Slashdot Mirror
Prediction Markets and the 2008 Electoral Map
Electionwatch submitted a predicted electoral map of the 2008 US Presidential election, based on the bets made by the intrade prediction markets. I'm always interested in these markets and how accurate they end up being. This one calls it for Obama, but then again you probably could guess that by just watching 10 minutes of any TV "News" channel.
He can walk on water and make the dead rise.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/electoral.map/index.html
If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
I visit http://www.electoral-vote.com/ every day.
So, rather than appear foolish afterward, I renounce seeming clever now.
McCain 70-80% likely to pick up Florida? Obama 70-80% likely to grab Pennsylvania? Everyone is expecting those two to be big battleground states. Those probabilities seem pretty lofty to me.
My favorite political predictor site is electoral-vote.com
They use an amalgamation of national and statewide polls to show the current feeling of Americans on a wide variety of races. Including a national map with a current tally of the electoral votes right at the top.
--why?
The voting results maps by COUNTY of past elections. The pattern that clearly becomes visible is that the division in the US isn't so much right versus left or conservative versus liberal but RURAL-dweller versus URBAN-dweller. Taking that a step further, have you noticed that the urbanites are usually the ones on the environmental-protection bandwagon or the consumer-protection bandwagon (read: you can't have a trike ATV). The urbanites are the ones saying that we can't drill in Alaska. I'll bet that 99.99% of them have never been to Alaska and have no clue as to how enormous the place is. "Yeah, we're going to retire all that great farm land so we can build another cloned shopping mall with the same cookie-cutter stores." "But where will your endive and cilantro salad come from?" "Don't bother me with facts, dammit!"
If you interested in prediction markets, check out this wired article:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-06/st_essay
It's a good piece on some of the challenges prediction markets have: small trading populations, mostly community insiders trading on things they care/know a lot about, small stakes. It's an interesting read!
After only a string of 43 previous presidents, the country will finally rejoice when we elect a Christian male to the highest office in the land. It's about time! :P
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Should this map be on the Diebold site?
"1. Value of the Dollar"
And how exactly is printing more money (in the form of "tax rebate" checks funded through deficit spending) going to increase the value of the dollar? (Source) Doesn't it do the exact opposite?
"4. Percentage of bankruptcies caused by lack of health care coverage"
And Obama would replace that number with the "percentage of Americans completely losing their property rights to socialism", which of course would be 100%. McCain is of course doing the same thing, though possibly to a lesser degree (or maybe he's just better at hiding it).
"5. Number of houses lost to predatory lenders."
I have no sympathy for people who sign contracts without reading them, nor for banks that associate with such shady sources. Companies and individuals that purposely do not investigate the risk of such endeavors will fall. It is not our responsibility to provide a safety net for bad practices - doing so brings the whole system down, because everyone starts thinking they can make mistakes and someone will protect them from the consequences (for free at that!)
As for Iraq, all I see is a lot of empty talk from the candidates. I doubt either has a viable plan that is without dangerous consequences; they will instead elect to do nothing.
Iowa state university has a really good prediction market also.
You can see it here. . they have 2 differenent election markets.. one is winer take all and the other is vote percentage..
Although it's not politically correct to say so, anyone who doesn't think Race is a factor need only look at this map. It looks like the North vs the South (with the West Coast siding with the North and all the plain states siding with the South)
Apparently we're going to have to do the 60's-70's again to reintroduce people who weren't paying attention at the time to what it looks like when the country actually gets messed up. OMG, the economy is only growing at a 2.5% annualized rate and unemployment is over 5%!!!@!!!@!!
Hopefully we can avoid disco this time.
1) And how exactly is printing more money (in the form of "tax rebate" checks funded through deficit spending) going to increase the value of the dollar? (Source) Doesn't it do the exact opposite? A tax rebate check is only printed money if you are running deficits like we are under Republican rule, not if you have a surplusses like we had by the time Bill Clinton left office.
Not only that, but consider the difference between a one time stimulous check, and an occupation of a foreign country that costs us $341 Million per day and has left us less safe. That is $341 Million of printed money per day. Convenient you would forget about that
4) And Obama would replace that number with the "percentage of Americans completely losing their property rights to socialism", which of course would be 100%. McCain is of course doing the same thing, though possibly to a lesser degree (or maybe he's just better at hiding it).
