Originally posted by Bardock42
Why would you play into that though?Theres hardly a difference between your great parties. I would vote for neither. Ever.
Which is a big reason voter turnout is so low. And yeah, if there isn't a candidate I like I just don't vote for one.
But the two parties control so much money and power that it's next to impossible for a 3rd party to ever gain much prominence. Not exactly a great system, but it's what we have currently.
Alright, woot to the free market! My reply is going to seem somewhat, if not highly critical of the free market or of libertarianism in general, which is sort of my point, but not entirely. I am a huge supporter of the free market and of limited government. However, a reply of "you rock Digi, cosign 2000%" would be kind of lame, and not entirely honest. Before I get to any meat or potatoes kind of thing, I want to address one line in particular:
Originally posted by DigiMark007
We are not anarchists, certainly.
I know you are referring to "libertarianism" with this, but lets not assume that free market ideology is limited to those who claim to be libertarian. Pragmatism aside, I'd be considered an anarcho-capitalist. The only reason I bring this up is to highlight a huge diversity in the ideologies of those who believe in free market, and especially to highlight the idea that many people who believe in the free market do so for ideological reasons as opposed to pragmatic. To draw a parallel, I personally believe, from a moralistic and ideological point of view, that freedom of speech is an absolute and can never be taken away. In this frame, someone in the media reporting sensitive troop movements in a war zone, which would clearly lead to the deaths of my nation's soldiers, should be protected. Pragmatically, the problems with this view abound. I hope to touch on some of the greater implications of this nearer to the end, but, imho, ideology and what is "right" should have no place in the discussion of politics, or at least should not be of the highest consideration.
Another sort of "intro" idea I want to throw out there is what I think is the only thing of value that Marx ever contributed to philosophy. He compared capitalism to a magician's apprentice. Traditionally, the magician's apprentice is an archetypal character in literature. He is always messing around with powerful magical forces, and while he is capable of some control, quickly he is overrun. I feel this analogy is highly applicable to modern markets, where the benefits from the highly powerful capitalist system are tied to a torrent of uncontrollable phenomena, many that have devastating impacts. I'll try to make this less ambiguous as I go.
I think it is important to talk about what is meant by "economic freedom". Much like "freedom of speech" there are many interpretations and clear limits that everyone would agree to. The fact that I am unable to purchase ICBMs on the open market is an abuse of my economic freedoms. That I cannot sell my child (who by all other legal precedence is my property) into prostitution is another. Neither of those cases would lead to greater personal or social freedom, but are economic freedoms. Clearly we are, even from the onset, not arguing about economic freedom, but about liberalization of certain government controls over certain facets of the economy.
To take that last point one step further, and to tie into what you said about communism, the facets of the economy that we (re: traditional libertarian views) would like to see open are those for which clear benefits can be hypothesized. Much like communism not being a realistic option, the free market must be considered in the same way. Even if there is a philosophical argument for how a free market can be beneficial, it is useless if in reality it doesn't work that way. For instance, there have been places in Europe that have attempted drug decriminalization for short periods. During that time, crime skyrocketed as gangs and suppliers flooded into the region. While I still do support drug legalization, this is an aspect of it that MUST be addressed, even if the controls to stem violence and crime may take away the "freedom" of any individual.
Post-modernism has brought to light the importance of understanding the cultural and social context that ideologies were created in. Smith lived in a time where the government basically stole from entrepreneurs. His ideas of trade and market liberalization are in reaction to the government of the time, and for that reason, do not necessarily apply directly to the modern economy. Libertarianism arose out of early American capitalism, where the conditions and infrastructure of the population were highly different than today.
In Atlas Shrugged (which i didn't finish.....), Rand's characters are talking about building railroads and inventing new types of metal. This is analogous to early American capitalism. There were no roads between cities, new and improved communication and transportation was required before a company could even begin selling a product. Investment into long term profit generation through building infrastructure was seen as the way to do business. Corporate bosses, while maybe not accountable to the people who used their product, were certainly loyal to them, and saw the mutual benefit to the people and their profit margin was highly important, and long term, constant growth in profit was valued over short-term, flash in the pan gains.
