Slashdot Mirror

Although some of the comments here have been intelligent and made with understanding of economics, many of them have been socialist and interventionist nonsense. Hence, I'd like to offer a broad, but brief, response.

The argument by many here seems to run something like the following: The spectrum is scarce, relative to the demand for it; therefore, the government should regulate it. This is simply nonsense. It is precisely when things are scarce that we most need private property rights in them. How would these rights be acquired? By homesteading the relevant portion of the spectrum. Of course, what constitutes "homesteading" a certain frequency is a continuum problem -- clearly, simply spewing out junk on it doesn't constitute homesteading it. One has to actually be making a real use of it.

In a For a New Liberty , Murray N. Rothbard, argued that we don't need State-intervention in the spectrum. See Personal Liberty: Freedom of Radio and Television . Contrary to the commonly held but mistaken view, there was not chaos in the spectrum before the FCC was created to intervene in it. Instead, things were working quite efficiently as courts recognized private property rights in spectrum homesteaded by different individuals. As Rothbard states, the belief that there was chaos prior to State-regulation of the spectrum is

historical legend, not fact. The actual history is precisely the opposite. For when interference on the same channel began to occur, the injured party took the airwave aggressors into court, and the courts were beginning to bring order out of the chaos by very successfully applying the common law theory of property rights--in very many ways similar to the libertarian theory--to this new technological area. In short, the courts were beginning to assign property rights in the airwaves to their "homesteading" users. It was after the federal government saw the likelihood of this new extension of private property that it rushed in to nationalize the airwaves, using alleged chaos as the excuse.

As B.K. Marcus has noted, this account is supported by the memoirs of Herbert Hoover, who noted that One of our troubles in getting legislation [to nationalize the airwaves] was the very success of the voluntary system we had created. I would highly recommend reading the historical overview of the spectrum given by Marcus. Marcus argues that, in order to get support for legislation regulating the spectrum, Hoover purposefully created spectrum-socialism, granting licenses to all applications, free of price or restriction. This, of course, creates a tragedy of the commons.

What we need isn't regulation of the spectrum. Rather, we need deregulation and privatization (via homesteading) of the spectrum. Common law is perfectly capable of applying existing property-rights conventions to the spectrum, including accounting for interference (which would be analagous to building a mineshaft 2 feet under someone elses' house, hence causing it to collapse).

Although some of the comments here have been intelligent and made with understanding of economics, many of them have been socialist and interventionist nonsense. Hence, I'd like to offer a broad, but brief, response.

The argument by many here seems to run something like the following: The spectrum is scarce, relative to the demand for it; therefore, the government should regulate it. This is simply nonsense. It is precisely when things are scarce that we most need private property rights in them. How would these rights be acquired? By homesteading the relevant portion of the spectrum. Of course, what constitutes "homesteading" a certain frequency is a continuum problem -- clearly, simply spewing out junk on it doesn't constitute homesteading it. One has to actually be making a real use of it.

In a For a New Liberty , Murray N. Rothbard, argued that we don't need State-intervention in the spectrum. See Personal Liberty: Freedom of Radio and Television . Contrary to the commonly held but mistaken view, there was not chaos in the spectrum before the FCC was created to intervene in it. Instead, things were working quite efficiently as courts recognized private property rights in spectrum homesteaded by different individuals. As Rothbard states, the belief that there was chaos prior to State-regulation of the spectrum is

historical legend, not fact. The actual history is precisely the opposite. For when interference on the same channel began to occur, the injured party took the airwave aggressors into court, and the courts were beginning to bring order out of the chaos by very successfully applying the common law theory of property rights--in very many ways similar to the libertarian theory--to this new technological area. In short, the courts were beginning to assign property rights in the airwaves to their "homesteading" users. It was after the federal government saw the likelihood of this new extension of private property that it rushed in to nationalize the airwaves, using alleged chaos as the excuse.

As B.K. Marcus has noted, this account is supported by the memoirs of Herbert Hoover, who noted that One of our troubles in getting legislation [to nationalize the airwaves] was the very success of the voluntary system we had created. I would highly recommend reading the historical overview of the spectrum given by Marcus. Marcus argues that, in order to get support for legislation regulating the spectrum, Hoover purposefully created spectrum-socialism, granting licenses to all applications, free of price or restriction. This, of course, creates a tragedy of the commons.

What we need isn't regulation of the spectrum. Rather, we need deregulation and privatization (via homesteading) of the spectrum. Common law is perfectly capable of applying existing property-rights conventions to the spectrum, including accounting for interference (which would be analagous to building a mineshaft 2 feet under someone elses' house, hence causing it to collapse).

Although some of the comments here have been intelligent and made with understanding of economics, many of them have been socialist and interventionist nonsense. Hence, I'd like to offer a broad, but brief, response.

