Olaf's Folly (split from veggie thread)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Oh yes you are correct. Since the person is unable to take care of herself, the responsibility is for friends or family, which i doubt would allow it.

Anyway, if we do take that aside, which is possible in very strict scenarios, then the person i was quoting from wouldnt have any problem in eating that person, would he?

And what about the duty of care? The especially unfortunate do not have friends and/or relatives to look after them, so it falls on society to do so. Eating them would not fulfil that duty.

[Havet]

And what about the duty of care? The especially unfortunate do not have friends and/or relatives to look after them, so it falls on society to do so. Eating them would not fulfil that duty.

Is that duty objectively verifiable? No.

It is of course good that we practice reciprocity and help our fellow man when he needs it, but I don't see how that action should be imposed (thus enslaving) on someone.

It should be promoted, not imposed.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Is that duty objectively verifiable? No.

Who gives a shit whether it's "objectively verifiable" or not? Apart from Objectivists, of course. There's no "objective" reason why I should give a damn about animal welfare, either.

"Objectivity" is a red herring since nobody can truly claim to be objective. Thus, moral precepts should be based on their consequences. We've already seen the consequences of society not upholding a duty of care to its weakest and most vulnerable, and thus it behooves us to do so, if we are to honestly claim to have any interest in human welfare.


It is of course good that we practice reciprocity and help our fellow man when he needs it, but I don't see how that action should be imposed (thus enslaving) on someone.

It should be promoted, not imposed.

Charity came before welfare, and was found to be wanting. Welfare, despite its own shortcomings, is more far-reaching and provides a greater benefit to society as a whole. What you are proposing is a return to the bad old days; no thanks.

[Havet]

We've already seen the consequences of society not upholding a duty of care to its weakest and most vulnerable, and thus it behooves us to do so, if we are to honestly claim to have any interest in human welfare.

And why should you impose that particular action onto others?
We've (http://www.revleft.com/vb/statists-mutual-aid-t115665/index.html) already (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charitable_organization) seen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commune_%28intentional_community%29) examples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative) that people like to help (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_society). Why should you enslave others into your particular model of welfare?


Charity came before welfare, and was found to be wanting. Welfare, despite its own shortcomings, is more far-reaching and provides a greater benefit to society as a whole. What you are proposing is a return to the bad old days; no thanks.

Charity did come before state-welfare. State welfare only became necessary when the state began creating regulations (http://www.quebecoislibre.org/09/090115-8.htm) and licenses to decrease the supply of non-statist welfare services, in order to appear as the "savior" of humanity, when in fact all that these regulations have done is decrease the amount of people that can help to a single entity - the state, and give even more power to the ruling class (state and capitalists).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And why should you impose that particular action onto others?
We've (http://www.revleft.com/vb/statists-mutual-aid-t115665/index.html) already (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charitable_organization) seen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commune_%28intentional_community%29) examples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative) that people like to help (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_society). Why should you enslave others into your particular model of welfare?

Because as I said, such things were found wanting - charity is simply not good enough. Of course, charity and state welfare are only necessary under the Price System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_movement#Views_of_the_price_system), and in a society based around free access to the necessities of life, neither would not exist.


Charity did come before state-welfare. State welfare only became necessary when the state began creating regulations (http://www.quebecoislibre.org/09/090115-8.htm) and licenses to decrease the supply of non-statist welfare services, in order to appear as the "savior" of humanity, when in fact all that these regulations have done is decrease the amount of people that can help to a single entity - the state, and give even more power to the ruling class (state and capitalists).

Do you honestly think that in the absence of state welfare, private charity is even capable of stepping up to the plate and delivering the goods? True, the state does not provide welfare out of the goodness of its heart, because it doesn't have one. But there was a time when if one was destitute, one only had recourse to work-houses, alms, begging on the streets and such. Judging by the living standards of the poor in those times, such things were far from sufficient. Of course, that's not to say that state welfare doesn't have its own limitations, as I have already admitted, but they do represent an improvement, if not a solution.

[Skooma Addict]

Because as I said, such things were found wanting - charity is simply not good enough. Of course, charity and state welfare are only necessary under the Price System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_movement#Views_of_the_price_system), and in a society based around free access to the necessities of life, neither would not exist.

Resources are scarce. The price system is the best way to allocate societies scarce resources. If we had "free" access to the necessities of life, bad things would happen. How would people know how much to produce if they cannot use prices as a signal? I suspect there would be terrible famines.



Do you honestly think that in the absence of state welfare, private charity is even capable of stepping up to the plate and delivering the goods? True, the state does not provide welfare out of the goodness of its heart, because it doesn't have one. But there was a time when if one was destitute, one only had recourse to work-houses, alms, begging on the streets and such. Judging by the living standards of the poor in those times, such things were far from sufficient. Of course, that's not to say that state welfare doesn't have its own limitations, as I have already admitted, but they do represent an improvement, if not a solution.

Well, in the absence of a State, there would be no involuntary unemployment. So that alone would greatly reduce the need for charity. But there would still be people who could not support themselves. I think their families, charities, or churches would provide sufficient care. Also, since living standards would rise, it is safe to assume more people would donate to charity.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Resources are scarce.

You think the Price System has nothing to do with this? The same Price System that needlessly multiplies different brands of deliberately shoddily-made goods (look up "planned obselescence")? The same Price System that destroys food and/or pays off farmers to produce less while people go hungry? The same Price System that promotes and builds up an infrastructure that consumes more energy than is necessary?

Scarcity is relative. Resources are finite, that is true, but if they exceed the population's ability to consume*, then there is an abundance. The Price System is centred around profit and its self-perpetuation, not around meeting people's ability to consume.

*And for large parts of the world I have good reasons (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1522345&postcount=20) (see PDF file at end of post) to believe they do.


The price system is the best way to allocate societies scarce resources.

Debatable. Anarchism, if I remember correctly, is based around the assumption of scarcity much like the Price System. Scarcity communism may be necessary for some parts of the world, at least until they become developed enough for post-scarcity arrangements to become possible.


If we had "free" access to the necessities of life, bad things would happen. How would people know how much to produce if they cannot use prices as a signal? I suspect there would be terrible famines.

Terrible famines (as well as simple hunger) are a regular occurance under the Price System. This is because it is value that is measured, not consumption. There is no value in making sure everyone's consumption patterns are met.


Well, in the absence of a State, there would be no involuntary unemployment. So that alone would greatly reduce the need for charity. But there would still be people who could not support themselves. I think their families, charities, or churches would provide sufficient care.

Given an appropriate management of society's resources and technology, there would be no need for charity or welfare at all.


Also, since living standards would rise, it is safe to assume more people would donate to charity.

Untrue (http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/05/27/new-study-shows-poor-give-greater-percent-of-income-to-charity/), at least under the Price System. Since you claim that the Price System is necessary for the allocation of supposedly scarce resources, things would remain the same.

[Skooma Addict]

You think the Price System has nothing to do with this? The same Price System that needlessly multiplies different brands of deliberately shoddily-made goods (look up "planned obselescence")? The same Price System that destroys food and/or pays off farmers to produce less while people go hungry? The same Price System that promotes and builds up an infrastructure that consumes more energy than is necessary?


I do not think the price system has anything to do with the fact that resources are scarce. I think that since resources are scarce, we need a price system. The "planned obsolescence" you are referring to is a direct result of government intervention. By and large, the only companies that do this are only able to do so thanks to government restricting competition. Historically, only the government has payed off farmers to produce less, not the price system. If infrastructure is consuming more energy than necessary, the markets prices would reflect this, and there would be an incentive to make corrections.


Scarcity is relative. Resources are finite, that is true, but if they exceed the population's ability to consume*, then there is an abundance. The Price System is centred around profit and its self-perpetuation, not around meeting people's ability to consume.

Human wants are infinite. There will always be unsatisfied desires. So the idea that resources can exceed consumers ability to consume seems unreasonable.


Debatable. Anarchism, if I remember correctly, is based around the assumption of scarcity much like the Price System. Scarcity communism may be necessary for some parts of the world, at least until they become developed enough for post-scarcity arrangements to become possible.

Post scarcity arrangements?


Terrible famines (as well as simple hunger) are a regular occurance under the Price System. This is because it is value that is measured, not consumption. There is no value in making sure everyone's consumption patterns are met.

there is profit to be made if you fulfill consumer desires. Also, the worst famines occur when the price system is eliminated or disrupted by government intervention.

