Castro has passed on

[Mycroft]

Are you in that much need of attention that you have to make a discussion about Libertarianism about yourself instead?

It's very simple. Either you propose market-based resource allocation, in which case there are several points for you to address, or you are not proposing market-based resource allocation, in which case you're not proposing "Libertarianism". Unless it's now suddenly also a "fringe position" in American Libertarianism to propose market-based resource allocation.

Yeah, that's it. I'm in need of attention so I mistook all those references to me as being references to me.

So...completely out of steam now? Or is there something else just as dumb or even dumber you would like to raise just to have something to say?

 

[caveman1917]

Yeah, that's it. I'm in need of attention so I mistook all those references to me as being references to me.

So...completely out of steam now? Or is there something else just as dumb or even dumber you would like to raise just to have something to say?

You should change debating tactics every once in a while. This method of deflecting criticism from something by first defending it, then dissociating yourself from it and then arguing that the criticism is invalid because it doesn't pertain to you personally is getting boring.

And yes, if you do that a lot it comes across as attention-seeking. You know, moving the discussion from "how does a criticism pertain to that which it was leveled at" to "how does a criticism pertain to me"

 

[Mycroft]

You should change debating tactics every once in a while. This method of deflecting criticism from something by first defending it, then dissociating yourself from it and then arguing that the criticism is invalid because it doesn't pertain to you personally is getting boring.

This was covered way back in post #317, and probably before that too.

It's not religious dogma. There is no prize for conforming to a principle in an absolute literalist way no matter how many people get screwed for it. If the problem you identify can be fixed, it makes sense to consider the fix rather than trashing the whole system.

It's kind of a ridiculous argument. We can't have X because X could theoretically allow for a bad thing. We can't modify X to exclude that bad thing because then it wouldn't be X anymore, it would only be 99% X.

So...what do you say to that? Should it be allowable to look at a given system and say, "Say...I think that has a lot of potential but it's not perfect. Let's tinker with it a bit and see if we can get a better result." Or are we required to treat it as religious dogma and either embrace it to its most literal extreme, or reject it entirely as anathema?

Do you see value in extremism just for its own sake? I don't.

It's not a "debate tactic", it's describing a point of view. That you declare it invalid because it doesn't completely conform to what you think fits under the label of that point of view is your issue and not mine.

It's not religious dogma.

 

[caveman1917]

It's not a "debate tactic", it's describing a point of view. That you declare it invalid because it doesn't completely conform to what you think fits under the label of that point of view is your issue and not mine.

It's not religious dogma.

So which one is it then, "Libertarianism" is not in favour of market-based resource allocation or you are not in favour of market-based resource allocation?

 

[Mycroft]

So which one is it then, "Libertarianism" is not in favour of market-based resource allocation or you are not in favour of market-based resource allocation?

Hey you read the gospel of "libertarianism", so you tell me.

As for my opinion of "market-based resource allocation", I don't see a better alternative. Do you?

 

[caveman1917]

Hey you read the gospel of "libertarianism", so you tell me.

If you're not arguing for putting more resources under market-based allocation then you're not much of a "Libertarian" are you? And we didn't even get to private property yet, just resource allocation

As for my opinion of "market-based resource allocation", I don't see a better alternative. Do you?

If you promote it then you should defend it on its own terms. If you want to make the claim that it is better than the alternatives then it is up to you to argue that claim, not up to someone else to show you wrong.

 

[Mycroft]

If you're not arguing for putting more resources under market-based allocation then you're not much of a "Libertarian" are you? And we didn't even get to private property yet, just resource allocation

More than what?

If you promote it then you should defend it on its own terms. If you want to make the claim that it is better than the alternatives then it is up to you to argue that claim, not up to someone else to show you wrong.

I don't promote it, at least not like it's religious dogma. If you have a better system in mind, have at it. In the meantime, it's what we have and it doesn't need promotion.

Isn't this way too much work fooling around with semantics just so you don't have to admit you don't have a better system? It's always going to come back to that. You can't avoid it so why put so much effort into trying?

 

[Darth Rotor]

I read this as "absolving" misdeeds of Pinochet, by contrast with opposite (and indeed reprehensible) acts of Castro. .

You read something that wasn't there. Confirmation bias is not a good look. Nowhere did I absolve Pinochet his behavior as an autocrat. I guess you chose not to comprehend the first sentence. How about you read the whole post, for comprehension?

Pay attention. Here's the first sentence.

Ah, the joy of the comparative (rule 10) game

.
So, comparing two (rule 10) which is used since we are not supposed to use profanity. Now do you get it? Two autocrats worthy of insult, one lasted three times longer than the other, one was succeeded by a family member, one was not. Back to my point: two different cases, both odious.

