NationStates Jolt Archive

In the literature suggested by posters here, and in what I have read elsewhere, almost all of the discussion about whether private police agencies would resort to violence, or peaceful arbitration, surround one question:

What will private police agencies do when there is a dispute between their clients?
Arbitrate.

Next stupid question?

Posters on these boards have tried to use the answer -- arbitrate because it is cheaper -- in reply to my concerns about the growing Mafia problems in AnarchoCappy Fantasyland.
Why would there be mafia problems? Y'see, you need to explain how it would happen, rather than assume that your employees will go along with you and that people won't gang up on you.

But this doesn't work. OF COURSE it's cheaper to arbitrate when you're dealing with an individual customer's conflict: BUT ONLY BECAUSE YOUR ASSUMED REVENUE IS WHAT YOU CAN EARN FROM CUSTOMERS ON THE FREE MARKET.
So you're assuming there's going to be a black market? Black markets exist only where there are laws preventing legitimate activity from happening, and I don't see how that would happen in the situation.

So basically, it says, "Look, there are competitive rates for protection. So if you start the expensive enterprise of violent resolutions, your revenue simply won't pay for it."

But my model is different. I suppose that I artificially inflate the violence experienced by non-customers, and then charge customers a ridiculous amount of money for my "protection." Now I can afford warfare.
No, you can't. You have contracts, and if you inflate the costs and incite violence, you will lose the contracts, despite what your Hollywood script says.

It might help to look at real-world examples like the Mafia. Which did just fine.
Not really. Especially in Italy, where the mafia is despised.

Of course, you might also notice that most of their "customers" were criminals themselves, who couldn't get protection from the Big Bad Government. So they were forced to rely on competing (criminal) private organizations. Then again, in AnarchoCappy Fantasyland, no one can get protection from the government, because it doesn't exist!!
I didn't see a point in that paragraph. Did one exist?

So, you want to take the Mafia situation and expand it to include... well, everything.
Only if you're making a movie.

Notice the National Enquirer beats the New York Times by some 500,000.
Was there a point to that?

The mafia picked-and-chose its battles, and didn't have a war all the time. Plus, they had fronts to make money. Private armies had bankrolls from people.[/QUOTES]

Good ideas, good ideas... so, I'll pick and choose my battles. No problem. Oh, and I'll set up fronts to make money. Why not? Anyone can start any business they want in AnarchoCappy Fantasyland, right? And, do you think no one will want to bankroll me... when I'm raking in the spoils of war??

[QUOTE=AnarchyeL]If they contract with other companies, we kill them.

Then you're going to be hunted down.

Gee, thank you Mr. Obvious. Didn't I already tell you I'm going to war here? So I take the risk of someone getting at me... I do own a protection agency, so I think I'll do all right.

And they won't gang up on you?

Sure!! If there's a profit in it. On the other hand, I expect that some of them might want to side with me... if I offer to split up the criminal market, and/or cut them in on the spoils. It's all about the $$$, right?

In this case, yes. You'd be expending tremendous resources fighting other defense agencies, who would pool their resources and get rid of you.

See above, dumbass.

Plus, how many of your employees would actually go for something like this in the first place? How many would blow the whistle? You do have to take that into account.

FINALLY!! You've actually said something intelligent here, and I give credit where credit is due. That's a good point. However, it doesn't break the bank on arguments for the "Mafia." First, I'll try to make it worth their while for the large salaries I'll pay. Second, I'll practice a true criminal tactic and make it clear to them what will happen to them if they do (trust me, it won't be pretty). I'll even make sure they know that it won't just be them I hurt, but their family, too.

Finally, I think by now it's pretty clear that I don't mind operating in the open... at least, once the operation is fairly well established. I'm prepared for war, remember?

Spread the word. Other companies would join in, most likely.

See above, dimwit.

You'd be hard-pressed to fight when munitions companies won't sell to you, or fuel companies won't sell to you.

Yes... yes, I would. But why would they do that, when I'm willing to buy so many weapons, not to mention the fact that I force everyone else to arm-up, too. Have you taken a look at munitions companies in the real world, jackass? Never seen them sell weapons to a dictator? I think ethics are far from their mind. Of course, you could argue that those citizens and police agencies that hate me so much would boycott them... HAHAHA!! Even better!! Demand goes down, and I get better prices!! That's just what you want, a single-buyer market!

Have any other suggestions designed to make you look stupid??

You'd be alone. Utterly.

Awww, baby, now you're just projecting.

Or not pay you and not suffer.

How will they manage that?

By being with another agency. You won't be able to stop it.

Ooops. You did have another point designed to make you look stupid. No, I can't stop them from signing a contract with someone else. But, I can kill them, which is what I've been saying all along. And if said agency tries to stop me, we'll be at war. But I'm prepared for that.

Similar situations have happened in the past.

Okay. You've successfully piqued my curiosity. When/where?

Well this thread has seemed to reach the point of most contraversial threads, insulting and stupid speculations. I am done.

AnarchyeL, yes I do agree with you that communism does have some very attractive characteristics.

That's a start. And let me reiterate that I'm not a communist, but I'll jump to its defense as "devil's advocate," since no one else seems to be doing so well.

How every even that argument skirts the basic issues of greed and laziness.

You're right that some theorists try to skirt the issue by just saying, "things will be different then," and that's not fair. However, we should flesh it out for a moment to see what they're getting at:

1. Communists, by and large, suppose that people will be free to choose occupations that they enjoy and/or find fulfilling. Surprisingly, for some capitalists, current research indicates that people may well work hard for things other than mere material rewards -- in a variety of surveys, workers list "salary/wage" low on a scale of things that matter most to them in a job.

2. Psychologists have noticed that when you start paying someone for something they've always done for free (for instance, feeding and changing their own children), they begin to value the activity LESS for its intrinsic merits... and they even say they will STOP doing it if you stop paying. Now, we (I happen to agree here, to some extent) theorize that if you increase the areas of human activity that are simply never understood in terms of wages, then you will also have created new areas of human activity in which the issues of greed and lazyness fail to apply.

So you see, communists' belief that "the world will be different then" actually has some empirical evidence to back it up. They tend to be optimists in thinking that, if you just eliminate the whole notion of "working for a wage," ALL or ALMOST all areas of human activity will be greed and lazyiness free. But we at least have to give them the credit they are due, and not dismiss the notion out-of-hand because it's difficult to imagine.

Why did Russia fail to achieve communism?

Whole books have been written on the subject. On these boards, you will find people who say, "That's not communism!!" What they really mean, whether they know it or not, is that if it was "communist," then it was at best only one version of communism. China had another, and Cuba has another (since the 70s at least).

Now, there may have been reasons that Russia failed that had nothing to do with its being communist -- you have to at least admit that there are a LOT of variables to take into account. On the other hand, what if it did fail because of its economic system? Well, then you can eliminate its system from the rolls of viable theories. However, communism is -- and always has been -- a family of theories. And a responsible scientist does not dismiss an entire family because one member fails. So, communism in general cannot be disproved by the failure of a few examples that do not represent the entire class.

The answer comes down to a simple principle: People are greedy. They want what they do not have.

The above argument about people changing aside... so what? Every good system has mechanisms to control for greed (or at least particular kinds). Capitalism, for instance, controls against theft (presumably motivated by greed) -- although it does not guard against greedy accumulation in general. A good communist system would probably be less worried about theft, since among its premises is relative economic equality... but instead it would guard against accumulation. Extremely progressive tax rates, perhaps... not to mention the fact that private individuals cannot own the means of production.

A regular household is not communism, there is a hierarchy, a class structure. Parents are best equated with dictators, and hopefully they are benevolent ones as I would say mine are. They utimately controll everything.

That's a straw man, and you know it! I doubt many communists expect that any social form would destroy the parent-child hierarchy. But this is (hopefully, as you point out) instituted for the benefit of the child, and relaxed as the child can make responsible decisions for her/himself. Moreover, parents do not use their authority to make their children work for them!! Quite the reverse, parents themselves work to support and care for very young children... until gradually the children are incorporated into the "chore" system set up for shared mutual benefit.

Now I have not lived in a communist community. But my parents have. And it ultimately failed. . . . Sure everyone helped take out the garbage, but many people worked harder than others to support them, not because the others couldn't work, but wouldn't work as hard or at all. This lead to jealousy, anger, and frustration. Eventually causeing the end of the community.

It sounds like their anger and frustration wasn't managed very well. I suppose some people wouldn't work as hard because they thought they would be taken care of anyway... and were they? Because there's nothing in communism -- in its most general form -- that says the community has to put up with freeloaders.

As for a more specific example, the community would pick apples in an orchard to earn money, which was then put in a community pot and distributed as needed. Everyone worked at the pace of the slowest person. On saturday it was decied that people could pick apples and take that money as personal money. With the same ammount of people they would accomplish more in that day than they did in two or three weekdays. Double the output.

Now, this is what we in social science call "case study" evidence. And there's nothing wrong with it, in principle. But one of the things that single-case evidence absolutely fails to do is identify conditional variables. What that means is that your example shows that effort correlates to individual returns. But the question it doesn't answer has to do with the scope of that theory: is it true in all cases, or only some? One way to figure this out is to find other cases that are very similar in result, but lack the independent variable -- the individual compensation, in this case. Many existing communes in the United States, for instance, report a very high return on their crops... but they are still communal. Why could this be?

I will not pretend to know the answer... only that I know the scope of the "individual pay = higher individual input" theory is not universal. I might venture a guess that it has to do with the quality of life at the beginning of the commune... Communes that begin in abject poverty will tend to reward individual incentive, communes that begin with relative wealth will attain a higher degree of comaraderie and communal feeling. Another possibility might be that communes started voluntarily do not require individual incentive. How did I make those guesses? Because those are some of the differences between the American communes and most European experiences with communism. That's how case study science is done.

The mafia picked-and-chose its battles, and didn't have a war all the time. Plus, they had fronts to make money. Private armies had bankrolls from people.
Good ideas, good ideas... so, I'll pick and choose my battles. No problem. Oh, and I'll set up fronts to make money.
...which will be found out.

Why not? Anyone can start any business they want in AnarchoCappy Fantasyland, right?
Oh, you mean Hollywood. I see. That's your problem: you think movies are real. "Antitrust" is called FICTION for a reason, bub.

And, do you think no one will want to bankroll me
Yes.

... when I'm raking in the spoils of war??
Prove that you would be.

If they contract with other companies, we kill them.

Then you're going to be hunted down.
Gee, thank you Mr. Obvious. Didn't I already tell you I'm going to war here? So I take the risk of someone getting at me... I do own a protection agency, so I think I'll do all right.
Do you, Julius Caesar?


And they won't gang up on you?
Sure!! If there's a profit in it. On the other hand, I expect that some of them might want to side with me... if I offer to split up the criminal market, and/or cut them in on the spoils. It's all about the $$$, right?
Only in Hollywood. You keep forgetting that. You keep thinking that movies are real.


In this case, yes. You'd be expending tremendous resources fighting other defense agencies, who would pool their resources and get rid of you.
See above, dumbass.
Ditto.


Plus, how many of your employees would actually go for something like this in the first place? How many would blow the whistle? You do have to take that into account.
FINALLY!! You've actually said something intelligent here,
On the contrary: everything I have said has been intelligent. You, OTOH, confuse movies with reality.

and I give credit where credit is due. That's a good point. However, it doesn't break the bank on arguments for the "Mafia."
There were none.

First, I'll try to make it worth their while for the large salaries I'll pay.
Which costs you ever more resources....

Second, I'll practice a true criminal tactic and make it clear to them what will happen to them if they do (trust me, it won't be pretty). I'll even make sure they know that it won't just be them I hurt, but their family, too.
And who is going to enforce this, hmmmmm? You just employ them. You know--they're the ones with the weapons, Julius. You think Brutus doesn't exist?

DUMBSHIT.

Finally, I think by now it's pretty clear that I don't mind operating in the open... at least, once the operation is fairly well established. I'm prepared for war, remember?
No, you're not.


Spread the word. Other companies would join in, most likely.
See above, dimwit.
Ditto.


You'd be hard-pressed to fight when munitions companies won't sell to you, or fuel companies won't sell to you.
Yes... yes, I would. But why would they do that,
Because they would lose out. People wouldn't trust them, either, for doing business with you.

Any other retorts designed to make you look stupid?


You'd be alone. Utterly.
Awww, baby, now you're just projecting.
Awwww, poor baby is projecting.


Or not pay you and not suffer.

How will they manage that?

By being with another agency. You won't be able to stop it.
No, I can't stop them from signing a contract with someone else. But, I can kill them,
Which means that you kill your customers. Fascinating. You flunked Business 101, didn't you?


Similar situations have happened in the past.
Okay. You've successfully piqued my curiosity. When/where?
Read this (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html).

Someone sent me this link, as if it would explain why I "couldn't" run my criminal police organization in a libertarian capitalist society.

Here, the argument boils down to, "Since warfare is expensive..."


No, that would be oversimplification.

I was quoting directly from the article. The problem is dismissed with that single clause... can you find a place where the author discusses it at length?

War is risky. You could lose -- BIG, but if you win, it can also be very profitable, too. (You know, like when America swoops in and starts grabbing all your oil and stuff.)


And who is paying for that war? Oh that's right--the TAXPAYERS.

Perhaps more accurately, "the taxpayers' children." Either way, though, it sucks. But, Bush wouldn't be there if there weren't something to be gained...

And the economy suffers.

Correction: some aspects of the economy suffer. Some people get unbelievably rich. And as for me in AnCap Fantasyland, I don't really care about "the economy"... all I care about is whether I will get rich. And that has nothing to do with whether stocks suffer because of instability... or any of the other reasons that general economies suffer during war-time. All it requires is that my benefit exceeds my cost.... and you still have to give me one goddamn reason why it won't.

There's no such thing as "market failure".

Hahahahahahahahaha!!! Damn, it's a good thing you're not an economist! They'd revoke your degree!!

Do you know what a market failure is?

No. No one does, since there's no such thing.


HA!! Hahahahahahahaha!!!

Sorry, I know I already did this... but I just had to get in a good laugh at that one.

Whoo!! I'm in tears!! HA!!

:D

crying that there is no such thing as market failure
So prove that there is. Now.

I can wait.

No, "all economists admit that there is" is not an valid answer. Try again.

As much as I like the ideals of communism there is sadly no way it can work in the current political environment. The USSR was not communist. The reason for this was 1) American political pressure caused the state to become nothing more than a production facility for weapons which, combined with communism, created a state in which there were no consumer goods this creates point 2) When there are no consumer goods peoples lives become more impoverished than when they were serfs under the Tsar which in turn leads to point 3) People with bad lives are angry at government, meaning that Stalin has to become brutal and effectively brainwash his people to hold on to his power.

The reason communism has never worked is the USA. Starting an arms race with the USSR leads to the ruin of its economy, the reason for its downfall in 91. In Vietnam going in and killing 5 million people effectively destroyed communism there. North Korea and China are scarred shitless that American Nukes will fall out of the sky at any moment.

An American survey found that 47% percent of Americans thought Hitler was communist. A person I know thought the Taliban in Afganistan was a communist "regime". So much propoganda is put out about communists that its no wonder no-one likes them.

I take my hat off to you America your brutall "democracy" *cough* has made sure that there will be nothing but capitalism for another 100 years. This of course benefits the world in general, where the richest .001% of the world's population control 70% of the worlds wealth.

If the person that makes your shiny new car cant afford to buy a car of his own we are not in a fair society.

If you are prepaired to start a war to maintain peace there is something wrong.

If the only country ever to use a nuclear weapon (against another country) has 8000 of them we are as good as dead.

Perhaps more accurately, "the taxpayers' children." Either way, though, it sucks. But, Bush wouldn't be there if there weren't something to be gained...

Yeah oil

Similar situations have happened in the past.

Okay. You've successfully piqued my curiosity. When/where?

Read this.

Thank you, I did. And while it goes a long way toward supporting some of the anarchist forms I do find attractive, it does absolutely nothing for your argument.

First of all, while legislative seats were privatized insofar as they could be bought and sold, they produced a nevertheless uniform body of law, which was administered by a common court system. The result is a very important set of guaranteed rights, in addition to guaranteed rights of prosecution, that your system fails to supply:


The function of the courts was to deliver verdicts on cases brought to them. That done, the court was finished. If the verdict went against the defendant, it was up to him to pay the assigned punishment--almost always a fine. If he did not, the plaintiff could go to court again and have the defendant declared an outlaw. The killer of an outlaw could not himself be prosecuted for the act; in addition, anyone who gave shelter to an outlaw could be prosecuted for doing so.

Importance? In your system, I can always pick on the poor, since the only way I can be prosecuted for it is if they happen to have a protection agency to do so. (Of course, I intend to make "poor" a pretty broad category when it comes to protection... since I will charge a lot, and any other agency will have to deal with me... and, being as I make it so costly, they will have to charge a lot, too.

