If you think about it, in order to buy food at Walmart you would want to sign the friggin' contract, because being outside the law means everyone can rip you off, perhaps even murder you, without consequence. As such, as the anarcho-capitalists will tell you, there are explanations as to why even criminals would voluntarily sign up to the legal system, even though it might mean being punished by that system in the future.

11/9/2011 2:07:52 AM

Quote :

"As such...even criminals would voluntarily sign up to the legal system"

??? This must be why no one stands up at concerts. If everyone stood up, your view wouldn't improve at all!

See where I'm going? We're talking about a coordination issue. If you were the only criminal in the city, your job would be kinda easy (no competition for "marks", no turf wars, people maybe less cautious, etc). But your prospects might change if everyone was a criminal. Therefore, your decision to be a criminal (or to sign a "social contract") depends on what you think other people in the community will do. So you can't possibly start this discussion assuming all (or even most) criminals will want to sign up out of some enlightened self-interest and my original questions are still valid.

This takes me to a second point. Anarcho-capitalists tends to downplay or downright ignore the problem of public goods and free-rider problems (exhibit A: http://mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf) . If people can get the protection of police and military without paying for it, why would they ever decide to? This , as any economist outside the Austrian school will tell you, is one explaination as to why even non-criminals might decide to not voluntarily sign up to the criminal justice system. And typical anarcho-capitalist responses of how lighthouses and other (unrelated) "public goods" can be privatized really don't combat that notion.

But I really don't want to get off on a discussion about anarcho-capitalism. I already know how it begins and ends. So I'll just call it quits here.

[Edited on November 9, 2011 at 9:13 AM. Reason : ``]

11/9/2011 9:07:19 AM

Quote :

"This takes me to a second point. Anarcho-capitalists tends to downplay or downright ignore the problem of public goods and free-rider problems (exhibit A: http://mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf) . If people can get the protection of police and military without paying for it, why would they ever decide to? This , as any economist outside the Austrian school will tell you, is one explaination as to why even non-criminals might decide to not voluntarily sign up to the criminal justice system. And typical anarcho-capitalist responses of how lighthouses and other (unrelated) "public goods" can be privatized really don't combat that notion."

You would pay for it. The problem you're referring to ("free rider problem", "tragedy of the commons") is specific to public property and doesn't occur in a fully privatized system.

11/9/2011 11:22:43 AM

Quote :

"If people can get the protection of police and military without paying for it,"

This is your mistake. While you are correct about the military, you are wrong about the police.

Quote :

"This must be why no one stands up at concerts. If everyone stood up, your view wouldn't improve at all!"

If standing up got your head chopped off by a spinning fan, then yea, that's a perfect metaphor for why no one would dare opt out of the legal system.

Quote :

"Therefore, your decision to be a criminal (or to sign a "social contract") depends on what you think other people in the community will do."

It is an organization issue. As no landlord would dare rent to someone outside the law, and you probably want your security deposit back, it is highly likely signing on would be a condition for most activities people cannot avoid. It is also reasonable to assume regionalism in the system, as it is often easier to provision service to areas instead of people. As such, private structures such as homeowner associations would perform the needed negotiation for police protection just as many today provision trash and lawn care. As such, for any person to be completely outside the legal system they would have needed to live their entire life squatting in the woods. Which wouldn't protect them, as posted signs on policed areas (nearly all of them) notify him he may be arrested and punished for breaking the law.

[Edited on November 9, 2011 at 12:25 PM. Reason : .,.]

11/9/2011 12:21:47 PM

Google non-excludable goods. If defense and criminal justice services were so easy to exclude non-payees from benefiting from them then we wouldn't have a free rider problem.

11/9/2011 1:06:17 PM

^ to clarify, that comment was for destroyer.

I already said I'm going to avoid discussions on anarchist Utopias.

[Edited on November 9, 2011 at 2:00 PM. Reason : ""]

11/9/2011 1:57:22 PM

Police protection is debateably rivalrous and but is most definitely excludable. As such, it can function privately without systemic breakdown.

