NationStates Jolt Archive

Let me get right to the point, unlike another thread that we all know about by now;

Laissez-faire capitalism is not pro-labor. Laissez-faire capitalism is not pro-business.

Laissez-faire capitalism is pro-market.

Many of you here are under the delusion that if America were to assume laissez-faire economics we would return to a time where huge conglomerates dominated the economy. Sorry, many of those corporations arose through the actions of the government (railroads, anyone?); in a free-market economy, the government would not give money to anyone! Whether poor man or huge business afraid of competition.

Many of you here are under the delusion that America would become a vast wasteland of toxic filth. Again, wrong. Corporations would be even more liable under a free-market system. Concerned citizens (you commies and socialists out there, even) could file class-action lawsuits against them and, granted you have enough evidence (which shouldn't be too hard to prove that chemical X gave you five-arms), you will recieve just compensation.

Many of you here are under the delusion that America would see a cruel system in which child-labor thrives. Well, first of all in the pre-Industrial Age children still had to work-- it was just on the farm, which was (GASP) just as dangerous as the factory, but didn't pay as well. Anyway, there would be no enslavement of children (violation of right to liberty) and thus no cruel child-labor. Again, if such gruesome conditions arose, litigious citizens would be on the offensive.

Anyway, I'm through with that. Picard... OUT.

No no, Picard...come back.

Farming isn't as dangerous as working in a factory.

I mean, milking a cow is hardley the equivelent of risking getting your left leg ripped off.

I'm all for pro-market policies though. Just sayin'.

Same here.

...Concerned citizens (you commies and socialists out there, even) could file class-action lawsuits against them and, granted you have enough evidence (which shouldn't be too hard to prove that chemical X gave you five-arms), you will recieve just compensation...
It's hardly that easy. Suppose every firm in the States was to pump out various pollutants into the atmosphere. You get lung cancer.

Prove who did it, and sue them? How?

Many of you here are under the delusion that America would see a cruel system in which child-labor thrives. Well, first of all in the pre-Industrial Age children still had to work-- it was just on the farm, which was (GASP) just as dangerous as the factory, but didn't pay as well.
Working on a farm was a lot easier on the kids than working in a coal mine.

Anyway, there would be no enslavement of children (violation of right to liberty) and thus no cruel child-labor. Again, if such gruesome conditions arose, litigious citizens would be on the offensive.
So, are kids free to make their own decisions? From what age?

Maybe I'm missing something, Picard, but what's the difference between people making a class-action lawsuit and people voting? They both involve the same motivations and the same results, the government just calls them different things. I was under the impression that laissez faire wasn't just a semantic difference.

Many of you here are under the delusion that America would become a vast wasteland of toxic filth. Again, wrong. Corporations would be even more liable under a free-market system. Concerned citizens (you commies and socialists out there, even) could file class-action lawsuits against them and, granted you have enough evidence (which shouldn't be too hard to prove that chemical X gave you five-arms), you will recieve just compensation.


YOU JUST GOTTA LOVE THAT CHEMICAL X! FOR ALL YOUR MUTAGENIC NEEDS! :D

How can someone use Picard's name in such a manner? Have you seen Star Trek at all?


I get it, you must be a Star Wars fan trying to shit all over the confederation. Damn you, take your Ewoks and leave Captain Picard alone!

It is ironic that you pose as a Jean-Luc Picard.

Picard lives in the United Federation of Planets in the 24th Century, according to him in 'First Contact' there is no currency in the 24th century and the government controls the distribution of all resources. Sounds like an extreme form of welfare state or the 'C' word.

If Jean Luc knew anything about Laissez-Faire Capitalism, it would be from historical records and observing Ferangi trading behavior!

Could Laissez-faire Capitalism be summarized in one sentence as:

"Governments should keep its reach out of all economic affairs."

So...no taxes, no public services, how will 'government' as we know it survive without money?

Could Laissez-faire Capitalism be summarized in one sentence as:

"Governments should keep its reach out of all economic affairs."

So...no taxes, no public services, how will 'government' as we know it survive without money?

Could Laissez-faire Capitalism be summarized in one sentence as:

"Governments should keep its reach out of all economic affairs."

So...no taxes, no public services, how will 'government' as we know it survive without money?

