Republican Debate: Tonight

[Fed Up]

Dylith,

I'm working on a reply but busy today as I'm leaving for Vegas.

I can't say I'm an expert on Anarcho-Capitalism, but can you justify the expertise of economists relied upon by Presidents that have resulted in our nation being the world's largest debtor and with an ever weaker currency? Do you really think that Bernanke's "helicopter" drop is going to save the economy? Obviously there is no perfect solution, but I do like the tenets of Anarcho-Capitalism in the url I posted in my reply to you.

I started researching Anarcho-Capitalism after I attended the Austrian Scholars Conference in April 2007 at the Mises University where I was able to converse with Edward Stringham, PhD, author of "Anarchy and the Law." I continue to see the relevancy via my research since that introduction (I was attending the conference to further my research into Austrian Economics, you know...that stuff they don't teach you at the University level).

Ardenfrost, thanks for addressing it.

Check in later with a more complete response, but I'll leave you with this thought;

"The free-rider problem, long presented by economists as a

normative justification for the State, is in reality a positive
explanation for why the State first arose and persisted. All the earliest governments about which we have any knowledge had relatively small ruling classes dependent upon wealth transfers from a much larger subject population. Why did not the more numerous subjects ever rise up and overthrow their masters?

The free rider is the key. Revolutionary activity is always
extremely risky. But nearly all subjects would benefit from a
successful revolution, regardless of whether they participated
in it or not. This remained an enormous obstacle to organizing
the masses. Small, concentrated ruling classes, in contrast,
faced fewer free-rider problems in carrying out their conquests.

Therefore, the history of the State over the millennia from the
Agricultural Revolution to the present has become an always
dreary and sometimes horrific litany of special interests triumphantly
coercing larger groups."

Fed Up

[Dylith]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I think all this is good for individual threads, and some of it even has threads about it already.

I agree. This isn't the first time that I have talked about anarcho-capitalism on these boards either.

But I will point out your free rider problem. Firstly, by bringing it up (and your other general problems you have with libertarianism) it's like you've read some book by an anti-libertarian/anti-free market author and you're just espousing his ideas blindly.

Not at all. I have been studying economics for four years now and have almost completed my degree in the field (I need one more class on banking). I have geared my major to not simply look at business economics, but to look at political economics. I deal with international economics and public finance and have reviewed these subjects in some detail over the past years (my education has been geared towards looking specifically at things such as education markets, insurance markets, taxation, regulation etc.)

I don't simply study these things from a theory standpoint, but through available data collected concerning these markets and through a much more mathematically based standpoint that concentrates on economic efficiency.

Regardless, the problem with free rider is introduced when collectivists move to install a program in a free will society. Libertarianism doesn't fail because of free rider, collectivism can't coexist when people have free choice of payment for the good. Collectivism requires a system in place to force people to participate.

The free rider problem exists whenever you produce a good that is either non-rival, or non-excludable (especially non-excludable) or both. Goods such as national defense and clean air. They most certainly would suffer from market failures and even possibly collapse under an anarcho-capitalistic system. The example that I gave in the last thread was garbage collection systems in the large cities of India where there are large dumpsters for communities to dump their trash (due to the lack of space for individual trash cans). These dumpsters make it a non-excludable service. Trash collection there has collapsed under the private market since people can simply dump their trash without having to pay for the trash collection. The same thing happens when you have the production of more important public goods such as national defense which anarcho-capitalism would leave up to charity and the private market.

However, no libertarian or anarcho-capitalist is the extreme anarchist.

It isn't libertarianism in general that I have the problem with (depends on what we are talking about), but anarcho-capitalism is market anarchy, and I have little doubt that it would result in full blown anarchy should it ever be implemented. Most who have studied economics (even most libertarians) see taxation as a required evil in certain situations. Anarcho-capitalists however seems blind to this basic economic fact.

None of us think that police, for instance, should be paid for voluntarily... or the military... or the courts.

But that is exactly what Rothbardian economics does propose. That is exactly what anarcho-capitalism proposes (take a look at the link that fed up posted if you have any doubts: Recipe for an Anarcho Capitalist society). And it is for those reasons that I dislike anarcho-capitalism and am rather dismissive of their economic system. I find it to be economically flawed since it does ignore these problems in all areas of the economy completely.

The money they use needs to come from some sort of tax (the methods of levying those taxes is, however, up for debate ).

The entire concept of taxation runs against anarcho-capitalism. They feel that taxation has no place in a free society.

The problem starts when the good needn't be socialized, but collectivist theory is applied to it.

I agree, and while my title may declare me a liberal I am quite an economic moderate really. I don't think that programs such as social security need to be funded by our federal government. But I do tend to disagree with libertarians on some issues concerning the economy (especially when it comes to the need for government regulation and subsidies).

