rkbabang

I would agree with that 100%. In some societies some of these crazy extremist views were "Blacks are human beings", "Women should be equal to men", "The king isn't really a god".... It is from the crazy extremists, when they are correct, that progress eventually comes. The "realists" are always happy to keep things as they are, for no other reason other than because that is how things currently are.

I was merely trying to picture specific situations in the society you propose, but you keep talking in generalities. Yes, governments are simply groups of people. Just like the groups of people in anarcho-capitalist world. What's the difference then? Sooner or later groups of people will use force and coercion against another group of people, for better or worse. I don't see how labeling something as "anarcho-capitalist" changes anything. It is impossible to answer in specifics. Picture a world where insuring against loss was always done by the government. There was no insurance industry at all. If you got in a car accident you filed a claim with the department of autoinsurance and hope they gave you something. Same with your house or business. In such a world without hundreds of years of prior insurance industry history it would be impossible to answer the questions "how would private insurance work?" "How much would it cost?" "What if the insurance company didn't pay you?" "What if the private insurance company went broke and couldn't pay anyone?" "Who would insure the insurers?" etc. But it would be easy to say that these are simply things that can be worked out through market competition. And that it is wrong for the government to steal money from everyone to insure property without giving us any choice in the matter. So what would a private security/protection system and legal/tort system look like? Who would keep track of property titles? How would you this that or the other thing? There have been whole books written on such topics and they all don't agree with each other, so I have no idea. I do know that if there is a demand then people would come up with a way to attract customers and make money from providing such services, and that it is wrong to use theft to fund such systems now.

Yes, exactly. I couldn't run every facet of my life. That is why you hire experts to do certain things for you. My only abjection is having some of these forced upon me without choice. Not only that, the fact that the rest of society thinks that these experts should be able to force me to do certain things rather than suggest them. It turns service into servitude. I would object to being forced to use a certain automachanic who I wasn't allowed to negotiate prices nor fire and go somewhere else if I was unhappy, just as strongly as I object to using the monopoly government protection services. Also the incentives are such that the people who hold these positions of power are the very people who should never be given such power. You shouldn't look for the most power-hungry sadistic individuals in society and tell them I am at your service and will do whatever you say. There is a reason you can tell someone is a cop or a politician just by talking to them even when they are not working and have no uniform on. There is a certain type of person who gravitates to those jobs, and with no "keeping the customer happy" requirement, it is a disaster. There will always be theft and aggression, I'm not saying those things can be gotten rid of. I'm only saying we shouldn't institutionalize them accept those things as being okay. In a sane society the people who perpetrate theft and aggression would be considered criminals, not public servants.

So are you proposing that Britain should regulate the United States? Because the United States regulating the United States is self-regulation just as much as a corporation regulating its own behaviour is self-regulation. I think he must be proposing that humans be regulated by some non-human species? But as far as I know, all governments have been made up entirely of human beings. Wow, I don't think either of you could be more pedantic if you tried. Sorry, but you and many here speak of these groups of human beings as if they are something more than a group of human beings. I'm simply trying to point out that they are not. There is nothing magical about a group of humans using force to control other humans. There is nothing about one set of human beings that makes them more able to govern others than those others are to govern themselves. There is nothing pedantic about pointing out that your comment that human beings can't self-govern, but groups of human beings calling themselves government can, is circular reasoning. If human beings are unable to govern themselves they are certainly unable to govern others. If human beings are unable to govern themselves, they are certainly unable to choose what other human beings should govern them.

That's because they are insane. I'll plagiarize a post on Reddit a while back as the counter argument. What will happen is that I will beat you up when are walking down the street and steal all your stuff. I may kill you, or not. Let's assume that, irrationally, I don't kill you. Then you'll probably want to band together with other people to ensure I don't beat you up again. Well, then I'll probably just want to find more people and build better weapons so that I can beat you up and take your stuff once more. As I increase my power, you might want to do the same. So, we'll have these armies dedicated to keeping ourselves safe. We'll pay them with money levied on everyone who is protected by them. Pretty soon, it will become evident what the best army is, and other armies will get killed off. The people running the army will realize they can do a lot of good by, say, having a fire department or a police force stopping people within the winning group from killing each other, or courts to enforce property rights, and so will enact that. And presto, we'll have government and taxation. And then someone will stand up and say, "This government is violent. If we get rid of them, everyone will hold hands and magically never want to commit violence against each other to get ahead, and the world will be Nirvana". The other question is, why don't you emigrate to Mogadishu, where this sort of environment seems to exist, rkbabang? It seems to fit your philosophy perfectly. (This is actually a serious question. I suspect your answer is "Mogadishu isn't what I am proposing", but I'm curious why you believe it isn't. The people themselves decide issues like property rights and survival, unrestricted by the onerous constraints of a violent government.) Oh boy, it was only a matter of time before someone mentioned Somalia. (At least no one has brought Hitler into it yet). The fact is though that they are better off now than they were back when they did have a U.N. sanctioned government by almost every metric you can come up with. It isn't the government that makes a people civilized it is their culture. You can give the people of Somalia a democracy and it will likely deteriorate into a worse mess than it is now. This is why "nation building" does not work, if the culture could support a civilized society it would already be a civilized society. It isn't our form of government that makes us civilized, quite the opposite, it is our civilized culture that prevents our government from being as corrupt and brutal as some others. We keep them in check, not the other way around. You are putting the cart before the horse.

