tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post7994583325788426827..comments2024-03-22T17:43:18.211-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: An Anarchic Possibility for the Modern Worldbionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-22220563107505545932015-03-12T11:31:15.641-07:002015-03-12T11:31:15.641-07:00A recent article went into detail about the mutual...A recent article went into detail about the mutual-help societies of the 19th century that took care of widows and orphans of members. <br /><br />Two observations:<br /><br />(1) The "fringe" (i.e. non-conformist) Christian missionary movement I was formerly actively enganged with was first on the scene after Hurrican Andrew in Miami in 1992 (or 1993?). Buses loaded to the roof (and on top of roofs) immediately jammed up the roads leading into New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, but the "authorities" stopped them. <br /><br />(2) Hospitals began as clinics for the sick and poor in the first few centuries after Christ (like with St. Francis). <br /><br />(3) Monks and other Christian orders (not always Rome-bound, many were independent and even persecuted) likewise did charity work that eventually became orphanages. This also grew out of the habit of Christian couples who regularly went to the bridges and "baby ponds" were mothers threw unwanted babies and waited to catch them to raise them. <br /><br />(4) The Salvation Army, the Red Cross, the multiplicity of Hospitals with names like Baptist, St. Francis, and so on show pretty much where the whole idea came from of taking care of those who "fall through the cracks". Maybe Ayn Rand's disdain for charity work has an association there, considering her hate for the God of the Garden (in the mouth of John Galt). <br /><br />"Give to him that asketh of thee.." The storyteller of the Good Samaritan changed the world that way. <br /><br />But now, adoption is pushed aside in favor of "a different approach", Pregnancy Crisis Centers are the target of vituperation, euthanasia is pushing aside "Do no harm", Mother Theresa is vilified in public by some, and welfare incentives have left way too many children fatherless. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-4796148255395624682015-02-13T19:42:43.355-08:002015-02-13T19:42:43.355-08:00No demand is necessary. Those who do not abide by...No demand is necessary. Those who do not abide by the Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP), are initiators. <br /><br />Initiation allows counter force of what ever scale is necessary.<br /><br />It wouldn't take long before it became obvious that initiation is NOT a healthy action. <br /><br />Especially since in such a society, everyone who wishes to be would be armed, and well trained in the use of those arms. <br /><br />Some of L. Neil Smiths books deal with this. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-82886028949978195792015-02-13T14:36:45.623-08:002015-02-13T14:36:45.623-08:00Why do nominally freedom-seeking humans have so li...Why do nominally freedom-seeking humans have so little freedom? I’ve often wondered about this. The answer may be in;<br />http://www.wired.com/2014/10/tracy-widom-mysterious-statistical-law/<br />Free people have the power to adversely affect power. Thus they must be coopted (nobility) or marginalized (serfdom, slavery) for the benefit of those in power. Anarchy as in the Arab spring leads to a deadly power free for all. I think Burke said something similar when defending the need for monarchy despite its recognized inequalities<br /><br />Tom O<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-27157643986246027562014-09-01T19:26:43.385-07:002014-09-01T19:26:43.385-07:00There is a high level problem for you snarcho cspi...There is a high level problem for you snarcho cspitalists, the split between Mises and Rothbsrd on absolutism vs relativism. In Rockwell's newest book is the "demand" thst all will follow the non agression principle, as childlike as Rockwell describes it. Setting aside Rockwell's definition, Rothbsrd had a heavy issue with Mises over yhe obedience to any standard as Mises stated that no one has any right to tell someone how to live, whivh prompted Rothbard's rejoiner that Mises wss wrong and wss a relatividt. <br />So how does an snsrcho csp funcyion in a Mises world of no absolute values ? what of sny NAP or other moral commands issued by Rockwell Rothbard? and without them doesnt the anarcho cap world become as Hobbes described the state of nature?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-90247863912866107202014-08-24T19:30:56.317-07:002014-08-24T19:30:56.317-07:00Alex, you point out something that- despite having...Alex, you point out something that- despite having written it elsewhere - I failed to mention in this post: it is rather easy for me to envision a for-profit model, with communities regularly putting the contract up for bids / proposals to competitive, for-profit, management companies.<br /><br />This may not resolve all issues, but this was never my intention. <br /><br />Thank you for reminding me to offer this clarification.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-39265756699419657212014-08-24T18:52:09.549-07:002014-08-24T18:52:09.549-07:00In pursuit of my last comment to explain, once aga...In pursuit of my last comment to explain, once again, my skepticism for HOAs and that it is not just my whim. In my personal experience (which is in line with the experience of all the people I know) every time when the community is managed by “selfless volunteers [on the HOA Boards] working for the good of the community” it finally costs all of us, ordinary residents, much more than if it is managed by “a greedy for-profit company or owner”. In this sense, I see HOAs as a government-light in miniature with the similar problem of a caretaker against a real owner etc. <br />No, with all things being equal, and the presence of relatively free competitive market in this niche I would rather deal with a “capitalist pig” following his self-interest…Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941557406950202842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-45279139769334541812014-08-24T14:50:53.206-07:002014-08-24T14:50:53.206-07:00No, I do not contradict myself.
