| This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only". In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060 If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Problem Solving 101 | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 23 2009, 02:40 AM (182 Views) | |
| East Anarx | Jan 23 2009, 02:40 AM Post #1 |
Anarchitect
|
Problem Solving 101
|
 |
 
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Jan 23 2009, 07:35 AM Post #2 |
The Devil's Advocate
|
Yes, yes, all civil servants are incompetent and critical thinking and problem solving are lost arts to state officials. Elective Representatives do not, of course, consider professional opinions to analyze problems and provide professional solutions - they just throw money at problems. Literally. Your elected representative will listen very patiently to your petition (or rather his secretary will), then he'll take out his warrant and go to every member of his district and take money from you by force, and then finally he'll stand in front of your problem and bombard it with the money that he's stolen from you with the vague hope that said problem will go away. E - I usually agree with a lot of what you have to say. Yes, the USA has just proved that they'd rather "vote for change" than "act for change". Yes, "state solutions" are robbing Peter to pay Paul because "state money" is really "tax payer money". But do you really, honestly believe that crap you posted? I don't know what US politicians are like, but in the UK government spending is audited. Politicians who embezzle money are tried for fraud. Politicians who waste money are sacked. Any "state solution" to a problem needs to be demonstrably practical - the 8 critical thinking steps you described are followed because they must be followed. The problem is that the eighth step gets repeated a lot. Now the eighth step being repeated a lot is not something you see in the "free market". Mainly because if a business gets a problem wrong even once then it goes out of business. (And if they get it right then they tend to get brought out by those who have a vested interest in keeping the problem profitable rather than solving the problem.) tl;dr: 1) Either America is retarded beyond all credulity (possible but unlikely) 2) Or E is being posting a retarded straw man argument 3) Also, people like to shirk personal responsibility and are too stupid to realise that they're the ones paying for government solutions. Edited by Nag Ehgoeg, Jan 23 2009, 07:36 AM.
|
|
|
|
| New Harumf | Jan 23 2009, 09:46 AM Post #3 |
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
1: the following little video will help answer your question, Nag. http://eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com/2009/01/video-obamas-economic-advisor-recovery.html 2: The correct answer to your three choices is 1. Since the people in charge of monitoring the activity of congress is - congress, yes, fraud is rampent, and has been since 1789. The press is the last defense against government fraud, but currently all newspapers, networks, etc. are cutting staff because of the economic crisis, and they will be short-handed in monitoring things. Plus, they are mostly in the tank for the current administration. The best solution is smaller government, less government spending, more money in the hands of the people - everything our founding father's invisioned about this country. |
|
|
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Jan 23 2009, 10:44 AM Post #4 |
Science and Industry
|
Nag, the Bank of England has been embezzling your money and wrecking the economy for 70 years and it doesn't even require taxation. I'm referring to the central bank's inflationary policies, which are obviously very subtle since few are even aware of their implications, yet are no less insidious than starvation or war. Granted this article might not give the most coherent or memorable introduction to the economics concepts like rational calculation. Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Jan 23 2009, 10:57 AM.
