Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

I'm assuming that free enterprise intends to protect the rights of freedom and property, and I'm suggesting that while it may preserve those rights in theory, it abolishes them in practice.

Property deprives certain individuals and rewards others. Those rewarded need not already occupy a position of security, such as that if government just evaporated they would be in good standing. Even beginning with a blank slate economy/society, the movement of free enterprise will never remain in a state of stasis, and the "market" has no power to "find a way" as you suggested earlier considering the fact that the market is comprised of individuals.

The number of those with less only grows larger (avoiding some natural calamity or "class cleansing") since they possess fewer means of producing, and inevitably they will resort to violence. In this very moment, the free market has consumed itself and resulted in its opposite, since for those rebelling individuals the rights of "freedom" and "property" mean nothing. Indeed, these rights meant nothing from the very moment those individuals identified themselves as deprived.

The free market is founded on an impossibility, or paradox: that it can provide equal rights for all individuals. Granted, the free market doesn't discriminate based on gender, ethnicity, etc. (although people do), but it still inevitably deprives some while rewarding others.

I simply don't see the logical process that follows here merely going through voluntary exchange, unless at some point [a mafia] forms to interrupt the voluntary exchange. By definition, voluntary exchange leaves both participants better off than they were before, there was not a winner and a loser. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of trade. This is protectionist thinking. The difference is when the trade is coerced, where one side was forced to alter their value scale to the benefit of the other, such as with taxes, tariffs, regulation forced purchases, etc.

If, in the process of time, one's labor and trade do not bring them the result they desire, they may adjust and try again.

Economic law cannot be ignored, just as gravity cannot. It can be fought and subverted for a time, but ultimate consequences are merely delayed. Hence booms and busts. Hence the collapse of totalitarian regimes when they attempt to expand, or their relative overall poverty when they manage to merely hold what they have.

Nihilistic notions of "making things as we want them to be" are on display every day in all facets of life, not the least of which is the facet of economics, and to the hurt of humanity.

This is misleading, because you note that those with less present a higher risk. This is what we're concerned with. Those with more won't steal (or are less likely to) since it introduces a risk to their person. However, those with little or nothing will be forced to steal. Any ideology of free enterprise and competition means absolutely nothing to such people, because it didn't provide for them.

I disagree. Risk assessment is much more complicated than merely dividing between "haves and have nots", and looking at the world now and throughout history, the largest income disparities have been concurrent with reduced economic freedom and lack of property rights. Extreme disparities are not merely a middle class + a super wealthy class, but a sharp divide between a small number with extravagant wealth and overwhelming majority at subsistence living levels. This situation does not occur in a liberal market economy. The mechanisms required for wealth seclusion are non-market in nature, but ironically require the support necessary for maintenance from the very people oppressed, usually through appeals to religion and/or by funneling funds into a "Praetorian Class".

I don't understand how you can't imagine it. I don't see why it must be the state's fault that some people fall into destitution. I don't see why "mutual" competition between individuals won't result in some inevitably coming out on top, while others come out on bottom; and, although I agree that not every individual, once he or she begins the downward spiral will remain trapped within it, this will constitute a general motion within society whereby more and more individuals will find themselves with little.

Top/bottom are extremely relative, vague, and transitory. The only example we have from history of someone "coming out on top" and staying there generationally are monarchies. Hardly a market produced outcome. Companies rise and fall even with state protection of various sorts (excluding state monopolies, those generally fall with the state), and even companies who fail don't spell disaster for the people working within them.

I'm not sure what you're proposing here, but doesn't the finite amount of land on this planet present a problem?

At some population level, it would (unless we manage to start manufacturing land ala Diamond Age, or colonizing other cosmic bodies). However, we aren't at that population level now (or even close to it), and prosperity checks population growth on it's own.

 

[Einherjar86]

I feel as though every few months or so you and I simply reiterate our points; but I don't mind.

If, in the process of time, one's labor and trade do not bring them the result they desire, they may adjust and try again.

This is where I see your problem. The ability to "adjust and try again" is not that easy; and, in some cases, not possible.

Economic law cannot be ignored, just as gravity cannot. It can be fought and subverted for a time, but ultimate consequences are merely delayed. Hence booms and busts. Hence the collapse of totalitarian regimes when they attempt to expand, or their relative overall poverty when they manage to merely hold what they have.

Economic law isn't natural law. This is where you lose me; when you naturalize economics, you succumb to the ideology that capitalism somehow corresponds with a natural order.

Nihilistic notions of "making things as we want them to be" are on display every day in all facets of life, not the least of which is the facet of economics, and to the hurt of humanity.

"Nihilistic notions"?

I disagree. Risk assessment is much more complicated than merely dividing between "haves and have nots", and looking at the world now and throughout history, the largest income disparities have been concurrent with reduced economic freedom and lack of property rights. Extreme disparities are not merely a middle class + a super wealthy class, but a sharp divide between a small number with extravagant wealth and overwhelming majority at subsistence living levels. This situation does not occur in a liberal market economy. The mechanisms required for wealth seclusion are non-market in nature, but ironically require the support necessary for maintenance from the very people oppressed, usually through appeals to religion and/or by funneling funds into a "Praetorian Class".

That situation will occur in a liberal market economy. You're separating individuals from the system when you make this claim. You want to preserve the purity of a free market by appealing to the fact that any coercive or violent action is, by definition, not part of the market. It is completely erroneous, in my opinion, to attribute non-market actions to people while preserving some sense of superior perfection to the system as a whole.

