/townhall/ - Townhall

I don't know what exactly the Koch state entails in the details. But concept-wise it relies on the fact that everyone is perfectly capable of making it if they have the incentive.

But in the end, I feel it can get dystopian where people who own the property can divtate whatever and be set for life. But most people probably won't be a "maker" and will be exterminated from society.

If I am able to buy out all the resources, there's no reason for me to provide access for thers to these resources. I can in fact better hoard them and cut off access so my position remains unthreatened.
So everyone who is not me should be forced to seek alternative resources and if there's no means for those will just die out.

Though in the end, I suppose it depeds on your worldview if this is a good or a bad thing. I personally don't trust myself to make any big claim on property that will set me up for life, so I don't think I like the idea.

>The basic moral idea is that people can currently be grouped into 'makers' and 'takers'.  Makers produce in excess of their government entitlements, takers get more from the government than they produce, so they are net unproductive citizens.

This is a very emotional and subjective subject to base anything on.  Answers to this question right now will almost certainly be everyone you ask being a maker and some other class of people being the takers, with literally no group of people (or possibly even an individual person) exempt from these claims.  And I'm not sure this can ever be solved, because the concept of "value" itself is so emotionally charged and subjective.

>If we remove government entitlements, we remove the incentive to stagnate in state dependency.

Since this ties directly back into concepts of value, we now must also remove the emotional component from it to determine what "stagnating in state dependency" looks like, who's doing it, and who would actually act differently without "government entitlements", whatever those happen to be.  Further, we'd have to decide whether those different actions would actually be beneficial.  Negative repercussions could include people taking action, but only to engage in baditry or slavery, seeking some other way to continue their life as a "taker".

Overall, I can't get behind the idea.  Even the basic concept that people should always be producing doesn't especially jive with me.  It feels too extreme and too oppositional to the nature of all animals wanting to avoid production as much as possible.  Obviously there's a mirrored extreme wherein no one is producing enough for people to continue surviving, but as a society I believe we should be *attempting* to reach a condition wherein we don't have to produce in order to survive, not a condition in which everyone is forced to produce constantly.

>>10791
>  but as a society I believe we should be *attempting* to reach a condition wherein we don't have to produce in order to survive, not a condition in which everyone is forced to produce constantly.
Probably especially in place where automation and outsourcing is playing a major part.

May I ask which book? It sounds like something I'd be interested in too.

>The basic moral idea is that people can currently be grouped into 'makers' and 'takers'

Net 'makers' and 'takers'. That's the problem with this kind 'value' of model of discussion. The definition of value is quite arbitrary, but regardless of that fact anything outside of extreme caricatures requires enough actuarial accounting to be worthless for the simplification it proports to offer. Outside of people who do not participate in society and either only make or only take we all do both activities in nearly everything we do. For example the vast majority of us are net 'takers' in food, producing virtually no food ourselves yet having even less inclination to produce more. Very few of us produce anything from the bottom rung of Maslow's Hierarchy. You could use 'money' as a way to flatten the model, but then the model becomes incredibly problematic (I don't mean that in a social justice way but in that the value of the model becomes obvious when you try to use it in any predictive scenario).

Though indeed if one feels that the majority of problems in the world currently exist because of a lack of incentive then punishing people for passivity would be a possible course of action. In that case the value is less one of modeling and more one of social engineering, and a broader acceptance depends on an acceptance by the audience with the hypothesis of stagnation due to passivity spurred by readily available abundance, which itself is a phenomenon not difficult to observe in animal models.

Flawed as it is though, it isn't an uninteresting model. Using it in more predictive hypothetical situations produces interesting results. For example a great many people online derive their existence from a job of handing people something that somebody else is selling. You could certainly make an argument that they're underpaid, but it would be hard to make an argument that they contribute much to society. Mostly they facilitate other people contributing to society. Before long you end up with a curious hybrid libertarian-communist caste morality model where the purveyors of capital are simply necessary parasites, contributing nothing but lubrication to the process of 'making' while 'taking' the lion's share of the rewards for that making. I don't think I can agree with that conclusion though. Maybe I'm approaching this from the wrong angle but it's an interesting rabbit hole to get lost in. How does one incentivize creation over mere accumulation and stagnation?

>>10791
>This is a very emotional and subjective subject to base anything on.

I left out an important bit that may help clarify.  Takers do so through government force.  Makers create value through the free market or unanimous consent.  To take an example, someone getting direct welfare payments from the state benefits from the state's use of force (or threat of force) in collecting taxes from others.  Someone who exchanges their labor for salary in a private firm is a maker, and is violated when any of this money is then taxed for public good that extends beyond protecting property rights.

Another important point is in the Koch model, consent by rule of the majority is not valid.  Consent has a higher standard -- all must consent.

>"government entitlements", whatever those happen to be.

In the Koch state they are any benefit that is more than a private property right.  A government entitlement is benefiting from food safety inspection. Environmental protection law.  OSHA mandates for workers.  Public roads, sidewalks, or parks.  Public education.  Medicare/Social Security/Medicade.  And of course all direct payments such as SNAP, welfare, grants, and government contracts.

>whether those different actions would actually be beneficial.  

A very important question.

>only to engage in baditry

I believe a strong state would punish this crime.  Punishing property crime (and I suppose levying taxes to pay for enforcement) is the one area where consent is not required by citizens.

>or slavery,

If you sign the contract, you consented.  Slavery is possible, yes, but can not be forced prior to a contract.

>Even the basic concept that people should always be producing doesn't especially jive with me.

That does make this a hard sell.

>I believe we should be *attempting* to reach a condition wherein we don't have to produce in order to survive, not a condition in which everyone is forced to produce constantly.

