How many tabs are currently open on your browser? Right now I have 5 tabs open.
My computer, like all computers, has limited resources. Each tab requires some resources, so if I open up too many tabs, then I'll tie up too many resources and my computer will become sluggish and unresponsive. This will of course limit my productivity. So if I want to increase my productivity, I'll have to close some tabs. Doing so will free up resources for more valuable uses.
This is the basic concept of creative destruction...
1. we have limited resources
2. some uses of resources are more valuable than other uses
3. destroying less valuable uses frees up resources for more valuable uses
4. total value is increased
The question is...which uses should be destroyed? How do we determine which uses are less valuable? There are really only two ways to answer this question. Either you decide for yourself (capitalism) or somebody else decides for you (socialism).
Capitalism (private sector) is where you decide for yourself which of your tabs you'll close...while socialism (public sector) is where somebody else decides for you. Therefore, with capitalism, the allocation of your computer's resources will reflect your preferences...but with socialism, given that you're not free to choose, obviously there will be a disparity between the two. This is why capitalism results in the efficient allocation of resources while socialism does not. An allocation of resources is "efficient" if it accurately reflects the true preferences of consumers.
Last month a Crooked Timber Liberal blogger, Corey Robin, wrote an article for the Nation in which he drew a connection between Friedrich Nietzsche and the Austrian Economists..."Nietzsche's Marginal Children: On Friedrich Hayek". I'm not going to link you to it because the website has a popup...but I will link you to his recent post at Crooked Timber...Nietzsche, Hayek, and the Austrians: A Reply to My Critics (//http://crookedtimber.org/2013/06/25/nietzsche-hayek-and-the-austrians-a-reply-to-my-critics/). I'll also link you to John Holbo's (my favorite Crooked Timber Liberal) post on the topic...O upright judge! Is Hayek Like Nietzsche or not? (//http://crookedtimber.org/2013/05/20/o-upright-judge-is-hayek-like-nietzsche-or-not/)
As you might have guessed from the intro of this post, one concept that both Nietzsche and the Austrians have in common is "creative destruction". Unlike Corey Robin, at least John Holbo uses the term "creative destruction"...but that's all he does is use the term.
A while back I added a couple passages to the Wikipedia article on creative destruction (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction). The first was a passage by Nietzsche...
QuoteBut have you ever asked yourselves sufficiently how much the erection of every ideal on earth has cost? How much reality has had to be misunderstood and slandered, how many lies have had to be sanctified, how many consciences disturbed, how much "God" sacrificed every time? If a temple is to be erected a temple must be destroyed: that is the law - let anyone who can show me a case in which it is not fulfilled! - Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality (//http://www.inp.uw.edu.pl/mdsie/Political_Thought/GeneologyofMorals.pdf)
...and the second was a passage by an Austrian Economist...
QuoteThese economic facts have certain social consequences. As the critics of the market economy nowadays prefer to take their stand on "social" grounds, it may be not inappropriate here to elucidate the true social results of the market process. We have already spoken of it as a leveling process. More aptly, we may now describe these results as an instance of what Pareto called "the circulation of elites." Wealth is unlikely to stay for long in the same hands. It passes from hand to hand as unforeseen change confers value, now on this, now on that specific resource, engendering capital gains and losses. The owners of wealth, we might say with Schumpeter, are like the guests at a hotel or the passengers in a train: They are always there but are never for long the same people. Ludwig Lachmann, The Market Economy and the Distribution of Wealth (//http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=97&chapter=3326&layout=html&Itemid=27)
Life is dynamic...circumstances are constantly changing. As such, people's preferences are not fixed. One minute you're thirsty, so you spend a $1 on some lemonade...and the next minute your thirst has been quenched.
QuoteThe capitalist society is a democracy in which every penny represents a ballot paper. It is a democracy with an imperative and immediately revocable mandate to its deputies. It is a consumers' democracy. By themselves the producers, as such, are quite unable to order the direction of production. This is as true of the entrepreneur as of the worker; both must bow ultimately to the consumers' wishes. And it could not well be otherwise. People produce, not for the sake of production, but for the goods that may be consumed. As producer in an economy based on the division of labour, a man is merely the agent of the community and as such has to obey. Only as a consumer can he command. - Ludwig von Mises, Economic Democracy (//http://mises.org/books/socialism/part4_ch31.aspx)
Each penny that you are free to spend is a vote for the continued creation of a product/service that matches your preferences. But each penny that you spend on lemonade is a penny that cannot be spent on soda, carrot juice, a new computer or any of the other millions and millions of other products/services.
Likewise, each second you spend reading this post is a second that cannot be spent reading other posts. Each second you spend replying to this post is a second that cannot be spent replying to other posts. In other words, there's always an opportunity cost. Spending is always creating/destroying...
QuoteBy preferring my work, simply by giving it my time, my attention, by preferring my activity as a citizen or as a professional philosopher, writing and speaking here in a public language, French in my case, I am perhaps fulfilling my duty. But I am sacrificing and betraying at every moment all my other obligations: my obligation to the other others whom I know or don't know, the billions of my fellows (without mentioning the animals that are even more other others than my fellows), my fellows who are dying of starvation or sickness. I betray my fidelity or my obligations to other citizens, to those who don't speak my language and to whom I neither speak or respond, to each of those who listen or read, and to whom I neither respond nor address myself in the proper manner, that is, in a singular manner (this is for the so-called public space to which I sacrifice my so-called private space), thus also to those I love in private, my own, my family, my son, each of whom is the only son I sacrifice to the other, every one being sacrificed to every one else in this land of Moriah that is our habitat every second of every day. - Jacques Derrida, The Gift of Death (//http://books.google.com/books?id=dMtgt7xCN-MC)
Markets give you the freedom to decide for yourself what you're willing to pay/give up/sacrifice/exchange/trade for the things you want. As a result, the allocation of resources reflects the true preferences of consumers. The allocation of resources is efficient.