Your description of a liberal market society is entirely abstracted from actual human existence. Acts of violence and coercion can only be classified as abberations within the system, when in fact they will be consequences of it.

Top/bottom are extremely relative, vague, and transitory. The only example we have from history of someone "coming out on top" and staying there generationally are monarchies. Hardly a market produced outcome. Companies rise and fall even with state protection of various sorts (excluding state monopolies, those generally fall with the state), and even companies who fail don't spell disaster for the people working within them.

I'm aware of your emphasis on the relativity of "success"; but it's not difficult to imagine that if necessary goods are commodified in a market economy, there will inevitably be those individuals whose income sinks below the level of minimum sustainability.

At some population level, it would (unless we manage to start manufacturing land ala Diamond Age, or colonizing other cosmic bodies). However, we aren't at that population level now (or even close to it), and prosperity checks population growth on it's own.

It seems as though we should consider the future to a certain extent.

 

[Dak]

This is where I see your problem. The ability to "adjust and try again" is not that easy; and, in some cases, not possible.

The ease of something is not a point, at least afaiac. You would need to expand on the "not possible". When I say try again that doesn't necessarily mean endeavor in the same regard again. IE, maybe you'll win the Super Bowl NEXT year vs Maybe football isn't your sport.

Economic law isn't natural law. This is where you lose me; when you naturalize economics, you succumb to the ideology that capitalism somehow corresponds with a natural order.

But it is. Austrians use "Crusoe Economics" to show the logical process of one person acting "economically", and then subsequently introduce more people and goods into the equation and show the outcome of different inter-relational systems employed.

"Nihilistic notions"?

That is what you said was [correct] nihilism vs vulgar nihilism IIRC. Vulgar nihilism is everything is made up and so why bother, instead of saying it's all made up and so we can do whatever we want.

That situation will occur in a liberal market economy. You're separating individuals from the system when you make this claim. You want to preserve the purity of a free market by appealing to the fact that any coercive or violent action is, by definition, not part of the market. It is completely erroneous, in my opinion, to attribute non-market actions to people while preserving some sense of superior perfection to the system as a whole.

Why? Non market actions are by definition, non-market actions. They cannot be attributed to the market, as market actions are left as an alternative. If we engage in violence to theoretically prevent other violence, I don't see the net gain (and considering opportunity costs involved, much argument can be made for net loss). I take this exact position on the net economic loss caused by Western state "justice"/security apparatus, and wrote on it for one of my articles for UVM.

I'm going to come back to this at the end, but murder/rape/theft and the like occur for all sorts of reasons, not all of which are "material". The total focus of Marxism on the material to the exclusion of all other facets of human action render it helpless to explain the full range of individual subjective value systems and resulting behavior.

Your description of a liberal market society is entirely abstracted from actual human existence. Acts of violence and coercion can only be classified as abberations within the system, when in fact they will be consequences of it.

I thought you didn't believe in cause and effect . Violence and coercion will happen with or without it. If there is a state, they will happen constantly to all under the state no matter what. Envy and potential violent outflows of such can happen even in post-scarcity (materially) society, as individual talents/looks/relationships etc are still unique.

I'm aware of your emphasis on the relativity of "success"; but it's not difficult to imagine that if necessary goods are commodified in a market economy, there will inevitably be those individuals whose income sinks below the level of minimum sustainability.

As I said before, I imagine it could be possible (will most likely be certain if land is treated identically). However, the why is the concern. If someone conducts themselves in such a way that they kill their slice of land nd burn all social bridges, why should I to need to take this into account other than to add this as a risk factor in my insurance and security assessments? This is basically what you are doing, except trying to project your risk assessment onto [others], as well as the subsequent costs of mitigation.

It seems as though we should consider the future to a certain extent.

I've pulled a fertility rate map up before the last time waif and some others went on a population control tirade. Modernized and relatively modernized economic countries have all seen their birth rates drop to sustainment levels or lower. The areas where birth rates remain high are in notoriously totalitarian and unliberalized areas (Africa, Middle East).

Going back to my statement about a fatal flaw in the Marxist approach and it's reduction of everything to materialistic language and subsequent problems, is that it has absolutely no way to address non-materialistic disparities.

In my Humanities class we have just watched the film Amadeus. In case you are not familiar with the movie, it is about Mozart and is told from the perspective of an envious peer, the court composer Salieri. From a purely Marxist perspective (materialist), Salieri is clearly "On top" in every possible way and Mozart on "bottom". However, it is readily evident that this is not the case, as there is more to consider than the material, and the resulting actions from envy of non-material differences can be the same or worse than those of a materialistic nature. Again, success is purely subjective, and in this case both parties involved may see the other "on top", while any number of third parties may make their own conclusions based off of their own value systems.

Marxism is strictly stuck within the narrow confines of a materialistic world view, and ignores the human subject wherever it does not relate to [commodities]. As I stated earlier, even were all humans granted an infinite amount of commodities/material goods, these would merely cease to matter at all, and there would only be other subjective value systems regarding the achievement of other wants.

Marxism will work for absolutely identical robots in a materially infinite universe, not for unique humans in a universe with various finite limits.

 

[Einherjar86]

The ease of something is not a point, at least afaiac. You would need to expand on the "not possible". When I say try again that doesn't necessarily mean endeavor in the same regard again. IE, maybe you'll win the Super Bowl NEXT year vs Maybe football isn't your sport.

Hypothetically: if someone spends time in a specific occupation only to find that their product is inferior to someone else's, it is plausible that they would have gone too far in that direction to realistically return. There is a level of bare minimum of living that individuals may, unintentionally, cross.

