Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

While popular arguments focus on supposed “monopolists“ such as big cable companies, it’s government that’s really to blame. Companies can make life harder for their competitors, but strangling the competition takes government.

Broadband policy discussions usually revolve around the U.S. government’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC), yet it’s really our local governments and public utilities that impose the most significant barriers to entry.

Is this Wired Magazine??? Looks like something on the Mises site

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Soooooo the Capitol seems like a nice vaca spot again this year.

 

[Einherjar86]

Positions based primarily on charisma, charm, sophistry and demagoguery are easy pickings and thusly magnets for sociopaths. Relating back to Breaking Bad: Gus Fring would have made an excellent politician or pastor. There was more money in drugs, and the institutions within the political sphere that were onstensibly there to spot him, were wined and dined by him.

It's a joke/game to them, because they win so easily.

When you define the parameters like that, then it looks much worse than it is.

But those positions also attract people who specialize in organization, mediation, consultation, among other things. And you generalize terribly, to a point that your claim becomes no longer credible. Perhaps in very high positions we can see traces of what you describe; but to simply assume that all people who hold political or ecclesiastical positions are sophists and demagogues is simply fallacious.

 

[Dak]

I didn't say all. I said the system and positions are custom tailored. The other skills you list are not skills that have to exist independently of psychopathy, nor do actual politicians need to possess those traits themselves. That's what all the aids and strategists etc are for.

 

[Einherjar86]

Everything you say is true, but it's also not an excuse to oppose political institutions. Your claim is that these positions might attract psychopathic individuals. While that may be true, they also have the potential for positive societal cohesion.

It could be said that private enterprise creates positions based primarily on greed, egotism, sadism, and pathological hoarding.

 

[Dak]

Everything you say is true, but it's also not an excuse to oppose political institutions. Your claim is that these positions might attract psychopathic individuals. While that may be true, they also have the potential for positive societal cohesion.

Not might. Absolutely do.

What is "positive social cohesion"?

It could be said that private enterprise creates positions based primarily on greed, egotism, sadism, and pathological hoarding.

Sadism and pathological hoarding? I don't follow. Greed is relative, and egotism is present everywhere, even from the toddler.

 

[Dak]

Do I need to self immolate on the National Mall to be taken seriously?

Well that would definitely be a waste now. Here's what happens hen someone self-immolates on the National Mall: Nothing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/05/man-set-self-on-fire-national-mall-dies_n_4049653.html

A man who set himself on fire on the National Mall in the U.S. capital has died of his injuries, which were so severe that authorities will have to use DNA and dental records to identify him, District of Columbia police said Saturday.

.....

Lt. Pamela Smith of the U.S. Park Police said she was unaware whether he carried signs or had articulated a cause. One witness, Katy Scheflen, said that she saw a tripod set up near the man but that she did not hear him say anything intelligible before he set himself on fire. It was unclear whether the man was filming the incident.

 

[Einherjar86]

Not might. Absolutely do.

Debatable.

What is "positive social cohesion"?

A term I made up. I guess it means a symbiotic relationship between public and private, citizen and representative, that can function effectively. When I say effectively, I mean an objective sense of effectiveness; and not in that every person agrees it to be effective.

Sadism and pathological hoarding? I don't follow. Greed is relative, and egotism is present everywhere, even from the toddler.

I don't necessarily think it follows that government positions attract people with charisma and charm, or that people without those qualities gravitate toward other occupations.

Not everyone who pursues free enterprise necessarily is sadistic or a hoarder, but I'm saying you can argue that it "attracts" those kinds of people.

As far as greed being relative, I disagree; and as far as your point about egotism, it doesn't matter because we're talking about positions that attract these sorts of qualities in excess, how how prevalent they already are.

 

[Dak]

A term I made up. I guess it means a symbiotic relationship between public and private, citizen and representative, that can function effectively. When I say effectively, I mean an objective sense of effectiveness; and not in that every person agrees it to be effective.

