I think he's equating "minarchism" with "libertarianism," and possibly conflating with "Libertarianism" (the party, which is pretty much expressly minarchist by definition). Others of us consider libertarianism to be a broader category which includes both minarchism and anarchism/anarcho-capitalism. Another thing that causes confusion is lots of anarcho-capitalists consider minarchism to be an invalid expression of libertarianism, believing you can only come to that conclusion if you compromise the non-aggression principle at some point.
About 4 per cent of India's population pay tax, an improvement on 2 per cent last year, but still a pitiful statistic for one of the world's fastest-growing economies.
I hate that it's assumed to be pitiful that most people don't pay tax. That's like the insanity here in America of assuming it's pitiful that so many people don't get healthcare insurance.
Re:Free market: like in your healthcare system?
on
More A's, More Pay
·
· Score: 1
there's isn't a point where people say 'curing this cancer is too expensive, forget it'.
Sure there is. My differential equations professor had suffered recurring cancer and finally decided he hated the side-effects of the treatment and went off of it. He was dying the entire semester he taught us, and passed away soon after.
Not all costs are monetary. But the principle is true: if the perceived cost (which may be very subjective, since it's a sum of monetary and non-monetary concerns) outweighs the perceived benefit (which again may be subjective), the cost will not (and should not) be paid.
Another cost might be the risk of a newer treatment. Of course, in our current system (which you depict as free but is actually regulated and socialized to death), you don't get to decide if the cost of the risk outweighs the benefit or not. That decision is made for you by regulatory authorities like the FDA.
I know how to improve it. Stop allowing people to do things by majority vote that would be wrong if they did them on their own. Like preventing competition. Or stealing ("taxing"). Or granting special favors to some businesses or industries -- favors which consist of restrictions on the liberty of other businesses or industries, or on the people themselves. Or decreeing how people can and cannot use their land or other property.
Take away the power, and the crooks will quit trying to beat down the door on their way in to exercise it.
Anyway, IMHO if you don't vote you really don't have any leg to stand on to complain about any governmental laws.
And if you do vote, your complaints still don't do any good. Nobody ran on a platform yesterday that said, "Stealing doesn't become right when you have a majority vote." No matter what, somebody is going to get screwed over and stolen from by the tyrants who won the will of the majority yesterday. There's not a single blasted thing we can "vote" on that doesn't require us to steal property from people or infringe rights of people, other than the basic laws of "do not steal" and "do not restrict someone's liberty except in response to aggression from them," and those were settled a long time ago even though we ignore them today and grant government a monopoly on breaking them, claiming that it becomes right because they have the "will of the people" (democracy). I'm still not sure how that differs from Divine Right, where it was the will of God (as expressed through people with weapons...).
Stand up and quit authorizing people to steal in your name. If you believe in a cause, support it yourself. If it's worthy, people will join you. If not, don't take what doesn't belong to you to support it. Tell those people who claim to "represent" you that you did not authorize them to steal and that if they really want to represent you they will step down immediately.
If Congress decides to attack Iraq or invade North Korea, and you get drafted, DON'T COMPLAIN if you didn't vote.
Slavery and involuntary servitude are wrong no matter how anybody votes. Why is such an issue even open as a possibility under a democracy, if "democracy" means "freedom"?
If Congress decides to massively raise your taxes, DON'T COMPLAIN if you didn't vote.
Stealing is wrong, no matter how anybody votes.
In a nutshell, GET OUT AND VOTE!, regardless of whether you consider yourself informed or not.
Regardless of how you voted yesterday, you voted to steal from people and infringe their liberty. If you voted, you supported legalized theft. The only solution is to dismantle this inherently wrong system, rather than giving the power to break the law to a different crop of people every two years.
I put my name on a couple of online petitions a few years back that got my cell phone on the Republican Party call list. After dealing with several "Mr. Blackstone, would you please hold for an important message" messages a few times (no, I don't know why I listened to the whole things... it took me awhile to realize these all meant "we need money," not "something important is happening RIGHT NOW") I asked them to please remove me from their list, and they did. Can't remember if I mentioned it was a cell phone or not.
I've never filled out another online petition, and I always warn people not to.
What, precisely, is stopping the manufacturers from providing more information than the FDA does?
The economic incentive to provide more information is stifled in many ways. Consumers are led by the government that they trust (for some inexplicable reason) to feel that the information provided is "enough," so the market for providing information goes down on that count. Competition is suppressed because the market for the government-selected level of information is artificially increased (people who'd pay less for less info are forced into this market, and people who'd pay more for more info are led to believe they don't have to), so there's less incentive to try to go after that smaller market.
