# Think Tank > Austrian Economics / Economic Theory >  Conservatives VS Science VS Economics

## Xerographica

Here's part of my Medium response to a conservative...

**************************

Of course, in order to be a conservative, you must, by definition, have a natural aversion to science. Which is really strange given that one of the very best stories in the Bible is all about science. The Israelites werent quite sure whether Baal or God was the real god. So Elijah devised a simple test. He would pray to God, the prophets of Baal would pray to Baal, and whichever god responded with fire would be the real god.

Why did it matter whether Baal or God was the real god? It mattered because, if youre going to make significant sacrifices to a god, you actually want even greater blessings in return. Otherwise, your sacrifices are simply a waste. The Bible isnt a fan of waste. Nobody is a fan of waste. Even liberals arent a fan of waste. They hate getting ripped off just as much as the next person.

Nowadays nobody who is truly anybody debates whether God or Allah or Shiva or Buddha is the real god. Instead, the significant people, the people who actually matter, such as the Nobel prize winners, debate whether the Visible Hand or the Invisible Hand is the real god.

Do we get more blessings from the Visible Hand or from the Invisible Hand? Do we get more blessings when people decide for themselves how to spend their money or when that decision is made _for them_? This is the real question. But you really arent asking it. Instead, youre going on and on and on about things that are entirely irrelevant to reality.

The reality is that we currently allow a small group of people (politicians) to spend a huge chunk of everybodys money (taxes). This is the Visible Hand. Except, wheres the scientific support for the Visible Hand? _There is none_.

Are you willing to test your belief in the Visible Hand? If not, then you have a very big problem. Because even the prophets of Baal were willing to test their belief in Baal. At least _they_ were willing to scientifically determine how well their beliefs corresponded with reality. As the story goes, their beliefs were unfounded and they were all slaughtered.

If your belief in the Visible Hand turns out to be unfounded then you really dont have to be worried about being slaughtered. Science has made _some_ progress since the Bible days.

----------


## dannno

> Of course, in order to be a conservative, you must, by definition, have a natural aversion to science.


Then why are liberals the ones retarded on climate change?

----------


## Xerographica

> Then why are liberals the ones retarded on climate change?


In nearly all cases, the real reason that anybody is retarded about anything is because of central planning.  Central planning is the root of the problem.  We have to strike the root.

----------


## euphemia

I believe in science. Science, however, changes. I look at the evidence and draw a conclusion. Their are tons of sea fossils all through Tennessee. How did they get here?  They could only be here if at one time Tennessee was covered with water. So maybe science wants to tell a different story than what actually happened. What then?

----------


## osan

> Of course, in order to be a conservative, you must, by definition, have a natural aversion to science.


What?  One of my best friends identifies strongly as a conservative.  He is a PhD in chemistry, was the director of all IT, research computing, and real time process control systems at Union Carbide, and has forgotten more science than anyone here is likely to ever know.  Were you to become acquainted with him, you would flush with deep and shame-laden embarrassment for the sheer and utter silliness of such a statement as what you have written here.




> Nowadays *nobody who is truly anybody* debates whether God or Allah or Shiva or Buddha is the real god. Instead, the significant people, the people who actually matter, such as the Nobel prize winners, debate whether the Visible Hand or the Invisible Hand is the real god.


This is a joke, yes?

----------


## Xerographica

> What?  One of my best friends identifies strongly as a conservative.  He is a PhD in chemistry, was the director of all IT, research computing, and real time process control systems at Union Carbide, and has forgotten more science than anyone here is likely to ever know.  Were you to become acquainted with him, you would flush with deep and shame-laden embarrassment for the sheer and utter silliness of such a statement as what you have written here.


Your conservative friend, by definition, believes in the effectiveness of the Visible Hand.  Has he ever scientifically tested his belief?  Has he ever shown _any_ interest in scientifically testing his belief?  Please ask him and let us know what he says.  

Here's what I just wrote to a liberal...

**************************

You and the conservative both believe in the effectiveness of the Visible Hand. However, the fact of the matter is that *the effectiveness of the Visible Hand has never been scientifically tested*.

