Bitcoin paradise(economist.com)
economist.com
Bitcoin paradise
http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2013/12/libertarian-enclaves
70 comments
And even if there were land locked countries, natural trade will supply water. When people talk about water wars they envision people dying of thirst, when the reality is that water will go from being fifty cents a thousand litres (!) to a buck fifty a thousand litres and farmers will need to work around it.
Indeed. The first thing that would happen if water were a lot more scarce is that lots of things would become more expensive, since water is an input to just about everything. Presumably people would change their behaviour in lots of ways short of just up and killing each other. "OMG expensive meat!" is a lot more likely than "OMG war!"
Maybe a biased source, but http://www.ecotechwater.com/Company/watertrivia.html:
How much water does it take to produce one ton of steel? 62,600 gallons
How much water must a dairy cow drink to produce one gallon of milk? 4 gallons
How much water is used during the growing/production of a chicken? 400 gallons
How much water is used during the growing/production of almonds? 12 gallons
How much water is used during the growing/production of french fries? 6 gallons
How much water is used during the growing/production of a single orange? 13.8 gallons
How much water is used during the growing/production of a watermelon? 100 gallons
How much water is used during the growing/production of a loaf of bread? 150 gallons
How much water is used during the growing/production of a tomato? 3 gallons
How much water is used during the growing/production of rice? 35 gallons
How much water us used during the production of an egg? 120 gallons
How much water does it take to process a quarter pound of hamburger? Approximately one gallon.
How much water does it take to make four new tires? 2,072 gallons.
Maybe a biased source, but http://www.ecotechwater.com/Company/watertrivia.html:
How much water does it take to produce one ton of steel? 62,600 gallons
How much water must a dairy cow drink to produce one gallon of milk? 4 gallons
How much water is used during the growing/production of a chicken? 400 gallons
How much water is used during the growing/production of almonds? 12 gallons
How much water is used during the growing/production of french fries? 6 gallons
How much water is used during the growing/production of a single orange? 13.8 gallons
How much water is used during the growing/production of a watermelon? 100 gallons
How much water is used during the growing/production of a loaf of bread? 150 gallons
How much water is used during the growing/production of a tomato? 3 gallons
How much water is used during the growing/production of rice? 35 gallons
How much water us used during the production of an egg? 120 gallons
How much water does it take to process a quarter pound of hamburger? Approximately one gallon.
How much water does it take to make four new tires? 2,072 gallons.
How much water is used during the growing/production of a tomato?
I've wondered about the use of hermetically sealed greenhouses where over 95% of the water is recovered with dehumidifiers. The power needed by such dehumidifiers would track solar flux rather closely. Would increases in water costs make such setups economical?
I've wondered about the use of hermetically sealed greenhouses where over 95% of the water is recovered with dehumidifiers. The power needed by such dehumidifiers would track solar flux rather closely. Would increases in water costs make such setups economical?
"How much water us used during the production of an egg? 120 gallons"
This is the only one I feel comfortable commenting on specifically, but this is insanely wrong. A laying hen drinks about 16 ounces of water per day, eats a few ounces of food per day, and lays an egg every 1-2 days depending on the breed and the conditions.
Your quoted figure appears to be, quite literally, off by a factor of 1,000.
This is the only one I feel comfortable commenting on specifically, but this is insanely wrong. A laying hen drinks about 16 ounces of water per day, eats a few ounces of food per day, and lays an egg every 1-2 days depending on the breed and the conditions.
Your quoted figure appears to be, quite literally, off by a factor of 1,000.
It does sound a bit high, but to produce a pound of grain it takes about 150 gallons of water, and assuming about 1/2 pound of food eaten every 2 days it is about right.
As the previous poster said, a laying hen eats a couple of ounces a day, no where near a half a pound.
With a cursory google search, 1/4 pound of feed per day seems about typical, assuming 2 days per egg produced.
Maybe, a 'factory' hen that eats nothing but grain might do 1/4 pound of grain. But these hens will also produce very close to 1 egg a day, or about 9 eggs for every 10 days or so.
Also, apparently "rice" is a now a singular specific quantity.
Just curious;
I've read that energy takes quite a bit of non-salt water to produce. Energy can be used to create clean water by desalinization, but I believe I read that this still creates less clean water than the clean water needed to produce that energy (though this can be done in a very different area. Would anyone here happen to be familiar with the basic numbers here?
>Desalination plants on average use about 15,000 kilowatt- hours of power for every million gallons of fresh water that’s produced
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-01/energy-makes-up-hal...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-01/energy-makes-up-hal...
I'm not familiar with the exact numbers, but I would be extremely surprised if a solar panel or wind turbine took that much fresh water to manufacture and install. I suspect that the argument you're referencing is more likely geared toward fossil fuels.
"As for Ayn Rand, just how much have her ideas influencedthe community's design? Mr Johnson admits he never finished “Atlas Shrugged”. "I'm not actually much of a reader," he says. "Watched the movie and skimmed the Cliff's Notes, though. Good stuff."
Awesome ;)
Awesome ;)
I was reminded of this quote from a recent episode of The Simpsons: "Conservatives only get more conservative, because every year they get a little further through Atlas Shrugged."
