Evil Avatar  

Go Back   Evil Avatar

View Single Post
Old 03-06-2013, 10:05 AM   #314
Michael Bay Fanboi
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 7,641
(PART 2)

I support instead the individualist ethic, that the rights of the individual cannot be trumped by the desires of the many. Individualism says respect the individual because the many, the group, is composed of individuals. Respect individuals and the group will be taken care of automatically.
And we know this is false and can't work. At the most fundamental level you assume that people respect each other and we know that human nature doesn't work that way.

You have your fiction of universal and unwavering respect and I have my fiction of resource free replicators. Both of us require a flights of fancy for our futures to work.

Okay, so it's great in theory and all, but really, Vallor, it's not possible to implement unless you want to go back to pre-money levels of production which are far less productive, meaning at least half the planet starves.
Technology makes it possible.

Here, I can prove it. This piece by Mises is what destroyed the socialist economic argument,it's known as the Economic Calulation Problem of Socialism.
This is virtually unreadable especially without context. And from the little I was able to glean this passage does nothing to back up your argument.

Without money you don't have prices. Without prices you don't have price coordination within the economy, and without price coordination you have an economy in chaos.
Why? If the things needed for a decent level of living cost no resources to create then there is no reason to attach a price. You only need price if you need money, and my society doesn't need money.

You solve this with the idea of post-scarcity via the magical replicator. I counter with a realistic version of a replicator that still requires inputs and thus will still require prices and thus money.
You also say people will respect each other forever and ever. If you are allowed to base your society on magic that flies in the face of historical documentation (as far back as we can go) then I should be allowed my magic: no resources required replicator.

Yet somehow, given a choice, people risked death to cross the Berlin Wall. Btw, my brother in law grew up east of the Berlin Wall.
Not relevant.

Or we can just print money until the entire society collapses. Except that puts everyone at crisis and poverty.
Also not relevant.

For the hundredth time, there would still be law, police and DRO's. This assumption I think constitutes a strawman of what I'm advocating.
You can't have law without aggression. You can't have free market law without allowing the free market to influence the justice system. People with money are more able to influence the justice system therefore so justice is limited for those with lesser socio-economic means.

DROs? Medaition and arbitration? There is a reason that most corporations and government agencies want to move everything toward arbitration. Even today, before further incentivising them thanks to the free market, they are horribly biased.

In addition your justice system can *and must* be able to agress against people who didn't agree to laws so that breaks another of your most fundamental tenet. There can be no justice without aggression, by definition justice is aggressive because it is retribution and punishment.

You never did address the situation I provided of how a community deals with a member who refuses to pay their "fair" share while reaping the rewards.

By definition? What definition?
The free market is governed by supply and demand. The rich, free the oversight of an authority body, will manipulate this market to their ends, usually to increase their own wealth.

This will come at the expense of people on the lower and middle rungs of the socio-economic ladder. As I understand it the General Equilibrium Theory only applies when the free market is in it's most pristine condition allowing it to get into the state of perfect competition which is a requirement for your society to function. However we know that this would never be the case because there are always parties attempting to taint the marketplace to their own benefit.

I really think you don't understand my position on that at all.
No I get it, and I can appreciated the fiction it is and I can even understand how your fictional society and mine have the same goal of improving the lives of people (though I like the idea of not having to work anymore).

Drug's should not be illegal and money laudering should not be illegal either. So it's not a great example :\
It doesn't matter what should or shouldn't they ARE illegal and there are consequences... unless you are rich. That's what makes it such a great example, it very clearly defines how much more preference the rich get in this society than those lower on the ladder. And this preference will follow into your society because the judges and legal businesses will realize it's more lucrative to be on retainer to rich people than provide fair trials for any number of normal folk.

Who cares about the little stuff. The free market will create the equivilent of the ambulance chaser but when it comes to important proceedings a rich person brings against a little guy you have all but given carte blanche to the rich to aggress against anyone they want to because the Free Market allows them to own the legal system.

Fights between rich people would be epic, but that won't matter to the little guy who just lost everything thanks to how "justice" works in the free market.

