Professional Looters Agree To Reduce Looting By 111 Billion Next Year

[michaelsuede]

Can't. Laws aren't perfect.

If everyone wanted a state that controlled the private markets, would the free market provide one?

A private market is by definition devoid of the State. It is two people voluntarily trading goods and services with each other. A "State" is an entity that uses violence or coercion to rob from the productive people who are trading voluntarily with each other.

What we have today is a tyranny of the majority.

Since the majority of people think they will benefit by robbing their neighbor, we have a coercively funded State.

That doesn't make the violence and looting morally justifiable or beneficial to humanity.

 

[Twiler]

A private market is by definition devoid of the State. It is two people voluntarily trading goods and services with each other. A "State" is an entity that uses violence or coercion to rob from the productive people who are trading voluntarily with each other.

What we have today is a tyranny of the majority.

Since the majority of people think they will benefit by robbing their neighbor, we have a coercively funded State.

That doesn't make the violence and looting morally justifiable or beneficial to humanity.

I heartily endorse the tyranny of the majority in the interests of the greater good.

 

[michaelsuede]

I heartily endorse the tyranny of the majority in the interests of the greater good.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

And in the case of the coercively funded State, it leads to wars, famine, great depressions, and out of control black markets.

Actually you just gave me a great idea for an article:

If I gave you the option of pushing a button and in so doing, you would eliminate all wars, all famines, all great depressions, and all black markets from existence, but in the course of doing so, you would eliminate all publicly funded social safety nets (private charity would still exist), would you press the button?

 

[Twiler]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

And in the case of the coercively funded State, it leads to wars, famine, great depressions, and out of control black markets.

Trusting in natural forces doesn't make a right. The free market doesn't care about humanity. The government is just an easy target to take the blame.

 

[michaelsuede]

Trusting in natural forces doesn't make a right. The free market doesn't care about humanity. The government is just an easy target to take the blame.

You'll have to explain to me how two people voluntarily trading goods and services with each other leads to the destruction of humanity.

 

[Twiler]

You'll have to explain to me how two people voluntarily trading goods and services with each other leads to the destruction of humanity.

The free market not caring about humanity doesn't equate to the free market leading to its destruction.

 

[michaelsuede]

The free market not caring about humanity doesn't equate to the free market leading to its destruction.

Ok.

So explain how two people who are voluntarily trading goods and services don't care about each others well being.

For example, say you need a web site designed, so you ask me to build you a web site.

I agree to do this in exchange for 100 Bitcoins.

You agree to my price and in so doing I benefit by getting 100 Bitcoins, which I can spend as I please at a later date and you benefit by getting a web site built.

How am I not caring about your well being?

By necessity, we each must care about the other's well being.

 

[Twiler]

Ok.

So explain how two people who are voluntarily trading goods and services don't care about each others well being.

For example, say you need a web site designed, so you ask me to build you a web site.

I agree to do this in exchange for 100 Bitcoins.

You agree to my price and in so doing I benefit by getting 100 Bitcoins, which I can spend as I please at a later date and you benefit by getting a web site built.

How am I not caring about your well being?

By necessity, we each must care about the other's well being.

But that's only in some cases. In other cases, people will profit most by exploitation.

 

[michaelsuede]

But that's only in some cases. In other cases, people will profit most by exploitation.

It is impossible for anyone to exploit anyone else if all transactions are voluntary.

It is literally impossible.

It can't be done.

 

[icerat]

Michael,

What's your view on government funding of medical research? I assume since you don't think there should be a government, then there shouldn't be?

 

[michaelsuede]

Let me give you an example of exploitation:

The State threatens me with prison if I don't fork over a large portion of my paycheck. So I hand over my money under threat of force.

Then the State takes the money it took from me and uses it to pay for an illegal immigrant's child birth. The immigrant just moved to the country and hasn't paid into the tax system at all.

Have I been exploited by the immigrant through the actions of the State?

What benefit have I gained from this transaction?

 

[icerat]

Let me give you an example of exploitation:

The State threatens me with prison if I don't fork over a large portion of my paycheck. So I hand over my money under threat of force.

