Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government • Hacker News Board

Re: Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

#171

Post by Steko » Sat, Nov 17, 2012, 11:08 AM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #144

mkr-hn wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to create examples of something in a system that has never existed.

He rephrased his question, and he shouldn't have, because his original one works pretty well. Can you name a single instance of a harmful monopoly that didn't either form or persist because of government backing? No goalpost-moving this time.

Are you claiming that no one has ever possessed a local monopoly on a resource that produced negative consumer effects? Pretty laughable claim and clearly false on hundreds of thousands of counts. Or are you ready to turn your back on basic property rights as an evil cooked up by the big bad gubmint?

Re: Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

#172

Post by mkr-hn » Sat, Nov 17, 2012, 11:55 AM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #144

mkr-hn wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to create examples of something in a system that has never existed.

He rephrased his question, and he shouldn't have, because his original one works pretty well. Can you name a single instance of a harmful monopoly that didn't either form or persist because of government backing? No goalpost-moving this time.

Windows

And who's moving goalposts? That seems like a random, out of nowhere comment.

Re: Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

#173

Post by mkr-hn » Sat, Nov 17, 2012, 12:02 PM UTC

ac132 wrote: post #154

mkr-hn wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China's economy grows so quickly because of the gap between China and the developed world. People will demand regulation as they gain power and awareness of the abuses that come with rapid growth.

There are poorer countries than China that are not growing at their pace. Your claim implies all developing economies should be growing because of the "gap" between them and developed countries. In reality, most developing economies are struggling to find a path to growth. You're perhaps right, people will one day "demand regulation" because that's what happens when countries get so wealthy that politicians can't pan…

Why do you think unconstrained capitalism is the only way to bring a country out of poverty? You sound like an ideologue.

Re: Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

#174

Post by cpr » Sat, Nov 17, 2012, 2:22 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #108

cpr wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make all these points as if it's self-evident ("to all right-thinking peoples", "no one here but us...") that he's dead wrong about them. That's not very helpful. Of course human life begins at conception--what is the combined human egg & sperm, a fish? And what's so great about NATO? The US should bear the brunt of the cost of defending Europe against whom now, exactly? The Federal Reserve came into being the sa…

How seriously should anyone take an economical argument based on the dollar losing "99% of it's value" since 1913? The purchasing power of the average American has in the last 100 years increased by over 200%. And this is one of Paul's key arguments .

Politifact http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2010/nov/24/vi... claims it's "half true".

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, supposedly no partisan outfit, says the dollar has lost 95% of its purchasing power since 1913: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001519.html .

So Paul's claim isn't far off.

Re: Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

#175

Post by hazov » Sat, Nov 17, 2012, 2:34 PM UTC

praxeologist wrote: post #160

rayiner wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is simply false. Pollution would be treated as a tort. Now, you can't set up a home near an already existing, noisy club and complain about noise pollution. If you set up a home in a quiet and unpolluted area, you have a right to maintain the structural integrity of that area. Let's analyze this situation with some economic rigor. What you're invoking is Coase's theorem. The idea that if you create property ri…

>Let's analyze this situation with some economic rigor. What you're invoking is Coase's theorem. You're attacking a strawman, and I said nothing about the Coase theorem. For some criticism of Coase by a libertarian economist see here from page 4 of the PDF: http://mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf I said, "Pollution would be treated as a tort." Nothing really special there because all rights violations would be, viz…

Rothbard is not exactly an libertarian economist he is an Austrian school economist, not every libertarian is an Austrian school economist. Although I'm sympathetic to libertarianism I loathe the Austrian school because of their unscientific methods. No need to answer to me about that, it's only my belief and of some others in the libertarian camp, Bryan Caplan for example.

My main problem with Ron Paul besides the fact that he never tried to approach libertarianism as something that is useful to solve pragmatic problems that exists today and tried to develop a confrontational attitude towards other people, he was someone who always chose tribalism instead of being a good politician, the racism in his newsletters and the fact that he always appealed more to the angry white male stereotype than to the common people, mom and pops of every ethnic group who are working to pay their bills and raise their children. That and the fact that he's a firm believer in the Austrian school.

Re: Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

#176

Post by magamiako » Sat, Nov 17, 2012, 2:43 PM UTC

grannyg00se wrote: post #141

rayiner wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My family hails from a developing nation. People get sick eating restaurant food all the damn time.

That sounds strange. Why would I eat where people are getting sick all the damn time? Is the alternative (avoiding restaurants) worse?

What would you 'avoid' it with? Grow your own food? In poisoned soil? What if you lived on extremely fertile ground but didn't have the time nor resources to support yourself?

