On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 19 Nov 2013, at 10:27, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> 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 <[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 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. >>> >>> >>> I agree with Brent. Government can be the best thing a democracy can >>> have, >>> ... until bandits get power and perverts the elections and the state >>> power >>> separations (and get important control on the media, etc.). >> >> >> But how to create a system that prevents the bandits from getting there? > > > This is a bit like: how to create an organism immune against disease?
I see it like this too, and I feel Nature is a good inspiration here. The immune system doesn't use centralised control either. > There are no general rules. The US constitution was rather good, I admire the US constitution too. In fact, my political position is essentially to follow it (although I like to imagine possibilities for peaceful world with further increases in freedom). > 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 encouraged. We are essentially in agreement. > Of course, the real question today, is: how to get rid of the bandits once > they are there? They had a big victory in the last few years. With total surveillance, the democratic system becomes officially a joke. The information asymmetry between the inside and the outside is so great that no outsider can get in. I don't think they could for a long time, but now there are no doubts. I don't understand how the "nothing to hide" crew doesn't realise this. > 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. You will be alone against a see of people that votes on tribes. The bandits have that covered too... But I hope you're right. > If the voting system is too much rotten, we have to run away, This is a fundamental right that's missing, in my opinion. The right to go away. Without it, government is violence. With it, there is real consent. > or go in the streets, or fight, and resist. I think you just gained a few extra followers for the everything list, but they will probably not show up in the stats. :) > 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* aggravating > circumstances. Yes, this is a very important point. Telmo. > > > Bruno > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > 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.
