Differences between "the market" and "the state."

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Well okay, what honestly is the difference?

Most obviously would be to say that market exchanges are "voluntary" and involve "trade" - buying and selling

Wheras state exchanges require "force" and are "commanded."

However this makes no sense under anylysis. Because its impossible to seperate "force" from "voluntary", really.

Consider in a corperation, where you are commanded to do X, Y, or Z, with little choice. Now, obviously, this is still classed as "voluntary" as you made the decision to enter that corperation.

But how is that different for a goverment? As long as there aren't any exist barriers, you can live wherever you want, right? So living in the UK is as "voluntary" as working for Mcdoanlds.

But also, what does these catorgisations even say about anything? You might be able to "choose" to trade something or not, but the conditions of trade, that is, how rich you are, can you lie, cheat, steal etc, are enforced with "force" - you don't make a "voluntary" decision to abide by them, you have too, or else you'll be forced to do so, and punished.

I suppose refering to the market and the state, as "different" things is really madness. Why is the UK goverment "more statist" than some "voluntary" "collective?"

It can't *all* rest on the orgins of said systems. For one thing, this brings to light other contradictions in the whole libertarian belief system.

(To put it shortly:

1. The acquisition of most natural resources was by force.
2. Either force made the acquisition illegitimate or not.
3. If it did, then governments may now rightfully confiscate and redistribute it.
4. If it did not, then governments may now rightfully confiscate it and redistribute it.
5. Hence, either way, if force was the source of the initial acquisition, then governments may rightfully redistribute current holdings.) (From Cohen)

And furthermore, talking of origins is pure madness. As if you can justify anything with allusions to 500 year old grandparents.

So, you are "commanded" to do certain things within a market, and you are "commanded "to do certain things within a state. But within both systems, you can make "voluntary" choices. For instance, at the moment, you can choose to use X road to go to work, or Y road, or Z road etc etc. Likewise for "private" "market" corporations.

I honestly can't see the difference really? These terms seem to be of very limited use. :crying:

[Valeofruin]

The fact that you recognize the fact that what you do at work is not voluntary is something to be proud of.

Unfortunately your views on the state could use some polishing.

The state is not something separate from the market but rather something appended to it, the analysis has to begin here. You are correct in saying that there is fundamentally no difference, they are essentially 2 sides of the same coin. Yet in ANY society, Capitalist or Socialist, there exists both 'market' and 'state' coercion, if you care to make that distinction.

The debate is not over whether we should select a system of economic or state coercion, rather it is a far simpler debate over what elements, or classes, these methods of coercion are aimed at.

[Bankotsu]

The state must always be above the market.

The market can never be above the state.

The state is the master, while the market is a slave.

This is an important rule of governing a state.



The idea of "market-based price" is itself a fiction.

A market is man-made.

The market in Switzerland or Denmark or Japan is different from the market in Cuba or Cameroon.

What the IMF is after is a slashing of state budgets to minimize the state role in the economy and make a target country defenseless against foreign takeover of its key assets...

http://www.serendipity.li/hr/imf_and_dollar_system.htm





The administrative system and elections are dominated today by the private power of money flows and corporation activities.

I want to read you a summary from James Willard Hurst’s "The Legitimacy of the Business Corporation in the Law of the United States from 1780 to 1970". He points out that there was powerful anti-corporation feeling in the United States in the 1820's.

Therefore, it was established by the states that corporations could not exist by prescription: they had to have charters.

They had to have a limited term of life and not be immortal.

Corporations today are immortal: if they get charters, they can live forever and bury us all.

They had to have a limited purpose.

Who is giving us this bread made of sawdust? ITT: International Telephone and Telegraph, the same corporation that drove Ivar Kreuger to suicide in Paris in April 1931, when it actually was an international telegraph corporation, controlled by J P. Morgan.

http://www.carrollquigley.net/Lectures/The-State-of-Individuals-AD-1776-1976.htm


Do not be fooled by people who sells "free market" ideology.

Only the corporate, financial oligarchy benefits.

[Valeofruin]

The state must always be above the market.

The market can never be above the state.

The state is the master, while the market is a slave.

This is an important rule of governing a state.



The idea of "market-based price" is itself a fiction.

A market is man-made.

The market in Switzerland or Denmark or Japan is different from the market in Cuba or Cameroon.

What the IMF is after is a slashing of state budgets to minimize the state role in the economy and make a target country defenseless against foreign takeover of its key assets...

http://www.serendipity.li/hr/imf_and_dollar_system.htm





The administrative system and elections are dominated today by the private power of money flows and corporation activities.

I want to read you a summary from James Willard Hurst’s "The Legitimacy of the Business Corporation in the Law of the United States from 1780 to 1970". He points out that there was powerful anti-corporation feeling in the United States in the 1820's.

Therefore, it was established by the states that corporations could not exist by prescription: they had to have charters.

They had to have a limited term of life and not be immortal.

Corporations today are immortal: if they get charters, they can live forever and bury us all.

They had to have a limited purpose.

Who is giving us this bread made of sawdust? ITT: International Telephone and Telegraph, the same corporation that drove Ivar Kreuger to suicide in Paris in April 1931, when it actually was an international telegraph corporation, controlled by J P. Morgan.

http://www.carrollquigley.net/Lectures/The-State-of-Individuals-AD-1776-1976.htm


Do not be fooled by people who sells "free market" ideology.

Only the corporate, financial oligarchy benefits.

Were you restricted for being a reactionary or for just simply failing to make ANY sense whatsoever?

For some reason when I read your post I thought of Anthony Hopkins in 'The Silence of the Lambs'

[Bankotsu]

Were you restricted for being a reactionary or for just simply failing to make ANY sense whatsoever?

