Philosophy topic: the global society

[Dak]

If its producers are manipulating/abusing it, what's to prevent them from taking measures to ensure that no other currency forms arise? I don't see the mercy of the market as any kind of assurance that things will work themselves out. It might even be erroneous to believe that the market isn't a coercive institution itself.

The legality of the coercion. When the Mafia runs a protection racket, it may or may not succeed, but no one is under any pretense of the rightness or legality of it. It merely is because nothing has challenged it, and if some group of people does band together to fight it, even those not participating will applaud them.

Conversely, when government is involved in the same rackets and schemes, the people who do not rise up cheer against those that do, for being terrorists, or criminals/ruffians/guerillas, etc etc.

 

[Einherjar86]

The legality of the coercion.

I honestly don't understand what you mean by this sentence fragment.

 

[Dak]

I honestly don't understand what you mean by this sentence fragment.

I explained it in the rest of the paragraph.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'd rather you say what you mean instead of using an analogy. For instance: do you or do you not think the market is a coercive institution?

 

[Dak]

I'd rather you say what you mean instead of using an analogy. For instance: do you or do you not think the market is a coercive institution?

co·er·cion
   [koh-ur-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2.
force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.

Can it happen in a free market, IE, absent government oversight/policing? Of course. Is it a "market activity"? No. But with government it happens by default, and can still be utilized by "private parties" operating under or outside government oversight or protection. So I am not sure what your point is.

 

[Einherjar86]

Why isn't it a market activity?

 

[Dak]

Why isn't it a market activity?

mar·ket (märkt)
n.
1. A public gathering held for buying and selling merchandise.
2. A place where goods are offered for sale.
3. A store or shop that sells a particular type of merchandise: a vegetable market.
4.
a. The business of buying and selling a specified commodity: the soybean market.
b. A market price.
c. A geographic region considered as a place for sales: grain for the foreign market; the West Coast market.
d. A subdivision of a population considered as buyers: cosmetics for the upscale market.
5. The opportunity to buy or sell; extent of demand for merchandise: a big market for gourmet foods.
6.
a. An exchange for buying and selling stocks or commodities: securities sold on the New York market.
b. The entire enterprise of buying and selling commodities and securities: The market has been slow recently.
v. mar·ket·ed, mar·ket·ing, mar·kets
v.tr.
1. To offer for sale.
2. To sell.
v.intr.
1. To deal in a market.
2. To buy household supplies: We marketed for a special Sunday dinner.
Idioms:
in the market
Interested in buying: We are in the market for a used car.
on the market
1. Available for buying: Many kinds of seasonal flowers are on the market.
2. Up for sale: They put the family business on the market.

Does coercion affect the market? Yes. But it is not a market activity. As I stated above, coercion does affect the market, and it CAN happen without government, but it ALWAYS happens with government.

Edit: IB4 "hitmen".

 

[Einherjar86]

You're not saying why it isn't a market activity, you just keep repeating yourself. If we see coercion occur consistently in a free market, it might stand to reason that coercive forces naturally arise from a free market scenario.

 

[Dak]

You're not saying why it isn't a market activity, you just keep repeating yourself. If we see coercion occur consistently in a free market, it might stand to reason that coercive forces naturally arise from a free market scenario.

Coercion will naturely arrise in some cases of human interaction. All cases of human interaction are not market activities. The market consists of voluntary transactions. The institution of government merely gives a shiny veneer to coercion.

Instead of being the highwayman, or the Mafia, or the burgler, your extortioner is now a congressman, a mayor, a policeman, a king.

Even when voting occurs, should the opponent win, or should my chosen representative enact policies I disagree with, these are not voluntary transactions.

You go to Walmart to buy condoms. You choose Magnum XL and check out, paying the requested sum. A voluntary transaction has occured.

Conversely, if you went to Walmart for Trojan condoms, and they forced you to buy Lifestyles Multipack, coercion has occurred. This is a distortion in the market, and as such, not a "market activity", as per the definition of "market", given previously.