To clarify my above post a little bit for people unaccustomed to thinking about the nature of government and where it gets its "powers" from. The only reason that property exists only when the government says it does, isn't because of any supernatural quality of the group calling itself the government, but because that is what the norms of our society are. The non-government people in society vastly outnumber the government members. If the norms and mores of our society were such that no person or group could steal and initiate force, than the government in its current form could not exist, but there could just as easily be other norms and mores that dictate how we claim property and transfer titles, etc. Maybe a peaceful organization(s) would be responsible for keeping the records and paid to do so. There is nothing inherent about property ownership which says that it needs to be registered with an organization which survives by theft in order to be generally recognized as legitimate by a civilized society. Of course as you can see by the fact that these things never crossed your mind that this violence based organization gains incredible advantages by taking all of the children in society every day for 12 of their most formative years and "educating" them. The things I'm saying can't even register in the minds of most people as anything but insane.

The vast majority of the 'commons' are enforced as such by governments. The solution to the tragedy of the commons is private ownership. Private ownership IS a form of government regulation. Who determines who owns what? Who enforces property rights? If the government collapsed tomorrow, what would happen to your private property? Private property only exists where a government says it exists. In the fishery example, you give people "shares" of the fishery that can be exploited personally, or that can be bought and sold. The fishery is now "privately owned." This has been done, and there are examples of this type of scheme working very well in ensuring the long-term health of the fishery and in maximizing the economic value obtained. It's "private ownership" but it's still a form of government regulation, as all "private ownership" is. Private ownership exists only if government says it exists? Yes, because they are magic. Or is it because they hold their superhuman powers by the grace of god? I guess we've made a little progress since the days of building pyramids for the god-kings, but not much apparently.

Sorry, still not clear at all. E.g. section on "Law and order and the use of violence" basically says that anarcho-capitalists can't even agree on what they want really Yes, you are correct. Unlike advocates of government who all always agree on what they all want. Last time I saw a political debate it was all hugs and kisses all around. It isn't a matter of whether or not human beings can self-regulate, we have no other choice. As far as we know we are the only intelligent sapient species in the universe (like I said, as far as we know). Human beings are all there is right now. We can act alone or in groups. We can act peacefully or violently. Most of us agree that if a human is attacked he can use violence to defend himself and that is OK. What we are discussing here is the theory (the overwhelmingly popular theory) that human beings can form into groups and a majority can vote to use intragroup violence against a minority, as well as intergroup violence against other such groups who have done nothing violent to provoke it. Governments are simply groups of human beings trying to self regulate themselves and others using aggressive, unprovoked violence and theft.

So are you proposing that Britain should regulate the United States? Because the United States regulating the United States is self-regulation just as much as a corporation regulating its own behaviour is self-regulation. I think he must be proposing that humans be regulated by some non-human species? But as far as I know, all governments have been made up entirely of human beings.

But someone wearing a ski-mask didn't build the road you were driving on, or provided a handy phone number to dial in case someone like him was trying to rob you, and so forth. Would it make you feel better if the guy who robbed you kept some for himself, but gave most of it to your favorite charity? I would still consider myself to have been the victim of a crime regardless of what my attacker later did with my money. If I want to spend my money on a product, service, or charity I am perfectly capable of making those decisions on my own. And even if I wasn't capable, that would be my problem, no one would have the right to use violence against me to make the decisions that they think are correct. By the way, you do realize that you are using the "protection racket" argument. Sure Vinny will break my legs if I don't pay him, but he keeps the neighborhood safe and free of drug dealers, so all the merchants should be happy to pay their fair share.

