An Exercise in Free Market Ethics

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

If I gleaned anything from free market moraltiy, it's that voluntary exhange always leads to the best outcomes and that coercion and restriction of choice are always socially undesirable and just plain wrong on all moral levels. So to demonstrate the virtues of free market ethics, let me provide a very illustrative example of an exercise in the adherence to the principle of "voluntary exchange".

Jim has a penchant for taking long walks in the woods. One day he traveled down an unfamiliar path, a path that is not oft taken. Being somewhat careless, Jim falls into a deep ditch and breaks both of his legs. In his dilapidated state, our hapless Jim is unable to climb out. All he can do is yell for help. Fortunately for Jim, Steve who also enjoys an occasional adventure in the woods, hears Jim's cries for help. Steve, our business minded hero, offers Jim an ultimatum. He'll help Jim out of the ditch only if Jim signs a binding contract that renders him indebted to Steve for $100,000.
Jim, knowing that if he rebuffs the offer he may never be saved since another passerby might not show up in time, accepts.

Now, one might find Steve's actions to be deplorable, but it's merely the free market at work folks. Steve saw a business oppurtunity and took it. The exhange was purely voluntary. No one forced Jim to accept the offer. Everyone is made better off. If some loathsome governmental authority had outlawed such contracts, Steve would not have saved Jim and the logical consequence would have been Jim's painful death. The lesson here, is that the free market always leads to mutually beneficial outcomes and evil statists should just accept that.

And yes, this is sarcasm for those still wondering.

[Havet]

If I gleaned anything from free market moraltiy, it's that voluntary exhange always leads to the best outcomes and that coercion and restriction of choice are always socially undesirable and just plain wrong on all moral levels. So to demonstrate the virtues of free market ethics, let me provide a very illustrative example of an exercise in the adherence to the principle of "voluntary exchange".

Jim has a penchant for taking long walks in the woods. One day he traveled down an unfamiliar path, a path that is not oft taken. Being somewhat careless, Jim falls into a deep ditch and breaks both of his legs. In his dilapidated state, our hapless Jim is unable to climb out. All he can do is yell for help. Fortunately for Jim, Steve who also enjoys an occasional adventure in the woods, hears Jim's cries for help. Steve, our business minded hero, offers Jim an ultimatum. He'll help Jim out of the ditch only if Jim signs a binding contract that renders him indebted to Steve for $100,000.
Jim, knowing that if he rebuffs the offer he may never be saved since another passerby might not show up in time, accepts.

Now, one might find Steve's actions to be deplorable, but it's merely the free market at work folks. Steve saw a business oppurtunity and took it. The exhange was purely voluntary. No one forced Jim to accept the offer. Everyone is made better off. If some loathsome governmental authority had outlawed such contracts, Steve would not have saved Jim and the logical consequence would have been Jim's painful death. The lesson here, is that the free market always leads to mutually beneficial outcomes and evil statists should just accept that.

It's also worth noting that in a free market not everything has to be a business opportunity, and those who would want to save Jim for nothing in return should not be forbidden to do so as well. In fact, I believe Steve would have more to gain by helping him without money in return than with money. He could have gained a life-long friend, and if they were in doing business in the future, both would know each other is trustworthy.

Anyway, your argument isnt that free market always leads to mutually beneficial outcomes. Its that in this particular case of voluntary assistance, there are several alternatives, and its up to each person to choose them.

Needless to say that we don't actually have a free(d) market, and that many things so called "free market" advocates defend are not actual products of markets, but the results of statist and capitalist alliances (like Corporations which are legal fictions granting limited liability). Equality of Opportunity is necessary for Freedom.

[New Tet]

Now, one might find Steve's actions to be deplorable, but it's merely the free market at work folks. Steve saw a business oppurtunity and took it. The exhange was purely voluntary. No one forced Jim to accept the offer. Everyone is made better off. If some loathsome governmental authority had outlawed such contracts, Steve would not have saved Jim and the logical consequence would have been Jim's painful death. The lesson here, is that the free market always leads to mutually beneficial outcomes and evil statists should just accept that.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that people will find "Steve's" actions deplorable?

