NationStates Jolt Archive

I support a free market, even if that means limiting the powers of corporations; for once corporations reach a certain size and influence they are virtually identical to a government.


And I guess... I'm a liberal.... classic liberal... or something.

I believe that markets need some regulation. You know, just to ease the impact of rapidly changing market conditions on people.

EDIT: And somehow I was able to post my answer before you posted the question.

This is mostly just a survey to see where NSG stands on the issue of a free market. Feel free to discuss the merits or lack thereof; I support a free market, but I suspect I'm a minority.

Of course. At the same time, however, I know there are barriers for some people that prevent them from competing freely in the market, and that's why I support things like financial aid, vocational training, and other forms of government help to allow people to get the education and skills they need to compete in the labor market.

People should rise and fall solely on their merits, not due to their race, religion, sexuality, political beliefs or economic condition. The free market means meritocracy, and you can't have a free market without it.

All for the free market.

and...

Let's do the Timewarp again
Let's do the Timewarp again

It's just a jump to the left

And then a step to the right

And then a step to the right

and bend your knees in time
But it's the pelvic thrust
That really drives you insane

Let's do the Timewarp again
Let's do the Timewarp again

I am for the freest market possible that still alows communities' rights and human rights to be respected.

Unfortunately, the term 'free market' has been hijacked by people who find it economically profitable to include such activities as assasinating union organisers within the mandate of a free market.

EDIT this jolt time-warp thing is fun. I must use it soon to outwit others before they even make their point!

I don’t believe in a truly free market (though I do find that corporations tend to do extremely well without the constraints of popular opinion*) the idea of monopolies makes my stomach turn

Also emergency services and waste disposal need to be public its just common sense


*pirates/Swiss mercenaries/east India companies/African resource hunters rule!

All for the free market.

and...

Let's do the Timewarp again
Let's do the Timewarp again

It's just a jump to the left

And then a step to the right

And then a step to the right

and bend your knees in time
But it's the pelvic thrust
That really drives you insane

Let's do the Timewarp again
Let's do the Timewarp again
*Applauds*

And I guess... I'm a liberal.... classic liberal... or something.

I think that the term you are looking for is Libertarian. The Liberal tag has been kidnapped by others, to mean complete government control of the economy (at least in the US).

In a free market economy, there would be no government control of the private industry, as the consumers would decide which industry survives or not. And yes, I truly believe that some powerful corporations need to be kept on a tight leash.

In the mid to late 70's, during the original oil crush in the US, American car companies kept producing large vehicle with heavy horsepowers which were gas guzzlers. The avearage American could not affor to keep driving those monsters, and they were demanding a smaller fuel efficient vehicle. So, we started driving those "piece of crap tin cans" made by Honda and Toyota and Mazda. The result being that they almost went out of business, since the American consumer would not buy US made cars.

I rather decide to which business I will give my money to, instead of having the government tell me who to buy from.

As for monopolies, keep in mind that they are all supported by the government, specially if they are from the military/industrial complex. Also, the government will put in place trade restrictions to protect the local or national industry, which is very wrong. All they are doing is making us the consumers pay way more money for the items, when that company will not provide a product that the consumers want.

Vic

I think that the term you are looking for is Libertarian. The Liberal tag has been kidnapped by others, to mean complete government control of the economy (at least in the US).

well, I'm not American, not at heart. So I call myself liberal, as in the original liberalism, that propounded by people like Smith and Malthus. You know, the ones with really long books on the subject you can't be bothered to read so you just drop their names when referring to your philosophy because everyone else does it, too.

Still no conservatives.

Impressive.

Still no conservatives.

Impressive.

True conservatives call themselves liberal, grasshopper.

No, I don't support the free market. I'm a communist.

Both a free market and public ownership have their places in a mixed economy.

I support a fair market, which means free up to a point.
Perhaps more to the point, I'd prefer a market that leaves the people free.

I'm a market abolitionist, so I'd rather not have a market at all, free, fair, or not.

The reason why? Externalities force any market out of optimum, not to mention obscene levels of inequality.

Free markets are just a way to give those who can produce things cheapest AKA TNC's the advantage which they alredy have. It is nothing but a tool of the capitalist system much like the world bank, the IMF and rostows development model.

I'm a market abolitionist, so I'd rather not have a market at all, free, fair, or not.But then you'd have to make everything you might want yourself.
And I don't know about you, but I can't make computers, TV, anime, cartoons, movies, chocolate, etc.

I'm a market abolitionist, so I'd rather not have a market at all, free, fair, or not.

me too, though i'd probably tolerate the existence of market relations in certain limited circumstances

But then you'd have to make everything you might want yourself.

why?

I'm a libertarian and a strong supporter of a completely open free-market. In my ideal world anything can be sold for any price so long as everyone agrees to it.

"How much for a flight to Canada?"
"That uh gonna be about ah six thousand five hundred daura."
"How about fifty daura?"
"Fifty daura?! You flighn to Canada cost at reast three thousand daura!"
"Fifty-five daura."
"Hey! Stop wasting my time wa fifty-five daura! No way I take my plane to Canada for less than a thousand daura!"
"Okay. Sixty daura."
"Sixty-two daura."
"Okay."
"Okay. Meet me Park County Airfield, yellow Cessna, tail number 432G."
"Got it."
"Hehehehe, never try to barter with a Chinese man."

I'm goin' to hell. :D

I support a free market, even if that means limiting the powers of corporations; for once corporations reach a certain size and influence they are virtually identical to a government.
Influence whom?

If the influence the consumers, that's just market forces. If they influence the policy makers (government), that's not a free market, since the government is fiddling with it (if they weren't, the corporations would have no incentive to curry favour with them).

why?
Because no one would have an incentive to make it for you.

Because no one would have an incentive to make it for you.

Whoever said there needed to be a market to for production to function.

Influence whom?

If the influence the consumers, that's just market forces. If they influence the policy makers (government), that's not a free market, since the government is fiddling with it (if they weren't, the corporations would have no incentive to curry favour with them).

If they influence (i.e. intimidate through size and power, or destroy via stock fiddling) other corporations to the degree that no competition is possible, they have become virtually equivalent to a government.

why?Because if there's any trade then there's a market. That's what it means in the economic sense.

Whoever said there needed to be a market to for production to function.
Have you ever seen a large society that produces without any sort of market or trade?

Have you ever seen a large society that produces without any sort of market or trade?

Let's examine the logic behind this.

It's something like "an alternative hasn't happened because of the determined action of wealthy elites to crush popular revolutions, therefore there is no alternative"

I'm a market abolitionist, so I'd rather not have a market at all, free, fair, or not.

How is this in anyway possible?