It's exactly the opposite. Mine would be the first one perfectly aligned with human nature. It is in each person's nature to control themselves and only themselves, not to be controlled by others.
It is not human nature to universally peacefully co-exist, at least not with some overseeing authority involved. Come on, I shouldn't have to explain basic historical fact to you.

Our current system tries to implement control by others by allowing laws to be made by elites elected by the group.
My system would allow each person to make laws over themselves and self-organize into regions of legal similarity. It would be the most perfect legal order ever created because it empowers to the maximum each person and makes corruption impossible, for each person would make laws for themselves they think best to live under.
No it would be anarchy. No organization, laws made by whim and temper of the day. No ability to hold people accountable because the law is bought and paid for.

Not at all. Since roads will be private there's a number of ways to tackle cost. Most people would probably pay a monthly nominal fee into a pool of local road owners and get free use everywhere. Out of towners might buy day or week passes, etc. Anyone not paying simply can't drive.
Oh, this guy is up-to-date on his road use taxes... I mean fees! Fees! He just doesn't want to pay for the security and overall sanitation efforts that were voted for. He's going to gain the benefits without paying which means everyone else has to shoulder his share. Fine, it's just a little. Then others see that he's getting all the benefits and they figure they can get away without paying too.

Eventually you have a minority of the people paying a majority of the cost for something that benefits the community as a whole. This will cause resentment. Which will lead to pressure to pay, which will lead to aggression to force payment or force movement so they can fill the spot with someone who will pay. A tax by any other name.

And fuck that guy if he can't afford to move or can't find another job. He should have thought about that when he didn't agree to help fund something he didn't want to.

Well, hey, lets just make it clear that this guy isn't covered by the security forces. So now you've aggressed against him by putting his life and the life of his family in direct danger by making him a target.

Here we have a "perfect society" that can't even stand up to something as simple as neighborhood jealousy.

You're talking about the tragedy of the commons. It's solved by simply having no commons, no public areas. You already pay for roads right now, but you pay at a monopoly price and get poor service, because it's a government monopoly. In a free society you'd pay much less for roads, police, courts, everything, and get better service due to competition.
Paying is paying. And forcing someone to pay is agressing AND taxation. This would be 1000000% unavoidable in a realistic exercise of your society. You say I'm not being realistic, Pot meet kettle.

Nah, he could form a new town right there. It's his property, no one can make him leave.
They *can* make him leave by various pressure points. And if he forms his own town (of one house) it isn't going to change how the neighbors feel.

He's still in the middle of their town and receiving the benefits of their security and sanitation without contributing. Not only is he aggressing against THEM by taking advantage, but they are damn sure going to aggress against him until he complies or moves.

Again, private roads, pay for use. If he's not paying monthly for unlimited usage they simply charge him as he tries to use the road like an out-of-towner.
Oh, he's paid up. Are you suggesting they target him specifically for additional fees that ultimately make up for the lack of his contribution to the security and sanitation funds? Sounds like aggression and taxation to me.

Taxation would be illegal in my schema, as with all aggressive coercion.
Unpossible. Even in the very minor example above the solutions are aggress or "tax" (via additional fees targeted just at this guy).

In your theoretical construction of it. But my society does eliminate all aggression by the government against people, and that means it would be better and less frustrating.
A government by any other name is still a government. Even a town hall where everyone has a 1-up vote is still a government. No society can survive without a foundation/framework and enforcement of that framework.

Your ideas don't stand up to basic, demonstrated human behavior. It caters to those on the highest rungs of the socio-economic ladder, and doesn't do anything to actively progress the human condition or set us up for long term success.

The reality of your society is, at best it's just a slight evolution of what we have today. At worst it hands the keys to the kingdom to the richest and everyone else gets to devolve back into serfdom. The thing is, without any governing body, expect the worst (as demonstrated over the entirety of human history) rather than the best.

Last edited by vallor; 03-06-2013 at 10:20 AM..
vallor is offline   Reply With Quote

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:31 AM.