However, the same ideas behind the problem is what causes federal programs to blow up. For instance, since this is a relevant topic, let's take healthcare. People are really pushing for universal healthcare, and some claim that upon institution of the program, people will not be forced to use it and it will just coexist with the system already in place. And it very well could start like that, however, everyone pays for the universal healthcare through their taxes, and if they rarely partake, then they are paying more per unit of good than others. It is then only natural for people to want to get the most for their money and therefore that system will be favored, and favored more often than a free method (and I'm NOT calling our current system free, so let's keep that in mind please). Demand then begins to go up for the good, and since price is fixed and supply is capped by capacity of the system, we will need more and more hospitals and healthcare employees to increase the capacity (otherwise lead times increase quickly). When the expected arrival rate is greater than the expected service rate, you have what is called an unstable system with a queue that grows and cannot be handled.

When people hear the term national health care they automatically assume that one is referring to the provision of health care through taxation (and rightfully so given the current talks about it and how it is set up elsewhere) While I do support the government production of health insurance this is not the model that I had in mind when I espoused it. Would I take such health care over a private system? Yes, but what I would like to see is actually more of a mix of the two.

People have been trying to fight the supply/demand curve (and all of its implications) for a long time, and it's simply impractical to get to a system that actually CAN exist outside the realm of that curve. And even if you implement a system like that, the people eventually revolt.

One of the problem with libertarian economics is that it tends not to be able to distinguish between the privately optimal and the socially optimal points of production. The economy isn't always as simple as having only one supply and demand curve.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I didnt say you said libertarianism died, im saying you admitted people in general didn't buy the 2008 ron paul message

Greedy old people, the largest block of voters, are voting for whom will give them the most. It has been this way and will continue to be this way until our gov't collapses.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by hsmith

Greedy old people, the largest block of voters, are voting for whom will give them the most. It has been this way and will continue to be this way until our gov't collapses.

You could always start an insurgency...

[Fed Up]

Hi Dilyth,


I'll get back to this issue Tuesday when I'm back from Vegas.

I had spent some time replying but don't have time to give it justice till next week, so I'll give you a couple sources that address the "free rider" issue and "national defense" which is one of the areas you mentioned.


You wrote:

The free rider problem exists whenever you produce a good that is either non-rival, or non-excludable (especially non-excludable) or both. Goods such as national defense and clean air.

This is addressed here:


National Goods Versus Public Goods: Defense, Disarmament, and Free Riders by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel

http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae4_1_4.pdf


and here:


THE MYTH OF NATIONAL DEFENSE: ESSAYS ON THE
THEORY AND HISTORY OF SECURITY PRODUCTION
by Hans Hermann Hoppe

http://www.mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf


(See chapter 9 written by Walter Block and do a document search for "free rider" as Hoppe addresses it too.)


Fed Up


[/font][/font]

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Dylith

The free rider problem exists whenever you produce a good that is either non-rival, or non-excludable (especially non-excludable) or both. Goods such as national defense and clean air. They most certainly would suffer from market failures and even possibly collapse under an anarcho-capitalistic system. The example that I gave in the last thread was garbage collection systems in the large cities of India where there are large dumpsters for communities to dump their trash (due to the lack of space for individual trash cans). These dumpsters make it a non-excludable service. Trash collection there has collapsed under the private market since people can simply dump their trash without having to pay for the trash collection. The same thing happens when you have the production of more important public goods such as national defense which anarcho-capitalism would leave up to charity and the private market.

Again, public goods that use money raised by the government (in some form) are exempt from the free rider problem. And non-public goods, no matter what they are, that is actually a product or service (eg., clean air isn't a sellable product), will not have a free rider problem UNTIL collectivists try to apply that good or service to everyone voluntarily. The collectivists then go to the government to force the other members of their market segment (which might be everyone in the nation) to conform to their idea. That's the eventuality.

We're saying the same thing here, it's just that in the libertarian AND anarcho-capitalist (from the Austrian Theory standpoint) that I personally have studied creates a situation where the public goods are public goods and the private sector handles the rest. The challenge is in figuring out exactly what needs to be public goods and what needn't be. And you'll often hear libertarians to want those goods to be outlined in an official and difficult-to-change document (specifically the constitution, which outlines the military, for instance) so that there is no question about it's legality and to really show that everyone wants it.

It isn't libertarianism in general that I have the problem with (depends on what we are talking about), but anarcho-capitalism is market anarchy, and I have little doubt that it would result in full blown anarchy should it ever be implemented. Most who have studied economics (even most libertarians) see taxation as a required evil in certain situations. Anarcho-capitalists however seems blind to this basic economic fact.