During the "great Leap forward" in China, 38 million people died of famine.


(http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/05/27/new-study-shows-poor-give-greater-percent-of-income-to-charity/)Untrue (http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/05/27/new-study-shows-poor-give-greater-percent-of-income-to-charity/), at least under the Price System. Since you claim that the Price System is necessary for the allocation of supposedly scarce resources, things would remain the same.

I see studies saying the opposite. So I really don't know. But I do know that the more money you get, the lower the marginal utility of money gets. So as you get more money, you value each dollar less.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I do not think the price system has anything to do with the fact that resources are scarce. I think that since resources are scarce, we need a price system.

No, what we need is scientific management of technology and resources. The Price System cannot deliver a comfortable lifestyle for all, history and recent events are an irrefutable testament to this. This is in spite of the fact that we produce more food and goods than ever before.


The "planned obsolescence" you are referring to is a direct result of government intervention. By and large, the only companies that do this are only able to do so thanks to government restricting competition.

Libertarian bollocks. There are no laws preventing companies from making durable products that last for years. The reason they don't is because it would not be profitable to do so.


Historically, only the government has payed off farmers to produce less, not the price system.

The government is a part of the Price System. Part of its role is to act as a regulatory system to rein in the worst excesses of private capital. Of course, it is insufficient in this role, so it must be abolished along with the rest of the Price System.


If infrastructure is consuming more energy than necessary, the markets prices would reflect this, and there would be an incentive to make corrections.

Except that it doesn't reflect this. For example, surburbia is very good at creating capital, but extremely poor at using energy efficiently. Both the average person and the environment suffer as a result.


Human wants are infinite. There will always be unsatisfied desires. So the idea that resources can exceed consumers ability to consume seems unreasonable.

You are confusing consumption with possession. I can "own" an unlimited amount of objects, but I can only eat so much food and drink so much drink. All people are not ill all of the time, so there is a limit on how much medicine they consume.

But if one can freely travel pretty much anywhere they wished using an efficient mass transportation system, what need has one to possess a car? You only need one computer to access the internet, there is no need to possess a hundred.


Post scarcity arrangements?

Technocracy is one kind. I'm not aware of any others (beyond different permutations of Technocracy), but I'm allowing for their possible existence.


there is profit to be made if you fulfill consumer desires.

Unless you have little or no money, in which case the Price System's response generally seems to be, "tough shit".

Unacceptable.


Also, the worst famines occur when the price system is eliminated or disrupted by government intervention.

During the "great Leap forward" in China, 38 million people died of famine.

Mao's China was simply a variation on the Price System, with the government taking over from private capital.


I see studies saying the opposite. So I really don't know. But I do know that the more money you get, the lower the marginal utility of money gets. So as you get more money, you value each dollar less.

The problem is that in that case you end up relying on the charity of the better off, which as I have pointed out previously, is unacceptably insufficient. Except for the rich and those fools that buy into "trickle down" economics.

[Skooma Addict]

No, what we need is scientific management of technology and resources. The Price System cannot deliver a comfortable lifestyle for all, history and recent events are an irrefutable testament to this. This is in spite of the fact that we produce more food and goods than ever before.

Scientific management of resources is useless if there is no price system to tell the "scientists" what must be produced. I don't know what recent events your talking about. Because the government has been heavily tampering with the market for some time now.



Libertarian bollocks. There are no laws preventing companies from making durable products that last for years. The reason they don't is because it would not be profitable to do so.

Take cell phones for example. There are only a few major cell phone companies, all of which use government to restrict competition. In a free market, it would be pointless to program your product to die. People would simply switch providers. If there were no good providers, then one could potentially make a huge profit by offering a long lasting product.



The government is a part of the Price System. Part of its role is to act as a regulatory system to rein in the worst excesses of private capital. Of course, it is insufficient in this role, so it must be abolished along with the rest of the Price System.

The government can only disrupt the price system. This is a very important point. Also, its "regulatory system" is what allows the massive cell phone companies that I mentioned to restrict competition.


Except that it doesn't reflect this. For example, surburbia is very good at creating capital, but extremely poor at using energy efficiently. Both the average person and the environment suffer as a result.

Well then suburbia is losing money if it is using energy inefficiently. If people are suffering as a result, that is because property rights are not being upheld.


You are confusing consumption with possession. I can "own" an unlimited amount of objects, but I can only eat so much food and drink so much drink. All people are not ill all of the time, so there is a limit on how much medicine they consume.

But if one can freely travel pretty much anywhere they wished using an efficient mass transportation system, what need has one to possess a car? You only need one computer to access the internet, there is no need to possess a hundred.

Still, there will always be consumer desires. The price system reflects these desires. Without a price system, there is no way one could possibly know what to produce. The only way you could know if your ultra expensive mass transportation system is worth building is if it brings in a profit.


Unless you have little or no money, in which case the Price System's response generally seems to be, "tough shit".

Unacceptable.

The free market, and its market price system is what allows the poor's standard of living to rise. In fact, that is one of the main reasons I support a free market. Now, if you want to see a gaint gap between the rich and poor, look back at the U.S.S.R.


Mao's China was simply a variation on the Price System, with the government taking over from private capital.

Nope, it was government interfering with the markets price system. Farmers couldn't rely on prices do predict consumer demand...so 38 million people died.


The problem is that in that case you end up relying on the charity of the better off, which as I have pointed out previously, is unacceptably insufficient. Except for the rich and those fools that buy into "trickle down" economics.


Well, at least we agree on one point. "trickle down" economics is a joke.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Scientific management of resources is useless if there is no price system to tell the "scientists" what must be produced. I don't know what recent events your talking about. Because the government has been heavily tampering with the market for some time now.

One can predict demand by tracking consumption patterns. Recent events? Have you been living under a rock? The recession, bank bailouts, increasing unemployment, all of these are manifest failures of the Price System.


Take cell phones for example. There are only a few major cell phone companies, all of which use government to restrict competition. In a free market, it would be pointless to program your product to die. People would simply switch providers. If there were no good providers, then one could potentially make a huge profit by offering a long lasting product.

It's not government restrictions on competition that cause companies to spend millions on advertising convincing customers to buy the latest widget, and to use shoddy engineering as an extra incentive to do so.

In the "free market" beloved of libertarians, this would be even worse as there would be no restrictions on deceptive and/or manipulative advertising, no laws reining in predatory corporate practices, and precious little oversight of labour and the productive process. How do we know this? Because we've been there already. Government intervention in the "free market" did not arise in a vacuum nor as a result of sheer perfidy. They were forced to step in because the profit-oriented business class were fucking things up for everyone else.


The government can only disrupt the price system. This is a very important point. Also, its "regulatory system" is what allows the massive cell phone companies that I mentioned to restrict competition.

So now it's the companies as well as the government that are in on the act. Good, it seems you have almost realised the point. Almost, but not quite, since you're blathering on about competition whereas I am concerned with providing the best quality of life for the greatest amount of people. Fuck "competition" - it turns the absolutely essential management of society's resources and technology into a game for rich white boys.


Well then suburbia is losing money if it is using energy inefficiently. If people are suffering as a result, that is because property rights are not being upheld.

Suburbia is not "losing money", in fact it's a very profitable venture for the construction and property development sector. As for property rights, when they are enforced in the Price System, the least fortunate suffer the most - for example, turfing out squatters who make use of properties that would otherwise lie empty.


Still, there will always be consumer desires. The price system reflects these desires. Without a price system, there is no way one could possibly know what to produce. The only way you could know if your ultra expensive mass transportation system is worth building is if it brings in a profit.

Consumer desires are easily manipulated - what other explanation is there for advertising being a multi-billion dollar industry? No, far better to produce according to consumption that is not warped by Price System propaganda (advertising). Mass transportation is worth building because everyone needs to travel somewhere, somehow.


The free market, and its market price system is what allows the poor's standard of living to rise. In fact, that is one of the main reasons I support a free market. Now, if you want to see a gaint gap between the rich and poor, look back at the U.S.S.R.

And the US as of right now, where bankers are rewarded with ludicrous sums for running banks into the ground, while cities like Detroit continue to rot.


Nope, it was government interfering with the markets price system. Farmers couldn't rely on prices do predict consumer demand...so 38 million people died.