The vast majority of the 'commons' are enforced as such by governments. The solution to the tragedy of the commons is private ownership. I call myself an anarchist, but I am open to the possibility that I am wrong and some rare situations may call for collective violence (i.e. government). But these situations, if they exist, should be rare and should be treated with extreme caution and skepticism by all. Similar to defensive shootings, yes they are sometimes necessary, but they are rare and should always be treated first as a murder investigation. Our modern states and the people who inhabit them treat government violence as a go-to solution for any and all problems and even things that aren't problems but just "nice to haves". People have an almost religious view of government as the savior, to the point that they are willing to sign up and die to support the bottom line of the defense industry. This probably stems from the fact that the government has run the education system for generations.

There are only two ways people can deal with each other. One way is the honest/peaceful/voluntary/"free market" method, where all parties agree to whatever takes place or have the option of opting out completely from any interaction. The other way is the fraudulent/violent/threatening/political method where one party uses fraud or violence, or threatens to use violence, in order to control others. You say that not everyone is peaceful and honest, I agree, but to the extent that they are not, they are using the political method rather than market method to deal with others. Dealing with this type of person is what self defense is for. No one has the right to initiate violence, but everyone has the right to defend themselves from it. I make no distinction between what a person or a group calls themselves. If someone calling himself an "IRS tax collector" telling me I need to give money to his organization with an implied "or else", is the equivalent of someone else wearing a ski-mask and explicitly pointing a gun in my face demanding my wallet. They are both using the political method of dealing with others, rather than the peaceful market method of somehow convincing me to want to give them money, by maybe doing something for me for which I'd be glad to pay. When an organization decides that it would be nice if more people used solar panels then proceeds to steal from some people to help pay for others to buy solar panels, that is the political method of dealing with people. Doing research and developing a cheaper more efficient solar panel that people would be willing to buy from you without theft or violence is using the peaceful/voluntary/market method. Anyone who says something like they wouldn't by food unless the government inspected it, isn't paying enough attention to what is going on to even be worth having a discussion with. The FDA has sickened & killed more people (through both its actions and inactions) than a free market in food and drugs ever would.

A few other ways to phrase that exact question are: When is dealing with other people on a voluntary basis without aggression bad? When is aggressive deadly violence against peaceful people good and necessary? When is it necessary to force people to do what you want them to do even thought they were not using force against anyone?

But then the poor wouldn't get the wonderful education that they currently do. You'd have a situation where the middle class and rich kids would get a good to excellent education while the poor would be stuck in dangerous poor inner-city schools with teachers who are burned out or simply don't care, which would make for a poor learning environment. So these kids will simply not have the same opportunities to learn and better themselves as the wealthier kids do. Of course under government run systems everything is rainbows and unicorns and just works perfectly because the law says it must. EDIT: I don't believe that ending public education would result in the above, I actually think everyone, including the poor, would be much better off. But I just wanted to point out that even if all of the worst fears of ending government funded education that people hold in their head's were all completely valid and came to be, it would only mean that private education would be the equivalent of the public system we have now. Also in case you were not aware of this organization: The Alliance for the Separation of School & State you can give subsidy? The less you make, the more subsidy you get. And get the banks to make an account where you can only send that money to schools? Just so poor people wont use it for other stuff. Can also make certain laws that force schools to randomly take kids. So they wont handpick the best students to get the best results and ratings. What government gives money to government wants to control. Any type of voucher is just a backdoor way of controlling private institutions and eventually getting the teachers unions in there as a requirement. How long before the unions convince the politicians that anyone being paid (however indirectly) with government money to teach children should be held to the same "high standards" as teachers in government schools are? Would you want your child to be forced to go to school with gang-bangers? Forced bussing isn't the answer. If we really wanted to help the poor we'd end the war on drugs, but that isn't going to happen. It's funny how people worry that some child will fall through the cracks in a private system, when the current situation is that whole sections of society are falling through a huge gaping hole. This is the same whenever you talk about ending government control of anything. If the private solution isn't a perfect utopia people would rather stick with a violently enforced government monopoly that is even worse, because it at least gives them the illusion of having some control. Just pass another law (because magic words on paper are especially powerful, at least that is what they teach in government schools), vote for someone else (because choosing between 2 party stooges is a surefire way to make you feel like you are in control and all is well), steal more money to throw at the problems (Because there is nothing that politically controlled stolen funds can't solve) and maybe all the problems will be solved. If not, there is always the next election to try again, there will be two more party picked candidates for you to pick from.

