Free Markets Are Anarchy

[trivas7]

Spontaneous order is the spontaneous emergence of order out of seeming chaos; the emergence of various kinds of social order from a combination of self-interest individuals who are not intentionally trying to create order.

The Taoist Zhuangzi said, "Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone." Proudhon said, "The notion of anarchy in politics is just as rational and positive as any other. It means that once industrial functions have taken over from political functions, then business transactions alone produce the social order." Proudhon's position was that freedom is prerequisite for spontaneous order to take place, rather than liberty being the result of spontaneous order. Hence his statement, liberty "is not the daughter but the mother of order."

A free market economy is one such system. F.A. Hayek argued that market economies are creative of a spontaneous order - "a more efficient allocation of societal resources than any design could achieve." This is the thrust of Austrian economics. Austrians claim this spontaneous order is superior to any order human mind can design due to the specifics of the information required. Capitalism and socialism both presume that human society should somehow escape this spontaneous order.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

How the hell did Hayek (and that mystic you quoted -- rather revealing, that! This is what you mean by 'science' I presume -- quoting Taoists, and those who engage in guesswork!) know this? Nothing has ever, nor could it be, 'left alone'.

[Jack]

Every anarchist is a baffled dictator

Oh shit! Some guy said it so it must be true!

[Havet]

Spontaneous order is the spontaneous emergence of order out of seeming chaos; the emergence of various kinds of social order from a combination of self-interest individuals who are not intentionally trying to create order.

The Taoist Zhuangzi said, "Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone." Proudhon said, "The notion of anarchy in politics is just as rational and positive as any other. It means that once industrial functions have taken over from political functions, then business transactions alone produce the social order." Proudhon's position was that freedom is prerequisite for spontaneous order to take place, rather than liberty being the result of spontaneous order. Hence his statement, liberty "is not the daughter but the mother of order."

A free market economy is one such system. F.A. Hayek argued that market economies are creative of a spontaneous order - "a more efficient allocation of societal resources than any design could achieve." This is the thrust of Austrian economics. Austrians claim this spontaneous order is superior to any order human mind can design due to the specifics of the information required. Capitalism and socialism both presume that human society should somehow escape this spontaneous order.

there was a documentary in ABC News precisely about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phs6CwnutoY

enjoy it, it's a pretty interesting doco

[trivas7]

there was a documentary in ABC News precisely about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phs6CwnutoY

enjoy it, it's a pretty interesting doco
The credulity of people in the benevolence of government is truly mind-boggling. Thanks for this.

[Trystan]

Hayek was a moron who wrote one (commercially) successful book full of strawman arguments, and, when he couldn't be the big "intellectual" he thought he was, jumped in bed with Maggie Thatcher. And what horrid offspring they had . . .

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Spontaneous order is the spontaneous emergence of order out of seeming chaos; the emergence of various kinds of social order from a combination of self-interest individuals who are not intentionally trying to create order.
Define "order" and "chaos" with regard to human society. What makes a society "orderly"?

I suspect that Austrians define "order" in such a way that any society is orderly by definition, making their whole notion of ''spontaneous order" a meaningless tautology.


Austrians claim this spontaneous order is superior to any order human mind can design...
Prove it.

With empirical evidence, I mean.

[Havet]

Hayek was a moron who wrote one (commercially) successful book full of strawman arguments, and, when he couldn't big the "intellectual" he thought he was, jumped in bed with Maggie Thatcher. And what horrid offspring they had . . .

I personally fear other offspring out there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)

[IcarusAngel]

It's this thread a day late and a buck short?

Miseans have fled this forum in defeat after being unable to establish their "axiomatic system" and unable to show the logical conclusions of their "synthetic, a priori" knowledge. It's clear that they couldn't rationally back up their arguments so now they're moving to another forum to troll at.

There isn't anything intelligent on those forums, and none of the members there do anything constructive - although one of the "mods" claims he's learning to program in perl lol.

And how can a system based on property rights - i.e., free-markets - be considered spontaneous order.

Miseans try and construct a set of rules for society to follow BEFORE society is implemented.

That isn't taoism. Taoism believes we should rid ourselves of our possessions, be virtuous by not caring about virture, do nothing, be uncompetitive, and sit back and follow 'the way.'

[GPDP]

Miseans have fled this forum in defeat after being unable to establish their "axiomatic system" and unable to show the logical conclusions of their "synthetic, a priori" knowledge. It's clear that they couldn't rationally back up their arguments so now they're moving to another forum to troll at.

There isn't anything intelligent on those forums, and none of the members there do anything constructive - although one of the "mods" claims he's learning to program in perl lol.

You might find this amusing:

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/8534.aspx?PageIndex=6

[Trystan]

They come off as violent, immature, coarse, unlikable individuals.

Yes, and "libertarians" come across as a bunch of pretentious, pompous, self-satisfied turds.

[Trystan]

I personally fear other offspring out there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)

I accept that it is ad hominem. But when are you Austrians going to accept that Hayek had a very selective definition of socialism (i.e. used strawman arguments against it?)

Socialism for Hayek = Soviet Union. He didn't bother with anything else apart from Nazism, which, apparently, is the same thing socialism.

Old Freddie was following Godwin's Law before it even existed! :lol:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

No, wait, come back, little Mises-spawn! I'm not done tearing your arguments apart!

*Sigh* They left. Looks like the fun's over. :(

[trivas7]

Miseans have fled this forum in defeat after being unable to establish their "axiomatic system" and unable to show the logical conclusions of their "synthetic, a priori" knowledge. It's clear that they couldn't rationally back up their arguments so now they're moving to another forum to troll at.

OTC, they performed admirably. It was their premises you couldn't agree w/, not their conclusions.

[IcarusAngel]

You might find this amusing:

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/8534.aspx?PageIndex=6

Here's a quote from laminustacitus: "Arguing with idiots is like a drug to me, I get addicted to it very easilly. "

No wonder he spends all his time at the Mises forums. It's funny people in their 30s and 40s have nothing better to do than sit around and troll forums and claim Barak Obama is the epitome of a socialist.

They actually tried to "raid" political crossfire with the same results - they made asses of themselves and no one took their "a priori" reasoning seriously.

I actually feel bad for them, it must suck when your own side of the spectrum thinks you're nothing more than an ideological cult. Their other threads are about the same thing. Trolls trying to figure out how they can spam facebook and so on. Maybe that "aspiring perl hacker" can help them figure it out.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

OTC, they performed admirably. It was their premises you couldn't agree w/, not their conclusions.
Constructing an elaborate and internally consistent argument from false premises is not "performing admirably." Anyone can do it.

[IcarusAngel]

There's a big difference between having assumptions and premises and rationally defending them and assuming these assumptions and premises are all 'natural rights.' Everybody has assumptions about how the world works, even anarchists, maybe, but not everybody claims these assumptions come from God or von Mises etc.

Remember a while back when I made a thread about a Misean I ran into who claimed resources couldn't be owned if they had been unappropriated injustly and that all mathematics existed in our hears? He had another argument for 'ownership' that was equally absurd and would have prevented anybody from owning anything. It was something to the effect of no one could own anything unless the work put into it was all your own. I pointed out everything created has other people's work in it.

Anyway, sure enough, he's a registered member (http://mises.org/Community/user/Profile.aspx?UserID=5422) at the Mises forums.

I guess that's what they do all day, spam forums with theories that cannot possibly have any evidence to them. No wonder their attempts at "conversion" are so exceedingly low.

[trivas7]

There's a big difference between having assumptions and premises and rationally defending them and assuming these assumptions and premises are all 'natural rights.' Everybody has assumptions about how the world works, even anarchists, maybe, but not everybody claims these assumptions come from God or von Mises etc.

The Miseans made it crystal clear their conclusions followed from an apriori judgment. Your insistence that people be able to defend their premises rationally is just an assumption on your part AFAIK.

[Kronos]

Kwisatz, forgive me for prying, but I have to wonder why you ask for such things as "empirical proof" and champion such things as true premises, consistent arguments, and valid and sound logic.....and yet....

....you are a "Christian".

I can't imagine how important the kind of clarity you demand, is, when you yourself hold one of the most ridiculous philosophical positions in the history of man.

"Every anarchist is a baffled dictator"- Mussolini

[ laughing ]

Did Benny really say that? If so, it was perfect. I couldn't agree more.

An anarchist is a concealed form of resentment, originating from his lack of power. His strength is similar in ethos as that of "herd"- those who are weak and taken advantage of by the stronger invent moral notions of "unfair" and "unjust", and brand exploitation as morally "bad". Of course, exploitation can be inefficient (according to some economic ends), but never "bad", since such evaluations are purely subjective.

The anarchist wants power, and his creative deed, as an expression of that power, is founded in reaction, not action. His creative power is in saying "no!" to some power external to him. He resists being exploited not through direct offense, but through subversive, manipulative forms of "reason".

"Freedom for all", he shouts, either ignorant of the ridiculousness of the prospect of metaphysical or economic freedom, or knowledgeable of it...but hoping to gain some momentum through bolstering such nonsense among the masses. In either case, his entire mantra is negative and reactionary- he resists, he does not conquer.

Nietzsche was right! If you wish to keep slaves....by all means don't educate them!

The anarchist sneaked into his master's chambers and opened Pandora's box. Now he knows too much!

