11 ms·

> Colonial America had much of nothing. I'm unsure that I'd draw that conclusion. Why else would the Crown want to tax the colonials so heavily? > "Taiwan has

by nrr 8d ago

> Colonial America had much of nothing. I'm unsure that I'd draw that conclusion. Why else would the Crown want to tax the colonials so heavily? > "Taiwan has a highly developed free-market economy where prices are set by supply and demand with little government control." Forgive me. Was this in dispute? I was asking what causal work the label "free market" was doing with respect to Taiwan and how the country's economic development was adequately explained by laissez-faire economics. The patient is healthy now, so the treatment that produced the health must have been "being healthy."

WalterBright 8d ago
The Crown did not heavily tax the colonials. Bone evidence showed that the colonials worked like dogs and died young.
- nrr 8d ago
  > The Crown did not heavily tax the colonials. Huh, did they not? After the Seven Years' War, the Currency Act of 1764 received assent, and it functionally required that public debts be paid in hard money. Unless I'm remembering incorrectly, this was a little hard to come by in the colonies. > Bone evidence showed that the colonials worked like dogs and died young. I'd be interested to see the anthropological chain of inference for this.
  - WalterBright 8d ago
    I've read many accounts of the Revolutionary War, and the colonials were mostly offended by sending their money to England. Any tax seems heavy if the proceeds do not benefit the taxpayer. > I'd be interested to see the anthropological chain of inference for this. I read it many years ago. Sorry, I don't have a reference. I regret not having a photographic memory.
    - nrr 7d ago
      > Any tax seems heavy if the proceeds do not benefit the taxpayer. I dunno, man. Caesar asks for his money, and I just give it to him. I don't really have much of a say. > I regret not having a photographic memory. That's fine. I don't have a photographic memory either; I just have a few boxes of 3x5 notecards and accompanying topic/source indices in a notebook.
krupan 8d ago
I'm going to try and summarize. You said, essentially, "sure the US had freedom, but maybe the amount of land and resources it had is the real reason it has done so well." Walter countered with, "Taiwan is a tiny island with very little resources, but it is economically prosperous, so maybe land and resources aren't a big factor. It also happens to have a free market economy." You replied with what sounded like an attempt at saying that Taiwan wasn't actually a free market. Walter said, "I don't know man, I just did a quick search to make sure Taiwan wasn't communist or anything before adding it as some data to your analysis." Does that clear things up? We're just trying to help you out here. We've already made up our minds but it sounds like you're still wondering so maybe we can help?
- nrr 7d ago
  I'm mostly trying to pick apart the epistemology of thinking about economic systems this way because, hey, maybe there's something that my professional background in the subject is blind to. It isn't especially interesting to me to try devise frameworks for coercing Caesar to do one thing over another; Caesar's just going to do what Caesar's going to do. The most that I can do is hedge against needing to migrate again because this Caesar has decided, e.g., that staunch pacifism is treasonous.
  - krupan 7d ago
    Libertarianism is far more than just an economic system and it's too bad it went down that narrow piece of it. I don't understand your reference about coercing Ceasar but a major tenent of Libertarianism is not coercering anyone to do anything. Individual liberty and personal property are the dogmas. If you have a problem with someone, talk to them about it, or ignore them. Give them your time/attention/money or don't. If you want others to help you with these problems you have to gently persuade them, not give up all our liberties so men with guns can force people to do one thing or another.
    - nrr 7d ago
      > Libertarianism is far more than just an economic system Acknowledged. That nevertheless tends to be where my interest in it lies. Near as I can tell, I don't actually have much of an ideology; I wasn't raised to be political in the typical Anglo-American sense. > I don't understand your reference about coercing Ceasar This gets a little in the weeds about my conceptualization of the state, but here's the view from 10km high: Caesar is a model of an institution that arises when coordination problems exceed the capacity of voluntary associations. He's an emergent response to complexity, and I tend to ask questions of him that are flavored more like, "What coordination problem requires coercion, if any, and how much coercion is actually necessary?" (As it turns out, the answer looks something like "enough to prevent folks from killing each other." My Mennonite upbringing makes me inclined to add in "and perhaps enough to keep the trust of the congregation," but I'll admit that's probably less relevant for secular folks.) > but a major tenent of Libertarianism is not coercering anyone to do anything. Individual liberty and personal property are the dogmas. Why is property yours in the first place? Property is a socially enforced exclusion, and a construction of a society out of that major tenet of noncoercion and enforcement of property rights is by some measure impossible. > If you have a problem with someone, talk to them about it, or ignore them. Give them your time/attention/money or don't. This is definitionally impossible with Caesar. > If you want others to help you with these problems you have to gently persuade them I feel like this ignores collective action. Persuading enough individuals to contribute voluntarily is itself a coordination mechanism, and it isn't obvious to me how it could produce the same equilibrium as collective provision. If the benefit is broadly non-excludable, there's a familiar free rider problem, and at some point, "please persuade everyone gently and individually" isn't really a solution to the coordination problem. It instead kinda handwaves it away. > not give up all our liberties so men with guns can force people to do one thing or another. Caesar isn't necessarily someone who happens to have more guns (though, typically, he tends to be). It's more important to consider that he's the head of an institution that is embedded in laws, norms, mores, folkways, consensus, trial of facts, bureaucracies, and behavioral expectations of individuals. Moreover, coercion isn't even the defining feature of Caesar. It's just the backstop in his toolbox for solving coordination problems.