Argumentum ad populum? Naziism was quite "effective" until the whole world ganged up on it. A symbiotic relationship between "public" and "private" is Fascism, corporatism.

I don't necessarily think it follows that government positions attract people with charisma and charm, or that people without those qualities gravitate toward other occupations.

Not all government positions, the elected variety. Bureaucracy is a different ballgame.

Not everyone who pursues free enterprise necessarily is sadistic or a hoarder, but I'm saying you can argue that it "attracts" those kinds of people.

I don't see how "hoarding" or "sadism" (whatever you mean by those terms) relate in any way to entrepreneurship, business, free enterprise, etc.

As far as greed being relative, I disagree; and as far as your point about egotism, it doesn't matter because we're talking about positions that attract these sorts of qualities in excess, how how prevalent they already are.

Why isn't greed relative? Compared to anyone outside of the 1st world, you could be easily posited as living a very greedy lifestyle. So could I of course. What is greedy though?

I'm sure there are millionaires/billionaires who are greedy, and some who aren't. But what does that really have to do with anything. In the case where they restrict themselves to satisfying their desire through market mechanisms, their greed is a benefit to mankind. The same goes for egotism.

 

[Einherjar86]

Argumentum ad populum? Naziism was quite "effective" until the whole world ganged up on it. A symbiotic relationship between "public" and "private" is Fascism, corporatism.

Anytime someone makes a claim to possible success on the part of government cooperation with enterprise, you (and all libertarian kinds) cite Nazi Germany. It's getting old.

Scandinavian political economies operate under a certain level of symbiosis between government and business, and they're not fascist. Hell, America isn't fascist. So quit it with the Nazi references.

I don't see how "hoarding" or "sadism" (whatever you mean by those terms) relate in any way to entrepreneurship, business, free enterprise, etc.

The concept of accumulating money is akin to hoarding; money isn't valuable in and of itself, and people who obsess over increasing the amount of money they rationalize doing so as preparing for some future calamity. This is hoarding: "I may need lots of this in the future."

As far as sadism goes, just look at Patrick Bateman.

Why isn't greed relative? Compared to anyone outside of the 1st world, you could be easily posited as living a very greedy lifestyle. So could I of course. What is greedy though?

Ah, okay then. You would be correct; greed is relative between cultures.

But we're discussing (or I am, at least) something taking place within national boundaries. I'm trying to talk about the symbiosis of politics and business, citizen and representative in order to make a country function. Within our country I won't agree that greed is relative. This doesn't mean that there aren't some extremely poor people who would call you or me "greedy"; but there is an amount of capital that can be objectively quantified and correlated with a cultural consensus on what "greed" means.

I'm sure there are millionaires/billionaires who are greedy, and some who aren't. But what does that really have to do with anything. In the case where they restrict themselves to satisfying their desire through market mechanisms, their greed is a benefit to mankind. The same goes for egotism.

Greed isn't merely an internal psychological or intentional state, although it's often used this way.

Greed manifests in action as much as it manifests in words or thoughts. This is equally true, and especially true, for racism.

 

[Dak]

Anytime someone makes a claim to possible success on the part of government cooperation with enterprise, you (and all libertarian kinds) cite Nazi Germany. It's getting old.

Scandinavian political economies operate under a certain level of symbiosis between government and business, and they're not fascist. Hell, America isn't fascist. So quit it with the Nazi references.

I could trot out Mussolini as well, but Fascist Italy wasn't nearly as efficient as Fascist Germany.

