re: Tariffs. What libertarian Economists don't grasp and more.

quote:

---

Who is going to pony up for a military defense?

---

We will, since it would cost a whole lot less. People pay for security all the time. Paying to secure property is already a huge business. Would explode exponentially if people didn't automatically think "oh, the rich will pay for it".

Would it look like the military we have now? Almost certainly not. However the military (or whatever the security force in a market economy would be called) would be much more efficient and would be for actual defense, not nation building and being world police. How many more entanglements do we need to be involved in?

Then the next question is always "well, since the military will be so much smaller, whose going to stop other countries from invading?" Well, that can be a possibility, but if it's the case, then why isn't China, for example, invading all kinds of countries that have resources, but tiny militaries?

Again, though, I don't think this has a snowball's chance in hell of actually happening in my lifetime. But, the further along we go getting people to realize that the MIC has been horrible for generations and to want to get it back into it's box of being for defense, the better off society will be...and the less happy blood thirsty megalomaniacs and cronies will be.

It wouldn't be a country as we know it long before we got to my wish of Ancapistan.

If things went on a trajectory like I'm trying to lay out, then the federal government would eventually not exist, because if enough people "woke up", then we'd have secession happening all over the place. People would start to really be upset that they are controlled by people in other states, so then the balkanization would start to happen. Then as that mindset gains even more traction, they'll start to think "hell, the people in Orlando don't represent what we want here Sarasota", then they start to question why state governments exist...and so on and so on.


Just to be clear, again, I don't think this kind of thing will happen in my lifetime or even two lifetimes, but I do know that more and more people are becoming aware of and support this kind of worldview.

Another way to think about this is Dunbar's Number. There is no way in hell anyone cares more about a stranger 1,000 miles away, or even a stranger 50 miles from them more than they care about their own pets, much less their family and friends.. So, the further out those concentric circles go from you, the less you care about others, which means that societies are only really cohesive in smaller numbers. No way in hell a group of just a couple hundred politicians that have nothing to do w/ us (none of them know us. Even the word "representative" is a joke when describing them) can know best how our individual societies (tens of thousands of them, at least) should be run.

quote:

---

It worked for tribes. It worked for kingdoms. But of course, that was forced. Then the nation state was invented, and since then, our current model is the only one that has happened.

---

Belgium didn't have a government for a few years, I believe. They were fine.

The example most people like to use is Somalia. The were stateless for a few years. What happened? Things improved there, even compared to their neighboring countries.

But, they went back to having a government and sure enough started to be worse off for it.

You keep posting shite that's irrelevant to the fact that Americans pay about twice what the rest of the world pays for sugar, and that's because of tariffs on imported sugar.

Have you always been a "planned economy" guy, jj? I seem to remember some debates a year ago when you were a self-identified free marketer, or am I confusing alter egos?

quote:

---

Predictable and just stupid is what you are cuckeye.

---

Damn, that'll leave a mark. STD calling you predictable and stupid is like Rosie O'Donnell calling you fat and unfrickable.