Have you asked yourself what kind of mentality governs a person who, when witnessing others suffer, only calculates the personal benefit he may derive from giving aid?

BTW, no court, even a capitalist court, would ever force Jim to honor such a contract, even if he had signed it a hundred times.

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

It's also worth noting that in a free market not everything has to be a business opportunity, and those who would want to save Jim for nothing in return should not be forbidden to do so as well. In fact, I believe Steve would have more to gain by helping him without money in return than with money. He could have gained a life-long friend, and if they were in doing business in the future, both would know each other is trustworthy.

Steve had what some economists call a "situational monopoly". Jim had only one person to bargain with at the moment and that was Steve. Jim could have waited for someone more generous to show up, but since he was virtually in the middle of nowhere, he'd be taking an unwise(in my opinion) risk by rejecting Steve's offer. Life-long friendships might be more valuable in some peoples' view, but Steve valued money over potential friendship. Maybe Steve just had enough friends.



Anyway, your argument isnt that free market always leads to mutually beneficial outcomes. Its that in this particular case of voluntary assistance, there are several alternatives, and its up to each person to choose them.

Voluntary exchange is the linchpin of the free market. Are you arguing that what transpired in my narrative was not a mutually beneficial voluntary exchange?


Doesn't it strike you as odd that people will find "Steve's" actions deplorable?

Have you asked yourself what kind of mentality governs a person who, when witnessing others suffer, only calculates the personal benefit he may derive from giving aid?

BTW, no court, even a capitalist court, would ever force Jim to honor such a contract, even if he had signed it a hundred times.

Austrian Schoolers have convinced me that Steve's actions were merely a reflection of the free market in work. Whether that offends your statist sensibilities are of no matter to Steve and other free marketeers who are of course on a higher moral plane than most of us.

BTW, we're not talking about just any courts here, New Tet. We're talking private courts that will enforce any voluntary contract. Go to mises.org and enlighten yourself.;)

[Havet]

Voluntary exchange is the linchpin of the free market. Are you arguing that what transpired in my narrative was not a mutually beneficial voluntary exchange? I was merely pointing out it was not the only mutually beneficial voluntary exchange possible.



free marketeers who are of course on a higher moral plane than most of us. What the hell? Their political ideas might be more correct, but that doesn't necessarily imply they are more "moral".


Go to mises.org and enlighten yourself.;)

I personally don't go to mises often, but i'll warn you in advance that people HATE it here. Saying "go to mises and enlighten yourself" is elitist and quite frankly you're likely to achieve nothing but to angry some people. If there is a specific article that helps your case, then post it.

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

I was merely pointing out it was not the only mutually beneficial voluntary exchange possible.

True, but it was the outcome that was most likely to occur, given the circumstances. And I don't know why you even bother to mention these other "exchange possibilities". Do you have a problem with the outcome in my example? I don't and neither should any true free market advocate.






What the hell? Their political ideas might be more correct, but that doesn't necessarily imply they are more "moral".

Well, I disagree. Those who oppose the free market have a nefarious urge to dominate others. That's why they support communism(statism) after all. Don't you agree that statism is immoral?



I personally don't go to mises often, but i'll warn you in advance that people HATE it here. Saying "go to mises and enlighten yourself" is elitist and quite frankly you're likely to achieve nothing but to angry some people. If there is a specific article that helps your case, then post it.

Hey if these benighted statists don't want to attain enlightenment, then that's their loss. To each his own, I guess.

[Havet]

True, but it was the outcome that was most likely to occur, given the circumstances. And I don't know why you even bother to mention these other "exchange possibilities". Do you have a problem with the outcome in my example? I don't and neither should any true free market advocate. I dont have a problem, but I don't think thats the most likely to occur outcome either.


Well, I disagree. Those who oppose the free market have a nefarious urge to dominate others. That's why they support communism(statism) after all. Don't you agree that statism is immoral?

Hey if these benighted statists don't want to attain enlightenment, then that's their loss. To each his own, I guess.