|
|
|
|
| East Anarx | Jan 23 2009, 12:06 PM Post #5 |
|
Anarchitect
|
Any politicking or working within the system is doomed to fail because the system is rigged. So, how do you expect that to happen without some kind of revolution? |
|
|
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Jan 23 2009, 12:13 PM Post #6 |
|
Science and Industry
|
The system would have to be unrigged. Revolution is also doomed to fail because the opposition is too well organized and enjoys advantages in resources and technology. |
|
|
|
| New Harumf | Jan 23 2009, 12:26 PM Post #7 |
|
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
I didn't say we don't need a revolution. It needs to start at the federal level and not end until you've gotten your library board in line. There is a use for a small federal government - a very limited use, mind you, but a use. The fact that Jefferson recognised right at the biginning that all governments want to grow and limit freedoms is why he called for a new revolution every 20 years. We are 10 times 20 overdue. The Big B.O. and his Sidekick Joe will be no different than any other big government knob, including any wank from the Bush family. If every new administration would take the effort to dismantle one big government thing every term, we could be back to where we should be in about 200 years. But we can't just stop there - we need to do the same thing at the local, state, county, park board level, etc, etc, as well. States are wanting to mandate our health, tell us what to drink, eat, smoke. Local governments are trying to mandate our homes, children, education, work, employment. If, at the next city council meeting 200 citizens showed up ARMED, I'll betchya they could get a few points through the thick heads of these politico wags! It has to happen EVERYWHERE. Then, we can maybe get our credit problem under control. 20 years ago the average person had 75% of there annual income in debt, NOT counting a home mortgage. That means you worked from Jan. 1st to Oct. 1st for everyone but yourself. Now, the average American has 150% of there annual income in debt. That means you work from Jan 1st. to July 1st OF NEXT YEAR for everyone but yourself, AND just accumulated another 75% of your annual income in debt, and start again. This is unsustainable. This is self-destructive. If Congress had taken the $700 billion TARP money, given it to banks, and told the banks to forgive $700 billion of non-mortgage debt from their books, think HOW MUCH BETTER OFF the country would be? Plus, we wouldn't be on the fast track to French-style socialism. Look what is happening - the Fed will now be a preferred stockholder in the banks. Keep in mind that preferred share-holders get paid off first, so that there will be no dividends for other stockholders. No chance of dividends, no shareholders pumping in capital. No capital coming in, the more the Fed takes over until they own the banking system. Then, they do the same to the Healthcare sector, the Transportation sector, the Manufacturing sector, the Communications sector. That is what is plainly in the future. |
|
|
|
| East Anarx | Jan 23 2009, 12:36 PM Post #8 |
|
Anarchitect
|
There is no "free market" yet. Some parts of the market are less crippled than others, some are more so, and some are shuffling, zombie-like, pseudo-market entities almost entirely under the spell of the state. To the extent that the market is unhindered, yes, it is quite good at culling inefficient firms. To the extent that it is socialized, however, failed firms are simply "bailed out" at the expense of other, more productive firms. This serves to punish success and reward failure, and never really solves the initial problems.
In a freed market, no one is "bought out" who doesn't want to be. Unlike in the current state-capitalist system, threats of violence are not considered legitimate ways of doing business, and individuals that attempt to use coercion are dealt with in a market court of law. Surely, you wouldn't argue that when allowed to compete freely, a firm utilizing a problem-perpetuation business model will win out over a firm utilizing a problem-solving business model. So, why wouldn't the problem-solvers simply refuse to be bought out, and thus profit immensely from their more efficient business model?
This is true, unfortunately. The fact that you, and I, and the original author of the posted article can see it, however, is proof that not all people are incapable of realizing it. The point of the article, indeed the whole reason for pointing it out, is to attempt to make more people realize it. |
|
|
|
| East Anarx | Jan 23 2009, 12:46 PM Post #9 |
|
Anarchitect
|
Actually, even against massive odds, revolution is still feasible, simply because the state is really quite bad at solving problems, and individuals are rather good at it. But how, you ask, can this revolution both succeed and yet not immediately afterward set itself up as another state? Why, through the consistent application of libertarian principles to not only the ends, but the means as well, (the strategy, tactics, methods,) of revolt. In other words, Agorism. |
|
|
|
| flumes | Jan 23 2009, 01:14 PM Post #10 |
CLEVELAND ROCKS!
|
Too much reading for me right now. |
|
|
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Jan 23 2009, 01:33 PM Post #11 |
|
Science and Industry
|
The state is actually extremely good at achieving one goal, which is expansion of its powers and suppression of opposition. Actually states have a nearly flawless and undefeated record in this regard. Somalia is one of the only places where the state lost and the free market prevailed. There are a lot of differences between Somalia and America though. Somalia has always had a market system of social insurance, based on clan networks, and which existed for a thousand years or more. The transition from state to statelessness was extremely orderly in Somalia (the Somali wars you hear about on the news is related to foreign intervention, and not resulting from internal processes) America lacks a market system of social insurance, so a sudden destruction of the state would result in chaos and only give birth to successor states as opportunistic tyrants take advantage of the chaos. Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Jan 23 2009, 01:49 PM.
