The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: think4yourself on September 30, 2009, 08:09:50 PM
-
If we were without government or any other means of coercive interference in the market, what would we have?
We would have far more prosperity, development and progress.
But would it be perfect?
Another way to ask this question is: Are all the problems/deficiencies in the current un-free economy due solely to government/coercive intervention?
-
No nothing is perfect. Obviously things would be far better without government/coercive intervention but it's not gonna be all raindows and candy canes.
-
The reason I ask is because if I ever offer alternative ideas I get lectured on how the free market is the ultimate economic system.
-
Success validates ideas. The prerequisite for validating any idea is for one to have the opportunity to test the idea/theory. Therefore the free market (describing an aspect of liberty concerned with the maximum ability to engage in voluntary commerce), is the ultimate means of solving economic problems (aren't all problems economic in nature anyways? Even questions of an existential nature depend upon man's limited capacity to informatively describe their experiences. Rationalization/Reasoning is the economization of logical thought).
Life is not perfect, nor can any solution be absolutely perfect, (only objectivists deal in absolutes, heh ), but we're discussing the notion that man as a volitional being is capable of governing itself and producing solutions that mitigate harm and indiscriminate destruction.
Was that a sufficient answer?
-
You're asking if something can be perfect. In your life, how many things have you seen that are without flaw?
A free market happens to be the best type. That is all.
-
If we were without government or any other means of coercive interference in the market, what would we have?
We would have far more prosperity, development and progress.
But would it be perfect?
Another way to ask this question is: Are all the problems/deficiencies in the current un-free economy due solely to government/coercive intervention?
Yes, the problem of government force is due solely to government force. Getting along with others on a voluntary basis, without utilizing force is perfect.
-
I should have been more specific. I wasn't referring to markets in general (ie. the voluntary exchange of anything between individuals), but free market capitalism (markets of exchange on a monetary basis).
I agree that nothing is perfect. But I get the impression that some people hold free market capitalism high and mighty on some kind of pedestal of perfection, flawless, and impervious to criticism. I'm speaking specifically of capitalism, not freedom generally.
I think there will still be the ability of people/businesses/corporations to acquire power and be nearly as adverse and coercive as they were with government, but without it. That's why I believe that it's imperfect (but is still the best economy for the immediate future).
-
It's not a matter of how efficient a style of market is, although I'd argue that a totally unregulated market works "Best".
It's whether or not the market requires immoral behavior to function.
A free market does not. Every other economic structure does.
If an economic system requires the initiation of force to function, it is immoral and should not be supported if possible.
An economy doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be not evil.
-
I should have been more specific. I wasn't referring to markets in general (ie. the voluntary exchange of anything between individuals), but free market capitalism (markets of exchange on a monetary basis).
I agree that nothing is perfect. But I get the impression that some people hold free market capitalism high and mighty on some kind of pedestal of perfection, flawless, and impervious to criticism. I'm speaking specifically of capitalism, not freedom generally.
I think there will still be the ability of people/businesses/corporations to acquire power and be nearly as adverse and coercive as they were with government, but without it. That's why I believe that it's imperfect (but is still the best economy for the immediate future).
The reason that the ideas are held in such high regard is because the principles behind liberty and prosperity remain constant throughout time and circumstance, and serve as an ideal or compass. They form the basis of individualism by recognizing the source of value.
Liberty is not common, however. Vigilance toward liberty is a constant requirement to obtain more freedom.
-
Honestly, I've often wondered the same thing, or rather I've wondered if the same degree of "prosperity" would exist should a free-market have existed historically. Much of the "progress" made during the industrial revolution was in fact a response to government intervention-either by liability limitation, or direct "internal improvements" in the case of the US. Not to mention the huge expenditure of government resources upon military innovation......
I believe in a free-market because it is moral, because I think that the means must justify the end, not vice-versa. Often I think many "free-market" types, such as Randians, lose track of that. Don't stop questioning things, no matter what you do.
Vigilance implies the use of force to create "liberty", which is not freedom at all.
