One Last Attempt
Published by Gaurav Sabnis June 12th, 2004 in LibertarianOkay, Mr. Kochukoshy Cheruvettolil. Let us make one last attempt at bringing you back to the path of logic.
These posts started with the title “Debate of the Year”. This is not meant to be a monologue on Libertarianism.
It all started when, in response to a post by Yazad about the so-called “Libertarian Cartel”, you attacked our ideas. The main point of your attack was that we are like a religious cult because -
a. We base our ideas on assumptions which have never been proven
b. We refer to books which have been written by someone else, and the ideas in those books have never been proven.
c. We claim credit for all that is good and blame the evil on others.
Now in response I asked you to list down the assumptions that you think we make, and then attack them, so they could be defended. You did no such thing. Instead-
1. You gave totally unacceptable analogies, examples and references. As reference, you have such esteemed sources like a fiction novel and a TV show. As analogies you gave the speeding thing and proceeded to attack it. When pointed out that no Libertarian ever asked for doing away “speeding laws”, you lied and said that Yazad had done so. When I showed that you lied/concocted the counter-argument, you ignored that comment.
2. You have given as examples events which are clearly failures of statism, i e Iraq and Gujarat. Especially Gujarat, since it is a well-accepted fact that the state itself carried out the carnage. How you expect us to defend the failures of statism while supporting Libertarianism is beyond me. Basically those scenarios as an example of how Libertarian ideas would work out is flawed, because the causes for those scenarios are in the hands of the state.
Besides you keep repeating lies or half-truths like religious fanatics do. You keep saying there are no real life examples of Libertarianism, when several have been provided, especially on the LSS yahoogroup. You keep on attributing to Libertarians stuff that they have never said.
And when engaged in debate by other Libertarians, you seek an escape by saying “Oh I have no Time”.
This is one last attempt to make you debate in a proper manner. Do the following -
1. State what you think is at the core of the Libertarian ideology. And don’t make escapist comments like “On a personal level I like it, but it doesn’t scale well….blabla”. Give pointwise, what you think lies at the core of Libertarian ideology.
2. Give your objections and support them with analogies or examples. The examples should be truly connected to Libertarianism, and should not be state-caused-anarchy situations like Iraq and Gujarat. the analogies should be based on the points you mentioned in “1″.
3. When you quote any of us, or any widely accepted Libertarian, give links and sources. Don’t lie through your teeth, like you did about Yazad.
You can do this by sending whatever you write to either Yazad or to me by email. My Id is sabnis@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com (hope you know what to remove from there).
I shall then rebut whatever you state and post it on this site.
You game for this, or do you “not have time”? :)
Superman vs Tyson
Over the years, I have had several long and convoluted arguments with libertarians both verbally and on discussion boards/blogs. I have concluded that it is impossible to win an argument with them. Now before you all get excited, read the analogy below and you will understand why.
When we were kids, a popular past time was to pit famous sportsmen against each other and conjecture who would possibly be superior. For e.g. how would Tendulkar fare if he played baseball – would his cricket skills be a strength or a liability? In fact just the other day I saw a serious discussion on ESPN where the commentators argued for over half an hours as to who would win if Ali ever fought Tyson when both were in their prime. Of course this is a completely hypothetical fight and could never take place but is still valuable because it reveals the Ali’s and Tyson’s strengths and weaknesses.
But when libertarians enter such a conversation, they say Ali and Tyson are fine but the real questions is what would happen if Superman fought Tyson. You are a little puzzled because you know that Superman is a fictional character – he never existed and never will – you point that out to libertarians and their response is – aah that’s a different issue the real issue is who is superior – we’ll worry about the details of reality later – after all you are doing the same thing creating a hypothetical fight between Ali and Tyson who will never fight each other. You then point out that Ali and Tyson both existed and it is an interesting exercise to see who would have won. The libertarian response is – screw Ali and Tyson they’re both weaklings compared to superman. Why he could take them both on with his little finger.
