New Member: Ixtellor

Byzantine:

Africa is an inapt example.  That is an entire continent where most people are functionally 12-year olds in terms of mentation and impulse control. 

Please don't say stuff like this.

1. You're completely wrong.

2. I get tarred.

3. We all know ad hominem is a fallacy, but it sure does well in convincing the public, and in general, people don't like racists - it will not help us achieve a free society.

4. There are perfectly good reasons why Somalia is doing shit, and the lack of the state is not one.

Byzantine:

What specifically do you have to say about DeBeers?  I'd wager there's government involvement.

And there is, and there is a lot of it. First off, it began with a charter (aka monopoly).

I'm observing this debate but want to point some things out to our new Keynesian that needs be said:

economically, coercion is any action or threat of action to transfer/violate someone's property rights without their consent.  This includes the product of slave labor - labor compelled under threat of violence.  Mobs stealing from big business is just as coercive as governments demanding taxes or mobsters demanding "protection" revenues.

That being said, a free market is not the basis of our argument.  a free market is utopian.  what we advocate is a system that encourages coercion to the smallest degree possible.  this means no government, or minimal government coercion.  it also means a strong attempt to establish justice where coercion does take place.  arguing "that wasn't a free market" is not an excuse we can make, as there has never been one and probably won't be a sustained one, ever.  however, we can argue that tolerance of and support for systems that involve coercion are economically backward.

in regards to the scientific method, microeconomic experiments are flawed if the "subjects" know they are being watched, which must be the case to create a controlled experiment.  in macroeconomics, empirical data can never be entirely accurate.  There may be a certain form of pertinent information which is simply not collected, or collected incorrectly.  And to the effect that individuals still know they are being observed, they will act differently.  This is why social sciences take the approach of logical deduction from a priori axioms that are undebateably true.

your mexico example with Mr Slim and Telmex is slightly absurd.  Telmex was a nationalized monopoly for decades.  For the first 7 years of being privately owned by Slim, it was given a state-granted monopoly.  Even after this, it was not open to foreign investment for local phone service.  Slim's buying price was artificially low as it was poorly run, as all government enterprises are.  Once Slim put market equillibrium prices into effect, revenues soared and the value of the company went up greatly.  Thus, he was pretty much offered several state subsidies.  His market share IS decreasing, as Telmex is obviously run uncompetitively, as most monopolies are.  But the idea that this arose from an unregulated or state-subsidized market is out there.

DeBeers is surely coercive or in collusion with coercive forces, not necessarily a government.  Think warlords with slave armies given primitive tools to dig up diamonds.  As far as de facto monopolies (not necessarily free market monopolies, but ones not explicitly granted by government), DeBeers is the only one I've heard of in all of history.  I would agree, however, that it is a de facto monopoly.  Free market monopoly, no.

As far as using economics or coercive elements to control the media, it seems the monopoly of government ALWAYS has more resources, which the public generally accepts, at doing just that.  so the information problem isn't a problem of the market as much as it is one of society in general.  and if a competitive company can outcompete the big dog, it'd make little sense for media outlets to exclude their advertisements, as they are losing potential revenue.  media outlets would make more money from dozens of small companies' advertisements then from one monopoly's suppression of such advertisements.  the only way this could be false is if the monopoly offered better service at better prices than competitors.  hence, a natural monopoly, which benefits consumers and the monopoly producer.

let's ditch the nuke and pathology arguments.  they are less about economy than safety.  i would agree they could occur in any setting.

I also want to point out the argument that "the unproductive would either become productive or starve" is a poor example of an anarcho-capitalist society.  Mises himself said that economic efficiency is about producing the greatest amount of output, not one's choice in how that output is consumed.  If there were disabled and retired people who I thought were good people, and I was a productive person, I would help feed, clothe, and house them.

The thing is that charity is voluntary, like all other market transactions and contracts.  And with greater economic output, charity should be more, not less, prevalent than in statist societies, even those that emphasize welfarism.

Ixtellor:

Byzantine:

Government doesn't prevent it either.  You may recall 9/11/2001.  Due to government regulation, these jets were weapons-free zones easily commandeered by nineteen determined men and over 2,000 people died.

