330 replies to this topic

[valkyrie_ice]

Ah, but then your grocer suffers because you are no longer buying from him, the transporter suffers because he is no longer being paid to bring groceries, the distributor suffers because he's no longer distributing, the produce buyer is no longer making money by selling to the distributor, the farmers suffer because you are no longer buying their crops, the oil companies suffer because all those people are no longer buying gas...

I think your logic is a bit flawed here. Of course, when I come up with an invention that makes me a better potato salesman than my competitors, I make more profits than them, and in a way they have indeed suffered a loss.

In the long run, however, my invention will benefit everyone -- because everyone is also a consumer. It is because of the fact that no one wants to suffer losses and everyone aims to make a profit that inventions happen in the first place, and it is because of inventions that I can start selling my potatoes for a cheaper price than my competitors. This benefits everyone; even the grocer, although at first he will only see the immediate effect of me not buying from him.

You can also think of it from another angle: If your logic was correct, then it would follow that the less competition we have, and thus the less innovation, the better off everyone is. But clearly this is not true. People were much poorer in earlier times. The fact that we can own cell phones and computers is proof that innovation and competition benefit everyone.

I've played this game before JLL. As silly as that chain of logic may sound, it is the PRECISE one used to justify paying farmers not to grow, burn overages, and prevent food supplies from being so abundant they are free. The wonderful capitalistic system at work.

I know those arguments are used for protectionism etc. but that is not the capitalistic system at work, that is the socialist/corporatist system at work. I mean, you're talking about central planning here -- an idea essential to socialism. If government did not dictate it, what kind of farmer would burn the fruits of his own labor?

The ones who want to get more than .00000000000000000000001 cent per head of lettuce, pound of potato, etc.

The failure of comprehension you have is that no business exists in a vacuum. They are all part of an ecosystem, and you destabilize any part, you cause extremely far reaching effects.

If American farms produced at full capacity, they would go out of business. They wouldn't be able to sell their crops at a high enough price to pay for the gas used to run the machines, the electric used to run the farm, the fertilizer to spread on their feilds, etc. The American Farmer has be able to supply enough food to feed every single person in America a hundred meals a day for free for nearly fifty years, and that amount is growing daily, and requiring fewer people as time goes by.

And yet the farmers are on the edge of poverty, because of this surplus.

Because that chain of middle men is where 99% of all the profits made from selling those crops to the public vanishes. The farmer is getting at best, a penny a pound for his crop, while you are paying a couple of dollars for it at the grocer.

So suppose you and a significant portion of the nation does grow 100% of their own food, who is going to suffer? The companies? they'll lay off all the low level workers to ensure CEO profits stay high, and the people who will get screwed will end up in need of assistance, right on down to that farmer who will get even less for his crops.

Simply put JLL, supply and demand fall apart in a economy of abundance. And when it comes to food, abundance is all we have these days. We could have abundance in everything, but the only way to make that happen is to eliminate the parasitic behavior of humanity via sane regulation, sane laws, and above all a society of accountability at every level of society.

I am quite well aware that to you, Alex, and others, this is all blaspheming your faith in the FreeMarket God, and the Government Devil, but making a religion out of economics is just plain and simple delusion.

[Alex Libman]

Yes, I was referring to the one where you mentioned innovation performance. It gave me a good chuckle when you were holding them up as among the best places in Europe, seeing as they are in terrible shape and Norway, the most social democratic country, is considering bailing them out.

They (Hong Kong, Singapore, Chile, Estonia), are not "in terrible shape" they were just disproportionately hit by the crisis caused by the socialist forces in the American government (read up the inflationary monetary policy and all the other causes of this crisis explained elsewhere). Estonia also has Putinist Russia up its butt, empowered by high oil and gas prices, wreaking havoc in all sorts of ways. Chile remains on steady coarse to be the one of the richest countries in the world in a couple of decades while the rest of South America stagnates.

Like the rest of Scandinavia, Norway's wealth comes from the fact that they were pretty darn capitalist before they threw a giant welfare state on top of their otherwise relatively free economy. They managed to keep their productivity from collapsing by having a lot of existing infrastructure, low corporate taxes, a lot of "national pride", and the most celebrated culture / work ethic in the world (even the German Nazis thought the Norwegians were closest of all nations to the "racial ideal"). This momentum can last 2-3 generations, but not much longer. Norway is also doing better than the other countries on per-capita basis because they have humongous amounts of natural resources and a relatively tiny population (the surface area of the Norwegian Sea is 5.5 times the Persian Gulf).

I respect Hong Kong's model quite a bit, but the reason they are successful is precisely because they have democratic control of land and responsible regulations to promote access to information and so on. [...]

Like I said, Hong Kong isn't perfect, but it's government (not counting their temporarily-benevolent overlords in Beijing) is less toxic than the rest. You can still have Georgist charter-cities like Hong Kong under Anarcho-Capitalism, just as long as they are voluntary. When Hong Kong will have to compete with a large archipelago of seasteads whose economy is unburdened by the "nature belongs to everyone" religion, Hong Kong will have to abandon Georgism or it will decline relative to them. Why would I want to rent my land / (under)seastead / spaceship from Mommy Government and pay taxes on it when I can own it outright and not worry about the risk of that government becoming economically uncompetitive or downright tyrannical any time in the future?

Having a high GDP means nothing if you live in a dreary place.

It means trickle-down benefits like access to technology, information, job opportunities, and charity to make it easier to get out of that "dreary" place.

(And GDP isn't an accurate measure of society's wealth, I would prefer a "PPR per adult" benchmark to adjust for useless government spending and fertility rate differences.)

Will you agree with me that blindly taking steps down the road of deregulation is a BAD IDEA. [...]

