Skeptic Project

From the Boston Tea party page

"However, my two cents: it seems their entire dislike of a "free market" relies on the fallacy that corporations would exist. Corporations are only "legal persons" because a government deemed it to be"

Just to be clear, this runs utterly contrary to historical fact. It wasn't until the second half of the 19th century that legal personality came into question. A simple survey of even Wikipedia should make it painfully clear that corporations would exist regardless of the type of market around. Its the structure of the entity and not the legality of it that is in serious question. I'd also like to know how a truly free market would abolish this kind of structure.

Un-Ed-ucated wrote:

"Yes, people may not make the best decisions for products of quality all the time or what they can truly afford, but the important thing here is for people to be the ultimate arbiter in what they want to buy and where people and business owners are bound to fundamental rules against harm and theft.."

What are these fundamental rules?

http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html</p>

Before the current financial system was in place, it would have been impossible for anyone to have set rules against the kinds of problems inherent in such a system. I understand that you think there is some "basic" level of law that should be applied, and beyond that there should be no regulation. However, anyone who has surveyed societal development and legal change can easily see that laws need to constantly be updated. What you call "fundamental" may be insufficient to protect the public from the harm companies can do. What AIG and Goldman Sachs did would not have been covered had we only followed "fundamental rules against harm and theft" because what they did was invariably tied into a system more complicated than simple harm and theft.

Laws/rules don’t need to be so constantly updated if you use clear, non ambiguous language and definitions for them in conjuction with sub contracts (agreements with their own rules that don’t violate the basic level of rules). And even if laws were to get updated, individuals who are voluntary part of an existing contract could choose whether or not to agree with the update and only those who agree would be bounded by it while the others would be part of other agreement. Never the less, any system, including a social system can reach a level of commonality with rules. Since we are speaking vaguely here, the most I can tell you to see where I’m coming from is to check the Social Meta-Need theory and the kind of contract connected to it. As for AIG and Golman Sachs, all I see is they both making bad business decisions where they loss a lot of money, and they use taxpayer’s money as a loan to get bailed out. So right here, you have it where instead a company being allowed to fail and to trigger competitive solutions, Government enforce the extortion of citizens’ income to save them.

Our society does not place government regulation as a control for what consumers can and can't do, but on what companies are and are not allowed to get away with.

You must of missed my earlier post how government says who you can only deliver first class mail through. In addition, the government tells you what drugs you can buy or sell.. Where have you been? As for companies, you forget they are individuals too, they aren’t special. So even long ago they too had to follow basic “common law” even when engaging in commerce.

Who will, in place of the government, ensure that the public has access to necessary information. This is, yet again, back to my original critique of the current economic conception. People do not make the best decision for themselves because they are not privy, nor can they be, to ALL information necessary to make good decisions- and even when they are they don't actually make the best decision. Is the position then "well too bad, socio-economic Darwinism will take care of those people?" Clearly it cannot be, because, as we have seen from our own history, companies needs and motives do not match up with those of the consumers. An ultra-free market would pit a large corporation against a market share where all foreseeable consequences were veiled. This faith in a free market is greatly misplaced as even a market with regulation has revealed the structural flaws in corporate motivations. These are consequences we as a should society should not be forced to endure.

Don’t you think individuals out there can have the resources to provide telecommunications, feedback services, and so forth where you can access the necessary information to make optimal decisions? Check the Social Meta-Need theory on this aspect too.

Social contract theory has been repeatedly questioned and I don't find such theories, in the least, convincing.

Yet, authoritarians been utilizing it throughout history for a while now. Time for individuals to utilize it more peer2peer.

That said, even social contract theory leads to a government and government regulation.

Only when people allow “special people” to have central authority over them and to extort them will lead to a government. Yet, with this same social contracting, there doesn’t need anyone to be special but for individuals to voluntarily agree on rules that promotes stabilization and where each person can benefit from the reality of each. The major difference with a social contract that utilizes the SMN theory is it being a completely voluntary arrangement totally accepted and agreed to by anyone who becomes a member of such social system, whereas the notion of "Social Contract" understood by others from history, is a contract foisted upon all those born in a Nation/State or to parents who are citizens of a Nation/State.