This is moot since the idea of using prices to predict consumption is a fucking joke in the first place. The Price System, whether managed primarily by the state or by private enterprise, is an awful failure at meeting the needs of the population as a whole.

[Skooma Addict]

One can predict demand by tracking consumption patterns. Recent events? Have you been living under a rock? The recession, bank bailouts, increasing unemployment, all of these are manifest failures of the Price System.

If there are no prices, tracking consumption patterns would still be useless. Sure, maybe consumers would go crazy over a virtual reality video game. But without prices, you cannot compare costs with gains, so you have no way of knowing if mass producing the video games would be productive. If you rely solely on consumer patterns, you still cannot determine costs. So you will end up wasting societies scarce resources.

The recession, bailouts, and unemployment are all thanks to government intervention in the economy.


It's not government restrictions on competition that cause companies to spend millions on advertising convincing customers to buy the latest widget, and to use shoddy engineering as an extra incentive to do so.

In the "free market" beloved of libertarians, this would be even worse as there would be no restrictions on deceptive and/or manipulative advertising, no laws reining in predatory corporate practices, and precious little oversight of labour and the productive process. How do we know this? Because we've been there already. Government intervention in the "free market" did not arise in a vacuum nor as a result of sheer perfidy. They were forced to step in because the profit-oriented business class were fucking things up for everyone else.

Advertising is good. It allows small companies to better compete with large corporations. Without advertising, small companies would be at a huge disadvantage, since they have no brand name recognition. False advertising is fraud, so there would be laws against it in a libertarian society. Most Government intervention helps big corporations.



So now it's the companies as well as the government that are in on the act. Good, it seems you have almost realised the point. Almost, but not quite, since you're blathering on about competition whereas I am concerned with providing the best quality of life for the greatest amount of people. Fuck "competition" - it turns the absolutely essential management of society's resources and technology into a game for rich white boys.

Yes, some companies are in on the act. Many of these companies owe their entire existence to government intervention. So you are a utilitarian? Competition is the best way to provide the best quality of life for the greatest amount of people. Communism involves forcing innocent people into an unethical system, and lowing their standard of living in the process.



Suburbia is not "losing money", in fact it's a very profitable venture for the construction and property development sector. As for property rights, when they are enforced in the Price System, the least fortunate suffer the most - for example, turfing out squatters who make use of properties that would otherwise lie empty.

Ok, well they are less profitable than they would be if they conserved their energy. When there are no property rights, that's when people suffer. Since I could dump my toxic waste on your lawn.


Consumer desires are easily manipulated - what other explanation is there for advertising being a multi-billion dollar industry? No, far better to produce according to consumption that is not warped by Price System propaganda (advertising). Mass transportation is worth building because everyone needs to travel somewhere, somehow.


I don't understand whats so wrong with advertising. It is nice to know when new products come out. Yes, people need to travel. Although what form of transportation will you use? How many boats, plains, trains, cars, buses, or whatever you were planning on using? What materials will your products be made out of? Without the price system, you cannot possibly know what is best.


And the US as of right now, where bankers are rewarded with ludicrous sums for running banks into the ground, while cities like Detroit continue to rot.

Well, the unions ruined Detroit. I am also upset banks that should have failed were bailed out.



This is moot since the idea of using prices to predict consumption is a fucking joke in the first place. The Price System, whether managed primarily by the state or by private enterprise, is an awful failure at meeting the needs of the population as a whole.

First people barter. Then a medium of exchange develops, and then a price system appears. It is completely natural. The only way you can get rid of the price system, is by using force and violence. Heck, even POW's developed price systems with cigarettes as the medium of exchange.

We pretty much have the same goals (I think). But your ideas are going to hurt the very people you want to help. This is because you are not advocating for peace and voluntary exchange.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If there are no prices, tracking consumption patterns would still be useless. Sure, maybe consumers would go crazy over a virtual reality video game. But without prices, you cannot compare costs with gains, so you have no way of knowing if mass producing the video games would be productive. If you rely solely on consumer patterns, you still cannot determine costs. So you will end up wasting societies scarce resources.

Monetary cost is not what is measured (because money doesn't exist in a Technate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technate)), expenditure of energy and resources are what is measured along with consumption.


The recession, bailouts, and unemployment are all thanks to government intervention in the economy.

More Libertarian rubbish. Government intervention in the economy is a necessary (if somewhat ineffective) counterbalance to the excesses of private capital. When profit is your primary motivating factor, stuff like worker's rights and the environment can go fuck themselves as far as companies are concerned. State capitalist countries such as the USSR, operating under the constraints of a global Price System, have/had similar problems.


Advertising is good. It allows small companies to better compete with large corporations. Without advertising, small companies would be at a huge disadvantage, since they have no brand name recognition. False advertising is fraud, so there would be laws against it in a libertarian society. Most Government intervention helps big corporations.

Advertising favours bigger companies because they can afford the greater coverage. But this ignores the fact that, big or small, a company's primary prupose is to produce a profit, not provide goods and/or services. False and manipulative advertising happens now. The "small government" advocated by Libertarians would have even less power over such things as false advertising.


Yes, some companies are in on the act. Many of these companies owe their entire existence to government intervention. So you are a utilitarian? Competition is the best way to provide the best quality of life for the greatest amount of people. Communism involves forcing innocent people into an unethical system, and lowing their standard of living in the process.

Competition does not provide the best quality of life for the greatest amount of people because competition under a Price System is for dollars and profits. As for communism, you are simply wrong. You appear to be getting your ideas about how communism works from the performance of countries like the USSR and China, which are/were also operating under the Price System, with all the attendant problems.


Ok, well they are less profitable than they would be if they conserved their energy. When there are no property rights, that's when people suffer. Since I could dump my toxic waste on your lawn.

You have not given any reason for me to believe that efficiency is necessarily tied to profitability - in fact, by artificially increasing scarcity, prices go up and hence does profitability. There does not need to be property rights in order to prevent irresponsible dumping of wastes, only a system for disposing of waste that is not based around profit. Indeed, profit-motivated waste disposal is in fact a horrendous idea, as it encourages the companies responsible to cut corners in order to increase their profit margins.


I don't understand whats so wrong with advertising. It is nice to know when new products come out. Yes, people need to travel. Although what form of transportation will you use? How many boats, plains, trains, cars, buses, or whatever you were planning on using? What materials will your products be made out of? Without the price system, you cannot possibly know what is best.

Nobody needs to be intellectually insulted and socially engineered to get the goods and services they desire. If someone wants an apple, they'll get one, they don't need corporate propaganda to tell them which apples to buy - they just want a damn apple.

As for transportation, the methods and means can be deduced based on the needs of the population and the available resources and energy, as well as other considerations such as environmental impact. The last concern in particular is one that is frequently neglected under the Price System.


Well, the unions ruined Detroit. I am also upset banks that should have failed were bailed out.

And if the unions hadn't been there to represent the workers, they would have been fucked over still. Such is the way with the Price System as it actually happens, not some Libertarian fantasy.


First people barter. Then a medium of exchange develops, and then a price system appears. It is completely natural. The only way you can get rid of the price system, is by using force and violence. Heck, even POW's developed price systems with cigarettes as the medium of exchange.

Just because something is natural doesn't make it good. Global capitalism is a natural development of earlier versions of the Price System, but it's a shitty deal for the vast majority of the Earth's population. It may take a violent revolution of some kind to abolish the Price System, but if it is successful then the bloodshed will have been worth it. Of course POWs developed Price Systems, it is a natural consequence of scarcity. But the scarcity we currently experience is for large parts of the world a false one, maintained by the Price System in order to justify its existence.


We pretty much have the same goals (I think). But your ideas are going to hurt the very people you want to help. This is because you are not advocating for peace and voluntary exchange.

I am advocating for whatever works to abolish the current Price System and institute an egalitarian, scientific means of managing technology, resources and energy for the maximum benefit of the greatest amount of people. Your Libertarian dystopia has already been tried, and nobody except the small band of cut-throat corporate suits who leeched off the rest of us found it acceptable.

[Skooma Addict]

Monetary cost is not what is measured (because money doesn't exist in a Technate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technate)), expenditure of energy and resources are what is measured along with consumption.

I have no idea how that would possibly work. Unlike money, it certainly is not the result of mutually beneficial voluntary exchange.


