Okay, CTers, here's the best offer you're ever going to get.

[Foolmewunz]

My views on government are aligned with Mises/Rothbard/Hoppe. Austro-libertarian. Anarcho-capitialist.

Yes, government is corrupt, by definition. Monopolies are inherently corrupt. Economic science figured out centuries ago that, from the standpoint of the consumer, competition is good and monopolies are bad.

Whoa! Slipping into a whole new realm here, aren't we?

Has there ever or will there ever be a government that does not hold a monopoly on "government"? Wouldn't putting up a "competitive" government be termed a "revolution"?

Certain elements of the U.S. federal government have held monopolies and were later opened to competition - successfully in several cases, so that may be what you're referring to. But, since the major premise (that all monopolies are inherently corrupt) is not proven, merely assumed, then the minor premise (that governments, as monopolies, are therefore corrupt) is that much less valid.

Which government, by the way? The cities sue the states and the states sue the feds. Sometimes the courts come down on one side, sometimes on the other. Individuals have successfully sued numerous governments, too. The whole contention is just absurd.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Whoa! Slipping into a whole new realm here, aren't we?

Has there ever or will there ever be a government that does not hold a monopoly on "government"? Wouldn't putting up a "competitive" government be termed a "revolution"?

Certain elements of the U.S. federal government have held monopolies and were later opened to competition - successfully in several cases, so that may be what you're referring to. But, since the major premise (that all monopolies are inherently corrupt) is not proven, merely assumed, then the minor premise (that governments, as monopolies, are therefore corrupt) is that much less valid.

Which government, by the way? The cities sue the states and the states sue the feds. Sometimes the courts come down on one side, sometimes on the other. Individuals have successfully sued numerous governments, too. The whole contention is just absurd.

In a very real sense, we have a competitive government. Local vs. State. State vs. Federal. Party vs. party. Candidate vs. candidate. Lobbyist vs. lobbyist. Branch vs. branch. House vs. Senate. Bill vs. bill. We could keep the list going for ages...

 

[Gravy]

I wouldn't wish the politics subform on anybody, much less a 'successful anarcho-capitalist'.

You fiend!

I was being sarcastic, of course. TS1234 clearly does not have what it takes to make it in the world of fantasy socioeconomics, much less in the politics forum, where real-world issues are, um, discussed.

 

[quixotecoyote]

As an aside, one cannot be an anarchist and a capitalist. The terms have an inherant contradiction:
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secF1.html

 

[Foolmewunz]

In a very real sense, we have a competitive government. Local vs. State. State vs. Federal. Party vs. party. Candidate vs. candidate. Lobbyist vs. lobbyist. Branch vs. branch. House vs. Senate. Bill vs. bill. We could keep the list going for ages...

Well, I was going to list those concessions, plus the more obvious Legislative/Executive/Judiciary, but knowing a little about the Austrian School, I'm more curious how their Randian/Libertarian view of economics would be applied to the federal government. It's just a bit of an absurdist vision.

ETA: And I doubt that TS would even concede that any of the points either of us mention would qualify our system as "competitive".

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Whoa! Slipping into a whole new realm here, aren't we?

Has there ever or will there ever be a government that does not hold a monopoly on "government"? Wouldn't putting up a "competitive" government be termed a "revolution"?

The definition of government is a territorial monopolist of jurisdiction, taxation and the legal use of force. Competition is not "put up", it is allowed. Competition exists in any area where it is not forcibly shut down.

Certain elements of the U.S. federal government have held monopolies and were later opened to competition - successfully in several cases, so that may be what you're referring to. But, since the major premise (that all monopolies are inherently corrupt) is not proven, merely assumed, then the minor premise (that governments, as monopolies, are therefore corrupt) is that much less valid.

The economics of monopoly are briefly as follows: Under a monopoly, prices will be higher and/or quality will be lower than what would exist under competition. Under Austrian (correct) economic theory, this is a general principle, thus applies to all goods and services. If you think there are exceptions to this, I'd be curious to hear.

Which government, by the way? The cities sue the states and the states sue the feds. Sometimes the courts come down on one side, sometimes on the other. Individuals have successfully sued numerous governments, too. The whole contention is just absurd.

This institution of the "state" was responsible for the intentional murder of around 100,000,000 innocent humans during the 20th century. I refer to acts committed on governments own "citizens", not acts of war against the "citizens" of some other government. War would add to these totals.

I think that free market competition in the production of security, justice, money etc would benefit the consumer for the same reason that that the consumer benefits from competition in the production of shoes.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

In a very real sense, we have a competitive government. Local vs. State. State vs. Federal. Party vs. party. Candidate vs. candidate. Lobbyist vs. lobbyist. Branch vs. branch. House vs. Senate. Bill vs. bill. We could keep the list going for ages...

No no. You're missing the essential ingredient that makes government different. They have the legal right to extract payment for services by force.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Thanx, TS. I thought maybe you had some sort of coherent theory. Good to see you really have stripped the old gears and cogs. You cannot make everything analogous to economic theory.

 

[chipmunk stew]

No no. You're missing the essential ingredient that makes government different. They have the legal right to extract payment for services by force.

By force of law. Same as a private contract.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Are you Ace Baker?

Are you?

 

[Loss Leader]

Even if you accept the legitimacy of the U.S. Constitution, what part of it is still in order?