The argument then degenerates into discussion of how Superman’s laser bolts and superhuman strength would crush Ali and Tyson. How Superman could fly circles around them (literally) and would always win the fight. You are at this point (remember libertarians continue to argue that this is an academic discussion) forced to concede that Superman would indeed win a fight against Tyson. Libertarians then crow with delight and say see we told you so – our Superman could kick Tysons ass – why are you still arguing for Tyson to which my response is “emm…because Tyson is real and Superman is a figment of your imagination.”
In conclusion there is no way in which I can win an argument against a libertarian – because he has a hundred examples to show the system I support is weak and riddled with flaws and I can never show that his system is the same – mainly because it never exists so there is no way to say if it is better or worse. In fact it is always easier for libertarians to ‘prove’ their point because their system has never existed and in all likelihood never will.
However, as an academic exercise we can continue arguing whether Superman’s lasers are more powerful that Tyson’s left hook (and I’ll tell you right now that it is).
There is one potential area in which libertarians can ‘prove’ their point (though not in the real world unfortunately but in cyberspace) and I’ll write a post about that later.
Mera desh prem jaag raha hai…
Dara Singh can kick superman’s a$$.
:-)
It is oft commented that one of the shortcomings of Economics is that it does not permit any experimentation. In all the other sciences you can create a model and in all likelihood the results from the model are very likely to be replicated when you do it on a large scale - hence you have R&D laboratories who test ideas out on a small scale and then apply them to the real world. Unfortunately social sceinces like Economics do not relaly permit that. Sure you can create an Econometric model but usually they are very poor subsitututes and rarely if ever can predict what will happen as there are just too many varaibles in the real world.
One field that I have been following closely is the world of MMORPGs (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games) especialy ones like Ultima Online (UO) which have robust well established economies.
When UO started up EA decided that a complete free market economy was the best idea. Players would produce good and be free to sell them to the highest bidder (some transactions took place within UO while others took place in the real world for e.g my boss at work spent US$50 for a virtual sword which he bought on ebay which he could use in the game). Things seemed to go well for a while - the market was flourishing but slowlt but surely things began to fall apart.
As more and more new players joined the UO economy, they found there was no way for them to compete with the older players. The older players had already hogged all the best spots and put up massive castles and charged outrageous rents. In a bold move, the creators actully created a couple of new continents (something which is easy in cyberspace) to accomodate the new players - but this was not a long term solution.
A long term solution was eventually found to keep the economy stable - guess what it was - nope it was not deregulation and libertarianism it was in fact taxation and subsidies for the poorer players.
The rich players now had to pay a tax for their wealth and this was passed on to the poorer players in the form of a subsidy (to get them started certain items would be cheaper for them and as they gre richer the subsidies became less and less and eventually they had to start paying taxes).
There is still a lot of inequality but the solution seems mutually acceptable to rich and poor players alike. The rich don’t mind paying the taxes now because in the long run it actually helps them get richer because it creaes a market for their goods - its no use if you’re the richest man on the block and everybody else is too poor to buy anything from you. the poor love it because it gives them a chance to at least get a foothold in the economy.
A classic example - the same models are also true for the Sony game Everquest which also went through a similar economic crisis - and htey too started with the model that the unconstrained free market was the best. But given enough time and population, they found that some sort of controls became mandatory.
If libertarians want to at least begin to experiment with their ideas I suggest they set up their own MMPRPG and try to run it on libertarian principles - my guess is that it won’t make it past the first month without crashing and burning (much like the Libertarian Party in the US which is in eminent danger of going bankrupt and were recently evicted from their party HQ - and they want to run the country - they can’t even manage their own party and pay their bills on time).
We all know that Libertarians can’t put forward their policies in the real world - but at least give it a shot in the virtual world - but I think the EQ and UO expereinces show that its not even going to work there - as I said in earlier posts - a fine personal philosophy but diastrous when applied to more than a few individuals.