Naturally, I expect at some point we'll just agree which customers belong to whom... you know, establish our turf. And then we'll all just continue to beat on anyone in our area that isn't protected. And we'll all make a killing.

Moreover, as your author points out, this system "worked" in a society whose "basic occupation was killing one another."

So I guess they managed to avoid extortion... because they just figured they'd be murdered anyway, and were content to take revenge as they could get it.

Of course, the Icelanders had some sensible solutions to these problems. For instance, "The Icelandic system dealt with this problem by giving the victim a property right--the right to be reimbursed by the criminal--and making that right transferable."

But again, a universal property right could only originate with some common set of laws. In your system, if I had no protection agency, how could I have a right? Certainly not one that I could sell... would a protection agency buy it to collect a fine (defined by whose law?)?? If they did so, why would anyone sign up for their protection service... since IF something happened, the person could GET PAID to have it enforced, rather than PAYING "in case" something happens??

Of course, the article points out other problems. For instance:

A second objection is that the rich (or powerful) could commit crimes with impunity, since nobody would be able to enforce judgment against them. Where power is sufficiently concentrated this might be true; this was one of the problems which led to the eventual breakdown of the Icelandic legal system in the thirteenth century.[35] But so long as power was reasonably dispersed, as it seems to have been for the first two centuries after the system was established, this was a less serious problem.

Show me a fully capitalist system in which wealth is distributed relatively equally, and you might have yourself an argument.

Moreover, the argument "from history" says nothing about the effects of technology. The system described assumes that everyone, relatively speaking, has access to the same weaponry, etc. Not so in the system you support. Not so at all.

Enforcement agencies which, between them, monopolize force... BAD idea. As long as they're behaving, they may be accountable to their customers. But once they decide otherwise, they are accountable ONLY to one another... and to how much money they can make.

You lose.

In America today, we still have starving children, people dying of preventable diseases or from simple lack of affordable healthcare, many people are completely illiterate, large corporations spend their time and money trying to find and exploit every loophole in the law, crony-ism is rampant, people are cut-throat and cold hearted with their fellow countrymen, and innocent children, animals and the evironment are the ones that pay the price for it all.

Yup, Capitalism SURE is working...........if by working you mean..........NOT BLOODY WORKING.

Look, no one system can do it all. Communism in it's self is not the answer. The answer is a hybrid system that takes the best aspects of Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism and combines them into a functioning system where every facet of society is heard, responded to, and is beneficiary.

Until you can learn to un-demonize alternative systems, you will continue to live in a linear, one dimesional world where the rare slim progress that is made will instantly be shredded by the next money and power hungry group to hold a position of authority.

Someone sent me this link, as if it would explain why I "couldn't" run my criminal police organization in a libertarian capitalist society.

Here, the argument boils down to, "Since warfare is expensive..."

No, that would be oversimplification.
I was quoting directly from the article. The problem is dismissed with that single clause... can you find a place where the author discusses it at length?

Imagine a society with no government. Individuals purchase law enforcement from private firms. Each such firm faces possible conflicts with other firms. Private policemen working for the enforcement agency that I employ may track down the burglar who stole my property only to discover, when they try to arrest him, that he too employs an enforcement agency.

There are three ways in which such conflicts might be dealt with. The most obvious and least likely is direct violence-a mini-war between my agency, attempting to arrest the burglar, and his agency attempting to defend him from arrest. A somewhat more plausible scenario is negotiation. Since warfare is expensive, agencies might include in the contracts they offer their customers a provision under which they are not obliged to defend customers against legitimate punishment for their actual crimes. When a conflict occured, it would then be up to the two agencies to determine whether the accused customer of one would or would not be deemed guilty and turned over to the other.

A still more attractive and more likely solution is advance contracting between the agencies. Under this scenario, any two agencies that faced a significant probability of such clashes would agree on an arbitration agency to settle them-a private court. Implicit or explicit in their agreement would be the legal rules under which such disputes were to be settled.

Under these circumstances, both law enforcement and law are private goods produced on a private market. Law enforcement is produced by enforcement agencies and sold directly to their customers. Law is produced by arbitration agencies and sold to the enforcement agencies, who resell it to their customers as one characteristic of the bundle of services they provide.[4]

The resulting legal system might contain many different law codes. The rules governing a particular conflict will depend on the arbitration agency that the enforcement agencies employed by the parties to the conflict have agreed on. While there will be some market pressure for uniformity, it is logically possible for every pair of enforcement agencies to agree on a different arbitration agency with a different set of legal rules.[5]

Indeed, one could have more diversity than that. Suppose there is some small group within the population with specialized legal requirements. An example might be members of a religious sect that forbade the taking of oaths, in a society where conventional legal procedure required such oaths. Such a group might have its own enforcement agency and let that agency negotiate appropriate legal rules on its behalf. Alternatively, an agency might produce a specialized product for members of the group by negotiating agreements under which those customers, if involved in litigation, were not required to swear the usual oaths.

As this example suggests, the potential legal diversity of such a system is very large; in principle, a different set of legal rules might apply between every pair of persons. In practice, such diversity will be constrained by costs of negotiation and by costs of legal diversity. The transaction costs of separately negotiating a different law code between every pair of persons would be prohibitively high, so it is likely that each pair of enforcement agencies will agree on a single law code interpreted by a single arbitration agency, with provisions for occasional variances of the sort described above.

Legal diversity has substantial costs. If, for example, contract terms enforceable against customers of agency A may be unenforceable against customers of B, that makes it more difficult and expensive for firms to draw up satisfactory contracts. Such costs will provide an incentive for arbitration agencies to adopt more uniform law, to be balanced against the incentive for non-uniform law provided by the differing desires of different customers.
You were saying something?

War is risky. You could lose -- BIG, but if you win, it can also be very profitable, too. (You know, like when America swoops in and starts grabbing all your oil and stuff.)

And who is paying for that war? Oh that's right--the TAXPAYERS.
Perhaps more accurately, "the taxpayers' children."
Aren't the taxpayers paying for it now?

Either way, though, it sucks. But, Bush wouldn't be there if there weren't something to be gained...
Oh please. Bush is there because he's on a New Holy Crusade against the Muslim Haters of Jesus.


And the economy suffers.
Correction: some aspects of the economy suffer.
Correction: all aspects of the economy suffer.

Mises on War

By Ludwig von Mises

[Special Edition, March 21, 2003]

War…is harmful, not only to the conquered but to the conqueror. Society has arisen out of the works of peace; the essence of society is peacemaking. Peace and not war is the father of all things. Only economic action has created the wealth around us; labor, not the profession of arms, brings happiness. Peace builds, war destroys. (Socialism, p. 59)

The market economy involves peaceful cooperation. It bursts asunder when the citizens turn into warriors and, instead of exchanging commodities and services, fight one another. (1st Ed. Human Action, p. 817 ; 3rd Ed. Human Action, p. 821)

Economically considered, war and revolution are always bad business. (Nation, State, and Economy, p. 152)

The market economy means peaceful cooperation and peaceful exchange of goods and services. It cannot persist when wholesale killing is the order of the day. (Interventionism: An Economic Analysis, p. 67)

War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings. The earthquake means good business for construction workers, and cholera improves the business of physicians, pharmacists, and undertakers; but no one has for that reason yet sought to celebrate earthquakes and cholera as stimulators of the productive forces in the general interest. (Nation, State, and Economy, p. 154)

There have been...in all other nations, eulogists of aggression, war, and conquest. (Omnipotent Government, p. 232)

War can really cause no economic boom, at least not directly, since an increase in wealth never does result from destruction of goods. (Nation, State, and Economy, p. 154)

[T]he essence of so-called war prosperity; it enriches some by what it takes from others. It is not rising wealth but a shifting of wealth and income. (Nation, State, and Economy, p. 158)

War is… a destroyer and annihilator, in short, as an evil that strikes all, victor as well as vanquished. (Nation, State, and Economy, p. 86)

The philosophy of protectionism is a philosophy of war. The wars of our age are not at variance with popular economic doctrines; they are, on the contrary, the inescapable result of consistent application of these doctrines. (1st Ed. Human Action, p. 683; 3rd Ed. Human Action, p. 687)

Whoever wishes peace among peoples must fight statism. (Nation, State, and Economy, p. 77)

Modern society, based as it is on the division of labor, can be preserved only under conditions of lasting peace. (Liberalism, p. 44)

[O]nly tolerance can create and preserve the condition of social peace without which humanity must relapse into the barbarism and penury of centuries long past. (Liberalism, p. 56)

Modern war is not a war of royal armies. It is a war of the peoples, a total war. It is a war of states which do not leave to their subjects any private sphere; they consider the whole population a part of the armed forces. Whoever does not fight must work for the support and equipment of the army. Army and people are one and the same. The citizens passionately participate in the war. For it is their state, their God, who fights. (Omnipotent Government, p. 104)

Men are fighting one another because they are convinced that the extermination of adversaries is the only means of promoting their own well-being. (1st Ed. Human Action, p. 175; 3rd Ed. Human Action, p. 176)

The existence of the armaments industries is a consequence of the warlike spirit, not its cause. (1st Ed. Human Action, p. 297; 3rd Ed. Human Action, p. 300)

What basis for war could there still be, once all peoples had been set free? (Nation, State, and Economy, p. 34)

[V]ictorious war is an evil even for the victor, that peace is always better than war. (Liberalism, p. 24)

Wars, foreign and domestic (revolutions, civil wars), are more likely to be avoided the closer the division of labor binds men. (Critique of Interventionism, p. 115)

War is the alternative to freedom of foreign investment as realized by the international capital market. (1st Ed. Human Action, p. 498; 3rd Ed. Human Action, p. 502)

The statement that one man's boon is the other man's damage is valid with regard to robbery, war, and booty. The robber's plunder is the damage of the despoiled victim. But war and commerce are two different things. (1st Ed. Human Action, p. 662; 3rd Ed. Human Action, p. 666)

It is certainly true that our age is full of conflicts which generate war. However, these conflicts do not spring from the operation of the unhampered market society. It may be permissible to call them economic conflicts because they concern that sphere of human life which is, in common speech, known as the sphere of economic activities. But it is a serious blunder to infer from this appellation that the source of these conflicts are conditions which develop within the frame of a market society. It is not capitalism that produces them, but precisely the anticapitalistic policies designed to check the functioning of capitalism. They are an outgrowth of the various governments' interference with business, of trade and migration barriers and discrimination against foreign labor, foreign products, and foreign capital. (1st Ed. Human Action, p. 680; 3rd Ed. Human Action, p. 684)

What has transformed the limited war between royal armies into total war, the clash between peoples, is not technicalities of military art, but the substitution of the welfare state for the laissez-faire state. (1st Ed. Human Action, p. 820; 3rd Ed. Human Action, p. 824 )

Under laissez faire peaceful coexistence of a multitude of sovereign nations is possible. Under government control of business it is impossible. (1st Ed. Human Action, p. 820; 3rd Ed. Human Action, p. 824)

Of course, in the long run war and the preservation of the market economy are incompatible. Capitalism is essentially a scheme for peaceful nations. (1st Ed. Human Action, p. 824; 3rd Ed. Human Action, p. 828)

What the incompatibility of war and capitalism really means is that war and high civilization are incompatible. If the efficiency of capitalism is directed by governments toward the output of instruments of destruction, the ingenuity of private business turns out weapons which are powerful enough to destroy everything. What makes war and capitalism incompatible with one another is precisely the unparalleled efficiency of the capitalist mode of production. (1st Ed. Human Action, p. 824; 3rd Ed. Human Action, p. 828)

The emergence of the international division of labor requires the total abolition of war. (1st Ed. Human Action, p. 827; 3rd Ed. Human Action, p. 831)

Modern war is merciless, it does not spare pregnant women or infants; it is indiscriminate killing and destroying. It does not respect the rights of neutrals. Millions are killed, enslaved, or expelled from the dwelling places in which their ancestors lived for centuries. Nobody can foretell what will happen in the next chapter of this endless struggle. This has little to do with the atomic bomb. The root of the evil is not the construction of new, more dreadful weapons. It is the spirit of conquest. It is probable that scientists will discover some methods of defense against the atomic bomb. But this will not alter things, it will merely prolong for a short time the process of the complete destruction of civilization. (1st Ed. Human Action, p. 828; 3rd Ed. Human Action, p. 832)

To defeat the aggressors is not enough to make peace durable. The main thing is to discard the ideology that generates war. (1st Ed. Human Action, p. 828; 3rd Ed. Human Action, p. 832)

The attainment of the economic aims of man presupposes peace, (Socialism, p. 62)

Social development is always a collaboration for joint action; the social relationship always means peace, never war. Death-dealing actions and war are anti-social. All those theories which regard human progress as an outcome of conflicts between human groups have overlooked this truth. (Socialism, p. 279)

Within a world of free trade and democracy there are no incentives for war and conquest. (Omnipotent Government, p. 3)

But what is needed for a satisfactory solution of the burning problem of international relations is neither a new office with more committees, secretaries, commissioners, reports, and regulations, nor a new body of armed executioners, but the radical overthrow of mentalities and domestic policies which must result in conflict. (Omnipotent Government, p. 6)

If some peoples pretend that history or geography gives them the right to subjugate other races, nations, or peoples, there can be no peace. (Omnipotent Government, p. 15)

For only in peace can the economic system achieve its ends, the fullest satisfaction of human needs and wants. (Omnipotent Government, p. 50)

It is not a shortcoming of the liberal program for international peace that it cannot be realized within an antiliberal world and that it must fail in an age of interventionism and socialism. (Omnipotent Government, p. 91)

Wars of aggression are popular nowadays with those nations which are convinced that only victory and conquest could improve their material well-being. (Omnipotent Government, p. 104)

The old liberals were right in asserting that no citizen of a liberal and democratic nation profits from a victorious war. (Omnipotent Government, p. 104)

Social cooperation and war are in the long run incompatible… But within the social system of cooperation and division of labor war means disintegration. The progressive evolution of society requires the progressive elimination of war. Under present conditions of international division of labor there is no room left for wars. The great society of world-embracing mutual exchange of commodities and services demands a peaceful coexistence of states and nations. (Omnipotent Government, p. 122)

If men do not now succeed in abolishing war, civilization and mankind are doomed. (Omnipotent Government, p. 122)

If you want to abolish war, you must eliminate its causes. What is needed is to restrict government activities to the preservation of life, health, and private property, and thereby to safeguard the working of the market. Sovereignty must not be used for inflicting harm on anyone, whether citizen or foreigner. (Omnipotent Government, p. 138)

The market economy involves peaceful cooperation and bursts asunder when people, instead of exchanging commodities and services, are fighting one another. (The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science p. 92)

Only one thing can conquer war--that liberal attitude of mind which can see nothing in war but destruction and annihilation, and which can never wish to bring about a war, because it regards war as injurious even to the victors. (Theory of Money and Credit, p. 433)

Where liberalism prevails, there will never be war. (The Theory of Money and Credit, p. 433)

If war is regarded as advantageous, then laws . . . will not be allowed to stand in the way of going to war. On the first day of any war, all the laws opposing obstacles to it will be swept aside. (The Theory of Money and Credit, p. 434)

The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is, of course, the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism. (The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science p. 137)

He who wants to prepare a lasting peace must…be a free-trader and a democrat and work with decisiveness for the removal of all political rule over colonies by a mother country and fight for the full freedom of movements of persons and goods. (Nation, State, and Economy, p. 86)

If one wants to make peace, then one must get rid of the possibility of conflicts between peoples. (Nation, State, and Economy, p. 86)

If one holds the view that there are irreconcilable class antagonisms between the individual strata of society that cannot be resolved except by the forcible victory of one class over others, if one believes that no contacts between individual nations are possible except those whereby one wins what the other loses, then, of course, one must admit that revolutions at home and wars abroad cannot be avoided. (Nation, State, and Economy, p. 87)

Whoever wants peace among nations must seek to limit the state and its influence most strictly. (Nation, State, and Economy, p. 94)

The way to eternal peace does not lead through strengthening state and central power, as socialism strives for. (Nation, State, and Economy, p. 96)

[W]ith the progress of the division of labor we see the number of wars and battles diminishing ever more and more. The spirit of industrialism, which is indefatigably active in the development of trade relations, undermines the warlike spirit. (Nation, State, and Economy, p. 150)

Liberalism rejects aggressive war not on philanthropic grounds but from the standpoint of utility. It rejects aggressive war because it regards victory as harmful, and it wants no conquests because it sees them as an unsuitable means for reaching the ultimate goals for which it strives. Not through war and victory but only through work can a nation create the preconditions for the well-being of its members. Conquering nations finally perish, either because they are annihilated by strong ones or because the ruling class is culturally overwhelmed by the subjugated. (Nation, State, and Economy, p. 87)

History has witnessed the failure of many endeavors to impose peace by war, cooperation by coercion, unanimity by slaughtering dissidents…. A lasting order cannot be established by bayonets. (Omnipotent Government, p. 7)

Whoever on ethical grounds wants to maintain war permanently for its own sake as a feature of relations among peoples must clearly realize that this can happen only at the cost of the general welfare, since the economic development of the world would have to be turned back at least to the state of the year 1830 to realize this martial ideal even only to some extent. (Nation, State, and Economy, p. 151)

The losses that the national economy suffers from war, apart from the disadvantages that exclusion from world trade entails, consist of the destruction of goods by military actions, of the consumption of war material of all kinds, and of the loss of productive labor that the persons drawn into military service would have rendered in their civilian activities. Further losses from loss of labor occur insofar as the number of workers is lastingly reduced by the number of the fallen and as the survivors become less fit in consequence of injuries suffered, hardships undergone, illnesses suffered, and worsened nutrition. (Nation, State, and Economy, p. 151–52)

There are circumstances which make the consumption of capital unavoidable. A costly war cannot be financed without such a damaging measure….There may arise situations in which it may be unavoidable to burn down the house to keep from freezing, but those who do that should realize what it costs and what they will have to do without later on. (Interventionism: an Economic Analysis, p. 52)

It is not the war profits of the entrepreneurs that are objectionable. War itself is objectionable! (Interventionism: an Economic Analysis, p. 74)

From the beginning the intention prevailed in all socialist groups of dropping none of the measures adopted during the war after the war but rather of advancing on the way toward the completion of socialism. (Nation, State, and Economy, p. 176)

[A]ggressors cannot wage total war without introducing socialism. (Interventionism: an Economic Analysis, p. 70)

The great British economist Edwin Cannan (1861–1935) wrote that if anyone had the impertinence to ask him what he did in the Great War, he would answer, "I protested." (Economic Freedom and Interventionism, p. 172.)
You were saying something?