But it is. Austrians use "Crusoe Economics" to show the logical process of one person acting "economically", and then subsequently introduce more people and goods into the equation and show the outcome of different inter-relational systems employed.

Oh, no it isn't! In Robinson Crusoe, Defoe introduces absolutely laboratory conditions within which a single individual could function within a kind of primitive market economy; but it isn't a market, precisely because it is comprised of only one man. Then, when more individuals are introduced, Crusoe has apparently mastered the practice of liberal economics (which is, ironically, not an "economic" mastery at all, but an eschatological-theological salvation) and is able to extend this mastery to others. Crusoe actually demands, when others arrive on the island, that they must submit to his authority. He envisions himself as a sovereign king, an authority beneath which others must obey.

Crusoe is the consequence of one individual acting in his own self-interest, and then subordinating the interest of others in order to preserve the stability of the "free market." Not convincing at all.

That is what you said was [correct] nihilism vs vulgar nihilism IIRC. Vulgar nihilism is everything is made up and so why bother, instead of saying it's all made up and so we can do whatever we want.

Well, your second sentence here strikes me as a form of "vulgar" nihilism. I'm not sure what purpose this serves here though.

Why? Non market actions are by definition, non-market actions. They cannot be attributed to the market, as market actions are left as an alternative. If we engage in violence to theoretically prevent other violence, I don't see the net gain (and considering opportunity costs involved, much argument can be made for net loss).

You can say that as many times as you want; but saying it doesn't make it true. If you define the market that way, then that statement might be semiotically accurate; but it's only true as far as language represents some market ideal. It doesn't represent the actual process of the market as it manifests in actuality. You're still trying to hypostatize the market as a kind of Platonic ideal.

I'm going to come back to this at the end, but murder/rape/theft and the like occur for all sorts of reasons, not all of which are "material". The total focus of Marxism on the material to the exclusion of all other facets of human action render it helpless to explain the full range of individual subjective value systems and resulting behavior.[/quote

How is a free market any different? It rewards individuals materially, it encourages behavior based on material gain. There is nothing ideally sufficient in a free market system to compensate for the disparate psychic energies of individuals. This is why a free market will result in material disparity while proclaiming theoretical (i.e. ideal) equality. The ideal, unfortunately, is vapid.

I thought you didn't believe in cause and effect . Violence and coercion will happen with or without it. If there is a state, they will happen constantly to all under the state no matter what. Envy and potential violent outflows of such can happen even in post-scarcity (materially) society, as individual talents/looks/relationships etc are still unique.[/quote

And in a free market, violence will happen no matter what.

Believing that certain actions result in reactions is not the same as believing that cause and effect is a metaphysical law that remains constant according to the specific conditions of a situation. I believe that, if I'm holding an object and let go, it will fall; I believe that a free market will inevitably result in violence and disparity; likewise, I believe that a communist would also result in violence and disparity (bear in mind, I never condoned communism; I merely suggested that Hegel - and Marx - provided a convincing critique of liberal economics). I am skeptical, however, of my own belief in such things. A radical politics means acknowledging the space for radical possibility.

I want to focus on this next:

Going back to my statement about a fatal flaw in the Marxist approach and it's reduction of everything to materialistic language and subsequent problems, is that it has absolutely no way to address non-materialistic disparities.

In my Humanities class we have just watched the film Amadeus. In case you are not familiar with the movie, it is about Mozart and is told from the perspective of an envious peer, the court composer Salieri. From a purely Marxist perspective (materialist), Salieri is clearly "On top" in every possible way and Mozart on "bottom". However, it is readily evident that this is not the case, as there is more to consider than the material, and the resulting actions from envy of non-material differences can be the same or worse than those of a materialistic nature. Again, success is purely subjective, and in this case both parties involved may see the other "on top", while any number of third parties may make their own conclusions based off of their own value systems.

Marxism is strictly stuck within the narrow confines of a materialistic world view, and ignores the human subject wherever it does not relate to [commodities]. As I stated earlier, even were all humans granted an infinite amount of commodities/material goods, these would merely cease to matter at all, and there would only be other subjective value systems regarding the achievement of other wants.

Marxism will work for absolutely identical robots in a materially infinite universe, not for unique humans in a universe with various finite limits.

In Marx's logic, which is Hegelian, the advent of the ideal society would be the result of disparity, brought on by a free market. He does not (ideally) believe that the state must force this upon individuals; this is also Hegel's theory.

It is unrealistic specifically because the state will always be a regime of force, and will (by its very existence) operate via institutions designed to coerce its subjects.

Ironically, your liberal economics also grounds itself on a relentlessly material basis; it only proposes to operate according to certain metaphysical, naturally occuring ideals (i.e. freedom, equality, property, etc.). This is what I mean when I say, over and over, that the free market sustains itself by ideological means. It must convince its practitioners that it is a natural system, a naturally-occurring mode of being; and once it's perceived as natural, then any action or behavior that contradicts it can be labeled as aberrant (as you label acts of violence).

The free market creates material conditions that force individuals to participate in violence; but it counteracts this by proclaiming its values (or virtues) of equality and individual sovereignty. Thus, a system of valorized ideals comes to stand in for the material existence of a state, or legal system. When the behavior of certain individuals corresponds with these values, the system is said to work; when it contradicts these values - well, these are just aberrant statistics that choose not to abide by natural law. The paradox is that a free market will inevitably result in disparity, which in turn forces people to act coercively in order to sustain themselves. It says it does one thing while simultaneously doing something different. It's ideology, pure and simple.