Communism =/= statism. In fact, communism seeks to achieve a stateless society. In the past it has failed because it relied on concentration of power on the Party, which led to a refined form of statism: state capitalism.

While no communist myself, there are certainly other ways for communism to be created voluntarily and without aggression, just as there are other ways for other institutions to exist with a State: communes, cooperatives, unions, syndicates, businesses, etc. As long as these forms of organization are not imposed on their respective neighbours, then I see no logical and moral objection.

I also think Statism is more illogical, irrational and idiotic than immoral. Since morality is not objective, it really depends on one's own ideas and code of values. You'll find many anarchists here though.

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

I dont have a problem, but I don't think thats the most likely to occur outcome either.

Well at least we agree that monopoly power is tenable and acceptable. In fact, I don't think that monopolies are lauded enough in the free market literature. Selling goods at exorbitantly high prices by availing yourself of monopoly power is indeed a praiseworthy action.



Communism =/= statism. In fact, communism seeks to achieve a stateless society. In the past it has failed because it relied on concentration of power on the Party, which led to a refined form of statism: state capitalism.

While no communist myself, there are certainly other ways for communism to be created voluntarily and without aggression, just as there are other ways for other institutions to exist with a State: communes, cooperatives, unions, syndicates, businesses, etc. As long as these forms of organization are not imposed on their respective neighbours, then I see no logical and moral objection.

I also think Statism is more illogical, irrational and idiotic than immoral. Since morality is not objective, it really depends on one's own ideas and code of values. You'll find many anarchists here though.

The bottomline here is that those who support coercive power are idiotic, as you implied, and it just so happens that those who disagree with the free market support, perhaps unwittingly, coercive power. I'm glad that we have reached commonground concerning monopolies and the idiocy of those who oppose free markets.

[yuon]

Would you believe that in many "free market" anarchist society plans that I've seen, contracts aren't worth the paper they are written on?

It goes like this see, contracts shouldn't be binding on a person, because the person who signed the contract is a different person to the person who is expected to fulfil said contract. Or, something like that.

Oh, and without a state to enforce the contract, there is no way of making sure the contract is enforceable anyway.

What happens is that if a person constantly reneges on contracts, people stop believing them. The reneger will soon find that no one will do anything for them, because they can't be trusted.


In the circumstances given in the OP, I would expect most people, however, to condemn "Steve", and ignore the contract. That would mean that "Jim" suffers no inconvenience for refusing to follow through the terms. (Except, possibly from "Steve".) Locke, apparently, had "no tolerance for covenants extracted by force of arms"1 (http://tb.becket.net/writ-contract.html), which I'm sure most (even all) anarchists would agree with.

Yeah, I was going to say more, but I can't find what I was looking for.

[IcarusAngel]

Steve is clearly a lunatic and should be denied anything he ever requests in the community for being so insane.

First of all, in a socialist or communist society there would be no incentive to make someone your indebted slave because there wouldn't exit the idea of a profit motive. So this moron OP isn't even understanding the idea of a society that doesn't have this exploitation.

Second, the problem with always expecting a profit for your work means that it makes it harder for people to work together, and this is counter-productive in terms of advancing society. I doubt the OP - or anybody at Mises forums - has ever done anything that has helped society at all.


The OP is just a left over troll from Mises forums. They tried to troll Richard Dawkins forums recently and I talked to another one of their "clan leaders" - laughing man - who claimed that the Nazis were elected by a 'majority' and are an example of democracy. I posted the clear, historical evidence that the Nazis were not elected democratically and that Hitler himself hated democracy and equated it with communism.

He then claimed he had a degree in 'political history' and I called him on it and explained to him that society has more actors than just the individual and the government - that every single modern political theory takes into account big corporations as well (The privileged position of business, for example). He didn't even understand it and left the forum.

The people at Mises forums have revitalized their trolling campaign but they're as ignorant as ever. There is nothing of value at that whole website. For example, show me a debate on Mises forums that seriously questions the concept of capitalist property. You won't find one because they ban people who question it - all they do is link each other to other parts of the forum all day.

It's clear the OP is also ignorant and has never studied 'ethics.' Now get lost.

