RE: Does Prohibition Increase Violence or Improve Wellbeing?
Hurray! I finally got you to post. Upvoting to encourage future posting. :)
A government that has a monopoly on violence does not justify its right to have a monopoly in the selling or not selling of a good
I think we disagree here. Governments do sell many goods, including a monopoly on currency creation. From a "human farming" perspective, every citizen (and their tax-paying abilities) is like a bond for the fiat currency they create out of nothing. They can do this fraudulent activity because they maintain a monopoly on the initiation of force. A study of the history of central banking, I think, supports this. Previously (First and Second banks of the United States), people saw through the scam and fought against it vigorously.
can be beneficial for regulation and consumer protection
Maybe. This is an area I'm really trying to question myself on. I want regulation. I want regulation that actually works. When I see governments involved, often I see people playing with other people's money. They have no skin in the game, so their attempts cause further "unintended consequences" which are obvious to those paying attention. Some of the best tools for consumer protection I've seen are distributed ones which are held accountable by market forces. If they can't provide a good product, they lose influence and revenue. Again though, I'm working to question my views in this area as there are counter examples to consider as well.
I think government authorization is a catch-all for what has, historically, been some really bad behavior (again, see democide). The "we'll take care of it" approach is what concerns me. I hope you're not arguing the current justice system is the best possible system for justice? You and I have talked about the faulty nature of eye-witness testimony and how an appellate court judge makes their decisions more based on how long ago they ate than on facts, logic, and reason according to some studies.
they are not applied universally across all people
Agreed, which also creates a myopic view on my part which I'm hoping to get around in the future with more travel and study.
but disagree on the area
Property conflicts involving land, I agree, are the hardest to determine because no one I've yet seen can come up with a fully justified claim to land that doesn't somewhere in its history have a "might makes right" justification.
stronger or faster wins through violence.
If and only if violence remains an acceptable solution. If someone uses violence, it's also possible the rest of the community could shun them to the point where they can not eat or do commerce because of their actions. There are other methods of regulation besides threats of violent force.
I'm hopeful that technology will outperform government in this role.
Me too. :)
Thanks James, good to see you here. I hope you stay.
Thanks for bringing me on board. One piece of clarification, when I said:
I was not implying that governments do not use their force to monopolize markets only that they are mutually inclusive, in that they don't have to both be true. When I speak of a monopoly of violence I'm only speaking of a small aspect of what we generally consider as government.
Like you I'm also skeptical regulation is beneficial. There is something very attractive about simple and powerful mechanics leading to complex and well functioning systems: like natural selection / mutation and free market. The caveat is now that we're conscious of the forces of evolution we're discussing how we're changing them... for our benefit. The same problem of unintended consequences arises there too.
You're right. I'm not, but I could argue it is the best we've had so far.
This is an opportunity for technology to outperform but requires transparency. Also, just started "Thinking Fast and Slow" tonight and heard him reference this study.
Ah, finally! One of my favorite books explaining what we currently know about the human mind. You've recommend books to me I've fully enjoyed. I'm glad you're getting to one of my recommendations. :)
I guess I fail to see enough examples where they aren't, eventually. Take the United States as an example. One of the first (only?) nation states to start close to a minarchy. Where did it up end? The largest and most powerful army the world has ever known, building an empire, but doing so with control of the world reserve currency. Eventually, over time, centralized hierarchy systems of power become corrupted. At least, that's what we've seen so far.
If that ends, what we'll have probably won't be called government, by my standards. It'll be closer to voluntaryism, I think.
I agree it would be something new.
I might pick up Black Swan also since I heard you mention it and it was referenced in the TFAS book. I've got 14 credits on audible so let me know what you'd recommend. I just finished How the Mind Works by Pinker and then heard he's got a new book coming out and is going to do a show with Sam Harris in Los Angeles.... road trip?
Hah! That would be quite a road trip. 14 credits?!? Dang man. I need to change my subscription because I feel like I'm always waiting for the next credit. I'll check my wish list at some point and see what I have in there to recommend. Almost done with Black Swan and definitely enjoying it.
Hey... road trip would be interesting. I think I'll just wait for it to hit YouTube though. :)
I switched to the 24 credit membership, all at once, in May.