General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

Fair enough, although using a short-cut phrase like 'small government' or 'big government' just leads to incomplete or mis- understanding.
People who fixate on big or small government miss the point IMO. It matters what government does. Very often, economic affairs as you put it, is a competing interest with individual affairs. An easy example of that is child labor, which we used to have until government stepped in.

I think child labor laws should be repealed. It's a parents job to parent, not the government's. Child abuse is one thing, but certain forms of child work is another.

That's a bit too clever. There is no effective way for business to protect its interests without these overreaching rules. It's easy to say one does not object to business protecting itself while denouncing the only effective way they could do it. It follows however that one would be in support of some alternative way to shut down online usage of copyrighted material.

Many who oppose the bill have said that there are other means of stopping piracy that could be implemented that they would support, but this bill is over-reaching, so I don't see how censorship and trampling on free speech is the only was to protect the business' property.

There could not be a civilized society with no governments.

This is false. All government is is a monopoly over the use of force/coercion. Private agencies could enforce private property rights and resolve conflicts at least as - if not more - effectively than government, and there have been examples of this/something very close to this in history, such as medieval iceland from around 900 to 1300, the Old West in the US, and for a short period early Pennsylvania.

I think child labor laws should be repealed. It's a parents job to parent, not the government's. Child abuse is one thing, but certain forms of child work is another.

then we disagree on that. I support the ban on 12yr olds in coal mines, even if the parents need the money.

Many who oppose the bill have said that there are other means of stopping piracy that could be implemented that they would support, but this bill is over-reaching, so I don't see how censorship and trampling on free speech is the only was to protect the business' property.

I agree with your characterization of the bill, but the copyright owners want it because that's how they'll have near total control of their product.

This is false. All government is is a monopoly over the use of force/coercion. Private agencies could enforce private property rights and resolve conflicts at least as - if not more - effectively than government, and there have been examples of this/something very close to this in history, such as medieval iceland from around 900 to 1300, the Old West in the US, and for a short period early Pennsylvania.

The old west was basically a constant, violent violation of human rights by people with money over those who didn't have it. Towns were created and run by railroad companies, mining companies, and large ranchers. It wasn't anarchy, it was the government of the powerful over the powerless.
I've heard the Iceland thing from libertarians. Iceland was barely discovered, certainly not very populated, and a commonwealth was founded in 930. You'll have to be more specific on what you mean by early Pennsylvania.

The old west was basically a constant, violent violation of human rights by people with money over those who didn't have it. Towns were created and run by railroad companies, mining companies, and large ranchers. It wasn't anarchy, it was the government of the powerful over the powerless.
.

That's a common misconception - http://invisiblemolotov.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/wild-west3.pdf

Iceland was barely discovered, certainly not very populated, and a commonwealth was founded in 930. .

I said there have been examples of "this/something very close to this" in history. Iceland was "something very close" to anarchy. While there was one legal system, all of the law enforcement/conflict resolution was entirely privatized.

then we disagree on that. I support the ban on 12yr olds in coal mines, even if the parents need the money.

This is demagoguery imo. obviously I don't want children working under poor/abusive conditions, but the government is not needed to get rid of children working under poor/abusive conditions.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/whaples.childlabor

"Most economic historians conclude that this legislation was not the primary reason for the reduction and virtual elimination of child labor between 1880 and 1940. Instead they point out that industrialization and economic growth brought rising incomes, which allowed parents the luxury of keeping their children out of the work force. In addition, child labor rates have been linked to the expansion of schooling, high rates of return from education, and a decrease in the demand for child labor due to technological changes which increased the skills required in some jobs and allowed machines to take jobs previously filled by children. Moehling (1999) finds that the employment rate of 13-year olds around the beginning of the twentieth century did decline in states that enacted age minimums of 14, but so did the rates for 13-year olds not covered by the restrictions. Overall she finds that state laws are linked to only a small fraction – if any – of the decline in child labor. It may be that states experiencing declines were therefore more likely to pass legislation, which was largely symbolic."

This is false. All government is is a monopoly over the use of force/coercion. Private agencies could enforce private property rights and resolve conflicts at least as - if not more - effectively than government, and there have been examples of this/something very close to this in history, such as medieval iceland from around 900 to 1300, the Old West in the US, and for a short period early Pennsylvania.

I have lots of libertarian beliefs, but the idea that government isn't necessary for civilization is where I break with many of the more radical elements in libertarian philosophy. Without some form of government to enforce laws and regulate some basic things, you end up living in society where, as Thucydides wrote, “The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must.”

