On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > 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> 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 <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