Some people get unbelievably rich.
No, that's just illusory.

And as for me in AnCap Fantasyland, I don't really care about "the economy"... all I care about is whether I will get rich.
Oh, you're still in Hollywood. I see.

You have yet to give me one reason why your scenario works. Until then, consider it DOA.


There's no such thing as "market failure".
Hahahahahahahahaha!!! Damn, it's a good thing you're not an economist! They'd revoke your degree!!

The Market Failure Myth

by D.W. MacKenzie

[Posted August 29, 2002]

The term "market failure" came into frequent use by economists during the 20th century. During the 1930s, economists like Joan Robinson and Abba Lerner succeeded in focusing the attention of their colleagues on imperfections in market prices.[i] Deviations from optimal prices in markets were responsible for failures to direct resources to their most highly valued uses. Thus, markets supposedly fail on efficiency grounds.

By focusing on efficiency in the use of scarce resources and failures in markets to do so, interventionist-minded economists try to show that their concerns are utilitarian and scientific. There is nothing inherently wrong with having such concerns. Ludwig von Mises demonstrated the importance of distinguishing between value-free economic analysis of how to attain ends in and normative discussion of what ends we should attain. It is, however, important to also distinguish between those with genuine concerns of this kind and those who instead only appear to have them.

The debate over market failure is vast, but a few exchanges stand out as important. Economists Kenneth Arrow and Harold Demsetz had an exchange several years ago that deserves some attention. Arrow contended[ii] that free-enterprise economies underinvest in research and invention because of risk. Arrow also asserted that an "ideal socialist economy" would supply such information free of charge, thus separating the use of and the reward for producing such information.

In the late '60s, Demsetz penned a devastating critique of Arrow's arguments on information, and of the "market failure" literature in general.[iii] To Demsetz, markets fall short of perfection, but so does government. To point to market imperfections as proof of the need for government intervention, he said, is to indulge in the "Nirvana Fallacy," whereby we compare allegedly imperfect real markets to imaginary governmental institutions that lack even the smallest imperfection.

Now, a vast literature exists on the imperfections of government in allocating resources. Yet, many economists still recommend government intervention to correct market failures, often without also considering the possibility of government failure. Why is this so? We can better understand this reluctance to make reasonable comparisons between markets and government if we examine what a leading economist has to say about these matters.

Joseph Stiglitz is among the most prominent proponents of government intervention. In particular, Stiglitz has written many papers on informational problems in markets. While Stiglitz has a reputation for favoring intervention, he has seemed not altogether unreasonable about these matters in the past. Stiglitz once claimed (with Sanford Grossman)[iv] that markets are not perfect aggregators of information. From this, he and Grossman concluded that we need a greater understanding of how central authorities use information before we can tell if they use information better than in markets.

Stiglitz arrived at the conclusion that government can improve upon welfare even when it faces serious informational constraints, because its incentives and other constraints are better than in markets. At the time that Stiglitz made this claim, we could easily have afforded him some reasonable doubts concerning his knowledge of how government works. Academics often lack real-world experience, and this was largely true in Stiglitz's case. However, Stiglitz did make a foray into the public sector.

Stiglitz notes[v] that, upon embarking on his venture into the public sector, some friends of his suggested that he might return from Washington "a bit more jaundiced about the role of government." This came to pass. During his stint in the Clinton administration, Stiglitz identified four problems in government: commitment problems, bargaining problems, imperfect competition, and asymmetric information. Stiglitz now believes that these problems prevent the government from implementing efficient policies. He also contends that incentives for secrecy in government are central to these problems.

Stiglitz now admits that government does suffer from imperfections. Thus, he now has the knowledge of how governments use information--knowledge that he lacked years ago. How does Stiglitz interpret the lessons he learned from his Washington experience?

"Making government processes more open, transparent, democratic and more participation and effort at consensus building is likely to result not only in a process that is fairer, but one with outcomes that are more likely to be in accord with the general interests. Perhaps we can bring [efficiency] to government" ("Distinguished Lecture on Economics in Government: The Private Uses of Public Interests: Incentives and Institutions," Journal of Economic Perspective 12, no. 2. [Spring 1998]: 3-22).

So he hopes that we can make government more efficient. But why should we make this effort? If government has serious failings that prevent its efficient operation, should we not at least consider free-market capitalism as an alternative? Or are we for some reason obligated to bend over backward to make government work efficiently?

One might expect that, after seeing government failure first hand, Professor Stiglitz would at least consider the possibility that we can get better results from free markets. Considering that he has in the past claimed not to know which is more efficient, markets or government, one might expect such an objective scholar to comment favorably on privatization after witnessing government failure.

After all, objective scholars, concerned only with economic efficiency, should simply accept the facts as they are. Instead, however, Stiglitz holds out hope that we can improve upon the efficiency of government. The fact that he never held out such hopes about free markets further illustrates his bias. Objective scholars arrive at conclusions based on sound reasoning and valid evidence rather than on wishful thinking.

Given that Professor Stiglitz is apparently immune to all arguments and evidence for markets and against government, we must conclude that he is not at all concerned with value-free economic analysis aimed toward finding the most efficient means toward given ends. Instead, he sees the expansion of government as the end that we should pursue.

Stiglitz is by no means alone in his passion for government. Indeed, he owes his prominence in the profession to the admiration of his work by many of his peers. It is therefore reasonable to suspect like-minded economists of ideological bias as well.

Such persons hide their biases behind a veil of technical jargon as they pursue their ideologically driven goals. The failings of big government during the 20th century matter not to their goals because the expansion of government is their goal. They are not concerned with what system works best, but with how best to promote the system that they want to see work.

There is nothing inherently wrong with attempts to establish ends for us to aim at in economic matters. Those who desire more government simply for its own sake, however, should at least be honest about their intentions. Instead of pretending to be concerned with efficiency, Professor Stiglitz and others like him should admit that are advocates of particular ends rather than analysts of different means.

If their ideological convictions for government have merit, then they should be anxious to explain them. If their beliefs lack merit, then they should accept this graciously. In either case, it is clear that all too many economists are not interested in an open and honest debate over these issues. Instead, they use deceptive rhetoric about market failure to hide their true agenda: the expansion and empowerment of the state.
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1035&id=71

During the Russian civil war in the 1920s, Lenin did try to get rid of the capitalist idea of 'profit' by introducing a policy which insisted that everyone had to give up their excess produce to the state. Needless to say, this resulted in peasants purposefully producing less and burning any excess they did produce simply to show how they hated being deprived of an oppurtunity to make a profit.

Wrong, look back a few years to the initial period of the revolution, or look at the Ukraine at the same time, and you'll see that the people had no problem with true communism, sharing what they produced with the people around them. What they did have a problem with was: a. how the Bolsheviks destroyed the free soviets, b. how they just seemed to have replaced the autocracy of the Tzar with the autocracy of the Bolsheviks and, most importantly, c. the Party faithful who collected the excess for the "state" were fat, bloated and well off while they were being left with crumbs. The Russian people didn't hate communism, they hated the new state.

Marx's principle was a wonderful idea, but tragically human nature prevents it from ever being put into practice.

Except you're pointing to the wrong aspect of human nature. Communism lasted a few months in Russia and then the tragic willingness of the people to allow the Bolsheviks take over destroyed the revolution and replaced Tsarism with Bolshevism. The flaw in Marxism is that retaining the state leaves the system open to being corrupted by a power-hungry minority.

Vas.

So prove that there is. Now.

I can wait.

No, "all economists admit that there is" is not an valid answer. Try again.


Well, it may not be a "proof"... but it's some pretty significant evidence when we're talking about economics.

Okay... The whole point of the market is that it's really good at allocating resources. That is, it puts things and people where they "should be" so that everyone can have what they want (and are able to pay for). All based on that simple, non-coercive price mechanism, the "right" amount of things is produced.

Which, really, is not a bad definition for what an economy, in general, is supposed to do.

In economics, when the allocation of goods and resources is such that "every transfer that can be made, has been made," we say that the economy is "in equilibrium," or "Pareto optimum."

BAAWA, you should like this... it's the basis for the conception of value that disproves the Labor Theory.


Anyway, in theory the market should tend towards equilibrium, all by itself -- no one has to tell anyone what to do. "Selected for" goods -- the ones people want to buy -- get produced, while production on other goods declines.

However, even in theory there are some cases in which the market fails to naturally produce equilibrium -- and in actual fact there are even more.

There are several common reasons... organizing costs, information costs, or freeloading among them... that market failures occur. But there is no doubt that they occur. And that's generally thought to be a bad thing. (Unless you're Ronald Coase, in which case you just shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, we can't do any better.")

It will be perhaps most helpful if I provide some examples:

1. Externalities, which come in both positive and negative types. An externality is an effect that a transaction has... on people not party to the transaction. Pollution is a commonly cited negative externality: Mike's company burns coal to produce power, which he sells to people in Philadelphia, 50 miles away. Meanwhile, Mike's neighbors get covered in smoke. The price of Mike's power accurately transmits Philadelphia's demand for power... but it fails to transmit his neighbors' desire for clean air. Here the market can be corrected... when the government steps in and sets up a system of pollution permits -- which of course can be bought and sold on the market, but the law for them wouldn't exist without government authority. (There is a "truer" market solution, but it fails because of organizing costs -- another failure.) Common positive externalities are education and flower gardens. Education: everyone benefits when the people around them are better educated (for instance, it's easier to use a reasoned argument with them), but the only people who get an education are those who can pay for it. If the people who are getting a benefit (all of us) pay something for it, there might be more education. There is thus an undersupply of education. Gardens: I spend my time and money creating a flower garden, but my neighbors get some of the benefit -- a prettier landscape. If they actually paid for what they receive for free, I would be able to plant more flowers... There is thus an undersupply of flower gardens.

2. Firms. Probably the most common market failure, recognizable more for its "solution" than for its cause. See, the market is based on free exchange, with allocation determined through the price structure. But all over the market, there are these little pockets of authority systems: the capitalist firm. Now, there is dispute amongst economists over what causes it... but everyone agrees that it is a little island where the market stops operating, so it must constitute a failure. One possible cause: information and negotiating costs. If I were to wake up every morning and try to figure out where I could get the best price for my labor services, and possibly negotiate the price... well, no one would get very far. So, the firm develops a contract that gives allocating authority to the entrepreneur (or his managers) in order to save on information costs. Within the firm, the manager decides which resources (human, material, etc.) go to which departments NOT based on which departments can "pay for them" but authoritatively based on what he believes will be the most efficient allocation. Another possible cause is shirking -- in cooperative labor, as we have discussed so many times, you cannot always tell who is contributing based on the output. So, workers agree to work under a manager because they need a manager to prevent shirking... he or she will monitor non-output indicators such as tardyness, length of breaks, attitude, etc. and distribute wages based on these. In any case, a firm is not a market, so since it occurs WITHIN markets it is PROBABLY a market failure.

Read this.
Thank you, I did. And while it goes a long way toward supporting some of the anarchist forms I do find attractive, it does absolutely nothing for your argument.
Except that it does something.

First of all, while legislative seats were privatized insofar as they could be bought and sold, they produced a nevertheless uniform body of law, which was administered by a common court system. The result is a very important set of guaranteed rights, in addition to guaranteed rights of prosecution, that your system fails to supply:
No, it does supply such.


The function of the courts was to deliver verdicts on cases brought to them. That done, the court was finished. If the verdict went against the defendant, it was up to him to pay the assigned punishment--almost always a fine. If he did not, the plaintiff could go to court again and have the defendant declared an outlaw. The killer of an outlaw could not himself be prosecuted for the act; in addition, anyone who gave shelter to an outlaw could be prosecuted for doing so.
Importance? In your system, I can always pick on the poor,
No, you can't.

since the only way I can be prosecuted for it is if they happen to have a protection agency to do so.
Strawman.

Naturally, I expect at some point we'll just agree which customers belong to whom... you know, establish our turf. And then we'll all just continue to beat on anyone in our area that isn't protected. And we'll all make a killing.
Only in a movie.

Moreover, as your author points out, this system "worked" in a society whose "basic occupation was killing one another."
They came from Viking stock. They were, of course, far more peaceful than their Norwegian bretheren.

So I guess they managed to avoid extortion... because they just figured they'd be murdered anyway, and were content to take revenge as they could get it.
No, they didn't like the idea of a centralized government and established something quite different.

Of course, the Icelanders had some sensible solutions to these problems. For instance, "The Icelandic system dealt with this problem by giving the victim a property right--the right to be reimbursed by the criminal--and making that right transferable."

But again, a universal property right could only originate with some common set of laws. In your system, if I had no protection agency, how could I have a right?
Same way. What--you think there's only ONE SYSTEM in place? Fuck, are you stupid.


A second objection is that the rich (or powerful) could commit crimes with impunity, since nobody would be able to enforce judgment against them. Where power is sufficiently concentrated this might be true; this was one of the problems which led to the eventual breakdown of the Icelandic legal system in the thirteenth century.[35] But so long as power was reasonably dispersed, as it seems to have been for the first two centuries after the system was established, this was a less serious problem.
Show me a fully capitalist system in which wealth is distributed relatively equally, and you might have yourself an argument.
Wrong.

Moreover, the argument "from history" says nothing about the effects of technology.
Irrelevant. You pretty much said it never happened. That it was pretty much from another planet. Well I showed that it's from Earth. Just like you wanted.

The system described assumes that everyone, relatively speaking, has access to the same weaponry, etc. Not so in the system you support. Not so at all.
Really? Care to show it?

Enforcement agencies which, between them, monopolize force...
....exist only in a governmental situation.

You lose.

Yes, though I can't remember how to use it. You'll want to know the mod ruling that publically stating you've ignored someone is flamebait.

I think BWAHAHA(sumeone stole my sooder) is a special case, as he's quite obviously a troll (and has been noticed by the mods - as have I, but I've been good since then).

Vas.

Well, it may not be a "proof"... but it's some pretty significant evidence when we're talking about economics.
Not really. Especially when you read the article I posted.

Okay... The whole point of the market is that it's really good at allocating resources. That is, it puts things and people where they "should be" so that everyone can have what they want (and are able to pay for). All based on that simple, non-coercive price mechanism, the "right" amount of things is produced.

Which, really, is not a bad definition for what an economy, in general, is supposed to do.

In economics, when the allocation of goods and resources is such that "every transfer that can be made, has been made," we say that the economy is "in equilibrium," or "Pareto optimum."
Pareto optimum is where you can't make someone better off without making someone else worse off from their ex ante position.

BAAWA, you should like this... it's the basis for the conception of value that disproves the Labor Theory.

Anyway, in theory the market should tend towards equilibrium, all by itself -- no one has to tell anyone what to do. "Selected for" goods -- the ones people want to buy -- get produced, while production on other goods declines.

However, even in theory there are some cases in which the market fails to naturally produce equilibrium
The market isn't supposed to produce equilibrium. Classical economists are wrong.

-- and in actual fact there are even more.

There are several common reasons... organizing costs, information costs, or freeloading among them... that market failures occur.
Still assuming that there is such a thing. Can't do that.