Not only am I vehemently for a free market, I am for a free market to the exclusion of government, which I see as utterly unnecessary.

How is this in anyway possible?

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

That, or a Gift economy. (This may be more sleight of hand then anything)

Because if there's any trade then there's a market. That's what it means in the economic sense.

only if trade is defined as "exchange within a market". not exactly the most useful of definitions. and even if it was the proper definition, your "you'd have to make everything yourself" conclusion wouldn't follow at all.

Whoever said there needed to be a market to for production to function.
Marx.

Marx.

First off, "where?" and second, "why should I care?"

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

That, or a Gift economy. (This may be more sleight of hand then anything)
Why would I bother producing to the level of my ability? Why would I bother producing goods to give away?

Define "free market".

"When corporations and other private bodies are given free reign to rape, pillage and plunder the Earth's natural resources, no matter how many people die"

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

That, or a Gift economy. (This may be more sleight of hand then anything)

I hate that saying with a passion.

But anyhow, how do you deny the necessity "to each according to his need" places on the existence of a market?

Why would I bother producing to the level of my ability? Why would I bother producing goods to give away?

All that glitters is not gold. There are other reasons to work beyond mere fiscal renumeration.

Define "free market".

Define "free market".

"Free market" -- an economic system in which trade is unregulated.

Because no one would have an incentive to make it for you.

Sure they would.

"When corporations and other private bodies are given free reign to rape, pillage and plunder the Earth's natural resources, no matter how many people die"
Read a dictionary, for a change.
All that glitters is not gold. There are other reasons to work beyond mere fiscal renumeration.
Yeah, I'm sure you'd love emptying port-a-potties so much you'd do it for free.

Sure they would.
What incentive? I can't pay them. I can't trade them goods I made. I can't promise to make the things they need in future. All of those would be a market.

I hate that saying with a passion.

But anyhow, how do you deny the necessity "to each according to his need" places on the existence of a market?

Most people don't understand it, and others abuse it.

"to each according to his need" says nothing about market exchange. It is one way of looking at a gift economy if solidarity exists at a sufficient level among economic participants and there is enough abundance to allow it.

Basically, everyone is provided with what they need to live a comfortable and happy life, and everyone's interests have turned away from the hoarding of wealth and power. No one can deny that it is a possibility, but I find that the road to get there is long and hard.

No. I don't really support market exchange at all, except as a pragmatic measure in limited contexts.

All that glitters is not gold. There are other reasons to work beyond mere fiscal renumeration.

But none of them have the objective, resource and labor funnelling power of gold.

In the end, there must be rewards for production and punishment for lack of production or economic growth will halt completely.

All that glitters is not gold. There are other reasons to work beyond mere fiscal renumeration.
Anything you give me is payment for my goods. It all has monetary value, so it's still a market transaction.

The only way this operates without a market at all is if I make stuff for no reason at all and then you happen to use it. Ir if I intentionally manufacture a surplus with no expectation that I will benefit in any way from having done so.

So, I ask again, why do I bother producing that surplus?

Most people don't understand it, and others abuse it.

I hate it because it hints at the control society is required to have over the individual.

"to each according to his need" says nothing about market exchange. It is one way of looking at a gift economy if solidarity exists at a sufficient level among economic participants and there is enough abundance to allow it.

Basically, everyone is provided with what they need to live a comfortable and happy life, and everyone's interests have turned away from the hoarding of wealth and power. No one can deny that it is a possibility, but I find that the road to get there is long and hard.

"to" requires that there must be some sort of resource distribution. How is that done without a market?

Read a dictionary, for a change.

Yeah, I'm sure you'd love emptying port-a-potties so much you'd do it for free.

Newspeak terminology can't be tied down by dictionary definitions.

That's where balanced job complexes come in. That way, people take turns doing pleaseant and not so pleaseant work.

What incentive?
The fact that I know how to make a flamethrower out of easily accessable materials.

I see. Well, truth in advertising laws violate that, so I guess I am not for a free market.
As long as someone is enforcing contracts, then truth in advertising is covered under fraud provisions.

"Free market" -- an economic system in which trade is unregulated.

I see. Well, truth in advertising laws violate that, so I guess I am not for a free market.

I see. Well, truth in advertising laws violate that, so I guess I am not for a free market.

Yay online dictionaries.

Normally, we on NSG define a free market as an economic system in which any individual or corporation can control the means of production freely, where that does not infringe upon the rights of other individuals or corporations. Some extend it to cover consumers and workers as well. However, that's needlessly complicated and really not much more than an extension of the real definition.

I hate it because it hints at the control society is required to have over the individual.

"to" requires that there must be some sort of resource distribution. How is that done without a market?

"to" says distribution, but it doesn't say exchange. Markets are based on the exchange of equal values. Gift economies don't do exchanges of equal value.

The only way this operates without a market at all is if I make stuff for no reason at all

Someone else giving you something is the only conceivable reason you would do such a thing?

Someone else giving you something is the only conceivable reason you would do such a thing?

I always figured the point of the market was to get you the things you couldn't or didn't want to make by offering something in return; I mean, you can survive without a market.

Someone else giving you something is the only conceivable reason you would do such a thing?

Well, unless someone else were to give you something for it, it would stand to reason that you'd make enough for yourself and that's it. Why expend the effort to make more than you need -- a surplus, which is why we have economies and markets in the first place -- unless someone gives you something else to do so?

I always figured the point of the market was to get you the things you couldn't or didn't want to make by offering something in return

Right - so an economy that got you the things you couldn't or didn't want to make in some other manner would be a completely non-market economy.

Markets are based on the exchange of equal values.

well, they actually would be more like an expansion on negative reciprocity rather than balanced reciprocity

only if trade is defined as "exchange within a market". not exactly the most useful of definitions. and even if it was the proper definition, your "you'd have to make everything yourself" conclusion wouldn't follow at all.How will you get anything you don't make yourself if not from someone else?

But fine, if we can just define every concept however we see fit, I'll define trade as fish and chips and markets as pinguins. Let's see how much sense that leaves in a conversation..

Well, unless someone else were to give you something for it, it would stand to reason that you'd make enough for yourself and that's it.

How does that "stand to reason"?

How will you get anything you don't make yourself if not from someone else?

why wouldn't you get it from someone else?

"to" says distribution, but it doesn't say exchange. Markets are based on the exchange of equal values. Gift economies don't do exchanges of equal value.

A "gift" is an exchange, as well.

You differentiate because there is no direct quid pro quo established by barter or money, but it doesn't deny that the action is still motivated by an expectation of reciprocal treatment.

No one would produce for society if they thought that their production would not be recompensed with the provision of their needs.

EDIT: Edit there is no quality that makes a gift economy and a free market economy mutually exclusive. In fact, a "gift" economy becomes a "welfare" economy if it is anything other than free.

