4 ms·

Anytime someone lays out an argument by stating that some other group of people isn't intelligent enough to self govern, you should be suspicious of the charact

by shingen 15y ago

Anytime someone lays out an argument by stating that some other group of people isn't intelligent enough to self govern, you should be suspicious of the character and intentions of the person making that argument. Whether that applies to Thiel or not I have no clue, I haven't seen all his statement on the libertarian colony proposal (I've just seen brief discussions on it).

dantheman 15y ago
If, the 3pt14159 was referring to seasteading http://www.seasteading.org http://www.seasteading.org Then the entire purpose is to try and live in the absence of government through voluntary cooperation and nonaggression. It's unfortunate that an experiment like this cannot take place on land - no government will ever voluntarily cede control of land & people that it does not own. In general the theory is that current government functions can be better handled by the market. That is, police and justice can be better served when they are enforced through voluntary contracts. For instance, the war on drugs, abusive police, the TSA, and all sorts of other detrimental policies will be more difficult to maintain when the people are your customers.
- toyg 15y ago
  In reality, "a customer" is whoever pays the most money for something you are selling. In the modern world, this would be corporations and rich individuals, not "the people". The rest is left as an exercise to the reader.
  - pdonis 15y ago
    > In reality, "a customer" is whoever pays the most money for something you are selling. In the modern world, this would be corporations and rich individuals, not "the people". If this were true, corporations and rich individuals would own everything. They don't. Also, if it were true, nobody but corporations and rich individuals would be able to buy anything. Are you having trouble buying groceries because corporations and rich individuals have snapped them all up? The correct definition of "customer" is "anyone who pays any price for what you are selling, that you are willing to sell it for". As long as the item is worth less to you and more to the customer than a price you can both agree on, the transaction is a mutual gain for both of you. In a true free market, if there are no such customers--because what you're selling isn't worth enough to any of them to pay a price you are willing to accept--then you go out of business. Since in such a market you can't force anyone to buy your product--they only will if it's worth more to them than what they pay--you can only stay in business by providing mutual gain. That principle would apply just as well to services like law enforcement, if they were provided in a true free market.
    - toyg 15y ago
      > If this were true, corporations and rich individuals would own everything. They don't. Uh, there is very little they don't own or control, to be honest. Even if they didn't, assuming the current trend of privatizing even the most essential services continues, it will be the case in just a couple of decades. > Are you having trouble buying groceries because corporations and rich individuals have snapped them all up? Am I having trouble buying some groceries, because rich people have pushed prices so high, or in some cases because corporations buy all of them in order to resell them in a different, more expensive form? Why, yes. But I digress. > In a true free market, if there are no such customers--because what you're selling isn't worth enough to any of them to pay a price you are willing to accept--then you go out of business. Do you seriously think a service like TSA is not useful to any corporation? Like franchise shops in airport lounges selling bottles of water at three times the market price... Also, your reasoning completely ignores forces, like advertising, which are used to create artificial demand. They would still exist in a free market, probably even more so (because competition would be even harder). > That principle would apply just as well to services like law enforcement, if they were provided in a true free market. Rich people would enjoy premium protection at premium prices, and poor people would receive little or no protection because they cannot afford more. Wouldn't that be fun, eh? Reminds me of the US healthcare market, that other miracle of the Free Market.
      - Jach 15y ago
        Do you really think the US healthcare market is a shining example of the Free Market Gone Wrong? The US health system is anything but free market, the government has its influence at every level. To start off with, let's pick on a topic often picked on here, patents: http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinal09.pdf http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinal09.pdf After you've read that, let's note that I can't as a chemical manufacturer produce any drug I want at any quantity I want and sell it, and as a consumer I can't buy any drug I want even out-of-country, where in a free market I could do both these things. People die waiting for new drugs or procedures to go through the process, it's not uncommon for people to go out of country to a US-trained doctor to have the procedure/treatment because it's illegal in the US. Some free market we have.

by shingen 15y ago

dantheman 15y ago

If, the 3pt14159 was referring to seasteading http://www.seasteading.org http://www.seasteading.org Then the entire purpose is to try and live in the absence of government through voluntary cooperation and nonaggression. It's unfortunate that an experiment like this cannot take place on land - no government will ever voluntarily cede control of land & people that it does not own. In general the theory is that current government functions can be better handled by the market. That is, police and justice can be better served when they are enforced through voluntary contracts. For instance, the war on drugs, abusive police, the TSA, and all sorts of other detrimental policies will be more difficult to maintain when the people are your customers.

toyg 15y ago
In reality, "a customer" is whoever pays the most money for something you are selling. In the modern world, this would be corporations and rich individuals, not "the people". The rest is left as an exercise to the reader.
- pdonis 15y ago
  > In reality, "a customer" is whoever pays the most money for something you are selling. In the modern world, this would be corporations and rich individuals, not "the people". If this were true, corporations and rich individuals would own everything. They don't. Also, if it were true, nobody but corporations and rich individuals would be able to buy anything. Are you having trouble buying groceries because corporations and rich individuals have snapped them all up? The correct definition of "customer" is "anyone who pays any price for what you are selling, that you are willing to sell it for". As long as the item is worth less to you and more to the customer than a price you can both agree on, the transaction is a mutual gain for both of you. In a true free market, if there are no such customers--because what you're selling isn't worth enough to any of them to pay a price you are willing to accept--then you go out of business. Since in such a market you can't force anyone to buy your product--they only will if it's worth more to them than what they pay--you can only stay in business by providing mutual gain. That principle would apply just as well to services like law enforcement, if they were provided in a true free market.
  - toyg 15y ago
    > If this were true, corporations and rich individuals would own everything. They don't. Uh, there is very little they don't own or control, to be honest. Even if they didn't, assuming the current trend of privatizing even the most essential services continues, it will be the case in just a couple of decades. > Are you having trouble buying groceries because corporations and rich individuals have snapped them all up? Am I having trouble buying some groceries, because rich people have pushed prices so high, or in some cases because corporations buy all of them in order to resell them in a different, more expensive form? Why, yes. But I digress. > In a true free market, if there are no such customers--because what you're selling isn't worth enough to any of them to pay a price you are willing to accept--then you go out of business. Do you seriously think a service like TSA is not useful to any corporation? Like franchise shops in airport lounges selling bottles of water at three times the market price... Also, your reasoning completely ignores forces, like advertising, which are used to create artificial demand. They would still exist in a free market, probably even more so (because competition would be even harder). > That principle would apply just as well to services like law enforcement, if they were provided in a true free market. Rich people would enjoy premium protection at premium prices, and poor people would receive little or no protection because they cannot afford more. Wouldn't that be fun, eh? Reminds me of the US healthcare market, that other miracle of the Free Market.
    - Jach 15y ago
      Do you really think the US healthcare market is a shining example of the Free Market Gone Wrong? The US health system is anything but free market, the government has its influence at every level. To start off with, let's pick on a topic often picked on here, patents: http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinal09.pdf http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinal09.pdf After you've read that, let's note that I can't as a chemical manufacturer produce any drug I want at any quantity I want and sell it, and as a consumer I can't buy any drug I want even out-of-country, where in a free market I could do both these things. People die waiting for new drugs or procedures to go through the process, it's not uncommon for people to go out of country to a US-trained doctor to have the procedure/treatment because it's illegal in the US. Some free market we have.