I googled for “Ultima Online Economy” and came up with this paper on “The In-game Economics of Ultima Online” by Zachary Booth Simpson. Quoting from the introduction:
See that? That’s four characters attacking a dragon for cash. Very much like how a real economy functions. There non player characters too:
No, a virtual economy of this kind is definitely not comparable to real world economies. Instead, I suggest you evaluate ideas based on the extent to which they are libertarian in spirit.See if a more libertarian idea works better than a less libertarian one.
And oh, I forgot to mention, you’re the one dragging an imaginary economy into a discussion about the real world. I agree, Superman can kick Tyson’s ass. But I can kick Superman’s ass because he’s a paper-butt.
I’m only the dragging the imaginary economy in because you need an imaginary one to deal with an imaginary system like libertarianism.
Yup anybody can kick Superman’s (Libertarianisms) ass and they do all the time in the real world - only in the comic book world (on Yazad’s blog) does superman appear to be doing well (manily because eerybody here believe’s he’s real). Why Nader’s Leftist Green nutcases get more votes than you guys ever did.
Market economies in RealLife(tm) have no GM.
The game host and the participant have different goals. The host wants a high rate of immigration (new customers); when the game failed to attract and absorb a satisfactory number of immigrants, the host saw this as failure. But evidently the first players were satisfied, if they continued to pay to maintain their position in the game.
Libertarians do not want to “run the country”, though some seek election because it may be the only way to protect the country from being run.
Nor does the LP speak for all of us. Many libertarians always thought the LP was a bad idea, and many more (including me) dropped out circa 1996 because of corruption in the central office.
I’m reading the article that Kingsley cited, and found a couple of important points:
Where realism is sometimes actively avoided, we should not expect reality to be accurately modelled.
So it’s no wonder that newcomers have a hard time.
I wonder why the world is not designed to grow continuously (either at the edges or by inflation) in proportion to population.
Synthetic Economy
A synthetic economy is an economy existing in a virtual persistent world on the Internet, such as a MUD or massively multiplayer role-playing game. The largest synthetic economies are currently found in massively multiplayer online roleplaying games (MMORPGs), such as EverQuest, Ultima Online, Dark Age of Camelot, and Lineage. Synthetic economies also exist in life simulation games such as The Sims Online. An economy can be said to exist in these virtual worlds whenever the following five conditions are met:
Persistence – The software maintains a record of the state of the world, regardless of whether or not anyone is using it.
Scarcity – Users must expend time, money, or some other resource to obtain some of the desirable goods and services in the synthetic world.
Specialization – Users must be able to obtain at least some of the goods and services they desire from other users.
Trade – Users must be able to transfer goods and services to and from other users.
Property Rights – The world must record that a given good or service belongs to a certain user, and the code must allow that user to dispose of the good or service according to whim.
These conditions embed users in an environment characterized by choice under scarcity, specialization of skills and production, and gains from trade with other users. Choice, scarcity, specialization, and gains from trade are at the core of the class of problems studied by contemporary economics.
Synthetic economies perform useful resource-allocation and entertainment roles within MUDs. They also interact with the Earth economy. US dollar markets for synthetic-economy goods, currency, and services may be observed at online auction sites such as eBay (search “Ultima Online”, or “DAoC” for Dark Age of Camelot) and other auction sites. Some game developers claim that such auctioning of virtual items for real-world money is in violation of the end user’s license, for example eBay has dropped EverQuest auctions at Sony Online Entertainment’s request.
According to standard conceptions of economic value (see the subjective theory of value), the goods and services of synthetic economies are endowed with real value. The value of a good is determined by its users, and is measured by their willingness to give up resources to obtain it. MUD users are willing to devote both time and Earth currency to obtaining synthetic goods, making these digital assets as real as any assets on Earth.
The largest synthetic economy is Lineage based in South Korea, claiming to have four millions users. The location of its online market, if it exists, is unknown.