This doesn't exist today, for many reasons. The first being that government has usurped control of creating a nation's infrastructure. And, as I'm sure anyone who lives in a country where the state makes roads can tell you, they aren't really too concerned with the upkeep. From my personal view, government does only what is necessary for traffic systems just to work at sub-optimal levels. This work is long, takes far longer than predicted, expensive, and often not of the proper quality.
Another major issue is the distribution of wealth. It isn't that wealth is unequally distributed, but that enough wealth is held within the hands of a certain group of people (middle class and up) that, effectively, there are 2 markets. Or, put another way, there is a market that responds to the demands of the money, and since there is enough money in the middle (+) class market, the demand from outside of this market is essentially ignored. A good example of this type of issue is seen in medical research. Large corporations invest huge amounts of money into pharmacological research. Since they expect to see this money back, only diseases that affect a certain percentage of the population are financially worth curing. So, even if a disease is easily curable, if it affects .02% of the population, it will not repay the money invested by a company into research, testing, marketing etc. Much like poverty stricken communities, even if there was an effective way to engage people in these areas in the larger economy, the payoff would be so low that no company would do it.
I guess more specifically I should say, that the payoff of investing in the infrastructure of a poor community will not have fast enough profit generation for the huge investment it will take. And while this type of long term investment drove previous capitalism, it is out of style today. Stock prices and the accountability of CEO's to shareholders rather than the public or even their employees has changed this. Any CEO who let their company tank for 5 years in order to create a market for their product would be removed as soon as the stock price plummeted. Stocks, imho, prevent long term investment, especially since the government has passed laws stating that CEO's must be solely concerned with their stock price and shareholders.
What has happened as a result then, is that corporations no longer are in the business of responding to demands, but in fact, are in the business of creating demand. They must continue to motivate those who are able to participate in the economy to buy their product. Look at major music companies. Very few bands that are on the radio today have a longer shelf life than 2-3 years. MGA or SONY can create huge demand for a CD through advertising, hook a band into a terribly worded contract, make the money from initial record sales, then jump to the next hot thing and do it again. This constant hype then rehype drives people to buy lots and lots of CDs, but does little to actually satisfy public demand for good and meaningful music.
While I do agree that the government has played a role in this transformation from long term to short term capital investment, I don't see the free market as having any inherent protection against it. While government makes a problem worse, removing them isn't a solution. Especially given that, as technology increases, fewer and fewer people will need to be employed in order to produce the products in the marketplace. Adoption of technology can mean a loss of income for an individual in the economy.
Continued.... [EDIT] - unfortunately that may be later than sooner
Originally posted by lord xyz
Wouldn't a free market give people the freedom to be selfish bastards?
Yes, one of the key ideas is that people are acting on their own selfish interests, but it is this self-interest that drives each person to spread their money much more efficiently than any government would. Also, anyone acting too selfishly would be bested my less greedy competitors and run out of business. The competition of the market is the check to this potential problem, which only becomes pertinent in the case of monopolies (which anti-trust laws in a free market system would protect).
Hopefully that answers your question, though the opening posts go into more detail if you're interested.
...
Also, since in's busy but made some good points in his first post there, I'll try to reply sometime in the next few days.
Originally posted by Bardock42Shouldn't there be things to protect people from falling for tricks? (Not authoratitive government)
If they stick to some rules, sure. Why not? It would also give the people the freedom to be altruist idiots.
Originally posted by DigiMark007Yes, they would be bested by the less greedy, however, it's likely for a place to have only one market, and the people can only be a part of that market which is being unfair. Hyperthetically, a small town of people that need pencils, and only one person is selling the pencils, but at £50 each, that doesn't seem very fair.
Yes, one of the key ideas is that people are acting on their own selfish interests, but it is this self-interest that drives each person to spread their money much more efficiently than any government would. Also, anyone acting too selfishly would be bested my less greedy competitors and run out of business. The competition of the market is the check to this potential problem, which only becomes pertinent in the case of monopolies (which anti-trust laws in a free market system would protect).Hopefully that answers your question, though the opening posts go into more detail if you're interested.
...
Also, since in's busy but made some good points in his first post there, I'll try to reply sometime in the next few days.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Yes, they would be bested by the less greedy, however, it's likely for a place to have only one market, and the people can only be a part of that market which is being unfair. Hyperthetically, a small town of people that need pencils, and only one person is selling the pencils, but at £50 each, that doesn't seem very fair.