Certainly, there have been examples of vastly smaller and vastly simpler societies where centralized government has had little to no sway. However, these have been the exception and very far from the rule. Less government is a good thing in almost all cases, but, in the case of larger and more complex societal systems, some government is necessary and helpful to a just and organized society.

I have lots of libertarian beliefs, but the idea that government isn't necessary for civilization is where I break with many of the more radical elements in libertarian philosophy. Without some form of government to enforce laws and regulate some basic things, you end up living in society where, as Thucydides wrote, “The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must.”

Certainly, there have been examples of vastly smaller and vastly simpler societies where centralized government has had little to no sway. However, these have been the exception and very far from the rule. Less government is a good thing in almost all cases, but, in the case of larger and more complex societal systems, some government is necessary and helpful to a just and organized society.

I happen to disagree as I noted above. Law/contract enforcement etc can be handled by private agencies better than government imo, and there have been glimpses in history where that's been the case, though Robert Nozick does makes a strong case for why this would always eventually evolve into "minarchy" in Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

Law/contract enforcement etc can be handled by private agencies better than government imo, and there have been glimpses in history where that's been the case

Using your Old West example, this is what the Pinkertons did and their record of respecting rights and due process isn't exactly a treasure.

Again, I don't think you're wrong that small, homogeneous societies have had purely private foundations, but to think a country like the United States or any other complex, modern country could run with a purely private system is very, very utopian thinking.

Using your Old West example, this is what the Pinkertons did and their record of respecting rights and due process isn't exactly a treasure.

a) there hasn't much of a sample size for purely privatized law enforcement, but the instances of it haven't been purely chaotic like many try to argue and were arguably more effective than government.

b) governments have had a pretty large sample size and absolute power has been shown to corrupt absolutely over and over. governments don't have a great record of respecting rights and due process over large samples.

Again, I don't think you're wrong that small, homogeneous societies have had purely private foundations, but to think a country like the United States or any other complex, modern country could run with a purely private system is very, very utopian thinking.

I'm not claiming any system would be utopian, in fact one of the main libertarian arguments is that utopia is impossible and they don't claim purely free markets would be utopia. I'm just claiming it would be better than the alternative (government). And I don't think the United States or any other complex modern country could transition to a purely private system in my lifetime. But I do think that theoretically a complex modern country with no government could exist, and it would be better than if that country had a government, even a limited one. Obviously I think a greatly limited government is the best thing we can realistically achieve in practice today.

RE: the Wild West - 1, see adjective. 2, it's not a misconception.
RE: child labor, I see quite a bit of correlation, not casuation in the last paragraph that you quoted, leaving out the previous paragraphs describing how parents used their childrens' labor, that social pressure, not economic pressure drove labor laws, and that state level laws that were enacted affected labor numbers. It's not surprising that economic historians look at it from an economic perspective, and there's no doubt that child labor being less necessary affected the numbers of kids working, but there's also no doubt that child labor laws exist because children were put in jobs they should not have been doing, and business fought to keep the right to do that.
Anyway, this is a digression.

a) there hasn't much of a sample size for purely privatized law enforcement, but the instances of it haven't been purely chaotic like many try to argue and were arguably more effective than government.

b) governments have had a pretty large sample size and absolute power has been shown to corrupt absolutely over and over. governments don't have a great record of respecting rights and due process over large samples.

a) Chaos is not the point. If you have a private police force exerting its will over members of society, you have a paid for government. A company is the government.
b) Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is a universal truth, not a governmental truth.

You're looking at government as an entity. It's not. We had a government in the early 1900's when Rockefeller was violently muscling out his competition. But Rockefeller was also government. He governed his area. It didn't matter what government said, it mattered what Rockefeller decided to do to you. If you have a society in which there are no rules, and the strongest person does whatever he wants to the others, that person governs over others. He doesn't need a title and a structure to do it. What he says goes until someone is stronger than him. Then what that person says goes and he governs over the rest. The entity government exists because the previous example is not beneficial to enough of the population, so the population created the idea of a structured means to coexist. Using tiny isolated populations as examples isn't valid. My family is a small unit of people. Pointing to it and saying we never elected a leader is proof leaders aren't needed doesn't pass the smell test.

It's easy to say one does not object to business protecting itself while denouncing the only effective way they could do it. It follows however that one would be in support of some alternative way to shut down online usage of copyrighted material.

you say we need to protect copyrighted material and allow these businesses to prosper, but i say copyright laws need to be scaled back substantially. these businesses are bastardizing what was initially put in place to protect real artists, not freakish corporate entities masquerading as people and profiteering off the work of real human beings long after they're dead.

http://www.imaginelaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1181356.html

but i don't want to derail this thread further and will not say more, so you can have the final word on this.