Maybe after that they'll read about Rand's actual life.
Yes, someone whose family barely escaped with their lives from a communist state may indeed have strong opinions on the subject.
I believe he was referring to this, generally:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/m1/guardians_of_ayn_rand/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/m1/guardians_of_ayn_rand/
Yes, we should certainly muddle the merits of a philosophy with its generational philosopher. That makes a lot of sense.
I don't think this is a bad thing (not saying you were implying that). We probably wouldn't criticize a Black trade union activist for not being well read.
Mr Johnson deserves credit for putting his ideas into practice, which is just as important, if not more important, than theory.
Mr Johnson deserves credit for putting his ideas into practice, which is just as important, if not more important, than theory.
> Mr Johnson deserves credit for putting his ideas into practice, which is just as important, if not more important, than theory.
You can't separate theory from practice. You need both and they need to be integrated.
In this particular case, we have a guy masquerading as a fan of Ayn Rand and setting up a boondoggle in Chile for greater fools to invest in. He would have done better to actually read and understand the author he attempts to parrot.
You can't separate theory from practice. You need both and they need to be integrated.
In this particular case, we have a guy masquerading as a fan of Ayn Rand and setting up a boondoggle in Chile for greater fools to invest in. He would have done better to actually read and understand the author he attempts to parrot.
Why do people think that they will have access to the Internet and there will be massive amounts of excess computing power to waste if the world economy collapses? Computers and the Internet are luxuries that exist because basic physical needs are met. As soon as the Internet fails for any length of time for a given person, that person will refuse to rely on the Internet for anything until the world economy is back together, if it gets back together. In the event of collapse, it will be necessary to rely on local, physical things rather than the complex, interconnected global system we have now.
And without computers, bitcoins will have less worth than sticks and rocks. The community they're talking about can exist, but it's stupid to think it would operate on bitcoin. Isn't that exactly what cash is for? Untraceable, has representation of value but little value itself (besides tinder), easily broken into smaller pieces, etc. Doesn't bitcoin connect them to the very same system they're trying to escape? Cryptocurrency has purpose/value in that it can be easily exchanged with people all over the world fro goods and services. If you're separating from the world, its as valuable as the magnetic strip it's printed on.
"Our farm workers and suppliers still want to get paid in pesos,”
...and where will you get those Pesos if everyone is paying with Bitcoin? Exchanges, the real basis of the Bitcoin economy. What will happen when the world economic system collapses? Bitcoin will collapse with it.
...and where will you get those Pesos if everyone is paying with Bitcoin? Exchanges, the real basis of the Bitcoin economy. What will happen when the world economic system collapses? Bitcoin will collapse with it.
I think this is the flaw in most Libertarian logic that is completely missed, because most Libertarians live in first-world countries.
They have this idea that they want to pay no taxes and only pay for what THEY use, and rely on their own hard work and brilliance to succeed. But of course, that ignores the facts that first-world countries have an entire subsystem that supports this (roads, police, laws, enforcement), which makes their success possible.
In reality, Galt's Gulch is running on the backs of local workers, who have access to everything in the community. What do you think will happen if the world was to collapse? That somehow the residents of the Gulch would blissfully go on about their lives in tranquil happiness, smug in their brilliance? Or would the local population, who outnumber them by the millions, are physically and mentally stronger than they are, and who run their precious ecosystem would simply take it from them?
They have this idea that they want to pay no taxes and only pay for what THEY use, and rely on their own hard work and brilliance to succeed. But of course, that ignores the facts that first-world countries have an entire subsystem that supports this (roads, police, laws, enforcement), which makes their success possible.
In reality, Galt's Gulch is running on the backs of local workers, who have access to everything in the community. What do you think will happen if the world was to collapse? That somehow the residents of the Gulch would blissfully go on about their lives in tranquil happiness, smug in their brilliance? Or would the local population, who outnumber them by the millions, are physically and mentally stronger than they are, and who run their precious ecosystem would simply take it from them?
I like that he thinks these two things hold true at the same time:
1) Nations are having wars over water. 2) Water rights matter
1) Nations are having wars over water. 2) Water rights matter
> A quirk of Chilean law makes land, mining and water rights independent of each other. Mr Johnson made sure to acquire all three, particularly the water rights. "In the future, wars will be fought over water," he says.
Sounds like he'll have to purchase some nukes next, then ;D
Sounds like he'll have to purchase some nukes next, then ;D
For obvious reasons, nuclear weapons aren't the best weapons for securing water rights.
Actually they are - you ensure no one could successfully start the war for water. Of course, if you need it, then it may be worth rolling the dice regardless.
OK, arms. As non-native speaker wasn't aware "nukes" always refers to nuclear weapons.. TIL!
> For obvious reasons, nuclear weapons aren't the best weapons for securing water rights.
Not sure why they wouldn't be. Obviously, you don't want to use ground bursts because of the high levels of local fallout, but that's not the only way to use nukes.
Not sure why they wouldn't be. Obviously, you don't want to use ground bursts because of the high levels of local fallout, but that's not the only way to use nukes.
