You've gotten lots of explanations of how it would work.

Voluntary transactions.

What you haven't gotten is details of exactly WHAT WILL HAPPEN, which is a totally different thing.

Biologists will tell you how evolution works. They won't (and CANT) tell you what will happen in the future, what species will evolve, etc when we let the chips fall where they may.

Do you consider this some sort of indication that the theory of evolution "can't work"?


Unfortunately, there isn't much else in your posts on which to focus, and it's not exactly clear when you're trying to be humorous (hint: you're not very good at the humor part).



When has this been ignored? I'm on the record as saying that patents are incompatible with the ideas of voluntary transactions.

Whether these "will be" issued or not, I can't say. I'll tell you that I won't do that.

Quote:

I ask you if you would want 20 different companies running power lines and water pipes all over the place, and you just ignore it

Because it's a meaningless question. We probably have 20 different companies running power lines "all over the place" if you look at a large enough place. It's just like me asking you if you want your state to look like north korea. You're painting some goofy, ridiculous scenario, and asserting that it is what I'm advocating. It's a strawman. And you trying to tell me to ignore the "ridiculous" parts of your post, but then you complain when the crazy parts get ignored.

So it's OK to screw me on it? You probably wouldn't notice if your bank took a couple of extra bucks out of your account each month. It's not worth wasting your time over.

No, once again you just made a bunch of assumptions that because government does X currently, there's no other way to do it.

There's no reason to think that in an AC world you'd see the same type of development that you see currently in, say, a typical suburb. You *might* see, for example, more planned communities that functioned like co-ops, with collective ownership of the utilities inside the development. You might see more dense urban development (like all the enviro-wackos like). Who knows? Oh, that's right, you know, because people are dumb, and without government telling them about things like toilets, they'd still be pooping in their pants.

This is a useless definition of monopoly.

The marginal cost of an oil painting is about $10 (canvas + paint). Some ****** bought a picasso recently for $104,000,000.

Why would you say these are close to a monopoly? Not just because of their brand recognition, I would hope.

I would pay more than $15 for a picasso any day of the week.

The next question, of course, is what should be done to remedy this loss? I know you want to avoid this sort of discussion but this is really the only interesting part.

I have no idea what should be done about it. There are a number of alternative (doing nothing is one of them). We could look at the costs and benefits of each action. Without knowing the preferences of the actors in the economy there is no way to say what woudl give them the greatest social welfare. I do know that a monopoly that is able to perfectly price descriminate gives the same level of output as perfect competition.

edit to add: I am curious how you are going to produce a Picasso for sale at less than the current going rate.

But there were other factors that went into the production, so you're ignoring some factors that go into the marginal cost.

And it seems to me that saying Picasso has a monopoly on Picasso paintings isn't a ridiculous statement.

I missed this part the first reading. I am guessing they are close to a monopoly. I might be wrong, but I am speculating when a brand name becomes another term for the product it is because they have a huge market share.

Not to nit, but government itself isn't a distortion, it's what it does. That's probably what you meant though.

Well, there are other factors besides the cost of pumping out CDs and distributing them in teh cost of software, but you felt fine ignoring those.

Picasso could have churned out hundreds or thousands of copies of guernica for just a few bucks per copy.

It's not ridiculous. It's just useless in the context of this discussion.

I never said anything about living in the same city/state/country.

C'mon. Picasso would be the purest monopoly ever. Labor is a factor of cost of goods sold. Picasso didn't earn minimum wage. He had absolute price control. If he worked one hour, he could charge $1,000,000. You either pay it, or you don't get a Picasso. There are not substitutes for a Picasso. He had absolute control of pricing and absolute control of access to the product. I really never thought of the that example. But it is perfect. And it is a perfect monopoly. It is why people pay $100,000,000+ for 1 painting.

You could say "well you could buy a Van Gogh instead". Ok, I'll give you that no monopoly would be possible here with Voluntary Transactions. You could just choose not to buy paintings. (Believe me, I didn't want to type that sentence).

So, the only monopolies in AC would be found with goods like water and land which would have no substitutes. There might be others like seed monopolies to grow food on your plot of land which you'd have to till if someone already monopolized the meat and fish market.

Wait. So by this Voluntary Transaction paradigm you would also be saying that the only monopolies are coercive ones. So AT&T wouldn't be a monopoly because you could choose not to pay for it. The only monopoly in AC land would be those directly funded with taxes like schools, police, military, etc. Even electric would not be a monopoly because you could choose not to pay for it. Sewers would be a monopoly as it is coercive and paid for with taxes.

Is this right with Voluntary Transactions?

Anyway, no patents would mean very little incentive to innovate. Who is going to spend time and money to design, develop, and produce something if someone else can buy the first one, copy it, and sell it too? It would likely be the worst thing about AC, besides the smell from no toilets and no sewers. You would eventually get these things from the free-market I guess, but it would take longer without patents.

It wouldn't matter if you knew about toilets or not. With no patents and no sewers, you'd be crapping in a bucket, or in your pants like you suggested. No, thanks. I like my Picasso right above my toilet.

YES, exactly my point. Using this effectively trivial definition of the word doesn't advance the discussion at all.

Yes, and it creates a HUGE deadweight loss, doesn't it?

What? How does the fact that water has no substitute get you to finding a monopoly on water?

No, this is again a useless definition. A different definition, but still useless.

Who said you could do that? There are voluntary solutions to such problems, they've been discussed many times in this forum, even in threads you've participated in. Many such solutions are actually already in use!

Yes, yes. On the other hand, the worst part about living under a state is having to go to all of the parades.



