A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.) • Hacker News Board

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#51

Post by cx01 » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 2:14 PM UTC

gravitycop wrote: post #49

cx01 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Investing in risky stocks that destabilize the economy creating a panic that loses millions of jobs and causes enough chaos in my personal life: that's ok" How can investing in stocks destabilize the economy? If I invest my money in stocks that aren't worth it, then I will lose my money but noone else. If my investment temporarily causes stocks to rise, and people therefore buy (hoping it goes higher), then it's obv…

How can investing in stocks destabilize the economy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_bubble#Positive_feedback - But if you don't invest in stocks, how can you be affected? Market shocks affect the entire economy (through expanding and contracting credit, etc.). If one does a cannonball into a pool, how can it affect anyone else in the pool? http://images.google.com/images?q=pool+cannonball

I wrote in my post that it might lead more people to buy stocks, but that's entirely their fault. I don't see how one rising stock might affect anyone who is not investing in the stock market. The cannonball analogy doesn't hold.

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#52

Post by gaius » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 2:15 PM UTC

tome wrote: post #48

cx01 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it is. If there's a huge uncontrollable risk, people will insure themselves against it. If people know that they might be attacked and don't have enough food, they will hoard some.

My point is that unless the nation collectively hoards food for the military then it's not worth doing. If they hoard individually it buys them a few more months of survival in dire circumstances. What's the point? They might as well spend their money to best enjoy their remaining time before invasion.

If everyone stockpiles individually for themselves and their families then you have a massive distributed cache that is more resilient that a centralized warehouse that can be bombed.

You seem to think the responsibilities of "the state", "the military" and "individuals" are distinct. They're not. Some individuals like to pretend they are, and rely on the government to do X (and some governments play the same game and rely on individuals to do Y) but reality will always eventually assert itself, whatever system of government you prefer.

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#53

Post by tome » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 2:15 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #50

tome wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not in their interest to do that individually, but only as a matter of domestic policy.

And it's not in the government's interests to do it either, if it would cost votes.

Indeed, and I'd put similar points to anyone who proposed "true" direct democracy.

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#54

Post by fauigerzigerk » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 2:16 PM UTC

seano wrote: post #43

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

European health care systems are a double edged sword for startup founders. I have lived in several european countries and researched the matter for some others as well because I like to move around. I'll spare you the details because they are mind boggingly complicated. The issue is that in most countries there is no separate health care system. There is an integrated social security system, including pensions, etc.…

Standing charge in the UK? Not sure where you get that idea - treatment with the National Health Service is free.

The self employed pay 2.4 pounds per week class 2 NI contributions + 8% class 4 NI contributions for earnings between 5700 and 43875 a year. So if you don't make a profit you pay 2.4 pounds pw which is around $15 per month.

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#55

Post by cx01 » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 2:17 PM UTC

tome wrote: post #48

cx01 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it is. If there's a huge uncontrollable risk, people will insure themselves against it. If people know that they might be attacked and don't have enough food, they will hoard some.

My point is that unless the nation collectively hoards food for the military then it's not worth doing. If they hoard individually it buys them a few more months of survival in dire circumstances. What's the point? They might as well spend their money to best enjoy their remaining time before invasion.

You didn't talk of a military in your first post. Assuming that there exists a military paid for by taxes, than it would probably have its own food reserves. If there is no government military, then private corporations would start offering protection services, which would probably also have food reserves.

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#56

Post by tome » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 2:17 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #52

tome wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that unless the nation collectively hoards food for the military then it's not worth doing. If they hoard individually it buys them a few more months of survival in dire circumstances. What's the point? They might as well spend their money to best enjoy their remaining time before invasion.

If everyone stockpiles individually for themselves and their families then you have a massive distributed cache that is more resilient that a centralized warehouse that can be bombed. You seem to think the responsibilities of "the state", "the military" and "individuals" are distinct. They're not. Some individuals like to pretend they are, and rely on the government to do X (and some governments play the same game an…

But they won't stockpile individually, because it's in no one's individual interest to stockpile. (This is an example of the Prisoner's Dilemma).

I agree with you that "reality will always assert itself" but I'm having a hard time understanding how anyone things that Libertarianism can be that reality.

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#57

Post by cx01 » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 2:19 PM UTC

tome wrote: post #56

gaius wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If everyone stockpiles individually for themselves and their families then you have a massive distributed cache that is more resilient that a centralized warehouse that can be bombed. You seem to think the responsibilities of "the state", "the military" and "individuals" are distinct. They're not. Some individuals like to pretend they are, and rely on the government to do X (and some governments play the same game an…

But they won't stockpile individually, because it's in no one's individual interest to stockpile. (This is an example of the Prisoner's Dilemma). I agree with you that "reality will always assert itself" but I'm having a hard time understanding how anyone things that Libertarianism can be that reality.

If I tell you there would be no food in a month, then you wouldn't stockpile some? I don't believe this.

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#58

Post by tome » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 2:22 PM UTC

cx01 wrote: post #55

tome wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that unless the nation collectively hoards food for the military then it's not worth doing. If they hoard individually it buys them a few more months of survival in dire circumstances. What's the point? They might as well spend their money to best enjoy their remaining time before invasion.

You didn't talk of a military in your first post. Assuming that there exists a military paid for by taxes, than it would probably have its own food reserves. If there is no government military, then private corporations would start offering protection services, which would probably also have food reserves.

I'm not trying to make a point about military. I'm trying to make a point about self-sufficiency at the state level.

The military may well have reserves, but if they are supplied by Xia, all bets are off once those reserves are depleted.

If Libland does not have the capacity to generate Food during a protracted war then it is vulnerable to external aggression. However, I don't see a way that a Libertarian state can ensure that sufficient Food production capacity is maintained in the presence of cheap Food available on the international market.

And the point is not food either. "Food" is an arbitrary good that people rely on to survive.

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#59

Post by tome » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 2:24 PM UTC

cx01 wrote: post #57

tome wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they won't stockpile individually, because it's in no one's individual interest to stockpile. (This is an example of the Prisoner's Dilemma). I agree with you that "reality will always assert itself" but I'm having a hard time understanding how anyone things that Libertarianism can be that reality.

If I tell you there would be no food in a month, then you wouldn't stockpile some? I don't believe this.

Well it depends on other factors, but that's not the point. In this situation:

* Firstly, who's to tell Liblanders that they risk invasion? It's not clear that Libertarianism supports the notion of foreign policy, diplomacy, espionage etc.

* Secondly, all the food in the country is coming from Xia. Once demand grows Xia realises that Libland has recognised the threat and invades immediately.

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#60

Post by fauigerzigerk » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 2:24 PM UTC

tome wrote: post #27

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

European health care systems are a double edged sword for startup founders. I have lived in several european countries and researched the matter for some others as well because I like to move around. I'll spare you the details because they are mind boggingly complicated. The issue is that in most countries there is no separate health care system. There is an integrated social security system, including pensions, etc.…

> This "standing charge" varies a lot. It's negligible in the UK ($15 per month) Do you have a reference for the "standing charge" in the UK? I've never heard of it.

Yes as I said in the other post, the self employed pay class 2 and class 4 NI contributions: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/nic/background-nic.htm

The rates are here: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/nic.htm

If you earn below 5715 per year you only pay class 2 NI contributions, which is 2.4 pounds per week.

[edit] I forgot to mention that you can apply to be exempted from class 2 NI altogether. I didn't do that because 2.4 pounds per week seemed already very low to me.