5 ms·

>"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

by 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
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    You're assuming the social contract follows the conventions of legal contracts between parties. It doesn't. Attempting to shoehorn it into that mode doesn't work, neither does argument by assertion. while I do pay taxes, I never agreed to it. And if I were to enter into a business relationship with an entity because there was literally no other choice (an email service provider as counterparty, a local monopoly, a services provider selected by my employer), then what? Willing or otherwise, you've agreed to the terms, which don't include "whistle while you pay". Note that the State has also not consciously elected to support your ungrateful ass from the age of 0 to 18, prior to your age of majority, nor since. It simply does. That's its end of the bargain. without the use of government coercion I don't accept this limitation as it inherently ignores the fact that money is power, including political power, as well as the fact that all legal property is in fact a product of government coercion (as opposed to property by right of possession, might, moral suasion, tradition, or other constructs, which have their own origins). Oh, and "property rights" aren't all that old a thing: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=property+rights&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&search_plus_one=form&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cproperty%20rights%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=property+right... Please provide examples of the people or organizations able to arbitrage consistently, over time Any holder of more productive land or assets (the substance of David Ricardo's lament in his Law of Rent), extractive oil producers, patent trolls, any party who writes or influences legislation to their advantage (as noted and strongly criticised by Adam Smith), market manipulators, technology and software vendors with positive returns to scale and lock-in effects (AT&T, IBM, Xerox, Microsoft, Google, Facebook) ... It's a long list, really. I'm not claiming that the power is unlimited or extends for all time, but while it persists it can be exceptionally difficult to dislodge. The point is that initial leverage tends to multiply.

by nickff 13y ago

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
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  You're assuming the social contract follows the conventions of legal contracts between parties. It doesn't. Attempting to shoehorn it into that mode doesn't work, neither does argument by assertion. while I do pay taxes, I never agreed to it. And if I were to enter into a business relationship with an entity because there was literally no other choice (an email service provider as counterparty, a local monopoly, a services provider selected by my employer), then what? Willing or otherwise, you've agreed to the terms, which don't include "whistle while you pay". Note that the State has also not consciously elected to support your ungrateful ass from the age of 0 to 18, prior to your age of majority, nor since. It simply does. That's its end of the bargain. without the use of government coercion I don't accept this limitation as it inherently ignores the fact that money is power, including political power, as well as the fact that all legal property is in fact a product of government coercion (as opposed to property by right of possession, might, moral suasion, tradition, or other constructs, which have their own origins). Oh, and "property rights" aren't all that old a thing: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=property+rights&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&search_plus_one=form&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cproperty%20rights%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=property+right... Please provide examples of the people or organizations able to arbitrage consistently, over time Any holder of more productive land or assets (the substance of David Ricardo's lament in his Law of Rent), extractive oil producers, patent trolls, any party who writes or influences legislation to their advantage (as noted and strongly criticised by Adam Smith), market manipulators, technology and software vendors with positive returns to scale and lock-in effects (AT&T, IBM, Xerox, Microsoft, Google, Facebook) ... It's a long list, really. I'm not claiming that the power is unlimited or extends for all time, but while it persists it can be exceptionally difficult to dislodge. The point is that initial leverage tends to multiply.