In that small town, wouldn't, lets say WalMart, make a fortune if they would sell pencils at 45 pounds? And wouldn't then Tesco still make a fortune if they sold it at 40 pounds? .....and wouldn't the shopkeeper still make a decent living if he sold them for 40 pence?
Originally posted by lord xyz
Shouldn't there be things to protect people from falling for tricks? (Not authoratitive government) Yes, they would be bested by the less greedy, however, it's likely for a place to have only one market, and the people can only be a part of that market which is being unfair. Hyperthetically, a small town of people that need pencils, and only one person is selling the pencils, but at £50 each, that doesn't seem very fair.
Where in a modern economy is this situation a reality? You're talking about a technical monopoly, which is almost nonexistent in civilized countries anymore but was prevalent before the technological boom of the last 50 years or so. If it was really this bad, in any civilized economy there would exist an alternative. Maybe not an ideal alternative, but something to offset the greedy business owner. And most capitalistic societies functioned fine even during the past where technical monopolies existed more frequently....common sense from business owners can and does keep prices at attainable levels, even if they're making profits.
Beyond that, there's nothing from stopping anyone in the hypothetical town (for that it all it is) from opening a new store and driving the other out of business or at least keeping them honest.
As for "things fro keeping people from falling for tricks"....no, quite frankly, there shouldn't be. In a competitive market, it will be advantageous for businesses to treat the customer fairly even while making a profit, or they themselves will soon be without income. It takes care of itself. Your "things" would undoubtedly take the form of government restrictions on either individuals or businesses themselves, which would limit freedom and inhibit the market's natural course.
People can and will be dumb, yes, but is it the responsibility of gov't to hold everyone's hand at the cost of social and economic freedom? No, they are free to choose, for better or for worse. And more often than not it will be for the better.
...all of this was referred to in my opening posts, so I'm not sure if it is still bothering you or if you just didn't read. If you have continued rebuttals for my points (either here or earlier) that's fine, but the questions are the kind of base level ones that suggest you're citing problems that I've addressed and haven't taken my responses into account. I'd recommend reading it, though, because I dislike typing the same justifications twice.
OK, here is my two cents on anything concerning a completely free market:
It doesn't work. You can NEVER have a true economic system work completely. In theory, yes, it is great. But in practice, it never works. Just like how pure communism never works, pure libertarianism can never work.
There are certain parts of all societies where government must step in. Just as there are certain portions of society where government should not be included.
One portion of the pure libertarian philosophy where I am diametrically opposed is welfare. Because, you see, welfare saves lives. Sure, there are people who abuse it; but for others, it truly save lives. I actually had this discussion with my dad last night. I said, 99/9% of those on welfare were following the rules. He countered saying it was more like 82 percent.
And I respect his opinion. Because, as a 14 year old (that's not a typo), he was collecting food stamps for his family. He was raised by a single mother and she was injured to the point where she could not go to the welfare office, so he was the one who had to go to the welfare office and get the food stamps; as I said, he was 14. and this was not unusual. he told me there were many, many people his age in line for food stamps waiting for food to help, and even save, the lives of their families.
This is just one areas where pure libertarianism (which advocates a pure free market) would cost people's lives. While government should be ultimately limited, to ignore moral authority is ridiculous, and in my mind, stupid.
Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
OK, here is my two cents on anything concerning a completely free market:It doesn't work. You can NEVER have a true economic system work completely. In theory, yes, it is great. But in practice, it never works. Just like how pure communism never works, pure libertarianism can never work.
That's not true in this case though. It does work, though I suppose to some people the implications are too horrifying, so no one will do it. In my opinion it is also in that respect the opposite of communism. Which many people would like to try, but it really does not work.
Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
There are certain parts of all societies where government must step in. Just as there are certain portions of society where government should not be included.
Yes, libertarians agree.
Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
One portion of the pure libertarian philosophy where I am diametrically opposed is welfare. Because, you see, welfare saves lives. Sure, there are people who abuse it; but for others, it truly save lives. I actually had this discussion with my dad last night. I said, 99/9% of those on welfare were following the rules. He countered saying it was more like 82 percent.