[Trystan]

Kwisatz, forgive me for prying, but I have to wonder why you ask for such things as "empirical proof" and champion such things as true premises, consistent arguments, and valid and sound logic.....and yet....

....you are a "Christian".



Obviously, only he can answer that. Nevertheless, the fact that he is a Christian is irrelevant to the discussion. And so is this pseudo-intellectual garbage:


An anarchist is a concealed form of resentment, originating from his lack of power. His strength is similar in ethos as that of "herd"- those who are weak and taken advantage of by the stronger invent moral notions of "unfair" and "unjust", and brand exploitation as morally "bad". Of course, exploitation can be inefficient (according to some economic ends), but never "bad", since such evaluations are purely subjective.

The anarchist wants power, and his creative deed, as an expression of that power, is founded in reaction, not action. His creative power is in saying "no!" to some power external to him. He resists being exploited not through direct offense, but through subversive, manipulative forms of "reason".

"Freedom for all", he shouts, either ignorant of the ridiculousness of the prospect of metaphysical or economic freedom, or knowledgeable of it...but hoping to gain some momentum through bolstering such nonsense among the masses. In either case, his entire mantra is negative and reactionary- he resists, he does not conquer.



Cheers for that, Dr. Freud. :rolleyes:

[Kronos]

Oh come on! You know you want it!

Keep the ring, Frodo. Forget what Gandalf told you. He's an old washed-up wizard.

[Octobox]

How the hell did Hayek (and that mystic you quoted -- rather revealing, that! This is what you mean by 'science' I presume -- quoting Taoists, and those who engage in guesswork!) know this? Nothing has ever, nor could it be, 'left alone'.

"Nothing has ever, nor could it be, 'left alone'."

Which is why individuals (as consumers) should make 100% of their own decisions and set up their own aliances as much as possible. Actually this is what happens anyway, without gov't. The gov't shows up after things are jacked up, but they tax you before hand, when they show up, and after they leave.

Whatever that role of Gov't if it would be a service provided by the free-market there would be competition where the goal would be to please the consumer.

Free-Market Revenue Stream (Profit Drivers): 1) Consumers-who-Purchase and 2) Consumers-who-Invest -- ZERO Gov't Intervention / Protection

Octobox

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Kwisatz, forgive me for prying, but I have to wonder why you ask for such things as "empirical proof" and champion such things as true premises, consistent arguments, and valid and sound logic.....and yet....

....you are a "Christian".

I can't imagine how important the kind of clarity you demand, is, when you yourself hold one of the most ridiculous philosophical positions in the history of man.
The purpose of science is to give us knowledge about the universe (which includes human society), to help us understand how it works, and to enable us to make accurate predictions that will better enable the human species to adapt, survive, prosper, achieve the greatest possible total happiness, and extend our dominion over not just one planet, but the Milky Way and every single galaxy within our light cone.

Or to put it more simply, science exists to answer the question: What is?

To fulfill its role, science must be empirical. It must be based on verifiable evidence about the physical universe - evidence about what is. Its premises must be based in known facts, its conclusions must be drawn from the evidence using valid and sound logic.

The purpose of religion is to give us direction, to help us decide what to do with all our knowledge and power born from science, to contribute to our happiness in ways that science cannot, and to give us a glimpse of what may exist beyond the universe.

Religion is not concerned with what is. Religion exists to answer the question: What ought to be?

Therefore the methods of religion are different from those of science. They are also - well, less scientific. Religious pronouncements are by definition impossible to verify, since they are not concerned with things as they are. Religion is inevitably controversial, not suitable for everyone, and requires faith. Religion is based on unverifiable assumptions, but once those assumptions have been laid down, all arguments proceeding from them must still be based on valid logic.

* * *

Austrian "economists," like many other similar groups of nutjobs, make the mistake of mixing religion with science. They want to answer questions about what is - the job of science - using the methods of religion. What they get is neither science nor religion, but worthless pseudoscientific babble and incoherent quasi-religious mysticism.

When I make statements based on unverifiable assumptions that must be taken on faith, I admit it and call it religion. When Misesians do the exact same thing and call it science, I come down on them like a ton of bricks.

[trivas7]

Austrian "economists," like many other similar groups of nutjobs, make the mistake of mixing religion with science. They want to answer questions about what is - the job of science - using the methods of religion. [...]

Nonsense. The Misean a priori has nothing to do w/ religion.


Religion is not concerned with what is. Religion exists to answer the question: What ought to be?

You confuse religion w/ ethics.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I do not confuse religion and ethics so much as I equate them. I believe that all ethics is, in a sense, religious.

Oh, and by "the methods of religion" I meant precisely the a priori reasoning you mentioned. I consider that to be an inherently - how shall I put this - faith-based way of thinking. And not suitable to answering any questions about material reality.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

October:


"Nothing has ever, nor could it be, 'left alone'."

Which is why individuals (as consumers) should make 100% of their own decisions and set up their own aliances as much as possible. Actually this is what happens anyway, without gov't. The gov't shows up after things are jacked up, but they tax you before hand, when they show up, and after they leave.

Whatever that role of Gov't if it would be a service provided by the free-market there would be competition where the goal would be to please the consumer.

Free-Market Revenue Stream (Profit Drivers): 1) Consumers-who-Purchase and 2) Consumers-who-Invest -- ZERO Gov't Intervention / Protection

In future, could you please preface such a post with a "Once upon a time..." so that those new to this debate can judge more easily its content?

[BabylonHoruv]

It depends on what is meant by free market. A market without government protecting the property and privilege of the Capitalists would be a truly free market and would look much different from that envisioned by Hayek.

[trivas7]

Oh, and by "the methods of religion" I meant precisely the a priori reasoning you mentioned. I consider that to be an inherently - how shall I put this - faith-based way of thinking. And not suitable to answering any questions about material reality.
Per this characterization both logic and mathematics are religious.

If you equate religion and ethics you confound them. It follows that religious people, and only religious people, are ethical.

[mark]

double post

[mark]

"Nothing has ever, nor could it be, 'left alone'."

Which is why individuals (as consumers) should make 100% of their own decisions and set up their own aliances as much as possible. Actually this is what happens anyway, without gov't. The gov't shows up after things are jacked up, but they tax you before hand, when they show up, and after they leave.

Whatever that role of Gov't if it would be a service provided by the free-market there would be competition where the goal would be to please the consumer.

Free-Market Revenue Stream (Profit Drivers): 1) Consumers-who-Purchase and 2) Consumers-who-Invest -- ZERO Gov't Intervention / Protection

Octobox

Why is government designed order and not spontaneous order?


On the topic of complexity theory, are you aware that such systems display out of equilibrium conditions, where equilibrium is never achieved. It's not just the disequilibrium-but-close-to-equilibrium conditions that Austrians posit. It's multiple equilibria, that the system moves around and between.

Finally if you are to embrace complexity you have to also accept that there are such things as positive feedback loops. Austrians assume that negative feedback loops will always keep the positive feedback loops under control, but again this does not always occur in complex and chaotic systems. The system is stable but any slight variation will send the system in a new direction.

If you also accept complexity theory you have to also realise that your conception of the environment as a stock resource is flawed. The environment would also have to be a complex system. It's resilience to shocks would be measured to terms of biodiversity, this would be a crucial indicator of stable the system was and how prone it is to instability. Yet the Rothbardian approach to property ownership requires that a change be made to the land, which could and does impact upon the resilience and stability of that local environment system. It's also ridiculous that if someone wishes to leave a parcel of land intact they cannot under a Rothbardian framework as the land has not been transformed from its natural state.

You would also have to consider the possibility that there are limits to growth.

The whole concept of property rights protecting the environment ignores the environment is an individualistic system. Ecologists view the system as interconnected, dynamic with various levels of interaction. The whole notion of private property rights in this regard is completely arbitrary. It’s a human concept imposed onto a system which operates in a completely different manner. If we consider that one key requirement for the stability of the natural system is biodiversity, then this relies on the interconnectedness and interaction. Property establishes an artificial border which reduces the interconnectedness and interaction.

One interesting point is that an environmental system being a complex system cannot be analysed by any form of methodological individualism. If this system is similar to that of human systems then can the same be said about this Austrian methodological principle?

Complexity theory describes the emergence of rules which can change the workings of the system. These rules can be maintained and other rules can be based upon them, of course these rules can also breakdown. If we consider this within a market and social context this could be disastrous for individuals and groups who do not have the resources to adequately cope with a changing social structure.

Anarcho-capitalism is essentially designing the initial conditions of the system. Now depending on what view they take, this society is either an end state or a process. If we accept the latter then we can also accept that emergent rules can lead the society away from Anarcho-capitalism and even create a state through the concentration of power, protection of property or elites. Much like what has occurred within history. How does an ancap who accepts complexity theory reconcile it with the possibility that their system may allow for the emergence of the state again?

One thing I find odd about spontaneous order is that it is the Radical Subjectivists who emphasis it. To the rest of the Austrian school (Rothbardian branch) this group is categorises as nihilistic and subsequently rejected. Which aspect of the Austrian School do you tend towards, Rothbard or Lachmann?

[Plagueround]

You might find this amusing:

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/8534.aspx?PageIndex=6

This is how all forum wars end. With both sides retreating and declaring the others a bunch of unintelligent hacks who got their "philosophical asses" handed to them. That's why forum wars are moronic, although I must admit it was enjoyable for me to see a few of them backpedal apologetically on the native american issue.

