Nietzsche, Austrians and Creative Destruction

[Xerographica]

You know, the last group of people that attempted to twist Nietzsche's philosophy to further their own agenda found that it didn't end well for them. Ask any German.

What about the group of people who failed to understand the importance of voters putting their own money where their mouths are?  Oh wait, that's us AND the Germans...

As was noted in Chapter 3, expressions of malice and/or envy no less than expressions of altruism are cheaper in the voting booth than in the market.  A German voter who in 1933 cast a ballot for Hitler was able to indulge his antisemitic sentiments at much less cost than she would have borne by organizing a pogrom. - Geoffrey Brennan, Loren Lomasky, Democracy and Decision

If the public doesn't have the freedom to put its own money where its mouth is...then somebody else is going to decide how much money is spent on public goods.  Invariably there's going to be a disparity between where the money goes and where it should have gone.  And that disparity represents a destruction of value.

[Plu]

Yeah, everybody here ignores and/or laughs at the preference revelation problem. What's so funny about the preference revelation problem again? I forgot...please refresh my memory.

No no, you misunderstand.

You are the joke.

[aitm]

Plu, if you wish to take a position on the OP then do, if you're just going to fling shit, go somewhere else and leave this thread alone.

[Plu]

As you wish. I've explained my position quite a few times before. If xero cares about it, he'll have plenty of stuff to respond to.

[FrankDK]

So many errors, so little time.

> How many tabs are currently open on your browser? Right now I have 5 tabs open.

Did you decide what the protocols should be for the Internet and browsers, or did someone decide that for you?  (Hint:  It's the latter.  I was the DoD's representative to several standards bodies when these protocols were being standardized.)

> Either you decide for yourself (capitalism) or somebody else decides for you (socialism).

That's not the difference between capitalism and socialism.  You don't seem to understand capitalism, socialism, the difference between the two, or the fact that no practical society is all capitalist or all socialist.

In a capitalist country, you can spend your money at any store you choose.  Same in a socialist country.  

Frank

[Xerographica]

So many errors, so little time.

So you prioritize how you use your limited time/resources.  Everybody else does the same, and we maximize the amount of value we derive from our limited resources.  

Did you decide what the protocols should be for the Internet and browsers, or did someone decide that for you?  (Hint:  It's the latter.  I was the DoD's representative to several standards bodies when these protocols were being standardized.)

Right, because my argument is that the government does not supply anything of value.  That's why I'm an anarcho-capitalist.  Except, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist.  I'm a pragmatarian.  If you don't want to waste your time, it might help to invest some time learning what my arguments actually are.  

That's not the difference between capitalism and socialism.  You don't seem to understand capitalism, socialism, the difference between the two, or the fact that no practical society is all capitalist or all socialist.

In a capitalist country, you can spend your money at any store you choose.  Same in a socialist country.

Right, the US is a mixed economy.  That means its half capitalist and half socialist.  As I said in my original post, the private sector is capitalist and the public sector is socialist.  You can shop for yourself in the private sector but you can't shop for yourself in the public sector.  This right here right now is the private sector.  Here you are shopping for the most valuable use of your limited time.  You have the freedom of "entrance" so you decided to start trading with me.  If you don't derive enough value from spending your time on me, then you have freedom of "exit".  You can cease trading your time with me and find somebody else to trade with.  

In the public sector, you give your money to somebody that you may not have voted for and who may not spend your money like he promised to.  There is no ease of exit or entrance...because the money is not in your hands.  

As a pragmatarian, I want the money to be in your hands.  Why?  Because I'm pretty sure that you want the most bang for your buck.  Am I wrong?  If so, then you can easily prove I'm wrong by sending me $500 via paypal.

[Jason78]

How is it a false dichotomy?  If you can't decide for yourself how you spend your own time/money...then obviously somebody else decides for you.  

Because you've given two choices as the answer to a question when there are clearly more options available.

There's plenty of opportunities for me to choose how to spend my resources.
There's also plenty of times where I don't have any say in how to allocate my resources, but nobody makes me do it, and no authority enforces it.
There are times when I'm required by an authority to allocate my resources should I want to pursue a specific action.  And there are times where I'm required to allocate resources in order to achieve an effect.
And there are times when an authority will demand that I allocate my resources to them regardless of whether I want to or not.  

Your argument is invalid because as I've pointed out, your assumptions are faulty.

[zarus tathra]

IOW your economics is based on subjectivity. I'm not saying that socialism is necessarily objective, or even less subjective and irrational, but I don't think it's completely rational to base all action on subjective preferences.

I'm not advocating dictatorship, since relying on the subjective preferences of the many is better than relying on the subjective preferences of the few in almost every case, but having some engineering-style standards and metrics as a constraint or technocratic "constitution" would be cool.

[FrankDK]

So many errors, so little time.

So you prioritize how you use your limited time/resources.  Everybody else does the same, and we maximize the amount of value we derive from our limited resources.  

And the difference between capitalism and socialism isn't whether you get a choice, it's what is chosen to be done through private means and what is to be done cooperatively using the entire nation's resources.

Did you decide what the protocols should be for the Internet and browsers, or did someone decide that for you?  (Hint:  It's the latter.  I was the DoD's representative to several standards bodies when these protocols were being standardized.)

Right, because my argument is that the government does not supply anything of value.  

The fact that we can communicate shows that the governments involved did something of value.  Without the protocols, we couldn't communicate.

That's why I'm an anarcho-capitalist.  

Then you should move to Somalia.  There, there is no effective government.  Everything is entirely capitalist, that is, run by gangs and pirates.  You would be very happy there, until you were robbed and killed.  Governments provide protection for citizens.

Except, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist.  I'm a pragmatarian.

You don't seem to know what you are.

If you don't want to waste your time, it might help to invest some time learning what my arguments actually are.

I was responding to what you wrote.  If you wrote something contrary to what your arguments are, that's not my problem to fix.  

That's not the difference between capitalism and socialism.  You don't seem to understand capitalism, socialism, the difference between the two, or the fact that no practical society is all capitalist or all socialist.

In a capitalist country, you can spend your money at any store you choose.  Same in a socialist country.

Right, the US is a mixed economy.  That means its half capitalist and half socialist.

Wrong.  Much more is spent in the private sector than in the public sector.  The US is much less than half socialist, much more than half capitalist.

As I said in my original post, the private sector is capitalist and the public sector is socialist.  You can shop for yourself in the private sector but you can't shop for yourself in the public sector.  

Even in a country that is 100% socialist, there are still stores, and you can shop as you wish.  And in a social democracy, you get to chose the government, and that government spends tax money the way the majority of the citizens want.  In the US, of course, that has been hijacked by the money interests, and the government spends money the way rich people want, to the detriment of most of the citizens and the country at large.

This right here right now is the private sector.  Here you are shopping for the most valuable use of your limited time.  You have the freedom of "entrance" so you decided to start trading with me.  If you don't derive enough value from spending your time on me, then you have freedom of "exit".  You can cease trading your time with me and find somebody else to trade with.  

You're still missing the point.  The original Internet was named "ARPANET," and was entirely government-funded.  We're communicating because the government does things of value, using the taxpayers' money to improve conditions for the entire country.

In the public sector, you give your money to somebody that you may not have voted for and who may not spend your money like he promised to.  There is no ease of exit or entrance...because the money is not in your hands.  

Yes, but some things are only doable in cooperation and by the government.  A private army wouldn't be very effective in the nuclear age.  With no government, there would be no one to make or enforce laws.  Instead of disagreeing with you, someone could find you and kill you.  There would be no penalty.  That's ludicrous.

As a pragmatarian, I want the money to be in your hands.  Why?  Because I'm pretty sure that you want the most bang for your buck.  Am I wrong?  If so, then you can easily prove I'm wrong by sending me $500 via paypal.

Do you really believe that for what I pay in taxes, I could raise a private army that would be as effective as the DoD, make and enforce rules that guarantee my personal safety, regulate commerce so companies don't cheat too outrageously, build roads, ensure other drivers are at least minimally competent, and all the other things we need the government to do?  No, you don't, but you are going to try to argue your way around that.  We get the most bang for the buck in many areas by combining our resources and having the government act in our best interest.

I know a number of people who claim to be anarchists, but so far, none has moved to Somalia.  If you really believed the nonsense you are writing, contact me from there.

Frank

[Xerographica]

I was responding to what you wrote.  If you wrote something contrary to what your arguments are, that's not my problem to fix.

Your arguments are relevant to libertarians and/or anarcho-capitalists.  But as I already said, I'm a pragmatarian.  So rather than simply spew your pre-made arguments, you're going to have to come up with new arguments that are relevant to pragmatarianism.  

Again, my argument is that taxpayers should be able to choose where their taxes go.  Taxpayers choosing where their taxes go is the same thing as "demand".  Therefore, I'm arguing that the demand for public goods should determine the supply of public goods.  The alternative is for there to be a disparity between the two...which is an inefficient allocation of resources.

So learn about the preference revelation problem and try again.  Or you can continue making arguments that aren't relevant.  The choice is yours.

[Rin Hato]

Taxpayers already choose where their taxes go.

/thread

[FrankDK]

I was responding to what you wrote.  If you wrote something contrary to what your arguments are, that's not my problem to fix.

Your arguments are relevant to libertarians and/or anarcho-capitalists.  But as I already said, I'm a pragmatarian.  So rather than simply spew your pre-made arguments, you're going to have to come up with new arguments that are relevant to pragmatarianism.  