I really doubt the world would be better off if General Mills could put "CURES CANCER" on every box of cereal. But it would make their cereal sell better, and isn't that the holy grail of free market capitalism? So, yes, we should let food manufacturers go crazy, with their absurd claims in bold fonts.
Who would believe such an absurd claim? And if they did, wouldn't the information about the truth get out?
I triple dog dare you to give me a single example of how FDA labeling rules prevent manufacturers from giving me useful, accurate information.
But that's a strawman, since I never argued that providing more information was prevented. Just that the market for it is suppressed.
or I can ask my friends where they've gotten good apples. Either way, I'm getting information. In the latter case I'm probably getting better information
Yes. Key insight. In general, if government mandated providing the information, it's much more likely to be substandard, or not exactly the information you needed, or unsuitable in some other way. Worse, since government force is involved and since the government is influenceable, what may be happening is that the government mandates are used to mandate providing information that makes one product appear more favorable, when if a different set of information were provided, another product would win out.
Information is critical to the functioning of an efficient marketplace. If the producer doesn't give accurate information about the good they're selling, then a customer is going to have to buy it and then tell others about it (or, more realistically, someone buys one and reverse-engineers it). This isn't a benefit, it's a burden. If the information had been available to begin with, then this reviewing process wouldn't have to happen. As a result of information not being immediately available, the market will manufacture it -- but this process is itself an inefficiency.
Providing the information is a cost that has to be borne no matter what if you want the information. Having the government mandate it does not make providing it cost free. It does, however, mandate a one-size-fits-all set of information that will probably only be the best choice for a limited number of people: many people would probably prefer to pay less and receive less information, or pay more and receive more information, or receive a different set of information (they don't care about trans-fats but are interested in the exact pesticides used, for example). But government force sets it in concrete and makes it impossible for the market to adapt to what we really want.
A great example for this is the practicing Jewish market for Kosher foods. Labelling laws are inadequate for Kosher standards. It is impossible to discover if a product is Kosher from the required labelling alone. So there's a private, competitive market for Kosher certification and labelling, one which to my knowledge is regulated only the anarcho-capitalist way: by a free market. There have been instances where a product changed and a certification became incorrect, and in these cases the market took care of disseminating the information (and this was pre-Internet, btw). Moreover, the market provided for getting many, many products changed to meet the standard, including Coca-Cola. It's worth reading about some time.
Anyway, what is the harm in requiring manufacturers to label their products?
It's a cost. It may seem to be trivial in many cases, but it is not free. It raises the price of the goods slightly. Some people who might have been content with less information at less cost have their option removed. Furthermore, because the product has now met the official government-approved baseline amount of "safe" information to provide, the incentive to provide more information is stifled.
Requiring manufacturers to label their products hurts those who would want more or less information than the amount we or our elected representatives randomly vote to require.
Yes, well, marriage counselors are in the business of marriages. That doesn't make them right about putting children second. Sex, marriage, etc, the whole point of it all is reproduction of the species, aka children. They are the most important aspect, because if you raise them right, you'll benefit society.
Screw that. I don't exist to benefit society, nor does my marriage, nor do my children. Benefitting society is not my highest goal. Society may benefit as a side benefit of my existence (or my wife, or my children), and I happen to think they do, but society would not exist without individuals. "Benefitting society" (which is a nebulous and subjective goal that could never be quantified) doesn't trump individual needs and wants.
That's why I went to UTA in Texas, where there was no football team at all. Of course, every year, some "involved" freshman would write editorials in the school paper about why we needed one, launch a campaign for "student government" (why should those people have control over me?), etc., trying to get a football program restarted, but they never found enough support to win, and I suppose eventually they always went on to a sports/party university like they wanted so the rest of us could stay and do what we came to do.
t reiterates my thought pattents - we should abolish copyrights, trademarks and patents and let true innovation happen. All else is a capitalistic way of trying to allow companies to build monopolies and control the market
You are describing mercantilism, not capitalism. I oppose patents because I am a capitalist, and patents are a government granted monopoly, and thus an interference with pure capitalism.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought this should've gotten funny instead of flamebait.
I think he's equating "minarchism" with "libertarianism," and possibly conflating with "Libertarianism" (the party, which is pretty much expressly minarchist by definition). Others of us consider libertarianism to be a broader category which includes both minarchism and anarchism/anarcho-capitalism. Another thing that causes confusion is lots of anarcho-capitalists consider minarchism to be an invalid expression of libertarianism, believing you can only come to that conclusion if you compromise the non-aggression principle at some point.