However you want to postulate the "symbiosis" between different Scandinavian countries, this appeal is also as common for socialist defenders as fascist comparisons are for libertarians. The problem is, the appeal to the "Scandinavian miracles" ignore three key differences for those economies, one of which is generally "un-PC".
1. Budget deficits covered by unsustainable resource extraction based trade surpluses (Does not actually support budget deficit economics)
2. In most cases actually rating higher on economic freedom indexes than "free market" countries like the US. (Does not support anti-market arguments).
3. Relative ethnic homogeneity (un PC to point this out)

The concept of accumulating money is akin to hoarding; money isn't valuable in and of itself, and people who obsess over increasing the amount of money they rationalize doing so as preparing for some future calamity. This is hoarding: "I may need lots of this in the future."

As far as sadism goes, just look at Patrick Bateman.

Patrick Bateman? -_-

You are challenging saving as hoarding rather than prudence. Money itself has no use value, other than as kindling. But given it's exchange value, it's as good as anything you can exchange it for. You are suggesting that individuals preparing for future calamity is somehow irrational, but to do it collectively is sensible. This is the double standard rearing it's head again. I guess living paycheck to paycheck or in debt is the responsible thing to do.

Ah, okay then. You would be correct; greed is relative between cultures.

But we're discussing (or I am, at least) something taking place within national boundaries. I'm trying to talk about the symbiosis of politics and business, citizen and representative in order to make a country function. Within our country I won't agree that greed is relative. This doesn't mean that there aren't some extremely poor people who would call you or me "greedy"; but there is an amount of capital that can be objectively quantified and correlated with a cultural consensus on what "greed" means.

Greed isn't merely an internal psychological or intentional state, although it's often used this way.

Greed manifests in action as much as it manifests in words or thoughts. This is equally true, and especially true, for racism.

Between cultures? Or between economies?

Greed does manifest in action, words, and thought. It is not measurable, in bank accounts or possessions. I've met some fucking greedy ass poor people, and some very ungreedy, very well off people (I won't say I know any actually "rich" people, by US standards).

 

[Einherjar86]

I could trot out Mussolini as well, but Fascist Italy wasn't nearly as efficient as Fascist Germany.

However you want to postulate the "symbiosis" between different Scandinavian countries, this appeal is also as common for socialist defenders as fascist comparisons are for libertarians. The problem is, the appeal to the "Scandinavian miracles" ignore three key differences for those economies, one of which is generally "un-PC".
1. Budget deficits covered by unsustainable resource extraction based trade surpluses (Does not actually support budget deficit economics)
2. In most cases actually rating higher on economic freedom indexes than "free market" countries like the US. (Does not support anti-market arguments).
3. Relative ethnic homogeneity (un PC to point this out)

Contingent characteristics such as "ethnic homogeneity" are irrelevant. Saying "oh, here's some black people; now let's see how you do" translates into you basically saying that blacks and other minorities constitute some form of burden by nature of their ethnicity.

Your three points also neglect to mention the fact that people in Scandinavian countries are pretty overwhelmingly satisfied and even pleased with their standard of living.

You are challenging saving as hoarding rather than prudence. Money itself has no use value, other than as kindling. But given it's exchange value, it's as good as anything you can exchange it for. You are suggesting that individuals preparing for future calamity is somehow irrational, but to do it collectively is sensible. This is the double standard rearing it's head again. I guess living paycheck to paycheck or in debt is the responsible thing to do.

Not at all; but we can pretty confidently say that greed can manifest in a country of immense wealth that refuses to efficiently distribute a minuscule amount to compensate for those in need. That's a market economy with greed as a clear intrinsic component.

Between cultures? Or between economies?

Greed does manifest in action, words, and thought. It is not measurable, in bank accounts or possessions. I've met some fucking greedy ass poor people, and some very ungreedy, very well off people (I won't say I know any actually "rich" people, by US standards).

Again, you're reducing greed to attitude and intention. Poor people have nothing to be greedy with; their greed is inconsequential. The greed of mass amounts of capital, on the other hand, can potentially have tragic consequences.

 

[Dak]

Contingent characteristics such as "ethnic homogeneity" are irrelevant. Saying "oh, here's some black people; now let's see how you do" translates into you basically saying that blacks and other minorities constitute some form of burden by nature of their ethnicity.

