Individual rights v. governent intervention

stealthyeliminator · Apr 27, 2015

Grapeshot said:
How would someone offer to barter with the giant electricty provider or the supplier of water?

Please show us how to build a jumbo jet or an ocean liner with a barter system.

The ARMY WANTS YOU........what do you have to offer? :lol:

Government didn't invent money.

I think that's about as far into that discussion as we need to go.

Citizen · Apr 27, 2015

OC for ME said:
SNIP OK, I'll give it a try.

False premise. Why must there be coin of the rhealm? How about I give you two chickes, cuz you don't have any chickens, and you replace my kitchen sink garbage disposal, that I got from the kitchen sink garbage disposal guy who needed chickens too? What is sooo terrible with a barter system? What is it about folks bartering that leads you to believe that the downfall of our society, in its entirety, would result?

I know that government despises the barter system, no cash going into Caesar's coffers...no rendering unto Caesar that is.

I am reminded about Richard Nixon's sheningans with the gold standard.

In the early 1970's, he "closed the gold window"--a bank teller window metaphor for foreign governments and foreign central banks being able to trade back in their dollars for gold. The video of his public statement is on youtube. In the statement he says interests hostile to the US were harming the dollar, so he closed the gold window.

Now, old Dick, skidded right over a very important point: who had printed so many dollars there wasn't enough gold to cover them? How could speculators (Dick's accusation, not mine), be such a threat to the dollar if there was plenty of gold to cover redemptions of dollars?

And, I like Dick's little comment for the gullible and ignorant, "A nation's money is as strong as its economy." Now, hold on a minute there Mr. Watergate. Until he closed the gold window, a nation's money was as strong as there was gold to back it. Once, finalized taking America off the gold standard, the dollar was not as strong as the economy; it was as strong as the government and Federal Reserve restricted themselves from borrowing and printing. The only thing a strong economy has to do with it, is the ability of the people in that economy to pay the taxes to pay the interest on the borrowing.

Government just seems to have a knack for spending too much. And, monkeying with the monetary system to support that spending. Now, this comes as no surprise to me. They're willing to point a gun in your face and take your money in the form of taxes; why would I have any surprise that they would do other immoral things on the subject of money?

In ancient times, kings who wanted more than they could tax resorted to debasing the coin by melting down the coins, and adding base metals which increased the volume of metal available to strike new coins. Today, government has an unholy alliance with the banking system to pull the same stunt, just with more sophistication. The government issues bonds (debt), and the banking system (The Federal Reserve) buys them and creates that amount of money out thin air. This is referred to as "monetizing the debt"--turning the national debt into money.

So, if only Caesar had stopped at just taxing people, boy wouldn't that be great? Instead, today Caesar issues so much debt so fast against the ability of the tax base to pay the interest, it is scary.

J_dazzle23 · Apr 27, 2015

stealthyeliminator said:
********. If I posed those questions to you, and then treated your answers as the liberty advocates' answers have been treated, we'd be in the same circling dance as you are expressing frustration over now.

It really isn't that complicated, it's only voluminous. How does stuff get done? People do it. They problem solve. Take any public service, let's say city water - do you really think that in an anarchical society everyone with an aptitude for plumbing would magically disappear and we'd be left with cities full of people that couldn't figure out how to get water from one side of town to the other? I mean, come on! Really?! Do we really need to explain in detail how things like water towers work? I'm pretty sure gravity works the same whether there's a traditional government or not!

Don't belittle my question. Again, you don't get to pull that after telling ME im being obtuse.

YES. I know how gravity works *eye roll*

These services take time, and unless everyone that provides them does it out of the kindness of their heart, it takes compensation.

Asking for a way to provide this for those that can't pay is not a poor question. Here is why-

The biggest single hurdle I see here is PEOPLE. Like it or not, freedom is not free. If you want ALL of your rights, and a functioning society, then the function of that society falls(voluntarily) on the people. There is a common responsibility there. The only difference with anarchy is that it isn't enforced by a monopoly like the state.