[IcarusAngel]

A society of contracts - what free-marketeers advocate - would be absolutely horrendous.

Could you imagine getting a contract everytime you wanted to do something? Most people agree with have too much 'contracting' now. And talk about bureaucracy and red tape: everytime people wanted to work together they'd have to fill out contracts and forms, and then, if one or the other didn't fulfill the contract, they'd have to take it to court and go around in circles. It be much more reasonable to look at the evidence and determine who is being productive and who isn't (i.e. like you'd do in communism), but you wouldn't have to have a communist society to do this.

Another problem is: who is seriously going to enforce contracts that have these extremely oppressive conditions in them - like that you have to be the slave of someone. This creates the conditions of involuntary servitude because no one seriously wants to be a slave, so it violates the constiution.

Capitalism works best with a lot of social democratic oversight and/or even flat out corporatism - because that's the only way it can work.

[TheCagedLion]

So this isn't sarcasm?

[Jazzratt]

So this isn't sarcasm?

Indeed. I thought, at first, that this was a clever attack on free market principles by way of taking the reasoning to its logical (horrific) conclusions. Clearly though this guy is simply stupid.

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

Indeed. I thought, at first, that this was a clever attack on free market principles by way of taking the reasoning to its logical (horrific) conclusions. Clearly though this guy is simply stupid.

Your initial guess was correct actually.;)

[Skooma Addict]

A society of contracts - what free-marketeers advocate - would be absolutely horrendous.

yea, because voluntary mutually beneficial exchange would be so terrible.



Could you imagine getting a contract everytime you wanted to do something? Most people agree with have too much 'contracting' now. And talk about bureaucracy and red tape: everytime people wanted to work together they'd have to fill out contracts and forms, and then, if one or the other didn't fulfill the contract, they'd have to take it to court and go around in circles. It be much more reasonable to look at the evidence and determine who is being productive and who isn't (i.e. like you'd do in communism), but you wouldn't have to have a communist society to do this.

Yea when people violate a contract, they go to court to get a fair trial.


First of all, in a socialist or communist society there would be no incentive to make someone your indebted slave because there wouldn't exit the idea of a profit motive. So this moron OP isn't even understanding the idea of a society that doesn't have this exploitation.

You do realize that in a free market, not everything is not motivated by monetary gain, right?


Second, the problem with always expecting a profit for your work means that it makes it harder for people to work together, and this is counter-productive in terms of advancing society.

Wrong.


I doubt the OP - or anybody at Mises forums - has ever done anything that has helped society at all.

facepalm


The OP is just a left over troll from Mises forums. They tried to troll Richard Dawkins forums recently and I talked to another one of their "clan leaders" - laughing man - who claimed that the Nazis were elected by a 'majority' and are an example of democracy. I posted the clear, historical evidence that the Nazis were not elected democratically and that Hitler himself hated democracy and equated it with communism.

Not everyone at the Mises forums is in complete agreement. So referring to laughing man as a clan leader makes no sense. Also, the Nazis did come to power under a democratic government.



The people at Mises forums have revitalized their trolling campaign but they're as ignorant as ever. There is nothing of value at that whole website. For example, show me a debate on Mises forums that seriously questions the concept of capitalist property. You won't find one because they ban people who question it - all they do is link each other to other parts of the forum all day.

You mean a debate questioning the legitimacy of property rights? I have read a few on Mises.org.


It's clear the OP is also ignorant and has never studied 'ethics.' Now get lost.


Well, I have studied ethics, and I view Communism as unethical.

[New Tet]

Well, I have studied ethics, and I view Communism as unethical.

That's probably because you slept through the entire class.

[Skooma Addict]

That's probably because you slept through the entire class.

I studied on my own time, not in a class.

[Havet]

I studied on my own time, not in a class.

What exactly is unethical about it, btw?

Also it would be prudent to post your personal ethical views to help the conversation.

[Skooma Addict]

What exactly is unethical about it, btw?

Also it would be prudent to post your personal ethical views to help the conversation.

I am an ethical subjectivist. So I reject apriori or objective natural law ethics. Individual autonomy and "self-ownership" I accept as fundamental axioms, not because they are self-evident, but because I subjectively value them.