> You have reached your article limit. Register to continue reading or subscribe for unlimited access.
wish i could bitcoin my way through this paywall.
wish i could bitcoin my way through this paywall.
It wasn't mentioned in the article, but Galt's Gulch Chile was founded by Jeff Berwick the tech entrepreneur who co-founded the Bitcoin ATM project, and also stockhouse.com in the 90's.
Good luck to them. It's not often people get to go somewhere new(ish) and try out a new model of society.
I think a society based on Rand and/or libertarianism is a terrible idea, likely to be brutal and darwinistic and to degenerate into feudalism. I also think that this isn't really a model for a society based on these ideals - lets face it, the people who are going to be going there are a wealthy subset, not representative of much.
But good for them for trying.
I think a society based on Rand and/or libertarianism is a terrible idea, likely to be brutal and darwinistic and to degenerate into feudalism. I also think that this isn't really a model for a society based on these ideals - lets face it, the people who are going to be going there are a wealthy subset, not representative of much.
But good for them for trying.
Actually it would be nice if we could get all Ayn Rand followers to relocate to their own society. Maybe the rest of the world would be a nicer place then.
Here's the text of the article for those behind a paywall...
A GROUP of self-described anarchists, libertarians and Ron Paul supporters fleeing the crumbling world economic system have founded Galt's Gulch, a community in Chile inspired by Ayn Rand's “Atlas Shrugged”—and with an economy based entirely on Bitcoin. Or that's the goal, anyway.
"Our farm workers and suppliers still want to get paid in pesos,” Ken Johnson, the project’s founder and managing partner, explains. "But Bitcoin as the John Galt coin? Why shouldn't it be?”
If the world economic system "goes sideways," as Mr Johnson puts it, residents will retreat to their self-sufficient gated community, where they will enjoy a shooting range, equestrian facilities, and spa and fitness center. The 6,874-hectare site (pictured) also includes a 100-hectare farm, although it is not clear who will pick the lettuce when the world ends.
Galt's Gulch Chile—a name impossible for local Spanish-speakers to pronounce—will also boast an innovation centre, where expatriate libertarian dentists and chiropractors may ply their trade. In exchange for Bitcoin, of course.
In the event the world economic system fails to collapse on schedule, however, Mr Johnson has a plan B—his new trademark, Galt's Gulch Organics. "The farm came with 65 hectares of lemons," he says. "The US and Japanese markets pay a premium for organic, non-GMO produce." Plans are in the works to plant herbs, spices, fruit, nuts, and vineyards, and organic certification is not far off.
A quirk of Chilean law makes land, mining and water rights independent of each other. Mr Johnson made sure to acquire all three, particularly the water rights. "In the future, wars will be fought over water," he says. Two rivers border the land, and the community sits atop 56 known water wells. Galt's Gulch bottled mineral water may soon be in the offing. Mr Johnson is also building guest haciendas to house not only prospective buyers, but also, he hopes, tourists.
Set in a secluded valley 17 kilometres from Curacavi, Chile, on the road between Santiago and the luxurious beach resort of Viña del Mar, Galt's Gulch is a mere forty-five minutes by car from the Santiago airport, but, as Mr Johnson says, "it feels like you're at the end of the Earth." Yet his goal is not isolationist, he adds. "We're not trying to hide from the world. In fact we want people to find us.”
Indeed, of the 430 lots for sale, only 12% have sold so far, and Mr Johnson is marketing vigorously to the libertarian and Bitcoin communities. Lots are priced in both dollars and Bitcoin, with big discounts for buyers who pay in that crypto-currency. Many early adopters of Bitcoin find themselves sitting on small fortunes, and Mr Johnson hopes to tempt them to diversify into real estate. So far nine clients have paid in Bitcoin, totaling around $1.5m in revenue.
Mr Johnson, a former California real estate agent and evangelist of water ionizers (devices supposed to slow aging and prevent disease, but derided as snake oil by many scientists) has become something of a celebrity in libertarian circles. Authors such as Ben Swann, Josh Tolley, Luke Rudkowski, Bob Murphy, Angela Keaton, Tatiana Moroz and Wendy McElroy have visited the site of his future utopia, and a television production company is pitching a documentary series on the community.
Most buyers so far, he says, are expats or second-home buyers. For Mr Johnson, the appeal is easy to explain. "It's like California, only forty or fifty years ago. Feels like you've stepped back in time.” Mr Johnson plans to break ground in 2014, and estimates five years to fulfill his vision of a place where he can "live and let live, thrive and let thrive.”
Why does he think his project will succeed where similar schemes have failed? "We're a freedom-minded community, but we're not trying to create a sovereign state," he explains. "We pay our taxes, we obey the law. Our goal is to lessen the effect of the rest of the world without telling the world to go take a flying leap."
As for Ayn Rand, just how much have her ideas influenced the community's design? Mr Johnson admits he never finished “Atlas Shrugged”. "I'm not actually much of a reader," he says. "Watched the movie and skimmed the Cliff's Notes, though. Good stuff."
A GROUP of self-described anarchists, libertarians and Ron Paul supporters fleeing the crumbling world economic system have founded Galt's Gulch, a community in Chile inspired by Ayn Rand's “Atlas Shrugged”—and with an economy based entirely on Bitcoin. Or that's the goal, anyway.