The only alternative to letting people bankrupt themselves until they die broke, their illness untreated is to scare people with the idea of socialism. If you want to pay through the nose for health "coverage" that specifically excludes the pre-existing conditions you need it for, I support your right to do that.
It is immoral to bankrupt people for getting sick and any society that has the ability to prevent this has a moral duty to. All other industrialized nations provide a health care system to their citizens that actually treats their conditions rather than just extracting as much money while providing as little healthcare as possible.
5) have no sympathy for people who sign contracts without reading them, nor for banks that associate with such shady sources. Companies and individuals that purposely do not investigate the risk of such endeavors will fall.
Falling home prices hurt everyone, not just people who took out bad loans - often while being tricked in to thinking they were agreeing to different terms. If you need to move for a job and find that your home is now worth significantly less than you paid for it, you are screwed.
At that point do you give thanks to a regulatory system that let some slimey, deceptive, piece of shit make a buck at everyone else's expense?
But that is a pretty weak argument when he supports staying in a costly war. Lowering taxes and spending huge amounts of money on war will be terrible for the US economy.
Then again I spose a lot of people don't have the ability to do what I like to call take two facts and create a third fact.
Fact 1: War is costly
Fact 2: Taxes pay for war
Fact 3 (created from the first two facts): If we decrease taxes and still spend on a war we won't have money to pay for anything but the war without borrowing more money.
Our bugs are smarter than your test scripts.
Don't underestimate the importance of a strong Dollar for the US. With the USD losing value by the hour now, a lot of countries are pondering aloud whether they should accept other currencies in international trade.
Do you have a faint idea what it would mean for the USD if oil (or any internationally traded commodity that you have to import) was suddenly handled in EUR instead? Or what this would mean for the US economy? I doubt Ford can prop up that disaster!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Welcome to American politics. I've been a voter for ten years and very rarely have I ever truly voted FOR a candidate rather than AGAINST the other guy. That goes from presidential elections down to my local alderman.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
Umm, I don't know where you are getting this from. Hillary had her best showings in states with closed primaries. Obama did much better in states with open primaries where independents could vote. I won't argue with you over working class voters but you lost me at "no affiliation whatsoever with either party" because Obama did much better among Independents than Hillary did.
BTW, I don't think that Obama's appeal is underestimated like the GP. I think McCain's appeal is overestimated. The Conservative base doesn't like him -- the religious folks for obvious reasons, the true conservatives because of McCain-Feingold. If he swings to the center then he further alienates this conservative base (witness the flub over him talking about climate change). If he swings to the right then he runs the risk of losing the independents because he has to associate with GWB and his 30% approval rating. He's also linked to a war that 70% of this country opposes.
I could totally see Obama pulling off a sizable victory. A lot of that will have to do with his appeal as a charismatic candidate -- but a lot of it is also going to have to do with the mistakes that McCain is making and the tough position the Republican Party is in.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Don't underestimate the importance of a strong Dollar for the US. With the USD losing value by the hour now, a lot of countries are pondering aloud whether they should accept other currencies in international trade.
Let them. Let the price of European and Japanese goods rise so high that they do not export to the USA any more. I've got ten million US manufacturing workers ready to go back to work, and the unions to back them.
Do you have a faint idea what it would mean for the USD if oil (or any internationally traded commodity that you have to import) was suddenly handled in EUR instead? Or what this would mean for the US economy? I doubt Ford can prop up that disaster!
If worse comes to worse, the USA has 150,000 men sitting on top of 200 billion barrels of oil in Iraq. Do you really think it prudent that they leave at this time?
But, be that as it may, its US corn and US wheat and US coal that are really driving exports right now. If the asian countries do not want to accept US dollars, than, certainly, we can demand that they pay for food in gold.
This is my sig.
You mean like that PRO-IP Act a few stories down, the one that turns a civil matter into a felony and gives the feds the right to confiscate your computer if they think you might have maybe downloaded something illegal? The one that was introduced by a Democrat and voted against by only 4 Democrats (and only 7 Republicans, don't worry, I fully acknowledge that they BOTH suck)?
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
Last time I checked, Obama doesn't want American soldiers in Iraq to hold up white flags and then allow themselves to be help captive by insurgents. If you have legitimate reasons for not voting for Obama, then be my guest and vote for the candidate that will continue the policies that have brought the U.S. to where it's at now. However, you look like a complete, biased idiot when you use inaccurate and sensationalist words like "surrender" to describe a candidates policies.
Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
According to that election map, 21 states will override the will of 29 states. Those 21 states are mainly in the Pacific west and the Northeast.
The South, the Plains states, and portions of the Midwest and Southwest states do not believe in Obama. These are mostly rural and farm states.
Could it be that the data is skewed by the availability of net access?
Also, is this an indicator that those who grow most of the food do not believe that Obama will do what is in their best interest?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
How about a few?
1) The Lugar-Obama Cooperative Threat Reduction
He's not suited for leading a government - he doesn't have the spine to stand up for himself and pursue what he thinks is right2) Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (check out this site)
3) Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (here's a story about it)
He's had the spine to stand up for himself quite well against the HRC and Republican attack machines. He's also one of the few politicians I've ever seen that can retain some semblance of class while going on the offensive. I rather enjoyed "I honor John McCain for his achievements, even if he chooses to deny mine"
If you can't see these weaknesses, perhaps you should try to escape your bubble periodicallyI see weaknesses in every candidate, including Obama. Anyone who doesn't see some weakness in their candidate of choice is a partisan hack.
On balance though I think he has the right combination of intelligence and strength to lead this country. On balance I think that most of his ideas are good ones and he realizes that we can't keep arguing with each other while ignoring the rise of China and India if we wish to remain a global power. His plan to end the war on science and make education a long term priority should appeal to anyone that wants to see the United States remain competitive on the global stage.
Do you think he's stupid? Do you think he's weak? If so I think you are in for a rude surprise.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
This alone is reason enough for me to vote against him. No matter if the alternative is a water cooler.
Think about what "lower taxes" basically means. Lower taxes means less money in governmental pockets. Thus less governmental spending (or increasing the national debt, either way you're fu..ed). Less fed spending means less money for public schools, less money for roads, less money for wellfare, less...
Wait, you don't care about wellfare you say? Doesn't affect you? It does.
Allow me to tell you something about my country, in Europe. We pay taxes that would make your head spin. All in all, when my buck is spent, only about 30 cents thereof go to some sort of good or service, the rest is siphoned away in taxes, directly or indirectly. Wage tax, healthcare tax, VAT... pretty much the only thing not taxed is taxes. And you pay extra tax on alcohole, fuel, housing, you name it.
In other words, my country has quite a bit of cash to spend. And they do. Wellfare checks are about a thousand bucks a month. You can easily live on that. If you have family, you get more. And your rent is paid as well.
Why does that affect me, when I have to work so that moocher can sit on his lazy ass and get fat? Because people have something to lose. People who don't have anything to lose don't care if they have to bash your head in for the 20 bucks you have on you.
Our crime rate is low. Incredibly low. I live in the capital, still a murder makes the evening news, and is certainly the headline of tomorrow's papers. It happens once a year, so it's quite some event!
What I want to say is that you have to pay for what you want, one way or another. When you're done paying for healthcare, security (which includes living in a "good" neighborhood, buying some alarm system and maybe even hiring security goons), retirement and other insurances, you're probably where I am.
Though I'd guess, you have less money on your hands than I do. Despite paying about 30% of my income directly in taxes, and another 50% indirectly.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Obviously, you do not own a house.
When that house down the block sells for 30% less than it was purchased, that then becomes a 'comparable' for judging the value of YOUR house. Even though you have made perfect on-time payments, and have never been late with any bill ever in your life.
Now your bank is calling in your home equity loan, that you have also never been late on, all because the bank now has to write down its balance sheet. When that happens, the results spread to EVERY member of the bank, not just the 'dumb' people, as you seem to like to call them.
This bullshit of blaming the victim needs to be stopped. Or do you live on an island, all by yourself, with no connection to the outside world?
Cry you a river? How about the anger you are going to feel when you realize that your local government has been raising your property taxes in lockstep with the increasing home prices, but try to get them to lower them when the values fall.(unless you live in CA where this is law) When your property taxes go up 30% or more, but your property value has also fallen 30% simply because of all these 'dumb' people, are you still going to run around saying 'cry me a river'.