If by "deregulation" you mean letting self-owning adults with near-instant access to information regulate their own lives, then I will leap into "deregulation" the very first chance I get! People who want to explicitly assign a nanny to limit their choices are free to do so, and most people probably would, and the market mechanisms would limit people's choices anyway (ex. most stores will screen out bad products lest their reputation suffer, most credit cards will be set up to warn you of fraud by default, etc). There will always be "regulation" in some form, but what I am opposed to is blunt involuntary inflexible mindless violent government force!

Also, please pay your f**kin taxes.... jeesh you moron. Despite how annoying you are, I think you probably have a lot to offer, but not if you're in prison.

Read the part of Atlas Shrugged toward the end where they arrest John Galt and try to get him to work for them.

Do you understand a single thing about utilitarianism?

My philosophy is based on utilitarianism (i.e. evolutionary pragmatism). Yours seems to be based on wishful thinking and desire to please the masses in the short-term - like a typical demagogue politician. My philosophy appeals to the scientific intellect and the economic reality. Your tactics appeal to human laziness, ignorance, petty emotions, and shortsighted desire for unearned rewards.

I am quite well aware that to you, Alex, and others, this is all blaspheming your faith in the FreeMarket God, and the Government Devil, but making a religion out of economics is just plain and simple delusion.

Yes, shame on us for relying on scientific thought... The intuitive whims and wishful thinking of valkyrie_ice, Our Lord And Savior, are a much more rational source of knowledge...

Edited by Alex Libman, 19 April 2010 - 07:44 PM.

[valkyrie_ice]

I am quite well aware that to you, Alex, and others, this is all blaspheming your faith in the FreeMarket God, and the Government Devil, but making a religion out of economics is just plain and simple delusion.

Yes, shame on us for relying on scientific thought... The intuitive whims and wishful thinking of valkyrie_ice, Our Lord And Savior, are a much more rational source of knowledge...

No, shame on you for relying on unsubstantiated theories which have been historically proven time and time again to be flawed, while misrepresenting and demonizing anyone who dares to challenge your religious beliefs in the Free Market God.

You've devolved into a zealot, Alex. And like all zealots everywhere, you left scientific and empirical thought behind a very long time ago in exchange for blind belief and unquestioning obedience to your ideological gods.

Edited by valkyrie_ice, 19 April 2010 - 08:38 PM.

[JLL]

The ones who want to get more than .00000000000000000000001 cent per head of lettuce, pound of potato, etc.

If that's the market price for lettuce and potatoes, why are these farmers in the business in the first place? Seems like their time would be better spent elsewhere.

The failure of comprehension you have is that no business exists in a vacuum. They are all part of an ecosystem, and you destabilize any part, you cause extremely far reaching effects.

You make it sound as if there is some kind of equilibrium. On the free market, new businesses are created all the time and old ones are destroyed. The government can interfere with this "destabilization", but it can not improve upon it.

If American farms produced at full capacity, they would go out of business. They wouldn't be able to sell their crops at a high enough price to pay for the gas used to run the machines, the electric used to run the farm, the fertilizer to spread on their feilds, etc. The American Farmer has be able to supply enough food to feed every single person in America a hundred meals a day for free for nearly fifty years, and that amount is growing daily, and requiring fewer people as time goes by.

So... you are saying that we should keep stealing money from other people to pay the farmers to grow things that are sold at artificially high prices? Or what are you saying exactly? I'm not sure your argument is one against libertarianism.

Because that chain of middle men is where 99% of all the profits made from selling those crops to the public vanishes. The farmer is getting at best, a penny a pound for his crop, while you are paying a couple of dollars for it at the grocer.

And this is related to a stateless society how?

So suppose you and a significant portion of the nation does grow 100% of their own food, who is going to suffer? The companies? they'll lay off all the low level workers to ensure CEO profits stay high, and the people who will get screwed will end up in need of assistance, right on down to that farmer who will get even less for his crops.

I was not arguing that everybody grow their own food... not sure what your point is.

Simply put JLL, supply and demand fall apart in a economy of abundance. And when it comes to food, abundance is all we have these days. We could have abundance in everything, but the only way to make that happen is to eliminate the parasitic behavior of humanity via sane regulation, sane laws, and above all a society of accountability at every level of society.

We don't have an abundance of all foods, and people prefer to eat a variety of foods. To say that "we have an abundance of soylent green" is not the same as saying supply and demand don't apply for food production.

Also, scarcity exists even in grains and potatoes, partly because they are competing for land space with other produce.

I am quite well aware that to you, Alex, and others, this is all blaspheming your faith in the FreeMarket God, and the Government Devil, but making a religion out of economics is just plain and simple delusion.

Economics is basically the study of humans interacting with each other. It's based on logic and observation, not faith.

[valkyrie_ice]

The ones who want to get more than .00000000000000000000001 cent per head of lettuce, pound of potato, etc.

If that's the market price for lettuce and potatoes, why are these farmers in the business in the first place? Seems like their time would be better spent elsewhere.

The failure of comprehension you have is that no business exists in a vacuum. They are all part of an ecosystem, and you destabilize any part, you cause extremely far reaching effects.

You make it sound as if there is some kind of equilibrium. On the free market, new businesses are created all the time and old ones are destroyed. The government can interfere with this "destabilization", but it can not improve upon it.

If American farms produced at full capacity, they would go out of business. They wouldn't be able to sell their crops at a high enough price to pay for the gas used to run the machines, the electric used to run the farm, the fertilizer to spread on their feilds, etc. The American Farmer has be able to supply enough food to feed every single person in America a hundred meals a day for free for nearly fifty years, and that amount is growing daily, and requiring fewer people as time goes by.

So... you are saying that we should keep stealing money from other people to pay the farmers to grow things that are sold at artificially high prices? Or what are you saying exactly? I'm not sure your argument is one against libertarianism.