Your three points also neglect to mention the fact that people in Scandinavian countries are pretty overwhelmingly satisfied and even pleased with their standard of living.

See? This is what I'm talking about. I didn't make ANY statement whatsoever about the actual ethnicity. I said ethnic homogeneity. You can't see the word "ethnic" apart from "diversity" without having your PC alarms go off. It's got nothing to do with the actual ethnicity. It's an issue of human nature and ethnic mingling where the "us vs them" rears up and one or the other becomes the "givers" and "takers". We could easily make the case that the burden in subject countries of colonialism are the respective Anglo/Euros.

It's also irrelevant how happy people are compared to those 3 points. There are happy people living under bridges which you (or if not you, others in the marxist tradition of academia) see as the unrepresented victims of capitalism. We are talking about critiques of organization, of economics and politics. There are happy people in North Korea, which no one would dream of claiming.

Not at all; but we can pretty confidently say that greed can manifest in a country of immense wealth that refuses to efficiently distribute a minuscule amount to compensate for those in need. That's a market economy with greed as a clear intrinsic component.

Given that more objective measures of market freedom do not place rhetorical "free market" countries near the top of the economic freedom heap, where is your data coming from? Greed can manifest in Soviet Russia and Red China as easily as it can in "Free Market" Hong Kong. The difference is the outcome. Hong Kong wins by humanistic standards every time.

Again, you're reducing greed to attitude and intention. Poor people have nothing to be greedy with; their greed is inconsequential. The greed of mass amounts of capital, on the other hand, can potentially have tragic consequences.

Bullshit. Taking agency away from poor people is a very obvious form of elitest bigotry.

 

[Einherjar86]

See? This is what I'm talking about. I didn't make ANY statement whatsoever about the actual ethnicity. I said ethnic homogeneity. You can't see the word "ethnic" apart from "diversity" without having your PC alarms go off. It's got nothing to do with the actual ethnicity. It's an issue of human nature and ethnic mingling where the "us vs them" rears up and one or the other becomes the "givers" and "takers". We could easily make the case that the burden in subject countries of colonialism are the respective Anglo/Euros.

Sure, but it's all in what you don't say.

It's also irrelevant how happy people are compared to those 3 points. There are happy people living under bridges which you (or if not you, others in the marxist tradition of academia) see as the unrepresented victims of capitalism. We are talking about critiques of organization, of economics and politics. There are happy people in North Korea, which no one would dream of claiming.

Find me plenty of happy people living under bridges. Do that, and maybe we can talk about happy homeless people. Such sensationalism, you're very good at it. Sure, there are happy people in N. Korea; but I'm referring to research conducted and shown in the Legatum Prosperity Index. So keep touting all that rhetoric, but I'm not buying it.

http://www.rferl.org/content/scandinavia_meaning_of_prosperity_index/24267365.html

Given that more objective measures of market freedom do not place rhetorical "free market" countries near the top of the economic freedom heap, where is your data coming from? Greed can manifest in Soviet Russia and Red China as easily as it can in "Free Market" Hong Kong. The difference is the outcome. Hong Kong wins by humanistic standards every time.

Sure, and I'm not saying that the vast poverty and corruption in Red China aren't the results of greed on a broad scale. I'm simply saying that greed on a personal, individual level isn't as important to what we're talking about. The greed of poor people doesn't really have a colossal effect on the country at large.

Bullshit. Taking agency away from poor people is a very obvious form of elitest bigotry.

Let them have their agency! Let them have their greed!

I'm saying that intentionality and agency can't be measured and ascertained logically. There's no way for you to prove what someone was thinking. All we can see are the effects and the actions committed. In this sense, the agency of actors matters fairly little. Instead, we can see the broad effects of greed, and I'll tell you something: it isn't coming from your proposed happy poor people living under bridges.

 

[Dak]

Sure, but it's all in what you don't say.