You're looking at government as an entity. It's not. We had a government in the early 1900's when Rockefeller was violently muscling out his competition. But Rockefeller was also government. He governed his area. It didn't matter what government said, it mattered what Rockefeller decided to do to you. If you have a society in which there are no rules, and the strongest person does whatever he wants to the others, that person governs over others. He doesn't need a title and a structure to do it. What he says goes until someone is stronger than him. Then what that person says goes and he governs over the rest. The entity government exists because the previous example is not beneficial to enough of the population, so the population created the idea of a structured means to coexist. Using tiny isolated populations as examples isn't valid. My family is a small unit of people. Pointing to it and saying we never elected a leader is proof leaders aren't needed doesn't pass the smell test.

i was going to say something similar. anarchy is not an alternative to government.

even in small groups of humans, even just 2 people, there emerges a pecking order. there arises organization.

once we understand why this happens, i think we can understand why anarchy does not make sense as a permanent possibility.

if you say let business take care of the needs of the people, i say you've simply made a business of governing, and that business is now the new government.

RE: the Wild West - 1, see adjective. 2, it's not a misconception.

really, that's your argument?

RE: child labor, I see quite a bit of correlation, not casuation in the last paragraph that you quoted, leaving out the previous paragraphs describing how parents used their childrens' labor, that social pressure, not economic pressure drove labor laws, and that state level laws that were enacted affected labor numbers. It's not surprising that economic historians look at it from an economic perspective, and there's no doubt that child labor being less necessary affected the numbers of kids working, but there's also no doubt that child labor laws exist because children were put in jobs they should not have been doing, and business fought to keep the right to do that.
Anyway, this is a digression.

the fact of the matter is that the way to get rid of child labor is to get to the point where the society is wealthy enough such that the parents work is productive enough and the currency is valuable enough that the children don't have to work. And free markets unimpeded by government is the way for society to produce the most possible wealth for the greatest number of people.

a) Chaos is not the point. If you have a private police force exerting its will over members of society, you have a paid for government. A company is the government.

if you have *one* "private" police force exerting its will over members of society in a given geographical area, then yeah you have a government. Like I said before, a government is a monopoly over the use of force. If you have multiple private protection agencies, you don't have a monopoly.

You're looking at government as an entity. It's not. We had a government in the early 1900's when Rockefeller was violently muscling out his competition. But Rockefeller was also government. He governed his area. It didn't matter what government said, it mattered what Rockefeller decided to do to you. If you have a society in which there are no rules, and the strongest person does whatever he wants to the others, that person governs over others. He doesn't need a title and a structure to do it. What he says goes until someone is stronger than him. Then what that person says goes and he governs over the rest. The entity government exists because the previous example is not beneficial to enough of the population, so the population created the idea of a structured means to coexist. Using tiny isolated populations as examples isn't valid. My family is a small unit of people. Pointing to it and saying we never elected a leader is proof leaders aren't needed doesn't pass the smell test.

Rockefeller haha, you realize the way he got such a huge market share in the oil industry was because his company was just that more productive than all its competitors? His market share rose from something like 4 percent in 1870 to 25 percent in 1874 then to like 85 percent in 1880, and he cut its cost of refining a gallon of oil from 3 cents to less than half a cent, and he passed these savings along to the consumer - price of refined oil went from more than 30 cents per gallon in 1869 to 8 cents in 1885. If his company hadn't been so much more productive and efficient than the competitors he wouldn't have gotten such a huge market share. This is a natural monopoly, and it's the only way a monopoly can come about in a truly free market, and it's certainly not undesirable as the consumer benefits tremendously from a company that is so efficient that it can cut costs so much and offer such low prices.

If you have a society in which there are no rules, and the strongest person does whatever he wants to the others, that person governs over others.

no government doesn't mean no rules! lol

RE: the Wild West - 1, see adjective. 2, it's not a misconception.

wild
1. Occurring, growing, or living in a natural state; not domesticated, cultivated, or tamed: wild geese; edible wild plants.
2. Not inhabited or farmed: remote, wild country.

i think it was called "wild" even before westerners pushed into the areas. and it's a euro-centric label anyway since Indigenous peoples were already inhabiting it and creating order.

no government doesn't mean no rules! lol

"He who has the gold makes the rules."

are you saying monopolies are good for business but bad for governments?

are you saying monopolies are good for business but bad for governments?

no, the only monopolies that are good for the consumer are the ones that come about because of purely outperforming all competitors without any special privileges granted to it and without the use of coercion. A monopoly that comes about from government privileges, for example, is disgusting.