Every American that isn't already pissed off should glance at these.

[Essence]

1) Law and Order can exist without states
2) Law and Order can regulate markets
1+2) It is possible that Law and Order that is able to regulate markets might be able to exist without states.

Conclusion: Regulation via Law and Order of the Free Market is consistent with a Libertarian perspective please stop claiming otherwise. It is very annoying to be heard but not listened to.

Perhaps I misunderstand your idea of the Libertarian perspective.  You're saying that it's totally OK to have markets that are strictly regulated, as long as it's any non-state entity doing the regulating?  Because my mother -- a die-hard Libertarian -- has always proclaimed that markets need to be free of ANY non-market-based regulators. 

The instant you introduce a non-market-based overseer, be it religious, guild-based, federal, or other, she's unhappy.  I've assumed based on the fact that your nonstatist law and order examples were all market-based that you shared that opinion.

The free market, being entirely based on wealth, is not capable of producing a system of law and order that can prevent wealth from being equivalent to power over the law.  All of the examples you've given have only gone to back that idea up.  If you want to talk about non-market-based, non-state-based law and order, that's OK, but I don't think that's what you intend.

Can a non corruptible version of Law and Order exist without a state?
(The state has repeatable failed to be impervious to corruption)
Is the best non statist solution better, worse or equal to the best statist solution?

There is no such thing as an incorruptible system.  Human greed will consistently see to that.  (Witness: all of human history.)  Better/equal to/worse I don't know and I don't care.  What I'm concerned about is whether or not a non-market-based solution is better, worse, or equal to a market-based solution.  I could care less about a state -- but every aspect of the problem, from history to math to sociology to economics, points clearly to the fact that a market left to regulate itself will end up with a class of superrich elite forcing conditions that will impoverish and kill other people.

However as I might point out once again this is off topic from the OP which was specifically claiming that the relative wealth gap was (larger than optimal/a sign of immoral acts). Please do not confuse the two topics or erroneously try to equate them.

I never made any claim of immorality.  In fact, the OP you are citing is literally nothing more than a link to a bunch of graphics displaying exactly how much more rich than you the rich people really are.  I didn't make any judgement about those facts at all until I referred to the current system as "abusive", which still makes no claim that that abuse is either larger than optimal OR immoral.  Who is not listening to who, now?

Claims I have actually made made:

1) The current system is abusive.
2) A large middle class is good for the economy.
3) Any system (including both libertarianism and modern American sociopoliticoeconomics) that allows wealthy people to manipulate the rules will inevitably end up with wealthy people having more than they can possibly use while poor people don't have enough to meet their basic needs.
4) Charity doesn't suffice to account for #3
5) The goals of "free market" and "maintains an objective minumum level of wealth" are mutually exclusive.

That's all.  I've never even said that the current wealth gap was larger than optimal.  It's easy to infer that from what I have said, but I never actually said it.

PS: To get terms straight I am using the definition: A state is an enforced monopoly on Law and Justice.

So basically as long as there are multiple systems of law and justice between which people can choose, you're happy with that?  Because there are, in America, right now, today.  Mediation, arbitration, multiple types of state court, and even in some cases other countries' courts are all available to every noncriminal plaintiff in America.  Of course, the problem is that the defendant, not the plaintiff, gets to choose whether or not to reject mediation and/or arbitration, and most wealthy defendants (businesses) choose court because they know that high-payed lawyers win more than low-paid lawyers, and they have more money than the defendants.

The monopoly of the State on law and justice is a direct result of the inequitable distribution of wealth and power.  If courts were as fair as private mediation and arbitration, they wouldn't be abused as much by the wealthy.

Merchant Law was demonstrated to show that Law and Order would arise spontaneously from the desire for cooperation and disprove the notion that the desire for cooperation is derived from Law and Order.

