Daniel Unplugged

A couple of things to point out first. As far as moral principles are concerned, the race of the people in question is irrelevant, as is the fact that one of them is relatively poor, and the other is relatively rich. Can you please define what you mean by exploiting? Are you referring to the peasant as a natural resource? No cynicism intended, I just want to confirm what you meant. Even a peasant, usually, owns the land he works. Why would he sell the land he depends on for his livelihood to the corporation? Even if the corporation does own all the nearby land, and this also applies to small mining towns (where there is only 1employer in a large geographical area) as well, there is no initiation of force. The peasant is not forced to work for the corporation. The peasant may leave anytime he sees fit. People, rich and poor alike, move location, often to far away lands, to find better employment opportunities. Nothing new about that. If the peasant believes that the job the corporation offers him is the best offer he can get, he stays, otherwise, he leaves. Obviously there are other factors he would consider as well, like the location of his family and friends. Either way, there is still no initiation of force. Note that the example you give, where the peasant must work for the corporation or die, doesn't actually exist anywhere in the world qnd is a very hypothetical scenario that would be unlikely ever to occur in a free society. It does however, happen in communist states, but they are the exact opposite of free societies. So do I, as far as principles are concerned anyway. Again, why can't the peasant leave? The structural coercion you mention, sounds a lot like Peter Joseph's structural violence. There is no coercion or violence in either, unless of course, the peasant is prevented from leaving by the corporation. I consider, that voluntary interactions, however repulsive I find them personally, cannot be unjust. I do not judge others for their voluntary interactions. Their freedom (as well as mine) to live their lives as they see fit, is of absolute importance to me. Everything else is secondary.

No, the threat of force is enough. I pay taxes even though the state has not directly used force against me. Remember, it is the non agression principal. A threat of force is an aggressive action.

If you have an argument as such, please post it, thats what this forum is for.

That was only speculation of course. What I had in mind was the following. Identification would be necessary in a free society, in order to asses the credibility of a person entering into a contract. Since rocket launchers have the potential to be used to do great harm a simple ID check against a database of known sociopaths would seem appropriate. It would provide a level of safety, for a minimal cost. It would not be foolproof of course. The market may demand such checks. If a rocket launcher was used to bring down a jet, the manufacturer would get a lot of bad press for being negligent. This would hurt their brand, and they may decide that requiring an ID check is better for business, since it will keep them on good terms with their responsible gun owner customers. FYI, I'm all for the right to bear arms, when applied to government.Interesting for sure, but for now, we only get to speculate So true

Somehow I missed the logical fallacy you were about to point out.People are actually very good at making economic decisions. Doing a cost benefit analysis is incredibly easy. The cost is just the price, measured in a currency of known value. The benefit is whatever utility you gain from the product in question, which is also, to a large degree, known. Who ever buys a product without knowing what it is? People trade if they believe the trade makes them better off. Sometimes people make mistakes, but thats life.Rather than being a logical fallacy, it is merely stating the bloody obvious. Note that the theory of gravity starts "things tend to fall", the knowledge of which is critical to developing the theory further.

In a voluntary society, I suspect there will very little preventing the purchase of rocket launchers for legitimate purposes because it does not violate the NAP, the principle that such a society would be based on. Note that firing a rocket launcher because watching (your own) stuff explode amuses you, is a legitimate purpose for owning one. A rocket launcher manufacturer, may require that you provide a level of proof that you want it for legitimate purposes. If the rocket launcher salesman, if he has any integrity at all, as almost all people would in a voluntary society, he would refuse to sell to anybody he suspects will use the rocket launcher to murder innocent people. With regards to how a voluntary society would deal with people who like to murder other people, I suspect that it would be somewhat similar to how our current society deals with (non government) murderers, only far more humanely, accurately, cheaply and effectively. On second thoughts, it would actually be nothing like our current system.

A cop to someone driving a car: "You have to pull over" Real meaning: "If you do not pull over, we will follow you home, kick down your door, terrorise your family, assault you, kidnap you, and lock you in a cage" A teacher to a student: "You have to do your homework" Real meaning: "If you do not do your homework, you will held in detention, will be humiliated in front of your class tomorrow, will receive a failing grade, may be forced to spend another year in a prison like environment, and may be prevented from working in the job of your dreams." The IRS to a taxpayer: "You have to give us money" Real meaning: "If you do not give us money, we will kidnap you, lock you in a cage, and then take your money anyway, as well as some extra as punishment for not giving us your money when we asked nicely." A parent to a child: "You have to go to bed" Real meaning: "If you do not go to bed, I will pull your pants down and spank you repeatedly. Your cries for mercy will be ignored. You will still have to go to bed"

Correct. This is why anarcho capitalists, such as myself, reject the notion of government in its entirety. Any theft is immoral, therefore any government at all is immoral. It is simply the position we must take in order to uphold our moral principles. Once theft is ruled out as a means to solve complex problems, other morally sound (and I would argue more effective) solutions become apparent. Yes, we are aiming very high, but we all know what happened to the US experiment of the smallest possible government. The cancer must be removed in its entirety, otherwise it will grow back."There is one thing those in power always seek, more power."

I'm no expert on the East India Trading Company, so I better not tread there. In a free society, I struggle to see why a corporation would raise an army and start a war, unless they are hellbent on forming another government. I suppose that is possible, but the shareholders have far more to lose than they would likely gain. If the shareholders can afford to raise an army they must already be really, really rich. Doing so risks their wealth and their lives. Surely whomever they are going to war with would defend themselves by raising their own army, and would likely have the support of the rest of the population. I can't see how a cost benefit analysis would result in this scenario.Can you provide a thought experiment on how you think it could come about?

I admit I was just rounding off that 'hair less than a dollar', but you are right, it actually is a whole dollar for the reason you stated.

Chompsky said "they'll (corporations) have their own roads, they'll have their own armies." Private roads? So? What is wrong with that? It just means will be paid for voluntarily by the users, instead of under threat of kidnapping by taxpayers - much less tyranny there for sure. Private armies? I'll assume he is not merely referring to private security guards, since, they exist under our current system (banks, shopping malls, nightclubs etc.), and they pretty much only ever act to protect persons/property. They never act to extort, murder or steal, as do government security forces. So he must be referring to regular armies. So let me get this right; the people of a society gain some basic morals, reject the initiation of force, remove from power the most armed, wealthy and powerful organised crime gang ever to have existed, begin to bathe in the freedom an prosperity of a stateless society, and then, they just sit by and watch as another evil organization grows to power and returns them to a state of tyranny? I think not. War is not profitable, unless it is paid for by those not going to war, which would not be the case if a corporation was funding its own war.

Actually printing an extra dollar destroys a whole dollar. Printing money creates no extra purchasing power, it just transfers one dollar of purchasing power to the recipient of the new dollar from the holders of all the other dollars.

Well said

I also think that growth is a good thing, I was just pointing out that the premise of the original post was that capitalism does now work because it results in perpetual growth, which is not necessarily the case. Even if it did, however, there is nothing that says that a 3% growth rate in output under capitalism requires a 3% growth rate in non renewable resource consumption. The capitalist system favors producers who minimise resource consumption, since resources are expensive, and those who minimise their costs can charge a lower price for their product.

Capitalism does not require 3% growth, or any growth at all to "work" unless, you define working as growing. Capitalism is merely a more efficient mechanism for allocating resources in a society, not to mention a more moral one. Even in a society where resources are running on empty and gdp is shrinking rapidly, capitalism would still provide a much higher, and more sustainable standard of living to the occupants, than would occur under socialism. Of course, any society that consumes non renewable resources will eventually run them dry, including socialism. The great thing about capitalism, is it's ability to react to changing circumstances, to explore alternative ideas and find new resources, and most importantly, the endless drive to produce more with less. Useful traits in a world of finite resources. What is the point of having non renewable resources if you are never going to consume them? FYI, all of the world's mineral resources are owned by governments (socialised), if we want them to be used more efficiently, we better get them into private hands as soon as possible.

Lazy was probably not the right word for me to use, I will be more precise about what I meant. Public sector workers are, more so than private, unionised. Union leaders tend to instill an entitlement mentality in their members, that they are entitled to get paid when they do not work. Given that public sector, mostly unionised workers end up holding that belief, they are less likely to think twice about having a sickie, and, I would expect that trend to show up whether or not the manager is autocratic. For private employees, the culture is a little different. They know, to a much greater extent than public employees, that their job security is largely dependent on the amount of profit they can generate for their employer. So I think they would be less likely to take sickies in general, but especially so if their manager is autocratic, since they would be fearful of the repercussions of taking too many sick days. An autocratic manager in the public sector "cannot" fire workers, so his autocraticness makes little difference to whether or not the workers take sick days. While the results of your T test surprise me (I'm only pretending to know what that means), I cannot dispute them. Yes, lazy workers are unlikely to be engaged in their work. I hope that explains it a bit better. PS: Your English is actually very good, you don't use silly made up words like autocraticness.

I love the way Stefan has responded to this, it reminds me of some wise words. "Until my student proves me wrong, I know not, if I was a good teacher."

Thanks, saved me the trouble of watching it.

I would say that he actually understands what bitcoin is quite well, a major threat to state power, and that is why he wants it banned.

No surprises there. Only a fool thinks people pay taxes voluntarily.

While I have sympathy for the mother's distress, what did she really expect? That her son was save in a government institution? That there would be a quick and thorough investigation, and that the perpetrators would be punished? The routine abuse of children in government institutions is well documented, as is the coverups. She was negligent in her duty of care to her son, when she placed him in the hands of the state. Correction - I meant to say 'safe'

All criticisms here are directed to the writer of the article, not to Ashton. "The 'free market' approach to care means seeing more patients in less time." - Says who? A free market provides whatever the customer wants, short cheap visits, or long expensive visits, depending on personal preference. Oh, I so know he is about to confuse the US healthcare system with a free market. Socialists are so easy to spot, but I'll continue. "No amount of financial remuneration would have trumped this kind of professional satisfaction." This is a personal choice, that does not apply to most people, and, I suspect, that if he was offered a large enough sum, he would have switched jobs as well. "Why do I not experience an inner joy in my work that he did?" Obviously, he does not share his fathers motivations, which according to him enables just that "inner joy" - Very hypocritical, given the tone of his article, and quite pathetic since he "knew" this all along. "The same "reward and punishment" that is the hallmark of the American free market system has rewarded physicians for seeing more patients (no different than hourly billing rewards for lawyers) and doing more to patients (such as surgical procedures and other interventions)" - Actually, seeing more patients in a flat-fee system is very different to billing by the hour. "doing more "to" patients"? I wonder if he is talking about himself, he doesn't state, but it seems that he probably did. "Consequently, physicians have been pressured to see more and more patients in the same amount of time. It should be no surprise that such encounters have become more like business transactions rather than what they should be: rich and intensely human interactions potentially resulting in tremendous fulfillment for both parties." - Pressured? By whom? If the physicians derive their income from the government, as in a socialized system, then don't dare blame that on the free market. If it is in a free market, then the pressure was coming from the customers; Who are you to judge people, who want to purchase el-cheapo, no frills healthcare? So this guy thinks it is up to him to decide what healthcare should be (rich and fulfilling blah blah blah) for everybody, yet he admits he has done the opposite - hypocrite. Ahem, in a free market, they seem like business transactions, because that is what they are, does this surprise him? In a socialist system, they are not, which is why you get really shitty expensive services - paying customers are very demanding. "...and indeed perpetuate the notion that the delivery of healthcare can be commodifed." - Prior to the (semi) socialization of the US healthcare system, healthcare was a 'commodity'. It was also very cheap and very good. "In his best-selling book, Drive, author Daniel Pink describes the "seven deadly flaws" associated with the concept of carrots and sticks: they extinguish intrinsic motivation, they diminish performance, they crush creativity, they can crowd out good behavior, they can encourage cheating, shortcuts and unethical behavior, they can become addictive and they can foster short term thinking." - Yes, punishing those who work, and rewarding those who don't is a very bad thing. (Off the subject, but I couldn't help myself) "Recent healthcare reform efforts, while seemingly new, are really "old wine in a new bottle"." True; they are just as socialistic (actually Obamacare is fascistic, but is still entirely un free-market) as the old reforms, so will achieve the same results, higher prices and lower quality. "meaningful and lasting solutions will not be found in models that commoditize health and continue to be based on a foundation of reward and punishment alone." - Read some basic economics about why companies that provide high quality services at a low price, succeed, and those that provide the opposite, fail - or just think about it for a few seconds if you are capable of that. "They will be found in models that bring back the joy of healthcare to professionals who deliver it – physicians such as me and countless others who seem to have lost the single most powerful driving force – purpose. I am looking for the simple joy that large compensation packages will never bring: the joy that my father felt in treating the poor farmers and others in the small Indian town of Nainital." - FFS, stop telling me that you know what your purpose is, that you are upset that you are not currently fulfilling it, and that you are writing articles instead of fixing your problem. Go and start providing that high quality, low cost healthcare to poor people like your father did, and get your fulfillment, unless of course, you are actually motivated by your own self interest like the rest of us.

I think it is very important that they did not control for the public/private sector. It would have been incredibly easy to do so. Further, I think that it is quite possible that this factor could be responsible for the entire difference between men and women, since I generally believe that those in the public sector are lazy and don't feel the the same sense of obligation to their employer, as do private sector employees. After all, those in the public sector are unlikely to ever lose their job, regardless of their performance. Personally, I would disregard that study completely.

"When a system does not change, and produces consistent results over an extended period of time, you know that it is working exactly the way it is intended to." "It is impossible to be both all knowing and all powerful"

Thank god most Christians ignore most of the most evil things they are ordered to do by the bible, same thing for the Muslims and Jews. No pun was intended.