[trivas7]

Why is government designed order and not spontaneous order?

B/c it is coercive.


Anarcho-capitalism is essentially designing the initial conditions of the system.

This exactly describes socialism.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Per this characterization both logic and mathematics are religious.
Mathematics and logic, when they are applied to help us answer questions about the physical universe, make use of empirical data.

When they are not applied to help us answer questions about the physical universe, they are self-contained systems that do not answer any questions about anything outside of themselves. Pure mathematics, purged of all empirical data, can only answer questions about pure mathematics. If all we had was pure mathematics, and for some reason we could not use it to answer empirical questions, then mathematics would be entirely useless.


If you equate religion and ethics you confound them.
I believe that all ethics rests on unverifiable premises. That is why all ethics is, in a sense, religious.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

B/c it is coercive.
So what? Was government created by something outside human society? No. Then it is a spontaneous product of human society. It is spontaneous order.

Why can't coercion be spontaneous?

[AntifaAustralia]

Why is government designed order and not spontaneous order.............


Mark's got a good point here, the environment is always compromised when there is some form of anarchy or capitalism. Land is a limited resource(especially in major cities), and when someone has land, can they use it for the good of society?

A free market economy can turn out to be disastrous.

Is this the end of the topic? any anarchists to suggest free market is good?

[trivas7]

So what? Was government created by something outside human society? No. Then it is a spontaneous product of human society. It is spontaneous order.

This conflates spontaneity and coercion. Why oppose capitalism if you believe that it is the spontaneous product of human society?

[Octobox]

Octobox: In future, could you please preface such a post with a "Once upon a time..." so that those new to this debate can judge more easily its content?

Okay -- making *note* "never respond to Rosa, without going through regulatory proceedures. Got it!


Octobox:In future, could you please preface such a post with a "Once upon a time..." so that those new to this debate can judge more easily its content?

Wow -- don't see the need to repeat yourself *awkward glance* As I said before I will contact the department of approved posts and fill out all necessary documents. No problem. Wouldn't want new people here to think for themselves.

[all kidding aside]

So, you do not believe you are a "consumer?" *ahem* comrade

Or do you not believe that you should be allowed to decide what businesses should stay in existence or not -- will you leave it up to a committee of your betters to decide?

Let's face it

American Corporatism is not working
Russian Communism did not work
Chinese Communism did not work
Cuban Communism did not work

Corporatism and Communism have not worked (thus far).

Crony-Capitalist and Idealic Communist will always argue "if we could just get this or that control it would take care of everything."

Crony-Capitalist is a consumer
Communist is a consumer
Workers are consumers
Owners are consumers

It seems to me the only "individual" (non-groupist -- non-cronied -- non-unionized person) is the consumer -- it's the position everyone is in.

Therefore give the consumer authority over the longevity of any product-service-corporation -- To do that you must get gov't out of regulation, subsidization, currency abdiation to The Fed, tax authority, bailouts, and fiat credit business -- out of every single market.

Then that way the business revenue stream is ONLY: 1) consumers-who-purchase and 2) consumers-who-invest

That would give the greatest (largest class) of people all the power -- the poor and middle class and make the wealthy (who in a free-society derive all profit-bursts from business start-up or innovative R&D) subservient to consumer (individual) needs.

The Corporatist Revenue stream is thus: 1) Consumers-who-Purchase, 2) Consumers-who-Invest, and 3) Gov't Lobbied (subsidization, bailouts, fiat credit, and tax breaks)

Selling and Purchasing and Trade will exist and do exist in all societies -- It makes sense we try "for onece" to allow the consumers to decide what sells and what doesn't.

What's your idea?

[BabylonHoruv]

Mark's got a good point here, the environment is always compromised when there is some form of anarchy or capitalism. Land is a limited resource(especially in major cities), and when someone has land, can they use it for the good of society?

A free market economy can turn out to be disastrous.

Is this the end of the topic? any anarchists to suggest free market is good?


I suggested it was good, although under rather different circumstances than those described by Hayek.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

This conflates spontaneity and coercion. Why oppose capitalism if you believe that it is the spontaneous product of human society?
Any system created by human society with no external intervention - which is to say any system created by humans without non-human interference, which is to say every system that ever existed or ever will exist - is the spontaneous product of human society.

But spontaneous does not mean good.

[trivas7]

Any system created by human society with no external intervention - which is to say any system created by humans without non-human interference, which is to say every system that ever existed or ever will exist - is the spontaneous product of human society.

But spontaneous does not mean good.
Free markets aren't a "system created by human society". That's what made them anarchic. Free, uncoerced trade bt individuals arose over the course of centuries as new means of production evolved. IMO that's good. Slave economies, capitalist economies, statist command economies -- those's are bad.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Octobox:


Wow -- don't see the need to repeat yourself *awkward glance* As I said before I will contact the department of approved posts and fill out all necessary documents. No problem. Wouldn't want new people here to think for themselves.

Eh?


What's your idea?

Begin with the relations of production, not consumption -- the stuff you posted is like the paint on a machine. Interesting, but not significant.


Russian Communism did not work
Chinese Communism did not work
Cuban Communism did not work

These were/are no more communist than Geroge W Bush is an intellectual.

[Octobox]

Why is government designed order and not spontaneous order?

Gov't can be sontaneous as long as it's goal is not rigid longevity -- Short-Run Communist efforts are natural (even in an Anarcho-Capitalist society). Search and Rescue efforts come to mind. Community Barn Raising -- all voluntary and all group effort. The "evil" comes in when the heads of such planning committees realize their authority is ending -- maybe during said short-run they saw personal advantages (better home - better transportation - better mating opportunities - better food) and now they don't want to give them up. Short-run Volutary Communism is Anarcho-Communism, right? Long-run is Russia-Korea-Cuba-China (suck-suck-sucky-suck). And American Corporatism (in practice) only works because it offshores it's horror; whereas, communism (in practice) has put the horror on its own citizens (mass democide, genocide, and menial existence).



On the topic of complexity theory, are you aware that such systems display out of equilibrium conditions, where equilibrium is never achieved. It's not just the disequilibrium-but-close-to-equilibrium conditions that Austrians posit. It's multiple equilibria, that the system moves around and between.

Yes -- "equilibrium" (in perfect sense) is not the goal. The only "occilators" (profit bursts) in a free-market is in the short-run: entrepreneurialism and intrapreneurialism. Both of which according to most statistics are created by the poor and middle class.

However price stability after such a short profit-burst seeks equilibrium quickly because without gov't there are no barriers to entry and competitive captured profits are soaked up. Therefore the rich in a free-market would not seek to hold assets to long -- they need their trading currency to be free and accessible. In a free-market the wealthy move fast while the poor can hold assets longer -- retain ownership. The poor and middle class would hold most real estate (unlike now where most is held by Gov't Backed Fed Banks or the gov't itself). The poor and middle class in a free-market would become the business owners (means of production) in the medium to long-run, because the wealthy need fast moving opportunities to grow wealth.


Finally if you are to embrace complexity you have to also accept that there are such things as positive feedback loops. Austrians assume that negative feedback loops will always keep the positive feedback loops under control, but again this does not always occur in complex and chaotic systems. The system is stable but any slight variation will send the system in a new direction.


For one I'm not a 100% Austrian (not going into that now). In a "truly" free-market-anarchy all people (no matter class or position) are consumers (many times throughout the day)

In those enviroments if your product sucks you go out of business -- period. That's Consumer-Anarchy or "No Authority over Consumer" -- you could call it Con-Archy "Consumer Authority." If a powerful mafia is involved then they can by force of gun eliminate all competition -- this is what gov'ts do. The "regulate" -- "force" -- "get involved" -- "extort"

In a truly free-market-anarchy or Con-Archy (smile) -- You have stability because inefficient products / services are eliminated (there example for all to see) -- it's the "culling of the herd." It's not buyer beware it's seller (captialist) beware. Why would you "worry" about stability for the capitalist -- smile.


.....Yet the Rothbardian approach to property.... if someone wishes to leave a parcel of land intact they cannot under a Rothbardian framework as the land has not been transformed from its natural state.

As I said I'm not a 100% Rothbardian.

All problems with land management/pollution/enviromentalism happened when the corporations had revenue streams that look like this: 1) Consumers-who-Purchase, 2) Consumers-who-Invest, and 3) Gov't Intervention (Lobbied for: subsidization, bailouts, tax breaks, fiat credit, regulatory advantages, and judicial authority). Period!!

Every abusive corporation and their products are all subsidized. Because they are monopolies (welfarist) and are horribly inefficient -- like GM and Chrysler. All of whom should go out of business because their profits (needs - lobbied desires) are ballooned way way past consumer demand.

The "theft" (by Big Gov't Welfarism) is from the working class (by taxation and inflationary theft).

Big Gov't is Lobbied by: Corporatist - Unionist - Groupist (ACLU - AMA - etc etc). Communist might say "let the workers" run it -- I'd say, let the consumers run it: they are the workers, the children, the gays, the minorities, the women, the elderly -- consumers are everyone.

The solution to all enviromental problems (since they were all created under gov't subsidized products) is Con-Archy (Consumer Authority) -- companies can only "grow" (here's your growth concern) as fast as consumer demand -- dollar for dollar. ZERO consumer (individual) theft to make monopolies profitable in the long-run means less growth.