11/9/2011 2:04:03 PM

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/big-isps-dwell-in-tax-break-heaven-according-to-corporate-tax-study.ars

11/9/2011 2:13:07 PM

When the cops take a crimInal off the street and put him in jail, my security is improved regardless of whether I paid my taxes. You cannot exclude me from benefiting. As a result, I and many others may decide not to pay for police services and free ride off others. Thus, we wind up with under provision of criminal justice services.

That is the type of thing I'm talking about. That doesn't seem too off the wall to me. yet you start assuming that externalities cant exist in security. Seems odd to me.

Anyways, this is a good indication of how these discussions go. Have a good day.

[Edited on November 9, 2011 at 2:35 PM. Reason : So ]

11/9/2011 2:30:16 PM

Quote :

"The problem you're referring to ("free rider problem", "tragedy of the commons") is specific to public property and doesn't occur in a fully privatized system."

*loud buzzer*

11/9/2011 2:49:48 PM

Quote :

"The problem you're referring to ("free rider problem", "tragedy of the commons") is specific to public property and doesn't occur in a fully privatized system."

So you're saying the solution to Global Warming is to fully privatize...uh...what?

11/9/2011 3:02:51 PM

Geolibertarians (Georgist Libertarians) have some pretty good ideas on that, many of which I'm inclined to agree with. The primary tenant is that land cannot be "owned", as land is not created by man, it simply is there; one does not "mix their labor with the land" to get land. The same applies to the atmosphere, water, etc.

The end result is that, rather than having taxes on goods and productive services, we have "rent" applied to natural resources like land and air. Unused land or resources are allowed to be developed by whoever is willing to reimburse the community at the highest rate, but ultimately the land is still operated privately.

As for implementation, that's something that I haven't fully fleshed out, although I think the concept that you don't have the right to pollute/destroy resources that we all have equal claim to is consistent with libertarianism and the non-aggression principle.

[Edited on November 9, 2011 at 4:12 PM. Reason : https://sites.google.com/site/justindkeith/home/geolibertarian-faq]

11/9/2011 3:56:04 PM

Quote :

"Geolibertarians (Georgist Libertarians) "

Please stop naming people.

11/9/2011 4:16:48 PM

^ to whatever extent the term is not explained in a self-contained definition, I would agree with you. But d357r0y3r made a good post. It was relevant, coherent, well-contained, and a link was only offered as "if you want to read more..."

11/9/2011 4:35:51 PM

Quote :

"When the cops take a crimInal off the street and put him in jail, my security is improved regardless of whether I paid my taxes. You cannot exclude me from benefiting."

Not true. As only violent criminals get put away for lengthy periods of time, offenders still repeat. At the time you are choosing whether or not to sign up for protection you don't know whether you will be the one benefiting from the imprisonment of a criminal or the person that put him there by furiously dialing 911. Keeping in mind criminals tend to target easy pickings, such as neighborhoods without police protection, the primary benefit from the police is not the prison system, but 911 service and men with guns to back it up.

That it benefits me for you to have your trash hauled away doesn't stop neighborhoods without city services from contracting out garbage collection.

11/9/2011 5:56:53 PM

^ But the function of prison time as a deterrent from people committing crime is unaddressed by your comments.

11/9/2011 6:47:22 PM

Land as not being private property? Right to use land predicated on contribution to the community? Son those libertarians are stealth communists fyi.

11/10/2011 10:28:08 AM

There's obviously some common ground. Communists advocate collectively owned capital and elimination of the wage system altogether, which I don't think is possible.

11/10/2011 11:49:29 AM

-Police arrest seven in Chapel Hill break-in, probe Occupy link
Chapel Hill police arrested seven people Sunday after they say more than 70 attendees from an anarchist book fair broke in to an unoccupied building downtown to align themselves with the Occupy movement.

-In Salt Lake City, police arrested 19 people Saturday when protesters refused to leave a park a day after a man as found dead inside his tent at the encampment.

-In Occupy Philadelphia police say a suspect was arrested following a report of a sexual assault at the encampment. Officials say police were called shortly before 8 p.m. Saturday after a 23-year-old woman reported that she had been dragged into a tent and assaulted. The mayor said posting more uniformed officers in the Dilworth Plaza area has become necessary because of growing health and safety concerns and a fractured leadership at the camp that has left the city still pressing the protesters to move to make way for a $50 million construction project.



sounds like pryderi himself has been personally placed in charge of the movement at this point.