Same here.

GAAAAAHHHHH! Help EM!

Trekkies have abducted my thread!

capitalism to star trek? i'm quite lost


P.S. where you been? not many threads we have in common appear anymore

GAAAAAHHHHH! Help EM!

Trekkies have abducted my thread!

capitalism to star trek? i'm quite lost


P.S. where you been? not many threads we have in common appear anymore
Oh...well I have been on vacations...I have a life. Well, sort of :p

Damn geeks, they'll take any opportunity given to them :p

Let me get right to the point, unlike another thread that we all know about by now;

Laissez-faire capitalism is not pro-labor. Laissez-faire capitalism is not pro-business.

Laissez-faire capitalism is pro-market.

Many of you here are under the delusion that if America were to assume laissez-faire economics we would return to a time where huge conglomerates dominated the economy. Sorry, many of those corporations arose through the actions of the government (railroads, anyone?); in a free-market economy, the government would not give money to anyone! Whether poor man or huge business afraid of competition.

Many of you here are under the delusion that America would become a vast wasteland of toxic filth. Again, wrong. Corporations would be even more liable under a free-market system. Concerned citizens (you commies and socialists out there, even) could file class-action lawsuits against them and, granted you have enough evidence (which shouldn't be too hard to prove that chemical X gave you five-arms), you will recieve just compensation.

Many of you here are under the delusion that America would see a cruel system in which child-labor thrives. Well, first of all in the pre-Industrial Age children still had to work-- it was just on the farm, which was (GASP) just as dangerous as the factory, but didn't pay as well. Anyway, there would be no enslavement of children (violation of right to liberty) and thus no cruel child-labor. Again, if such gruesome conditions arose, litigious citizens would be on the offensive.

Anyway, I'm through with that. Picard... OUT.

1. Ah, yes, the days of the Robber Barons. Those were good times.

2. You can still get monopolies without government assistance. See Microsoft.

3. Why is piecemeal environmental regulation through the court system (class-action suits) better than comprehensive legislation? I put it too you that it isn't.

4. At least you are straightforward, you support child labor. How nice. If only you were born in the turn of the last century you'd be so happy with our economic system.

1. Ah, yes, the days of the Robber Barons. Those were good times.

Which had sweet FA to do with laissez faire.

2. You can still get monopolies without government assistance. See Microsoft.

Bollocks.

Microsoft owes its position entirely to state intervention, specifically to patent, which secures a monopoly on a particular idea, and prevents independent development of the same thing, or a similar thing.

Anti-trust actions are based upon an unjust law.

3. Why is piecemeal environmental regulation through the court system (class-action suits) better than comprehensive legislation? I put it too you that it isn't.

"Comprehensive legislation" hasn't worked. It also undermines property rights, and gives an incentive to evade. So called "peacemeal" action can actually act against those who are guilty, while leaving those who are not to get on with business. Abandoning limited liability (also a grant of state priviledge) will also help.

The purpose of regulation is to increase the cost of doing business, nothing more.

4. At least you are straightforward, you support child labor. How nice. If only you were born in the turn of the last century you'd be so happy with our economic system.

You didn't read his post.

What ended child labour was technological advancement, allowing more production by fewer people. The only effect child labour laws have is to push it underground, or overseas.

Let's be honest on laissez faire capitalism, though. If human nature stymies communism, then I think the same is true for unregulated capitalism. There was a really good quote I once heard, something like "Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of reasons will somehow work for the benefit of us all". And it's true; if you let corporations get by without any restraints, what makes you think they will be nice?

I don't see why. All laissez faire capitalism is is a system in which everyone can peacefully persue economic self-interest.

The anonymous chap you are quoting isn't much of an authority on capitalism. He doesn't even understand the profit motive.

Bollocks.

Microsoft owes its position entirely to state intervention, specifically to patent, which secures a monopoly on a particular idea, and prevents independent development of the same thing, or a similar thing.

Anti-trust actions are based upon an unjust law.

"Comprehensive legislation" hasn't worked. It also undermines property rights, and gives an incentive to evade. So called "peacemeal" action can actually act against those who are guilty, while leaving those who are not to get on with business. Abandoning limited liability (also a grant of state priviledge) will also help.