What you are describing is a proto-regulatory system which would inevitably lead to businesses and economics being reintegrated with the political sphere. It starts with a business owner being watched to make sure he isn't poisoning his consumers because he acts lazily. Then we have to make sure he isn't stealing money from his consumers by hiding the cost of what it takes to make his product. Then we need to make sure he isn't destroying the commons (environment) as he goes about his business. It continues to escalate. So where are we to draw the line? All of these potential problems are grave, and they all affect society as a whole. Are we to leave up to the "market" which doesn't always weed out the irresponsible companies? The market sure has kept companies like Nike in business even though they use child labor and sweat shops to make their goods. It sure hasn't made sure BP was acting safely in the interest of the people. Do you see why the ultra-free market is such a huge problem?

But remember, all business/economic activities are technically individuals like you and me interacting. The Social Meta-Need theory promotes transparency/non-anonymity and feedback. It is just like when you want to look up the review of a product, the same principle applies here for individuals who own businesses. If a business owner indeed harms you or your property, then ofcourse you will be able to charge them. I am not saying if people have voluntary contract associations, businesses will all of a sudden do no wrong. What I am saying is these same interactions that goes on in the economic and social sphere can be self regulating through people choosing to have social contracts without a central coercive force because such authorities can coerce people without their consent or become immune to the same rules they enforce leading to inconsistency of rules and social turmoil. But once again, check out the SMN theory that has a demonstrated contract to see where I am coming from.

Furthermore, there will be no "commons" since different volumes of space could be owned by different individuals through acceptable methods of registration. Here’s a workable example: http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#acceptable_methods</p>

I am not advocating government CONTROL over the market- I don't think anyone here is- but rather looking at the inherent absurdity in faith in ultra-free markets. There are so many structural tensions at play that serve to expose consumers to harm, that without an evolving legal body we are likely to be harmed repeatedly. The free market has brought us great progress! But at the cost of human life in nations abroad. But at the price of new poisons and dangers. At the price of our own financial well being when we allow businesses to tell us things are alright when they aren't.

I don’t get why you and others are harping on this being a “ultra free market” as if there are no rules or as if I am advocating for the free market to be some central authority for everyone, when this is not the issue I am discussing here. What I am saying is these “regulations” needed is what people can work out on their own through social contracts based on the SMN theory. A market of commerce is not immune to rules. It is made up of people just like you and me being part of a social system that we can voluntary choose to be in a contract with or choose not to, and whoever are part of these contracts agree to be bounded by these agreements. SMN and its implementations are far different than libertarianism, and far more fundamental and novel than libertarian ideas. To be clear, I am not advocating anything that resembles any so-called "free market" that exists today or every attempt that has existed. I am *not* pro-capitalist or pro-free market as those notions are understood by anyone today (except perhaps the most anarchist of Austrian school economists).

But I suggest once again, for you to get the gist of what I’m saying, check out that link on the SMN theory and how such contracts tied to it function.

This libertarian movement, which follows essentially the same line as you, has forgotten that economics and social forces are not separate entities. They are subject to the same governing feedbacks, and to pretend that the free market can somehow take care of our needs greatly overlooks the fact that our needs (and our behaviors) change over time in very profound ways. The government serves to keep these loops going (even though the government, like all things, can fail).

And I agree that markets and society are one entity made up of people. I have not once said they are 2 different sets of people. My point is these social interactions don’t need to be stabilized through a central government. They can be stabilized by like minded individuals who agree to follow the stipulations and rules of a social contract centering the SMN theory. And these stipulations include how to charge someone for a violation, how and where to settle a dispute, restitution, etc.

No, I am saying that by granting the Dutch East India Company a monopoly, it was actually a move to strengthen the state as a whole. The point at which the DEIC had the monopoly coincides with the Dutch Golden Age. My entire point is that the Dutch East India company was not divorced from the political sector, but rather integral to it. This is like saying the US Navy has a monopoly on war ship deployment. My critique here is that the company was not like companies today in that they were far more related to political power of the state. Again, Julia Adam's book "The Familial State" outlines this remarkably well.

Well, at least now you agree it was indeed a government granted monopoly from the States even with the claim that it was to strengthen these states as a whole. Also, no other charter group could of provide this service for these “states” for a period of time.

Lets start with a resounding no. That is a horrible hyperbole from what I actually am saying. A perfectly rational model is extraordinarily difficult to come by and there will always be people who act irrationally and people who will not have enough information.