Right - so an economy that got you the things you couldn't or didn't want to make in some other manner would be a completely non-market economy.

What other manner?

Why does that "stand to reason"?
.... well, mainly because it's what I'd do and I can't really see anyone doing anything different. Also, trying to produce stuff for others if you already produce everything you own yourself would take up far too much time, and people tend to like their time.

No one would produce for society if they thought that their production would not be recompensed with the provision of their needs.

wait, didn't this whole chain start from that saying about abilities and needs?

Someone else giving you something is the only conceivable reason you would do such a thing?
Yes. I'm a selfish bastard, and so is everyone else.

The only reason I ever do anything is because I benefit from it.

wait, didn't this whole chain start from that saying about abilities and needs?

Yes, I am explaining why "to each according to his needs" requires an exchange and thereby a market.

A gift market is still a market.

And if it is truly a gift market, then it is a free market.

Have you ever actually made anything?

yes, I have. It takes me a while to make stuff, however, because I'm, uh, mechanically challenged. That is, I can't work very well with my hands. That's probably why most of my science experiments failed.

.... well, mainly because it's what I'd do and I can't really see anyone doing anything different.
Have you ever actually made anything?

there is no quality that makes a gift economy and a free market economy mutually exclusive.

except for the lack of market relations in the one.

though all societies with market economies do have significant segments that operate on the same general principles as gift economies, even in places where the market is nominally at work. but this is mainly because humans tend to view market relations as horrifically immoral in most circumstances.

The only reason I ever do anything is because I benefit from it.

I see. So I guess you aren't posting on these forums.

Yes. I'm a selfish bastard, and so is everyone else.

The only reason I ever do anything is because I benefit from it.Naturally. What you forget is that money isn't the only possible benefit that you can receive.

Naturally. What you forget is that money isn't the only possible benefit that you can receive.
Any benefit received, however, would make it a trade, and thus a market. Even if that benefit was just a warm fuzzy feeling.

why wouldn't you get it from someone else?
Because no one made extra.

Yes, I am explaining why "to each according to his needs" requires an exchange and thereby a market.

oh. that's just a nonstandard definition, one that excludes the very possibility of 'non-market economies'. me, i'd prefer to keep the distinction open, considering the differences between what have historically been called 'market relations' and 'non-market relations'. i don't know what you'd call them under your proposed definition.

Because no one made extra.

that's completely off the point in the exchange between me and damor, which went like this:

But then you'd have to make everything you might want yourself.
why?
Because if there's any trade then there's a market. That's what it means in the economic sense.
only if trade is defined as "exchange within a market". not exactly the most useful of definitions. and even if it was the proper definition, your "you'd have to make everything yourself" conclusion wouldn't follow at all.
How will you get anything you don't make yourself if not from someone else?
why wouldn't you get it from someone else?

Because no one made extra.

It's surprisingly easy to make extra things.

It's surprisingly easy to make extra things.
But the production of each extra thing still has a marginal cost to you, which you have no reason at all to expend.

that's completely off the point in the exchange between me and damor, which went like this:
Correct.

You're still ignoring the complete lack of an incentive system, though.

I support a free market, even if that means limiting the powers of corporations; for once corporations reach a certain size and influence they are virtually identical to a government.


And I guess... I'm a liberal.... classic liberal... or something.

I'm a "classical liberal" which I consider conservative...Libertarian.

If they influence (i.e. intimidate through size and power, or destroy via stock fiddling) other corporations to the degree that no competition is possible, they have become virtually equivalent to a government.
But does that ever happen?

The only examples of giant monopoliesthat spring to mind were created by the government.

You're still ignoring the complete lack of an incentive system, though.

where and how? i mean, my favored economic structure is one of the ones we know has actually worked for more than a couple generations at a stretch.

except for the lack of market relations in the one.

though all societies with market economies do have significant segments that operate on the same general principles as gift economies, even in places where the market is nominally at work. but this is mainly because humans tend to view market relations as horrifically immoral in most circumstances.

oh. that's just a nonstandard definition, one that excludes the very possibility of 'non-market economies'. me, i'd prefer to keep the distinction open, considering the differences between what have historically been called 'market relations' and 'non-market relations'. i don't know what you'd call them under your proposed definition.

What do you mean by market relations and non-market relations?

But the production of each extra thing still has a marginal cost to you, which you have no reason at all to expend.

And you miss my point entirely.

But does that ever happen?

The only examples of giant monopoliesthat spring to mind were created by the government.

Look at the 1880s.

The only examples of giant monopoliesthat spring to mind were created by the government.
Bill Gates is the government now?

But does that ever happen?

The only examples of giant monopoliesthat spring to mind were created by the government.

Better yet, most governments are giant monopolistic corporations in their own right and territory. They compete and/or cooperate with other governments as they see fit and as to what serves their best interests.

I have a very complicated view on Capitalism and the free market. I believe that the ideal free market is one where individual companies can get only so big. I think numerous small firms are better then Huge Corporations that only care about their bottom line. Lets take Wal Mart for example, Wal Mart is so big that it is able to force other firms to change the way they do business to conform to Wal Mart's standards. Case in point, the practice of forcing manufactures to move their plants overseas under threat of losing Wal Marts commodities purchasing business. Large corporations mean less competion because there are less firms competing. Smaller businesses mean more competion, more completion means lower prices. Lower prices mean more jobs because people can afford to buy commodities they need in daily life. This way of generating lower prices is better then sending our businesses overseas where there is supposedly cheaper labor. Sending our businesses over seas only helps the corporations, while causing people to lose their jobs here and the government to lose tax dollars, which in turn weakens our economy.

Bill Gates is the government now?
Microsoft is far from being a damaging monopoly.

If it were it would face more competition from Apple.

Look at the 1880s.
Like who? Railways? They had government help.

Look at the 1880s.

That was actually a product of government handouts to corporations, no-bid contracts for public works, and a court decision that defined the corporation as a legal person. In reality, all of those were products of the government and all of them played the main roles in the super-monopolies of the 19th century.

Of course, it's also true that the government broke them up, helping to reverse the damage it created.

Ardently laissez-faire. Perhaps even a free market extremist.

That was actually a product of government handouts to corporations, no-bid contracts for public works, and a court decision that defined the corporation as a legal person. In reality, all of those were products of the government and all of them played the main roles in the super-monopolies of the 19th century.

Of course, it's also true that the government broke them up, helping to reverse the damage it created.
And then of course conveniently blaming everything that took place on the market.

38-13-3

Seems to be a fairly solid margin in favor.

Given that I do not think the market should be destroyed and replaced with socialism, I suppose I am in the free market camp. I like the Scandinavian model, personally.