(Yazad: URL converted into a link)
Thanks for the tutorial, but it doesn’t address my question: How can you expect a system which works in a virtual “game” economy to work in the real world? Like Anton points out, in a game economy, realism often loses out to fun. And you were also factually wrong in that these economies are not, nor have they ever been libertarian. They have always had a programmed component which serves as a controlling factor.
Take a look at the real world. By any objective parameter, the most succesful economy, the United States is also governed by the most libertarian constitution. That counts for a lot more in my extremely realistic viewpoint than what can be “proved” or not “proved” in simulated ones.
Oh great, another inavlid example or analogy.
First fiction, then TV serials, then reality TV shows, and now computer games. Ck, you keep saying there are no examples of libertarianism, yet you are coming up with a plethora of them(all wrong).
How can a game be used as a reference point? The motivations, the environment, and even the mindset et al, is totally different in a game. I play roadrash and kick and punch many competitors in the way. You think anyone who does that will also do the same in the real world?
The purpose in a game is to just win the game. there isn’t much at stake. There are no real consequences of what you do, just like my killing another driver in roadrash. And all said and done, no matter how free-market you try and make the game, it will always be controlled.
If anything, you are the one playing Superman-Tyson here.
there is no way in which I can win an argument against a libertarian – because he has a hundred examples to show the system I support is weak and riddled with flaws and I can never show that his system is the same – mainly because it never exists so there is no way to say if it is better or worse. In fact it is always easier for libertarians to ‘prove’ their point because their system has never existed and in all likelihood never will.
Ck, go over our debates in the last couple of weeks. Who has brought in a “hundred” examples?
And coming to the point, “the system I support”. What is this system? So far you have never told us what is the system you support. What you are doing is taking the most extreme libertarian ideas, then coming up with invalid examples to attack them….all the while claiming that there are no examples of libertarianism.
My personal version of libertarianism is not the one you keep attacking. I am not saying that tomorrow we do away with government. That would obviously cause chaos. I am not saying we just do away with traffic rules. That would cause chaos.
My point is that the general thrust of the policy should be towards putting the minimum restrictions on people. I am not a Utopian who would sit here arguing hyptothetical scenarios like you love, because I know that those scenarios are never coming true in our lifetimes.
I very rarely enter these hypothetical debates. It is time you get into your head the fact that there are no real life examples of a completely Libertarian system.
My approach to Libertarianism is on real life case-to-case basis. i.e in every problem or issue in real life I wonder what the best approach would be, and the approach I come up with is one that can be termed Libertarian.
And to show that Libertarian ideas have worked in real life, I have many examples. Most of these examples, i am afraid are from India, because I am an Indian. I don’t care too much what happens in the US to any parties there.
Some of these examples -
- When the banks were nationalised, i.e run by the government, they were inefficient and callous towards their customers. Today privatisation has brought in efficiency and empowered customers. On the contrary, the banks where most scams occur are based on the “cooperative” principle, which is a darling of the socialists/leftists.
- Remember the time when there were a lot of restrictions on gold trading. All the villains in Bollywood would be gold smugglers. Look how things stand today, now that those restrictions are gone.
- The telecom sector in India was non-existent when run by the government. Having a phone was a sign of absolute affluence. Today, even my cook has a mobile. This is because the restrictions are gone.
- Until the 1980s, most states in India restricted the entry of private players into higher education. Today most of the engineers, doctors, etc are from private colleges.
There are hundreds of such examples. And there are thousands of cases where these principles need to be applied.
The problem in debating with you is, you act like a religious guru and you accuse us of the same.
- Who started personal ad hominem attacks? Who called people “jobless” and “nutcases”.
- Who was it who first complained that libertarians quote abrit books, and then proceeded to do the same, bringing in not just books, but TV shows and computer games?
- Who is blaming all evils of the world, from Gujarat to Iraq, on Libertarianism?
And somewhere you have mentioned the system you support. What is this system? Please explain its basics without again going into a examples-frenzy.
The older players had already hogged all the best spots and put up massive castles and charged outrageous rents.