One critique that Holbo brought up is that the idea that markets make it so that some people have more economic freedom than other people. But isn't it intuitive that some people belong in jail? Do we really want Jeffrey Dahmer to have as much freedom as Michael Moore?
Why does Michael Moore have more economic freedom than most of us? Here's his answer...
QuoteI'm a millionaire, I'm a multi-millionaire. I'm filthy rich. You know why I'm a multi-millionaire? 'Cause multi-millions like what I do. That's pretty good, isn't it? - Michael Moore
Should Moore have more economic freedom than the rest of us? Personally, I don't think so, which is why I don't give him my money. I don't give him my money because I don't value how he is using society's limited resources.
Money is positive feedback. If you derive value from how somebody is using their limited resources, then you give them your positive feedback. If you take away consumer's freedom to give producers their positive feedback, then it's inevitable that we will greatly reduce how much value we derive from how society's limited resources are used.
So when you open and close tabs...don't take your freedom for granted. Understand that your preferences are determining how society's limited resources are allocated. In other words, it's demand that's determining supply. It's demand which is determining what is destroyed and what is created. It's demand which is determining which uses of society's limited resources are more valuable than other uses.
Given that the government cannot know your true preferences for public goods, it's a given that the government will supply the wrong quantities of public goods. This is what's wrong with the public sector. It's absurd to believe that 300 congresspeople can know the true preferences of 300,000,000 people better than those 300 million people can. It's the epitome of conceit. Hayek, Mises and Bastiat understood the value of individual foresight...which is what made them Austrians...
QuoteIf the socialists mean that under extraordinary circumstances, for urgent cases, the state should set aside some resources to assist certain unfortunate people, to help them adjust to changing conditions, we will, of course, agree. This is done now; we desire that it be done better. There is, however, a point on this road that must not be passed; it is the point where governmental foresight would step in to replace individual foresight and thus destroy it. - Frédéric Bastiat
But was Nietzsche an Austrian?
QuoteEvery animal, including the bête philosophe, instinctively strives for an optimum of favorable conditions under which it can expend all its strength and achieve its maximal feeling of power; every animal abhors, just as instinctively and with a subtlety of discernment that is "higher than all reason," every kind of intrusion or hindrance that obstructs or could obstruct his path to the optimum (– it is not his path to 'happiness' I am talking about, but the path to power, action, the mightiest deeds, and in most cases, actually, his path to misery). Thus the philosopher abhors marriage, together with all that might persuade him to it, – marriage as hindrance and catastrophe on his path to the optimum. Which great philosopher, so far, has been married? Heraclitus, Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Schopenhauer – were not; indeed it is impossible to even think about them as married. A married philosopher belongs to comedy, that is my proposition: and that exception, Socrates, the mischievous Socrates, appears to have married ironice, simply in order to demonstrate this proposition. Every philosopher would say what Buddha said when he was told of the birth of a son: 'Râhula is born to me, a fetter is forged for me' (Râhula means here 'a little demon'); every 'free spirit' ought to have a thoughtful moment, assuming he has previously had a thoughtless one, like the moment experienced by that same Buddha – he thought to himself, 'living in a house, that unclean place, is cramped; freedom is in leaving the house': so saying, he left the house. The ascetic ideal points the way to so many bridges to independence that no philosopher can refrain from inwardly rejoicing and clapping hands on hearing the story of all those who, one ?ne day, decided to say 'no' to any curtailment of their liberty, and go off into the desert: even granted they were just strong asses and the complete opposite of a strong spirit. Consequently, what does the ascetic ideal mean for a philosopher? My answer is – you will have guessed ages ago: on seeing an ascetic ideal, the philosopher smiles because he sees an optimum condition of the highest and boldest intellectuality [Geistigkeit], – he does not deny 'existence' by doing so, but rather af?rms his existence and only his existence, and possibly does this to the point where he is not far from making the outrageous wish: pereat mundus, ?at philosophia, ?at philosophus, ?am!... - Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality (//http://www.inp.uw.edu.pl/mdsie/Political_Thought/GeneologyofMorals.pdf)
excellant post.
Good post! Nietzsche may be the most misunderstood philosopher, even though Kant is the hardest to understand. :rolleyes: :-k Solitary
Not this shit again. :rollin:
Good post.
Here we go again.
You'd think if he understood his own talks, he'd go somewhere where his nonsense creates actual value, instead of just people laughing at him.
(//http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m87lpvRHr11qmkjoc.jpg)
Quote from: "Xerographica"The question is...which uses should be destroyed? How do we determine which uses are less valuable? There are really only two ways to answer this question. Either you decide for yourself (capitalism) or somebody else decides for you (socialism).
Ohh look! A false dichotomy!
....erm..... good post (?)........ uh.......... well I just........... but.......... erm................