The purpose of regulation is to increase the cost of doing business, nothing more.

*snip*.

So this laissez-faire paradise has no patent or copyright laws?

No anti-trust laws?

No limitations on torts or liability?

Curious.

Eh, Microsoft isn't a monopoly. Last I checked there were still Macintoshes and Linuxes out there. If MS was really a monopoly, there wouldn't be, because it would have exclusive control over it's type of product.

Who exactly is paying for this court system? I shudder to think of how a laissez-faire capitalistic corporate run court system would work -- or who would enforce the rulings...

Didn't we just pass tort reform because 'These junk lawsuits are ruining people' and make it damn near impossible to get a class action lawsuit together now unless you have a lot of money to begin with?

Didn't we just pass tort reform because 'These junk lawsuits are ruining people' and make it damn near impossible to get a class action lawsuit together now unless you have a lot of money to begin with?

Yes, but that's the opposite of laissez-faire. Not passing tort reform would have been the laissez-faire thing to do.

All those corporate subsidies and pork projects would go too.

Four small problems.

The free market is an unstable equilibrium. An entrenched monopolist who uses various "anti-competitive" practices in order to stifle competition is a very stable equilibrium. A variety of competing corporations? Unstable. One need only examine the corporate merger, acquisitions, and the exponential growth of capital to arrive at this mathematically.

At the very least, in order to maintain the [i]lack of rules postulated as the basic cornerstone of a free market, one must make rules insuring that lack of regulation remains constant.

Third, any stable monetary system in existence is ultimately founded on force of law. Economics is founded on a framework of a certain level of governmental arbitration.

Fourth, any significant claim to property ultimately devolves on the arbitrary assignment of natural resources, which in turn ultimately devolves historically upon governmental whim and the force of arms. Property is inevitably founded upon a series of thefts and mutual agreements, which are inextricably bound with governance.

Thus, any proponent of "government out of the market" must necessarily acknowledge it is not the entirety of governmental effect they wish to eliminate... merely particular types of interference.

Picard... OUT.

You don't sound like Picard. Picard is anti-capitalist.

The free market is an unstable equilibrium. An entrenched monopolist who uses various [illegal/immoral] "anti-competitive" practices in order to stifle competition is a very stable equilibrium. A variety of competing corporations? Unstable. One need only examine the corporate merger, acquisitions, and the exponential growth of capital to arrive at this mathematically.

Untrue, and irrelevant.

Third, any stable monetary system in existence is ultimately founded on force of law. Economics is founded on a framework of a certain level of governmental arbitration.

Nonsense. Firstly, all government mandated money tends towards its true value, zero. Stable money is simply a money that holds it value over time. Government paper has never ensured that. The only thing that has is a market money, which tends to be gold.

The purpose of government mandated fiat money is to enrich the state, and its clients at the expense of the general public.

Fourth, any significant claim to property ultimately devolves on the arbitrary assignment of natural resources, which in turn ultimately devolves historically upon governmental whim and the force of arms. Property is inevitably founded upon a series of thefts and mutual agreements, which are inextricably bound with governance.

Property stems from self-ownership. You own your life. You can combine your labour with nature, and what you produce is your property. What you acquire in voluntary exchange is your property.

The only situations in which claims on property rely on force as those irrelevant to a discussion of laissez faire capitalism. They belong in a discussion of socialism.

So this laissez-faire paradise has no patent or copyright laws?

Who said anything about copyright? Copyright and patent are two completely different things. Patent is a monopoly on an idea, granted by the state, copyright is merely a means of securing the natural right to one's own work. The difference is that copyright doesn't prevent development along similar lines, patent grants a monopoly.

No anti-trust laws?

Anti-trust laws are unnecessary in a free market. They are nothing more than an excuse for the state to shakedown people it doesn't like.

Free markets don't tend towards monopoly. An understanding of the history of monopolies makes this abundantly clear. Monopolies are always grants of state power, and before the "anti-trust" thieves started making the rules, that is how it was understood. Monopoly worked like this, you wanted to go into business, so you pay the King a fee, and he uses his power to remove the competition.

If free markets tended towards monopoly, none of this would be necessary. All one would have to do is go in, and eventually you'd win out. There'd be no need to pay the King.