The conservative that I replied to did not reply back and say, Id hate to believe in bull$#@!, Im very motivated for the Visible Hand to be scientifically tested. Instead, he did not reply back at all. Obviously hes not at all interested in scientifically verifying the accuracy his belief.

What about you? Are you at all interested in scientifically verifying the accuracy of your belief in the Visible Hand? If not, then you are absolutely no better than the conservatives which you love to loathe. You blindly cling to your traditions just as tightly as they do. You only support science when it _confirms_ your beliefs.

Right now Netflix decides _for subscribers_ how _their money_ is divided among all the content. This is the Visible Hand. Testing it would be as simple as replacing the Visible Hand with the Invisible Hand. Each and every subscriber would decide _for themselves_ how _their own money_ was divided among the content. What would happen to the content?

This is how easy it would be to test your belief in the Visible Hand.

Netflix probably isnt interested in conducting this experiment. The question is how interested are _you_ in this experiment?

**************************

How will the liberal respond to this?  How would your conservative friend respond?  Let's compare their answers.

----------


## Xerographica

This is a pretty good and short video about falsifiability...




It's especially good because it uses Marxism as the main example.

----------


## Xerographica

> Who says?  Seems you're making things up out of thin air.


_You_ said that your friend is a conservative.  Here's a list of all the people who believe in the effectiveness of the Visible Hand...

1. Socialists
2. Liberals
3. Conservatives
4. Libertarians

Here's a list of all the people who do not believe in the effectiveness of the Visible Hand...

1. Anarcho-capitalists
2. Pragmatarians  

Our country is currently _a mixed economy_.  This means that we have a market economy (Invisible Hand) in the private sector and a command economy (Visible Hand) in the public sector.  Socialists, liberals, conservatives and libertarians all believe that we need to have a Visible Hand.  

Anarcho-capitalists want to abolish the government.  This would obviously also abolish the Visible Hand.  Pragmatarians do not want to abolish the government.  Instead, they simply want to replace the Visible Hand in the public sector with the Invisible Hand.  This would be accomplished by allowing taxpayers to choose where their taxes go.  So there would be two Invisible Hands... one in the private sector and another in the public sector.  

Again, has your conservative friend ever scientifically tested his belief in the effectiveness of the Visible Hand?  If not, is he at all interested in scientifically testing his belief? Please ask him and let us know what he says.

----------


## osan

> Your conservative friend, by definition, believes in the effectiveness of the Visible Hand.


Who says?  Seems you're making things up out of thin air.

----------


## angelatc

> Of course, in order to be a conservative, you must, by definition, have a natural aversion to science


Da fuq?

----------


## osan

> _You_ said that your friend is a conservative.  Here's a list of all the people who believe in the effectiveness of the Visible Hand...
> 
> 1. Socialists
> 2. Liberals
> 3. Conservatives
> 4. Libertarians


Once again, who says?

Also, I never wrote any such thing.  I wrote that HE IDENTIFIES AS a conservative.

Anyone can make a list.  Stalin had all kinds of them.




> Here's a list of all the people who do not believe in the effectiveness of the Visible Hand...
> 
> 1. Anarcho-capitalists
> 2. Pragmatarians


If I relinquish control of my eye muscles, those round things would roll right out of their sockets.




> Our country is currently _a mixed economy_.  This means that we have a market economy (Invisible Hand) in the private sector and a command economy (Visible Hand) in the public sector.  Socialists, liberals, conservatives and libertarians all believe that we need to have a Visible Hand.


More proof by assertion.

You will have to do far better than this.

FAIL.




> Again, has your conservative friend ever scientifically tested his belief in the effectiveness of the Visible Hand?  If not, is he at all interested in scientifically testing his belief? Please ask him and let us know what he says.


Again, you are full of $#@! in assuming his beliefs.

You need schooling.

----------


## Xerographica

> More proof by assertion.
> 
> You will have to do far better than this.
> 
> FAIL.


You will have to be much more specific.  Please specify exactly which statement you doubt...

1. Our country is currently a mixed economy. 
2. We have a market economy (Invisible Hand) in the private sector and a command economy (Visible Hand) in the public sector. 
3. Socialists, liberals, conservatives and libertarians all believe that we need to have a Visible Hand.