"Our farm workers and suppliers still want to get paid in pesos,” Ken Johnson, the project’s founder and managing partner, explains. "But Bitcoin as the John Galt coin? Why shouldn't it be?”
If the world economic system "goes sideways," as Mr Johnson puts it, residents will retreat to their self-sufficient gated community, where they will enjoy a shooting range, equestrian facilities, and spa and fitness center. The 6,874-hectare site (pictured) also includes a 100-hectare farm, although it is not clear who will pick the lettuce when the world ends.
Galt's Gulch Chile—a name impossible for local Spanish-speakers to pronounce—will also boast an innovation centre, where expatriate libertarian dentists and chiropractors may ply their trade. In exchange for Bitcoin, of course.
In the event the world economic system fails to collapse on schedule, however, Mr Johnson has a plan B—his new trademark, Galt's Gulch Organics. "The farm came with 65 hectares of lemons," he says. "The US and Japanese markets pay a premium for organic, non-GMO produce." Plans are in the works to plant herbs, spices, fruit, nuts, and vineyards, and organic certification is not far off.
A quirk of Chilean law makes land, mining and water rights independent of each other. Mr Johnson made sure to acquire all three, particularly the water rights. "In the future, wars will be fought over water," he says. Two rivers border the land, and the community sits atop 56 known water wells. Galt's Gulch bottled mineral water may soon be in the offing. Mr Johnson is also building guest haciendas to house not only prospective buyers, but also, he hopes, tourists.
Set in a secluded valley 17 kilometres from Curacavi, Chile, on the road between Santiago and the luxurious beach resort of Viña del Mar, Galt's Gulch is a mere forty-five minutes by car from the Santiago airport, but, as Mr Johnson says, "it feels like you're at the end of the Earth." Yet his goal is not isolationist, he adds. "We're not trying to hide from the world. In fact we want people to find us.”
Indeed, of the 430 lots for sale, only 12% have sold so far, and Mr Johnson is marketing vigorously to the libertarian and Bitcoin communities. Lots are priced in both dollars and Bitcoin, with big discounts for buyers who pay in that crypto-currency. Many early adopters of Bitcoin find themselves sitting on small fortunes, and Mr Johnson hopes to tempt them to diversify into real estate. So far nine clients have paid in Bitcoin, totaling around $1.5m in revenue.
Mr Johnson, a former California real estate agent and evangelist of water ionizers (devices supposed to slow aging and prevent disease, but derided as snake oil by many scientists) has become something of a celebrity in libertarian circles. Authors such as Ben Swann, Josh Tolley, Luke Rudkowski, Bob Murphy, Angela Keaton, Tatiana Moroz and Wendy McElroy have visited the site of his future utopia, and a television production company is pitching a documentary series on the community.
Most buyers so far, he says, are expats or second-home buyers. For Mr Johnson, the appeal is easy to explain. "It's like California, only forty or fifty years ago. Feels like you've stepped back in time.” Mr Johnson plans to break ground in 2014, and estimates five years to fulfill his vision of a place where he can "live and let live, thrive and let thrive.”
Why does he think his project will succeed where similar schemes have failed? "We're a freedom-minded community, but we're not trying to create a sovereign state," he explains. "We pay our taxes, we obey the law. Our goal is to lessen the effect of the rest of the world without telling the world to go take a flying leap."
As for Ayn Rand, just how much have her ideas influenced the community's design? Mr Johnson admits he never finished “Atlas Shrugged”. "I'm not actually much of a reader," he says. "Watched the movie and skimmed the Cliff's Notes, though. Good stuff."
Anarchist community inspired by Ayn Rand? Fck me, revisionist history is seemingly having a renaissance with regards to former socialist concepts that is now apparently right-wing - libertarian and anarchist.
Yep, they're anarchists, working on achieving their organic certification from the government.
Anarchists should have found a name for their movement that did not mean, based on the root words, "without power" or "without government," which is not what they preach.
Libertarian anarchists have been right to claim "anarchism" as their own, since that actually is what they preach.
Libertarian anarchists have been right to claim "anarchism" as their own, since that actually is what they preach.
Point being that this would require a superficial interpretation that disregards the history of anarchism as a branch of socialism.
It's not a superficial interpretation. It's not an intepretation at all. It's using the word for what its roots mean.
A great many people are genuinely confused about the history of anarchism for the same reason that people would be confused by me if I took a fervently pro-gun stance that I called "pacivism," and I think genuine confusion is also what motivates the re-purposing of the word. Libertarian anarchists genuinely don't understand that "anarchism" is like my "pacivism" example.
I didn't even understand that until recently, and I am pretty well-educated. I was genuinely confused. "How does Noam Chomsky's position ultimately equate to not having government or power?", I kept asking myself. I couldn't follow his logic. Then I realized, oh, he's not making that argument, and none of them are. Some of them pretend or actually think they are (due to their own confusion), which adds to the confusion.
Someday we will probably have the same problem with "progressivism."