So you rent, you say. It doesnt affect me, you say. Well, do you know the financial position of your landlord? Do you know what will happen if they are unable to meet their funding responsibilities on the property you are renting because the near collapse and now tightening of the credit markets are requiring higher capital to get the same loan amounts? Will they sell it to the 'lowest bidder' who will then neglect it simply because they are looking to make a buck, and arent really into caring about your standard of living?
If you have managed to avoid any negative ramifications of what has been happening the past 12 months, you should count yourself lucky. Within the next 3-4 weeks however, we will all find out just how much this will spread when the fed comes face-to-face with having to make the choice of letting the dollar collapse, or fixing the housing market. Sitting on that precipice is where we are RIGHT NOW.
Hopefully that wont happen, but if it does, I honestly hope the people you come in contact with afterwords have a more human attitude with regard to your situation, and dont just say 'cry me a river' to your face.
Prediction markets are still very "new" and participation is low. This is problematic for a couple of reasons. Primarily, prediction markets only work when there are arbitrage opportunities for individuals who actually know what's going to happen. They'll buy the security in question, and it's price will rise to the expected level. In any event - if insiders aren't controlling the price of a security then it's price won't reflect its real value.
The problem comes in when no one really knows the answer. People will buy and sell these prediction securities on hunches or what not, but the actual price will not truly be reflective of the outcome of, say, an election. Case in point, a month after John McCain had secured the Republican nomination for President, his likelihood of becoming President was still trading at around $.39 (Intrade works on fractions of a dollar). Any reasonably intelligent person should have been able to forecast this price would shoot up to at least $.45 or better once the Democrats chose a candidate - Consider that presidential elections are usually around 50/50.
The question was: why weren't people snatching these securities up like hotcakes? I still haven't been able to figure that out. But personally I think it proves the notion I heard someone else mention a while back. To paraphrase: these aren't prediction markets, they're extremely recent history markets.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Yes, of course, and Ron Paul hasn't studied, for example, Ludwig Von Mises, Frederik Hayek, and other noted economists...
Just because he doesn't subscribe to your Keynesian theories (or whatever other current fad they taught you) doesn't mean he's wrong.
I think you'll find that many people who've actually studied economics seriously also agree with much of what he says - it's not as if he's invented a new economic theory, he is an advocate of the Austrian school of economics. Nothing to do with Ayn Rand (although there are similarities.)
But, looking at it that way might make a little harder to blindly dismiss him as trivial, wouldn't it? So, let's not do that.
http://clightnirish.wordpress.com/
The book explains that people are not rational or logical especially when it comes to risk assessment. The best recent example (the book was written in 1989) is America's reaction to the 9/11 attacks. More people died of hunger that day than were killed in the attack. The US response to the attacks was totally illogical because people felt threatened and this caused them to stop using the higher levels of their brains. They instead, reverted to their reptilian "flight or fight" instincts.
Another similar (or worse) attack will most likely produce a similar response from the American people. They will stop thinking rationally, which is probably the only way the Republicans can beat Obama on November 4th.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
I can't say I completely agree with the prediction that the GOP is going to have its usual steamrolller victories in the south. Most southern, hell, all republicans aren't all that enthusiastic about McCain. He is a hard candidate when it comes to polarizing your voter base. Simply put if the commies and pro-Antichrist liberals decided to take over America and turn your children into gay socialist, they don't believe he would do a whole lot to turn the tide.
Also, no one seems to notice that there are plenty of black voters in the south. Contrary to what many in the media would have you believe, black voters aren't afraid to go to the polls; Sheriff Cracker hasn't been at the polls with his shotgun in a long, long time. The problem is that they, like every other voter group, seldom have a reason to go.
We all know studying "Noted Experts" is only the first step of true knowledge.
THe Free Market when it exists is HIGHLY destructive to PEOPLE, yeah profits for a few skyrocket but monopolies(some subtle) are created and they damage everything they touch until some radical comes along and breaks it up(for a time).
So for your attack on Keynes please show me a BETTER example of economic thought where ALL hard working people are rewarded, and not just a few at the top. Regulation is blunt against greed(its not perfect but what is).
As to Hayek forgive me if the economist who bent over backwards to support Pinochet in Argentina ranks fairly low on my Useful Human Scale and we know how well THEIR economy did after implementing the Free Market.