----------


## osan

> You will have to be much more specific.  Please specify exactly which statement you doubt...
> 
> 3. Socialists, liberals, conservatives and libertarians all believe that we need to have a Visible Hand.


You presume to speak for all people who ID as one of these.  You assume they are uniform.  You assume too much, support none of it, and then assert your conclusion.

That's a big FAIL.  You cite a list as authoritative in the same way.

I demolished your invalid proof by producing an example to the contrary.

What more do you want?

----------


## pcosmar

> I believe in science. Science, however, changes. ?


I disagree, It is not science that changes,,only perception.
Science is science,, except when it is psudoscience.

Theories change,, facts do not.

----------


## pcosmar

> Of course, in order to be a conservative, you must, by definition, have a natural aversion to science.





> Da fuq?


I was wondering about that too. as a Conservative Hippy,, and as a Druidic Christian.

or was it directed to only one individual who uses the label "conservative"

----------


## Xerographica

> You presume to speak for all people who ID as one of these.  You assume they are uniform.  You assume too much, support none of it, and then assert your conclusion.
> 
> That's a big FAIL.  You cite a list as authoritative in the same way.
> 
> I demolished your invalid proof by producing an example to the contrary.
> 
> What more do you want?


Conservatives do not want to abolish the government. Any conservative who does want to abolish the government is not a conservative.  He is an anarchist.  Perhaps he is an anarcho-capitalist.  In any case, he is definitely not a conservative.  

Conservatives do not want people to choose where their taxes go.  Any conservative who does support this is not a conservative.  He is a pragmatarian.  

Anarchists and pragmatarians are the only people who do not perceive the need for the Visible Hand.  

Does David Friedman perceive the need for the Visible Hand?  Nope.  He is an anarcho-capitalist.

Does Gary Johnson perceive the need for the Visible Hand?  Yup.  He is a libertarian.  

Does Dick Cheney perceive the need for the Visible Hand?  Yup.  He is a conservative.

Does Elizabeth Warren perceive the need for the Visible Hand?  Yup.  She is a liberal.

Do I perceive the need for the Visible Hand?  Nope.  I'm a pragmatarian.  

Do you perceive the need for the Visible Hand?  If so, then you're definitely not a pragmatarian or an anarcho-capitalist.

----------


## osan

> Conservatives do not want to abolish the government.


Once again, says who?  I am very conservative in most of my opinions.  I believe in the sacred, in decency, right, wrong, and so forth.  I am also very anarchy-oriented, an "autodiathist".  None of these things are contradictory, nor do they interfere with one another in any manner.  I accept as valid no portion of governmental interference in my life.

You assertion is demolished, QED.




> Any conservative who does want to abolish the government is not a conservative.


That is untrue, as demonstrated above.




> He is an anarchist.  Perhaps he is an anarcho-capitalist.  In any case, he is definitely not a conservative.


You are playing fast and loose with language, are assuming you hold the universally applicable and true definitions of terms for all people, and thereby further fall into error.

Your statements are not of a casual nature - the subject matter in particular.  This is not like saying "strawberry ice cream sucks".  These are statements whose ramifications spread broad and deep tentacles into the lives of every human being on the planet most likely, and those in America to be certain.  Therefore, far more care than you have shown is required.  You are sloppily asserting your OPINION as some sort of universal truth for all men.  This is FAIL^FAIL.  This is the brand of talk that, in a more serious world composed of men serious about their liberties would drag you into the street and lynch you from the nearest branch for having the temerity to threaten them with such nonsense as this.  Luckily for all of us, I suppose, we live in a world where the vast majority could give a tinker's damn about freedom.  You therefore are able to get away with such utterances with little to no risk to your own hide.

Words matter and here you express yourself as if they didn't.  Dangerous game, IMO, but you are free to make as lousy an argument as you please.

Now, before you respond with how full of $#@! I am, exaggerating the significance of what you have written in the attempt to torpedo the notion that words are that important, let us try a short thought experiment.  If your words are not that important, I suggest you find your nearest deep-city $#@!hole, like Harlem, South Bronx, South side of Chicago, etc, stand on a soap box and espouse the virtues of eliminating all black and hispanic people from American soil.  If you make it out alive, we can then revisit this notion that what you write has no significance in the world worthy of the mention.  I would add that if they don't, why write them in the first place?  Otherwise, concede that you have gone off, half-cocked with a rotten argument and try again with a bit more care.