This is the problem with bringing YOUR bias into a discussion. It blinds you, and leads to you making crap assumptions.

 

[Craig B]

As for my opinion of "market-based resource allocation", I don't see a better alternative. Do you?

Then tell us why. When we ask, we get this.

I don't promote it, at least not like it's religious dogma. If you have a better system in mind, have at it. In the meantime, it's what we have and it doesn't need promotion.

Isn't this way too much work fooling around with semantics just so you don't have to admit you don't have a better system? It's always going to come back to that. You can't avoid it so why put so much effort into trying?

You are promoting up to the point somebody asks you to justify your promotion. Then you're not promoting. This is patent nonsense. It is laughable. If you can't see anything better, tell us why. I have argued in detail my point that it doesn't work well in the provision of medical care, and rather poorly in affordable housing (in any tenure). I have explained exactly why. Now you are the one who is "fooling around with semantics", not us. So stop that, and respond. Saying "Libertarian philosophy says" means you have to defend it or renounce it once and for all.

I do attack it - with relevant data - so respond in kind, and stop playing with words and changing your stance from moment to moment.

 

[Mycroft]

Then tell us why. When we ask, we get this.

Generally if you are going to separate two quotes with a statement like that it would be because the quotes are contradictory.

You are promoting up to the point somebody asks you to justify your promotion. Then you're not promoting. This is patent nonsense. It is laughable. If you can't see anything better, tell us why. I have argued in detail my point that it doesn't work well in the provision of medical care, and rather poorly in affordable housing (in any tenure). I have explained exactly why. Now you are the one who is "fooling around with semantics", not us. So stop that, and respond. Saying "Libertarian philosophy says" means you have to defend it or renounce it once and for all.

Uhm, no. False dichotomy is false.

I do attack it - with relevant data - so respond in kind, and stop playing with words and changing your stance from moment to moment.

Fine, you've attacked it. Let's move on.

What's a better alternative?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

If you're not arguing for putting more resources under market-based allocation then you're not much of a "Libertarian" are you? And we didn't even get to private property yet, just resource allocation

If you promote it then you should defend it on its own terms. If you want to make the claim that it is better than the alternatives then it is up to you to argue that claim, not up to someone else to show you wrong.

Good a time as any to jump back into the efficiency and allocation issues. First, when I was referring to efficiency earlier, I meant productive efficiency^WP. In this case, social preferences or regulation can, but do not have to, situate the economy at point A, and result inefficient (see graph). As for allocative efficiency^WP, I find the concept useful and the models as well, but only in the classroom, as market-based allocation is a good proxy. I find the notion of market failure^WP to be purely classroom, and to take it as a real target would be a case of model-gazing; i.e., an attempt to force a theoretical optimum on a human-based system. (As for Pareto, the initial comment remains: mainly a tool to argue for status quo in practice.)

Now, what about market-based allocation. My position is that on the right, we have the confused notion that all preferences are expressed and encapsulated by buy and sell decisions, hardly the case. I may, as a good Samaritan, prefer solutions that do not optimize personal gain, or as a die-hard Randite, detest all notion of charity and/or the duty to maintain the broader system that produced my personal success.

These individual preferences about social and broader environmental issues play out as public policy. Neoliberals and libertarians will call the effects "market distortion," but this owes exclusively to the model-gazing and lack of recognition of the fact that the model relies on serious ceteris paribus simplifications of human behavior. Those in favor of highly redistributive and levelling policies, on the other hand, may find the net effect of many individual market choices inefficient and objectionable, but this makes the same sort of error in ignoring the impact of fixed optimal solutions based on a given social theory on the real freedoms and choice restraints of individuals.

No surprise: I argue that a policy-shaped field of play, shifting with democratic preference within a minimal yet adamant protection of basic rights (majorities may never choose oppression or violence, not matter how appealing), is the best solution. Objectivists, in their fixation on models, would simply state that any and all majority decisions that affect the actions of economic actors are illegitimate, once again mainly based on their rejection of the very real social capital required to undertake their activities.

And because we often haven't reached this point in various threads, this defense of capitalism and democracy does not mean there is no recognition of the speed with which power will seek to game both. Today, neither system is healthy or functioning as I would like to see them. Too, the knowledge and systems components to which I have referred in past threads did come up in part here, which is a relief, as the picture I wish to paint is more complete.

In fact, had I my druthers and some youth left to me, I'd be working on a theory of knowledge maximization as being the real engine of economic well-being, and as having the greatest long-term beneficial effect, from the production and allocation of goods, to how we treat each other.