The argument most libertarians would bring is not abuse of the system though. It is generally the taking money from most people to pay for a specific few which are not threatened by any person.
Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
And I respect his opinion. Because, as a 14 year old (that's not a typo), he was collecting food stamps for his family. He was raised by a single mother and she was injured to the point where she could not go to the welfare office, so he was the one who had to go to the welfare office and get the food stamps; as I said, he was 14. and this was not unusual. he told me there were many, many people his age in line for food stamps waiting for food to help, and even save, the lives of their families.
Of course one could make an argument for a sort of welfare system. Most people do not want to have people die in the streets of their towns. But it has to be reasonable. For one, it would be ridiculous to have people on welfare live a better life than anyone that is working. It would be unfair and harm the free market excessively. Personally I believe that charities would be the right way to go, as I oppose all government intervention except to protect people from harm brought onto them by other people.
Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
This is just one areas where pure libertarianism (which advocates a pure free market) would cost people's lives. While government should be ultimately limited, to ignore moral authority is ridiculous, and in my mind, stupid.
Which morals though? Apparently not that of libertarians. So, yours I guess?
Blah, I'm so lazy....
something quick:
Welfare is a great idea, and makes people feel good, but it is not a solution to any problem. History and many many many sociological studies have shown that just giving people money, especially in poverty stricken environments, does not affect poverty and does not make life better for those individuals. It makes individuals dependent on hand-outs from the government, and it then makes entire communities dependent on government hand-outs.
On a case by case basis, an injured single parent probably requires different answerers than poverty in general, but even then, it is a reduction of human autonomy to just have a state support someone who cannot support themselves.
The problem with poverty today is exactly this. People with no real work skills or education being supported by government and ignored by the economy. No new or effective infrastructure goes into the regions because this is now the job of bloated and bureaucratic government, and jobs are reduced because they go overseas or increase technology. People need effective neighborhoods with real jobs where they can earn money and be good role models for their kids. They do not need to be treated like 7 year olds, getting their monthly allowance from the rest of society, just so a cycle of poverty can exist.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not true in this case though. It does work, though I suppose to some people the implications are too horrifying, so no one will do it. In my opinion it is also in that respect the opposite of communism. Which many people would like to try, but it really does not work.
lol, I like that 🙂
Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
OK, here is my two cents on anything concerning a completely free market:It doesn't work. You can NEVER have a true economic system work completely. In theory, yes, it is great. But in practice, it never works. Just like how pure communism never works, pure libertarianism can never work.
There are certain parts of all societies where government must step in. Just as there are certain portions of society where government should not be included.
One portion of the pure libertarian philosophy where I am diametrically opposed is welfare. Because, you see, welfare saves lives. Sure, there are people who abuse it; but for others, it truly save lives. I actually had this discussion with my dad last night. I said, 99/9% of those on welfare were following the rules. He countered saying it was more like 82 percent.
And I respect his opinion. Because, as a 14 year old (that's not a typo), he was collecting food stamps for his family. He was raised by a single mother and she was injured to the point where she could not go to the welfare office, so he was the one who had to go to the welfare office and get the food stamps; as I said, he was 14. and this was not unusual. he told me there were many, many people his age in line for food stamps waiting for food to help, and even save, the lives of their families.
This is just one areas where pure libertarianism (which advocates a pure free market) would cost people's lives. While government should be ultimately limited, to ignore moral authority is ridiculous, and in my mind, stupid.
We've never seen a purely libertarian government in a civilized nation and/or modern economy, so your first assumption is nothing but speculation.
Second, I (and any) free market advocate stresses the need for government intervention in limited areas. If you'll read my opening posts (I'm guessing you didn't based on your objections) I discussed how there would be alternative programs in place for impoverished families. Nobody would die as a result of the free market, and it's often government programs that make it even harder for poor individuals to survive.
Originally posted by inimalist
The problem with poverty today is exactly this. People with no real work skills or education being supported by government and ignored by the economy. No new or effective infrastructure goes into the regions because this is now the job of bloated and bureaucratic government, and jobs are reduced because they go overseas or increase technology. People need effective neighborhoods with real jobs where they can earn money and be good role models for their kids. They do not need to be treated like 7 year olds, getting their monthly allowance from the rest of society, just so a cycle of poverty can exist.
