I am 100% serious. I really, really don't want you to have an iPod.

Come on, one of the most common (incorrect) criticisms of ACists is they assume people are rational.

I said in a post that he should add up all the costs and benefits and see which one is better. he said he did and that AC was, and now what? I said he should share it with everyone.

Well, i guess when I demolish boro's absurd example, you've gotta come up with another absurd example to replace it.

And you said 'of someone else's money'. that has no bearing on your actual utility. I'd want to spend 1MM of someone elses money to stop you from stopping me. i mean I 'really' want to stop you from stopping me. See why it's absurd?

Edit: Nevermind. Not worth it.

Oh, ok, then get back to me when you've done that.

I have done and I can't come up with anything that outweighs that. If you have other numbers you'd like to show me be my guest until then I guess AC is the best solution.

Already did....read the problem.

hint: when we're talking about soceity, I've always said you need to consult all society. I just find it ironic that the ACists have attacked me for saying that what i'm talking about is having a dictator (public goods are provided how *I* think they should be), when in reality that's the furthest thing from the truth. At the same time, they rally behind an example where they allow only one or two people to 'determine' what's best for society.

well, as the sticky says, extreme claims require extreme evidence. Since you're making the claim that AC is better, I'd like to see the evidence please. I'll wait.

(something tells me a *long* time) But right now it's lunchtime!

$2T is my evidence. If you have counter evidence please show it.

So you're claim is the government only is doing one thing? And that ACland is doing nothing?

And you're the one claiming things. i'm the one asking for actual evidence. Onus is on you.

Well you're the one (if you support the state) who wants to forcibly take money of some people and give it to others so that's a dangerous game to play for you. That said what you want me to do is to show you incontrovertibly that some number you yourself admit cannot accurately be calculated is less than another number which cannot be at all calculated? And that's the only way to convince you?

Um, no, we're saying that anyone trying to calculate how much of a good "should" be produced has to encounter these absurdities. The enterprise is doomed.

or just this.

I've made no stand; please do not put words in my mouth, thanks.

You said you made those calculations...which I doubt.

So it makes me wonder why the ACists are so adamant about disproving the existance of public goods, or externalities, or other things when the reason they like AC isn't because of any of that. I mean, it's fine to want something for philosophical reasons, but to deny economic reality becuase of that isn't really intellectually honest, it's becoming beholden to AC dogma.

Um, no. You're just asserting that, without basis in fact.

But until you have a utilitometer, you can't make any objective conclusion from this "consultation." Someone has to pick the "best" utility distribution scheme. Someone has to force people to participate in it (if they don't then we don't get the desired utility distribution, and what good is that?).

You can't have any such utility-maximizing scheme like this without a dictator (of some sort). The fact that it isn't you in particular isn't actually interesting.

lol. Remember this:

So, after you consult society, and get your optimal course of action, then what happens? It just magically occurs all by itself?

WAT

Are you expecting the people who you "consult" with about socially optimal whatevers are all going to have made those calculations, too?

Let me guess, the ones that give answers that don't fit with whatever model you're using will just be dismissed as not having done enough calculation.

Except nobody is adamant about disproving the existence of these things. People have said about 40 xillion times IN THIS THREAD that they exist. How can they NOT exist, especially given our current system which fosters such outcomes? Perhaps you should listen to what people are saying instead of just hearing a couple of words then assuming that you know the rest of what they're going to say.

?

The system of government does not change the way the world works or the definitions of economic terms. You quoted Shane trying to explain that concept, denied that you do it, and then immediately did it again!

The government causes externalities to exist? The government causes "nonrival" as a concept to exist? No, things either have externalities or they don't. They are either rival or nonrival.

There's nothing inherently wrong with saying "Well, that's all true but I don't care, the lesser of two evils is market anarchy"(it's not automatically right, obviously, it's a judgment call), but instead you want to try to discuss issues when you're at a sub-Wikipedia level of understanding of them and claim that if a concept leads to something other than the market uber alles the concept must not exist.

ACists(and Marxists, for what it is worth) have a terrible, terrible time separating normative from descriptive. Even in a thread that specifically tried to avoid it we still end up talking about the evils of coercion and blah blah meow chow, because that is how some of you guys are dealing with the cognitive dissonance that comes from the simultaneous beliefs:
A) that you understand economics
B) that the market produces optimal outcomes
with
C) the fact that someone is describing an economic concept you are unfamiliar with that impugns the efficacy of the market


Borodog and tuba and some other guys keep on trying to circle around the problem by admitting public goods might exist but that the market could try to make them rival, excludable, or provided at the optimal level anyway. And that's seriously missing the point, because the argument isn't that the market CAN'T provide enough flood control, it's that IT WON'T. The market can produce any number of outcomes given the infinite wealth of inputs, but no matter how you set those inputs the market simply does not work for public goods.

This picture sayd its all. We say you can measure the utility of the government providing public goods and the response is "but you can to some degree". Yes in theory I suppose you could argue that socializing the roads is better then having private road builders. Its debateable but lets assume its true, your methodology for determining the value of socializing public goods now becomes "whatever sounds plausible". Plausible to people that are often directly removed from understanding the actual costs of the decisions they are making. So nefarious people can use this to argue for whatever they want.

"You need national defense and bombing Iraqis will make you safer, whats the cost? Oh about a trillion dollars". How can anyone evaluate such large projects when they are so removed from the costs? Streets, ok fine. What about other supposed public goods like education, health care, national defense?

Education and health care are not public goods.

Well, some educational material might be, like broadcast educational television shows.

Perhaps we could select a small group of qualified people to represent our interests. They could meet in a centralized collective decisionmaking body.

I made a hamburger.

When I did that, I did not create the concept of charred meat between two pieces of bread.

Back to that tired non-sequitor, pvn?

If you want to figure out what's best for society, you probably ought to consider everyone on society. Is that a difficult concept?

what answers has any ACist given in this thread, other than 'AC good because me say so?'

then why are people still arguing they don't exist, or are only imaginary, or other such things...

Exactly. There's no way of doing that. We're saying it is not possible in any conceivable way to figure out "what is best for society", so leave people the **** alone.