 

[Dak]

Hypothetically: if someone spends time in a specific occupation only to find that their product is inferior to someone else's, it is plausible that they would have gone too far in that direction to realistically return. There is a level of bare minimum of living that individuals may, unintentionally, cross.

But would this happen when it is not necessary, or, without contingency?

Oh, no it isn't! In Robinson Crusoe, Defoe introduces absolutely laboratory conditions within which a single individual could function within a kind of primitive market economy; but it isn't a market, precisely because it is comprised of only one man. Then, when more individuals are introduced, Crusoe has apparently mastered the practice of liberal economics (which is, ironically, not an "economic" mastery at all, but an eschatological-theological salvation) and is able to extend this mastery to others. Crusoe actually demands, when others arrive on the island, that they must submit to his authority. He envisions himself as a sovereign king, an authority beneath which others must obey.

Crusoe is the consequence of one individual acting in his own self-interest, and then subordinating the interest of others in order to preserve the stability of the "free market." Not convincing at all.

It's called Crusoe economics because of a loose relevancy, not because it's lifted directly from the book.

Well, your second sentence here strikes me as a form of "vulgar" nihilism. I'm not sure what purpose this serves here though.

Well then I am obviously confused over your original differentiation over forms of nihilism then.

You can say that as many times as you want; but saying it doesn't make it true. If you define the market that way, then that statement might be semiotically accurate; but it's only true as far as language represents some market ideal. It doesn't represent the actual process of the market as it manifests in actuality. You're still trying to hypostatize the market as a kind of Platonic ideal.

Platonic ideal? Do expand.

How is a free market any different? It rewards individuals materially, it encourages behavior based on material gain. There is nothing ideally sufficient in a free market system to compensate for the disparate psychic energies of individuals. This is why a free market will result in material disparity while proclaiming theoretical (i.e. ideal) equality. The ideal, unfortunately, is vapid.

I am taking into account the whole, not just material. We have subjective value systems that take into account not only material things but also things like status, skills, talent, appearance, relationships, etc.

Furthering my material position in a particular facet could potentially come at a cost to something higher and non-material on my value scale, so I act accordingly.

Why is a purely material disparity a problem in and of itself? There is a world of difference between a mere disparity and some living below subsistence level through absolutely no fault of their own. Not to mention, material is not a homogeneous blob. There's a world of material goods out there I have absolutely no desire for. Someone else could possess an infinite number of those things relative to me and there would be no fucks given.

And in a free market, violence will happen no matter what.

There is a key and major difference between will happen, and will happen to all.

Believing that certain actions result in reactions is not the same as believing that cause and effect is a metaphysical law that remains constant according to the specific conditions of a situation. I believe that, if I'm holding an object and let go, it will fall; I believe that a free market will inevitably result in violence and disparity; likewise, I believe that a communist would also result in violence and disparity (bear in mind, I never condoned communism; I merely suggested that Hegel - and Marx - provided a convincing critique of liberal economics). I am skeptical, however, of my own belief in such things. A radical politics means acknowledging the space for radical possibility.

Violence will happen regardless of system. Institutionalizing it is something else. Disparities will happen even with the most "radical of possibilities", until humans simply don't exist anymore, with their unique skill sets/features/value systems/etc.

In Marx's logic, which is Hegelian, the advent of the ideal society would be the result of disparity, brought on by a free market. He does not (ideally) believe that the state must force this upon individuals; this is also Hegel's theory.

It is unrealistic specifically because the state will always be a regime of force, and will (by its very existence) operate via institutions designed to coerce its subjects.

Ironically, your liberal economics also grounds itself on a relentlessly material basis; it only proposes to operate according to certain metaphysical, naturally occuring ideals (i.e. freedom, equality, property, etc.). This is what I mean when I say, over and over, that the free market sustains itself by ideological means. It must convince its practitioners that it is a natural system, a naturally-occurring mode of being; and once it's perceived as natural, then any action or behavior that contradicts it can be labeled as aberrant (as you label acts of violence).

The free market creates material conditions that force individuals to participate in violence; but it counteracts this by proclaiming its values (or virtues) of equality and individual sovereignty. Thus, a system of valorized ideals comes to stand in for the material existence of a state, or legal system. When the behavior of certain individuals corresponds with these values, the system is said to work; when it contradicts these values - well, these are just aberrant statistics that choose not to abide by natural law. The paradox is that a free market will inevitably result in disparity, which in turn forces people to act coercively in order to sustain themselves. It says it does one thing while simultaneously doing something different. It's ideology, pure and simple.

I don't see the problem with valorized ideals. "Thou shalt not murder" is a "valorized ideal", and yet indispensable to humanity. The thinking of those who [support] murder, whether individually or collectively, is that the remaining group will be better off without the "enemy", especially if both sides hold this same view. This is essentially the more overt/logical follow through on economically "protectionist" thinking, that the more competition there is, the worse off all are. That there will be "more for me" with less of "them". This is simply incorrect.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's called Crusoe economics because of a loose relevancy, not because it's lifted directly from the book.

It's quite telling though, in my opinion.

Platonic ideal? Do expand.

...

I am taking into account the whole, not just material. We have subjective value systems that take into account not only material things but also things like status, skills, talent, appearance, relationships, etc.

Furthering my material position in a particular facet could potentially come at a cost to something higher and non-material on my value scale, so I act accordingly.