The argument by many here seems to run something like the following: The spectrum is scarce, relative to the demand for it; therefore, the government should regulate it. This is simply nonsense. It is precisely when things are scarce that we most need private property rights in them. How would these rights be acquired? By homesteading the relevant portion of the spectrum. Of course, what constitutes "homesteading" a certain frequency is a continuum problem -- clearly, simply spewing out junk on it doesn't constitute homesteading it. One has to actually be making a real use of it.

In a For a New Liberty , Murray N. Rothbard, argued that we don't need State-intervention in the spectrum. See Personal Liberty: Freedom of Radio and Television . Contrary to the commonly held but mistaken view, there was not chaos in the spectrum before the FCC was created to intervene in it. Instead, things were working quite efficiently as courts recognized private property rights in spectrum homesteaded by different individuals. As Rothbard states, the belief that there was chaos prior to State-regulation of the spectrum is

historical legend, not fact. The actual history is precisely the opposite. For when interference on the same channel began to occur, the injured party took the airwave aggressors into court, and the courts were beginning to bring order out of the chaos by very successfully applying the common law theory of property rights--in very many ways similar to the libertarian theory--to this new technological area. In short, the courts were beginning to assign property rights in the airwaves to their "homesteading" users. It was after the federal government saw the likelihood of this new extension of private property that it rushed in to nationalize the airwaves, using alleged chaos as the excuse.

As B.K. Marcus has noted, this account is supported by the memoirs of Herbert Hoover, who noted that One of our troubles in getting legislation [to nationalize the airwaves] was the very success of the voluntary system we had created. I would highly recommend reading the historical overview of the spectrum given by Marcus. Marcus argues that, in order to get support for legislation regulating the spectrum, Hoover purposefully created spectrum-socialism, granting licenses to all applications, free of price or restriction. This, of course, creates a tragedy of the commons.

What we need isn't regulation of the spectrum. Rather, we need deregulation and privatization (via homesteading) of the spectrum. Common law is perfectly capable of applying existing property-rights conventions to the spectrum, including accounting for interference (which would be analagous to building a mineshaft 2 feet under someone elses' house, hence causing it to collapse).

Although some of the comments here have been intelligent and made with understanding of economics, many of them have been socialist and interventionist nonsense. Hence, I'd like to offer a broad, but brief, response.

The argument by many here seems to run something like the following: The spectrum is scarce, relative to the demand for it; therefore, the government should regulate it. This is simply nonsense. It is precisely when things are scarce that we most need private property rights in them. How would these rights be acquired? By homesteading the relevant portion of the spectrum. Of course, what constitutes "homesteading" a certain frequency is a continuum problem -- clearly, simply spewing out junk on it doesn't constitute homesteading it. One has to actually be making a real use of it.

In a For a New Liberty , Murray N. Rothbard, argued that we don't need State-intervention in the spectrum. See Personal Liberty: Freedom of Radio and Television . Contrary to the commonly held but mistaken view, there was not chaos in the spectrum before the FCC was created to intervene in it. Instead, things were working quite efficiently as courts recognized private property rights in spectrum homesteaded by different individuals. As Rothbard states, the belief that there was chaos prior to State-regulation of the spectrum is

historical legend, not fact. The actual history is precisely the opposite. For when interference on the same channel began to occur, the injured party took the airwave aggressors into court, and the courts were beginning to bring order out of the chaos by very successfully applying the common law theory of property rights--in very many ways similar to the libertarian theory--to this new technological area. In short, the courts were beginning to assign property rights in the airwaves to their "homesteading" users. It was after the federal government saw the likelihood of this new extension of private property that it rushed in to nationalize the airwaves, using alleged chaos as the excuse.

As B.K. Marcus has noted, this account is supported by the memoirs of Herbert Hoover, who noted that One of our troubles in getting legislation [to nationalize the airwaves] was the very success of the voluntary system we had created. I would highly recommend reading the historical overview of the spectrum given by Marcus. Marcus argues that, in order to get support for legislation regulating the spectrum, Hoover purposefully created spectrum-socialism, granting licenses to all applications, free of price or restriction. This, of course, creates a tragedy of the commons.

What we need isn't regulation of the spectrum. Rather, we need deregulation and privatization (via homesteading) of the spectrum. Common law is perfectly capable of applying existing property-rights conventions to the spectrum, including accounting for interference (which would be analagous to building a mineshaft 2 feet under someone elses' house, hence causing it to collapse).

Ok, they have another story on their main page titled "In Defence of Bribery" http://www.mises.org/story/1884 where the author claims bribing government officials is just another method to get things done. WTF??

I think people should be free to lynch corporate executives who think money should control governments. Laws apply to EVERYONE for a reason. Not just when they are convenient when you're suing someing using the DMCA. At least the Worldcom CEO got 35 years of sweet man lovin'...