And there will always be people who are contrary to this. That’s the point. I was not saying that you are saying everyone is irresponsible but reminding you that they are people that are responsible who can provide services, interact with you, choose what products are of quality, and so forth. And just because people can make bad decisions and be irresponsible does not mean you need a government for this. Whether or not a government exist, people will be irresponsible. However, that does not mean people can’t choose to do things self regulating without a government. You see, what I am advocating here is the same social interactions without a “special group” having central authority over everyone, but everyone in agreement to a social contract P2P.

If people are left alone to succeed or fail, self-interest will lead them to learn to be responsible and seek sufficient information to not cause themselves troubles. As long as they are protected from their own folly, like children, then they will remain as unthinking and as irresponsible as children. SMN and the NSC will first attract people who are that thoughtful and responsible and then show others both that.

It is fallacious to claim I am arguing all people are irresponsible or irrational.

I did not claim that you are. I am basically making you see that people CAN be responsible in being self-regulating despite there also being people out there who make bad decisions and are irresponsible.

What I am saying is that necessary information is often very difficult to attain in the necessary amounts to avoid unwanted outcomes. Even people well trained in investments are caught by surprise because they either misinterpret information, or don't have the necessary information to tell whether a stock will go up or go down. My further question is how you propose transparency is possible without government regulation. What is the real incentive for a company to allow all information to be visible, even when its incredibly damning? You mention social contract theory, but as we look at social contract theorists (J.S Mill, J.J Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes, etc etc) we find that social contract theory has been used to explain the creation of the state and of government. Social contract theory is not the place to look to how private contracts are formed. These theorists wanted to explain why governments emerged and how they related to the people. If you want to go over these theorists arguments specifically, I'm willing to, but I hope that you are cautiously applying this argumentation. The further question is to find historical or anthropological evidence of self-regulating systems that did not have what we can observe as a political order. Then we must extend these findings to larger populations. This is a wonderful pipe-dream- balanced anarchy where individual people are responsible. Again, this rests on a false view that all people can be a0 rational or b) exposed to all necessary information.

And this is why such necessary information is a social meta-need that is important for social contracts. You see, I am not saying that with commerce for there to be no information available for consumers. I am saying such information is what will be ONE of the fundamental requirements for a social system to exist and where people would voluntarily agree to have it as part of a contract if they want to ensure optical interactions whether it is dealing with investments, a job, a school, a product, etc.

Again, revisit the actual arguments of Social Contract theorists. They are arguing that the government emerged to cover that exact social-system. The question is what apparatus you think can effectively replaces this, and what keeps people from defaulting to a governmental form when things become difficult.

The apparatus is the Social Meta-Need theory being the core of this Social Contract.

This further falls back on the problem of omni-rationality in the population. What is the difference between a republic and self-regulation or even a democracy.

A republic has a representative authorities over a population through majoritarianism, and a democracy is simply majoritarianism. Think of self regulation being both you and me writing a contract together or me bringing a contract to you, we both analyze it, agree on the rules (which includes how violations of these rules are handled), and we both sign it. This now becomes a self regulating agreement between both of us without us imposing it on others who have not agreed to it. And whoever else wants to join our agreement P2P, are free to do so.

Thomas Hobbes, J.S. Mill, and J.J. Rousseau- all social contract theorists- described how governments emerged as a way to meet this need. They further talked about what the rights of the people were in a government and what the contract actually meant for this relationship. I am very curious as to how you envision social contract differently. How does a social contract (a contract between all members of society) not become a government (a contract that then emerges between the people and the government).

And now the Social Meta-Need theory describes how you don’t need governments to meet the need of these contracts. http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html</p>

"You making it seem as if I'm arguing that having markets will mean that no bad things will occur when that is not the issue here. The issue here is people can responsibly have voluntary social contracts with grounded rules without the need of a central government."
I find the last statement very dubious. If you can demonstrate a situation where truly free markets have existed for extended period of times without public outcry and reaction, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Seriously, you are saying I am making a dubious statement when you are basically repeating what I already said contrary to this. I am NOT saying markets are without faults or that there were no negative preferencing against certain companies and products within markets from populations throughout history. Shoots, I am even arguing for people to indeed preference against companies and products that are BAD because this also help provide other consumers with the necessary information they can use to assess who out there is worth interacting with. Furthermore, the same market sphere can be self regulating through voluntary contract associations that revolves around the SMN theory.

Your call for voluntary social contracts is not very practical, much less have you proved that these contracts dont, by virtue of their logical extensions, lead to government formation. Again, how are people able to have transparent to necessary information? Consider that things like the FDA are responsible for forcing companies to disclose information. Prior to the FDA there was no incentive for companies to do this very thing. What I am pressing here then is two fold

The SMN theory points out transparent information of individuals and their material properties or products being a social need that would be part of the NSC. I don’t see how voluntary contracts are not practical when it occurs even on a daily basis under current government systems. The difference with the contract (NSC) that revolves around SMNs than previous government contract notions is that it won’t be where certain individuals have a hand of authoring it and signing it and imposing it on an entire population who didn’t.

1) How do social contracts- despite the intellectual geneology of the entire field- not result in government formation. I'd love to see where you get social contract theories that don't immediately address the question of government
2) How do you reasonably overcome the problem that 100% of the population cannot be 100% rational either by virtue of their own error or by virtue of the fact that they do not have access to all necessary information. Don't allow this to turn to hyperbole, but rather address the question at hand. Its not that all people are either rational or irrational, but rather a mixture exists that is highly fluid. This then leads us to the following:
The government obviously fails- but they are, unlike corporations- directly responsible to the population (in fact, this is what Social Contract theorists have argued!).. Corporations are structurally linked to profit seeking and not to satisfying or protecting consumers.

I won’t respond in detail here since I already mentioned for you to check out the SMN theory. I think you will see your answers from it or from the author. But one little thing, the argument here is not for the population to be perfect in decision making, but to have the necessary things needed for them to utilize good decision making and to have optimal interactions.

My point in this question was one of practical application. In your model, who checks in on BP?

Who checks on these corporations? All members of the Social Contract will have the necessary information of companies like BP. Information such as their properties, their products, the owners, feedback on the owners and their products, and the different contracts these owners have with their customers and other business owners is part of the arrangement of having a social contract that revolves around the SMN theory. If individuals choose not follow through with these agreed methods, then they will simply be seen as non-members/people you may most likely preference against.

Who enforces these issues.

From a Social Contract based on the Social Meta-Need theory, individuals who make up the co-ownership of a business like BP would be bound to an agreement with other members of this Social Contract. Don’t you think these customers or other members of this social system would make sure this businesses live up to their agreement? It is more about agreed upon mandates and mutual relationships rather "enforcement."

Do you think BP expected Deepwater horizon would explode? No, they reasonably thought they could get away with what they were doing. This is an example were government regulation failed, but further an example where corporate behavior does not inherently result in responsible behavior. If a company thinks it can get away with cutting corners and thus increase their profit margins, why should they be more careful when there is no effective regulation?

In any giving situation, a person or business owner may have property that can cause harm to others. A situation like BP’s in a Social System that revolves around the Social Meta-Need theory would of most likely have properties nearby to BP’s oil leak where they could of charge BP for violating their property and where the victim or victims would want a Restitution Request. In addition, like with that Real Estate link above, if property was much organized like that, business owners would take the maintenance of their property much seriously.

Another key thing to note is the U.S. government had exempted BP’s Gulf of Mexico drilling causing impact to the environment when studies have already shown the risk. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050404118.html

Hey Alton, where'd you go? 3 weeks is a long time to wait to resurect a topic.

My overall point is that without government subsidies and funding into things like telecommunications and computing we wouldn't have had things like the rise of the personal computer, the rise of the privitized internet, and the .com boom. I'm not saying these things never would have happened, I'm saying that there was no reason initially for most people or companies to invest in these things -- aside from cases like tabulation and so forth. In fact, wasn't the first tabulation machine created to count votes for the state? I could be completely wrong on that, but I think that's true.

I'm not disagreeing at all that capitalism has done a lot of the work, or that capitalism was sort of the lubrication for the machine. Afterall, it was money that was used to pay companies, schools, etc to research into these things.

>> But you see, today, government just allows the fiction of corporate entities to be sued rather than the actual individuals who may be responsible for violating an agreement or rules they are in contract with others.

I can definitely agree with that, but at the same time even as someone who opposes capitalism, I sort of see the need and logic behind the idea of corporate personhood. It makes moving assets much easier, it makes suing easier. In fact when you sue the United States, you're actually suing the legal corporation of the US.

>> This isn’t true because society do contain sane and rational people. I don’t have to project my own intellectualism on others for this fact. All I’m saying is there can be a social tool that they can utilize in having a social system without the need of a central government.