No limitations on torts or liability?

Mind telling me what that would have to do with laissez faire?

Untrue, and irrelevant.
Not that you'd bother making a case for why that is...:rolleyes:

Property stems from self-ownership. You own your life. You can combine your labour with nature, and what you produce is your property. What you acquire in voluntary exchange is your property.
A simplistic view at best. Humans don't exist in vaccuum. Without something to start with, nothing can be produced - you need resources.
And at some point, these resources started with people bashing each other over the head, taking land for their property that had not received any of their labour, that can not be justified to be theirs, but for the force of arms.

Relevant or not, he's got a point if he contends that some private property can ultimately be traced back to things taken by force - often government intervention of some form or other.

I was thinking the same thing.

Let's be honest on laissez faire capitalism, though. If human nature stymies communism, then I think the same is true for unregulated capitalism. There was a really good quote I once heard, something like "Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of reasons will somehow work for the benefit of us all". And it's true; if you let corporations get by without any restraints, what makes you think they will be nice?
My own suspicion is that most of the time government checks are the only thing that reigns in the more unpleasant behaviour of the corporate interests and that with those removed the system is likely to quickly revert to something not far removed from feudalism. Such a situation would admittedly be wonderful for the emergent corporate ariostocracy, but would still be pretty vile for everybody else.

Eh, Microsoft isn't a monopoly. Last I checked there were still Macintoshes and Linuxes out there. If MS was really a monopoly, there wouldn't be, because it would have exclusive control over it's type of product.
Microsoft is more a form of monopolistic competition nowadays. Any firm, by the way, that controls more than 25% of the market, at least in the UK, is defined as a monopoly. So you may well have 3 monopolies and a host of other smaller vendors. This would be more akin to an oligopoly in fact, but nevertheless a monopoly need not be a firm with total market domination. The ideal form of market is monopolistic competition, wherein incentives for innovation remain, without one firm strangling the market forces. Perfect competition, whilst ideal, should remain in situations where innovation and product differentiation is needless. The only truly undesirable situations in capitalism are absolute monopolies and colluding oligopolies (acting in effect as a monopoly). If everything is limited to monopolistic and perfect competition, then there is no reason for concern. This requires limited government intervention of course. Were perfect competition the only form around, then government intervention would be unnecessary altogether, but this is impossible. Perfect competition is the golden standard of laissez-faire, and also the most unattainable one.

Now, regarding monopolies. According to Schumpeter's Creative Destruction theory, they have their purpose. They constantly innovate to keep the barriers to the free market high. What this means is that they stimulate research and often keep prices low. Thus, it is of benefit to have a few monopolies competing, so as to reap the benefits of their competitive efforts. Naturally, should the barriers become too high, well this is a nightmare situation and could lead to one-firm market domination.

Microsoft was broken down btw, wasn't it? In any event, I wonder to what extent MS and Apple aren't near absolute monopolies...their prices are sky-high (MS can charge up to £70 for a simple question, Apple will charge up to £10 000 for one of its top range PCs). While their quality (at least Apple's) is excellent, its not in line with the pricing. Makes you wonder.

Untrue, and irrelevant.
I'm sorry, but I'll have to agree on that one. Being capitalist, I usually agree with your views on the matter. However, the situation the poster was referring to, ie oligopolies, is indeed a true bane. Its without the benefits of a monopoly, ie the Creative Destruction theory, and is extremely uncertain. Firms cannot shift their prices due to fear of rivals adopting strategies that would be damaging to them (Nash Equilibrium). This means that consumers do not benefit from lower prices. In addition, innovation isn't as strong as in monopolistic competition, and neither is product differentiation. At best, you end up with brand competition. The worst case scenario of course is a tacit collusion, ie that the firms all work together, acting as a monopoly, rather than competing agencies. There is no need for the Creative Destruction theory to apply as there is no competition at this stage, and the oligipolies may now act as the absolute market leader. I am not sure what the frequency of such entities arising is, but theoretically at least its an undesirable situation.

OPEC is an example of this. Oil prices fluctuate subject to its whims.