FDR's Thought Police: Still Alive, Still Censoring

And for those of us not fluent in Latin
  It means the masses want to be cheated, so let's cheat them.
At least that is the definition I found on this site

When Bill Clinton was the president, $50 US was worth $73 Canadian.
Now, since that monkey in the Oval Office killed the US economy, $50 US is only worth $60.70 Canadian.
See http://www.mises.org/images3/Chart1476.gif

Against IP[PDF] by Stephan Kinsella is a great paper about the theory of IP and why it is flawed...essential reading for those who think there are problems with the current system

Before you decide you want to live in a libertarian economy, please spend a couple of years in Russia, Mexico, Turkey or any of the many 2nd and 3rd-world nations where the government is practically non-existent...

Most of the world's economy has been primarily libertarian since the dawn of man.

That's a little different from a genuine "free market economy" with a strong rule of law, isn't it?

For instance, check out myth #7 on this list for a little more on what "laissez-faire" actually means.

Of course many more people would own copies of an operating system if Windows were sold below monopoly prices. Consumers would be rolling in consumer surplus if the market could be evenly split between Windows, QNX, Plan 9, Solaris, and Hurd.

If Microsoft's profits were reasonable, they couldn't waste money on extravagant exercises like Project Green to integrate their four overlapping sets of business applications. They would stop squandering greenbacks on world-class engineers like Ray Ozzie. They'd quit financing dead-end high stakes ventures into new fields, like the Xbox. They wouldn't have an obscenely unfair hedge against the vagaries and volatility of the computer industry.

I grew up using the Commodore Amiga. I hated Microsoft for beating Amiga. I'd like nothing better than for the federal courts to use nineteenth century business regulations to squash Billy G and to restore Jay Miner (late creator of the Amiga) to his rightful prominence.

One caveat though... There's precedence of antitrust laws being used for rent seeking by competitors in the guise of consumer protection. So there may be some call for deliberation before unequivocally endorsing this tactic on our foes the way Nixon used antitrust against TV networks he didn't like. There may also be some reason to suspect that the effects of antitrust may include unanticipated consequences. Come to think of it, maybe we just should just compete on the merits and marketability of our work and leave the courts out of it.

The premise of the "price" or "cost" part of the question is the fallacy called the "Labor Theory Of Value". The fallacy is demonstrated by the simple fact that no two people produce exactly the same "value" in the same time, or the same job. Price is a calculation separate from cost.

http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap12sec3.asp
"The Sphere of Economic Calculation"

"Value" is utterly subjective. What is worth nothing to me is of tremendous value to someone else. One loaf of bread to a starving man is valuable beyond measure. One loaf of bread on a fully stocked store shelf is practically worthless.

Giving away the software and selling support is no different from giving away the razors and selling the blades, a business model with which Gillette made a fortune long before anyone had computer software to worry about selling.

Bob-

Once again we see the absurdity of the FCC. Anyone who wants to can get a radio, it's the "law abiding" who are stuck with all the hurdles and bureaucratic handstands required to get "licenses", just like "criminals" attaching amplifiers to their CB radios.

Here's a great article on the subject:

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1662

"The Spectrum Should Be Private Property."

Bob-

Microsoft is a monopoly on the Operating System market. This has been proven in court.

Lots of things that are not true are "proven" in kangaroo courts all over the world. I'm really not that interested in the opinion of a government agent whose department was obsessed with punishing a company for conducting business actions that went against an FDR-era law that made literally zero economic sense. There are several competiting ideas in economics of what a monopoly is, and none of them apply to Microsoft.

Broken up because of anti-trust in general, or "bundling"? The later, I dont know of any, and as for the former, not in so many words. AT&T, for instance, chose to spin off the local service companies - so they could enter the computer market. Well, thats not quite true: Standard Oil was broken up via anti-trust legislation.

Googling... Wikipeding....

Movie production houses used to own theaters ("vertical integration"), and this was broken up: http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control =178&sortorder=articledate

Breaking up MS would be a extreem penality, that of a last resort. History has shown that courts act much slower then technology, and MS is generally willing to pay the fines and half-heartedly fufful requirements... MS continues to maintain a pattern of behaviour; the first, second, Nth resort has happened. How much further until breaking them up is the only thing left?

Here's the very condensed version with illustrations with an appropriately "worker's paradise" feel to them.

Neither do you. Outside of its State-granted priviledges of monopoly (copyrights and patents), which every software company enjoys, Microsoft is not a monopoly. The correct definition of "monopoly" is when competition is prohibited by coercive force. See Rothbard, Murray. Man, Economy, and State: Monopoly and Competition . The anti-thesis of capitalism is whenever the State intervenes in the free market, in voluntary (non-coercive) transactions between individuals.

So, basically, any advertisement (which "makes" customers buy goods, which may, or may not, have the advertised qualities...) is fraud? I don't think so. If the "fraud" rides the fine line between " puffery" in advertisement and outright fraud in a novel way, he may well be legal.

For example, common sense dictates that if the lungs are impeded by ribs, a diaphragm or a spine that is not moving well, breathing will be hindered. If breathing is hindered, the body's immune functions such as lymphatic drainage will not be working well, and healing will be delayed. This observation led Dr. Still to manipulate his patients daily during influenza epidemics.

