4 ms·

> Here's the problem with that 'bedrock' you are standing on: the vast majority of us are not coerced at all. We've happily agreed to this system. Just like No

> Here's the problem with that 'bedrock' you are standing on: the vast majority of us are not coerced at all. We've happily agreed to this system. Just like North Koreans are not coerced at all and they've happily agreed to that system. > Think about it: how can people simultaneously be too dumb to do and see what is best for them under their current system but would be able to function just fine under if under a more pure market force dominated Anarcho-Capitalist framework? Because we know North Koreans would do just fine with less coercion, and we extend that same 'less-coercion' line of thinking to everyone. > Having diverse means of exchange seems more robust to me. Why does the federal government then not allow for competing currencies to the dollar? Why can't my employer pay me in gold (although 2 or 3 states have legalized this now - I wonder why!)? Why does all currency exchange have to be homogenized? You're speaking against ancap without actually having read any of its literature. I can tell by the silly arguments you're using, and the fact you can't see the propaganda you're fed. Get reading.

clavalle 12y ago
Gold is a currency. I've read a bit of literature -- I don't know how canonical it was because it was stuff I was pointed to in the middle of chats like this one but I found most of it to be very 'happy path philosophy' which is to say it didn't stand up to much critical reasoning. It seemed like I needed to accept the conclusions before it made sense in any more than a toy world way. It was all also not very surprising. I never had a 'Oh, well now that makes sense' kind of moments. As soon as I see that it may be worth my time, I'll have a look, but if the answer is 'well the market works well in this area it must work well in all areas' and 'we'll know it works when we try.' or 'some Norwegian clans 800 years ago tried it for 75 years and it worked great (ignoring the fact they had clan councils and chiefs that enforced common laws -- 'but they could chose to change clans!'). Anyway, as far as I can tell it is pretty weak sauce on the order of Objectivism. If you have a pointer to something remotely enlightening I'd like to see it. So far the proponents and the literature I've come across has been pretty hollow.
- innguest 12y ago
  I don't know about your Norwegian example, and it might be because I'm ignorant of it; or you might be confusing it with Iceland 1200 years ago. If so, remember they had that system for 300 years (longer than the US has existed) and that they could not only choose which 'clan' they belonged to but also could literally buy seats in the law-making house. This makes it a voluntary (therefore, anarcho-capitalist) society. I'd point you in the direction of any Austrian Economics literature. I don't come from any "objectivist" thinking as it seems to me most of it comes from fiction, which I don't read. But if you learn how wealth can be created from simple exchange between two people, that's the aha moment. I'd recommend PraxGirl's Praxeology series on youtube, and Schiff's How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes.
  - clavalle 12y ago
    See here is an example of the 'everyone is stupid' mindset: I am pretty sure everyone on HN understands how wealth is created through exchange. That is Econ 101 stuff. If that is the aha moment, you are many years too late. I just don't agree that all human exchanges necessarily have to be translatable into currency. It seems unnecessarily limiting. I think it is perfectly acceptable for people to agree to systems where no currency or barter exchange is necessary. For example, buying seats in a law making house...how is that an improvement over a representative voting scheme that is not paid for?
    - innguest 12y ago
      1. Not everyone takes Econ 101. 2. Econ 101 is usually taught from a Keynesian point of view (if you study Keynes' life you'll find out how much he really knew about economics) 3. I'm talking about the stuff that starts at 5:50 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgsS683F76M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgsS683F76M . If you understand that you can understand that from the selfish desires of two people to profit, they end up helping each other. This is something I believe Objectivism phrases another way and people have trouble understanding - Obama himself said "I don't know when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness", which shows even the president doesn't understand this point. So you probably haven't had your aha moment yet, as most people. There are several of those epiphanies, though. Another one that you're due is realizing money is just an indirection for labor. It's proof that labor was performed usefully by someone else at some point in time. It's a concretization of capital so we can work a bunch and decide to utilize the capital earned at a later point in time. Which means any vilification of money is baseless as money is just a product that everyone collectively decided is acceptable in any direction of a given exchange. Money is a shortcut, it does not cause evil, and if we banned all currencies and precious things we'd still come up with tying knots on grass blades or something - anything to prove that some labor was done at some point, and to decouple the two sides of any exchange (1. selling something I have, 2. getting something I want). Again, I'd recommend the Praxeology videos linked above. I wonder what other means of exchanging with other people you can think of that is not money and the desire to profit (praxeologically, feeling good about donating is a profit). To your question as to how buying seats is an improvement... it's because it makes the process transparent. Today's seats are also for "sale" but it's a complicated path full of influence games to get to the point you can even "bid" (watch House of Cards to see what not implementing this Icelandic idea begets).

