3 ms·

I disagree with him strongly on a lot of political issues, but he's right on the overarching philosophical point that people in most circumstances (business bur

I disagree with him strongly on a lot of political issues, but he's right on the overarching philosophical point that people in most circumstances (business bureaucracies with extensive lobbying arms being the worst offenders) want exemptions for themselves from "market discipline". It's amusing to me that those who seem to be in full support of "capitalism" still want an byzantine, violent (cf. Iraq) and incredibly expensive welfare system to protect their own standard of living. It seems that the secret for success in such an economy is to create a game in which nearly everyone's "wealth" increases, so no one gets pissed off because the game's being played in accordance with the comfortable and decadent lie that no one's standard of living can ever go down. Gradually this game drifts from reality, but aggregate psychology is such that the disparity isn't noticed until enormous, at which point a massive and painful correction occurs. This is when the maestros say "Sorry, we fucked up, but we can't help you now!" while chuckling all the way to the bank. Well... at least, that is what they do supposing there still are banks.

kiba 18y ago
People you think who are full supporter of capitalism, are actually supporter of bastarized capitalism. You want people who are called anarcho-capitalists. These group of people litterally believe that everything should be run by the free market. IE. polycentric law system, private courts, and private defense agencies. One interesting study of free market anarchism is midevial iceland. It managed to last for centuries. Basically, the title and office of cheftain were litterally for sale and anybody can buy the title. However, those cheftains doesn't collect taxes. No, they compete for people to follow them. This creates virtual jurisdictions rather than physical. Cheftains's job is to appoint judge and keep the peace. It work well too. In fact, abritation was so deeply embedded in their society, that they even tries a ghost for trespassing a house, making it haunted. They were confident that a good icelander ghost would respect the court. Even murder was treated as a private matter too. The dude that murdered the other dude have to pay the family's such and such fines after settling. If the family is too poor, they can sell the claim to somebody who can persecute the murderer. Otherwise, if the murderer refuse to pay his retribution fines. He will have no protection under the law and anybody can kill him with no consequences. A murderer also can be punished even harsher if he tries to conceal his guilt. Upon the murder of a man, he have to announce the fact and not travel beyond a certain distance. The eventual collapse of system is due to the fact that cheftains voted unanimously to convert to Christianity. So they got the first real tax in the form of a chruch tithe, which everybody is bound to support. The cheftains, no longer contrained by competition, can start misbehaving. Eventually it got so bad that the icelanders choose a Danish king over those warring cheftains.
- berntb 18y ago
  That was fun, but... a clan culture as a better way for modern society? :-) I thought a clan society was by definition made up of organized special interest groups? Just consider hiring someone at a company that wasn't from your clan, when your clan eldest/boss tell you that your idiot cousin needs a job. :-) The article formalized things for me I've always wondered about. But it reminds me a bit of the laments during the dying of the Roman empire. Everyone saw the problems but couldn't solve them. Is there any work on how to organize a society which avoids special interest groups? Or, at least, keeps the light on them?
  - kiba 18y ago
    The clan society actually remind me more of modern day Somalian system rather than Iceland. That society was actually doing better in comparsion with their neighbors in some aspect. Did you know that they have the cheapest international call rate on the continent? However, I know little about them since I never travel there.(Iceland is historical so that's a different story) One has to travel to Somalia to decide for themsleves if anarchy actually work. Even then, you have to take into political situtation so you don't get a skewed view.(The UN is trying to establish a state I heard) In as so much for special interest group. I thought such society will undobutly exists in a free market society but they probably will be kept in check by the free market. My big worry is more about the system collapsing into a centralized system, which become a big vector for corruption. If you want the definte work on how a free market society might work, you might want to read the Machinery of Freedom, written by David Friedman. However, I know no such works dealing only with organizing a society's incentive and disincentive structure to deal with corruption.
    - berntb 18y ago
      Check the term "holmgang" for an insight into how life was in the bad old days. I'm not an expert but from what I've read, research implies that the "ting" was more regulating/discussing the clan quarrels/warfare than judging as we define it today. (No reference saved, sorry.) Afaik, traditional societies before a central violence monopoly were generally, well, violent. Iceland was a hard place to survive, so the population might have had to work more and "play" less. (You can make some form of analogy between the old times and present international interactions; there is no police force to stop violence -- and clans with mutual support agreements abound... Ask an expert.) As a hard line atheist, it is not an easy thing for me to say that Christianity seemed to be an improvement. :-) Anyway, there is an old joke that the problem with anarchy is that it is too unstable. The time before a central state wasn't fun. I believe the tribal areas of Pakistan is a good indication on how it worked in Scandinavia.