Untrue, and irrelevant.No, very true. The greater the capital, the greater the ability to grow that capital, enjoy bulk discounts, etc etc etc. The natural behavior of corporate entities is also to buy each other out, merge, etc etc. Anti-competitive behavior - particularly of the illegal/immoral sort - only exacerbates this natural tendency.Nonsense. Firstly, all government mandated money tends towards its true value, zero. Stable money is simply a money that holds it value over time. Government paper has never ensured that. The only thing that has is a market money, which tends to be gold.Also not true. Although inflation declines the value of individual bills, money itself serves as a very significant and non-declining fraction of wealth. Governments have chosen to back currency with precious metals, or not. In either case, the regulation and construction of the money has fallen upon the government.The purpose of government mandated fiat money is to enrich the state, and its clients at the expense of the general public.And to date, no other competitively successful currency has ever existed.Property stems from self-ownership. You own your life. You can combine your labour with nature, and what you produce is your property. What you acquire in voluntary exchange is your property.Marx would agree that you own your labour and its productions.

However, all forms of capitalism rely upon the specific ownership of material items, particularly real estate and natural resources. The claims to these are not - and cannot - be based on labor. The only situations in which claims on property rely on force as those irrelevant to a discussion of laissez faire capitalism. They belong in a discussion of socialism.Untrue in the extreme. All claims to private property rely on force, with the exception of idealized forms of governance, in which everybody mutually agrees what belongs to whom and nobody is in a state of want - i.e., a perfect communism.

The enforcement of the concept of private property alone requires the greatest restrictions on personal liberty in our society. Check the crime statistics in any industrialized nation.Free markets don't tend towards monopoly. An understanding of the history of monopolies makes this abundantly clear. Monopolies are always grants of state power, and before the "anti-trust" thieves started making the rules, that is how it was understood. Monopoly worked like this, you wanted to go into business, so you pay the King a fee, and he uses his power to remove the competition.Monopolies have sometimes been aided by "grants of state power." However, most often, they have been formed by mergers, rigorous anti-competitive processes, etc etc etc. They have rarely received "goverment grant" to power until after they are well on their path towards monopoly.

Take a case in point. Telecommunications. Once one company built a telephone network, the price to break into the market was prohibitively expensive - particularly when any competitor faced not only the initial price of building their own separate network to compete, but would be unable to reach customers. A natural monopoly, requiring great concerted effort to bring down - and only a profitable enterprise to do so to an entity with a prohibitively large quantity of capital, at which point it may as well have simply bought AT&T and continued to make AT&T's monopolistic killing on the market. This monopoly was clearly a stable equilibrium.If free markets tended towards monopoly, none of this would be necessary. All one would have to do is go in, and eventually you'd win out. There'd be no need to pay the King.The king is not the only person you can pay to remove competition. In fact, under a true lassez faire environment, the number of options only expands. You can pay them (buy them out), pay the gangsters down the street (muscle them out), etc etc etc.

To watch the natural corporate tendency towards mergers and collusion, one need only watch the news. Successfully starting up a new business in a field is substantially harder than expanding the share of an existing one.

It is only through collective intervention (i.e., governmental intervention) that this is limited in the slightest.

Europa Maxima, the definition of "monopoly" used by the British government (or the US Government for that matter) has little connection with reality, and serves as an excuse for politically motivated shakedowns, and prosecutions.

As to cartels, cartels don't survive in a free market for long, as someone always breaks ranks, because there is profit in it. If cartels did have a propensity to survive in the long term, the Federal Reserve wouldn't be necessary (necessary in the sense that it protects colluding banks from the consequences of their actions), and would never have been suggested by the banking elites.

OPEC isn't an example for the simple reason that it is an intergovernmental institution, and many of the governments actually own the oil wholey.

No monopoly, or cartel can survive without government intervention.

And at some point, these resources started with people bashing each other over the head, taking land for their property that had not received any of their labour, that can not be justified to be theirs, but for the force of arms.

Relevant or not, he's got a point if he contends that some private property can ultimately be traced back to things taken by force - often government intervention of some form or other.