And then of course conveniently blaming everything that took place on the market.

And then, when the economy went in to the tank because of short-sighted populism, they blamed the market again. The government loves the free market when the poll numbers are good and loathes it when the poll numbers are bad...

I'm in favour of a truly "free" market, to the extent that it maximises freedom, provides for a decent living for all, and gives universal access to education and health care. I would sum up such an economic system as "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Of course I would favour the limiting of government "regulation" as far as practically possible.

Feudal capitalism on the other-hand, i couldn't be more opposed to.

But does that ever happen?

The only examples of giant monopoliesthat spring to mind were created by the government.
Microsoft, particularly back in the late 90's.

Microsoft, particularly back in the late 90's.

What exactly was Standard Oil Trust? Oh, yeah, a privately created monopoly.

Microsoft is far from being a damaging monopoly.

If it were it would face more competition from Apple.

So Microsoft was not a monopoly because it didn't have competition? Does that make sense to anyone else?

I would sum up such an economic system as "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Not a big fan of that sentence.

You're trying to build up a tool with which to measure people. That's normal, every person and every society needs that.

Ability is a good yardstick, agreed? From humanity's point of view, able people are useful to themselves and everyone else, and get mankind moving forward.

But is need a good yardstick? Need in this case is the inability to fulfill one's wishes and desires oneself. It's needing other people to do it for you. It's inability.

Do you want to measure people by their inability and promote those? Do you really think that the people society values most highly should be the people who are most useless?

And if you do, what do you think a world like that is gonna look like in a hundred years? The one's with the easiest, qualitatively greatest lives are the people with the least ability. The dumbest, the most sick, the most lazy.

So that's what people will start striving for. And that's just not the world I want to live in.

Oh, and I'm in favour of the free market, though not on a dogmatic basis. I make exceptions in the categories of environmental protection (and other such externalities that show no signs of fixing themselves through the market) and education and early childhood training (because I believe in equality of opportunity, at least to some extent). In both cases I would still use market processes to get there, but that would require the government to create markets that aren't there, or enable some to participate who otherwise would not be.

Though I don't think I neatly fit in any particular category, I suppose I'm something of a J.S. Mill utilitarian capitalism with a lot of CSE-type "let's use maths" influence.

All the way, like the Somali economy :D - absolute no taxes and businesses play a role in civil society, not government (because there's no government:p ). While the media keeps talking about starving Somalians, they forget about the thousands of Somalis bringing back US dollars and Euros into Somalia, creating jobs and housings (Just for $20,000 US dollar you could buy an Italian styled villa, all marbled up!) The only downside is, there's a total chaos/anarchy, but somehow the economy is thriving. The rest of the world should catch up.

Not a big fan of that sentence.

You're trying to build up a tool with which to measure people. That's normal, every person and every society needs that.

Ability is a good yardstick, agreed? From humanity's point of view, able people are useful to themselves and everyone else, and get mankind moving forward.

But is need a good yardstick? Need in this case is the inability to fulfill one's wishes and desires oneself. It's needing other people to do it for you. It's inability.

Do you want to measure people by their inability and promote those? Do you really think that the people society values most highly should be the people who are most useless?

And if you do, what do you think a world like that is gonna look like in a hundred years? The one's with the easiest, qualitatively greatest lives are the people with the least ability. The dumbest, the most sick, the most lazy.

You're making the Rand Straw Man all over again. Need as defined by Marx and other supporters of the famous maxim didn't define it as an "inability to fulfill one's wishes and desires" but literally as what everyone required to live a life as an individual. That's a big difference.

Thus, under this maxim, everyone gets what they need to live a comfortable life, so long as they work to what could be considered their ability.

All the way, like the Somali economy :D - absolute no taxes and businesses play a role in civil society, not government (because there's no government:p ). While the media keeps talking about starving Somalians, they forget about the thousands of Somalis bringing back US dollars and Euros into Somalia, creating jobs and housings (Just for $20,000 US dollar you could buy an Italian styled villa, all marbled up!) The only downside is, there's a total chaos/anarchy, but somehow the economy is thriving. The rest of the world should catch up.

Oh yeah, and those thousands starving in the streets or being murdered by Warlords-cum-Business owners who are creating their own private states are not a problem so long as money is flowing. :rolleyes:

Need as defined by Marx and other supporters of the famous maxim didn't define it as an "inability to fulfill one's wishes and desires" but literally as what everyone required to live a life as an individual.
It's the same thing, you know. If someone requires it, the person wishes and desires it.

If the person is unable to create/acquire/buy that thing, he or she is in need both according to the Marxist and the Randroid interpretation of the sentence.

There is no difference between requirement and desire, unless you come out and start claiming you know other people well enough to make judgements on their wishes.

If the person is unable to create/acquire/buy that thing, he or she is in need both according to the Marxist and the Randroid interpretation of the sentence.
Randian. ;)

There is no difference between requirement and desire, unless you come out and start claiming you know other people well enough to make judgements on their wishes.
Or presume to make judgements for them on what constitutes a need, and how they should prioritise it, whether they like it or not. Ability is the other thing - how could you ever measure this objectively?

So Microsoft was not a monopoly because it didn't have competition? Does that make sense to anyone else?
Inefficient monopolies (especially ones that overcharge) are the ones that attract the most competition, and suffer the most danger. That is what he meant I suppose.

It's the same thing, you know. If someone requires it, the person wishes and desires it.

If the person is unable to create/acquire/buy that thing, he or she is in need both according to the Marxist and the Randroid interpretation of the sentence.

There is no difference between requirement and desire, unless you come out and start claiming you know other people well enough to make judgements on their wishes.

The difference lies with the fact that supporters of the maxim do indeed believe that people should not free ride, and will only get what they want if they work to their ability. The way you and Rand interpret it is that the "needy" get special treatment and the able must fend for themselves. No such distinction in treatment is given by advocates of the maxim.

The difference lies with the fact that supporters of the maxim do indeed believe that people should not free ride, and will only get what they want if they work to their ability.
Never happened. Never will happen.

No one can reliably judge what a person's ability is. I could be very able, and create millions for the group I work for, but if I slacked off and only created a few thousand, no one could actually get me for it.

The only person who knows how hard someone worked is the person himself. Marxism (and indeed every other form of non-market economy) decouples ability and effort from reward, so it's ridiculous to claim that marxists are interested in making people work to their ability.

The way you and Rand interpret it is that the "needy" get special treatment and the able must fend for themselves. No such distinction in treatment is given by advocates of the maxim.
So, if someone is able and has no family, and someone is less able but has seven kids - would the two get the same money for the same amount of value produced? Who would get more?

Never happened. Never will happen.