1. Externalities,
The "Externalities" Argument

by Jacob Halbrooks

[Posted October 30, 2003]

The idea of externalities is highly intuitive; it makes sense that the actions of one affect the happiness of others. A positive externality occurs when one's actions benefit people who were not directly involved in exchange. Think of the benefit a man receives when passing a beautiful woman on the sidewalk.

On the other hand, a negative externality imposes a cost on third parties. A factory polluting your air or water supply is a typical example of one. Many economists use the idea of externalities as the basis for public policy recommendations: a tax or subsidy to "make up" the external costs. In fact, most government functions at one time or another have been justified on the basis of externalities. But do externalities really have a meaningful role in economics?

One traditional Austrian treatment of externalities is to advocate the enforcement of property rights. In the property rights solution to correcting externalities, one is made to pay only for physical harm done to another's property. This, of course, only applies to externalities where one's property rights have been infringed upon. Mises explains how the system of private property removed the externalities from the use of the (former) commons. He further argues that subsequent externalities "could be removed by a reform of the laws concerning liability for damages inflicted and by rescinding the institutional barriers preventing the full operation of private ownership."

However, in order for liability suits to correct externalities, it must be clear that the adjudged cost of restitution is equal to the amount of the externality. But even if we know the correct market price to pay for the damaged property, what about the value of psychic damage? Here, Mises is committing a similar error as Coase did when he claimed that the liability decision of a court will not affect the allocation of resources (given zero transaction costs). If, for example, factory pollution will destroy an object of high sentimental value but low market value, the property owner might not have the means to bribe the factory owner to cease polluting. In this case, Coase's Theorem does not hold true. Likewise, if a liability decision accounts only for the market value of destroyed property, the externality will not be "corrected" for objects with any sentimental value.

A more modern Austrian approach to externalities is to show that they are impossible to calculate on a meaningful scale. Rothbard showed that traditional welfare economics was flawed because it is impossible to make an interpersonal comparison of utility. In other words, happiness cannot be measured on a quantitative scale in the same way voltage can be. This means that it is impossible to rationally calculate the utility gained or lost through government intervention.

Since the tax or subsidy proposed to correct an externality must be accomplished through some sort of government coercion, it is clear that not everyone will expect to benefit from the policy. How then are we to decide whether the policy's results add to net social utility or not? No number can be calculated, even in theory, to provide the net benefit from intervention, or even to say if the net benefit is positive or negative. One can only expect an increase in net benefit through the voluntary actions of people; an act indicates a preference for that chosen action over all other available options. The result is that the declaration of an externality is purely arbitrary.

The analysis above on the nature of utility is satisfactory for discrediting the idea of using externalities as a rational basis for government policy decisions. However, one need not even go this far, as the idea of externalities can be discarded on purely methodological grounds.

Externalities are defined such that the person seated with the cost or benefit has not acted. In the case of property damage, the owner's resources have been used without consent. In other externalities, the person receiving the cost or benefit is an innocent bystander. It is because the individuals do not act in these situations that economists made a separate category to describe the effects on their utility. If a person acts, it demonstrates preference and expected maximization of marginal utility; an externality is the affect of an action on another's utility.

But it is precisely because externalities cannot be revealed through human action that they are irrelevant to the study of economics. As such, the idea of externalities cannot result in any additional knowledge about economics.

It might be objected that the case of one person damaging another's property demonstrates a negative externality. However, it could be that the property owner approves of the new state and only did not enact it himself because he preferred to act in some other way. Or maybe, had he been given the choice, he would have approved of the way his property was used by another. How many people would feel worse off if someone threw a brick of gold through their front window?

And yet don't externalities result in the bribing and bargaining actors that Coase suggests would allocate resources? The answer is that it does not matter from an economist's point of view (however interesting it is from the point of view of psychology). Economics is based on the fundamental axiom that humans act; the reason a man chooses one particular action over another is not important. As we stated before, the only economic truth we may glean from an action is that it demonstrated a preference. The reason for the preference is unknown.

Since an economist does not study the reasons for a preference, it is irrelevant whether an individual action is motivated by an externality or by something else. For example, if I were to observe someone make an offer to buy his neighbor's yard ornament, economics would only be of help in stating that he prefers the ornament to the money he is offering. Maybe he wants to rid his window view of the ornament, but maybe he wants to put the ornament in his own yard so he can view it more closely. The economist is unable to differentiate an act motivated by either cause, so he must treat the act as the same in either case.

Another defense of externalities might be that they illustrate how common property is more likely to be used without thought of future use than private property is. All other things being equal, one has an incentive to use as much of common property as possible while it is still in one's control. But this phenomenon can readily be explained without appealing to externalities. An individual faces no capital depreciation cost in using the common land, whereas he would have this cost if it were private. All else being equal, the lower costs of using the common land will provide an incentive for him to use more of it than private land. This is all we need state as economists.

The theory of externalities has as much relevance to economics as a theory on how the alignment of planets affects people's moods. Both by definition attempt to explain the reasons an individual forms preferences in the way he does. To the economist, it does not matter whether a person buys a cheeseburger because it rids him of an uneasiness caused by another's actions, because he's hungry, or because he read it would cure old age. All that matters is that he prefers the cheeseburger to the ninety-nine cents in his hand.
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1360&id=70

2. Firms. Probably the most common market failure, recognizable more for its "solution" than for its cause. See, the market is based on free exchange, with allocation determined through the price structure. But all over the market, there are these little pockets of authority systems: the capitalist firm.
And how does that show that there is a market failure?


Now, there is dispute amongst economists over what causes it... but everyone agrees that it is a little island where the market stops operating,
Everyone?
http://www.mises.org/classroom/firm.pdf

The Firm in a Free Economy

by John P. Cochran

[Posted January 23, 2002]

In a recent op-ed in the New York Times, economist Hal Varian, citing Noble economist Ronald Coase, argues, "What economists call firms . . . are essentially groups of activities for which it is more effective and less costly to use command and control than markets to have things done." This view of the firm leads him to believe that "(p)aradoxically, the primary unit of capitalism, on close inspection, looks a lot like central planning."

Can it really be true that a key element in process of social cooperation and the division of labor that is so essential to human material well-being is, at its core, a socialist entity? Only if one does not properly distinguish between true social cooperation based on voluntary interaction and social interaction based on violence, threat of violence, and fraud--the true environment for "command and control" and central planning.

Perhaps the confusion has developed because we tend to talk about the free market or the market as the key feature of what should more properly be referred to as the free economy or the free society. While market exchange is a key feature of the possible economic interactions between individuals in such a society, it is not the only means of social cooperation. A free economy is marked by the use of the economic means and the absence of the use of the political means, or interventionism, to satisfy human wants.[1]

Wants are met by the use of one's labor and other resources, used in cooperation with others to produce goods and services that can be used for (1) own use, (2) exchange with other producers/consumers, or (3) provision of a voluntary gift of valuable goods and services to others--true, old-fashioned compassion or charity.

In such a system, decision makers use market prices to access and appraise the best potential methods for achieving various ends and objectives. Such choices in a free economy are not limited to just purely market choices--should I buy from person/firm A or person/firm B, should I purchase at price x or price y, what quality is required, etc.--but always include the option to self-produce rather than purchase from others.

The formation of a firm is thus not an example of command and control properly understood. A firm thus "looks a lot like central planning" only if one mistakenly does not understand the true difference between central planning and planning by individuals based on calculation and appraisal in a free economy.

No one forms a firm by acquiring resources for the firm at the point of a gun. No one becomes an employee of a firm through conscription or forced labor. Firms are formed and people join firms as part of a process of voluntary cooperation that we usually refer to as the market. Market conditions (including an appraisal of transaction costs) lead individuals to believe that their ends are best served by forming and/or joining a firm, just as households often choose to self-produce certain services--such as child care, food preparation, or yard upkeep--themselves rather than contract for these services though the market.

Firms are thus a key element of planning process by individuals, which we often call the market, that leads to prosperity and peace; they are not an element of the planned chaos and relative poverty of interventionism called central planning.

So much for your bullshit, babe. Try again.
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=875&id=70

whine whine whine whine
Don't you do anything but whine?

First People are inherently lazy, not everyone mind you, but the majority. If we can get away with less work, we will do less work.

Firstly, I don't know what humans you know, but very few people are fundamentally lazy. More often than not, they're bored, not lazy. Find something a "lazy" person is truly interested in and watch them go. How many people who slack off on their job go home and work in the garden? Another considerable factor in "laziness" is bad diet, which leaves people without energy. Give 'em some pumpkin seeds and watch 'em go.

What's also really important to point out here is that communism would require people to work less. By reorganising society, we could do away with a huge proportion of the useless work that's done now, from banking to advertising, and divide up the remaining work better, more equitably and we'd result with probably closer to a four-hour day.

Second people get jealous. We have all hear the saying "the grass is always greener on the otherside." People want what they don't have and others do. So if the few people stop working less but get the same ammount, since what we have is based on need and even though they work less their need is the same, others will see that they are getting more for less and be jealous. Once they realize that they to can get away with working less they will also. This will lead to a chain reaction. Communism fails. How is this prevented?

Easily, because it makes no sense. People slack off when they have no connection to what they're producing and they're paid the same amount anyway. It's very different when their labour is directly linked to the wealth and well-being of the community they're more likely to do the work that's been agreed between them and others.

1.) give incentives. When some one works harder they get more. O wait, that sounds an awful lot like capitalism. This creates inequaility, thus the lazy person who is also greedy now "needs" more. Since this will also cause a chian reaction it can't solve the dilema of communism.

Firstly, the wants of a compulsive eater are not "needs". Needs would be established by the commune. Of course, if you don't agree with the decisions of the majority in the commune, you can leave and do your own thing, but then you'd have to do it all yourself - not something this supposed "lazy" person would be likely to do. As for incentives, there is in labour its own incentive when you get to keep what you produce, or an equal share of that which you produce in co-operation. More work = more produce, the most fundamental incentive there is.

2.)Have bosses who make sure that each person is working to their capacity. If not give some sort of punishment. WOW......sounds like soviet russia with party bosses. This obviously creates a ruling elite with power over people. which then causes comunism to fail.

Exactly, something to be rejected out of hand and completely unnecessary. Your implying that a person "in charge" is in a better position to judge whether someone's not pulling his weight than the person beside him. Bullshit. It's a commune, based on co-operation. In the event that someone is slacking off, it would be obvious to all. How the commune would choose to deal with this would be up to the commune - equal distribution based on labour, meaning the slacker gets less than others (what he needs and no more), social pressure (it doesn't take much for a community to show its dissapproval in non-coercive ways, people don't like being left out) or exclusion from the commune in the most extreme circumstances - free to make their own way.

The problem does not lie in the flaw of communism, but in people. For it to work everyone must be willing to make sacrafices. must also work their hardest. [B]Everyone must be united in their cause.

Everyone will have to work less, thus your entire reasoning is wrong.

Because of such strict reqs. communism will not work

Civilised society is based on people obeying its laws. People don't, does society collapse? No, because society adapts and deals with the problems. Anarchy would have less strict requirements and thus would adapt easier.

Vas.

Communism does not work because those in power have just that, for all to be equal nobody can be in power, thus Communism only works without a central government...

The anarchist communists arguing in favour of communism without government wave.

Vas.

I was quoting directly from the article. The problem is dismissed with that single clause... can you find a place where the author discusses it at length?


Imagine a society with no government. Individuals purchase law enforcement from private firms. Each such firm faces possible conflicts with other firms. Private policemen working for the enforcement agency that I employ may track down the burglar who stole my property only to discover, when they try to arrest him, that he too employs an enforcement agency.

There are three ways in which such conflicts might be dealt with. The most obvious and least likely is direct violence-a mini-war between my agency, attempting to arrest the burglar, and his agency attempting to defend him from arrest. A somewhat more plausible scenario is negotiation. Since warfare is expensive, agencies might include in the contracts they offer their customers a provision under which they are not obliged to defend customers against legitimate punishment for their actual crimes. When a conflict occured, it would then be up to the two agencies to determine whether the accused customer of one would or would not be deemed guilty and turned over to the other.

A still more attractive and more likely solution is advance contracting between the agencies. Under this scenario, any two agencies that faced a significant probability of such clashes would agree on an arbitration agency to settle them-a private court. Implicit or explicit in their agreement would be the legal rules under which such disputes were to be settled.

Under these circumstances, both law enforcement and law are private goods produced on a private market. Law enforcement is produced by enforcement agencies and sold directly to their customers. Law is produced by arbitration agencies and sold to the enforcement agencies, who resell it to their customers as one characteristic of the bundle of services they provide.[4]

The resulting legal system might contain many different law codes. The rules governing a particular conflict will depend on the arbitration agency that the enforcement agencies employed by the parties to the conflict have agreed on. While there will be some market pressure for uniformity, it is logically possible for every pair of enforcement agencies to agree on a different arbitration agency with a different set of legal rules.[5]

Indeed, one could have more diversity than that. Suppose there is some small group within the population with specialized legal requirements. An example might be members of a religious sect that forbade the taking of oaths, in a society where conventional legal procedure required such oaths. Such a group might have its own enforcement agency and let that agency negotiate appropriate legal rules on its behalf. Alternatively, an agency might produce a specialized product for members of the group by negotiating agreements under which those customers, if involved in litigation, were not required to swear the usual oaths.

As this example suggests, the potential legal diversity of such a system is very large; in principle, a different set of legal rules might apply between every pair of persons. In practice, such diversity will be constrained by costs of negotiation and by costs of legal diversity. The transaction costs of separately negotiating a different law code between every pair of persons would be prohibitively high, so it is likely that each pair of enforcement agencies will agree on a single law code interpreted by a single arbitration agency, with provisions for occasional variances of the sort described above.

Legal diversity has substantial costs. If, for example, contract terms enforceable against customers of agency A may be unenforceable against customers of B, that makes it more difficult and expensive for firms to draw up satisfactory contracts. Such costs will provide an incentive for arbitration agencies to adopt more uniform law, to be balanced against the incentive for non-uniform law provided by the differing desires of different customers.

You were saying something?

HA! Did you even read that before you copied it? Now the entire thread can see that I was right. I bolded the part I quoted earlier... and I also bolded every word with which he defends it. Jackass.


Aren't the taxpayers paying for it now?

Hmm... Well, there's that whole deficit thing... borrowing from the future. Got it? Macro-econ 101? Oh, you must've failed that.

By the way, thanks for posting these Mises quotes so I don't have to track them down. I'll just cull from them everything that DIRECTLY supports my point.


Mises on War

By Ludwig von Mises

[Special Edition, March 21, 2003]

War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings. The earthquake means good business for construction workers, and cholera improves the business of physicians, pharmacists, and undertakers; but no one has for that reason yet sought to celebrate earthquakes and cholera as stimulators of the productive forces in the general interest. (Nation, State, and Economy, p. 154)

[T]he essence of so-called war prosperity; it enriches some by what it takes from others. It is not rising wealth but a shifting of wealth and income. (Nation, State, and Economy, p. 158)

[O]nly tolerance can create and preserve the condition of social peace without which humanity must relapse into the barbarism and penury of centuries long past. (Liberalism, p. 56)

The statement that one man's boon is the other man's damage is valid with regard to robbery, war, and booty. The robber's plunder is the damage of the despoiled victim. But war and commerce are two different things. (1st Ed. Human Action, p. 662; 3rd Ed. Human Action, p. 666)

If some peoples pretend that history or geography gives them the right to subjugate other races, nations, or peoples, there can be no peace. (Omnipotent Government, p. 15)

Wars of aggression are popular nowadays with those nations which are convinced that only victory and conquest could improve their material well-being. (Omnipotent Government, p. 104)

If you want to abolish war, you must eliminate its causes. What is needed is to restrict government activities to the preservation of life, health, and private property, and thereby to safeguard the working of the market. Sovereignty must not be used for inflicting harm on anyone, whether citizen or foreigner. (Omnipotent Government, p. 138)

If war is regarded as advantageous, then laws . . . will not be allowed to stand in the way of going to war. On the first day of any war, all the laws opposing obstacles to it will be swept aside. (The Theory of Money and Credit, p. 434)

HAHAHA!!! So basically, 90% of those quotes were completely irrelevant to the question at hand... and the relevant ones support my position.

Egg ----> your face! Ha!

I'm not trying to build an economy here. Like any warlord, I don't care to create wealth, and I don't care if I destroy it... as long as I monopolize what's left.

You have yet to give me one reason why your scenario works.

No. You have yet to give me one reason why your scenario works.

Nice article on the "Market Failure Myth" by the way. Did you bother to read it?? To summarize, it says... sure, market failures exist. But government doesn't do any better.

