On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> Inchoate wrote:
>
> > C-A-C-L: cryto-anarchic-capitalist-libertarian
>
> As if those were all the same thing...
I'm not implying they are identical, that's why they each get a distinct
listing. However, they do share a certain 'economic' and 'minarchist'
viewpoint with respect to government and economic enterprise. That shared
perspective is what I'm interested in exploring in this example. The
'market' conditions and actions are, at least from my perspective,
identical in this particular discussion. The main point being, remove the
government and put in various free market 'solutions'. It's clear
'insurance' in the conventional sense won't work because the market is too
distresed. It's clear that a simple 'voluntary regulatory body' won't work
because there are ample examples of their abuse for political and economic
gain. So, what else is there? We've discussed David Freidman's 'market
law' proposal and at least demonstrated some short comings as currently
presented. What's interesting is the missed view that 'government' IS
'insurance' in a very real sense. It's a monopoly, it's very pervasive,
and it's manages to 'tax' everyone at a 'supposedly fair rate'
(irrespective of actual government form or goal). It spreads through the
tax system the specific 'damage' of this 'market glitch' to the maximum
number of participants, namely all working individuals. It's equal, it's
universal, and if applied correctly each individual has at least the hope
of minimal taxes paid. To pardon the pun, where's the beef?
For example, I have a beef with the view of 'individual taxation', and
believe in particular that all taxes should be paid by commercial
enterprise. Tax the hell out of business on the Internet. It's actually
cheaper for all concerned. Consider the reduction in cost for the employer
who tracks the various income issues for each employee. Now, throw all
that away and tax the business directly as an adjusted rate (which would
be lower than current in the vast majority of cases - reduced regulatory
staff and legall process costs) and you've got a much more sensible
society. It's really funny that up until the Civil War (Lincoln raises
from the dead again) there were no individual taxes in this country. In
addition, the concept of 'public utlities' being completely free market
with multiple vendors in a given area is absurd. The parallel
infrastructure costs alone would be crippling to the reduced client count
for any individual business. Hardly 'libertarian' views.
In my mind the point is that in reality, whatever system is put in place
it will be abused and the individual will continue to face physical
retribution for supposed wrongs or non-compliance. At least until the
technology reaches a point of 'individual independence', at least to the
size of a hundred thousand to a million. At that point a cross between a
'arcology' and a 'zaibatsu' will form. In effect a 'splinternet', only it
will be a 'splinter society'. A society with sufficient technical prowess
to whoop ass on anybody that fucks with 'em. A good fictional example is
"Schismatrix". Yet, not so culturaly or technologicaly isolated that
commerce (through IP in a vast majority of transactions) of both kinds
can't take place. Cryptography clearly has a place in that society both
inter- and intra- wise. Unfortunately, it's not sufficient in power alone.
> To which Inchoate opined:
>
> > True, but on the other hand, they're not
> > always in sync either.
>
> Nor need they me. Certainly, they are more "in sync" that our current
> system which pits largely unaccountable, self-aggrandizing government
> employees against the "best interests of the community."
Then why were you drawing the distinction as indicative of some special
import?
As to the distinction of 'government employee' and 'community', you
realize they shop at the same stores you do? That the money in your wallet
was held by one of them most likely just a short time before you got it?
Yes, government has its problems. Some because of 'government' some
because of 'people'. Most of the 'government' issues we can do something
about, not that there are that many of them. However, the 'people' issues
are completely running rampant, I agree. They are the hardest to deal with
not because people are 'bad' or 'stupid' but becuase they're myopic.
Solipsism rules the human imagination. Clearly the concept of 'minarchist'
is fully justified and a laudable goal to work for, both for societal as
well as economic reasons. But 'minarchist' isn't 'anarchist' and that
distinction is important. The reality is that 'anarchy' doesn't work
because people aren't built that way. They're not magically going to en
masse begin to behave in some 'economicaly reasonable' manner simply
because 'government' is dead and they're now ruled solely by 'consensual
contract'.
> > The fact is that irrespective of
> > 'anarchy' or not there still has
> > to be some sort of 'regulation' of
> > behaviour.
>
> "Some sort," yes, just not the sort we have now.
Agreed. Whatever sort of 'system' it is must qualify for at least,
economic reality
psychological neutral (eg religion)
minimal cost
minimal access to data, strict 'need to know' basis
minimal of physical coersion
equal protection from abuse (physical or otherwise)
equal opportunity for individual pursuits
> > The question is 'how'? C-A-C-L's claim
> > that the best way is to literaly do
> > nothing in all cases and let the chips
> > fall where they may, irrespective of
> > any issue other than monetary costs.