Again, the methods of collection are certainly up for debate. The history surrounding the 16th is very shady and it most certainly wasn't the intention of the founders to allow a direct tax to be levied on the citizens... they even spelled it out "no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid." But anyway, an efficient government with all the fat cut would not NEED a direct tax such as the income tax, and if they still did, it would be very small. I think one of the things that pushes people to libertarianism is the waste in Washington. And as much as both Republicans and Democrats say they are against increased spending, it is far too rare for needless programs to actually be cut... because as soon as that happens, the other side pounces on it as the fund-cutting side not caring about America (or whatever bullshit they come up with). It's a horrible horrible game of politics to get gov't programs cut.

But that is exactly what Rothbardian economics does propose. That is exactly what anarcho-capitalism proposes (take a look at the link that fed up posted if you have any doubts: Recipe for an Anarcho Capitalist society). And it is for those reasons that I dislike anarcho-capitalism and am rather dismissive of their economic system. I find it to be economically flawed since it does ignore these problems in all areas of the economy completely.

The entire concept of taxation runs against anarcho-capitalism. They feel that taxation has no place in a free society.

I've never read Rothbard that I know of, but I have studied Austrian School economics which is what libertarians tend to follow (at least all the ones I know of and at least most of them on this board). Both groups (libertarians and anarcho-capitalists) believe that there is a place for government in providing a very limited number of public goods, but should otherwise let the market decide the rest. It's difficult for these ideas to gain much traction because on the surface they really sound heartless and a nation full of well-off people want to have a heart. The problem is the ideas of market freedom allow people to have more heart on their own than they otherwise would have the means to.

I agree, and while my title may declare me a liberal I am quite an economic moderate really. I don't think that programs such as social security need to be funded by our federal government. But I do tend to disagree with libertarians on some issues concerning the economy (especially when it comes to the need for government regulation and subsidies).

I'm glad to hear you say that about social security. While I think people should save for retirement, I hate that the government forces us all to partake in one with shitty returns (possibly negative).

However, given your economics background, I'm very surprised to hear you promote subsidies. I can understand regulation, even I think things like the SEC is important and they do some regulating (the thing is, their regulations promote the flow of correct information to the people who need that information), though I do think a lot of regulations end up hurting the people they're trying to help. Anyhow, the only economics professor I ever had who promoted subsidies was this older Russian lady who I swore was a communist (it was rather funny at the time, but she'd downplay simple free market principles as inferior to collectivist alternatives). Subsidies is one of the worst things that ever happened to our nation, our economy, our free market, and our political structure. Subsidies set price floors, they promote people to take unreasonable risks, they cause inefficiency in any market they're in (picture silos filled with food with no where to go when those fields could have been used to create sellable product), and they've been proven time and time again to not be needed. I made a post not too long ago about how now that the government no longer subsidizes tobacco, more of it is made in this country than has been in decades and it's selling at higher prices. Subsidies make OTHER products that are similar or related to have lower supply and therefore a higher price.

There are few things on this planet worse than subsidies.

When people hear the term national health care they automatically assume that one is referring to the provision of health care through taxation (and rightfully so given the current talks about it and how it is set up elsewhere) While I do support the government production of health insurance this is not the model that I had in mind when I espoused it. Would I take such health care over a private system? Yes, but what I would like to see is actually more of a mix of the two.

Again, mixing a free solution with a public one creates a situation where people favor the public due to it already being paid for out of their pocket. Public goods do not, can not, and should not be used to introduce more competition in the market, because the "competitive" pricing of the public good is unnatural.

One of the problem with libertarian economics is that it tends not to be able to distinguish between the privately optimal and the socially optimal points of production. The economy isn't always as simple as having only one supply and demand curve.

Price Segmentation (multiple supply/demand curves) is something I have to look at a LOT. Supply Chain economics is ALL about filling system capacity favoring those with a high willingness to pay (WTP) and filling the remainder with those with a lower WTP that will cover marginal cost all while avoiding things that break the system down such as arbitrage. This is how ALL businesses work. They are forced to by the laws of the market itself.

And understand, knowing what I know, I see the only feasible way to not only promote the well being of the consumers/citizens, but to prevent the misuse of government-run programs or regulations by the businesses is to institute a free society where both sides have to work against each other to come to the middle, making both sides happy. When government intervenes it creates situations where neither side or only one side is happy with the end result.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

You could always start an insurgency...

Advocating violence, nice

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by hsmith

Advocating violence, nice

Sometimes real change comes with violence.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by hsmith

Advocating violence, nice

just throwing out concepts...advocating it would be if I pointed out the virtues of starting one

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Sometimes real change comes with violence.

Real fucked up change most of the time. Few exceptions. Most often that involves people who want to empower themselves, not liberate anybody.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by hsmith

Advocating violence, nice

Sometimes I feel like it's what it would take, but then I realize "oh, yeah, it's not that we can't vote for liberty... it's that no one IS voting for liberty"

Then it becomes clear that you'd just be labeled a loony and ignored