More Libertarian rubbish. Government intervention in the economy is a necessary (if somewhat ineffective) counterbalance to the excesses of private capital. When profit is your primary motivating factor, stuff like worker's rights and the environment can go fuck themselves as far as companies are concerned. State capitalist countries such as the USSR, operating under the constraints of a global Price System, have/had similar problems.

With profit as a motivating factor, companies have incentives to constantly increase worker conditions. Environmental problems can be solved with property rights. The USSR also had nothing in common with the markets price system.


Advertising favours bigger companies because they can afford the greater coverage. But this ignores the fact that, big or small, a company's primary prupose is to produce a profit, not provide goods and/or services. False and manipulative advertising happens now. The "small government" advocated by Libertarians would have even less power over such things as false advertising.


Advertising favors small companies. If advertising were to all of a sudden be banned, big companies with name recognition would benefit. A company can only obtain a profit by providing goods or services that consumers desire. Also, your criticism of small government does not apply to me.


Competition does not provide the best quality of life for the greatest amount of people because competition under a Price System is for dollars and profits. As for communism, you are simply wrong. You appear to be getting your ideas about how communism works from the performance of countries like the USSR and China, which are/were also operating under the Price System, with all the attendant problems.

Again, profits and costs are what allow people to rationally allocate societies scarce resources. The USSR and China were not true communist countries, I know. But true communism would be far worse. But the USSR and China were not operating under the markets price system. They may have had a price system, but it was not the markets price system.


You have not given any reason for me to believe that efficiency is necessarily tied to profitability - in fact, by artificially increasing scarcity, prices go up and hence does profitability. There does not need to be property rights in order to prevent irresponsible dumping of wastes, only a system for disposing of waste that is not based around profit. Indeed, profit-motivated waste disposal is in fact a horrendous idea, as it encourages the companies responsible to cut corners in order to increase their profit margins.

The more efficient you are, the lower your costs will be. All other things being equal, the lower your costs are, the more profitable you are. There, I proved it. If scarcity is artificially increased, then a profit opportunity arises. Another company can simply satisfy consumers unfulfilled demand.


Nobody needs to be intellectually insulted and socially engineered to get the goods and services they desire. If someone wants an apple, they'll get one, they don't need corporate propaganda to tell them which apples to buy - they just want a damn apple.

As for transportation, the methods and means can be deduced based on the needs of the population and the available resources and energy, as well as other considerations such as environmental impact. The last concern in particular is one that is frequently neglected under the Price System.

Without advertising, how would you know about new products? How would you know about new businesses. You would only know about the large companies with band name recognition, and maybe some local stores.

But my point still stands. Your deduction of the needs of the population will be irrational.


And if the unions hadn't been there to represent the workers, they would have been fucked over still. Such is the way with the Price System as it actually happens, not some Libertarian fantasy.

Well, the unions failed, and now look what happened. But hey, at least they got to restrict the labor force, and all of the poor people of the city could remain in poverty. The price system isn't something that is imposed on anyone. It arises naturally. So it is not some fantasy. If anything, your weird technate thing is a fantasy.


Just because something is natural doesn't make it good. Global capitalism is a natural development of earlier versions of the Price System, but it's a shitty deal for the vast majority of the Earth's population. It may take a violent revolution of some kind to abolish the Price System, but if it is successful then the bloodshed will have been worth it. Of course POWs developed Price Systems, it is a natural consequence of scarcity. But the scarcity we currently experience is for large parts of the world a false one, maintained by the Price System in order to justify its existence.

True, just becasue something is natural doesn't make it good. But the market price system is the natural result of peaceful human voluntary exchange. The price system is good because it is the result of mutually beneficial exchanges. The only false scarcity is government created scarcity. Intellectual property laws for example.


I am advocating for whatever works to abolish the current Price System and institute an egalitarian, scientific means of managing technology, resources and energy for the maximum benefit of the greatest amount of people. Your Libertarian dystopia has already been tried, and nobody except the small band of cut-throat corporate suits who leeched off the rest of us found it acceptable.

It is impossible to know if your providing the maximum amount of benefit to the maximum amount of people, since you cannot measure utility. My "dystopia" has never once been tried. But communism has, and it has been a complete failure.

[Manifesto]

This got way off topic.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I have no idea how that would possibly work. Unlike money, it certainly is not the result of mutually beneficial voluntary exchange.

Wow, an argument from personal incredulity, how convincing. Not.


With profit as a motivating factor, companies have incentives to constantly increase worker conditions. Environmental problems can be solved with property rights. The USSR also had nothing in common with the markets price system.

Paying workers decent wages eats into profits - if they didn't, pay raises would never be contested. Property rights do fuck-all for solving environmental problems because the environment as whole is not owned by anyone. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the USSR did not engage in trade?


Advertising favors small companies. If advertising were to all of a sudden be banned, big companies with name recognition would benefit. A company can only obtain a profit by providing goods or services that consumers desire. Also, your criticism of small government does not apply to me.

The thing is that I do not just want to ban advertising, I want to abolish the whole system that requires advertising. People do not "desire" the endless parade of needlessly multiplied goods that exist under the current Price System, they are told from birth that they want, nay need such things through being constantly bombarded by a well-funded advertising industry. If it's not small government you want, perhaps no government? I've no reason to believe that corporate rule would be any better than government rule. If the performance of companies right now is any indication, it would be even worse.


Again, profits and costs are what allow people to rationally allocate societies scarce resources. The USSR and China were not true communist countries, I know. But true communism would be far worse. But the USSR and China were not operating under the markets price system. They may have had a price system, but it was not the markets price system.

Profits and costs are not a rational measurement because the whole system is geared towards maximising profit, not human welfare.


The more efficient you are, the lower your costs will be. All other things being equal, the lower your costs are, the more profitable you are. There, I proved it. If scarcity is artificially increased, then a profit opportunity arises. Another company can simply satisfy consumers unfulfilled demand.

Except that doesn't happen. Even in your vaunted "free market", small companies will become big companies that will have a vested interest in maintaining their market share, and will thus use monopolistic practices and encourage the government (if any) by hook and by crook to enact laws that protect their status. You lay the blame entirely on the government when in fact the problem is with both.


Without advertising, how would you know about new products? How would you know about new businesses. You would only know about the large companies with band name recognition, and maybe some local stores.

If people genuinely want a new product, they'll ask for it. Products will not be produced "for sale" they will be produced based on their utility - if people want a faster computer, they'll demand it and get it. And instead of wastefully having to buy a new set of hardware, the old hardware will be designed with potential future upgrades in mind, or will otherwise be designed to be easily recyclable. Things become completely different when profit and money are no longer in the picture. The only limitations will be energy, resources and the laws of physics.


But my point still stands. Your deduction of the needs of the population will be irrational.

Bull-fucking-shit. The needs of the population, energy and resources, and the environmental impact can be determined objectively using scientific methods and engineering principles. This is done today, except for the fact that it is done in the service of profit and not utility, with predictable results.


Well, the unions failed, and now look what happened. But hey, at least they got to restrict the labor force, and all of the poor people of the city could remain in poverty. The price system isn't something that is imposed on anyone. It arises naturally. So it is not some fantasy. If anything, your weird technate thing is a fantasy.

I think you'll find that the Price System is imposed, on basically everyone. I have no choice but to buy products and services. The "natural" occurance of the Price System is what lead to the current unacceptable situation.


True, just becasue something is natural doesn't make it good. But the market price system is the natural result of peaceful human voluntary exchange. The price system is good because it is the result of mutually beneficial exchanges. The only false scarcity is government created scarcity. Intellectual property laws for example.

"Peaceful voluntary exchange"? Are you completely ignorant of history? Entire continents have been plundered in the name of capital. How the fuck was that "mutually beneficial"? And once again, the government is just as much a part of the Price System as the corporations are. The government's interest in maintaining false scarcity, and by extension the Price System, lies in their mutual interest with private capital in maintaining the status quo.


It is impossible to know if your providing the maximum amount of benefit to the maximum amount of people, since you cannot measure utility. My "dystopia" has never once been tried. But communism has, and it has been a complete failure.

Utility can be measured, you are simply unable or unwilling to realise how. Energy, resources, demand - all of these can be objectively measured without recourse to money. I'm willing to explain further if for some reason your imagination fails you, but I suspect it would be futile due to your frankly religious worship of the "free market".