> Conservatives do not want people to choose where their taxes go.  Any conservative who does support this is not a conservative.  He is a pragmatarian.  
> 
> Anarchists and pragmatarians are the only people who do not perceive the need for the Visible Hand.  
> 
> Does David Friedman perceive the need for the Visible Hand?  Nope.  He is an anarcho-capitalist.
> 
> Does Gary Johnson perceive the need for the Visible Hand?  Yup.  He is a libertarian.  
> 
> Does Dick Cheney perceive the need for the Visible Hand?  Yup.  He is a conservative.
> ...


And so it goes with the rest of your swiss-cheese argument.

You've been here very much long enough to know better.

----------


## Xerographica

> Once again, says who?  I am very conservative in most of my opinions.  I believe in the sacred, in decency, right, wrong, and so forth.  I am also very anarchy-oriented, an "autodiathist".  None of these things are contradictory, nor do they interfere with one another in any manner.  I accept as valid no portion of governmental interference in my life.


You said that your scientist friend is a conservative.  Does he also believe that the government is entirely unnecessary?

----------


## osan

> You said that your scientist friend is a conservative.  Does he also believe that the government is entirely unnecessary?


You would have to ask him, I do not presume to speak for others on such matters, mostly.

That said, he believes in certain functions of governANCE, which is not the same as so-called "governMENT".  The proper functions of the script most people confuse with an actual, extant entity called "government" are two: the protection/guaranty of the rights of all men and the adjudication of disputes of certain kinds.  There is nothing else.

Having established this, it is no great feat to show that those functions are pretty well required any place you have more than one individual residing.  There are exceptions to this, I know for certain, but they are relatively few and far between when taken in the context of the whole, so far as I can tell.  Given the utility of such functions, it then follows that someone, somewhere, must administer them.  Whether such administration is "public" or "private" is irrelevant.  The difference is, in fact, nonexistent because in each case one human being is assuming authority over another in what is functionally equivalent to a master/slave relationship.  The only possible differences, once the "authority" has been established, lie in the nature and degree of that power of one man over another.  While I will not deny that such differences can be significant, the truly salient point lies in the establishment of the validity of of such power.  After that, it matters no whit *in principle* who assumes it.

Thus far, we have established that someone, somewhere, holds authority over other men who have through word or other deed crossed a line into trespass against another, the basis of which founds upon the assumption that one man may not so trespass with impunity.  If we reject this authority, then we reject in principle all order between men.  Suddenly I become free to track you down and put a meat ax in your head because there is nothing in principle to tell me that I cannot.  You hold the same authority to do so with me or any other.  Note my carefully considered use here of "authority" vis-a-vis "power".  I have the power to kill you or any other man I choose.  A lifetime of training in the manifold ways of doing such things has garnered me that.  You probably have such power as well, the differences between us a matter of discussion or speculation, all ultimately irrelevant to this exchange.

The only remaining issue, then, is whether such authority is administered with correct justice.  There you have it.  No whit of difference between public or private administration of an authority I hope you would agree is of great utility for all good and decent men.  The question that remains is what is the best way to implement such authority so that it is indeed administered with propriety.  That is not a matter of public v. private, but of proper v. improper.  I would argue that hold their respective advantages and drawbacks, each of which falls back upon the basic characters of men, ultimately.

You seem to believe that private administration of the protections of men's rights is superior to that which is public.  I can see why you might, but must point out that just and proper discharge of such functions in a public framework is still obviously better than unjust, inept, or corrupt private administration.

Therefore, it would seem to me that the real problem is not public v. private, but rather the ability to hold administrators directly and, if necessary, painfully and even terminally accountable for the discharge of their sworn duties.  Today in the public forum we have little to no accountability.  The little that remains is burdened with layer upon layer of bureaucratic process, clearly set in place to frustrate damaged parties and protect the guilty.  THAT is where the remedies must lie.

