Results 21 to 40 of 104
whore I agree with about everything you said. Although, when it comes to what naming I would prefer naming the communities "guilds" as opposed to market places and exchanges between guilds would be called just that, exchanges.
So basically there are two forms of agorism-mutalism? A left one that prevents resouces from being consolidated, and ensures there is some equality and no capital, and a right one that is basically closer to free-market Libertarianism. Just as there are Trotskyists/stalinists?
It seems in both cases there are more of the latter than the former; the entire Libertarian left website was set up by moderators at the Mises institute.
Because once some people have loads of capital and others don't there is no longer equality of opportunity is there, or do we need to take a economics class?
Well if you seriously believe that people would voluntarily give up democratic control to private control then have at it, I don't know what to tell you, other than I disagree think its rediculous to blieve so.
How does me having more money necessarily imply other people are more restricted from starting their own ventures?
Whoa there, i think you may have misunderstood me. When i favor things like markets and free enterprise, i never, for one moment, forget about democratic control. I think a lot of enterprises would be democratically controlled (those most important for a community), like water supply and maybe food production (when i say this, i imagine that we could see democratic control of some food production and private control of other types of food production simultaneously). I also expect democratic schools to emerge. I do not see how private property is anti-democratic provided there is equality of opportunity.Originally Posted by RGacky3
To speculate is human; to hedge, divine
Because you need capital to start up your own ventures, infact you need excess capital to start up your own venture, and if 95% of the capital is controlled by 1% of the population (as it is now, and thats juts in the US), the 1% that control that kind of has a lot of power over the other 99%, and they have the ability to restrict that 99%s freedom if they so wish. Not only that, the one with the larger amount of Capital has more of an ability to manipulate the market ifsomeone else did try to start their own venture anyway.
See above. There is no way of enforcing equality of opportunity unless you severely restrict private property.
Whoa, you're jumping ahead of what you're saying. We were discussing how does equality of opportunity without restriction of capital leads to severe unequal distribution of wealth, and you are already assuming ("if...") that 95% is controlled by the top 1%
The truth is, there is no evidence that with equality of opportunity and unrestricted capital one can "manipulate" the market to prevent new enterprises from appearing (Rockefeller tried this and failed miserably, until he was able to convince the creation of special laws to regulate his industry, after which he only needed to bribe the "regulators"). This is well documented in the book Kolko, G. (1965), Railroads and Regulation: 1877-1916
To speculate is human; to hedge, divine
You asked how its possible how some people having more capital can manipulate the market, I explained how, and how it destroys so called "equality of opportunity," you did'nt refute it or even address it.
Lets take a much much less extreme (and less realistic scenario) 10% only control 90% (Oh what a world that would be). That 10% could still control the economy pretty well, and have a lot of power over hte other 90%.
The point is that in a free enterprise system with equality of opportunity it is impossible for such low amount of people to control such a high amount of capital because monopolies would be very very very rare.You asked how its possible how some people having more capital can manipulate the market, I explained how, and how it destroys so called "equality of opportunity," you did'nt refute it or even address it.
Lets take a much much less extreme (and less realistic scenario) 10% only control 90% (Oh what a world that would be
To speculate is human; to hedge, divine
And yet you still haven't explained why this is possible in a free-market system.
The answer of course is because it isn't. This is especially true of free-market anarchism. How in the hell can you think that there will be equality of oppurtunity if people can get vastly better access to education resources simply by virtue of their parents wealth? How can there be equality of oppurtunity with upper and middle class kids living off their parents trustfunds while working class kids have to find work to put themselves through uni? How on earth can equality of oppurtunity exist when one sector of society has acess to vastly superior basic resources including food, clean water, healthcare etc? How on earth will any of this not be exacerbated by not only scaling back the government but abolishing it completely without putting in place new communal/democratic structures?
And not to mention that inequality of oppurtunity has roots in non-economic phenomena including cultural issues like racism, sexism and homophobia? You're going to need to solve these cultural issues somehow and just abolishing the government overnight won't solve anything. Your movement is going to need to fight these things as well and yet most market libertarians are incredibly culturally right-wing. I lurked the mises forums for a while and noticed more than a few patriarchs and ethnic nationalists.
"From the relationship of estranged labor to private property it follows further that the emancipation of society from private property, etc., from servitude, is expressed in the political form of the emancipation of the workers; not that their emancipation alone is at stake, but because the emancipation of the workers contains universal human emancipation – and it contains this because the whole of human servitude is involved in the relation of the worker to production, and all relations of servitude are but modifications and consequences of this relation."
- Karl Marx -
Nobody is preventing you from organizing with others and funding a non-profit based education institution, or one that places knowledge available independently of wealth.
