Philosophy topic: the global society

[Dak]

That's definitely the argument covered in Rothbard's essay "The Myth of Efficient Government Service".

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Private enterprise isn't necessarily more efficient. Try calling tech support or reallocating your 401k sometime.
Of course, I'm just playing devils advocate. I'd rather go through the United Way than the DHHS for economic aid. I think government should get out of our private lives and concentrate on updating (through direct action or subsidies) our pathetic infrastructure.

 

[Dak]

Think how much government beaurocracy/regulations affects the tech support field (cheaper to ship it overseas) or investments, don't blame the market for that.

If infrastructure was left entirely up to local areas (think counties), and maintained by voluntary donations, it would become a matter of pride, or some people might decide they are happy with dirt roads.

I, for one, resent the fact that cities can force you onto city water and sewer and put you in for extra property taxes (annexing in general but that specifically).

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Think how much government beaurocracy/regulations affects the tech support field (cheaper to ship it overseas) or investments, don't blame the market for that.

Well that's not necessarily the result of government as opposed to corporate profit-seeking cheaters. how would you prevent people from 'cheating' in one way or another in a stateless society?

If infrastructure was left entirely up to local areas (think counties), and maintained by voluntary donations, it would become a matter of pride, or some people might decide they are happy with dirt roads.

It's easy for you to claim that a localized/tribalistic social order would be better than having big business / big govt, because that's not how the world currently works. It can sound as good as you want it to on paper, but the question remains: how do you prevent cheaters and the power-hungry from taking over the world?

 

[Dak]

Well that's not necessarily the result of government as opposed to corporate profit-seeking cheaters. how would you prevent people from 'cheating' in one way or another in a stateless society?

It's easy for you to claim that a localized/tribalistic social order would be better than having big business / big govt, because that's not how the world currently works. It can sound as good as you want it to on paper, but the question remains: how do you prevent cheaters and the power-hungry from taking over the world?

That's a start. It won't remove corruption, it will just remove it's validity, and any power in the "prestige of office". People should view any sort of attempts at "government" the same way they view all organized crime. It's a violent protection racket for the benefit of the mob bosses and their cronys.

Government doesn't stop corruption, neither will it's abolition. Abolition merely strips away the veneer of morality.

.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Ok but when you were talking about leaving infrastructure maintenance up to local areas it sounded like you were proposing an alternative to statism that you thought would actually be more effective at getting shit done, not just at helping people see "The Beast" for what it is.

 

[Dak]

Ok but when you were talking about leaving infrastructure maintenance up to local areas it sounded like you were proposing an alternative to statism that you thought would actually be more effective at getting shit done, not just at helping people see "The Beast" for what it is.

Well, absent "the beast", that would [more than likely] happen anyway funding wise.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Absent "the beast", a lot of things are possible. The point is that we don't really know how to get rid of "the beast".

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Think how much government beaurocracy/regulations affects the tech support field (cheaper to ship it overseas) or investments, don't blame the market for that.

That's if you even get to talk to a human being. I doubt a fully free market would make companies abandon automation.

If infrastructure was left entirely up to local areas (think counties), and maintained by voluntary donations, it would become a matter of pride, or some people might decide they are happy with dirt roads.

Or you'd end up with overpriced toll roads (like Austin, TX) and a complete lack of mass transit (like where I live).

I, for one, resent the fact that cities can force you onto city water and sewer and put you in for extra property taxes (annexing in general but that specifically).

But it's not ideal for everyone to return to an agrarian lifestyle.

 

[Dak]

That's if you even get to talk to a human being. I doubt a fully free market would make companies abandon automation.

I was referring to overseas call centers. As technology improves, automation could only improve (it certainly can't get much worse regarding automated phone systems).

Or you'd end up with overpriced toll roads (like Austin, TX) and a complete lack of mass transit (like where I live).

Mass transit would evolve as the the demand dictated. In the event of tolls roads, they can't charge more than people are willing to pay, and absent government protected land monopolies and welfare handouts, I would expect an exodus from expensive city living (we have seen this over and over in history), which would lessen the likelyhood of a strategically placed tollroad gouging tons of commuters.

But it's not ideal for everyone to return to an agrarian lifestyle.

A well/septic tank =/= agrarian lifestyle.

@zabu: Obviously due to my "religious" beliefs about the future, I don't expect to actually see an anarchistic global situation. Pushing that aside, the century of government education in developed countries, combined with the hand to mouth living in impoverished countries, makes the likelyhood of a"global awakening" towards freedom unlikely absent total collapse of all governmental and technological systems. Then we would merely cycle back into "tribalism", which at least has the family at it's core, a much more legitimate system of order than arbitrary leadership/the mob.

I can, however, do my part to live out an example of my beliefs, and interject into conversations. At least until it's illegal to question the state (we're almost there).

 

[Einherjar86]

Can you expand on the idea of said system as you perceive it?