Given all this, one can make a very strong argument for public administration of valid governmental function over that which is private.  Public is just that: public.  When properly administered, there is no hiding of names, functions, and so forth.  Can the same be said for private administrations?  Perhaps, but perhaps not.  It really depends on the precedents that are set and accepted in a given locale, does it not? 

And so we see that at the end of the day, private v. public is not the issue.  The real question remains that of the "governed"; to what will they submit?  To what will they give forbearance?  When the critical mass of the people get that straight in their heads and make their decisions, only then will the problems for which men must remain eternally vigilant stand any chance of being addressed properly.

Until that time, it is more of the SOS, heaped another few shovelfuls higher upon our plates.  Hope your appetite is strong because you're going to need it when the day comes you can no longer hold out, and will have to dig in.  That day is approaching because Theye are closing the avenues of escape, even as I type these words.  When the disparity in raw, physical power between Themme and us crosses a threshold, retrieve from omnipresent tyranny will no longer be an option for us.

Not to bring Trump into this, but if what I am seeing is to be trusted at more-or-less face value, then we have taken some tentative, slight, somewhat wobbly first steps by the man in the seat towards stalling the march doomward.

----------


## pcosmar

> You said that your scientist friend is a conservative.  Does he also believe that the government is entirely unnecessary?


Those don't necessarily go along.
Government is a reality. and you can debate till blue..
It is also the natural state of man,, or the state of natural man.

Has been so through the history of man.

anarchy,, as a utopia is a fantasy..  it exists only in the chaos between governments.

A conservative wants to limit government,, so as to conserve liberty.

as opposed to those that attempt to social engineer a compliant and subjugated society.

----------


## Xerographica

> You seem to believe that private administration of the protections of men's rights is superior to that which is public.


From my perspective, the issue isn't whether the administration of protection is public or private.  The issue is the accountability.  You seem to agree...




> Therefore, it would seem to me that the real problem is not public v. private, but rather the ability to hold administrators directly and, if necessary, painfully and even terminally accountable for the discharge of their sworn duties.


In the private sector we use our money to keep administrators accountable.  If you hire a security company to protect your business, and they fail to do so, then you are free to fire them.  You have the freedom to stop giving the security company your money.  The security company knows this.  This knowledge provides the security company the maximum incentive to protect your business.  

It can be generalized like so... _money is a measure of usefulness_.  The more useful a security company is, the more money it will receive.

In the public sector, on the other hand, we use voting to keep administrators accountable.  If you don't think the police are adequately protecting your neighborhood... then you can certainly call and complain to the police and the city council and the local newspaper.  But really the only real action you can take is try and "vote the bums out".  This method is incredibly defective.  

As a pragmatarian, I want to apply the private sector's method to the public sector.  People would still have to pay taxes, but they could use them to measure the usefulness of public servants.  If you think the police are useless, then you wouldn't give them any of your own tax dollars.  The more taxpayers who agreed with you that the police are useless, the less tax dollars the police would receive.  However, the police really don't want less funding.  Nobody wants less funding.  Everybody wants more funding.  This is what would provide the police and all the other public servants with the maximum incentive to be more useful to taxpayers.  

I've tried to "sell" pragmatarianism to countless people.  A common concern is that taxpayers don't have the information they need to make informed spending decisions.  Another common concern is that wealthy people would have too much influence.  After a while I realized that taxpayers are essentially subscribers.  So pragmatarianism is applicable to every system with subscribers.

So I switched tactics.  When I tried to "sell" pragmatarianism to people, I replaced the government with Netflix.  Right now Netflix decides _for subscribers_ how their subscription dollars are divided among all the content.  I told people that subscribers should have the opportunity to decide _for themselves_ how their subscription dollars are divided among the content.  In other words, subscribers should be able to use their money to measure the usefulness of the content.  

Did people love this idea?  Nope.  Were they concerned that subscribers aren't adequately informed?  Nope.  Obviously information isn't an issue when it comes to nature shows and horror movies.  Were people concerned that some subscribers would have too much influence?  Nope.  Obviously all subscribers pay the same amount.  People simply argued that Netflix _already knows_ how useful the content is to subscribers.  