by nrr 8d ago

WalterBright 8d ago

The Crown did not heavily tax the colonials. Bone evidence showed that the colonials worked like dogs and died young.

nrr 8d ago
> The Crown did not heavily tax the colonials. Huh, did they not? After the Seven Years' War, the Currency Act of 1764 received assent, and it functionally required that public debts be paid in hard money. Unless I'm remembering incorrectly, this was a little hard to come by in the colonies. > Bone evidence showed that the colonials worked like dogs and died young. I'd be interested to see the anthropological chain of inference for this.
- WalterBright 8d ago
  I've read many accounts of the Revolutionary War, and the colonials were mostly offended by sending their money to England. Any tax seems heavy if the proceeds do not benefit the taxpayer. > I'd be interested to see the anthropological chain of inference for this. I read it many years ago. Sorry, I don't have a reference. I regret not having a photographic memory.
  - nrr 7d ago
    > Any tax seems heavy if the proceeds do not benefit the taxpayer. I dunno, man. Caesar asks for his money, and I just give it to him. I don't really have much of a say. > I regret not having a photographic memory. That's fine. I don't have a photographic memory either; I just have a few boxes of 3x5 notecards and accompanying topic/source indices in a notebook.

krupan 8d ago

I'm going to try and summarize. You said, essentially, "sure the US had freedom, but maybe the amount of land and resources it had is the real reason it has done so well." Walter countered with, "Taiwan is a tiny island with very little resources, but it is economically prosperous, so maybe land and resources aren't a big factor. It also happens to have a free market economy." You replied with what sounded like an attempt at saying that Taiwan wasn't actually a free market. Walter said, "I don't know man, I just did a quick search to make sure Taiwan wasn't communist or anything before adding it as some data to your analysis." Does that clear things up? We're just trying to help you out here. We've already made up our minds but it sounds like you're still wondering so maybe we can help?

nrr 7d ago
I'm mostly trying to pick apart the epistemology of thinking about economic systems this way because, hey, maybe there's something that my professional background in the subject is blind to. It isn't especially interesting to me to try devise frameworks for coercing Caesar to do one thing over another; Caesar's just going to do what Caesar's going to do. The most that I can do is hedge against needing to migrate again because this Caesar has decided, e.g., that staunch pacifism is treasonous.
- krupan 7d ago
  Libertarianism is far more than just an economic system and it's too bad it went down that narrow piece of it. I don't understand your reference about coercing Ceasar but a major tenent of Libertarianism is not coercering anyone to do anything. Individual liberty and personal property are the dogmas. If you have a problem with someone, talk to them about it, or ignore them. Give them your time/attention/money or don't. If you want others to help you with these problems you have to gently persuade them, not give up all our liberties so men with guns can force people to do one thing or another.
  - nrr 7d ago
    > Libertarianism is far more than just an economic system Acknowledged. That nevertheless tends to be where my interest in it lies. Near as I can tell, I don't actually have much of an ideology; I wasn't raised to be political in the typical Anglo-American sense. > I don't understand your reference about coercing Ceasar This gets a little in the weeds about my conceptualization of the state, but here's the view from 10km high: Caesar is a model of an institution that arises when coordination problems exceed the capacity of voluntary associations. He's an emergent response to complexity, and I tend to ask questions of him that are flavored more like, "What coordination problem requires coercion, if any, and how much coercion is actually necessary?" (As it turns out, the answer looks something like "enough to prevent folks from killing each other." My Mennonite upbringing makes me inclined to add in "and perhaps enough to keep the trust of the congregation," but I'll admit that's probably less relevant for secular folks.) > but a major tenent of Libertarianism is not coercering anyone to do anything. Individual liberty and personal property are the dogmas. Why is property yours in the first place? Property is a socially enforced exclusion, and a construction of a society out of that major tenet of noncoercion and enforcement of property rights is by some measure impossible. > If you have a problem with someone, talk to them about it, or ignore them. Give them your time/attention/money or don't. This is definitionally impossible with Caesar. > If you want others to help you with these problems you have to gently persuade them I feel like this ignores collective action. Persuading enough individuals to contribute voluntarily is itself a coordination mechanism, and it isn't obvious to me how it could produce the same equilibrium as collective provision. If the benefit is broadly non-excludable, there's a familiar free rider problem, and at some point, "please persuade everyone gently and individually" isn't really a solution to the coordination problem. It instead kinda handwaves it away. > not give up all our liberties so men with guns can force people to do one thing or another. Caesar isn't necessarily someone who happens to have more guns (though, typically, he tends to be). It's more important to consider that he's the head of an institution that is embedded in laws, norms, mores, folkways, consensus, trial of facts, bureaucracies, and behavioral expectations of individuals. Moreover, coercion isn't even the defining feature of Caesar. It's just the backstop in his toolbox for solving coordination problems.