The PEOPLE have to be willing to make it work, from what I can tell. The sewer, water, garbage, etc is just an example.

Pardon the skepticism of human nature, but I unfortunately don't see many in our society that would be willing to work to be free ATM.

Thoughts?

Citizen · Apr 27, 2015

marshaul said:
SNIP There are and have been successful currencies minted by, say, banks (instead of government).

Just tossing in some historical data. I forget where I came across this.

Turns out that in the (early?) 1800's there was a minter in the Carolina's. Private fellow. He had a market because the nearest government mint was Philadelphia or something. And, apparently there was gold in the ground in the Carolinas. Not a lot. But, small gold mines.

So, these guys brought their gold to this minter. He melted and refined the gold, then struck coins. His dies still exist in a museum in the northeast somewhere if I recall.

Here's the cool part. During the heyday of gold and silver mining in the west, there were also private mints. But, a few of them developed a reputation for adding a bit of base metal to the coins. Our Carolina minter enjoyed an excellent reputation for metallic quality--didn't monkey with the gold content.

stealthyeliminator · Apr 27, 2015

J_dazzle23 said:
Asking for a way to provide this for those that can't pay is not a poor question.

The implication that an anarchical society would need to solve this problem to be worthy of consideration is false.

This question isn't about anarchy at all, it's about societal problems in general. Solve the problem now. As long as that solution is morally sound, the same solution would apply in a society absent traditional government.

stealthyeliminator · Apr 27, 2015

J_dazzle23 said:
The PEOPLE have to be willing to make it work, from what I can tell. The sewer, water, garbage, etc is just an example.

Pardon the skepticism of human nature, but I unfortunately don't see many in our society that would be willing to work to be free ATM.

Thoughts?

The people that work those jobs today - what would happen to them? They magically disappear absent government monopoly? Do you think the government goes out ever couple of years and conscripts people into sewer service?

Do you think people will want sewer? Do you think they'd be willing to pay for it? I think that by all indication we can safely say yes. So, absent government monopoly, what in the world would possibly make you think that nobody that wants money would provide a service that tons of people want and are willing to pay for?

Same for every service you can imagine under the sun.

Edit: WHOA, what the hell do you mean free??? What in the world are you talking about? Why would any of those services require uncompensated labor absent government monopolization?

stealthyeliminator · Apr 27, 2015

J_dazzle23 said:
stealthyeliminator said:

I have a fun (fun to me ) challenge for you sir, which I offer to you, specifically, in good spirit.

Try to find a particular function that a government has monopolized or provided through the use of coercion, that has not ever been successfully provided privately or by a market. If you name a function that you believe fits those parameters, I will try to find an example of the function being provided privately or without government monopoly or coercion.

Click to expand...

I believe you are in good spirit, so I'll shoot. And I'll admit I'd be very interested if you could actually show this.

I'll shoot.

CDC
FDA
Bureau of land management
National parks service

Disclaimer- not saying I would RATHER have the state provide these. Just for those that I know want to assert that position to me.

Looked up a few examples just because I said I would

http://www.life-enhancement.com/magazine/article/2386-alternatives-to-the-fda
http://www.perc.org/what-perc-does
http://www.perc.org/articles/time-move-beyond-esa-save-species-and-economic-interests
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UL_(safety_organization)

J_dazzle23 · Apr 27, 2015

Nightmare said:
And all your hypotheticals were solved in Galt's Gulch, based as well in reality as any prepper.

http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Ayn-Rand/dp/0452011876

Thanks for the link, nightmare.

J_dazzle23 · Apr 27, 2015

stealthyeliminator said:
Looked up a few examples just because I said I would

http://www.life-enhancement.com/magazine/article/2386-alternatives-to-the-fda
http://www.perc.org/what-perc-does
http://www.perc.org/articles/time-move-beyond-esa-save-species-and-economic-interests
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UL_(safety_organization)

Cool. Perc actually looks like a cool org.