11/14/2011 1:32:45 PM

I don't understand how an anarchist book fair would really work

11/14/2011 1:35:49 PM

so you don't understand the 'core' of your movement?

11/14/2011 1:39:31 PM

Surprise, Homeland Security Coordinates #OWS Crackdowns

http://wonkette.com/456282/surprise-homeland-security-coordinates-ows-crackdowns-nationwide

Quote :

"'Over the past ten days, more than a dozen cities have moved to evict 'Occupy' protesters from city parks and other public spaces. As was the case in last night's move in New York City, each of the police actions shares a number of characteristics. And according to one Justice official, each of those actions was coordinated with help from Homeland Security, the FBI and other federal police agencies. [...] According to this official, in several recent conference calls and briefings, local police agencies were advised to seek a legal reason to evict residents of tent cities, focusing on zoning laws and existing curfew rules. Agencies were also advised to demonstrate a massive show of police force, including large numbers in riot gear. In particular, the FBI reportedly advised on press relations, with one presentation suggesting that any moves to evict protesters be coordinated for a time when the press was the least likely to be present.'"

http://www.truth-out.org/raid-occupy-wall-street-today/1321389293#.TsNowPG6xj8.twitter

Quote :

"Warning came from the Twitter feed of ?uestlove, drummer for The Roots, who cautioned Occupy Wall Street that, while driving downtown, he had counted 1,000 police officers in riot gear 'bout to pull a sneak attack.' The last eviction attempt, in which Mayor Bloomberg deployed the militarized police force at his command to do the bidding of a private corporation (and one on whose board his long-time live-in girlfriend, Diana Taylor, sits), was thwarted by thousands of union members and activists who flooded Liberty Plaza Park, linking arms in a successful attempt to make seizure of the park politically unfeasible. A 'sneak attack,' it would seem, was determined to be the best option available to the multibillionaire media mogul mayor. The attack was to be so sneaky that, according to Anthony DeRosa, the NYPD instructed CBS News to leave the airspace above Liberty Plaza Park."

[Edited on November 16, 2011 at 3:46 AM. Reason : ]

11/16/2011 3:44:02 AM

^that's pretty sad.


and apparently a few members of the press were also arrested for trying to cover the event:

Quote :

"In a statement on Tuesday, the group noted that at least six journalists had been arrested, and called "for all charges against these journalists to be dropped and for greater care by police to avoid arresting or otherwise obstructing journalists who are simply and clearly doing their jobs." It also stressed that "the journalists were either wearing press credentials or explained to police that they were reporters covering the protests," and argued, "they were clearly exercising the constitutional right of a free press...it is clear now that many journalists have been erroneously arrested without cause.""

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/occupy-wall-street-raid-journalists-arrested_n_1094564.html

http://spj.org/news.asp?ref=1091


shouldn't really matter what side of the debate you're on. anyone should be able to see the potential harm in allowing members of the press to be arrested or prevented from covering the news.

[Edited on November 16, 2011 at 5:47 AM. Reason : ]

11/16/2011 5:45:13 AM

More statism in the US

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/11/police-state-ows-other-crackdowns-part-of-national-coordinated-effort-bloomberg-defies-court-order-to-let-protestors-back-into-zuccotti-park.html

11/16/2011 7:28:53 AM

NYPD obstructed the Press from being able to see the crackdown and arrested those who tried to get close. They surrounded and barricaded the park with NYPD trucks & vans so the journalist that they kept across the street could not see what was going on. Press that tried to cross the street or film from the street were yelled at by cops that they were blocking the street and threatened arrest (though the streets were closed to traffic and blocked off by nypd already).

Whether you agree or disagree with ows protesters, freedom of the press should never be obstructed and last night in nyc it definitely was. Very slippery slope.



[Edited on November 16, 2011 at 7:51 AM. Reason : []

11/16/2011 7:49:52 AM

I thought the NYPD handed out flyers beforehand announcing their intentions to clear out the park for cleaning?