HOAs better/ wors...No, I do not contradict myself. <br />HOAs better/ worse: compared to what?<br />To proprietary communities, private “exterritorial jurisdictions” using insurance schemes - definitely worse. <br />To government (especially in local communities and municipalities) - better.<br />That was the point that I tried to convey, based both on my (and the others dealing with HOAs) experience and praxeo (logical) arguments. I am sorry if my arguments were confusing... English is not my first language.<br /><br />And No, I do not adamantly object to the HOA in terms that the others are free to make this choice but me, personally, would prefer a proprietary community to this collective option – I do not see (for myself) HOA as a real private-property-private-law-society alternative. Unfortunately, today I do not have a real choice because government almost nowhere allows proprietary communities to compete with HOAs…Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941557406950202842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-72108885992916911802014-08-24T08:01:33.206-07:002014-08-24T08:01:33.206-07:00Alex, you are completely changing the context from...Alex, you are completely changing the context from your first post, to which my reply was addressed, as follows:<br /><br />“No, I would not like to see HOAs as a prevailing way of governance, even at the local level. Having lived in the communities structured as HOAs for years, I can certify first hand that HOAs, in little scale, reproduce the same problems as any representative democracy in large scale.”<br /><br />There is no experience, in any way shape and form, which an HOA can compare to government, even at the local level. Those police in Ferguson don’t work for an HOA.<br /><br />In your second post, you then rebut your own first statement, as follows:<br /><br />“Will HOAs still be better than local governments at the local level? Sure…”<br /><br />In any case, as I suggest one is free to avoid the HOA altogether, it seems all possibilities are available. Therefore other options as raised by Foldvary can be explored. <br /><br />Why do you wish to so adamantly object to the HOA, a form which millions of people today have voluntarily accepted?<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-7943309904203020972014-08-24T07:36:56.476-07:002014-08-24T07:36:56.476-07:00With regard to bombing other countries by HOAs you...With regard to bombing other countries by HOAs your analogy is not quite correct because local governments do not bomb other countries as well (they are not about defense). However, if you extend the authority of the local HOAs outside local areas (through more and more wider association of associations etc.) and endow them with governing security and defense, you will probably end up with the same bombing and SWAT raids. Because, despite off all differences, HOAs and political institutions are similar in the core: both are collective denoting rulers by the majority who then impose some “services” and collect mandatory fees as a territorial monopoly (of course, now the territory of each HOAs is small so you can much easier “vote by your feet”, not only by ballots …) <br />Unlike HOAs, insurance schemes work as a set of exterritorial jurisdictions allowing to opting out individually (“voting by your money”) not changing your place of residence – and this is a huge difference. <br /><br />Will HOAs still be better than local governments at the local level? Sure, because only property owners vote there (like in the early America or when in Shanghai – what is actually property qualification) plus explicit contract with each member, plus a different structure of fees not related to the income of the owner, etc. However, the proprietary communities (where I would prefer to live) are better than HOAs. And I would prefer them to compete at the local level…<br /><br />With regard to proportions - yes, in long-term residence communities HOAs are prevailing, not proprietary communities (the government do not like a real competition). However, as for short-term residence (hotels etc.) where no such legal obstacles – the proprietary schemes are prevailing to deal with common areas/ goods (lobbies and elevators in hotels etc.) there... Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941557406950202842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-24886984992527986712014-08-23T22:05:30.119-07:002014-08-23T22:05:30.119-07:00Compared to the prevalence of HOAs, a few thousand...Compared to the prevalence of HOAs, a few thousand people living in proprietary communities doesn't show up in the rounding. The point of the post was to build on already functioning, real-world institutions - ones that a significant portion of the population already either has direct experience with or otherwise has familiarity. . <br /><br />Without agreeing or disagreeing with your characterization of HOA governance, I am willing to bet no HOA has bombed another country nor charged fees to initiate SWAT raids against its homeowners. <br /><br />There is no utopia.