I suppose cdc is staying put as it has money outside of its 7b from the gov coming from private funding?

stealthyeliminator · Apr 27, 2015

J_dazzle23 said:
Cool. Perc actually looks like a cool org.

I suppose cdc is staying put as it has money outside of its 7b from the gov coming from private funding?

I'm not really sure on that one. From what I could tell in my few minutes of research, the CDC involves a lot of collaborative effort between the gov and private entities. Personally, I have faith that if society wanted an alternative, one could be provided outside of coercive monopoly (but I realize this statement doesn't fulfill the exercise I proposed). I think the main hurdle there would be educating enough people to be convinced that the services are worth paying for, because very few people, myself included, have a very good knowledge of what the majority of fed gov agencies actually do.

marshaul · Apr 27, 2015

stealthyeliminator said:
I'm not really sure on that one. From what I could tell in my few minutes of research, the CDC involves a lot of collaborative effort between the gov and private entities. Personally, I have faith that if society wanted an alternative, one could be provided outside of coercive monopoly (but I realize this statement doesn't fulfill the exercise I proposed). I think the main hurdle there would be educating enough people to be convinced that the services are worth paying for, because very few people, myself included, have a very good knowledge of what the majority of fed gov agencies actually do.

As I pointed out before, there is ample immediate incentive for insurance companies to fund much of what the CDC does, simply as a cost-saving measure. This is just one example.

Citizen · Apr 27, 2015

marshaul said:
As I pointed out before, there is ample immediate incentive for insurance companies to fund much of what the CDC does, simply as a cost-saving measure. This is just one example.

ala Underwriter Laboratories.

I learned in my youth to only buy appliances that were tested for safety by UL. I checked tons of appliances over the years after that.

But, we have right here in the gun world a great example of collaborative effort: SAAMI, Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturer's Institute. Every wonder why six kinds of ammunition fit your gun? Ever wonder why five kinds of ammunition don't blow up your gun? Its because SAAMI coordinates the specs. SAAMI sets or maintains the standards (specs), the gun and ammo makers then make their stuff to those specs. Ever wonder why that recently-developed 9mm can shoot pretty much any 9mm ammo safely? Its because SAAMI maintains the specs for chamber pressure on 9mm.

HP995 · Apr 27, 2015

Just wanted to say a word about:

:cuss: The Great Imaginary Debate :cuss:

(I'll start with stealthyeliminator because he came very close to the topic I had in mind! But not quite.)

You know full well that a thorough answer to even one of these questions could easily take the expanse of a book.

Great point to keep in mind!

Do you really think that's reasonable?

Whoops - that doesn't mean the questions themselves were not reasonable. It depends. More on that...

so you're trying to trap the questioned in a position where they must either refuse to answer, answer in a manner that you will quickly deem insufficient, or they must answer by writing a book.

Using "trap" means you know his intention. Please sign me up to your ESP school! I want that too!

But the basic idea is good. It would be a sticky situation to respond - if that were relevant.

(It's not.)

And here's where he got scary close to my thoughts (maybe those ESP classes are for real):

Thus, you're questioning is unreasonable for this format - (an) internet forum.

Almost where I was going. OK, which brings me to my topic:

The Great Imaginary Debate

(Yeah, I already said that. Sorry, I like the sound of it.)

There have been a lot of demands in the form of: Person A expecting that Person B must promptly respond to Question X or Objection Y and so on.

And there's nothing really wrong with that, but sometimes it got a bit pushy.

Make that very pushy.

(There's a difference between requesting and demanding, between asking and expecting it to be certainly answered and without delay or regardless of plans.)

At first this puzzled me. What the hell?

Then "Eureka!" :dude::idea:

I'm guessing that could have stemmed from an assumption that others were compelled to immediately focus on these things.

Which would make perfect sense if we were engaged in a formal debate setting, or a dedicated debate forum, with the proper guidelines in place and agreed upon!