I think this is an important point. And this happens in real life too.
Many libertarians take on government as if its the only force acting against free markets. Its probably the biggest force (I have heard a senior bureaucrat telling that it gives them ‘a kick’ to see an Ambani waiting at their doors for a license), but not the only one.
Equally important is the force exerted by the Ck’s “older players” or Raguram Rajan’s incumbent businesses. I remember Yazad mentioning once that libertarianism is not pro-business, but pro-market. True. But, my specific question, and probably Ck’s too, is how do you ensure that incumbents dont use whatever power they have to put up ‘massive castles’.
The older players a reason to tend towards prtectionism, because free market is a threat to their position. And we all know that even today, and even in countries like America, its these existing businesses that lobby the hardest for protectionism. Let me repeat the question, how do you prevent incumbents from doing this?
You cannot stop the incumbents from advocating protectionism; but perhaps you can design a constitution to prevent its being enacted.
Many of you have missed the purpose behing the MMORPG analogy.
You are asking us to accept a system which has never been tried and hence there are no parmaeters for its success and failure. the few times it has been tried - it has proved to be a failure - so you need something more to go on than just your words. You want to change the entire existing system of governance and can offer no gurantees except - “take my word for it - it will work.”
A bit feeble if you ask me - hence the religious jibe - you sound like a bunch of preachers -”Salvation awaits you in heaven”
“God will forgive all on Judgement Day”
“7 Virgins will service if you die a martyr”
Haven’t seen heaven or God yet, and am not holding my breath for the 7 virgins.
You are asking to tak all your libertarian philosophy on nothing more than good faith. I for one (and most people) require a little more proof - unless of course you tout it as a religion. Unfortunately for you (and fortunately for the rest of us) people are a little smarter than that. LIbertarians have been shouting their message from the treetops and on blogs for decades and yet they can’t even get 1% of the popular vote in (according to Kingsley) the most libertarian constitution (country US).
Economics and Politics do not allow you the luxury of experimentation - China’s Great Leap forward and Stalin’s policies are classic examples of experimentation gone horribly wrong - all done with no prior precedent and no implementation parameters. Though far from perfect MMORPGs offer a perfect opportunity to experiment with minimal negative consequences - at least try and prove our case with a synthetic economy before trying to force it on us in the real world. I think that perhaps the reason why libertarians have not embraced MMPORPGs (unlike numerous non-libertarian economists, psychologists and sociologists) is that they find that their ideas don’t pan out even in a sythetic economy.
An open challenge set up a MMORPG and set all the rules exactly how you like them and have only libertarians play - I guarantee you the game will degenerate into chaos in under a year (my opinion entirely - but apparently libertarians are unwilling do anything other than post tripe to prove their point).
In the market place of ideas (going by your own dictats you are a failure). You are trying to sell and idea for which there are no buyers. Even socialism (which I am no fan off) had a better success rate than libertarianism - in the 60’s a full 2/3 of the world called itself socialist.
Gaurav is really grasping with his examples - none of the examples you sited were implemented under a libertarian government - you can’t automatically club all and any liberalization activities as a libertarian success - what next you’ll claim that libertarians invented the wheel?
And just becuase a private party sent a rocket into space - you claim it is all a result of libertrianism - sounds just like the evangelists on TV claiming that it is their prayers that are saving the US from future terrorist attacks.
copy pasting something I already wrote but you conveniently ignored -
And coming to the point, “the system I support”. What is this system? So far you have never told us what is the system you support.
Now are you just not getting my point or pretending not to get it, just to keep the debate going?
Will you take Roadrash or any other race game as a valid simulation for a real life scenario? I would not because in a game, there are different motivations, and very little at stake.
The examples I have provided are small steps towards Libertarianism. Allowing private companies, and reducing or doing away with restrictions, is the basis of Libertarianism.
It is not necessary that only a Libertarian government will take Libertarian measures. Prostitution has been legalised in many places, and the governments doing so are not avowedly Libertarian.
