History

Re: Haven't the warlords taken over?

Johnny Doe — Mon, 21 May 2012 04:50:46 GMT

bloomj31:
JohnnyDoe:
Those who receive less from government, than the government takes away from. Perhaps, but mostly because I don`t consume much.
So you're not really sure if you're a parasite or not because you really don't know how to value what you receive from the government.

Of course I can`t, do you know anyone who know what everyone in society produces/consumes, that`s what makes the government so convenient, i.e. it`s not obvious the redistribution is wrong, it`s hard to know?

bloomj31:
JohnnyDoe:
We privatize everything(ancaps) or everything except the courts/police/military defence(minarchists) and let people buy the services they need directly from the suppliers.
This does not answer my question. How do know how to value what you are receiving from the government?

We can`t, that`s why we want laisse-faire capitalism/free trade etc.

bloomj31:
JohnnyDoe:
And there is quite alot of hissing.
I do not know how to quantify "quite a lot."

It means that not everyone are satisfied with the current system. Do you know any central planners who are all knowing, i.e. have all the answers, know everything?

Re: Haven't the warlords taken over?

bloomj31 — Sun, 20 May 2012 18:57:04 GMT

JohnnyDoe:
Those who receive less from government, than the government takes away from. Perhaps, but mostly because I don`t consume much.

So you're not really sure if you're a parasite or not because you really don't know how to value what you receive from the government.

JohnnyDoe:
We privatize everything(ancaps) or everything except the courts/police/military defence(minarchists) and let people buy the services they need directly from the suppliers.

This does not answer my question. How do know how to value what you are receiving from the government?

JohnnyDoe:
And there is quite alot of hissing.

I do not know how to quantify "quite a lot."

Re: Haven't the warlords taken over?

Johnny Doe — Sun, 20 May 2012 10:20:10 GMT

bloomj31:
JohnnyDoe:
If they receive more than they contribute(via government), they are parasites.
So who are these greater hosts that contribute more than they receive? Are you one of them?

Those who receive less from government, than the government takes away from. Perhaps, but mostly because I don`t consume much.

bloomj31:
JohnnyDoe:
Why should they leave the place they`re born and raised?
Because if they don't they're going to get taxed one way or another. It doesn't matter how much they complain.

They can stay and try to reason with the other inhabitants, instead of leaving.

bloomj31:
So basically these greater hosts have a choice: stay and pay their taxes here or leave and pay taxes to someone else. Or perhaps pay taxes to no one. If there is such a place and they're so fed up with paying taxes, I don't see why everyone isn't just leaving.

Or they can stay and try to change the system.

bloomj31:
Some people are leaving. If people choose to stay knowing full well they'll get taxed when they have such amazing alternatives then they must be idiots or liars or both and as such I have no sympathy for them.
JohnnyDoe:
Not everyone receive more than they contribute....If they receive more than they contribute(via government), they are parasites.
Ok so what's the math for the break even point? How do we value government services?

We privatize everything(ancaps) or everything except the courts/police/military defence(minarchists) and let people buy the services they need directly from the suppliers.

bloomj31:
JohnnyDoe:
If it was a voluntary/mutually benificial symbiosis, we wouldn`t need the government/IRS etc. to intervene to distort/redistribute etc.
Oh I dunno about that. People can be flaky. Someone's always trying to have their cake and eat it too. Someone's gotta enforce the rules so that when it comes time for people to pay up, they pay up.

And that`s why minarchists think we should have courts etc and ancaps think we should have private courts etc, to make sure people pay/provide according to the contract they`ve entered into.

bloomj31:
As that great saying goes: "the art of taxation is in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing."

And there is quite alot of hissing.

Re: Haven't the warlords taken over?

FlyingAxe — Sun, 20 May 2012 03:20:12 GMT

Johnny Doe:

bloomj31:
JohnnyDoe:
You give the politicians/bureaucrats/police officers etc legitimacy, authorization to extort on your behalf etc, and then you benefit from it, so you are one of the parasites.
Then who is my host?
Those who get less from government than the government takes from them.

I wouldn't say that. I would say: those who did not give their consent for the government but still got taxed. Whether or not they got something back (even in excess of what they had taken away) doesn't matter: they still got robbed.

One could even argue that the general public is also the host. The fact that they experience Livestockholm Syndrome doesn't mean they are not being robbed, since they don't have a choice except to obey under threat of violence (even though they seem to be ok with this sort of bdsm relationship with their law/protection providers).

Re: Haven't the warlords taken over?

John James — Sun, 20 May 2012 01:51:23 GMT

aervew:
John's "verified answer" mixes up cause and effect. N-Korean system is not stable because people worship him. People worship him BECAUSE the system is stable. It is the only way for people to stay sane in such enviroment. It is essentially a large scale example of stockholm syndrome. It is true, the peoples have no control, it is purely warlord controlled tyranny. And there is no reason why the most effective PDA in anarchist society would not do the same, after all: they cannot get more revenue by services than they can by tribute

So you're suggesting that if people did not worship Kim, the North Korean system would remain stable?