In a free-market without gov't welfare individuals save more -- it's just a fact. During periods of lower welfare, lower taxation, and lower protection consumers saved more. ZERO Gov't Backed Fiat Loans -- drastically curbs spending -- thus slow growth.


You would also have to consider the possibility that there are limits to growth.

As I said "growth" is not a concern when big gov't is out of the way -- show me one growth concern or enviromental issue and I'll show you a corporation that is subsidized.


The whole concept of property rights protecting the environment ignores the environment is an individualistic system.

I agree 100% -- Property Rights do not save the enviroment. Consumer-Authority does (as the sole revenue profit driver in a free-society).


One interesting point is that an environmental system being a complex system cannot be analysed by any form of methodological individualism. If this system is similar to that of human systems then can the same be said about this Austrian methodological principle?

You are correct in part, but not in absolute terms just as the Rothbardians and Anarcho-Coms are right at least in part. My view is that all of you are off, because you don't start from profit-drivers and profit-bursts when analysing free-markets. Too much concern/time is spent arguing from praxeology or zero-sum or whatever (so and so) said. Just meditate on it.


Anarcho-capitalism is essentially designing the initial conditions of the system. Now depending on what view they take, this society is either an end state or a process. If we accept the latter then we can also accept that emergent rules can lead the society away from Anarcho-capitalism and even create a state through the concentration of power, protection of property or elites. Much like what has occurred within history. How does an ancap who accepts complexity theory reconcile it with the possibility that their system may allow for the emergence of the state again?

I'm not a Rothbardian and I agree 100% with what you said


Which aspect of the Austrian School do you tend towards, Rothbard or Lachmann?

I guess I ten towards Lachmann a bit more.

There are ideas in Mises/Lachmann, Rothbard, and Anarcho-Communism (socialism and sydicalism) that I like -- as far as free-societies are concerned.

I do believe we need to transition from Max-Archy to Min-Archy before we move into 100% Anarchy (regardless the model). There are strategic reasons for this.

[mel]

Free markets aren't a "system created by human society".

You're right, they're a fantasy.


That's what made them anarchic. Free, uncoerced trade bt individuals arose over the course of centuries as new means of production evolved.

Free, uncoerced trade has never, can never, and will never exist. "Free Trade" as such would require that market-creating businesses (who have a substantial head start and more capital at their disposal, and a de-facto monopoly until other businesses can enter that market) be restricted from price fixing, collusion, and all other kinds of agreements which would result in the maintenance of that monopoly. In order for those restrictions to exist, there would need to be a state to enforce them. Anarcho-Capitalism fails because inevitably, even starting at square one, there will be a monopoly, and where there is a monopoly there is power. That power can be leveraged to enter existing markets and obtain a monopoly in those. Eventually, you end up with Corporatism. Even if there is never a state to levy those powers, the "free market" with its consolidation of power into the hands of ever-fewer businesses would eventually form itself as a de-facto state, taking over the role of exploiting the individuals that make up the society.


IMO that's good. Slave economies, capitalist economies, statist command economies -- those's are bad

IMO that's bad. Slave economies, capitalist economies, statist command economies -- those's are bad too.

Do you see how easy it is to just say something without backing it up with any sort of evidence and pretend you're making sense? You have given us no way of identifying what makes something bad or good. You have given us no framework to decide these things, you haven't even identified the qualities of any of the systems that you've mentioned and identified which qualities of each are bad or good.

All of the current systems are spontaneous order, in that they were created spontaneously (not instantly, spontaneously) by humans without outside intervention. It was an operation of complex factors which allowed for the first minds to conceive of it and its possibilities, and it is now an operation of complex factors that have allowed the first minds to conceive of socialism and its possibilities. Spontaneous doesn't mean "good", and and the inevitable effect of a complete abolition of all restrictions on human behavior and social organization (anarcho-capitalism) is simply a swift concentration of power, and an establishment of the hierarchies that exist in corporatism today.

[Octobox]

Octobox: Begin with the relations of production, not consumption -- the stuff you posted is like the paint on a machine. Interesting, but not significant.

Okay Production in a free-market-anarchy (not Rothbardian per se). I don't agree with him on long-run property issues -- so, let's avoid that for a minute.

Means of production in the short-run is owned by the investor (the asset risk taker). However, in a free-market-anarchy (without gov't) the only profit-bursts (ways to make dynamic wealth) come from entrepreneurialism / intrapreneurialism. If the latter is not kicking off then the investor must sell his stake (or at least a percentage of it) so he can get those assets into another entrepreneurial project to capture more profit-bursts. The investor wants the monthly revenue, but profits capture is inevitable because there are no lobbied barriers to entry (pure competition). So, he sells. The sub-contractors (workers) could buy up the remaining shares if they believe they could innovate and stay ahead of the competition -- otherwise the business slowly fails. Someone who might not mind buying slow wealth generator, might beat working (for them), but in the long-run all businesses die in the free-market.

Property would be owned by the poor and middle class -- and as I said above so would the means of production -- IN-THE-LONG-Run.

How do we know this? Because in a Corporatist Society the opposite is true -- Corporatism and Anarchism are literal opposites.

Corporatist Revenue Stream: 1)Consumers-who-Purchase, 2) Consumers-who-Invest, and 3) Gov't (Lobbied for: subsidization, regulatory advantages, bailouts, tax breaks, and fiat credit).

Free-Market-Anarchy Reveneue Stream: 1) Consumers-who-Purchase and 2) Consumers-who-Invest

In the latter the Consumer-Will is what's watched -- Without gov't welfare individuals save (as a form of security), they save (because the currency - backed by a real commodity) grows in value owing to scarcity -- so holding currency is a nice slow profit generator. However, it's too slow for the wealthy -- who are always in both societies seeking profit bursts.

In a free-society profit-bursts come from innovation which largely comes from poor and middle class people.

It's a cyclical society -- mutualism (in a sense) without the involuntary force.


These were/are no more communist than Geroge W Bush is an intellectual.

Okay -- then you must agree that American Corporatism is not Capitalism -- it becomes like name calling.

[trivas7]

Free, uncoerced trade has never, can never, and will never exist.

This amounts to a denial of human voluntarism.


Do you see how easy it is to just say something without backing it up with any sort of evidence and pretend you're making sense? You have given us no way of identifying what makes something bad or good. You have given us no framework to decide these things, you haven't even identified the qualities of any of the systems that you've mentioned and identified which qualities of each are bad or good.
I responded to Kwisatz Haderach in his terms. He seems to think that ethical statements are justified on religious grounds; I frankly don't care to justify my ethical stance. If you think that coercion of human beings by individuals or collective agencies is ethically justifiable, I'm sorry for you.

For much of my time here I've thought of communists as misguided idealists; now it's becoming clear to me that they are constitutionally authoritarians who believe in coercion to attain their political goals and are haters of freedom for individuals.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Octobox, thanks for all that detail; not sure how relevant it is.


Okay -- then you must agree that American Corporatism is not Capitalism -- it becomes like name calling.

In fact, I do not agree. And, it's not about name-calling.

[Octobox]

Octobox, thanks for all that detail; not sure how relevant it is. In fact, I do not agree. And, it's not about name-calling.

That's the problem with debating communist, they want to control all definitions -- control (that's the answer right there).

You said start with production so I did -- use your logic / big words. You can get through it without ad hominem attacks.

Octobox

[RGacky3]

The idea of free markets is like icing on the cake, the cake being property laws.

Socialists are not against free markets, we are against the control and tyranny that is the basis for free markets or controled markets.

Arguing against socialists about the free market is like arguing againsts pro-democracy people about whether or not a king should allow certain free speach.

There should'nt be a king to begin with.

[mel]

Socialists are not against free markets, we are against the control and tyranny that is the basis for free markets or controled markets.

Actually, socialists are against free markets like they are against any fantasy of bourgeois propaganda, like world peace between capitalists, the Horatio Alger myth, and the "invisible hand" that keeps wages up and prices down.

[RGacky3]

Actually, socialists are against free markets like they are against any fantasy of bourgeois propaganda, like world peace between capitalists, the Horatio Alger myth, and the "invisible hand" that keeps wages up and prices down.

I agree, but anarcho-capitalists try to make it an argument against free markets and controled markets, which it is'nt, because both require private property. The argument starts at private property, not markets.

[mel]

I agree, but anarcho-capitalists try to make it an argument against free markets and controled markets, which it is'nt, because both require private property. The argument starts at private property, not markets.

If that's what you meant, then I agree too. We can be agreement pals, as a result of the free, uncoerced exchange of ideas :cool:

[Havet]

I agree, but anarcho-capitalists try to make it an argument against free markets and controled markets, which it is'nt, because both require private property. The argument starts at private property, not markets.

it took me a while to figure this out, but i finally understood how you people engage in CIRCULAR LOGIC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_logic)

Private property-> Leads to exploitation as a result of people being free to trade and free to condense wealth -> I come and try to show this is not true -> You claim the argument starts at private property, not markets.

[mel]

it took me a while to figure this out, but i finally understood how you people engage in CIRCULAR LOGIC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_logic)

Private property-> Leads to exploitation as a result of people being free to trade and free to condense wealth -> I come and try to show this is not true -> You claim the argument starts at private property, not markets.

How is this circular?

