Quote:Original post by HostileExpanse
So.... are we back to a world where a person who hires a hitman has committed no crime?

I don't believe it needs to be a separate class of crime but a person who hires another to commit murder bears some transferred responsibility for the crime. I favour allowing courts quite a lot of discretion in criminal cases - that is one of the reasons we have judges and juries. Culpability is not entirely black and white and I would favour considering evidence of conspiracy and incitement in a murder case and in clear cases of solicitation of murder finding both the killer and the person who contracted them guilty of murder. This is fairly well established in much existing law and historically in common law. I am unconvinced that hiring a hitman should itself be a prosecutable offence in the absence of an actual murder however.

Any contract to kill a person (or infringe on other basic rights) would be void - not recognized as a contract under law. That is also common to most legal systems.

Quote:Never did get your response to the scenarios when I posted them on the previous page...

I didn't get round to addressing them but to be honest I don't think they are particularly worth addressing. Your hysterical fears about anthrax and terrorist bioweapons just demonstrate that you've completely bought into the climate of fear created by the government to justify their ever expanding powers and encroachment on civil liberties. I don't agree with Michael Moore on much but he and other radical leftists have a point of agreement with many libertarians on that issue.

Quote:Original post by mattnewport

Quote:As far as developing a metric for deregulation goes, the premise of notion is flawed. Given that markets require regulations, the question to ask is how to measure regulations, not how to measure their negation. The effort to measure deregulation is inherently ideological. It's not about illumination but obfuscation.

It would seem to me that if you have a measure of 'regulation', R, then you have a measure for 'deregulation', D. When R goes up, D goes down, and vice-versa. Or are you saying that there is no such thing as 'more' or 'less' regulation, only 'better' or 'worse' regulation? What exactly are you proposing to measure?

It seems that way because you look at deregulation as the opposite or the inverse of regulation, but that isn't necessarily the case. What I proposed was a question.

Quote:Original post by mattnewport

Quote:Prohibition is an extreme example, but it seems to me that the people have an interest in regulating drug and sex transactions in order to reduce the harms associated with them.

They have a legitimate interest in reducing harms to themselves due to externalities. They have no legitimate interest in reducing perceived harms to others if those who are being 'harmed' are not seeking their intervention.

They have a legitimate interest in reducing harm to those harmed, including those not seeking assistance. It appears that you support legalization coupled with a you're on your own response to the consequences. I support legalization with a realization that the potential social damage that might follow will need amelioration.

Quote:Original post by mattnewport

Quote:For example, the people of Mexico have a legitimate interest in US drug laws to the extent that these laws fuel the narco-war ravishing their country for the last few years.

Mexico has a legitimate complaint about the US's bullying tactics regarding any efforts by other countries to reform their drug laws. Many countries that might consider reform are subjected to significant interference by the US to prevent such reform occurring. There's also quite a lot of reason to believe that the US has intervened directly in the internal affairs of other countries and infringed on their sovereignty in its 'war on drugs' which would also be a legitimate basis for a complaint.

I don't think Mexico would have a legitimate complaint if the US population just collectively chose not to buy their drugs but that's not the problem. The conflict between demand from drug consumers in the US and a government that wishes to interfere in the trade is the problem.

I don't see the connection to third countries. The US interfered with Mexican attempts to decriminalize drug possession two years ago (or was it three?). The US was unable to prevent it from happening there eventually. Mexico has more to complain about regarding direct US interference than it does about indirect US interference.

Quote:Original post by mattnewport

Quote:Regarding freedom of speech, do you disagree with making incitement to riot a crime? Additionally, should people be allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater?

I don't believe incitement to riot should be a crime - I believe people are responsible for their own actions. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre should not be a criminal offense but it could be grounds for a civil suit by the theatre and they would be within their rights to eject the individual and ban them from using their facilities in the future.

Third parties injured as a consequence of either action might have grounds for suing but that would be a matter for a civil court and not a criminal case.

If people died in the riot or were trampled in the theater would there be grounds for a criminal case? I think so. I think people should be held to account for what they say in public.

Quote:Original post by mattnewport

Quote:Note that Sweden ties for third with Singapore as least corrupt. Are you going to deny that Sweden has high levels of regulation? Or Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Germany? I think the "Index of Freedom" is nothing more than a propaganda tool used by corporate special interests in their effort to shape regulations to their liking.

The Scandinavian nations actually have quite low levels of regulation and fairly open markets. They have a large welfare state and high levels of government spending but that is a somewhat orthogonal metric.

Which of the nations that score highly on the Index of Freedom do you consider corporatist dystopias?

That link doesn't support your claim. Mitchell is addressing standard of living, not regulation. As I wrote above, I think the "Index of Freedom" is nothing more than a propaganda tool used by corporate special interests in their effort to shape regulations to their liking. It's bogus from the outset.

Meanwhile, you're sidestepping my challenge to your claim that high regulation correlates with high corruption.

Quote:Original post by mattnewport

Quote:The implication is there in your assertion of belief. You seem to be clinging to the notion that organize means organize efficiently, along the lines of "If the system can't be organized efficiently, it can't be organized". Is the economy too complicated for a top down planer to organize inefficiently? If not, then you've admitted that the economy is not so complicated that it can't be organized by a top down planner.

I don't believe a top down planner can organize an economy efficiently or effectively. Top down planning is both inefficient (produces less than optimal outcomes) and ineffective (does not manage to make the system or the agents within it behave in the intended/desired fashion). A centrally planned economy would still be inefficient even if it was not ineffective due to the inherent difficulties of centralized planning. The fact that it doesn't even behave in accordance with the design and rules set out is an added problem for top down planning. It is impractical both to design an efficient system using top down planning and to implement such a design even if you had one.

I think you're so lost in your ideology that you're unable to recognize the question I asked and the implications of the answers you've given. At any rate, the top-down planning that occurs in the largest corporations refutes each of your assertions here. Corporations have shown that top-down planning is both efficient (produces highly optimal outcomes) and effective (makes agents behave as desired) and no more difficult than any other kind of planning.

Quote:Original post by mattnewport

Quote:So deviations from efficiency supply the metric for judging a top down planner?

They supply a metric. There are certain values I consider higher than efficiency however. If for example it could be demonstrated that the most efficient economy was one where the majority of the population were slaves I would not consider that desirable. I don't believe that a good measure of efficiency would ever produce such a perverse outcome but if it did I'd have to go with less efficient freedom over more efficient slavery.

Yes, efficiency has a downside.

Quote:Original post by mattnewport

Quote:Top down management is the primary technique used by most corporations, but my question was about top down regulation, not top down management.

I don't see a clear distinction if you are talking about corporations. Could you clarify your question?

How do mega-corporations with revenues comparable to the GDP of nations manage to avoid top down regulation internally?

Quote:Original post by mattnewport

Quote:The definition of efficiency that you've supplied doesn't apply to government.

- No one can be made better off without making someone else worse off.
- More output cannot be obtained without increasing the amount of inputs.
- Production proceeds at the lowest possible per-unit cost.

To the extent that government provides goods and services within the economy it seems to me you can judge it based on those criteria. Why do you think these criteria can't be applied to government?

It's right there in the definition you cited. A system can be called economically efficient if: (Economic efficiency). The government isn't the economic system. You're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Quote:Original post by mattnewport

Quote:Believe it or not but most people like the government and willingly pay taxes, not from fear but from a sense of common purpose and affinity. Do you love your country? Maybe not, but most people do.

If most people willingly pay taxes why do they have to be compulsory? The fact that a majority of Americans think their taxes are too high calls your claim into some doubt.

Most is not equal to all. People can think their taxes are too high and still willingly pay them.

Quote:Original post by mattnewport
I have a certain affection for my homeland and for the country I now live in but I don't see any logical connection between that and willingly paying taxes or believing in the government. Do you think patriotism in the US did not exist before 1861?

That you can't see the logical connection attests to another of your ideological blind spots. Considering that in 1861 half the country expressed it's patriotism by rebelling, your question is moot.

Quote:Original post by mattnewport

Quote:When libertarians find a worm in an apple, do they explain it away by saying that the worm wouldn't be there if the apple wasn't sweet? And do they conclude that we could do away with worms in apples if we made apples less sweet? The cause is corporate greed, not government power. Greed isn't rational.

If libertarians find a worm in an apple I imagine they will not express outrage at how wicked and greedy the worm is, rather they will recognize that is the nature of worms to seek out food. They will probably also be skeptical of proposals to solve the problem by piling all apples in Washington and leaving politicians to guard them.

So they would leave the worm to continue eating, and corporations to continue corrupting the government and the nation. I thought so.

Quote:Original post by mattnewport
It's something of a confusion to say that greed isn't 'rational'. Greed is a motivation. Rationality is a process for deciding how to optimally pursue your goals. Greed is a generator of goals which may be rationally pursued. Greed can be irrational if it leads you to choose narrow goals that actually act against your own broader interests but it's not clear to me that 'corporate greed' suffers from that problem. Corporations generally seem to act quite rationally in their own interests.

There's nothing confusing about saying greed isn't rational. Rational people don't lose control of their appetites. If it's not clear to you that corporate greed suffers from pursuing narrow goals that act against their broader interest, then you must be impervious to the facts of what happened on Wall Street last year.

Quote:Original post by mattnewport

Quote:Where do those law come from? How do they obtain their legitimacy? How do you obtain consent of the governed if the governed have no say in the formation of laws? It seems that you are so opposed to one group imposing it's will on another, that you would not let any group determine the law, except the group that determines the law, which, of course, would be your group...

The libertarian position is that laws derive from a minimal set of basic rights. The choice of rights is justified in a number of different ways. My basic reasoning is that you want the minimal set of rights which allows for non-violent co-existence, which pretty much boils down to the non-aggression principle and property rights. If you're actually interested there's a rather large body of libertarian and classical liberal thought on 'natural law' but I suspect you already know that. I personally look at it from more of a game-theoretic / evolutionarily stable strategy point of view but come to basically the same conclusion as the classical liberal philosophers.

Evolution describes a process of adaptation, yet you have used it to reach a static position constructed on an 18th century conception of rights that completely omits the most important political concept to emerge from that century, the notion that legitimate government flows from the consent of the governed.

Quote:Original post by mattnewport

Quote:The police aren't the government? That's a new one. What's the logical basis for that claim? Above you said the only difference between the government and a criminal organization was that the government controlled the legal system. Now you say that the police, the primary interface to the criminal justice system, are not the government. That's another contradiction in your views. If the police aren't the government, then what about police states? Where do police states fit in your contradictory views?

The police are part of the government but they are not identical with the government. The police are not the government in the same sense that the fire department is not the government, the courts are not the government and the DMV is not the government. Even in a police state the police are not identical with the government. I don't see the great mystery.

When you call the police you are calling the government. When you call the fire department you are calling the government. When you call the DMV or the courts and so on, you are calling the government. There is no mystery to that - unless of course you don't want people to make the connection between your extreme views regarding government and how it would impact them directly. It sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it to. You want to condemn the government as a mugger, but you want the government to provide you with service when you are mugged. Among other things, that betrays an attitude of privilege and even contempt.

Quote:Original post by mattnewport

Quote:I think that under the proper conditions Keynesian stimulus is effective and that current conditions meet those conditions. Krugman lays it all out here: How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?

I find it somewhat amusing that you dismiss Sowell as a 'partisan hack' but then refer to Krugman to support your position. He won his Nobel prize back when he was an economist. He's just a political op-ed columnist these days.

I not only dismissed Sowell as a partisan hack, I demonstrated it. That's more than you can say for your attack on Krugman. Krugman is still an economist, just as he was last year when he won the Nobel Prize.

Quote:Original post by mattnewport

Quote:Private enterprise has a poor track record of providing municipal services.

I could point you in the direction of plenty of counter evidence to that claim but I'm sensing that there wouldn't be much point. I think this discussion is unlikely to prove fruitful for much longer.

If there was plenty of counter evidence, it would be easy for you to point to some of it, but instead of that you merely bluster. I'm not claiming that there aren't examples of private enterprise successfully providing municipal services, just that there aren't very many of them. If you're interested in a brief overview, Privatizing Public Services Imperils Cities, The Origins of Governmental Production: Cleaning the Streets of New York by Contract During the 19th Century. (pdf), Water Privatization in Latin America.

Quote:Original post by mattnewport

Quote:I agree with you here, but even if crack was legal I wouldn't support allowing crack houses in residential zones.

With much wider private ownership there would be plenty of scope for communities that had their own rules against such things. It just wouldn't be enforced at a national level. I'd consider it a great improvement if such matters were entirely left to the local level even under the current system of government.

Crack houses would be left to the local government to deal with, just like porn shops, gun shops and pot dispensaries. It would be a zoning issue.

Quote:Original post by HostileExpanse
Then there isn't much way to skirt around that you are declaring that people should be held responsible for incitement. A demogogue's rabble-rousing tirade is "just words" -- but so also is the promise of future payment to a hitman.

As I said, culpability isn't perfectly black and white. We may consider someone as responsible for a murder if they pull a trigger (even though it was the gun that killed), put their foot on the gas (even though it was the car that killed) or push someone in front of a bus (even though it was the bus that killed). At some sufficient level of involvement (paying money, making threats or using blackmail, offering other non monetary rewards) someone can be partially culpable for a murder they did not physically commit as the actual killer becomes partially a tool used to kill. I would prefer the courts to have a reasonable amount of leeway in that area - I don't think such cases are usually black and white and such complexities are part of why we have courts, judges and juries.

In all these cases I don't see the incitement as a crime in itself in the absence of an actual murder (or assault, theft, etc.). There is no criminal act until actual harm occurs. If a crime occurs, some culpability may be attributed to an individual who did not pull the trigger. Personally I would draw the line somewhere between paying a hit man and a rabble rousing speech but I don't think the precise demarcation is something to be codified too strictly in law, it should be a matter for the courts and depend on the details of a specific case.

Quote:Errr.... the scenarios I offered have absolutely zero to do with any "government propaganda." I can assure you that the absurdity of criminal systems which ignore endangerment (and would be adamant about doing so forever) is hardly any reflection of a "hysteria" on my part.

Bin laden buying up road networks, terror cells, anthrax, bioweapons... blah blah blah. I don't recognize these absurd paranoid fantasies as concerns worth addressing.

Quote:Original post by HostileExpanse
The abundance of these apparently unresolved absurdities is why most people don't find Rothbardian fantasies worth addressing.

I don't believe that fears of neighbourhood terrorist biolabs is a common reason for people not accepting libertarian arguments. I think you are the first person I've encountered who seems to see that as a major flaw of libertarian thinking.

I assume you are aware that the only known case of anthrax bioterrorism appears to have been perpetrated by a federal government biodefense researcher subject to some of the most 'thorough' security screening procedures the government is capable of applying? He killed a grand total of 5 people, about the number that died in traffic accidents in the time it took me to compose this reply.

Quote:Original post by mattnewport

Quote:Original post by HostileExpanse
The abundance of these apparently unresolved absurdities is why most people don't find Rothbardian fantasies worth addressing.

I don't believe that fears of neighbourhood terrorist biolabs is a common reason for people not accepting libertarian arguments. I think you are the first person I've encountered who seems to see that as a major flaw of libertarian thinking.

Terrorist biolabs are unlikely, but not methlabs, brothels, crackhouses, dog fighting arenas, unlicensed surgery clinics, backyard oil derecks, ...

Quote:Original post by mattnewport
I assume you are aware that the only known case of anthrax bioterrorism appears to have been perpetrated by a federal government biodefense researcher subject to some of the most 'thorough' security screening procedures the government is capable of applying? He killed a grand total of 5 people, about the number that died in traffic accidents in the time it took me to compose this reply.

A key British official reminds us of the forgotten anthrax attack

Quote:
...
I've written many times before about how the anthrax attack played at least as large of a role as the 9/11 attack itself, if not larger, in creating the general climate of fear that prevailed for years in the U.S. and specifically how the anthrax episode was exploited by leading media and political figures to gin up intense hostility towards Iraq (a few others have argued the same). That's why it's so striking how we've collectively flushed this terrorist attack down the memory hole as though it doesn't exist. When Dana Perino boasted this week on Fox News that "we did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush’s term," most of the resulting derision focused on the 9/11 attack while ignoring -- as always -- the anthrax attack.

What makes this particularly significant is that the anthrax attack is unresolved and uninvestigated. The FBI claimed last year that it had identified the sole perpetrator, Bruce Ivins, but because Ivins is dead, they never had the opportunity -- or the obligation -- to prove their accusations in any meaningful tribunal. The case against Ivins is so riddled with logical and evidentiary holes that it has generated extreme doubts not merely from typical government skeptics but from the most mainstream, establishment-revering, and ideologically disparate sources. Just consider some of the outlets and individuals who have stated unequivocally that the FBI's case against Ivinis is unpersausive and requires a meaningful investigation: The Washington Post Editorial Page; The New York Times Editorial Page; The Wall St. Journal Editorial Page; the science journal Nature; Senators Pat Leahy, Arlen Specter and Charles Grassley; physicist and Congressman Rush Holt, whose New Jersey district was where the anthrax letters were sent; Dr. Alan Pearson, Director of the Biological and Chemical Weapons Control Program at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation; and a vast array of scientific and legal experts in the field.
...

This gap betrays the laissez-faire attitude of the Bush administration. Terrorists threatening attack? Don't worry, our invisible shield of goodness will protect us. Hurricane threatens major port city? Don't worry, the magic of the free market will take care of that. Economy threatening to implode? Don't worry, the magic of the free market will bring us something even better.

Quote:Original post by LessBread
It seems that way because you look at deregulation as the opposite or the inverse of regulation, but that isn't necessarily the case. What I proposed was a question.

Are you resorting to Zen Koans now? If you are proposing new definitions for deregulation and regulation then spit them out rather than dodging the question.

I've already proposed several possible measures of regulation, not particularly brilliant ones but at least something that might be amenable to objective measurement. I've also offered to get specific by discussing particular reforms and saying whether I think they would count as deregulation. If we can't even agree on what we mean by regulation and deregulation then there's really not much point discussing their relative merits.

Quote:They have a legitimate interest in reducing harm to those harmed, including those not seeking assistance.

They have no business judging that someone is being harmed if the 'victim' is not seeking assistance. There are many religious people in the world who would consider that I am being harmed (by condemning my soul to eternal damnation) by not following their beliefs. That gives them absolutely no right to intervene in my life without my consent. The same is true of those who see 'harm' in other people's use of drugs or alcohol, sexual proclivities, participation in dangerous sports or any other activity that doesn't meet some busybody's approval.

Quote:It appears that you support legalization coupled with a you're on your own response to the consequences. I support legalization with a realization that the potential social damage that might follow will need amelioration.

I have no problem with voluntary assistance provided to those who seek help due to problems relating to drug use. There are many commendable charities doing such work today. I absolutely reject anyone being forced to provide assistance to anyone else against their will.

Quote:Original post by mattnewport
If people died in the riot or were trampled in the theater would there be grounds for a criminal case? I think so. I think people should be held to account for what they say in public.

No, I don't think there would be grounds for a criminal case. There may well be grounds for several civil suits. People can be held responsible for the consequences of their actions without needing to make everything into a case for the criminal courts.

Quote:Original post by mattnewport
That link doesn't support your claim. Mitchell is addressing standard of living, not regulation.

I was referencing the first paragraph of the link: "Nations such as Denmark and Sweden have much to admire, particularly their open markets, low levels of regulation, sound money, and honest governments. Indeed, if fiscal policy is removed from the equation, both Denmark and Sweden are more laissez-faire than the United States according to Economic Freedom of the World".

Quote:As I wrote above, I think the "Index of Freedom" is nothing more than a propaganda tool used by corporate special interests in their effort to shape regulations to their liking. It's bogus from the outset.

So you fear the dark dystopian corporate future where the United States becomes a little more like Australia or Ireland?

Quote:Meanwhile, you're sidestepping my challenge to your claim that high regulation correlates with high corruption.

Easy enough to test with Excel, seems a pretty robust correlation:

Quote:How do mega-corporations with revenues comparable to the GDP of nations manage to avoid top down regulation internally?

Using as many different approaches as there are corporations. I suggest reading some management books or case studies of a few successful large corporations to get a feel for how they organize themselves without excessive top down regulation. Generally the more profitable corporations do not organize themselves like governments.

Quote:It's right there in the definition you cited. A system can be called economically efficient if: (Economic efficiency). The government isn't the economic system. You're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

So how would you like to define efficiency for governments then? If you want to argue with my definitions then how about proposing an alternative? It seems to me that any measure of efficiency for governments would have to bear more than a passing resemblance to the definition I gave.

Quote:Original post by mattnewport
Most is not equal to all. People can think their taxes are too high and still willingly pay them.

You were the one that brought 'most' into it. I don't think taxes would be legitimate even if an absolute majority approved of them. As it happens I suspect that 'most' people would not pay taxes at anything like the current level if they didn't have to but I don't think it really matters what percentage would choose to pay. If you believe that most people willingly pay their taxes why not make them voluntary? I have absolutely no problem with voluntary taxes that anyone who wants to can pay. What I object to is forcing people who don't want to pay them to pay.

Quote:That you can't see the logical connection attests to another of your ideological blind spots. Considering that in 1861 half the country expressed it's patriotism by rebelling, your question is moot.

You seem to be confusing patriotism with nationalism and with blind devotion to the current government. Did you agree that people who opposed the Iraq war were unpatriotic for not supporting their government?

Quote:There's nothing confusing about saying greed isn't rational. Rational people don't lose control of their appetites. If it's not clear to you that corporate greed suffers from pursuing narrow goals that act against their broader interest, then you must be impervious to the facts of what happened on Wall Street last year.

It's far from clear to me that Wall Street acted against it's own broader interests. The Goldman Sachs employees earning an average of $700,000 this year from a $16.7 billion compensation pool probably feel that they have more or less met their goals.

Quote:When you call the police you are calling the government. When you call the fire department you are calling the government. When you call the DMV or the courts and so on, you are calling the government. There is no mystery to that - unless of course you don't want people to make the connection between your extreme views regarding government and how it would impact them directly. It sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it to. You want to condemn the government as a mugger, but you want the government to provide you with service when you are mugged. Among other things, that betrays an attitude of privilege and even contempt.

If I contact a government agency to provide a service it is because the government has a monopoly on that service and I have no other realistic option to obtain it. In many cases it is a service that I don't even want but that I am required to obtain because of other government regulations. What I want is to be able to obtain those services that I actually require privately in a competitive market place with no government involvement. Your argument is completely incoherent.

Quote:If there was plenty of counter evidence, it would be easy for you to point to some of it, but instead of that you merely bluster.

Any evidence I've linked to in this thread you've summarily dismissed as nothing but corporate funded lies without even bothering to address. It seems to me you are not interested in considering any evidence that doesn't fit with your world view. It seems to me that there are rapidly diminishing returns to continuing to engage in dialogue with you.

Quote:Crack houses would be left to the local government to deal with, just like porn shops, gun shops and pot dispensaries. It would be a zoning issue.

I'd prefer it were left to private ownership but devolving power to the most local level of government is certainly a better situation than what we have now.