Back to Earth

But as far as I understand it, OCDO is a discussion forum, not a debate club.

Logic is always essential. Therefore, avoiding fallacy is always welcome!

However, some other debating habits may not necessarily apply here.

(Except when dealing with others who have agreed to them, of course.)

Sometimes my own priorities will be different than yours. That can't be forced.

Requests are great, I actually like those, but insistent demands are not relevant in this setting.

They can be made, but they might not be met.

The Big Question

Now let's look again at the debate problem:

so you're trying to trap the questioned in a position where they must either refuse to answer, answer in a manner that you will quickly deem insufficient, or they must answer by writing a book.

Now, I don't have the ESP thing, so I'm just going on what was typed.

But since there isn't a format debate where people can be trapped into anything, this (although it could be true in another environment) doesn't apply.

And big questions are not necessarily unreasonable.

Let's look at those questions from J_dazzle23:

1. How do you moderate currency, and standardize it? Also preventing counterfeiting?

2. How to provide public services to anyone besides the rich? Sewer, water, security, etc.

3. How to deal with a free market run rampant? Such as complete monopolies(yes, companies could do it just like the gov.)

4. How to solve conflict, especially for all those that cannot protect themselves (of which this is the majority, imo). Given that morals and values are NOT objective, there is a very real difference on what is acceptible to every person.

Since we're not in any kind of formal debate here, there's nothing wrong with the scope of the questions.

Because there is no huge penalty for not answering, or for not answering to meet a certain level of expectation.

They could be important to think about. :idea::idea:

But there could be a problem (or at least a misunderstanding) if an answer was demanded instead of requested.

And those questions are a good lead into my second point:

What are we trying to accomplish here?

Could vary. Nothing wrong with that.

Personally I don't think debates would lead to a definite resolution anyway, even if this was a debate setting.

Let me know if the Creation/Evolution debates have been settled!

And what are we NOT trying to accomplish here?

Hopefully not something like this:

A. People under government/state have problems.

B. Anarchy has no government/state. (Except when it's consensual, and then it does.)

C. Therefore people under anarchy have no problems.

(Or - therefore the government/state is the problem. Except when it's consensual, and then it isn't.)

At the moment I'm not accusing anyone in particular of saying that -

remember -

THIS IS NOT A FORMAL DEBATE, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

But this line of thought could happen.

And that is my main concern here.

I will address propaganda, for example.

I like to see people thinking critically about anything - including problems with government -

but I don't want to see people focusing on careful criticisms of one thing, and then leaping happily into something else without examining it in exactly the same way, with the same level of objective scrutiny.

That would be extremely dangerous.

That's my priority here. It doesn't have to be yours. You don't have to agree with it. But I will stick to mine.

(Out of time for this one! Next time Constitution stuff and maybe that propaganda graphic.)

J_dazzle23 · Apr 27, 2015

HP995 said:
Just wanted to say a word about:

:cuss: The Great Imaginary Debate :cuss:

(I'll start with stealthyeliminator because he came very close to the topic I had in mind! But not quite.)

Great point to keep in mind!

Whoops - that doesn't mean the questions themselves were not reasonable. It depends. More on that...

Using "trap" means you know his intention. Please sign me up to your ESP school! I want that too!

But the basic idea is good. It would be a sticky situation to respond - if that were relevant.

(It's not.)

And here's where he got scary close to my thoughts (maybe those ESP classes are for real):

Almost where I was going. OK, which brings me to my topic:

The Great Imaginary Debate

(Yeah, I already said that. Sorry, I like the sound of it.)

There have been a lot of demands in the form of: Person A expecting that Person B must promptly respond to Question X or Objection Y and so on.

And there's nothing really wrong with that, but sometimes it got a bit pushy.

Make that very pushy.

(There's a difference between requesting and demanding, between asking and expecting it to be certainly answered and without delay or regardless of plans.)