Even in america around the fifties-onwards people most people could afford education by asking for low-interest loans. however, nowadays, due to some past economic policies, the cost of going to college has risen dramatically
It is predicted that the removal of many artificial privileges will greatly diminish the material differences that currently separate many families.Originally Posted by Zanthorus
But who said that I didn't want to put in place new communal and democratic structures? I expect a great deal of them to emerge, because there will be every incentive in doing so.Originally Posted by Zanthorus
I do not wish to abolish such discrimination, even though I find it irrational, because its abolishment would require a level of supreme centralized power in the hands of a few that could corrupt its users.Originally Posted by Zanthorus
I do think there would be incentives for others to support the people who are discriminated (ie: a restaurant who does not allow "black" people to enter would lose "black" customers to another one which allowed them).
Well i'm not culturally right-wing, nor have I any affiliation with the mises forums, so I do not understand the analogy.Originally Posted by Zanthorus
To speculate is human; to hedge, divine
You're still missing the point. Even if someone did have the time and money to set up a non-profit school for people who couldn't afford it the acess to resources would still be far below that afforded to the upper strata of society. Hence-inequality of oppurtunity.
I'd like to pause for a moment to let in how utterly backwards your free-market ideology is in that it means that most education institutions will have to be based on profit to survive.
That only shows colledge costs. In a free-market we'd all have to pay for our childs education from birth. I'm also a little skeptical of the data since it says percentage rate growth in "dollar price", however it doesn't tell us how much of those resources were actually available. Also note how the graph starts during the Reagan years.Even in america around the fifties-onwards people most people could afford education by asking for low-interest loans. however, nowadays, due to some past economic policies, the cost of going to college has risen dramatically
"It is predicted" based on an economic theory that is rejected not only by mainstream economists but also by many heterodox economists. I just finished reading Steve Keen's Debunkin Economics. At the end he has a chapter on alternatives to mainstream economics. His analysis of the Austrian school is that it will probably serve as a fallback theory for market fundamentalists when neo-classical economics falls through and that it is basically just ideology.
The major failing of Austrian economics of course is that it assumes that the state is "imposed from above" on the market. However in man cases the state is forced to react to market for example - during Britains brief fling with monetarism when the government failed to keep control of the money supply. If even the Iron Lady can't help but adjust to the market what makes you think that the state is that fundamentally different to any other economic force?
From where?
Then you don't support equality of oppurtunity do you?
This is just plain ridiculous. These are cultural prejudices that can't be just wished away by the "invisible hand". This is shallow thinking at best.
"From the relationship of estranged labor to private property it follows further that the emancipation of society from private property, etc., from servitude, is expressed in the political form of the emancipation of the workers; not that their emancipation alone is at stake, but because the emancipation of the workers contains universal human emancipation – and it contains this because the whole of human servitude is involved in the relation of the worker to production, and all relations of servitude are but modifications and consequences of this relation."
- Karl Marx -
I dont understand your "would still be far below that afforded to the upper strata of society". It doesn't make any sense (gramatically speaking). Could you please reformulate it so I could address it better?
Its probably worth mentioning that I don't expect all communities to follow the "free-market" model. Some will undoubtedly be more closed so as to ensure no free-riders (commune communities, cooperative communities). I don't see any reason to suspect that free-trade communities will face the kind of problem you are posing (essentially that only rich can afford it).
It doesn't necessarily have to rely on profit. It just needs to have its gains equal to its costs of maintenance (wages, building maintenance, etc)Originally Posted by Zanthorus
Again, in a free-market, you're free to cooperate with others and afford the expense of other's children education.Originally Posted by Zanthorus
I am well aware that the fault lies in Reagan. I'm not an apologetic of him. I propose taxes to be cut bottom up, welfare top down (until neither exist), not the other way around.
Did you actually read the source I posted? You will be glad to find out it has barely anything to do with misean economics. Here are the sources it was based upon:Originally Posted by Zanthorus
Could you supply more data and evidence of the particular example you are talking about?Originally Posted by Zanthorus
From where what? Not everyone likes private property, just as not everyone likes collective property. Democratic institutions could certainly appear in the marketplace, given an atmosphere of equality of opportunity and the creation of mutual banks (as well as the abolition of many of the state's restrictions) would make it far more easier for workers to experience democracy in their workplace, leaving traditional private businesses severely reduced in size and number.Originally Posted by Zanthorus
Then you don't support freedom, do you?Originally Posted by Zanthorus
They can't be wished away by the "Iron Fist" as wellOriginally Posted by Zanthorus
To speculate is human; to hedge, divine
The thing is, its a cycle, economies are not static, the more capital someone has in comparason to the rest the more control he has over the economy and the less equality of opportunity there is for everyone else, which gives him the ability to make more capital, create less equality of opportunity and control more of the economy. You don't need a monopoly for this.