Which is?

Find me plenty of happy people living under bridges. Do that, and maybe we can talk about happy homeless people. Such sensationalism, you're very good at it. Sure, there are happy people in N. Korea; but I'm referring to research conducted and shown in the Legatum Prosperity Index. So keep touting all that rhetoric, but I'm not buying it.

The importance of trust. I wonder why that trust might be so high. I'm sure it has nothing to do with ethnic homogeneity. But lets say it doesn't. Let's just focus on the nitty gritty, IE, the market:

http://www.rferl.org/content/scandinavia_meaning_of_prosperity_index/24267365.html

"There are several benefits," Bergh says. "One of the most obvious is the fact that when two people trust each other they can more easily engage in trade that benefits them both. They don't have to worry that the other one will cheat or run away from the agreement and they don't have to, perhaps, write contracts and spend resources to enforce the agreement, because they basically trust each other. So, all trade agreements go much more smoothly with trust and trustworthiness.

That was the first benefit listed. The second was government insurance/action. But why are these people trusting each other firstly in interpersonal dealings, and then secondly the government? Certainly not by mere progressive magic, otherwise we would see it everywhere "progressive" policies were fostered.

I met a happy bridge person once when I lived in Yuma. I bought the guy a harmonica to replace the one he had clogged with his dirty spittle. The poor man was psychologically/brain damaged due to his service in the Army artillery in Vietnam (according to his personal story he shared. He didn't claim brain damage due to the service but I assumed it). He did live under bridges amongst other places in town, but he and his "bridge woman" seemed happier than many people I knew or know. Thats certainly circumstancial, but so would be any such survey of "bridge people". Happiness is relative.

Sure, and I'm not saying that the vast poverty and corruption in Red China aren't the results of greed on a broad scale. I'm simply saying that greed on a personal, individual level isn't as important to what we're talking about. The greed of poor people doesn't really have a colossal effect on the country at large.

So the 99% don't have a colossal effect on the 99%?

Let them have their agency! Let them have their greed!

I'm saying that intentionality and agency can't be measured and ascertained logically. There's no way for you to prove what someone was thinking. All we can see are the effects and the actions committed. In this sense, the agency of actors matters fairly little. Instead, we can see the broad effects of greed, and I'll tell you something: it isn't coming from your proposed happy poor people living under bridges.

What I read here is that you measure greed in dollars. There's no "objective" logical proof for this, only marxist ideology.

 

[Einherjar86]

Which is?

What I already outlined above. The "un P-C" aspect of your comment. Racism and such don't always manifest in statements of beliefs. You're making an underlying assumption about other ethnicities, and you're also making an assumption about Scandinavian culture at large. You're attempting to leverage a criticism based on absolutely no evidence, but purely projection derived from your assumptions about minorities.

The importance of trust. I wonder why that trust might be so high. I'm sure it has nothing to do with ethnic homogeneity.

Keep rolling your eyes. Maybe you'll start seeing things more clearly.

But lets say it doesn't. Let's just focus on the nitty gritty, IE, the market:

http://www.rferl.org/content/scandinavia_meaning_of_prosperity_index/24267365.html

That was the first benefit listed. The second was government insurance/action. But why are these people trusting each other firstly in interpersonal dealings, and then secondly the government? Certainly not by mere progressive magic, otherwise we would see it everywhere "progressive" policies were fostered.

Interpersonal exchanges are the most obvious benefit; and this is likely bolstered by the effective implementation of government insurance/action. You seem to be suggesting that the presence of government insurance and action are unnecessary institutions. I would suggest that, based on the article and the index, government action underwrites mutual trust among private parties.

This works, and just because it isn't being adopted by all countries doesn't mean it doesn't work. Tradition and belief is a heavy anchor, and the GOP and the Tea Party play a significant role in keeping us firmly grounded.