Except that that's a straw man.  Merchant law arose spontaneously from the desire for profit, because the existing court structures were too ponderous to be profitable.  The cooperation that arose due to that desire for profit was a side-effect, not a cause.

In the All-thing a Chieftain was powerless unless he had clients. Clients would change their Chieftain if another was deemed to be better quality or cheaper.

And therein lies the rub.  Better quality...or cheaper.  The fact that being wealthier than your adversary gets you better representation and thus a better chance at victory is inherent in your own words.  Again, you can't escape from the fact that your examples of potential solutions are nothing more than rewrites of the problem.

Law and Justice do not require a state

Absolutely agreed.

Methods of Law and Justice are better in proportion to the rigor of the competition involved

Absolutely disagreed.  Allowing competition over who provides the law and order inevitably favors the wealthy (who can afford the superior 'product'), and thereby allows the wealthy to manipulate the rules by which everyone must play.  That manipulation will, of course, only favor the wealthy even more, eventually resulting in a system whereby the law itself enforces an inequitable distribution of wealth that will kill the poor.

Comparing what fraction of the money going to help fulfill the needs of the poor is Charity does not support your conclusion is that charitable giving cannot fulfill the need because it does not take the reaction to reduction/elimination of government aid would do.

Point well made, however, remember that the numbers that I pulled out of my ass didn't take into account the fact that the existing amount of charity given in the United States was already being used by the people receiving it.  Those people also used the money the government granted them -- which was more than double what private citizens did.  If you want to claim, then, that in the absence of a Federal government people would spontaneously more than triple their charitable giving, I can't stop you -- but I damn sure won't believe you, either.

Changes that occur in the relative gap are not relevant to the solution to the objective wealth problem.

Tell that to all of the private citizens that are currently raising utter hell because they're worried that the government is going to steal their money and give it to the poor.

Um you missed the causation here
Objective Wealth gap -> Find Solution -> Robin Hood -> Steal from the rich and give to the poor -> Relative wealth gap change.
Note the Important Detail the objective wealth problem cause a change in the relative wealth. The change in the relative wealth gap is irrelevant it is just a side effect. The objective increase in wealth for the poor and the distaste to the violation of an imagined right to property are the relevant details not the relative wealth change.

At what point does "distaste to the violation of an imagined right to property" not mean the exact same thing as "private citizens raising hell because they think the government is stealing from them to give to the poor"? 

The change in the relative wealth gap is the cause of that distaste/raising hell.  It's not an irrelevant detail, it's directly causal. 

In short it does not matter if the solution to the objective wealth problem increases or decreases the relative wealth gap. The solution should be judged on its merits in the relevant objective wealth case not the side effects in the relative wealth gap.

What this says to me is "the solution should be measured on it's merits in supporting the poor (by fixing the objective wealth problem), not the side effects in pissing off the rich (by affecting the relative wealth)".  If that's what you meant to say, than boy howdy, so I ever agree!

So in conclusion: Please tell me which topic we are discussing: The merits of a more equitable relative wealth gap or possible solutions to objective wealth poverty?

The two are one in the same.  The only possible solution to the objective wealth poverty problem is to create a more equitable relative wealth gap.  If I'm wrong, please do give me a detailed description of how.

[OldTrees]

First I should apologize for misinterpreting the thread topic.
I saw a title that referred to what in economic was used to describe relative wealth.


Law and Justice:
In my opinion any regulation that is not an enforced monopoly is permissible as a means of regulating the market.
However this is on a regulation by regulation basis. If any proposed regulation would be an enforced monopoly on Law and Justice in that subset of the market then it is not a valid form of regulation. The best example of this kind of behavior comes from the government but does not have to. However there are many non-market (non capital driven) means of regulation that can be valid.

Examples:
Taxation cannot be avoided due to threat of force thus the government has an enforced monopoly on extraction of some of your money regardless of your wishes.
The Church in the US works as a non-state non-market (usually) source of Law and Justice in the form of religious rules and traditions that can exclude an individual that breaks those rules severely enough but is still optional to join.