Re: Haven't the warlords taken over?

bloomj31 — Sat, 19 May 2012 19:46:49 GMT

JohnnyDoe:
If they receive more than they contribute(via government), they are parasites.

So who are these greater hosts that contribute more than they receive? Are you one of them?

JohnnyDoe:
Why should they leave the place they`re born and raised?

Because if they don't they're going to get taxed one way or another. It doesn't matter how much they complain.

So basically these greater hosts have a choice: stay and pay their taxes here or leave and pay taxes to someone else. Or perhaps pay taxes to no one. If there is such a place and they're so fed up with paying taxes, I don't see why everyone isn't just leaving. Some people are leaving. If people choose to stay knowing full well they'll get taxed when they have such amazing alternatives then they must be idiots or liars or both and as such I have no sympathy for them.

JohnnyDoe:
Not everyone receive more than they contribute....If they receive more than they contribute(via government), they are parasites.

Ok so what's the math for the break even point? How do we value government services?

JohnnyDoe:
If it was a voluntary/mutually benificial symbiosis, we wouldn`t need the government/IRS etc. to intervene to distort/redistribute etc.

Oh I dunno about that. People can be flaky. Someone's always trying to have their cake and eat it too. Someone's gotta enforce the rules so that when it comes time for people to pay up, they pay up.

As that great saying goes: "the art of taxation is in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing."

Re: Haven't the warlords taken over?

Johnny Doe — Sat, 19 May 2012 19:28:16 GMT

bloomj31:
JohnnyDoe:
You give the politicians/bureaucrats/police officers etc legitimacy, authorization to extort on your behalf etc, and then you benefit from it, so you are one of the parasites.
Then who is my host?

Those who get less from government than the government takes from them.

bloomj31:
I participate in the market process as well as the government process. Where do I, as a government actor begin and I as a market actor end or vice versa?

The fruits of your labor vs the fruits of someones elses labor.

bloomj31:
People who exist in a state live in two worlds. In one world they produce in another world they take from those who produce. Some produce more than others or take more than others but we all produce at some level and we all take at some level.

Not everyone receive more than they contribute.

bloomj31:
So is it really parasitic or is it symbiotic? Aren't we all just living off of one another to one degree or another?

If it was a voluntary/mutually benificial symbiosis, we wouldn`t need the government/IRS etc. to intervene to distort/redistribute etc.

bloomj31:
Are the people who produce disproportionately more than others really the hosts? What if, through their monetary power, they are able to accumulate political power and thus benefit from the political process? Do we not see this happening with car companies, energy companies, banks etc? So are they still hosts if they're using the system as the "parasites" do? Would they still want to undo the system that has given them power?

If they receive more than they contribute(via government), they are parasites.

bloomj31:
JohnnyDoe:
Not everyone born into society give their consent.
Well then they can leave. Although they may not escape taxation and its effects even if they do.

Why should they leave the place they`re born and raised?

Re: Haven't the warlords taken over?

aervew — Sat, 19 May 2012 17:48:02 GMT

John's "verified answer" mixes up cause and effect. N-Korean system is not stable because people worship him. People worship him BECAUSE the system is stable. It is the only way for people to stay sane in such enviroment. It is essentially a large scale example of stockholm syndrome. It is true, the peoples have no control, it is purely warlord controlled tyranny. And there is no reason why the most effective PDA in anarchist society would not do the same, after all: they cannot get more revenue by services than they can by tribute

Re: Haven't the warlords taken over?

bloomj31 — Sat, 19 May 2012 17:44:29 GMT

JohnnyDoe:
You give the politicians/bureaucrats/police officers etc legitimacy, authorization to extort on your behalf etc, and then you benefit from it, so you are one of the parasites.

Then who is my host? I participate in the market process as well as the government process. Where do I, as a government actor begin and I as a market actor end or vice versa? People who exist in a state live in two worlds. In one world they produce in another world they take from those who produce. Some produce more than others or take more than others but we all produce at some level and we all take at some level. So is it really parasitic or is it symbiotic? Aren't we all just living off of one another to one degree or another?

Are the people who produce disproportionately more than others really the hosts? What if, through their monetary power, they are able to accumulate political power and thus benefit from the political process? Do we not see this happening with car companies, energy companies, banks etc? So are they still hosts if they're using the system as the "parasites" do? Would they still want to undo the system that has given them power?

JohnnyDoe:
Not everyone born into society give their consent.

Well then they can leave. Although they may not escape taxation and its effects even if they do.

Re: Haven't the warlords taken over?

Johnny Doe — Sat, 19 May 2012 17:23:49 GMT

bloomj31:
Johnny Doe:
You are the parasite.
Perhaps. And yet I do none of the tax collecting. I'm not involved in that process whatsoever. I do not sit on any city or state council, I have no legislative power. I'm not a judge.

I merely vote in as many elections as I can. I don't make much money, I don't pay much in taxes. And I still benefit from the actions of others. I don't personally pay for roads, I don't personally pay for garbage collection, I don't personally pay for streetlights, sewer construction/repair. I don't personally pay to have my own police force, I don't personally pay to have access to courts etc etc.