Maybe the "invisble hand" will save us all
While the Austrian school economists are a step up, they still have an inordinate fondness for self-evident propositions that aren't self-evident (particularly, the action axiom). Unprovable statements that one claims are "self-evident" is just a disease of rational thought.
"If an emergency happens to somebody who lacks the money to buy insurance, what do you think ought to happen?"
One of a few things could/should happen:
1. An organization backed through donations provides the service.
2. An unfunded organization provides the service (could not last).
3. The service provider permits the individual to pay back through a loan (and if the provider does not offer that, the individual finds one that does).
4. A friend/family member covers the cost (permanently or temporarily).
I'm not sure if it was from the Pentagon papers, but Chomsky gave a talk where he discussed the CIA's incompetence and outright idiocy while they were trying to figure out if China or Russia was sending Ho Chi Minh orders in the 60s.
They chased down every lead, and the most they ever found was a Russian newspaper in a Vietnamese embassy. Their conclusion? Ho Chi Minh was such a dedicated communist client that they didn't even need to send orders. Ho Chi Minh just "knew what to do."
I also recently finished watching "RFK Must Die," and at this point, we just need to wipe the whole intelligence community out the door and start over again.
Dude, you're not thinking clearly. Commercial transactions don't capture all value.
I live in a city. When there are a ton of desperate poor around, it affects my quality of life. I can't go outside at night.
By myself, I cannot do a damn thing to change this: I do not have the resources. If we want to change the city, we require collective action. Government is the means by which collective action is achieved.
If an epidemic spreads through the city, simply having enough money to pay for my own medical bills isn't enough. No: What was really needed was for the first poor schmuck who caught the disease to begin with and started spreading it around to have received adequate medical care before the situation ballooned out of control.
Libertarianism is dogs eating dogs. You might win, but it won't have been very pleasant for you even if you do.
Lower taxes means less money in governmental pockets.
Not necessarily. It depends on where you are on the unfortunately-named Laffer curve. If every one is taxed at 100%, no one would work, so there would be no tax revenue. With a tax rate of zero, there is also no tax revenue. Somewhere in between is a point where the tax revenue is maximized. If your tax rate is above that point, increasing it has the effect of reducing tax revenue.
It would certainly suck if you were hypothetically an individual who lived in a community where charitable foundations were unfunded or underfunded (Points #1 and #2), was injured to the point where you are no longer able to produce income (Point #3), and has no family or friends (Point #4).
I certainly hope there's an option #5 out there...
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
I'd rather see us not invade anyone again unless there is a direct, confirmed threat to the US. But at least Pakistan, like Afghanistan, would be a sensible target to invade if your goal is to get terrorists and control the spread of nukes. Unlike Iraq or Iran we're 100% certain Pakistan has nuclear weapons, because they've detonated them.
They don't need to suspend elections with black box hacked voting and high level media manipulation, ie. picking the globalist approved candidates to give coverage to, and instantly labeling all the others as "fringe" right off the bat. Advertising/propaganda *works*, at least to a large enough extent that they can do whatever they want to do all the time, and real laws and the real constitution gets ignored. And even if they get found out in lies or illegalities, again, nothing happens, because we have a paper tiger toothless congress that is mostly compromised and an executive branch that just issues orders at random through EOs and "signing statements" and so on, and has all the official guns and "no questions asked" order followers to back those orders and edicts up.
So the only reason to vote for McCain is because you don't like the other guy. That's not a reason why you should vote *for* anyone, but why you are voting the way you are to vote *against* someone else. I've never seen anyone that has stated "I like McCain because ..." No one likes him. No one wants him. They only want the person that's running against Obama.
will have a strong negative effect on the economy, on quality of life, military preparedness, and job growth.
I'm curious why we need "military preparedness." Who is going to invade the US? We have had a huge standing military for years, and haven't ever had to use it for defense, and probably never will. Yet, I see that touted as one of the problems with Democrats is that they aren't willing to increase spending to defend us from some unidentified invading force, when even if we cut spending in half, no country in the world could successfully invade. As it stands now, if we were given about 2 weeks notice (good intelligence or such), the rest of the world could try to invade and would be unsuccessful. And, if they succeeded, a couple cheap nukes aimed at their capital would at least make us feel better, which is a reason why no one would ever try.
McCain is a relatively weak candidate from the conservative perspective however he is the only choice when considering the big government collectivist policy changes that would be implemented by an Obama presidency.