Just because I watch something really doesn't reveal how useful it is to me.  Maybe I'm just watching it because I've already watched all the most useful content.  And if I do give something a thumbs up, then yes, it does mean that it's useful to me.  But a thumbs up really doesn't _quantify_ its usefulness to me.  

Basically the most fundamental problem is that people really don't understand the point of people using their own money to measure/quantify/signal/reveal the usefulness of things.  

Right now the usefulness of webpages is determined by links.  The more links that point to a page, the more useful it is considered to be.  But what's a link?  A link is basically a vote.  So when you search Google for "Economics"... the results are ordered by votes.  

The fact of the matter is, votes are a horrible way to measure usefulness.  If I link to The Case For Freedom by Friedrich Hayek I'm certainly saying that the page is useful to me.  But my vote/link does not at all reveal/indicate just _how_ useful that page is to me.  This means that Google really doesn't know how useful that page is to _anyone_.  Google doesn't know how useful _any_ pages are.  As a result, search results are really wrongly ranked.  

So the problem doesn't have anything to do with the government.  Just like the problem doesn't have anything to do with Google.  The government and Google are both manifestations of the problem.  The problem is simply that people do _not_ understand the necessity of using their own money to help measure/reveal/quantify/signal the usefulness of things.  This problem is incredibly simple.  Solving it should be really easy.  However, as I've learned, it's not adequate to just tell people that dollars are better than votes at measuring usefulness.  People have to see the difference for themselves.  People need a direct comparison of voting and spending.  Just like the Israelites needed a direct comparison between Baal and God.  

Right now a few of my friends and I are developing a website just like Reddit but with spending instead of voting.  People will be able to search our site for "libertarianism" and see the top ranked links as determined by spending.  Then they will go on Reddit and see the top ranked libertarianism links as determined by voting.  Will the same links be at the top of both lists?   I really don't think so.  But I could be wrong.  

The fact of the matter is that never in history has voting been directly compared to spending.  Yet, we use voting to rank webpages, scholarly papers and politicians.  These aren't insignificant things.  So if these things are being really wrongly ranked by voting, then it's a really big problem.

----------


## osan

> From my perspective, the issue isn't whether the administration of protection is public or private.  The issue is the accountability.  You seem to agree...


I do.




> In the private sector we use our money to keep administrators accountable.


Not all causes are prone to the leverage of money. 




> If you hire a security company to protect your business, and they fail to do so, then you are free to fire them.


Are you free to hold them criminally accountable if they murder someone ostensibly in the name of your security?  If not, then who?  Anyone?  By what authority?

In this regard, public and private are different names for the same thing.




> You have the freedom to stop giving the security company your money.


Which doubtlessly works well enough in the vast majority of the cases.  It's the boundary-value cases that need coverage in one's model of governance.  Those are the important ones because they invariably represent the more heinous of human behaviors.  Because of this, there must be proper ways to see justice achieved optimally because these are the cases that will strike at the hearts of men most deeply.




> The security company knows this.  This knowledge provides the security company the maximum incentive to protect your business.


Most likely the case, of course, but once again there are those outlier cases that represent the greatest, if rarest and most unlikely, threats to not merely justice, but to the very freedom of men itself.




> It can be generalized like so... _money is a measure of usefulness_.  The more useful a security company is, the more money it will receive.


Generally speaking, I agree, but it is not the mean condition that concerns me most because it tends to be comparatively trivial vis-a-vis the flyers.  The architecture of governance must be complete and correct or it is of no use, for the least institutionalization of injustice, of violation of the rights of men, demolishes that architecture _in toto. _ Proper governance is an all-or-nothing deal.  It is either 100% correct, or 0%.  That is the sufficiency requirement for proper governance of free men.  Anything else is just another flavor and degree of servitude and the tyranny that bends men's lives to the wills of others without consult or consent.




> In the public sector, on the other hand, we use voting to keep administrators accountable.  If you don't think the police are adequately protecting your neighborhood... then you can certainly call and complain to the police and the city council and the local newspaper.  But really the only real action you can take is try and "vote the bums out".  This method is incredibly defective.


We agree.