For some reason when I read your post I thought of Anthony Hopkins in 'The Silence of the Lambs'


I don't make sense of your above post.:confused:

[Bankotsu]

Can you clarify your post?

Thanks.

[Bankotsu]

Were you restricted for being a reactionary I was restricted for supporting blocs like BRIC to oppose U.S imperialism.

Some people in this forum don't like the idea of groups from the south joining forces to destroy U.S imperialism, for this reason, they restricted me.


BRIC group plans own revolution
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/KF17Dj03.html

De-Dollarization: Dismantling America’s Financial-Military Empire
http://michael-hudson.com/articles/globalism/090614De- (http://michael-hudson.com/articles/globalism/090614De-DollarizationDismantlingEmpire.html)

The SCO and BRIC summits had a common agenda: working for multipolarity and a revamp of the global economic and financial order.
http://www.thehindu.com/fline/fl2614/stories/20090717261405700.htm


I completely, fully, wholly and totally support south south cooperation against U.S imperialism.

Gaddafi, Chavez Strengthen Ties To Challenge "Imperialism" Of Wealthy Nations

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/28/gaddafi-chavez-strengthen_n_301628.html

IBSA Ministers to meet annually – agrees to take forward negotiations in India-MERCOSUR-SACU framework
http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=54988

DEVELOPMENT: South-South Cooperation at 30-Year High
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49749

G77 unites against West's bid to scrap Kyoto
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Clima (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Climate-change-G77-unites-against-Wests-bid-to-scrap-Kyoto/articleshow/5341867.cms)

Copenhagen axis: India, China, Brazil, South Africa

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/jairam-has-a-copenhagen-axis-india-china-brazil-south-africa/551407/


The forces are gathering, the momentum is growing for the final showdown between the U.S unipolar world and the multipolar world.

When U.S withdraws all their troops from Afghanistan, the assault from the south will come just like it did in 1974, after Vietanm.

There is no doubt on that.


http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn12182009.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Economic_Order


The rout of the U.S. military from Vietnam-formalized by the Paris treaty of 1973 and finalized with the fall of the Thieu regime in April 1975-undermined severely the U.S. role as global police for international capitalism. Domestic constraints were placed on direct and covert U.S. military action as the public said no to massive intervention abroad and Congress took steps to curb the imperial presidency and its zealous scouts, the CIA.

The "oil shock" came with the October 1973 Arab oil embargo (against the U.S. and the Netherlands because of their support for lsrael during the October War) and OPEC price hikes of 1973-74. OPECs success awakened Third World and Western leaders alike to the potential of "commodity power" on the side of raw materials producers (and not just the "middlemen" corporations and consumer nations, as before). Oil gave OPEC the clout to force the rising Third World call for a New International Economic Order (NIEO) onto the Western agenda.

"1973 [observes Brzezinski] was the year in which for the first time the new nations-the Afro-Asian nations, so to speak, inflicted a political reversal on the advanced world...

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Trilateralism/Trilateralism_overview.html


All the forces are just positioning themselves for the final showdown.

When U.S ends their war in Afghanistan, the real games will begin.

The NIEO was defeated in the 1980s.

Who will win and who will lose is still undecided in the next round which will take place after U.S withdraws from Afghanistan.

Who do you think will win Valeofruin?

[Valeofruin]

The American People?

Anyways my comments on your posting had to do with a lack of ability to understand what you represent, what your goals are.. perhaps you can clarify?

[Bankotsu]

The American People?

So you support the current U.S financial military structures and unipolar world order?

I want it to be destroyed.

[Bankotsu]

Anyways my comments on your posting had to do with a lack of ability to understand what you represent, what your goals are.. perhaps you can clarify?

My goals are to destroy U.S unipolar world order and creation of multipolar world and also reforming of current world capitalist order and destruction of the power of the global financial, corporate oligarchic elite towards more humane, egalitarian world political and economic order.

Multipolarity in the 21st Century

A New World Order

http://www.routledgepolitics.com/books/Multipolarity-in-the-21st-Century-isbn9780415475471

[Valeofruin]

So you support the current U.S financial military structures and unipolar world order?

I want it to be destroyed.

So do I, I just think if America is butthurt enough to suffer a major meltdown the conditions will be ripe for a revolution.

Hence the American people will emerge victorious.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

The fact that you recognize the fact that what you do at work is not voluntary is something to be proud of.

Unfortunately your views on the state could use some polishing.

The state is not something separate from the market but rather something appended to it, the analysis has to begin here. You are correct in saying that there is fundamentally no difference, they are essentially 2 sides of the same coin. Yet in ANY society, Capitalist or Socialist, there exists both 'market' and 'state' coercion, if you care to make that distinction.

The debate is not over whether we should select a system of economic or state coercion, rather it is a far simpler debate over what elements, or classes, these methods of coercion are aimed at.

I agree!

The post was aimed at the resident OIers here, who seem to view "THE STATE" as some kind of eternal "evil" that just occurs.

The more I look into this, the harder I'm finding it too consider this whole "market/state" difference really meaningful, or even that the current definitions of the state or the market are really that good.

Every "Market" is run on some "statist" principle. That you can't steal, that you have a right to property, whatever. Someone has come along and declared that universal by fiat (And then had some ideological priests invent some cosmic justification for that state of affairs as "true freedom" or whatever)

And doesn't every state have some "market" - in that you may choose to do X, Y or Z based on some "voluntary" decision you make? But that is taken within the context allowed by "statist" laws?

Perhaps I'm totally missing something here? Could some liberatarian help me out?