Did you see this article about tax collection in India this weekend off of LRC? I was astounded to read this paragraph:
I hate that it's assumed to be pitiful that most people don't pay tax. That's like the insanity here in America of assuming it's pitiful that so many people don't get healthcare insurance.
there's isn't a point where people say 'curing this cancer is too expensive, forget it'.
Sure there is. My differential equations professor had suffered recurring cancer and finally decided he hated the side-effects of the treatment and went off of it. He was dying the entire semester he taught us, and passed away soon after.
Not all costs are monetary. But the principle is true: if the perceived cost (which may be very subjective, since it's a sum of monetary and non-monetary concerns) outweighs the perceived benefit (which again may be subjective), the cost will not (and should not) be paid.
Another cost might be the risk of a newer treatment. Of course, in our current system (which you depict as free but is actually regulated and socialized to death), you don't get to decide if the cost of the risk outweighs the benefit or not. That decision is made for you by regulatory authorities like the FDA.
I don't understand. In what way do you consider the highly-regulated healthcare industry to be "competitive" or "free-market"?
I know how to improve it. Stop allowing people to do things by majority vote that would be wrong if they did them on their own. Like preventing competition. Or stealing ("taxing"). Or granting special favors to some businesses or industries -- favors which consist of restrictions on the liberty of other businesses or industries, or on the people themselves. Or decreeing how people can and cannot use their land or other property.
Take away the power, and the crooks will quit trying to beat down the door on their way in to exercise it.
Every single one of them wanted to make the world a better place with money that does not belong to them.
Anyway, IMHO if you don't vote you really don't have any leg to stand on to complain about any governmental laws.
And if you do vote, your complaints still don't do any good. Nobody ran on a platform yesterday that said, "Stealing doesn't become right when you have a majority vote." No matter what, somebody is going to get screwed over and stolen from by the tyrants who won the will of the majority yesterday. There's not a single blasted thing we can "vote" on that doesn't require us to steal property from people or infringe rights of people, other than the basic laws of "do not steal" and "do not restrict someone's liberty except in response to aggression from them," and those were settled a long time ago even though we ignore them today and grant government a monopoly on breaking them, claiming that it becomes right because they have the "will of the people" (democracy). I'm still not sure how that differs from Divine Right, where it was the will of God (as expressed through people with weapons...).
Stand up and quit authorizing people to steal in your name. If you believe in a cause, support it yourself. If it's worthy, people will join you. If not, don't take what doesn't belong to you to support it. Tell those people who claim to "represent" you that you did not authorize them to steal and that if they really want to represent you they will step down immediately.
If Congress decides to attack Iraq or invade North Korea, and you get drafted, DON'T COMPLAIN if you didn't vote.
Slavery and involuntary servitude are wrong no matter how anybody votes. Why is such an issue even open as a possibility under a democracy, if "democracy" means "freedom"?
If Congress decides to massively raise your taxes, DON'T COMPLAIN if you didn't vote.
Stealing is wrong, no matter how anybody votes.
In a nutshell, GET OUT AND VOTE!, regardless of whether you consider yourself informed or not.
Regardless of how you voted yesterday, you voted to steal from people and infringe their liberty. If you voted, you supported legalized theft. The only solution is to dismantle this inherently wrong system, rather than giving the power to break the law to a different crop of people every two years.
That didn't seem to stop the Nuremburg trials.
I put my name on a couple of online petitions a few years back that got my cell phone on the Republican Party call list. After dealing with several "Mr. Blackstone, would you please hold for an important message" messages a few times (no, I don't know why I listened to the whole things ... it took me awhile to realize these all meant "we need money," not "something important is happening RIGHT NOW") I asked them to please remove me from their list, and they did. Can't remember if I mentioned it was a cell phone or not.
I've never filled out another online petition, and I always warn people not to.
It's got Firefox 2.0? I wanted IceWeasel!
I got a lady who didn't care about diamonds at all. Wanted a ruby for an engagement ring, and didn't care if it was manmade.
What, precisely, is stopping the manufacturers from providing more information than the FDA does?
The economic incentive to provide more information is stifled in many ways. Consumers are led by the government that they trust (for some inexplicable reason) to feel that the information provided is "enough," so the market for providing information goes down on that count. Competition is suppressed because the market for the government-selected level of information is artificially increased (people who'd pay less for less info are forced into this market, and people who'd pay more for more info are led to believe they don't have to), so there's less incentive to try to go after that smaller market.
I really doubt the world would be better off if General Mills could put "CURES CANCER" on every box of cereal. But it would make their cereal sell better, and isn't that the holy grail of free market capitalism? So, yes, we should let food manufacturers go crazy, with their absurd claims in bold fonts.