Quote from: "Jason78"Quote from: "Xerographica"The question is...which uses should be destroyed? How do we determine which uses are less valuable? There are really only two ways to answer this question. Either you decide for yourself (capitalism) or somebody else decides for you (socialism).
Ohh look! A false dichotomy!
How is it a false dichotomy? If you can't decide for yourself how you spend your own time/money...then obviously somebody else decides for you.
Right here right now...you're deciding for yourself how you spend your time. Clearly you're choosing to spend your time on this forum. This is the private sector. In the public sector, you can't choose how you spend your money. You can't choose to spend half of your taxes on environmental protection. Congresspeople make that decision for you. They are your personal shoppers.
But congresspeople don't know your true preferences. If they did, then you would want them to also decide how much time you should spend on this forum. So because they don't know your true preferences, there will be a disparity between how they spend your taxes and how you would have spent your taxes. This disparity represents a destruction of wealth/value.
If you don't believe that it represents a destruction of wealth/value...then reach deep into your pockets and spend a ton of money on something that really doesn't match your preferences. Make a huge donation to the Catholic Church. If you're a vegetarian then splurge and buy an expensive steak dinner. But you won't do this because you don't want to minimize the amount of value that you derive from your limited resources. In other words, you're not crazy.
We all want the most bang for our buck...which is why markets provide us with the most bang for our buck. If we create a market in the public sector...then we'll get the most public goods for our tax dollars. That's simply because we'll give more positive feedback to the government organizations that provide us with the most value for our money.
QuoteWe all want the most bang for our buck..
You clearly don't, or you wouldn't be here.
Ironically, the simple fact that you are here is yet
another argument against you.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteWe all want the most bang for our buck..
You clearly don't, or you wouldn't be here.
Ironically, the simple fact that you are here is yet another argument against you.
It's sad how dense you are. My entire argument is that we have no idea how much utility other people derive from things. In other words, you have absolutely no idea how much "bang" I derive from the time I spend on this forum. All you can know is how much utility you yourself derive from the time that you spend on this forum.
Because congresspeople have no idea how much utility the public derives from a public good, it's a given that congress will not supply the optimal amounts of public goods. Therefore, if we want the optimal amounts of public goods to be supplied, we need to allow taxpayers to shop for themselves in the public sector.
So basically you come here because you value being ignored and laughed at? Have you considered seeing a therapist? That's not a healthy attitude.
You know, the last group of people that attempted to twist Nietzsche's philosophy to further their own agenda found that it didn't end well for them. Ask any German.
Quote from: "Plu"So basically you come here because you value being ignored and laughed at? Have you considered seeing a therapist? That's not a healthy attitude.
Yeah, everybody here ignores and/or laughs at the preference revelation problem. What's so funny about the preference revelation problem again? I forgot...please refresh my memory.
Quote from: "Jmpty"You know, the last group of people that attempted to twist Nietzsche's philosophy to further their own agenda found that it didn't end well for them. Ask any German.
What about the group of people who failed to understand the importance of voters putting their own money where their mouths are? Oh wait, that's us AND the Germans...
QuoteAs was noted in Chapter 3, expressions of malice and/or envy no less than expressions of altruism are cheaper in the voting booth than in the market. A German voter who in 1933 cast a ballot for Hitler was able to indulge his antisemitic sentiments at much less cost than she would have borne by organizing a pogrom. - Geoffrey Brennan, Loren Lomasky, Democracy and Decision (//http://books.google.com/books?id=I3mal2inJQgC)
If the public doesn't have the freedom to put its own money where its mouth is...then somebody else is going to decide how much money is spent on public goods. Invariably there's going to be a disparity between where the money goes and where it should have gone. And that disparity represents a destruction of value.
QuoteYeah, everybody here ignores and/or laughs at the preference revelation problem. What's so funny about the preference revelation problem again? I forgot...please refresh my memory.
No no, you misunderstand.
You are the joke.
Plu, if you wish to take a position on the OP then do, if you're just going to fling shit, go somewhere else and leave this thread alone.
As you wish. I've explained my position quite a few times before. If xero cares about it, he'll have plenty of stuff to respond to.
So many errors, so little time.
> How many tabs are currently open on your browser? Right now I have 5 tabs open.
Did you decide what the protocols should be for the Internet and browsers, or did someone decide that for you? (Hint: It's the latter. I was the DoD's representative to several standards bodies when these protocols were being standardized.)
> Either you decide for yourself (capitalism) or somebody else decides for you (socialism).
That's not the difference between capitalism and socialism. You don't seem to understand capitalism, socialism, the difference between the two, or the fact that no practical society is all capitalist or all socialist.
In a capitalist country, you can spend your money at any store you choose. Same in a socialist country.
Frank
Quote from: "FrankDK"So many errors, so little time.
So you prioritize how you use your limited time/resources. Everybody else does the same, and we maximize the amount of value we derive from our limited resources.
Quote from: "FrankDK"Did you decide what the protocols should be for the Internet and browsers, or did someone decide that for you? (Hint: It's the latter. I was the DoD's representative to several standards bodies when these protocols were being standardized.)
Right, because my argument is that the government does not supply anything of value. That's why I'm an anarcho-capitalist. Except, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. I'm a pragmatarian. If you don't want to waste your time, it might help to invest some time learning what my arguments actually are.
Quote from: "FrankDK"That's not the difference between capitalism and socialism. You don't seem to understand capitalism, socialism, the difference between the two, or the fact that no practical society is all capitalist or all socialist.
