Topic: How to run an Anarchy - page 3. (Read 17518 times)

Yup. Not high enough. Welcome to the forum, friend.

You're still not making sense. The words are in English. The order is... Maybe I'm not high enough, or there's a serious language barrier.

Nice haiku, but... was there a point?

To support my point, here is a report on American poverty in 2007.  This report is based upon census data, and the government's definition of poverty; which conviently is roughly households in the bottom 20% income bracket.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/08/How-Poor-Are-Americas-Poor-Examining-the-Plague-of-Poverty-in-America

From the article....

Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes.

The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning.
 
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

FAIL!

I did not contest the claim that the Japanse have the lowest wealth disparity in the world, I was demanding support for your conclusion.  It does not follow that low wealth disparity implies that the poor are magicly those most affected.  The "most well off people in the world" is a vague metric, and I was giving you the chance to support this claim.  I actually know already that it's false by almost any real metric available; but quality of life is a hard thing to measure.  The poor in Japan certainly have access to much more quality of life than the poor in Kenya, but absolute comparisons are rarely instructive.  Your probably thinking of the UN's MDG metrics.  http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mdg/default.aspx  These would imply that Japan has long been in a tight matchup with some states in Europe for the top spot, but that's based upon the percentage of total national wealth that the bottom 20% possess.  This metric alone actually means very little with regard to quality of life, because nations like North Korea are automaticly removed from the comparisions because the government owns everything, so there is a bias from the start.  Also, how do you compare the lifestyle of a poor japanese family in Kyoto to that of a poor American family in Spokane?  Which has access to quality health care?  Living space per household member?  Effective public transportation?  Consumer products?  Internet?  Most of these issues are about comparable between nations except living space per person.  By any measurement, Americans (of any class) have, on average, the most living space per person compared to any of their class peers anywhere in the world; while Japan sits at the other extreme among first world nations.

Repeating nonsense does not make it become true.

Bottom line, Hong Kong is not even remotely libertarian, therefore the comparison is worthless.  It's like saying a two year old would be the best driver in the world because a 40 year old drives better than a 90 year old, and 40 is closer to 2 than 90 is. 


Here you go:

Average incomes are in the top bracket worldwide and they have the lowest wealth disparity in the world.  Obvious conclusion, they've got the most well-off poor people in the world.

Hong Kong is far from an ideal libertarian state, the point is that it's closer overall than many other societies that it can be compared to, and is also more prosperous in almost every metric against those other examples.  However, corrolation is not causation, so this really doesn't prove anything.  It should give anyone trying to rationally compare nations a reason to pause.

Incidentally, Hong Kong actually is home to the only example of a modern and urban anarchist society that can rationally be argued to represent the ideology, and it was both entirely accidental and less than stellar, but it was still far better than the alternatives available to those who chose to live there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City


The fact that Japan has teh lowest wealth disparity does not lead to the conclusion that they have the most well-off poor people in the world.  I demand support to this claim.

Like I said, you'll make it whatever you want to make it because it suits your worldview.  Hong Kong can be Neverland, Narnia, Middle Earth, or whatever makes you happy.  The one thing it's not is libertarian.

Interesting side note about Japan, they have the lowest wealth disparity (most well-off poor people) in the world.

Inversion. Hong Kong has one interventionist feature (a large central bank) and far more free market features. Japan, meanwhile, has the exact same interventionist feature (Again, a large central bank that is arguably far more interventionist then that of Hong Kong), as well as many more interventionist features. Hong Kong is still relatively prosperous as it has been for about fifty years, whereas Japan has been a recession for the past twenty years despite having far more resources than Hong Kong has. If this were a scientific study, "large central bank" would be the constant, whereas "regulations/taxation/etc" and "prosperity" would be the independent and dependent variables, respectively. QED.


Sorry. Got a bit carried away with the metaphor.

Ducks are off topic.

Exactly my point.  You're pointing to something that has only a single attribute of a duck and you're calling it a duck because you want it to be a duck.

Being in a pond doesn't make it a duck, the essential attributes of ducks make it a duck.

Well you know what they say, if you want it to be a duck and it has two legs, even though it walks, talks, and acts like a person... it's a duck.

With the exception that nearly everyone in a Western nation has one like that, notably the Bank of Japan but also the ECB and (despite what you were just saying) the Federal Reserve. Actually, the Fed is arguably more proactive, it is just far less open in its operation due to (A) not being a strictly governmental organization and (B) the fact that it would be far less effective in its actions if they were obvious.

Come to think of it, the Bank of Japan is just as, if not far more, manipulative than that of Hong Kong. Yet we all know where Japan ended up with that. Furthermore, Japan had actual resources that came along with it, an industrialized base, and several hundred million more people. The distinguishing factors would be Hong Kong's comparable lack of worker protections, most regulations, etc.

Again, superficial difference. The tiger is in a cage smaller than that of the hamster, therefore the tiger must be smaller than the hamster.

No.  Nearly everyone has a central bank.  Not everyone has a strong, PROACTIVE central bank like Hong Kong, Sweden, China, etc.  There's a huge difference between the central bank of Sudan that simply loans out money to other banks, and the central bank of Hong Kong that actively manipulates the economy and business markets.

A strong central bank is something that everyone has. If you can find me a country with absolutely no central bank, please point me in its direction. Otherwise, that is a bit like saying "tigers and rabbits essentially the same because they are both found in cages"

This describes a government monopoly on power:

"Organized group that possesses weapons or whatever" - check.  Examples - Army, Police, CIA, FBI, IRS, KGB, etc., etc., etc.
"Uses power for blackmail" - check.  Examples - Pay us taxes, follow our laws or face retribution.
"Kidnapping" - check.  Examples - Draft in some countries.  Many other analogies.
"Forcing people to pay protection money" - check.  Examples - Taxation (extortion).

The truth of the matter is that the world is populated by people looking out for their own interest.  This is normal and will always be the case, no matter what political system they live in.  In a society with strong central government the above mentioned "goodies" are centralized in one hands and those hands defend their ability to control (oppress) everyone vigorously.  In an anarchy (or a libertarian society) an individual can choose which gang to select for "protection".  To say that anarchy or libertarianism would solve all problems and cause everyone to "get along" is misleading, no society model can account for everything.  The difference is freedom of choice and individual liberty, ability to choose for yourself and not be forced by those who pretend to know what's best for everyone and feel in right to force everyone to believe the same.

That's just it though, I agree that it's better than the alternatives.  It's not more libertarian than the alternatives are though.  In fact, it's far far less libertarian than the alternatives.  That was my point.

Sure, if they can program themselves (Not each other) and self-assemble from scratch.