>
> Choate is very good at beating up his own self-constructed straw men. If he
> can support this view in any of the C-A-C-L mainstream, I'd be VERY
> surprised. (Maybe he "derived" it from the non-aggression principle.)
Ok, let's take an example from a while back. The scenario was,
During an earthquake in California the local authorities stepped in and
put a limit on the cost of water and basic supplies. The general consensus
was that the government was wrong. That the price should have been allowed
to pursue it's 'natural' level. That in fact, if people died because of
it, too bad. That was the natural result of not 'being fit' for the
environment. Economic Darwinianism if you will. There was a recent comment
made just a few days ago in the Mad Cow discussion to something along that
line as well. The reality is that these views do in fact share a common
view with respect to the importance and 'fairness' of 'the market' and
it's 'self correcting behaviour'. We correct the water price imbalance by
reducing the population to a point where it's needs are below the current
supply. Since there is surplus the water will seek a lower and more
'natural' level as a result.
The common solution to the 'utility' solution for all of these is to
reduce it to a strict 'free market' economic decision. I believe that
contextualy this grouping is a fair one.
> > Regulation, simply by it's nature, is
> > the imposition of a 3rd party in a
> > 2-party transaction.
>
> Really? Ever heard of "self-regulation" or market forces?
You don't get to count yourself twice in 'self-regulation', otherwise
even a 1-party exchange becomes a n-party one. The distinction becomes
moot.
There is no 3rd party in a 2 party transaction. In the free market model
the decision to buy or sell lies solely with the purchaser, the 'market
forces' have no direct input on individual sales. The 'market forces' are
the interactions of supply, demand, and price. That is a statistical view,
inherently non-binding at the individual transaction level. All
information transfer and processing is executed PRIOR to the actual
exchange in 'standard' economics. See Hayek for details, I use only one
of his books in all my discussion here so check the archives for its
title.
> > The claim is that irrespective of the
> > policies of this 3-rd party a true
> > 2-party system is always(!) preferable
> > and demonstrably more efficient.
>
> More straw men. The market includes regulator 3rd parties, their just
> private. Ever heard of arbitration, escrows, appraisers?
Arbitration only comes into play if one party is claiming the other party
cheated. Not a valid comparison, it is a mechanism to deal with exchange
irregularities. Escrows can be done in many ways. Let's say I decide to
'escrow' a bag of gold. I show up at the exchange point and you give me an
acceptable amount of pecans in exchange. I take possession of the pecans
and walk you to the 'escrow' site where we dig up the gold.
Is the Earth a 3-rd party? Or simply a step in a protocol? I believe the
latter, over the former. Appraisers are not coersive, they have no active
role in the exchange outside of information transfer, the free market
model allows this as a one mechanism to transfer market behaviour to the
participants. Part of that 'guiding hand' schtick.
> > In addition, there are a host of examples
> > (municipal gas supply for example) which
> > are demonstrably provable to be more cost
> > effective when certain parts of the system
> > are 'shared' by the 'community' on a basis
> > not strictly related to 'profit' but
> > rather 'convenience' and 'cost of
> > operation'.
>
> Straw man. "Shared" and "community" don't require a coercive 3rd party such
> as a government. The market certainly takes into account "convenience" and
> "cost of operation."
It depends, do you require all govenment to be inherently coercive or do
you recognize any form other than anarchy as meeting that goal? It's a
question of axioms. If the market was a true anarchy where there would be
say three seperate gas companies, with three seperate supply systems to
their customers, then we get in the situation where each company must
support a nearly constant cost load (ie construction and maintenance)
irrespective of what sort of government you impliment. There are physical
factors outside the realm of politics (see Feynman's commentary in the
Challenger Report on this point) that cause a true 'libertarian' supply
mechanism to be n times as costly as a single centralized supply
mechanism. Note that this does not in any way effect the play of free
market effects on the supply side. This distinction is a good thing.
>From what I've seen, C-A-C-L's in general don't make it.
> > I believe you're next task is to
> > demonstrate that anarchy, regulation,
> > profit, and 'best interest of the
> > community' are always commisurate under
> > the C-A-C-L approach.
>
> Why? They clearly are not, under our current system.
Uh, ok. If you're tired and don't wanna play anymore...
____________________________________________________________________
The solution lies in the heart of humankind.
Chris Lawson
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
