Cato Lives!

M.A. in reply to James Hanley says:

There are things in life that are zero-sum. The balance of negotiating power in a particular transaction is one of them. If you don’t like it, tough, that’s reality.Report

M.A. in reply to James Hanley says:

Verizon prepaid: arbitration clause.

Tracfone: arbitration clause.

AT&T? Yep. Virgin Mobile’s is actually worse; if you miss a bad charge and don’t dispute it “promptly” (appears to be a 30-day window according to the “general terms and conditions”), you waived ALL rights to redress. If you do catch and dispute a charge promptly, they get the right to have their “advisors” handle it, and if they offer you ANY compensation then that is a waiver of your right to arbitration or court:

Disputed Charges

If you think that there has been an error in any charge to your account, you must notify us promptly after the charge appears on your account. Call Virgin Mobile At Your Service at 1-888-322-1122, and one of our advisors will investigate your claim. If you do not promptly notify us, you waive any right to dispute the charge, including in arbitration or a court proceeding. If we determine that the disputed charge was inappropriate and was raised by you in a timely manner, we will credit, refund or provide other compensation to you. If we credit, refund or provide other compensation to you to settle a disputed charge, you agree that the dispute is fully and finally resolved and not subject to further proceedings.

So: find me a cell phone company without an arbitration clause or worse clause. I’ll be waiting.Report

M.A. in reply to James Hanley says:

I pointed out numerous times that there are things that are zero sum. Such as the number of hours in a day; you only get 24, period. There was a whole discussion about how rampant inequality devalues the time in the day that the lower classes can spend working by decreasing the earning power of what those hours can be exchanged for in commerce.

If you’re happy because you just now realized I am completely willing to take on the concept of zero-sum interactions as well as criticize when something is falsely presented as a positive-sum interaction, then you haven’t been paying attention.Report

M.A. in reply to James Hanley says:

Apparently, I clicked the wrong “reply” link trying to scroll up, so here is this response in the correct place (I hope). If someone wants to blank the other copy further above to prevent confusion, I have no objection and in fact encourage it.

Michael Drew, that’s a reasonable way to state the position.

Here is my full position. James, pay attention, there’ll be a test later and it won’t involve your shouting “you’re wrong about libertarianism” as a mantra.

There are zero-sum interactions in society. The number of hours in a day is zero-sum. The number of days in a year is zero-sum.

There can be “positive sum” interactions in society. However, there are many “positive sum” interactions that disproportionately allocate the benefit of the positive increase. Such interactions generally flow from faux-voluntary, coerced arrangements that result from a number of factors including:
– improper deregulation and/or artificial barriers that create unrestricted monopolies or unrestricted cooperative oligopolies;
– lack of strong and fair laws and enforcement regarding employment and compensation;
– lack of laws (or lack of enforcement same) regarding predatory lending and usury;
– laws that fail to protect people and fail ensure that essential rights like recourse to the courts cannot be waived in the creation of a contract.

The more inequality grows, the more of these coerced, fake-voluntary interactions exist. It gets to the point where even a “libertarian” like James doesn’t give a crap about his own rights when he feels it’s “too small” an amount for him personally, in a single person sense, to worry about. And then it becomes institutionalized and the cell companies don’t worry about bill cramming and inserting their own fraudulent “mystery fees” because they think they can defraud millions of people and, safe from class action lawsuits, get away with it.

Or you get the “positive sum” interactions of a hostile takeover, Bain-style; company comes in, loads up debt, fires workstaff, CEOs and “shareholders” take millions of dollars in benefit while those on the bottom lose their jobs and the wider taxpayer base is on the hook for unemployment benefits and the other effects of unemployment. “Positive” sum, or not? If it’s positive sum, it’s not a good variety and definitely damaging to society because only a few benefit and the rest take the hit.

Now can there also be positive-sum interactions that are good for society? Yes, yes there can. When the results of a positive-sum interaction are fairly allocated to give a measurable, reasonable benefit to all concerned, that’s a good positive-sum interaction. When the results of a positive sum interaction are that the coercive effects of inequality go down, which “decreases liberty” for those who had the high end of the inequality scale but at the same time increases liberty and utility for many more people by multiple orders of magnitude, that’s a good positive sum interaction.