Because that chain of middle men is where 99% of all the profits made from selling those crops to the public vanishes. The farmer is getting at best, a penny a pound for his crop, while you are paying a couple of dollars for it at the grocer.

And this is related to a stateless society how?

So suppose you and a significant portion of the nation does grow 100% of their own food, who is going to suffer? The companies? they'll lay off all the low level workers to ensure CEO profits stay high, and the people who will get screwed will end up in need of assistance, right on down to that farmer who will get even less for his crops.

I was not arguing that everybody grow their own food... not sure what your point is.

Simply put JLL, supply and demand fall apart in a economy of abundance. And when it comes to food, abundance is all we have these days. We could have abundance in everything, but the only way to make that happen is to eliminate the parasitic behavior of humanity via sane regulation, sane laws, and above all a society of accountability at every level of society.

We don't have an abundance of all foods, and people prefer to eat a variety of foods. To say that "we have an abundance of soylent green" is not the same as saying supply and demand don't apply for food production.

Also, scarcity exists even in grains and potatoes, partly because they are competing for land space with other produce.

I am quite well aware that to you, Alex, and others, this is all blaspheming your faith in the FreeMarket God, and the Government Devil, but making a religion out of economics is just plain and simple delusion.

Economics is basically the study of humans interacting with each other. It's based on logic and observation, not faith.

*sigh* You still refuse to see the point, don't you?

Everything I have said is fact JLL, and all of it is a result of your free market philosophies. All of this idiocy is the result of various businesses seeking to maximize their own profits while minimizing their accountability. Regulation and laws have in every case been a result of trying to minimize the fraud and exploitation inherent in mankind's dealings with man.

You think all of this is insane, you will hate life in your Anarcho-capitalist state once all accountability has been completely removed from the equation and you live in a toxic landfill because it's cheaper for the company to dump directly into the water supply than to treat it's waste products, and your daily commute to work costs your weeks wages in toll charges.

Never, in all of human history, has the free market EVER worked as you believe. Caveat Emptor is a 2000 year old truism precisely because of that fact.

[RighteousReason]

Do you understand a single thing about utilitarianism?

My philosophy is based on utilitarianism (i.e. evolutionary pragmatism). Yours seems to be based on wishful thinking and desire to please the masses in the short-term - like a typical demagogue politician. My philosophy appeals to the scientific intellect and the economic reality. Your tactics appeal to human laziness, ignorance, petty emotions, and shortsighted desire for unearned rewards.

owned.

[Alex Libman]

I never cease being amazed at the mental gymnastics socialists will go through in order to pretend that they understand basic economics...

No, shame on you for relying on unsubstantiated theories which have been historically proven time and time again to be flawed [...]

Is it the "say the opposite of documented economic truth" day in valkyrie_ice land today (like every day)?

When / where did free market capitalism ever fail?

When / where did socialism ever succeed?

You've devolved into a zealot, Alex. [...]

Anyone can call anyone else a "zealot", but this fact remains: the foremost distinction between faith and science is freedom of inquiry. You (that is the system you defend, and therefore are a part of) are initiating aggression against me, which in reality is the very worst form of zealotry, and I just want to liberate myself from your aggression. If you are so sure that I am wrong, then why not leave me alone and let my failure be a warning to other would-be "libertarian zealots"? The reason why you cannot do that is because the people in charge of the system you're defending know - if they stop initiating aggression against people like me, then we will succeed and show the world all the immeasurable harm wrought by centuries of their unnecessary evil!

[JLL]

*sigh* You still refuse to see the point, don't you?

Well, given that none of your answers seem to address my questions, I suppose so.

Everything I have said is fact JLL, and all of it is a result of your free market philosophies.

I'm sorry, what is a result of free market philosophy? That farmers get paid too much (or too little, I'm not sure anymore)?

By the way, you repeating that everything you say "is a fact" does not make it true. You've said many things that are not facts.

All of this idiocy is the result of various businesses seeking to maximize their own profits while minimizing their accountability.

So seeking to maximize profits is bad in your opinion? Should we maximize losses instead?

Regulation and laws have in every case been a result of trying to minimize the fraud and exploitation inherent in mankind's dealings with man.

Are you saying there has never been a law or regulation that has resulted out of politicians' greed for power? Seriously?

You think all of this is insane, you will hate life in your Anarcho-capitalist state once all accountability has been completely removed from the equation and you live in a toxic landfill because it's cheaper for the company to dump directly into the water supply than to treat it's waste products, and your daily commute to work costs your weeks wages in toll charges.

There is accountability even -- in fact, especially -- on the free market. But instead of being accountable to bureaucrats, businesses are accountable to the consumers and stockholders. We've seen which one is more effective.

Tell me, how has government solved the problem of dumping toxic waste in the seas and rivers? Last time I checked, socialist/communist states were the worst polluters. How is that possible?

Toxic landfills and the kind of pollution you are talking about are a direct result of government owning land.

Why would toll charges be so high as to discourage using them? There is no monopoly on roads on the free market. And I've seen some pretty damn expensive toll charges in government-owned roads, so how does the government solve the problem?

Never, in all of human history, has the free market EVER worked as you believe. Caveat Emptor is a 2000 year old truism precisely because of that fact.

In all of human history, the free market has been allowed to work to varying degrees, and the more room it has been, the better things have worked.

In all of human history, socialism has not worked as you believe.

[RighteousReason]

repeat.

Edited by RighteousReason, 20 April 2010 - 12:05 PM.

[RighteousReason]

Can the masses be expected not to screw the entire planet to the point it's practically uninhabitable? NO, they can't be expected to do what's right with or without gov... even within their limited choices they've failed at most of them, large numbers failing to take care of their health, finances, the environment, their children's education, a majority holding on to irrational superstitious beliefs. The masses need to be led, those with greater capabilities and knowledge need to steer the ship.