It is recorded in literature that 21,000,000 people died worldwide in the flu epidemic of 1917-18. Medical hospitals in America reported a 30 to 40 percent mortality rate. However, osteopathic patients had a mortality rate of less than one percent. (emphasis added)

Now imagine you're in a profession that's just been made obsolete. Is it easier to start over and learn to become effective, or to lobby the legislatures to make "licensed" members of your profession the only group who can do certain procedures ("diagnose", "perscribe", perform surgery, etc)? Guess which one won out.

And so, I agree with you - Doctors really are like help desk technicians. They're fine doing what they're trained to do (perscribe drugs), but if a problem comes up that's outside the scope of their training, they're worthless, and you'll get put onto the magical medical rollercoaster, going from specialist to specialist to specialist, never getting satisfactory result. It's like going to the helpdesk with a problem, and all they ever tell you to do is "reboot the computer".

I've gotten off the rollercoaster and have taken charge of my own health. I seek out qualified consultants when neede

For example, common sense dictates that if the lungs are impeded by ribs, a diaphragm or a spine that is not moving well, breathing will be hindered. If breathing is hindered, the body's immune functions such as lymphatic drainage will not be working well, and healing will be delayed. This observation led Dr. Still to manipulate his patients daily during influenza epidemics.

It is recorded in literature that 21,000,000 people died worldwide in the flu epidemic of 1917-18. Medical hospitals in America reported a 30 to 40 percent mortality rate. However, osteopathic patients had a mortality rate of less than one percent. (emphasis added)

Now imagine you're in a profession that's just been made obsolete. Is it easier to start over and learn to become effective, or to lobby the legislatures to make "licensed" members of your profession the only group who can do certain procedures ("diagnose", "perscribe", perform surgery, etc)? Guess which one won out.

And so, I agree with you - Doctors really are like help desk technicians. They're fine doing what they're trained to do (perscribe drugs), but if a problem comes up that's outside the scope of their training, they're worthless, and you'll get put onto the magical medical rollercoaster, going from specialist to specialist to specialist, never getting satisfactory result. It's like going to the helpdesk with a problem, and all they ever tell you to do is "reboot the computer".

I've gotten off the rollercoaster and have taken charge of my own health. I seek out qualified consultants when neede

yes, precisely!
http://www.mises.org/

Sweden is quite socialist and is richer per capita than the US ($38 760 in Sweden to $36 620 in the US according to The Economist's World in 2005).

Do we have the same World in 2005 publication? Mine shows Sweden's GDP per head is $43,480 (page 89), the U.S.'s $41,530 (page 92). (Switzerland, a less-socialist nation than Sweden, but moreso than the U.S., beats both, with a per-capita GDP of $51,490).

Of course, looking at the CIA World Factbook, we find that the U.S. has a per-capita GDP of $37,800 (2003 estimate), vs. Sweden's $26,800, and Switzerland's $32,700. So the question is which source do we rely upon: the CIA, or the Economist Intelligence Unit (which compiles such data for The Economist)? IMO, that's a tough call. The Economist's figures are newer though, and I've never had any beefs with their figures, so I'm inclined to go by theirs...

(I am curious now how this discrepancy occurred... I greatly doubt GDP figures for each nation shot up so much that per-capita GDP in Switzerland rose by 60% in only 1 year! :-) My guess is that different methods of determining GDP were used, and the simple division of getting a per-capita figure produced such greatly-different values.)

I also think you may be confusing the modern day definition of socialism with Marxism.

I doubt it. I define socialism by strict economic definition, absent political/social influences. I define socialism as follows: "an economic system in which the factors (inputs) and results (outputs) of the economy are produced, owned, and distributed by a government over which there may be any possible level of democratic control."

Marxism is really the step of Marx's theory that deals with the workers of the world overthrowing the capitalist class and creating a classless, communist (i.e. wealth is owned and shared equally) economy.

America did awfully well under "socialist" Roosevelt in the 1930s. FDR's New Deal dragged America out of the Depression.

That's hardly a universal view.

There is debate among economists about the truth of that belief. I don't subscribe to most Austrian economic theory, but here's another critique of the claim. (The author is an Austrian, but he cites 3 neoclassical economists on the subject as well, lending somewhat more credibility...)

Also, it's worth noting that more-respectable economists (like Nobel prize-winning Milton Friedman) have made it mainstream thought -- mainstream enough to be taught in undergrad. Monetary Policy classes, at least -- that government mismanagement, primarily by the Federal Reserve, exacerbated the bank failures of 1929-1933, turning what would have been a severe recession into the Great Depression that we now know it as. See also Friedman's A Monetary History of the United States: 1867-1960, or any of his popular books (Capitalism and Freedom or Free to Choose).

It's a well-respected enough assessment that even Paul Krugman (whom you cite (below) and whom I'm not especially a fan of) is cited in the above AEI article (I admit they're a biased source, but any source in the social sciences is biased. In any case, the article is still worth reading) as noting "Nowadays, practically the whole spectrum of economists, from Milton Friedman leftward, agrees that the Great Depression was brought on by a collapse of effective demand, and that the Federal Reserve should have fought the slump with large injections of money."