Who would believe such an absurd claim? And if they did, wouldn't the information about the truth get out?
I triple dog dare you to give me a single example of how FDA labeling rules prevent manufacturers from giving me useful, accurate information.
But that's a strawman, since I never argued that providing more information was prevented. Just that the market for it is suppressed.
or I can ask my friends where they've gotten good apples. Either way, I'm getting information. In the latter case I'm probably getting better information
Yes. Key insight. In general, if government mandated providing the information, it's much more likely to be substandard, or not exactly the information you needed, or unsuitable in some other way. Worse, since government force is involved and since the government is influenceable, what may be happening is that the government mandates are used to mandate providing information that makes one product appear more favorable, when if a different set of information were provided, another product would win out.
Information is critical to the functioning of an efficient marketplace. If the producer doesn't give accurate information about the good they're selling, then a customer is going to have to buy it and then tell others about it (or, more realistically, someone buys one and reverse-engineers it). This isn't a benefit, it's a burden. If the information had been available to begin with, then this reviewing process wouldn't have to happen. As a result of information not being immediately available, the market will manufacture it -- but this process is itself an inefficiency.
Providing the information is a cost that has to be borne no matter what if you want the information. Having the government mandate it does not make providing it cost free. It does, however, mandate a one-size-fits-all set of information that will probably only be the best choice for a limited number of people: many people would probably prefer to pay less and receive less information, or pay more and receive more information, or receive a different set of information (they don't care about trans-fats but are interested in the exact pesticides used, for example). But government force sets it in concrete and makes it impossible for the market to adapt to what we really want.
A great example for this is the practicing Jewish market for Kosher foods. Labelling laws are inadequate for Kosher standards. It is impossible to discover if a product is Kosher from the required labelling alone. So there's a private, competitive market for Kosher certification and labelling, one which to my knowledge is regulated only the anarcho-capitalist way: by a free market. There have been instances where a product changed and a certification became incorrect, and in these cases the market took care of disseminating the information (and this was pre-Internet, btw). Moreover, the market provided for getting many, many products changed to meet the standard, including Coca-Cola. It's worth reading about some time.
Mises is down? Working well from here, although I'm seeing other wholes in the net today.
I also found this, but don't have time to read more than the intro.
Anyway, what is the harm in requiring manufacturers to label their products?
It's a cost. It may seem to be trivial in many cases, but it is not free. It raises the price of the goods slightly. Some people who might have been content with less information at less cost have their option removed. Furthermore, because the product has now met the official government-approved baseline amount of "safe" information to provide, the incentive to provide more information is stifled.
Requiring manufacturers to label their products hurts those who would want more or less information than the amount we or our elected representatives randomly vote to require.
Where can I read more about the guy who runs Whole Foods? Is that the founder, John Mackey?
Nevertheless, he's quite persuasive. Maybe everybody can check things out and see for themselves. What a concept.
(I was an anarcho-capitalist before I met Adam, but he did help fill in some knowledge gaps for me.)
No one needs to visit my links, and I even tell my regular readers to use ad-blocking techniques (and most of them do).
I'm one of Adam's most regular readers, and I block ads mercilessly.
Just a small correction: in general, Flash is not used to view average websites, but subaverage websites.
Yes, well, marriage counselors are in the business of marriages. That doesn't make them right about putting children second. Sex, marriage, etc, the whole point of it all is reproduction of the species, aka children. They are the most important aspect, because if you raise them right, you'll benefit society.
Screw that. I don't exist to benefit society, nor does my marriage, nor do my children. Benefitting society is not my highest goal. Society may benefit as a side benefit of my existence (or my wife, or my children), and I happen to think they do, but society would not exist without individuals. "Benefitting society" (which is a nebulous and subjective goal that could never be quantified) doesn't trump individual needs and wants.
You buy ten of them and do a super-redundant RAID.
That's why I went to UTA in Texas, where there was no football team at all. Of course, every year, some "involved" freshman would write editorials in the school paper about why we needed one, launch a campaign for "student government" (why should those people have control over me?), etc., trying to get a football program restarted, but they never found enough support to win, and I suppose eventually they always went on to a sports/party university like they wanted so the rest of us could stay and do what we came to do.
t reiterates my thought pattents - we should abolish copyrights, trademarks and patents and let true innovation happen. All else is a capitalistic way of trying to allow companies to build monopolies and control the market
You are describing mercantilism, not capitalism. I oppose patents because I am a capitalist, and patents are a government granted monopoly, and thus an interference with pure capitalism.