Misha Newman

Someone is shy

Misha hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Misha Newman
Posted about 3 years ago
The World would be a better place with one government.
"I was a little stunned by your question" - You come to a thread specifically created to facilitate debate on the idea of a global government and are stunned when someone wants to debate the topic with you? Simply saying yes or no doesn't really contribute to the discussion so I encouraged you to contribute more... You complain that the EU has to much bureaucracy but then state you totally agree with free trade agreements... I don't think I really understand what your main argument is. Is it simply that a global government would be to bureaucratic?
Noface
Misha Newman
Posted about 3 years ago
The World would be a better place with one government.
Sounds like you have a problem with the way governments are currently structured rather than the idea of a global government per se. Would You still be against a global government of there were no politicians? Instead as you suggested all government positions could be mandatory for all and handed out for a limited time period (for say... not more than 3 months) to all of the population (mimicking jury service which is an assigned public function that is supported by career professionals). If so why?
Noface
Misha Newman
Posted about 3 years ago
The World would be a better place with one government.
"then how could vietnam kick out the US military?" - By paying a significantly higher price, the lives of so many millions. Why did Vietnam have to pay a higher price than the US? because defence is harder. "war actually never was profitable, not even for the winner." - false most wars are profitable, the opium wars are just one counter example. "What is the benefit for anyone to drop nukes on someone else? " - you can loot their dead bodies. "Don't move goalposts midgame" - my quote about about the state screwing up came from this piece of text written by you; "wait. you are talking about the ideal welfare state. i'm talking about what we have. if you read back, i was explaining how the state screws up everything. the theoretical "welfare" state works as a redistribution system. the actual welfare state is a pile of promises that can not be fulfilled. the state has no idea how to keep its word. in fact, its not going to." It is pretty clearly talking about welfare unfortunately I couldn't quote the whole thing because I didn't have enough characters. I hoped you would have been able to link the quote to the original text and realise I was specifically referring to the fact we have working examples of welfare states. I didn't "move the goalposts". " they choose smarter phones, faster travel, better health care" - over ensuring universal access to food, shelter and healthcare? doubtful. "states are getting more aggressive, more intrusive, more indebted, more dishonest with time." - That's a matter of opinion. The market can not provide a welfare system at all let alone a efficient one. You also seem to believe monopolies can't appear in the absence of government. - this is wrong, markets tend to monopolies the higher the barriers to entry are. Barriers to entry can be completely unrelated to governments. "You said your country is not screwed up. i explained that it is." - I'm not convinced but also feel we have gone down a useless tangent.
Noface
Misha Newman
Posted about 3 years ago
The World would be a better place with one government.
"This is fun!" - Certainly is, though I have exams next week and am not getting as much revision done as I should be lol. "Amount of power and influence the dominate and more modernized countries have" - But this is only a problem because there are more than one country so some will be dominated. This problem vanishes if you have a global government. All of a sudden countries can't dominate each other the same way different states in the US can't dominate/exploit each other. I truly believe government can work perfectly as long as there isn't another government nearby to fuck it up. The system works we just need to extend it to cover everyone. "You'd have to prove that governmental systems have a lower corruption rate" - Good point. I guess I'd say (democratic) governmental systems have built in mechanisms to stop corruption (elections). Anarchic ones though do not. You can't really piss off someone who is your only source of something in a anarchic society. There is no real way around this. Since governments have a built in mechanism to deal with corruption it kind of follows they'd have a lower corruption rate, no? "You didn't find the issue of private property in the links I showed you" - I certainly did but I felt the issue was kind of confused. In freetown the buildings all seem to belong to the collective but the article also goes on a bit about weed dealers living there, to be able to sell weed you have to own it don't you? I decided to do some extra reading; Googling Anarchy informed that there are different types including individualist anarchy that usually supports a free market and private property. I assumed you belonged to that school because you seem to value individuality quite a bit. I guess I just confused the issue. "Your type of specailiztion is the main reason for poverty" - interesting statement care to expand on that? "You really have much to learn about stateless societies" - no doubt recommend any books?
Noface
Misha Newman
Posted about 3 years ago
The World would be a better place with one government.