Why is a purely material disparity a problem in and of itself? There is a world of difference between a mere disparity and some living below subsistence level through absolutely no fault of their own. Not to mention, material is not a homogeneous blob. There's a world of material goods out there I have absolutely no desire for. Someone else could possess an infinite number of those things relative to me and there would be no fucks given.

...

There is a key and major difference between will happen, and will happen to all.

...

Violence will happen regardless of system. Institutionalizing it is something else. Disparities will happen even with the most "radical of possibilities", until humans simply don't exist anymore, with their unique skill sets/features/value systems/etc.

...

I don't see the problem with valorized ideals. "Thou shalt not murder" is a "valorized ideal", and yet indispensable to humanity. The thinking of those who [support] murder, whether individually or collectively, is that the remaining group will be better off without the "enemy", especially if both sides hold this same view. This is essentially the more overt/logical follow through on economically "protectionist" thinking, that the more competition there is, the worse off all are. That there will be "more for me" with less of "them". This is simply incorrect.

By "Platonic ideal," I mean that you hypostatize the free market into an elevated, unmalleable model that ultimately regulates its members, rewarding those who behave properly, and punishing those who break the rules.

You continually justify it by claiming that it caters to multiple value systems. In what reality does it allow for multiple disparate value systems? The free market necessitates a specific set of values in order for someone to try and survive. It is not some absolute ideal that makes room for distinct individuals. It rewards those with certain values, and punishes those with others (I don't think I need to go into this distinction).

Furthermore, economic law does not correspond to any form of natural law. Economic law is a purely human construct. Among animals there are no considerations of the well-being of others; that is, there are no mutual relationships. Even between two organisms that do share a symbiotic relationshiop, they have no concept of their symbiosis on an abstract level.

The free market, in contrast, is just such an abstracted form of a projected natural order, but it does not naturally subsist in reality. When you claim that it somehow conforms to human existence you're making an ideological value judgment based on the values you uphold (which happen to correspond with those of liberal economics). This system claims it can make space for unique individuals of all walks of life; but it can't. It might do away with the political institutions that traditionally survey and punish those who break the law; but how is this ultimately any different than a system that punishes people materially for breaking the rules? The variety of values in such a system is an illusion. In truth, a free market requires individuals with very specific and similar values.

 

[Dak]

It's quite telling though, in my opinion.

Not really. It could have just as easily been called "Adam Economics" or something. Pulling something that might be more closely related to the experience of the reader has it's uses though.

By "Platonic ideal," I mean that you hypostatize the free market into an elevated, unmalleable model that ultimately regulates its members, rewarding those who behave properly, and punishing those who break the rules.

Ah, but it does not regulate in a fashion as generally understood when the word "regulate" is used, and neither does it punish in the same regard.

Frankly it's absolutely possible that someone could manage to live a life of defrauding flying just below some [risk-line], or exploiting various "loopholes". Instead of the protectionist attitude to "spare no expense" in shutting them down, they are merely written off.

It allows for dynamism unlike the rigid structure of [a state] with it's myriad of laws and obstructions to all sorts of behavior that do not constitute murder/rape/theft, and the state itself being funded paradoxically with murder and theft. Separately, no society can be said to be flourishing where the prior three things are either widespread among the populace or codified into the system of organization. Recognizing this is not Platonic.

You continually justify it by claiming that it caters to multiple value systems. In what reality does it allow for multiple disparate value systems? The free market necessitates a specific set of values in order for someone to try and survive. It is not some absolute ideal that makes room for distinct individuals. It rewards those with certain values, and punishes those with others (I don't think I need to go into this distinction).

Furthermore, economic law does not correspond to any form of natural law. Economic law is a purely human construct. Among animals there are no considerations of the well-being of others; that is, there are no mutual relationships. Even between two organisms that do share a symbiotic relationshiop, they have no concept of their symbiosis on an abstract level.

The free market, in contrast, is just such an abstracted form of a projected natural order, but it does not naturally subsist in reality. When you claim that it somehow conforms to human existence you're making an ideological value judgment based on the values you uphold (which happen to correspond with those of liberal economics). This system claims it can make space for unique individuals of all walks of life; but it can't. It might do away with the political institutions that traditionally survey and punish those who break the law; but how is this ultimately any different than a system that punishes people materially for breaking the rules? The variety of values in such a system is an illusion. In truth, a free market requires individuals with very specific and similar values.

NAP and respect of property. Those are specific and similar but it's pretty wide open. Not recognizing those things is going to lead to failure again and again.

There is no radical way around these needs for humanity to coexist. To enter any form of coercive hierarchy as a solution is to violate the principles that are supposed to be protected, and thus fail from the beginning. To recognize no property would require a state, and even if all chose to recognize no property, it would be impossible to pass beyond hunter gatherer.

Again, it is natural law for the various effects of actions. I urge you to read specifically read the economic understanding laid out in the early chapters of Man, Economy, and State. It's longer than would be prudent for an article. This however is a shortened "social" synopsis, that touches on the econnomic side but only in an overview. http://mises.org/daily/2459 I don't think it will make as much sense unless the economic portion is understood first though.

The normal critique is that the "Crusoe" method depends on "finding land", and all land has been found. This is a ridiculous charge, as even Rothbard points out that an attempt to claim land unmixed with labor is "vainglorious", like Crusoe claiming an entire island he does not even know the scope of outside his immediate habitat, and will have to deal with future visitors. Of course in the dealings he could kill them, but both he and the other person(s) would be the worse off for it.

 

[Einherjar86]

You keep changing the context of my argument; which is okay, but it's why we keep saying the same things. I'll address this in my last response below.