-
If we were without government or any other means of coercive interference in the market, what would we have?
We would have far more prosperity, development and progress.
But would it be perfect?
Another way to ask this question is: Are all the problems/deficiencies in the current un-free economy due solely to government/coercive intervention?
Yes, the problem of government force is due solely to government force. Getting along with others on a voluntary basis, without utilizing force is perfect.
Assumes the only users of force are government.
Unless you're talking about the perfect form of government, i.e. non, and even then its clumsy terminology because it inserts the idea that there are no negative points involved.
Talk to statists about no government being perfect and they're going to think you're delusional because of those utopian associations.
Anarcho Capitalism might be the philosophical ideal, but there will still be random crimes, and likely unforeseen consequences
-
Much of the "progress" made during the industrial revolution was in fact a response to government intervention-either by liability limitation, or direct "internal improvements" in the case of the US.
What you're forgetting is that the expenditures on "internal improvements" caused multiple states to reach the brink of bankruptcy, requiring bailouts and scrapping of many of those same "improvements" at terrible losses.
The rhetoric of merchantilism sounds good, but on net it's always less efficient in terms of cost/benefit than supposedly "wasteful" competition.
I can suggest "How Capitalism Saved America" or perhaps a search on Mises.org for "internal improvements". I assure you, you're not alone in this confusion.
Not to mention the huge expenditure of government resources upon military innovation......
Expenditures, yes, but with what benefits? "Spending" is not a measure of economic health, or booms would never have busts. That's why Keynesian economists are left scratching their heads when their predictions of "a new permanent high" end up with yet another, inevitable, bust. Just like now.
Lives lost, bombs dropped, buildings, resources, materials all destroyed, military "expenditure" is the Broken Window Fallacy writ HUGE. There is no net gain, only loss because once it's done it requires vast resources be spent cleaning up just to get back to where we started. The vast majority of toxic waste "Superfund" sites are military-industrial.
I believe in a free-market because it is moral, because I think that the means must justify the end, not vice-versa. Often I think many "free-market" types, such as Randians, lose track of that. Don't stop questioning things, no matter what you do.
Here I'll agree with you completely. Unless we can question our own assumptions, we will be defeated by the simple act of someone else doing it.
Vigilance implies the use of force to create "liberty", which is not freedom at all.
Ah! Now we have a point of discussion: The difference between coercion and response.
The reason why the Non-Aggression Principle is worded as it is is because of that distinction.
Simple "force" is like gravity. It just "is". Trying to argue for or against "force" is futile and leads to apparent contradictions, because "force" is not and never has been at issue.
It is the initiation of force that is addressed specifically by the Non-Aggression Principle and is the root of Libertarian and Anarchist philosophy.
For example, it is wrong to shoot your neighbor's dog. It is perfectly reasonable to shoot your neighbor's dog if the dog has run onto your property and is attacking your daughter.
It is wrong to shoot someone walking past your house. It is perfectly acceptable to shoot someone who is clearly the aggressor and is trying to violently harm someone who is walking past your house.
In each situation, the same use of "force" is either bad or good depending solely upon whether it is in response to someone else creating the situation first. The initiation of force is what is wrong. The use of coercion on someone else, against their will, not "force" by itself.
Another example: Pollution. I dump toxic waste in my back yard, and there is nothing you can do about it. The instant it leaks into your property, blows over the fence, whatever, I have trespassed upon you and am prosecutable for it. However, since I have not initiated violence, violence is not a suitable response. Filing a suit in court for adjudication is a suitable response. Pollution is not a violent initiation of force, even though it is trespassing.
That's why shooting someone's 5 year old for picking your flowers is unacceptable, because it is a social standard (in any place I'd like to live) that a violent response to non-violence is anti-social.
Anarcho Capitalism might be the philosophical ideal, but there will still be random crimes, and likely unforeseen consequences
There will, of course, be anti-social people who act stupidly. But if history is any indication, the petty results of private crime pales to insignificance compared to the depredations of government.