Private Property Leads to exploitation, because it necessarily enforces a heirarchy of property owners (who have power) and non-property owners (who do not)

A "free market" is not possible because property owners condense power and consolidate wealth, making unskilled labor in high supply (because even skilled laborers can be made to do unskilled labor if desperate enough) and mediocre demand (because there will always be more workers than needed in a capitalist society, if they work long enough hours or under strenuous enough conditions.) A lack of restrictions on work hours, work wages, etc. will lead to property owners (who have power over non-property-owners) to collude to keep wages down (because they all benefit from cheaper wages) and hours up (because making one trained person work more hours is cheaper than training two people to work shifts). Property owners who create new markets will have a de-facto monopoly on that market for long enough to get a "head start" on other businesses who attempt to provide that service, and through price fixing and other anticompetitive practices can leverage their power to keep others from entering their market. Monopolies which form as such (and necessarily form with lower restrictions) will eventually leverage themselves into other markets, and eventually most industry will be controlled by relatively few businesses who have monopolies in most existing industy (except if, as it happened in all capitalist countries who began to see monopolies forming in this fashion, anti-trust laws are formed in order to stop this consolidation of power)

The problem starts with private property, absolutely. Without private property there are no markets (not as we see them today). You can most certainly attempt to show that private property does not lead to the conditions described above, but I don't think you'll be able to without propping up some bullshit fantasies about how the "free market will handle it".

[Havet]

How is this circular?

Private Property Leads to exploitation, because it necessarily enforces a heirarchy of property owners (who have power) and non-property owners (who do not)

A "free market" is not possible because property owners condense power and consolidate wealth, making unskilled labor in high supply (because even skilled laborers can be made to do unskilled labor if desperate enough) and mediocre demand (because there will always be more workers than needed in a capitalist society, if they work long enough hours or under strenuous enough conditions.) A lack of restrictions on work hours, work wages, etc. will lead to property owners (who have power over non-property-owners) to collude to keep wages down (because they all benefit from cheaper wages) and hours up (because making one trained person work more hours is cheaper than training two people to work shifts). Property owners who create new markets will have a de-facto monopoly on that market for long enough to get a "head start" on other businesses who attempt to provide that service, and through price fixing and other anticompetitive practices can leverage their power to keep others from entering their market. Monopolies which form as such (and necessarily form with lower restrictions) will eventually leverage themselves into other markets, and eventually most industry will be controlled by relatively few businesses who have monopolies in most existing industy (except if, as it happened in all capitalist countries who began to see monopolies forming in this fashion, anti-trust laws are formed in order to stop this consolidation of power)

The problem starts with private property, absolutely. Without private property there are no markets (not as we see them today). You can most certainly attempt to show that private property does not lead to the conditions described above, but I don't think you'll be able to without propping up some bullshit fantasies about how the "free market will handle it".

there you go, you are doing it again!

you are arguing private property is bad, and using as arguments examples of the free market behaving bad due to the existance of private property.

But when i argue that the free market doesnt do that, you claim i am not adressing the issue (private property) and am only focusing on markets. THIS IS CIRCULAR LOGIC.

In any case, here's the rebutal for your belief that markets lead to monopoly:


The degree of concentration in the economy, according to Mcgee in his book "Standard Oil" (provided below as a source) has been relatively stable. It always appears to be increasing because highly concentrated industries are much more visible than more competitive ones. To give you an example sometime between 1920 and the present, General Motors acquired a commanding position in the automobile industry. Few of us realize that during the same period U.S.Steel lost its dominance in the steel industry. For the same reason, we tend to exagerate the amount of concentration at any given time.

In most economic activities, the efficiency of a firm increases with size up to some optimum size and then decreases. The increasing efficiency reflects the advantages of mass production. These advatnages generally occur only up to some definite level of size; for example, one steel mill is far more efficient than a backyard blast furnance, but making an existing steel mill larger brings no added advantage - that is why steel mills are the size they are - and two steel mills are no more efficient than one. Increasing size also brings increased cost of administrative bureocracy. The men at the top get further and further removed from what is actually going on at the bottom and are therefore more likely to make costly mistakes. So efficiency tens to decrease with increasing size once firms have passed the point where they can take full advantage of mass production. For this reason some very large firms, General Motors, for example, break themselves into semi-autonomous units in order to approximate as nearly as possible the more efficient administrative arrangements of smaller firms.

A natural monopoly exists when the optimum size for a firm in some area of production is so large that there is room for only one such firm on the market. A smaller competitor is less efficient than the monopoly firm and hence unable to compete with it. Except where the market is very small (a small town grocery store for example), this is a rather uncommon situation. In the steel industry, which is generally regarded as high concentrated, there are between two hundred and three hundred steel mills, and between one hundred and two hundred firms. The largest four firms (which are by no means the most profitable) produce only haf the total output, and the next four produce only 16 percent of total output.

Even a natural monopoly is limited in its ability to raise prices. If it raises them high enough, smaller less efficient firms find that they can compete profitably. A natural monopoly thus can make money selling goods at a priceat which other firms lose money and thus retain the whole market. But it retains the market only so long as the price stays low enough that other firms cannot make a profit. This is what is called potential competition.

A famous example is Alcoa Aluminium. One of the charges brought against Alcoa during the anti-trust hearings that resutled in its breakup was that it had hekpt competitors out of the aluminium business by keeping its prices low and by taking advatnage of every possible technological advance to lower them still further.

The power of a natural monopoly is also limited by indirect competition. Even if steel production were a natural monopoly, and even if the monopoly firm were enormously more efficient than potential competitors, its prices would be limited by the existence of substitutes of steel. As it drove prices higher and higher, people would use more aluminium, plastic, and wood for construction. Similarly a railroad, even if it is a monopoly, faces competition from canal barges, trucks and airplanes.

For all these reasons antural monopolies, although they occasioanlly exist under institutions of laissez-faire, do not seriously interfere with the workings of the market. The methods government uses to control such monopolies do far more damage than the monopolies themselves.




Now proceed to show historical evidence that there has been many monopolies during a large enough period of time that actually harmed (and i mean NATURAL monopolies, not STATE monopolies)

[mel]

there you go, you are doing it again!

you are arguing private property is bad, and using as arguments examples of the free market behaving bad due to the existance of private property.

But when i argue that the free market doesnt do that, you claim i am not adressing the issue (private property) and am only focusing on markets. THIS IS CIRCULAR LOGIC.

In any case, here's the rebutal for your belief that markets lead to monopoly:



Now proceed to show historical evidence that there has been many monopolies during a large enough period of time that actually harmed (and i mean NATURAL monopolies, not STATE monopolies)

It's convenient that your source would only provide historical examples AFTER the first anti-trust laws had been created. However, even if I named natural monopolies which caused harm from before that period of time, you would point out that at no point in history has true, unrestricted capitalism ever existed and the reasons that the monopolies caused harm was because of OTHER government restrictions which got them there in the first place.

One need only look at the mess that existed in the US previous to 1890 and 1914 to see the harm that monopolies were doing. There is a reason that competition law came into existence in the first place, and no examples you can provide that show examples of monopolies being broken up or breaking themselves up AFTER COMPETITION LAW HAD ALREADY TAKEN EFFECT make any sense. Why don't you provide an example of a monopoly breaking itself up naturally previous to the introduction of Competition Law which had already put restrictions on the types of behaviors monopolies use to maintain their position.

Also, your source failed to address natural monopolies which then leverage their monopoly position in one market to enter another market. Part of the problem was that a single person could own not only all of the factories in a given region, but all of the newspapers, radio stations and other places of work. Entire towns were owned by one or two people because monopolists leveraged their monopolies in one market to make themselves the only provider in town for others.

[Havet]

How is this circular?

Private Property Leads to exploitation, because it necessarily enforces a heirarchy of property owners (who have power) and non-property owners (who do not)

A "free market" is not possible because property owners condense power and consolidate wealth, making unskilled labor in high supply (because even skilled laborers can be made to do unskilled labor if desperate enough) and mediocre demand (because there will always be more workers than needed in a capitalist society, if they work long enough hours or under strenuous enough conditions.) A lack of restrictions on work hours, work wages, etc. will lead to property owners (who have power over non-property-owners) to collude to keep wages down (because they all benefit from cheaper wages) and hours up (because making one trained person work more hours is cheaper than training two people to work shifts). Property owners who create new markets will have a de-facto monopoly on that market for long enough to get a "head start" on other businesses who attempt to provide that service, and through price fixing and other anticompetitive practices can leverage their power to keep others from entering their market. Monopolies which form as such (and necessarily form with lower restrictions) will eventually leverage themselves into other markets, and eventually most industry will be controlled by relatively few businesses who have monopolies in most existing industy (except if, as it happened in all capitalist countries who began to see monopolies forming in this fashion, anti-trust laws are formed in order to stop this consolidation of power)

The problem starts with private property, absolutely. Without private property there are no markets (not as we see them today). You can most certainly attempt to show that private property does not lead to the conditions described above, but I don't think you'll be able to without propping up some bullshit fantasies about how the "free market will handle it".

going back because i forgot some other points:

Basically, you're an idiot (yes, AD HOMINEM in your face)

Theres not a free market in the world that would "force" a skilled worked to do "unskilled" work.

Skilled work is more valuable, thats why its called skilled, because it requires ability and knowledge that you dont have when you're unskilled.