Whether FDR's policies got us *out* of the govn'ts

Ah! Many thanks for the clarification. I agree, that is a problem. I agree, they don't get into compliance costs on honest companies directly, but it has been addressed many times before.

It is exactly the same problem with all government regulation. That the costs of compliance with the regulation and its consequential requirement for yet more regulations to try to fix the problems the first regulation caused, on and on ad nauseum, constitute far greater damage to everyone, especially the innocent, than would have been represented by the "problem" that the first regulation was touted as solving.

Alcohol prohibition, gun control, and the War On Some Drugs are extreme examples with commensurate extreme costs overwhelmingly out of proportion with the "problem" supposedly addressed.

Here's a great short article on that subject:

http://www.mises.org/story/1773

The article highlights material from Ludwig von Mises' book "A Critique Of Interventionism", which is online in its entirety if you're interested.

Bob-

Ah! Many thanks for the clarification. I agree, that is a problem. I agree, they don't get into compliance costs on honest companies directly, but it has been addressed many times before.

It is exactly the same problem with all government regulation. That the costs of compliance with the regulation and its consequential requirement for yet more regulations to try to fix the problems the first regulation caused, on and on ad nauseum, constitute far greater damage to everyone, especially the innocent, than would have been represented by the "problem" that the first regulation was touted as solving.

Alcohol prohibition, gun control, and the War On Some Drugs are extreme examples with commensurate extreme costs overwhelmingly out of proportion with the "problem" supposedly addressed.

Here's a great short article on that subject:

http://www.mises.org/story/1773

The article highlights material from Ludwig von Mises' book "A Critique Of Interventionism", which is online in its entirety if you're interested.

Bob-

This is typical: threaten an agency's budget and they'll respond by threatening to cut their most valuable services first.

Bureaucracies are inherently dumb. But don't take my word for it - read "Bureaucracy" by Ludvig von Mises.

Profane,

Here's a quick article over on mises.org that addresses the continuing problems with this latest massive interference with "the market":

http://blog.mises.org/blog/archives/003418.asp

I would appreciate any comments you have on it.

Bob-

I thank you for your kind words.

Actually, I do have a big problem with one thing you're saying, even though I am not certain you mean what it seems you mean. To wit:

a free country also relies on people being able to get rich *fairly*

There's nothing fair about life. Trying to impose "fairness" is a justification used by tyrants to lull individuals into a false sense of security while they're being stabbed in the back. But what I think you meant was not fair but ethical.

One of the unseen effects of all these regulations, especially limited liability incorporation, is that officers and stock holders are insulated from the repercussions of their choices.

Remove all the legal impediments, and what will happen? Ethical accounting practices will be demanded by stockholders. Accountability (please pardon the pun, English is a limited language) of officers for the results of their decisions will be imposed not because the governments say so but because stock holders are attentive and fickle. It is, after all, their money, not the company officer's, and people tend to be careful with their own money.

I do implore you to click on over to http://www.mises.org/ and check out not just the daily articles but also their "blog" where they post several times as many comments and links on business, regulation, ethics, anything that relates to economics. Sarbanes-Oxley has been discussed in detail, to an extent anything I say pales in comparison.

Bob-

Always glad to have a reasonable discourse.

So, how can you say that anarchy doesn't mean chaos?

Good sir, you said it yourself. 1. Absence of any form of political authority.

But what is "political authority"? It is the lawful power to unilaterally change contracts, among other things. For instance, the IRS code is changed every year. I have no ability to "opt out", unlike every voluntary contract I enter into that the other party chooses to change.

Every voluntary interaction you enter into is therefore anarchic, because you can indeed opt out. They hold no "political" authority over you. As you point out, those voluntary interactions happen under rules agreed upon by all the people involved. Churches are a great example. Some of them have a great many rules and regulations, yet (save for some abusive and generally condemned few) are entirely voluntary.

Anarchy means that if I am murdered there are no common standards whereby the murder would be judged.

Interesting that you would mention that after I said that the initiation of force, such as murder, remains prosecutable.

I do take exception to your putting forth that a lack of common standards is a bad thing. Many different standards have existed through history, some of which would value your life merely by some lump of gold. Variations of standards is why there are juries, because killing someone is not always murder.

Apparently we have read/talked to different groups of people calling themselves libertarians.

There are several people who call themselves "libertarians" who are nothing of the sort. I expect that you have indeed heard from some of them.

May I suggest the Ludwig von Mises Institute and Lew Rockwell as good places to correct your misinformation?

Many of "us" who espouse the benefits of definition 1 you provided tend to use the term "anarcho-capitalist" rather than simply "anarchist", for all the reasons you suggest.

non-initiation of force is one of the easiest things to rationalize into use of force. (generational feuds, etc.)