Cameron, you are absolutely right. Those with greater abilities and knowledge do indeed need to steer the ship.

That happens by default in a more libertarian system as the ones with greater ability and knowledge are free to use them as they see fit.(they also have more dollars with which to vote)

In democracy the mob rules. That's how hamas and bush got elected.

So far, "those with greater capabilities" have screwed up health(beginning with nutrition), finance(look at the mess Social Security/Pension Plans, etc are in). Why do you think them capable of steering the ship ?

Who says those fit to rule are those who're ruling? In order to be elected and to remain in office, charisma goes a long way, it can often go beyond shown performance. Further the requirement of having to appeal in many areas to the masses or risk political suicide hamstrings the ability of the capable few who manage to get close to the top. This problem is further compounded by the fact that funding and lobbying manages to corrupt the decisions even further.

A benevolent dictatorship is the best form of governance. But how to keep it benevolent?

The use of force is the defining characteristic of a dictatorship.

The only possible "benevolent dictatorship" is defined by laize faire capitalism -- where the only rule of using force is against the use of force. Any other "benevolent dictatorship" is a contradiction, by definition.

The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man's self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

Edited by RighteousReason, 20 April 2010 - 12:28 PM.

[Lallante]

Some very simplistic, very typical libertarian fallacies being perpetuated in this thread.

Force isn't just physical force. Force can be exerted in a multitude of ways and can better be described as "coercion caused by an imbalance of power".

A truly 'free' free market society would eventually result in one person (or one corporation, or faction) utterly dominating all other people in the society and dictating everything. The idea that a perfect free-market will entire self regulate if left alone is a hilarious nonsense debunked hundreds of years ago.

When people argue that laisez faire capitalism is the be-all end-all of freedom, they make the following (patently) false assumptions:
- People have perfect access to information.
- Actors in the market will not deliberately mislead others.
- There are no natural monopolistic positions.
- Actors will not collude or abuse their position in the market.

Market failures mean free-market capitalism does not, without additional influence from the government, work.
Market failures mean there are many industries which can never work fairly in a capitalistic model (eg Railways).


The concepts of freedom and rights as used in this thread are arbitrarily defined contrivances. They have no meaning beyond the meaning that society gives to them.

Oh, and Rand is a nutjob cult leader with a seriously flawed understanding of reality.

[EmbraceUnity]

Aww Lallante, you're no fun. Why do you have to bring reality up? If people prefer their comfy delusions, that is their right. I think the last few decades shows clearly that these beliefs are perfectly harmless. /scarcsm

[JLL]

Force isn't just physical force. Force can be exerted in a multitude of ways and can better be described as "coercion caused by an imbalance of power".

Not this relativist crap... please give an example of using force as "imbalance of power".

The idea that a perfect free-market will entire self regulate if left alone is a hilarious nonsense debunked hundreds of years ago.

I must've missed that memo. Where was it debunked again?

When people argue that laisez faire capitalism is the be-all end-all of freedom, they make the following (patently) false assumptions:
- People have perfect access to information.
- Actors in the market will not deliberately mislead others.
- There are no natural monopolistic positions.
- Actors will not collude or abuse their position in the market.

I haven't heard this assumptions being made.

Market failures mean free-market capitalism does not, without additional influence from the government, work.
Market failures mean there are many industries which can never work fairly in a capitalistic model (eg Railways).

Can you give an example of a "market failure" that was fixed by government interference?

[Lallante]

Force isn't just physical force. Force can be exerted in a multitude of ways and can better be described as "coercion caused by an imbalance of power".

Not this relativist crap... please give an example of using force as "imbalance of power".

There is nothing relativist about anything I have said.
I will not only demonstrate the concept of force as an imbalance of power, but also use the example to further demonstrate the failure of truly free free-market capitalism:

Conglomerate A is a multinational with 100bn yearly turnover.
Company B is a competitor to Conglomerate A in the same industry but is vastly smaller, say 10m turnover.
Supplier C is upstream of A and B in the supply chain of that industry.
Customer D is downstream of A and B in the supply chain that industry.

Conglomerate A can force Company B out of business in its industry by coercing B to leave directly or Coercing Supplier C and Customer D not to deal with Company B. It can do this in a number of ways, all of which are uses of force, including:
a) physical force (which you claim is the only kind) - A could pay for the assasination of all of B's employees.
b) A could losslead on all competing products (which it can afford to do for a limited time due to its massive size), forcing B to either be uncompetative (and therefore die) or losslead as well (which it is much less able to do due to its relative small size).
c) A could tell C that it will no longer deal with C if C continues to deal with B. Given A's relative size and therefore importance to C's business, it will likely be coerced into agreeing.
d) A could spend vast sums (unmatchable by B) to publicise false information about B and B's products to D.

There are literally an infinite number of further examples. All are uses of force, as epitomised by coercion caused by an imbalance of power, in this case due to the difference in relative size of the companies.

The idea that a perfect free-market will entire self regulate if left alone is a hilarious nonsense debunked hundreds of years ago.

I must've missed that memo. Where was it debunked again?

I cant think of any economist since the 18th century who has claimed that the free market does not suffer from market failure in some areas. Perhaps you can?

When people argue that laisez faire capitalism is the be-all end-all of freedom, they make the following (patently) false assumptions:
- People have perfect access to information.
- Actors in the market will not deliberately mislead others.
- There are no natural monopolistic positions.
- Actors will not collude or abuse their position in the market.

I haven't heard this assumptions being made.

And yet they are implicit in all of your arguements.

Market failures mean free-market capitalism does not, without additional influence from the government, work.
Market failures mean there are many industries which can never work fairly in a capitalistic model (eg Railways).

Can you give an example of a "market failure" that was fixed by government interference?