Communism is unethical to the extent that it is forced on the population.

[Jazzratt]

Your initial guess was correct actually.;)

All a bit subtle for me, apparently. :lol:

[New Tet]

I studied on my own time, not in a class.

Was it a Misean correspondence course on ethics?

[1billion]

Was it a Misean correspondence course on ethics?
well why dont you tell us what you think is ethical

[Havet]

Communism is unethical to the extent that it is forced on the population.

What if it were chosen voluntarily?

[New Tet]

I am an ethical subjectivist. So I reject apriori or objective natural law ethics. Individual autonomy and "self-ownership" I accept as fundamental axioms, not because they are self-evident, but because I subjectively value them.

Communism is unethical to the extent that it is forced on the population.

Do you ever have a moment of objectivity or do you experience all reality exclusively through your own subjective prism?

To believe that one cannot experience the world through anything but one's own senses is unimaginable to me.

Tell me, what's it like to perceive the world exclusively from one's own narrow perspective? And how do you deal with the glaring contradiction of turning it into a philosophy that seeks general acceptance?

[Skooma Addict]

Do you ever have a moment of objectivity or do you experience all reality exclusively through your own subjective prism?

To believe that one cannot experience the world through anything but one's own senses is unimaginable to me.

Tell me, what's it like to perceive the world exclusively from one's own narrow perspective? And how do you deal with the glaring contradiction of turning it into a philosophy that seeks general acceptance?

I will believe in the idea of objective ethics when somebody can prove its validity. There are plenty of ethical subjectivists. So I am not really worried about general acceptance.

[New Tet]

well why dont you tell us what you think is ethical

Ethics are relative to circumstance. They vary from person to person according to their subjective interpretation of objective, external phenomena.

It's from the commonality of experiences and consensus of subjective interpretations that a people develop an ethos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethos).

What are my ethics? Whatever the circumstances and the prevailing ethic of my time and place demand.

Presently, I am standing above a man who has fallen into a deep hole, broken his legs and is incapable of doing anything but cry for help. What do circumstance and my ethics demand I do?

I won't burden you with a detailed answer to the question, suffice to say that I would not sit on the edge like Humpty-Dumpty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty-Dumpty) trying to negotiate an absurd contract while the victim is writhing in the agony of pain and fear.

[New Tet]

I will believe in the idea of objective ethics when somebody can prove its validity. There are plenty of ethical subjectivists. So I am not really worried about general acceptance.

I don't really know what "objective ethics" is, so I won't try to prove its 'validity'.

The preponderance of a view may help to shape an ethic but it does not make that view or the ethic correct.

[IcarusAngel]

yea, because voluntary mutually beneficial exchange would be so terrible.

You ignored my original arguments. It isn't voluntary when this slave-contract system you support leads to the consolidation of resources and thus the only option you have in society is entering into regressive contracts, or dying.


Yea when people violate a contract, they go to court to get a fair trial.

The system inevitably is set up to some people's liking - in this case, capitalists. A computer programmer might not necessarily agree that his ideas were stolen and copyrighted before he had a chance to make a profit of it, but because the capitalist system is enacted and since he didn't make the patent claim first, he is out of look and unable to sell his ideas.

We only have to look at the impediments capitalist property has done in the computing industry to see what a failure it is. There used to be like 30 popular operating systems all in use, now there are two big ones basically - or one if you count over 20% of the market as 'big.' But the same is true for the agricultural industry and all other large industries in the US.

And like I said, the courts have vested interests. There is no such thing as a completely objective trial. The courts inevitably favor the rich people who have more money than the poor, as the rich could carry out the trial to the point when the poor person doesn't have any more money. Since there would be no 'public options' to help the poor he would again be out of luck.

That is why the best judicial systems are ones that are democratic, free and open.


You do realize that in a free market, not everything is not motivated by monetary gain, right?

Everything action is motivated by money in capitalist theory since the goal is to make as much profit as possible. Of course, humans don't actually work this way which is why applying a capitalist system to them has all kinds of unexpected results. But that just shows the flaws of the capitalist system.