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-23644381084072868282014-08-23T21:18:31.321-07:002014-08-23T21:18:31.321-07:00No, I would not like to see HOAs as a prevailing w...No, I would not like to see HOAs as a prevailing way of governance, even at the local level. Having lived in the communities structured as HOAs for years, I can certify first hand that HOAs, in little scale, reproduce the same problems as any representative democracy in large scale. Directors on HOA Boards are inherently corrupt receiving kickbacks from contractors and imposing inflated prices and unneeded services on residents (the same concentrated benefits (of directors and contractors) and dispersed losses (of ordinary members) etc.) When the control over a HOA Board shifts from the private Developer to the “members” (but in reality the HOA directors), the HOA maintenance fees are usually going up and the Board becomes more intrusive (busybodies on the Board bulling the residents) etc.<br />Fred Foldvary says about two advantages of HOAs compared to a local government: explicit contract signed by the member, and that all members of HOA are equal. Though the former is true, the latter is not: usually the directors on HOA Boards are deliberately volunteers what makes them in the most states immune of any responsibility for wrongdoing and violating the HOA docs, etc.<br /><br />Why did you focus on HOAs so much? Foldvary himself gave the great examples of the proprietary communities, namely the (condominium) Reston Association in Virginia, residential association of about 7000 in Weston, the village of 500 in Delaware where all land is owned by a private trust, the private neighborhoods of Saint Louis, etc. They are so rare (though successful existing for centuries) because today they are illegal except only in a few counties where they still exist today – it is impossible to create similar communities elsewhere because of the legal obstacles and regulations. In addition, despite entrepreneurs provide “collective goods” in these neighborhoods of St. Louis, for example, the residents will pay the same taxes to the local government. Had proprietary communities (what I would prefer) competed with HOAs and local governments in a freer society in other places, they would probably have replaced the most of them... Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941557406950202842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-38048839354899669282014-08-20T20:20:14.692-07:002014-08-20T20:20:14.692-07:00The idea of the cost of insurance as a motivator ...The idea of the cost of insurance as a motivator toward healthier living is a valuable addition to this - instead of government coming out with bans on large soft drinks or "just say no," once again, the market can provide better incentive via non-coercive means.<br /><br />It also helps to isolate the cost of poor lifestyle choices.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-15985862022225809282014-08-20T14:51:13.545-07:002014-08-20T14:51:13.545-07:00I am an insurance professional in both personal an...I am an insurance professional in both personal and commercial lines and have actually thought along the same lines as your article. The insurance industry provides the best means of protecting property and person available and it is mostly done on a voluntary basis and is the most efficient because the providers are there to compete with other providers and need to make a profit to stay in business. Because of this, they can discriminate against an applicant who shows a propensity toward carelessness or morale hazard by either outright declining their application or just charging them more to offset the probability and cost of loss to them to have an insured like this on their books. This will and does incentivize people to be more careful and responsible not only with other person's property and bodies, but also toward themselves. For example, I used to smoke cigars but when I saw my Life Insurance premium double, I made the choice to stop smoking instead of paying the higher premium. I also think that the problem of pollution could be mitigated of companies, for example, would be given, somehow, title to rivers or bodies of water adjacent to their factories, for example. This could be an incentive to them to keep their value by taking measure to keep them clean. Just a thought.GSZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10381055976236695367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-28255526203885837242014-08-20T14:23:37.294-07:002014-08-20T14:23:37.294-07:00Mark, thank you for the kind comments, and I agree...Mark, thank you for the kind comments, and I agree with your suggestion