1) Strawman. I never said government's provent crime or acts of horror all the time. But I think its safe to say places with laws are safer than say Somalia during the reign of the warlords.(You know, that time period wher

Your missing his point. For years, the 9/11 attack was planned. Then the government said no guns in cockpits months before 9/11. Then there was 9/11. Are you arguing that government preventing pilots from protecting themselves is totally unrelated to this tragedy happening?

Ixtellor:

Byzantine:

In an an-cap society, pathological individuals wouldn't get due process and court-appointed lawyers and room and board and medical care for the rest of their lives.  Instead, they'd be killed in flagrante delicto or driven into exile.

There are many many societies, mostly historically, where criminals were killed without any form of due process. It has never in the history of the world reduced the crime rate. Child rapists are brutally murdered by angry mobs in part of Africa today. Guess what, there is still child rape in Africa.

Ixtellor, read him carefully. He does have a point. If someone rapes a child, and the parent walks into the act they would be found guilty and instead of being put up in jail, they would be killed. Good. However, where Biz is wrong is over the issue of due process. Courts, in order to maintain their reputation for fairness and thus secure future profits , would have every incentive to provide some form of due process. After all, you agreed that it was an economic truth that people, including private court owners, are self-interested right?

IXTELLOR: The point is inadmissable. No water producer would ever charge $600, in 2009 dollars, for a gallon of water. Competitors would drive them out of business. This is a point you must admit if you believe people are self-interested. Of course they would buy cheaper water. Of course competitors would offer it to them. It's in their self-interest to do so. There's only so much time before it happens... If they forced people to use their water THEY would be INITIATING COERCION and the peasants would only be retaliating. No one on this board has problems with retaliatory actions. Also, you seem to be conflating no government with no provision of justice. This is just not the case. Everyone would be able to arm themselves and thus protect themselves. Their would be private defense agencies, or PDAs to find wrongdoers and private courts to try them. Now, for someone who makes such a big hoopla about monopolies, why is defense/justice any different? If competition reduces cost and increases value, forced removal of all competitors, monopoly, must increase price and decrease the utility of the service provided. We are only extending this to justice/defense. This is the principle that, if accepted deflates your warnings about crazies and microsoft killing its competitors. While still possible, it is less likely in an AnCap society than in a statist society for the reasons explained. Do you admit that monopolies, my definition not yours, inherently have the effects I describe? Or do you believe there is an exception for justice/defense? How? Why? You haven't answered my other question. Aren't prices information? All people "advertise". Assume that for a moment, your right. Advertisement puts spin on projects if not done right and that's bad. Then we'd have to get rid of fancy resumes. How dare they creatively advertise their experience?? Exploiters. Aren't you then exploiting us by putting spin on your words. That Ixtellor, exploiting us with his "advertisements" which he calls "rhetorical strategies"! How dare ye! To the gallows!

Byzantine:

What specifically do you have to say about DeBeers?  I'd wager there's government involvement.

Yep.  One of the reasons DeBeers was able to keep the supply of diamonds down was because it entered into joint ventures with the governments of countries where diamond mines were located (i.e., Botswana, Nambia), so the governments benefitted from the artificial decreased supply and corresponding increased price.

2) De Beers.

Are you serious?

meambobbo:

let's ditch the nuke and pathology arguments.  they are less about economy than safety.  i would agree they could occur in any setting.

Safety has a place in the economy. Specifically, in the form of security, it is produced, either privately, or publicly. I don't think we necessarily have to ditch arguments that deal with safety, as they are germaine. I agree with you that they could occur in any setting, but I think what is key here is the understanding that a state-less society is more safe than one where the state has a monopoly on security and defense, if for no other reason than that no one is willing to forego years of consumption just to buy a warhead to blow some place to hell.

Also, I find that in discussions with Ordinary Joe about privatization, safety always comes up. Well, that and roads. I think many people are averse to the libertarian ideal because they think no government means instance chaos. Some of my friends literally believe that if there were no government, the world would drown itself in blood.

Ixtellor, your analogies are tinged to a degree with sociopathy. This is not a attack on you personally, but your arguments deal in improbable extremes that usually involve killing, sometimes on a massive scale. As many here have pointed out, you have yet to come up with an example of a real-life blood-thirsty monopoly created in a free market without any government help. At the same time, you're overlooking real government-created monopolies in history. The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, etc. all held coercive monopolies on security and defense, and look how many people died at their hands.