At first this puzzled me. What the hell?

Then "Eureka!" :dude::idea:

I'm guessing that could have stemmed from an assumption that others were compelled to immediately focus on these things.

Which would make perfect sense if we were engaged in a formal debate setting, or a dedicated debate forum, with the proper guidelines in place and agreed upon!

Back to Earth

But as far as I understand it, OCDO is a discussion forum, not a debate club.

Logic is always essential. Therefore, avoiding fallacy is always welcome!

However, some other debating habits may not necessarily apply here.

(Except when dealing with others who have agreed to them, of course.)

Sometimes my own priorities will be different than yours. That can't be forced.

Requests are great, I actually like those, but insistent demands are not relevant in this setting.

They can be made, but they might not be met.

The Big Question

Now let's look again at the debate problem:

Now, I don't have the ESP thing, so I'm just going on what was typed.

But since there isn't a format debate where people can be trapped into anything, this (although it could be true in another environment) doesn't apply.

And big questions are not necessarily unreasonable.

Let's look at those questions from J_dazzle23:

Since we're not in any kind of formal debate here, there's nothing wrong with the scope of the questions.

Because there is no huge penalty for not answering, or for not answering to meet a certain level of expectation.

They could be important to think about. :idea::idea:

But there could be a problem (or at least a misunderstanding) if an answer was demanded instead of requested.

And those questions are a good lead into my second point:

What are we trying to accomplish here?

Could vary. Nothing wrong with that.

Personally I don't think debates would lead to a definite resolution anyway, even if this was a debate setting.

Let me know if the Creation/Evolution debates have been settled!

And what are we NOT trying to accomplish here?

Hopefully not something like this:

A. People under government/state have problems.

B. Anarchy has no government/state. (Except when it's consensual, and then it does.)

C. Therefore people under anarchy have no problems.

(Or - therefore the government/state is the problem. Except when it's consensual, and then it isn't.)

At the moment I'm not accusing anyone in particular of saying that -

remember -

THIS IS NOT A FORMAL DEBATE, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! [emoji14][emoji14]

But this line of thought could happen.

And that is my main concern here.

I will address propaganda, for example.

I like to see people thinking critically about anything - including problems with government -

but I don't want to see people focusing on careful criticisms of one thing, and then leaping happily into something else without examining it in exactly the same way, with the same level of objective scrutiny.

That would be extremely dangerous.

That's my priority here. It doesn't have to be yours. You don't have to agree with it. But I will stick to mine.

(Out of time for this one! Next time Constitution stuff and maybe that propaganda graphic.)

Just to be clear- I believe I was very open to the alternative of nobody answering the questions I had [emoji2]

A simple no or yes suffices.

OC for ME · Apr 28, 2015

To maintain context.

OC for ME said:
OK, I'll give it a try.

False premise. Why must there be coin of the realm? How about I give you two chickens, cuz you don't have any chickens, and you replace my kitchen sink garbage disposal, that I got from the kitchen sink garbage disposal guy who needed chickens too? What is sooo terrible with a barter system? What is it about folks bartering that leads you to believe that the downfall of our society, in its entirety, would result?

I know that government despises the barter system, no cash going into Caesar's coffers...no rendering unto Caesar that is. Don't believe me? Read the tax code. I do believe that the IRS has gone after folks who have not reported their "goods & services" received as income and then rendering their tribute unto Caesar.

Septic, or pay to use the sewer system?
Water? Well water, or pay for it just like we do now.
Security? Really? How much security do have at this very moment? Is there a cop standing watch outside your door?

See my response to #1. This is eerily close to the premise that liberals cling to.

That has been addressed six ways from Sunday.

Cling to the definition of anarchy that reinforces your view of anarchists, no biggie.

J_dazzle23 said:
Thanks, out of a few posters here, finally someone that wants to actually talk about the issues instead of dancing around them.

You are most welcome. +1 to you Sir.

