3 ms·

>"[T]axes are and always will be a form of mutual coercion, mutually agreed on." You appear to believe that my birth in a high-tax country is tantamount to acc

by nickff 13y ago

>"[T]axes are and always will be a form of mutual coercion, mutually agreed on." You appear to believe that my birth in a high-tax country is tantamount to acceptance of a social contract with an arbitrary tax level clause (subject to change without notice). For a valid contract, three elements are required: offer, acceptance, and competent persons.[1] I would contend that at my time of birth, I was not a competent person, and even then, I doubt that I would have accepted the contract which you are proposing. >"Engineering systems almost always include negative feedback loops to prevent runaway destructive trends. Its a concept foreign to much of economics. Not in the least helped by the anti-empirical faith-based fundamentalism of Libertarian dogma that seems to be growing in popularity." The problem is that democracy has almost no feedback at all, as people have very little incentive to accept that the policies they voted for have caused real harms; in addition, there are high switching costs when it comes to political views.[2] Libertarians usually resort to two arguments, economic efficiency, and the morality of coercion; I am not sure which of these involves the "dogma" you describe, but I will assume you speak of the economic arguments. You state that there is no feedback in markets, when I believe the opposite is true, as markets react to new information, though they may not always do it very well; the efficient-market hypothesis explains this, and is entirely compatible with feedback control systems theory, (especially the strong form EMH).[3] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_that_Failed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_that_Failed [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis

dredmorbius 13y ago
You appear to believe I accept your premises, definitions, logic, and conclusions concerning a social contract, or that it's material at all to this matter. I don't. However, to invoke your own logic, assuming you've reached age of majority, you've consciously accepted that contract of which you speak. The problem is that democracy... Indeed. Those liberal concepts are rather problematic in many ways. I disagree that they have no feedback, and arguably democratic forms of governance have far better feedback systems than others. Their chief advantage isn't that they achieve the best results, but as Plato observed: they avoid the worst. Libertarian dogma is grounded in von Mises Praxeology, and its axiomatic refutation of empiricism. You state that there is no feedback in markets. No, I do not. The efficient-market hypothesis is bunk. See Quiggin, Zombie Economics. Full chapter on the topic.
- nickff 13y ago
  >"However, to invoke your own logic, assuming you've reached age of majority, you've consciously accepted that contract of which you speak." I have not agreed to the contract. I never have, and I never will. The only way that my actions can be interpreted as acceptance of the offer is that I have not left the nation I currently reside within; and this is not how contracts work. >"taxes are and always will be a form of mutual coercion, mutually agreed on." I never agreed. >"democratic forms of governance have far better feedback systems than others. Their chief advantage isn't that they achieve the best results, but as Plato observed: they avoid the worst." I agree with you entirely, that democracy is the best type of government available at the moment, but that is faint praise. >"The efficient-market hypothesis is bunk. See Quiggin, Zombie Economics. Full chapter on the topic." I doubt we will ever agree on this, and I accept that there are a number of valid criticisms of EMH; but if the market is inefficient, some people should be able to find the inefficiencies and profit from them, of which there are few examples (except ephemeral ones).
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    this is not how contracts work You're invoking a "no true Scottsman" fallacy. That is, in fact, how this contract works. I never agreed. Do you pay your taxes? You're agreeing. Possibly under duress or objection, but you're agreeing. And no, I don't subscribe to the whole Libertarian spiel about voluntary vs. involuntary participation. if the market is inefficient, some people should be able to find the inefficiencies and profit from them That is, in fact, one of the larger inefficiencies of the market: that socially or long-term nonoptimal conditions can be arbitraged for personal gain. Regarding the longer view, there are numerous failures, including how markets break down under more general social failure, volatility, and, as J.M. Keynes noted, the capacity for markets to remain irrational longer than any given investor can remain solvent. Smart cookie that man.
    - nickff 13y ago
      >"You're invoking a "no true Scottsman" fallacy. That is, in fact, how this contract works.' No it is not; valid contracts require explicit offer, and acceptance (lack of opt-out is not acceptance), without duress (i.e. deportation or imprisonment).[1] >"Do you pay your taxes? You're agreeing. Possibly under duress or objection, but you're agreeing." I said that I never agreed, and while I do pay taxes, I never agreed to it. >"I don't subscribe to the whole Libertarian spiel about voluntary vs. involuntary participation" Next time you get robbed, just remember that is an involuntary charitable contribution for the welfare of the thief; this would give me little comfort, but it seems you don't mind. >"socially or long-term nonoptimal conditions can be arbitraged for personal gain. " Please provide examples of the people or organizations able to arbitrage consistently, over time, without the use of government coercion (i.e. no government granted monopoly or bailout). If you do happen to find this, you may want to keep it secret, so that you may have a monopoly on the arbitrage. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract
TheCoelacanth 13y ago
You are free to leave the country and renounce your citizenship. The fact that you have not constitutes acceptance of the social contract.