As for your dystopia, if indeed it didn't exist, it was because nobody was insane enough to let loose fully the corporate hounds from their leashes. Communism, a stateless, classless society, has never existed with the possible exception of "primitive communism".

[Skooma Addict]

Paying workers decent wages eats into profits - if they didn't, pay raises would never be contested. Property rights do fuck-all for solving environmental problems because the environment as whole is not owned by anyone. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the USSR did not engage in trade?

In a free market, workers will tend to earn the marginal value of their product. If a person is underpaying their workers, then another company can offer the worker more money, hire them, and profit. The fact that the environment as a whole is not owned by anyone has nothing to do with the fact that property rights can solve most environmental problems. Shockingly, I know the USSR engaged in trade.



The thing is that I do not just want to ban advertising, I want to abolish the whole system that requires advertising. People do not "desire" the endless parade of needlessly multiplied goods that exist under the current Price System, they are told from birth that they want, nay need such things through being constantly bombarded by a well-funded advertising industry. If it's not small government you want, perhaps no government? I've no reason to believe that corporate rule would be any better than government rule. If the performance of companies right now is any indication, it would be even worse.

Since value is subjective, you don't know what other people desire. I am an anarcho-capitalist. I don't know what corporate rule is. I want a peaceful voluntary society.



Profits and costs are not a rational measurement because the whole system is geared towards maximising profit, not human welfare.

The way to maximize human welfare is to satisfy consumer desires. The way to satisfy consumer desires is to use scarce resources to provide goods/services that people want. You know you are satisfying consumer desires when your product is profitable. So you can only maximise profit by satisfying consumer desires.



Except that doesn't happen. Even in your vaunted "free market", small companies will become big companies that will have a vested interest in maintaining their market share, and will thus use monopolistic practices and encourage the government (if any) by hook and by crook to enact laws that protect their status. You lay the blame entirely on the government when in fact the problem is with both.

This depends entirely on the existence of a central government. But I am an anarcho-capitalist.


If people genuinely want a new product, they'll ask for it. Products will not be produced "for sale" they will be produced based on their utility - if people want a faster computer, they'll demand it and get it. And instead of wastefully having to buy a new set of hardware, the old hardware will be designed with potential future upgrades in mind, or will otherwise be designed to be easily recyclable. Things become completely different when profit and money are no longer in the picture. The only limitations will be energy, resources and the laws of physics.

I want a rocket ship that can go to mars. Just because people demand something doesn't necessarily mean it is a good thing to produce. Things do have a cost. Hardware is already designed with future upgrades in mind.


Bull-fucking-shit. The needs of the population, energy and resources, and the environmental impact can be determined objectively using scientific methods and engineering principles. This is done today, except for the fact that it is done in the service of profit and not utility, with predictable results.

In other words, it is done within the context of the markets price system.



I think you'll find that the Price System is imposed, on basically everyone. I have no choice but to buy products and services. The "natural" occurance of the Price System is what lead to the current unacceptable situation.

The markets price system is imposed on no one. It is a natural result of voluntary exchange. The development of a medium of exchange is what makes modern civilization possible. Here is an example. Lets say there was no medium of exchange (money), and you are a farmer. You have 10 bushels of wheat, and you want to trade them for 20 apples. Without money, you need to find a man with 20 apples, who wants to trade them for 10 bushels of wheat.



"Peaceful voluntary exchange"? Are you completely ignorant of history? Entire continents have been plundered in the name of capital. How the fuck was that "mutually beneficial"? And once again, the government is just as much a part of the Price System as the corporations are. The government's interest in maintaining false scarcity, and by extension the Price System, lies in their mutual interest with private capital in maintaining the status quo.

Are you referring to wars over capital? I don't see how that is relevant. Obviously, plundering is not mutually beneficial. I was referring to voluntary exchanges. The Government has nothing to do with the price system. All the government can do is disrupt it.



Utility can be measured, you are simply unable or unwilling to realise how. Energy, resources, demand - all of these can be objectively measured without recourse to money. I'm willing to explain further if for some reason your imagination fails you, but I suspect it would be futile due to your frankly religious worship of the "free market".

As for your dystopia, if indeed it didn't exist, it was because nobody was insane enough to let loose fully the corporate hounds from their leashes. Communism, a stateless, classless society, has never existed with the possible exception of "primitive communism".

Utility can't be measured. What would be the unit of measurement?

If you think about it, primitive communism kind of makes sense. Since all other forms of communism would destroy the economy, and we would all live like primitives.

[Havet]

I think you'll find that the Price System is imposed, on basically everyone. I have no choice but to buy products and services. The "natural" occurance of the Price System is what lead to the current unacceptable situation.

I think the definition of imposition you are talking of is not very useful when determining oppression.

A natural price system naturally arises, and it is as much imposed onto someone as the fact that nature imposes physical limits onto humans. The price system, ideally, would be only used because it would work best among everyone around and it became generally accepted by everyone as the most effective method.

Now, if one still thought it was harmful if some way (which is, currently, like you said, because of government serving private interests, and because the government does have the monopoly over the money, so it affects the price system a lot), i think there shouldn't be any entity (the state, the government, private corporations) which forbade like-minded people into creating a community where this price system would be replaced by something else or simply abolished.

Some mutualists and market anarchists believe a price system run without forceful interference from centralized entities (whether public or private) will be a good thing, while some communist anarchists believe it should be abolished all toguether. I think there should be enough freedom for both of these to coexist, and then compare their efficiency.

And the reason we don't see these alternative communities appearing is because of lack of space and high cost in displacement. In order to create an alternative society you'd have to win an election (costly in money, highly inefficient and one couldn't possibly convince +50% that the status quo ends change) or win a revolution (needs more worker radicalization, which won't happen, and its extremely costly in money and human lives).

I think the third alternative will be Seasteading, like i've mentioned several (http://www.revleft.com/vb/ultimate-solution-t107268/index.html?t=107268&highlight=seasteading) times (http://www.revleft.com/vb/seasteading-climate-change-t111954/index.html?t=111954&highlight=seasteading) (before we have enough resources to cheaply colonize space, that is).

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Scientific management of resources is useless if there is no price system to tell the "scientists" what must be produced.
Why can't they just use the energy (or labour) content of a product to measure cost, and studies or polls of consumer preferences to measure utility? What's to stop them from doing a cost-benefit analysis that way?


Take cell phones for example. There are only a few major cell phone companies, all of which use government to restrict competition. In a free market, it would be pointless to program your product to die. People would simply switch providers. If there were no good providers, then one could potentially make a huge profit by offering a long lasting product.
Whatever can be achieved by government regulation, can also be achieved by a business cartel. If the government disappeared tomorrow, the existing big cell phone companies could agree to restrict the ability of their existing customers to call any number outside of the established networks. This way, any new network would find it impossible to get off the ground, since its customers would be unable to call anyone but each other.

The only way out of this situation is if one of the existing big companies decides to betray the cartel - which is possible, but unlikely.


Well then suburbia is losing money if it is using energy inefficiently. If people are suffering as a result, that is because property rights are not being upheld.
Whose property rights? And do you realize how fanatical you sound?


The free market, and its market price system is what allows the poor's standard of living to rise.
I'm a little confused here. You are arguing, at the same time, that (1) the currently existing economic system is too heavily controlled by governments to call it a free market, and (2) the benefits of that same evil statist system are due to the (nonexistent) free market.


In fact, that is one of the main reasons I support a free market. Now, if you want to see a gaint gap between the rich and poor, look back at the U.S.S.R.
Excuse me? Which gap would that be? The Soviet Union's Gini index was among the lowest in the world at the time, and much lower than that of any country today.


I have no idea how that would possibly work. Unlike money, it certainly is not the result of mutually beneficial voluntary exchange.
Actually, money in the real world is the result of government intervention.

Did you mean imaginary money?


With profit as a motivating factor, companies have incentives to constantly increase worker conditions.
Improving worker conditions costs money. The only way that could possibly help profits is if it somehow resulted in a giant surge in revenue - enough to cover the extra costs.

There is no obvious reason why improving worker conditions should cause a surge in revenue.


Again, profits and costs are what allow people to rationally allocate societies scarce resources.
They are one among many methods of rational allocation.