Wrong.



facepalm

i.e. You have no arguments.


Not everyone at the Mises forums is in complete agreement. So referring to laughing man as a clan leader makes no sense. Also, the Nazis did come to power under a democratic government.

He is one of the members who goes around trolling forums and is a moderator there. They generally move in clans. Revleft itself was subject to one of its attacks and they even talked about trying to 'flood the servers' by getting a thousand members to spam revleft. But they do not actually have that many independent members.


Well, I have studied ethics, and I view Communism as unethical.

Yes. I've seen your opinions.

You think people can't work together without contracts. History, logic, things in existence even now - like programming languages, mathematics, science - all prove you wrong. It's the lack of contracts that advances society.

[Skooma Addict]

You ignored my original arguments. It isn't voluntary when this slave-contract system you support leads to the consolidation of resources and thus the only option you have in society is entering into regressive contracts, or dying.


You have a strange definition of slavery. Also, the free market implies voluntary exchange by its very definition. I have heard your work or die concept before, and it maks no sense. If nobody works, then everybody will die. I don't see whats so wrong with working for a living.


The system inevitably is set up to some people's liking - in this case, capitalists. A computer programmer might not necessarily agree that his ideas were stolen and copyrighted before he had a chance to make a profit of it, but because the capitalist system is enacted and since he didn't make the patent claim first, he is out of look and unable to sell his ideas.

We only have to look at the impediments capitalist property has done in the computing industry to see what a failure it is. There used to be like 30 popular operating systems all in use, now there are two big ones basically - or one if you count over 20% of the market as 'big.' But the same is true for the agricultural industry and all other large industries in the US.

And like I said, the courts have vested interests. There is no such thing as a completely objective trial. The courts inevitably favor the rich people who have more money than the poor, as the rich could carry out the trial to the point when the poor person doesn't have any more money. Since there would be no 'public options' to help the poor he would again be out of luck.

That is why the best judicial systems are ones that are democratic, free and open.


Ideas can't be stolen. Copyright laws are a result of government intervention. Same with patents.

Your using two heavily regulated industries as an examples. Sometimes farmers are paid to destroy food.

As for courts, I agree, they have vested interests. We haven't privatised the arbitration industry, and so problems occur. For example, you can be put in jail before a trial is completed, even if your innoccent.


Everything action is motivated by money in capitalist theory since the goal is to make as much profit as possible. Of course, humans don't actually work this way which is why applying a capitalist system to them has all kinds of unexpected results. But that just shows the flaws of the capitalist system.

Well, I don't know what "capitalist theory" is.


He is one of the members who goes around trolling forums and is a moderator there. They generally move in clans. Revleft itself was subject to one of its attacks and they even talked about trying to 'flood the servers' by getting a thousand members to spam revleft. But they do not actually have that many independent members.

Still, there is widespread disagreement between the members.


Yes. I've seen your opinions.

You think people can't work together without contracts. History, logic, things in existence even now - like programming languages, mathematics, science - all prove you wrong. It's the lack of contracts that advances society.

I think people can work together without contracts. Contracts just make working together easyer, and they eliminate a lot of problems. But the lack of contracts definitely does not advance society.

[1billion]

What if it were chosen voluntarily?
if a state was accepted by every single person and was continued to be accepted by new people entering into the world it would be legitmate, so yea I guess

[Havet]

if a state was accepted by every single person and was continued to be accepted by new people entering into the world it would be legitmate, so yea I guess

I was actually talking about Communes and collectivization of resources. A State, by its very definition, relies on imposing force on its neighbors.

[Orange Juche]

This is why I hate analogies. They take rather complex realities and try to reduce them, and compare them in an extremely simplified metaphor, ignoring a great deal of variables.

It's intellectually bankrupt.

[Mo212]

I am an ethical subjectivist. So I reject apriori or objective natural law ethics. Individual autonomy and "self-ownership" I accept as fundamental axioms, not because they are self-evident, but because I subjectively value them.

Communism is unethical to the extent that it is forced on the population.