completely. bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-6545709342809694242014-08-20T10:32:29.037-07:002014-08-20T10:32:29.037-07:00Excellent treatment of a complex concept in a brie...Excellent treatment of a complex concept in a brief format, well done. I can only add, and you touched on it, that I'm typically bombarded with "But how do we get from here to there?" The transition from existing state tyranny to a voluntary society can not be planned, either; however, it can be prepared for. I believe that for society to achieve conditions that allow for true individual liberty, then liberty must be generally understood and the expectation of mutual respect a common courtesy. These conditions can only come about through thoughtful and purposeful tradition (re)building. Coercive systems that grow out of libertarian traditions are obviously counterproductive (see history of USA) and will eventually undermine their base of support. Therefore, we need only to wait for the implosion of the United State as it destroys itself from within. However, while waiting, we must also spread the ideas of liberty to as many people as we can. Keep up the good work doing what you're doing, BM.Mark Davisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-19301048596693073352014-08-18T20:04:34.785-07:002014-08-18T20:04:34.785-07:00Terry
I am certain such organizations would again...Terry<br /><br />I am certain such organizations would again take their place in a more libertarian society; I just find it very difficult to point to as a working model that could be expanded (because, as you write, the state has overtaken this function).<br /><br />Perhaps a look back at 19th century society could do; if I recall correctly, Tocqueville wrote of witnessing precisely of such a society.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-55094230548961446342014-08-18T20:00:04.525-07:002014-08-18T20:00:04.525-07:00gpond
Thank you for this addition to the dialogue...gpond<br /><br />Thank you for this addition to the dialogue. It is an idea with good applicability.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-8085706333526842452014-08-18T19:38:16.726-07:002014-08-18T19:38:16.726-07:00Bionic - I think you've covered most everythin...Bionic - I think you've covered most everything. I must say that in all the conversations that I've had with people in my attempt to bring them to an understanding of liberty, and how an anarchic world would be world's better than the nanny-state we have now, there is usually one last straw-man standing: What about those who fall through the cracks? So, I would add one institution to your two (Insurance and HOA governance): The Church and Charitable Organizations (C&CO for simplicity). The role of which has been so neutered by the nanny state over centuries that it has become an afterthought in this whole discussion, but is a critical 3rd leg in my opinion. When you combine the onerous regulation of C&CO's with a populace who has already been robbed of 50% of its hard-earned income, it is no small wonder that the role of C&CO's has become negligible. There's just no incentive. In an anarchic world, C&CO's would rise to their mandate/commission once again - to take care of those who are down and out; made poor choices not to buy insurance, were mentally incapable, had a string of bad luck, etc, etc. Terryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05364565652724012033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-67792357390086411342014-08-18T15:54:12.116-07:002014-08-18T15:54:12.116-07:00I applaud you opening the conversation, and nicely...I applaud you opening the conversation, and nicely done. There is another angle to the insurance that I have heard discussed by Robert Murphy. This is the idea that there may be certain private property, whether controlled by a HOA or perhaps even private roads/highways that may require that YOU be bonded (insured) against any damage that you might cause to others. You discussed being insured against damage inflicted upon yourself. It is an interesting thought that others might require you to be insured against damage you might cause them or others before you are permitted access to certain private property. It is like liability coverage, I suppose. I imagine it could have a place in such a world. More interesting to me at a "meta level" is the acknowledgement of all the creative solutions that could be brought forth by a truly free society to solve problems - solutions that we can not yet even imagine. Your humble approach is well noted. Central planners stifle creative solutions that otherwise would be allowed to compete. We have no idea what solutions might win in a truly free market. Chances are good that we have never heard of many of the solutions that might come forth. gpondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01013837189187920036noreply@blogger.com