Then the State takes the money it took from me and uses it to pay for an illegal immigrant's child birth. The immigrant just moved to the country and hasn't paid into the tax system at all.

Have I been exploited by the immigrant through the actions of the State?

What benefit have I gained from this transaction?

Assuming they get educated, a future contributing worker and consumer. Perhaps an entrepreneur who creates a new industry. Perhaps a new Mozart? Maybe a medical researcher who discovers a cure for the disease thats otherwise going to kill you.

Only time will tell

Not all benefits are immediate.

 

[Twiler]

It is impossible for anyone to exploit anyone else if all transactions are voluntary.

It is literally impossible.

It can't be done.

Is it voluntary to pay the government taxes?

 

[michaelsuede]

Michael,

What's your view on government funding of medical research? I assume since you don't think there should be a government, then there shouldn't be?

Consider that the money that funds medical research had to be taken away from some other more important market directed task.

Who is to say that by the State taking money from a tinkerer who works in his garage trying to produce a cheap energy source that the State created more benefit by handing that money to a medical researcher?

What if the tinkerer just needed a few hundred more dollars to complete his project, and his project would bring cheap energy to the masses, yet this money was taken by the State through taxation?

Why should the State have the authority to say the tinkerer's money is better off in the hands of medical researchers?

The market directs money to where it is need the most by society. If society needs food the most, the market will direct money away from medical research into food production because that is the most important thing that is needed at the present moment.

As various important needs in society are met by the market, those resources will then be freed up to work on other important tasks. If the market has determined that more medical research is an important task, then money will flow into that area of the economy.

We must remember that whenever the State takes money out of the economy, they are taking money away from what the public feels is the most important things that need to be produced at the present moment.

 

[icerat]

The market directs money to where it is need the most by society. If society needs food the most, the market will direct money away from medical research into food production because that is the most important thing that is needed at the present moment.

I ask because of dichloro-acetate. It's a substances that has shown potential as a potent cure for some forms of cancer.

It may or may not be. We may never find out. The problem is that research is very expensive, and this chemical is very cheap. Any company funding the research would almost certainly not get a financial return on their investment, even if it did end up being a legitimate cancer cure.

The market is not directing funding to this research now, and government funding of medical research has been drying up in recent years.

What reason would the market have to direct funding to this in your ideal model?

Or would they not?

 

[michaelsuede]

I ask because of dichloro-acetate. It's a substances that has shown potential as a potent cure for some forms of cancer.

It may or may not be. We may never find out. The problem is that research is very expensive, and this chemical is very cheap. Any company funding the research would almost certainly not get a financial return on their investment, even if it did end up being a legitimate cancer cure.

The market is not directing funding to this research now, and government funding of medical research has been drying up in recent years.

What reason would the market have to direct funding to this in your ideal model?

Or would they not?

Consider that medical research would be extremely cheap if there were no State controls on medical research.

If medical researchers didn't have to wade through a bureaucratic nightmare to engage in drug testing, the research costs would be extremely low.

You say yourself the DCA is cheap, so why not let private individuals voluntarily test it on themselves?

Why not let medical researchers issue drugs to voluntary participants without any controls at all?

Why not let the patients decide on their own if they want to take experimental drugs or not?

Why should the State be able to say a person can take a drug or not?

Medical research does not have to be such a massively expensive enterprise. When people are free to take any experimental drug they want without government approval, medical research could progress faaaaaaaaaaar faster for faaaaaaaaaaar less money.

btw, I'm very familiar with the DCA story and I see it as a prime example of State interference in the medical markets.

 

[icerat]

If medical researchers didn't have to wade through a bureaucratic nightmare to engage in drug testing, the research costs would extremely low.

I used to work in medical research. This simply isn't true. While they are a cost factor, they're not a major expense.

You say yourself the DCA is cheap, so why not let private individuals voluntarily test it on themselves?

Doesn't in itself tell you if it's effective

Why not let medical researchers issue drugs to voluntary participants without any controls at all?

Doesn't in itself tell you if it's effective

Why not let the patients decide on their own if they want to take experimental drugs or not?