 

[Mycroft]

Good a time as any to jump back into the efficiency and allocation issues. First, when I was referring to efficiency earlier, I meant productive efficiency^WP. In this case, social preferences or regulation can, but do not have to, situate the economy at point A, and result inefficient (see graph). As for allocative efficiency^WP, I find the concept useful and the models as well, but only in the classroom, as market-based allocation is a good proxy. I find the notion of market failure^WP to be purely classroom, and to take it as a real target would be a case of model-gazing; i.e., an attempt to force a theoretical optimum on a human-based system. (As for Pareto, the initial comment remains: mainly a tool to argue for status quo in practice.)

Now, what about market-based allocation. My position is that on the right, we have the confused notion that all preferences are expressed and encapsulated by buy and sell decisions, hardly the case. I may, as a good Samaritan, prefer solutions that do not optimize personal gain, or as a die-hard Randite, detest all notion of charity and/or the duty to maintain the broader system that produced my personal success.

These individual preferences about social and broader environmental issues play out as public policy. Neoliberals and libertarians will call the effects "market distortion," but this owes exclusively to the model-gazing and lack of recognition of the fact that the model relies on serious ceteris paribus simplifications of human behavior. Those in favor of highly redistributive and levelling policies, on the other hand, may find the net effect of many individual market choices inefficient and objectionable, but this makes the same sort of error in ignoring the impact of fixed optimal solutions based on a given social theory on the real freedoms and choice restraints of individuals.

No surprise: I argue that a policy-shaped field of play, shifting with democratic preference within a minimal yet adamant protection of basic rights (majorities may never choose oppression or violence, not matter how appealing), is the best solution. Objectivists, in their fixation on models, would simply state that any and all majority decisions that affect the actions of economic actors are illegitimate, once again mainly based on their rejection of the very real social capital required to undertake their activities.

And because we often haven't reached this point in various threads, this defense of capitalism and democracy does not mean there is no recognition of the speed with which power will seek to game both. Today, neither system is healthy or functioning as I would like to see them. Too, the knowledge and systems components to which I have referred in past threads did come up in part here, which is a relief, as the picture I wish to paint is more complete.

In fact, had I my druthers and some youth left to me, I'd be working on a theory of knowledge maximization as being the real engine of economic well-being, and as having the greatest long-term beneficial effect, from the production and allocation of goods, to how we treat each other.

Well said.

When you say "objectivists" are you talking about Ayn Rand followers?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Well said.

When you say "objectivists" are you talking about Ayn Rand followers?

Yes, I was.

(After this afternoon-ish, BTW, I'll be out of commission for the thread until Xmas, given some work that just came in.)

 

[Mycroft]

Yes, I was.

(After this afternoon-ish, BTW, I'll be out of commission for the thread until Xmas, given some work that just came in.)

I get it, Mr Cringle. [emoji6]

It's a busy time of year, no apologies necessary.

 

[caveman1917]

Good a time as any to jump back into the efficiency and allocation issues. First, when I was referring to efficiency earlier, I meant productive efficiency^WP. In this case, social preferences or regulation can, but do not have to, situate the economy at point A, and result inefficient (see graph). As for allocative efficiency^WP, I find the concept useful and the models as well, but only in the classroom, as market-based allocation is a good proxy. I find the notion of market failure^WP to be purely classroom, and to take it as a real target would be a case of model-gazing; i.e., an attempt to force a theoretical optimum on a human-based system. (As for Pareto, the initial comment remains: mainly a tool to argue for status quo in practice.)

We're talking about the market, so efficiency in resource allocation. Nevermind Pareto efficiency, it's a sanity check, given a set of conditions (which held true in my example of Alice, Bob and Charlie) the solution must be Pareto efficient.

Now, what about market-based allocation. My position is that on the right, we have the confused notion that all preferences are expressed and encapsulated by buy and sell decisions, hardly the case. I may, as a good Samaritan, prefer solutions that do not optimize personal gain, or as a die-hard Randite, detest all notion of charity and/or the duty to maintain the broader system that produced my personal success.

Liberals...

Neoliberals and libertarians will call the effects "market distortion,"

They would be right. You know, these problems we've been discussing aren't failure modes of the market. The problem isn't that the market isn't working but that it is.

And because we often haven't reached this point in various threads, this defense of capitalism and democracy does not mean there is no recognition of the speed with which power will seek to game both.

They're not being "gamed" - they're working exactly as designed.

Today, neither system is healthy or functioning as I would like to see them.

They are healthy and functioning, in their own terms.

In fact, had I my druthers and some youth left to me, I'd be working on a theory of knowledge maximization as being the real engine of economic well-being, and as having the greatest long-term beneficial effect, from the production and allocation of goods, to how we treat each other.

Then maximize your knowledge and realize that lack of knowledge is not the reason neither system is healthy or functioning in your terms.

 

[caveman1917]

More than what?