by nickff 13y ago

dredmorbius 13y ago

You appear to believe I accept your premises, definitions, logic, and conclusions concerning a social contract, or that it's material at all to this matter. I don't. However, to invoke your own logic, assuming you've reached age of majority, you've consciously accepted that contract of which you speak. The problem is that democracy... Indeed. Those liberal concepts are rather problematic in many ways. I disagree that they have no feedback, and arguably democratic forms of governance have far better feedback systems than others. Their chief advantage isn't that they achieve the best results, but as Plato observed: they avoid the worst. Libertarian dogma is grounded in von Mises Praxeology, and its axiomatic refutation of empiricism. You state that there is no feedback in markets. No, I do not. The efficient-market hypothesis is bunk. See Quiggin, Zombie Economics. Full chapter on the topic.

nickff 13y ago
>"However, to invoke your own logic, assuming you've reached age of majority, you've consciously accepted that contract of which you speak." I have not agreed to the contract. I never have, and I never will. The only way that my actions can be interpreted as acceptance of the offer is that I have not left the nation I currently reside within; and this is not how contracts work. >"taxes are and always will be a form of mutual coercion, mutually agreed on." I never agreed. >"democratic forms of governance have far better feedback systems than others. Their chief advantage isn't that they achieve the best results, but as Plato observed: they avoid the worst." I agree with you entirely, that democracy is the best type of government available at the moment, but that is faint praise. >"The efficient-market hypothesis is bunk. See Quiggin, Zombie Economics. Full chapter on the topic." I doubt we will ever agree on this, and I accept that there are a number of valid criticisms of EMH; but if the market is inefficient, some people should be able to find the inefficiencies and profit from them, of which there are few examples (except ephemeral ones).
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  this is not how contracts work You're invoking a "no true Scottsman" fallacy. That is, in fact, how this contract works. I never agreed. Do you pay your taxes? You're agreeing. Possibly under duress or objection, but you're agreeing. And no, I don't subscribe to the whole Libertarian spiel about voluntary vs. involuntary participation. if the market is inefficient, some people should be able to find the inefficiencies and profit from them That is, in fact, one of the larger inefficiencies of the market: that socially or long-term nonoptimal conditions can be arbitraged for personal gain. Regarding the longer view, there are numerous failures, including how markets break down under more general social failure, volatility, and, as J.M. Keynes noted, the capacity for markets to remain irrational longer than any given investor can remain solvent. Smart cookie that man.
  - nickff 13y ago
    >"You're invoking a "no true Scottsman" fallacy. That is, in fact, how this contract works.' No it is not; valid contracts require explicit offer, and acceptance (lack of opt-out is not acceptance), without duress (i.e. deportation or imprisonment).[1] >"Do you pay your taxes? You're agreeing. Possibly under duress or objection, but you're agreeing." I said that I never agreed, and while I do pay taxes, I never agreed to it. >"I don't subscribe to the whole Libertarian spiel about voluntary vs. involuntary participation" Next time you get robbed, just remember that is an involuntary charitable contribution for the welfare of the thief; this would give me little comfort, but it seems you don't mind. >"socially or long-term nonoptimal conditions can be arbitraged for personal gain. " Please provide examples of the people or organizations able to arbitrage consistently, over time, without the use of government coercion (i.e. no government granted monopoly or bailout). If you do happen to find this, you may want to keep it secret, so that you may have a monopoly on the arbitrage. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract

TheCoelacanth 13y ago

You are free to leave the country and renounce your citizenship. The fact that you have not constitutes acceptance of the social contract.