Only if you posit a society without societal norms. Luckily, when people are left to their own devices instead of "ruled", they form communities under agreed upon rules and standards of conduct. All the laws in the world do not prevent, as you say, "generational feuds". What has happened is the societal norm that such bloodshed is wrong has been written into law.

This also brings up the not-insignificant question of where influence ends and force begins.

"We" set those standards every day. I recall a news report about a woman who constantly sued the people around her. She would sue the family several houses away for playing basketball in their driveway, for instance, because she was able to word the suit in such a way as to make it seem that they were creating a nuisance, like that.

By the strict letter of the law, she was right. She knew how to twist the words to suit her own ends. The community, the reporter, the people watching the report, however, all (I assume) condemned her actions as the most absurd abuse of what had been written into statute law to prosecute real troublemakers.

Societal norms asserted themselves. No one ruler decided she was wrong, the answer was not political. Anarchy(1) at its best.

Please don't get me wrong, I agree with you that standards for conduct are important. I consider them of the utmost importance for peaceful human interaction. This is one of the biggest reasons I have for opposing government, opposing "political rule": Government gets to change the rules at their pleasure. Government creates chaos in a way that a mere individual cannot, because government can enforce those changes.

I do recommend you look at a few of the articles on Mises.org, they also have a blog where you can ask for clarification.

I look forward to further discussion.

Bob-

Did you know that Martha Stewart was NOT convicted of insider trading (which the government and media furiously hyped as her "crime") -- all they could muster up in the end was essentially "lying to government" to protect herself against government. Yet millions of people still think her "crime" was insider trading, or at least associate the whole spectacle with insider trading. Judging by your sneering and pointing of fingers, I would bet you are one of those people who actually thinks that insider trading had something to do with her conviction. I suggest you do some reading -- not everything you see on Fox News is true.

Would you lie to government if you thought it necessary to protect yourself against an unethical government? I think any rational person would. Skim over the following articles, and reconsider what you believe about Martha Stewart.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4

Did you know that Martha Stewart was NOT convicted of insider trading (which the government and media furiously hyped as her "crime") -- all they could muster up in the end was essentially "lying to government" to protect herself against government. Yet millions of people still think her "crime" was insider trading, or at least associate the whole spectacle with insider trading. Judging by your sneering and pointing of fingers, I would bet you are one of those people who actually thinks that insider trading had something to do with her conviction. I suggest you do some reading -- not everything you see on Fox News is true.

Would you lie to government if you thought it necessary to protect yourself against an unethical government? I think any rational person would. Skim over the following articles, and reconsider what you believe about Martha Stewart.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4

Did you know that Martha Stewart was NOT convicted of insider trading (which the government and media furiously hyped as her "crime") -- all they could muster up in the end was essentially "lying to government" to protect herself against government. Yet millions of people still think her "crime" was insider trading, or at least associate the whole spectacle with insider trading. Judging by your sneering and pointing of fingers, I would bet you are one of those people who actually thinks that insider trading had something to do with her conviction. I suggest you do some reading -- not everything you see on Fox News is true.

Would you lie to government if you thought it necessary to protect yourself against an unethical government? I think any rational person would. Skim over the following articles, and reconsider what you believe about Martha Stewart.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4

Did you know that Martha Stewart was NOT convicted of insider trading (which the government and media furiously hyped as her "crime") -- all they could muster up in the end was essentially "lying to government" to protect herself against government. Yet millions of people still think her "crime" was insider trading, or at least associate the whole spectacle with insider trading. Judging by your sneering and pointing of fingers, I would bet you are one of those people who actually thinks that insider trading had something to do with her conviction. I suggest you do some reading -- not everything you see on Fox News is true.

Would you lie to government if you thought it necessary to protect yourself against an unethical government? I think any rational person would. Skim over the following articles, and reconsider what you believe about Martha Stewart.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4

Like, for example, petroleum:)

This American is expecting some serious stagflation, where the price of almost everything, including credit, will increase.

The only price that will not increase in the U.S. is that of labor.

I don't think it's really eminent domain in that the Fed Government created this "property" right in the first place.

P.S. Be sure to read Against Intellectual Property by Steven Kinsella

Wasted resources aren't "good for the economy". See Capitalism and the broken window fallacy.

So, the individual must sacrifice for the good of the state/human race? Spoken like a true fascist.

So, what do you plan on doing to people like me who don't particualrly give a fuck about global warming and just want to drive a hummer? Shoot me? Imprison me? Send me to a re-education camp until I take public transit? Come you Nazi fuck, let's hear the plan...

Tim

The British Empire was too oppressive for the founding fathers (though there were many loyalists as well that were opposed to secession), and it was determined by those activists that there were no parameters that would allow for a moderate government while still under British rule.

They didn't want a "moderate" government but an independant and minimal one. Hence the problem.

It is not my position that this is the case with Social Security or taxes in general in contemporary America.