Removing the institution with the legitimate monopoly on the initiation of force also means that there is no ability for a crime to be ignored on the basis that the criminal was acting in their "official" capacity as a government agent. Cop runs a stop-sign and kills 4 people, sorry, it's not murder. Oh, yes it is, because there is no immunity from being a government agent any more!
Private cop enters your house looking for a fugitive, knocks over a lamp, they are liable for that damage. Not so the clumsy police officers who rip your house to shreds, shoot your dog and leave you tied up on the floor for hour after hour only to discover later they had the wrong house.
Ask the person wrongly convicted of a government crime, who spends years in jail and when the conviction is overturned is released without even a "sorry", their life ruined and no one can be held "responsible".
See the difference?
-
Describe "perfect" as used in this context. "Unimprovably good"? Yes. "Without flaw"? No. Something else? Ask.
-
Describe "perfect" as used in this context. "Unimprovably good"? Yes. "Without flaw"? No. Something else? Ask.
'Perfect' isn't the best word. Replace with 'infallible'.
Obviously it is not infallible or perfect. However it is the most moral system of exchange. I ask the question because some folks seem to consider it 'perfect', and I disagree with that. Because I believe that in a free market there will still be the ability for some people to acquire the means to have excessive differential advantage against others trying to enter any particular market. The consequence being that new inventions and ideas will be suppressed (by the market leader's advantage) in order for the status quo of that particular market to retain its advantage for the sake of extended profits. (ie. Withholding the true state of technology in order to sell minor upgrades over a long period of time.)
Albeit, in a free market this advantage wouldn't hold nearly as long as it does with a coercive monopoly. Some say that they deserve to reap the profits. I question the ethics of that matter.
-
Okay, it's not perfect. Now, please list all of the examples of socialist economies that ARE perfect.
-
How about this.
The market is based upon consumer preference and people are frequently insane. The only thing more insane than a person is a group of people.
market externalities.
-
Obviously it is not infallible or perfect. However it is the most moral system of exchange.
Keep in mind that the failure of an enterprise is not a market failure, it is actually a successful correction of a bad investment.
People taking chances, businesses that turn out not to be profitable, is a sign of a healthy economy. People have confidence and savings to spend on trying new things.
A "bust" however is a symptom of a problem. Many people all making large malinvestments at the same time means that something was wrong with the market signals of price, savings, interest, etc. That's why when the Federal Reserve makes a move, huge numbers of people are effected, and while some get rich most end up liquidating the malinvestments.
So booms and busts are not "market failures" at all. They are the results of intervention, even well meaning intervention.
Because I believe that in a free market there will still be the ability for some people to acquire the means to have excessive differential advantage against others trying to enter any particular market.
Define "excessive"? That's an opinion, which is different between different people. So who gets to decide what is or is not "excessive"?
Does the fact that Donald Trump has lots of money and I don't mean that the market has to be corrected? Does the fact that Bill Gates made a huge fortune selling shoddy software mean that the market has to be corrected?
No, because in both cases no coercion was ever used. Donald Trump and Bill Gates made deals with others voluntarily that both parties believed they benefitted by. That's all. They did it far better than I, so they have made far more wealth than I in doing so.
Trying to correct for "excessive" success or "excessive" power will have only one result: Everyone will be worse off.
The consequence being that new inventions and ideas will be suppressed (by the market leader's advantage) in order for the status quo of that particular market to retain its advantage for the sake of extended profits. (ie. Withholding the true state of technology in order to sell minor upgrades over a long period of time.)
Albeit, in a free market this advantage wouldn't hold nearly as long as it does with a coercive monopoly.
Exactly. All interventions do is raise the costs of competition thereby protecting the established, vested interests. Licensing, zoning, taxation, incorporation, copyright, patent, all make it harder for a newcomer to enter a field, or undercut the established providers, preventing competition and allowing those already established to charge higher prices for lower quality products.
Some say that they deserve to reap the profits. I question the ethics of that matter.
So when is it ethical to initiate force?