Not relevant at all. Private property (in its legitimate sense) and force have nothing in common.

the thing is

like someone said child labour vanished due to technology the same thing will (eventually) happen to most jobs in the future now this will cause a surge in unemployment that will push it to disastrous levels now think of all the bad voodoo that will start happening like: no more pigeons at the park and CHAV’s playing there hippy hoping at absurd levels causing you too miss the opera

they way out of this nightmare will be planned economics or more precisely put technocracy if we can seize industry we can feed the population and such (as well as the people who are no longer begging will be doing stuff)

Let me get right to the point, unlike another thread that we all know about by now; That little bit of sniping was completely unecessary. And petty. Quite petty.

Europa Maxima, the definition of "monopoly" used by the British government (or the US Government for that matter) has little connection with reality, and serves as an excuse for politically motivated shakedowns, and prosecutions.
Yes, I would agree with you here. Their definitions seem somewhat depreciatory for what one might consider a firm with an absolute hold on the market.


As to cartels, cartels don't survive in a free market for long, as someone always breaks ranks, because there is profit in it. If cartels did have a propensity to survive in the long term, the Federal Reserve wouldn't be necessary (necessary in the sense that it protects colluding banks from the consequences of their actions), and would never have been suggested by the banking elites.
Yet banks aren't the only firms to collude, are they?


OPEC isn't an example for the simple reason that it is an intergovernmental institution, and many of the governments actually own the oil wholey.

No monopoly, or cartel can survive without government intervention.

I'll agree with you on OPEC. Its a form of government owned collusion, so you are correct in that it requires government intervention to survive.

Why would a monopoly or a cartel be unable to survive without such assistance in any case? (I am asking out of interest)

No monopoly, or cartel can survive without government intervention.I would say none can be reliably broken without outside intervention... generally from a government.Not relevant at all. Private property (in its legitimate sense) and force have nothing in common.In which case (historically) there has yet to be private property in its legitimate sense.

That little bit of sniping was completely unecessary. And petty. Quite petty.

Thanks for contributing! :confused:

As for Picard comments -- I based this nation off of the mockery of Picard at YTMND.

As for everything else -- some good points. Most monopolies do arise through government allowance; patents are big factor when it comes to many monopolies. Grants, subsidies, tariffs, etc. also play a huge part in granting one business market dominance over another.

Yet, there remains the good point about telecommunications (also, utilities). It would be impractical (now) to have multiple companies competing for your money if it meant multiple telephone lines, water pipes, etc. So perhaps, for now, it would be better for the government to "regulate" these businesses to create natural monopolies (much like the postal service in the beginning days of the nation where it was impractical to have competing services).

Pollution -- In a laissez-faire economy there would be no limited liability; but there would be stronger tort laws and private property rights. As for multiple companies pumping out pollutants -- Private investigators could determine who the primary contributors were and lawsuits could be filed -- corporations would realize this (there would be some exceptions, obviously, who decided to take their chances, but in the end they would serve as examples to other fence-sitters that polluting is not worth the million-dollar lawsuits) and would enforce strong environmental polices. Lack of limited liability would mean if a company was sued its stockholders would have to help pay any debt -- wary stockholders, I imagine, would also not want to risk such lawsuits.

Anyway, Picard... OUT.

I would say none can be reliably broken without outside intervention... generally from a government.I

Actually a monopoly needs to maintain growth and remain intuitive to sustain its dominance. Whether that means buying out new companies, creating newer/better products, or maintaining low enough prices to stomp out competition, a monopoly has to do it -- all of these options are expensive.

If a corporation comes out with too high prices (Microsoft would most likely be gone by now in a laissez-faire eco. because they would not have patents to protect their "products".) another company will step to provide something similar at a cheaper price.

Monopolies must remain competitive or they will collapse.

Laissez-faire capitalism is not pro-labor. Laissez-faire capitalism is not pro-business.

Laissez-faire capitalism is pro-market.




What you missed is this:

"The Market" is not a good in itself, it is an economic system.
The aim of just society is to increase the good for the population, sometimes an economic free-market is the best way to go about this, sometimes it isnt.

Having a market is not an end in itself, in the long run, it is a means.

How can someone use Picard's name in such a manner? Have you seen Star Trek at all?
He's Captain Jean-Luc Picard of the USS Enterprise (http://picard.ytmnd.com/)

What you missed is this:

"The Market" is not a good in itself, it is an economic system.
The aim of just society is to increase the good for the population, sometimes an economic free-market is the best way to go about this, sometimes it isnt.