You give the politicians/bureaucrats/police officers etc legitimacy, authorization to extort on your behalf etc, and then you benefit from it, so you are one of the parasites.

bloomj31:
The odds of me becoming a high earner anytime soon are low.

Why would I want to change things now?

I mean we're talking about the consent of the governed here and the relationship between the government actors and the market actors who benefit from government intervention. I'm one of them.

Not everyone born into society give their consent.

Re: Haven't the warlords taken over?

bloomj31 — Sat, 19 May 2012 16:32:41 GMT

Johnny Doe:
You are the parasite.

Perhaps. And yet I do none of the tax collecting. I'm not involved in that process whatsoever. I do not sit on any city or state council, I have no legislative power. I'm not a judge.

I merely vote in as many elections as I can. I don't make much money, I don't pay much in taxes. And I still benefit from the actions of others. I don't personally pay for roads, I don't personally pay for garbage collection, I don't personally pay for streetlights, sewer construction/repair. I don't personally pay to have my own police force, I don't personally pay to have access to courts etc etc.

The odds of me becoming a high earner anytime soon are low.

Why would I want to change things now?

I mean we're talking about the consent of the governed here and the relationship between the government actors and the market actors who benefit from government intervention. I'm one of them.

The only real difficulty I have and the only real reason I have an interest in politics in the first place is that there are people who do not appreciate how this system works and so they think that we can take and take and take but they forget where it all comes from in the first place. I recognize the debt I owe to the productive members of society from whom a lion's share of the taxes are collected, they often do not. I see an interest in keeping those members around, not destroying their reason for being.

Re: Haven't the warlords taken over?

Johnny Doe — Sat, 19 May 2012 13:20:54 GMT

bloomj31:
Yes, I probably could, but I can get them from the "parasite" too and I don't even have to worry about funding them myself so why get rid of the "parasite?"

You are the parasite.

Re: Haven't the warlords taken over?

John James — Sat, 19 May 2012 12:31:17 GMT

I put this in the low content thread, but I felt it would go nicely here. Pay attention to these characteristics and keep North Korea in mind as he goes through...

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Re: Haven't the warlords taken over?

John James — Tue, 15 May 2012 07:04:53 GMT

FlyingAxe:
But how did the brainwashing happen? Weren't the N. Koreans and the S. Koreans basically the same people? Is the difference between them cultural, or is the difference that some were lucky to be brainwashed/occupied by facist jerks, while some were occupied by a more benevolent government?

Well, if you read the history of the country, and how it came to be split in the first place, you'll start to see how it went down. Notice the reasonings given for China not being able to maintain a strong centralized grip...they're all characteristics that a place like Korea doesn't share. It's a small peninsula to begin with, and splitting it in half obviously just made it that much smaller. (I.e, more easy to control.) And of course, a peninsula is just one step away from being an island anyway, and if you look at the region, it may as well be an island, as the mainland area it's connected to isn't exactly the Florida/Georgia border. So that's aspect two. Aspect three is the culture difference. People often conflate Asian cultures, but they are incredibly different. Completely different language, different customs...you should read up sometime on the different customary etiquette rules for using chopsticks in all the different countries that actually use chopsticks. It may surprise you.

So you have physical/geographical isolation, cultural/language isolation, and a relatively small population...and a region literally barricaded off as a result after the end of a world war, creating a new country basically over night. This is all ripe conditions for a totalitarian takeover. It's not every day and every place that something like this can occur.

N. Koreans were brainwashed, Soviets were brainwashed, Chinese were brainwashed. And Czechs, Poles, and Hungarians were occupied by force. The Czechs protested, but then the Soviets sent in the tanks.

You would have to specify which times in history you're speaking of for each of those claims, but even still, I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make there.

Why shouldn't the same story happen every single time there is anarchy?

One thing you have to consider (which most people don't) is how exactly the anarchy came about. Bob Murphy goes into this using the case of Somalia here. (For more info, see here.)

Isn't that basically how all governments arose: you had a group of chieftains, whom you were free to choose or not as your "protection providers", and then all of a sudden, you have a king with nearly absolute power? It happened gradually or it happened suddenly. So, why won't some warlord brainwash the rest of the population successfully?

1) There are few guarantees in life. Why won't you die tomorrow?

2) See the links above

3) The old "wild west" of America is another great historical example.

(I am thinking of Apple and Facebook here. :) )

I'm not quite sure how that works. You mean Apple and Facebook would become a new government if the US government crumbled?

Re: Haven't the warlords taken over?

bloomj31 — Mon, 14 May 2012 23:38:58 GMT

FlyingAxe:
I always get the feeling that there is something missing from the anarchy discussion -- the fact that most governments exist with the tacit consent of the governed. Or, perhaps, not consent (as Lysander Spooner demonstrates), but tolerance.

I'll tell you you've hit the nail on the head for me. This oversight is probably one of the single biggest reasons I've never been able to subscribe to anarcho-capitalism and why I ultimately rejected minarchism. I don't think all people actually want absolute freedom. I think the people who do are the minority.