The more efficient you are, the lower your costs will be. All other things being equal, the lower your costs are, the more profitable you are.
All other things being equal, yes. But all other things are not equal.


The price system isn't something that is imposed on anyone. It arises naturally.
Really? Where? All the price systems I see out there in the real world were imposed at gunpoint.


True, just becasue something is natural doesn't make it good. But the market price system is the natural result of peaceful human voluntary exchange. The price system is good because it is the result of mutually beneficial exchanges.
How did you go from voluntary to beneficial, exactly? Are you familiar with game theory and prisoner's dilemma? Voluntary, peaceful choices by self-interested parties can sometimes lead to the worst possible result, which none of the parties want.


My "dystopia" has never once been tried.
And yet you keep claiming credit for various real-world benefits of systems you don't support.


But communism has...
Really? Where?


In a free market, workers will tend to earn the marginal value of their product.
Assuming perfect competition, you mean, which is a laughable idea for the labour market.


If a person is underpaying their workers, then another company can offer the worker more money, hire them, and profit.
Assuming that the two companies are in competition for the same workers. In real life, that only ever happens in a select few professions that require specialized education and therefore have a small labour pool.


The fact that the environment as a whole is not owned by anyone has nothing to do with the fact that property rights can solve most environmental problems.
Only if by "solving" you mean turning every forest into a timber farm, every river into a fishery, and every endangered habitat into a tourist attraction.


I want a peaceful voluntary society.
I refuse to recognize your property rights and will back my refusal by force if I have to.

So much for peace.


The way to maximize human welfare is to satisfy consumer desires. The way to satisfy consumer desires is to use scarce resources to provide goods/services that people want. You know you are satisfying consumer desires when your product is profitable.
Yes. Yes. No. Profitability is not a good measure of the satisfaction of consumer desires, because the market does not give equal weight to the desires of each individual. Your demand-power or desiring-power in the market is limited by the amount of wealth you have. People with more wealth get to "desire" more - or, to put it differently, their desires are given more weight.

The market works on the principle "one dollar, one vote."


I want a rocket ship that can go to mars. Just because people demand something doesn't necessarily mean it is a good thing to produce. Things do have a cost.
Cost can be measured in the amount of energy (or labour) required to produce an object. We can determine whether your rocket is a good idea by looking at its opportunity cost in terms of energy - what other things could we build with the same amount of energy, and which do we prefer?


The markets price system is imposed on no one. It is a natural result of voluntary exchange. The development of a medium of exchange is what makes modern civilization possible. Here is an example. Lets say there was no medium of exchange (money), and you are a farmer. You have 10 bushels of wheat, and you want to trade them for 20 apples. Without money, you need to find a man with 20 apples, who wants to trade them for 10 bushels of wheat.

[...]

Are you referring to wars over capital? I don't see how that is relevant. Obviously, plundering is not mutually beneficial. I was referring to voluntary exchanges. The Government has nothing to do with the price system.
Sure it does. The currently existing financial systems all across the world were created by governments. In many cases they were imposed by colonial governments on unwilling tribal or feudal societies.

The simple fact is, the price system did not develop spontaneously in real history. It was imposed by governments. Your little story about the trading farmers is an imaginary tale about what might have happened, not what actually did happen.

In my experience, classical liberals have serious trouble distinguishing real history from plausible but false what-if scenarios.


Utility can't be measured. What would be the unit of measurement?
How about... the amount of time you are willing to spend per day on a certain activity, holding all else constant.

[Skooma Addict]

Why can't they just use the energy (or labour) content of a product to measure cost, and studies or polls of consumer preferences to measure utility? What's to stop them from doing a cost-benefit analysis that way?

Just one of the reasons is because the energy (or labour) content of a product does not equal costs.


Whatever can be achieved by government regulation, can also be achieved by a business cartel. If the government disappeared tomorrow, the existing big cell phone companies could agree to restrict the ability of their existing customers to call any number outside of the established networks. This way, any new network would find it impossible to get off the ground, since its customers would be unable to call anyone but each other.

The only way out of this situation is if one of the existing big companies decides to betray the cartel - which is possible, but unlikely.

I don't know why they would form a cartel. They will lose customers in the long run because other companies can arise to take their place. But even if such a cartel were formed, it would never last. One company would simply allow their customers to make calls to all the networks, and the other companies would have to do the same, or risk going bankrupt.

If anything, the companies would shrink or disappear. They owe their size to government intervention.



Whose property rights? And do you realize how fanatical you sound?

If the company is polluting other peoples property against their will, then their property rights are being violated.


I'm a little confused here. You are arguing, at the same time, that (1) the currently existing economic system is too heavily controlled by governments to call it a free market, and (2) the benefits of that same evil statist system are due to the (nonexistent) free market.


We obviously do not have a free market. But there are still elements of the market in our economy. Now, the poor are best off when living under an unregulated free market.



Excuse me? Which gap would that be? The Soviet Union's Gini index was among the lowest in the world at the time, and much lower than that of any country today.

I'm talking about the gap between the Soviet Political elite (aka mass murders) who lived like kings in their mansions overlooking the Black Sea, all at the expense of the impoverished poor who were forced at gunpoint to pay for the political elites(murders) lavish lifestyle.

But a gap between rich and poor can be misleading. Because the living standards of both can rise at the same time, even though the gap may be increasing.



Actually, money in the real world is the result of government intervention.

Did you mean imaginary money?

Todays money is a result of government intervention. We have a central bank that issues all our money. It is also protected by legal tender laws.

I mean money that naturally arises from barter. I am talking about the regression theorem.


Improving worker conditions costs money. The only way that could possibly help profits is if it somehow resulted in a giant surge in revenue - enough to cover the extra costs.

There is no obvious reason why improving worker conditions should cause a surge in revenue.

If you have crappy working conditions, workers will choose to work elsewhere. But there are some jobs that are going to have bad working conditions just due to the nature of the job itself.


All other things being equal, yes. But all other things are not equal.

irrelevant


Really? Where? All the price systems I see out there in the real world were imposed at gunpoint.

I think I already explained how the markets price system is completely natural. No violence is necessary.


How did you go from voluntary to beneficial, exactly? Are you familiar with game theory and prisoner's dilemma? Voluntary, peaceful choices by self-interested parties can sometimes lead to the worst possible result, which none of the parties want.


I heard of the two, but I haven't looked into them really.

All actions are aimed at substituting a more desirable state of affairs for a less desirable state of affairs. Therefore, a voluntary exchange will occur if both parties feel they will achieve a more desirable state of affairs as a result. But nobody knows everything, so people make mistakes. Meaning it may turn out that someone is worse off than before.



And yet you keep claiming credit for various real-world benefits of systems you don't support.


Certain aspects of the free market are present in the economy. But i think I made it very clear that I oppose the present system.



Assuming perfect competition, you mean, which is a laughable idea for the labour market.

The labour market is no different from any other market. If a company is underpaying is workers, then another company can profit by hiring them and offering a higher wage.


Assuming that the two companies are in competition for the same workers. In real life, that only ever happens in a select few professions that require specialized education and therefore have a small labour pool.

Why do you keep mentioning "real life". Our current economic system is not a free market. But yea, a construction company is not directly competing with Microsoft. Although there could be someone out there who is great with computers and building.

But still, every company is at least indirectly competing with every other company. If Best Buy suddenly started paying its employees 70,000 dollars a year for some odd reason, then construction workers may consider working at Best Buy.



Only if by "solving" you mean turning every forest into a timber farm, every river into a fishery, and every endangered habitat into a tourist attraction.

If we had timber farms instead of public forests, we wouldn't have to worry about the destruction of forests. Notice how wherever there is public land, there are environmental problems.

Also, idc about endangered animals.


I refuse to recognize your property rights and will back my refusal by force if I have to.

So much for peace.

Then live in a community with like minded people. Don't force it on everyone else.


Yes. Yes. No. Profitability is not a good measure of the satisfaction of consumer desires, because the market does not give equal weight to the desires of each individual. Your demand-power or desiring-power in the market is limited by the amount of wealth you have. People with more wealth get to "desire" more - or, to put it differently, their desires are given more weight.

The market works on the principle "one dollar, one vote."

Well, if you are making a profit, you are satisfying consumer desires. You may be satisfying the desires of the rich, or the desires of the poor, or the desires of both. But you are satisfying consumer desires. So in a free market, the way you make a lot of money is by satisfying consumer desires.


