4 ms·

See my other response on this thread. My comment here was based entirely on what actually happened, not some theoretical view of how economies work in the abstr

by wycats 15y ago

See my other response on this thread. My comment here was based entirely on what actually happened, not some theoretical view of how economies work in the abstract.

smokeyj 15y ago
> My comment here was based entirely on what actually happened I'm not disagreeing with your historical account, just what you derived from it. You're essentially arguing networks would never exist unless the U.S government made it happen -- and that's why government must act as an "entrepreneur". I hear you, I'm saying this is naive and without evidence, and most likely exists to support your opinions of central planning. It's been tried, I recommend you investigate the history behind that (hint: it doesn't end well).
- wycats 15y ago
  Your argument here takes my claim that there are cases where government infrastructure bootstrapping (interstate highways, Internet) is useful and concludes that I would be in favor of a command-and-control economy. This is a classic reductio ad absurdum fallacy, and only works if your concept of how the economy works is very ideological.
  - smokeyj 15y ago
    You're confusing principle with ideology. We're discussing central planning verses distributed planning. I'm for a distributed economy that resembles a p2p network. I support p2p networks because it's robust and lacks a single point of failure -- and it's difficult to corrupt. You're saying, p2p networks will never work, because it's too ideological. Ok, cool story bro. But why is a centralized protocol better? That's what I want to know. There is no "hybrid" protocol, if a protocol is contingent on a centralized aspect, then it's a centralized protocol. Just because you have no principle doesn't make your ideology "moderate".
    - andylei 15y ago
      the real world is more complicated than you think it is. it's not a binary choice between p2p networks and command and control economies. bring your analogy back to the real world. the fact that government funds research does not preclude additional research. maybe the internet would have been invented without government funding, maybe not; i don't know, and neither do you. the point is that it's good to fund research because it can progress research. your analogy makes no sense, because "p2p" and "centralized protocol" are not mutually exclusive. in the current world, the government funds research, but (in general), it doesn't prevent anyone from funding research, so if you want to fund your own research, you can. there's no hybrid protocol, but the real world is a hybrid system. some research is privately funded, some is publicly funded. i think its good that way
  - ocdprogrammer 15y ago
    Don't forget the initial line of deduction: Paul=Libertarian & Libertarian+StateResearch!=Love & StateResearch=Internet => Paul+Internet!=Love. He just wanted to prove that not only StateReserch=>Internet.And there are some other weak implications there.
VMG 15y ago
My comment here was based entirely on what actually happened, not some theoretical view of how economies work in the abstract. Then you aren't allowed to speculate abstractly on how economies work. You are relying on one data point with no control group.
- wycats 15y ago
  You know, I've just about had enough of libertarians and conservatives claiming such moral superiority of their economic world view that they perceive any disagreement with it as obviously wrong. I was replying to a parent comment that claimed that ARPA wasn't particularly important in the greater scheme of things ("If it wasn't ARPA, it would have been something else"). I replied by pointing out that even when ARPA did exist, it took quite some time before the free market started churning out Internet alternatives (none of which really survived, by the way), so perhaps the initial bootstrapping was useful. I also pointed out the the ARPA internet defined the character of the "public internet", which most people here think is vastly superior to the walled garden alternatives that the free market cooked up years later. I didn't go into a long treatise on economics because that wasn't the point I was responding to. Just because I don't take every tangentially related opportunity to evangelize my personal thinking on economics does not mean that I'm ignorant about economics. I've said this before to people who take a moralistic tone on economics: if you are a true believer of purely free market economics thinking, please take the time to read extensively from respected economists who disagree with your world view. There are plenty of Nobel Prize winning economists who disagree with your position, so it shouldn't be hard. I, personally, have a somewhat nuanced (read: "not unprincipled") view largely because I have read extensively from people with radically different positions on economics. It really helps.
  - smokeyj 15y ago
    I demand half your salary. My economic theory permits me to take this from you. Don't worry, it's supported by academia and Paul Krugman, therefore you love it. Following your logic, this represents virtue. Yes, there's a wide array of economic theories. It's the equivalent of religion. Everyone has their own belief. Libertarians believe people shouldn't impose their beliefs on others. Why are you against choice? Shouldn't I get to choose how I invest my earnings? Do your theories trump my liberty?