Having a market is not an end in itself, in the long run, it is a means.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. A free-market combined with a libertarian government would be the "end" -- total freedom to do whatever you want (as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's basic rights: life, liberty, property.)

Do clarify though.

Many of you here are under the delusion that America would become a vast wasteland of toxic filth. Again, wrong. Corporations would be even more liable under a free-market system. Concerned citizens (you commies and socialists out there, even) could file class-action lawsuits against them and, granted you have enough evidence (which shouldn't be too hard to prove that chemical X gave you five-arms), you will recieve just compensation.


Ok, this is just ridiculous. Regardless of political or economic theory associations....why would we wait until AFTER we have 5 arms? Why not just...you know...try and not have 5 arms? Because what I will probably want when I have 5 arms is to not have them not 100 bucks. And can we expect the medical industry to keep up with our rapid genetic mutations? Lets deal with AIDS before we start drinking Chemical X by the quart, please.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. A free-market combined with a libertarian government would be the "end" -- total freedom to do whatever you want (as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's basic rights: life, liberty, property.)

Do clarify though.


That is the "end" if the only goal is to establish a free market combined with a libertarian government, but society usually has other goals.

As long as notions like quality of life, social justice, &c., are the goals of a society, the free market is only one of many conceivable means.

None of the possible means are intrinsically better or worse than others, they are all judged by their efficiency in accomplishing the above.

Ok, this is just ridiculous. Regardless of political or economic theory associations....why would we wait until AFTER we have 5 arms? Why not just...you know...try and not have 5 arms? Because what I will probably want when I have 5 arms is to not have them not 100 bucks. And can we expect the medical industry to keep up with our rapid genetic mutations? Lets deal with AIDS before we start drinking Chemical X by the quart, please.

We wouldn't; companies would avoid distributing Chemical X if they knew it had harmful effects and could risk bringing about extremely expensive lawsuits upon the corporation and its stockholders.

I merely included the possiblity of them releasing the Chemical to display how in a laissez-faire society, this would not be acceptable.

triple post

Triple post

That is the "end" if the only goal is to establish a free market combined with a libertarian government, but society usually has other goals.

As long as notions like quality of life, social justice, &c., are the goals of a society, the free market is only one of many conceivable means.

None of the possible means are intrinsically better or worse than others, they are all judged by their efficiency in accomplishing the above.

But these would be the goals of the people and not of the government. The free-market and a libertarian government would be the end of the search for the right government (for the mentality of humans now, at least; if we evolve to hive-mind complexity than individualist societies/governments would be counter-productive) but would be the means through which these citizens could attain these goals on their own right.

I must add that Jolt is teh suck.

But these would be the goals of the people and not of the government. The free-market and a libertarian government would be the end of the search for the right government (for the mentality of humans now, at least; if we evolve to hive-mind complexity than individualist societies/governments would be counter-productive) but would be the means through which these citizens could attain these goals on their own right.


Do you have any evidence that this is true?

On the subject of lawsuit regulation, there are things like the Pinto, where Ford calculated that it would be cheaper to suffer the lawsuits than it would be to recall the car. That kind of cold calculation rules the day in laissez-faire, no thanks.

Do you have any evidence that this is true?

Touche, monsieur!

Evidence that the goals of the people (not the government) would be what they are?

Evidence that individualist governments would be counter-productive in a hive-mind society?

Evidence that a libertarian + free-market society would be the best?

1. Well, since a libertarian government would be a minimalist government, only protecting the rights of citizens, then it has no need to attain certain goals. Thus, it's left to the citizens, companies, etc.

2. No evidence... Sorry. :(

3. No evidence seeing as a libertarian + laissez-faire society has never been tried.

Touche, monsieur!

Evidence that the goals of the people (not the government) would be what they are?

Evidence that individualist governments would be counter-productive in a hive-mind society?

Evidence that a libertarian + free-market society would be the best?

1. Well, since a libertarian government would be a minimalist government, only protecting the rights of citizens, then it has no need to attain certain goals. Thus, it's left to the citizens, companies, etc.

2. No evidence... Sorry. :(

3. No evidence seeing as a libertarian + laissez-faire society has never been tried.


1) Which rights of citizens would be protected?

