[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / hamradio / voros ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)
Winner of the 77nd Attention-Hungry Games
/x/ - Paranormal Phenomena and The RCP Authority

April 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Ya'll need Mises.

File: 25fcf3f3446d42c⋯.png (47.05 KB, 808x1024, 101:128, ob_53c884_bakunin-1.png)

 No.100543

The workers organise their own production like Bakounin 's collectivism but there is a state to tax and provide essential public services. I just came up with that idea, would that work?

 No.100544

>>100543

What is the difference between what you're describing and the shit situation we're in right now


 No.100545

File: 8b2968f86dee0ba⋯.jpg (297.79 KB, 629x1118, 629:1118, 1552037553436.jpg)

you retards should really learn about prices and economic calculation


 No.100546

File: 8b2968f86dee0ba⋯.jpg (297.79 KB, 629x1118, 629:1118, 1552037553436.jpg)

you retards should really learn about prices and economic calculation


 No.100549

>>100544

The situation we're in is state capitalism, workers DO NOT organise their own production.


 No.100550

>>100549

Wtf does that mean


 No.100551

File: 303f95a3df71bc8⋯.jpg (16.38 KB, 332x430, 166:215, economic calculation in th….jpg)

>>100543

Short answer: No.

Long answer: No, unless you mean we should give all businesses to the workers working in them and leave it at that. That would create a lot of chaos, but it would, in principle, work. Then the workers will also take the role of entrepreneurs and capitalists, they will sell and buy capital as usual, and there will be price signals to guide this process so that opportunity costs are minimized. It wouldn't work well, but that's for reasons which are, from an economic perspective, accidental.

I don't understand the advantage of such a situation, however. From an economic perspective, there is none, period. The workers cannot manage their own affairs very well, unless they elect agents who dispose over the capital for them all, in which case you end up with capitalists once again if you want those agents to be in any way effective (incentives, and all that frankly rather boring stuff). If you run the company democratically, you'll fail, unless it's a small business run by a tightly knit group of people, as democratic decisionmaking is notoriously cumbersome and irrational. If you run it according to abstract rules, you'll run it like an administration, which is, likewise, notoriously ineffective and irrational, and as we all know, bureaucracies eventually develop a life of their own, so yeah… no. Not a good idea.

If companies run by workers were particularly effective, the market would have more of them. It's not like there haven't been experiments in this direction. Some, no doubt, have been successful, but most haven't.

Pic related is the single most important book on the topic of the calculation-problem, which is kinda relevant in this context, too.


 No.100966

How do you prevent a government from growing and becoming to corrupt? I could see something like a small commune working somewhat but any bigger it'll probably get corrupt.


 No.100974

>>100966

>How do you prevent a government from growing and becoming to corrupt?

Mostly, by having a society in which this is not permitted. A good legal framework is also essential, but not sufficient. The most libertarian constitution in the world will be kill if no one cares for liberty anymore.

Why do you think that in the Middle East and East Asia, every president wins the candidacy with 97% of the votes? It's not because of corruption per se, it's because they have no democratic tradition. No matter how democratic your constitution is, you won't have a democratic country if no one believes in democracy. Likewise, you cannot have a government that defends property if this ideal is maligned, and you won't have officials following proper procedure and not taking bribes if your people never knew anything resembling the rule of law. Us Westerners are used to thinking of foreign countries as fellow Westerners doing it wrong, which is not how it works at all.

Okay, that was not quite related to your question, but this is: If you want a libertarian society, you need a libertarian culture. When every 2% tax increase is followed by a riot, you will very probably retain your liberty, no matter what the law or the constitution says. When people don't care about keeping their own income and only want gibs, then no amount of legal safeguards will ensure this doesn't happen.

Your form of government also matters. Democracies will tend to bigger growth, while monarchies are more contended with long-term growth and don't redistribute as much. Hoppe talked about this at length, I guess you know his theories but if not, just ask. However, even under a monarchy, you can end up with redistribution, as it happened under the Incas.

Tl;dr multifactorial analysis that doesn't make for good political slogans, just fucking kill me already.


 No.101045

>>100974

Thanks man that was very interesting.


 No.101099

File: e7096349cac0d65⋯.jpg (17.02 KB, 360x360, 1:1, hound_thumbsup.jpg)

>>101045

Glad you thought so, fellow anon.