by wycats 15y ago

See my other response on this thread. My comment here was based entirely on what actually happened, not some theoretical view of how economies work in the abstract.

smokeyj 15y ago

> My comment here was based entirely on what actually happened I'm not disagreeing with your historical account, just what you derived from it. You're essentially arguing networks would never exist unless the U.S government made it happen -- and that's why government must act as an "entrepreneur". I hear you, I'm saying this is naive and without evidence, and most likely exists to support your opinions of central planning. It's been tried, I recommend you investigate the history behind that (hint: it doesn't end well).

wycats 15y ago
Your argument here takes my claim that there are cases where government infrastructure bootstrapping (interstate highways, Internet) is useful and concludes that I would be in favor of a command-and-control economy. This is a classic reductio ad absurdum fallacy, and only works if your concept of how the economy works is very ideological.
- smokeyj 15y ago
  You're confusing principle with ideology. We're discussing central planning verses distributed planning. I'm for a distributed economy that resembles a p2p network. I support p2p networks because it's robust and lacks a single point of failure -- and it's difficult to corrupt. You're saying, p2p networks will never work, because it's too ideological. Ok, cool story bro. But why is a centralized protocol better? That's what I want to know. There is no "hybrid" protocol, if a protocol is contingent on a centralized aspect, then it's a centralized protocol. Just because you have no principle doesn't make your ideology "moderate".
  - andylei 15y ago
    the real world is more complicated than you think it is. it's not a binary choice between p2p networks and command and control economies. bring your analogy back to the real world. the fact that government funds research does not preclude additional research. maybe the internet would have been invented without government funding, maybe not; i don't know, and neither do you. the point is that it's good to fund research because it can progress research. your analogy makes no sense, because "p2p" and "centralized protocol" are not mutually exclusive. in the current world, the government funds research, but (in general), it doesn't prevent anyone from funding research, so if you want to fund your own research, you can. there's no hybrid protocol, but the real world is a hybrid system. some research is privately funded, some is publicly funded. i think its good that way
- ocdprogrammer 15y ago
  Don't forget the initial line of deduction: Paul=Libertarian & Libertarian+StateResearch!=Love & StateResearch=Internet => Paul+Internet!=Love. He just wanted to prove that not only StateReserch=>Internet.And there are some other weak implications there.

VMG 15y ago

My comment here was based entirely on what actually happened, not some theoretical view of how economies work in the abstract. Then you aren't allowed to speculate abstractly on how economies work. You are relying on one data point with no control group.

wycats 15y ago
You know, I've just about had enough of libertarians and conservatives claiming such moral superiority of their economic world view that they perceive any disagreement with it as obviously wrong. I was replying to a parent comment that claimed that ARPA wasn't particularly important in the greater scheme of things ("If it wasn't ARPA, it would have been something else"). I replied by pointing out that even when ARPA did exist, it took quite some time before the free market started churning out Internet alternatives (none of which really survived, by the way), so perhaps the initial bootstrapping was useful. I also pointed out the the ARPA internet defined the character of the "public internet", which most people here think is vastly superior to the walled garden alternatives that the free market cooked up years later. I didn't go into a long treatise on economics because that wasn't the point I was responding to. Just because I don't take every tangentially related opportunity to evangelize my personal thinking on economics does not mean that I'm ignorant about economics. I've said this before to people who take a moralistic tone on economics: if you are a true believer of purely free market economics thinking, please take the time to read extensively from respected economists who disagree with your world view. There are plenty of Nobel Prize winning economists who disagree with your position, so it shouldn't be hard. I, personally, have a somewhat nuanced (read: "not unprincipled") view largely because I have read extensively from people with radically different positions on economics. It really helps.
- smokeyj 15y ago
  I demand half your salary. My economic theory permits me to take this from you. Don't worry, it's supported by academia and Paul Krugman, therefore you love it. Following your logic, this represents virtue. Yes, there's a wide array of economic theories. It's the equivalent of religion. Everyone has their own belief. Libertarians believe people shouldn't impose their beliefs on others. Why are you against choice? Shouldn't I get to choose how I invest my earnings? Do your theories trump my liberty?