kiba 18y ago

People you think who are full supporter of capitalism, are actually supporter of bastarized capitalism. You want people who are called anarcho-capitalists. These group of people litterally believe that everything should be run by the free market. IE. polycentric law system, private courts, and private defense agencies. One interesting study of free market anarchism is midevial iceland. It managed to last for centuries. Basically, the title and office of cheftain were litterally for sale and anybody can buy the title. However, those cheftains doesn't collect taxes. No, they compete for people to follow them. This creates virtual jurisdictions rather than physical. Cheftains's job is to appoint judge and keep the peace. It work well too. In fact, abritation was so deeply embedded in their society, that they even tries a ghost for trespassing a house, making it haunted. They were confident that a good icelander ghost would respect the court. Even murder was treated as a private matter too. The dude that murdered the other dude have to pay the family's such and such fines after settling. If the family is too poor, they can sell the claim to somebody who can persecute the murderer. Otherwise, if the murderer refuse to pay his retribution fines. He will have no protection under the law and anybody can kill him with no consequences. A murderer also can be punished even harsher if he tries to conceal his guilt. Upon the murder of a man, he have to announce the fact and not travel beyond a certain distance. The eventual collapse of system is due to the fact that cheftains voted unanimously to convert to Christianity. So they got the first real tax in the form of a chruch tithe, which everybody is bound to support. The cheftains, no longer contrained by competition, can start misbehaving. Eventually it got so bad that the icelanders choose a Danish king over those warring cheftains.

berntb 18y ago
That was fun, but... a clan culture as a better way for modern society? :-) I thought a clan society was by definition made up of organized special interest groups? Just consider hiring someone at a company that wasn't from your clan, when your clan eldest/boss tell you that your idiot cousin needs a job. :-) The article formalized things for me I've always wondered about. But it reminds me a bit of the laments during the dying of the Roman empire. Everyone saw the problems but couldn't solve them. Is there any work on how to organize a society which avoids special interest groups? Or, at least, keeps the light on them?
- kiba 18y ago
  The clan society actually remind me more of modern day Somalian system rather than Iceland. That society was actually doing better in comparsion with their neighbors in some aspect. Did you know that they have the cheapest international call rate on the continent? However, I know little about them since I never travel there.(Iceland is historical so that's a different story) One has to travel to Somalia to decide for themsleves if anarchy actually work. Even then, you have to take into political situtation so you don't get a skewed view.(The UN is trying to establish a state I heard) In as so much for special interest group. I thought such society will undobutly exists in a free market society but they probably will be kept in check by the free market. My big worry is more about the system collapsing into a centralized system, which become a big vector for corruption. If you want the definte work on how a free market society might work, you might want to read the Machinery of Freedom, written by David Friedman. However, I know no such works dealing only with organizing a society's incentive and disincentive structure to deal with corruption.
  - berntb 18y ago
    Check the term "holmgang" for an insight into how life was in the bad old days. I'm not an expert but from what I've read, research implies that the "ting" was more regulating/discussing the clan quarrels/warfare than judging as we define it today. (No reference saved, sorry.) Afaik, traditional societies before a central violence monopoly were generally, well, violent. Iceland was a hard place to survive, so the population might have had to work more and "play" less. (You can make some form of analogy between the old times and present international interactions; there is no police force to stop violence -- and clans with mutual support agreements abound... Ask an expert.) As a hard line atheist, it is not an easy thing for me to say that Christianity seemed to be an improvement. :-) Anyway, there is an old joke that the problem with anarchy is that it is too unstable. The time before a central state wasn't fun. I believe the tribal areas of Pakistan is a good indication on how it worked in Scandinavia.