5 ms·

>Yeah. Businesses pay for something. Consumers pay for them. >But unless you actually create a crime-fighting unit, then you have innocent people paying for th

by ancap 10y ago

>Yeah. Businesses pay for something. Consumers pay for them. >But unless you actually create a crime-fighting unit, then you have innocent people paying for the crimes of others. So what? My local grocery store has a publicly accessible bathroom. Even though I may not go in and use the bathroom, I pay for other customers' use when I purchase a box of Cheerios. >Look, if you're going to go anarcho-capitalist, please at least do the correct response and talk about "Dispute Resolution Organizations" or voluntary "Arbitration Courts". Because talking about those anarcho-capitalist concepts at least demonstrates to me that you're following the argument. Perhaps you posted in the wrong thread because this thread wasn't even discussing private courts so I'm not sure what you're referring to when you talk about "following the argument".

dragontamer 10y ago
> So what? Nice argument. I guess we're done here. If you want to debate about philosophy and morals with me, the bare minimum requirement is that you do care. As noted before, the $0.05 bag tax is a very, very, very minor issue. It barely costs anything. Frankly, I'm surprised you cared enough to discuss the matter this long on an issue so mundane. If you were to ask me how much I cared about this subject, I'd tell you straight up: about $0.05, the amount of "bag tax" in my county. I'm not asking for a miracle or anything here. I'm just saying this is clearly more fair for plastic-bag users to pay for the costs associated with their behavior (however small it is), rather than other people paying for it. If you can demonstrate to me that using the bathroom at stores is a major enough concern that a tax is required, then we can discuss creating a tax on that behavior as well. Somehow, I bet you're being facetious.
- trentmb 10y ago
  > Frankly, I'm surprised you cared enough to discuss the matter this long on an issue so mundane. You cared enough to discuss it this long- why does it surprise you someone else does too?
  - dragontamer 10y ago
    He's given up on the argument if his best response is "So What". Perhaps it was more accurate for me to say, I'm surprised he stuck with this so long only to give up now.
- ancap 10y ago
  >Nice argument. I guess we're done here. If you want to debate about philosophy and morals with me, the bare minimum requirement is that you do care. I think you've taken it the wrong way. I truly have no idea what you're getting at. Just because the cost of me buying Cheerios includes the privileged of someone else using the bathroom, it does not denote a market failure. You, seemingly, have taken the stance that a business hiring security personnel is a manifestation of a market failure. It's a non-sequitur.
  - dragontamer 10y ago
    > You, seemingly, have taken the stance that a business hiring security personnel is a manifestation of a market failure. It's a non-sequitur. No. My stance is that innocent-people pay for the crimes of others in your hypothetical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure In a perfectly efficient market, you only pay for what you use. The market failure occurs when you pay for things that OTHER people use. (IE: you get lung cancer when a Coal Power Plant burns Coal. Market failure, specifically an externality. You pay for lung cancer that was caused by other people.) If you don't care about efficient markets, then you probably shouldn't call yourself an "ancap".
    - ancap 10y ago
      >No. My stance is that innocent-people pay for the crimes of others in your hypothetical. You say "No" but then you repeated what I stated in different terms. Yes, it's unfortunate that there are bad people in the world who do not respect the property of others. We take measures to mitigate those risks like putting locks on our doors. That does not denote a market failure. Measures taken to mitigate crimes against us surely cannot be considered paying for something you do not use. When I purchase something from the store, I'm not just buying that item itself. I'm paying for all the costs necessary to get that item to me--which includes costs for operating a business. Me paying that costs does not equate paying for something I did not use--I did use it. I used that business in order to be delivered goods. They paid costs to ensure I would get the goods. No, market failure. >IE: you get lung cancer when a Coal Power Plant burns Coal. Market failure, specifically an externality. You pay for lung cancer that was caused by other people. As I've stated previously this is not a market failure because this example depends on the idea of the commons. This exemplifies the failure of the idea of the commons, but not the market. >If you don't care about efficient markets, then you probably shouldn't call yourself an "ancap". If you're truly interested in having a discussion about morality and theory, why not cut out all the pretentious, snide comments? In this entire discussion I have only been respectful.

by ancap 10y ago

dragontamer 10y ago

> So what? Nice argument. I guess we're done here. If you want to debate about philosophy and morals with me, the bare minimum requirement is that you do care. As noted before, the $0.05 bag tax is a very, very, very minor issue. It barely costs anything. Frankly, I'm surprised you cared enough to discuss the matter this long on an issue so mundane. If you were to ask me how much I cared about this subject, I'd tell you straight up: about $0.05, the amount of "bag tax" in my county. I'm not asking for a miracle or anything here. I'm just saying this is clearly more fair for plastic-bag users to pay for the costs associated with their behavior (however small it is), rather than other people paying for it. If you can demonstrate to me that using the bathroom at stores is a major enough concern that a tax is required, then we can discuss creating a tax on that behavior as well. Somehow, I bet you're being facetious.

trentmb 10y ago
> Frankly, I'm surprised you cared enough to discuss the matter this long on an issue so mundane. You cared enough to discuss it this long- why does it surprise you someone else does too?
- dragontamer 10y ago
  He's given up on the argument if his best response is "So What". Perhaps it was more accurate for me to say, I'm surprised he stuck with this so long only to give up now.
ancap 10y ago
>Nice argument. I guess we're done here. If you want to debate about philosophy and morals with me, the bare minimum requirement is that you do care. I think you've taken it the wrong way. I truly have no idea what you're getting at. Just because the cost of me buying Cheerios includes the privileged of someone else using the bathroom, it does not denote a market failure. You, seemingly, have taken the stance that a business hiring security personnel is a manifestation of a market failure. It's a non-sequitur.
- dragontamer 10y ago
  > You, seemingly, have taken the stance that a business hiring security personnel is a manifestation of a market failure. It's a non-sequitur. No. My stance is that innocent-people pay for the crimes of others in your hypothetical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure In a perfectly efficient market, you only pay for what you use. The market failure occurs when you pay for things that OTHER people use. (IE: you get lung cancer when a Coal Power Plant burns Coal. Market failure, specifically an externality. You pay for lung cancer that was caused by other people.) If you don't care about efficient markets, then you probably shouldn't call yourself an "ancap".
  - ancap 10y ago
    >No. My stance is that innocent-people pay for the crimes of others in your hypothetical. You say "No" but then you repeated what I stated in different terms. Yes, it's unfortunate that there are bad people in the world who do not respect the property of others. We take measures to mitigate those risks like putting locks on our doors. That does not denote a market failure. Measures taken to mitigate crimes against us surely cannot be considered paying for something you do not use. When I purchase something from the store, I'm not just buying that item itself. I'm paying for all the costs necessary to get that item to me--which includes costs for operating a business. Me paying that costs does not equate paying for something I did not use--I did use it. I used that business in order to be delivered goods. They paid costs to ensure I would get the goods. No, market failure. >IE: you get lung cancer when a Coal Power Plant burns Coal. Market failure, specifically an externality. You pay for lung cancer that was caused by other people. As I've stated previously this is not a market failure because this example depends on the idea of the commons. This exemplifies the failure of the idea of the commons, but not the market. >If you don't care about efficient markets, then you probably shouldn't call yourself an "ancap". If you're truly interested in having a discussion about morality and theory, why not cut out all the pretentious, snide comments? In this entire discussion I have only been respectful.