Ah, but it does not regulate in a fashion as generally understood when the word "regulate" is used, and neither does it punish in the same regard.

What does manner matter when the result is the same? I could be sentenced to death by the state for stealing someone's bread, or I could submit to the value of individual property and starve. Even if a free market doesn't regulate the behavior of a thief by punishing him/her, it still ostracizes the individual in an evaluative manner, and this materializes in the individual's acceptance of pain and suffering.

Frankly it's absolutely possible that someone could manage to live a life of defrauding flying just below some [risk-line], or exploiting various "loopholes". Instead of the protectionist attitude to "spare no expense" in shutting them down, they are merely written off.

Are you saying a free market would just ignore them? That's optimistic and unrealistic; it would ostracize them. Other individuals with the "proper" value system wouldn't tolerate this behavior.

It allows for dynamism unlike the rigid structure of [a state] with it's myriad of laws and obstructions to all sorts of behavior that do not constitute murder/rape/theft, and the state itself being funded paradoxically with murder and theft. Separately, no society can be said to be flourishing where the prior three things are either widespread among the populace or codified into the system of organization. Recognizing this is not Platonic.

You keep using different words for the same thing: dynamism, difference, change, etc. None of this changes the fact that it just isn't true. A free market won't allow for difference because it won't function properly unless all individuals operate by the same system of values; which, in turn, is why this value system will inevitably codify itself in a form of law.

Your idea is Platonic because you elevate it to a form that is just realistically not possible.

NAP and respect of property. Those are specific and similar but it's pretty wide open. Not recognizing those things is going to lead to failure again and again.

There is no radical way around these needs for humanity to coexist. To enter any form of coercive hierarchy as a solution is to violate the principles that are supposed to be protected, and thus fail from the beginning. To recognize no property would require a state, and even if all chose to recognize no property, it would be impossible to pass beyond hunter gatherer.

Again, it is natural law for the various effects of actions. I urge you to read specifically read the economic understanding laid out in the early chapters of Man, Economy, and State. It's longer than would be prudent for an article. This however is a shortened "social" synopsis, that touches on the econnomic side but only in an overview. http://mises.org/daily/2459 I don't think it will make as much sense unless the economic portion is understood first though.

The normal critique is that the "Crusoe" method depends on "finding land", and all land has been found. This is a ridiculous charge, as even Rothbard points out that an attempt to claim land unmixed with labor is "vainglorious", like Crusoe claiming an entire island he does not even know the scope of outside his immediate habitat, and will have to deal with future visitors. Of course in the dealings he could kill them, but both he and the other person(s) would be the worse off for it.

I unfortunately don't have time to read Rothbard's work, although hopefully I will someday. My criticism isn't on the importance of property and land though; it's on the contradictory values that a land-based economy requires. The anarcho-capitalist society you envision is impossible because it doesn't deliver the values you claim it does. It doesn't provide people with infinite opportunity, property, and freedom. As soon as it's instituted (or whatever word we choose) it projects a system of values that cannot sustain themselves because they do not materialize. What good is the value of freedom if you do not have it? What good is property if you're without any?

You keep re-contextualizing my argument in terms of liberal economic law because you accept it as natural. My argument is that it's not. This is because it founds itself on the basis of values that are not natural, but manmade: property is not natural, even freedom is not natural in the sense that a "free market" requires it to be. Freedom subsists in acting freely; any ideological system must put a (presumably) a priori limit on free action, since unrestricted free action would inevitably result in violence; but this limit is never actually a priori. Thus, freedom is reified from its original form and posited as an elevated Platonic ideal, which countries "fight for" and free markets "preserve." Freedom as an actuality is not, and cannot, be guaranteed by a free market, since the latter has to found itself on an idealized version of freedom.

You could provide Rothbard's basic argument as to why economic law corresponds to natural, because as of right now I just don't see it or know what "various effects of actions" means.

 

[Dak]

What does manner matter when the result is the same? I could be sentenced to death by the state for stealing someone's bread, or I could submit to the value of individual property and starve. Even if a free market doesn't regulate the behavior of a thief by punishing him/her, it still ostracizes the individual in an evaluative manner, and this materializes in the individual's acceptance of pain and suffering.

First of all, you are taking the position of someone existing in a world surrounded by people enjoying property and yet able to enjoy this right. Why?

Secondly there is a world of difference. As I said, I did an article on this already on UVM (think it's been since moved to my blog).

Are you saying a free market would just ignore them? That's optimistic and unrealistic; it would ostracize them. Other individuals with the "proper" value system wouldn't tolerate this behavior.

Define "tolerate". Yes, if the behavior is generally known and the person remains in the immediate vicinity of the transgressions, osctracism is a perfectly fine outcome of free association. Ignore, ostracize, etc. You have ostracized all women from your [bedchamber] since you have a fiance/wife. They can either find other free associations to pursue or rape/kidnap you. I don't see what you are arguing against. Free trade is part of free association.

You keep using different words for the same thing: dynamism, difference, change, etc. None of this changes the fact that it just isn't true. A free market won't allow for difference because it won't function properly unless all individuals operate by the same system of values; which, in turn, is why this value system will inevitably codify itself in a form of law.

Your idea is Platonic because you elevate it to a form that is just realistically not possible.

No. All individuals do not need to operate by the same system of values. A majority most likely would need to though. Kind of like a majority recognize murder is wrong and thus allow humanity to function. You may as well apply your argument against a desire for free (non-economic) association, or to not be murdered.

Sure, people can restrict the association of others (has happened and is happening in the world), and people can and do murder. So what?