Yes easily. If the government were to cease providing street lights funded by taxation, there would simply be no street lighting - non-rivalry of consumption and non-excludability means there could never be a private company that would provide such a service.

Another. If the government did not provide roads paid for by taxation, whilst private companies MIGHT build, maintain and charge for some larger, intercity and other important roads, small residential roads, particularly to poorer areas, would not be economical and thus would not exist.

Another. Price fixing - if the government did not actively intervene to prevent pricefixing, industries with high barriers to entry would consist of cartels artificially elevating the price to ridiculous levels. This happens as it is, resulting in period massive scandals every 2 - 5 years when another industry gets caught doing it. Without government intervention this would cause immeasurable problems.

Another. Fraud - without government intervention there would be little disincentive to fraud, particularly fraud that an unsophisticated consumer would never discover.

Another. Imperfect information - without government intervention, there is no reason for an actor in a market to provide negative information about his own products that he knows of but that general consumers could not be expected to know. For example a drugs company could market its new drug without telling anyone that 1/50 people using it may suffer severe complications. Combined with no restriction on fraud or spreading false information and the company could conceal this for a long period of time, a la the tobacco industry.

Theres an infinite number of these examples.

[RighteousReason]

Force isn't just physical force. Force can be exerted in a multitude of ways and can better be described as "coercion caused by an imbalance of power".

"And when I say "freedom," I do not mean poetic sloppiness, such as "freedom from want" or "freedom from fear" or "freedom from the necessity of earning a living," I mean "freedom from compulsion - freedom from rule by physical force." Which means: political freedom.

Can you imagine the result of taking as a moral premise that any imbalance of power between people is evil and people must be freed from it? That is the communist creed rehashed all over again. I'll rehash my same response from earlier to this line of reasoning...

The lowest, most suffering conditions of humanity becomes the universal standard, as anyone who is foolish enough to work to achieve more or is unlucky enough to be born better must be destroyed under this perversion of morality.

And here is some relevant Ayn Rand for good measure:

It makes no difference whether government controls allegedly favor the interests of labor or business, of the poor or the rich, of a special class or a special race: the results are the same. The notion that a dictatorship can benefit any one social group at the expense of others is a worn remnant of the Marxist mythology of class warfare, refuted by half a century of factual evidence. All men are victims and losers under a dictatorship; nobody wins-except the ruling clique.

A truly 'free' free market society would eventually result in one person (or one corporation, or faction) utterly dominating all other people in the society and dictating everything.

I don't know what the hell you are referring to, a truly free market is one dominated by a single regulation which makes that impossible: force is only used as a defense against those using force. So this is basically a straw man (more of a misunderstanding than an intentional misdirection I'm assuming).

When people argue that laisez faire capitalism is the be-all end-all of freedom, they make the following (patently) false assumptions:
- People have perfect access to information.
- Actors in the market will not deliberately mislead others.
- There are no natural monopolistic positions.
- Actors will not collude or abuse their position in the market.

When someone dilberately misleads others -- that is called fraud. That is illegal in pure laissez-faire capitalism (I have no idea where you came up with that other stuff so I can't respond to that) This is the same response as the previous point. Please take the time to read two paragraphs to even have a clue what in the world we are even talking about.

The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man's self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

Market failures mean free-market capitalism does not, without additional influence from the government, work.

durr ... same as above.

Market failures mean there are many industries which can never work fairly in a capitalistic model (eg Railways).
The concepts of freedom and rights as used in this thread are arbitrarily defined contrivances. They have no meaning beyond the meaning that society gives to them.

???

Oh, and Rand is a nutjob cult leader with a seriously flawed understanding of reality.

You are a seriously hateful person aren't you... how about canning the mindless attacks and sticking to meaningful conversation...

Edited by RighteousReason, 20 April 2010 - 04:16 PM.

[RighteousReason]

Force isn't just physical force. Force can be exerted in a multitude of ways and can better be described as "coercion caused by an imbalance of power".

Not this relativist crap... please give an example of using force as "imbalance of power".

There is nothing relativist about anything I have said.
I will not only demonstrate the concept of force as an imbalance of power, but also use the example to further demonstrate the failure of truly free free-market capitalism:

Conglomerate A is a multinational with 100bn yearly turnover.
Company B is a competitor to Conglomerate A in the same industry but is vastly smaller, say 10m turnover.
Supplier C is upstream of A and B in the supply chain of that industry.
Customer D is downstream of A and B in the supply chain that industry.

Conglomerate A can force Company B out of business in its industry by coercing B to leave directly or Coercing Supplier C and Customer D not to deal with Company B. It can do this in a number of ways, all of which are uses of force, including:
a) physical force (which you claim is the only kind) - A could pay for the assasination of all of B's employees.
b) A could losslead on all competing products (which it can afford to do for a limited time due to its massive size), forcing B to either be uncompetative (and therefore die) or losslead as well (which it is much less able to do due to its relative small size).
c) A could tell C that it will no longer deal with C if C continues to deal with B. Given A's relative size and therefore importance to C's business, it will likely be coerced into agreeing.
d) A could spend vast sums (unmatchable by B) to publicise false information about B and B's products to D.

There are literally an infinite number of further examples. All are uses of force, as epitomised by coercion caused by an imbalance of power, in this case due to the difference in relative size of the companies.

The idea that a perfect free-market will entire self regulate if left alone is a hilarious nonsense debunked hundreds of years ago.

I must've missed that memo. Where was it debunked again?

I cant think of any economist since the 18th century who has claimed that the free market does not suffer from market failure in some areas. Perhaps you can?

When people argue that laisez faire capitalism is the be-all end-all of freedom, they make the following (patently) false assumptions:
- People have perfect access to information.
- Actors in the market will not deliberately mislead others.
- There are no natural monopolistic positions.
- Actors will not collude or abuse their position in the market.

