camps?
  • Who will wager (world-)wars, kill tens of millions and bomb cities into ruins and whole regions into the stoneage, and torture people in facilities like guantanamo?
  • Who will cage peaceful people minding their own while smoking leaves?

 

How could private criminals on their own ever achieve anything even remotely close to these atrocities?

 

Stef has reacted to this post.
Stef

the austrians like mises almost prove that economic crises are always caused by government and their banker friends.

Quote from Anon on September 5, 2020, 10:13 am

We already touched on this very important topic over in the ‘Where to live’-thread, and with regarding traveling and Singapore as an example, I don’t know how you possibly could -spend your whole life without worrying about "laws" and "law enforcement"- when you can get literally caged for a decade(!) if you happen to have traces of THC in your system (according to their test).

Anon,

You make some great points.

Just a few clarifications:

  • Going your life without caring about politics: What I meant by "I can go my all life without caring about politics and public goods" is that even while I don't vote and actively contribute to making political decisions on spending, roads are still being built, criminals are still locked and prosecuted, and kids are getting an education in school. Sure there are some areas of the world where laws are being stupid, but you can always avoid those areas. That'sswhat I mean by freedom. If we lived in anarchy, I'd have to probably spend much more of my time worrying about all that stuff that the government is doing also on my behalf.
  • Exchange VS theft: Look, on the exchange part, you're largely right. It's an imposition. Still, I think that you are getting far more back than "a banana and a bike".

Can anarchy even exist?

Personally, I don't believe anarchy can even exist.

Eventually, proto-forms of governments would start evolving.

Go to any remove tribe, and they almost all have some forms of decision-making councils.
Even the ones that don't have any, they still have social pressure, social status, and ostracization as a tool of punishing value-takers and anti-social individuals.

So at that point, the question becomes: do I want a government of some random dudes I don't elect, a group of elderly tribesmen, a king, or do I go for a democracy where the president is sharing power with a parliament, is bound by a constitution of check and balances, and where anyone can be voted out?

I'll go for the later.
That's why, in my opinion, removing a democratic government would only replace with a (likely) poorer form of government.


What it boils down: worse or better with a government?

Maybe one way of making this debate simple is to get to the bottom line.

Such as:

Would you, we, the world, or most pepole be better off without governments and/or international organizations?

My answer is: it depends on the type of government.

For you and Stef, it seems like you think that any type of government is value-taking (correct me if I'm wrong).

That's where we differ on this topic.
If we're talking about democracy, then I think that governments add lots of value.
Thye provide some important services that private companies wouldn't provide, they uphold basic and inalienable human rights (very important), they help to negotiate diverging interests peacefully (courts of law), increase the scope of collaboration, and limit the scope of cheating/defecting*.

Even if an asshole goes to the government, in a strong democracy you still keep your basic rights.
And the machine keeps working largely unaffected.
Think about that, the biggest asshole could get to power, you are free to call him an asshole anywhere you want and he still couldn't do much about it.
Could you say the same without a government?
I'm not sure about it.

It's not smooth sailing, or like it will always be good forever.
But it's up to each one of us to make sure the balance remains positive.


*Exceptions and specific cases of government failures do apply.

 

Stef has reacted to this post.
Stef
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

oh I agree with the statement that government provide some value, yes they do, a net value is what I have my doubts about, and I am not sure why, if the need exist and people will pay for it, we need government to do it.

But at that guys like Rothbard are way better than me, they  give examples of many thing we assume that are impossible or impractical without government, and then how they have been done better by non government historically, or why not even the perfect government can do it better than a properly organized private sector.

before reading those books I also was convinced that government was a necessity, now i am not sure anymore.

.

 

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on September 5, 2020, 11:07 am

"Anon,

You make some great points.

Just a few clarifications:

    • Going your life without caring about politics: What I meant by "I can go my all life without caring about politics and public goods" is that even while I don't vote and actively contribute to making political decisions on spending, roads are still being built, criminals are still locked and prosecuted, and kids are getting an education in school. Sure there are some areas of the world where laws are being stupid, but you can always avoid those areas. That'sswhat I mean by freedom. If we lived in anarchy, I'd have to probably spend much more of my time worrying about all that stuff that the government is doing also on my behalf.
    • Exchange VS theft: Look, on the exchange part, you're largely right. It's an imposition. Still, I think that you are getting far more back than "a banana and a bike"."

 

These were some helpful clarifications and now I see your point a lot more clearly.

We still disagree, but I think it might have to do with our respective perceptions of what alternative solutions for human organisation would look like and how easy they could be implemented – the actual opportunity costs of it all.

 

Of course, strictly practically speaking, staying in central europe is likely a lot less troubling than staying in North Korea, but I think their difference is only a matter of degree, not in principal.

 

And that primitive societies can be very authoritarian or cruel is very possible, I don’t know for sure but it’s indeed likely.

 

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on September 5, 2020, 11:07 amThat's why, in my opinion, removing a democratic government would only replace with a (likely) poorer form of government.”

Certainly a very real possibility and I’m sure it happened through history.

 

And as long as people only argue about who should sit on the throne to rule everyone else instead of questioning the validity of the throne and it’s inherent aggressive violence itself, it won’t change anytime soon.

 

Though if the people stopped thinking they would have a duty to obey the threats of politicians sitting in this glorified chair, it would all collapse (at least in America where not only the politicians enforcers are armed), as one needs severe deception to trick such huge amounts of armed people into obeying unjustified demands, violence alone could not be enough on it’s own, if the amount that even passively resist reaches a certain threshold.

 

If 300 Million Americans, many of them armed enouth to share weapons with their unarmed neighbors, simply saw that they shouldn’t give their money to the IRS, 100.000 IRS-guys could do absolutely nothing against it, even when all of them were armed as well. Their threats only work if a few individuals resist, and then they go full force to make a case out of it.