clavalle 12y ago

Gold is a currency. I've read a bit of literature -- I don't know how canonical it was because it was stuff I was pointed to in the middle of chats like this one but I found most of it to be very 'happy path philosophy' which is to say it didn't stand up to much critical reasoning. It seemed like I needed to accept the conclusions before it made sense in any more than a toy world way. It was all also not very surprising. I never had a 'Oh, well now that makes sense' kind of moments. As soon as I see that it may be worth my time, I'll have a look, but if the answer is 'well the market works well in this area it must work well in all areas' and 'we'll know it works when we try.' or 'some Norwegian clans 800 years ago tried it for 75 years and it worked great (ignoring the fact they had clan councils and chiefs that enforced common laws -- 'but they could chose to change clans!'). Anyway, as far as I can tell it is pretty weak sauce on the order of Objectivism. If you have a pointer to something remotely enlightening I'd like to see it. So far the proponents and the literature I've come across has been pretty hollow.

innguest 12y ago
I don't know about your Norwegian example, and it might be because I'm ignorant of it; or you might be confusing it with Iceland 1200 years ago. If so, remember they had that system for 300 years (longer than the US has existed) and that they could not only choose which 'clan' they belonged to but also could literally buy seats in the law-making house. This makes it a voluntary (therefore, anarcho-capitalist) society. I'd point you in the direction of any Austrian Economics literature. I don't come from any "objectivist" thinking as it seems to me most of it comes from fiction, which I don't read. But if you learn how wealth can be created from simple exchange between two people, that's the aha moment. I'd recommend PraxGirl's Praxeology series on youtube, and Schiff's How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes.
- clavalle 12y ago
  See here is an example of the 'everyone is stupid' mindset: I am pretty sure everyone on HN understands how wealth is created through exchange. That is Econ 101 stuff. If that is the aha moment, you are many years too late. I just don't agree that all human exchanges necessarily have to be translatable into currency. It seems unnecessarily limiting. I think it is perfectly acceptable for people to agree to systems where no currency or barter exchange is necessary. For example, buying seats in a law making house...how is that an improvement over a representative voting scheme that is not paid for?
  - innguest 12y ago
    1. Not everyone takes Econ 101. 2. Econ 101 is usually taught from a Keynesian point of view (if you study Keynes' life you'll find out how much he really knew about economics) 3. I'm talking about the stuff that starts at 5:50 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgsS683F76M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgsS683F76M . If you understand that you can understand that from the selfish desires of two people to profit, they end up helping each other. This is something I believe Objectivism phrases another way and people have trouble understanding - Obama himself said "I don't know when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness", which shows even the president doesn't understand this point. So you probably haven't had your aha moment yet, as most people. There are several of those epiphanies, though. Another one that you're due is realizing money is just an indirection for labor. It's proof that labor was performed usefully by someone else at some point in time. It's a concretization of capital so we can work a bunch and decide to utilize the capital earned at a later point in time. Which means any vilification of money is baseless as money is just a product that everyone collectively decided is acceptable in any direction of a given exchange. Money is a shortcut, it does not cause evil, and if we banned all currencies and precious things we'd still come up with tying knots on grass blades or something - anything to prove that some labor was done at some point, and to decouple the two sides of any exchange (1. selling something I have, 2. getting something I want). Again, I'd recommend the Praxeology videos linked above. I wonder what other means of exchanging with other people you can think of that is not money and the desire to profit (praxeologically, feeling good about donating is a profit). To your question as to how buying seats is an improvement... it's because it makes the process transparent. Today's seats are also for "sale" but it's a complicated path full of influence games to get to the point you can even "bid" (watch House of Cards to see what not implementing this Icelandic idea begets).