Another reply to Carl

[I wrote:]
>>Nasty stuff, I agree.

>>And so what? So we'll have the government "fix" things? To my
>>view, this is ALWAYS worse.

[Carl:]
>I don't know if it's ALWAYS worse, but I think a monopoly-killing
>government is a bad idea. That's why I'm proposing clever modeling.

>And what is clever modeling? It's running simulations and finding
>out what rules and initial conditions lead to the most efficient
>outcomes. We probably have to wait only 5-10 years before the
>fastest supercomputers can brute-force a meaningful model.

>Then you take politics out of economics completely. A computer
>(or lots of local computers) oversee(s) all the variables in the
>economy. All the ones the model says they should oversee. Maybe
>the hard anarcho-capitalists will be vindicated, and the answer
>is no manipulation of anything.

>As for the 'dangers' of computers running the show, it's possible
>to make such a setup far safer from corruption than any gov'mint.
>In fact, computers are the most reliable technology humans have,
>and they should be running things as soon as possible.

>Incidentally, I think the government monopoly on currency
>production, though probably necessary in the early days of the
>union, is completely obsolete and probably the most deleterious
>thing our government has its hands in. With clever modeling,
>there might be all kinds of special-purpose currencies that get
>created and wiped out in different places at particular times.

But... how, in your vision, are the results of this "clever
modeling" imposed? Why do I keep seeing John Poindexter's
smiling face ("Total Information Awareness") in this project?

[JdL:]
>>It comes down to the basic fact that governments only operate by
>>coercion, never by voluntary agreements

[Carl:]
>The free market is not free of coercion. Coercion is a consequent
>of human psychology. Governments must provide useful services
>otherwise they couldn't survive! Government is not above Nature!

But, to change governments means taking up arms, and being hung for
treason if you fail. To change operating systems requires a phone
call and a $34.99 charge on your Visa card. I completely fail
to see how this distinction can be minimized.

[JdL:]
>>The face of government is force. Consider the dying cancer
>>patients in Santa Cruz CA whose marijuana co-op was raided by
>>federal thugs.

[Carl:]
>Yeah, that sucked. Unfortunately, people have the right to both
>recreational and medical use of Cannabis sativa, but are pursuing
>the latter under the guise of the former.

I don't consider one "guise" to be better or worse than another.
Consumption by an adult of cannabis (whether sativa or indica ;-> )
is not the proper concern of government.

>The Feds will bust it
>all as a result (the club I'm in is marked for death).

Very sorry to hear that. Try to get the names of the thugs
responsible, when and if that comes. I believe that people
should be shamed by name.

[JdL:]
>>No number of ruthless capitalists, with all the techniques at
>>their disposal, can approach such evil.

[Carl:]
>Don't be so sure.

>My father was a very high-ranking scientist at at two of the
>largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. They were both
>tremendous forces for good in the world, I think, but still
>capable of some truly evil things.

I do not doubt that they've been involved in some nasty
machinations. Still, I hope like hell that we don't kill the
goose that produces so many golden eggs every year. Stifling
new research would be a horrible tragedy for mankind, one
that could never be quantified completely on account of
opportunities missed, never seen.

If new drugs cost too much, we could lower cost by allowing
companies to market them without jumping through so many hoops.
Of course anyone contemplating use of unproven drugs would be
made aware of the risks of playing on the edge of knowledge.
Isn't it up to each one of us to assess the potential dangers
vs. payoffs, for our own lives? I consider that the essence
of freedom.

>I've seen what oil companies are doing in Ecuador. Makes the
>Santa Cruz bust look tame.

I join you in condemning all such destruction. Note that there
are always governments at both ends (U.S. and Ecuador) whose
palms are being greased so that they look the other way while
all this takes place. I don't let the companies off the hook,
but I condemn the governments even more for allowing this
to happen.

It is always vital to distinguish between voluntary trade and
coercion. Charging in and raping someone's land is coercion.
It does not belong to the sphere of free trade.

[Carl:]
>The first international corporations ravaged the world.

That can never be undone, only used as an example of wrongs
to avoid. None of it speaks against the right to trade
peacefully with others, I believe. Do you disagree?

JdL

>But... how, in your vision, are the results of this "clever
>modeling" imposed? Why do I keep seeing John Poindexter's
>smiling face ("Total Information Awareness") in this project?

Don't know who Poindexter is, but this is a good question.
My first thought: First the modeling should be done. Then,
if it yields results so compelling that people switch over,
good. Otherwise, too bad.

>>The free market is not free of coercion. Coercion is a
>>consequent of human psychology. Governments must provide useful
>>services otherwise they couldn't survive! Government is not
>>above Nature!
>
>But, to change governments means taking up arms, and being hung
>for treason if you fail. To change operating systems requires a
>phone call and a $34.99 charge on your Visa card. I completely
>fail to see how this distinction can be minimized.

To change government means writing your representative, running
for office, writing to the newspaper, letting the Libertarian
party charge $34.99 to your Visa card. It's people doing this
stuff that *make* government what it is. Obviously, there's a
free-market demand for representatives who read letters, papers
that print editorials, parties that charge $34.99.

>>>The face of government is force. Consider the dying cancer
>>>patients in Santa Cruz CA whose marijuana co-op was raided by
>>>federal thugs.
>>
>>Yeah, that sucked. Unfortunately, people have the right to both
>>recreational and medical use of Cannabis sativa, but are pursuing
>>the latter under the guise of the former.
>
>I don't consider one "guise" to be better or worse than another.
>Consumption by an adult of cannabis (whether sativa or indica ;-> )
>is not the proper concern of government.

:) Agreed, totally.

>Very sorry to hear that. Try to get the names of the thugs
>responsible, when and if that comes. I believe that people
>should be shamed by name.

That's a good idea.

>I do not doubt that they've been involved in some nasty
>machinations. Still, I hope like hell that we don't kill the
>goose that produces so many golden eggs every year. Stifling
>new research would be a horrible tragedy for mankind, one
>that could never be quantified completely on account of
>opportunities missed, never seen.

Absolutely. In fact, I often argue around Berkeley that if
socialist healthcare is so good, how come most of the treatments
are developed in the US?

>>I've seen what oil companies are doing in Ecuador. Makes the
>>Santa Cruz bust look tame.
>
>I join you in condemning all such destruction. Note that there
>are always governments at both ends (U.S. and Ecuador) whose
>palms are being greased so that they look the other way while
>all this takes place. I don't let the companies off the hook,
>but I condemn the governments even more for allowing this
>to happen.

Yeah.

>That can never be undone, only used as an example of wrongs
>to avoid.

Again, you could argue that Queen Elizabeth put it all together.
I don't know enough about the history of it to say, but like I
said, you'll never find a situation completely free of government
influence, and it doesn't follow that government is always to
blame.

>None of it speaks against the right to trade peacefully with
>others, I believe. Do you disagree?

It does mean that on a global scale, free trade can have
unfortunate consequences. It isn't completely "free". The
situation seems so pretty without this unfortunate wart, but
that's the way it is. What we should do with this knowledge
isn't clear. I'm currently in favor of less government than
we have.

-Carl