I will repeat this again, since you have trouble reading -
And coming to the point, “the system I support”. What is this system? So far you have never told us what is the system you support.
And to debunk an example/analogy of your….again(said in Forrest Gump style)
Libertarians advocate privatisation because government should not be in business, and provatisation also brings in more productivity. In all the examples I have stated, exactly that has happened. Everyone (I daresay even you) will accept that it is reduction of the government hand that has done good.
Now in the example you cite(sic), evangelists’ prayers are not accepted by anyone, save themselves, as the reason behind terrorists not attacking USA.
If you claim that it is not the privatisation or reduction in the L-P-Q raaj that caused those good things to happen, then this is a valid example. Is that what you claim?
The System I support is the present system of governemtn in the US and most of western Europe and coming slowly but surely to India - and my that I mean the current theoretical construct. Like you I am not always happy with the way in which it is implemented and see vast scope for improvements - but here is where we differ you want to radically overhaul the current system and put in a brand new system - I want to preserve the current system and make improvements and increase its efficency.
Will you take Roadrash or any other race game as a valid simulation for a real life scenario?
You are stating an oxymoron here here “a valid simulation of a real life scenario.” For your information the following ‘games’ are currenlty being used to simulate real life scenarious
- America’s Army - used by the US military to train soldiers in tactical planning - you can download a free copy and play if you like.
- Flight simulators - all commercial and fighter pilots hace to spend time in simulators simulating situations too dangerous to try in real life in a real plane - cyclones, de-pressurization.
- Stock Market simulators - my cousin designs them for a living for UBS - young investment bankers are trained on these systems which simulate the markets - too dangerous to let some young cocky IB play with real $.
So in response - yes simulations and games are in my opinion valid for testing out real life scenarios. If the US Army, Boeing and the Union Bank of Switzerland use simulators - why can’t you libertarians - ’cause c’mon you have to be ‘realistic’ - you are never ever going to impement your belief’s in ‘real’ life so you might as well try them in the virtual world.
I think CK has not studied libertarianism much at all.
I have not found a principle of libertarianism, or a theory of it, that has not been tried in the real world, and for which there are not numerous examples of it working.
I think the attempt to call it fictional is avoidance of real argument.
Take the novel Atlas Shrugged (Which I highly recommend all libertarians read). It is a work of fiction, but contained within it is a non-fictional argument for a philosophy. A philosophy that it proceeds to prove the correctness of.
When I mention that novel to liberals, they go screaming crazy– they claim that theres no way a work of fiction can make an argument, and stuff like that.
As to libertarian economics being tried in the real world– every prediction of them is relevant to every economic example that exsits in the world. Since Libertarian economics is merely a recognition of the nature of free market economics, every economic event that can be studied supports them, either by showing what happens when you voilate the law of economic nature, or what can happen when you go along with it– like Indias doubling of the average citizens income in 20 years. (Which is the extent of my knowledge of indian economics.)
Go to the Ludwig von Mises institute at www.mises.org, CK, and you can read economicst texts by Rothbard, a founder of the American Libertarian party, and an economist– full of examples of austrian economics. You can get the books for free from their website.
Considering all of us here have seen and provided examples of several examples of libertarian changes which work (just scroll back up to Gaurav’s post), maybe CK can provide us with an example of libertarian reform which doesn’t work.
And as someone who designs usable software systems, with a primary emphasis on user behavior and psychology, let me make a few points about simulations. I have both designed and used them. I am far more cautious in real life than I am in simulations. You need to enthuse users into participating in a simulation, which means sacrificing realism to fun. No matter how “perfect” the simulation, it cannot come close to the complexity of a real market. I wouldn’t sell my virtual shares because I need money to study.
So, the only basis on which you can evaluate libertarianism is by seeing how well libertarian ideas work. And seeing how many examples of working libertarian ideas Gaurav has posted, maybe you’d care to post a few that you think don’t work.