I haven't heard this assumptions being made.

And yet they are implicit in all of your arguements.

Market failures mean free-market capitalism does not, without additional influence from the government, work.
Market failures mean there are many industries which can never work fairly in a capitalistic model (eg Railways).

Can you give an example of a "market failure" that was fixed by government interference?

Yes easily. If the government were to cease providing street lights funded by taxation, there would simply be no street lighting - non-rivalry of consumption and non-excludability means there could never be a private company that would provide such a service.

Another. If the government did not provide roads paid for by taxation, whilst private companies MIGHT build, maintain and charge for some larger, intercity and other important roads, small residential roads, particularly to poorer areas, would not be economical and thus would not exist.

Another. Price fixing - if the government did not actively intervene to prevent pricefixing, industries with high barriers to entry would consist of cartels artificially elevating the price to ridiculous levels. This happens as it is, resulting in period massive scandals every 2 - 5 years when another industry gets caught doing it. Without government intervention this would cause immeasurable problems.

Another. Fraud - without government intervention there would be little disincentive to fraud, particularly fraud that an unsophisticated consumer would never discover.

Another. Imperfect information - without government intervention, there is no reason for an actor in a market to provide negative information about his own products that he knows of but that general consumers could not be expected to know. For example a drugs company could market its new drug without telling anyone that 1/50 people using it may suffer severe complications. Combined with no restriction on fraud or spreading false information and the company could conceal this for a long period of time, a la the tobacco industry.

Theres an infinite number of these examples.

This would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. You keep doing it!! LOL

Please take the time to AT LEAST read two paragraphs to even have a clue what in the world we are even talking about.

The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man's self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

Seriously... if there were even a tiny amount of intellectual honesty or genuine curiosity in you, you would take the time to legitimately read up on what you are hating so vehemently. It's pretty obvious we are dealing with a very very small (and hateful) mind here.

Edited by RighteousReason, 20 April 2010 - 04:12 PM.

[Lallante]

Can you imagine the result of taking as a moral premise that any imbalance of power between people is evil and people must be freed from it? That is the communist creed rehashed all over again. I'll rehash my same response from earlier to this line of reasoning...

Sigh... Where on earth did you find any moral premises in my posts? Force is a neutral term, it doesnt have a moral weight. Misuse of force is what has (negative) moral weight. Calling anyone who isnt ultra right wing a communist is the same old canard that has sustained the US political right for decades. Try living in Europe.

The lowest, most suffering conditions of humanity becomes the universal standard, as anyone who is foolish enough to work to achieve more or is unlucky enough to be born better must be destroyed under this perversion of morality.

And yet Sweden and Finland have the highest standard of living in the world, explain please.

And here is some relevant Ayn Rand for good measure:
It makes no difference whether government controls allegedly favor the interests of labor or business, of the poor or the rich, of a special class or a special race: the results are the same. The notion that a dictatorship can benefit any one social group at the expense of others is a worn remnant of the Marxist mythology of class warfare, refuted by half a century of factual evidence. All men are victims and losers under a dictatorship; nobody wins-except the ruling clique.

What has this got to do with anything?

A truly 'free' free market society would eventually result in one person (or one corporation, or faction) utterly dominating all other people in the society and dictating everything.

I don't know what the hell you are referring to, a truly free market is one dominated by a single regulation which makes that impossible: force is only used as a defense against those using force. So this is basically a straw man (more of a misunderstanding than an intentional misdirection I'm assuming).

Its not a straw man. In an unregulated free market, given a few years or decades for inequality to emerge, those who benefitted from the inequality would be able to exponentially increase the inequality in their favour (as they could use their wealth to coercively generate greater wealth and destroy rivals) until one corporation essentially controlled everything - a corporate, market sanctioned dictatorship. They could then prevent any further competition by creating such high barriers-to-entry that noone would be able to enter the market.

When someone dilberately misleads others -- that is called fraud. That is illegal in pure laissez-faire capitalism (I have no idea where you came up with that other stuff so I can't respond to that) This is the same response as the previous point. Please take the time to read two paragraphs to even have a clue what in the world we are even talking about.

Please explain how Fraud could be illegal in pure laissez fair capitalism - how it would work in practice, who would enforce it, who would monitor it and how. A very large portion of market regulation is intended to prevent Fraud - would you allow all of that body of regulation to remain?
As for the rest of my quote, all of those situations will arise in laissez faire capitalism, causing it, as described, to eventually lead to what is in essence a corporate dictatorship.

The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man's self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

I disagree, due to the flaws in laissez-faire capitalism due to market failures I've already outlines. "Rights" are a man-made concept and thus are, or mean, exactly what society deems them to be or mean. You have a lot of bare assertions in this post and little if any actual arguement.

Market failures mean there are many industries which can never work fairly in a capitalistic model (eg Railways).

What?!

Railways are a natural monopoly - in most countries it is physically impossible for rival rail infrastructure to be built, and thus whoever has use of the existing infrastructure has a monopoly. Monopoly positions are naturally abused by profit-driven corporates in a free-market - market failure.

The concepts of freedom and rights as used in this thread are arbitrarily defined contrivances. They have no meaning beyond the meaning that society gives to them.

???

That is a pretty straightforward comment, do I really need to explain? Rights are invented by man. If it is correct to say "men have rights X Y and Z" this is only because social convention (or law, etc) deems them to have those rights. You cannot divine rights independantly of social convention.

You are a seriously hateful person aren't you... how about canning the mindless attacks and sticking to meaningful conversation...

I'm not in any way hateful - I don't even get angry. Unless you are Rand reincarnated, I dont see how this is an 'attack' on you. More hilariously, you ask me to can the mindless attacks (on a dead sociopath!) and in the same breath call me "seriously hateful". Nice double ad-hom.