2) jabber to begin with

3) Does a degree of libertarianism entail some benefit? If so, there should be many examples of this system being attempted on a small scale or specific sector of society, and many examples of alternatives.

Who said anything about copyright? Copyright and patent are two completely different things. Patent is a monopoly on an idea, granted by the state, copyright is merely a means of securing the natural right to one's own work. The difference is that copyright doesn't prevent development along similar lines, patent grants a monopoly.

*sigh*

Just for the record, I spent the last 7 years as a patent and copyright litigator.

I'd love to see you identify which patent gives Microsoft a monopoly.

I'd love to know how you'd encourage inventors if there were no such thing as patents.

I'd also love to know if you were aware that Patents are directly provided for in the U.S. Constitution.

Given that patents are property that is earned, I can't see how you can claim to be for private property and at the same time argue for the abolishment of patents.

Mind telling me what that would have to do with laissez faire?

The OP said that environmental regulation would be via the court system. He specifically said their would no longer be limited liability laws.

In fact, it appears you would leave all regulation of externalities to tort lawsuits. This is counter to the "tort reform" we always hear that we need.

Perhaps you libertarians need to get on the same playbook.

Actually a monopoly needs to maintain growth and remain intuitive to sustain its dominance. Whether that means buying out new companies, creating newer/better products, or maintaining low enough prices to stomp out competition, a monopoly has to do it -- all of these options are expensive.But not nearly as expensive as fair competition is for a monopoly.

Remember, a monopolist can afford to charge much higher end rates. Sure, they may have to innovate from time to time - although not at the rate that they would need to if they were trying to stay afloat in a truly competitive environment.

And they can usually survive for a few years - even a few decades sometimes - stubbornly refusing to change a thing.If a corporation comes out with too high prices (Microsoft would most likely be gone by now in a laissez-faire eco. because they would not have patents to protect their "products".) another company will step to provide something similar at a cheaper price.

Monopolies must remain competitive or they will collapse.The funny thing about Microsoft as an example is that who's really aiming the axe at them is the open source community... which is a very funny group when we think about profit motivations.

Well, I just look like a big fat noob, now don't I?

Lets see...... soooo.... market economies do a worse job of protecting the environment than COMECON did?
I suppose you've never done before/after trips of Eastern Europe.

Farming isn't as dangerous as working in a factory.

I mean, milking a cow is hardley the equivelent of risking getting your left leg ripped off.you couldnt be more wrong, agriculture together with mining is on top of the list of dangerous professions:

The death rate for agriculture workers remains high when compared to other U.S. industries. The agriculture industry is second only to mining in death rate per 100,000 workers. National Safety Council estimates based upon BLS employment data list the agriculture death rate at 23.1 deaths per 100,000 workers and 22.7 deaths per 100,000 workers in 1992 and 2002, respectively. This represents only a 1.7 percent decrease over the 10-year period. More importantly, death rate data only includes persons 16 years or older. These facts do not account for accidental deaths to minors, who comprise a significant portion of the agriculture industry labor force. For example, a 1998 report released by the Department of Health and Human Services indicated that over 650,000 youth under the age of 16 worked on farms. Additionally, an estimated 104 children per year under 20 years of age die of agriculture injuries on U.S. farms.

http://www.landandlivestockpost.com/commentary/082904zimmerman.htm

Workers in the agriculture industry have consistently been identified as being at high risk of death and injury [NIOSH, 1993; Runyan, 1993; NSC, 1997; Ruser, 1998]. Production agriculture, a segment of the agriculture industry, is the sector which commonly represents farming. Production agriculture has been shown to have higher rates of fatalities than the agriculture industry as a whole [Myers and Hard, 1995; U.S. DOL/BLS, 1996]. Studies have shown young workers in agriculture to incur more serious injuries and a greater proportion of injury than the general young worker population [Hoskins et al., 1988; Heyer et al, 1992; Belville et al., 1993; Castillo et al., 1994; Rivara, 1997]. Reasons for the higher rates have been suggested as being inexperienced in the job/work method, a more hazardous work environment, and risk taking behavior due to a feeling of invincibility by young workers [Pollock & Landrigan, 1990; Murphy, 1992; Cotten, 1997; Pratt & Hard, 1997].

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/childag/youngagworkersfinal.html