Culture, Neighborhoods, Communities, Clubs ...
All voluntary groups that have rules that can be enforced upon willing members are examples of valid forms of regulation. The trick is to have being a member desirous enough that the rules affect society but in a voluntary manner.

[Quick side question: You know about the wealth generating effect of a single voluntary trade right?]

Methods of Law and Justice are better in proportion to the rigor of the competition involved

Absolutely disagreed.  Allowing competition over who provides the law and order inevitably favors the wealthy (who can afford the superior 'product'), and thereby allows the wealthy to manipulate the rules by which everyone must play.  That manipulation will, of course, only favor the wealthy even more, eventually resulting in a system whereby the law itself enforces an inequitable distribution of wealth that will kill the poor.

Not competition over who provides the law and justice, competition between the ideas of law and justice. Kinda like what is happening through us. We are both presenting an idea of law and justice. If one of us had a obviously better idea then we would both walk away with that idea or something similar. However new ideas can also enter the competition. Ideally when two ideas meet they are discussed (instead of debated) and from the discussion arises a new idea that is an improvement from both previous ideas. Competition between who provides the Law and Justice is a means to allow such ideas to have an non academic/intellectual competition whose speed of discovery and innovation is increased through reward. (kinda like the fame rewarded to scientific discoveries)

At what point does "distaste to the violation of an imagined right to property" not mean the exact same thing as "private citizens raising hell because they think the government is stealing from them to give to the poor"? 

The change in the relative wealth gap is the cause of that distaste/raising hell.  It's not an irrelevant detail, it's directly causal. 

Well it may be different for your source but the people I know mean "The government is going to steal from us (the cause of the distaste from the action) because they want to give it to the poor (the cause of the action)"

You might have also been referring to:
Ideology X believes that it is just to redistribute wealth, Redistributing wealth involves stealing from the wealthy, Distaste toward an ideology that permits "theft"

While you would put the emphasis on the redistribution I have mostly heard the emphasis on the perceived theft aspect.

What this says to me is "the solution should be measured on it's merits in supporting the poor (by fixing the objective wealth problem), not the side effects in pissing off or rewarding the rich (by affecting the relative wealth)".  If that's what you meant to say, than boy howdy, so I ever agree!

That is one of the two possibilities. The other is added in.

	Objective individual wealth increasing	Objective individual wealth decreasing
Relative wealth equalizing	Removing Corruption	Destroying Wealth Taxation (depends on the target of the tax)
Relative wealth polorizing	Creating Wealth Microcredit	New Corruption Taxation (depends on the target of the tax)

[Essence]

I'll get back to this at a moment when I have a bit of time, but I saw this on another forum (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=193831) and wanted to share:

The thing about corporate accountability is that there isn't any. That's the man behind the curtain. There isn't even any accountability of the corporation to itself. People keep thinking that the people making decisions on behalf of corporations want those corporations to succeed, but that's actually not true. Those people want to transfer wealth from the corporation to themselves, and the success or failure of the corporation is irrelevant. It's seriously not even a secondary concern.

[OldTrees]

I'll get back to this at a moment when I have a bit of time, but I saw this on another forum (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=193831) and wanted to share:

The thing about corporate accountability is that there isn't any. That's the man behind the curtain. There isn't even any accountability of the corporation to itself. People keep thinking that the people making decisions on behalf of corporations want those corporations to succeed, but that's actually not true. Those people want to transfer wealth from the corporation to themselves, and the success or failure of the corporation is irrelevant. It's seriously not even a secondary concern.

This actually is a very important point. The owners of a corporation are not invested enough in the actions of the employees to force accountability.

One solution that might work is for the owners (stockholders) to be liable for actions of the owned company.

[Essence]

Law and Justice:
In my opinion any regulation that is not an enforced monopoly is permissible as a means of regulating the market.
However this is on a regulation by regulation basis. If any proposed regulation would be an enforced monopoly on Law and Justice in that subset of the market then it is not a valid form of regulation.