Well, I understand that they're no longer counting blacks as 3/5 of a person. Otherwise, I think the Constitution is doing pretty well. Let's take a look:

Where is it authorized that government can monopolize money?

Art. I; Sec. 8. The Congress shall have the power ... to coin money [and] regulate the value thereof ...

How can successive presidents get away with initiating war without Congress?

Art. II; Sec. 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Art II; Sec. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.

Art. I; Sec. 8. The Congress shall have the power ... to declare war ... [emphasis added]

What about the takeover of the educational system, where is that authorized?

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. If you're referring to the case of the Boston school bussing:

Amd. IVX. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If you're referring to federal oversight of education in the US in general, it's really not that significant. However, the power rests here:

Art. I; Sec. 8. The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States.

Amd. IVX. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

How about Social Security?

Art. I; Sec. 8. The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes ... and provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States.

Amd. XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The answer is that none of this is authorized by the Constitution.

Um, no. You're wrong.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Are you Ace Baker?

Got a good beat, easy to dance to. I'd give it a 54.

 

[Loss Leader]

No no. You're missing the essential ingredient that makes government different. They have the legal right to extract payment for services by force.

That is exactly correct. The government is the only legitimator of violence. Force may only be used by the government or with its permission.

You, however, miss the most important point of all: There is nothing necessarily wrong with this.

Without government presiding over the use of force, power belongs to whomever is strong enough to weild it. Large men can knock smaller men unconscious and take all their stuff. Heck, large men can knock smaller women unconscious and take whatever liberties they like. Government protects the weak - good government makes the weak exactly as powerful as the strong and the poor exactly as important as the wealthy.

Government has another important function and this is to do what individuals cannot or will not do on their own. If three hundred million people seem to need an aircraft carrier to protect them, is it reasonable to take up a collection? "Would you like to donate to our aircraft carrier fund?" Not seeing the immediate benefit of the weapon, many people might refuse. We might not be able to raise enough to get an aircraft carrier.

Or perhaps we do raise the money but Truthseeker1234 hasn't pitched in (he's an anarcho-capitalist, whatever that is). Now the USS Abraham Lincoln can't protect just the people who paid for it. It can't protect everybody but TS1234. So that selfish bastard gets the benefit of an aircraft carrier without paying for it. In good mob fashion, his neighbors get angry and go down to his nice house in LA and show him just how much they appreciate his lack of generosity. Here's a better plan: government can just take the money from everybody and eliminate the problem of free riders.

Would you chip in for an aircraft carrier? How about land mines?

Some government services are entirely unwanted by the people receiving them. Is there a single convict in prison who would want to pay to stay there? The money is raised from people who will never even see the inside of a prison.

Other services make no obvious capitalistic sense. Why did we send men to the moon? There was no profit in it, at least no easily foreseeable profit. And it cost a lot of money ... a whole lot.

The question is not whether the goverment takes by force. The question is whether the government's decision-making promotes social justice. As the meaning of "justice" is a political question, our concern should be making sure we are represented by people who hear us and care about our concerns. This is much different from the belief that government should be disbanded. I mean, that's just stupid.

 

[realitybites]

[roxdog]
THE [rule8] WTC WAS [rule8] BLOWN TO [rule8] PIECES, YOU [rule8] [rule8]!!! [rule8] YOU, WITH YOUR [rule8] [rule8] UP BUSH'S [rule8] [rule8]. HAVE SOME [rule8] RESPECT FOR THE [rule8] VICTIMS, [rule8]!!!
[/roxdog]

Objection, Your Honor.....

......... Speculation.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Are you?

Yes.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Yes.

 

[realitybites]

Yes.

I love that song dude.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Loss leader, you're articulating public goods theory. Yes, that is the intellectual framework in support of statism. The Austrians have refuted it to my satisfaction, I shan't go into here. Here's a nice Walter Block lecture on roads, and he discusses public goods theory.

http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/MU2004/Block3.mp3

It is not the provision of important services that is the problem, it is the monopolization.


Your assertions about the U.S. Constitution are fallacious. Yes, the document "authorizes" the fedgov to coin money, not print unbacked paper fiat money. Large important difference. Furthermore, it does not authorize them to monopolize money. They did this in 3 steps - 1913 (the Fed), 1933 (Confiscation of all monetary gold) and 1971 (Complete severance of gold redeemibility).

As far as the "general welfare" clause, this could be used to justify anything. Shoes are a good. Why wouldn't the government tax everyone and then give us all "free" shoes? Using your logic, the general welfare clause legitimizes full communism.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Look around and look through history. Name one complex society without either an organized government or a collection of tribal fiefdoms led by strongmen.

And the general welfare clause could be used to justify just about anything. That's why we have a competitive political system, so that we limit centralized overreaching. We have a case history of judicial precedents and decisions related to the clause that flesh it out.

 

[Loss Leader]

As far as the "general welfare" clause, this could be used to justify anything. Shoes are a good. Why wouldn't the government tax everyone and then give us all "free" shoes? Using your logic, the general welfare clause legitimizes full communism.

The economic system that a government fosters is a political question. I have no problem living in a socialist or even a communist nation so long as it is a representative and democratic one. If your goal was to show that the extension of my thinking led to an absurdity, you have failed.