|
|
|
|
| East Anarx | Jan 23 2009, 02:09 PM Post #12 |
|
Anarchitect
|
Hence Agorism's strategy of developing a market system of social insurance and justice through the counter-economy. The destruction of the state, while it will seem rather sudden, will actually be the result of years of long-term planning and market development, thus resulting not in chaos, but market order. No massive, violent revolt, just gradual, covert secession and the slow but steady rise of the counter-economy, finally culminating in the successful suppression of the criminal state. |
|
|
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Jan 23 2009, 02:13 PM Post #13 |
|
Science and Industry
|
dp
Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Jan 23 2009, 02:30 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Jan 23 2009, 02:28 PM Post #14 |
|
Science and Industry
|
This statement is from Konkin's writing is flawed: "The basic organizational structure of society (above the family) is not the commune (or tribe or extended tribe or State) but the agora." Konkin incorrectly compartmentalizes families and tribes as institutions distinct from the "agora." He doesn't consider that families and tribes, like all human instutions, spontaneously arise from the "agora". With our current level of technology, the family, tribe, and clan are almost certainly the most efficient forms of market social insurance. That's not to say individual provision won't become a reality when technology increases in the future, and each person is so productive and self-sufficient that he or she no longer needs these forms of social provision. But as things stand today, and demonstrated by the situation in Somalia, the extended-family model is the most natural and compatible form of society with a contractual free market. The strategy of agorism therefore needs to emphasize the importance of family and clan as the practical substitutes for state. |
|
|
|
| East Anarx | Jan 23 2009, 04:17 PM Post #15 |
|
Anarchitect
|
I didn't interpret that statement as compartmentalizing families and tribes as distinct from the agora. Perhaps that is what he meant, but it seems to me that any form of social organization that does not involve the initiation of force is a legitimate part of the agora, whether they call themselves families or tribes or communes or whatever. Indeed, families and other similar social units can be quite effective at providing market social insurance and justice. I don't think they're the only things that work, though. And I don't think Konkin did, either. Agorism leaves completely open the possibility of any voluntary social organization as a possible substitute for the state. Perhaps it doesn't emphasize the social organizations you prefer, (such as families and clans,) but nothing about it excludes them. Admittedly, Konkin had a personal belief in self-reliance and entrepreneurship that he emphasized in his manifesto, but again, nothing about agorism excludes any type of voluntary social organizations, (even ones that have yet to be envisioned.) |
|
|
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Jan 23 2009, 05:04 PM Post #16 |
|
Science and Industry
|
Hmm, I think the blood-clan and extended family constitute the only effective societal configuration in the free market (at our current level of technology). But, of course I'm not claiming my opinion is an axiom- rather this is my deductive conclusion from the agorist axioms of private property and non-aggression. I would assert those who attempt anything other than clan and family-based social insurance are making an entrepreneurial error and would be at a serious disadvantage in the marketplace, in terms of survival and prosperity. The reason I bring this up is because as Konkin pointed out the fastest way to transition to the agorist society is to make a sustainable and prosperous counter-economy. A sustainable and prosperous counter-economy imo would heavily resemble Somalia's, which is composed of clans, tribes, and voluntary contractual justice systems provided by those clans and tribes whose blood and cultural ties are strong. A counter-economy that does not resemble this, is by deduction unsustainable and un-prosperous, and unable to challenge the state. Furthermore I would imagine if the state suddenly collapsed today, the most viable and successful populations in the US would be the more "clannish" populations, like Mormons, Jews, and Amish, since their voluntary social networks are strong and cohesive. (It could be noted that most Mormons or Jews are statists, but even without states they still have their own shared voluntary cultural understanding that is not based on state philosophy, in fact I would predict their emphasis on clan and family would increase as the state decreases) Self-reliance is an ambiguous term, not very useful. It should be split into two concepts, self-responsibility and self-provision. "Self-responsibility" describes the unchanging ideal in agorism, but not necessarily "self-provision", since the latter is constantly changing and depends on subjective personal preference, technology, and a lot of other variables. |
|
|
|
| East Anarx | Jan 23 2009, 05:20 PM Post #17 |
|
Anarchitect
|
What level of technology do you think is necessary for other social configurations to be effective? |
|
|
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Jan 23 2009, 05:29 PM Post #18 |
|
Science and Industry
|
I think families and clans would effectively disappear at a certain point when robotics and nanotechnology become widespread, since productivity per capita would be so high that sharp divisions of labor wouldn't be necessary any more. It would be like returning to a technologically primitive state of society where division of labor was not pronounced, except in this case there are incredibly advanced nanobot servants doing all the work. |
|
|
|
| « Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic » |
11:57 AM Jul 13