"Oppression" is relative to the oppressive-ee. SS is a collosal failure and an assult on individual liberty. If your "Rational Americans" want to fund a corrupt system then why not let them do so voluntarily, and leave the rest of us to help out society as we see fit on our own accord? Any truly "rational" (and "informed") American will know that having government try to fix the ills of society is asking for more ill than what the fix is fixing. But since many choose to ignore the past failures of governments around the world trying to force fix societal issues, we'll likely always have a corrupt, beaurocracy-heavy system that forces it's citizens into fiscal management.

The British Empire was too oppressive for the founding fathers (though there were many loyalists as well that were opposed to secession), and it was determined by those activists that there were no parameters that would allow for a moderate government while still under British rule.

They didn't want a "moderate" government but an independant and minimal one. Hence the problem.

It is not my position that this is the case with Social Security or taxes in general in contemporary America.

"Oppression" is relative to the oppressive-ee. SS is a collosal failure and an assult on individual liberty. If your "Rational Americans" want to fund a corrupt system then why not let them do so voluntarily, and leave the rest of us to help out society as we see fit on our own accord? Any truly "rational" (and "informed") American will know that having government try to fix the ills of society is asking for more ill than what the fix is fixing. But since many choose to ignore the past failures of governments around the world trying to force fix societal issues, we'll likely always have a corrupt, beaurocracy-heavy system that forces it's citizens into fiscal management.

"Human Action" by Ludwig von Mises. The entire text is online at http://www.mises.org/humanaction.asp

The best economics book I have come across is "Human Action" by Ludwig von Mises. The entire book is online at http://www.mises.org/humanaction.asp

Also, here is a link to the blog defending Westley from the Bloomberg criticism, in which I found that delightful repartee.

Andy Mukherjee, a Bloomberg columnist wrote this article; to paraphrase their argument "Yes, [they argue that] disasters can generate economic growth so long as they are predictable and frequent. Every time annual floods or hurricanes levels a house or factory or some other physical capital, the replacement usually involves some technological improvement, which is good for economic growth.".

To which one blogger on Mises.org responded "Would he argue that beatings administered to economists can do them a world of good, as long as they are predictable and frequent? That way, their old and broken hypotheses can be beaten out of them and replaced with newer, better hypotheses."

What makes these axioms self-evident? Kant answers, it is not because they are evident in a psychological sense, in which case we would be immediately aware of them. On the contrary, Kant insists, it is usually much more painstaking to discover such axioms than it is to discover some empirical truth such as that the leaves of trees are green. They are self-evident because one cannot deny their truth without self-contradiction; that is, in attempting to deny them one would actually, implicitly, admit their truth. ...

It has been a common quarrel with Kantianism that this philosophy seemed to imply some sort of idealism. For if, as Kant sees it, true synthetic a priori propositions are propositions about how our mind works and must of necessity work, how can it be explained that such mental categories fit reality? How can it be explained, for instance, that reality conforms to the principle of causality if this principle has to be understood as one to which the operation of our mind must conform? Don't we have to make the absurd idealistic assumption that this is possible only because reality was actually created by the mind? ...
Mises provides the solution to this challenge. It is true, as Kant says, that true synthetic a priori propositions are grounded in self-evident axioms and that these axioms have to be understood by reflection upon ourselves rather than being in any meaningful sense "observable." Yet we have to go one step further. We must recognize that such necessary truths are not simply categories of our mind, but that our mind is one of acting persons. Our mental categories have to be understood as ultimately grounded in categories of action. And as soon as this is recognized, all idealistic suggestions immediately disappear. Instead, an epistemology claiming the existence of true synthetic a priori propositions becomes a realistic epistemology. Since it is understood as ultimately grounded in categories of action, the gulf between the mental and the real, outside, physical world is bridged. As categories of action, they must be mental things as much as they are characteristics of reality. For it is through actions that the mi

However, in one case the shareholders suffer dilution in their proportional ownership of Intel, and in the other case they suffer a reduction in the value of the company itself as it has given up an economic asset. OTOH, a company cannot count its own shares among its economic assets. ...
Shareholders can be diluted in their ownership, OR they can experience a loss in the value of what it is that they own, but trying to pile one loss upon the other is simply absurd.

As illustrated by Garrison, mathematical economics cannot properly address causaility; nor can we learn causality from it, despite the fallicious thinking of some sophisticated econometricists.

History does not tell us about economic theory. History is merely a series of facts. We interpret history through economic theory. If history explained economics, the enormous gap between Marxist class analysis and Austrian class analysis could not exist.

The Austrian theory of the business cycle (ATBC) is the only theory which adequately explains modern business cycles (in ancient times, the cause for depression was often obvious: a despot took all of the money). Nor is the ATBC inconsistent with history. Sorry, but you haven't in any way shown this. Of course, you are right -- it doesn't explain 3000 years of history. It explains one thing: the business cycle.

Rather, the ATBC is an interpretation of history. No theory of economics can be proven or disproven by history. (Unless it is so crudely stated as to say something like, "inflation always causes the CPI to increase", in which case we can see that during the 20s boom, consumer prices did not rise; rather, the effects of inflation manifested in the stock market). And even according to econometrics, there is nothing that disproves the ABTC.