You wouldn't use a skilled labor to do unskilled work for the same reason you wouldn't use a printing press to print one piece of paper, or use a $10,000 lazer cutter to open a letter.

A Skilled worker might not do a skilled job, but that would only be because the skilled worker wasn't skilled enough.

You have no idea what value means. So in some situations a "skilled" loom operator might be "forced" to have a job as an "unskilled" machine loom operator, but those are using meaningless communist definitions.

The "skilled" loom operator is not really skilled, because the skill of hand loom operation is no longer valuable, and the only way they would be forced to do "unskilled" work, is because no businessman would pay a "skilled" loom worker £2 an hour to do what an "unskilled" machine-loom worker could do in half the time for half the price.



"making unskilled labor in high supply (because
even skilled laborers can be made to do unskilled labor if desperate
enough) and mediocre demand (because there will always be more workers
than needed in a capitalist society, if they work long enough hours or
under strenuous enough conditions.)"

Thats retarded. What you're saying doesn't even make sense. A business people can't make people unskilled. Freemarkets can't make people work, freemarkets can't stop people from starting their own business. If there are always more workers than jobs, how are jobs created? If theres only a limited amount of jobs, then how has the worlds population ever been able to grow? How do you have nearly 1 billion employed Chinese people when 10,000 years ago there weren't even 1 billion people.

Unless of course wealth is not finite, and the more people you have, the more jobs you can have, because each person can make wealth, and with that wealth you can pay more workers (i.e make jobs).

Which is why we now have millions of businesses instead of a few thousand like we did thousands of years ago.

The only way someone like you can say something like that is if you don't understand economics, and will never try to understand economics that go against your ideology.

[Havet]

even if I named natural monopolies which caused harm from before that period of time, you would point out that at no point in history has true, unrestricted capitalism ever existed and the reasons that the monopolies caused harm was because of OTHER government restrictions which got them there in the first place.

One need only look at the mess that existed in the US previous to 1890 and 1914 to see the harm that monopolies were doing.

Also, your source failed to address natural monopolies which then leverage their monopoly position in one market to enter another market. Part of the problem was that a single person could own not only all of the factories in a given region, but all of the newspapers, radio stations and other places of work. Entire towns were owned by one or two people because monopolists leveraged their monopolies in one market to make themselves the only provider in town for others.i'm waiting for the facts, evidence and historical proof that back your claim.

and most of the monopolies only managed to succed by alliances with governments.

how does this work? My business is losing profit because i made some bad decisions or because i am facing fierce competition. What do I do? I go to the government and tell them that the kind of work i need to do is very specialized work and that there needs to be regulation in how its done because it is very dangerous etc. Then the government passes that regulation, and appoints a comitte to decide who gets to produce what and when. And guess who's in the comittee? that's right, the leading experts of the field. and that includes "older and more experient busineses" like mine. In the end, my initial firm benefits the most. Not only will i lose a heck of a lot more competition, but since i start to grow as a monopoly, at some point i will be "too big to fail" and the government will bail me out, thus encouraging me to not care about how i make my profits at all. and if something does go wrong with my firm, i can just blame it on the "free market" and ask for even more regulation. Lobbyism, "asking for favors", whatever, the truth is this is how most of the big companies have gotten where they are today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYTgwzHU6xg

[mel]

going back because i forgot some other points:

Basically, you're an idiot (yes, AD HOMINEM in your face)

That's actually not an ad hominem, that's just being abusive.


Theres not a free market in the world

I can agree with that. :D


Skilled work is more valuable, thats why its called skilled, because it requires ability and knowledge that you dont have when you're unskilled.

You wouldn't use a skilled labor to do unskilled work for the same reason you wouldn't use a printing press to print one piece of paper, or use a $10,000 lazer cutter to open a letter.

I don't get it. A laborer with any amount of experience can be made to do any kind of work regardless of their amount of skill if they need food badly enough. There are nuclear physicists working at fast food chains and as janitors out of necessity because the job market has less to do with how skilled or unskilled you are, and how desirable the type of work you do is, and more to do with who you know, how well you know them, and how willing you are to step on other people to get into a better position.


A Skilled worker might not do a skilled job, but that would only be because the skilled worker wasn't skilled enough.

Or for any number of other ridiculous reasons a person may be denied a job and an opportunity at making a living.


Thats retarded. What you're saying doesn't even make sense. A business people can't make people unskilled. Freemarkets can't make people work, freemarkets can't stop people from starting their own business.

That's because free markets can't exist :rolleyes:


If there are always more workers than jobs, how are jobs created? If theres only a limited amount of jobs, then how has the worlds population ever been able to grow? How do you have nearly 1 billion employed Chinese people when 10,000 years ago there weren't even 1 billion people.

And even when new jobs are created, there are more workers than jobs. The fact that there are people who are willing to work but cannot find jobs is a wonderful testament to that.

[mel]

i'm waiting for the facts, evidence and historical proof that back your claim.

What a coincidence.

Look at the Ludlow Massacre, the precursor of which started when Labor Organizer Gerry Lippiat was murdered by detectives on the Rockefeller payroll, and the state of mining towns in the early 1900s. Rockefeller owned every industry in these towns, and also had the police on the payroll. It's a little difficult to pull up links for them right now, so you'll have to do a little of your own research.

[Havet]

What a coincidence.

Look at the Ludlow Massacre, the precursor of which started when Labor Organizer Gerry Lippiat was murdered by detectives on the Rockefeller payroll, and the state of mining towns in the early 1900s. Rockefeller owned every industry in these towns, and also had the police on the payroll. It's a little difficult to pull up links for them right now, so you'll have to do a little of your own research.

The Ludlow massacre refers to the violent deaths of 20 people, 11 of them children, during an attack by the Colorado National Guard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_National_Guard)

The evidence i was asking for is evidence for:

-"One need only look at the mess that existed in the US previous to 1890 and 1914"
-""Entire towns were owned by one or two people because monopolists leveraged their monopolies in one market to make themselves the only provider in town for others."

I bet it's difficult to try and find links to prove things that DIDN'T HAPPEN (such as natural monopoly actually existing and harming people in the US prior to any law which actually made it easier, as argued in my previous post, for capitalists to make a monopoly.)

[mel]

The Ludlow massacre refers to the violent deaths of 20 people, 11 of them children, during an attack by the Colorado National Guard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_National_Guard)

The evidence i was asking for is evidence for:

-"One need only look at the mess that existed in the US previous to 1890 and 1914"
-""Entire towns were owned by one or two people because monopolists leveraged their monopolies in one market to make themselves the only provider in town for others."

I bet it's difficult to try and find links to prove things that DIDN'T HAPPEN (such as natural monopoly actually existing and harming people in the US prior to any law which actually made it easier, as argued in my previous post, for capitalists to make a monopoly.)

Nice job quoting the wikipedia summary of the event, completely ignoring the role of the Rockefeller Oil and Coal monopolies on the structure of mining towns in Colorado and the fact that the ludlow massacre, and the related demonstrations in which entire towns of workers attempting to organize were sprayed with machine-gun fire from police and national guardsmen on the Rockefeller payroll.

[Havet]

Nice job quoting the wikipedia summary of the event, completely ignoring the role of the Rockefeller Oil and Coal monopolies on the structure of mining towns in Colorado and the fact that the ludlow massacre, and the related demonstrations in which entire towns of workers attempting to organize were sprayed with machine-gun fire from police and national guardsmen on the Rockefeller payroll.

I haven't ignored it. here, i'll even state it for you:

"The company hired the Baldwin-Felts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin-Felts) Detective Agency to help break the strike by protecting the replacement workers and otherwise making life difficult for the strikers."

"While this meeting was progressing, two companies of militia installed a machine gun on a ridge near the camp and took a position along a rail route about half a mile south of Ludlow."

I will also state it for the record: Yes rockerfeller had something into it.

How does this relate to monopoly?

How does this support the notion that there is a natural tendency towards monopoly?

How does this proves that there were a lot of harmful monopoly in the US previous to 1890 and 1914?

Could you please stop evading the question now?

[mel]

I haven't ignored it. here, i'll even state it for you:

"The company hired the Baldwin-Felts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin-Felts) Detective Agency to help break the strike by protecting the replacement workers and otherwise making life difficult for the strikers."

"While this meeting was progressing, two companies of militia installed a machine gun on a ridge near the camp and took a position along a rail route about half a mile south of Ludlow."

I will also state it for the record: Yes rockerfeller had something into it.

How does this relate to monopoly?

How does this support the notion that there is a natural tendency towards monopoly?

How does this proves that there were a lot of harmful monopoly in the US previous to 1890 and 1914?

Could you please stop evading the question now?

Rockefeller, who you admit was involved, had a monopoly on oil which he then used to extend control of the market into other industries. As a direct result of this control over other markets, through which he controlled not only all of the workplaces in some small towns (making it impossible for say, a person who in a "free market" ought to be able to leave their job and get another if conditions are poor in one to exercise this ability without traveling a great distance they could not afford to travel because of their insufficient wages) but also the police force and political and government positions in the area. These people worked in Rockefeller mines, shopped in Rockefeller stores, read Rockefeller newspapers and were kept in line by Rockefeller police. If you can't see how this is an example of a "harmful" monopoly, which directly resulted in the deaths of workers attempting to organize for better conditions, then I have nothing left to say to you.