A great many people are genuinely confused about the history of anarchism for the same reason that people would be confused by me if I took a fervently pro-gun stance that I called "pacivism," and I think genuine confusion is also what motivates the re-purposing of the word. Libertarian anarchists genuinely don't understand that "anarchism" is like my "pacivism" example.
I didn't even understand that until recently, and I am pretty well-educated. I was genuinely confused. "How does Noam Chomsky's position ultimately equate to not having government or power?", I kept asking myself. I couldn't follow his logic. Then I realized, oh, he's not making that argument, and none of them are. Some of them pretend or actually think they are (due to their own confusion), which adds to the confusion.
Someday we will probably have the same problem with "progressivism."
Going by a literal dictionary interpretation of the word anarchism/anarchist would be what I see as a superficial interpretation.
Naming my cat "dog" does not make it a dog. Nor does naming anarcho-socialism "anarchism" make it such.
I don't see what bickering over words is going to accomplish. Your post is typical of the far left: do everything you can to appear smarter than your interlocutor, short of actually engaging the issue.
I actually think it's important to call things what they are, just as North Korea aint a democracy even though they call themselves that, this is nothing reassembling anarchist thought. By hi-jacking concepts we introduce confusion and ultimately destroy the original meaning and ideas.
I'm fairly tired of this being the case from the right, not just in america but in my country as well where the most right-wing party recently branded themselves "The new workers party".
I'm fairly tired of this being the case from the right, not just in america but in my country as well where the most right-wing party recently branded themselves "The new workers party".
Or, alternatively, why not actually foster dialogue between left-wing and right-wing anarchists and help the two groups realize that they're often not as far apart as they think? Seems to be working quite well over at http://c4ss.org/ .
I think they are incredibly far apart.
"Right wing anarchists" seem to want to take the trappings of capitalism, from which they have benefited immensely, and keep as much as they can to themselves. For the good of themselves.
True anarchists reject capital and properly rights, and want precisely the opposite. For the good of everyone.
The anarchy subreddit is actually pretty good and not filled with as much junk as a lot of the subreddits are.
"Right wing anarchists" seem to want to take the trappings of capitalism, from which they have benefited immensely, and keep as much as they can to themselves. For the good of themselves.
True anarchists reject capital and properly rights, and want precisely the opposite. For the good of everyone.
The anarchy subreddit is actually pretty good and not filled with as much junk as a lot of the subreddits are.
It depends on who you talk to; I feel like there's a sort of winding spectrum. It's something like:
B = Wealthy people who are actually libertarian to a high extent, caring about some notion of property rights, but have basically no concern for equality, corporate power, etc.
C = Libertarians who also care about reducing corporate power and promoting decentralization. These people love markets and voluntary exchange, but also dislike monopolies. They tend to heavily promote 3D printing, Bitcoin, seasteading, etc.
D = Left-libertarians who are fine with property rights, but seek a less market-oriented basis for society. They might like 3D printing, organic farming, urban agriculture, and perhaps also Bitcoin, though to a smaller extent since it is still money even if it does bypass the banks.
E = Anti-propertarian anarchists. Buy into leftist morality (eg. "exploitation" where you benefit much more than the counterparties from an economic agreement is immoral), and are happy to expropriate capitalists. However, they are also anti-state.
F = State socialists and social democrats.
This experiment seems to be something like B with maybe a touch of C. A proper C-libertarian experiment would also try to provide ways for people to live with very little money (eg. by living in a small closet that would normally be illegal under occupancy limit regulations), and D-libertarian would be a commune.
F A
| |
| |
| |
E B
\ /
\ /
D------C
B = Wealthy people who are actually libertarian to a high extent, caring about some notion of property rights, but have basically no concern for equality, corporate power, etc.
C = Libertarians who also care about reducing corporate power and promoting decentralization. These people love markets and voluntary exchange, but also dislike monopolies. They tend to heavily promote 3D printing, Bitcoin, seasteading, etc.
D = Left-libertarians who are fine with property rights, but seek a less market-oriented basis for society. They might like 3D printing, organic farming, urban agriculture, and perhaps also Bitcoin, though to a smaller extent since it is still money even if it does bypass the banks.
E = Anti-propertarian anarchists. Buy into leftist morality (eg. "exploitation" where you benefit much more than the counterparties from an economic agreement is immoral), and are happy to expropriate capitalists. However, they are also anti-state.
F = State socialists and social democrats.
This experiment seems to be something like B with maybe a touch of C. A proper C-libertarian experiment would also try to provide ways for people to live with very little money (eg. by living in a small closet that would normally be illegal under occupancy limit regulations), and D-libertarian would be a commune.
<3 the ascii art. I rather like this one: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Political... (and similar)
That is a great site, I have no problem with dicussion with what you would call right-wing anarchist. Even though I want to point out that I don't think it's fair to call agendas advocating property-rights and wage working anarchist as it's so far from anarchist thought.
I am all for clear language, and I agree that North Korea could not be called a democracy.
However, there is a difference between concepts that are well defined in ordinary language (like democracy) and concepts whose definition is highly contested, like anarchism. Libertarianism is clearly a term with right wing connotations for most people. When you argue against using it this way, you are going against ordinary usage, and therefore against clear communication.