It's amazing at how so many people in the first world have absolutely no clue the kinds of things that go on in developing nations. Bribery, extortion, violence, genocide, and murder all exist in these regions over basic items (even that coffee that you drink every morning and cry about because the company you work for doesn't have the good stuff!).

Re: Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

#177

Post by cpr » Sat, Nov 17, 2012, 2:43 PM UTC

astrodust wrote: post #72

cpr wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make all these points as if it's self-evident ("to all right-thinking peoples", "no one here but us...") that he's dead wrong about them. That's not very helpful. Of course human life begins at conception--what is the combined human egg & sperm, a fish? And what's so great about NATO? The US should bear the brunt of the cost of defending Europe against whom now, exactly? The Federal Reserve came into being the sa…

> Of course human life begins at conception--what is the combined human egg & sperm, a fish? By extension any woman who suffers a miscarriage is a murderer, or worse, has a fertilized egg that fails to implant. Are you sure you want to stick with that definition? > What's so great about estate taxes? It prevents most of the money in circulation from accumulating in the hands of a very small number of individuals. It…

> By extension any woman who suffers a miscarriage is a murderer, or worse, has a fertilized egg that fails to implant. Are you sure you want to stick with that definition?

Murder requires intention. Don't be silly.

Re: Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

#178

Post by ThomPete » Sat, Nov 17, 2012, 3:00 PM UTC

ac132 wrote: post #158

ThomPete wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libertarian belief system fails because it bases it's ideology around the idea of ownership. You explain the problem pretty well yourself when you say that we have to think in the framework of libertarianism. Thats like saying you will believe in Jesus once you let him into your heart.

He explained this pretty well. How come most ecommerce websites have "trust badges"? The government didn't need to create an agency to rate web site security, but yet such a thing exists. If people wanted a health inspection organization to rate restaurants it'd exist. Since the govenrment already monopolized that field it doesnt. Okay, it sort of does, it's called Yelp. Anyways, the point is pretty clear, we have al…

There is a big difference between digitally world and the physical world. Ignoring that is the biggest mistake that is being made here.

Re: Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

#179

Post by tptacek » Sat, Nov 17, 2012, 3:37 PM UTC

cpr wrote: post #174

tptacek wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How seriously should anyone take an economical argument based on the dollar losing "99% of it's value" since 1913? The purchasing power of the average American has in the last 100 years increased by over 200%. And this is one of Paul's key arguments .

Politifact http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2010/nov/24/vi... claims it's "half true". The Bureau of Labor Statistics, supposedly no partisan outfit, says the dollar has lost 95% of its purchasing power since 1913: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001519.html . So Paul's claim isn't far off.

It's like you --- and Paul --- think the purpose of the economy is to imbue value into little green pieces of paper. You'd be an idiot to trade places with your time-traveling peer from 1913. It's not that Paul's claim is "off"; it's that it's nonsensical.

Re: Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

#180

Post by yaks_hairbrush » Sat, Nov 17, 2012, 3:49 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #146

yaks_hairbrush wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your explanation ignores both externalities and transaction costs Well, handling property damages in court is deterring "tragedy of the commons" by making putting the commons-over-user at financial risk. > ... more subtle things like information asymmetries and cognitive overload. You pay someone to give you information. We do this now: our taxes fund the EPA and they give us information. > You can't just ignore th…

My point is that he libertarian approach is non-sense. You have a market failure: pollution creates negative externalities and are over-produced in a free market. You use one common solution to market failures: create property rights that can be protected by litigation. You now run into another economic problem: Coase's theorem only guarantees efficient outcomes if transaction costs are low. The cost of litigation to…

About the transaction costs issue... how do class action lawsuits rate in terms of transaction costs?

I'm with you that the libertarian approach is somewhat worse on the effectiveness scale than what we're capable of doing in our current system. But I'm not going to go so far as you and say it's nonsense.

A current issue in my area (Minneapolis metro area) is 3M's PFCs contaminating ground water in Lake Elmo, Oakdale and Woodbury. 3M released these chemicals into the area starting in the 1940s, when their health and environmental effects were not known. Regulation would therefore not have helped in this particular case.

The court system is working, though: the State of Minnesota is suing 3M for damages, and 3M is engaged in clean up. Note that this lawsuit is not alleging an infringement of regulations (at least, not to my knowledge), but instead is focused on 3M having negatively affected property regardless of intent.

This is one example of the court approach working (I've got my fingers crossed that 3M's gonna lose).

My point is, framing it as a property rights issue and handling it in the courts is a helpful thing and not nonsense.