Why I was wrong about the Atheist death count
This isn't a real response. If you think I'm wrong, give me an argument. Don't just keep asserting your own view. I've given examples of prisoner-dilemma type situations (such as tragedy of the commons, where each user of a limited common good such as water personally benefits from overuse, but if everyone overuses, then everyone is worse off).
Meh, you aren't familiar enough with game theory and economics to support your argument. A free-rider is someone who benefits from a collective bargain made between market participants, but refuses to pay the costs associated with the bargain. For instance, suppose members of a community mutually agree to pay for a police force to enforce local laws. Some members might decide they don't want to pay for a police force though because they'll still get the benefit of the police force even so (since the other members will still be willing to pay). These members are "free-riding" on the agreement of others for a general good without paying the cost.
Principal-agent conflict refer to the common problem where someone hired to carry out a task for another person will often have interests that diverge from the person hiring them and because of information asymmetries, is able to act towards their own interests without the hirer being able to tell.
For instance, dentists and patients often have diverging interests. A dentist wants to make more money, patients want to spend less money. But there is an information asymmetry here - patients have to rely on the dentist to tell them when they need to spend more money on a dental procedure. In other words, the dentist acts as an agent on the patient's behalf, telling them when they need a filling, etc, but also as the person who benefits when the patients needs a filling.
There's plenty out there on how a free market would deal with externalities. But really it would only have to be even with the State solution to be the right choice. And the government has set a very very low bar. I don't see how the free market could possibly do a worse job than government.
I'm not sure what free rider issues you are talking about. And prinicpal-agent conflicts (I really don't know much about this) sounds like it is an issue for State based societies, not free market ones.
As far as optimal goes, I'm not sure maximally optimal solution can exist. But if you are talking about best of the available options, I would obv disagree. The free market out paces throughout history every other option.
I'm not sure what free rider issues you are talking about. And prinicpal-agent conflicts (I really don't know much about this) sounds like it is an issue for State based societies, not free market ones.
As far as optimal goes, I'm not sure maximally optimal solution can exist. But if you are talking about best of the available options, I would obv disagree. The free market out paces throughout history every other option.
Principal-agent conflict refer to the common problem where someone hired to carry out a task for another person will often have interests that diverge from the person hiring them and because of information asymmetries, is able to act towards their own interests without the hirer being able to tell.
For instance, dentists and patients often have diverging interests. A dentist wants to make more money, patients want to spend less money. But there is an information asymmetry here - patients have to rely on the dentist to tell them when they need to spend more money on a dental procedure. In other words, the dentist acts as an agent on the patient's behalf, telling them when they need a filling, etc, but also as the person who benefits when the patients needs a filling.
If you don't own something you have no right to it.
I said very explicitly what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fact that in US common law we have only fee simple property rights in land, not allodial property rights. This is just a fact about the American legal system. You assert that in fact we have allodial property rights, but have given zero legal basis for this claim. As for your AC writers who claim a foundation in common law - show me their defense that according to common law we have allodial property rights in land.
Yes it does. Self-ownership is a moral, not legal, doctrine. Furthermore, there is no general agreement on what it means, what it implies (i.e. many left-libertarians accept self-ownership, but deny that it includes property rights in land), or whether it is true.
On the other hand, the common law tradition of land property rights is much more sophisticated and complex (read a property law textbook for details). It has achieved enough general consensus to be used as the basis for nearly all business transactions in the US. It has an agreed-upon method for resolving conflicts, etc.
I understand their position just fine. They believe a society based on their principles would lead to human flourishing, I think it would lead to violence, poverty, cruelty, and so on.
On the other hand, the common law tradition of land property rights is much more sophisticated and complex (read a property law textbook for details). It has achieved enough general consensus to be used as the basis for nearly all business transactions in the US. It has an agreed-upon method for resolving conflicts, etc.
I understand their position just fine. They believe a society based on their principles would lead to human flourishing, I think it would lead to violence, poverty, cruelty, and so on.
Then why do you support stealing from the state?
Fair enough. People with attitudes like yours are one of the reasons why I support a state, so that people who aren't concerned with other people's property rights are punished if they try to steal from them.
This isn't a real response. If you think I'm wrong, give me an argument. Don't just keep asserting your own view. I've given examples of prisoner-dilemma type situations (such as tragedy of the commons, where each user of a limited common good such as water personally benefits from overuse, but if everyone overuses, then everyone is worse off).
Meh, you aren't familiar enough with game theory and economics to support your argument. A free-rider is someone who benefits from a collective bargain made between market participants, but refuses to pay the costs associated with the bargain. For instance, suppose members of a community mutually agree to pay for a police force to enforce local laws. Some members might decide they don't want to pay for a police force though because they'll still get the benefit of the police force even so (since the other members will still be willing to pay). These members are "free-riding" on the agreement of others for a general good without paying the cost.