What was the growth of spending of Clinton compared to Bush? Both will have had two full terms, and let me know what the total increase in spending was for both 8-year reigns. I'm guessing the big-spending Democrat spent a hell of a lot less than the "conservative" Republican. And that has always been the case. Compare Carter's term with either of Reagans. You'll find the same thing. Recent Democrats *always* spend less. Yet there are people like you that assert the opposite, and then will claim things like "Clinton had a bubble" or "Carter had a resession" or whatever. Tear away the lies and Democrats spend less. Period. A vote for McCain is a vote for more taxes and increased spending. The only real choice in candidates is whether you'd prefer your money spent on bullets or bandages, and we can tell where you stand. Screw the poor and sick, there are "terrorists" to be killed.
Learn to love Alaska
That's like being bitten by a snake. I do not turn around and reason with the snake. I cut its head off.
Yes, we should NEVER reason with people, only chop their heads off. Perhaps understanding WHY 9/11 happened would have been a good thing, it would have probably have been better to do that before ensuring that more people want to blow us up.
snakes != collections of people
I might remind you that the "intellectual classes" are the FIRST people who are off'd after a military coup. Not because of their intelligence, but because they are quick and easy prey who only realize their mistake when it's too late. Stalin called them "useful idiots." OTOH, those so-called "reptilian flight or fight" instincts have a lot to be said for and have kept our butts alive for millions of years.
Anti-intellectual movements FTW! Look what electing a moron (which is the opposite of intellectual) got us. I don't want "folk" running our country, folk are ignorant, superstitious, illiterate, yokels, with no ability to reason in advance, or ponder consequences of their actions.
No one in power should be common. My experience with the common, non-educated, man is not encouraging.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
I'm an even bigger wacko... I have empathy for the poor, and don't want to see anyone suffer. I also missed the day when they were passing out the Ayn Rand kool-aid, and thus don't see pure greed as a valid ethical stance, and thus don't feel bad forcing inhumane people to act humanely.
People should always come first, period.
Granted I don't think we should elevate the poor to the level of the rich, or topple the rich to the middle class or below, achievement does have some worth, but there comes a point where too much is too much. Eventually greed begins to cost civilization as a whole, and at that point society should demand it fixed.
Often times libertarianism comes across as sociopathy. I have meet some sane libertarians, but they seem to be the exception, and not the rule.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Indeed, however tobacco killed over 10 times more people than terrorism in the USA alone in September 2001. In the first week of July 2005, 52 people died on the London Underground. 61 people died on UK roads. One of those events had wall to wall media coverage, and people decided to commute by road rather than tube as it was "safer". An order of magnitude more people died on London roads in 2005 than on London public transport. The more bombings you get, the less people are bothered, its when something unsual happens -- like when the IRA murdered two kids in Warrington in 93, that people are shocked and will change their lives slightly. Everyone I knew was back in Manchester the week after the 96 bomb, it was just one of those things that had was a (not so) slim chance of happening to a given person, like car crashes or smoking.
In a libertarian country, who would prevent the Mafia from taking over? Certainly not the government, which would be so tiny it may as well not exist. Most libertarians have never even considered this vital question. The question is of primary importance because it directly addresses the stability and therefore the durability of a libertarian society.
A few might offer up the feeble answer, "hire a private security firm against the Mafia", but this is not looking far enough ahead. Nothing would prevent these firms from merging with each other or with the Mafia, and growing ever more powerful. And as history teaches us again and again, power corrupts. Eventually, some sufficently merged security firm would become your lord and master, and you would be at its mercy.
Isn't it obvious how easily a libertarian society could descend to feudalism or fascism?
I have to agree and say that higher taxes do not cripple individual possibilities and competitiveness. For example here in Finland the overall tax rate (income taxes, VAT, taxing on fuel etc. combined) is the second or third highest in the world (close to 51%) and still Finland has been ranked number one in competitiveness in the world ahead of USA, see http://www.research.fi/en/performance/the_competitiveness_of_finland
Scandinavia is a good example that socialism works without removing individual rights, possibilities or the right to choose which services to use.
For example, is there a better way to provide equal possibilities to everyone than free education (including higher education)? The socialist system is aimed to provide equal standing point for everyone, despite their origins or wealth.
A quote.