Can you think of one example where an unregulated market failed and caused even a fraction of the human devastation that intervening governments have caused throughout history?

 

liege:

Can you think of one example where an unregulated market failed and caused even a fraction of the human devastation that intervening governments have caused throughout history?

I think I inadvertantly feel into your unwinnable trap. At no time in recorded history was there a free market. Hence, it would be impossible to give an example, to which you would not reply - "HaHa, the government was a participant.!" Since there seems to be no belief at all in intellectual property rights on the boards here, the excellent example of Microsoft and their internet browser, is also equally dismissed even though it is the government, that is desperatly trying to end any monopolistic powers MS possess.

The utopian arguments being made here are all tantamount to a Christian arguing, that if only the world was 100% christian then everything would be Utopia. And not matter how anyone argues against you, you will always claim that "non-christians" were involved. 

liege:

if for no other reason than that no one is willing to forego years of consumption just to buy a warhead to blow some place to hell.

That is Naive imo. There are always people willing to give up everything inorder to commit horror. The christmas murder comes to mind. Oh and the 1000's of Jihadists who willinging 'martyr' themselves for just an opportunity to throw a rock at an Israeli tank. Timothy McVeigh had no problem giving up lots of consumption. Kim in NK, had no problem starving 3 million people to death to get just one nuke. (You will argue he is government, but the point is the same. He sacrificed consumption on a massive scale to get 1 nuke)

Again, your arguing Utopia. In your perfect AnCap society suddenly this very common human phenom will magically disappear because of market forces. 

liege:

Also, I find that in discussions with Ordinary Joe about privatization, safety always comes up

Why do you believe that in every single society on earth, governments natually evolved? I think Hobbes and Marx nailed it on the head. The world was a very dangerous place, and people were INCAPPABLE of defending themselves, so in a world wide phenomnon, they gave up some liberty in exchange for security. (In many cases gave up LOTS of liberty in exchange for secruity)

Ixtellor:

That is Naive imo. There are always people willing to give up everything inorder to commit horror. The christmas murder comes to mind. Oh and the 1000's of Jihadists who willinging 'martyr' themselves for just an opportunity to throw a rock at an Israeli tank. Timothy McVeigh had no problem giving up lots of consumption. Kim in NK, had no problem starving 3 million people to death to get just one nuke. (You will argue he is government, but the point is the same. He sacrificed consumption on a massive scale to get 1 nuke)

Interestingly enough concerning your above observations, the state did not prevent these things from happening either.  So how is it you can levy this as a criticism against statelessness, yet for some reason the state is immune to the same criticism?

Again, your arguing Utopia. In your perfect AnCap society suddenly this very common human phenom will magically disappear because of market forces. 

Funny thing is no one claimed it would "magically disappear."  You are simply making assertions that amount to strawmen.

 

Why do you believe that in every single society on earth, governments natually evolved? I think Hobbes and Marx nailed it on the head. The world was a very dangerous place, and people were INCAPPABLE of defending themselves, so in a world wide phenomnon, they gave up some liberty in exchange for security. (In many cases gave up LOTS of liberty in exchange for secruity)

What's this I see?  Do mine eyes deceive me?!?! Quick! Watson, get out the binoculars, I believe I see a form of the is-ought fallacy on the horizon.

Nerditarian:

Also, you seem to be conflating no government with no provision of justice. This is just not the case. Everyone would be able to arm themselves and thus protect themselves. Their would be private defense agencies, or PDAs to find wrongdoers and private courts to try them.

In every historical instance I am aware of where, one person or a small group of people were in charge of an army and that army was beholden to them, their pay check being a big incentive, those people used to army to take control. (see Mushariff of Pakistan)

What is going to prevent a large and successful private defense agency, to deciding one day that they could be far wealthier and more powerful if they just took control. Are there historical examples of large armies not either making themselves the government or coercing people to do their bidding?

Why the utopian belief that this would not occur?

Nerditarian:

If competition reduces cost and increases value, forced removal of all competitors, monopoly, must increase price and decrease the utility of the service provided. We are only extending this to justice/defense.