Cost can be measured in the amount of energy (or labour) required to produce an object. We can determine whether your rocket is a good idea by looking at its opportunity cost in terms of energy - what other things could we build with the same amount of energy, and which do we prefer?

That is a terrible way to measure cost. But who decides that energy is what measures cost? Also, who decided what is built, and what is not? Some elite group of advisers?


Sure it does. The currently existing financial systems all across the world were created by governments. In many cases they were imposed by colonial governments on unwilling tribal or feudal societies.

The simple fact is, the price system did not develop spontaneously in real history. It was imposed by governments. Your little story about the trading farmers is an imaginary tale about what might have happened, not what actually did happen.

In my experience, classical liberals have serious trouble distinguishing real history from plausible but false what-if scenarios.

I am referring to the regression theorem of money. You do know gold and silver silver used to be the preferred mediums of exchange, right? You do know that gold and silver never became money due to government intervention, right?

According to your incorrect history, humans lived in a state of barter until governments forced them to start using money. That is not what happened.


How about... the amount of time you are willing to spend per day on a certain activity, holding all else constant.

You can't hold time constant. Not only that, but a person may value an activity more than another person, but still not be willing to spend as much time on the activity. You just can't measure a persons utility.

"I value this apple 4(unknown units), but you value this apple 5(unknown units), so you can have it", makes no sense.

On a side note, if you actually replied to every point I made, I will let you know now I am just going to reply to the parts of your post that I feel are the most important.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Just one of the reasons is because the energy (or labour) content of a product does not equal costs.
What other costs are there?


I don't know why they would form a cartel. They will lose customers in the long run because other companies can arise to take their place.
Didn't I just explain how a cartel can prevent other companies from rising, so that the cartel can only ever be defeated by betrayal from within?

And as for why companies would form a cartel, I can't believe you would even ask such a question. They would form a cartel to increase their profits by limiting competition, obviously.


But even if such a cartel were formed, it would never last. One company would simply allow their customers to make calls to all the networks, and the other companies would have to do the same, or risk going bankrupt.
Do you imagine these companies are run by idiots? Any company owner or CEO knows that if he breaks the cartel, his company will gain large profits in the short run, but in the long run all other companies would be forced to do the same and the profits for all of them would be driven down to a level lower than what they had under the cartel.

The company that chooses to allow its customers to make calls to all the networks would gain massive profits for a few weeks - and then, after all other companies do the same, its profits would be much lower than they were in the beginning. Why would anyone choose such a stupid course of action?


If the company is polluting other peoples property against their will, then their property rights are being violated.
So it's ok to pollute your own property, then? In that case, your "solution" would not end pollution. It would just cause companies to buy the cheapest land they can find and dump all their toxic waste there.


I'm talking about the gap between the Soviet Political elite (aka mass murders) who lived like kings in their mansions overlooking the Black Sea, all at the expense of the impoverished poor who were forced at gunpoint to pay for the political elites(murders) lavish lifestyle.
Yes, that gap was much smaller than the gap between rich and poor in capitalist nations.

And the Soviet political elite did not kill anyone from the early 1960s to 1985.


But a gap between rich and poor can be misleading. Because the living standards of both can rise at the same time, even though the gap may be increasing.
Irrelevant. Standards of living rose in nearly all countries at all times since the industrial revolution. Standards of living rose very quickly in the Soviet Union.

The free market deserves no credit for being able to do what all other economic systems can do (and have done).


If you have crappy working conditions, workers will choose to work elsewhere.
Assuming there are jobs available elsewhere. But unemployment is an inevitable phenomenon in all capitalist economies. There are more workers than jobs. Therefore, a company will always find workers to hire, no matter how bad its conditions, because those workers have no other option but starvation.


I heard of the two, but I haven't looked into them really.

All actions are aimed at substituting a more desirable state of affairs for a less desirable state of affairs. Therefore, a voluntary exchange will occur if both parties feel they will achieve a more desirable state of affairs as a result. But nobody knows everything, so people make mistakes. Meaning it may turn out that someone is worse off than before.
And game theory shows that it is possible for everyone to end up worse off than before. This is due to lack of knowledge, as you guessed, but it is a lack of knowledge that exists in all circumstances at all times: lack of knowledge about other people's intentions.

Here is a good explanation of the issue:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/#Sym2t2PDOrdPay
(you don't need to read more than the introduction and the paragraphs on "Symmetric 2×2 PD With Ordinal Payoffs" to get the basic idea; the rest of the article deals with various ways to complicate the problem)


Certain aspects of the free market are present in the economy. But i think I made it very clear that I oppose the present system.
Fair enough. I also oppose the present system, yet I think that certain quasi-socialist elements exist in it, and it is precisely those elements that are responsible for all its benefits.


The labour market is no different from any other market. If a company is underpaying is workers, then another company can profit by hiring them and offering a higher wage.
Only if the other company happens to need the exact same kinds of workers. The problem with the labour market is that people have thousands of different skills or combinations of skills, and companies have thousands of different job needs. "Labour" is the most heterogenous commodity you can imagine. Differences in skill create natural barriers to entry.

And there are other problems as well. Your labour is, in a sense, stuck to you. You cannot sell it to someone who lives far away, like you could sell a car. To sell your labour to someone, you must live in close proximity to him. So, for example, if a company offers you a higher-paying job, but that company is located in a city where you cannot live for whatever reason, then you cannot take the job.

The cost of travel from one place to another may also be a natural barrier to entry.


Why do you keep mentioning "real life". Our current economic system is not a free market.
The evolution of human society up to this point has been entirely natural - in the sense that no external force interfered with it. So, what makes you think that any outcome other than the present outcome was possible?

Also, in this particular case I was talking about the differences in skill and profession that exist in real life. Are you suggesting these differences would disappear under a free market?


But yea, a construction company is not directly competing with Microsoft. Although there could be someone out there who is great with computers and building.

But still, every company is at least indirectly competing with every other company. If Best Buy suddenly started paying its employees 70,000 dollars a year for some odd reason, then construction workers may consider working at Best Buy.
Yes, but that only works in one direction (from higher-skilled jobs towards lower-skilled ones). Workers at Best Buy who don't know how to build houses cannot take a job offered by a construction company, no matter how much the construction company is offering.


If we had timber farms instead of public forests, we wouldn't have to worry about the destruction of forests. Notice how wherever there is public land, there are environmental problems.
A timber farm is not a forest. If we had timber farms instead of forests, we would have no forests. You propose to cure the disease by killing the patient - to solve environmental problems by destroying the environment.


Then live in a community with like minded people. Don't force it on everyone else.
The trouble is, all the land and means of production in the world right now are private property. We need some land and means of production to start our community. And we have no intention of buying them from their present owners, since we do not recognize those owners' claim to property.

It is therefore inevitable that we will have a conflict with the present owners of private property.


Well, if you are making a profit, you are satisfying consumer desires. You may be satisfying the desires of the rich, or the desires of the poor, or the desires of both. But you are satisfying consumer desires. So in a free market, the way you make a lot of money is by satisfying consumer desires.
Do you not understand the importance of the fact that the desires of some consumers count more than the desires of others? Do you not understand how this skews production decisions in favour of the rich?

Of course capitalists get rich by satisfying someone's desires. This is true in any economic system. Every producer always satisfies someone's desires. The medieval weaponsmith satisfies the desires of the king to have weapons for his army. The slave trader satisfies the desires of slave owners for fresh stock.

The fact that you are making someone, somewhere happy is not a justification for your actions.


That is a terrible way to measure cost. But who decides that energy is what measures cost?
Why wouldn't it be? What expense do you have that cannot be measured in energy?


Also, who decided what is built, and what is not? Some elite group of advisers?
The people decide by democratic vote. Or, they elect representatives to decide.


I am referring to the regression theorem of money. You do know gold and silver silver used to be the preferred mediums of exchange, right? You do know that gold and silver never became money due to government intervention, right?
Errr, yes they did. You do know that governments used to mint gold and silver coins, right? You do realize that most gold and silver coins had the faces of kings and emperors on them, right?


According to your incorrect history, humans lived in a state of barter until governments forced them to start using money. That is not what happened.
In most parts of the world, that is exactly what happened. Some places - usually, trading ports - did develop local currencies like shells and such, but, for the most part, every human settlement large enough to use currency had some sort of local government as well.


You can't hold time constant.
Why would it be necessary to hold time constant...? What would it even mean to "hold time constant"?


Not only that, but a person may value an activity more than another person, but still not be willing to spend as much time on the activity.
In that case, the first person does not really value the activity more than the second person.

When you are engaged in a pleasurable activity, what makes you stop? Either (a) you get bored or decide you had enough, or (b) you find something else and more pleasurable to do, or (c) you must do something less pleasurable (such as work), because of external constraints.

If we remove external constraints, the only remaining limiting factors on your activity are (a) and (b). In case (a), you've reached a point where the marginal utility of the activity is zero. In case (b), you've decided that some other activity has a higher marginal utility. Either way, you stop doing what you are doing because you've reached the end of its relative utility to you.

Since the choice to end an activity is determined by the marginal utility of that activity, the total time spent on the activity is a good measure of its total utility.

[Skooma Addict]

What other costs are there?

The amount of time something takes to produce is a cost. Besides labour and energy, there is a material cost.



Didn't I just explain how a cartel can prevent other companies from rising, so that the cartel can only ever be defeated by betrayal from within?

If that is the case, then it wouldn't be a free market. No cartel can prevent other companies from competing without resorting to government intervention.



Do you imagine these companies are run by idiots? Any company owner or CEO knows that if he breaks the cartel, his company will gain large profits in the short run, but in the long run all other companies would be forced to do the same and the profits for all of them would be driven down to a level lower than what they had under the cartel.

The company that chooses to allow its customers to make calls to all the networks would gain massive profits for a few weeks - and then, after all other companies do the same, its profits would be much lower than they were in the beginning. Why would anyone choose such a stupid course of action?

Profits may not be higher in the cartel, since in a free market, a cartel cannot prevent competitors from entering the market. So it would be better to break out of the cartel, because the cartel would never last.


So it's ok to pollute your own property, then? In that case, your "solution" would not end pollution. It would just cause companies to buy the cheapest land they can find and dump all their toxic waste there.


Your correct, it is OK to pollute on your own property. Although a company may dispose of its waste in other ways. Maybe the company will even renew it for energy purposes. Regardless, I am not exactly an environmentalist.


Yes, that gap was much smaller than the gap between rich and poor in capitalist nations.

And the Soviet political elite did not kill anyone from the early 1960s to 1985.

The important point is that the gap was illegitimate. All though the gap in your so called "capitalist nations" was most likely illegitimate as well. When a central governemnt is present, many unproductive citizens make money they don't deserve.


Irrelevant. Standards of living rose in nearly all countries at all times since the industrial revolution. Standards of living rose very quickly in the Soviet Union.

The free market deserves no credit for being able to do what all other economic systems can do (and have done).

I would rather have everyone's real wages increase, even if the wage gap increases than vice versa. I don't think standards of living rose very quickly in the soviet union. I recall massive shortages though.


Assuming there are jobs available elsewhere. But unemployment is an inevitable phenomenon in all capitalist economies. There are more workers than jobs. Therefore, a company will always find workers to hire, no matter how bad its conditions, because those workers have no other option but starvation.

Actually, without minimum wage and other government restrictions, there would be virtually no involuntary unemployment. There are definitely more jobs than workers.


And game theory shows that it is possible for everyone to end up worse off than before. This is due to lack of knowledge, as you guessed, but it is a lack of knowledge that exists in all circumstances at all times: lack of knowledge about other people's intentions.

Here is a good explanation of the issue:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pr...Sym2t2PDOrdPay (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/#Sym2t2PDOrdPay)
(you don't need to read more than the introduction and the paragraphs on "Symmetric 2×2 PD With Ordinal Payoffs" to get the basic idea; the rest of the article deals with various ways to complicate the problem)

Of coarse it is possible both people could end up worse off after a trade. But that does not change the fact that at the time of the trade, both people think they will benefit. Imperfect knowledge will always be present.

I am not sure how the prisoners dilemma is relevant. Although it is interesting.


Fair enough. I also oppose the present system, yet I think that certain quasi-socialist elements exist in it, and it is precisely those elements that are responsible for all its benefits.


What are these elements your referring to?


Only if the other company happens to need the exact same kinds of workers. The problem with the labour market is that people have thousands of different skills or combinations of skills, and companies have thousands of different job needs. "Labour" is the most heterogenous commodity you can imagine. Differences in skill create natural barriers to entry.

And there are other problems as well. Your labour is, in a sense, stuck to you. You cannot sell it to someone who lives far away, like you could sell a car. To sell your labour to someone, you must live in close proximity to him. So, for example, if a company offers you a higher-paying job, but that company is located in a city where you cannot live for whatever reason, then you cannot take the job.

The cost of travel from one place to another may also be a natural barrier to entry.

I don't think labour is THAT heterogeneous. But even if there were no competitors nearby to offer the worker a higher salary, someone could simply open up a new factory and profit by offering workers higher pay.


Yes, but that only works in one direction (from higher-skilled jobs towards lower-skilled ones). Workers at Best Buy who don't know how to build houses cannot take a job offered by a construction company, no matter how much the construction company is offering.

That would be up to the construction company to decide. Maybe the costs of training the employee will pay off in the long run.



A timber farm is not a forest. If we had timber farms instead of forests, we would have no forests. You propose to cure the disease by killing the patient - to solve environmental problems by destroying the environment.

Oh, I just assumed a timber farm was a privately owned forest. But anyways, the privatization of natural resources will ensure those resources stay in tact. Look at copper for example. People have been mining copper for centuries, and there are no shortages. But look at the fish in the Ocean...since nobody can own a part of the Ocean, sailors will simply catch all the fish they can. They wont attempt to fertilize the area so more fish can live there, because then other fisherman could simply catch those fish. Also, once a resource becomes scarce, its price will go up, meaning it is less likely to disappear.



The trouble is, all the land and means of production in the world right now are private property. We need some land and means of production to start our community. And we have no intention of buying them from their present owners, since we do not recognize those owners' claim to property.

It is therefore inevitable that we will have a conflict with the present owners of private property.

Except not all land right now is private property.


Do you not understand the importance of the fact that the desires of some consumers count more than the desires of others? Do you not understand how this skews production decisions in favour of the rich?

Of course capitalists get rich by satisfying someone's desires. This is true in any economic system. Every producer always satisfies someone's desires. The medieval weaponsmith satisfies the desires of the king to have weapons for his army. The slave trader satisfies the desires of slave owners for fresh stock.

The fact that you are making someone, somewhere happy is not a justification for your actions.

Again, the rich are not as important as you make them out to be. The company that can make the affordable computer, television, or car, stands to make a lot of money.

Obviously, making someone somewhere happy does not necessarily justify ones actions.


Why wouldn't it be? What expense do you have that cannot be measured in energy?

Time is just 1 example among many.


The people decide by democratic vote. Or, they elect representatives to decide.

What about the people who don't want top be part of your democratic system? Will you force them to join?


Errr, yes they did. You do know that governments used to mint gold and silver coins, right? You do realize that most gold and silver coins had the faces of kings and emperors on them, right?

Gold arose naturally as the preferred medium of exchange. After that, governments monopolized the Mints. Government did not invent money.


Why would it be necessary to hold time constant...? What would it even mean to "hold time constant"?


Because people value time in and of itself. All other things being equal, some people value activities that take less time more than other people do.


In that case, the first person does not really value the activity more than the second person.

When you are engaged in a pleasurable activity, what makes you stop? Either (a) you get bored or decide you had enough, or (b) you find something else and more pleasurable to do, or (c) you must do something less pleasurable (such as work), because of external constraints.

If we remove external constraints, the only remaining limiting factors on your activity are (a) and (b). In case (a), you've reached a point where the marginal utility of the activity is zero. In case (b), you've decided that some other activity has a higher marginal utility. Either way, you stop doing what you are doing because you've reached the end of its relative utility to you.

Since the choice to end an activity is determined by the marginal utility of that activity, the total time spent on the activity is a good measure of its total utility.

Except I could value activity B more than you, while at the same time value the present activity more than you. If that is the case, then I could switch to B before you do, and at the same time value the initial activity more than you.

I still have no idea what the unit of measurement would be.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Thread split by moi.