No one can reliably judge what a person's ability is. I could be very able, and create millions for the group I work for, but if I slacked off and only created a few thousand, no one could actually get me for it.

The only person who knows how hard someone worked is the person himself. Marxism (and indeed every other form of non-market economy) decouples ability and effort from reward, so it's ridiculous to claim that marxists are interested in making people work to their ability.

I would have to give a qualified agreement. Right now, just suddenly switching to a Marxian renumeration would be a disaster. What I think should be done is renumeration based on effort, since effort is the only factor that anyone can control in their work. Other factors are influenced by genetics or other uncontrollable factors.

But I do think that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is fundamentally a good idea, what it lacks is workability. I view it as a goal in the unending process of building an equitable society. For such a system to work, people would have to reach a point where solidarity has reached a great enough level that equity is no longer a concern, and people would freely give to their comrades based solely on need. Whether that time will ever come remains to be seen, but I think it is possible.

So, if someone is able and has no family, and someone is less able but has seven kids - would the two get the same money for the same amount of value produced? Who would get more?

This all comes back to the question of equity no longer being a concern in society. The idea is that this system is implemented when person A doesn't care that person B is getting more for his work than person A because abundance and solidarity have reached an appropriate level.

Other factors are influenced by genetics or other uncontrollable factors.
What about education? That's clearly a controllable factor of how much value I can produce.

I may be depressed. If I produce less, does that mean I have put in less effort than when I wasn't depressed a month ago?

No, effort is even more impossible to measure than ability or need. It's never going to be anything more than a massive bitch fight about who put in more effort, with everyone lying their butts off.

This all comes back to the question of equity no longer being a concern in society. The idea is that this system is implemented when person A doesn't care that person B is getting more for his work than person A because abundance and solidarity have reached an appropriate level.
And that is of course the fallacy of Marx. Neither he nor Engels describe how that's supposed to happen.

They say that revolution will come, and a dictatorship of a controlled market will come about. And that dictatorship will create freedom. The controlled market will create choice.

They never say how that's supposed to happen. And every single real-life communist since then has tried to figure it out. Whether it was Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot...all they did was try to solve a theoretical problem Marx and Engels never really bothered with.

You can't change human nature, a set of instincts that we have because we evolved in a world where it indeed did matter that I had more food than the guy besides me. Even the smallest of children, even animals are jealous of each other about every little thing. The question is whether we can't use this instinct to inspire people to do well by each other in free exchanges, even if the motive may not be so awe-inspiring according to some people.

What about education? That's clearly a controllable factor of how much value I can produce.

I may be depressed. If I produce less, does that mean I have put in less effort than when I wasn't depressed a month ago?

No, effort is even more impossible to measure than ability or need. It's never going to be anything more than a massive bitch fight about who put in more effort, with everyone lying their butts off.

Education is part of effort. It is a sacrifice made for a future reward. Effort can be measure fairly accurately in small groups (which is the idea). Teachers do it all the time.

And that is of course the fallacy of Marx. Neither he nor Engels describe how that's supposed to happen.

They say that revolution will come, and a dictatorship of a controlled market will come about. And that dictatorship will create freedom. The controlled market will create choice.

They never say how that's supposed to happen. And every single real-life communist since then has tried to figure it out. Whether it was Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot...all they did was try to solve a theoretical problem Marx and Engels never really bothered with.

You can't change human nature, a set of instincts that we have because we evolved in a world where it indeed did matter that I had more food than the guy besides me. Even the smallest of children, even animals are jealous of each other about every little thing. The question is whether we can't use this instinct to inspire people to do well by each other in free exchanges, even if the motive may not be so awe-inspiring according to some people.

First off, I'm not a Marxist. Most socialists/communists share Marx's goal, but we disagree on the means. The means that I think would work, I already told you.

Anthropoligists disagree with you on human nature. Human nature is overwhelmingly social, granted there are frictions inherent in human nature. I'm not changing human nature, I'm trying to get human nature to be given the best conditions to thrive.

Ardently laissez-faire. Perhaps even a free market extremist.


Really? For some reason I had you pegged as one of those european fair-trade folks.

Hmm. Well, I got the european part right, yes? :p

I'm almost communist. Not quite though. That should about sum it up.

I support a fair market, which means free up to a point.
Perhaps more to the point, I'd prefer a market that leaves the people free.
Fair enough indeed.;) Although of course, I personally think there's no real reason state-owned businesses can't attract better entrepeneurial talent than in the past under whole-hog socialism. All it would take is some creativity and effort; not something Party hacks are exactly known for, but perhaps not something totally extinct in the breed either...:rolleyes:
What about, say, offering the State business' employees automatic ruling Party membership and 10-20% unconditional tax breaks; to attract craftier and thriftier people to the government payroll. But on the other hand, also forcing said State-owned enterprise to compete in a fair market (safety regs and such allowed) with private industry in return, so that it still does jack work besides suck up national money in subsidies for its privileges. If it fails in the market after some years, then just withdraw those prestige and tax priveliges to be conferred on the winning private firm instead as a successor State firm.
Voila! Socialism that might just work, gentlemen: Offer the State's blessing and support to whichever small-c capitalist best 'robs his fellow barons to give to the people.':mp5:

Really? For some reason I had you pegged as one of those european fair-trade folks.
Check my sig. I am probably one of the most extreme individuals on this board when it comes to free markets.

Hmm. Well, I got the european part right, yes? :p
That you did. :)

What do you mean by market relations and non-market relations?

the difference between what i do when i go to the store to buy a candy bar and what i do when i go to a friend's house for a party, for starters.

I think that communism is a more moral system than capitalism, but I do not favour it because I think it would fail to provide enough incentive for the progress of technology.

That you did. :)
South Africa is not in Europe.

This is a loaded question. Of course everyone is going to say they're for a free market. It's the,"I'm for a free market, but..." answers that really tell you where people stand.

This is a loaded question. Of course everyone is going to say they're for a free market.

we did?

the difference between what i do when i go to the store to buy a candy bar and what i do when i go to a friend's house for a party, for starters.

I wouldn't really draw a clear distinction or opposition between those two.

One addresses resource distribution through buying, but the other doesn't address any sort of distribution.

Thus, under this maxim, everyone gets what they need to live a comfortable life, so long as they work to what could be considered their ability.

Doesn't this require some sort of objective determination of what one needs and how much ability one has?

I fail to see how this allows for any individual determination of one's economic position. Which, if I remember right, is the rallying cry behind socialism.

EDIT: I would reword the statement: "From each according to his desire, to each according to his contribution."

Anthropoligists disagree with you on human nature. Human nature is overwhelmingly social, granted there are frictions inherent in human nature. I'm not changing human nature, I'm trying to get human nature to be given the best conditions to thrive.
Reason is anti-social, and reason supercedes human nature.

