Inchoate wrote:
> It's clear 'insurance' in the conventional
> sense won't work because the market is too
> distresed.
Interesting assertion. Anything to back it up?
> 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.
Name three.
> What's interesting is the missed view
> that 'government' IS 'insurance' in a
> very real sense.
And in a very inefficient, violent sense.
> It's a monopoly, it's very pervasive...
Yeah, that makes it attractive. :-D
> ...and it's manages to 'tax' everyone
> at a 'supposedly fair rate'...
And at the point of a gun. Goodie.
> It's equal, it's universal, and if
> applied correctly each individual
> has at least the hope of minimal
> taxes paid.
What has Inchoate been smoking?
> 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.
This is delightfully crazy. First, it gives every other "commercial
enterprise" in the world an enormous advantage over American "commercial
enterprises." Second, it assumes that there is some easily defined
difference between "individuals" and "commercial enterprises." How about
independent CPAs? A movie star? A family having a garage sale before they
move? A family that shops the flea markets and has a garage sale every
weekend? A family that has a garage sale every so often? The home gardener
who sells some of his tomatoes to the neighbors? The kid who sits your baby
or mows your lawn? Please, get real.
> Tax the hell out of business on the
> Internet. It's actually cheaper for all
> concerned.
Really? Cheaper than no taxes at all?
> In my mind...
If only...
> > ...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?
I guess I draw the distinction because I don't like the idea of threatening
to shooting people (or actually shooting them) to make the system work. I
prefer the (free enterprise) carrot to the (government) stick. I'm funny
that way.
> As to the distinction of 'government
> employee' and 'community', you realize
> they shop at the same stores you do?
Uh, yes. And the point...?
> Yes, government has its problems.
> Some because of 'government' some
> because of 'people'.
But government is people. If the people run rampant it's because that's the
way the system (government) is structured.
> Clearly the concept of 'minarchist' is
> fully justified and a laudable goal to
> work for, both for societal as well as
> economic reasons.
Well, when we get there, we can argue about anarchy. In the meantime, we
clearly need to be move further in the minarchy/anarchy direction. I'm glad
Inchoate finally admitted that much.
> 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
Interesting assertion. Pull these out of your ass or what?
> 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.
Really? I live in California and I don't remember any such incident. Maybe
it happened, maybe not. Citation please.
> > > 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.
Patent non-sense and non-sequitur. The distinction we were discussing was
between 2-party and 3-party transactions (the 3rd party being the
"regulator), not between 1-party and n-party transactions.
Self-regulation certainly applies to all 2-party transactions because each
of the two parties controls their own actions. That's self-regulation.
> 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...
And the seller (duh).
> ...the 'market forces' have no direct
> input on individual sales. The 'market
> forces' are the interactions of supply,
> demand, and price.
Wrong again. Market forced are factors in most every transaction. For
example, when two gem dealers in Antwerp seal a deal by shaking hands (or
saying "mozel" in New York) they keep the deal because they will never do
business again if they renege on the deal. In effect, the entire gem market
culture supports and regulates their transaction.
> That is a statistical view, inherently
> non-binding at the individual transaction
> level.
Yeah, tell that to the gem dealers.
> See Hayek for details...
Really? Citation please.
> > > 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.
Quod erat demonstrandum. Inchoate concedes that private mechanism do exist.
The argument that arbitration comes into play only after the transaction
occurs is fatuous in the extreme. For arbitration to occur AFTER a
transaction, it has to have been agreed to as a part of the transaction.
> Not a valid comparison, it is a
> mechanism to deal with exchange
> irregularities.
More illogical hand waving. Most exchanges do not need regulation because
both parties are happy. By its nature any mechanism for regulation only
goes into effect when there is a problem with the exchange.
> Escrows can be done in many ways.
Yes, and they are all voluntary, non-coercive ways. Which was my point.
> 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.
That's not an escrow, that's an exchange. Look it up doofus.
> 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...
In a free market, your three gas companies would be free to cooperate too.
They might jointly own the distribution system, charge each other for
transportation of gas or come up with some other solutions such as bottled
gas vs. buried gas lines. I always amuses appalls me at how unimaginative
those who favor coercion are when it comes to imaging how life would be
without it.
Extra points quiz:
Why did Ford and Chevrolet sell car engines to their competitor, American
Motors?
Why do you see boxcars that say Burlington Northern and MKT being pulled by
Santa Fe locomotives?
Who do you think manufactures the products bearing the "Long's Drugstore"
brand name?
> From what I've seen, C-A-C-L's in
> general don't make it.
"None so blind as those that will not see."
-- Matthew Henry 1662-1714
> > > 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...
Inchoate apparently missed my point entirely. (Gosh, THAT never happened
before!) Why should I hold non-coercive solutions to a higher standard of
proof than he would apply to the status quo? Hardly a level playing field.
Clearly the current system is deeply flawed--he even admits that in his more
lucid moments when his meds kick in. It takes big balls (or morel likely a
lack of intellectual honesty) to require a demonstration "that anarchy,
regulation, profit, and 'best interest of the community' are ALWAYS
commisurate [sic] under the C-A-C-L approach." (My emphasis.)
Oh well, par for the course.
S a n d y
