Big Head Press Forum

Online Comics => Escape From Terra => Topic started by: ContraryGuy on September 02, 2011, 09:01:50 am

Title: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: ContraryGuy on September 02, 2011, 09:01:50 am
It has been argued that AnCap can and would handle all situations that arise better than any governmental entity.
My question is, if you are on a planet with weather, such as Earth, and that weather develops into a damaging storm, how would AnCap handle the recovery and rebuilding?

For those you dont know, or havent heard, recently the Eastern coast of the United States was hit by an unusually large (for the east coast) earthquake which resulted in minor damage.  A few days later, a large hurricane swept up the east coast causing major flooding.

And so, roads are washed out, bridges destroyed, buildings damaged.  How would AnCap spring into action to rescue stranded people, bring food to those cut off, respond to all the emergency problems which are too immediate to put out for capitalistic bid?

If their is no central authority to provide immediate funds for immediate needs, and the cost of the disaster exceeds a localitys current cash on hand, what does it do?  Let its citizens perish?

Yes, it could borrow from other localitys; but what if the power is out and the telecom doesnt work without power?

I am hoping for thoughtful considered answers.  I appreciate the pioneer spirit of AnCap, but how would it work to rescue New Jersey?
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: macsnafu on September 02, 2011, 09:15:36 am
Ask the people of New Orleans.  Wal-Mart was better organized and provided more help than FEMA when New Orleans had their disaster.

Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: SandySandfort on September 02, 2011, 03:01:53 pm
Ask the people of New Orleans.  Wal-Mart was better organized and provided more help than FEMA when New Orleans had their disaster.

Plus there is the Red Cross, an NGO. Actually, for disaster relief, the Salvation Army, another NGO, is usually already on the scene when the Red Cross finally rolls in. Of course, there are volunteer firemen, private search and rescue clubs, church groups, militias, etc. They exists now. My guess is with out the tax and regulatory burden we already carry for vastly less efficient, clumsy and dangerous government "solutions" such as FEMA and the National Guard, all of the non-governmental solutions would be way more robust, as they were in the past.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: sam on September 03, 2011, 02:58:58 am
It has been argued that AnCap can and would handle all situations that arise better than any governmental entity.
My question is, if you are on a planet with weather, such as Earth, and that weather develops into a damaging storm, how would AnCap handle the recovery and rebuilding?

For those you dont know, or havent heard, recently the Eastern coast of the United States was hit by an unusually large (for the east coast) earthquake which resulted in minor damage.  A few days later, a large hurricane swept up the east coast causing major flooding.

And so, roads are washed out, bridges destroyed, buildings damaged.  How would AnCap spring into action to rescue stranded people, bring food to those cut off, respond to all the emergency problems which are too immediate to put out for capitalistic bid?

In Queensland, during the floods, numerous ferry services appeared, which were mostly or entirely private enterprise and were launched by private initiative.  They frequently charged fairly high (emergency) prices.

Most of the bridges and roads that were destroyed were government roads, which the government repaired.  Some of the roads, and one of the railways, were privately owned, which private enterprise repaired.

Quite a lot of repair work was done by neighborhood volunteer teams.  A major government road was cleared from impassable to barely usable by people who needed the road.  They just bulldozed it.

A lot of people just started using boats.  If you needed to get to a flooded friend, you trailered a boat to where the road went under water, then launched the boat.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: dough560 on September 03, 2011, 09:56:21 pm
Word is, private efforts in Joplin, MO, responded faster with better results, than government bureaucrats.  Also remember for every $1.00 or government support, we paid another $1.40+ in service fees.

In every case.  Areas responding with private initiative, recovered faster than areas which waited for government assistance.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: ContraryGuy on September 06, 2011, 08:39:35 am
Ask the people of New Orleans.  Wal-Mart was better organized and provided more help than FEMA when New Orleans had their disaster.

Plus there is the Red Cross, an NGO. Actually, for disaster relief, the Salvation Army, another NGO, is usually already on the scene when the Red Cross finally rolls in. Of course, there are volunteer firemen, private search and rescue clubs, church groups, militias, etc. They exists now. My guess is with out the tax and regulatory burden we already carry for vastly less efficient, clumsy and dangerous government "solutions" such as FEMA and the National Guard, all of the non-governmental solutions would be way more robust, as they were in the past.

Thats all well and true, but what happens when the needy are on the other side of a washed out bridge?  With no money to pay for the private helicopter service?
Capitalism says "No Money, No help."

You say that in the past all NGO solutions were *way* better.  Could you provide me with some examples? 
I dont remember the Salvation Army plucking people off of rooftops with helicopters after Katrina.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: ContraryGuy on September 06, 2011, 08:46:15 am
It has been argued that AnCap can and would handle all situations that arise better than any governmental entity.
My question is, if you are on a planet with weather, such as Earth, and that weather develops into a damaging storm, how would AnCap handle the recovery and rebuilding?

For those you dont know, or havent heard, recently the Eastern coast of the United States was hit by an unusually large (for the east coast) earthquake which resulted in minor damage.  A few days later, a large hurricane swept up the east coast causing major flooding.

And so, roads are washed out, bridges destroyed, buildings damaged.  How would AnCap spring into action to rescue stranded people, bring food to those cut off, respond to all the emergency problems which are too immediate to put out for capitalistic bid?

In Queensland, during the floods, numerous ferry services appeared, which were mostly or entirely private enterprise and were launched by private initiative.  They frequently charged fairly high (emergency) prices.

Most of the bridges and roads that were destroyed were government roads, which the government repaired.  Some of the roads, and one of the railways, were privately owned, which private enterprise repaired.

Quite a lot of repair work was done by neighborhood volunteer teams.  A major government road was cleared from impassable to barely usable by people who needed the road.  They just bulldozed it.

A lot of people just started using boats.  If you needed to get to a flooded friend, you trailered a boat to where the road went under water, then launched the boat.


Thats all well and good for Queensland, where everything is flat, and the damage is from gently creeping water.
But,
A)what if you dont have a bulldozer handy?
B)what happens when the waterways are narrow, and surrounded by steep hills, and the current rips away your boat before it is even off the trailer?
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: ContraryGuy on September 06, 2011, 08:49:03 am
Word is, private efforts in Joplin, MO, responded faster with better results, than government bureaucrats.  Also remember for every $1.00 or government support, we paid another $1.40+ in service fees.

In every case.  Areas responding with private initiative, recovered faster than areas which waited for government assistance.

It is so good to know that private philanthropy rebuilt the high school, the hospital and all the houses and businesses.
As well as repaving the roads and the restarting electricity.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: dough560 on September 06, 2011, 02:48:00 pm
Contrary, you're not thinking again.

In our society the government controls / owns the infrastructure you mentioned.  It is illegal for individuals to interfere with government monopolies.  Just remember, for each dollar "restored" the government kept $1.40+ for self support.

Individuals began rebuilding.  Funding generally came from insurance, personal savings and private loans....  In-spite of regulatory interference.  Where there were shortfalls, yes some people knelt down and begged the government for help.  Often, what they got was not what they needed or asked for.  In other cases, private initiatives were "too successful" and the governments shut them down.

The last areas being rebuilt (someday) are those whose population are totally dependent on the government.  In the mean time, individuals and Non Government Organizations are supporting those individuals.

Couple of years back, one of the tax reform groups released a study of all the taxes we pay.  Not just the obvious like Income and Social Security Taxes, but the hidden taxes built into everything.  They found the average citizen did not finish paying these taxes, until late August.  In other words, the governments steal everything we earn from January through August and we live on and prepare for the future on what we earn from September through December.  Under these conditions, it is necessary for both adults in a family to work, in order to carry the tax burden.  Our entire tax structure is designed to keep the poor, poor, make the rich, poor and prevent individuals from amassing wealth which would negate the need for government services....Individuals become and remain dependent on the government for at least some aspect of their existence.

Take a look at Forbes' Flat Tax Proposal.  The various governments condemned and derided it at its inception....  Why?  The proposal encourages individuals to amass wealth, negating the need for government services.  A rough example: a family of 4 would not have paid taxes until they exceeded $50,000 in income.  For earnings over $50,000, they paid a flat tax of 17%.  The tax rate was designed  to lower as the need for government services decreased.  This proposal had the added advantage of limiting TransProg abilities for power assumption and social engineering.

Without government restrictions and interference, we would not "Need" FEMA.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: ContraryGuy on September 07, 2011, 10:56:44 am
Contrary, you're not thinking again.

In our society the government controls / owns the infrastructure you mentioned.  It is illegal for individuals to interfere with government monopolies.  Just remember, for each dollar "restored" the government kept $1.40+ for self support.

Maybe where you live.  Where I live, in the West, a person is allowed to introduce for his own use infrastructure that takes the load off of public infrastructure.  Private wells for water, septic systems for sewer, and solar panels for electricity generation.  And others, as is seen fit.

Quote
Individuals began rebuilding.  Funding generally came from insurance, personal savings and private loans....  In-spite of regulatory interference.  Where there were shortfalls, yes some people knelt down and begged the government for help.  Often, what they got was not what they needed or asked for.  In other cases, private initiatives were "too successful" and the governments shut them down.

Link, please.

Quote
The last areas being rebuilt (someday) are those whose population are totally dependent on the government.  In the mean time, individuals and Non Government Organizations are supporting those individuals.

Link, please.

Quote
Couple of years back, one of the tax reform groups

Name, please.  Grover Nordquist/Americans for Tax Reform is not a trusted source.

Quote
released a study of all the taxes we pay.  Not just the obvious like Income and Social Security Taxes, but the hidden taxes built into everything.  They found the average citizen did not finish paying these taxes, until late August.  In other words, the governments steal everything we earn from January through August and we live on and prepare for the future on what we earn from September through December.  Under these conditions, it is necessary for both adults in a family to work, in order to carry the tax burden.  Our entire tax structure is designed to keep the poor, poor, make the rich, poor and prevent individuals from amassing wealth which would negate the need for government services....Individuals become and remain dependent on the government for at least some aspect of their existence.

There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.  A report put out by an obviously biased agency will say whatever the originating agency wishes it to say.

Quote
Take a look at Forbes' Flat Tax Proposal.  The various governments condemned and derided it at its inception....  Why?  The proposal encourages individuals to amass wealth, negating the need for government services.  A rough example: a family of 4 would not have paid taxes until they exceeded $50,000 in income.  For earnings over $50,000, they paid a flat tax of 17%.  The tax rate was designed  to lower as the need for government services decreased. 

I agreed with Forbes' flat tax proposal.  It went nowhere because the Righties saw that their favorite tax giveaways to campaign sponsors would evaporate like morning dew.

Quote
This proposal had the added advantage of limiting TransProg abilities for power assumption and social engineering.

Lefties arent the only ones involved in power grabs.  See also Wisconsin, Michigan (Lower Peninsula of) and Ohio.
In a Capitalist Society, he who has the gold makes the rules.  In AnCap society, the same thing happens, it just takes longer.  Eternal Vigilance is tiring, and most people just want to live their lives.

Quote
Without government restrictions and interference, we would not "Need" FEMA.

Until a natural or man-made disaster outstrips your resources.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: mellyrn on September 07, 2011, 01:28:16 pm
Quote
Word is, private efforts in Joplin, MO, responded faster with better results, than government bureaucrats.
http://tinyurl.com/3uh3yba
"As with the devastating 1995 Kobe earthquake, government workers were slow in reaching afflicted areas and the 300,000 or so survivors, so yakuza groups stepped in and in many cases were first on the ground."

Heh.

Quote
As well as repaving the roads and the restarting electricity.

"Restarting electricity"?  When did the power companies become government agencies? 


Quote
Quote
Without government restrictions and interference, we would not "Need" FEMA.

Until a natural or man-made disaster outstrips your resources.

"Government" resources are (allegedly) "our" resources, and only part of our resources, at that.  The only question is, who/what is (or is not) (http://www.dailypaul.com/177570/fema-forces-texas-firefighters-to-stand-down) mobilizing them.  Why would a community not routing procedure through "government" somehow have fewer resources than the same community playing Mother-may-I with full institutional rites?

CG is still on the (governmental) teat and cannot or will not grasp how adults can, and do, fend for themselves.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: dough560 on September 07, 2011, 02:11:09 pm
Private parties do all the above here also.  That wasn't the discussion.  Government protection of monopolies was.

 Unless you can demonstrate bias or fraud, information sources have the same validity.  In  TransProg fashion you are attempting to limit discussion to what is acceptable as to you.  Competing ideas need not apply.

Grover Nordquist's American's for Tax Reform, even gets cited by CNN.  They don't like what he has to say, but occasionally they listen and even quote him.  I've yet to see anyone disprove Tax Reform assertions or cite them for fraud or junk science.

TransProgs embedded in both parties recognized the bankruptcy of their movement with adoption of the Forbes Flat Tax.  Response:  DOA.

Disasters always happen.  How they're delt with matters.  Government?  At best, does nothing.  At worst, prohibits and blocks individuals.  Individuals respond and rebuild.  When you get down to it, what the individual does is the only thing that matters.  Government doesn't create, but they're good at destroying.  Ethics, ideals, ideas, honor, morals....etc.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: quadibloc on September 07, 2011, 03:21:29 pm
Quote
Until a natural or man-made disaster outstrips your resources.
"Government" resources are (allegedly) "our" resources, and only part of our resources, at that.  The only question is, who/what is (or is not) (http://www.dailypaul.com/177570/fema-forces-texas-firefighters-to-stand-down) mobilizing them.  Why would a community not routing procedure through "government" somehow have fewer resources than the same community playing Mother-may-I with full institutional rites?
I think you missed the meaning of "your" as he was using it. You are correct that governments don't increase the resources of a community. His point was that governments can potentially mobilize resources from a larger community than would mobilize voluntarily otherwise - thus, he wasn't talking about the same community, but a different one.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: mellyrn on September 07, 2011, 06:11:11 pm
Quote
governments can potentially mobilize resources from a larger community

I.e., compel that "larger community" (aka "other" communities) to regard as "us" a bunch of people it wouldn't otherwise include.  By that measure, we "should" have one government for the whole world, so that remote villagers in the hills of Sri Lanka can be compelled to help  stricken Martha's Vineyarders.  Because even the USA has limited resources.

And yet foreign aid gets offered, extra civitas -- just last winter, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela offered (and, iirc, sent) free fuel oil to US poor, to say nothing of all the aid that was rushed to Haiti after that quake, kind of thing.  Did Haiti need a functioning government in order to get that?
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: macsnafu on September 08, 2011, 10:07:36 am
Quote
Until a natural or man-made disaster outstrips your resources.
"Government" resources are (allegedly) "our" resources, and only part of our resources, at that.  The only question is, who/what is (or is not) (http://www.dailypaul.com/177570/fema-forces-texas-firefighters-to-stand-down) mobilizing them.  Why would a community not routing procedure through "government" somehow have fewer resources than the same community playing Mother-may-I with full institutional rites?
I think you missed the meaning of "your" as he was using it. You are correct that governments don't increase the resources of a community. His point was that governments can potentially mobilize resources from a larger community than would mobilize voluntarily otherwise - thus, he wasn't talking about the same community, but a different one.

That's where the market can step in.  If government wasn't actively discouraging alleged "price-gouging", high prices indicate a greater need for supplies in a stricken area, and make it worthwhile for businesses to go to greater expense to get supplies to that area, thus diverting resources from other communities.   Unfortunately, too many people fail to understand what pricing information is saying, and condemn it.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: mellyrn on September 08, 2011, 11:14:16 am
Quoting from an economics site that I read (http://urbansurvival.com/week.htm):

-------------------------------
Well, this fire situation here in Texas [author lives within a few miles of some of it.  --m] has gotten interesting now with "Perry, Romney discuss Texas wildfires"[linked in original] ahead of the republicorps presidential wannabe festival.

The fires -- which continue to burn -- are generating huge interest on the net.  One camp -- perhaps the better informed -- says the reason the feds on scene turned down local aid was that without training and integration into the teams [...] the volunteers could turn into more of a liability than asset.

OK, I might buy that.  Except that a contract fire fighting outfit source up in Montana sent me this:

Quote
    All the Texas fires have been the same...'Federal Only. No Contractors'. You'll see on the Bastrop fire they are ordering Type 2 water tenders, again Federal Only. We have 2 Type 1 tenders sitting here idle in Montana. They are 6,000 gallons and 5,600 gallons, can pump and draft simultaneously and can support helicopters. Type 2 Tenders are less than 4,000 gallons, usually much less. Of course we're contractors, so no calls even with a national contract. What a shame available resources are left sitting while people and property are lost.

Yeah, no kidding. 
-------------------------------

"We're from the government.  We're here to help you."
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: TMIAHM on September 09, 2011, 01:18:25 am
Latest strip ..what a nightmare!  (not the work, that is good)
 What is the nightmare is people from TAXACHUSETTS bringing a form of government

That is the stuff of nightmares!
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: ContraryGuy on September 09, 2011, 02:03:01 am
Quoting from an economics site that I read (http://urbansurvival.com/week.htm):

-------------------------------
Well, this fire situation here in Texas [author lives within a few miles of some of it.  --m] has gotten interesting now with "Perry, Romney discuss Texas wildfires"[linked in original] ahead of the republicorps presidential wannabe festival.

The fires -- which continue to burn -- are generating huge interest on the net.  One camp -- perhaps the better informed -- says the reason the feds on scene turned down local aid was that without training and integration into the teams [...] the volunteers could turn into more of a liability than asset.

OK, I might buy that.  Except that a contract fire fighting outfit source up in Montana sent me this:

Quote
    All the Texas fires have been the same...'Federal Only. No Contractors'. You'll see on the Bastrop fire they are ordering Type 2 water tenders, again Federal Only. We have 2 Type 1 tenders sitting here idle in Montana. They are 6,000 gallons and 5,600 gallons, can pump and draft simultaneously and can support helicopters. Type 2 Tenders are less than 4,000 gallons, usually much less. Of course we're contractors, so no calls even with a national contract. What a shame available resources are left sitting while people and property are lost.

Yeah, no kidding. 
-------------------------------

"We're from the government.  We're here to help you."

Disgruntled people are hardly a worthwhile source of trusted information.
Of course they are willing to paint the Feds in a bad light; fed firefighting largesse wasnt spread around to them.
If they were to be hired, all complaints would vanish.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: ContraryGuy on September 09, 2011, 11:20:03 am
Quoting from an economics site that I read (http://urbansurvival.com/week.htm):

-------------------------------
Well, this fire situation here in Texas [author lives within a few miles of some of it.  --m] has gotten interesting now with "Perry, Romney discuss Texas wildfires"[linked in original] ahead of the republicorps presidential wannabe festival.

The fires -- which continue to burn -- are generating huge interest on the net.  One camp -- perhaps the better informed -- says the reason the feds on scene turned down local aid was that without training and integration into the teams [...] the volunteers could turn into more of a liability than asset.

OK, I might buy that.  Except that a contract fire fighting outfit source up in Montana sent me this:

Quote
    All the Texas fires have been the same...'Federal Only. No Contractors'. You'll see on the Bastrop fire they are ordering Type 2 water tenders, again Federal Only. We have 2 Type 1 tenders sitting here idle in Montana. They are 6,000 gallons and 5,600 gallons, can pump and draft simultaneously and can support helicopters. Type 2 Tenders are less than 4,000 gallons, usually much less. Of course we're contractors, so no calls even with a national contract. What a shame available resources are left sitting while people and property are lost.

Yeah, no kidding. 
-------------------------------

"We're from the government.  We're here to help you."

One other thing about the Texas fires, it seems that Rick Perry screamed for Fed help once he realized how big the fires had gotten; and then he whined and complained that the Fed help wasnt enough.

Which is it, Mr. Big Govt is Bad?  So big you get elected promising to cut it down, or not big enough to take of  your states emergencies?

Also, did you know that for this years budget, Mr. Govt is Bad Perry cut Texas' firefighting budget?

If this were an AnCap scenario, their would be no Fed help, but those Montana firefighters who werent allowed to help would have had to help for free, since Texas didnt have enough money.
(If they had enough money, there would have been effective fire prevention to begin with)
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: dough560 on September 09, 2011, 03:55:07 pm
Amazing how multi layered taxes eliminate options.  Especially when Texas money seized by the Feds, is now needed back in Texas.  The Feds tell you, You Can't Have It!  (Especially when you don't support Federal TransProg Plans and Policies!  Go ahead and Publicly Tell the President he's being stupid.)

See what it gets you.

Texas governments made the hard choices and balanced their budgets.

The Feds.....?
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on September 09, 2011, 05:07:52 pm
If this were an AnCap scenario, their would be no Fed help, but those Montana firefighters who werent allowed to help would have had to help for free, since Texas didnt have enough money.
(If they had enough money, there would have been effective fire prevention to begin with)

Texans (not Texas, people have money, not areas of land) would almost certainly have had the money, possibly with the assistance of insurance that would kick in for sufficiently significant (and hence rare) cost to contain.  They would not likely have all the trained personnel and equipment instantly available, however, since that would not be cost effective -- such equipment and personnel would be much better "shared" with those in other areas, since such fires don't tend to occur everywhere at once.  When they do exceed the immediately available resource, the marketplace -- which will allocate those resources to those willing to pay the most, i.e., those with the most to lose, will come into play.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: Oldhobo on September 09, 2011, 08:09:40 pm
Someone recently mentioned the Red Cross and the Salvation Army.  These organizations are not, I repeat not benevolent charity organizations.  While they hand out a few band aids on occasion both of these organizations lobby Congress to keep taxes high.  During a recent non-administration of this country, we were a few elephant hairs away from repealing the death tax and both the Red Cross and the Salvation Army lobbied against this.  To be clear I am all for charity but I am asking everyone to reconsider donating to these organizations.  Additionally, if you want to donate blood, go to your local Community Blood Center.  The blood does less traveling.  Recently the Red Cross lost tens of thousands of blood b/c of airline scheduling-the blood went bad on the tarmac-and then promptly declared 'an emergency', never telling people the truth about what had happened to all of their donations.  I am not saying do not be charitable, merely that the aforementioned organizations are not worthy of your hard-earned 10% that you have left over.  Another aspect of charity in an AnCap Society is that if a disaster befalls you and no one comes to your aid, perhaps you are not that much of a neighbor. 
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on September 09, 2011, 08:39:59 pm
Someone recently mentioned the Red Cross and the Salvation Army.  These organizations are not, I repeat not benevolent charity organizations.  While they hand out a few band aids on occasion both of these organizations lobby Congress to keep taxes high. 

I would be very interested in seeing some documentation for this.  Not that I doubt it  -- especially the American Red Cross  (I'm not sure that the International Red Cross is that bad); however I've heard some pretty nasty stories about their former head, Benadine Healy, when she ran the Ohio State Hospitals.  She was pretty universally despised there (my Doctor practices with them, and I know several other folks who work or have worked there).  I first started asking about her when it was announced that she had cancer, and rather than be treated locally (OSU has a great reputation for treating the type of cancer she had) she went to the Cleveland Clinic to be treated.  Granted, her husband is in charge of it, but it meant being treated >100 miles away and it certainly isn't good PR to not "eat your own dog food" as we say in the software industry.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: Oldhobo on September 09, 2011, 09:19:38 pm
they did lobby against the Death tax, along with Insurance companies and Bill Gates' Dad and a few other mega-millionaires.  What is it about having all the money that turns you into Ming the Merciless?
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on September 09, 2011, 09:30:35 pm
they did lobby against the Death tax, along with Insurance companies and Bill Gates' Dad and a few other mega-millionaires.  What is it about having all the money that turns you into Ming the Merciless?


I believe it  (well, I actually don't but that's because I don't really believe anything (http://anything), although Descartes has me pretty sure I exist) , but I couldn't find any links to evidence easily.  I don't like citing something I can't back up, and unfortunately, "Oldhobo" isn't a particularly credible source to most folks (likely to their detriment).
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: ContraryGuy on September 11, 2011, 02:36:40 am
they did lobby against the Death tax, along with Insurance companies and Bill Gates' Dad and a few other mega-millionaires.  What is it about having all the money that turns you into Ming the Merciless?


I believe it  (well, I actually don't but that's because I don't really believe anything (http://anything), although Descartes has me pretty sure I exist) , but I couldn't find any links to evidence easily.  I don't like citing something I can't back up, and unfortunately, "Oldhobo" isn't a particularly credible source to most folks (likely to their detriment).
Theres too much astroturf on the internet to go around believing anyone and everyone.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: ContraryGuy on September 11, 2011, 02:41:01 am
Amazing how multi layered taxes eliminate options.  Especially when Texas money seized by the Feds, is now needed back in Texas.  The Feds tell you, You Can't Have It!  (Especially when you don't support Federal TransProg Plans and Policies!  Go ahead and Publicly Tell the President he's being stupid.)

See what it gets you.

Texas governments made the hard choices and balanced their budgets.

The Feds.....?

As a result of the "balanced" budgets, there is a joke going around in Texas, "Sure Rick Perry created thousands of jobs; I'm working three of them."

Also, 3 out of 4 of the jobs that Rick Perry created were government jobs.

I thought if you balanced your budget, you got rid of redundant and unneeded things; not added more of them.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: ContraryGuy on September 11, 2011, 02:52:16 am
If this were an AnCap scenario, their would be no Fed help, but those Montana firefighters who werent allowed to help would have had to help for free, since Texas didnt have enough money.
(If they had enough money, there would have been effective fire prevention to begin with)

Texans (not Texas, people have money, not areas of land) would almost certainly have had the money, possibly with the assistance of insurance that would kick in for sufficiently significant (and hence rare) cost to contain.  They would not likely have all the trained personnel and equipment instantly available, however, since that would not be cost effective -- such equipment and personnel would be much better "shared" with those in other areas, since such fires don't tend to occur everywhere at once.  When they do exceed the immediately available resource, the marketplace -- which will allocate those resources to those willing to pay the most, i.e., those with the most to lose, will come into play.


I see. So in the event of an emergency or disaster, AnCap isnt such a utopia after all.  Because the always fair and balanced (yet invisible) hand of the markets get to decide who lives and who dies.
And the poor and hard-working are the ones left homeless and bereft.  Or just dead and washed away, because they didnt have enough money to bribe the emergency responders to come soon enough or stay long enough.

Anyone who has ever made a large claim on their insurance knows that insurance comes in once it is safe and then tries to tell you that your claim is not valid.
Because you see, insurance companies are businesses first, and compassionate a distant second.
And all companies collude.  Its called "industry standard practice."  Even in an AnCap world, no insurance company is going to pay out everything that is claimed; how would they make any money?

So you see, I would rather have our oh-so-imperfect current system than have a disaster response system that starts with the phrase, "May I have your credit card number, please?"
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: ContraryGuy on September 11, 2011, 02:56:14 am
  Another aspect of charity in an AnCap Society is that if a disaster befalls you and no one comes to your aid, perhaps you are not that much of a neighbor. 

Or perhaps your neighbors think it would be easier to divide up your property if you were dead?

Or perhaps your neighbor is just cranky and wont help regardless of how you act.

I would hate to live somewhere knowing that I had to always be nice to everyone just in case I needed their help one day.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: Bob G on September 11, 2011, 07:38:41 am
I would hate to live somewhere knowing that I had to always be nice to everyone just in case I needed their help one day.

The truth emerges!!! Here is CG in a nutshell: He'll be as cranky, obstreperous, and 'contrary' as he wants without consequences, and if he needs your help you should give it to him with no objections not because he's a nice guy but because you owe it to him.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: quadibloc on September 11, 2011, 09:57:09 am
I would hate to live somewhere knowing that I had to always be nice to everyone just in case I needed their help one day.
The truth emerges!!! Here is CG in a nutshell: He'll be as cranky, obstreperous, and 'contrary' as he wants without consequences, and if he needs your help you should give it to him with no objections not because he's a nice guy but because you owe it to him.
I suppose that's one way to look at it. Seems to me, though, he has expressed an important truth as to why people are more free under a properly working democratic government than in the type of small town where everybody had better show up at the same church on Sunday, and otherwise not do anything which might cause tongues to wag about them.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on September 11, 2011, 01:54:20 pm
Texans (not Texas, people have money, not areas of land) would almost certainly have had the money, possibly with the assistance of insurance that would kick in for sufficiently significant (and hence rare) cost to contain.  They would not likely have all the trained personnel and equipment instantly available, however, since that would not be cost effective -- such equipment and personnel would be much better "shared" with those in other areas, since such fires don't tend to occur everywhere at once.  When they do exceed the immediately available resource, the marketplace -- which will allocate those resources to those willing to pay the most, i.e., those with the most to lose, will come into play.


I see. So in the event of an emergency or disaster, AnCap isnt such a utopia after all.  Because the always fair and balanced (yet invisible) hand of the markets get to decide who lives and who dies.
And the poor and hard-working are the ones left homeless and bereft.  Or just dead and washed away, because they didnt have enough money to bribe the emergency responders to come soon enough or stay long enough.

First, "utopia" is a straw man.  I know of zero AnCap proponents who claim otherwise.  Rather, we claim it to be (a) the most ethical system devised (although unethical behavior can certainly exist in an AnCap system, and (b) the optimal state of a society, in that no other organization can, over the long term, produce a better result.  In some cases government may result in "local optimizations", but its negative actions will eventually (and usually rather quickly) override those benefits.

Second, in most cases the "hard working" will not permanently be "poor".  That hard work tends to generate greater income, which, should it be used intelligently, will lead to higher degrees of wealth.  And in fact the wealthy do tend to work "harder" than the non-wealthy:

http://www.smartonmoney.com/do-the-rich-work-harder-is-the-key-to-wealth-hard-work/ (http://www.smartonmoney.com/do-the-rich-work-harder-is-the-key-to-wealth-hard-work/)

The amount someone works, however, is not the only controlling factor, however; another major factor is how "smart" an individual works; another is the spending side of the equation -- those who spend their wealth on immediate gratification rather than on leveraging this additional capital to magnify their productivity (expressed in terms of an increase in wealth) to a large extent (and in many cases exceeding their ability to pay for it with their already accumulated wealth) will fail to increase their wealth.

Their is also a degree of randomness, or luck; however that is seldom a controlling factor.
 
Quote
Anyone who has ever made a large claim on their insurance knows that insurance comes in once it is safe and then tries to tell you that your claim is not valid.
Because you see, insurance companies are businesses first, and compassionate a distant second.
And all companies collude.  Its called "industry standard practice."  Even in an AnCap world, no insurance company is going to pay out everything that is claimed; how would they make any money?

Not every claim is legitimate; some are outright fraud, and some are misperceptions of the degree of damage (it is common for individuals to see their own damages as being worse than do outside third parties).  Of course, those who evaluate insurance claims have a bias in the opposite direction; they will tend to overestimate the level of fraud and the level of damage claimed; in addition, some who offer insurance and/or evaluate insurance claims engage in fraud as well.  The advantage of market-based insurance, however, is that companies which reject claims excessively can easily lose business as a result; government, being a monopoly, does not provide that opportunity.  Even in supposed "democracies" the choices are artificially reduced through large scale bundling of supposed "services" prevents individuals from tailoring their service choices across multiple suppliers. 

Quote
So you see, I would rather have our oh-so-imperfect current system than have a disaster response system that starts with the phrase, "May I have your credit card number, please?"

...and replacing it with forced payment up front under threat to one's person and property.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: Oldhobo on September 12, 2011, 10:15:34 am
I am sorry that I do not have the documentation to back up what I have stated about the Red Cross and the Salvation Army.  To be perfectly frank, my father is the one who told me that.  I am sure if you dug that you could find it out.  I simply haven't the energy nor inclination.  I will tell you that what I said about Bill Gates' father was part of a TV program, can't remember if it was 60 minutes or something else in that  vein but having said all that, by all means please be very skeptical.  In internet times, it pays to wander the web with a lantern, looking for an honest person. 
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: macsnafu on September 12, 2011, 02:28:24 pm

Anyone who has ever made a large claim on their insurance knows that insurance comes in once it is safe and then tries to tell you that your claim is not valid.
Because you see, insurance companies are businesses first, and compassionate a distant second.
And all companies collude.  Its called "industry standard practice."  Even in an AnCap world, no insurance company is going to pay out everything that is claimed; how would they make any money?

I see.  So 'private' insurance companies screw you over now, in today's society, while being regulated by governments??  If that doesn't tell you something, nothing will.

And, typically, you fail to understand how real insurance works.  They make their money by pooling the resources of homogeneous factors, such that they know, with little uncertainty, how much they will have to pay out. It's not gambling (for the insurance company) unless you try to insure the unknown or mix in non-homogeneous factors.  Or if the government forces them to provide "insurance" in non-insurable things. 
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: dough560 on September 12, 2011, 03:26:02 pm
Average Jane and Joe give to charities and charitable organizations.  They give to funds to help people in disaster areas.  They help people they don't know and probably never will.  Jane and Joe don't do this because the "Government" told them to or because they expect to be repaid.  They don't do it because of a tax advantage.  They believe it is the right thing to do.

It is a pretty poor individual who denies help to someone in need;  For there but for the grace of God, go I.

CG.  When I was much younger, I was in a situation.  A stranger stopped and helped me.  I asked where I could send him some money, when I had it to repay him for his help.  He told me about what he called a "Chinese Obligation."  Instead of trying to repay him, I would help ten people in need, who I could help.  I was not to tell him my answer, I would be helped regardless.
     My obligation was completed long ago.  Its something I've done many times since, each time telling my story with the same caveat.
     I give to various charities who have reputations for low operating costs and high rates of issue support.

Over the years I've been able to help some people who truly needed help.  On the other hand, I've been scammed and assaulted.

The needy far out weighed the crooks.  My choices, my responsibilities. 
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: ContraryGuy on September 13, 2011, 12:17:08 am
I would hate to live somewhere knowing that I had to always be nice to everyone just in case I needed their help one day.

The truth emerges!!! Here is CG in a nutshell: He'll be as cranky, obstreperous, and 'contrary' as he wants without consequences, and if he needs your help you should give it to him with no objections not because he's a nice guy but because you owe it to him.

People on this forum forget that there are not-nice people in the world.  Not everyone is a Good Samaritan.  It is nice to know that most people will help out a stranger with little or no thought for themselves, but, how many times have you passed someone pulled over on the freeway who appears to be in distress and not stopped?

That situation would only be worse in an AnCap society; because everyone is assumed to be a capable individualist and therefore does not need help, even if they are desperately trying to wave someone down.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: ContraryGuy on September 13, 2011, 12:23:45 am
I am sorry that I do not have the documentation to back up what I have stated about the Red Cross and the Salvation Army.  To be perfectly frank, my father is the one who told me that.  I am sure if you dug that you could find it out.  I simply haven't the energy nor inclination.  I will tell you that what I said about Bill Gates' father was part of a TV program, can't remember if it was 60 minutes or something else in that  vein but having said all that, by all means please be very skeptical.  In internet times, it pays to wander the web with a lantern, looking for an honest person. 


I believe the part about Bill Gates Sr. was Frontline or 60 Minutes.  If a person is actually a II, can you really call them Sr.?  How then would you call a III?  Certainly not Jr.; would it be Jr. Jr.?
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: ContraryGuy on September 13, 2011, 01:09:37 am
Texans (not Texas, people have money, not areas of land) would almost certainly have had the money, possibly with the assistance of insurance that would kick in for sufficiently significant (and hence rare) cost to contain.  They would not likely have all the trained personnel and equipment instantly available, however, since that would not be cost effective -- such equipment and personnel would be much better "shared" with those in other areas, since such fires don't tend to occur everywhere at once.  When they do exceed the immediately available resource, the marketplace -- which will allocate those resources to those willing to pay the most, i.e., those with the most to lose, will come into play.


I see. So in the event of an emergency or disaster, AnCap isnt such a utopia after all.  Because the always fair and balanced (yet invisible) hand of the markets get to decide who lives and who dies.
And the poor and hard-working are the ones left homeless and bereft.  Or just dead and washed away, because they didnt have enough money to bribe the emergency responders to come soon enough or stay long enough.

First, "utopia" is a straw man.  I know of zero AnCap proponents who claim otherwise.
Implied rather than directly is claimed is still intention.

Quote
  Rather, we claim it to be (a) the most ethical system devised (although unethical behavior can certainly exist in an AnCap system, and (b) the optimal state of a society, in that no other organization can, over the long term, produce a better result.  In some cases government may result in "local optimizations", but its negative actions will eventually (and usually rather quickly) override those benefits.

Second, in most cases the "hard working" will not permanently be "poor". 
Yes, they will.  In a true capitalist system, all companies tend toward monopoly and all money flows upward.  The ultimate end of capitalism is oligarchy.

Quote
That hard work tends to generate greater income, which, should it be used intelligently, will lead to higher degrees of wealth.
So the farmers and miners of the 20'ies and 30'ies were not hard workers?  It takes more than just hard work to amass wealth.  Those same miners were not even paid in money for their not-hard work.
In the much-truer capitalist and less govt controlled times, the landlord got all the money and the workers got nothing for all their not-hard work. 
Those pre-union days were much closer to An-Cap than any libertarian today. 

Those workers were not allowed to control their own money, let alone spend it intelligently.
And if they tried to walk off the job, and they got away, they would be black-balled because all the company owners would share that workers name and refuse to hire him.

So much for playing the companies against themselves.  What makes you think that AnCap would be any different?

Thats why AnCap is Utopia.

Quote
And in fact the wealthy do tend to work "harder" than the non-wealthy:

http://www.smartonmoney.com/do-the-rich-work-harder-is-the-key-to-wealth-hard-work/ (http://www.smartonmoney.com/do-the-rich-work-harder-is-the-key-to-wealth-hard-work/)

I see you have never read Rich Dad, Poor Dad.  Children of wealth start out knowing that wealth is a birthright; all they have to do is work hard, meet the right people, take some risks, seize opportunity when it appears, and be confident that they will succeed.
Thats all.

Poor kids dont have any of that.  Their parents have no experience with making their children believe they can do it, when all around them they see failure.

Quote
The amount someone works, however, is not the only controlling factor, however; another major factor is how "smart" an individual works;
That idea has only been around for this generation.  Everyone previous just worked harder.
 
Quote
another is the spending side of the equation -- those who spend their wealth on immediate gratification rather than on leveraging this additional capital to magnify their productivity (expressed in terms of an increase in wealth) to a large extent (and in many cases exceeding their ability to pay for it with their already accumulated wealth) will fail to increase their wealth.
You're right.  It is awfully shortsighted of those poor people to buy food and clothing for their children instead of playing the stock market.  What are they thinking?
Its hard to leverage additional capital into productivity improvements when the electricity has been shut off or their isnt enough money for heat in the dead of winter.

Those silly poor people!  Instead of feeding their children, they should be investing in Enron and Worldcom!  How could they not have seen this obvious truth?  What conspiracy of malice kept this information from them?

Quote
Their is also a degree of randomness, or luck; however that is seldom a controlling factor.
Nobody is going to here someone with that kind of grammar.
Quote
Quote
Anyone who has ever made a large claim on their insurance knows that insurance comes in once it is safe and then tries to tell you that your claim is not valid.
Because you see, insurance companies are businesses first, and compassionate a distant second.
And all companies collude.  Its called "industry standard practice."  Even in an AnCap world, no insurance company is going to pay out everything that is claimed; how would they make any money?

Not every claim is legitimate; some are outright fraud, and some are misperceptions of the degree of damage (it is common for individuals to see their own damages as being worse than do outside third parties).  Of course, those who evaluate insurance claims have a bias in the opposite direction; they will tend to overestimate the level of fraud and the level of damage claimed; in addition, some who offer insurance and/or evaluate insurance claims engage in fraud as well.  The advantage of market-based insurance, however, is that companies which reject claims excessively can easily lose business as a result; government, being a monopoly, does not provide that opportunity.  Even in supposed "democracies" the choices are artificially reduced through large scale bundling of supposed "services" prevents individuals from tailoring their service choices across multiple suppliers. 

So you're saying that after a calamitous event, an AnCap would tell their adjuster "fine, if you wont pay it, I'll just go to Joes Insurance.  He'll pay my claim."?

This whole "they get a bad name if they screw too many people" idea is so ineffective its ludicrous.  Sure you can switch insurance companies before you need them, but why?
And once you do need them, they have you over a barrel.

Of course companies trade on their reputation.  But, in an AnCap society it doesnt matter.
Even if their rep is sterling, they are still capitalists and they still intend to take your money and not give it back.

Quote
Quote
So you see, I would rather have our oh-so-imperfect current system than have a disaster response system that starts with the phrase, "May I have your credit card number, please?"

...and replacing it with forced payment up front under threat to one's person and property.

No-one has to buy insurance. In no place in America does a federal agent of policeman kick down your door and say "Buy this insurance or else!".
Also, no-one comes (from the govt) up to you and says "Nice house; be a shame were something to happen to it..."

Just because you are paranoid, and too lazy or cowardly to make your wishes known to your representative doesnt mean that they are crushing your head under their jackbooted heel.

You only think they are.
 If you dont buy insurance, you are saying that you are willing to live with the consequences. 
I thought AnCap'ers were big on personal responsibility.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: ContraryGuy on September 13, 2011, 01:14:00 am

Anyone who has ever made a large claim on their insurance knows that insurance comes in once it is safe and then tries to tell you that your claim is not valid.
Because you see, insurance companies are businesses first, and compassionate a distant second.
And all companies collude.  Its called "industry standard practice."  Even in an AnCap world, no insurance company is going to pay out everything that is claimed; how would they make any money?

I see.  So 'private' insurance companies screw you over now, in today's society, while being regulated by governments??  If that doesn't tell you something, nothing will.

And, typically, you fail to understand how real insurance works.  They make their money by pooling the resources of homogeneous factors, such that they know, with little uncertainty, how much they will have to pay out. It's not gambling (for the insurance company) unless you try to insure the unknown or mix in non-homogeneous factors.  Or if the government forces them to provide "insurance" in non-insurable things. 

If they govt does force insurers to insure known bad risks, why is there no private flood insurance?  Surely the govt would love to get rid of the National Flood insurance program.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: Ike on September 13, 2011, 09:49:03 am
A different but related matter is this:  in a society you're labelling as "AnCap", there wouldn't be so many people building in locations which are obviously - based on historical weather events and subsequent disasters - too low or close to the ocean or whatever as they do now.

One of the consquences of the centralization of political authority is the restriction of knowledge to 'those who know better'.  Observe that it requires a long period of study to acquire knowledge and skills which were once the property of everyday folks.  Example?  My grandfather, born in 1878 and died in 1957, knew how to make nails, mill lumber, plant and harvest several subsistence and cash crops in the weather etc of western NY state, repair his agricultural equipment, do some simple blacksmithing, hunt and fish for food (not recreation, although he did fish in his old age as an excuse to get away from everyone and nap  ;) ) ... and most of the things he did as a matter of course in his day on the farm near Moravia would now require licenses, permits, environmental studies.  Oh, and the old man could read and write and was fluent in both English and German.  I think it goes without saying he was numerate as well, although I suspect that anything beyond algebra and plain geometry would have been mysteries to him as he would have had no use for them in his life.  He and Grandma raised three children, one of whom became the head of the Computer and Math Department at Syracuse, one of whom was my Mom and the other was the mother of six successful children.  Nowdays, all that requires government agencies, social workers, extension agents, county inspectors .... and not as many family farms exist and those which do are likely not as knowledgeable of the basics as Granpa was.  Sure, a lot of technological improvements, but more of it is simply government power used to make money for the guys and gals who are 'connected'.  Consequence?  An increasing number of folks are incompetent to raise their own kids, to get and hold a job, to do much of anything productive.  I wonder how that is going to turn out in another generation or two?
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: quadibloc on September 13, 2011, 02:43:37 pm
So the farmers and miners of the 20'ies and 30'ies were not hard workers?  It takes more than just hard work to amass wealth.  Those same miners were not even paid in money for their not-hard work.
In the much-truer capitalist and less govt controlled times, the landlord got all the money and the workers got nothing for all their not-hard work. 
Those pre-union days were much closer to An-Cap than any libertarian today. 

Those workers were not allowed to control their own money, let alone spend it intelligently.
And if they tried to walk off the job, and they got away, they would be black-balled because all the company owners would share that workers name and refuse to hire him.

So much for playing the companies against themselves.  What makes you think that AnCap would be any different?
You are making a good point here, but you are also overstating it.

Those days were certainly closer to AnCap than our present society. But they were not what AnCap or Libertarianism claims to seek.

Under AnCap, presumably, businesses that behaved in so shameless a fashion... would find it hard to hire the equivalent of Pinkertons. They wouldn't have the police or the National Guard behind them. And private security firms are so inadequate to deal with full-scale guerilla warfare.

And that's my quarrel with AnCap; exactly how is being a guerilla soldier fighting either greedy businessmen or the invading Chinese supposed to be an improvement over the life of a harried and overtaxed office worker in today's United States?

"But at least we'd be free!" If one ignores people pointing guns at you to whom you are not said to owe allegiance, I suppose that would make sense.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: SolarClathrate on September 13, 2011, 06:06:44 pm
And that's my quarrel with AnCap; exactly how is being a guerilla soldier fighting either greedy businessmen or the invading Chinese supposed to be an improvement over the life of a harried and overtaxed office worker in today's United States?

That's a good question. Hopefully, in the business' eyes, a war against guerillas is less profitable than giving in and altering their practices.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: mellyrn on September 14, 2011, 09:08:05 am
Quote
And that's my quarrel with AnCap; exactly how is being a guerilla soldier fighting either greedy businessmen or the invading Chinese supposed to be an improvement over the life of a harried and overtaxed office worker in today's United States?

??  Are you seriously suggesting that an AnCap society is an active, ongoing state of guerrilla warfare?  The threat of guerrilla warfare is always present, yes; and in current US communities that have concealed-carry permits, the threat of deadly retaliation is also always present . . . in exchange for a reduced threat of crime.  People in my neighborhood don't go about dodging bullets all day from all the gunslingers, and we're much less likely to get mugged than folks just down the road in DC.

Ref. Uncle Rice's sig:
Stupid criminals put on a mask and rob people with a gun.
Smart criminals put on a suit, call themselves politicians, and rob people with writ of law.

Concealed-carry laws only protect me from the former -- and yet, I must repeat, quite without all-day every-day shootouts.  Whence comes this active guerrilla warfare you dread?
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: quadibloc on September 14, 2011, 06:15:57 pm
??  Are you seriously suggesting that an AnCap society is an active, ongoing state of guerrilla warfare?  The threat of guerrilla warfare is always present, yes;
No, I wasn't suggesting that it was that by definition, merely that except in good circumstances (i.e. a frontier with self-selection, as opposed to here and now) that threat might have to be carried out more often than... pleasant.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: mellyrn on September 15, 2011, 07:46:11 am
Quote
I would hate to live somewhere knowing that I had to always be nice to everyone just in case I needed their help one day.

By this I infer that you also prefer arranged marriage, so that you don't have to put yourself out to be appealing to a prospective partner but can just be given one.

Quote
Seems to me, though, he has expressed an important truth as to why people are more free under a properly working democratic government than in the type of small town where everybody had better show up at the same church on Sunday, and otherwise not do anything which might cause tongues to wag about them.

If that's the sort of "freedom" we're talking about:  when we are perfectly free to do whatever the hell we please, and never modify our behaviors to accommodate our neighbors, then we are not humans but tigers or sharks.  When we always modify our behavior to accommodate our community, then we are bees, termites, Borg-ites.

Besides, I'd argue that in the small AnCap town, I can cause tongues to wag by not going to church and might get ostracized but in your properly working democracy I can be jailed for, say, refusing to kill or support killing on command of government -- and that's assuming that your properly working democracy hadn't voted for the death penalty for Quakers refusing a military draft.

Government is authorized to compel me to violate my most basic moral principles or be deprived of freedom of movement. I'll take the small-town gossips, thanks.

Quote
except in good circumstances (i.e. a frontier with self-selection, as opposed to here and now) that threat might have to be carried out more often than... pleasant.

Except in good circumstances, e.g. a government staffed solely by good, trustworthy, highly-trained people, the threat of being killed by LEOs too "distracted" (http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=32704) or "in fear of their lives" (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/penn-f25.shtml) to respond any better than a panicked child, or of "us[ing] the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies" (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2361240/posts), or of  being destroyed as pawns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods) might have to be endured more often than... pleasant.

Tell me how you are safer when the very neighbors you can't trust to follow the rules are put in charge of enforcing the rules -- ?  Especially when your only defense is to vote them back to ordinary citizen status, and that's only if they haven't co-opted the polls and/or the law enforcement process?
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: quadibloc on September 15, 2011, 03:07:21 pm
Tell me how you are safer when the very neighbors you can't trust to follow the rules are put in charge of enforcing the rules -- ?  Especially when your only defense is to vote them back to ordinary citizen status, and that's only if they haven't co-opted the polls and/or the law enforcement process?
Of course, that isn't how governments get started.

Governments are instituted by people putting in power those who they feel are people "like themselves", people they do trust, as a way of more efficiently dealing with the very few individuals who aren't trustworthy. So the paradox you propose isn't seen as an insuperable objection to government.

The rule of law has other important features like visibility and accountability, although private arbiters can presumably provide those too.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: sam on September 15, 2011, 04:33:46 pm
Of course, that isn't how governments get started.

Governments are instituted by people putting in power those who they feel are people "like themselves", people they do trust, as a way of more efficiently dealing with the very few individuals who aren't trustworthy.

Where we have an historical record of how governments started, that is seldom the way it was.  The government of Rome originated in an effort to redress the sex balance by mass abduction.

By and large, the common origin is that group A robs group B, and institutionalizes the operation.

Proceeding to more respectable origins, the government of the US originated in an effort to ensure that revolutionary debts were paid.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: spudit on September 15, 2011, 07:17:31 pm
I yam back, sorta, off and on. Floating well.

Still catching up but natural disasters, that's easy. The more assets available the higher the new level achieved or returned to. Local resources may only allow a shanty town of ramshackle shacks, paid for and adequete,  larger resources larger scale structures whether needed or ecconimically sustainable or not. So left alone will the new replacement town be as nice as before, do they need to be?

Note most of the great and not so great towns of even 200 years ago ware ne better than today's third world urban slums.

Much reading ahead, much catching up to do..

Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: mellyrn on September 15, 2011, 07:23:57 pm
Quote
Of course, that isn't how governments get started.

Governments are instituted by people putting in power those who they feel are people "like themselves", people they do trust, as a way of more efficiently dealing with the very few individuals who aren't trustworthy[....]. So the paradox you propose isn't seen as an insuperable objection to government.

Bit of a difference between "how governments get started" in a practical sense, and the philosophic basis for starting one at all.

Whenever I ask, "Why do we 'need' government at all?" the answer is always some variation of "(because we can't be trusted) we need to be governed" -- passive voice, meaning that someone or something ELSE is to do the governing.  But there is no "else", there's only us, the very ones to be governed.

I wholly grant you someone saying, "We're going to have government because I said so and here are all my loyal followers to make it so."  This someone is not such a hypocrite as to argue that government is necessary; he knows good & well he's just doing it 'cos he wants to.  My "paradox" is nothing of the sort; it is merely an illustration of the fundamental logical contradiction of the "we need government" argument.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: quadibloc on September 16, 2011, 07:09:56 am
I wholly grant you someone saying, "We're going to have government because I said so and here are all my loyal followers to make it so."  This someone is not such a hypocrite as to argue that government is necessary; he knows good & well he's just doing it 'cos he wants to.
In a case like the United States, though, it's at least less bad, as a majority, rather than a few thugs, are choosing to impose government.

But that's why I took your argument as a paradox which this resolves: it isn't we need to be protected from ourselves, but rather that we need to be protected from the other. Which is just as possible as we wish to rob the other.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: mellyrn on September 16, 2011, 10:59:09 am
Quote
In a case like the United States, though, it's at least less bad, as a majority, rather than a few thugs, are choosing to impose government.

I'll agree that it's not worse, at any rate.

However govt's actually got started, in the physical, practical sense, we now seem to be running on sheer habit.  Those who established the American gov't had Views about just what form gov't should take, without ever questioning the need for gov't at all.  When I raise that question, I get assertions of "need", that we "need" government, and governors.  I'm calling that idea up for review, up out of the domain of "that's the way it's always been" habit.

Quote
it isn't we need to be protected from ourselves, but rather that we need to be protected from the other.

Yes, I know.  What I'm trying to say is that "we need to be protected from ourselves" vs "we need to be protected from the other" is a distinction without a difference because there is no other.

You're a good guy.  In your heart of hearts, you know I don't need to be protected from you.  You're not so sure about me, though; I am, for you, a bit of an unknown element and I might want to rob you.  I am "the other" for you.  You are "the other" for me.  Both of us are "the other" for CG and spudit and Tucci.  Take all of us together, and {we} = {the other}.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on September 16, 2011, 03:24:39 pm
However govt's actually got started, in the physical, practical sense, we now seem to be running on sheer habit.  Those who established the American gov't had Views about just what form gov't should take, without ever questioning the need for gov't at all.

Although Paine got fairly close to the idea, to be fair the folks who established the American Government did a pretty fair job of moving toward that end -- they just didn't put all the pieces together.  After all, no one really articulated the concept (at least publicly) until deMolinari and Bastiat in the mid-91th century.

I find it very similar to many of them holding to Deism rather than Agnosticism or Atheism -- they moved thinking forward substantially, but not as far as we are now -- and we certainly had help.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: UncleRice on September 17, 2011, 05:49:53 pm
I believe an AnCap society would do better at preventing damage from natural disasters than we experience here in the states. I will give two examples for why I think this is so:

1: Just over the mountains in Western Washington, every November and every spring, there are floods from rain and snow melt. For those that build with the 20/200 rule, 20 feet above flood stage and 200 feet from a river, floods are an inconvenience. For those that don't they get their houses flooded. Then they get government and insurance money to fix their houses and government money is spent on levies to keep the river out - except when they don't. This makes life for everyone more expensive. With neither insurance nor government bail out money, people would quickly be force to understand that river side homes are expensive and should only be owned by those capable and willing to spend the money to rebuild every year or two.

2: New Orleans. Yes it is possible to build and maintain a city below sea level, but you had best have a good reason, because it will be expensive and history and sentimentality rarely pay bills. The Port and the Navy base are the only things done in that city that couldn't be done a few miles north. If that was all they had done there, the scale of the disaster would have been much smaller.

In short, a society with fewer safety nets, will force people to choose to either think more about the places they live and the risks that come with it, or suffer ruin. Either way, those of us who do pay attention to risks, wouldn't be forced to pay for others bad judgement.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: dough560 on September 17, 2011, 10:30:22 pm
Uncle Rice, you've hit my pet peeve regarding public funding.  The government should not be funding counter intuitive behavior.  Whether its flood insurance, or any other assurance.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: ContraryGuy on September 18, 2011, 01:16:01 am
Quote
I would hate to live somewhere knowing that I had to always be nice to everyone just in case I needed their help one day.

By this I infer that you also prefer arranged marriage, so that you don't have to put yourself out to be appealing to a prospective partner but can just be given one.

I thought you understood how arranged marriages worked.  The groom is not "given" a bride; the families of the respective groom and bride arrange things to the families ( read: parents) interest.  What the groom wants never enters into it.

Even in arranged marriages, the bride is not chattel; marriage is not chattel slavery(although some may disagree...).

Quote
Seems to me, though, he has expressed an important truth as to why people are more free under a properly working democratic government than in the type of small town where everybody had better show up at the same church on Sunday, and otherwise not do anything which might cause tongues to wag about them.

If that's the sort of "freedom" we're talking about:  when we are perfectly free to do whatever the hell we please, and never modify our behaviors to accommodate our neighbors, then we are not humans but tigers or sharks.  When we always modify our behavior to accommodate our community, then we are bees, termites, Borg-ites.

Besides, I'd argue that in the small AnCap town, I can cause tongues to wag by not going to church and might get ostracized but in your properly working democracy I can be jailed for, say, refusing to kill or support killing on command of government -- and that's assuming that your properly working democracy hadn't voted for the death penalty for Quakers refusing a military draft.[/quote]

You are forgetting that today we have an all-volunteer army.  It must be hard to make your point when you have to reach thirty years into the past.

As for properly working democracy, I dont know if it has worked properly since Ben Franklin was asked "What kind of government do we have?"

Because you see, until recently, not every American has had the right to participate.  Even today, Libertarian and would-be AnCap'ers are working to reduce the number of citizens eligible to vote.

People here seem to forget that the second half of Anarcho-Capitalism is capitalism.  In capitalism, there is no morality, no vice, no virtue, only money.
Anarchy is all fine and good, but once you've gotten the euphoria of total freedom under control, you will realize that the capitalists have enslaved you far worse than any government ever could.
Governments can be changed or overthrown; money is forever.

So when you wish for Anarcho-Capitalism, be careful what you wish for; you may just get it.

Quote
Government is authorized to compel me to violate my most basic moral principles or be deprived of freedom of movement.

Actually it isnt.  Even if you volunteer to go shoot people because the capitalists say you must, you can still opt out.  But, if you know you cannot kill people on command, why are you volunteering to do so in the first place?

I think maybe you should go to dictionary.com and look up "volunteer".

Quote
I'll take the small-town gossips, thanks.

Quote
except in good circumstances (i.e. a frontier with self-selection, as opposed to here and now) that threat might have to be carried out more often than... pleasant.

Except in good circumstances, e.g. a government staffed solely by good, trustworthy, highly-trained people, the threat of being killed by LEOs too "distracted" (http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=32704) or "in fear of their lives" (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/penn-f25.shtml) to respond any better than a panicked child, or of "us[ing] the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies" (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2361240/posts), or of  being destroyed as pawns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods) might have to be endured more often than... pleasant.

I see that the sources you link to are vehement anti-government and anti-authority websites.  Even given their known biases (and probably a good job of selective editing), how can I trust what they are reporting?  (Ok, maybe I would believe Wikipedia, because it never gets re-written to advance certain points of view, does it?)
Its like asking me to believe the Weekly World News' story about "Alien Man-Bat top advisor to Presidents Bush and Obama".

I guess i mean they have a credibility gap.  Remember what Ike's grandpa would tell you: "Dont believe everything you read."

Quote
Tell me how you are safer when the very neighbors you can't trust to follow the rules are put in charge of enforcing the rules -- ?

Tell me how you are safer when the very neighbors you cant trust to follow the rules (of the ZAP) are given the same rights as you are? (adjudication, etc.)
How is your society any safer than this one if the members refuse to obey the rules of the society?

 
Quote
Especially when your only defense is to vote them back to ordinary citizen status, and that's only if they haven't co-opted the polls and/or the law enforcement process?

So tell me, how do AnCappers keep money from corrupting your society?  Judges can be bought, adjudicators can be bribed or extorted/blackmailed/etc.
Since there are no laws against kidnapping and no police to investigate, how do the judges stay honest?
Of course, we're talking about a large city, say Denver or Chicago, not Moscow Idaho.  In a city of half a million people, how do you keep everyone honest?
Especially the big money capitalists, who have the same freedom as you do.

If the big money boy wants your property, he will get it.  He can hire far more bully boys than you have shots in your shotgun.

The anarchy part I get, but you havent explained how capitalism is restrained.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: ContraryGuy on September 18, 2011, 12:22:21 pm
A different but related matter is this:  in a society you're labelling as "AnCap", there wouldn't be so many people building in locations which are obviously - based on historical weather events and subsequent disasters - too low or close to the ocean or whatever as they do now.

You're right.  There would be more.

Quote
One of the consquences of the centralization of political authority is the restriction of knowledge to 'those who know better'. 

Oh really?  And what is this thing you are typing that post on?  An envelope?  For what knowledge has politcal centralization restricted people from posting on the the Internet?

Quote
Observe that it requires a long period of study to acquire knowledge and skills which were once the property of everyday folks.  Example?  My grandfather, born in 1878 and died in 1957, knew how to make nails, mill lumber, plant and harvest several subsistence and cash crops in the weather etc of western NY state, repair his agricultural equipment, do some simple blacksmithing, hunt and fish for food (not recreation, although he did fish in his old age as an excuse to get away from everyone and nap  ;) ) ... and most of the things he did as a matter of course in his day on the farm near Moravia

Political centralization has not restricted that knowledge.  Capitalism has.  Its called "the march of progress", or more simply, "change".
Your grandfather might have been able to repair his ag equipment, but why did he not build it himself?  Because it was not efficient for him; not a good use of his time and energy.  He "could" make nails and mill lumber, but he didnt.  He didnt mine and smelt the ore, refine the metal, and then press out the nails.
Not efficient.  He may have felled trees that were on his property, but all of his buildings and wood products were not created solely by his hand.  The original house probably was, but it would not have been efficient, or even practical, for him to be a lumberman and a farmer and a blacksmith and a farrier and, and, and...
Even in upstate New York in the early 1900's, lumber mills existed, as did dry goods and mercantile stores.

I think you have lost your point in your anti-govt screed.  The skill your grandfather had have been out-moded not by government, but by the process of technological change which is driven by capitalism.
AnCappers think they would like unrestricted capitalism; they think they can stop a fully loaded bullet train by standing on the tracks and saying "I disapprove!" (yes, enough people on the tracks will derail the train, but how many of them will be killed in the process?)

Most AnCappers are Hippie-like in their naive idealism.

Quote
would now require licenses, permits, environmental studies.  Oh, and the old man could read and write and was fluent in both English and German.  I think it goes without saying he was numerate as well,

Because he had to be; plus he likely kept learning all his life.  A low-tech lifestyle will do that for you.  A high-tech lifestyle, as we currently have, leads to complacency and indolence.
Its not the governments fault people are idiots.

Quote
although I suspect that anything beyond algebra and plain geometry would have been mysteries to him as he would have had no use for them in his life.  He and Grandma raised three children, one of whom became the head of the Computer and Math Department at Syracuse, one of whom was my Mom and the other was the mother of six successful children.  Nowdays, all that requires government agencies, social workers, extension agents, county inspectors ....
Not as much as you would think.  There arent enough governments workers to cover every citizen.

Quote
and not as many family farms exist and those which do are likely not as knowledgeable of the basics as Granpa was. 
Capitalism.  It does that.  Look it up.

Quote
Sure, a lot of technological improvements, but more of it is simply government power used to make money for the guys and gals who are 'connected'. 

Gee, who'd a thought that lots of money in the hands of a few wealthy capitalists would corrupt government?

Quote
Consequence?  An increasing number of folks are incompetent to raise their own kids, to get and hold a job, to do much of anything productive. 

Ha! that wasnt the government; that was the hippies! Free love! Free drugs!  Be lazy! Fight authority!  "Oh wow, man, lets name our fifteenth child Starchild Moonflower; it'll be sweet man."

 I wonder how that is going to turn out in another generation or two?
[/quote]

Well, it produced you, didnt it?  I think you answered your own question.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: ContraryGuy on September 18, 2011, 12:31:48 pm
Quote
And that's my quarrel with AnCap; exactly how is being a guerilla soldier fighting either greedy businessmen or the invading Chinese supposed to be an improvement over the life of a harried and overtaxed office worker in today's United States?

??  Are you seriously suggesting that an AnCap society is an active, ongoing state of guerrilla warfare? 
Of course, he isnt.  But during "social movements" it might be.

Quote
The threat of guerrilla warfare is always present, yes; and in current US communities that have concealed-carry permits, the threat of deadly retaliation is also always present . . . in exchange for a reduced threat of crime.  People in my neighborhood don't go about dodging bullets all day from all the gunslingers, and we're much less likely to get mugged than folks just down the road in DC.

Ref. Uncle Rice's sig:
Stupid criminals put on a mask and rob people with a gun.
Smart criminals put on a suit, call themselves politicians, and rob people with writ of law.

You forgot to add "or call themselves capitalists, and convince people to rob themselves."
After all, Ken Lay of Enron and Bernie Madoff were private citizens, not politicians.

Quote
Concealed-carry laws only protect me from the former -- and yet, I must repeat, quite without all-day every-day shootouts.  Whence comes this active guerrilla warfare you dread?

What happens when the miners suffer a catastrophic explosion and are forced to go back to work the very next day, or have the owners enforcers shoot them down?
When there are no laws, there are no rules.
The miners could refuse; some will be killed, some will return to work, and some will run off with their guns and seek retaliation. 
Guerilla warfare.

ZAP works fine for people willing to live together, but falls down against the will of money.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: ContraryGuy on September 18, 2011, 01:08:41 pm
I yam back, sorta, off and on. Floating well.

Still catching up but natural disasters, that's easy. The more assets available the higher the new level achieved or returned to. Local resources may only allow a shanty town of ramshackle shacks, paid for and adequete,  larger resources larger scale structures whether needed or ecconimically sustainable or not. So left alone will the new replacement town be as nice as before, do they need to be?

Note most of the great and not so great towns of even 200 years ago ware ne better than today's third world urban slums.

Much reading ahead, much catching up to do..

But I am talking about the here and now...

In an AnCap society, how do pre-AnCap structures get replaced?
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: mellyrn on September 18, 2011, 01:50:55 pm
Quote
What happens when the miners suffer a catastrophic explosion and are forced to go back to work the very next day, or have the owners enforcers shoot them down?

Do governments prevent this?

What happens when the government backs up the owners' enforcers with their own, in the interest of 'national security' and the country's need for the ore?  After all, the owners contributed a lot more to the (re)election campaigns than all the miners together.

Quote
After all, Ken Lay of Enron and Bernie Madoff were private citizens, not politicians.

Did the government prevent them?

I could cite crooks of that scale that the government not only doesn't punish but actively aids and abets, but you'll probably toss the "conspiracy theory" blanket over it so that it won't count.

The nature of the US laws actually prohibits the income tax in its current incarnation -- e.g. the Fifth Amendment protects ("protects" -- oh, yeah, lookit all the protection) me from being forced to supply information to incriminate myself, but if I don't file my 1040 every year, which is full of potentially-incriminating information (it can be twisted seven ways from Sunday; the same data may imply I owe a few grand or that I am owed a few grand), the gov't goons come to get me:  I am required to waive my Miranda rights . . . which means they're not "rights" at all, and so your cute little

Quote
When there are no laws, there are no rules.

is tres disingenuous.  The 1040 alone proves there are no laws even when there are "laws"! :D

Quote
In an AnCap society, how do pre-AnCap structures get replaced?

Excellent question.  When people like you realize that public crooks are just as bad, and as common, as private ones; that "government" and all its "structures" are just the same old same old, just with different labels -- then I'd bet the "structures" will simply evaporate, dry up and blow away as no one bothers to use them any more.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: ContraryGuy on September 18, 2011, 11:06:37 pm
I believe an AnCap society would do better at preventing damage from natural disasters than we experience here in the states. I will give two examples for why I think this is so:

1: Just over the mountains in Western Washington, every November and every spring, there are floods from rain and snow melt. For those that build with the 20/200 rule, 20 feet above flood stage and 200 feet from a river, floods are an inconvenience. For those that don't they get their houses flooded. Then they get government and insurance money to fix their houses and government money is spent on levies to keep the river out - except when they don't. This makes life for everyone more expensive. With neither insurance nor government bail out money, people would quickly be force to understand that river side homes are expensive and should only be owned by those capable and willing to spend the money to rebuild every year or two.

2: New Orleans. Yes it is possible to build and maintain a city below sea level, but you had best have a good reason, because it will be expensive and history and sentimentality rarely pay bills. The Port and the Navy base are the only things done in that city that couldn't be done a few miles north. If that was all they had done there, the scale of the disaster would have been much smaller.

In short, a society with fewer safety nets, will force people to choose to either think more about the places they live and the risks that come with it, or suffer ruin. Either way, those of us who do pay attention to risks, wouldn't be forced to pay for others bad judgement.

In an AnCap society, there would be more risk, rather than less.  When people are given absolute freedom, their common sense flies away with their restrictions.

People who are now restricted from from building in areas known for routine destruction "for their own good" would thence build there.  Maybe only once, but at least once.
Any insurance they take out would have their risk spread out among all of the policy holders.

So, at least once, you would have to pay for others bad judgement. 
Of course the same applies to any insurance you take out; someone, somewhere will have a bout of bad judgement and BANG! there goes your money.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: ContraryGuy on September 18, 2011, 11:21:38 pm
Quote
What happens when the miners suffer a catastrophic explosion and are forced to go back to work the very next day, or have the owners enforcers shoot them down?

Do governments prevent this?
What happens when the government backs up the owners' enforcers with their own, in the interest of 'national security' and the country's need for the ore?  After all, the owners contributed a lot more to the (re)election campaigns than all the miners together.


In the modern day, yes.  In the days of trusts, no.  Long, long ago (and not too long ago) the govt did use the Taft-Hartley strike-busting "go back to work or we shoot you" Act.  But usually that was during wartime.  Yes, yes, I believe it was used once during Clinton and once during Bush, but I'm not sure of that.
You see, in the modern day, it looks bad when the Marshals Service guns down workers.
So, in  a way, the govt does prevent privately hired goons from gunning down striking workers.

You really are stretching your point when you have to reach for the Taft-Hartley Act.
Cant you come up with something better, or at least more recent than that?

Quote
After all, Ken Lay of Enron and Bernie Madoff were private citizens, not politicians.

Did the government prevent them?[/quote]

No, because they were "smart" criminals.

Quote
I could cite crooks of that scale that the government not only doesn't punish but actively aids and abets, but you'll probably toss the "conspiracy theory" blanket over it so that it won't count.

Yes, you could. I could.  All you have to do is link to the Huffington Post and there it is.
As far as conspiracy theories go, you should know by now the only person here that is worthy of that is sam.  :-)

Quote
The nature of the US laws actually prohibits the income tax in its current incarnation -- e.g. the Fifth Amendment protects ("protects" -- oh, yeah, lookit all the protection) me from being forced to supply information to incriminate myself, but if I don't file my 1040 every year, which is full of potentially-incriminating information (it can be twisted seven ways from Sunday; the same data may imply I owe a few grand or that I am owed a few grand), the gov't goons come to get me:  I am required to waive my Miranda rights . . . which means they're not "rights" at all, and so your cute little

That statement is so wrong it hurts my head trying to think of all the points i would have to rebut.  And I'm sick today, so I aint gonna.

Quote
Quote
When there are no laws, there are no rules.

is tres disingenuous.  The 1040 alone proves there are no laws even when there are "laws"! :D

Quote
In an AnCap society, how do pre-AnCap structures get replaced?

Excellent question.  When people like you realize that public crooks are just as bad, and as common, as private ones; that "government" and all its "structures" are just the same old same old, just with different labels -- then I'd bet the "structures" will simply evaporate, dry up and blow away as no one bothers to use them any more.

By structures I meant building, roads, bridges, infrastructure, etc.

And I think you know it...  :p
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: quadibloc on September 19, 2011, 12:11:24 pm
In an AnCap society, there would be more risk, rather than less.  When people are given absolute freedom, their common sense flies away with their restrictions.

People who are now restricted from from building in areas known for routine destruction "for their own good" would thence build there.  Maybe only once, but at least once.
Any insurance they take out would have their risk spread out among all of the policy holders.

So, at least once, you would have to pay for others bad judgement. 
Of course the same applies to any insurance you take out; someone, somewhere will have a bout of bad judgement and BANG! there goes your money.
Let's take the Katrina flooding in New Orleans as an example.

I hold the conventional view of this, or what I take the conventional view to be:

The people who lived in New Orleans didn't really have much choice about where they lived. They were born there, moving to another city and finding a job there costs a lot of money. Plus, as it happens, New Orleans was perhaps the only major city in the United States where black people weren't subjected to various forms of petty harassment from local law enforcement or whatever.

It wouldn't have cost much money to reinforce the levees around the city properly - they just failed by a small margin. That cost would have been much less than the immense losses resulting from the flood.

Therefore, since repairing those levees was, under the current system, a Federal responsibility, the Federal government failed in its duties by not repairing them, and should be considered fully culpable. There was really no time to consider more involved alternatives like changing the nation's system of government to something else.

However, I also think it's not reasonable to say that under AnCap, people would be foolish enough to live in unsafe places, and others would be paying for their misjudgment.

Exactly which government is supposed to be regulating the insurance providers, so that they're forced to insure people at an unreasonably low cost?

If you want insurance you can afford against flooding, for example, you had better not live where flooding happens a lot. Same with earthquakes or hurricanes or whatever.

It's government that told health insurers that, sorry, you can't discriminate against someone wanting to purchase medical insurance just because he's HIV+ - which, surprise, surprise, led to there not being any private health insurance outside of large employee plans.

Under AnCap, libertarianism, or even governments before our current politically-correct age, insurance was strictly a user-pay industry. The insurance company figured out how much it wanted to charge you for insurance based on the risk you were, and so its own judgment determined its success.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: sam on September 19, 2011, 05:43:46 pm
It wouldn't have cost much money to reinforce the levees around the city properly - they just failed by a small margin. That cost would have been much less than the immense losses resulting from the flood.

Therefore, since repairing those levees was, under the current system, a Federal responsibility, the Federal government failed in its duties by not repairing them, and should be considered fully culpable.

But, obviously it should not be a federal responsibility.  Locals should carry the cost of living in dangerous places and expensive places, so as to discourage people from living in dangerous and expensive places.

Further, if something is a federal responsibility, those responsible are far away from the actual situation, do not know what is actually happening, so the money tends to get embezzled, applied for vote buying rather than its nominal purpose, or just plain stolen - which is what happened in New Orleans.  Arguably the feds supplied considerably more than enough money, but the money was locally misappropriated for local politics.

Due to diseconomies of scale, anything that is supplied federally is going to be supplied badly, incompetently, and corruptly.  No amount of good intentions can remedy this problem.  Private businesses know well that the larger the business, the more difficult it is to run it effectively.

Further, evacuation was a local responsibility - and nearly all New Orleans buses remained in their depots and wound up under water.  The only ones that got out were stolen or borrowed without permission.
Title: Re: AnCap and Natural Disasters
Post by: mellyrn on September 19, 2011, 06:11:36 pm
Quote
By structures I meant building, roads, bridges, infrastructure, etc.

And I think you know it...  :p

Actually, no, physical structures never crossed my mind, despite the title of the thread.

If we switch from being ruled to ruling ourselves . . . well, let's see, there's a bridge I cross twice a day, workdays.  An enterprising person could appropriate it by keeping it in repair and charging for its use; I'd put money in his bucket for that.  I'd have money, that was no longer going to, say, bailing out banks that had made bad gambles.

Quote
You see, in the modern day, it looks bad when the Marshals Service guns down workers.

In an AnCap society, it looks bad when the owner's hired thugs gun down workers.  Hey, if "it looks bad" keeps your gov't thugs in line, it will just as easily keep my for-hire thugs in line.  Only with magical thinking does being in government service make a person more sensitive to looking good/bad than being in private service.

Quote
You really are stretching your point when you have to reach for the Taft-Hartley Act.
Cant you come up with something better, or at least more recent than that?

Why?  You think, because it hasn't happened lately, that it is impossible for a government ever to do something like that again? 

For the purposes of my argument, the fact that government can be used unjustly is all I need.  Government as a means of protection is, I say, an illusion.  Sure, it can protect.  And like any other weapon, it can also be turned against whoso would wield it.  It is not, and cannot be, always and only used for Good and not Bad.  It can't even be used mostly for Good -- for the simple reason that it's being used by humans, all of us ornery cusses whether we hold an office or not.

Quote
That statement is so wrong it hurts my head trying to think of all the points i would have to rebut.  And I'm sick today, so I aint gonna.

<snort> As you wish.  Meantime, my argument, unrebutted, remains available for lurkers to read and consider.  Plus:

The very fact that you disagree with me (on the interpretation of the 5th Amendment protections vs the 1040 forms) points up the fact that even when there are "laws" there are no laws.  A law, no matter how carefully, how intricately phrased and buttressed, can and will be interpreted differently by different people:  someone, sooner or later will say, "No, it doesn't mean that!"

What do we do then?  Why, we take it to arbitration!  Er, 'scuse me, I guess you'd say, "take it to court".  Either way, the result is a resolution of a dispute.

Only, under government, a judge can and sometimes does hand down an interpretation that no one in his right mind thinks is just or fair -- like the young man branded for life as a child molester, for the crime of being slightly over 18 when he had sex with his almost-18 girlfriend (honestly, there were barely a few months' difference in their ages, but he gets treated just as if he'd had sex with a two-year-old).  At least, in an anarchy, the arbiter is going for a judgment that all parties find acceptable (and thus, self-enforcing).

The range and number of crimes possible in an anarchy are just as possible under a government -- and often, the gov't's subjects have less power to defend themselves against it.  Plus, the government structure itself provides the enterprising criminal with still more material with which to be criminal, to say nothing of providing the stupid with still more ways to blunder against their fellow man whether they mean to be harmful or not.

It might not be a net loss; after all, governed or not, we're all just humans here.  But only magical thinking can make government a net gain.