Bloomberg should have cleared that park long ago, but he let them have their fun as long as could be tolerated. Like the mayor would stand for that kind of eyesore and nuisance during the holidays, which is NYC's biggest tourist season.

11/16/2011 8:21:29 AM

Can't wait for the second wave. What'll be real ironic will be when the government shuts down twitter during an out-of-hand demonstration or commits even more egregious violations of their civil liberties and conservatives cheer that someone's really stickin it to those hippie scum

11/16/2011 2:46:30 PM

^apparently tomorrow is supposed to be a pretty big day.

11/16/2011 4:06:53 PM

^^

What would be ironic about it?

11/16/2011 4:55:25 PM

Quote :

" I thought the NYPD handed out flyers beforehand announcing their intentions to clear out the park for cleaning? Bloomberg should have cleared that park long ago, but he let them have their fun as long as could be tolerated. Like the mayor would stand for that kind of eyesore and nuisance during the holidays, which is NYC's biggest tourist season."

Seriously? Even if that thing about flyers was true, you think a flyer negates both freedom of the press and the right to assemble? You're a good little soldier, Bloomberg's proud of you.

11/17/2011 4:36:49 AM

I find it highly ironic that there is an "Occupy Duke" where the kids pay $50,000/year for school but not an "Occupy NCCU" in my town, even though the kids at the second college have arguably had to work more to get to college at an HBCU. Ok, back to your regularly scheduled Soapbox.

11/17/2011 8:33:21 AM

im glad theyre so pumped to spread the good message-

and wallow in their own feces.

11/17/2011 8:33:36 AM

OWS motto: "resist austerity."

In economics, austerity is a policy of deficit-cutting, lower spending, and a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided.


So..... more deficit, higher spending, more debt, and even more bulkier public services provided. perfect logic if you want to be completely owned by china by 2015. then they'll call all the shots.

great plan.

11/17/2011 10:23:49 AM

Quote :

"Seriously? Even if that thing about flyers was true, you think a flyer negates both freedom of the press and the right to assemble? You're a good little soldier, Bloomberg's proud of you."

Bloomberg handled it well. It's a difficult balance between protecting things such as freedom of assembly with the safety of the public. He did what needed to be done to maintain health and sanitation and has said they will be allowed to protest in the park again, but not maintain dwellings.

Obviously the NYPD was in the wrong for denying and even arresting some card carrying media members.

[Edited on November 17, 2011 at 12:07 PM. Reason : and ftr I think Bloomberg is a condescending prick]

11/17/2011 12:05:37 PM

Austerity is often counterproductive during a recession. It depresses demand and takes money out of the economy, which is kinda the opposite of what we want right now.

OWS protesters believe in raising taxes on the rich and corporations to tackle our debt woes, rather than cut social programs.

The best solution is probably some combination of the 2.

11/17/2011 12:08:31 PM

^ Depends what you are trying to solve. If the problem is a bankrupt government, austerity has always worked great. If we assume an absurd Keynesian multiplier of 1.0, $1 less spent by the government reduces GDP by $1. Government doesn't get all of GDP as revenue, of course; let's assume an effective federal tax rate of 33%. As such, $1 less in spending reduces government revenue by $0.33, for a net deficit reduction of $0.66.

Of course, many economists argue the multiplier is far less than one, possibly even negative, as falling government spending frees up resources for use by the private sector and reduces expectations of either future taxation or future default.

11/17/2011 12:30:48 PM

Quote :

"If the problem is a bankrupt government, austerity has always worked great."

Lol. In a recession, austerity just further reduces the amount of money in consumer pockets, thus reducing aggregate demand, thus reducing economic growth overall, thus reducing revenues, possibly enough to make debts even worse.

Quote :

"Of course, many economists argue the multiplier is far less than one, possibly even negative, as falling government spending frees up resources for use by the private sector and reduces expectations of either future taxation or future default."