The free market is also forced on the population at large, in fact currency is always backed by guns.

The free marketeers just trade one force for another - they want society to be ruled by price (which is just another form of forcefulness). Since the acceptance of marketization was unnatural for many people who natively lived in america before european descendants got there, if you look at how native americans were "marketized" into society, you'll notice often times they did a lot better when they were self sufficient societies and didn't have many of the problems they now do in their communities. Many problems in the so called native communities in canada are a result of this marketization process.

Money in a specialized society is problematic as a store of value, the lot of inflation is purely imaginary itself and is created by using money as a store of value itself, those who control assets can structure and enslave entire populations by controlling key assets, and the free market will never solve anything because human beings are fundamentally fucked up , if you don't think so see the bank bailout. Worst decision ever, the chips should have been allowed to fall where they may. Even Greenspan has finally realized that human beings are just too selfish and self-destructive to manage themselves when their only concern and value is measured by money.

Most people suck at seperating truth from it's illusions. I'm neither left nor right since I know ideology keeps people from challenging their own assumptions of the consequences of their own ideas to reshape society according to their own ideals and whether they are maintainable over the long term given the general crappyness and lack of intelligence in human beings as a whole.

Everyone believes their system is moral and ethical, the truth is it's really a identity preference of how one wants to envision how to live, of people of like minds. You can justify anything with the power imagination and rationalization. This is part of why I don't buy that capitalists are more "rational" then anyone else and I always view their moral arguments as basically suspect, since we've had markets since the dawn of time and human beings are still assholes, so no, "more markets, less government" is not the answer, better human beings is the answer. Ideology can't save people from their inferior biology and it's stifling limitations. Personally I can't wait for genetic engineering and human augmentation to get off the ground, hopefully we can find a way to weed out mindless ideologues and people with inferior personality traits from ever being born.

[Skooma Addict]

The free market is also forced on the population at large, in fact currency is always backed by guns.


Currency is not always backed by guns. Many of todays modern currencies are in a sense "backed by guns", but not currency in general. In a free market, you are not forced to accept a currency.


The free marketeers just trade one force for another - they want society to be ruled by price (which is just another form of forcefulness).

What does that even mean?



Since the acceptance of marketization was unnatural for many people who natively lived in america before european descendants got there, if you look at how native americans were "marketized" into society, you'll notice often times they did a lot better when they were self sufficient societies and didn't have many of the problems they now do in their communities. Many problems in the so called native communities in canada are a result of this marketization process.

Many natives had a price system of one form or another. Natives have problems because their ancestors were removed from their homelands. Then they were forced to live in reserves.


Money in a specialized society is problematic as a store of value, the lot of inflation is purely imaginary itself and is created by using money as a store of value itself, those who control assets can structure and enslave entire populations by controlling key assets, and the free market will never solve anything because human beings are fundamentally fucked up , if you don't think so see the bank bailout. Worst decision ever, the chips should have been allowed to fall where they may. Even Greenspan has finally realized that human beings are just too selfish and self-destructive to manage themselves when their only concern and value is measured by money.

Using money as a store of value does not cause inflation...Also, you say "human beings are fundamentally fucked up", and then you attempt to prove your statement by referring to a simple bank bailout. What a rigorous proof. Why would I care about what Greenspan thinks? I never liked him.


Most people suck at seperating truth from it's illusions. I'm neither left nor right since I know ideology keeps people from challenging their own assumptions of the consequences of their own ideas to reshape society according to their own ideals and whether they are maintainable over the long term given the general crappyness and lack of intelligence in human beings as a whole.

I think the terms "left" and "right" are practically meaningless nowadays. If someone tells me they are a leftist, that could mean a thousand different things.



This is part of why I don't buy that capitalists are more "rational" then anyone else and I always view their moral arguments as basically suspect, since we've had markets since the dawn of time and human beings are still assholes, so no, "more markets, less government" is not the answer, better human beings is the answer.


So you are saying that people are assholes because markets exist? If you are, I doubt you could back up that statement.




Ideology can't save people from their inferior biology and it's stifling limitations. Personally I can't wait for genetic engineering and human augmentation to get off the ground, hopefully we can find a way to weed out mindless ideologues and people with inferior personality traits from ever being born.