1. The barter system is something that I've heard a great deal on, and in theory it could work at times- like for example large goofs and services. I have a hard time believing the barter system would be effective for a business owner of say, a pizza joint or a burger king. What if u want to stop at wendys? How does that business decide how to make a profit and what to base income on? What do they put on their p&l sheets? Whatever the counter employee decides is worth a couple Jr bacon cheeseburgers?

I feel like the barter system would be an interesting thought, but think about it- we place an awful lot of importance as humans in the convenience of a monetary standard of some sort.

Why must I be compelled, under the threat of violent lethal force from government, to use coin of the realm to conduct voluntary transactions with my fellow citizens? Why must I be taxed on the government's arbitrarily determined value of my chickens? Why must it be a all or nothing proposition for interventionists? Why can I not freely engage in commerce with my fellow citizen using both barter and coin of the realm?

2. What about those that cannot pay for sewer and water, trash...what are typically public services? I'm not suggesting socializing, but by the same token with large scale urbanization we have now, dealing with these things (which would prevent huge amounts of disease, at least as far as sewer goes) would be important to everyone. Not saying it couldn't be done, just curious on how it would work.

You seem to make no allowance for your fellow citizen to engage with a government, if they desire, on their own terms. I addressed this earlier, re SVG, a voluntary interaction with government where I may request government services. With the understanding that there is no penalty for not engaging government as i see fit.

3. I'm not sure how that's the same as one- huge monopolies have existed before, and could get absurdly large. There should be a way to rectify this. Again, haven't seen how that would work in a totally free market.

Other members in this thread have addressed this, government is a monopoly and may/will use violent lethal force if I do not engage with them on their terms and only their terms.

4. The answer I've gotten is basically "make everyone agree" in so many words.

No, no one has stated, that I recall, to "make everyone agree." That is a complete mischaracterization in my view. There have been references to the tenet that "you may have to backup your acts, with your life, if you work to unjustly violate another citizen's rights."

If we all hold to the tenet that "a armed society is a polite society" then the answer is quite simple, is it not? Criminals? How are criminals dealt with now when there is not government readily available to protect you from that criminal.

Thanks! ...

No problem.

sudden valley gunner · Apr 28, 2015

"Don't belittle my questions" ....seems hypocritical while belittling the answers.

J_dazzle23 · Apr 28, 2015

sudden valley gunner said:
"Don't belittle my questions" ....seems hypocritical while belittling the answers.

Show me where I have shown disrespect or belittlement.

I'll wait.

stealthyeliminator · Apr 28, 2015

HP995 said:
Because there is no huge penalty for not answering, or for not answering to meet a certain level of expectation.

The problem is that some of those asking these questions (not necessarily J_dazzle23) are insinuating that failure to answer in a manner that satisfies them personally constitutes evidence that an anarchical society is not viable. If we could simply state this isn't the case, as you've done here, and move on, there wouldn't necessarily be a problem... We spent 10+ pages refusing to answer those questions, and the questioner refused to drop it or stay on topic, demanding that his questions be answered to his satisfaction. That's my take. That was before you entered the thread, I believe. So, yeah, I'm a little raw to the overly broad questions being harped on over and over. "Still haven't answered my questions!" "Still haven't answered my questions!" "Still haven't answered my questions!" None of those questions are on the original topic of the thread.

HP995 said:
What are we trying to accomplish here?

The original topic is about the fallacies in our founding documents that state that the government is authoritative by the consent of the people governed. It is fallacious because actual consent by each individual being governed is not actually obtained as the statements in the documents imply.

marshaul · Apr 28, 2015

It's not clear that monopolies in business are even possible without government favoritism.

Consider the manner in which many of the most infamous monopolies accrued:

Railroads: on the premise that railroads are capital-intensive but immediately necessary for securing the prosperity and security of the nation (and using naked graft where just justifications fell short), would-be tycoons lobbied government at all levels for subsidy, special tax credits, direct procurement of land via eminent domain (or indirect assistance via a variety of special legal privileges), etc.