 No.101106

>>100543

>essential public services

What services do you think are essential?


 No.101115

File: 632a11578398dcb⋯.png (713.62 KB, 786x786, 1:1, ClipboardImage.png)

>>101106

Public toilets. I don't know how you ancraps plan to survive without them. Also, if all the roads are privatized, how will I be able to shit on the streets?


 No.101117

>>100550

What OP means is that it's hard to have a business model where workers run a business the same way, for example, that a family runs a family business and shares the profits among themselves. Honestly, this isn't a bad way to run a business, but it's not ideal for everyone so I don't know why you would call yourself a libertarian if you want to force this on others. If anyone wants to share the means of production in ancap, they'll definitely be able to, they'll be able to start their communes or have entire districts in cities in which everyone runs their business this way.


 No.101129

>>100543

>workplace democracy


 No.101383

>>101115

>how will I be able to shit on the streets?

You can go to India.


 No.101642

>>101115

toilets are gay because other pp has been on them. missed me with that gay shit.


 No.101649

>>101115

>Also, if all the roads are privatized, how will I be able to shit on the streets?

Feel free to dump a big one over the plebs or the nekoshota sex-slaves as you ride your helicopter


 No.101675

>>100549

What do do you mean 'we'?

If it's the US, last time check this isn't the Soviet Union

If anything it's crony capitalism with neoliberal socjus varnish over it


 No.102327

>>101115

Can anyone answer his questions, please? I'd like to know.


 No.102330

>>102327

If you really want to shit on a street, you can either find a street that allows you to (aka a designated shitting street) or purchase/build your own, where you permit yourself to shit. If you do not have the necessary up-front capital to build a designated shitting street you can go to the bank and try to get them to give you a loan for building a shitting street.


 No.102342

File: 87c247dad78ae79⋯.jpg (171.73 KB, 827x1169, 827:1169, 1553196870.jpg)

>>102330

>building roads

Umm… sweetie, are you on the right board?


 No.102343

File: 60a81253377a018⋯.jpg (399.97 KB, 2000x2389, 2000:2389, Hechizado.jpg)

>>100974

>monarchies are more contended with long-term growth and don't redistribute as much

<what is a palace economy

Seriously this meme meeds to die. From Ancien Régime France to ancient egypt, absolute monarchs have always sought to massively redistribute wealth as a means to stay in power.

The only governments which have effectively kept the state from growing are republics where the franchise is restricted to property owners, which makes sense in terms of incentives.


 No.102349

>>102343

Feudal monarchies are generally what is being referenced, not absolute ones. And even absolute monarchies, while less stable than feudal systems, were still head-and-shoulders above their republican counterparts. There was redistribution, but it was consistently less redistribution, both in magnitude and in scope. Comparing tax rates in monarchies (even absolutist ones) to those in republics confirms this.

>republics where the franchise is restricted to property owners, which makes sense in terms of incentives.

The incentives in such a republic are for politicians to expand the franchise in order to grant themselves more power by seeking new voting blocs, which is exactly what happened in the United States. The franchise has constantly expanded as the years went by, until by the turn of the century the last vestige of limited suffrage was removed. And as the franchise grew, the state grew. Even if you could somehow guarantee that the franchise wouldn't grow, why would you assume that this would prevent the federal government from growing? Being a property owner does not preclude you from rent-seeking, nor does it mean you won't use the federal government to redistribute wealth to your own favor.

Further, again using the United States as an example, it's wrong to assert the limited franchise was a curb on state expansion. Barely seven years after the country was founded, it was subject to a massive federal power grab–the Articles of Confederation were thrown out and replaced by the far more centralized Constitution. The Constitution then went on to be interpreted, re-interpreted, and amended to grant the federal government ever-increasing amounts of power. This culminated in the War for Southern Independence, in which state governments attempted to peaceably secede from the Union and self govern. For the daring to defy the supreme power of federal authority, their lands were invaded, burned, and pillaged. In the aftermath, through Reconstruction, the plunderers built an even stronger federal government on the corpse of the Confederacy.


 No.102351

File: 89c09ee04cf095e⋯.jpg (224.39 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, uOab3vqr9J4.jpg)

>>102343

>reddit strikes again


 No.102369

>>102349

>Feudal monarchies are generally what is being referenced, not absolute ones.