Again, my argument is that taxpayers should be able to choose where their taxes go.  Taxpayers choosing where their taxes go is the same thing as "demand".  Therefore, I'm arguing that the demand for public goods should determine the supply of public goods.  The alternative is for there to be a disparity between the two...which is an inefficient allocation of resources.

So learn about the preference revelation problem and try again.  Or you can continue making arguments that aren't relevant.  The choice is yours.

The word "pragmatarian"doesn't even occur in your first post, so to say that I should have divined that and argued against that principle, rather than the claims you made in that post, is nonsense.

In a later post, you did claim that the government provides nothing of value.  I gave several counter examples, which invalidates your claim.

You will continue to dodge the issue rather than answer the points I made.  That is your choice.

Frank

[Xerographica]

The word "pragmatarian"doesn't even occur in your first post, so to say that I should have divined that and argued against that principle, rather than the claims you made in that post, is nonsense.

The word doesn't have to occur for the concept to be discussed.  

In a later post, you did claim that the government provides nothing of value.  I gave several counter examples, which invalidates your claim.

Please quote me where I said that the government does not provide anything of value.  I read through my posts and could not find anything even remotely close.  

Again, if I argued that the government does not provide anything of value...then I would be an anarcho-capitalist.  But I'm not an anarcho-capitalist...I'm a pragmatarian.  Therefore, I do not believe that the government does not provide anything of value.  Therefore, I wouldn't have said that the government does not provide anything of value.  Therefore, your arguments are completely irrelevant as not a single person in this thread has argued that the government does not provide anything of value.  

You will continue to dodge the issue rather than answer the points I made.  That is your choice.

Why would I bother trying to dodge something that wasn't even in the same ballpark as my arguments?  You're attacking imaginary opponents...and then accuse me of dodging your attacks.  It's really pretty funny.  

Again, my argument is that the government cannot "divine" the true preferences (aka "demand") of the people.  That's because demand is only revealed by what people will choose to sacrifice.  This can only be observed after the sacrifice has been made.  

For example, I can't "divine" how much time you'll sacrifice to this thread.  Only after the fact...only after you've "exited" from this discussion will I be able to know how much time you sacrificed to this thread.  

Therefore, the government has no idea what the actual demand for public goods is.  This means that they will supply the wrong quantities of public goods.  They will supply too much defense and not enough public healthcare...or vice versa.  If we want the government to supply the optimal quantities of public goods...then we should allow taxpayers to shop for themselves in the public sector.  As a result, the actual demand for public goods will determine the supply of public goods.  

I'm sure the government provides things of value...but I have no idea exactly how much society values the things that the government provides...and neither does the government.  The only way we can determine how much society values what the government provides is by allowing society to decide exactly how much it is willing to sacrifice for public goods.  

How much public education is each and every person willing to sacrifice for public healthcare?  Nobody can know that.  All we can know is after the fact...but that does not mean that society's values will stay constant.  People's circumstances are unique and constantly changing.  One day somebody is perfectly healthy...and then the next day they fall off a roof.  That's why the supply of public healthcare should be determined by the demand for public healthcare.

Ok, I've clearly painted the target...again.  You can continue to attack imaginary opponents...you can continue tilting at windmills...or you can attack my actual position.  The choice is yours.

[Xerographica]

Taxpayers already choose where their taxes go.

/thread

Taxpayers don't choose where their taxes go...they choose representatives to choose where their taxes go.  But if this system was effective at efficiently allocating resources...then we should implement the same exact system in the private sector.  

Except, this system isn't in place because it's effective...it's in place because nearly 1000 years ago some barons were fed up with how the king was spending their taxes...so they took the power of the purse from him.  And the king only had the power of the purse in the first place because many people believed he was divinely inspired.  

Right now you are just like those poor ignorant people.  You think congress is somehow divinely inspired.  Either they know our true preferences or their preferences are somehow superior to our own.  

But contrary to popular belief, congress is not omniscient.  They don't have their eye on each and every fallen sparrow...and they do not know how much you value public healthcare.  As a result, they supply the wrong quantities of public goods.  

So please do the rest of us a favor and question your beliefs.  Learn about the preference revelation problem.  I'm tired of living in the dark ages.

[Xerographica]

IOW your economics is based on subjectivity. I'm not saying that socialism is necessarily objective, or even less subjective and irrational, but I don't think it's completely rational to base all action on subjective preferences.

I'm not advocating dictatorship, since relying on the subjective preferences of the many is better than relying on the subjective preferences of the few in almost every case, but having some engineering-style standards and metrics as a constraint or technocratic "constitution" would be cool.

Either an organization/sector is fair game for creative destruction...or it isn't.  But what standards are so perfect that they should be exceptions?  If they truly are perfect, then why would they need protection from competition?  

It might help if you could provide specific examples.