Wait...so you're saying, basically, that each and every regulation on a given market must have multiple variations competing to see which gets put into place?  And it's completely OK to have a given agency put forth all of the variations, so long as they're in market competition with one another?  And it's completely OK for that agency to single-handedly enforce whatever regulation the market decides on?

I'm assuming all of that because you also said

Not competition over who provides the law and justice, competition between the ideas of law and justice.

So a monopoly on enforcement is OK, as long as the rules being enforced are decided upon by the market?

Quick side question: You know about the wealth generating effect of a single voluntary trade right?

If you're referring to the fact that voluntary trades result in each trader exchanging something they value less for something they value more, yes I am.  Are you aware that in any commodity-driven market that applies a more-or-less fixed value to any specific good, that effect is illusory?  As many modern Republicans are fond of pointing out, moving money around doesn't increase wealth -- it just changes who has it.

In other words, sure, I'm willing to trade my pig for a pair of shoes because I have more pigs than shoes, but in a strict market-value sense, there is an objective value of that pig and that pair of shoes, and in all likelihood, one of the two of us lost objective wealth in that trade, and the other gained it.  Just because I need shoes more than I need my pig doesn't mean that, according to the market as a whole, those shoes were actually worth my pig.

Well it may be different for your source but the people I know mean "The government is going to steal from us (the cause of the distaste from the action) because they want to give it to the poor (the cause of the action)"

The people I know object to being stolen from regardless of exactly what happens to the money.  Even if the government suddenly ended all social safety nets, they would find something else the government is doing that they don't want their tax dollars going towards.

In fact, I think I just came up with a new definition of liberal vs. conservative: liberals are people who acknowledge that their tax money is going to go toward SOMETHING that they'd rather not support, but they see that the benefits of those things they DO like (education, infrastructure) outweigh the disadvantages of those things they don't (war).  Conservatives believe that their tax dollars should only go toward exactly the things they want to support, and if the government does anything outside of that arena, they'd rather withhold their tax money altogether than see it even partially support something that they don't approve of.

	Objective individual wealth increasing	Objective individual wealth decreasing
Relative wealth equalizing	Removing Corruption	Destroying Wealth Taxation (depends on the target of the tax)
Relative wealth polorizing	Creating Wealth Microcredit	New Corruption Taxation (depends on the target of the tax)

I'm afraid I don't really understand this.  Can you put it in sentences for my feeble brain?

[OldTrees]

Law and Justice:
In my opinion any regulation that is not an enforced monopoly is permissible as a means of regulating the market.
However this is on a regulation by regulation basis. If any proposed regulation would be an enforced monopoly on Law and Justice in that subset of the market then it is not a valid form of regulation.

Wait...so you're saying, basically, that each and every regulation on a given market must have multiple variations competing to see which gets put into place?  And it's completely OK to have a given agency put forth all of the variations, so long as they're in market competition with one another?  And it's completely OK for that agency to single-handedly enforce whatever regulation the market decides on?
I'm assuming all of that because you also said

Not competition over who provides the law and justice, competition between the ideas of law and justice.

So a monopoly on enforcement is OK, as long as the rules being enforced are decided upon by the market?

A non enforced monopoly on Justice is acceptable.
A non enforced monopoly on Law is acceptable.
What defined a non enforce monopoly is the ability for a competing idea to enter the market.
Aka: No provider of Law(regulation) or Justice should be able to prevent a competitor from entering the market.

In any commodity-driven market that applies a more-or-less fixed value to any specific good, that effect is illusory?  As many modern Republicans are fond of pointing out, moving money around doesn't increase wealth -- it just changes who has it.