Most monarchists I've talked to online are of the absolute kind. I have no problem with actual feudalism, it's basically just a multi-generational rights enforcement system.

>There was redistribution, but it was consistently less redistribution, both in magnitude and in scope. Comparing tax rates in monarchies (even absolutist ones) to those in republics confirms this.

Got any examples? Because I can't think of a single one.

<18th century England vs. France

<late medieval Italian city-states vs. western European kingdoms

<ancient Greece vs. Persia

>The incentives in such a republic are for politicians to expand the franchise in order to grant themselves more power by seeking new voting blocs, which is exactly what happened in the United States.

That's the result of liberal principles gaining traction. No such tendencies existed in the republics of the classical world or medieval europe.

Why would the enfranchised vote in favour of the dilution of their own power?

>Being a property owner does not preclude you from rent-seeking

In a free market society, wealth is accumulated by the productive, who are by definition conscientious and generally oppose wealth redistribution.

In a monarchy, the primary goal of the monarch is to preserve his own power. That is best achieved by redistributing from the productive to the rest.

>it's wrong to assert the limited franchise was a curb on state expansion.

I'm not saying it's not degenerate (all states are) , I'm just saying it's better than giving one random cunt all the power and hoping he isn't a Machiavelli.


 No.102372

>>102369

>No such tendencies existed in the republics of the classical world or medieval europe.

What about the Roman republic? Tribunes of the Plebs eventually became predominately "former" patricians, the massive grain redistribution that arose, the consolidation of public and smaller private lands into latifunda, and the gradual debasement of the currency.

>In a free market society, wealth is accumulated by the productive, who are by definition conscientious and generally oppose wealth redistribution.

True, but this was not in reference to property ownership in free markets but in republics.


 No.102376

File: 286ba0b1d9bd752⋯.jpg (53.89 KB, 900x450, 2:1, socialist monkeys.jpg)

>>102369

None of your comparisons are between republics and absolute monarchies, so I don't see these as counterpoints. The only possible exception is the Persia/Greece (really just Athens) comparison, which isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. The tax rates of a city-state will look nothing like the tax rates of a vast empire, so saying one or the other is higher means very little.

>No such tendencies existed in the republics of the classical world.

The other guy already mentioned Rome, which is almost a textbook example of a republic starting out limited-franchise, expanding the vote, and then falling prey to populism and redistributionism. The franchise in Athens, for the period that it existed, also expanded over time until all free adult men could vote. Liberal principles or any other ideology has nothing to do with it–the incentives are the same regardless of what royal lie they hide behind. The enfranchised wouldn't dilute their own power, but that doesn't matter, because they aren't the ones who make the decision. Politicians make that decision, and politicians would absolutely expand the franchise if it meant consolidating their own power. They'll give the franchise to some group, along with some gibs, and in exchange they receive votes. This incentive exists, and no ideology will prevent it from existing.

>who are by definition conscientious and generally oppose wealth redistribution.

No, the productive oppose the redistribution of their wealth. They take no issue with redistribution as long as they're on the receiving end. Big business is first in line at the government trough in the US, despite being "productive."

>That is best achieved by redistributing from the productive to the rest.

That's true for all states regardless of organization, and hardly unique to monarchy. But in monarchy, it is in the king's own interest to be less restrictive and less redistributionist, for this benefits his own coffers the most in the long-term. The republican cares not what the treasury looks like in the long-term, because in the long-term somebody else is in office and it becomes somebody else's problem. Instead, he need only care about his present income, not the nation's long-term prospects. To that end he will implement higher tax rates which benefit him in the short-term, despite their damaging effects in the long-term.

>I'm just saying it's better than giving one random cunt all the power and hoping he isn't a Machiavelli.

But it isn't. I'd trust rolling the dice of genetics and upbringing which are biased in favor of better rulers, but we'll assume their 50-50 for the sake of argument over an election, even a limited election, any day of the week. If a "bad" monarch comes into power it's an accident of birth. But the nature of elections are such that they reward those power-hungry pathological liars that can win over an audience, and punish the humble honest man that cannot. In other words, the very process of election actively encourages "bad" rulers to come into power. And the thing about "bad" monarchs is that they aren't nearly as "bad" as "bad" democratic leaders–there is no medieval equivalent to Joseph Stalin.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / hamradio / voros ]