I unfortunately don't have time to read Rothbard's work, although hopefully I will someday. My criticism isn't on the importance of property and land though; it's on the contradictory values that a land-based economy requires. The anarcho-capitalist society you envision is impossible because it doesn't deliver the values you claim it does. It doesn't provide people with infinite opportunity, property, and freedom. As soon as it's instituted (or whatever word we choose) it projects a system of values that cannot sustain themselves because they do not materialize. What good is the value of freedom if you do not have it? What good is property if you're without any?

You keep re-contextualizing my argument in terms of liberal economic law because you accept it as natural. My argument is that it's not. This is because it founds itself on the basis of values that are not natural, but manmade: property is not natural, even freedom is not natural in the sense that a "free market" requires it to be. Freedom subsists in acting freely; any ideological system must put a (presumably) a priori limit on free action, since unrestricted free action would inevitably result in violence; but this limit is never actually a priori. Thus, freedom is reified from its original form and posited as an elevated Platonic ideal, which countries "fight for" and free markets "preserve." Freedom as an actuality is not, and cannot, be guaranteed by a free market, since the latter has to found itself on an idealized version of freedom.

You could provide Rothbard's basic argument as to why economic law corresponds to natural, because as of right now I just don't see it or know what "various effects of actions" means.

Well the a priori limit here is where the physical conflict emerges, IE the NAP. This is, of course, not natural. The natural portion is strictly limited to economic cause and effect, regarding production, saving, trade, etc.

As far the highlighted portion, this is what we have. We are dependent on land and the resources it provides whether it be here or on some other cosmic bodies. Whether there is one man or a million on the earth, it is a land based economy. I also have never claimed people have "infinite opportunity". All peoples are limited in their opportunities by personal limitations to start with. Then limitations of society are imposed. Reducing personal limitations are the result of science and market mechanisms (technology and trade). Reducing societal limitations or increasing them is a different sphere.

 

[Einherjar86]

First of all, you are taking the position of someone existing in a world surrounded by people enjoying property and yet able to enjoy this right. Why?

Do you mean not able to enjoy this right? That's not the position I'm taking. I'm taking a position of someone existing in a world surrounded by people who don't possess and enjoy property/necessities (i.e. land, food, shelter, clothing, etc.). I'm saying that the majority of such resources will inevitably accumulate among certain select individuals.

Secondly there is a world of difference. As I said, I did an article on this already on UVM (think it's been since moved to my blog).

Which one? I've read them all, and I can't think of which one applies here.

Define "tolerate". Yes, if the behavior is generally known and the person remains in the immediate vicinity of the transgressions, osctracism is a perfectly fine outcome of free association. Ignore, ostracize, etc. You have ostracized all women from your [bedchamber] since you have a fiance/wife. They can either find other free associations to pursue or rape/kidnap you. I don't see what you are arguing against. Free trade is part of free association.

Presumably those women ostracized from my bedchamber don't require my dick in order to stay alive.

I'm saying that, as time goes on, necessary resources will be more severely limited to a wider consumer base. People will be faced with a decision: behave according to the values of the free market and starve, or break them and survive. That this choice even arises is a paradox that proves the flaw of the system. It cannot provide for everyone. It's simply impossible.

No. All individuals do not need to operate by the same system of values. A majority most likely would need to though. Kind of like a majority recognize murder is wrong and thus allow humanity to function. You may as well apply your argument against a desire for free (non-economic) association, or to not be murdered.

Your argument is that the free market will extend equal rights to all; this simply is not the case.

Sure, people can restrict the association of others (has happened and is happening in the world), and people can and do murder. So what?

Once again, your market isn't working.

Well the a priori limit here is where the physical conflict emerges, IE the NAP. This is, of course, not natural. The natural portion is strictly limited to economic cause and effect, regarding production, saving, trade, etc.

The natural portion also consists in your insistence that the liberal economic policy corresponds to what is naturally best for humanity. This is primarily what I disagree with.

As far the highlighted portion, this is what we have. We are dependent on land and the resources it provides whether it be here or on some other cosmic bodies. Whether there is one man or a million on the earth, it is a land based economy. I also have never claimed people have "infinite opportunity". All peoples are limited in their opportunities by personal limitations to start with. Then limitations of society are imposed. Reducing personal limitations are the result of science and market mechanisms (technology and trade). Reducing societal limitations or increasing them is a different sphere.

I agree that such limitations are, and should be, in place; but this is completely antithetical to a free market. I'm not saying a free market would be unjust. I'm saying it is impossible - physically, realistically, materially - it cannot happen based on the values it is supposedly founded upon.

 

[Dak]

Do you mean not able to enjoy this right? That's not the position I'm taking. I'm taking a position of someone existing in a world surrounded by people who don't possess and enjoy property/necessities (i.e. land, food, shelter, clothing, etc.). I'm saying that the majority of such resources will inevitably accumulate among certain select individuals.

yes a typo on my end. Unable.

See this is where you are muddling you're debate. Disparity vs inability to meet basic needs.

Which one? I've read them all, and I can't think of which one applies here.

The one on the Western Security State. http://www.unofficialversionmagazine.com/2012/06/illusions-and-cost-by-overwatch.html

Presumably those women ostracized from my bedchamber don't require my dick in order to stay alive.

I'm saying that, as time goes on, necessary resources will be more severely limited to a wider consumer base. People will be faced with a decision: behave according to the values of the free market and starve, or break them and survive. That this choice even arises is a paradox that proves the flaw of the system. It cannot provide for everyone. It's simply impossible.