But you are ignoring that there will be processes which will prevent someone from accumulating such a high amount of capital
To speculate is human; to hedge, divine
Empirical evidence shows that diseconomy of scale is far far far outweighed by economies of scale, in otherwrods, the issues that come with having a large company (we arn't even talking aobut a large single company here, just a class with large amounds of capital) are far outweighd by the benefits.
Also this is not a processes you linked to, just economic theory, in other words you believe that aquireing large amounts of capital would be impossible, so with a market system classes would never arise, I say that you believing that is rediculous, just empirical evidence shows otherwise, countries with a so called "more free" market have much higher class differences, than social-democracies.
Show me proof of this so called "empirical evidence" first
To speculate is human; to hedge, divine
Rich people would have more stuff to help them learn than poor people. I really dont see what was so difficult to interpret about my language.
Maybe you should take off the ideological blinders then?
Yeah, let the poor and working classes pull themselves up by their own bootstraps!
Reagan implemented free market policies genius...
Except most of the sources are from Kevin Carson or Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Both follow some form of misesian economics.
What data exactly do you need? It's pretty simple really - the state couldn't control the money supply and was forced into reacting to market forces. If it was really the imposed gang of thieves upon the marketplace that austrians think it is then that shouldn't have happened.
I'm sure the bourgeoisie will be ever so willing to let the workers have control. Except of course they'll own all the property and it will be protected by other corporations...
hayenmill showing a total lack of understanding of how discrimination operates.
"From the relationship of estranged labor to private property it follows further that the emancipation of society from private property, etc., from servitude, is expressed in the political form of the emancipation of the workers; not that their emancipation alone is at stake, but because the emancipation of the workers contains universal human emancipation – and it contains this because the whole of human servitude is involved in the relation of the worker to production, and all relations of servitude are but modifications and consequences of this relation."
- Karl Marx -
You're already incorrectly conflating the current society, wherein only a lucky few achieve such level of wealth, with my proposed society with equality of opportunity and no artificial privileges granted by an institution with the monopoly on the use of force.
Its sad that you're starting to approximate the kind of low intellectual posting many people at revleft engage on.Originally Posted by ZanthorusYeah, let the poor and working classes pull themselves up by their own bootstraps!
Yeah, its certainly "free-market" to control the money supply...Originally Posted by Zanthorus
And it's certainly free-market to even allow corporations (which are legal fictions granted privilege by the state) to even exist, let alone collude with the state to decrease their taxes.
Kevin doesn't follow some form of misean economics, he integrates it with other concepts:Originally Posted by Zanthorus
"In his book he attempts to synthesize Austrian economics with the labor theory of value, or "Austrianize" it, by incorporating both subjectivism and time preference.[10]"
You just gave an example about Britain, why don't you show me the source from where you saw that example? Prove to me that the state couldn't control the money supply and was forced into reacting to those market forces.Originally Posted by Zanthorus
"As for the specific question asked by a reader related to the issue of how a Wal-Mart or McDonald’s might be communalized, I am skeptical as to whether or not large retail and fast food chains of the type we are currently familiar with could even exist in a genuine free market. The success of these chains results from their ability to undercut their local competitors with lower prices. But their lower prices are possible only because of the massive state subsidies to trucking, shipping, infrastructure, aviation, etc. If such corporations had to cover their own costs in these areas, they might not be able to compete with local alternatives.(12) "Originally Posted by Zanthorus
Perhaps you could show your gifts at sociology by explaining to me how discrimination operates.Originally Posted by Zanthorus
To speculate is human; to hedge, divine
The Whole freaking financial crash, which most respected economists blame on various deregulations during the 80s and 90s.
Also the fact that Social-Democracies have higher living standards than more free market types, such as the United States. I will look up stastics if you want to deny any of that.
Also before you rant, the fact that some regulation happened while a crash happened, is not causal evidence unless they can be connected, more than deregulation can be connected.
Really?
How can deregulation be blamed in an environment full or regulation and artificial privilege granted to corporations?
Go aheadOriginally Posted by RGacky3
Interesting that you think of my posts as "rants". It says a lot about your character.Originally Posted by RGacky3
To speculate is human; to hedge, divine
Don't fall into hayenmill's false paradigm BS. Of course deregulation has proven to be a failure. That is what happens when an elite are allowed unlimited access to resources.
Think of the car companies and the way they designed steering wheels that impaled drivers, used unsafe overall construction, and ignored safety measures. Or the way they kept back MPG standards (even Reagan had increased them).
This is the guy who claimed the all research in programming and computers was done by the free-market.
He's emphasizing the paradigm in which we have deregulation (free-markets) or where we have the government, the only actor large enough to joust with large institutions. Of course, even in this scenario it's easy to beat him at his own game, but it's a dishonest debate.