I'm not saying we don't have sane, rational people, after all we're both having a sane, rational discussion here right now. I just am skeptical of what I see as idealism because of sociopaths/psychopaths who would exploit others to the bitter end, all rationality aside.

Special Ed wrote:

Hey Alton, where'd you go? 3 weeks is a long time to wait to resurect a topic.

I had couple projects I had to take care of, so I had to give the web a little rest ;)

My overall point is that without government subsidies and funding into things like telecommunications and computing we wouldn't have had things like the rise of the personal computer, the rise of the privitized internet, and the .com boom. I'm not saying these things never would have happened, I'm saying that there was no reason initially for most people or companies to invest in these things -- aside from cases like tabulation and so forth. In fact, wasn't the first tabulation machine created to count votes for the state? I could be completely wrong on that, but I think that's true.

But keep mind still how the government had to fund these projects through extortion of taxes. Such funding isn't quite voluntary like in the sphere of commerce. And despite such funding through taxes, it would still be private contractors and private research groups in many cases getting the job done in creating things like the world wide web, web browsers, and hypertext language protocols rather than government employees. I still don't see how these things would not of emerged since you still had private individuals and groups also playing a role with such things and even to this day advancing such things like computers.

i'm not disagreeing at all that capitalism has done a lot of the work, or that capitalism was sort of the lubrication for the machine. Afterall, it was money that was used to pay companies, schools, etc to research into these things.

I gotcha, and keep in mind I am not an advocate of a free market having no rules nor have the idea like a lot of libertarians that anything goes with the market.

I can definitely agree with that, but at the same time even as someone who opposes capitalism, I sort of see the need and logic behind the idea of corporate personhood. It makes moving assets much easier, it makes suing easier. In fact when you sue the United States, you're actually suing the legal corporation of the US.

But this corporate personhood still plays into the realm of fiction and non-humans. Moreover, even from the corporate angle, you would rather the employee or co-owner who was responsible for the violation to be liable for a specific event rather than every co-owner or investor stock into the company. To me, assets transfer and lawsuits would occur just as easy but more clearer since rather than a vague corporate fiction, you would be dealing with specific individuals.

I'm not saying we don't have sane, rational people, after all we're both having a sane, rational discussion here right now. I just am skeptical of what I see as idealism because of sociopaths/psychopaths who would exploit others to the bitter end, all rationality aside.

Right, and what I'm getting at here acknowledges that there can still be sociopaths, mentally ill people, robbers and so forth where you will have to charge them for violating the agreement of not harming you and your property. I'm not getting into the idealism that every person will act better once they use something, but more like where people can share a basic thinking on how to voluntary have a social arrangement without there needing to be some geographical political state. However, such arrangement may first attract those who are that thoughtful, rational and responsible and then show others both that such is a great method when it comes to optimizing one's happiness and interests, and where they can train their children and others how to be thoughtful and responsible too.

I think how government got the money is another topic, what I'm talking about is government influence in uninteresting projects.

And it is a topic not to ignore.

That's true, but routing protocols, TCP, IP, UDP, ICMP, etc. exist because of government funding, or in some cases came right out of the DOD.

Not completely. When you look up these inventions, you will see that private funding played a part. Even the inventors themselves funded some of it. And even the guys (Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf) who invented TCP and IP claimed themselves that no one single person or group (including the government) invented the internet.

I said it would have taken longer. Just as going to the moon would have taken longer without NASA, but we would have gotten there eventually with private enterprise.

You did not say that originally. You said "we wouldn't have had" these things. As for taking longer. That is just a speculation. It could go either way. Shorter or longer. For instance, factors like people not getting a good portion of their income extorted from taxes could of been potential money that could of gone into acquiring the necessary resources for these inventions even more by private individuls. But at least you see the point that individuals outside of a geopolitical monopoly (government) can make such innovations. In other words, government ideology isn't a NEED for such technological advancements to exist.

Charge them how? See, that's what I'm having a hard time understanding, how this could work day to day.

This is contract talk here when I mentioned that. If you and others are in a social agreement pertaining to the SMN theory, you and your violator can work out a restitution agreement, and if not, you can take it further to court. To see a detailed example of how this can work, check out "Section C" of this model titled 'Stipulations Regarding Settlement of Disputes': http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html