Principal-agent conflict refer to the common problem where someone hired to carry out a task for another person will often have interests that diverge from the person hiring them and because of information asymmetries, is able to act towards their own interests without the hirer being able to tell.
For instance, dentists and patients often have diverging interests. A dentist wants to make more money, patients want to spend less money. But there is an information asymmetry here - patients have to rely on the dentist to tell them when they need to spend more money on a dental procedure. In other words, the dentist acts as an agent on the patient's behalf, telling them when they need a filling, etc, but also as the person who benefits when the patients needs a filling.
Principal-agent conflict refer to the common problem where someone hired to carry out a task for another person will often have interests that diverge from the person hiring them and because of information asymmetries, is able to act towards their own interests without the hirer being able to tell.
For instance, dentists and patients often have diverging interests. A dentist wants to make more money, patients want to spend less money. But there is an information asymmetry here - patients have to rely on the dentist to tell them when they need to spend more money on a dental procedure. In other words, the dentist acts as an agent on the patient's behalf, telling them when they need a filling, etc, but also as the person who benefits when the patients needs a filling.
I didn't ask for an explanation of what these mean, I asked you how these are exclusively a free market problem. I am not an economist, but I definitely know more than you do. I don't have the patiences to explain how the free market works to you.
You do realize that we have already tried the whole free market experiment multiple times in the actual real world, right? Everywhere that there is no effective state presence, there is a 100% perfectly free market. The multitude of examples might have worked out to not be complete disasters if a different species tried it. Maybe spiders?
*If you don't already know what **** economicus is, then you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of economics, let alone free markets.
I've given you arguments. And I explained the first time you posted the PD why it was correct. You continue to be purposefully obtuse.
I didn't ask for an explanation of what these mean, I asked you how these are exclusively a free market problem. I am not an economist, but I definitely know more than you do. I don't have the patiences to explain how the free market works to you.
I didn't ask for an explanation of what these mean, I asked you how these are exclusively a free market problem. I am not an economist, but I definitely know more than you do. I don't have the patiences to explain how the free market works to you.
Your response was:
In game theory terms, Hobbes description of a stateless society follows the logic of a prisoner's dilemma, where individuals rationally pursuing their own self-interest act in a way that leads to an outcome that is worse for everyone. A well-known solution to the prisoner's dilemma is for an outside force to punish the prisoners if they defect by more than the threatened prison terms.
This is essentially the solution proposed by Hobbes for the role of the state. He argues that a powerful enough social organization (he refers to it as a "Leviathan") can threaten to punish people who pre-emptively attack others, even if it is done to improve their own chances of survival. This threat, if believed, will lead to a society with less violence and aggression, because you reach an equilibrium where you it isn't rational to pre-emptively attack others for your own survival (since doing so would lead to a worse punishment from the state). Your response was to reiterate that:
After some prodding from BTM, you presented why you think life doesn't follow the logic of a prisoner's dilemma by arguing:
1) In free markets we can communicate and so respond rationally towards others (presumably so as to avoid the worse outcome described in the prisoner's dilemma).
2) It is never rational to take an action that makes someone worse off in a free market.
I responded by pointing out that communication doesn't change the logic of a prisoner's dilemma. Thus, even given that in free markets we can communicate with each other, if we are in a prisoner's dilemma situation then the communication offered by markets won't change what it is rational to do.
My response to (2) is just a disagreement based on examples. I gave well-known examples of how well-functioning markets can fail to reach optimal outcomes, such as tragedy of the commons, free-rider, and principal-agent problems. Free markets are favored by economists (and me) because they provide a mechanism for people who are acting in their own self-interest to act in ways that are broadly socially beneficial. However, there is nothing in capitalist theory that says that market mechanisms can do so in all situations.
Your response:
Here you are giving up on (1) as an argument and just reverting to claiming that prisoner's dilemma are impossible in life.
There's plenty out there on how a free market would deal with externalities. But really it would only have to be even with the State solution to be the right choice. And the government has set a very very low bar. I don't see how the free market could possibly do a worse job than government.
I'm not sure what free rider issues you are talking about. And prinicpal-agent conflicts (I really don't know much about this) sounds like it is an issue for State based societies, not free market ones.
As far as optimal goes, I'm not sure maximally optimal solution can exist. But if you are talking about best of the available options, I would obv disagree. The free market out paces throughout history every other option.
I'm not sure what free rider issues you are talking about. And prinicpal-agent conflicts (I really don't know much about this) sounds like it is an issue for State based societies, not free market ones.
As far as optimal goes, I'm not sure maximally optimal solution can exist. But if you are talking about best of the available options, I would obv disagree. The free market out paces throughout history every other option.