In a capitalist country, you can spend your money at any store you choose. Same in a socialist country.
Right, the US is a mixed economy. That means its half capitalist and half socialist. As I said in my original post, the private sector is capitalist and the public sector is socialist. You can shop for yourself in the private sector but you can't shop for yourself in the public sector. This right here right now is the private sector. Here you are shopping for the most valuable use of your limited time. You have the freedom of "entrance" so you decided to start trading with me. If you don't derive enough value from spending your time on me, then you have freedom of "exit". You can cease trading your time with me and find somebody else to trade with.
In the public sector, you give your money to somebody that you may not have voted for and who may not spend your money like he promised to. There is no ease of exit or entrance...because the money is not in your hands.
As a pragmatarian, I want the money to be in your hands. Why? Because I'm pretty sure that you want the most bang for your buck. Am I wrong? If so, then you can easily prove I'm wrong by sending me $500 via paypal.
Quote from: "Xerographica"How is it a false dichotomy? If you can't decide for yourself how you spend your own time/money...then obviously somebody else decides for you.
Because you've given two choices as the answer to a question when there are clearly more options available.
There's plenty of opportunities for me to choose how to spend my resources.
There's also plenty of times where I don't have any say in how to allocate my resources, but nobody makes me do it, and no authority enforces it.
There are times when I'm required by an authority to allocate my resources should I want to pursue a specific action. And there are times where I'm required to allocate resources in order to achieve an effect.
And there are times when an authority will demand that I allocate my resources to them regardless of whether I want to or not.
Your argument is invalid because as I've pointed out, your assumptions are faulty.
IOW your economics is based on subjectivity. I'm not saying that socialism is necessarily objective, or even less subjective and irrational, but I don't think it's completely rational to base all action on subjective preferences.
I'm not advocating dictatorship, since relying on the subjective preferences of the many is better than relying on the subjective preferences of the few in almost every case, but having some engineering-style standards and metrics as a constraint or technocratic "constitution" would be cool.
Quote from: "Xerographica"Quote from: "FrankDK"So many errors, so little time.
So you prioritize how you use your limited time/resources. Everybody else does the same, and we maximize the amount of value we derive from our limited resources.
And the difference between capitalism and socialism isn't whether you get a choice, it's what is chosen to be done through private means and what is to be done cooperatively using the entire nation's resources.
Quote from: "Xerographica"Quote from: "FrankDK"Did you decide what the protocols should be for the Internet and browsers, or did someone decide that for you? (Hint: It's the latter. I was the DoD's representative to several standards bodies when these protocols were being standardized.)
Right, because my argument is that the government does not supply anything of value.
The fact that we can communicate shows that the governments involved did something of value. Without the protocols, we couldn't communicate.
Quote from: "Xerographica"That's why I'm an anarcho-capitalist.
Then you should move to Somalia. There, there is no effective government. Everything is entirely capitalist, that is, run by gangs and pirates. You would be very happy there, until you were robbed and killed. Governments provide protection for citizens.
Quote from: "Xerographica"Except, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. I'm a pragmatarian.
You don't seem to know what you are.
Quote from: "Xerographica"If you don't want to waste your time, it might help to invest some time learning what my arguments actually are.
I was responding to what you wrote. If you wrote something contrary to what your arguments are, that's not my problem to fix.
Quote from: "FrankDK"That's not the difference between capitalism and socialism. You don't seem to understand capitalism, socialism, the difference between the two, or the fact that no practical society is all capitalist or all socialist.
In a capitalist country, you can spend your money at any store you choose. Same in a socialist country.
Quote from: "Xerographica"Right, the US is a mixed economy. That means its half capitalist and half socialist.
Wrong. Much more is spent in the private sector than in the public sector. The US is much less than half socialist, much more than half capitalist.
Quote from: "Xerographica"As I said in my original post, the private sector is capitalist and the public sector is socialist. You can shop for yourself in the private sector but you can't shop for yourself in the public sector.
Even in a country that is 100% socialist, there are still stores, and you can shop as you wish. And in a social democracy, you get to chose the government, and that government spends tax money the way the majority of the citizens want. In the US, of course, that has been hijacked by the money interests, and the government spends money the way rich people want, to the detriment of most of the citizens and the country at large.
Quote from: "Xerographica"This right here right now is the private sector. Here you are shopping for the most valuable use of your limited time. You have the freedom of "entrance" so you decided to start trading with me. If you don't derive enough value from spending your time on me, then you have freedom of "exit". You can cease trading your time with me and find somebody else to trade with.
You're still missing the point. The original Internet was named "ARPANET," and was entirely government-funded. We're communicating because the government does things of value, using the taxpayers' money to improve conditions for the entire country.
Quote from: "Xerographica"In the public sector, you give your money to somebody that you may not have voted for and who may not spend your money like he promised to. There is no ease of exit or entrance...because the money is not in your hands.
Yes, but some things are only doable in cooperation and by the government. A private army wouldn't be very effective in the nuclear age. With no government, there would be no one to make or enforce laws. Instead of disagreeing with you, someone could find you and kill you. There would be no penalty. That's ludicrous.
Quote from: "Xerographica"As a pragmatarian, I want the money to be in your hands. Why? Because I'm pretty sure that you want the most bang for your buck. Am I wrong? If so, then you can easily prove I'm wrong by sending me $500 via paypal.