You have completely failed to show how the ATBC is somehow inconsistent with history. This is just an assertion on your part. I cannot force you to educate yourself.

While mathematical economists may not deny that the ultimate cause is to be found in the actions of market participants, they proceed untroubled by the fact that mathematics is inherently silent on the issue of cause and effect. This disadvantage of the mathematical method was Mises's concern [1966, p. 350] when he remarked that [i]ts syllogisms are not only sterile; they divert the mind from the study of the real problems and distort the relationships between the various phenomena.

While mathematical economists may not deny that the ultimate cause is to be found in the actions of market participants, they proceed untroubled by the fact that mathematics is inherently silent on the issue of cause and effect. This disadvantage of the mathematical method was Mises's concern [1966, p. 350] when he remarked that [i]ts syllogisms are not only sterile; they divert the mind from the study of the real problems and distort the relationships between the various phenomena.

Scientific rigor is not dismissed. Austrians merely note that there is a difference between social science and natural science, and that the methods of the natural sciences are not appropriate to social sciences.

Your attempt to use the methods of the natural sciences in economics only shows you ignorance of natural sciences. The crap that goes for "work" in mainstream economics could never be published in a journal of natural sciences; that is, any "experiments" in the natural sciences as poor and void of control would be flatly rejected. You cannot do experiments in the social sciences in the same sense that you can in the natural sciences.

What economists hope for is a "natural experiment". The closest thing that there has ever been to this is the split of West and East Germany after the war. Eastern Germany -- heavily socialized -- floundered in poverty. Western Germany -- more or less free-market, under the "economic miracle" of Ernhardt, taking some of the advice of Ruptke -- prospered. Yet, even in this, we cannot draw any conclusions, but must interpret. The socialists can always say there were some differences between the East and West, and that if things had only been different in the East, socialism would have succeeded.

It is not appropriate to compare physical phenomena to economic and social phenomena, because social phenomena are complex events. There can be no experiments in the social sciences. It is flatly incorrect to use calculus for economics, due to the unrealisic assumption of continuity. Furthermore, there are no fixed relations in the social sciences. People can and do change their preferences; the implication of this is that any numerical relations are only historical and transient. Simply because X% of monetary expansion (inflation) resulted in Y% of price increase in consumer goods does not mean that it will do so again in the future.

Econometrics is thus nothing more than childish play. Its only use is in historical study. We certainly cannot learn anything regarding economics from this kind of mathematical play (though we can learn history). Correct economic theory can only be learned through rigorous logical application -- something most mainstream economists are very poor at -- starting from a priori truths (e.g., axiom that man acts, postulate that there's a variety of resources, etc).

The difference between the social sciences and the natural sciences is something you -- and mainstream economists -- have completely failed to grasp. In praxeology, we are in the fortunate positions of knowing the ultimate foundations. We can thus proceed in a chain of logical reasoning. However, because social phenomena are complex, no experiments can be done (and even if they could be done, it would be completely unethical to do them, for reasons that I hope are obvious even to mainstream economists). In natural sciences, we do not know the ultimate foundations. However, we are in the fortunate position of being able to do experiments.

Except, mainstream economists mostly don't use those methods. For a perfect example of some of the absurd assumptions (precisive abstraction), see "perfect competition". And even if they did, it still wouldn't redeem them. Economic phenomena are not continuous. Actors can choose. Preferences can and do change, making indifference curves humbug.

Your mathematical description of the effects of inflation may be true, but so what? It aids in nothing. There are no constant mathematical relationships in human action. Your little mathematical description only expresses in mathematical terms what I said in words. It, however, falls far short of the lofty and unrealistic ambitions of mainstream economists, which is to predict how much prices will rise given a certain amount of inflation. The problem is that because circumstances can and do change -- and more problematic for these "measurers" that people can change their preferences, time-preferences, and time-preference schedules -- while increasing the monetary base by X% may have resulted in Y% price-increase in the past, it isn't sure to do so in the future, even if all measureable things are the same.

To clear up your confusion, I suggest Logical Catallactics Versus Mathematical Catallactics by Ludwig von Mises. A lesser critique of this idiocy can be found in Hayek's The Pretense of Knowledge

nice job of selectively picking out only the things that help your point. The big difference between human beings and animals is that we are economic creatures, and can choose. We have societies, moralities, laws, cultures, histories, etc. I'm not denying that John Nash was brilliant: I'm just saying that game theory is almost useless for an understanding of human action. As I said, Friedrick von Hayek did win a Nobel Prize -- something you conveniently ignored -- and agrees with his mentor, Ludwig von Mises on the subject (whom the Nobel committee would have had no choice to give a Nobel, had he been alive when Hayek received his).

The school of Austrian economics accurately praxeology without using any of the absurdly unrealistic assumptions that game theory uses. (for a brief overview, see What is Austrian Economics? ).

By the way, pre-empting an argument is not refuting it, but is rather agreeing with it.