 

[Einherjar86]

Coercion will naturely arrise in some cases of human interaction. All cases of human interaction are not market activities. The market consists of voluntary transactions. The institution of government merely gives a shiny veneer to coercion.

If the market dictates our lives in a deregulated economy, then maybe all cases of human interaction do qualify as market activities. I think it might be presumptuous to separate coercive influences from market influences.

Even when voting occurs, should the opponent win, or should my chosen representative enact policies I disagree with, these are not voluntary transactions.

You go to Walmart to buy condoms. You choose Magnum XL and check out, paying the requested sum. A voluntary transaction has occured.

Conversely, if you went to Walmart for Trojan condoms, and they forced you to buy Lifestyles Multipack, coercion has occurred. This is a distortion in the market, and as such, not a "market activity", as per the definition of "market", given previously.

If the free market is as autonomous as it seems, then it must act by coercion, since it will force individuals to participate in the currency forms and value relations it generates.

 

[Dak]

If the market dictates our lives in a deregulated economy, then maybe all cases of human interaction do qualify as market activities. I think it might be presumptuous to separate coercive influences from market influences.

Not by pure definition, and you can completely abstain from market activities.

If the free market is as autonomous as it seems, then it must act by coercion, since it will force individuals to participate in the currency forms and value relations it generates.

Well if we just define coercion as however is convenient for the argument, then sure. If we use the actual definitions, then no.

Absent coercion, you do not have to participate in any way you do not want to. You can start your own business, currency, or completely abstain from commerce altogether.

 

[Einherjar86]

But you also have the option to do that now, although granted it would be difficult. Property laws currently restrict the amount of free land that would facilitate secession, but technically citizens can "defect," or whatever we want to call it.

A true free market might temporarily offer more potential due to revolution in property laws and rights, but eventually we'd see the same problem when the market expands into new territory.

 

[SentinelSlain]

I think you are mistaking crony capitalism with free market economics. Socialism produces nothing, it only takes, until there is nothing. It is the ultimate race to the bottom..

It can be inevitable in certain circumstances without necessarily being a good solution.

 

[Dak]

But you also have the option to do that now, although granted it would be difficult. Property laws currently restrict the amount of free land that would facilitate secession, but technically citizens can "defect," or whatever we want to call it.

A true free market might temporarily offer more potential due to revolution in property laws and rights, but eventually we'd see the same problem when the market expands into new territory.

The "market" merely consists of voluntary transactions, so I'm unclear as to what you mean by "expanding into new territory".

If you leave the US for another country, you merely "change farms", as Molyneux likes to put it. There are a handful of better prospects atm, but considering how much it costs to expatriate, it's rather difficult. You cannot merely walk outside the borders and be free of a particular country. The government owns it's citizens.

It distorts the market with currencies, taxes, subsidies, welfare, licenses, regulations, mandates, etc. etc. If you attempt to opt out of these as a citizen, or as a person within the national geographic borders, and attempt to conduct a voluntary transaction with another human being outside their system, you are now a criminal. And for what?

@ SS: I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[SentinelSlain]

Try harder.

 

[arg]

since the beginning of the recession, the government has been regulating the economy for years now, and how has that worked out? they need to stop making short-term solutions that only result in worse crashes in the future. just stay the fuck out and let millions suffer today, rather than billions tomorrow.

 

[Vimana]

Relevant: http://www.cracked.com/article_18817_5-reasons-future-will-be-ruled-by-b.s..html

 

[Dak]

Try harder.

What makes socialism "inevitable"?

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

I've said it a million times, but I think socialism is a great way to run a household, or even a small community (commune?), but falls into the same old autocratic bullshit once implemented on a large scale. An anarchist/minarchist/libertarian nation actually has plenty of room for socialism, if that's what a particular local community desires.

 

[Dak]

I've said it a million times, but I think socialism is a great way to run a household, or even a small community (commune?), but falls into the same old autocratic bullshit once implemented on a large scale. An anarchist/minarchist/libertarian nation actually has plenty of room for socialism, if that's what a particular local community desires.

There is a difference between charity and forced redistribution.

Relevant to the conversation:

Everyone hates Capitalism