Furthermore, I'm anti-social. Your society necessarily excludes me.

Reason is anti-social, and reason supercedes human nature.I'd like some proof on both counts, because I don't buy either.

Evolutionary speaking, it's almost certain reason emerged to deal with the complexity of social living. Too much to keep track of when more 'agents' get involved.

One addresses resource distribution through buying, but the other doesn't address any sort of distribution.

his beer goes from his fridge to my hand. sounds like distribution to me.

Evolutionary speaking, it's almost certain reason emerged to deal with the complexity of social living. Too much to keep track of when more 'agents' get involved.

I think reason came first, but the development of reason and social skills certainly are hand in hand. I would say that we first had to randomly develop the mental machinery before we could exploit more complex social interactions for our own (albeit unknown) benefit.

But when you consider that subsequent developments in mental complexity were best exploited when they provided an added on advantage in previous social situations, we see that the rational faculties and the social interactions are largely a chicken and egg chain.

Rational faculties unlocked more complex social situations which unlocked more exploitable rational faculties which unlocked more complex social situations.....

his beer goes from his fridge to my hand. sounds like distribution to me.
But an hour later it goes back into his toilet!

his beer goes from his fridge to my hand. sounds like distribution to me.

But it seems far too simplistic to be analogous to any sort of societal system of resource development, at least considering the modern global economy or even the interrelation of communities on a small level.

There is scarcity and "reaching into the fridge" is simply not an option in meeting the needs of an entire society.

Education is part of effort.
So if I go to school, I get a few "free effort points" towards anything I do in the future?

What if I study modern art, and then slack off in the rubber factory?

Human nature is overwhelmingly social...
Except if there is scarcity. Then people are quite happy to kill, maim and destroy just to get a bit more for themselves and their families.

I'm not changing human nature, I'm trying to get human nature to be given the best conditions to thrive.
No, you're presuming something about human nature, and because your presumption is not reflected by reality, you conclude that something must be wrong with reality.

Look, let's be honest here. Humans are social animals, but only on a small scale. They like themselves and they like their close family and friends.

If I asked you to choose between your parents dying or a hundred thousand kids in Africa dying, you know that you will choose the kids. And I'd put forward that most people, if given the choice between earning a few million a year and a few thousand strangers earning that money instead, would choose themselves first.

You'll notice that small children are very territorial and very jealous. They'll guard what they have, they'll scream and throw tantrums if someone takes it away or they don't get what they want. Even if that means making everyone else miserable.

Any sort of compassion and other "moral" behaviour only comes forward once kids are taught what is right and what is wrong. It's a nature vs nurture thing, and I'd argue that selfishness is the more primitive, but also the more natural way to act.

Whether it's "right" is another question alltogether, but at the very least you can't presume that human nature has to conform to whatever code of morals has been taught to you.

haha. i'm the first 'conservative' not to support free markets.
i have to admit, i'm very much a 'liberal' when it comes to foreign affairs, and see myself as a conservative generally and on domestic affairs.

free markets don't work. they generate more wealth, but fail to share that wealth with those who need it most, and polarise incomes even more: development is a basic human right, and the global capitalist system denies that right to billions of people.

You'll notice that small children are very territorial and very jealous. They'll guard what they have, they'll scream and throw tantrums if someone takes it away or they don't get what they want. Even if that means making everyone else miserable.

Any sort of compassion and other "moral" behaviour only comes forward once kids are taught what is right and what is wrong. It's a nature vs nurture thing, and I'd argue that selfishness is the more primitive, but also the more natural way to act.

If you're trying to claim that capitalism is better because it's more primitive or childlike, then you're certainly steering me and probably a lot of other people away from it. We have things like culture for a good reason and we like it.

If you're trying to claim that capitalism is better because it's more primitive or childlike, then you're certainly steering me and probably a lot of other people away from it. We have things like culture for a good reason and we like it.
Oh, you can think of that whatever you please. I was merely trying to show how the socialist' "monopoly" on moral, or natural behaviour is made up.

And I didn't say that capitalism was childlike, I said that selfishness was. You can be an "unselfish" capitalist (sorta, anyways, if you use the colloquial meaning of selfishness).

South Africa is not in Europe.
Try and observe where I currently am.


Furthermore, I'm anti-social. Your society necessarily excludes me.
Ditto.

Oh, you can think of that whatever you please. I was merely trying to show how the socialist' "monopoly" on moral, or natural behaviour is made up.

And I didn't say that capitalism was childlike, I said that selfishness was. You can be an "unselfish" capitalist (sorta, anyways, if you use the colloquial meaning of selfishness).
Why is selfishness childish (and I do not mean the callously egocentric type here)? According to whom, and by what standard? What exactly makes altruism the better value? Moral intuitions, that is what. And there is nothing more subjective than that.

I think reason came first, but the development of reason and social skills certainly are hand in hand.
This is actually where I disagree. I think it's very difficult to learn social skills through pure reason. Pure reason completely misses out on implication, body language, hints, and other non-linguistic communication.

It also precludes empathy or sympathy, thus preventing the "human solidarity" on which socialism seems to rely.

What if I study modern art, and then slack off in the rubber factory?

I wonder how someone earns the ability to study modern art in the first place.

You'll notice that small children are very territorial and very jealous. They'll guard what they have, they'll scream and throw tantrums if someone takes it away or they don't get what they want. Even if that means making everyone else miserable.

In a discussion with AnarchyeL, he stated that you could judge human nature by the tendencies children show without teaching or what tendencies the children rebel against when taught. I responded that one of the first word assosciations (outside of names) that my little cousin made was "mine." I can't remember how he responded.

Any sort of compassion and other "moral" behaviour only comes forward once kids are taught what is right and what is wrong. It's a nature vs nurture thing, and I'd argue that selfishness is the more primitive, but also the more natural way to act.

I would actually disagree and say that altruism is as much a natural behavior as selfishness in that it stems from our evolution of our species. I would also disagree that it is the more primitive of the two as well, as prior to a more sedentary lifestyle it was nearly impossible for individuals to survive by providing for themselves.

Whether it's "right" is another question alltogether, but at the very least you can't presume that human nature has to conform to whatever code of morals has been taught to you.

Agreed. If anything human nature is above morality, in that forms itself to meet whatever moral code it is conditioned to uphold, and it will do it naturally.

This is actually where I disagree. I think it's very difficult to learn social skills through pure reason. Pure reason completely misses out on implication, body language, hints, and other non-linguistic communication.


Our rational faculties are essential in decifering and identifying trends and symbols in our communication. It is only through our rational faculties that we can lie, detect a lie, project trustworthiness, choose friends and allies, and avoid enemies.

