Reaganomics is hardly neo-liberalism
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:02 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/19/2013 2:58 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 6:13 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 11/18/2013 1:46 AM, LizR wrote: >>> >>> On 18 November 2013 22:41, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 1:02 AM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> This is quite simple. Markets ignore the commons, hence a free market >>>>> 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 because no >>> one allows it to be. >>> >>>> >>>> No one is going to clean >>>>> up the commons, just as they didn't in medieval villages, because there >>>>> is >>>>> 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 logic >>> would >>> hold. >>> >>>> >>>> The tragedy >>>>> of the commons is one reason to have governments, because everyone >>>>> wants >>>>> something done that no one will do "off their own bat" - but they are >>>>> 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. You >>>> 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 are >>>> forced to do so, ultimately by violent means. The paradox here is that >>>> you are trusting a small group of people with this coercive power and >>>> then expecting this small group and power asymmetry to result in more >>>> altruism. >>>> >>>> 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 or >>>> 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 system >>>> 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 great. >>>> Suppose I decide I don't trust the government with my tax money, so I >>>> decide to take it instead and give it directly to organisations that I >>>> 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 incentive to >>>> 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 you >>>> are being hostile towards me, and I am less likely to want to enter a >>>> 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, >>>>> although >>>>> 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 the >>> free >>> market can't fix the tragedy of the commons. You haven't answered my >>> point. >>> >>> >>> And he's so concerned with anti-government straw men >>> >> I see I walked into a trap. Look back in the archives. You mentioned >> your belief that people question global warming because they don't >> trust the government. I argued that it's not such a bad idea to >> distrust the government -- but never gave this as a reason to distrust >> scientific models. Where's the straw man? >> >> >> that he hasn't noticed >>> that a market requires government (including coercion) to define >>> ownership >>> and punish fraud. Without government you couldn't own any more stuff >>> than >>> you could carry and defend by force of arms. >>> >> No, without cooperation you couldn't own any more stuff than you could >> carry and defend by force of arms. The dogma you're proposing is that >> central government is the only way to promote cooperation. >> > > No, just the only way we know that works for nation sized groups. > > >> Many alternatives have been proposed, like private arbitration courts >> (this exists already, to a degree). If I enter a contract with you, we >> have to agree on some court to have authority over disputes. Of >> course, I'm free to ignore the decision of the court, but then will be >> less likely to have people agree to enter contracts with me. There are >> many others, you can google them. Or you can read this, for example: >> >> http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf >> >> Could this be misguided? Sure. But let's not pretend that the level of >> sophistication of the proposals for more freedom is lower than it >> actually is. >> > > A Randian fantasy. What are going to do when someone doesn't want to > abide by the contract they agreed to. When they bribe a judge to find > against you. When they decide to cooperate by excluding you from the > community. Do you realize that this is the way it was in tribal life and > still is in cults (you're always free to leave). Government isn't some > imposition from Mars. It was developed over millinea to solve those > problems as they arose. > > >> Another part of the illusion is the level of safety provided by the >> government over your personal property. I see people trading a lot of >> freedom for some illusion of safety. >> > > I see a lot of people waving their arms and ranting about "freedom" they > never used but want revserved just for themselves. > > This illusion is being shattered >> now, as a lot of people lost their houses and pensions after doing >> everything the government told them to do. >> > > Nobody around here lost their house because of something the government > told them to do. A lot of them lost their houses because they dealt with > people who did things the government used to forbid but got changed by the > neo-liberals. > > > Brent > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