Whatever you say crazy guy. Who would even decide what an "inferior personality" is? It's too bad value is subjective, so there are no objective inferior personalities. Even if their were, I don't know how you would stop people with "inferior personalities" from being born. So i guess your hopes are ruined.

[New Tet]

This is why I hate analogies. They take rather complex realities and try to reduce them, and compare them in an extremely simplified metaphor, ignoring a great deal of variables.

It's intellectually bankrupt.

Sooner or later we are bankrupt when we invest all our intellectual 'capital' in defending morally perverse notions.

[Mo212]

So you are saying that people are assholes because markets exist? If you are, I doubt you could back up that statement.

It wouldn't be hard to demonstrate if I believed that which I don't, but I do believe anyone who is into ideology over truth is definitely asshole not interested in what is true. As for your evidece: See the bailout and CEO's getting paid for failure.


Whatever you say crazy guy. Who would even decide what an "inferior personality" is? It's too bad value is subjective, so there are no objective inferior personalities. Even if their were, I don't know how you would stop people with "inferior personalities" from being born. So i guess your hopes are ruined.

Really you don't think a stupid criminal is inferior to someone who is smart and an honest person? Nothing crazy about it. Some people are definitely inferior and fuck up the world by their very existence, just like americans and capitalist like to rag on hugo chavez or Castro, most capitalists would love to kill those guys.

Also there is no such thing as subjectivity or objectivity, you wouldn't have the intellectual chutzpa to know that though having no background in philosophy of science or keeping up with the discoveries of neurology and neurolinguistics. What's been discovered makes incoherent the concept of subjectivity and objectivity, things like this take a while to filter down into people who have been taught erroneously.

If your thought exists, it's 100% real because you are detecting it, you can't have subjective existence, either that thought is 100% real or it isn't. Most people of course, and even scientists aren't that bright. Every age has it's intellectual mistakes. It's quite obvious you are not serious about finding out what the truth is. So it's useless to discuss these things with you. You've already pre decided your position and thats no way to go about finding out the flaws in any system of social organization.

[Skooma Addict]

What if it were chosen voluntarily?

I just noticed I missed this post of yours. I do not know how voluntary communism would work (due to lack of reading). But assuming it is completely voluntary, then I see nothing wrong with it.


Really you don't think a stupid criminal is inferior to someone who is smart and an honest person? Nothing crazy about it. Some people are definitely inferior and fuck up the world by their very existence, just like americans and capitalist like to rag on hugo chavez or Castro, most capitalists would love to kill those guys.

I subjectively view criminals as having an inferior personality. But I do not think there is an objective standard that determines what is, and what is not an inferior personality. I am willing to bet some people out there think the criminal has the superior personality. It just depends on the person judging a specific personality. For example, many people view greed as an inferior personality, and many others don't.


Also there is no such thing as subjectivity or objectivity, you wouldn't have the intellectual chutzpa to know that though having no background in philosophy of science or keeping up with the discoveries of neurology and neurolinguistics. What's been discovered makes incoherent the concept of subjectivity and objectivity, things like this take a while to filter down into people who have been taught erroneously.

Do you really think there is no such thing as subjectivity or objectivity? I have seen people reject one of the two, but never both. If fact, I do not even know how anyone could possibly reject both objectivity and subjectivity. The very fact that people on this forum disagree on certain issues is an example of subjectivity.


If your thought exists, it's 100% real because you are detecting it, you can't have subjective existence, either that thought is 100% real or it isn't. Most people of course, and even scientists aren't that bright. Every age has it's intellectual mistakes.

Can you tell me what this has to do with anything?


It's quite obvious you are not serious about finding out what the truth is. So it's useless to discuss these things with you. You've already pre decided your position and thats no way to go about finding out the flaws in any system of social organization.


I have a position on many issues. So what?

[Havet]

I just noticed I missed this post of yours. I do not know how voluntary communism would work (due to lack of reading). But assuming it is completely voluntary, then I see nothing wrong with it.


Great then!