And this is consistent with my earlier post, because you imply that the person who uses libertarian in the usual sense, is ignorant because they don't define it according to the literature that you consider to be relevant or important.
On the "New workers party", that is clearly an attempt by this party to subvert left wing rhetoric (of being pro-worker), a kind of culture jamming if you will. It is clearly not an attempt to trick people into voting for them or redefine the term "worker's party", which I assume has long tradition in your country and is unmistakeably identifiable with the left.
However, there is a difference between concepts that are well defined in ordinary language (like democracy) and concepts whose definition is highly contested, like anarchism. Libertarianism is clearly a term with right wing connotations for most people. When you argue against using it this way, you are going against ordinary usage, and therefore against clear communication.
And this is consistent with my earlier post, because you imply that the person who uses libertarian in the usual sense, is ignorant because they don't define it according to the literature that you consider to be relevant or important.
On the "New workers party", that is clearly an attempt by this party to subvert left wing rhetoric (of being pro-worker), a kind of culture jamming if you will. It is clearly not an attempt to trick people into voting for them or redefine the term "worker's party", which I assume has long tradition in your country and is unmistakeably identifiable with the left.
My understanding is that "libertarian means right-libertarian" is far more the case in the US than in Europe.
As opposed to your painstakingly thought out and intellectually engaging rebuttal?
I was engaging directly with the flaws in the post. You might not agree with what I said, but you cannot say my post had not content or that I put no thought into it.
To recap what's happened in your post. Not only did you do everything but engage the issue at hand but you also threw in a personal insult, a group insult and some general disparagement towards any ideas you don't agree with.
He engaged that particular poster's issue just fine: the word salad he threw out to appear intelligent. You know how I can tell? "with regards to" and "that is now apparently" for starters.
English is not my native language. I can agree I sometimes write in a rather "pompous" manner but it's not my intention.
Fair enough -- I saw one of your other posts and I definitely didn't get the same feeling. Being overly critical seems to be the favorite past-time around here, and I seem to have fallen into that as well.
But "interlocutor" is just fine and dandy. Why I use that in conversations with my 5 year old niece all the time:
"Now, now even if your teacher wasn't your intended interlocutrix when you called Josh 'Mr. Poopy Pants' she still was right to tell you to not be mean to him."
"Now, now even if your teacher wasn't your intended interlocutrix when you called Josh 'Mr. Poopy Pants' she still was right to tell you to not be mean to him."
'of the far left'? Yes, because rewriting history is mainstream these days. Emma Goldman is smug in her grave.
[deleted]
It's embarassing when libertarians (mis) use terminology taken from Ayn Rand that they don't understand.
I don't see the problem here. Atlas Shrugged is a very complex book and has many parts that I find profound (eg. her thoughts on romance, the concept of sanction of the victim and her surprisingly sane views on the relationship between money and human values) and many parts that I find mind-bogglingly stupid (eg. her extreme rejection of anything associated with progressive ideology even when no government is involved, and especially the deduction from A is A to objectivism being true). Taking the parts of a set of ideas the you like, discarding the parts that you do not like, and using the good parts as a core from which you advance your own philosophy with legitimate ideas is not a bad thing; it's how all philosophical progress works.
I think we could have a good discussion around a lot of the issues you raise here, but I want to just focus on what I think is the most worth talking about.
> and especially the deduction from A is A to objectivism being true
This is a very understandable, but major, misconception. Very understandable because Atlas Shrugged is a novel, not a formal philosophy treatise, so how would you know any better? (Without spending a crap ton of time studying other Objectivist literature, that is, like I did.) Major because Objectivism is induced from reality, not deduced.
For instance, take ethics. The Objectivist ethics looks at the nature of man and then figures out what man needs to have a happy life. Well, how do we know about the nature of man? We don't deduce it from A is A; that would be impossible. Rather, we look at lots and lots of examples of men and determine what is always common vs. what differs from one to the next.
Almost everything in Rand's philosophy is very bottom-up, based on looking at tons and tons of examples out there in reality and then forming a generalization that holds in a specific, delimited context. But that isn't evident from her writing, at least not at first. And our whole intellectual culture today is very top-down. So it's easy to think the Rand is a top-down thinker and not a bottom-up thinker.
By "bottom-up" I mean starting with concretes in reality. "Top-down" is starting from intellectual abstractions, like A is A, or God, or "a society is only as morally good as its worst-off member," or the libertarian non-aggression principle, or "from each according to his ability," and so on.
> and especially the deduction from A is A to objectivism being true
This is a very understandable, but major, misconception. Very understandable because Atlas Shrugged is a novel, not a formal philosophy treatise, so how would you know any better? (Without spending a crap ton of time studying other Objectivist literature, that is, like I did.) Major because Objectivism is induced from reality, not deduced.
For instance, take ethics. The Objectivist ethics looks at the nature of man and then figures out what man needs to have a happy life. Well, how do we know about the nature of man? We don't deduce it from A is A; that would be impossible. Rather, we look at lots and lots of examples of men and determine what is always common vs. what differs from one to the next.