I met a happy bridge person once when I lived in Yuma. I bought the guy a harmonica to replace the one he had clogged with his dirty spittle. The poor man was psychologically/brain damaged due to his service in the Army artillery in Vietnam (according to his personal story he shared. He didn't claim brain damage due to the service but I assumed it). He did live under bridges amongst other places in town, but he and his "bridge woman" seemed happier than many people I knew or know. Thats certainly circumstancial, but so would be any such survey of "bridge people". Happiness is relative.

Two people. Good start. Now poll the rest of the bridge people and get back to me. I know that happiness is relative; but I'm saying that most homeless people aren't "happy." If you need to tell yourself that to sleep at night or something, then that's fine.

So the 99% don't have a colossal effect on the 99%?

I said nothing about the 99%. I said people in extreme poverty. Of course the 99% have an impact, don't be ridiculous. People who are extremely poor, or homeless, do not. They have no material assets or wealth to make a difference with.

What I read here is that you measure greed in dollars. There's no "objective" logical proof for this, only marxist ideology.

It's a more accurate and logical way to measure it than, "But that businessman never said he was greedy. So he must not be!"

 

[Dak]

What I already outlined above. The "un P-C" aspect of your comment. Racism and such don't always manifest in statements of beliefs. You're making an underlying assumption about other ethnicities, and you're also making an assumption about Scandinavian culture at large. You're attempting to leverage a criticism based on absolutely no evidence, but purely projection derived from your assumptions about minorities.

I'm making no "Assumptions". I'm comparing and contrasting economic data/political organization with ethnic diversity, or lack thereof:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/

Notice that the Scandinavian countries (and also Australia, another country socialist proponents like to point to) are the most ethnically homogeneous.

http://www.heritage.org/index/heatmap

Level of Economic Freedom. Look at the correlation. About the only thing in red for those countries is fiscal freedom and government spending. You talked about happiness: Buying lots of toys on a credit card is usually a "joyous occasion", until the bill comes due. The government spending side of these countries is merely future expenditure brought forward: stealing from the unborn.

Interpersonal exchanges are the most obvious benefit; and this is likely bolstered by the effective implementation of government insurance/action. You seem to be suggesting that the presence of government insurance and action are unnecessary institutions. I would suggest that, based on the article and the index, government action underwrites mutual trust among private parties.

This works, and just because it isn't being adopted by all countries doesn't mean it doesn't work. Tradition and belief is a heavy anchor, and the GOP and the Tea Party play a significant role in keeping us firmly grounded.

No, governments don't underwrite this. They feed off the trust. It's the most basic expression of natural human tribalistic tendencies: "They look like me, so they must be friends". Whether that person is in government or business. There's simply not a strong "us vs them" factor going on internally.

Two people. Good start. Now poll the rest of the bridge people and get back to me. I know that happiness is relative; but I'm saying that most homeless people aren't "happy." If you need to tell yourself that to sleep at night or something, then that's fine.

Some are, some probably aren't. Many are mentally ill, and this is why they are under bridges. Happiness is a mindset though. Not something tied to specifically to material assets.

I said nothing about the 99%. I said people in extreme poverty. Of course the 99% have an impact, don't be ridiculous. People who are extremely poor, or homeless, do not. They have no material assets or wealth to make a difference with.

So, in other words, without wealth they cannot act at all, against or for anyone. They cannot steal from or defraud someone, they cannot offer aid to anyone. They may only sit under a bridge.

It's a more accurate and logical way to measure it than, "But that businessman never said he was greedy. So he must not be!"

How many greedy people would say "I'm greedy."? There are relatively few Gordon Geckos in the world. Kant offers the example of the merchant who does not overcharge the inexperienced buyer. Now of course, if there is an overcharge, we have an obvious display of greed. Of course if there is no overcharge, we cannot assume there is no greed present, but without unethical acts, we cannot start making charges based on mere accumulation. That would completely ignore the "unsuccessfully" greedy.