Ck: You are asking us to accept a system which has never been tried . . . . the few times it has been tried - it has proved to be a failure -
I’d take this a little bit more seriously if Ck had given any kind of response to my previously-posted brief list of brilliant successes of relatively libertarian policies.
Ck: China’s Great Leap forward and Stalin’s policies are classic examples of experimentation gone horribly wrong - all done with no prior precedent and no implementation parameters.
They were not unprecedented. But any neoclassical economist could have predicted the disasters anyway. Why do you present extreme antilibertarian policies as examples of the danger of experiment?
One advantage of free markets is that when a private party blunders it doesn’t wreck the entire economy.
Flight simulators are a different ballgame altogether. Here the parameters are almost completely in the domain of physics.
In case of stock market simulations, the training is imparted to teach newbies about the operational nitty-gritties of the stock market.
Even in the case of tactical planning the dimensions are vastly limited.
Another mistake you are making is clubbing games and simulations together. Simulations are different, where almost all parameters and variables are known and entered with a great degree of accuracy. In games, it is more fantasy and guesswork.
The MMPORG thing you suggested is more of a game than a simulation. Almost all parameters are unknown and are entered by gamers. This is what takes it away from reality.
As an example, let me tell you about the EA Sports F1 game I play. They have given a lot of options and entered a lot of data which make simulation possible. So if i run the race on exactly the same settings as a real life race, I might get results similar to reality. For example, if I run the qualifier laps shabbily, I will get a bad position on the starting grid. At this point, when the parameters and settings match those entered by F1 experts, this can be, by a stretch of definition, be called a simulation.
However what I can do is just change a couple of settings and do away with stuff for my benefit. I can do away with qualifiers and change my default setting to pole position. Or put my car on “invulnerability”, so that instead of overtaking someone I can just crash into them.
I wonder if you get the point, given your tendency to miss it by a wide mark.
Okay, considering the system you support, maybe you should go and heap insults and ad hominem attacks on American libertarians instead of us Indians.
If in my lifetime, the system in India becomes like the one in USA or Western Europe, the Libertarian in me will be overjoyed.
Now I understand why you keep getting into pointless debates on our blogs and on the spon_order mailing list.
Newsflash for you, CK - We are in India!!!!!! Most, if not all, our concerns are related to what happens in India. Here you are defending or supporting a system which most Libertarians in India look up to.Why are you wasting your time here?
There are Libertarians and there are Libertarians. Go spar with American Libertarians.
Gaurav I was unaware that your views on the world were limited to one geographic area of the world. Perhaps that is why you run into problems becase your view is so limited.
I was under the misconception that you were bigger picture guy who was looking at the world at large.
No wonder India is is trouble - what you are doing is exactly what the politician from Alibagh does - “We are from Alibagh, who cares what the people in Bombay are doing, don’t waste my time with all this nonsense”
What both you and the close minded politician from Alibagh don’t realize is that you cannot seperate your country or village off from the rest of the world. And if I were you I would watch the US very closely - the US isn’t exactly outer Mongolia which you can ignore - it is one of the most powerful nations the world has ever seen and as they say ‘when America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold’…Aaaachooo!!
Again, in vintage Ck style you not only miss the point but make ad hominem attacks.
There is something called priority. For me, being an Indian, the first priority is what is happening in India. Charity begins at home, as the cliche goes. You, being an American, are more concerned with what happens in America.
I do have a world view, and am very aware of what America and many important countried of the world do. At least the relevant actions.
However I will not waste hours and hours debating on some scenarios in the US, which are not of even medium-term interest to India. I might peruse them for academic interest, but would not devote as much time to it, as a topic in India itself.
India is in trouble not because it has shut itself off from the world but because it is a little too obsessed with the rest of the world, from Nehru’s time. Which is why Commies will spend hours rallying in support of Palestine and Sanghists will spend hours praising Israel, but no one will think about those sections of India which are of a higher priority.