Do you really believe that for what I pay in taxes, I could raise a private army that would be as effective as the DoD, make and enforce rules that guarantee my personal safety, regulate commerce so companies don't cheat too outrageously, build roads, ensure other drivers are at least minimally competent, and all the other things we need the government to do? No, you don't, but you are going to try to argue your way around that. We get the most bang for the buck in many areas by combining our resources and having the government act in our best interest.
I know a number of people who claim to be anarchists, but so far, none has moved to Somalia. If you really believed the nonsense you are writing, contact me from there.
Frank
Quote from: "FrankDK"I was responding to what you wrote. If you wrote something contrary to what your arguments are, that's not my problem to fix.
Your arguments are relevant to libertarians and/or anarcho-capitalists. But as I already said, I'm a pragmatarian. So rather than simply spew your pre-made arguments, you're going to have to come up with new arguments that are relevant to pragmatarianism.
Again, my argument is that taxpayers should be able to choose where their taxes go. Taxpayers choosing where their taxes go is the same thing as "demand". Therefore, I'm arguing that the demand for public goods should determine the supply of public goods. The alternative is for there to be a disparity between the two...which is an inefficient allocation of resources.
So learn about the preference revelation problem and try again. Or you can continue making arguments that aren't relevant. The choice is yours.
Taxpayers already choose where their taxes go.
/thread
Quote from: "Xerographica"Quote from: "FrankDK"I was responding to what you wrote. If you wrote something contrary to what your arguments are, that's not my problem to fix.
Your arguments are relevant to libertarians and/or anarcho-capitalists. But as I already said, I'm a pragmatarian. So rather than simply spew your pre-made arguments, you're going to have to come up with new arguments that are relevant to pragmatarianism.
Again, my argument is that taxpayers should be able to choose where their taxes go. Taxpayers choosing where their taxes go is the same thing as "demand". Therefore, I'm arguing that the demand for public goods should determine the supply of public goods. The alternative is for there to be a disparity between the two...which is an inefficient allocation of resources.
So learn about the preference revelation problem and try again. Or you can continue making arguments that aren't relevant. The choice is yours.
The word "pragmatarian"doesn't even occur in your first post, so to say that I should have divined that and argued against that principle, rather than the claims you made in that post, is nonsense.
In a later post, you did claim that the government provides nothing of value. I gave several counter examples, which invalidates your claim.
You will continue to dodge the issue rather than answer the points I made. That is your choice.
Frank
Quote from: "FrankDK"The word "pragmatarian"doesn't even occur in your first post, so to say that I should have divined that and argued against that principle, rather than the claims you made in that post, is nonsense.
The word doesn't have to occur for the concept to be discussed.
Quote from: "FrankDK"In a later post, you did claim that the government provides nothing of value. I gave several counter examples, which invalidates your claim.
Please quote me where I said that the government does not provide anything of value. I read through my posts and could not find anything even remotely close.
Again, if I argued that the government does not provide anything of value...then I would be an anarcho-capitalist. But I'm not an anarcho-capitalist...I'm a pragmatarian. Therefore, I do not believe that the government does not provide anything of value. Therefore, I wouldn't have said that the government does not provide anything of value. Therefore, your arguments are completely irrelevant as not a single person in this thread has argued that the government does not provide anything of value.
Quote from: "FrankDK"You will continue to dodge the issue rather than answer the points I made. That is your choice.
Why would I bother trying to dodge something that wasn't even in the same ballpark as my arguments? You're attacking imaginary opponents...and then accuse me of dodging your attacks. It's really pretty funny.
Again, my argument is that the government cannot "divine" the true preferences (aka "demand") of the people. That's because demand is only revealed by what people will choose to sacrifice. This can only be observed after the sacrifice has been made.
For example, I can't "divine" how much time you'll sacrifice to this thread. Only after the fact...only after you've "exited" from this discussion will I be able to know how much time you sacrificed to this thread.
Therefore, the government has no idea what the actual demand for public goods is. This means that they will supply the wrong quantities of public goods. They will supply too much defense and not enough public healthcare...or vice versa. If we want the government to supply the optimal quantities of public goods...then we should allow taxpayers to shop for themselves in the public sector. As a result, the actual demand for public goods will determine the supply of public goods.
I'm sure the government provides things of value...but I have no idea exactly how much society values the things that the government provides...and neither does the government. The only way we can determine how much society values what the government provides is by allowing society to decide exactly how much it is willing to sacrifice for public goods.
How much public education is each and every person willing to sacrifice for public healthcare? Nobody can know that. All we can know is after the fact...but that does not mean that society's values will stay constant. People's circumstances are unique and constantly changing. One day somebody is perfectly healthy...and then the next day they fall off a roof. That's why the supply of public healthcare should be determined by the demand for public healthcare.
Ok, I've clearly painted the target...again. You can continue to attack imaginary opponents...you can continue tilting at windmills...or you can attack my actual position. The choice is yours.
Quote from: "Rin Hato"Taxpayers already choose where their taxes go.
/thread
Taxpayers don't choose where their taxes go...they choose representatives to choose where their taxes go. But if this system was effective at efficiently allocating resources...then we should implement the same exact system in the private sector.
Except, this system isn't in place because it's effective...it's in place because nearly 1000 years ago some barons were fed up with how the king was spending their taxes...so they took the power of the purse from him. And the king only had the power of the purse in the first place because many people believed he was divinely inspired.