 

[Einherjar86]

You're assuming that introducing racial difference into those countries would cause a lack of trust. I assume there's something just a tiny bit racist in that comment.

As far as your understanding of government, I'm not going to convince you that governments can potentially underwrite mutual exchange and interaction between private parties, so I won't even try. Unfortunately, this is the way our society is heading, and it's the way it's been for centuries. I'm sick of the argument that we need less government and (best of all!) no government at all. That is the most non-realist kind of philosophizing there is.

And no, homeless people may not only sit under a bridge; they may steal, kill, fuck, die, do whatever they please. I'm saying they do not have the material wealth to leave a mark on the flow of capital goods and money. Anytime I try and resist the individualist interpretation, you get all defensive and complain-y about how I've denied the poor poor people, or the poor black people, or the poor gay people (what have you) the ability to act. This isn't what I'm doing, but your insistence on that fact is the reason that there's no conclusion to be reached here.

 

[Dak]

You're assuming that introducing racial difference into those countries would cause a lack of trust. I assume there's something just a tiny bit racist in that comment.

To point out people tend towards ethnocentrism and prejudice isn't racist, and it cuts both ways. Trend denial because of uncomfortable realities isn't productive.

As far as your understanding of government, I'm not going to convince you that governments can potentially underwrite mutual exchange and interaction between private parties, so I won't even try. Unfortunately, this is the way our society is heading, and it's the way it's been for centuries. I'm sick of the argument that we need less government and (best of all!) no government at all. That is the most non-realist kind of philosophizing there is.

Not everyone is going to get enough exercise or eat right, yet such advice is not tapered due to it's unrealistic nature.

The first step to dispelling "irrational exuberance" regarding governments abilities lies in fiscal constraints: Balanced budgets. The second would be commodity currency. Although these "handcuffs" would shortly be attacked again by respective governments, they time and again show the true nature of government as a net loss to society. Which is why "successful" governments are swimming in red ink trying to prop up the illusion. But of course I don't have any high hopes for smart recalibration after collapse. People often run themselves right back into debt after default, and the macro is an outgrowth of micro behavior.

The "unrealistic" nature of arguments against coercive government rests solely on the assertion (which I won't argue with) that "people are going to form governments". Thats not an argument for government, and the actual points against government (it's nature, it's methods, it's unsustainability, etc) are not refuted.

And no, homeless people may not only sit under a bridge; they may steal, kill, fuck, die, do whatever they please. I'm saying they do not have the material wealth to leave a mark on the flow of capital goods and money. Anytime I try and resist the individualist interpretation, you get all defensive and complain-y about how I've denied the poor poor people, or the poor black people, or the poor gay people (what have you) the ability to act. This isn't what I'm doing, but your insistence on that fact is the reason that there's no conclusion to be reached here.

Why this concern over "leaving a mark on capital goods". Isn't their absence a mark? And what does that have to do with greed?

Greed is an "intense, selfish desire for X". That does not have to relate to or manifest through money in any way.

My two primary states of residence in my life have a lottery. Is it not greed that drives the purchase of tickets? And I've never seen a remotely rich person purchasing a lottery ticket in all my times of waiting in line at convenience stores where people purchase lottery tickets. Of course, this falls under "unsuccessful" greed for the majority of participants, and is a most insidious poor tax.

 

[Einherjar86]

Let's just say that greed doesn't even exist in an individual sense, but only in a larger material sense. As you said, most people won't come out and say "greed is good," or "I am greedy." Greed cannot be measured based on "an intense, selfish desire for X" except for the presence of the desired object. Greed manifests in no other way. And because of that, I don't care to trace it back to a human actor. Homeless people might be greedy, but since they have no money to be greedy with, they don't show up on charts of capital distribution. That's why I'm relating it to money, since, in our culture, value is measured in terms of dollars and greed can only be discerned via the circulation of capital.

I don't know what else to say.