> As a pragmatarian, I want to apply the private sector's method to the public sector.  *People would still have to pay taxes*, but they could use them to measure the usefulness of public servants.


Then it is a fail-ridden architecture.  My only goal is freedom.  Taxation flies in the face of liberty and reduces all men to serfdom.  My only requirement of people is that they obey the Cardinal Prohibition: Trespass not against thy fellows.





> So I switched tactics.  When I tried to "sell" pragmatarianism to people, I replaced the government with Netflix.  Right now Netflix decides _for subscribers_ how their subscription dollars are divided among all the content.  I told people that subscribers should have the opportunity to decide _for themselves_ how their subscription dollars are divided among the content.  In other words, subscribers should be able to use their money to measure the usefulness of the content.


Apples and oranges, therefore not a good analog.  Netflix doesn't threaten your very life if you fail to buy their service.  They would likely stand to account for any such threats to the rights of individuals.  Government, of course, stands nearly immune to such consequences.  Shame on us all for that. 

Nowhere have I suggested that voting is an effective means of safeguarding liberty.  I agree that it is indeed horrible.  The ready will to end the life of any man who threatens to violate the rights of others is the only proper and effective answer to such criminals.

Let every man be armed.  Let every man bear in his heart a bottomless malice toward all who would trespass upon their fellows.  Let all tyrants be consumed in the flames of destruction.  This should be a mantra for every Freeman regardless of how peaceable his heart may otherwise be.

In my worthless opinion, of course.

----------


## Xerographica

> Apples and oranges, therefore not a good analog.  Netflix doesn't threaten your very life if you fail to buy their service.  They would likely stand to account for any such threats to the rights of individuals.  Government, of course, stands nearly immune to such consequences.  Shame on us all for that.


Coercion is just one of the many things that the government supplies.  Right now taxpayers don't have the opportunity to decide for themselves how they divide their tax dollars between coercion and everything else that the government does.  But this aspect is identical to Netflix.  Subscribers don't have the opportunity to decide for themselves how they divide their subscription dollars between horror movies and all the other content.  

The issue is supply and demand.  The demand for coercion is unknown like the demand for horror movies is unknown.  Since the demand is unknown, how can the supply possibly be correct?  

Netflix and the government are both command economies.  

What would happen if Netflix became a market economy?  In this case, subscribers could decide for themselves how they divide their dollars among the content.  The demand for content would be known and the supply would adjust accordingly. 

If Netflix proved that the Invisible Hand is superior to the Visible Hand, then this would be relevant to the government.  

The problem is that Netflix isn't going to conduct this experiment.  Netflix really doesn't understand just how useful this experiment would be.  

At the heart of the matter is the benefit of people using their money to help rank the usefulness of things.  This is what my friends and I are planning to test.   On our website people will be able to use their money to help rank the usefulness of links.  Then everyone will see for themselves exactly how the market works.

----------


## osan

> Coercion is just one of the many things that the government supplies.


Coercion underlies _everything_ contemporary government does.




> Right now taxpayers don't have the opportunity to decide for themselves how they divide their tax dollars between coercion and everything else that the government does.


You live in a strange and small world, it seems.  The apparent assumptions under which you labor make no hay with me whatsoever.  You seem to embrace the violence of governmental taxation so long as you think you have a say in how it is spent.  You will forgive me if I point out how childish this is.  You accept tyranny so long as you get what you want out of it.  This is typical of the thinking of Merecog Weakmen.  Believe and cotton to whatever it is that gets you through the night, but as for me this is pure shyte.




> But this aspect is identical to Netflix.  Subscribers don't have the opportunity to decide for themselves how they divide their subscription dollars between horror movies and all the other content.


Big deal.  I don't like Netflix, I don't pay.  I don't like taxation and don't pay, men with guns threaten my very existence.

Your position is hopeless.




> The issue is supply and demand.  The demand for coercion is unknown like the demand for horror movies is unknown.  Since the demand is unknown, how can the supply possibly be correct?


It is none of that.  It is a matter of threats of destruction against presumably peaceable people rendered unto effective slave status by those who believe Theire interests trump the rights of the people whom they rob.

You are a proponent of pretty slavery.  You accept tyranny so long as you get what you want out of the rotten deal.