The Rockefeller monopoly was clearly harmful, and it existed before 1914 (and managed to perpetuate itself afterwards in spite of anti-trust laws).

It's clear that natural monopolies form when capitalist economies are relatively deregulated because IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE. The Rockefeller monopoly and many others, such as the JP Morgan US Steel monopoly came into being in relatively deregulated conditions. As your source pointed out (in examples from after the first anti-trust legislation) some of the most devastating effects of natural monopolies were curbed with increased regulation, but that hasn't stopped any number of both state monopolies (like the ones granted on a local basis in the telecommunications industry today) and natural monopolies (such as the Microsoft monopoly on Operating Systems which had been hindering technical progress for YEARS) from doing damage worldwide. If monopolies can exist and cause harm even in today's staunchly regulated economic conditions, how the fuck can you possibly make the argument that in a deregulated situation monopolies would just never form?

[Kronos]

Religion is not concerned with what is. Religion exists to answer the question: What ought to be?As Trivas said, you are talking about ethics. You should know that the subject of ethics was around long before religion showed up.

The comic irony of your case is that you endorse a belief system which you suppose is the foundation for ethics....but, not only is it not the foundation, this belief system is also probably to blame for the great majority of conflict and violence in the world....which, in turn, you consider be problems that only religion can solve.

Practico-inert!

( for two points, find the vicious circle in your reasoning )

At any rate, the bible has caused more wars than any other book in history, no?

[mel]

The bible has caused more wars than any other book in history, no?

States cause wars, not books, and the stated justification for something is not always the actual cause. Wars justified in rhetoric by religious excuses are rarely actually about religion, but political gain.

[Octobox]

Rockefeller, who you admit was involved, had a monopoly on oil which he then used to extend control of the market into other industries.

100% correct. Rockefeller's are Big Bankers and Big Industrialists and Big Corporatist (or Corporate Fascist).

A Corporatist is someone who relies partly on consumer-will and partly on gov't-regulation (et al other advantages gov't can bestow).

Instead of a Corporatist giving R&D money to a poor or middle class entrepreneur to stay competitive they give the money (or a fraction of it) to a lobbyist who forces competition out -- In the beginning this strategy cheaper than "innovation" -- however, soon the monopoly is so big that lobbyist and senior politicians can reverse negotiate for hiring lobbying dollars. Because of years of taking side-paths (avoiding the creative class) or proping up inefficient technologies the cost to innovate (re-tool) is so high they are hooked (like a drug addict) on the gov't subsidization-judicial rullings-tax breaks-fiat credit.


The Rockefeller monopoly was clearly harmful, and it existed before 1914 (and managed to perpetuate itself afterwards in spite of anti-trust laws).

Every new law or regulation justifies the Corporatist to raise prices -- with collusion (like the oil industry) they can bleed the consumer dry.

Create "scarcity" by regulation and you create fasle "acts of god" and can raise prices up 300% -- 600% -- 3000%. Storehouse diamonds (false scarcity) by gov't backed monopolization of entire industries -- use fractional reserve banking -- and you can control (keep at bay) competition. Barriers to Entry.

This is not anarcho-capitalism (or any type of voluntarism) it's Max-Archy (maximal authority).

The problem is A-Caps, Communists, A-Coms, and other leftists/libertarians ignore 2/3 of the monopolists profit drivers. Too much arguing praxeology and zero-sum or labor theories.

Consumers-who-Purchase
Consumers-who-Invest

------ Consumer-Will ------

Not everyone is a: Industrialist, Corporatist, Politician, Worker, Small Business Owner, or Contractor.

Eveeryone is: a Consumer!!

Where's the largest population of consumers? Poor and Middle Class

Octobox

[Kronos]

Wars justified in rhetoric by religious excuses are rarely actually about religion, but political gain.

...and often enough, the ideals which support the convictions held by those who seek political advantage, have religious origins- for hundred of years the initial motivating force behind war/crusades were nationalist ideals, not to mention the incentive to "establish God's law" here on earth.

It is in fact that "religious rhetoric" that persuades men into the very delusions they have that influence them to pursue their political ends.

Observe the middle east. We call it "political turmoil", but clearly this coercion is based on ideological conflicts...despite what politics are involved.

[RGacky3]

Private property-> Leads to exploitation as a result of people being free to trade and free to condense wealth -> I come and try to show this is not true -> You claim the argument starts at private property, not markets.

Private property does'nt lead to exploitation as the result of freedom to trade, it leads to exploitation as a result of the centralization of wealth and thus power.

Also remember Capitalism did'nt just pop up, it grew out of othere systems with class line pretty much already drawn. Classes did'nt grow out of freedoms. The freedom came later which is really only freedom for those who can afford it.

And yes it does start at private property, becauase private property is essencially the same "freedom" as the "freedom" of a king to rule over his domain.


Now proceed to show historical evidence that there has been many monopolies during a large enough period of time that actually harmed (and i mean NATURAL monopolies, not STATE monopolies)

Who the hell is talking about monopolies??? If there are 2 or 3 kings in an area does that justify their kingship? How does that change anything?

The problem with anarcho-capitalists is they don't deal in the real world.

Private property is exploitative and tyrannical with or without monolopies.

[Octobox]

Private property does'nt lead to exploitation as the result of freedom to trade, it leads to exploitation as a result of the centralization of wealth and thus power.

Private Property -- you are referring to land-ownership? What else? What about automoblies, your computer, bicycles, shampoo? Please specify.

Do you see a difference in these revenue streams -- if not then why are both "wrong."

Corporatist Revenue Stream: 1) Consumers-who-Purchase, 2) Consumers-who-Invest, and 3) Gov't Lobby Sought (Subsidization, Bailouts, Fiat Credit, Regulatory Advantages, and Tax Breaks)

vs

Free-Market Revenue Stream: 1) Consumers-who-Purchase and 2) Consumers-who-Invest


Also remember Capitalism did'nt just pop up, it grew out of othere systems with class line pretty much already drawn. Classes did'nt grow out of freedoms. The freedom came later which is really only freedom for those who can afford it.


Marx coined the phrase "capitalism" as a dimunitive against Economic Individualism -- which, he re-translated (hijacked the meaning) to fit his "treatise."

Economic Individualism is a very very simple concept and the world (as far as I can tell hasn't ever seen it in practice).

Marx was ridiculing Economic Fascism and rightfully so.

The free-market revenue stream above is the economic individualism business revenue stream. Have you ever seen a revenue stream like that -- with ZERO corporate tax? No.


Who the hell is talking about monopolies??? If there are 2 or 3 kings in an area does that justify their kingship? How does that change anything?


A King controls prices -- he does not allow his "wealth" to be in "an-archos" nor in "min-archos" -- Only in "max-archos" (maximal authority).



The problem with anarcho-capitalists is they don't deal in the real world.


Communist and Anarcho-Communist (according to their own war cry) have never seen their system of rule EVER exist in application -- If you say, "what about Korea" they say "NOPE - Dictatorial Elitism" then if you say, "what about Cuba" they say "NOPE - Dictatorial Elitism" -- If you say, "what about Russia" they say "NOPE - Totalitarian Gangsterism" or some other highly created wordsmithing.

If you don't have an example of it in "reality" then how are you any different than the Anarcho-Capitalist.


Private property is exploitative and tyrannical with or without monolopies.

Can you show me ONCE in history where there was a Capitalism (as I define as Economic Individualism") wherein there was ZERO monopolies anywhere in that society?

Octobox

[RGacky3]

Private Property -- you are referring to land-ownership? What else? What about automoblies, your computer, bicycles, shampoo? Please specify.

Anything that requires property laws.



Do you see a difference in these revenue streams -- if not then why are both "wrong."


They are both based on a tyrannical system, one may be more justifyable than the other, but the basis that they stand on is unjustifiable. Also "free trade" and "exploitation" are not 2 different revenue streams.


A King controls prices -- he does not allow his "wealth" to be in "an-archos" nor in "min-archos" -- Only in "max-archos" (maximal authority).

Kings control prices? when was that again? Plus I was talking about the relationship between worker and capitalist, rich and poor.


If you don't have an example of it in "reality" then how are you any different than the Anarcho-Capitalist.


Anarchist spain in the 30s, Zapatista territories, Argentenian worker takeovers, Ukrain free territory, Kibbutz, and so on and so forth.


Can you show me ONCE in history where there was a Capitalism (as I define as Economic Individualism") wherein there was ZERO monopolies anywhere in that society?

No, and it will probably never happen, because free markets don't nessessarily stop monopolies.

Economic Individualism is a rediculous concept, because the people who believe most in economic individialism are anarcho communists. only everyone gets that individualism, not only those who can afford it.

[Octobox]

Anything that requires property laws. They are both based on a tyrannical system, one may be more justifiable than the other, but the basis that they stand on is unjustifiable. Also "free trade" and "exploitation" are not 2 different revenue streams.

So you equate the right to trade -- where that exchange is made voluntarily, with that of "exploitation?" In all circumstances? If not then which ones?


Kings control prices? when was that again? Plus I was talking about the relationship between worker and capitalist, rich and poor.

I won’t answer the "kings" question it's to obvious, go Google.

I have a problem with A-Cap regarding land-based private property "laws" -- in the long-run (I've yet to see how it can work "in the long-run" without force).