In other words, sure, I'm willing to trade my pig for a pair of shoes because I have more pigs than shoes, but in a strict market-value sense, there is an objective value of that pig and that pair of shoes, and in all likelihood, one of the two of us lost objective wealth in that trade, and the other gained it.  Just because I need shoes more than I need my pig doesn't mean that, according to the market as a whole, those shoes were actually worth my pig.

I would not trust a politician to know supply from demand much less have any understanding between the distinction of a constant market price and a subjective individual valuation. Trades only occur when the people at that moment with the information they have value making the trade more than 0. [0 might or might not occur]. Value is decided on an individual level and thus there is no "objective standard" to compare to. The closest you get is the market price which is the price that produces the highest producer surplus(economics term). The market price is determined by an estimation of the demand curve. The demand curve is a scatter plot of all the individual valuations of the product (including repeat purchases) arranged from highest to lowest. Moving money around does not increase wealth, voluntary migration of money increases wealth or moves the capital to a higher aggregate wealth state if you prefer.

The people I know object to being stolen from regardless of exactly what happens to the money.  Even if the government suddenly ended all social safety nets, they would find something else the government is doing that they don't want their tax dollars going towards.

In fact, I think I just came up with a new definition of liberal vs. conservative: liberals are people who acknowledge that their tax money is going to go toward SOMETHING that they'd rather not support, but they see that the benefits of those things they DO like (education, infrastructure) outweigh the disadvantages of those things they don't (war).  Conservatives believe that their tax dollars should only go toward exactly the things they want to support, and if the government does anything outside of that arena, they'd rather withhold their tax money altogether than see it even partially support something that they don't approve of.

Actually this is a very good description (if phrased poorly). Conservatives believe that they have a right not to fund what they do not want to fund. They believe that if worst comes to worst that they would be willing to seek alternative means of voluntarily funding what they do want (like Channel 1 mentioned previously) rather than being forced to waste their money (that they are entitled to and could be funding things they value) on things that they are unwilling to fund.
Typically this is also combined with the fact that at the current level of corruption in our government private sector means of supporting education, the poor, ... tend to be more effective per dollar spent. Hence conservatives typically think they would do more good if they could direct the money going to public education better than the government or at least more efficiently. Can America do better things then Washington? Conservatives believe yes we can.

	Objective individual wealth increasing	Objective individual wealth decreasing
Relative wealth equalizing	Removing Corruption	Destroying Wealth Taxation (depends on the target of the tax)
Relative wealth polarizing	Creating Wealth Microcredit	New Corruption Taxation (depends on the target of the tax)

Simple two result axises with an example cause where they intersect
EX: Objective individual wealth decreasing and Relative wealth equalizing would both be cause simultaneously by Destroying Wealth. (See the beginnings of the Great Depression before the wealth started to return.)
EX: Objective individual wealth increasing and Relative wealth polarizing would both be caused simultaneously by Creating Wealth. (See Microcredit for a great example of this)

[Neopergoss]

Hey not to butt in, but no one has a monopoly on justice or law. As Republicans are fond of saying about US States, if you don't like the laws in one country, you can always move to another.

And yes, the private sector has more of an incentive to be efficient than government, but there are some things that need to be done that aren't profitable, and for this reason the private sector can't be expected to do them.

And while it's true that more objective wealth means more wealth inequality, both have some degree of importance. If there is a dramatic increase in the wealth of the country, but 90% of the population isn't seeing much of a change at all, that increase is far less meaningful, especially for those people who actually see a decrease in wealth. When objective wealth for many citizens is low enough that they have difficulty surviving while objective wealth for others is over 20,000 times the median, it makes sense for society to consider redistributive policies.

[OldTrees]

Hey not to butt in, but no one has a monopoly on justice or law. As Republicans are fond of saying about US States, if you don't like the laws in one country, you can always move to another.

butting in is fine/great
It costs billions of dollars to enter the market on Law or Justice.
It costs less to immigrate to a member of the oligarchy on Law and Justice.
Most cannot afford the first.
A significant portion cannot even afford the second.
Republican Politicians are rarely right when discussing Patriotism.