Almost everything in Rand's philosophy is very bottom-up, based on looking at tons and tons of examples out there in reality and then forming a generalization that holds in a specific, delimited context. But that isn't evident from her writing, at least not at first. And our whole intellectual culture today is very top-down. So it's easy to think the Rand is a top-down thinker and not a bottom-up thinker.
By "bottom-up" I mean starting with concretes in reality. "Top-down" is starting from intellectual abstractions, like A is A, or God, or "a society is only as morally good as its worst-off member," or the libertarian non-aggression principle, or "from each according to his ability," and so on.
Thanks for the well-reasoned response; always happy to talk about this stuff.
My main concern with that style of thinking in general is that, while it is good at finding principles, it is less good at finding cases where those principles do not apply. For example, one important idea from Objectivism is the principle that "there can be no conflict of interest between honest men". This is clearly usually true, and classical economics does a great job at explaining why, but there are also cases where it's false. For example, if I am a monopolist selling pharmaceuticals for $1000 when their marginal cost of production is $1, it will benefit me to raise the price to $2000 even if it reduces my potential customer base by 30%, but it hurts those people who can't afford the product anymore, and it also arguably hurts society as a whole. You can't make this argument in non-monopoly circumstances, for reasons discussed by Bastiat, Mises, etc, that I'm sure you're well aware of, but you can here.
As another example, there are circumstances in which it is personally, and arguably universally, beneficial to initiate aggression. For example, if you are starving in the woods and see a hut with its owner absent, you would probably want to break into the hut and steal food from it. If you are honest, you will come back in a month and pay for everything ideally 2-5x over, but even then you technically violated the property rights of the owner of the hut. Of course, the owner would probably be delighted that you stole the food and paid 500% of what it's worth and would have consented to such an arrangement had he known, but the practical communication difficulties of the real world make such consent impossible in that particular circumstance. Indeed, this problem is fundamental; the Chicago School of Economics proves that essentially all so-called market failures are the result of high communication costs.
Some objectivists will make exceptions for at least one of those cases, saying that standard ethics are not intended for emergency situations. If you admit that as an excuse, however, do you support the laws in the United States requiring hospitals to admit non-paying patients for emergency care? If you do not, then you will need to have some reasons why not. And at that point, your philosophy is basically consequentialist - so why not just cut out the middleman of an overarching philosophy and directly support those policies that have desirable consequences?
I do think there are good answers to that question, but I am interested in what you would have to say.
My main concern with that style of thinking in general is that, while it is good at finding principles, it is less good at finding cases where those principles do not apply. For example, one important idea from Objectivism is the principle that "there can be no conflict of interest between honest men". This is clearly usually true, and classical economics does a great job at explaining why, but there are also cases where it's false. For example, if I am a monopolist selling pharmaceuticals for $1000 when their marginal cost of production is $1, it will benefit me to raise the price to $2000 even if it reduces my potential customer base by 30%, but it hurts those people who can't afford the product anymore, and it also arguably hurts society as a whole. You can't make this argument in non-monopoly circumstances, for reasons discussed by Bastiat, Mises, etc, that I'm sure you're well aware of, but you can here.
As another example, there are circumstances in which it is personally, and arguably universally, beneficial to initiate aggression. For example, if you are starving in the woods and see a hut with its owner absent, you would probably want to break into the hut and steal food from it. If you are honest, you will come back in a month and pay for everything ideally 2-5x over, but even then you technically violated the property rights of the owner of the hut. Of course, the owner would probably be delighted that you stole the food and paid 500% of what it's worth and would have consented to such an arrangement had he known, but the practical communication difficulties of the real world make such consent impossible in that particular circumstance. Indeed, this problem is fundamental; the Chicago School of Economics proves that essentially all so-called market failures are the result of high communication costs.
Some objectivists will make exceptions for at least one of those cases, saying that standard ethics are not intended for emergency situations. If you admit that as an excuse, however, do you support the laws in the United States requiring hospitals to admit non-paying patients for emergency care? If you do not, then you will need to have some reasons why not. And at that point, your philosophy is basically consequentialist - so why not just cut out the middleman of an overarching philosophy and directly support those policies that have desirable consequences?
I do think there are good answers to that question, but I am interested in what you would have to say.
You are raising good points and I have (I think) good answers.
I guess fundamentally, my over-arching answer is that abstractions like "there can be no conflict of interest between honest men" and "do not initiate force" are not useful to anyone who has not personally induced them from reality. Only when you have done that can you see precisely why it's a valid abstraction and understand what the delimited context is.
Of course, by that point, the abstraction isn't really "useful," except as a mental shortcut or as a summary to tell someone else (which is likely to confuse them, unless they know to merely treat it as a goalpost that they can personally try to induce).
Most of the Objectivist literature is exactly that: a summary without the full induction provided. Fortunately, not all of the Objectivist literature is that way. After all, I am describing issues in Objectivist epistemology right now, I didn't come up with this stuff.
Regarding the first example: The principle doesn't apply in a mixed economy (i.e. one where you can get regulatory monopolies), except to say that it is in everyone's interest to have a freer, more rights-respecting system. That doesn't mean the principle is invalid, it reflects the fact that every principle is delimited to a certain context.