I firmly believe that at the heart of all human interaction (the very origin of human self-consciousness, in fact) is a struggle for power; this can be physical or cognitive.

In an unregulated free market, the conditions of our economy would be dictated by the common interests of a majority; a form of currency, the business that provides the economic base, how much can be charged for a product, etc.

Others can choose not to participate in the economy as it forms according to popular interests; but if they wish to be a productive member of society, then they must adapt to the "laws" set forth by the economy.

@zabu: Obviously due to my "religious" beliefs about the future, I don't expect to actually see an anarchistic global situation. Pushing that aside, the century of government education in developed countries, combined with the hand to mouth living in impoverished countries, makes the likelyhood of a"global awakening" towards freedom unlikely absent total collapse of all governmental and technological systems. Then we would merely cycle back into "tribalism", which at least has the family at it's core, a much more legitimate system of order than arbitrary leadership/the mob.

Ah, at last we have a kind of abstract historical prophecy! I don't mean that sarcastically; I actually find this post really interesting.

The influence of state institutions, specifically educational institutions, is really interesting; the philosophers and theorists that thousands of graduate students read are actually avid anti-statists (Michel Foucault, Noam Chomsky, etc.). However, education of this kind has adopted the form of an elitist regime that acts as though access to its information can only be obtained through admission into a graduate program. So yes; I agree that state-run education has worked against "global awakening."

I'm intrigued by your claim that family provides a more legitimate system of order; in fact, I would argue that the institution of the family is the true source of arbitrary moral codes, which were only adopted and implemented by political institutions much later.

 

[Dak]

I firmly believe that at the heart of all human interaction (the very origin of human self-consciousness, in fact) is a struggle for power; this can be physical or cognitive.

I firmly disagree, since you said *all* human interaction, and *struggle*. There are non power related interactions, and there are also times when there could be a struggle, but one side instantly defers.

In an unregulated free market, the conditions of our economy would be dictated by the common interests of a majority; a form of currency, the business that provides the economic base, how much can be charged for a product, etc.

Others can choose not to participate in the economy as it forms according to popular interests; but if they wish to be a productive member of society, then they must adapt to the "laws" set forth by the economy.

Which can be ever changing as the needs of the customer change. You really should read Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market. It's available for free in PDF, or like 30$ online. Rothbard breaks down into great detail the way pricing mechanisms work, so there should be no fear of this in a free market.

Regarding currency, there is no reason there cannot be competing currencies. As many are unhappy with the dollar, if I were an upstanding businessman in my local area, I could attempt to establish a local currency (many locales are already starting to do this). I do not know how long that will be allowed to go on of course, but this would not be a concern in a free market.

There are buyers, and sellers, and the market is comprised of the transactions between the two. Whenever someone/thing attempts to obstruct the transactions, the market always attempts to find a way around the obstruction, but the added inconvenience raises the cost ala black markets.

On further contemplation, the current market is set to serve the few at the top of the money creation and distribution chain. I fail to see how this is better than a market dictated by popular consumer demand.

Ah, at last we have a kind of abstract historical prophecy! I don't mean that sarcastically; I actually find this post really interesting.

The influence of state institutions, specifically educational institutions, is really interesting; the philosophers and theorists that thousands of graduate students read are actually avid anti-statists (Michel Foucault, Noam Chomsky, etc.). However, education of this kind has adopted the form of an elitist regime that acts as though access to its information can only be obtained through admission into a graduate program. So yes; I agree that state-run education has worked against "global awakening."

I have yet to hear anything anti-state from Chomsky. Being critical of various state actions doesn't automatically make you anti-state. I am not familier with Foucault's writings at all, just name familiarity.

The education, the majority of which being either state run or funded, creates a very obvious conflict of interest. Just like a corporate funded education will usually have a conflict of interest with free thinking. One of the reasons the Kochtopus hates Mises and Rothbard and have pursued pseudo-libertarian promotion while generally excluding them.

I'm intrigued by your claim that family provides a more legitimate system of order; in fact, I would argue that the institution of the family is the true source of arbitrary moral codes, which were only adopted and implemented by political institutions much later.

Legitimate within the family. For example, my father would have had no business ordering your father how to raise you and vice versa.

 

[Einherjar86]

I firmly disagree, since you said *all* human interaction, and *struggle*. There are non power related interactions, and there are also times when there could be a struggle, but one side instantly defers.

That wasn't a typo, and this is something we disagree on then. I believe human consciousness can only come to grips with itself through recourse to subjectivity as constituted by power struggles. I think that consciousness has to recognize itself in other individuals before it can fully come to grips with itself, and this requires a certain submission.

As far as society goes, I fear that this cognitive trait will infuse itself into the framework of ideology without fail.

Which can be ever changing as the needs of the customer change. You really should read Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market. It's available for free in PDF, or like 30$ online. Rothbard breaks down into great detail the way pricing mechanisms work, so there should be no fear of this in a free market.

