What’s your point?
Ah yes. Central planning is the cure for all that ails us. Because it’s worked so well in the past.
Depends on what you mean by “combat”. In the last post you said “reduce”…as in “make there be less of”. “Combat” could mean “reduce”, as in prevention…but it could also mean “respond to”…as in reaction.
Game theory explores how unwanted behavior is “combated”.
Your solution: undo the federal government… unrealistic.
Oh man, how did I not figure that out?
You’re gonna have to do a bit more than give me a 3 second sound bite.
My solution: use the system in place and reduce corruption through intelligent designs
Intelligent designs = free market. As good as government experts are, they will not design a better system than the free market.
I don’t think you’re understanding the idea. Taxation = stealing. Keeping the system means that we will be institutionalizing a 40% theft rate. You like that?
unfair concepts of inheritance where property owners legitimately have more power than those people without property.
There is no way for people with more property to have less influence that the ones with property.
Inheritance is unfair? How so? It’s a mere transfer of money. If inheritance is unfair, then so is any exchange.
I only point out the existence of a moral delimma which is answered differently among different people: which is expected. It is pragmatic to understand that people will have different ideas concerning “what is fair”.
I explain my “idealism” simply to share my own thoughts and potentially convey reasoning as to why I suggest the things I do.
You should all know that I am a Ron Paul supporter, I like non-violence, volunteerism, charity, liberty, and all of that other stuff that makes you feel all warm inside. But I do try to be realistic and understand the positions of different people.
I understand why Reid said public sector jobs are more important than private sector jobs - and I understand people who disagree… just as an example.
You know what else Harry Reid said?
@John James
I don’t advocate central planning. Great video on game theory… nice, realiating, forgiving, and non-envious. I don’t see why the narrator alludes to socialism as being against this winning strategy of tit-for-tat.
He used the example of the line of cars. But it is a good example of using regulation. An individual can enter into the fast lane and travel at the same speed as if they were in the other lane. This “forces” cooperation. An even better design would be automated vehicles… allowing for exception cases where there are valid emergencies.
But to get back on topic… people who coerce would be coerced. But the current government allows for corruption because of poor design. And in essence - there is competition for that coercive ability. But the real solution is to actually change the poor design that allows for corruption.
Some of you might recommend the removal of the government. But change is a gradual thing. Keep your ideals and let those guide our transition in that direction.
Free market is utopian. It is the embodiment of the nirvana fallacy. All we can do is work toward a free market by removing barriers and limitations. The free market is not natural… utopia is not natural. The natural state of the world is with unpredictability… which is in and of itself a barrier and limitation.
I know there is no way for peple with more property to have less influence than those without property… this the main reason why people argue against capitalism and for idealistic socialism… because capitalism allows for this stratification.
As a pragmatic person - I am fine with stratification. But I would wish that stratification become more fair over time - as people begin to voluntarily donate their valuables in their death will instead of leaving those valuables to their family. And I would like people to be more free to form their own governments… by increasing representation.
I do misspeak about “unfairness”. In reality - unfairness is inevitable… but we progress by increasing the “fairness” of the designed system.
No, government is corruption, by design.
No, there is the exact opposite of competition…it is called monopoly. Again, what is government but a monopoly on the use of force?
You mean like, turn a dog into a cat.
Your direction is the opposite of that. Your direction is more of the same. “Government x doesn’t work, so we need more government x to fix the problems of government x. And we need to elect the ‘right’ people. Intelligent and respectful people. Then everything would be better.” In other words, Communism would have worked if it hadn’t been for Stalin, right?
Nirvana fallacy refers to the notion that perfection is attainable…that all fraudulent behavior can be eliminated, for example. A free market says nothing about creating Nirvana on Earth. All a free market is is the absence of government. No one ever said that would make the world perfect.
No offense, but that has to be the dumbest thing I’ve heard in a long time. If the free market (i.e. the absence of government) is “not natural”, that would have to mean government is “natural”…as in, not conceived or created by man…but existing before man. That is either seriously confused, or completely deranged. Either way, it’s total nonsense.
…by taking stuff from some people, by force, and giving it to other people.
a moral delimma
created by government in the first place (see below for how government creates the uneven distribution of wealth we have).
It is pragmatic to understand that people will have different ideas concerning “what is fair”.
Yes, and afterwards showing them why they’re wrong.
You should all know that I am a Ron Paul supporter
Then speak like it 
I understand why Reid said public sector jobs are more important than private sector jobs
Do enlighten us as to why jobs which are created through the confiscation of wealth and assigned in a system of socialist calculation are more important than jobs created by a voluntary market which has supply and demand working to actually solve the calculation problem.
But the real solution is to actually change the poor design that allows for corruption
I’ll bite. What do you suggest we do?
change is a gradual thing
It doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t advocate the end result. Did you see abolitionists trying to get slaveowners to beat their slaves a bit less at first and give them a tad bit more food? Or did you see them fight for total abolition?
Remember, "Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice"
In fact, if you look that phrase up, the first 3 results are all libertarian websites. Most importantly, you should read the second one ( http://www.fff.org/freedom/1197e.asp ) :
Libertarianism is the political philosophy based on the principle of nonaggression. Every human being is a self-owner with inalienable rights. And gradualism is inconsistent with the moral foundation of libertarianism.
…
Before proceeding, it is useful to distinguish gradualism as a policy from gradualism as a fact of reality. This latter form of gradualism says that, try as you may, it takes time to implement ideas. The transition to a libertarian society would not — because it could not — occur overnight. This is the nature of the temporal reality in which we live. If this is all that is meant by gradualism — if it means “as fast as possible” — then there is no quarrel between “gradualists” and “abolitionists” within the movement.
This is not the formulation of gradualism with which abolitionists are concerned.
Moving on,
It is the embodiment of the nirvana fallacy
No, a perfect, immediately self-correcting free market which responds to shocks in 24 hours to return to equilibrium is nirvana. The actual free market (lack of institutionalized aggression on the part of government) is quite possible.
The free market is not natural
Right now all I can imagine you being is a white Southerner in 1840 saying “The free negro is not natural”
capitalism allows for this stratification
Allows for it but does not institutionalize it, and indeed such a turn of events in a free market would be highly unlikely. We currently have the unequal wealth distribution we have due to government policies. Government-created monopolies and free government-money to banks.
As a pragmatic person
You know, it’s really easy to be a libertarian and say “well, I know this system would not be good”, because then you seem like such a pragmatic person. The truth is, you’re a copout who fails to analyze the reality he touts. It’s like saying “capitalism and socialism work well in theory, but not in practice.” No, sir, socialism never worked in theory. It’s really easy to say that it did, you sound like such an understanding person. But the truth is, it’s a copout. Same with “I’m a pragmatist, let’s have gradual redistribution of wealth.”
unfairness is inevitable
The concept of fairness in legal ethics extends no further than a respect for property rights. The rest is personal morals. Personal morals which should not be forced upon others.
If you wish someone would give their valuables in their death to someone outside of their family- this has to happen by persuasion and nothing else. You’d have to show this person that giving to other people is more important than giving to their family.
I never understood the idea of inheritence being unfair as if there’s nothing you can do about it! If person A and B were born at the same time, and person B inherited a lot of money and person A inherited nothing…why can’t A just become B’s good friend and get on the same level playing field that way? Why is there always a solution of a 3rd party taking from B to give to A?
How is it that critics of free market can claim that it is a utopian impracticable ideal? It’s completely absurd. It requires the construction of nothing, only deconstruction. Socialism on the other hand requires a massive structure. Free Markets require the absence of things and the rest follows. There is nothing difficult about creating those conditions, other than educating people. Simply because one idea is better than another does not make it ‘utopian’. It’s nonsense.
All of the recent posts ignore my definition of government… that I laid out here.
Government is simply management? Sure you can define it that way, but it’s quite useless. What do you call the thing we call government?
Better yet, let’s use “the state.”
Huh? You and I have already exchanged 4 posts since I asked you that. How about responding to something more recent…like the part about how everything still comes back to you advocating taking stuff from some people, by force, and giving it to other people.
The thing you call “the state” is the evolution of a poorly designed creation. It is different than “my government” in that it is static and tends to have a life-span that is greater than its creators. So I would have us move toward better systems of government that make use of technology.
People will continue to form states so long as there is threat of ignorance - recognizing that the state is itself a product of ignorance. I think the state’s primary function should be to address the threat of ignorance. This is the way in which states are no longer needed.
…by taking stuff from some people, by force, and giving it to other people.
I don’t think we can ever avoid taking and giving. Each breath we take is taking from another. Reproduction creates another breather that will take from another. I don’t see how you can uphold some kind of absolute truth that we should not take and give. Ideally - we all share.
That might possibly the most asinine thing I’ve ever heard. (And I’ve heard some idiotic shit.)
I talk about taking stuff from some people, by force, and giving it to other people, and your response is “breathing.” Do I really have to break this down?
Air is not scarce (in the relative sense) on Earth.
If you can prove which air you own, and that someone took it from you, I’m sure we can get it returned.
Please tell me where force is involved in any of this.
And when you can’t do any of this, you might want to come up with a better defense for theft and violence than claiming “breathing” qualifies.
You are starting with the assumption that you can in fact make a valid claim to property. I am claiming that any such claim is inherently invalid because there are people effected that can not contractually agree to your claim. There is no way to have mutual consent regarding your claim of property… it is impossible.
absolutism is impossible - therefore violence.
Here, I dumbed it down.