To quote Gore Vidal:
"This odd little woman [Ayn Rand] is attempting to give a moral sanction to greed and self interest, and to pull it off she must at times indulge in purest Orwellian newspeak of the “freedom is slavery” sort. She has a great attraction for simple people who are puzzled by organized society, who object to paying taxes, who dislike the “welfare” state, who feel guilt at the thought of the suffering of others but who would like to harden their hearts. "

[Lallante]

I am not going to dignify your second, equally bile filled reply with a response beyond this summary -

- You accuse me of ad-homs while calling me intellectually dishonest, small minded, mindless, hateful, vile and so on....
- You deliberately misconstrue my arguements (I'm talking about the misuse of economic force, aka, abuse of a dominant position, which would occur in truly laissez faire capitalism NOT physical force which I accept would be outlawed).
- You are unable to distinguish between physical force and economic force, or are unable to understand the signficance (and almost inevitability of abuse) of the latter.
- You have yet to explain how laissez faire capitalism overcomes any of the examples which you demanded, and I gave, of market failure.
- You seem to worship Ayn Rand.

Laissez Faire Capitalism doesn't work - or rather, it inevitably leads to dominant monopoly interests which can then distort the market to their own ends to the severe cost of the vast majority of actors in the market. An attempt at true laissez faire capitalism would fail just as hard as an attempt at true communism - its an ideology that is defeated by practical realities and human nature.

Edited by Lallante, 20 April 2010 - 04:45 PM.

[RighteousReason]

I'm not your daddy or your teacher. If you are lucky Alex Libman may help you out.

[EmbraceUnity]

Lallante, that was brilliant. Though you could compete with yourself for ever higher levels of rationality and eloquence, and these people will never change their minds because truth is not what they seek, but rather confirmation of their beliefs. Luckily many of the readers care more about truth, and appreciate your comments. Myself included.

Oh yea, and just to keep your head from getting too big, I'm sure you're dreadfully wrong about plenty of things.

[Lallante]

I'm not your daddy or your teacher. If you are lucky Alex Libman may help you out.

Yep that's pretty much what I thought. You have 3 posts you can quote over and over but can't actually formulate any kind of logical response to an arguement. Jog on...

[valkyrie_ice]

*sigh* You still refuse to see the point, don't you?

Well, given that none of your answers seem to address my questions, I suppose so.

I didn't address your pointless attempts to derail and misrepresent me, precisely because they were pointless attempts to derail and misrepresent me.

All of that idiotic chain of logic used to justify protectionism is part and parcel of the free market dynamic you so devoutly believe in. All of those middle men are there because of free market dynamics. "Make money anyway you can!"

And every one of them will fight tooth and nail to survive, by any means necessary, precisely because failure means extinction. That includes fraud, murder, environmental destruction, enslavement, etc. It has in every other phase of mankind's development, and it does today.

Your arguments all fail to cope with the true nature of mankind. and so long as they are based on a erroneous model of humanity, they will inevitably lead to every negative behavior regulation exists to prevent.

Do you think Love Canal was an accident? That had regulation not been passed to make the company responsible accountable, that it would have stopped? Do you think the mine accident a few weeks ago would have happened had not profit been more important than safety? You deliberately blind yourself to the truth, that regulation exists to enforce accountability.

HOW MANY MILLIONS WOULD NEED TO DIE BEFORE THE "FREE MARKET" WOULD FORCE A COMPANY TO BE ACCOUNTABLE? How much of humanity would need to be enslaved by the powerful before the "free market" would force accountability?

But the simple fact is, you don't care. You are all convinced that you wouldn't be a victim, and so the victims don't count. The atrocities man has committed against man don't register in your realities, because none of those people are you, and so they are meaningless. They are just statistics on the end of quarter report.

And because of that blindness, you seek to create a "paradise" which will become exactly what you claim to fear and hate the most, a world were only businesses matter, and humanity is just so much grist for the mill.

I've told you before I am not a socialist. Not by any textbook definition, but your definitions aren't textbook, they are based solely on the fact that I am opposed to your blind ideologies. Socialism is based on the concept that the state owns all, and I have never once claimed that the state should own all, merely that the state, in it's textbook definition form, exists to enact the will of the people, and that it can only fulfill this role in a system of complete accountability at all levels, from the individual to the collective whole. That does not exist at present, and I have never once claimed it does despite your numerous attempts to misrepresent me as doing so. I have pointed out the indicators which I see trending in the direction of complete accountability, and what those indicators suggest will occur in the not to distant future. As things are developing now, a communistic ideal of every individual owning the means of production, in the form of home manufacturing devices, seems far more likely than any future in which the state owns all, and indeed, the "state" is likely to cease to exist in favor of the "planet" over the next century. And as we transition to this future, human needs are going to come off the market and cease being commodities.

The sole thing I have advocated is that the sooner human needs come off the market, the fewer people will need to die before this inevitable event, and the less human suffering will take place.

[Lallante]

excellent post valk

[valkyrie_ice]

excellent post valk

Thank you, yours as well, though we are both beating our heads against a brick wall of blind ideology here.

[Lallante]

Lallante, that was brilliant. Though you could compete with yourself for ever higher levels of rationality and eloquence, and these people will never change their minds because truth is not what they seek, but rather confirmation of their beliefs. Luckily many of the readers care more about truth, and appreciate your comments. Myself included.

Oh yea, and just to keep your head from getting too big, I'm sure you're dreadfully wrong about plenty of things.

excellent pos valk

t

Thank you, yours as well, though we are both beating our heads against a brick wall of blind ideology here.

Thanks for your very kind words - I am definitely wrong about lots of things (and often change my mind or at least my argument in support of my opinions to reflect this), but I dont think this is one of them!

Edited by Lallante, 20 April 2010 - 09:40 PM.