I don't know, I feel like my argument hasn't really been addressed here. I think we are faced with prisoner's dilemmas in politics and society all the time - whenever we have to cooperate with other people in a way that requires us to lower our own weapons. So I'm not persuaded by your denial, especially without any argumentation supporting it.
As for the superiority of markets in solving prisoner's dilemma situations, okay. I support free markets. However, I am doubtful of their ability to solve some of the problems solved by the state, because the solution to the Hobbesian problem is one where a single social organization has a monopoly on violence (otherwise you are still living in a war zone). I'm doubtful that free markets are effective for creating this monopoly and anyway, if markets are successful in creating such a monopoly, I would just call the social organization with that monopoly a "state."
However, mostly what I'm arguing for is the utility of a state. If you think there is a better solution, fine, go for it. But all that is really required for my argument to succeed is for the formation of a state to be an improvement over the status quo. And a society with no power enforcing nonviolence seems worse to me that a society that does have such a power.
............snip.............
You do realize that we have already tried the whole free market experiment multiple times in the actual real world, right? Everywhere that there is no effective state presence, there is a 100% perfectly free market. The multitude of examples might have worked out to not be complete disasters if a different species tried it. Maybe spiders?
...............snip
You do realize that we have already tried the whole free market experiment multiple times in the actual real world, right? Everywhere that there is no effective state presence, there is a 100% perfectly free market. The multitude of examples might have worked out to not be complete disasters if a different species tried it. Maybe spiders?
...............snip
Ants! The answer is Ants!
He isn't being obtuse. You haven't actually made any arguments. A list of claims is not an argument and a repeated list of claims is also not an argument.
You clearly don't understand how a real free market works. You do probably have a halfway decent naive understanding how a free market would work if **** economicus* existed.
You do realize that we have already tried the whole free market experiment multiple times in the actual real world, right? Everywhere that there is no effective state presence, there is a 100% perfectly free market. The multitude of examples might have worked out to not be complete disasters if a different species tried it. Maybe spiders?
*If you don't already know what **** economicus is, then you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of economics, let alone free markets.
You clearly don't understand how a real free market works. You do probably have a halfway decent naive understanding how a free market would work if **** economicus* existed.
You do realize that we have already tried the whole free market experiment multiple times in the actual real world, right? Everywhere that there is no effective state presence, there is a 100% perfectly free market. The multitude of examples might have worked out to not be complete disasters if a different species tried it. Maybe spiders?
*If you don't already know what **** economicus is, then you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of economics, let alone free markets.
Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
You will have to define "100% free market." It isn't a standard economic term, and I am nearly certain that you are not using any terms in the standard way.
Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
Beanie Babies. Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Chile. Most markets in the USA prior to 1934. The list is pretty long, but those are some examples.
Lol. Sorry. I meant unregulated markets. The 100% was a throwaway clause in the sentence. Since you are allowing me to define it, I expect no whining from you.
Beanie Babies. Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Chile. Most markets in the USA prior to 1934. The list is pretty long, but those are some examples.
Beanie Babies. Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Chile. Most markets in the USA prior to 1934. The list is pretty long, but those are some examples.
And can you explain what disaster there was around beanie babies?
I brought up the prisoner's dilemma to explain why I don't accept the NAP. My claim was that in the absence of the state it is sometimes rational to act aggressively towards others for Hobbesian reasons. Essentially, Hobbes argues that, given some plausible generalities about human psychology, in the absence of a state people will exist in a state of insecurity with regards to physical and material safety because they can't trust that other people will not rationally pursue their own self-interest in survival. Given that we can't trust other people in this way, it is often rational to pre-emptively attack them to preserve our survival (which meanst that it is also potentially rational for them to pre-emptively attack you, and so on).
Your response was:
This doesn't show how my argument fails. Instead, you are reasserting that it is rational without a state to follow the NAP and that a state incentivizes you to use aggression. So I responded by using the prisoner's dilemma to illustrate the logic of the argument I'm making.
This doesn't show how my argument fails. Instead, you are reasserting that it is rational without a state to follow the NAP and that a state incentivizes you to use aggression. So I responded by using the prisoner's dilemma to illustrate the logic of the argument I'm making.
In game theory terms, Hobbes description of a stateless society follows the logic of a prisoner's dilemma, where individuals rationally pursuing their own self-interest act in a way that leads to an outcome that is worse for everyone. A well-known solution to the prisoner's dilemma is for an outside force to punish the prisoners if they defect by more than the threatened prison terms.
