this is what happens when I go into lab on the Sabbath

[nekrenas]

I've been thinking about writing a post like this for a while, but I've never gotten around to it, both because I am lazy (about livejournaling ... so does that still constitute laziness?) and because my thoughts after a couple years now have simply refused to congeal. As has probably been obvious from reading this livejournal, I can't consider

Comments

[marymcglo]

I haven't thought about it recently, but I can't say I identify with being an anarchist, either. I had a nice corporation-funded education model fantasy in mind, and wasn't sure governments were any better at regulating climate change than the businesses they housed, but I had trouble shoehorning health care into an anarchist regime. Because poor people without health care are walking petri dishes of drug-resistant TB and shit. Not that I am to the point where I can stomach the idea of a completely-public health care system, either.

[nekrenas]

"Because poor people without health care are walking petri dishes of drug-resistant TB and shit."

These are the kinds of externalities I'm talking about. I've done a pretty lamentable job of studying up on the health care issue, but generally I think the best approach is decoupling health insurance from employment (which I assume employers would probably be happy with), massaging incentives, and possibly having an optional public plan (even though it gives me the heebie-jeebies).

[xeerohour]

I've got to say, in theory, that might be a nice idea.

However, I work hard for my money, and I'm not sure I'm willing to share my health insurance with everyone at a greater cost.

[nekrenas]

Fair enough, but that's not quite what I meant. I definitely think people should be able to have their own, private plans. By public, I meant subsidized. Still gives me the heebie-jeebies, because I don't like subsidies of any kind, for the most part.

[gybefan2000]

"I now think that some level of taxation and some kinds of taxation (especially Pigovian) are necessary, and yet I still can't wrap my head around how taxation isn't morally equivalent to theft."

On this one, the reasoning that's always seemed most sensible to me is that taxation is more part of an implied contract than it is an act of extortion - i.e., the price of living in a given nation is that we pay for the services it provides. I guess it's not an airtight line of reasoning, in that secession (or just opting out of services) isn't exactly easy in the context of globalized economies, but I think it's a legitimate picture of the situation.

[nekrenas]

Right, it's the whole idea of an "implied" contract that bothers me, for the reason you give. But you're also right about the assumed cost, hence my awkward feelings. I don't think there are any airtight lines of reasoning on this.

[xhad]

I hinted at a longer response over AIM, and I still haven't written it yet, but I don't see why government has to be "legitimized" while property doesn't. The part that has always made me loathe to call myself libertarian (other than pretending to be socialist to fuck with you), is that libertarians lean so hard on moral outrage, whereas I think property rights are a useful social construct rather than a moral principle. If I'm a dictator, I'm evil, yet if I buy all the shoreline on an island and tell the inhabitants that they can't leave until they sign a contract making me their dictator, that's ok in theory, and it makes no sense to me at all

[nekrenas]

Really? I like the Fuck you for telling me what to do argument, but I don't think that's the one I hear most often, nor is it my favorite. Here's a pretty good half hour talk that is pretty representative of what I hear most often

[xhad]

"Really? I like the Fuck you for telling me what to do argument, but I don't think that's the one I hear most often, nor is it my favorite. Here's a pretty good half hour talk that is pretty representative of what I hear most often:"

Maybe you hang out in better circles than I do; or maybe I'm not paying enough attention. That is the argument I wish I heard more because the question really is obvious when presented in that matter; instead what I usually see is angry hippies vs. nanny statists and the whole thing annoys me. The abortion "debate" is even worse, because both sides think they're defending a fundamental human right.

Ultimately I think the answer to the "some inclinations good, some inclinations bad" thing is to educate people to the point where they actually understand what's going on and can't hide under their self-righteous rocks anymore. That's a hard job though, and the people with the most ability to do it wouldn't particularly want to.

[smandal]

My view: governments are neither legitimate nor illegitimate, but simply occur because of externalities -- i.e., a hegemony of force will always arise, because it's much more efficient. Sure, to keep diseased poor people from running around, but also to provide conflict resolution and protection from invasion.

Then, the aim of political discourse is to figure out how to keep this arrangement from being more crappy than anarchy :)

[nekrenas]

I see your point, and part of me agrees. But I don't think the whole idea of legitimacy should just be thrown out the window. I think we want to say that the mafia is illegitimate, but it bears all those similarities to governments that libertarians love to cite and also spontaneously arises. Also, it seems useful to say that some governments are illegitimate because of their actions, like the thugs currently lording over Burma. I suppose we could just talk about efficient government and inefficient government, but there really does seem to be some moral clarity at the extremes.

[smandal]

Hypothetical: after the mafia comes to power, the Don reads Hayek and realizes he has a calculation problem. Convincing his associates, the mafia institutes personal decision making (and the attendant freedoms) and electoral representation, all for the sake of the bottom line. Does this legitimize the mafia, or does it cease to become mafia?

I think the Roman would agree with the former, and the Greek would agree with the latter. :)

That is, if you care about the institution, then it's still mafia, but it's legitimate because things will work right from here on out. If you care about ideals, it's no longer mafia, no matter what reason went behind the tranformation.