That is not to say that empathy and emotions do not play important roles in our social structures, but I do not think they play important roles in the social structures that we would consider distinctly human.

If you're trying to claim that capitalism is better because it's more primitive or childlike, then you're certainly steering me and probably a lot of other people away from it. We have things like culture for a good reason and we like it.

Socialism is a far more primitive societal structure.

I would go so far as to say that culture, language, division of labor, and the agricultural lifestyle itself brings hierarchy with it.

I think reason came first, but the development of reason and social skills certainly are hand in hand. I would say that we first had to randomly develop the mental machinery before we could exploit more complex social interactions for our own (albeit unknown) benefit.

But when you consider that subsequent developments in mental complexity were best exploited when they provided an added on advantage in previous social situations, we see that the rational faculties and the social interactions are largely a chicken and egg chain.

Rational faculties unlocked more complex social situations which unlocked more exploitable rational faculties which unlocked more complex social situations.....

I think it also depends on your definions of social interactions and rational faculties. All mammals are social to the extent that their young need their mothers for milk and interact during this period. Various animals are especially social including wolves, lions, chimps, gorillas, horses, and antelope.

Many animals are capable of reasoning as well. My dog thinks of ingenius ways to get food that I was sure he couldn't get too. In an experiment some scientists put out some sugar water for a beehive for several days. Every day they doubled the space from the hive. The bees somehow were able to reason this out and waited near the spot they planned to put the sugar water. Of course this reasoning wasn't abstract, but can abstract reasoning and other rational faculties be seperated?

There is scarcity and "reaching into the fridge" is simply not an option in meeting the needs of an entire society.

empirical evidence says otherwise - market relations don't take on anywhere near their modern importance until ridiculously recently

empirical evidence says otherwise

What empirical evidence?

Ability is a good yardstick, agreed? From humanity's point of view, able people are useful to themselves and everyone else, and get mankind moving forward.There isn't necessarily any correlation between the way the market measures ability and reward.

Do you want to measure people by their inability and promote those? Do you really think that the people society values most highly should be the people who are most useless?There isn't necessarily any correlation between what the market values and what society values.

empirical evidence says otherwise - market relations don't take on anywhere near their modern importance until ridiculously recently

Well, several thousand years is a fairly significant period of time within the context of human civilization.

There isn't necessarily any correlation between the way the market measures ability and reward.
Depending of course on what you mean when you say "the market".

There isn't necessarily any correlation between what the market values and what society values.
Economic performance is a virtue regardless of who the spectator is.

Free Breakfast yes, free market not so much.

Depending of course on what you mean when you say "the market".The market - i.e. the cumulative effect of transactions between individuals.

Economic performance is a virtue regardless of who the spectator is.Even if this were the case, there are other virtues. Society might believe that one of these virtues is better than economic performance.

As European liberal, I support a mostly free market.

Of course there should be boundaries - some services(like police, streets, etc.) should be done exclusivly by the state, and there should be laws to ensure a fair competition. For example, private monopolies shouldn't be allowed, and there should be basic laws for protecting the workers, etc.

But in general the free market is the most natural economic systems, so it works the best. It's not an utopian system like socialism or other strict regulared systems.

BTW: I read something about "American liberals want the government to control all the market". Sorry, I really belive that some conservative mix up Liberalism with Communism...

The market - i.e. the cumulative effect of transactions between individuals.
Prove it.

Even if this were the case, there are other virtues. Society might believe that one of these virtues is better than economic performance.
Unfortunately "society" would also miss out on the alternative. Of course, since "society" doesn't want the rather obvious, amoral advantages of economic performance to just stand there and make "society" look rather stupid, they prefer to call themselves "society" and lobby against allowing people to choose which virtues they want to spend their time and effort on.

As European liberal, I support a mostly free market.
Yay! (http://wahlkampf.fdp.de/files/363/fdp-chances_of_freedom.pdf)

Prove it.Prove what? That the market is the cumulative effect of business transactions between individuals, or that there isn't necessarily any correlation between the way the market measures ability and reward?

Unfortunately "society" would also miss out on the alternative. Of course, since "society" doesn't want the rather obvious, amoral advantages of economic performance to just stand there and make "society" look rather stupid, they prefer to call themselves "society" and lobby against allowing people to choose which virtues they want to spend their time and effort on.
Society can decide of the pros of economic performance outweigh the cons. It isn't necessarily the case that this occurs.

Well, several thousand years is a fairly significant period of time within the context of human civilization.

Exactly.

He wants to argue that because hunter-gatherers that followed big game in their migrations never had to go to the store, modern society shouldn't have to either.

One could argue that the last ten thousand years has been the development of market relations.

One could argue that the last ten thousand years has been the development of market relations.

It was. The market system was absolutely vital to the development of cities; it probably even dates back to the hunter-gatherer era when tribes traded products with each other that they couldn't produce in their own area. In fact, most technology was spread worldwide thanks to the market system.

Now, with my example, I was going even farther and setting a particular, unequivocal example of a functioning market system: Diocletian's Edict on Maximum Prices in 301 AD.

It was a system of price controls meant to control the spiraling inflation of the late 3rd century in the Roman Empire. The end product was shortages, barter, and the emergence of a huge black market economy that ultimately caused more damage than the situation prior to the Edict.

Free Breakfast yes, free market not so much.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. -Milton Friedman :p

Exactly.

He wants to argue that because hunter-gatherers that followed big game in their migrations never had to go to the store, modern society shouldn't have to either.

One could argue that the last ten thousand years has been the development of market relations.

nah, agriculturalists didn't have much to do with market relations either. nor did urban peoples for most of the history of cities. at most, market relations were "accessories", which were completely bound up in the spontaneous social regulation of tradition and reciprocative and redistributive networks. society governed largely by market relations is a new thing.

It was. The market system was absolutely vital to the development of cities

nah, you are thinking of centralized redistribution

nah, you are thinking of centralized redistribution

Centralized redistribution played a role, but trade networks were also essential to the development of cities.

The difference lies with the fact that supporters of the maxim do indeed believe that people should not free ride, and will only get what they want if they work to their ability. The way you and Rand interpret it is that the "needy" get special treatment and the able must fend for themselves. No such distinction in treatment is given by advocates of the maxim.

The only person I ever met quoted that maxim refuses to do a full time job. Doesn't see why he should have to apparently, so he knocks off at liunchtime, goes home and gets stoned while the government force a disproportionately working class tax base to feed his children.

Looks like the market still has a pretty firm lead, even in a place as lefty as NSG.

I'm for a free market and by your definition I would probably be seen as a "liberal". But I would like to add that even though I'm for a free market I strongly support unions and there should also be strict restrictions on companies when it comes to environmental issues.