I would tend to agree, which is why I advocate a personally accountable negative income tax like one of the ones I outlined in the "distribution of wealth" section. Basically, it brings people closer to living wage but also expects something of them or the money is rescinded. Barring extreme circumstances, it requires them to agree to participate in schooling of some sort or to get a job. The government does its "share" to alleviate poverty but doesn't rely only on handouts, but instead creates a lower class that is also personally responsible for their survival and success.
Advocates against this argue (quite validly) that in our society, no one should need to be beneath the poverty line, and thus back a system where the government subsidizes to living wage with no strings attached. The downside is the lower class apathy and reliance you mentioned, which can be its own detriment to a society.
I see either one as preferable to the current asinine loophole-laden, government-heavy tax system. But the former appeals to me more than the latter.
Originally posted by Bardock42Nothing, I just like to clarify things. A free market needs a safety net for people.
Yes, so what's your problem with the free market?
Originally posted by Bardock42I don't understand.
In that small town, wouldn't, lets say WalMart, make a fortune if they would sell pencils at 45 pounds? And wouldn't then Tesco still make a fortune if they sold it at 40 pounds? .....and wouldn't the shopkeeper still make a decent living if he sold them for 40 pence?
Originally posted by DigiMark007What if that can't happen? No one else in the town can make pencils, or get pencils.
Beyond that, there's nothing from stopping anyone in the hypothetical town (for that it all it is) from opening a new store and driving the other out of business or at least keeping them honest.
Originally posted by DigiMark007Falling from tricks, you know, causing people to buy something outrageous or with outrageous prices. A free market doesn't stop that from happening absolutely.
As for "things fro keeping people from falling for tricks"....no, quite frankly, there shouldn't be. In a competitive market, it will be advantageous for businesses to treat the customer fairly even while making a profit, or they themselves will soon be without income. It takes care of itself. Your "things" would undoubtedly take the form of government restrictions on either individuals or businesses themselves, which would limit freedom and inhibit the market's natural course.
Originally posted by DigiMark007The current world wide governmental system is a bad one. One where force is it's prime assesity is something I do not agree with or propose. However, there should be something that allows people stability protection at all costs.
People can and will be dumb, yes, but is it the responsibility of gov't to hold everyone's hand at the cost of social and economic freedom? No, they are free to choose, for better or for worse. And more often than not it will be for the better.
Originally posted by DigiMark007I strayed off somewhere in II. Sorry, I will read it sometime tomorrow.
...all of this was referred to in my opening posts, so I'm not sure if it is still bothering you or if you just didn't read.
Originally posted by DigiMark007I understand.
If you have continued rebuttals for my points (either here or earlier) that's fine, but the questions are the kind of base level ones that suggest you're citing problems that I've addressed and haven't taken my responses into account. I'd recommend reading it, though, because I dislike typing the same justifications twice.
Originally posted by inimalist
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/79
The premise of that video seems enlightening (it's only 16 minutes everyone, and worth watching). As soon as I get the time, I'll give it a full viewing. And TED rocks so hard I can't even begin to describe it. I'd encourage anyone and everyone to peruse the site for other topics that may interest you. Most intellectual endeavors have lectures and talks devoted to them by some of the world's most interesting thinkers.
Originally posted by lord xyz
What if that can't happen? No one else in the town can make pencils, or get pencils.
Like I said, this is pretty much an obsolete concern in a modern economy, where technology offers numerous alternatives to business. I agree that this might be a problem in less developed countries, but that isn't the cocern of my thesis.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Falling from tricks, you know, causing people to buy something outrageous or with outrageous prices. A free market doesn't stop that from happening absolutely.
That exists today as well. One doesn't need to have libertarianism to have bad deals, or bad consumer decisions. But government intervention in this form would surely strip freedoms away from us. And a free market actually protects against it better than some other forms of gov't because competition ensures that if a business is scamming customers they will lose the trust of the market and will suffer monetarily. Creating trust is rewarded in such a system. Such scams would still occur, but they would be dealt with swiftly by the mechanisms of the market, without gov't intervention.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Sorry, I will read it sometime tomorrow.
Cool. I think you'll enjoy it. I realize it's a decent amount of reading, but it helps to be on a level field of discussion.