Right now you are just like those poor ignorant people. You think congress is somehow divinely inspired. Either they know our true preferences or their preferences are somehow superior to our own.
But contrary to popular belief, congress is not omniscient. They don't have their eye on each and every fallen sparrow...and they do not know how much you value public healthcare. As a result, they supply the wrong quantities of public goods.
So please do the rest of us a favor and question your beliefs. Learn about the preference revelation problem. I'm tired of living in the dark ages.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"IOW your economics is based on subjectivity. I'm not saying that socialism is necessarily objective, or even less subjective and irrational, but I don't think it's completely rational to base all action on subjective preferences.
I'm not advocating dictatorship, since relying on the subjective preferences of the many is better than relying on the subjective preferences of the few in almost every case, but having some engineering-style standards and metrics as a constraint or technocratic "constitution" would be cool.
Either an organization/sector is fair game for creative destruction...or it isn't. But what standards are so perfect that they should be exceptions? If they truly are perfect, then why would they need protection from competition?
It might help if you could provide specific examples.
Quote from: "Jason78"Because you've given two choices as the answer to a question when there are clearly more options available.
There's plenty of opportunities for me to choose how to spend my resources.
There's also plenty of times where I don't have any say in how to allocate my resources, but nobody makes me do it, and no authority enforces it.
There are times when I'm required by an authority to allocate my resources should I want to pursue a specific action. And there are times where I'm required to allocate resources in order to achieve an effect.
And there are times when an authority will demand that I allocate my resources to them regardless of whether I want to or not.
Your argument is invalid because as I've pointed out, your assumptions are faulty.
You've made vague hand waving movements. Try actually coming up with specific examples.
Either a child allocates their own resources...or a parent allocates their resources for them. Either a husband allocates his own resources...or a wife allocates his resources for him. Either a taxpayer spends his own taxes...or a congressperson spends them for him.
How well does a parent know the preferences of their child? How well does a wife know the preferences of her husband? How well does a congressperson know your preferences?
If you can't decide how you spend your own/time money...then somebody else decides for you. The better that other person knows your preferences...the more efficient the allocation of resources. Capitalism efficiently allocates resources because people can shop for themselves...or they can delegate shopping to people who truly know their preferences. Socialism does not efficiently allocate resources because people cannot shop for themselves. Right now you can't give all your taxes to Ron Paul or Elizabeth Warren. You can't give your taxes to the EPA instead of the DoD. As a result, the wrong quantities of public goods are supplied. In other words, the supply of public goods does not meet the demand for public goods. Why? Because that's what happens in command economies.
As we all know, sometimes children will demand the wrong things. That's because they don't know any better. And it's the parents responsibility to help them know better.
If taxpayers could choose where their taxes go, would they demand the wrong things? Sure, of course. And it would be the responsibility of our society's intrepid leaders to help them know better. And would they all give the same advice? Would all the blind men agree that they were touching an elephant? Obviously not, we all have limited perspectives. So we hedge our bets and give people the freedom to choose which leaders they follow. The more paths that people are allowed to take, the more paths we'll find that lead to prosperity.
Quote from: "aitm"Plu, if you wish to take a position on the OP then do, if you're just going to fling shit, go somewhere else and leave this thread alone.
Maybe consolidate all of the threads started by the OP which are carbon copies of one another into one?
I know they've all been put in the archive, but I predict that by this time next year there will be at least another 3 of them, all with the same topic, all with the same spiel.
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Quote from: "aitm"Plu, if you wish to take a position on the OP then do, if you're just going to fling shit, go somewhere else and leave this thread alone.
Maybe consolidate all of the threads started by the OP which are carbon copies of one another into one?
I know they've all been put in the archive, but I predict that by this time next year there will be at least another 3 of them, all with the same topic, all with the same spiel.
I'm curious what the advantage would be of consolidating all the threads that I've started. If somebody wants to read everything I've written then they can simply search Google for my username within this site... xerographica site:atheistforums.com (//https://www.google.com/search?q=xerographica+site:atheistforums.com&num=100&newwindow=1&safe=off&filter=0&biw=930&bih=590).
But none of my threads are simply me talking to myself. They are discussions between myself and other forum members. If you don't wish to participate in the discussions...or read about the same topic...then please find other threads that better match your preferences.
This is how and why forums work. You don't have to participate in threads that don't match your preferences. And if you don't find any threads that do match your preferences...then just do what I do and start your own. The difference is, I've never posted in any of your threads complaining that the topic does not match my preferences. Because doing so would be stupid.
Quote from: "Xerographica"Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Quote from: "aitm"Plu, if you wish to take a position on the OP then do, if you're just going to fling shit, go somewhere else and leave this thread alone.
Maybe consolidate all of the threads started by the OP which are carbon copies of one another into one?
I know they've all been put in the archive, but I predict that by this time next year there will be at least another 3 of them, all with the same topic, all with the same spiel.
I'm curious what the advantage would be of consolidating all the threads that I've started. If somebody wants to read everything I've written then they can simply search Google for my username within this site... xerographica site:atheistforums.com (//https://www.google.com/search?q=xerographica+site:atheistforums.com&num=100&newwindow=1&safe=off&filter=0&biw=930&bih=590).
But none of my threads are simply me talking to myself. They are discussions between myself and other forum members. If you don't wish to participate in the discussions...or read about the same topic...then please find other threads that better match your preferences.
