4 ms·

Taking an argument to it's logical conclusion isn't "falling apart". The best scenario for governance is anarchy; ideally we could all just do what we want. It

by roenxi 3y ago

Taking an argument to it's logical conclusion isn't "falling apart". The best scenario for governance is anarchy; ideally we could all just do what we want. It is a tautology that anything we're forced to do by the police is something we don't think is a good idea/in our interests. The problem with anarchy is that it will get toppled by a group - probably internally to the society - that is organised and forms a standing military. Organised factions tend to grow. The US is creeping in the same direction as a group like the USSR or China - an overdeveloped and too-powerful central bureaucracy - but much more slowly because it started from a well designed system with lots of checks and balances. But just because centralised power tends to be stable doesn't mean it is good, decentralised power is much more pleasant to live under. So the ideal government is anarchy, the practically ideal government is as close to anarchy as we can get without being destabilised by a military, and the reality of the situation is militarys form and tend to move away from anarchy towards tyranny. But that doesn't make them good.

Nevermark 3y ago
> The problem with anarchy is that it will get toppled by a group The benefits of anarchy get “toppled” the first moment someone violates another persons freedom, leaving them no recourse but ad hoc retaliation, and the unlimited risks of further repercussions to themselves and those they care about. Assuming they are left in any shape to do so. No group needed.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
What this is missing is that you can be forced to do something by someone other than a military. If a corporation pollutes the air, you're being forced to breathe polluted air. It's not in your interest for them to pollute the air, but it's in their interest because it's cheaper and they value money over incrementally cleaner air. Then you need a means to stop them from doing something they find to be in their own interest, because it isn't in yours and you didn't consent to it. The problem with this is that if you extend it to its logical conclusion, now you're not allowed to breathe because I didn't consent to you emitting CO2 from your lungs. The key here is to limit the government to the things that are both important and can only be feasibly accomplished through a monopoly on force. Prohibiting violence and monopolies, pricing major externalities, funding certain types of fundamental research, etc. Not prohibiting entirely consensual behavior or micromanaging marginal commercial activity or impairing your view of the bay by having the gall to construct housing during a housing shortfall. There can be some disagreement around the edges on what these things are, but the real hard part is finding a way to create checks and balances effective enough to resist when a wave of populism wants to stop imposing all of these restrictions on Their Guy. Because the thing that follows that is invariably centralization of power, corruption and injustice.
- roenxi 3y ago
  > It's not in your interest for them to pollute the air... Not at all a settled point. There is a strong correlation between air pollution and rapidly improving quality of life. I think it probably is in my interest. The best salary I drew in my life was when I lived in the region with the worst air pollution and that wasn't an accident. I think the evidence suggests governments have crippled society's capability to improve itself, in part through over-regulation of environmental issues based on faith and ideology rather than thinking seriously about what the optimal behaviour is.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > There is a strong correlation between air pollution and rapidly improving quality of life. There is a strong correlation between air pollution and industrialization and a strong correlation between industrialization and quality of life. That doesn't mean pollution improves quality of life, it means you want industrialization without pollution. To take a specific example, the ban on leaded gasoline was Good. Lead is powerfully toxic, the science on this is solid, and the negative consequence of the ban is that gasoline costs marginally more if at all. Now you can list many more examples of the EPA imposing stupid rules with a marginal benefit that doesn't even exceed their implementation costs which in aggregate significantly increase the cost of everything while having negative overall value. But it's not physically impossible to repeal all of those and keep the ban on leaded gasoline. The question is how to accomplish that in practice, and to maintain that as a stable equilibrium.
    - roenxi 3y ago
      > it means you want industrialization without pollution. If we have the option of industrialisation without pollution, why are the corporations polluting the air in your example? Nobody pollutes for the sheer joy of annoying their neighbours. The issue we face in the modern world is nobody knows how to do industrialisation without pollution. Governments banning pollution has just stifled industrialisation. Industrialisation and pollution is a better equilibrium point for all of us than the slow choking out of industry. The natural market equilibrium is typically fast improvement. Moving away from the equilibrium because the elites are inconvenienced by the side effects is rarely a good idea. I'll give you leaded fuels were a mistake, but by and large the anti-industrial policies have been more harm than good.

by roenxi 3y ago

Nevermark 3y ago

> The problem with anarchy is that it will get toppled by a group The benefits of anarchy get “toppled” the first moment someone violates another persons freedom, leaving them no recourse but ad hoc retaliation, and the unlimited risks of further repercussions to themselves and those they care about. Assuming they are left in any shape to do so. No group needed.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

What this is missing is that you can be forced to do something by someone other than a military. If a corporation pollutes the air, you're being forced to breathe polluted air. It's not in your interest for them to pollute the air, but it's in their interest because it's cheaper and they value money over incrementally cleaner air. Then you need a means to stop them from doing something they find to be in their own interest, because it isn't in yours and you didn't consent to it. The problem with this is that if you extend it to its logical conclusion, now you're not allowed to breathe because I didn't consent to you emitting CO2 from your lungs. The key here is to limit the government to the things that are both important and can only be feasibly accomplished through a monopoly on force. Prohibiting violence and monopolies, pricing major externalities, funding certain types of fundamental research, etc. Not prohibiting entirely consensual behavior or micromanaging marginal commercial activity or impairing your view of the bay by having the gall to construct housing during a housing shortfall. There can be some disagreement around the edges on what these things are, but the real hard part is finding a way to create checks and balances effective enough to resist when a wave of populism wants to stop imposing all of these restrictions on Their Guy. Because the thing that follows that is invariably centralization of power, corruption and injustice.

roenxi 3y ago
> It's not in your interest for them to pollute the air... Not at all a settled point. There is a strong correlation between air pollution and rapidly improving quality of life. I think it probably is in my interest. The best salary I drew in my life was when I lived in the region with the worst air pollution and that wasn't an accident. I think the evidence suggests governments have crippled society's capability to improve itself, in part through over-regulation of environmental issues based on faith and ideology rather than thinking seriously about what the optimal behaviour is.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > There is a strong correlation between air pollution and rapidly improving quality of life. There is a strong correlation between air pollution and industrialization and a strong correlation between industrialization and quality of life. That doesn't mean pollution improves quality of life, it means you want industrialization without pollution. To take a specific example, the ban on leaded gasoline was Good. Lead is powerfully toxic, the science on this is solid, and the negative consequence of the ban is that gasoline costs marginally more if at all. Now you can list many more examples of the EPA imposing stupid rules with a marginal benefit that doesn't even exceed their implementation costs which in aggregate significantly increase the cost of everything while having negative overall value. But it's not physically impossible to repeal all of those and keep the ban on leaded gasoline. The question is how to accomplish that in practice, and to maintain that as a stable equilibrium.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    > it means you want industrialization without pollution. If we have the option of industrialisation without pollution, why are the corporations polluting the air in your example? Nobody pollutes for the sheer joy of annoying their neighbours. The issue we face in the modern world is nobody knows how to do industrialisation without pollution. Governments banning pollution has just stifled industrialisation. Industrialisation and pollution is a better equilibrium point for all of us than the slow choking out of industry. The natural market equilibrium is typically fast improvement. Moving away from the equilibrium because the elites are inconvenienced by the side effects is rarely a good idea. I'll give you leaded fuels were a mistake, but by and large the anti-industrial policies have been more harm than good.