So remember, it is not an either/or choice. We can prioritise on India while keeping a world view. Not all of you Americans, Ck, really understand India enough to pass judgement on why it is in trouble.
The point I was trying to make is, your illogical blabber is not only illogical, it is misdirected. Your stupidity and fallacious logic can be ripped apart by us Indian libertarians, but it would educate you better, were it done by your own countrymen, i.e Americans.
Ck, you remind me of a joke I once heard.
Ram: Yesterday my wife and I again had a huge fight. It is getting unbearable.
Shyam: You should take a leaf out of my book. My wife and I never have fights because we have clearly delineated our decision zones?
Ram: Really, how so?
Shyam: Well, my wife takes all the minor decisions in the house and I take all the major decisions.
Ram: That is nice.
Shyam: yes, all minor matters like when we should buy a car, which relatives to visit, which college our kids should go to, all these are based on my wife’s decision.
Ram: And you?
Shyam: My decisions are major and important ones, like did America do the right thing by attacking Iraq, is the rise of Le Pen a worrisome factor for Europe, should Mugabe’s government be boycotted…..etc
I’m a little late into this debate, but I thought I might drop in a few points that struck me:
Well the people who first espoused free trade and democracy were also assaulted by people like CK who saw no reason to change the perfectly good authoritarian and mercantilist world in which they lived. That did not dilute the strength and force of their arguments and now about 200 years after those few brave Americans who did believe Locke and Hume and Smith and their ilk, the world’s greatest country in terms of material wealth and individual liberty is on CKs side of the Atlantic. I think in some sense it makes CK a change-averse Conservative :-), though he tries to project himself as a Left-Liberal.
Now there are two ways of looking at experimentation in economics. One is the Behavioural/Experimental Economics school which has been working on micro decision making using MRI scanners and using psychological methods to evaluate economic activities. THe conclusions being reached are along partisan lines. The ‘Experimentalists’ led by Vernon Smith seem to reach more market-friendly conclusions at GMU, while Mathew Rabin and the Behaviouralists tend to find reasons for human irrationality that “require” interventions into markets.
The other approach is asking… “Do we need to experiment in Economics at all? Can you reach conclusions by testing economic models using methedologies based in the physical and natural sciences?” In an excellent Nobel acceptance speech, which I think all would be megalomaniac Economists and Social Scientists should read Hayek says we should be very aware of our thoroughly incomplete knowledge. No one, no economist knows enough about the economy to suggest an intervention and accurately project the precise outcomes of those interventions. The number of variables that effect the way in which market societies work and the impact of interventions approaches infinity. So they answer the question by saying “No we can’t use conventional methods, because we aren’t dealing with countable variables, and more importantly we don’t need to because the market is what processes these variables and does a pretty darn good job of it given its limitations”
This is probably one of those comments that CK should ignore, because he has reached a conclusion that these MMORPG games set according to libertarian rules (i don’t know whether there can be such a thing, because lilbertarian rules develop as conventions based on certain basic principles, and people entering the games will come with existing ideas and outlooks from the real world, that is ofcourse they choose to take it seriously, else they might break rules because they don’t have a real incentive to follow them as in the real world, where they face penalties for breaking rules, whether explicit or reputational) without having seen such a game. So while he proposes that libertarians should first test their philosophies in the real world (which ofcourse he won’t agree to let them test because they aren’t tested, sounds a great deal like Catch 22 doesn’t it), he also reaches the conclusion in advance that it will fail in a simulation, how scientific :-).
He cites some examples of how simulations are used to help people get a glimpse of real life, but simulations are subject to the limitations of their creators, and cannot be used to ensure that no mishap occours. Soldiers will still get killed in a batlle field, pilots will still have trouble with planes, banker’s will still make bad decisions, challengers and atlantiss will still fall out of the sky and Appollo 13 missions will still get cancelled. So however valuable simulations maybe as a training ground, they are certainly no substitute for real life, and certainly inadequete for replicating something as complex as the market.