On 19 Nov 2013, at 10:27, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
On 18 Nov 2013, at 18:13, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/18/2013 1:46 AM, LizR wrote:
On 18 November 2013 22:41, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 1:02 AM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:
This is quite simple. Markets ignore the commons, hence a free
solution can't - or is highly unlikely - to work.
Yes, but this is circular. You're saying that the market cannot work
for things that you do not allow to be part of the market. The
government has to exist, otherwise how is the government to exist?
It isn't part of the market because no one wants it to be, not
one allows it to be.
No one is going to clean
up the commons, just as they didn't in medieval villages, because
no incentive for an individual, or a specific group, to do so.
The medieval times were not exactly a period of free market, so this
would be an example on how government can solve things... or not. In
reality, many of the things we learned in high school about medieval
times are myths or gross simplifications
Not the tragedy of the commons, however. But even if it was the
of the commons is one reason to have governments, because
something done that no one will do "off their own bat" - but they
prepared to chip in a donation towards the government doing it, or
organising somone else to do it.
If they are prepared to chip in a donation there is no problem. If
there is money to be made, the free market will be glad to oblige.
don't seem prepared to call things by its names: the idea of
government is that, when people are not prepared to chip in, they
forced to do so, ultimately by violent means. The paradox here is
you are trusting a small group of people with this coercive power
then expecting this small group and power asymmetry to result in
Again, reality is complex. Current forms of democracy would not work
if implemented in previous cultures, because people would not accept
the social norms that come with them. You cannot police everything
even 1% of what's going on. Systems work because they become stable.
This stability does not come from consent (I was born into this
and never consented to it, neither did you). It comes from the
emergence of sets of incentives. I disagree with many laws that I'm
not going to break because the personal cost to me would be too
Suppose I decide I don't trust the government with my tax money,
decide to take it instead and give it directly to organisations
deem worthy: hospitals, schools, research centres and so on. I would
end up in jail for "chipping in". In fact government robs me of my
freedom to chip in, because they take all of my "chip in" money and
then some, and then give it to banks.
Incentives also emerge from free markets, importantly the
be nice to the people you trade with. Where there are more trade
routes there are less wars. If you are polluting the air I breath
are being hostile towards me, and I am less likely to want to
transaction with you. But these delicate balances can't arise under
coercion and market distortion.
And if no one does it, we all end up worse
off (perhaps fatally so in this case). It ain't rocket science,
game theory has something to say about it.
Prisoner dilemma scenarios don't magically disappear once you
introduce coercion. In fact, I argue that they multiply.
You seem to be arguing against a straw man here. I explained why
market can't fix the tragedy of the commons. You haven't answered
And he's so concerned with anti-government straw men that he hasn't
that a market requires government (including coercion) to define
and punish fraud. Without government you couldn't own any more
you could carry and defend by force of arms.
I agree with Brent. Government can be the best thing a democracy
... until bandits get power and perverts the elections and the
separations (and get important control on the media, etc.).
But how to create a system that prevents the bandits from getting
This is a bit like: how to create an organism immune against disease?
There are no general rules. The US constitution was rather good, but
has been violated repeatedly, perhaps since the assassination of
Kennedy or after, or even before; it is complex.
I do have ideas, including the vote on programs, replacing the vote on
persons. Maybe we should throw out the politics as job.
Politicians would be social workers, implementing only ideas which
would have won the election. Everyone would have a task in the state,
for a period of two years. It would be a social duty, with a
reasonable salary, never extending two years.
Lobbying should be non financial. Except for the salary, money should
not be given to politicians, ever. Only ideas, reasoning, suggestions,
but never money.
Corporatism should be regulated though organism watching to the
benefits of the general population. Monopole should be avoided.
Then we learn. No prohibition. The marijuana prohibition seems to have
been a Trojan horse for the bandits.
Also, a government should be accounted for the success or not of what
it implements, and this should be judged by an independent court. Cf
Milton Freedman on the drug war who makes the remark that when a
private society failed on some project, the project is quickly
abandoned, where the government keep expanding it.
If there are suspicion that an "independent court" is not independent,
we must have a system of appeal to different courts.
Politicians should be dismissed once and for all in case of
corruption. No need of jail, but just the rule that we cannot trust
someone having lied once in the political matter (the private life of
the politician does not matter, only its work in politics, ...).
We should never allowed exception rules: principles like the human
right must be considered as fundamental and without any exception.
(thus no NDAA, nor patriot acts, even during war).
We should invest in a good education system, helping people to think
by themselves, and honor the *research* of truth.
The federal level must be simplified, (few basic laws, and few
ministers) and differences and variations in local politics should be
Of course, the real question today, is: how to get rid of the bandits
once they are there?
Well, that is a very difficult one. We have to denounce them by all
means, and try to vote (assuming this works still a little bit) for
different people, not affiliated to the first one, trying to avoid the
demagogical opportunists. If the voting system is too much rotten, we
have to run away, or go in the streets, or fight, and resist.
We must understand that when a government use its authority and power
to fail a citizen, that is as grave as an adult who use his authority
and power to rape a child. The power and authority are *quite*
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.