The problem here is that market failures exist even for the hypothetical, impossible, ideal market[I]. See Mancur Olson, [I]The Logic of Collective Action, for some good reasons why. Government inefficiency, however, has more to do with the fact that we have inefficient governments than the supposition that government intervention is inherently ineffective. So, to answer the question posed about half-way down that article, we have [I]very[I] good reasons to "try" to make government better, but no good reason to think the completely free market is the best possible world.

Can you even SEE through all the egg on your face?!

True. Greed, Jealousy, and Laziness can cause trouble in any society. At least in capitalism people have incentives to not be lazy, you work harder you get more.

I'm sorry, on what planet are you living? Get the right job and you can sit on your ass and your money will go up each year. Kiss the right ass and get a promotion. Work very rarely has anything to do with it. People who work hard are chumps, it's connections, baby. I definitely work a lot less in my current job than I did in my last job, and far less than I did in my first few menial jobs.

Vas.

As much as I like the ideals of communism there is sadly no way it can work in the current political environment. The USSR was not communist. The reason for this was

Lenin and Trotsky put their hands around the neck of the baby that was Russian communism and strangled it until it was dead in the name of Bolshevism. That's why.

Vas.

Of course, the Icelanders had some sensible solutions to these problems. For instance, "The Icelandic system dealt with this problem by giving the victim a property right--the right to be reimbursed by the criminal--and making that right transferable."

But again, a universal property right could only originate with some common set of laws. In your system, if I had no protection agency, how could I have a right?


Same way. What--you think there's only ONE SYSTEM in place? Fuck, are you stupid.

Now, now... it would be STUPID to assume I knew about a system in YOUR fantasy world... that you never described. Which is what you did.

So, let me get this straight... now we have competing enforcement agencies... but they all have to agree to a common set of rights? Who sets the common rights?

Or perhaps what you were saying was something like this:

A person gets injured who has no protection agency. So, all the agencies come up to him and say, "Hey! In my system, that crime would be punishable by a fine. But, since you weren't protected by me, you can't collect it. However, if you let me prosecute that guy, I'll take the fine that you would have gotten, and give you half. How about it??"

But then wouldn't your average consumer be thinking, "Gee, I [I]could[I] pay these guys every month so that if something happens, I get compensated with the big fine... OR I could do nothing, and if anything happens the agency will still have to give me money -- or they get nothing!" Being like an insurance scheme, the first option would pay off if crime is relatively high, there being a high risk that something might happen. But the second option would be preferable if the crime rate is low, since I won't have to pay anything for a service I don't need... but I'll get paid in the rare event that something DOES happen.

Clearly, IF your system allows people who do not have an agency to "sell" their right to prosecute, the agencies only really win when crime is high. When it is low, people will choose not to pay protection fees AND they will have very few cases to prosecute -- and take only half the fine. Whereas, where crime is high they will get the monthly fee from those who want protection, AND they will get frequent "buy me" cases from the poor!

You are so fucking idiotic, it's almost not funny anymore. Almost... so I'll still laugh. Ha! Hahaha!

You pretty much said it never happened. That it was pretty much from another planet. Well I showed that it's from Earth. Just like you wanted.

Yes, and I appreciate it. You really don't take it well when people agree with you, do you? Now I know that a system in the same family as yours -- but far from identical -- has existed. That does not prove that yours can work. Neither does it prove that that one can work... again. As any social scientist knows, a single case study always fails to identify conditional variables. Moron.

I was quoting directly from the article. The problem is dismissed with that single clause... can you find a place where the author discusses it at length?
Imagine a society with no government. Individuals purchase law enforcement from private firms. Each such firm faces possible conflicts with other firms. Private policemen working for the enforcement agency that I employ may track down the burglar who stole my property only to discover, when they try to arrest him, that he too employs an enforcement agency.

There are three ways in which such conflicts might be dealt with. The most obvious and least likely is direct violence-a mini-war between my agency, attempting to arrest the burglar, and his agency attempting to defend him from arrest. A somewhat more plausible scenario is negotiation. Since warfare is expensive, agencies might include in the contracts they offer their customers a provision under which they are not obliged to defend customers against legitimate punishment for their actual crimes. When a conflict occured, it would then be up to the two agencies to determine whether the accused customer of one would or would not be deemed guilty and turned over to the other.

A still more attractive and more likely solution is advance contracting between the agencies. Under this scenario, any two agencies that faced a significant probability of such clashes would agree on an arbitration agency to settle them-a private court. Implicit or explicit in their agreement would be the legal rules under which such disputes were to be settled.

Under these circumstances, both law enforcement and law are private goods produced on a private market. Law enforcement is produced by enforcement agencies and sold directly to their customers. Law is produced by arbitration agencies and sold to the enforcement agencies, who resell it to their customers as one characteristic of the bundle of services they provide.[4]

The resulting legal system might contain many different law codes. The rules governing a particular conflict will depend on the arbitration agency that the enforcement agencies employed by the parties to the conflict have agreed on. While there will be some market pressure for uniformity, it is logically possible for every pair of enforcement agencies to agree on a different arbitration agency with a different set of legal rules.[5]

Indeed, one could have more diversity than that. Suppose there is some small group within the population with specialized legal requirements. An example might be members of a religious sect that forbade the taking of oaths, in a society where conventional legal procedure required such oaths. Such a group might have its own enforcement agency and let that agency negotiate appropriate legal rules on its behalf. Alternatively, an agency might produce a specialized product for members of the group by negotiating agreements under which those customers, if involved in litigation, were not required to swear the usual oaths.

As this example suggests, the potential legal diversity of such a system is very large; in principle, a different set of legal rules might apply between every pair of persons. In practice, such diversity will be constrained by costs of negotiation and by costs of legal diversity. The transaction costs of separately negotiating a different law code between every pair of persons would be prohibitively high, so it is likely that each pair of enforcement agencies will agree on a single law code interpreted by a single arbitration agency, with provisions for occasional variances of the sort described above.

Legal diversity has substantial costs. If, for example, contract terms enforceable against customers of agency A may be unenforceable against customers of B, that makes it more difficult and expensive for firms to draw up satisfactory contracts. Such costs will provide an incentive for arbitration agencies to adopt more uniform law, to be balanced against the incentive for non-uniform law provided by the differing desires of different customers.

You were saying something?
HA! Did you even read that before you copied it?
Yep. You wanted to know where it was discussed at length. So I showed you. Now the entire thread sees that I was right.

Jackass.


Aren't the taxpayers paying for it now?
Hmm... Well, there's that whole deficit thing...
Which doesn't answer the question. Get it?

By the way, thanks for posting these Mises quotes so I don't have to track them down. I'll just cull from them everything that DIRECTLY supports my point.
And ignore those that don't? FALLACY!

Egg--your face! Ha!

And every quote supports my position. Thanks for being a liar.

Also, if you don't care about anything except that which you destroy--what will be left for you to "monopolize"? Think about that.

You have yet to give me one reason why your scenario works.
No. You have yet to give me one reason why your scenario works.
Nice article on the "Market Failure Myth" by the way. Did you bother to read it?? To summarize, it says... sure, market failures exist. But government doesn't do any better.
No, it doesn't say that at all. It says that market failures are myths, since the claims for "market failure" do not lie in reality.

But thanks for lying.

The problem here is that market failures exist even for the hypothetical, impossible, ideal market[I]. See Mancur Olson, [I]The Logic of Collective Action, for some good reasons why.
See the article for reasons why there's no such thing.

The egg from your face is dripping all over the floor. Please clean it up.

Of course, the Icelanders had some sensible solutions to these problems. For instance, "The Icelandic system dealt with this problem by giving the victim a property right--the right to be reimbursed by the criminal--and making that right transferable."

But again, a universal property right could only originate with some common set of laws. In your system, if I had no protection agency, how could I have a right

Same way. What--you think there's only ONE SYSTEM in place? Fuck, are you stupid.
Now, now... it would be STUPID to assume I knew about a system in YOUR fantasy world
Yet you liked to make comments on it and make claims about it. Therefore, you MUST know about it.

Hoist. Petard. Your own.

So, let me get this straight... now we have competing enforcement agencies... but they all have to agree to a common set of rights? Who sets the common rights?
Contractarianism.

You really never think, do you?

Communism is a wonderful ideology, but it only works in theory. The fact is, humans are greedy. Humans want power, they want money, and they will strive to get it. Communism simply cannot win a fight against human nature, and this is why capitalism is preferred.
The problem with capitalism is that the gulf between rich and poor will continually widen and get worse and worse, and since the poor are also greedy and power-hungry, they will revolt against their oppression. The problem here is: What government do we form? If they form a communist government, well, it fails to human nature. A capitalist government falls to human nature, this time because of power-hungry masses instead of a power-hungry minority.

So, in effect, humanity has locked itself into a vicious cycle of revolution, oppression, and counter-revolution. Right now, the first hints of a counter-revolution are emerging in the US. A few hundred more years, and a revolt will brew.

The question now becomes: how do we break out of the trap we have set for ourselves? We could A. Break up nations into small tribal groups, B. hope that humans all become incredibly humble people and accept having little power, C. Leave it the way it is, or D. A unknown third alternative I have yet to become aware of.

To sum up: All nations will eventually end in failure. Resistance is futile. ;)

In economics, when the allocation of goods and resources is such that "every transfer that can be made, has been made," we say that the economy is "in equilibrium," or "Pareto optimum."

Pareto optimum is where you can't make someone better off without making someone else worse off from their ex ante position.

Correct. The two definitions are mathematically, and logically, equivalent -- jackass. Really, you argue like someone who quickly does a google search for a word, not someone with an expert understanding of the concept behind it.

The market isn't supposed to produce equilibrium.

Okay, tell me what it's supposed to do then. I only like it because it's pretty good at equilibrium-producing... maybe you'll change my mind and I can become a communist.


Classical economists are wrong.

Nice article you posted. Here is it's flaw:

One can only expect an increase in net benefit through the voluntary actions of people; an act indicates a preference for that chosen action over all other available options. The result is that the declaration of an externality is purely arbitrary.

The premise is false. See Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action.


Now, there is dispute amongst economists over what causes it... but everyone agrees that it is a little island where the market stops operating,


Everyone?

Okay, not "everyone." You've got me there... But, everyone who really understands the difference between an authority and exchange system. The article, again, is not bad. At least it's conversational and civil, which is more than can be said for you. It's flaw, however, is in its central assumption:

"Only if one does not properly distinguish between true social cooperation based on voluntary interaction and social interaction based on violence, threat of violence, and fraud--the true environment for "command and control" and central planning."

It doesn't distinguish between "market" and "non-market" but between "coercive" and "non-coercive." Now, as you well-understand, there are plenty of non-market mechanisms that are also non-coercive. Sharing, for instance. There are even voluntary arrangements of authority ("command and control"), such as a marching band.

The difference between a market and non-market means of allocating resources has nothing to do with one being non-coercive and the other coercive. A market deals strictly with exchange. No exchange, no market.

Now, setting aside the sometimes tricky arguments over whether or not capitalist labor is coercive, let's take the simple case of any resource within the firm. Say, for instance, a toy company is making 50% stuffed bears, and 50% stuffed rabbits. Then the owner decides he wants to make more bears... not because people have suddenly started buying more bears, but because Disney just released Brother Bear and he expects that demand will shift in that direction... and he would like to be the first producer to take advantage of the increased demand.

Of course, it's possible he's wrong. No actual increase in demand caused an increase in production, through the market's price mechanism. He just ordered it... and it was done. Moreover, there was no exchange between the bear department and the rabbit department. The stuffing and resources from the rabbit department just went where it was told to go.

No market.

You lose... and seriously, do you know the first thing about market economics, or do you just have a few sites from which you post articles and copy rhetoric? You argue like a kid who just discovered google.

So, let me get this straight... now we have competing enforcement agencies... but they all have to agree to a common set of rights? Who sets the common rights?


Contractarianism.

Right... Riiiight. And how do we decide where the "common" rights end and the "private law" begins.

Sounds to me a lot like you've got a government hidden in the topsoil somewhere... and now we're just beginning to dig it out.

In economics, when the allocation of goods and resources is such that "every transfer that can be made, has been made," we say that the economy is "in equilibrium," or "Pareto optimum."

Pareto optimum is where you can't make someone better off without making someone else worse off from their ex ante position.
Correct. The two definitions are mathematically, and logically, equivalent -- jackass.
No they aren't, jackass. In yours, transfers that can make someone worse off are still allowable since they still can be done

Jackass.

The market isn't supposed to produce equilibrium.
Okay, tell me what it's supposed to do then.
Allow freedom of trade, jackass.


Classical economists are wrong.
Nice article you posted. Here is it's flaw:
*laughs*

Let's see if you know more than economists do, m'kay?

One can only expect an increase in net benefit through the voluntary actions of people; an act indicates a preference for that chosen action over all other available options. The result is that the declaration of an externality is purely arbitrary.
The premise is false.
No it isn't. See Mises' Human Action, specifically about praxaeology.


Now, there is dispute amongst economists over what causes it... but everyone agrees that it is a little island where the market stops operating,

Everyone?
Okay, not "everyone." You've got me there... But, everyone who really understands the difference between an authority and exchange system.
Oh, so it's only people who agree with you. I see.

That kills that bullshit.

The article, again, is not bad. At least it's conversational and civil, which is more than can be said for you. It's flaw, however, is in its central assumption:

"Only if one does not properly distinguish between true social cooperation based on voluntary interaction and social interaction based on violence, threat of violence, and fraud--the true environment for "command and control" and central planning."
Nothing wrong there.

It doesn't distinguish between "market" and "non-market" but between "coercive" and "non-coercive."
Certainly does both.

Now, as you well-understand, there are plenty of non-market mechanisms that are also non-coercive. Sharing, for instance. There are even voluntary arrangements of authority ("command and control"), such as a marching band.
Irrelevant.

The difference between a market and non-market means of allocating resources has nothing to do with one being non-coercive and the other coercive. A market deals strictly with exchange. No exchange, no market.
Just like your movie-script doesn't deal with exchange.

Now, setting aside the sometimes tricky arguments over whether or not capitalist labor is coercive, let's take the simple case of any resource within the firm. Say, for instance, a toy company is making 50% stuffed bears, and 50% stuffed rabbits. Then the owner decides he wants to make more bears... not because people have suddenly started buying more bears, but because Disney just released Brother Bear and he expects that demand will shift in that direction... and he would like to be the first producer to take advantage of the increased demand.
That's fine. That's making a prediction based on past experience. That's praxaeology: the logic of human action.

Of course, it's possible he's wrong.
Sure is. That's the risk he takes.

No actual increase in demand caused an increase in production, through the market's price mechanism. He just ordered it... and it was done. Moreover, there was no exchange between the bear department and the rabbit department. The stuffing and resources from the rabbit department just went where it was told to go.
So what? You decide you want to spend more on clothes than you do on movies. So your resources (money) goes more for clothes than movies. What the fuck is your point?

No market.
Sorry, that's wrong.

You lose. And seriously--do you know anything about market economics? You so heinously strawman and non sequitur and beg the question about it so much that I must conclude that you only know Keynes. You argue like someone who has never had Econ 101, but has discovered a website attacking the market system and uses it.

So, let me get this straight... now we have competing enforcement agencies... but they all have to agree to a common set of rights? Who sets the common rights?

Contractarianism.
Right... Riiiight.
http://www.againstpolitics.com/contractarianism_faq/index.html

Read that. Then talk to me.

In economics, when the allocation of goods and resources is such that "every transfer that can be made, has been made," we say that the economy is "in equilibrium," or "Pareto optimum."

Pareto optimum is where you can't make someone better off without making someone else worse off from their ex ante position.

Correct. The two definitions are mathematically, and logically, equivalent -- jackass.

No they aren't, jackass. In yours, transfers that can make someone worse off are still allowable since they still can be done.

Ummm... No. Since economists assume that people will only make free exchanges that are to their benefit, when every such transfer has been made, no one can be made better off without making someone worse off. Same EXACT thing. Unless, of course, you're claiming some version of "absolute value," so that I could be "mistaken" about what I want?! Ha! ARE YOU, FUCK-NUT?! ARE YOU?!

The market isn't supposed to produce equilibrium.

Okay, tell me what it's supposed to do then.

Allow freedom of trade, jackass.

To what fucking end? So we can masterbate over how free our trade is? Seriously, the market is not an end in itself... and neither is freedom of trade. People value such things because they think we'll be better off with them that without them... which is exactly why they hope the market will result in a "best of all possible worlds" equilibrium, and if it doesn't the situation calls into question our rationale for choosing the free markets as a system by which to allocate goods.

Let's see if you know more than economists do, m'kay?

I thought we were over that, right? You know, I don't like Ronald Coase, but he happens to agree with me (on firms being a market failure)... as do many other economists. Besides which, my own graduate school background has a strong emphasis on political economy.

I showed a flaw in your post. You failed to disprove it... and... hahaha... this time your search engine wasn't even up to it!

No it isn't. See Mises' Human Action, specifically about praxaeology.