 

It would be the best and easiest kind of revolution, just ignoring the self-proclaimed rulers and their mercinaries out of existence without any violence at all (and making them accountable for the actual crimes they committed).

 

 

Thinking further:

And the countless Americans now having much, much more money (and time!) could freely decide what to do with all their money and could fund all kinds of things they seem impartant or simply like, without any garbage restrictions or money getting lost in unnecessary bureaucracy or corruption, or a currency that constantly gets weaker and weaker and even crashes, as if it were a natural thing for a currency.

It makes sense to assume that they would rather soon focus on the very basics, and as such may:

 

  • organize a purely protecting (defensive) “police” that helps people in need of protection and investigates and solves actual crimes (that had a victim), that also compete with each other for “customers”

 

(if they need to charge, though it may be solved through a bit of funding alone, or be already in place (weapons and people willing to protect their community, maybe even for free, like it is already the case with many firefighters))so nobody needs to worry about getting robbed

 

(even though robbery is unlikely to happen in the first place if basic needs are met and a large amount of the population is armed,

because even an 80 year old bystander could easily stop a 200-pound mugger with a weapon, and the thug knows that too, and that’s also the reason amok-shootings happen mostly in schools and malls and not gun-ranges, because schools and many malls are gun-free zones and the victims there can’t defend, which makes them an ideal target),

 

  • build a network of truly neutral and fair mediators/judges for all kinds of cases when conflict or crime arose – mediators/judges that compete with each other (instead of a monopoly nobody can avoid) and receive open, accessible reviews from both parties for their approach on justiceso nobody needs to worry about injustice anymore,

 

  • help local people in need (who will be a lot fewer in numbers because of the loss of all kinds of “taxes” and regulations), without the politicians threats people can even build their own shelter in unused land etc.,

 

  • build a society-wide basic safety-net of main ressources considering food, water, shelter, electricity, communication, healthcare, transportation, etc.so poverty and sickness isn’t a threat anymore (as everyone would benefit from it at a large scale as you already explained in another context, and even greedy or stupid people would very quickly realize that for sure),

 

  • restore the rotten roads/infrastructure in the area, etc.

 

  • And if all the basics are cared for, then what?

People will likely build truly colaborative and impressive projects nobody could do now because of stupid restrictions, or would now have the time nor money to fund (instead of wars f.e.), like widescale automation as much as possible to free people of the need to work and share the remaining fraction among the whole mass of availible people, amusement parks/adult playgrounds, recreate zeppelin-traveling, beautiful gardens, etc. etc.

 

(that this will very likely happen and much more can easily be derived from the amount of software people write in their (now) spare freetime without charge, for everyone to use and distribute; or content on the internet in general of course)

 

This were a pretty free society. And these are only a few easily thinkable approaches, but who knows what others may would come up with, and I’m pretty sure that this is what we all are constantly being robbed of.

 

None of these listed things requires being ruled over by some parasite against one’s will, in fact it’s absolutely diametrical to it, because the ruler needs all kinds of instigated conflicts and problems to drag out* and pseudo“justify” their existence, otherwise people might get too actualized or have too much time and start to think “Do we need those parasites claiming our wealth for themselfes?”.

 

*Was “war on terrorism” or “war on drugs” ever solved – and will it ever be?

 

Of course that also doesn’t mean that crime or conflicts or stupidity will be completely eradicted, it likely never will, but compared to now it would certainly look like an actual utopia. There wouldn't be an incencitive to have large amounts of naive or stupid or dependent people anymore.

 

Regarding a common concern – “freeloaders”: the big difference would be that the freeloaders aren’t sitting on the top robbing everyone without anyone being able to intervene anymore, but only a few people that will be no problem at all. People mostly want to work and contribute, especially for causes they deem important, and this will only increase without any artificial limitiations placed on them to not let society prosper “too much”.

 

That is what they mean when they say “without “government”, there will be chaos”.

In a way that’s even true, especially for the controllers, the only ones that wouldn’t gain from it (though wouldn’t loose out either, if they weren’t criminals), but it’s a constructive and impressive “chaos”, not a warzone-type chaos that “government”-thugs cause the moment some megalomaniac commands massmurder and -destruction again.

 

And deep down everyone is aware of these things -at least to some degree-, that’s why nobody ever says:

“I just spontaniously decided to donate 10.000$ to the IRS, because why only always pay the bare minimum amount of my “fair share”, it’s for a good cause after all! The IRS is a totally trustworthy organisation with truly valueble approaches and great projects!”

 

Everyone always only pays the absolute minimum, and rather donates to other organisations (even though they may haven’t much left, many still donate, and what would happen if everyone at the same time had much, much more left?)

 

 

But I think our main difference in perspective is -and please correct me if I’m wrong-, that you seem to look at the world and see how it is, and try to make the best of it from a practical point of view, and I’m more like looking at it and thinking how it should and easily could be instead.

 

 

Stef has reacted to this post.
Stef
Quote from Anon on September 5, 2020, 2:11 pm

But I think our main difference in perspective is -and please correct me if I’m wrong-, that you seem to look at the world and see how it is, and try to make the best of it from a practical point of view, and I’m more like looking at it and thinking how it should and easily could be instead.

Yes, correct.

Except that in this case, I'm interested in hypothetical scenarios and possible experiments/case studies as well, since it concerns human psychology, as well as social and power dynamics, I'm also interested in any experiment.

The second difference is on what we believe would happen if we remoed the government.

Both you and Stef seem to believe that people and/or private businesses would step in and do a better job, while society would remain largely peaceful -if not more peaceful-.
While I'm not convinced about that scenario.

Stef has reacted to this post.
Stef
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?
Processing...