This is how and why forums work. You don't have to participate in threads that don't match your preferences. And if you don't find any threads that do match your preferences...then just do what I do and start your own. The difference is, I've never posted in any of your threads complaining that the topic does not match my preferences. Because doing so would be stupid.
Au contraire mon ami, au contraire.
These threads are precisely you just talking to yourself. You're not really a forum member here, you simply show up once in a blue moon, post a carbon copy of the same thread, then disappear until a couple of months later when you start another one. Oh but yes, in answer to your question, nobody's stopping you doing that. And yes, there aren't any rules [on this forum] about stopping hit and run posters.
But hey, far be it from me to try to patronise you on the same level to which you try [and fail] to patronise me. Like I said, 1 year, consolidation, same shit, different thread. I'll take you up on your offer and decide to leave others to talking to a brick wall (guess I failed in the previous proviso). Here's an otter in a bib, enjoy (...and again):
(//http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs10/i/2006/123/6/2/Otter_in_a_Bib_by_black_lupin.jpg)
> Please quote me where I said that the government does not provide anything of value. I read through my posts and could not find anything even remotely close.
OK. You posted
Post subject: Re: Nietzsche, Austrians and Creative Destruction
Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 5:33 am
"Right, because my argument is that the government does not supply anything of value. That's why I'm an anarcho-capitalist. Except, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. I'm a pragmatarian. If you don't want to waste your time, it might help to invest some time learning what my arguments actually are."
I bolded the relevant words because you apparently have a reading deficit.
?Again, if I argued that the government does not provide anything of value...then I would be an anarcho-capitalist. But I'm not an anarcho-capitalist...I'm a pragmatarian. Therefore, I do not believe that the government does not provide anything of value.
Then why did you write that that was your argument? Make up your mind.
> Therefore, I wouldn't have said that the government does not provide anything of value. Therefore, your arguments are completely irrelevant as not a single person in this thread has argued that the government does not provide anything of value.
You mean, other than you.
I can't figure out whether you're an idiot or a liar. So far, I haven't seen anything to rule out the possibility of both.
In either event, further discussion would be pointless. You seem to want me to research your positions for you and then argue against them. Breath-takingly stupid.
Frank
The thing you're forgetting is this:
The general populace has no idea where to spend their money. The reason that the government spends tax money is because the government generally knows what to do with it. As much as you want it to be, the "preference revelation problem" is just not practical. Like communism; nice idea, but it doesn't work.
FrankDK, here's what you posted...
Posted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:05 pm
Quote from: "FrankDK"Did you decide what the protocols should be for the Internet and browsers, or did someone decide that for you? (Hint: It's the latter. I was the DoD's representative to several standards bodies when these protocols were being standardized.)
Here was my reply...
Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 5:33 am
Quote from: "Xerographica"Right, because my argument is that the government does not supply anything of value. That's why I'm an anarcho-capitalist. Except, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. I'm a pragmatarian. If you don't want to waste your time, it might help to invest some time learning what my arguments actually are.
It was
sarcasm. I was being sarcastic because you were making a completely irrelevant argument. You were arguing that the government supplies something of value when
NOBODY had argued otherwise.
Here's a super simple fictitious dialogue that would have made your point relevant
Xerographica: The government does not supply anything of value
FrankDK: Actually, the government supplies standardized internet protocols
Xerographica: I stand corrected.
But that's not what happened. Here's what actually happened...
Xerographica: "Given that the government cannot know your true preferences for public goods, it's a given that the government will supply the wrong quantities of public goods."
FrankDK: Actually, the government supplies standardized internet protocols
Xerographica: Uhhh...what?
Quote from: "FrankDK"In either event, further discussion would be pointless. You seem to want me to research your positions for you and then argue against them. Breath-takingly stupid.
Yeah, it would be breathtakingly stupid for you to actually understand your opponent's position. Oops, maybe I should mention that I'm being sarcastic.
I've clarified my actual position several times now...but let me do it again. The government doesn't know what the actual demand for public goods is. Therefore, it doesn't supply the optimal quantities of public goods. If we want the government to supply the optimal quantities of public goods, then we should allow taxpayers to shop for themselves in the public sector. This will allow them to reveal the true demand for public goods. Why? Because actions speak louder than words.
I'll completely understand if you're completely incapable of attacking my actual position. You certainly wouldn't be the first to fail to grasp basic economics.
Quote from: "Xerographica"Quote from: "Jason78"Because you've given two choices as the answer to a question when there are clearly more options available.
There's plenty of opportunities for me to choose how to spend my resources.
There's also plenty of times where I don't have any say in how to allocate my resources, but nobody makes me do it, and no authority enforces it.
There are times when I'm required by an authority to allocate my resources should I want to pursue a specific action. And there are times where I'm required to allocate resources in order to achieve an effect.
And there are times when an authority will demand that I allocate my resources to them regardless of whether I want to or not.
Your argument is invalid because as I've pointed out, your assumptions are faulty.
You've made vague hand waving movements. Try actually coming up with specific examples.
Either a child allocates their own resources...or a parent allocates their resources for them. Either a husband allocates his own resources...or a wife allocates his resources for him. Either a taxpayer spends his own taxes...or a congressperson spends them for him.
How well does a parent know the preferences of their child? How well does a wife know the preferences of her husband? How well does a congressperson know your preferences?