All "abuses" of land - trees - environment have happened under forms of big gov't given the Corporatist revenue streams I showed you -- it would have been impossible (if you maintain your argument that anarcho-capitalism has never been seen) for this to happen in a free-market where the only influence is the consumer and where air quality and underground water quality are considered as part of property value -- if you pollute your soil and it plumes under mine and our neighbors then you are liable for the loss in economic value. It used to be this way up to the 1840's in America. There were cases where washer women would sue coal plants for ruining their clothes on the line (her business). This forced coal factories to burn only the highest quality coal which has a lower enviromental impact -- in some cases they'd be forced to raise their stacks or add filters or move their plant. As corporatism continued to gain ever-more power the coal lobbyist bought the votes from senior politicians and legislation gave advantage to the "producer" over the property owner.

Marx coined "capitalism" to ridicule (by revenue stream) "economic-fascism" and wrongly attached it to economic-individualism (whose revenue stream is completely different).

Economic-Fascism (American Corporatism) Revenue Stream: 1) Consumers-who-Purchase, 2) Consumers-who-Invest, and 3) Gov't-theft-Revenue (Subsidies, Regulatory Advantages, Tax Breaks, Environmental Rulings, Fiat Credit, and Judicial Judo)

Marx was 100% right -- Economic-Fascism is "evil" -- However, the "evil" is gov't over-riding consumer-will and it's not the "exploitation" of the worker.

The Wealthy
The Poor
The Working Class
The Entrepreneurial Class

All are consumers -- All production is created for consumers. The "owner" is in business for the consumer -- he becomes a corporatist when he seeks to go around consumer-will.

As an industrial worker. You work in an industry where alternatives are legislatively kept at bay -- where unions create a false value on labor -- and where the gov't does not allow it to fail. What happens to the worker when the industry fails? He has a set of skills that do not equate anywhere else -- therefore his propped-up wage drops dramatically and he takes on debt to compensate.

What happens to health when the worst foods are subsidized -- when the very means of food production model themselves after the factory system (the latter being fully subsidized as well)? Who is hurt? The Consumer and the Worker.

In Economic-Individualism subsidization is not allowed. There are no politicians -- the "regulators" are the consumers. Go look at the revenue streams the only influence on "investors" is purchasers and the only influence on "owners" is consumers -- and the worker develops "real" skills in the long-run.

Sure -- there might need to be a small navy, army, and air force to protect the borders -- but mostly they'd be there to stop piracy. To protect the consumer. The only "honest" tax is one you can see and one that is placed on the consumer. Hidden tax (corporate tax and all others) are paid by consumers as inflationary dollar destruction and are hidden from view. There are people who believe that corporate tax is good -- as if there is one cost a corporation pays that isn't rolled into their pricing schemas.


Anarchist Spain in the 30s, Zapatista territories, Argentinean worker takeovers, Ukrain free territory, Kibbutz, and so on and so forth.

These were Anarcho-Syndicalist Communities? Very short-lived. Well that fits in my short-run theory, hahahaha.


No, and it will probably never happen, because free markets don't necessarily stop monopolies.

This is where you are wrong. You've never seen a monopoly in a "free market" only in Economic Fascism -- owing to barriers of entry (regulatory advantages and environmental rulings etc).

In Economic-Individualism (free markets) given their revenue stream has no gov't leg -- only consumers-who-purchase and consumers-who-invest.



Economic Individualism is a ridiculous concept, because the people who believe most in economic individualism are anarcho communists. only everyone gets that individualism, not only those who can afford it.

You are not ready for the "truth" if you don't consider the profit-drivers and revenue streams in your analysis.

It's like comparing "idealic" communism with communism-in-practice -- which, all communist will say was NEVER "real" communism -- yet if an A-Cap or Individualist should dare suggest the same thing (as it applies to their philosophy - to economic individualism or Free-Market-Anarchy or Minarchism - if he dares, he is castigated.

You can't control all definitions.

[mel]

So you equate the right to trade -- where that exchange is made voluntarily, with that of "exploitation?" In all circumstances? If not then which ones?

Property ownership is exploitation, or leads to it directly. There is a difference between property and possessions, and the trade of possessions is not exploitative.

[Octobox]

Property ownership is exploitation, or leads to it directly. There is a difference between property and possessions, and the trade of possessions is not exploitative.

Okay -- Cool.

So, you would be okay with a Possession-Anarchy then? Hahahaha.

Definition

exploitation - an act that exploits or victimizes someone (treats them unfairly); "capitalistic exploitation of the working class"; "paying Blacks less and charging them more is a form of victimization"

Does that sum it up?

Capitalism is only "expoitive" if it is supported by anything other than consumers-who-purchase and consumers-who-invest -- additionally so, if it is housed in a country where there is ZERO competition in currency.

Marx coined Capitalism -- he meant it to be a critique or a dimunitive on Economic-Fuedalism that prevailed during his day. He never agreed with "Marxism" in application -- no country represented his fantasy.

Economic-Individualism is NOT Economic-Fascism (or Fuedalism).

The Morgan Stanley's of the world have only one saving grace and that is to control currency/credit, to tax, and to regulate -- there has always been currency, that cannot be destroyed it's too quick - too convenient; that part of the communist model is absurd.

Corporatist lobby for environmental taxes -- cigarette manugacturers have made more in the last 20 years of heavy regulation than every before -- even during mass declines in useage. If the gov't puts a tax on a corporation of 5% then the company charges 6% to the customer (figuretively speaking) and then lobbies for "tax-breaks" the following year. The tax was paid in the previous year (by the consumer) then huge rightoffs are giving the corporation and thus he "earns" an extra 6% profit (free and clear). If they add on a constraint to growth it creates false "scarcity" (think diamonds) and thus justifies higher prices -- it's political-driven, it's collution and skirts anti-trust laws. Infact the above process is what allows Monopolies to exist in the long-run. When taxes stop working they just print the money in fiat -- which counterfeits the money in circulation by lessoning its value.

The wealthy never pay taxes -- they pass all of them on to the poor and middle classes.

A tax - a fine - an environmental law only create false profit bursts in a product the consumer has already voted out.

The "worker" that unionizes passes this cost on to the consumer as well -taken as a "worker strategy" he taxes other workers from other industries (as they tax him) -- all are consumers. The company pays nothing. We hurt each other when we off-shore our in-efficiencies.

The King rules because he controls the water, salt production, roads, and currency -- in monopoly fashion.

The union and the corporatist then lobby to limit competition -- creating a "legal" monopoly situation, which drives prices skyward.

In a free-market where there are only two sources of revenue and only two sources of profit-bursts (entrepreneurialism and intrapreneurialism) the above cannot happen (no unions, no lobbying, no corporatists, and thus no fractional reserve banking).

Thus the errors are simple and the solution obvious.

Errors: 1) Long-run Unions, 2) Allowing for Lobbying, 3) Career Politicians (should only get one-term), 4) Regulatory and Taxing Authority, and 5) ZERO Competition in Currency. [Notice I did not mention short-run unions].

Solution: Counter-Economics (buy local and work under the table - pay no taxes) and create a society filled with conscious-consumers.

Where consumer-will is the only regulator in all markets -- including currency.

Octobox

[A_Ciarra]

Good one liner wise cracks in this thread. Keep up the good work!

[RGacky3]

So you equate the right to trade -- where that exchange is made voluntarily, with that of "exploitation?" In all circumstances? If not then which ones?

let me put it to you this way, the right to trade only applies to the Capitalists really, who are exploiting the workers whether or not they have that right.

In the USSR there was not right to trade (generalizing here), in the US there is, both countries exploited their workers.


All are consumers -- All production is created for consumers. The "owner" is in business for the consumer -- he becomes a corporatist when he seeks to go around consumer-will.

All are consumers yes, however, some people have almost no consumer power, while otheres have millions of dollars of consumer power. Generally, the ones with millions of dollars, also control the Capital.

You understand where I'm going with this?


As an industrial worker. You work in an industry where alternatives are legislatively kept at bay -- where unions create a false value on labor

False value?

I'd argue that market value is false value because of the differences in wealth, and thus consumer power.


In Economic-Individualism subsidization is not allowed. There are no politicians -- the "regulators" are the consumers. Go look at the revenue streams the only influence on "investors" is purchasers and the only influence on "owners" is consumers -- and the worker develops "real" skills in the long-run.

Sure -- there might need to be a small navy, army, and air force to protect the borders -- but mostly they'd be there to stop piracy. To protect the consumer. The only "honest" tax is one you can see and one that is placed on the consumer. Hidden tax (corporate tax and all others) are paid by consumers as inflationary dollar destruction and are hidden from view. There are people who believe that corporate tax is good -- as if there is one cost a corporation pays that isn't rolled into their pricing schemas.

The big question.

Is there a state?

If not who's enforcing property laws?


These were Anarcho-Syndicalist Communities? Very short-lived. Well that fits in my short-run theory, hahahaha.

Zapatista territories still around, same with many Kibbutz. Second question you have to ask is why were they short lived, because of the system they employed? or outside military forces?


This is where you are wrong. You've never seen a monopoly in a "free market" only in Economic Fascism -- owing to barriers of entry (regulatory advantages and environmental rulings etc).

In Economic-Individualism (free markets) given their revenue stream has no gov't leg -- only consumers-who-purchase and consumers-who-invest.


Thats because there never was and never will be a "free market"