I just get comfortable again and Putin goes and starts insurrections in three main cities so that he can have an excuse to ‘save’ the residents.
Playbook continues.
Dammit. Someone shoot that fking guy please.
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-06 16:08:00 UTC
FROM FREE RIDING TO RENT SEEKING TO ANARCHY
People form governments to suppress the high transaction costs of criminal, unethical, and immoral behavior. The consequence is that all that suppressed free riding is simply converted into rent seeking by the bureaucracy. By forming governments, we trade high transaction costs that are pervasive (rampant criminal, unethical and immoral behavior) for low transaction costs that are increasingly expensive (conspiratorial, corrupt and exploitative behavior).
The question we face in advancing political theory, is how to prevent rent seeking as well as free riding.
The answer is to allow insurance companies, the common law, the courts, and a fully articulated set of property rights to do their jobs for us.
Yes, there are certain luxuries we may wish to produce as a commons. There is no reason that we cannot produce luxuries as a commons.
But we cannot produce laws. We can only allow the courts to discover them.
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-04 08:03:00 UTC
[L]ibertarians do not advocate a deregulated market. They advocate: a) universal legal standing for claimants in all courts of law. b) requirement that companies be insured. c) elimination of liability protections for executives. The idea is that insurance companies will better regulate goods and services than will the government, at a lower cost, and that if everyone has legal standing the cost of abusing consumers especially if there is no shield provided by the corporate veil, is so high that organizations will not engage in those behaviors. It is pretty hard to argue against the libertarian position. It is very easy to argue against a libertarian straw man (monopoly deregulation vs private regulation). And yes, there are a lot of idiots in libertarianism just like there are a lot of idiots in every other ideology. But the fact of the matter is that libertarians have provided the only innovations to political economy in the past century.
[L]ibertarians do not advocate a deregulated market. They advocate: a) universal legal standing for claimants in all courts of law. b) requirement that companies be insured. c) elimination of liability protections for executives. The idea is that insurance companies will better regulate goods and services than will the government, at a lower cost, and that if everyone has legal standing the cost of abusing consumers especially if there is no shield provided by the corporate veil, is so high that organizations will not engage in those behaviors. It is pretty hard to argue against the libertarian position. It is very easy to argue against a libertarian straw man (monopoly deregulation vs private regulation). And yes, there are a lot of idiots in libertarianism just like there are a lot of idiots in every other ideology. But the fact of the matter is that libertarians have provided the only innovations to political economy in the past century.
[L]ibertarians do not advocate a deregulated market. They advocate: a) universal legal standing for claimants in all courts of law. b) requirement that companies be insured. c) elimination of liability protections for executives. The idea is that insurance companies will better regulate goods and services than will the government, at a lower cost, and that if everyone has legal standing the cost of abusing consumers especially if there is no shield provided by the corporate veil, is so high that organizations will not engage in those behaviors. It is pretty hard to argue against the libertarian position. It is very easy to argue against a libertarian straw man (monopoly deregulation vs private regulation). And yes, there are a lot of idiots in libertarianism just like there are a lot of idiots in every other ideology. But the fact of the matter is that libertarians have provided the only innovations to political economy in the past century.
[L]ibertarians do not advocate a deregulated market. They advocate: a) universal legal standing for claimants in all courts of law. b) requirement that companies be insured. c) elimination of liability protections for executives. The idea is that insurance companies will better regulate goods and services than will the government, at a lower cost, and that if everyone has legal standing the cost of abusing consumers especially if there is no shield provided by the corporate veil, is so high that organizations will not engage in those behaviors. It is pretty hard to argue against the libertarian position. It is very easy to argue against a libertarian straw man (monopoly deregulation vs private regulation). And yes, there are a lot of idiots in libertarianism just like there are a lot of idiots in every other ideology. But the fact of the matter is that libertarians have provided the only innovations to political economy in the past century.
[I]f Lou wants to claim ‘libertarian’ as the name for a political movement that advocates lying, deception, and general scumbaggery, then why should we morally allow the term liberty and libertarian to be associated with lying, deception, and immoral scumbaggery? Sorry. The origin of liberty is aristocracy, not parasitic low trust, lying, cheating, dishonest scumbaggery. Liberty isn’t your fire-hydrant Lou. You had your chance. you picked an immoral ethical code and failed. You picked a pseudoscience and failed. It’s time for the next generation to try to do better. Sorry man, but Rothbardianism is a dead cat bounce. http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/lew-rockwell/what-libertarianism-is-and-isnt/
[I]f Lou wants to claim ‘libertarian’ as the name for a political movement that advocates lying, deception, and general scumbaggery, then why should we morally allow the term liberty and libertarian to be associated with lying, deception, and immoral scumbaggery? Sorry. The origin of liberty is aristocracy, not parasitic low trust, lying, cheating, dishonest scumbaggery. Liberty isn’t your fire-hydrant Lou. You had your chance. you picked an immoral ethical code and failed. You picked a pseudoscience and failed. It’s time for the next generation to try to do better. Sorry man, but Rothbardianism is a dead cat bounce. http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/lew-rockwell/what-libertarianism-is-and-isnt/
–“The absence of a workable integrated theory of economics and politics reflects the lack of systematic thinking about the central problem of violence in human societies.”– Violence and Social Orders (Preface).
[T]he fundamental problem of cooperation is the suppression of free riding. Violence is but one of the many tools used by free riders. Our emphasis on suppressing violence distracts us from the insufficiency of suppressing violence in creating a polity capable of generating wealth in a division of knowledge and labor. Very poor societies manage to prevent violence and theft. What they do not prevent is every other possible means of free riding. The smaller the family size the higher the trust in any polity. But for small family sizes suppression of free riding must be nearly universal. And therefore not only must we possess property rights to allow small families to engage in production, but we must suppress all forms of involuntary transfer to lower the risk enough to do so. (ANF societies are fragile.) By eliminating free riding we obtain trust, and the low transaction costs that come with trust. In seeking to obtain trust, non-aggression is not enough. The source of any liberty was, is, and will always be, the organized use of violence to suppress free riding in all its forms. The reason that democracy, policy and economics are in conflict is the intellectual failure to address the incompatible moral codes of the different demographic groups, and the degree of trust vs demand for intervention, that is expressed by these different groups. As such, western high trust, which is an extension of the absolute nuclear family, democracy, rule of law, and the high economic performance of the few high trust societies, are assumed to be the consequence of democracy. Whereas democracy is a luxury of the high trust society. There is no free lunch. You either accept universal absolute nuclear families and total suppression of free riding in all its forms as a high cost you must bear for prosperity and liberty, or instead, you obtain some variant of every other lower and lowest trust societies on the planet. No way out. Period.
–“The absence of a workable integrated theory of economics and politics reflects the lack of systematic thinking about the central problem of violence in human societies.”– Violence and Social Orders (Preface).
[T]he fundamental problem of cooperation is the suppression of free riding. Violence is but one of the many tools used by free riders. Our emphasis on suppressing violence distracts us from the insufficiency of suppressing violence in creating a polity capable of generating wealth in a division of knowledge and labor. Very poor societies manage to prevent violence and theft. What they do not prevent is every other possible means of free riding. The smaller the family size the higher the trust in any polity. But for small family sizes suppression of free riding must be nearly universal. And therefore not only must we possess property rights to allow small families to engage in production, but we must suppress all forms of involuntary transfer to lower the risk enough to do so. (ANF societies are fragile.) By eliminating free riding we obtain trust, and the low transaction costs that come with trust. In seeking to obtain trust, non-aggression is not enough. The source of any liberty was, is, and will always be, the organized use of violence to suppress free riding in all its forms. The reason that democracy, policy and economics are in conflict is the intellectual failure to address the incompatible moral codes of the different demographic groups, and the degree of trust vs demand for intervention, that is expressed by these different groups. As such, western high trust, which is an extension of the absolute nuclear family, democracy, rule of law, and the high economic performance of the few high trust societies, are assumed to be the consequence of democracy. Whereas democracy is a luxury of the high trust society. There is no free lunch. You either accept universal absolute nuclear families and total suppression of free riding in all its forms as a high cost you must bear for prosperity and liberty, or instead, you obtain some variant of every other lower and lowest trust societies on the planet. No way out. Period.