[JLL]

All of that idiotic chain of logic used to justify protectionism is part and parcel of the free market dynamic you so devoutly believe in. All of those middle men are there because of free market dynamics. "Make money anyway you can!"

We must have very different definitions of a free market. The way I understand it is people interacting with each other without government intervention. Wikipedia's definition differs slightly:

A free market is a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to outlaw and prosecute force or fraud.

This is a more minarchist view than an anarchist view, but even the Wikipedia definition excludes the idea of protectionism. You simply can't have protectionist laws in a free market, or it ceases to be a free market.

People will still act according to "free market dynamics" (e.g. maximizing gains and minimizing effort), even with protectionism in place, but they are no longer acting in a free market. For example, there are clearly some free market forces at play in prisons (cigarettes used as currency, favor for a favor, etc), but I don't think anyone would call prisons a free market.

Do you agree with this?

[JLL]

The lengths people will go to to defend their contradictory beliefs:

[Lallante]

I cant view videos from work - summary?

[valkyrie_ice]

All of that idiotic chain of logic used to justify protectionism is part and parcel of the free market dynamic you so devoutly believe in. All of those middle men are there because of free market dynamics. "Make money anyway you can!"

We must have very different definitions of a free market. The way I understand it is people interacting with each other without government intervention. Wikipedia's definition differs slightly:

A free market is a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to outlaw and prosecute force or fraud.

This is a more minarchist view than an anarchist view, but even the Wikipedia definition excludes the idea of protectionism. You simply can't have protectionist laws in a free market, or it ceases to be a free market.

People will still act according to "free market dynamics" (e.g. maximizing gains and minimizing effort), even with protectionism in place, but they are no longer acting in a free market. For example, there are clearly some free market forces at play in prisons (cigarettes used as currency, favor for a favor, etc), but I don't think anyone would call prisons a free market.

Do you agree with this?

All right JLL, It seems you are FOR government intervention to protect the public from force or fraud, correct?

The problem lies in your definitions then of what constitutes force and fraud. Lallante explained quite well that force exists in many forms. You limit this to just violence, but the other forms are just as detrimental to the free market dynamic, and just as in need of control. The same goes for fraud. At present, the overwhelming majority of regulation is designed to prevent fraud, or to ensure the safety of workers or consumers. By your own arguments, you claim to support this kind of regulation, and yet you denounce it repeatedly.

Should accidents such as the recent mine collapse just be considered "part of doing business?" Should occupational hazards such as black lung, methane, collapses, and all the other hazards of mining simply be ignored because it's not profitable to worry about them? This is precisely the reason that regulations for mine safety were passed to begin with, to prevent violence in the form of neglect for miners safety on the part of the mining company. The failure of this regulation to be enforced cost all those men their lives, and the reason those regulations were not enforced is because the mining company applied force in the form of money, lobbying, bribes, and filling the regulators office with cronies. It became cheaper and more profitable to ignore the regulations and just pay the fines than to protect the workers. Was this the fault of the regulations existing? No. It's entirely the fault of the people seeking to profit and avoid accountability. Had the cost of avoiding the regulations been prohibitive, it would have been cheaper to follow those safety rules, and those miners would still be alive.

However, in your scenarios, none of these regulations would exist, and safety rules would have been non-existent, much as they were in the end of the 1800s, when mines were deadly, miners had to buy nearly everything from the company, at prices which kept them in debt to the company and thus little more than indentured slaves.

This is the supreme hypocrisy of your views. You want no regulation and no government, but at the same time, you say that the government would supply regulation to do EXACTLY WHAT IT IS ALREADY DOING WITH EXISTING REGULATION.

Now to answer your question, I do believe that the only way a free market can actually be FREE is to have laws and regulations in place that are powerful enough to prevent the use of force of ANY KIND by any market agent against any other market agent. That means no use of economic force, social force, physical violence force, and any and all other kind of force that exists. That includes informational force, which is essentially what fraud consists of, using information, both true and false, to limit choice, and force behavior that is detrimental to the victim but profitable for the victimizer.

Edited by valkyrie_ice, 21 April 2010 - 10:39 PM.

[JLL]

All right JLL, It seems you are FOR government intervention to protect the public from force or fraud, correct?

No, that is incorrect.

The problem lies in your definitions then of what constitutes force and fraud. Lallante explained quite well that force exists in many forms. You limit this to just violence, but the other forms are just as detrimental to the free market dynamic, and just as in need of control. The same goes for fraud. At present, the overwhelming majority of regulation is designed to prevent fraud, or to ensure the safety of workers or consumers. By your own arguments, you claim to support this kind of regulation, and yet you denounce it repeatedly.

Where did I say I support this kind of government regulation? Please show the exact quote.

However, in your scenarios, none of these regulations would exist, and safety rules would have been non-existent, much as they were in the end of the 1800s, when mines were deadly, miners had to buy nearly everything from the company, at prices which kept them in debt to the company and thus little more than indentured slaves.

Then how do you explain that businesses pay more than the minimum wage, have additional safety standards, etc? These are done without government force.

Now to answer your question, I do believe that the only way a free market can actually be FREE is to have laws and regulations in place that are powerful enough to prevent the use of force of ANY KIND by any market agent against any other market agent. That means no use of economic force, social force, physical violence force, and any and all other kind of force that exists. That includes informational force, which is essentially what fraud consists of, using information, both true and false, to limit choice, and force behavior that is detrimental to the victim but profitable for the victimizer.

Freedom is slavery?

Tell me, how would the world function in practice in this no-force-of-any-kind utopia of yours? What if I say you're using force against me by changing your body -- I'm insulted by your change, and since force does not mean physical force but also psychological force, so shouldn't you be "regulated"? How will the nanotechnology you preach about come to be if you get rid of the entire industry?