FAIL^FAIL.




> Netflix and the government are both command economies.


I recommend you purchase an undergraduate text in basic macroeconomics and study it carefully.  Your current understanding leaves much to be desired.




> The problem is that Netflix isn't going to conduct this experiment. Netflix really doesn't understand just how useful this experiment would be.


Uh huh.  Netflix is a hugely successful economic entity.  You are likely far less so.  Whose knowledge of economics do you believe is the better?  Hint: not yours.

Good lord.

----------


## Xerographica

> You live in a strange and small world, it seems.  The apparent assumptions under which you labor make no hay with me whatsoever.  You seem to embrace the violence of governmental taxation so long as you think you have a say in how it is spent.  You will forgive me if I point out how childish this is.  You accept tyranny so long as you get what you want out of it.  This is typical of the thinking of Merecog Weakmen.  Believe and cotton to whatever it is that gets you through the night, but as for me this is pure shyte.


The violence of government taxation?  So in the world that you live in... the tax collector is the bad guy?  He's the villain in your story?  The thing is, it's not like he's doing his job for free.  He's getting paid to do his job.  The IRS's funding is entirely determined by congress.  So is congress the villain in your story?  The thing is, every congressperson is chosen by voters.  So are voters the villain in your story? 

Voters are the villain in my story.  Taxpayers are the victim in my story.

----------


## osan

> The violence of government taxation?  So in the world that you live in... the tax collector is the bad guy?  He's the villain in your story?  The thing is, it's not like he's doing his job for free.  He's getting paid to do his job.  The IRS's funding is entirely determined by congress.  So is congress the villain in your story?  The thing is, every congressperson is chosen by voters.  So are voters the villain in your story? 
> 
> Voters are the villain in my story.  Taxpayers are the victim in my story.


I don't know whether you lack a certain ability to connect dots or are being intentionally obtuse.  Whichever the case, I don't think I can make any headway here, so lets call you the "winner" and leave it at that.  I have more important things with which to occupy my time.

Have a good one.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> You and the conservative both believe in the effectiveness of the Visible Hand. However, the fact of the matter is that *the effectiveness of the Visible Hand has never been scientifically tested*.


This test would never be carried out in real life, but let's do a thought experiment:  you have 100 people who are suffering from a disease that, if not treated, will likely lead to death but historically there has been a 99.9% survival rate if the disease is treated.  You treat 50 with the most up-to-date medical care, while the other 50 are prayed over.  Which group do you think will have the largest survival rate?

This may not be the Invisible vs. Visible Hand dichotomy you had in mind, but it's in keeping with the Elijah story.

----------


## Xerographica

> This test would never be carried out in real life, but let's do a thought experiment:  you have 100 people who are suffering from a disease that, if not treated, will likely lead to death but historically there has been a 99.9% survival rate if the disease is treated.  You treat 50 with the most up-to-date medical care, while the other 50 are prayed over.  Which group do you think will have the largest survival rate?
> 
> This may not be the Invisible vs. Visible Hand dichotomy you had in mind, but it's in keeping with the Elijah story.


The group that receives the modern medical care will have the largest survival rate.  

Regarding testing the Visible Hand... it's just a committee... or a dictator.  Congress is just a committee.  There are plenty of other committees... such as the PTA.  Your boss isn't a committee... he's a dictator.  The point is, society is full of Visible Hands.  The problem is that nobody sees the point in trying to replace any of them with the Invisible Hand.  

Not sure if you saw this thread... We Win.  In that thread I described the purpose of this website that I created...

IdeaPlug.org

Ideas/links/pages are ranked by spending rather than by voting.  Right now I'm IdeaPlug's treasurer.  Let's say that you want to be the treasurer.  Can I solely decide that you shouldn't be the treasurer?  If I did this, then I'd be a dictator.  I don't want to be a dictator.  From my perspective, it's better for the market to decide whether you should be IdeaPlug's treasurer.  So you'd make your case, message me the link and paypal me your valuation.  I'd update the website. If nobody opposes you, then you'll be the new treasurer.

IdeaPlug is the world's very first Invisible Hand organization.  What do you think?

----------