Are you familiar with Olson? Very prominent name in the field... with a widely accepted theory of group action -- or rather, inaction. He shows quite conclusively how something can be to the benefit of a large number of people, yet no one act to obtain said benefit. In fact, the larger the number, in most cases the LESS likely it is that anyone will do anything about it. Tested empirically again and again... and again... Which, of course, leads to the judgment based on past experience... that we can continue to see the trend. It's called "good social science." Maybe you've heard of it?

Now, as you well-understand, there are plenty of non-market mechanisms that are also non-coercive. Sharing, for instance. There are even voluntary arrangements of authority ("command and control"), such as a marching band.


Irrelevant.

Not at all. You're setting up a complex question that conflates non-coercion with market exchange. SEPARATE FUCKING CONCEPTS!! Market exchange may be defined as non-coercive, but not all non-coercive transactions involve exchange! Your article argues as follows: Transactions within a firm are non-coercive. Therefore, the market functions within a firm.

That's horseshit, and you're sitting in it.

The difference between a market and non-market means of allocating resources has nothing to do with one being non-coercive and the other coercive. A market deals strictly with exchange. No exchange, no market.

Just like your hypothetical scenario doesn't deal with exchange.

That's right. But, you're changing the subject. Can't take the heat??

That's fine. That's making a prediction based on past experience. That's praxaeology: the logic of human action.

Yep. I didn't say there was anything wrong with it -- and you're attacking a straw man if you say I did. But it's NOT exchange.

Of course, it's possible he's wrong.

Sure is. That's the risk he takes.

Yep. Still not exchange.

So what? You decide you want to spend more on clothes than you do on movies. So your resources (money) goes more for clothes than movies. What the fuck is your point?

Simple. When I make those decisions, I'm participating in the market... whether it's because movie prices have gone up, I don't have any friends to go with (your case, I'd imagine?), or I just feel like it. But that doesn't, in itself, have anything to do with allocation. Now, if a whole bunch of people decide they want to spend more on clothes than on movies, then it will affect the allocation of goods... there will be more clothes, and fewer movies. The market, through the price mechanism and free exchange, will have responded to consumer preferences.

My POINT, dumbass, is that this is NOT what happens in a firm. In a firm, the manager shifts resources as he sees fit, thereby determining allocation of resources all by himself. Now, a GOOD manager will have some experience on the market, and PROBABLY determine allocation to meet consumer preferences... but the big question is, if the market is so good at allocating resources, why do we need the manager at all?

No market.

Sorry, that's wrong.

No, it's not. And I feel bad for you... How are you ever going to eliminate non-market relationships from your society when you can't even fucking recognize one when it's staring you in the face?

You lose.

Nope.

And seriously--do you know anything about market economics?

I know enough to tell the difference between a market and a non-market... which is more than I can say for you.

You argue like someone who has never had Econ 101,

You argue like someone who has ONLY had Econ 101, probably at a community college, and failed it.

but has discovered a website attacking the market system and uses it.

Attacking the market system? Who's attacking it? When did I ever say I was against it? In fact, I have said several times in this thread that I generally support market socialism.

I'm just reasonable enough, and experienced enough, to understand that no one economic system is likely to solve the real problems in the world... because they all have shortcomings. Including the market, which is what I've been trying to make you see... but I guess you're just that stubborn. Or stupid. Hard to tell the difference, sometimes.

Anyway, when you're willing to listen to reason, and see the world as it actually is, we'll talk. I highly doubt you can post anything worth responding to. Maybe you should go back to school... :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

but has discovered a website attacking the market system and uses it.

This may come as a shock, but markets aren't perfect and anarcho-communists recognize that there are better alternatives.

http://www.againstpolitics.com/contractarianism_faq/index.html

Read that. Then talk to me.


I did. Not used to that response, are we? Anyway... that's all well and good. But it says absolutely nothing about the issue at hand.

It's a theory of morality. So everyone in your world might agree to it (which is itself an ambitious claim). So what? Then when the poor person gets mugged, everyone says, "Well, that was just wrong!"

But who enforces it? Surely you're not relying on people to simply obey moral rules out of good will!

The security agencies can't enforce morality for everyone... if they did, why would their own customers pay for a service that everyone gets for free? (Or, if they "bought" the right from victims or victims' families, you have the problem discussed before... in which the "ideal" market for security firms is one in which crime is high, not low.)

But maybe your just relying on a persons "friends" to act as the enforcers? What if he doesn't have any? What if they can't afford to hire an agency (or mass a posse)?

What if people want to "buy" an alternative set of rules... it may not be a very GOOD morality, but they're free to choose, right? Or will certain rules be "illegal"? Who enforces that?

Or is there some secret general enforcer that sees to it that "the basic rules" are followed, and you only hire out to defend property? As I recall, earlier you were talking about hiring companies that support the death penalty in the case of your murder... so that can't be right.

Now really... Be honest. Is there some site that you go to, with a big list of links and an FAQ, to help you argue? Because the articles that you post generally only have a glancing interest to what you've tried to say... and a few of them have actually opposed your view!

Amateur.

but has discovered a website attacking the market system and uses it.
This may come as a shock, but markets aren't perfect and anarcho-communists recognize that there are better alternatives.
This may come as a shock, but perfection is a platonic anticoncept and anarcho-communism is an oxymoron.

In economics, when the allocation of goods and resources is such that "every transfer that can be made, has been made," we say that the economy is "in equilibrium," or "Pareto optimum."

Pareto optimum is where you can't make someone better off without making someone else worse off from their ex ante position.
Correct. The two definitions are mathematically, and logically, equivalent -- jackass.

No they aren't, jackass. In yours, transfers that can make someone worse off are still allowable since they still can be done.
Ummm... No.
Ummm...yes.

Since economists assume that people will only make free exchanges that are to their benefit,
...which leaves out government or a committee to make the exchanges, which does happen in the real world, y'know, and for which economists take into account. Jackass.

You lose, fucknut.


The market isn't supposed to produce equilibrium.

Okay, tell me what it's supposed to do then.

Allow freedom of trade, jackass.
To what fucking end?
To allow people to get what they value, fucknut.


Let's see if you know more than economists do, m'kay?
I thought we were over that, right?
Who'se this "we"? Got a mouse in your pocket?

You know, I don't like Ronald Coase, but he happens to agree with me (on firms being a market failure)... as do many other economists. Besides which, my own graduate school background has a strong emphasis on political economy.
And you don't know more than the economists do.

I showed a flaw in your post.
No, you didn't.


No it isn't. See Mises' Human Action, specifically about praxaeology.
Are you familiar with Olson? Very prominent name in the field...
Are you familiar with Mises? Very prominent name in the field. His ideas have been tested again and again. And shown correct.

I can drop names as long as you can. I count a Nobel prize winner in the Austrian School. Whaddaya got to beat that?

Now, as you well-understand, there are plenty of non-market mechanisms that are also non-coercive. Sharing, for instance. There are even voluntary arrangements of authority ("command and control"), such as a marching band.
Irrelevant.
Not at all.
Yes, it is.

You're setting up a complex question that conflates non-coercion with market exchange.
Nothing of the sort was done.

Keep lying. It only hurts you.

The difference between a market and non-market means of allocating resources has nothing to do with one being non-coercive and the other coercive. A market deals strictly with exchange. No exchange, no market.
Just like your hypothetical scenario doesn't deal with exchange.
That's right. But, you're changing the subject.
Actually, I'm not. What--can't you take the heat?


That's fine. That's making a prediction based on past experience. That's praxaeology: the logic of human action.
Yep. I didn't say there was anything wrong with it
Didn't say that you did. And you're attacking a strawman if you say that I did.

Of course, it's possible he's wrong.

Sure is. That's the risk he takes.
Yep. Still not exchange.
Certainly is.


So what? You decide you want to spend more on clothes than you do on movies. So your resources (money) goes more for clothes than movies. What the fuck is your point?
Simple. When I make those decisions, I'm participating in the market... whether it's because movie prices have gone up, I don't have any friends to go with (your case, I'd imagine?), or I just feel like it. But that doesn't, in itself, have anything to do with allocation.
Yeah, it does.

Now, if a whole bunch of people decide they want to spend more on clothes than on movies, then it will affect the allocation of goods... there will be more clothes, and fewer movies.
You can't get to that without summing up the individual actions. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPS! Didn't think of that, did you.

My POINT, dumbass, is that this is NOT what happens in a firm.
Yes it is, dumbass.

In a firm, the manager shifts resources as he sees fit, thereby determining allocation of resources all by himself.
And when you start a business, you determine the allocation of resources. But it's still in a market.

You lose, dumbass.

Now, a GOOD manager will have some experience on the market, and PROBABLY determine allocation to meet consumer preferences... but the big question is, if the market is so good at allocating resources, why do we need the manager at all?
Because the manager is part of the market, dumbass.

No market.

Sorry, that's wrong.
No, it's not.
Yes, it is. And I feel bad for you. How are you ever going to prove your case when it's all in the market? DUMBASS!


And seriously--do you know anything about market economics?
I know enough to tell the difference between a market and a non-market... which is more than I can say for you.
Actually, you've shown that you don't know the difference.


You argue like someone who has never had Econ 101,
You argue like someone who has ONLY had Econ 101, probably at a community college, and failed it.
IKYABWAI. How childish.


but has discovered a website attacking the market system and uses it.
Attacking the market system?
Yep.

Who's attacking it?
You.

When did I ever say I was against it?
Your bullshit Hollywood script.

When you understand your own writing, come back and talk to me. Until then, you can wallow in your own stupidity.

Read that. Then talk to me.
I did. Not used to that response, are we? Anyway... that's all well and good. But it says absolutely nothing about the issue at hand.
Actually, it says a lot.

So you didn't read it, liar.

It's a theory of morality. So everyone in your world might agree to it (which is itself an ambitious claim). So what? Then when the poor person gets mugged, everyone says, "Well, that was just wrong!"
And there's the strawman again. How lovely!

Can you go one post without using a strawman? Is that too much to ask of you? I mean you claim to know what the fuck you're talking about, and then you go off and shoot yourself in the foot like that, tsk-tsk.

Amateur.

But who enforces it? Surely you're not relying on people to simply obey moral rules out of good will!
Nope.

You do recall the private police agencies, right?

Or do you have CMLS (convenient memory-lapse syndrome)?

The security agencies can't enforce morality for everyone... if they did, why would their own customers pay for a service that everyone gets for free?
That's how morality gets enforced. Morals, ethics and the law are tied together.

Maybe you should read Narveson's The Libertarian Idea. I'd loan you my copy, but I suspect that you'd not give it back.

(Or, if they "bought" the right from victims or victims' families, you have the problem discussed before... in which the "ideal" market for security firms is one in which crime is high, not low.)
No, you wouldn't have that problem.

But maybe your just relying on a persons "friends" to act as the enforcers? What if he doesn't have any? What if they can't afford to hire an agency (or mass a posse)?
Agreements can be arranged.

What if people want to "buy" an alternative set of rules...
Remember the article from Friedman?

CMLS again....

It may not be a very GOOD morality, but they're free to choose, right? Or will certain rules be "illegal"? Who enforces that?
Can't you tie concepts together? Are you that fucking dense?

Or is there some secret general enforcer that sees to it that "the basic rules" are followed, and you only hire out to defend property? As I recall, earlier you were talking about hiring companies that support the death penalty in the case of your murder... so that can't be right.
I never spoke of that.

Now really... Be honest. Is there some site that you go to, with a big list of links and an FAQ, to help you argue?
Nope. I leave that to people like Letila and Discordiac.

Because the articles that you post generally only have a glancing interest to what you've tried to say
Except that they always have a total interest in what I've said.

Keep lying. I'll keep laughing at you.

... and a few of them have actually opposed your view!
Actually, none of them have.

Look, communism works well in theory but there are certain points that need to be reworked. First of all you do need the support of the people in order for a revolution to work. At least two-thirds of the general population in order for a blood-free revolution. Marx was wrong. You do NOT need a violent revolution. Ghandi threw out the entire British empire with out raising a fist against anyone. Martin Luther King Jr got so many civil rights for negroes in America and he didn't use violence in any way, shape or form. Socialism needs to be totally reworked. You cannot have a 'leader' in order to create a 'people's' government. No one can be more important than anyone else, that's why elective democracy fails. Leaders have too much over the people. I'll come back with more soon but just enough to keep an argument going.

To sum up: All nations will eventually end in failure. Resistance is futile. ;)

Do you know how rude it is to burst into a discussion without reading what's come before? Most, if not all, of your points have been previously addressed. If you actually want to join in the debate, then do some reading. If not, then go away.

Vas.

Forgive me. I know that in communism i still own my shirt, and as to owning my wife that idea in itself is ridiculus, husbands don't own their wives, nor wives thier husbands, but that is not the point. I understand what you mean. Nor do I dissagree that in an IDEAL world communism would be good, however you have still not adressed that human faults:Laziness, Jealousy, and Greed. It is these reason that communism only works in three situations. Situation A: communism works on paper. There is no human vices there. Situation B: Communism works for ants. They aren't greedy, jealous or lazy. Situation C: Communism works for termites. same reason as ants.
I think you did not understand. The incentive is the pay you get out of your work. Communism is not about suppressing money.

Slight problem:

Ghandi threw out the entire British empire with out raising a fist against anyone.

And then someone shot him.

Martin Luther King Jr got so many civil rights for negroes in America and he didn't use violence in any way, shape or form.

And then someone shot him. See a pattern?

Socialism needs to be totally reworked. You cannot have a 'leader' in order to create a 'people's' government. No one can be more important than anyone else, that's why elective democracy fails. Leaders have too much over the people. I'll come back with more soon but just enough to keep an argument going.

Do you realise you've jumped into a discussion between libertarians of different shades advocating getting rid of government? That's like trying to persuade a group of atheists that God doesn't exist.

Vas.

I think you did not understand. The incentive is the pay you get out of your work. Communism is not about suppressing money.

No, it's about abolishing it! At least in the non-monetary forms.

Vas.

No, it's about abolishing it! At least in the non-monetary forms.

Vas.Now you're talking about anarchy.
Communism says nothing about money. Anarcho-communism is about abolishing money. Communism is not.

Now you're talking about anarchy.
Communism says nothing about money. Anarcho-communism is about abolishing money. Communism is not.

Some forms of communism are about abolishing money, others aren't, which is my point. Anarchist communism is one form of communism.

Vas.

Some forms of communism are about abolishing money, others aren't, which is my point. Anarchist communism is one form of communism.

Vas.
Your point is a good point.
So you support anarchism. I would like to debate you when I have time. Currently I have to do the most urgent : dispelling the capitalist propaganda.
You and me already know capitalism is the biggest threat to the human race currently, but there are still ignorant supporters of capitalism.
They've been brain-washed into thinking that capitalism is about the incentive to work, the only system that provides opportunities, etc... You know what I'm saying. They don't understand what capitalism is outside the propaganda which associates with freedom, democracy and everything which is good to the man. They have to learn that capitalism is about slavery.
It's like putting a naked top model next to the car you want to sell in adverts. Some people will buy the car because they think the top model is the same thing as the car.
So here I dispell the myth. Capitalism is about the capital, which is inherited exactly as the land is inherited in a feudal society. A barbaric system advertised to you with democracy, freedom, incentive and stuff. But democracy, freedom and incentive are good things but they don't need capitalism, no more than the top model need the car.

Your point is a good point.
So you support anarchism. I would like to debate you when I have time. Currently I have to do the most urgent : dispelling the capitalist propaganda.

Actually, I wouldn't bother. The proponents of capitalism aren't worth it, BWAHAHA(I don't like my pram) is a troll, Libertowhatjamacallit is nearly as bad (suffering from an inability to read what others post and existing in a land of make-believe) and the Moronical Stupidtwat has shown himself to lack basic understanding of the topics.

Vas.

Your point is a good point.
So you support anarchism. I would like to debate you when I have time. Currently I have to do the most urgent : dispelling the capitalist propaganda.
You and me already know capitalism is the biggest threat to the human race currently, but there are still ignorant supporters of capitalism.
No, collectivism and mysticism are the biggest threats. Capitalism requires rational thought, which is the antidote.

They've been brain-washed into thinking that capitalism is about the incentive to work, the only system that provides opportunities, etc...
And the collectivists and mystics have been brainwashed into simply not thinking and believing that enslaving people will provide them an incentive to work so that all of their efforts can go to support people who won't work.

You know what I'm saying. They don't understand what capitalism is outside the propaganda which associates with freedom, democracy and everything which is good to the man. They have to learn that capitalism is about slavery.
Nah, that's collectivism. You know: from each..ability to each...need?

So here I dispell the myth. Capitalism is about the capital, which is inherited exactly as the land is inherited in a feudal society.
Inheritance is the same as gift-giving. I hope you don't accept any gifts, hypocrite.

whine whine whine whine
Is that all you have?