Centralized redistribution played a role, but trade networks were also essential to the development of cities.

trade ≠ market relations. unless the kula ring represents a market economy. and the sort of trade that many urban centers engaged in was frequently a sort of mediated redistribution - though this varies depending on the societies in question and the relations between them.

True conservatives call themselves liberal, grasshopper.

*nods*

The truth, that is.

trade ≠ market relations.
Trade = free exchanges. Define a market without including the notion of exchanges, if you can.

Trade = free exchanges. Define a market without including the notion of exchanges, if you can.

why would i want to? exchange is a necessary but not sufficient condition for market relations. if markets are defined by mere exchange, then everything is a market and the term is useless for capturing important distinctions. which means we'd just have to make up even more terms. and i would still oppose the thing you favor, though we would both be in favor of 'the market'. seems silly to me.

trade ≠ market relations. unless the kula ring represents a market economy. and the sort of trade that many urban centers engaged in was frequently a sort of mediated redistribution - though this varies depending on the societies in question and the relations between them.

Market relations developed out of trade; eventually, the demand for products and rising trade volume, driven by technological improvements, outstripped the ability of local economies to supply and that led to the evolution of scarcity-based market relations.

In this case, the market is a natural progression from earlier systems.

*nods*

The truth, that is.
How is that the truth? True conservatives call themselves conservatives.

why would i want to? exchange is a necessary but not sufficient condition for market relations. if markets are defined by mere exchange, then everything is a market and the term is useless for capturing important distinctions. which means we'd just have to make up even more terms. and i would still oppose the thing you favor, though we would both be in favor of 'the market'. seems silly to me.
The free market is ultimately i) based on private property, ii) exchanges of this property (including products).

This has existed for centuries, often with degrees of intervention by ruling authorities. Modern markets built on the more antiquated forms. Still the same concept.

I know this is not the kind of market you'd support, but we're talking about what has existed rather than which ideology should be adhered to.

Market relations developed out of trade; eventually, the demand for products and rising trade volume, driven by technological improvements, outstripped the ability of local economies to supply and that led to the evolution of scarcity-based market relations.

In this case, the market is a natural progression from earlier systems.

marxism of this sort is a dead end in anthropology. there is no natural progression.

marxism of this sort is a dead end in anthropology. there is no natural progression.

Economies have naturally progressed to more efficient models over time. The ones that are less efficient either collapse, like state capitalism, or are absorbed in to newer systems, like mercantilism in to capitalism.

nah, agriculturalists didn't have much to do with market relations either. nor did urban peoples for most of the history of cities. at most, market relations were "accessories", which were completely bound up in the spontaneous social regulation of tradition and reciprocative and redistributive networks. society governed largely by market relations is a new thing.

All specialization of labor is dependent upon market relations, and no urban environment is possible without the specialization of labor.

Economies have naturally progressed to more efficient models over time.

oh?

roman proto-capitalism to dark ages feudalism
cahokian centralized redistribution to post-mississippian small scale horticulture or foraging

All specialization of labor is dependent upon market relations

tell me about the market relations inherent in tribute and redistribution-based chiefdoms, with their warriors classes, artisans, and farmers. tell me about the market relation within a band of !kung, and their sexual division of labor.

tell me about the market relations inherent in tribute and redistribution-based chiefdoms

The chief operates as a market. There is nothing about a market that requires it be a direct trade between two producers. It only requires that there be a reciprocal exchange of value and resources, and if the tribute or favor a villager makes to a chief or a noble makes to a king is functions to secure resources such as food, land, or protection, then we can assume the king or chief functions as a market.

tell me about the market relation within a band of !kung, and their sexual division of labor.

The !kung are hunter gatherers. As it is nearly impossible for the !kung to store resources or maintain any level of tradeable possessions, it would be largely impossible for them to form a market.

More importantly, the harsh environment has left them unable to develop any modern agricultural society, and they share much more in common with our hunter-gathering ancestors thousands of years ago.

If you wish to revert back to nomadic tribal bands with roughly 20 people a peice, then I am certainly willing to discuss a society not reliant on market relations.

The !kung are hunter gatherers. As it is nearly impossible for the !kung to store resources or maintain any level of tradeable possessions, it would be largely impossible for them to form a market.

and yet they have sexually specialized and divided labor. which seems to undermine your earlier claim, just a little.

and yet they have sexually specialized and divided labor. which seems to undermine your earlier claim, just a little.

You are correct, not all specialized labor requires market relations, but saying that women can gather berries, while men can hunt animals without market exchange is a long ways from the type of specialization we have seen develop over the last 10,000 years.

Do you propose that specialization could occur outside of small family units without some sort of market on which to exchange resources and services?

...or that there isn't necessarily any correlation between the way the market measures ability and reward?
That one.

But first you may have to define "ability" and "reward" as well.

Society can decide of the pros of economic performance outweigh the cons. It isn't necessarily the case that this occurs.
And unless "society" (of course meaning a gang of people who believe they stand for everyone) then forces people to not perform economically, they will see that their decision is meaningless, since they will be put at a relative disadvantage against anyone who prefers economic performance.

Do you propose that specialization could occur outside of small family units without some sort of market on which to exchange resources and services?

yes. but if you insist on calling all the other kinds of economic relations 'market', then i guess i'll just have to say "fine, markets are tautological. but some types of markets are way better than others."

oh?
roman proto-capitalism to dark ages feudalism

cahokian centralized redistribution to post-mississippian small scale horticulture or foraging

Just because it takes steps backwards doesn't mean it's not continuing in a general direction towards more efficient models. The economy doesn't exist in a vacuum; negative factors that might affect other parts of society (such as the rampant hyperinflation of the 3rd century Roman Empire) are also going to affect the economic model.

Remember that feudalism was a product of the dangers of the collapsing Roman Empire; if we look at it from this angle, feudalism was in some ways an improvement given that it provided a level of stability that could not be produced in the collapsing economic systems of the Western Roman Empire.

That one.

But first you may have to define "ability" and "reward" as well.Would the "glass ceiling" suffice as an example? (That women don't, as a whole, recieve equal pay for doing equal work as their male colleagues.)
There is a similar glass ceiling for shorter people. Shorter people will not, on average, make as much money as a taller person doing the same job.

And unless "society" (of course meaning a gang of people who believe they stand for everyone) then forces people to not perform economically, they will see that their decision is meaningless, since they will be put at a relative disadvantage against anyone who prefers economic performance.I'm not certain why you're putting society in quotes here, given that you were the one who used the word initially.
Nonetheless, I don't have an issue with some cases of society forcing people to not perform economically, such as when economic performance leads to pollution.
I also don't have an issue with making it so that economic performance isn't linked with a greater reward.