[MD] Flying Spaghetti Monsters

[ian glendinning]

Hi Craig,

It doesn't seem that complicated to me ...
You're emphasising freedom generally, rather than markets in particular now ...

In the examples .... you cannot escape that when large groups of
individuals are given a free choice they freely give up some of their
freedoms to other individuals and sub-groups which they "institute" to
look after higher / broader needs, and freely (but contingently)
accept their authority as limiting their individual freedoms.

Like there is no point having this debate if your stance is all
government, taxes amd legal institutions are ipso-facto evil ? Freedom
involves accepting limits to freedom ... as Micah said in fact. Sounds
paradoxical, illogical, but that's reality.

Practical details.
Muggers - you have the moral authority to act (and government
institutions to back you up) Act now, (vote earlier, and later).
The invisible hand vs government incompetence - Provided you accept
that total (unlimited) freedom is not a reality, then this is simply a
practical problem, of how we manage our governments, set them up well
in the first place, constitute their methods and authorities, sanction
them if they overstep their limits of competence and authority, apply
the law if incompetence turns into corruption, etc ... and the
ultimate sanction, kick em out and replace them.

You jump very quickly to support "democracy" ... I wouldn't argue in
principle, but what I pointed out is that leaves us many possible
options to what kind of democracy we're talking about.

Ian

On 9/27/06, craigerb at comcast.net <craigerb at comcast.net> wrote:
> Ian,
> I'll concentrate on (2), since we mostly agree on (1), (3) & (4), while in (5) you reintroduce the bad-interference-is-bad argument that we're both trying to avoid.
> [Ian]
> > (2) [Interference] may be "bad' for some individual members, better for other
> > individuals...incentives and limits can (do) have positive value.
>
> That's the point.  In a free market transaction, the participants act in a way beneficial to both parties. Why should government come along & interfere with this dynamic to the benefit of one party & the detriment of the other?
> As for incentives (= subsidies):  a) the government rarely has the expertise that the "invisible hand" of the market can provide; b) subsidies are usually the result of special interest lobbying; c) those sitting comfortably in government do not have the incentive to make quality decisions that those who are affected by them do; & d) one person's subsidy is another person's tax burden.  Replay my argument 1)-5) substituting 'subsidy' for 'interference'.
>
> > Even in Rand's utopia, the members FREELY (my emphasis) delegate some of > their choices to certain members, and support their specialist authority on
> > certain subjects.
>
> That 'FREELY' is what makes it a utopia.
>
> > By free choice, people choose to have controls and incentives on
> > otherwise "free" markets...the only weak link is in choosing the form of
> > governance to which you delegate such (contingent) authority.
>
> The real weakness is that in regard to the economy such authority is unnecessary & counterproductive.
>
> > Some form of democratic freedom seems to be the clear "western' choice, but
> > there are many possible flavours for setting up such institutions, and
> > remembering that they are just that ... instituted as servants of the
> > (free) people.
>
> I agree with the choice of democracy for political institutions, but prefer the free market as the economic institution.  When I meet 2 muggers in an alley, I don't want to vote on who owns my wallet.
> Craig
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>