Regarding currency, there is no reason there cannot be competing currencies. As many are unhappy with the dollar, if I were an upstanding businessman in my local area, I could attempt to establish a local currency (many locales are already starting to do this). I do not know how long that will be allowed to go on of course, but this would not be a concern in a free market.

There are buyers, and sellers, and the market is comprised of the transactions between the two. Whenever someone/thing attempts to obstruct the transactions, the market always attempts to find a way around the obstruction, but the added inconvenience raises the cost ala black markets.

On further contemplation, the current market is set to serve the few at the top of the money creation and distribution chain. I fail to see how this is better than a market dictated by popular consumer demand.

I have Hayek's Individualism and Economic Order, but I've yet to really penetrate it. Is it as appropriate as Rothbard's work?

As far as the comment regarding currency competition, I fail to see how that resolves the problem I mentioned in the long run. Currencies might compete, but when one succeeds and others fail, those backing failed specie (or what have you) will be forced to switch. I don't think this would necessarily be in the best interest of all those involved, depending on a specific individual's business.

I have yet to hear anything anti-state from Chomsky. Being critical of various state actions doesn't automatically make you anti-state. I am not familier with Foucault's writings at all, just name familiarity.

The Foucault-Chomsky debates on in partial form on Youtube, for the interested party's convenience:



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0SaqrxgJvw&feature=related[/ame]

Foucault has described himself as a Nietzschean, and although he was affiliated with the Communist party early in his life, he broke away from it before his death and according to many sources never actively participated in it.

As far as ol' Noam goes, I see how he doesn't fit the description of anarchism offered by the essay you posted above; I do, however, believe that he is fairly radical in his views of what a decentralized, "more non-statist" system should look like.

Not as radical as you, of course.

 

[Dak]

That wasn't a typo, and this is something we disagree on then. I believe human consciousness can only come to grips with itself through recourse to subjectivity as constituted by power struggles. I think that consciousness has to recognize itself in other individuals before it can fully come to grips with itself, and this requires a certain submission.

As far as society goes, I fear that this cognitive trait will infuse itself into the framework of ideology without fail.

You may be right, this is not an area I have done extensive reading on, but from experience it does not appear to be universal. Businesses providing similar services will compete in general, of course. I don't necessarily see how this applies universally though to friendships, etc.

I have Hayek's Individualism and Economic Order, but I've yet to really penetrate it. Is it as appropriate as Rothbard's work?

I have not read Hayek yet. I am limited on my reading time, and still have a stack of unread and halfread stuff to finish. It is Rothbard's "magnum opus" though.

As far as the comment regarding currency competition, I fail to see how that resolves the problem I mentioned in the long run. Currencies might compete, but when one succeeds and others fail, those backing failed specie (or what have you) will be forced to switch. I don't think this would necessarily be in the best interest of all those involved, depending on a specific individual's business.

I don't see why this is a problem. If someone is providing a subpar or undesired service or product, they do not deserve business. Currency should be no different than any other product/service. Bad products and services being cleared from the market is a good thing, not a problem.



Edit: I don't necessarily disagree with what either one was saying in those videos, but I kind of lost the direction that Foucault was going at the end. Probably because I was multitasking.

 

[arg]

I don't see why this is a problem. If someone is providing a subpar or undesired service or product, they do not deserve business. Currency should be no different than any other product/service. Bad products and services being cleared from the market is a good thing, not a problem.

exactement

 

[SentinelSlain]

Oh for fucks sake I wrote like 6 paragraphs on fucking wall street and planned economies and it's all disappeared.

 

[Dak]

Got a cliff notes version?

 

[Dak]

In line with the global society and unions, I love listening to Nigel Farage:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqVt4y-9Qok&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqVt4y-9Qok&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Einherjar86]

You may be right, this is not an area I have done extensive reading on, but from experience it does not appear to be universal. Businesses providing similar services will compete in general, of course. I don't necessarily see how this applies universally though to friendships, etc.

I think it is universal, but manifests in ways that aren't immediately (or perhaps even consciously) recognizable to us.

I don't see why this is a problem. If someone is providing a subpar or undesired service or product, they do not deserve business. Currency should be no different than any other product/service. Bad products and services being cleared from the market is a good thing, not a problem.

I agree with this; but submitting entirely to the autonomy of the market without questioning its absolute authority is just as bad as not questioning the authority of coercive institutions or totalitarian regimes.

 

[Dak]

I agree with this; but submitting entirely to the autonomy of the market without questioning its absolute authority is just as bad as not questioning the authority of coercive institutions or totalitarian regimes.

What "authority" are you referring to? If you want to sell me one of your used CDs, and we haggle a bit and conclude $5 is fair, and I receive the CD in it's describe condition, and you receive the funds, the "market" has happened. What is there to question?