Not a research expense, there's never any problems getting volunteers, irrelevant to the question

Why should the State be able to say a person can take a drug or not?

irrelevant to the queston

Medical research does not have to be such a massively expensive enterprise. When people are free to take any experimental drug they want without government approval, medical research could progress faaaaaaaaaaar faster for faaaaaaaaaaar less money.

That's worked brilliantly well with homeopathy, hasn't it?

 

[michaelsuede]

I used to work in medical research. This simply isn't true. While they are a cost factor, they're not a major expense.

Doesn't in itself tell you if it's effective

Doesn't in itself tell you if it's effective

Sure it does.

I can go to the DCA forums right now and review patient experiences with the drug. Research is simply giving people the drug and seeing what happens. If any doctor could prescribe DCA, each doctor could review his patients on his own and each doctor's experiences could be complied into a report on the drug.

This doesn't cost a damn thing.

Not a research expense, there's never any problems getting volunteers, irrelevant to the question

irrelevant to the queston

That's worked brilliantly well with homeopathy, hasn't it?

Are you denying that the placebo effect is real?

Even if homeopathy is a complete farce, we know people still derive positive benefits from it.

Why should the State deny people those benefits?

Why should the State be able to tell a patient that they can't take a drug that they wish to take?

Isn't that the patients decision to make, even if they make a bad decision?

 

[icerat]

Sure it does.

I can go to the DCA forums right now and review patient experiences with the drug. Research is simply giving people the drug and seeing what happens.

No, it's a lot more complicated than that. Things like controls matter. So do experimental design, including monitoring and testing of drug quality. Not to mention the equipment and staff effort and time needed to properly design and evaluate a treatment, usually over the period of many years.

If any doctor could prescribe DCA, each doctor could review his patients on his own and each doctor's experiences could be complied into a report on the drug.

How would you know if the doctor prescribed it properly? How would you control for drug quality, or even quantity? How would you ensure the doctor recorded patient information properly? Is the doctor trained and have access to the necessary brain scanning equipment to track patient progress?

etc etc etc

This doesn't cost a damn thing.

Really? Who pays for all the necessary equipment?

Are you denying that the placebo effect is real?

Not at all. I'm a big fan of the placebo effect.

Even if homeopathy is a complete farce, we know people still derive positive benefits from it.

Depends what you call "positive benefits". Research (which costs) shows it also causes harm

Why should the State deny people those benefits?

Never said they should. Irrelevant to the question.

Why should the State be able to tell a patient that they can't take a drug that they wish to take?

Never said they should. Irrelevant to the question.

Isn't that the patients decision to make, even if they make a bad decision?

In my view, yes - assuming no significant issues with externalities, but nothing to do with the question.

 

[michaelsuede]

No, it's a lot more complicated than that. Things like controls matter. So do experimental design, including monitoring and testing of drug quality. Not to mention the equipment and staff effort and time needed to properly design and evaluate a treatment, usually over the period of many years.



How would you know if the doctor prescribed it properly? How would you control for drug quality, or even quantity? How would you ensure the doctor recorded patient information properly? Is the doctor trained and have access to the necessary brain scanning equipment to track patient progress?

etc etc etc



Really? Who pays for all the necessary equipment?



Not at all. I'm a big fan of the placebo effect.



Depends what you call "positive benefits". Research (which costs) shows it also causes harm



Never said they should. Irrelevant to the question.



Never said they should. Irrelevant to the question.



In my view, yes - assuming no significant issues with externalities, but nothing to do with the question.

I know I'm greatly simplifying the drug testing processes in my commentary, but the basics of allowing doctors to run their own experiments and compile reports is a completely valid way of doing drug testing. While drug creation is a complex process, determining the effectiveness of a drug in human trials is a straight forward procedure that any doctor should be capable of preforming.

Just because it doesn't follow the formal protocols established by today's practices doesn't mean it is ineffective or not a valid way of conducting research.

We would know if a doctor prescribed it properly etc.. etc.. etc.. because he would be following the manufacturers guidelines and issuing his reports in a standardized format. There is no reason why such standardized reports could not be created and issued to doctors who volunteer to engage in research of the drug.

As to who pays for it - obviously the patients pay for it.

They are the ones volunteering to take it, so they are the ones paying for it.