This is essentially the solution proposed by Hobbes for the role of the state. He argues that a powerful enough social organization (he refers to it as a "Leviathan") can threaten to punish people who pre-emptively attack others, even if it is done to improve their own chances of survival. This threat, if believed, will lead to a society with less violence and aggression, because you reach an equilibrium where you it isn't rational to pre-emptively attack others for your own survival (since doing so would lead to a worse punishment from the state). Your response was to reiterate that:
This is essentially the solution proposed by Hobbes for the role of the state. He argues that a powerful enough social organization (he refers to it as a "Leviathan") can threaten to punish people who pre-emptively attack others, even if it is done to improve their own chances of survival. This threat, if believed, will lead to a society with less violence and aggression, because you reach an equilibrium where you it isn't rational to pre-emptively attack others for your own survival (since doing so would lead to a worse punishment from the state). Your response was to reiterate that:
and
Since the point of my argument was to show that it is sometimes rational to act aggressively in society and that sometimes in life we are in a prisoner's dilemma, I responded:
After some prodding from BTM, you presented why you think life doesn't follow the logic of a prisoner's dilemma by arguing:
Here you present two arguments:
1) In free markets we can communicate and so respond rationally towards others (presumably so as to avoid the worse outcome described in the prisoner's dilemma).
2) It is never rational to take an action that makes someone worse off in a free market.
I responded by pointing out that communication doesn't change the logic of a prisoner's dilemma. Thus, even given that in free markets we can communicate with each other, if we are in a prisoner's dilemma situation then the communication offered by markets won't change what it is rational to do.
Since the point of my argument was to show that it is sometimes rational to act aggressively in society and that sometimes in life we are in a prisoner's dilemma, I responded:
After some prodding from BTM, you presented why you think life doesn't follow the logic of a prisoner's dilemma by arguing:
Here you present two arguments:
1) In free markets we can communicate and so respond rationally towards others (presumably so as to avoid the worse outcome described in the prisoner's dilemma).
2) It is never rational to take an action that makes someone worse off in a free market.
I responded by pointing out that communication doesn't change the logic of a prisoner's dilemma. Thus, even given that in free markets we can communicate with each other, if we are in a prisoner's dilemma situation then the communication offered by markets won't change what it is rational to do.
My response to (2) is just a disagreement based on examples. I gave well-known examples of how well-functioning markets can fail to reach optimal outcomes, such as tragedy of the commons, free-rider, and principal-agent problems. Free markets are favored by economists (and me) because they provide a mechanism for people who are acting in their own self-interest to act in ways that are broadly socially beneficial. However, there is nothing in capitalist theory that says that market mechanisms can do so in all situations.
Here you are giving up on (1) as an argument and just reverting to claiming that prisoner's dilemma are impossible in life.
Here your argument is that the state has worse outcomes than the market.
I don't know, I feel like my argument hasn't really been addressed here. I think we are faced with prisoner's dilemmas in politics and society all the time - whenever we have to cooperate with other people in a way that requires us to lower our own weapons. So I'm not persuaded by your denial, especially without any argumentation supporting it.
I don't know, I feel like my argument hasn't really been addressed here. I think we are faced with prisoner's dilemmas in politics and society all the time - whenever we have to cooperate with other people in a way that requires us to lower our own weapons. So I'm not persuaded by your denial, especially without any argumentation supporting it.
My counter would be:
1. In a stateless society security would still exist. Therefore you still have a high probability of being "punished".
2. In a society you are better off in a group. If you aggress against others you have a high probability of being kicked out of the group. This is how most tribes worked for most of history with great success. So stealing from your neighbor might get you the "stuff", but you are worse off because others will no longer transact with you. So it is not rational.
3. There are plenty of things in life that are not regulated by the state, but we don't see the sort of issues you describe on the whole. For instance, why do people give 2 weeks notice? Why doesn't everyone cheat on their partners? Most of society follows the NAPish philosophy in 90% of their lives with no need for state coercion.
As for the superiority of markets in solving prisoner's dilemma situations, okay. I support free markets. However, I am doubtful of their ability to solve some of the problems solved by the state, because the solution to the Hobbesian problem is one where a single social organization has a monopoly on violence (otherwise you are still living in a war zone). I'm doubtful that free markets are effective for creating this monopoly and anyway, if markets are successful in creating such a monopoly, I would just call the social organization with that monopoly a "state."
However, mostly what I'm arguing for is the utility of a state. If you think there is a better solution, fine, go for it. But all that is really required for my argument to succeed is for the formation of a state to be an improvement over the status quo. And a society with no power enforcing nonviolence seems worse to me that a society that does have such a power.
I get the feeling that you are not a minarchist. But that's really what you have defended. How do you go from a state that only protects property to the one we have?
The time that American went from a nobody to a world economic powerhouse.
That's what you consider to be a downside to the the free market?
And can you explain what disaster there was around beanie babies?
That didn't happen in the 19th century. It happened in the 20th.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE