Re: Re: money and health

[Guest guest]

>Responses to Suze, Judith, Wanita, and Heidi.

I'll let you have the last word here.

My typewriter ribbon ran out of ink. ;--)

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/16/04 5:43:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> I'd appreciate it if you'd switch compounding styles.

I will. The purpose I was doing it was to avoid clogging people's email

boxes; if it offers no advanatage to others, as it certainly doesn't to me, I'll

stop, and only compound to individuals.

>

> >I don't know what kind of rational person would make that argument; the

> >incentives are not necessarily as you say they are though: it isn't in the

> >builder's interest to get sued for lying.

>

> You're making two assumptions. First, that builders will always do what's

> in their long-term best interest even if it's against their short-term best

> interest. This simply doesn't square with human nature. We evolved in

> unpredictable, unstable environments, which led us to have a strong

> tendency to plan and act for the short term and damn the long

> term. (_Blank Slate_ will get into this at some point.)

, by that logic, there would simply be know builders, because being a

capitalist requires you accumulate money to buy capital. For that reason,

capitalism is selective in rewarding the type of people who will think of

long-term

interests with the role of capitalist.

Furthermore, while, for the above reason, it would be a general tendency that

builders would consider their long-term interests, I'm not relying on it.

Your argument is comparable to saying that legislating certain prohibitive laws

relies on the false assumption that people will consider their long-term

interest (staying out of jail) over their short-term interest (engaging in the

prohibited activity), and therefore is unworkable.

Clearly it's true that that will occur in some cases, but the same could be

said for a builder who violates a building code, pursuing his short-term

interest, forgetting his long-term interest, which is avoiding the punishment

for

violation of a building code.

The short-term

> incentive of heightened profit will inevitably lead some people to

> lie. Second, that the builders will still be around to be sued once things

> go wrong. A serious earthquake might not hit for decades, for

> example.

That's true, but you're ignoring the other mechanism I offered: consumer

advocate agencies. There are numerous examples of NGO certification programs

that

have worked in large scale in recent history. The best example is organic

certification, and a growing example is Fair Trade certification. There's no

reason builders can't be inspected, rated, and certified by private

organizations. And, frankly, in the few examples we have, NGO-certification has

proven

better than gov't certification.

But more to the point, real estate development companies are

> formed, create a bunch of developments and then disappear all the time, and

>

> often enough it's because they're engaging in fraudulent, deceptive

> practices. They're corporations of convenience.

You're ignoring the fact that I've stated, as is the general libertarian

position, that limited liability is a violation of Libertarian principles. In a

Libertarian society, founding individuals, and any other individuals not under

a limited liability clause that invest in the corporation, must be liable for

personal assets as well as corporate assets.

Pure capitalism does

> nothing to remove those incentives.

Yes, it does. " Pure " capitalism does not contain fictional entities with

special priviliges granted by government to absolve responsibility for the

actions of real humans.

> Pure capitalism would simply impose the

> vast, almost incalculable cost on everyone in exchange for making

> developers richer in the short term.

Only if you equate " pure capitalism " with the system as which you envision

it, where there are no mechanisms for accountability, which is not the way I or

libertarians, to my knowledge, envision it.

>

> >Only you avoid the whimsical changes in mandatory building codes that hurt

> >the

> >industry so much.

>

> Whimsical changes? How about some examples.

I don't have any. I was relying on Heidi's statement that she's talked to

numerous builders who say they don't mind having a code, but their problem is

that the codes change to much and are unpredictable. If I misunderstood her, I

apologize to her.

(This charge is consistent

> with the pattern Heidi's already called you on of making statements without

>

> providing factual support while demanding that your opponents in the

> argument adhere to a much higher evidentiary standard.)

Both Heidi's claim and yours are fundamentally illogical, because in each

case that I asked for evidence, I waited for that evidence to provide it and did

NOT condemn the person for not offering it. Heidi, on the one hand, hasn't

asked me for a shred of evidence on any claim, even though I insisted several

times that she freely ask me for any piece she wished, and I would honestly

provide it or honeslty admit I didn't have any, while you, on the other hand,

have

condemned me for not providing the evidence before you even ask for it!

Furthermore, you do this all the time. For example, your vague claims about

human nature in your discussion with , none of which you bothered to

define, let alone offer any evidence for.

> I'm contrasting fiscal libertarians with civil libertarians. I'm a civil

> libertarian but not much of a fiscal libertarian, at least not by

> comparison to you gummint-haters.

Again, what IS a fiscal libertarian?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/16/04 6:14:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> Don't buy it! People always weren't a tool of manipulation to obtain

> desired

> results. Communities and tribes don't work that way.

I'm not a " tool of manipulation " ; I just happen to like video games.

My point is that people have always sought to increase their wealth, and

often with significant consequences for the environment. Pre-historic humans

polluted, and caused massive extinctions. Native Americans may have overfished

lakes by some evidence. Virtually every culture has sought to maximize their

leisure and/or maximize their NON-necessity items, like artwork. It just isn't

true that the " noble savages " cared for nothing but necessity and harmony, and

never sought anything beyond that.

It is human nature to seek satisfaction in the world around you and to make

of it what you can.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Wanita,

That is one aspect of economics that really didn't come to my mind in your

comments. Jennings just recently had a program on the obesity

epidemic. He interviewed food manufacturers about their marketing to

children. One guy was a marketing specialist - children is all he does at

top dollar for his services. Listening to those guys defend themselves at

promoting garbage to kids just enraged me. They know moms are working and

stressed - they know they can appeal to kids so that they will drive their

mothers crazy to buy their junk taking advantage of mom's disadvantage.

They specifically go for the really young kids even in their advertising

tactics. The president of Kraft foods was the only one who felt

responsibility to improve their food for the well being of their customer.

All the rest defended themselves and their garbage as the capitalistic way.

According to what Jennings presented, other countries have laws about

marketing to children, some forbid it. That should be done here.

But what I like are the mechanics of the economic system that is

talking about, supply and demand curves - how corporations make financial

decisions - why the rest of the world hates us.

Re: Re: money and health

>

>

> In a message dated 1/16/04 8:35:28 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> wanitawa@... writes:

>

> > Where's the liberty you speak of here in quantifying and

> compartmentalizing

> > everyone into a product, a resource? Where is all of human

experience

> that

> > produces human behavior? What life experience not behaviors are

involved

> to

> > get " the " product, " the " resource? Not only is this shallow in

process

> it's

> > colder than the 40 below outside to " the " human experience. Are you

> > comfortable being a line on a graph?

>

> Wanita,

>

> I'm not a line on a graph. That doesn't mean you can't plot my

behavior

> on a

> graph. If I walk from here to the apple tree just to pick an apple,

or

> because the sunset is pretty from that angle, you can still plot my

> displacement on

> a two-dimension coordinate system, even though the purpose of my

movement

> was

> gustatory or poetic.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/16/04 9:50:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> ---------->just curious...back when we were dating <weg> i was under

> the impression you were to the far left, perhaps even a socialist.

> did you recently make the transition to libertarianism, or was i just

> not aware of your leanings back then? OR are you a left-leaning

> libertarian? just curious since you are running hard and strong with

> the libertarian ball in so many recent threads! LOL :-)

Thanks-- actually, tell Gene, because when I told him my political leanings

weren't written in stone, he simply laughed at me.

Anyway, we did discuss libertarianism briefly, and I was rather undecisive

about it. I used to be far left, but haven't been so for several years. I've

found libertarianism increasingly appealing over the last year or so, mostly

under the influence of its articulate proponents on this list, especially

, and 's incessant provision of facts.

Also, I've just done reading and thinking.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/17/04 2:30:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> When the building collapses on a roomful of teachers

> and students, who will be pulling the bodies from

> the rubble? (per one recent collapse). Do they do the

> rescuing for profit?

There is either a logical flaw in your argument or an unjustified assumption.

If you are assuming there would be no inspections in a libertarian society,

that is unjustified. You could have numerous possibilities. One would be

NGO-certification, just like organic certification has worked successfully on a

large scale.

Another would be private inspectors. The builder makes a contract with you.

He knows he's liable to be sued by you if he doesn't provide what's in the

contract, so he makes damn sure he does it. He hires a private inspector to

make sure he's meeting the contract. You can hire a private inspector also, to

make sure your house meets the contract. This way, the builder can't disappear

before you've discovered fraud. And furthermore, since in a libertarian

society someone's personal assets are on the line, the corporation can't just

defraud people and vanish.

If you aren't making that unjustified assumption, you are making a logical

flaw by differentiating between disobeying legal codes and disobeying contracts,

as if one could not disobey the legal code in hopes of cheating the system

designed to punish that disobedience.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>If enough people are freely choosing to buy less safe houses,

>supposedly because they're are cheaper, then why -shouldn't-

>such builders stay in business? They are supplying for a

>demand.

When the building collapses on a roomful of teachers

and students, who will be pulling the bodies from

the rubble? (per one recent collapse). Do they do the

rescuing for profit?

It is the people feeling hurt from such incidents that

push for building codes.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/17/04 11:07:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> ----->hmmm...i don't recall having discussed it with you, but we discussed

> many things - i guess that didn't stand out to me. in any case, i find it

> interesting that you, and from what i can tell, *all* the libertarians on

> this list *except* michael, are arguing a minarchist POV. when i wrote the

> question about building codes, i was thinking of the anarcho-capitalist

> libertarian position, not minarchist, forgetting that most or all

> libertarians on the list seem to be minarchist. from a minarchist position,

> there seem to be a number of checks and balances for unscrupulous builders.

> i was just wondering what 'checks and balances' there might be in an

> anarcho-capitalist " system " , if any...

Hi Suze,

I'm not familar with anarcho-capitalism at all. I've been meaning to

familiarize myself with it, but haven't gotten around to it.

But as far as I know, essentially the only differences between a libertarian

minarchist perspective and an an-cap perspective are that

--law

--enforcement

are private, rather than public, institutions. Now this seems relatively

implausible to me, though I do know that private enforcement does have

historical

basis in our country and is certainly workable. But it has never existed in

the *absence* of public enforcement, so I'm not sure what kind of checks and

balances would prevent private enforcement from turning into thugs with no

respect for property-- IOW a government. (lol)

But, it seems to me that the checks and balances on *builders* in an an-cap

society would be just the same as in a libertarian minarch society. The only

question would be the plausibility of the specific arrangment of legal and

enforcement institutions.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/17/04 11:36:04 AM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> They are justified to the survival of the ruling gender that imposes them.

> Doesn't make it any less abusive and certainly goes against egalitarianism

> of other cultures.

I agree. That's what I'm trying to say to Heidi: if plenty of societies

survive with institutional say, canniabalism or human sacrifice, and they happen

to *work*, in the sense that they can survive for hundreds or thousands of

years, in the sense that social order is kept reasonably well, then you *need* a

concept of individual rights and morality in order to oppose that society. The

alternative is to believe they are no worse than a society that does not have

cannibalism, human sacrifice, or does not burn alive women for premarital

sex.

Dedy, I'll be answering your question shortly, but have to look a couple

things up, and also need to talk to a friend. I have a family friend who is a

doctor and had done some foreign medical work with a tribal group who he said

gave the death penalty to adulterers. I'll have to try to contact him and ask

him who they were.

In the mean time, ancient Judaism used the death penalty widely for such

things we'd consider individual rights in our society, and survived with stable

order for more than a millenium doing so, ancient MesoAmerican societies

practiced canniabalism iirc and human sacrifice iirc, highland New Guineans

practice

cannibalism.

Chris

[Guest guest]

,

Good example which explains the wretch in my stomach. There's big

differences. There were small societies somewhere on earth in history making

a mistake, using similar methods to control their economy, and subsequently

destroying a portion of their environment. Easter Island special the other

night, deforested the entire island for example. That's miniscule in

comparison to now, the first time in human history, where the entire earth's

population and resources are being calculated by economists to marketers

with attitude and no sense of responsibility like your example. From what

WAP and Sally say the next generations were always respected and given best

care for their health. Now its being owned from the pampers to the depends

or from the formula to the ensure.

Wanita

> Wanita,

>

> That is one aspect of economics that really didn't come to my mind in your

> comments. Jennings just recently had a program on the obesity

> epidemic. He interviewed food manufacturers about their marketing to

> children. One guy was a marketing specialist - children is all he does at

> top dollar for his services. Listening to those guys defend themselves at

> promoting garbage to kids just enraged me. They know moms are working and

> stressed - they know they can appeal to kids so that they will drive their

> mothers crazy to buy their junk taking advantage of mom's disadvantage.

> They specifically go for the really young kids even in their advertising

> tactics. The president of Kraft foods was the only one who felt

> responsibility to improve their food for the well being of their customer.

> All the rest defended themselves and their garbage as the capitalistic

way.

> According to what Jennings presented, other countries have laws about

> marketing to children, some forbid it. That should be done here.

>

> But what I like are the mechanics of the economic system that is

> talking about, supply and demand curves - how corporations make financial

> decisions - why the rest of the world hates us.

>

>

> Re: Re: money and health

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 1/16/04 8:35:28 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> > wanitawa@... writes:

> >

> > > Where's the liberty you speak of here in quantifying and

> > compartmentalizing

> > > everyone into a product, a resource? Where is all of human

> experience

> > that

> > > produces human behavior? What life experience not behaviors are

> involved

> > to

> > > get " the " product, " the " resource? Not only is this shallow in

> process

> > it's

> > > colder than the 40 below outside to " the " human experience. Are

you

> > > comfortable being a line on a graph?

> >

> > Wanita,

> >

> > I'm not a line on a graph. That doesn't mean you can't plot my

> behavior

> > on a

> > graph. If I walk from here to the apple tree just to pick an apple,

> or

> > because the sunset is pretty from that angle, you can still plot my

> > displacement on

> > a two-dimension coordinate system, even though the purpose of my

> movement

> > was

> > gustatory or poetic.

> >

> > Chris

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/17/04 1:35:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> ----------->that seems like a huge issue - making these two belief systems

> quite different. who would enforce a contract in an anarcho-capitalist

> society? i realize that could be a complex issue, but i'm particularly

> wondering how the poor would be able to protect their interests. for

> example, if a builder didn't fulfill a contract he had with a family without

> means to have " building insurance " or whatever private system was in place

> to protect those who could afford it, then what recourse would that family

> have? this is rhetorical, unless you or anyone else can shed some light on

> it, lol.

I'm not sure, but if you are going to find an answer, you can probably find

it at www.anti-state.com. But an-cap, to my understanding, includes legal

systems, so presumably enforcement of contracts occurs without " building

insurance. " But, I'm not expert on it, and, admittedly, it seems considerably

less

practical than libertarian " minarchism " .

Chris

[Guest guest]

> ---------->just curious...back when we were dating <weg> i was under

> the impression you were to the far left, perhaps even a socialist.

> did you recently make the transition to libertarianism, or was i just

> not aware of your leanings back then? OR are you a left-leaning

> libertarian? just curious since you are running hard and strong with

> the libertarian ball in so many recent threads! LOL :-)

>>>Thanks-- actually, tell Gene, because when I told him my political

leanings

weren't written in stone, he simply laughed at me.

------->gene, chris' political leanings aren't written in stone :-)

>>>>Anyway, we did discuss libertarianism briefly, and I was rather

undecisive

about it. I used to be far left, but haven't been so for several years.

I've

found libertarianism increasingly appealing over the last year or so, mostly

under the influence of its articulate proponents on this list, especially

, and 's incessant provision of facts.

----->hmmm...i don't recall having discussed it with you, but we discussed

many things - i guess that didn't stand out to me. in any case, i find it

interesting that you, and from what i can tell, *all* the libertarians on

this list *except* michael, are arguing a minarchist POV. when i wrote the

question about building codes, i was thinking of the anarcho-capitalist

libertarian position, not minarchist, forgetting that most or all

libertarians on the list seem to be minarchist. from a minarchist position,

there seem to be a number of checks and balances for unscrupulous builders.

i was just wondering what 'checks and balances' there might be in an

anarcho-capitalist " system " , if any...

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

They are justified to the survival of the ruling gender that imposes them.

Doesn't make it any less abusive and certainly goes against egalitarianism

of other cultures. Hierarchies as well as justice systems vary. Some states

in this country still carry laws almost as vicious as your examples.

Wanita

> can you name those societies Chris?

>

> TIA

>

> Dedy

>

> <<But there are hunter-gatherer societies who maintained somewhat vicious

rules, such as giving death to adulterers or those engaging

> in pre-marital sex, who have survived for thousands of years. Are they

> justified based on their survival?>>

[Guest guest]

>>>>But, it seems to me that the checks and balances on *builders* in an

an-cap

society would be just the same as in a libertarian minarch society. The

only

question would be the plausibility of the specific arrangment of legal and

enforcement institutions.

----------->that seems like a huge issue - making these two belief systems

quite different. who would enforce a contract in an anarcho-capitalist

society? i realize that could be a complex issue, but i'm particularly

wondering how the poor would be able to protect their interests. for

example, if a builder didn't fulfill a contract he had with a family without

means to have " building insurance " or whatever private system was in place

to protect those who could afford it, then what recourse would that family

have? this is rhetorical, unless you or anyone else can shed some light on

it, lol.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

Re: Re: money and health

In a message dated 1/17/04 11:07:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> ----->hmmm...i don't recall having discussed it with you, but we discussed

> many things - i guess that didn't stand out to me. in any case, i find it

> interesting that you, and from what i can tell, *all* the libertarians on

> this list *except* michael, are arguing a minarchist POV. when i wrote the

> question about building codes, i was thinking of the anarcho-capitalist

> libertarian position, not minarchist, forgetting that most or all

> libertarians on the list seem to be minarchist. from a minarchist

position,

> there seem to be a number of checks and balances for unscrupulous

builders.

> i was just wondering what 'checks and balances' there might be in an

> anarcho-capitalist " system " , if any...

Hi Suze,

I'm not familar with anarcho-capitalism at all. I've been meaning to

familiarize myself with it, but haven't gotten around to it.

But as far as I know, essentially the only differences between a libertarian

minarchist perspective and an an-cap perspective are that

--law

--enforcement

are private, rather than public, institutions. Now this seems relatively

implausible to me, though I do know that private enforcement does have

historical

basis in our country and is certainly workable. But it has never existed in

the *absence* of public enforcement, so I'm not sure what kind of checks and

balances would prevent private enforcement from turning into thugs with no

respect for property-- IOW a government. (lol)

But, it seems to me that the checks and balances on *builders* in an an-cap

society would be just the same as in a libertarian minarch society. The

only

question would be the plausibility of the specific arrangment of legal and

enforcement institutions.

Chris

[Guest guest]

You can look at what happened in Bohpal, India with Union Carbide. I assume

Union Carbide went to India in the first place because there was less

regulation. After the accidient Union Carbide was taken to court and found

negligent. The victims won a settlement although I don't know if the

settlement could really compensate for the loss of loved one or the ability

to work. Anyway, Union Carbide, delcared bankruptcy, changed their name and

now refuses to pay. Perhap the new UC will never be able to do business in

India but that isn't much comfort the the maimed and families of the dead.

Irene

At 10:30 AM 1/17/04, you wrote:

> >>>>But, it seems to me that the checks and balances on *builders* in an

>an-cap

>society would be just the same as in a libertarian minarch society. The

>only

>question would be the plausibility of the specific arrangment of legal and

>enforcement institutions.

>

>----------->that seems like a huge issue - making these two belief systems

>quite different. who would enforce a contract in an anarcho-capitalist

>society? i realize that could be a complex issue, but i'm particularly

>wondering how the poor would be able to protect their interests. for

>example, if a builder didn't fulfill a contract he had with a family without

>means to have " building insurance " or whatever private system was in place

>to protect those who could afford it, then what recourse would that family

>have? this is rhetorical, unless you or anyone else can shed some light on

>it, lol.

>

>Suze Fisher

>Lapdog Design, Inc.

>Web Design & Development

><http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg>http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze\

3shjg

>Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

><http://www.westonaprice.org>http://www.westonaprice.org

>

>----------------------------

> " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

>heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

>Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

>University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

>

>The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

><<http://www.thincs.org>http://www.thincs.org>

>----------------------------

>

>

> Re: Re: money and health

>

>

>In a message dated 1/17/04 11:07:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,

>s.fisher22@... writes:

>

> > ----->hmmm...i don't recall having discussed it with you, but we discussed

> > many things - i guess that didn't stand out to me. in any case, i find it

> > interesting that you, and from what i can tell, *all* the libertarians on

> > this list *except* michael, are arguing a minarchist POV. when i wrote the

> > question about building codes, i was thinking of the anarcho-capitalist

> > libertarian position, not minarchist, forgetting that most or all

> > libertarians on the list seem to be minarchist. from a minarchist

>position,

> > there seem to be a number of checks and balances for unscrupulous

>builders.

> > i was just wondering what 'checks and balances' there might be in an

> > anarcho-capitalist " system " , if any...

>

>Hi Suze,

>

>I'm not familar with anarcho-capitalism at all. I've been meaning to

>familiarize myself with it, but haven't gotten around to it.

>

>But as far as I know, essentially the only differences between a libertarian

>minarchist perspective and an an-cap perspective are that

>--law

>--enforcement

>are private, rather than public, institutions. Now this seems relatively

>implausible to me, though I do know that private enforcement does have

>historical

>basis in our country and is certainly workable. But it has never existed in

>the *absence* of public enforcement, so I'm not sure what kind of checks and

>balances would prevent private enforcement from turning into thugs with no

>respect for property-- IOW a government. (lol)

>

>But, it seems to me that the checks and balances on *builders* in an an-cap

>society would be just the same as in a libertarian minarch society. The

>only

>question would be the plausibility of the specific arrangment of legal and

>enforcement institutions.

>

>Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>if it offers no advanatage to others, as it certainly doesn't to me, I'll

>stop, and only compound to individuals.

Well, it offers advantage to those who aren't following the discussion

(probably the vast majority of the list) but I believe comparable advantage

can be yielded by single-recipient compounding (something I should probably

do more of in this thread).

>For that reason,

>capitalism is selective in rewarding the type of people who will think of

>long-term

>interests with the role of capitalist.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

>Your argument is comparable to saying that legislating certain prohibitive

>laws

>relies on the false assumption that people will consider their long-term

>interest (staying out of jail) over their short-term interest (engaging in

>the

>prohibited activity), and therefore is unworkable.

Actually, I would and do say that. Jail terms are clearly not enough by

themselves to build a just and crime-free society. This is demonstrated

every day. (And law-and-order types (by which I mean single-factor types)

insist all we need to do is arrest more people, put them in jail for longer

and execute more of them, and eliminate more civil liberty

protections.) Other factors like education and living wages are very, very

important. I'd also speculate that some degree of nutrition plays a

role. The problem with eliminating building codes and relying entirely on

future lawsuits as a deterrent is that it's like relying only on jail terms

and nothing else. Building codes have the potential to eliminate the

problem before it occurs.

>but the same could be

>said for a builder who violates a building code, pursuing his short-term

>interest, forgetting his long-term interest, which is avoiding the

>punishment for

>violation of a building code.

Sure, and unfortunately enforcement is never perfect, but the difference is

that someone who ignores the possibility of a future lawsuit might not be

caught for years or even decades -- and he'll probably only be caught after

a lot of people are hurt and property damaged -- whereas someone who

ignores a building code will probably be caught immediately upon

inspection, before the building is ever used. That's an enormous advantage.

>And, frankly, in the few examples we have, NGO-certification has proven

>better than gov't certification.

There are a couple problems with this. First, NGOs are easier for vested

interests to take over than government institutions. Second, the research

budget is going to be broken up and diluted.

>Yes, it does. " Pure " capitalism does not contain fictional entities with

>special priviliges granted by government to absolve responsibility for the

>actions of real humans.

OK, fair enough, but how would this work?

Say Herbert starts a real estate development company, Herbert

Enterprises. He builds a bunch of developments, cutting corners on

earthquake safety, makes a fortune, then gets out of that business. Using

his profits, he starts a new company, Herbert Shipping, which competes with

FedEx, UPS, etc. Then an earthquake destroys some of his old real estate

developments.

Would a judgement against him over the earthquake damage (and the lack of

protections in the rest of his developments) have to be paid by selling off

Herbert Shipping piece by piece -- and destroying enormous numbers of jobs,

both at Herbert Shipping and at all the companies which served it?

Or wouldn't it be more likely that in the absence of corporations, people

would stop " owning " so much, and instead would be provided much more

" compensation " ? If people can't protect themselves through incorporation,

they're bound to figure out other ways, and whether you agree that that's

one possibility or not, someone would eventually figure out something that

works. Taking my example since it's the one on the table, you still have

the fundamental problem of the liable parties not being able to meet their

liability. (Probably another would be a dramatic expansion of non-monetary

compensation -- IOW perks that are " owned " by the company.)

To put this in perspective, take Bill Gates, the richest man on

earth. He's worth something on the order of 50 BILLION dollars. Do you

know how quickly it's possible to rack up $50B in damages? If instead of a

software developer he'd been a real estate developer and he'd done an

appreciable amount of the building in, say, Cleveland, which isn't exactly

a humungous city, and Cleveland got hit by an earthquake (maybe Cleveland

never will, but it's just an arbitrary example) damages could vastly exceed

his net worth in an instant -- especially because, as a real estate

developer, he wouldn't have been worth anything close to $50B.

Building codes protect us by doing a very good job of preventing the

problem in the first place. They're not magically perfect -- there will

always be some builders fighting to undermine and water down the codes,

there will always be people insisting on more codes than are necessary, and

there will always be too much bureaucratese, not to mention that

enforcement will always be an entire fight of its own -- but history shows

they work, and they work very, very well.

>Only if you equate " pure capitalism " with the system as which you envision

>it, where there are no mechanisms for accountability, which is not the way

>I or

>libertarians, to my knowledge, envision it.

I suggested two problems, and you've only partially addressed one.

First, mechanisms for accountability. If you eliminate liability

reduction, OK, then as long as someone's alive, he's liable... provided you

can prove liability in court after the disaster, which is a very

inefficient way to go about things. But second, what happens when

liability doesn't matter because there's not enough money? If you're going

to suggest insurance, insurance would be bankrupted by disasters of the

magnitude I'm talking about.

>Furthermore, you do this all the time. For example, your vague claims about

>human nature in your discussion with , none of which you bothered to

>define, let alone offer any evidence for.

Vague claims? I said humans have an innate drive to seek an advantage. He

didn't dispute that. He never disputed any of my specific claims about

human nature; in fact, he just later said something to the effect of " you

make grandiose, unsupported claims about human nature " . In fact I made a

few very limited claims and nobody disputed any of those specific

claims. There was no absence of definition (an innate drive to seek

advantage is pretty clear, as opposed to something like " human nature

proves xyz-ism won't work " ) and I referred to a fairly comprehensive source

in _Blank Slate_ too.

>Again, what IS a fiscal libertarian?

Someone who believes the government has no right to be in your bank account.

-

[Guest guest]

Irene Musiol wrote:

> You can look at what happened in Bohpal, India with Union Carbide. I

> assume Union Carbide went to India in the first place because there

> was less regulation. After the accidient Union Carbide was taken to

> court and found negligent. The victims won a settlement although I

> don't know if the settlement could really compensate for the loss of

> loved one or the ability to work. Anyway, Union Carbide, delcared

> bankruptcy, changed their name and now refuses to pay.

In other words, the government helped them to avoid the financial

consequences of their actions.

[Guest guest]

Irene Musiol wrote:

> No the lack of government oversight did.

" Anyway, Union Carbide, delcared bankruptcy, changed their name and now

refuses to pay. "

You understand how bankruptcy laws work, don't you?

> At 12:05 PM 1/17/04, you wrote:

>> Irene Musiol wrote:

>>> You can look at what happened in Bohpal, India with Union Carbide. I

>>> assume Union Carbide went to India in the first place because there

>>> was less regulation. After the accidient Union Carbide was taken to

>>> court and found negligent. The victims won a settlement although I

>>> don't know if the settlement could really compensate for the loss of

>>> loved one or the ability to work. Anyway, Union Carbide, delcared

>>> bankruptcy, changed their name and now refuses to pay.

>>

>> In other words, the government helped them to avoid the financial

>> consequences of their actions.

>>

>>

>>

>>

[Guest guest]

No the lack of government oversight did.

At 12:05 PM 1/17/04, you wrote:

>Irene Musiol wrote:

> > You can look at what happened in Bohpal, India with Union Carbide. I

> > assume Union Carbide went to India in the first place because there

> > was less regulation. After the accidient Union Carbide was taken to

> > court and found negligent. The victims won a settlement although I

> > don't know if the settlement could really compensate for the loss of

> > loved one or the ability to work. Anyway, Union Carbide, delcared

> > bankruptcy, changed their name and now refuses to pay.

>

>In other words, the government helped them to avoid the financial

>consequences of their actions.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>You said that human nature has been selected to support folks who by nature

>choose short-term interests over long-term interests.

Not exactly. Your arguments tend towards absolutism, and nature has very

few absolutes.

Look, remember my very small argument with Wanita? As I understand her,

she basically believes in the doctrine of the noble savage and assumes that

before modern civilization, people in authority were only granted authority

when they deserved it and never abused their powers. My argument is that

we as a species have two competing traits relevant to that particular

issue. One trait is to trust and obey authority, the other is to be

skeptical of authority and to tend to think for oneself. On the surface it

might seem that these " traits " are merely different degrees of

intelligence, with the free-thinkers obviously being the more intelligent

ones, but that's simply not true. (There may be some degree of correlation

with some elements or forms of intelligence, but that's a separate

issue.) There are brilliant people oriented strongly towards authority and

hierarchy, and there are brilliant people who are iconoclasts. Their

emotional makeup pushes them in different directions, and they may possibly

have sorted differences in intellectual strengths and weaknesses, but one

is not necessarily smarter than the other.

At various times, in various situations, both traits were useful. When

there were good leaders, people who trusted and obeyed more quickly would

act more quickly and cohesively than people in skeptical communities which

had to take time to debate. When there were bad leaders, though, that

skepticism and debate would prove very useful indeed. And both dynamics

would emerge at various times inside of single communities, probably most

typically because skepticism would lead to good leadership, then leadership

would eventually decay but maintain the trust of the populace until things

got so bad that skepticism became dominant again, etc. etc.

Short-term vs. long-term planning and action is similar. Both traits are

present in the species, both traits find themselves expressed to different

degrees and in different ways in different people, and historically, in

evolutionary terms, both were useful, but often at different

times. Sometimes a strategy which yields short-term advantage allows one

to decisively defeat someone following a long-term strategy by yielding

sufficient early advantage. At other times, the long-termer can weather

his temporary disadvantage and survive until the short-termer self

destructs, and then the long-termer wins. These are just two scenarios of

many. Simple rules can generate very complex results.

My point was that there's a definite selection pressure in favor of

short-term thinking. Some people will always go for the easy buck, the

cheat, the fraud, etc.

>To be a capitalist requires a certain degree of long-term thinking as a

>pre-requisite. People who spend their resources on their immediate

>desires cannot

>become capitalists, because they will not afford themselves the

>opportunity to

>accumulate capital.

Excuse me? Capitalism is a philosophy and an economic system. Are you

saying that in a hypothetical capitalist system, anyone who failed to

accumulate capital would be dismissed for not participating, or would be

called non-capitalists or something?

>Thus, there is a certain degree of selectivity that

>insures that long-term thinkers are disproportioantely represented among the

> " capitalist " niche of our society.

I think your statistical impression of things is wrong. Look at our

society, for example. Admittedly, it's hardly capitalist, but it's still

emblematic of human nature and reality. There are a few people who are

successful in the long term, to be sure, but a substantial portion of them

inherited their success, and in the rest of society, there's enormous

turnover. Companies appear, some (probably most) of them fail almost

instantly, some succeed for a time, and then most of them fade or die

abruptly. Though some details might be different in a true capitalist

system, I doubt there'd be any less flux. In fact, if you could somehow

sustain a pure capitalist system, there'd be a lot _more_ flux, because a

lot of the non-capitalist props that people and companies use to secure

advantage and assure survival wouldn't be available.

But I'm not arguing that there'd be no successful people pursuing long-term

strategies, just that there would inevitably be people seeking short-term

advantage, including those seeking unfair and/or illegal advantage. People

will always try to beat the system. That's a fundamental aspect of human

nature. (And even though I've mentioned this aspect before, I'd like to

point out that it's a very specifically described claim about human nature,

not something vague and generic. If you disagree, it's possible to

disagree in detail, and specifically.) And the reason it's a fundamental

aspect of human nature is simple: beating the system can yield enormous

advantages, and if there's an incentive, _someone_ will pursue it.

>But I don't rely on future lawsuits entirely, and you continually seem to be

>ignoring parts of my solutions in order to fixate on the insufficiency of one

>of them, as if each element of the society worked by itself, rather than in

>conjunction with the other elements.

I probably haven't paid sufficient attention to your NGO ideas, and for

that you have my apologies, though I did raise some objections to

them. However, there's a very fundamental problem I failed to

mention. You're aware how hard it is to successfully sue a very large

company unless you're either a very large company or a very rich individual

yourself, right? It's because the very large company has vast resources to

throw at the lawsuit. They can hire legions of experts, both finding and

creating ones who will say whatever they want. They can also do plenty of

illegal things if they want, and many often do because there's an incentive

to do so. Etc.