I have a total monopoly over my own output. If I am the only person who can perform a particular operation and save lives, is it ethical to put a gun to my head and force me to perform that operation?
Is it ethical to require me to perform the operation at a lower price than I would choose to charge?
Ah, but is it ethical for me to use coercion over others to prevent competition, if someone else figures out how to do that same operation? That is the reasoning behind copyright/patent, after all, the most widely supported market interventions there are.
I will posit that it is coercion that is unethical, not profits.
-
Okay, it's not perfect. Now, please list all of the examples of socialist economies that ARE perfect.
No such thing. That wasn't my intention.
-
Obviously it is not infallible or perfect. However it is the most moral system of exchange.
Keep in mind that the failure of an enterprise is not a market failure, it is actually a successful correction of a bad investment.
People taking chances, businesses that turn out not to be profitable, is a sign of a healthy economy. People have confidence and savings to spend on trying new things.
A "bust" however is a symptom of a problem. Many people all making large malinvestments at the same time means that something was wrong with the market signals of price, savings, interest, etc. That's why when the Federal Reserve makes a move, huge numbers of people are effected, and while some get rich most end up liquidating the malinvestments.
So booms and busts are not "market failures" at all. They are the results of intervention, even well meaning intervention.
Because I believe that in a free market there will still be the ability for some people to acquire the means to have excessive differential advantage against others trying to enter any particular market.
Define "excessive"? That's an opinion, which is different between different people. So who gets to decide what is or is not "excessive"?
Does the fact that Donald Trump has lots of money and I don't mean that the market has to be corrected? Does the fact that Bill Gates made a huge fortune selling shoddy software mean that the market has to be corrected?
No, because in both cases no coercion was ever used. Donald Trump and Bill Gates made deals with others voluntarily that both parties believed they benefitted by. That's all. They did it far better than I, so they have made far more wealth than I in doing so.
Trying to correct for "excessive" success or "excessive" power will have only one result: Everyone will be worse off.
The consequence being that new inventions and ideas will be suppressed (by the market leader's advantage) in order for the status quo of that particular market to retain its advantage for the sake of extended profits. (ie. Withholding the true state of technology in order to sell minor upgrades over a long period of time.)
Albeit, in a free market this advantage wouldn't hold nearly as long as it does with a coercive monopoly.
Exactly. All interventions do is raise the costs of competition thereby protecting the established, vested interests. Licensing, zoning, taxation, incorporation, copyright, patent, all make it harder for a newcomer to enter a field, or undercut the established providers, preventing competition and allowing those already established to charge higher prices for lower quality products.
Some say that they deserve to reap the profits. I question the ethics of that matter.
So when is it ethical to initiate force?
I have a total monopoly over my own output. If I am the only person who can perform a particular operation and save lives, is it ethical to put a gun to my head and force me to perform that operation?
Is it ethical to require me to perform the operation at a lower price than I would choose to charge?
Ah, but is it ethical for me to use coercion over others to prevent competition, if someone else figures out how to do that same operation? That is the reasoning behind copyright/patent, after all, the most widely supported market interventions there are.
I will posit that it is coercion that is unethical, not profits.
Just to clarify, I'm not proposing that a third-party needs to correct these things - not at all. I absolutely agree that coercion is unethical. And I don't think profits are unethical.
By 'excessive', I'll try to explain with an example. Say, I invent a light bulb that will last ten times longer, glow brighter, and use less energy than any other light bulb on the market. Meanwhile, Light Bulb Corp. has developed to a tremendous scale with virtually limited resources at their disposal. If my new light bulb enters the market, their stocks will plummet. Light Bulb Co., could use their advantage and use coercion against me in one way or another to prevent me from entering the market.
I don't know for sure what could prevent this type of situation. Hopefully the market would create some type of protection for inventors.
-
By 'excessive', I'll try to explain with an example. Say, I invent a light bulb that will last ten times longer, glow brighter, and use less energy than any other light bulb on the market. Meanwhile, Light Bulb Corp. has developed to a tremendous scale with virtually limited resources at their disposal. If my new light bulb enters the market, their stocks will plummet. Light Bulb Co., could use their advantage and use coercion against me in one way or another to prevent me from entering the market.
I don't know for sure what could prevent this type of situation. Hopefully the market would create some type of protection for inventors.
Microsoft has a similar effect on the market, using their overwhelming share to manipulate (or make irrelevant) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish) standards—to the detriment of their competition. The best defense for those underdogs is cooperation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML_5).
-
I agree with Bob: Better words than "perfect" would be "healthy" and "efficient."
-
If my new light bulb enters the market, their stocks will plummet. Light Bulb Co., could use their advantage and use coercion against me in one way or another to prevent me from entering the market.
The operative words there are "use coercion". And for that specific reason, they are in the wrong.
Let's change your example and eliminate coercion. Say that LBC uses their might and power to create sole-source contracts with the big home-improvement stores like Home Depot and Lowe's, that they get a break on the wholesale price of LBC products if they will not carry your improved bulb.
Or LBC offers you a huge sum of money to abandon your invention with an iron-clad contract that keeps you from telling anyone else how to build them.
You always have the option to ignore them and self-market, of course, and in a "free market" that is always an option since the "barriers to entry" are not artificially raised. That's why I see far more variety as the result of repealing regulation.
Microsoft has a similar effect on the market, using their overwhelming share to manipulate (or make irrelevant) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish) standards—to the detriment of their competition. The best defense for those underdogs is cooperation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML_5).
Microsoft's great coup was to make "Windows" synonymous with the machine itself. Their marketing department will be the study of graduate students for centuries.
While I agree that what Microsoft has been doing is reprehensible, I don't see it as prosecutable. Outside of their use of government monopoly grants, that is, Copyright and Patent, I don't see anything they have done as actual "coercion". The greatest condemnation is that they "changed their own product without telling anyone." Embrace, Extend, Extinguish only effects people who try to use Microsoft products (and their customers, of course). Good reason to use someone else.
Microsoft's masterful negotiation of "sole source contracts" with the computer OEMs has created the impression of power, and certainly earned them lots of short-term money, but in the words of Princess Leia, "The more you tighten your grip, Balmer, the more {computer} systems will slip through your fingers."
Microsoft's abominable behavior in corrupting the ISO (http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/microsofts-great-besmirching) deserves universal condemnation. What surprises me is that anyone would still give them money after all this.
Indeed the "competition" to Microsoft is cooperation. The entire Free and Open Source Software (http://ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/OSS) environment, BSD, Linux, Minix, GNU/HURD, Xorg, Apache, etc etc etc, is based upon cooperation. As Gibson042 says, in the face of a greedy monopolist-wannabe the best competition is cooperation.
We have the example of a "lack" of government regulation of the computer market, since it's one of the few facets of our lives that does not have any (or much if at all) government regulation, to demonstrate that vigorous, open competition is exactly what has happened. Even in the face of the most powerful and wealthy business in its field using every dirty trick it can (http://www.groklaw.net/), the "good guys" by just cooperating not only survive but thrive! (http://www.top500.org/stats/list/33/osfam)
A free market does not inevitably lead to huge overarching monopolies, because in order to survive there must be constant innovation. Even an established giant in its field can only maintain its position by providing a better product, not just by buying government favors.
-
Another way to ask this question is: Are all the problems/deficiencies in the current un-free economy due solely to government/coercive intervention?
No, individuals and firms make mistakes too and shit happens (natural disasters, etc.).
-
Another way to ask this question is: Are all the problems/deficiencies in the current un-free economy due solely to government/coercive intervention?
No, individuals and firms make mistakes too and shit happens (natural disasters, etc.).
I would also point out that people adapt their business practices to the environment in which they are working. So since there is government/coercive intervention, business takes that into account.
A truly unregulated market is something that few people can imagine, simply because they've never experienced it (or maybe just noticed). So they imagine all kinds of awful things because people tend to fear what they do not understand, and then make up excuses for being afraid.