More than we do now. I'll accept that the local-fiefdom-personal-state is a "fringe position" but if it doesn't include at least a call for more resources (than today) to be put under market-based allocation then it ain't "Libertarianism".

I don't promote it, at least not like it's religious dogma. If you have a better system in mind, have at it. In the meantime, it's what we have and it doesn't need promotion.

Just because a lot of people perform activities according to a certain set of beliefs doesn't stop those beliefs from having a burden of proof when promoted. If everyone was involved in religious rituals then someone suggesting to perform them would still have the burden of proof.

Isn't this way too much work fooling around with semantics just so you don't have to admit you don't have a better system? It's always going to come back to that. You can't avoid it so why put so much effort into trying?

Of course I can avoid it, and of course not responding to it is the course of action taking the least effort. And it only always comes back to that because you always need a way to get out of defending something.

 

[Mycroft]

More than we do now. blah, blah, nonsense but if it doesn't include at least a call for more resources (than today) to be put under market-based allocation then it ain't "Libertarianism".

Cow manure.

You keep rephrasing it and I keep giving you variations of the same answer, but you keep circling back and rephrasing the same manure over and over again.

Pay attention:

Must call for more resources to be put under market-based allocation
regardless of the current situation is an extremists position I don't have to take.

We are not talking about religion, and nobody is awarding points for fanaticism.

As a libertarian (for the sake of argument) who is not a fanatic (meaning that I value a positive outcome above adherence to ideology) I believe that positive outcomes are more likely when we make rules that favor the rights of the individual to do as he wants with himself and his property. We should follow this principle unless there is a really good reason not to.

Just because you favor extremist uncompromising principles is not a reason for anyone else to. It's not religious dogma.

Just because a lot of people perform activities according to a certain set of beliefs doesn't stop those beliefs from having a burden of proof when promoted. If everyone was involved in religious rituals then someone suggesting to perform them would still have the burden of proof.

No. If everyone were involved in religious rituals then there would be nobody to demand the burden of proof.

If I want to get married by a judge instead of clergy, or by clergy instead of a judge... There is still no burden of proof required because it's my choice and nobody else's. Performing a ritual isn't the same as proving the existence or non-existence of God.

Of course I can avoid it, and of course not responding to it is the course of action taking the least effort. And it only always comes back to that because you always need a way to get out of defending something.

You can avoid it, but it won't go away. As long as you avoid it everybody knows you're avoiding it because you don't have a good answer to it, which makes your criticisms of market allocations irrelevant.

 

[caveman1917]

Must call for more resources to be put under market-based allocation
regardless of the current situation is an extremists position I don't have to take.

Seriously? You can't even argue the first basic tenet of that stupid ideology?

Or feel free to show that proposing more resources to be put under market-based allocation, relative to the current situation, is an "extremist position" in American Libertarianism.

We are not talking about religion, and nobody is awarding points for fanaticism.

I'd award points for an actual counter-argument, but that would just be naive of me.

As a libertarian (for the sake of argument) who is not a fanatic (meaning that I value a positive outcome above adherence to ideology) I believe that positive outcomes are more likely when we make rules that favor the rights of the individual to do as he wants with himself and his property.

His wut? Is this going to be another one of those unicorn things?

We should follow this principle unless there is a really good reason not to.

Great! So, about that railway socialization. Given that this came up in order to provide people with a certain right (to counter the result of market-based allocation of properties which form rings around towns and cities), then it should also be free public transportation, no? Why should one person not have a right and another have it, after all, based on how rich they are?

Just because you favor extremist uncompromising principles is not a reason for anyone else to.

Extremist? I'm not the one thinking that turning a planet with finite resources into commodities at an exponentially increasing rate, in order to serve every passing whim of the rich at the expense of the needs of the poor, is a good idea. I think it's a completely ****** idea, but I'm the extremist? That's a good one

It's not religious dogma.

It doesn't seem to be anything really, other than some contraption of goal posts with rocket engines attached.

You can avoid it, but it won't go away. As long as you avoid it everybody knows you're avoiding it because you don't have a good answer to it, which makes your criticisms of market allocations irrelevant.

I don't have to provide you with any alternatives to tell you what a ****** idea Libertarianism is, and capitalism in general. Besides, I'm sure anyone genuinely interested in alternatives would be able to find whatever they want to research.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Liberals...

Then maximize your knowledge and realize that lack of knowledge is not the reason neither system is healthy or functioning in your terms.

Now, now, play nice when I'm all busy and stuff.

 

[Mycroft]

Seriously? You can't even argue the first basic tenet of that stupid ideology?

I can and I have.

The problem is you don't want to address what I say, you want to force my argument to be some predetermined straw-man of your creation.

Address what I say or talk to yourself. I'm tired of serving up the same rebuttals again and again just because you refuse to consider anything that doesn't fit within your paradigm.