Well, imagine your hypothetical minarchist world in which the builder hires

an inspector and the buyer hires another inspector. In general, these

inspectors are going to come from and be approved by professional

associations. The builders of the world, having a lot of money and common

cause, will sink a lot of money into " their " professional association, and

will be able to afford to pay much larger fees to the inspectors they

hire. Building-buyers, by contrast, most of them not being in the business

of constantly buying buildings the way builders constantly build and sell,

will not have joined together and funneled meaningful amounts of capital

into " their " association, and so it will, by contrast with the builders'

association, be underfunded. Buyers' inspectors will still, of course, be

somewhat effective, but there's another strategy builders can and

undoubtedly will employ: they can seek to subvert the buyers' inspectors

association. They may even create associations which are supposed to be

buyer-friendly and unaffiliated with builders but which in fact are bought

and paid for buy the builders.

This isn't some fever dream I've come up with in a paroxysm of

business-hatred, it's something that happens all the time, and when you get

to _Trust Us_, you'll read about many examples and techniques. It's a

pretty depressing book. (Again, I've made very specific claims which I've

explained at some length (several times now) and in this case, as with

human nature, I've even referred to supporting documentation.)

>Furthermore, you are making a qualitative distinction that doesn't exist.

>Building codes are NOT a peremptive strike. They are a law which has no

>power

>except the prospect of punishment after the fact. A builder doesn't give a

>crap what a building code says except to the extent the government will

>*enforce*

>the building code after the fact. In this way, codes are comparable to both

>contracts and prohibitive laws.

>

> >

> > >but the same could be

> > >said for a builder who violates a building code, pursuing his short-term

> > >interest, forgetting his long-term interest, which is avoiding the

> > >punishment for

> > >violation of a building code.

> >

> > Sure, and unfortunately enforcement is never perfect, but the

> difference is

> > that someone who ignores the possibility of a future lawsuit might not be

> > caught for years or even decades -- and he'll probably only be caught

> after

> > a lot of people are hurt and property damaged -- whereas someone who

> > ignores a building code will probably be caught immediately upon

> > inspection, before the building is ever used. That's an enormous

> advantage.

>

>That's not true, because there isn't any reason whatsoever that inspections

>wouldn't occur simply based on the contract.

>

>If you make a contract with someone, unless you are competent to read it,

>understand it, and negotiate it yourself, you will hire help. For

>example, many

>people hire lawyers in our society when they deal with contracts. There's no

>reason someone wouldn't also hire an inspector were it necessary to insure

>the

>contract was fulfilled at the time of sale.

>

> >

> > >And, frankly, in the few examples we have, NGO-certification has proven

> > >better than gov't certification.

> >

> > There are a couple problems with this. First, NGOs are easier for vested

> > interests to take over than government institutions. Second, the research

> > budget is going to be broken up and diluted.

>

>That isn't justified by our empirical experience. Case in point: Organic

>Certification. Ask anyone who cares about organic food-- the USDA has

>diluted

>most local, private certification programs. Furthermore, had the private,

>third-party organic associations not generated the massive volume of mail

>to the

>USDA after its initial certification program, " Organic " would have been so

>vastly hijacked by " vested interests " that it would have allowed GMOs,

>sewer sludge

>fertilization, irradiated food and large amounts of herbicide and pesticide

>use.

>

>That seems to indicate that the government is vastly, vastly easier for

>vested interests to hijack than NGO certification programs.

>

> >

> > >Yes, it does. " Pure " capitalism does not contain fictional entities with

> > >special priviliges granted by government to absolve responsibility for the

> > >actions of real humans.

> >

> > OK, fair enough, but how would this work?

>

>First, corporations *could* be formed. There is nothing wrong with joint

>property. For the same reasons, collectives, cooperatives, and communes

>could

>exist within a libertarian capitalist society. However, it would be

>recognized

>that a corporation is a piece of property, not a person. At least the

>founder(s) of the corporation would be liable for personal assets, and other

>participants liability would be dependent on the clauses in the contracts

>with which

>they bought their shares.

>

>See Bob 's article, third one down, on www.anti-state.com. He argues

>from an anarcho-capitalist perspective, but his principles are otherwise

>applicable to a court system such as ours.

>

>Whether jobs are hurt or not is irrelevant. You are responsible for your

>actions, period. " Hurting jobs " is a cop-out that corporations constantly

>use to

>escape responsiblity, and is a violation of capitalist principles based on

>the concept of the " public good. "

>

> > To put this in perspective, take Bill Gates, the richest man on

> > earth. He's worth something on the order of 50 BILLION dollars. Do you

> > know how quickly it's possible to rack up $50B in damages? If instead

> of a

> > software developer he'd been a real estate developer and he'd done an

> > appreciable amount of the building in, say, Cleveland, which isn't exactly

> > a humungous city, and Cleveland got hit by an earthquake (maybe Cleveland

> > never will, but it's just an arbitrary example) damages could vastly

> exceed

> > his net worth in an instant -- especially because, as a real estate

> > developer, he wouldn't have been worth anything close to $50B.

>

>But personal liability doesn't negate the existence of the corporation. If

>the joint owners of a corporation are responsible, assets are seized first

>from

>the corporation, and only from personal assets when the corporation's are

>insufficient.

>

> >

> > Building codes protect us by doing a very good job of preventing the

> > problem in the first place.

>

>No, they don't. Their dependent on the prospect of punishment

>after-the-fact. They are equivalent to contracts in that sense.

>

> They're not magically perfect -- there will

> > always be some builders fighting to undermine and water down the codes,

> > there will always be people insisting on more codes than are necessary,

> and

> > there will always be too much bureaucratese, not to mention that

> > enforcement will always be an entire fight of its own -- but history shows

> > they work, and they work very, very well.

>

>And there will always be people who bribe inspectors. In either case, you

>have inspections, and in either case, you have standards, and in either

>case you

>have a means of enforcing the standards, so there is no basis to claim one is

>considerably more or less effective than another. The libertarian model

>allows greater flexibility according to the desires of the customer, and

>avoids

>any possible negative effects from instability in pending legislation, etc.

>

> > But second, what happens when

> > liability doesn't matter because there's not enough money? If you're

> going

> > to suggest insurance, insurance would be bankrupted by disasters of the

> > magnitude I'm talking about.

>

>You're assuming there's no mechanism to enforce a contract until damage is

>done, but there's no reason whatsoever the fulfillment of the contract

>can't be

>inspected at the time of sale.

>

> >

> > >Furthermore, you do this all the time. For example, your vague claims

> > about

> > >human nature in your discussion with , none of which you bothered to

> > >define, let alone offer any evidence for.

> >

> > Vague claims?

>

>Yes-- you defined some of them, didn't others, and didn't offer " evidence. "

>

> In fact I made a

> > few very limited claims and nobody disputed any of those specific

> > claims.

>

>Exactly my point! You didn't *need* to offer any evidence-- neither did I.

>I'm not required to show evidence unless you ask for it, so you have no

>grounds to condemn me for not offering the evidence in the same exact post

>you

>request the evidence, as if I'd had any sort of chance to respond.

>

> > >Again, what IS a fiscal libertarian?

> >

> > Someone who believes the government has no right to be in your bank

> account.

>

>So how is that relevant to building codes? Since building codes involve

>restrictions on behavior rather than budgetary considerations, it seems if

>I had

>to pick one of the two it would fall under the subject of civil liberties

>rather than fiscal liberties.

>

>Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/17/04 4:52:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, irene@...

writes:

> Yes of course. But say they did not declare bankruptcy. If they still

> refuse to pay who will make them?

Irene,

The government. Between , , and I, I think we've explained a

total of thirty or forty times that libertarianism has a government that

enforces contracts and protects property.

>This is true, but if the person held liable refuses to pay, then what?

>Especially if they leave the country?

Then it is *enforced* just as contracts are enforced now. Do you understand

that in libertarianism a government exists?

Chris

[Guest guest]

Gene,

> Against my better judgement, here I go, responding again. Can't help

> myself,

> I guess....So, in your opinion it is " interferences in the market " that

> exacerbates homelessness. Ok - as I understand it, homelessness was not a

> big problem in the former Soviet Union. Or am I missing something?

Your missing a lot of things. Like millions of people dying of famine.

Furthermore, you are decreasing the level of detail to vague generalities in

order to obscure the point. There are lots of causes of homelessness-- one is

mental illness. There are specific causes of housing shortages-- primarily

upper limits on rent and housing costs. Obviously, that would not be an issue

in a non-market system like the USSR, because the builders would be *forced*

to build. Some would question the value of the tradeoff, when the result is

the death of 30 million people and the sacrifice of all religious freedom.

There are specific causes of unemployment-- The Federal Reserve deliberately

maintains the unemployment rate by adjusting the interest rate to prevent

" wage-push inflation. "

> You are also claiming that rent control, e.g. attempts to keep some units

> below market rate so that people can afford them, helps CAUSE homelessness?!

Yes. If that's news to you, you should take either a macroeconomics course,

or an applied calculus course.

> I suppose you'll argue that rent control causes units to be taken off the

> market, and therefore causes more homelessness, but I just don't think that

> this is factually true - it certainly defies logic, since people who can't

> afford a place to live generally will be more likely to be able to rent a

> place that is below market rate.

That's pretty absurd, because anyone who can afford to work a full-time job

can afford to rent. If you visit a homeless shelter or talk to people on the

street, you'll find that most of them are either unemployed or mentally ill,

unless there's a housing shortage in the area at the root of it, though the

former is more common.

But you seem to be conflating housing shortages with homlessness. If the

issue is whether or not people can *afford* to live in a house or apartment,

then

that's an entirely different possible cause of homelessness than whether or

not those housing units *exist*. If the price of the housing is below market

value, the supply will not meet the demand, thus effecting a shortage. If

there is a housing shortage, it doesn't matter whether you can afford the

housing

or not because it won't exist.

The exception to this rule is if the price caps exceed the market price. If

this is the case, it will have no effect on supply. It will also have no

effect on the price either, so it would be pointless.

I suppose you'll say that astronomically

> high rents here in San Francisco contribute more to homelessness than if

> the

> rents were lower, since, logically, is someone is making close to minimum

> wage he/she is more likely to afford an expensive apartment.

This sentence isn't coherent.

>

> As for states with the highest minimum wages having the worst unemployment

> rates - gee, could you possibly be confusing cause and effect?

No. Unemployment rates can't affect the minimum wage. As you should know,

the minimum wage is determined by the state legislature, not market dynamics.

Just

> wondering. Why, in general, are there movements to increase minimum wages?

There aren't. The only " movements " to increase the minimum wage are the

" living wage " folks who around here advocate $12/hr minimum wages, although not

a

fraction of the populace takes them seriously. The minimum wage is set by the

legislature, without much of a thought given to it by anyone else.

> It is because people can't survive on minimum wage because of the cost of

> living, of which rental costs play a significant role, or am I confused?

Were it true, then everyone outside of Washington state where housing costs

were comparable would be homeless if they were making minimum wage. That's

clearly not true, meaning that Washington's minimum wage is higher than what is

needed to afford a home. Of course I suspect that the majority of min wage

earners are teenagers, but I haven't seen statistics.

But I said that minimum wages cause unemployment-- not high housing costs.

So there is no logical consistency to your argument. High housing costs

causing minimum wage increases is clearly not the reverse of minimum wages

causing

unemployment.

It works pretty simple: if the market value of a given job is $5/hr and the

minimum wage is $7/hr, then there will be a shortage of $5/hr jobs, thus,

reducing the available job pool.

> >But probably the absolute worst, the Federal Reserve's monetary policy is

> >designed to limit growth to a " stable " rate, and to keep a minimum level of

> >unemployment. It's fundamentally anti-worker-- if you watch the Greenspan

> >hearings

> >on C-SPAN, they talk about " wage costs, " as if a wage is a cost, not a

> >benefit. To whom? The employer; obviously to the worker the wage isn't a

> >cost.

> >The effect of the policy is to undermine the bargaining power of workers by

> >keeping enough unemployment to maintain a turnover. If the Fed would butt

> >out,

> >all able workers could actually work, growth would be much higher, and the

> >bargaining power of workers under full employment would increase a *lot*.

> >

>

> I have to struggle very hard to obey 's commandments, but I am trying.

Emotional stability is a worthy goal.

> >So, it could be said, capitalism is the solution, not the problem.

>

Yes, it could be said that, but it is false, and I have never met anyone who

> believed what you believed for whom compassion for the rest of the human

> race wasn't a carefully constructed plausible rationalization for a

> heartless and ruthless world view. Oops.

You simply need to get out more, then.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/17/04 7:40:45 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> Perhaps we can work out some kind of deal, where I would be allowed to

> insult say, once a month? That way you would need to reprimand me

> only if I exceeded this threshold.

It's very, very, very difficult to offend me. However, a more productive

approach would be to only respond to emails to which you have something to say.

Since getting emotional and personally attacking people is childish and offers

nothing of value to the discussion, it amounts to a waste of space in 800

people's email boxes.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/17/04 8:55:07 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Not exactly. Your arguments tend towards absolutism, and nature has very

> few absolutes.

I didn't mean it as an absolute at all. I assumed you allowed for both the

" short-term thinker " niche and the " long-term thinker " niche, and suggested a

certain selectivity towards one niche for the role as capitalist.

> >To be a capitalist requires a certain degree of long-term thinking as a

> >pre-requisite. People who spend their resources on their immediate

> >desires cannot

> >become capitalists, because they will not afford themselves the

> >opportunity to

> >accumulate capital.

>

> Excuse me? Capitalism is a philosophy and an economic system. Are you

> saying that in a hypothetical capitalist system, anyone who failed to

> accumulate capital would be dismissed for not participating, or would be

> called non-capitalists or something?

I said to be *a* capitalist, not " to be capitalist. " A capitalist is someone

who owns capital, as opposed to a laborer or " worker " who exchanges their

labor with a capitalist.

> >Thus, there is a certain degree of selectivity that

> >insures that long-term thinkers are disproportioantely represented among

> the

> > " capitalist " niche of our society.

>

> I think your statistical impression of things is wrong. Look at our

> society, for example. Admittedly, it's hardly capitalist, but it's still

> emblematic of human nature and reality. There are a few people who are

> successful in the long term, to be sure, but a substantial portion of them

> inherited their success, and in the rest of society, there's enormous

> turnover. Companies appear, some (probably most) of them fail almost

> instantly, some succeed for a time, and then most of them fade or die

> abruptly. Though some details might be different in a true capitalist

> system, I doubt there'd be any less flux. In fact, if you could somehow

> sustain a pure capitalist system, there'd be a lot _more_ flux, because a

> lot of the non-capitalist props that people and companies use to secure

> advantage and assure survival wouldn't be available.

I'm not suggesting that capitalism enforces a selectivity *on the population*

for long-term thinkers. I'm suggesting that it is selective toward the

fulfillment of the capitalist niche in our society. I.e., the business man who

owns capital and " supplies " the goods and services. The one who'd be building

the house. What I'm saying is that, if, in a given population, for every 100

people you have 80 short term thinkers and 20 long-term thinkers, and you have

33 spots for the role of " capitalist " , you are going to get more than 7

long-term thinkers-- you might get, say 15. Because, most short-term thinkers

will

never bother to accumulate any capital, and will spend their money (i.e. put

short-term interests above long-term interests), while accumulating capital at

all requires you to be at least *leaning* towards the long-term thinking side

of the spectrum.

> But I'm not arguing that there'd be no successful people pursuing long-term

>

> strategies, just that there would inevitably be people seeking short-term

> advantage, including those seeking unfair and/or illegal advantage. People

> will always try to beat the system. That's a fundamental aspect of human

> nature. (And even though I've mentioned this aspect before, I'd like to

> point out that it's a very specifically described claim about human nature,

> not something vague and generic. If you disagree, it's possible to

> disagree in detail, and specifically.)

I agree it's specific, though you haven't offered " evidence. " And again, I'm

making no accusation against you whatsoever. I only said what I said in

response to your accusation against me for not providing evidence, making the

point

that you and I behave comparably-- we make our point with logic, and leave

out citations for the vast majority of assertions, unless they're challenged.

And the reason it's a fundamental

> spect of human nature is simple: beating the system can yield enormous

> advantages, and if there's an incentive, _someone_ will pursue it.

Sure. No disagreement. Where we disagree is whether a libertarian society

contains the checks and balances against that sort of person or not; I think it

does.

>

> >But I don't rely on future lawsuits entirely, and you continually seem to

> be

> >ignoring parts of my solutions in order to fixate on the insufficiency of

> one

> >of them, as if each element of the society worked by itself, rather than in

> >conjunction with the other elements.

>

> I probably haven't paid sufficient attention to your NGO ideas, and for

> that you have my apologies, though I did raise some objections to

> them.

That's true. But I'm not referring to your ignoring them, I'm referring to

your *separation* of the two ideas. For example, a private inspector or a

private consumer agency both play roles in checks and balances *before* the

building collapses, and are integral to the process of creating the contract

that

would be enforced in court.

However, there's a very fundamental problem I failed to

> mention. You're aware how hard it is to successfully sue a very large

> company unless you're either a very large company or a very rich individual

> yourself, right? It's because the very large company has vast resources to

> throw at the lawsuit. They can hire legions of experts, both finding and

> creating ones who will say whatever they want. They can also do plenty of

> illegal things if they want, and many often do because there's an incentive

> to do so. Etc.

>

> Well, imagine your hypothetical minarchist world in which the builder hires

> an inspector and the buyer hires another inspector. In general, these

> inspectors are going to come from and be approved by professional

> associations. The builders of the world, having a lot of money and common

> cause, will sink a lot of money into " their " professional association, and

> will be able to afford to pay much larger fees to the inspectors they

> hire. Building-buyers, by contrast, most of them not being in the business

> of constantly buying buildings the way builders constantly build and sell,

> will not have joined together and funneled meaningful amounts of capital

> into " their " association, and so it will, by contrast with the builders'

> association, be underfunded. Buyers' inspectors will still, of course, be

> somewhat effective, but there's another strategy builders can and

> undoubtedly will employ: they can seek to subvert the buyers' inspectors

> association. They may even create associations which are supposed to be

> buyer-friendly and unaffiliated with builders but which in fact are bought

> and paid for buy the builders.

I see no reason for their to be specific associations of inspectors for the

buyer alone. An inspector is an inspector, and would lend his services to

whoever would pay for them. Although consumer agencies often have vast amounts

of

money. Ralph Nader has $4 million dollars in stocks that generate the income

for his organizations, for example.

But building inspection is not an " opinion " . It's a concrete fact how many

outlets there are in each room and how far apart they are, or any other given

fact about the place. The inspector's job would not be to say " Gee, yeah, I

think this house is sturdy, brother. The inspector's job would be to see if the

house meets the specifications of the contract. The contract would reflect

any given code out of a variety of possible " codes " provided by consumer

agencies, which the buyer would select, perhaps in cooperation with her lawyer,

based on her needs, desires, and what she's willing to spend.

This is, of course, a scenario I'm generating myself, and other libertarians

might have different ideas of how it could work. But it seems plausible to

me.

If the contract is found to be violated, a court case would ensue, and it

would be relatively easy to settle any factual claims with concrete evidence. A

" buyer's inspector " isn't going to go to court and flat-out lie about

specific, concrete details that can be proven with pictures or whathaveyou.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/17/04 8:56:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Sorry, it wasn't meant as a cheap shot. Someone brought

> up the fact that the fire departments were, at one point,

> for profit organizations. And that they would fight

> over " whose fire " a given fire was, while the building

> burned down. Similar situations have arisen with garbage

> collectors. In both cases, the gov't stepped in and took

> control. Part of my property taxes pay for the fire dep't,

> which is right down the street, and they will come if

> my house catches fire or my kid gets stuck in a tree or

> an earthquake makes a building fall down, whether or

> not said person is up to date on their house payments

> or taxes.

That's true, but Rockefeller stepped in when people were literally fighting

over the oil and sabotaging each other by offering a superior product produced

with superior business skills. Had the government not stepped in, I think

it's likely you would have seen a sufficient response by the market ala

Rockefeller.

Chris