Other than monopolizing arable land (or patenting seeds like Monsanto, neither approach of which is possible as a market action), this argument has no economic legs. Producers succeed by providing the needs and wants of consumers. Protectionism does not attempt to deny this fact, it merely seeks to advantage one producer to the exclusion of others, thus creating artificial scarcities and rewarding profits based not on servicing the customer but on political clout.

In the face of all legal hurdles for respective producers, Smartphones are saturating faster than any previous technology. Removing the protections and subsisdies to BigAg (like paying them not to produce and inflate prices) would see prices reflect demand and more quality food would be available and where needed, etc. Instead we have a global soviet-ish approach to food leading to regional food shortages.

It is not in the interest of a market driven economy to cut off consumers, as this also puts producers out of business. This is what you assume will happen based purely on market forces. I want to see an economic argument to back this up.

Your argument is that the free market will extend equal rights to all; this simply is not the case.

Can you clarify the language here? What group of people is being denied what right relative to other groups?

Once again, your market isn't working.

The natural portion also consists in your insistence that the liberal economic policy corresponds to what is naturally best for humanity. This is primarily what I disagree with.

Well certainly we would need to agree on what best is.

I still want to focus on this equivocation you seem to make either consciously or subconsciously between a mere disparity of whatever level in whatever facet, and being unable to maintain life in a particular circumstance.

The former is bound to happen no matter the system in place, and is not a problem. The latter I do not see occurring without a determined attempt by an individual in a free society to place themselves in that position, or due to a cataclysmic natural event, neither of which say anything about a short coming in a free society.

I agree that such limitations are, and should be, in place; but this is completely antithetical to a free market. I'm not saying a free market would be unjust. I'm saying it is impossible - physically, realistically, materially - it cannot happen based on the values it is supposedly founded upon.

You mean even if everyone followed the system as laid out in theory, it would still fail?

 

[Einherjar86]

yes a typo on my end. Unable.

See this is where you are muddling you're debate. Disparity vs inability to meet basic needs.

Honestly... what's the difference? I'm being serious; people who have no resources by which to meet their basic needs are disparaged.

The one on the Western Security State. http://www.unofficialversionmagazine.com/2012/06/illusions-and-cost-by-overwatch.html

I'm sorry, but now I can't even recall why this was relevant. I'm not saying that institutions like the police are the right way to go, and I don't think I ever insinuated that. My critique is on the free market, absent any government apparatus.

It's a good article though.

Without wasting any more time, my main contention:

You mean even if everyone followed the system as laid out in theory, it would still fail?

Yes.

 

[Dak]

Honestly... what's the difference? I'm being serious; people who have no resources by which to meet their basic needs are disparaged.

A disparity can be any difference, no matter how great or small, and on any facet of life.

I'm sorry, but now I can't even recall why this was relevant. I'm not saying that institutions like the police are the right way to go, and I don't think I ever insinuated that. My critique is on the free market, absent any government apparatus.

It's a good article though.

Opportunity cost for one thing.

Yes.

That's a bold claim. Most ideologies are attacked on the basis that they won't work because people won't follow as theorized. I don't follow though.

 

[Einherjar86]

The theory of the free market, being founded on values of property, equality, and liberty, will result in paradox even if people operate according to the theoretical model.

This is because, as you say, the model allows for differing levels of sustainability, expectations, what people think is "best" or "worst", etc. However, if it allows for such a variety of expectations, material disparity will result. This is inevitable; material resources will run thin, and their accumulation will correspond to those individuals who accidentally come into wealth early on, since it is easy for those with more to get more.

The only way every individual could be materially compensated for is if every single person had exactly the same values and expectations; but this is specifically not the point of the free market. If everyone had the same values and expectations, then you would have a communist system, not capitalist.

 

[Dak]

The theory of the free market, being founded on values of property, equality, and liberty, will result in paradox even if people operate according to the theoretical model.

This is because, as you say, the model allows for differing levels of sustainability, expectations, what people think is "best" or "worst", etc. However, if it allows for such a variety of expectations, material disparity will result. This is inevitable; material resources will run thin, and their accumulation will correspond to those individuals who accidentally come into wealth early on, since it is easy for those with more to get more.

The only way every individual could be materially compensated for is if every single person had exactly the same values and expectations; but this is specifically not the point of the free market. If everyone had the same values and expectations, then you would have a communist system, not capitalist.

Ok. Let me see if I understand this:

The free market will lead to material disparity which will lead to (or correlate with) resource depletion and those who gain first material advantage through whatever stroke of fortune will be unremovable via market methods from their materially elevated positions due to the advantage of existing capital.

Is this a correct interpretation?

 

[Einherjar86]

Yes, but with a more important qualification: that the values upon which a free market bases itself, and that it proposes to espouse, are incommensurable with any material manifestation of the market itself.

 

[Dak]

Its going to take a while to get back to this probably, just started some part time hauling work but this weekend Ive gotta go across the Miss. and back.

 

[Zephyrus]

I'm going to translate this entire conversation into Greek as pass it off as a lost Platonic dialogue.

 

[Einherjar86]

Its going to take a while to get back to this probably, just started some part time hauling work but this weekend Ive gotta go across the Miss. and back.

No worries. We should probably move this onto email or something anyway.

I'm going to translate this entire conversation into Greek as pass it off as a lost Platonic dialogue.

It's indiscernible enough as is!

 

[viewerfromnihil]

No worries. We should probably move this onto email or something anyway.

I'm enjoying the read