"it is also not the case that if i can't say a solution you accept, i'm wrong." - fair point "defense is much easier than offense." Wrong attack is easier than defence. Thats why we have M.A.D. it's easier to launch a nuclear attack than defend against one. "All we need is to make a war more expensive for the enemy than the revenue he might hope in return" - But that's the problem war is infinitely profitable. When you win a war you can claim any assets you like from your opponent this could be land or a slave population, these assets are potentially permanent if you defend them well enough. Because they are permanent you can profit from them for all eternity, as you approach eternity your profits approach infinity. So you see your defence would have to make it infinitely expensive to attack which is impossible. "Never in history people started wars. only states do." - false; what about tribal wars, gang wars, mafia wars, any civil war in history was started by people maybe it was against the state maybe it was against other citizens either way no civil was started by the state. I got into plenty of fights during school, in these fights I invested all the resources I could in hurting my opponent. The only reason this was called a fight and not a war was because I didn't have many resources. People fight all the time, wars are started when rich people fight. "at a cost of trashing everything else." - But government's don't have to be involved in anything but defence. Most people want them to be because they like the guarantees of food, shelter healthcare and education. "I can't imagine a more severe screwup" - But it hasn't gone bankrupt and it's getting further and further away from bankruptcy as we speak. And the welfare state (which is what my point was meant to be about) is still working fine. "You have no progress anymore" - Thats perfectly acceptable as long as everyone has food healthcare and shelter. Constant, fast progress is not my biggest priority.
Noface
Misha Newman
Posted about 3 years ago
The World would be a better place with one government.
"we don't care about the free riders" - that is probably the least efficient way to run a business certainly less efficient that the governments solution. "Exclusion from service is not as hard as some claim... the market is kind of good at it." - This is simply not true in the case of defence. If you going to tell me I'm wrong please at least provide an example of how the market could exclude from defence with out intimidation or physically moving anyone. "defense means defense" - defensive capability = offensive capability. "The US army that can not defend US citizens" - Not true the US army defends US citizens perfectly. less than 1% of American deaths last year were violent. "There is competition between defense firms, the one with most effective defense means will win." - To compete over defence you must out defend you competitor this means you have to attack your competitor to win. This means a war. Question: if no one will ever want to attack any one else why have defence companies at all? "Why would that be the case?" - Because if there are two companies that can use violence they will compete. A violent competition means... You guessed it war. The only way to stop this competition (war) is to have less than 2 (i.e 1) company that can use violence. Ergo a monopoly is the solution. "How the states solve that problem?" - You already agreed that states are monopolies on violence and as I just explained a monopoly is the only solution to war. The idea is that violence is bad. Because it is bad we want as little of it as possible so we should use the least efficient system as possible. What's the least efficient system you know? A monopoly! Monopolies are good here BECAUSE they are inefficient. The inefficiency in this case is good. Are you following me? "The state screws up everything" - My government doesn't, nor do many others. If your government has failed, it doesn't mean the concept of governments have failed.
Noface
Misha Newman
Posted about 3 years ago
The World would be a better place with one government.
Anarchy presumes we can abandon hierarchy's but even when we get rid of governments the person (and he will always exist because no two people are born the same) that can make the best/most of the most valued thing on the planet (whatever it may be) becomes the most popular guy in the world. All of a sudden we have a new hierarchy based not on democratic vote but on who is the best producer. The guy at the top of this hierarchy is just a likely to abuse his position as the guy at the top in any other position. I have never herd anyone explain how anarchy will deal with this hierarchy, I presume it can't. Democratic government however is pretty much a proven concept, so we at least know a global government is possible.
Noface
Misha Newman
Posted about 3 years ago
The World would be a better place with one government.
"Your assuming that people cannot have a sense of well-being without government" I didn't say that at all!. At best I assumed that a structureless society wouldn't really support scientists who don't really contribute anything tangible until they make a discovery that can be used to create something new (which may not come in one lifetime). "I cannot really talk about that being success is relative" Sure we could shrug an say 'we can never say for sure if life is better with or without gov't because it's a matter of opinion' but this debate wouldn't get far. I did suggest some things that I thought could be used as a measuring stick if your not happy with those suggest your own. "You need to explain not only how those people are healthy but how were their buildings manufactured" How could they not be? If they weren't healthy they wouldn't be around for us to discuss. If I left on a dessert island the first thing I would do is find food and build shelter, just because it's possible to live like this doesn't make it the best way to live... "To state that for example, American imperialism do not have an influence on resources in other countries" - I never made that statement infact I argued against it in the case of oil. "Human experience without money" - Money is just a technology that is used to facilitate specialization. What's wrong with specialization? Your anarchic societies seem very easy to corrupt and control. As long as you allow private property (you seem to be someone who believes in private property if not please clarify your position) then you can have monopolies forming. If I am the only person in the society who can provide something that everyone else really wants then I can basicly control every one by only giving it to people that do things I like. If you truly value individualism then surly you wouldn't get rid of all gov't because people should be free to choose for themselves what kind of society they want to live in...
Noface
Misha Newman
Posted about 3 years ago
The World would be a better place with one government.
I had hoped it would help our conversation because I would be able to tailor my arguments to your perspective, rather than just offer generic arguments and hope some of them resonate with you. But we can do it this way if you like, just don't forget to explain your ideas when your ready.