I don't know about that. I am pretty satisfied with my position, but I can't imagine being in a state where I didn't want more. What would get you up in the morning? It's like when you go on vacation, the first few days are like heaven, but at some point (5 days or so) you can't wait to get back home. I think having everything you think you want would be like that. The first 6-months, maybe a year, would be awesome, but then you would simply have to set your sights higher so that you could get back to work and be useful again. There should always be a discrepancy between what you have and what you want, otherwise you'd have no motivation to do anything at all.

So it's entirely in character for him, then :) I get that this is a value investing board but its not always about the money. How many of you have bought a useless/worthless pieces of carbon and paid thousands or even tens of thousands? I was going to reply that it was about the scale of the purchase, but I just looked it up and Balmer is worth about $20B, I bought my wife a 1/4 carat ring when I was in college and it was considerably more than 10% of my net worth at the time. So you make a good point. $2B seems excessive for a vanity purchase to many of us simply because we are not worth $20B.

But then the poor wouldn't get the wonderful education that they currently do. You'd have a situation where the middle class and rich kids would get a good to excellent education while the poor would be stuck in dangerous poor inner-city schools with teachers who are burned out or simply don't care, which would make for a poor learning environment. So these kids will simply not have the same opportunities to learn and better themselves as the wealthier kids do. Of course under government run systems everything is rainbows and unicorns and just works perfectly because the law says it must. EDIT: I don't believe that ending public education would result in the above, I actually think everyone, including the poor, would be much better off. But I just wanted to point out that even if all of the worst fears of ending government funded education that people hold in their head's were all completely valid and came to be, it would only mean that private education would be the equivalent of the public system we have now. Also in case you were not aware of this organization: The Alliance for the Separation of School & State

NASA did all four in the 1960's and got to the moon. They may still hire talented engineers, but the other 3 steps are lacking. You can have the best engineers on the planet, but if you weigh them down with meetings, paperwork, impossible requirements, managers that are more concerned with politics than science, and in general make them believe that they are spinning their wheels endlessly and are never going to get to do anything useful, you aren't going to get much out of them. I always cringe when I hear people say that we (and when they say 'we' they mean 'the government') should be funding science to a greater extent. What we (and when I say 'we' I mean the Earth's civilization consisting of individual people) really need is a complete and total separation of science and state.

The book is only $10 wasn't he asking some ridiculous amount for it (in the hundreds of dollars) at one point?

What is the difference between these two: In Sanjeev's elite league >1 million but < 2 million Accredited investor > 1 million but < 2million And what is with the lack of hair in the higher net worth group? Warren Buffet is richer than anyone here, yet he isn't bald. If getting to $15M makes you lose your hair, how do you explain all the billionaires that still have theirs? They somehow made it through the $15M level with their hair (not Donald Trump though).

The thing about this poll is that the categories are arbitrary and represent just a moment in time. If you would have asked this question a few months ago when BAC was at $18 I was in the category above the one I am in now, had you asked it 2 or 3 years ago I was in the one below the one I'm in now. (And I don't really own a $4M sports car, the hope diamond, or a castle).

Thanks that's just the vacation home in Germany. I spend a week there every few years. I almost forgot I owned it. I'm so unorganized I had to dig around the house to find the hope diamond to take a picture of it. It was under the couch cushion.

Sure: http://specials-images.forbesimg.com/imageserve/66cd6f19fabf8c16da3c2e5c2d4f034c/0x600.jpg http://www.8thingstodo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Neuschwanstein-Castle-Germany.jpg http://mineralsciences.si.edu/_img/hope/hope.jpg

The more people that see Earth from space, the better. The more we learn there is nothing out there to support our survival anywhere but on Earth, the better. We launch people into space but guess what - we are all people in space - existing in a thin film on a blue eyeball we call Earth. Here are some first hand observations and quotes on the subject: http://www.spacequotations.com/earth.html yeah but it will stay expensive for your everyday man. Personally i would pay a lot of money to go to the ISS. I would kill my own mother to go there :D . But most people dont care, and it will stay too expensive untill we get something of value from outside earth, economically. It's important only to send up world leaders. The everyday man will reap the benefits of their adjusted psyche. Perhaps a prerequisite to assuming power. Would only require a tiny sliver of the $1.75 Trillion global defence spending budget. Only if we keep them all up there and not let them back. Sounds like a plan.

My picks are doing pretty well so far, Just FB and NFLX losing money. BBRY -4.84% BBY-33.16% BH-14.11% CBRL-8.08% FB+16.03% GME-24.89% HLF-19.14% MJNA0% NFLX+9.92% TWTR-54.80%