If you can't decide how you spend your own/time money...then somebody else decides for you. The better that other person knows your preferences...the more efficient the allocation of resources. Capitalism efficiently allocates resources because people can shop for themselves...or they can delegate shopping to people who truly know their preferences. Socialism does not efficiently allocate resources because people cannot shop for themselves. Right now you can't give all your taxes to Ron Paul or Elizabeth Warren. You can't give your taxes to the EPA instead of the DoD. As a result, the wrong quantities of public goods are supplied. In other words, the supply of public goods does not meet the demand for public goods. Why? Because that's what happens in command economies.
As we all know, sometimes children will demand the wrong things. That's because they don't know any better. And it's the parents responsibility to help them know better.
If taxpayers could choose where their taxes go, would they demand the wrong things? Sure, of course. And it would be the responsibility of our society's intrepid leaders to help them know better. And would they all give the same advice? Would all the blind men agree that they were touching an elephant? Obviously not, we all have limited perspectives. So we hedge our bets and give people the freedom to choose which leaders they follow. The more paths that people are allowed to take, the more paths we'll find that lead to prosperity.
And yet you keep talking.
Quote from: "Rin Hato"The thing you're forgetting is this:
The general populace has no idea where to spend their money.
So can I have your money? If the answer is "no" then it's because you do have an idea where to spend your money.
Quote from: "Rin Hato"The reason that the government spends tax money is because the government generally knows what to do with it.
No, it's because people thought that kings had divine authority.
Quote from: "Rin Hato"As much as you want it to be, the "preference revelation problem" is just not practical. Like communism; nice idea, but it doesn't work.
Errr...you're using "practical" to describe a problem. Problems are either real or imagined...they can be big or small...they can be easy to solve or nearly impossible to solve.
If you want to argue that the preference revelation problem isn't a real problem...then you're arguing that congress is omniscient. But do you really believe that congress is omniscient?
Spend a bit more time researching whether the preference revelation problem is real or not. If you decide that it's not a real problem, then please be ready to answer the question of who made this problem up. Was it the pro-market advocates? Or was it the pro-government advocates?
Zerographica wrote...
" "
Now I understand. It was Opposite Day at the funny farm.
You're an idiot and a liar.
Frank
Quote from: "Jmpty"And yet you keep talking.
Really, it's not that difficult.
Imagine you're at a train station. A train pulls into the station. It's got "CRAZY" written all over it.
Capitalism: You have a choice whether you get on or off the crazy train
Socialism: You're a forced rider
As an atheist, I derive quite a bit of ironic utility from citing the Bible. For example, Noah's Ark. People had a choice whether they boarded his boat. As the story goes, they obviously believed that Noah's Ark was the epitome of a crazy train. So they choose not to board it. As the story goes, it turned out that Noah and his family were the only sane ones.
Life is such that prosperity depends on giving people the freedom to go in a direction that you are certain is the wrong way. You know why? Because as hard as it might be for you to imagine...there's a possibility that you're the one who is actually going the wrong way. So it was a good thing you didn't force them to go with you.
Capitalism allows us to hedge our bets, while socialism puts far too many eggs in one basket. If somebody was omniscient, or even close to omniscient, then it would be desirable for us to put so many eggs in one basket. But we all have extremely limited perspectives. Therefore, massive amounts of resources are wasted when conceited leaders are allowed to gamble with massive amounts of society's limited resources.
Right now the government is your God. As an atheist you don't believe in putting yourself in God's hands...but you feel like putting yourself in the government's hands. There's no difference. Neither are omniscient. So you're just a latter day believer. LDB.
But I don't want to get rid of congress. In a pragmatarian system, congress would still be there. If you wanted to put your life in the hands of congress, if you saw evidence of their superiority, then you would certainly have the opportunity to give them all your taxes. You could worship them and make your sacrifice to them! No worries. I'm just asking that you show just enough tolerance to respect my own disbelief.
Quote from: "FrankDK"Zerographica wrote...
" "
Now I understand. It was Opposite Day at the funny farm.
You're an idiot and a liar.
Frank
Obviously you're incapable of attacking my actual argument, so all you can do is resort to attacking me. Don't worry, eventually somebody will spoon feed you some relevant arguments to regurgitate.
Bleeding Heart Libertarians - Robin and the Austrians Revisited: On "Elective Affinities," "Value," and Other Conceptual Disasters (//http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/07/robin-and-the-austrians-revisited-on-elective-affinities-value-and-other-conceptual-disasters/)
QuoteCorey Robin has replied to (mostly my) criticisms of his piece in The Nation linking Hayek and the Austrians with Nietzsche. To prepare for this post, I reread the original piece, Robin's introduction to the piece on CT, my response, Corey's responses to my response, many of the other blog posts on Corey, and nearly all the comments on the original piece at BHL and comments on Corey's reply at CT. I have not watched the BloggingHeads. That is too much Robin. Seriously. I've given his work due diligence.
My conclusion: Robin's argument is still really bad. In fact, it's even worse than I thought, given Robin's poor defense. In his post, Corey commits three errors: (i) his idea of "elective affinities" is hopelessly vague, (ii) he refuses to be clear about what he (or anyone else) means by "value" and (iii) his reading of Hayek is culpably and embarrassingly wrong. (iii) is so serious and important that I'm going to devote an entire post to it. This post consists in rebutting (i) and (ii).