Regarding the second example: That is correct, non-initiation of force does not apply in an emergency situation. And that is not the only thing delimiting the context. For example, it does not apply in a state of anarchy, which is why you can morally yet forcefully establish a minarchy out of an anarchy. Rand-influenced anarcho-capitalists do not understand this point.
I don't think we should require hospitals to admit non-paying patients for emergencies, I think we should immediately create a totally free market for medical care. I think that the cost of medical care for humans would eventually approach that for animals (i.e. veterinary medicine, which is insanely cheap), at which point poor patients could all be admitted via charity, along with a large number of other benefits to everyone.
If we are not going to take that step, I guess we should keep forcing hospitals to treat these people, but I think you could argue either way. iF you are going to slowly phase in a free market in medicine, maybe you slowly phase out the free medical treatment. I say "maybe" because Ayn Rand does not deal with this mixed case, and I don't think there is a "philosophically right" answer. She would just observe that it's in everyone's self-interest to live in a society where the government does not put up barriers to pursuing personal values; a free market in medicine is an implication of that. So she (and I) would argue for instituting a free market as quickly as possible.
> And at that point, your philosophy is basically consequentialist - so why not just cut out the middleman of an overarching philosophy and directly support those policies that have desirable consequences?
It is basically consequentialist already. It's just that you need to talk about things like the nature of reality, valid epistemology, the nature of man, etc. to properly understand cause and effect at a broad level and, therefore, to make sound consequentialist arguments and to be able to refute all the people who say, "the best consequence is when we all serve God" or "the best consequence is when we all serve Society," or "the best consequence is to have an economy that mixes regulation with freedom because without regulation, selfishness [1] takes over and the system gets corrupted" and on and on.
[1] As you probably know, AR claimed that "selfishness" as used in the culture is falsely combining two unlike things, (1) rational self-interest and (2) victimizing others for short-term benefit, which she argued is not a rational strategy in the long run.
I guess fundamentally, my over-arching answer is that abstractions like "there can be no conflict of interest between honest men" and "do not initiate force" are not useful to anyone who has not personally induced them from reality. Only when you have done that can you see precisely why it's a valid abstraction and understand what the delimited context is.
Of course, by that point, the abstraction isn't really "useful," except as a mental shortcut or as a summary to tell someone else (which is likely to confuse them, unless they know to merely treat it as a goalpost that they can personally try to induce).
Most of the Objectivist literature is exactly that: a summary without the full induction provided. Fortunately, not all of the Objectivist literature is that way. After all, I am describing issues in Objectivist epistemology right now, I didn't come up with this stuff.
Regarding the first example: The principle doesn't apply in a mixed economy (i.e. one where you can get regulatory monopolies), except to say that it is in everyone's interest to have a freer, more rights-respecting system. That doesn't mean the principle is invalid, it reflects the fact that every principle is delimited to a certain context.
Regarding the second example: That is correct, non-initiation of force does not apply in an emergency situation. And that is not the only thing delimiting the context. For example, it does not apply in a state of anarchy, which is why you can morally yet forcefully establish a minarchy out of an anarchy. Rand-influenced anarcho-capitalists do not understand this point.
I don't think we should require hospitals to admit non-paying patients for emergencies, I think we should immediately create a totally free market for medical care. I think that the cost of medical care for humans would eventually approach that for animals (i.e. veterinary medicine, which is insanely cheap), at which point poor patients could all be admitted via charity, along with a large number of other benefits to everyone.
If we are not going to take that step, I guess we should keep forcing hospitals to treat these people, but I think you could argue either way. iF you are going to slowly phase in a free market in medicine, maybe you slowly phase out the free medical treatment. I say "maybe" because Ayn Rand does not deal with this mixed case, and I don't think there is a "philosophically right" answer. She would just observe that it's in everyone's self-interest to live in a society where the government does not put up barriers to pursuing personal values; a free market in medicine is an implication of that. So she (and I) would argue for instituting a free market as quickly as possible.
> And at that point, your philosophy is basically consequentialist - so why not just cut out the middleman of an overarching philosophy and directly support those policies that have desirable consequences?
It is basically consequentialist already. It's just that you need to talk about things like the nature of reality, valid epistemology, the nature of man, etc. to properly understand cause and effect at a broad level and, therefore, to make sound consequentialist arguments and to be able to refute all the people who say, "the best consequence is when we all serve God" or "the best consequence is when we all serve Society," or "the best consequence is to have an economy that mixes regulation with freedom because without regulation, selfishness [1] takes over and the system gets corrupted" and on and on.
[1] As you probably know, AR claimed that "selfishness" as used in the culture is falsely combining two unlike things, (1) rational self-interest and (2) victimizing others for short-term benefit, which she argued is not a rational strategy in the long run.
ken and his staff are really cool easygoing people.
it is great to see an article about them in the economist.
it is great to see an article about them in the economist.
Oscar Bluth, anyone?
This is a meme invented by people who've read about oil wars. The problem is that water is very cheap to produce with electricity. Desalination plants are efficient and the price of water they produce is competitive. In addition, the price of water per kg is extremely low. This means that transporting water over large distances like oil is transported is probably non-profitable. It simply means that it's cheaper (and cheap) to produce drinking water from salt water. There are not many landlocked countries.