Those "economists" (please do point me to one) are fucking morons. The private sector doesn't use resources unless adequate demand exists to justify expansion, they just hoard it. When you do austerity, aggregate demand is reduced, whoops. Simply handing businesses cash does not create growth, they will not spend it unless consumer demand is there. Austerity reduces consumer demand.

11/17/2011 12:37:32 PM

This is what gets me about folks on the right. They have no consideration whatsoever of varying circumstance. They have the same solution for literally everything: reduce taxes, gut regulation, privatize more stuff, reduce spending, presto!

Recession? Bubble? Depression? Expansion? Deficit? Surplus? Contraction? Doesn't make a difference, because I have this hammer called free markets and smaller government and the entire fucking world is my nail!

[Edited on November 17, 2011 at 12:55 PM. Reason : ,]

11/17/2011 12:41:24 PM

OWS/Dems: We have a revenue problem. We should increase taxes on the wealthy to make them pay their fair share.

Tea Party/Pubs: We have a spending problem. We should cut social programs to lower our spending.

Reasonable People: Let's do both!!!!

Congress is filibustering us into a worse situation by sitting on their asses and saying No to the other side. Can't we get anything accomplished?

11/17/2011 1:28:11 PM

^^^ If there is a money shortage in the economy, government spending will not fix it, as government spending occurs by borrowing money out of people's pockets then paying it to other people's pockets. If there is a money shortage, that is why we have a federal reserve. They need to run the printing presses and relieve the shortage.

^^ and ^, yes, raising taxes also works. But you didn't mention taxes, you merely argued that reducing spending wouldn't reduce the deficit, which is just not true.

11/17/2011 2:36:45 PM

this has got to be the most ineffective movement in the history of the world

11/17/2011 7:16:25 PM

pls to embed:

http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:402475

Jon Stewart and OWS

11/18/2011 12:00:24 AM

wharrgarbl?














looks like somebody got some brand spanking new riot gear for christmas



[Edited on November 18, 2011 at 2:08 AM. Reason : ]

11/18/2011 1:49:19 AM

Cops arresting cops:

Quote :

"Retired Philadelphia police captain Ray Lewis was arrested early this morning in New York City after taking part in an Occupy Wall Street demonstration. Lewis, who retired from the Philadelphia Police Department in 2004, joined the Occupy Wall Street protesters on Tuesday, holding a sign that read "NYPD Don't Be Wall Street Mercenaries." Lewis came to fame among followers of the Occupy movement after appearing on one of the Occupy Wall Street livestreams last night at 2 a.m."

http://www.metro.us/newyork/local/article/1027362--ray-lewis-retired-philadelphia-police-captain-arrested-with-occupy-wall-street

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QoNP5RhKnE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R_YOZIujNg


[Edited on November 18, 2011 at 5:06 AM. Reason : ]

11/18/2011 5:00:52 AM

I'm actually a little relieved that the police at least put their names on their riot gear, a lot of times you don't see that, so . . . . . . . kudos for that I guess

11/18/2011 9:10:10 AM

1. Put on riot gear
2. Stick someone else's name on it

11/18/2011 9:17:58 AM

yeah I mean technically I think they should have their badge number on there somewhere, but beggars can't be choosers

11/18/2011 9:29:49 AM

11/18/2011 10:30:45 AM

Quote :

"If there is a money shortage in the economy, government spending will not fix it, as government spending occurs by borrowing money out of people's pockets then paying it to other people's pockets."

It's a little more complicated than that. If the money is taken from underneath someone's mattress, and put into somebody else's pocket, then yes you have increased the money that's effectively in the economy.

Quote :

"^^ and ^, yes, raising taxes also works. But you didn't mention taxes, you merely argued that reducing spending wouldn't reduce the deficit, which is just not true."

It can certainly be true depending on what spending you reduce. If the spending you reduce is highly stimulative (such as food stamps) you risk reducing GDP growth, which might reduce tax revenue to the point that the deficit is larger than if you hadn't cut the spending to begin with. In other words, reducing spending can actually *increase* the deficit given certain economic conditions (*cough* a recession).

[Edited on November 18, 2011 at 12:10 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2011 12:07:39 PM

so theyre not bums-

theyre just cynical!

11/18/2011 12:40:22 PM