No, collectivism and mysticism are the biggest threats. Capitalism requires rational thought, which is the antidote.


And the collectivists and mystics have been brainwashed into simply not thinking and believing that enslaving people will provide them an incentive to work so that all of their efforts can go to support people who won't work.


Nah, that's collectivism. You know: from each..ability to each...need?


Inheritance is the same as gift-giving. I hope you don't accept any gifts, hypocrite.No I'm right you're wrong. PWNED !!!! OMG LOL !1!1!1

No, that's anarcho-socialism and anarcho-communism. The oxymorons claim that you can have socialism and communism without a government, but that is impossible, as it is self-contradictory.
False. If it's conceivable that people will agree to respect others' property rights (admittedly Libertovania's words) then it's conceivable that people will agree to pool resources and each take an equal share.

While self-employment doesn't exist, it isn't practical for everyone. If it was, then no one would flip burgers at McDonalds. No one would accept unemployment. They would just become self-employed. Since that doesn't happen, it is clear that self-employment isn't an option.

i might not be practile, but it is an option. What your saying is its not always the best option. But thats the great thing. THERE ARE OPTIONS

Actually, I wouldn't bother. The proponents of capitalism aren't worth it, BWAHAHA(I don't like my pram) is a troll, Libertowhatjamacallit is nearly as bad (suffering from an inability to read what others post and existing in a land of make-believe) and the Moronical Stupidtwat has shown himself to lack basic understanding of the topics.

Vas.
I was not sure but after some posts I'm convinced you're right. There are no debators for capitalism here.

So, let's set the basis for a good debate. I think it will be something like freedom vs efficiency but we'll see.

Let's first define trade.
According to me, trade is an exchange between two entities of two goods or services having the same work value.
According to me, there are two kinds of trade :
* Individual <-> community trade.
* Indivudual <-> individual trade.
Trading does not necassarily involve money I may add.

Am I correct with my definition of trade?

Do you believe trade is necessary (obviously without money) or do you believe trading is not needed?

Note I'm not talking about trade of weapons or of human beings, but I'm talking about trade of goods and services.

Do you believe trade is necessary (obviously without money) or do you believe trading is not needed?
I believe that it is generally needed, until you have an area large enough to have all the products/resources that a person could possibly want. Of course, there are differences between wants and needs, too, if people didn't want things then there wouldn't be any trade. But I think that it's unlikely that there would be a small area that can in and of itself contain everything that the people there want and need.

curious, under communism or anarcho-communism, etc...
would individuals still be taxed?

Actually, it says a lot.

Nope.

So you didn't read it, liar.

I did. Did you? You haven't bothered to tell me what it says, you just insist that it says something. I have no reason to believe you've read it.

The security agencies can't enforce morality for everyone... if they did, why would their own customers pay for a service that everyone gets for free?

That's how morality gets enforced. Morals, ethics and the law are tied together.

Riiight. So, some rules -- the moral ones -- the agencies just enforce for free? Like what? Don't kill innocents? But then they sell "legal" protection... Damn, kid, this is just getting more and more ridiculous.

(Or, if they "bought" the right from victims or victims' families, you have the problem discussed before... in which the "ideal" market for security firms is one in which crime is high, not low.)

No, you wouldn't have that problem.

Can you demonstrate that? It seems like a pretty obvious problem from an economic standpoint. Let me refresh your memory:

Scenario 1: An agency can prosecute people who attack its existing customers only.

People pay a monthly fee for protection. The agencies protect them. They do not protect those who cannot pay -- for why should they?

Scenario 2: An agency can "buy" prosecution rights from an injured party who does not subscribe to their service.

If crime is low, people feel safe and consider the likelihood of becoming a victim low. If they pay an agency every month, that money is wasted... and their only payoff is the fine collected in the unlikely event of a crime. But if they go without an agency, they save their money... and still get some percentage of the payoff in the event of a fine.

If crime is high, people feel threatened and consider the likelihood of becoming a victim high. If they go without an agency, they will be able to collect some percentage of the payoff when victimized... or, they can pay an agency every month, and collect the entire payoff each time they are victimized. Paying the agency every month seems like a good idea. Moreover, agencies will have plenty of "freelance" cases from which to profit.

If you create such a "right", and the only people around to enforce it are private agencies, they will be put into a position to prefer a high crime rate!!

Agreements can be arranged.

That statement is a great show of FAITH, but not reason. So your belief in libertarian capitalism is a religion. I see.

It may not be a very GOOD morality, but they're free to choose, right? Or will certain rules be "illegal"? Who enforces that?

Can't you tie concepts together?

I just want you to be clear. Are there some legal rules that CANNOT be sold on the market, or can someone theoretically buy any rules they want? Now, I know market pressures will tend toward a somewhat uniform set of laws -- but I'm just asking, in theory is anything allowable?

As I recall, earlier you were talking about hiring companies that support the death penalty in the case of your murder... so that can't be right.

I never spoke of that.

LIAR!!! HERE (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6758131&postcount=398) you indicate that "the market will take care" of that issue!!

Why don't you stop lying? It's really embarrassing for you.

Because the articles that you post generally only have a glancing interest to what you've tried to say

Except that they always have a total interest in what I've said.

I only ask because you can never actually point out what that is... you just say, "Read this, and thou shalt believe." Nice try, Moses.

curious, under communism or anarcho-communism, etc...
would individuals still be taxed?
It depends on the meaning of the word "tax". If you mean paying a monetary amount to the government, then obviously it doesn't exist in anarcho-communism where there is no money.
Tax is a tool however, it is not part of the political philosophy. Communism says nothing about it.

in a social communism you could tax the workers and give a wage to those who can not work. Or you could just make the workers work for the common good instead of paying, and provide basic services for free (health care, food, housing etc...) and just make the surplus not-free (luxury cars, flashy clothes etc...)
You could as well have non-social communism where those unable to work or sustain themselves just die and you do nothing about it, but that would mean you're an asshole (something like Stalin).

just so you know i am pro capitalist, as i feel that currently it is the best system available.
and i feel that is unfair that capitalism is demonised by cerrtain people and vice versa.
There are certain individuals who say labour is slavery or property iis slavery, etc....
The problem I have with this, is that under the current capitalistic system, a group of factory workers could get together and pool their resources to start a manufacturing business. They would have an equal share. they could hire management staff or offer them to buy into the company. and before anyone either side of the argument says no this can't be done or not under the current system... look at the north of spain. basque region, navarra.
sorry have more question. rushing at the moment

It depends on the meaning of the word "tax". If you mean paying a monetary amount to the government, then obviously it doesn't exist in anarcho-communism where there is no money.
Tax is a tool however, it is not part of the political philosophy. Communism says nothing about it.

in a social communism you could tax the workers and give a wage to those who can not work. Or you could just make the workers work for the common good instead of paying, and provide basic services for free (health care, food, housing etc...) and just make the surplus not-free (luxury cars, flashy clothes etc...)
You could as well have non-social communism where those unable to work or sustain themselves just die and you do nothing about it, but that would mean you're an asshole (something like Stalin).

ok. i try and specify more. what about the collection of resources for extra activities such as road maintenance or for provisions for winter. or simply to prepare for un'expected events.

just so you know i am pro capitalist, as i feel that currently it is the best system available.
and i feel that is unfair that capitalism is demonised by cerrtain people and vice versa.
There are certain individuals who say labour is slavery or property iis slavery, etc....
The problem I have with this, is that under the current capitalistic system, a group of factory workers could get together and pool their resources to start a manufacturing business. They would have an equal share. they could hire management staff or offer them to buy into the company. and before anyone either side of the argument says no this can't be done or not under the current system... look at the north of spain. basque region, navarra.
sorry have more question. rushing at the momentWell it would be possible if they had resources. It works in north of Spain because they have a capital. It doesn't work in Africa because they've been colonized and they don't have any capital to start with.

Well it would be possible if they had resources. It works in north of Spain because they have a capital. It doesn't work in Africa because they've been colonized and they don't have any capital to start with.

Why would they not have the capital? if they are working, they are earning a wage no? so they have some form of capital. I know in relation to the western world it might be very little, but in their own country things tend to be substantially cheaper. So why not?

ok. i try and specify more. what about the collection of resources for extra activities such as road maintenance or for provisions for winter. or simply to prepare for un'expected events.This is good example.
The roads.
Either : you make people pay for using the road.
or : you make people pay monetary taxes for the roads and make them free.
or : you make people work on the road and everyone use the road for free.

am refering to capitalist countries that are also democratic

Why would they not have the capital? if they are working, they are earning a wage no? so they have some form of capital. I know in relation to the western world it might be very little, but in their own country things tend to be substantially cheaper. So why not?
They get paid $1 per day. That's just enough to live. And things are not cheaper there. They can't buy the shoes they produce, how could they buy a shoe factory?

am refering to capitalist countries that are also democratic
I'm confused, where were you refering to that again please?

This is good example.
The roads.
Either : you make people pay for using the road.
or : you make people pay monetary taxes for the roads and make them free.
or : you make people work on the road and everyone use the road for free.

mmmm....as everything has a value, i'm just trying to see how this would work.
If they had to pay would it be an equal amount or based on need?
also if everyone works on the road, would it be the same amount of time and effort? as a physicists time could be seen as more valuable than a farmers

I'm confused, where were you refering to that again please?

refering to the example of africa compared to spain. workers opening a factory and such...

They get paid $1 per day. That's just enough to live. And things are not cheaper there. They can't buy the shoes they produce, how could they buy a shoe factory?

if 20 workers earn $1 a day. they could still buy certain things extra.
a factory owuld cost little. wood and sheets of metal could be used. little more is needed. rely on water power by a stream, etc.
Not saying they could compete internationally but for the local market.....

there are examples of this. South africa, ghana and some other spots

mmmm....as everything has a value, i'm just trying to see how this would work.
If they had to pay would it be an equal amount or based on need?
also if everyone works on the road, would it be the same amount of time and effort? as a physicists time could be seen as more valuable than a farmers
It would be based on democracy in democratic communism or based on market in market communism.
Communism does not say the pay is equal (although it can be but it doesn't make any sense in my opinion).

refering to the example of africa compared to spain. workers opening a factory and such...
Oh OK. Yes indeed it could work but the workers would become bourgeois. Once they own the factory, they will pass it to their children.

if 20 workers earn $1 a day. they could still buy certain things extra.
a factory owuld cost little. wood and sheets of metal could be used. little more is needed. rely on water power by a stream, etc.
Not saying they could compete internationally but for the local market.....

there are examples of this. South africa, ghana and some other spotsThey would need land above all. Could they really buy land without expropriating like they did in Zimbabwee?

Oh OK. Yes indeed it could work but the workers would become bourgeois. Once they own the factory, they will pass it to their children.

so a bourgois is anyone that passes something on through inheritance. or does it refer only to capital?

so a bourgois is anyone that passes something on through inheritance. or does it refer only to capital?Yes it does only refer to the capital. A bourgeois is someone owning a mean of production.

Actually, I wouldn't bother. The proponents of capitalism aren't worth it, BWAHAHA(I don't like my pram) is a troll, Libertowhatjamacallit is nearly as bad (suffering from an inability to read what others post and existing in a land of make-believe) and the Moronical Stupidtwat has shown himself to lack basic understanding of the topics.
To be fair, Sliders isn't too bad.

To be fair, Sliders isn't too bad.I'd love to debate Sliders then.

They would need land above all. Could they really buy land without expropriating like they did in Zimbabwee?

Yes I honeslty feel that it could be done. Maybe i'm idealistic though.

It would be based on democracy in democratic communism or based on market in market communism.
Communism does not say the pay is equal (although it can be but it doesn't make any sense in my opinion).

now i am confused. if pay can be different how is this branch of communism different from capitalism?

Yes it does only refer to the capital. A bourgeois is someone owning a mean of production.

so are we talking capital, equipment or land. or all?
maybe better said, what are you refering to by means of production?

now i am confused. if pay can be different how is this branch of communism different from capitalism?It is different from capitalism in that the means of production can not be bought or sold to and by individuals.

It is different from capitalism in that the means of production can not be bought or sold to and by individuals.

ok. can it be bought or sold by a group? family, village, community. whathaveyou

so are we talking capital, equipment or land. or all?
maybe better said, what are you refering to by means of production?Exactly.
It doesn't make sense to own a mean of production.

ok. can it be bought or sold by a group? family, village, community. whathaveyouIt belongs to the commune. The commune is global.

Exactly.
It doesn't make sense to own a mean of production.

so if i leave to my child before death a bread maker or cheese cutter i would be part of the bourgoisi???

It belongs to the commune. The commune is global.

So i would jave a say in how a diamond mine in india would work?

so if i leave to my child before death a bread maker or cheese cutter i would be part of the bourgoisi???No as long as you don't sell the bread.

Exactly.
It doesn't make sense to own a mean of production.

would this also apply to knowledge?

would this also apply to knowledge?
Intellectual property...
Yes intellectual property belongs to the commune.

guys thanks for the answer.
got to go now. just so you know was not trying to make you guys slip up, have been curious.
hope to talk more later
friendly capitalist oppressor to friendly commie pinko bastards!!!! (lol)

So i would jave a say in how a diamond mine in india would work?
I didn't see this one sorry.
Depends on how communism is run.
In democratic communism, yes. I think that only the workers of the mine and the consumers of diamond should have a say.

Yes I honeslty feel that it could be done. Maybe i'm idealistic though.
Who would sell them the land for $20 (supposing they don't eat or house for one day)?

Marx said: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Communism fails when the government decides what each person's ability is and what each person's need is. When the government decides what your ability is, then it will force you into a career you do not want to pursue. When the government decides what your need is, then it will allot you just enough food, clothing, and shelter to survive. Enjoyment is not allowed. ~ Michael.

The problem I have with this, is that under the current capitalistic system, a group of factory workers could get together and pool their resources to start a manufacturing business. They would have an equal share.

Yeah, it works. If you have resources to start with. Here's an experiment for you... try gathering up a group of factory workers. Now take them down to the bank. See if they can get a business loan.

Then you have to deal with the fact that the bank may just refuse because this "sounds too communist." Or if they don't, someone will refuse to sell you equipment. And on and on.

Don't think it would happen? Think the capitalist banks and firms "just want to make a profit" and would "sell to anyone with money"?

Think again. I've seen it happen.

Then, of course, you've got the issue of morals vs. competition. Our product requires certain parts as inputs... and it turns out that we can either buy these from the union labor down the road, or the sweatshop labor in Singapore. If we've banded together as equals to make our lives better... wouldn't it be inconsistent to support the exploitation of Third World workers? But, who do you think our competitors will buy from? We'll be forced out of the market.

Last I heard, the Spanish collectives had caved and were supporting sweatshop labor.

Do you believe trade is necessary (obviously without money) or do you believe trading is not needed?

There are a number of different levels of possibility here, depending on the relation between one factor and the other in any trade. Trade is the transfer of one item for another, so obviously money is totally unnecessary. I can trade records with my friend, one for one, no money involved.

Now, in an Anarchy, we can assume three different levels of relationship:
1. The individual within the commune with his fellows (the commune).
2. The individual outside of the commune with the commune.
3. The commune with another commune.

And, there might be a fourth relationship external to the Anarchy:
4. The commune with a non-communist market.

To define what the trading relationship is with each relationship:
1. The individual has a macro-trading relationship with the commune, the understanding that there will be fair distribution based on need in return for work.
2. The individual may choose to have a trading relationship with the commune, involving the individual trading some of his produce for some of the produce of the commune. This might, at the individual's insistence, be direct - one table for a bag of potatoes a month for a year, for example, or it could, at the commune's insistence, be indirect - the individual's production in excess of what he needs in return for a fair share of the commune's produce after the needs of the commune members have been fulfilled. This would mean he could join the commune at the table for dinner, but would be fed last. Of course, the individual would be free to join the commune at any time and receive more for his work.
3. The relationship between one commune and another would probably vary depending on their political links. If the two are in the same federation, there would most likely be sharing based on need rather than trade. If one commune had natural resources required by the other, while the second had a bumper harvest, these would be shared (these would not necessarily be true at the same time, the natural resources would still be shared in the absence of a bumper harvest, and vice versa). If the two are not federation, there could still be the same, or there could be a more direct trading structure - anything as simple as we'll build the road half way from you to use if you build the rest! Communes would most likely avoid any direct trade system based on a pseudo-monetary barter system as it would undermine the non-monetary basis of the communes.

Finally, the external relationship - the capitalist market. Most communes would aim to avoid these, but if needs must, the commune would function as a unit in the market - whether a union - trading labour, or a co-operative business - trading produce.

Vas.

curious, under communism or anarcho-communism, etc...
would individuals still be taxed?

With (not under) a non-monetary anarcho-communist system, the concept would be meaningless. Within the commune, the produce would basically be put into a "pot" and distributed fairly according to need. Tax is a blunt and usually inefficient form of redistribution, communism is the ultimate form.