And yes, the private sector has more of an incentive to be efficient than government, but there are some things that need to be done that aren't profitable, and for this reason the private sector can't be expected to do them.

Be careful when you use the word "profit" it has 2 meanings
Meaning 1: Normal Profit: Opportunity Cost of the venture. Aka for someone to do activity A it must return at least as much value as the next best alternative.
Meaning 2: Economic Profit: Anything above Normal Profit. Economic profit is short lived (with exceptions) and drives entry into that market lowering the Economic Profit to 0 through competition.

If an activity needs to be done then is there a more valued alternative?
If there is a more valued alternative then does the activity need to be done?

[deadlyd1001]

i would like to point out that in this country (USA), even most of the "poor" live in rooms larger than most counties houses, have more electronics and computers, and we are one of the very few counties that worry about our children eating too much food
another point
read "The Millionaire Next-store " and you will learn that most "rich" people (value of  $5 million or more) have to work 80 weeks for their ENTIRE LIVES and save and invest every penny

ok, getting off of my soap box

[BluePriest]

Poor is a very relative term. You can be poor and have no debt (except maybe a house) if you have restraint. Many people I know that say they are poor are living a rich lifestyle, which is one of the main reasons they are poor. Americans need to learn to live inside their means instead of taking lessons from the government.

The only thing we "deserve" are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You dont deserve that 8,000 dollar car, you dont deserve that 150,000 dollar house, or that big screen tv or a ps3, or any other thing.

This is getting me angry thinking about this.I know so many "poor" people that complain about not having enough money whike they have a cell phone, 3 cars, and all their kids have a cell phone.  It is possible to live without cell phones. Get a home phone and dial up internet. Then get some rabbit ears. That you to be normal.
 
Im going to stop now otherwise ill keep ranting on and on

[deadlyd1001]

Poor is a very relative term. You can be poor and have no debt (except maybe a house) if you have restraint. Many people I know that say they are poor are living a rich lifestyle, which is one of the main reasons they are poor. Americans need to learn to live inside their means instead of taking lessons from the government.

The only thing we "deserve" are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You dont deserve that 8,000 dollar car, you dont deserve that 150,000 dollar house, or that big screen tv or a ps3, or any other thing.

This is getting me angry thinking about this.I know so many "poor" people that complain about not having enough money whike they have a cell phone, 3 cars, and all their kids have a cell phone.  It is possible to live without cell phones. Get a home phone and dial up internet. Then get some rabbit ears. That you to be normal.
 
Im going to stop now otherwise ill keep ranting on and on

you sound a lot like my parents (in a good way)
people either have money (saved it), or spend it (useless cars)
thank you

[Neopergoss]

butting in is fine/great
It costs billions of dollars to enter the market on Law or Justice.
It costs less to immigrate to a member of the oligarchy on Law and Justice.
Most cannot afford the first.
A significant portion cannot even afford the second.
Republican Politicians are rarely right when discussing Patriotism.

Most people can't afford to start their own restaurant, either. Does that mean that the food service industry is fundamentally flawed?And besides that, there is some variation in law between different states and between different cities. Moving out of the country is the only way to avoid some, but not all, US laws.

But to make a more serious point, perhaps some things simply don't lend themselves to competition. Clearly this is true for some industries with economies of scale. But I would argue that it's true for law and justice as well. These two concepts are universally applied. We can't have some nuts start their own country in the middle of the US where it's OK to steal, rape, and murder.

If an activity needs to be done then is there a more valued alternative?
If there is a more valued alternative then does the activity need to be done?

Consider a private company running the fire department or the police department. How can a fire department be profitable? Should people be charged every time their building catches fire for the cost of extinguishing it? Do you like the idea of private contractors acting as police officers? What about the military? Should the US military be completely composed of Blackwaters (now Xe Services)?