I see.  Granted, as others have pointed out, it's somewhat the net productivity that matters.  But I think in the Koch state everyone ought to strive to amass maximum property, as a cultural norm.

>>10790
>But concept-wise it relies on the fact that everyone is perfectly capable of making it if they have the incentive.

Yes.  The norms of private charity is unspecified.  The state allows for generous private charity for disabled people.  And it allows for none.

>people who own the property can divtate whatever and be set for life. But most people probably won't be a "maker" and will be exterminated from society.

Yes, I believe a person who could not find a mutually beneficial arrangement for food would necessarily starve.  I think Koch assumes people would find the motivation and capacity to work before this point.  But it is an assumption.

>If I am able to buy out all the resources, there's no reason for me to provide access for thers to these resources.

The capacity to trade your resources for more resources is a motivation.  But no force compels you, no.

>I suppose it depeds on your worldview if this is a good or a bad thing.

Very true.

>I personally don't trust myself to make any big claim on property that will set me up for life, so I don't think I like the idea.

I see.  The Koch brothers are facing the problem that when their state is simply described, most don't care for it.  They are trying to work toward small changes, I think.

>>10793
>Net
Right, as I said in another response, I failed to mention the important divide between makers and takers is the use of state force.  Takers receive because the state forces others to pay them.  A rich businessperson pays taxes without consenting.  Some of those taxes go to a school lunch program that allows a parent to pay only part of the cost of feeding their child.  The evil is largely this forced transfer.

>the definition of value is quite arbitrary,

Value in this model comes from property.  Granted that just kicks the can down the road a bit.  What, exactly, counts as property?  Is the wildlife on my land my property?  Do I own my airspace, mineral rights?  To what extent can ideas be property?  Can I make people property?  Do my property rights allow me to pollute a creek that flows through?

>all do both activities in nearly everything we do.

Right, I got people confused there.  It's the state's role in 'taking' that's important.

>Though indeed if one feels that the majority of problems in the world currently exist because of a lack of incentive then punishing people for passivity would be a possible course of action.

Right, the makers and takers thing is to appeal to the feeling that there's not enough motivation to work.

>social engineering, and a broader acceptance depends on an acceptance by the audience with the hypothesis of stagnation due to passivity spurred by readily available abundance

Every state is a social engineering project, yes.  Here, you're right that you must accept that deprivation leads to greater productivity.  Now, when we use productivity in the context of the Koch state, we mean activities that result in property accumulation using a free market.

>it would be hard to make an argument that they contribute much to society.

I think being a merchant is a valid form of productivity in this state.  I guess you're thinking of a actual finished product or end-user service.

I think maker in this model extends beyond literally making physical things.  It includes anything you might get paid to do -- banking, stock trading, managing.

>How does one incentivize creation over mere accumulation and stagnation?

If you think of creativity as somewhat divorced from money, the Koch culture would be problematic.  I don't think I completely followed, though.

>>10798
>Do my property rights allow me to pollute a creek that flows through?
Well, this one has a clear answer in the Koch state.  The state shall not impose on property owners simply because nature is capable of carrying pollutants across property lines.

I get the sense that the Koch Industrial empire is primarily based on benefiting itself at the expense of everybody else, including everybody from other business competitors to ordinary consumers to state governments and more.

I don't really see a coherent ideology there. Just unethical narcissism. Frankly.

"Other people should eternally give me money and power until I control the Earth because I'm so great, being so much smarter and more determined than those filthy worms out there who call themselves humans" isn't really a belief system, per se, I don't think.

>>10800
>primarily based on benefiting itself at the expense of everybody else

It does seem a convenient side-effect, yes.  People will probably take offense if I say it, but private property is a social construct.  I think in thinking of the Koch state, we ought construct private property in such a way that maximizes their power.

>I don't really see a coherent ideology there. Just unethical narcissism. Frankly.

I can say I have no warm feelings about Koch Industries.  Where ethics might come in is in creating a system to minimize the use of force to overawe a lack of consent.  Roughly forcing people to do things is the role of government, and the discussion of when state force ought to be applied goes back to the enlightenment or further, and it's debatable whether the Koch folks are adding much to the discussion.

>[I'm] so much smarter and more determined than those filthy worms out there who call themselves humans" isn't really a belief system, per se, I don't think.
It's a challenging sell as an objective belief system for those not in a similar position, yes.

>>10802
I suppose what it all boils down to for me is that organizations such as the Koch Industries empire want to be able to takeover state and federal governments in a hostile manner the same way that they take over enemy companies, and this cannot be allowed in terms of basic ethics.

This is beyond mere capitalism, I think, but is about being able to live under the objective rule of law under a responsible government rather than being in an absolute dictatorship with a corporate façade.

>>10793
>May I ask which book?
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/533763/democracy-in-chains-by-nancy-maclean/
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/215462/dark-money-by-jane-mayer/
So far.  I tend to do sets of books to get my head around a concept.  I suppose I should read a modern Koch production, but books I mostly don't agree with are more effortful, and these are things I listen to as I walk about exploring the neighborhood and relaxing (pic: radioantenna array from my last walk).

>>10803
>the Koch Industries empire want to be able to takeover state and federal governments in a hostile manner

Large swaths of the government would become private.  I suppose it's very possible that the Koch brothers would make a bid when those parts went up for sale.

>This is beyond mere capitalism,

I take it you don't trust the Koch people to stick to any objective set of rules, even rules they might write.

>an absolute dictatorship with a corporate façade.
It might not be dictatorship, but the Koch state is not a democracy.  I think it's a republic that is constitutionally restricted from collectivist action, meaning anything that restricts the power of corporations and property owners.

I'm not sure if your mistrust is more for the system or for the people.  Maybe it's all the same, I guess, you need both.