The reason I have described FYIGM libertarianism as I have is that they resist this final category of positive sum interaction. They refuse to recognize or acknowledge the notion that looking beyond the realm of “oh my god you’re decreasing the monopoly man’s liberty”, acknowledging that the coercive effects of inequality may be far worse than the coercive effects of government, and addressing that overall problem with appropriate counter-concentrative policies may be a wise course of action to discuss.Report

M.A. in reply to James Hanley says:

But, look, it just pains me to read you because you persistently abuse the meanings of precise technical words.

And it annoys me to no end that you persistently misdefine, misuse, abuse, and misrepresent the meanings of precise technical words like you did there.

No, they’re not, because they’re not games. The number of hours in a day is actually positive sum, since 24 > 0, but it’s not a game; there’s no interaction.

The use and trade of number of hours is zero sum. No more hours can be created in a day. Positive-sum interactions can result from using the hours more efficiently, or negative-sum interactions can come from devaluing those hours. Competition for the hours themselves is zero-sum. An hour in the day spent on one thing is no longer available to another purpose. Competition for hours in the day is zero sum.

ZERO sum. If you can be bothered to learn the meaning of the term.

Yes, you’ve made it clear that you think every corporation will got out of its way act evilly,

History bears that out with evidence, evidence that puts the lie to your theory that corporations are the candy gumdrops and sunshine rainbows that create a libertarian fairyland with a strong resemblance to Wonka’s factory.

Why do I think corporations will implement company towns, company stores, methods of squeezing workers and implementing unfair practices? Because almost every time they’ve had the opportunity before, they’ve gleefully done so. The exceptions are rare.

At best you’re forgetting about Hanlon’s Razor–libertarians could actually just be too dumb to grasp these truths, but it still wouldn’t mean they wicked.

So I should assume what about you?

See, that’s exactly how libertarians see you. [and on and on and on]

The difference between my approach and yours? I’ve already been through the reflective stage. I’ve been on your side. I came OUT of your side through self-reflection, full analysis, and firm application of the phrase “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins” along with the firm conclusion, looking over the history of policies and politics and humanity, that the lower and middle classes have been repeatedly punched in the nose by the upper class.

There are limits to liberty. I know that’s the last thing libertarians ever want to hear, but there are limits unless you live in a cave 100 miles from civilization and never see another human being. The exercise of liberty has effects upon the liberty of others; the exercise of certain liberties coupled with asymmetrical power by an overprivileged minority has repeatedly throughout history decreased liberty for everyone else.

Liberals don’t fail to look beyond the simple “inequality is increasing”; we look to the EFFECTS of inequality increasing. We look at the social segregation effects, the indignity effects, the asymmetrical power and exploitation effects. We look at the totality of the damage increasing inequality does to society and we recognize that this kind of damage, left unchecked, leads to things far worse that we’d rather avoid happening [AGAIN].

We don’t ignore the “coercive effects of redistribution or market distorting policies.” We want STRONG protections against the kinds of abuses that come from them. Strong protections against price gouging by monopolists and coordinated oligopolies, strong protections against monopolists or coordinated oligopolies strong-arming their way into other markets, and yes when it comes to public necessity utilities like water, sewer and power we’ve seen the damage caused when a truly public utility is outsourced in a “public-private partnership.” Strong protections don’t result from telling the people responsible for enforcing the law “screw it, go home, let the market take care of it.” Never have, never will.

When I first described myself to Kazzy a while back I called myself a true libertarian. I hold to that principle; I will analyze a situation FULLY and determine what results in the greatest increase in liberty for all concerned, rather than hanging my hat on the fear of decreasing liberty for a few people without caring about the result to the rest.

But I’ll no longer call myself a “libertarian” in any sense. The ugliness of the proponents of modern libertarianism and willingness to support morally untenable positions have sullied the name too much.Report