While it's true that railroads are capital-intensive, without property rights they would be forced to develop in a piecemeal fashion. Thus, development would occur much more slowly, but it would also provide ample opportunity for competition to see value in the industry and develop small/local networks in parallel, mitigating the influence of any single entity.

But what actually happened is government essentially bought railroad monopolies for a few, under the justification that, if it didn't, they would develop too slowly.

Telephones: on the premise that national security depended on the ability for rapid cross-country communication, basically the exact same process was followed. Telephone services were already developing in a local, patchwork fashion; the expense of copper was such that long-distance lines were extremely capital-intensive, while businesses serving small towns and the like could more easily afford to establish and maintain small, local networks. So, if we'd waited, international telephone service would have developed more slowly, but in a spontaneous, demand-driven fashion, decentralized amongst numerous competitors.

Instead, the government bought Ma Bell a monopoly.

(Many electric monopolies were created in a similar manner to telephone monopolies.)

Even if monopolies can arise purely spontaneously (without government assistance), one of their great dangers (and one of the prime means by which they perpetuate their unfair advantage and hence existence) is the ability to lobby for (or buy) influence in government, in which areas they can always outspend their competitors. The resulting tax benefits, possible subsidy, and regulatory special treatment can make competition very difficult indeed.

Finally, even if monopolies can both be created and survive without government (a dubious proposition, given the historical record), for this question to somehow represent a possible indictment of anarchism, it is a logical prerequisite that the government solution (namely, antitrust law) be singularly effective, or lack a free market alternative.

On the first point, it seems to fail. Of the handful of monopolies broken up, none had arisen spontaneously. More monopolies were left intact, only to end in a spontaneous fashion when the imbalance of incentives eventually provided an opportunity to would-be competitors. And there even seem to be instances of antitrust law being abused by special interest: the much-ballyhooed Internet Explorer antitrust case (which had no driving force and accomplished nothing for the consumer) comes to mind.

On the second point: the free market provides ample means by which monopolies can be overturned (so long as they don't have the force of the state to prop them up). The very benefits provided by a longstanding monopoly (control over prices, for instance) serve to distort the market, improving the cost-benefit analysis performed by potential competitors, and slowly (but inexorably) incentivizing their entry into the market. In many cases, businesses without competitive pressure actually face a reverse economy of scale (it's termed "bloat"), further hampering their ability to compete with upstarts, once they happen to come along.

marshaul · Apr 28, 2015

stealthyeliminator said:
The problem is that some of those asking these questions (not necessarily J_dazzle23) are insinuating that failure to answer in a manner that satisfies them personally constitutes evidence that an anarchical society is not viable. If we could simply state this isn't the case, as you've done here, and move on, there wouldn't necessarily be a problem... We spent 10+ pages refusing to answer those questions, and the questioner refused to drop it or stay on topic, demanding that his questions be answered to his satisfaction. That's my take. That was before you entered the thread, I believe. So, yeah, I'm a little raw to the overly broad questions being harped on over and over. "Still haven't answered my questions!" "Still haven't answered my questions!" "Still haven't answered my questions!" None of those questions are on the original topic of the thread.

You've got it exactly right.

The discussion has taken the form: "let's talk about proposed reform X".

To which its implicit opponents say, "well, first, let's answer some questions about how reform X might work", and proceed to ask questions A, B, C, and D, none of which are in any way particular to reform X.

So, we're in a position of having to solve any and every potential problem, in advance, before reform is even discussed.

Not only has government never been subject to this demand, it's increasingly transparent that this is a bad-faith attempt to derail discussion under the guise of "asking questions", an ostensibly legitimate aspect of debate.

I've actually made several attempts to answer the questions (however irrelevant). In every case I've been given cursory acknowledgement, and then the pattern repeats, with no actual consideration given to the arguments made.

Individual rights v. governent intervention

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran