I noticed that the usual suspects will be meeting up in Taipei this weekend - on Lenin's earthday no less (that's April 23rd, 小朋友: go look it up and weigh the coincidence for yourselves) - and for which I can only imagine the looks on certain faces were I to attend. I have little doubt that my being there would not be sincerely welcomed as I have nothing constructive to say to any of those people (though I do have plenty of destructive things to say). There is a common aphorism, employed to identify and distinguish good conversational manners, that one should remain silent if one has nothing constructive to say; it is an outrageous prejudice against doubt and criticism, and a good rule for people who dislike having to defend their premises out in the open. And what sort of person dislikes having to defend himself in argument, other than the tired or lazy?
I also noticed this little thing at Turton's place:
"Even after the US financial industry wrecked the world economy..."When the next crash comes, he will be running that same line in deliberate ignorance - once again - of the two most salient aspects of Federal involvement in the financial industry. Of course, he will not be the only one spraying that two-thousand and eleven year old effluent everywhere...
In the papers...
The big one has got to be the merging of the presidential and legislative elections next year and the apparent four month interlude between those elections and the ascent to office of the new administration. That just gives me unadulterated creeps - the pretense that it was done to save a paltry NT$500 million (for a country with a national debt of approximately NT$21 trillion) is an insult to every intelligent person on this island. I can just imagine a few of the perps on the CEC sniggering off-camera when this was announced to the press...
We're in for a bumpy ride, whether we like it or not.
A lefty circle jerk, where the biggest point of disagreement is what beer to drink and you're irritated about it? Lefty's don't debate, they humiliate, attack and belittle those who disagree with their "sacred" beliefs.
ReplyDeleteRemember to a Lefty, govt is never ever the cause unless one of those icky republithugs is in office. Greece is paying 22% interest for some of it's debt, yet I've only seen one article where they detailed how former govt of Greece and Goldman Sachs cooked the books to join the EU. The complete collapse of the Spanish economy. Where the solar farms were so "efficient" that they produced power at night. I've seen only one article in the British press no less about the complete scam it was. Running dirty oil generators to get in on the high price of solar powered electricity that the govt was forcing and everyone to buy through subsidies. Ask a AGW-believing Lefty about it and get a shrug of indifference. Logic has no home in their mind.
We're paying a high price for ignorance and what passes as education in the world right now. You ask someone a question and you immediately get an answer about what the govt should do about it. The idea that a community would come together to build an electric plant, sewer system, or water treatment facility is plain odd to them. It was fact though about how the US has the infrastructure it does.
Things that interest me:
-How much are state owned oil companies lying about their reserves,
-What to buy when the next stagflation crisis hits. I'm thinking guns, goats and land.
If you feel really annoyed, Play EVE and make other people rage.
I think I'll go to bed actually Okami - but don't buy goats (they eat through everything, including the fences you put up to pen them in, making them more trouble than they are worth). Buy metals if you can and pay for their physical delivery to your door.
ReplyDelete"The idea that a community would come together to build an electric plant, sewer system, or water treatment facility is plain odd to them."
ReplyDeleteIt's not odd to me. But I don't think it'd work so nicely. What would actually happen in this deconstructed fantasy is that the entire process would end up dominated by some local thug. He'd get the lion's share of water, power, education for his offspring or whatever the "community" is supposed to be creating, and everyone else would basically function as his serfs.
It comes through a lot in Mike's posts that he wants a much smaller government but I think deconstructionism is an unrealistic ideal; it only works if everyone has the same idealistic goals as everyone else (and that sounds like collectivism). As soon as you get some greedy bastard with a bit more muscle than everyone else, you're just giving him the opportunity to set up a tinpot little kingdom. Good luck getting enough like-minded people to band together and off him.
And preparing for the downfall of government and currency with goats, guns and metal... I suspect your friendly neighborhood scumbags are already armed and would just steal what you've got if it came to that.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteNo individual can survive long without social cooperation. Either that comes about on voluntary principles or it comes about on the principle of command and control - whether that is called socialism, environmentalism, fascism or any other -ism is immaterial. It is the principles alone that count.
What I* am doing here is trying to craft the argument for social cooperation run according to voluntary principles. That argument is relevant to two scenarios - one is the rational deconstruction and radical devolution of the State, whilst the other is the aftermath of collapse when an alternative intellectual recourse is sought.
Preparing with guns and metal would be only two aspects to a desperate strategy of last resort, and, as you say, it would likely not succeed without sufficient cooperation with other people in any case. When people on my side of the river say things like that - it is generally out of despair.
But look, the threat of collapse is real and the proximate reason why it is real is because of the continued unchecked growth of the State, and its repeated abuse of the monetary and fiscal powers granted to it. Those abuses are made possible largely as a result of the logic of certain ideas (principally: variants on socialism) which your paper still does its best to spread - even now when the government of Taiwan is NT$21 trillion in debt, is poised to run a deficit of NT$159 billion this year alone, and spending on education, retirement and social welfare totals three times that of defense. That is entirely unnecessary and avoidable because the State does not have to manage all of those things.
I have said it from the very beginning - the premises on which your paper is run have got to change.
*And if what I am speaks so loud that you cannot hear what I say, then try someone like Peter Schiff or Detlev Schichter.
"I suspect your friendly neighborhood scumbags are already armed and would just steal what you've got if it came to that."
ReplyDeleteSo much for gun control then, eh? And who do we have to thank for that?
...on Lenin's earthday no less (that's April 23rd, 小朋友: go look it up and weigh the coincidence for yourselves)...
ReplyDeleteThe unofficial Marijuana Day (4/20) is coincidentally Hitler's birthday. Does it mean anything? Doubtful.
Arguing against the general policies and beliefs of environmentalism is honorable but why resort to this kind of snide underhandedness?
"The unofficial Marijuana Day (4/20) is coincidentally Hitler's birthday. Does it mean anything? Doubtful."
ReplyDeleteYes, but that your chosen moniker coincides with your apparent inability to see the point probably does mean something...
Environmentalists agitate for the further politicization of economic exchange, and in this respect (which is a matter of principles) they resemble the Bolsheviks under Lenin. Notice that I said weigh the coincedence - the implication was not that they deliberately chose April 23rd because it was Lenin's birthday, the implication is that the coincidence is a pithy one since it reflects the nature of their beliefs in both analysis and prescription (i.e. that "capitalism" is the problem and some variant of socialism is the solution).
I don't do "underhanded" - I address premises and conclusions directly: go back and read that recent exchange on Turton's place again. Ad hominems are fair game so long as they aren't gratuitous and are backed by reason or examples.
Then I misunderstood you.
ReplyDeleteBut I'll point out that "Lenin's earthday is a poor choice of words because it leads one to believe that either Lenin himself led to the creation of Earthday, or that the creation of Earthday was done with Lenin in mind.
Hi Mike,
ReplyDeleteI was away for the weekend and only just got to read your comments.
I enjoy reading your blog because of your willingness to state things like this: That is entirely unnecessary and avoidable because the State does not have to manage all of those things which prompts people to question the existing system. I'm always happy to see people challenge the mainstream on a factual footing and I really think you do that - in fact it deeply irritates me when you're silenced on other people's blogs for asking questions that people don't want to answer (or even hear the question in the first place).
So when you talk about government being too big, I agree. Government spending (all over the world) is completely out of control and yes - they are spending OUR money. And the money of the next several generations. It frightens me, and I can't understand why more people aren't equally terrified.
Where I diverge from your view on the issue of governance is where you try "to craft the argument for social cooperation run according to voluntary principles". I simply don't think people are that interested in cooperating. I firmly believe that a lot of people are selfish, ignorant, and unwilling to learn and that's why I think that excess devolution will result in local tyrants and little fiefdoms.
By the way, your references to "my" paper are in error or else I misunderstood you; I have nothing to do with the Taipei Times (if that's what you're referring to) although I do work for a technology company in Neihu that's spitting distance from the Liberty Times building.
"So much for gun control then, eh? And who do we have to thank for that?"
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of gun control, was it on your blog that I read the comment that made me question my previous opinions? It was about how if the Bosnian Muslims had been armed it would have been a lot harder for the Serbs to commit genocide.
"I simply don't think people are that interested in cooperating.
ReplyDeleteSteve, what do you think "the market" is, if not an institution by which social cooperation is coordinated? If people really weren't interested in cooperating, we wouldn't be having this conversation since neither of us would have computers, internet and so on: things which can only be produced via social cooperation under a division of labour.
I firmly believe that a lot of people are selfish, ignorant, and unwilling to learn..."
All of that may be true, but it need not make much difference since social cooperation via the market need not pressupose that people are unselfish, enlightened or willing to learn. Cooperation on the market successfully takes place irrespective of personal characterisitcs; the old woman at the traditional market I go to doesn't give me vegetables because she's unselfish (even when she gives me spring onions and ginger as freebies); mechanics don't rip me off on oil changes and parts because they're especially enlightened; and I'm happy with the girl who cuts my hair not because she's willing to learn, but because she just does what I tell her to do. What matters primarily is not so much the motives and characteristics of people but the structure of socio-economic incentives within which they must select various courses of action.