Vas.

This is good example.
The roads.
Either : you make people pay for using the road.
or : you make people pay monetary taxes for the roads and make them free.
or : you make people work on the road and everyone use the road for free.

Eh, or people choose to work on the road and everyone uses the road for free. Where's this "make" thing coming from? A commune might come together and decide that the mud from the unfinished road was a hindrance to the community and they, democratically, would decide to allocate material resources (possibly traded for) and labour to the task. They'd simply weigh up the opportunity cost - is the road worth the cost in resources and labour time when compared to other thing we could do with those resources and that labour? Perhaps, after a period of house-building, there were now enough houses, so the cost would be worthwhile as no-one was needed to build houses and there was surplus labour potential with nothing to do. In contrast, perhaps a load of people were waiting on houses and the commune judged that the houses were more necessary than the road.

Vas.

(nothing)
Very good. Vulgar display of ignorance. Very useful.

No, that's anarcho-socialism and anarcho-communism. The oxymorons claim that you can have socialism and communism without a government, but that is impossible, as it is self-contradictory.
False. If it's conceivable that people will agree to respect others' property rights (admittedly Libertovania's words) then it's conceivable that people will agree to pool resources and each take an equal share.
The problem is that decisions need to be made regarding what to make, where to make it, who is to make it, what process is to be used to make it, how much of it to make, etc. This is going to require that some people get overruled in their desires. There's going to be a committee (or even committee-of-the-whole) which does that decision making. Thus, it is a government.

To be fair, Sliders isn't too bad.

True, though he has been drowned out by the other three.

Vas.

Actually, it says a lot.
Nope.
Certainly does.


So you didn't read it, liar.
I did.
No, you didn't.

Did you?
Yep.

You haven't bothered to tell me what it says,
Actually, I mentioned that it's about contractarianism. Sucks to be you, doesn't it?

you just insist that it says something. I have no reason to believe you've read it.
Nor I you. Sucks to be you.

The security agencies can't enforce morality for everyone... if they did, why would their own customers pay for a service that everyone gets for free?

That's how morality gets enforced. Morals, ethics and the law are tied together.
Riiight.
Yep. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Oh, you may also want to read Gauthier's Morals By Agreement.

(Or, if they "bought" the right from victims or victims' families, you have the problem discussed before... in which the "ideal" market for security firms is one in which crime is high, not low.)

No, you wouldn't have that problem.
Can you demonstrate that?
You need to demonstrate that it is.

It seems like a pretty obvious problem from an economic standpoint.
Nope.

Let me refresh your memory:
...with your Hollywood script. Hoo-boy.

Do you have anything other than that fallacious piece of shit?

Scenario 1: An agency can prosecute people who attack its existing customers only.

People pay a monthly fee for protection. The agencies protect them. They do not protect those who cannot pay -- for why should they?
But they can.

So where's the problem?

Scenario 2: An agency can "buy" prosecution rights from an injured party who does not subscribe to their service.

If crime is low, people feel safe and consider the likelihood of becoming a victim low. If they pay an agency every month, that money is wasted... and their only payoff is the fine collected in the unlikely event of a crime. But if they go without an agency, they save their money... and still get some percentage of the payoff in the event of a fine.
And the problem is where?

If crime is high,
Isn't it in the best interest of the company to keep crime low? Look, they are providing a service which states that the people contracting with them will have police service. If the company doesn't do a good job, i.e. crime is high, then people will go elsewhere. and the company will go out of business.

You flunked Basic Business 101, didn't you?


Agreements can be arranged.
That statement is a great show of FAITH,
No, it's a great show of fact and reason. Try again.


It may not be a very GOOD morality, but they're free to choose, right? Or will certain rules be "illegal"? Who enforces that?

Can't you tie concepts together?
I just want you to be clear.
I am clear. You obviously didn't read Narveson's FAQ. Get back to me when you do.

As I recall, earlier you were talking about hiring companies that support the death penalty in the case of your murder... so that can't be right.

I never spoke of that.
LIAR!!! HERE you indicate that "the market will take care" of that issue!!
Liar.

Why don't you stop lying? It's really hurting your case.

Because the articles that you post generally only have a glancing interest to what you've tried to say

Except that they always have a total interest in what I've said.
I only ask because you can never actually point out what that is...
Except that I do, liar.

It doesn't make sense to own a mean of production.
Certainly it does. Let's say you decide to sell pizza from your house as a side venture, perhaps. Nothing too fancy. Maybe just in your neighborhood. You own the house. You own the oven. You purchase the ingredients, which you then own.

You then make the pizzas and sell them. YOU OWN THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION!

How fucking difficult is that to understand?

No as long as you don't sell the bread.

This is a little silly. The difference between possessions and property isn't strictly the means of production, as something like a breadmaker is a means of production that is your possession. Possessions are those things you own and use, property are those things you own and charge other for the use of (including rent or skimming off the profit of others labour because you own the factory). To own a cooker and a baking tin does not make you bourgeois in any real sense, even if you do sell the cakes you cook. However, if you hire someone else to cook the cakes and pay them a proportion of the money made, keeping the rest, then you are bourgeois.

The issue with capitalism is the control of the means of production that are used by others by capitalists.

Vas.

Good Christ, I've just agreed with BWAHAHA.

Vas.

One thing that is quite clear from these posts apart from a totally inadequate understanding of Marx, is that all the mindless, aggresive, moronic bullshit comes from the Yankee defenders of free-market capaitalism.

And you probably wonder why the world hates the US.

Well, BAAWA has been beaten... or at least, it would seem so, since there wasn't a single solitary argument or counter-argument in the last piece of drivel he posted to me.

He seems to be delusional, as well. He thinks it is always in the best interest of a business-person to deliver the best possible product for the cheapest possible price.

Perhaps in the kind of purely competitive market that only exists in Fantasyland... and there are good reasons to believe that such pure competition is unhealthy, anyway.

See for instance Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Albert O. Hirshman.

Certainly it does. Let's say you decide to sell pizza from your house as a side venture, perhaps. Nothing too fancy. Maybe just in your neighborhood. You own the house. You own the oven. You purchase the ingredients, which you then own.

You then make the pizzas and sell them. YOU OWN THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION!

Yep, have to agree with BAAWA here. (Being small-minded, he would never come out and admit agreement with anyone else, of coruse... but then, he's clearly suffering from a number of narcissistic personality disorders. I wonder if psychotherapy would become more efficient in his free-market... maybe THAT'S why he wants it!!)

Nothing wrong with small-scale privately owned businesses. It's when they get too big that money starts to equal power... and then we're into political economy, and a free society has to keep the means of production out of private hands.

The issue with capitalism is the control of the means of production that are used by others by capitalists.

Quite right. Good answer.

Yep, have to agree with BAAWA here.
That's nice.

Nothing wrong with small-scale privately owned businesses. It's when they get too big that money starts to equal power... and then we're into political economy, and a free society has to keep the means of production out of private hands.
What's wrong with business being "big"? How does money = power when there's no power structure? Please explain.

Well, BAAWA has been beaten... or at least, it would seem so, since there wasn't a single solitary argument or counter-argument in the last piece of drivel he posted to me.
You offered no arguments. Therefore, I had no need to provide any.

Although I did happen to provide some. But your delusional self just ignored them.

He seems to be delusional, as well. He thinks it is always in the best interest of a business-person to deliver the best possible product for the cheapest possible price.
Yeah, funny how that if they don't, they go out of business.

Boy, it sucks to be you.

Especially with that nonsense of "a completely free economy is bad"

I suggest Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (http://www.mises.org/books/capitalism.pdf) by George Reisman (PDF)

And Economic Freedom and Interventionism (http://www.mises.org/efandi.asp) by Ludwig von Mises.

And Man, Economy And State (With Power And Market) (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp) by Murray Rothbard.

Marxism is ok. Leninism and Maoism are a little extreme, and Stalinism is just plain crazy. Myself I like moderate socialist democracy.

When you are a capitalist or democratic free nation Other less fortunate countries go against you. This never happened to the USSR. If you did not go against the gov. you lived a happy life

What's wrong with business being "big"? How does money = power when there's no power structure? Please explain.

So there's no formal power structure. Which, when you're dealing with capitalism, may not be such a good thing.

Anyway, when people like John Locke were first figuring out the philosophical basis of liberalism... and included the notion that maybe accumulation wasn't *gasp* a sin, since it could drive an economy, they were careful to point out one very obvious fact that seems to have been lost on economists since:

That works, so long as there is "as much and as good" left for everyone else. Reason? That way, employment can't be exploitative... because workers always have the option of walking out into an unclaimed field, staking their claim, and living off the land. Otherwise, they are dependent on employment, and it creates an unequal space in which to negotiate. For employers, the options are "Hire this guy... or any of the other bozos out there." For the worker, the options are "Get a job or starve."

Does your world have "as much and as good"? If so, then you've got a start -- but only a start. Because there are plenty of political economists who will point out that no matter what you do, money is power, since anything you can't do by yourself -- any power or ability you lack -- you can pay for. And that makes things inherently unequal. And unfree, for the ones who lack the money.

Human nature is not going to change just because you want it to.

Business people, like anyone trying to make a profit, cut corners wherever they can. You can't stop that.

You can argue that in a competitive market, doing that is likely to run them out of business.

Ok. But prove that your market will remain competitive. How about the auto industry, for starters?

I guess I won't bother to get into a discussion about dead capital with you. Clearly it would be over your head. How far did you get, anyway? Second semester economics? You'll no doubt just quote the first-year textbook answer, as if there's no dispute over it.

It's just not interesting talking to you anymore. I won't say "debating," because you refuse to do that.

What's wrong with business being "big"? How does money = power when there's no power structure? Please explain.
So there's no formal power structure. Which, when you're dealing with capitalism, may not be such a good thing.
And the reason for that is?

Anyway, when people like John Locke were first figuring out the philosophical basis of liberalism... and included the notion that maybe accumulation wasn't *gasp* a sin, since it could drive an economy, they were careful to point out one very obvious fact that seems to have been lost on economists since:

That works, so long as there is "as much and as good" left for everyone else.
Ah, but with current thought (with Gauthier, Narveson, et al), we use a modified proviso:

"You are free to act and claim property such that you do not make anyone worse off relative to their ex ante position."

Reason? That way, employment can't be exploitative...
And it's ever exploitative how?

because workers always have the option of walking out into an unclaimed field, staking their claim, and living off the land. Otherwise, they are dependent on employment, and it creates an unequal space in which to negotiate. For employers, the options are "Hire this guy... or any of the other bozos out there."
Nope. The options are "hire this guy who can do the job, or this guy who is unqualified and will ruin you".

For the worker, the options are "Get a job or starve."
And your options are "breathe or die". Boy, isn't nature a bitch.

Does your world have "as much and as good"? If so, then you've got a start -- but only a start. Because there are plenty of political economists who will point out that no matter what you do, money is power,
And there's plenty who will point out that it's not necessarily so.

since anything you can't do by yourself -- any power or ability you lack -- you can pay for. And that makes things inherently unequal.
Humans are inherently unequal.

And unfree, for the ones who lack the money.
Begging the question. That's not good.

Human nature is not going to change just because you want it to.
Nor will it for your Hollywood script.

Business people, like anyone trying to make a profit, cut corners wherever they can. You can't stop that.
And you can't stop people from finding out.

You can argue that in a competitive market, doing that is likely to run them out of business.
Or cause them problems, as when Tampax downsized their packages and pissed off women to the point where they boycotted and got Tampax to relent.

Ok. But prove that your market will remain competitive. How about the auto industry, for starters?
Markets, by definition, are competitive.

I guess I won't bother to get into a discussion about dead capital with you. Clearly it would be over your head.
And I guess I can't respond to you anymore, since everything I post is way over your head.

You can't debate. All you do is think that your Hollywood fantasy is real. Where's the fun in talking to someone who doesn't know the difference between fact and fiction?

Ignorant troll.

You've been given every chance to be reasonable.

I am done with you.

whine whine whine
Troll

When you learn to differentiate fantasy from reality, get back to me. When you learn to discern fact from fiction, get back to me.

Until then, you're just another moron who got roasted because he couldn't be bothered to break out of his little self-made box.

Someone please lock this thread and/or ban this guy?

Someone please lock this thread and/or ban this guy?

Locking the thread will do no good, he's subscribed to all of the leftwing discussion ones and will, even when specifically not invited (like this one) still act like the obnoxious beast under the bridge picking on the billy-goats.

Vas.

even when specifically not invited (like this one)

Vas.

actually, it was the other one. this one started on his side.

too many threads

whine whine whine
You wanted to start flames--and now you whine about how it's going. How fucking cowardly.

If you can't take the heat, don't start the fucking fire, asshole.

actually, it was the other one. this one started on his side.

too many threads

Oh yeah, right! This is the one where we were challenged, it's on their terms and he still can't put together a coherent idea.

[edit]Though it does seem BWAHAHA(my toys are out of my pram now) made the same mistake!

Vas.

All of these are rhetorical questions pertinent to the "idea" of communism on NS.

1) Why does Letila mis-represent Communism so zealously?

2) What makes people think that anti-Communism = capitalism, when in fact the fascist doctrine is what it's author calls "the opposite of Communism"?

3) What makes people think that ideal capitalism is any more realistic than ideal Communism?

whine whine
No mistake was made.

All of these are rhetorical questions pertinent to the "idea" of communism on NS.

1) Why does Letila mis-represent Communism so zealously?

He doesn't, he represents one view of communism - anarchist communism - which is as valid as any other view.

2) What makes people think that anti-Communism = capitalism,

Nothing, as we don't. Opposition to communism comes from many quarters, as all ideologies are, by definition, opposed to all others.

when in fact the fascist doctrine is what it's author calls "the opposite of Communism"?

What author? Communism, as a political idea, predates fascism by well over a century. Even Marx was long before fascism. On top of that, communism is an economic theory that is diametrically opposed to capitalism, pretty much its opposite. Fascism is a socio-political theory that, in practice, was matched with state capitalism to create a military-industrial complex.

3) What makes people think that ideal capitalism is any more realistic than ideal Communism?

That you'd have to ask people who think it. In fact, I'm of the view that it's far more difficult to reach "ideal" capitalism than communism, as capitalism is self-corrupting.

Vas.

What author? Communism, as a political idea, predates fascism by well over a century. Even Marx was long before fascism. On top of that, communism is an economic theory that is diametrically opposed to capitalism, pretty much its opposite. Fascism is a socio-political theory that, in practice, was matched with state capitalism to create a military-industrial complex.

I wasn't clear enough I guess, by "it's author" I meant the author of fascism.

...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism

However, I suppose since you believe that any form of Communism is as valid as any other it's pointless to justify that statement.

I wasn't clear enough I guess, by "it's author" I meant the author of fascism.

OK.

...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism

However, I suppose since you believe that any form of Communism is as valid as any other it's pointless to justify that statement.

Did I say that? I said that Letila was not misrepresenting communism by presenting a completely valid form of communism. Anarchist communism is a completely valid form of communism, it dates back to Bakunin's split from Marx and was the basis of the two most successful communist experiments - the Ukrain and Catalonia. Fascism may be the opposite of Marxist Socialism, but that's not the same thing as communism, which is a simpler and broader economic concept.

Vas.

This is a little silly. The difference between possessions and property isn't strictly the means of production, as something like a breadmaker is a means of production that is your possession. Possessions are those things you own and use, property are those things you own and charge other for the use of (including rent or skimming off the profit of others labour because you own the factory). To own a cooker and a baking tin does not make you bourgeois in any real sense, even if you do sell the cakes you cook. However, if you hire someone else to cook the cakes and pay them a proportion of the money made, keeping the rest, then you are bourgeois.

The issue with capitalism is the control of the means of production that are used by others by capitalists.

Vas.I agree with that. I contradicted myself in fact. Thanks for correcting.

Eh, or people choose to work on the road and everyone uses the road for free. Where's this "make" thing coming from? A commune might come together and decide that the mud from the unfinished road was a hindrance to the community and they, democratically, would decide to allocate material resources (possibly traded for) and labour to the task. They'd simply weigh up the opportunity cost - is the road worth the cost in resources and labour time when compared to other thing we could do with those resources and that labour? Perhaps, after a period of house-building, there were now enough houses, so the cost would be worthwhile as no-one was needed to build houses and there was surplus labour potential with nothing to do. In contrast, perhaps a load of people were waiting on houses and the commune judged that the houses were more necessary than the road.

Vas.That's what I meant with "make". I didn't use the best word perhaps. In my mind, "make" can mean telling the people "hey, wouldn't that be cool if we built a road?" and the people say "yeah damn cool, why didn't we do that earlier?" and they start building the road.

Communism sucks. I'm right. Don't bother arguing.

Communism sucks. I'm right. Don't bother arguing.


I wasn't going to. I completely agree with that.