Does anyone still have that "Assert Your Way to Victory" book image?

*sigh*. What costs? Please also note that I was talking about the MARGINAL cost.

How long would it take him to make the painting? How much do you think he would value his time? (I'm assuming he actually paints them, and doesn't lithograph them or something like that)

well, you brougt up picasso, and said look! this looks like a monopoly per my definition. And I said, yes, because it is. Maybe Picasso could have churned out the paintings, but he has a monopoly on how Picasso utilizes his time.

I see that you were saying the same now. I just got used to figuring that you thought the opposite of whatever I thought.

Sorry, I meant to also say that someone had absolute control of it too.

I was initially operating under the belief (mistaken maybe) that you didn't believe monopolies could exist in AC, due to Voluntary Transactions and no coercive taxation and monopoly. Is that not the basic distinction between voluntary and coercion, or no?

Here you are a flat out liar. Are you still beating your truth? (Relax jk).

No, I don't think I participated in any threads that dealt with patents, until reading the IP thread a few minutes ago. The whole patent question that I raised with VHawk got me thinking that I'd find answers in there. I did. Sort of. Maybe it was Elwood or someone who pointed out that use agreements to prohibit reverse engineering would be impractical and almost impossible to enforce. I agree. Cite for "many solutions now in use". No broken links or phantom articles please.

WTF. That's twice in one post that I can agree with you 100%. I must be sick or tired. I despise parades. I will even agree that they are a gubment conspiracy to let horses crap all over the street, waste my time and tax dollars, and make me laydown in front of the nearest float.



Is that Bush in that pic? Or, is it you? (PVN)? Who was that Okie guy who beat that Federal building?
I don't need to read no stinkin book to know how to do that. I am obviously learning from the King Assertard.



What is the "Dark Side" and Why Do Some People Choose It?

Picasso would generate basically no dead weight loss. If you are willing to buy a Picasso for $500k and he was willing to paint one for $500k (or marginally less) it would get painted. The only way it wouldn't get painted is if the potential buyer values it less than Picasso's opportunity cost of painting it.

Dead weight loss occurs when there is a price I would be willing to buy your goods and you would be willing to sell your goods and for some reason we do not make a trade.

You've just given two incompatible statements.

THe example I gave earlier (I'm willing to pay $100 for a picasso, which is higher than his marginal cost, but lower than his opportunity cost) fits your first definition, but misses the second because you've swtiched and now you're using his willingness to sell as the criteria.

By definition his marginal cost includes his opportunity cost. He would have a "willingness to sell" anytime the price exceeded his marginal cost of producing another one. There is quit a difference between "accounting costs" and "economic costs."

This is absolutely true. I used the term "cost of goods sold", an accounting term, when I meant, and should have used, the term "marginal cost", an economic term. I don't think that my mistake would have changed any of my conclusions, but thanks for pointing it out.

is there somewhere to go to see how everything works in AC Land? I'm specifically looking for courts and also stuff about patents/intellectual property rights, etc.

And what about traffic violations? Will there be any policing of the roads?

Have you ever been thrown out of a bar?

Not an ACist, although I am very sympathetic to the concept, but this is unbelievable that you guys have to answer the same questions over and over and over again.

I think you guys should come up with some basic answer similar to PVN's hotdog example that you could just copy and paste to answer these questions. I personally like the evolution comparison.

Short answer to these though from what I know. IT DEPENDS. Do you want to live somewhere they police the roads? Great, do it. Find similar people and make your community one with traffic police.

My contribution to the Monopoly discussion?

OK, I finally have come up with one monopoly which is (or was) 100% financed by the government and undeniably beneficial to not only Americans but to the entire planet: NASA.

Space exploration and landing on the moon have given us rockets, satellites, satellite imaging, communication satellites, weather forecasting, planet mapping, and the potential ability to avert a planet ending asteroid collision to name a few. Not sure but I think satellites are used for oil exploration and a host of other geologic investigations.

Maybe someone can better flesh out the benefits of space exploration because just about the only thing I remember from Astronomy 101 is that Astronomer and Alchemist Tycho Brahe got his nose sliced off in a drunken Christmas party brawl in 1566 (the fight was over who was the best mathematician). Tycho's Crater on the moon can be seen through a telescope.

Anyway, had it not been for JFK and NASA, I doubt that we would have communication satellites or any of the other benefits. Maybe another president or another foreign government would have seen fit to explore space, but I highly doubt that any private AC company would have figured it profitable to blast off into space.

NASA's funding is minor compared to the rest of our budget and as a percentage of our total economy. You could hardly argue that NASA hurts our economy.

PVN, did they eat hot dogs during that lunar landing?

ACers, have at it.

Tycho Brahe (Danish)


Tycho's Crater on the Moon

Another government monopoly would be Nuclear Development. No way would AC have funded Nuclear Research. We'd have no nuke power now. Maybe 1,000 years hence, but not now.

You should note that gubment turned over the research and use to private companies. They effectively busted up their own monopoly. Chalk another one up for big bad gubment intervention.

First off, it is absolutely HILARIOUS that you are proudly touting NASA as your great success. Second, I have no idea why you are having a hard time finding monopolies that are due to the government: nearly everything the government DOES is a monopoly, they have a monopoly on criminal justice, they have a monopoly on dangerous chemicals, on drugs, on MANY things.

And third, we are back to having your cake and eating it too. Is AC fatally flawed because "ZOMG what are you going to do about all the nukes" or is it fatally flawed because "ZOMG you wouldnt even have nukes in AC?"