The only thing standing in the way of expanding the scope of social cooperation on the market to encompass services people currently consider as "governance" (e.g. law and order - courts and police) is the State and its monopoly on those things. To save myself the bother of arguing this case out in detail here, I refer you to chapter 29 of David Friedman's "Machinery Of Freedom". There are plenty of discussions of this problem to be found elsewhere; the difference between the anarchist and minarchist positions typically does not turn on this issue, but on the issue of truly collective problems such as national defense. Those sorts of discussions however, tend to be too abstract for my liking - it's like two kids arguing over whether to buy a Ferrari or a Lambo when neither of them are in a position to even buy a Vauxhall Astra.
"...and that's why I think that excess devolution will result in local tyrants and little fiefdoms."
On the contrary, I think limited devolution would, and in fact, already has resulted in "little fiefdoms". A devolution program that was "excessive" would be one that devolved political power as close as possible to the individual, families, neighbours or voluntary associations acting on the market. There would be so many "little fiefdoms" (with consequentially such a limited scope of power on their own) that they wouldn't really be "fiefdoms" since people could choose to join or leave with relative ease.
"It was about how if the Bosnian Muslims had been armed it would have been a lot harder for the Serbs to commit genocide."
ReplyDeleteNo I don't think that was on my blog, but it is exactly the sort of thing I would have said. The same argument goes for the lynching of Americans by the KKK - those lynchings would have been more difficult for the bastards to carry out had not the Democratic Party sought to restrict firearms ownership: something people on the Left rarely admit to.
Mike, thanks for taking the time to respond. I'm glad you brought up law and order because (along with education), it's the area I've thought most about with respect to a devolved state (mostly in terms of traffic enforcement actually...)
ReplyDeleteI've just read through the reference you gave me, and the concept is interesting, though I'm still sceptical about the amount of cooperation that'd be necessary to bring such a scenario about. I have the feeling that there will be a section of society too poor, too ignorant, or too uncaring to take part in developing a system like this, resulting in a system that favours an elite over the rest. I see the possibility for abuse on the part of the rich and particularly the criminally rich.
We both know that judges and juries can be bought in the current system; surely it would be even easier to do such under a system of "protection agencies"?
There would be so many "little fiefdoms" (with consequentially such a limited scope of power on their own) that they wouldn't really be "fiefdoms" since people could choose to join or leave with relative ease.
How would you join a fiefdom based on family or neighbourhood? Also, if my rich and powerful family group doesn't like you, couldn't it appropriate your resources?
Cheers,
Steve
"I'm still sceptical about the amount of cooperation that'd be necessary to bring such a scenario about."
ReplyDeleteGood: the chief problem seems to me the length of time that a policy of depoliticizing say, education, would take and the likely attempts by teachers unions etc to stop it - not the "amount" of cooperation it would take for a free market to get off the ground.
"I have the feeling that there will be a section of society too poor, too ignorant, or too uncaring to take part in developing a system like this, resulting in a system that favours an elite over the rest."
I'm not sure what you mean by "take part in developing a system"... but certainly, yes, there will be some people who would stand to lose out by systemic free market reforms - both rich and poor.
Would a free market in education favour a rich elite? Only in the same sense that the market in say, cars also does now - with a rich person buying a Merc (better quality school place for his kids) and a poor person buying a Toyota (lesser quality school place for his kids). But like the car market, even the stuff at the "common" end of the market might improve over time.
"I see the possibility for abuse on the part of the rich and particularly the criminally rich."
Would a free market in law and order services favour a rich elite? Occassionally perhaps yes, but systemically, I think no. Since the richest people are by definition a minority, there will almost certainly be more money to be made from looking after the interests of the average Joes and Janes. Screwing these people over in favour of a rich client would be a very expensive and dangerous thing for a protection agency to do. And of course one reason why rich people stay rich (or at least many of them believe this), is because they watch their spending and are careful to not pay over the odds.
As to the "criminally rich", I don't know - but certainly there are plenty of those about already (with a higher number if you include politicians, the politically connected and certain members of the "public sector").
"We both know that judges and juries can be bought in the current system; surely it would be even easier to do such under a system of "protection agencies"?"
In the case of judges I think this would be less likely, since they would be essentially trading on their reputation for integrity. Jury bribing might still occur, but I don't know that it would be any easier, since, like the judges the protection agencies would also essentially be trading on their reputations and it would thus be a very expensive and risky thing for them to do to try to bribe a jury even through a proxy.
"How would you join a fiefdom based on family or neighbourhood? Also, if my rich and powerful family group doesn't like you, couldn't it appropriate your resources?"
Questions for another time... I must take my dog to the park.