There is a difference between a monopoly whose sole motive is profit and those whom have other motives. For example the electric company where I live offers some of the lowest cost energy in the country. They frequently submit rebate checks to every customer, if they take in more than their costs. Where I live, San Antonio,  there are two water companies. One private and one government. Guess which one charged more? Guess which one had worse service and lower utility? And guess which one had a CEO that embezzeld money and lied to his board? (see BexarMet)

If your motive is profit, then I totally agree with your definition that monopolies increase price and decrease utility. But when the motive is something other, like public service for example, I don't believe that limited definition holds true.

Nerditarian:

Aren't prices information?

Yes they are.

If company X offers a lower price than company Y but no one is aware that company X exists, company Y is de facto monopoly. 

Nerditarian:

Assume that for a moment, your right. Advertisement puts spin on projects if not done right and that's bad.

1) Strawman. I never said advertising was bad.

2) I made the argument that great advertising can skew good information. And without good information, competition is harmed and can result in monopolies. Furthermore, in your Utopian society there are no attempts at 'truth in advertising' So what ever you can convince the masses of, is truth, regardless of reality. (I assume that in your utopian society, all the people are far smarter and well informed than has been the case in all of human history where the masses are tantamount to sheep, and lying in your advertising would easily been seen for what it is because of the utopian nature of your society)

 

Ixtellor

 

Ixtellor:

There is a difference between a monopoly whose sole motive is profit and those whom have other motives. For example the electric company where I live offers some of the lowest cost energy in the country. They frequently submit rebate checks to every customer, if they take in more than their costs. Where I live, San Antonio,  there are two water companies. One private and one government. Guess which one charged more? Guess which one had worse service and lower utility? And guess which one had a CEO that embezzeld money and lied to his board? (see BexarMet)

How much does the government company get in taxes? One had problems that you know of. The funny thing is that when billions disappear from the Post Office, it just kind of winds up as a footnote in some GAO report....Wonder why? Gee, we should stop using the post office. O wait we can't, they have monopoly privileges on first class mail and mail boxes etc. Funny thing, actually.

Ixtellor:

1) Strawman. I never said advertising was bad.

2) I made the argument that great advertising can skew good information. And without good information, competition is harmed and can result in monopolies. Furthermore, in your Utopian society there are no attempts at 'truth in advertising' So what ever you can convince the masses of, is truth, regardless of reality. (I assume that in your utopian society, all the people are far smarter and well informed than has been the case in all of human history where the masses are tantamount to sheep, and lying in your advertising would easily been seen for what it is because of the utopian nature of your society)

It's not a straw man because all advertisements skew good information to their advantage. So do rhetorical statements. So do resumes. Spin is spin. Everyone spins.Flat-out lying is fraud an punishable as a rights-violation.

Ixtellor:

In every historical instance I am aware of where, one person or a small group of people were in charge of an army and that army was beholden to them, their pay check being a big incentive, those people used to army to take control. (see Mushariff of Pakistan)

What is going to prevent a large and successful private defense agency, to deciding one day that they could be far wealthier and more powerful if they just took control. Are there historical examples of large armies not either making themselves the government or coercing people to do their bidding?

Why the utopian belief that this would not occur?

This is the hard question. Well, in the past people had no choice as to whom they should pay for defense. Choice is key. if one group becomes too powerful and violent their costs will be too high. They will lose money compared to their competitors. Also competitors would be able to stop one PDA. The question becomes, is in a free-market is a monopoly, my definition not yours, viable? I would say no. As would everyone on here. That's my answer.

I can't state that I am either Austrian or a Monetarist(sp?), but I'd like to ask a few basic questions of the OP.

1) Do you accept that all systems are fundamentally bottom-up/emergent in their properties, behaviors, and 'destinies?' If not, why?

2) Do you accept that if any given act be it from the perspective of economic or 'personal' policy, that if it requires the initiation of force it is fundamentally doomed to fail or to at least lead to unintended (positive/negative/neutral) consequences (which are not easily predictible in their forming)? If not, why?

3) Do you accept that much of Keynes own theories have fundamental limits on them as I've read many modern Keynesians stating publically even in OpEds? If not, why?

Thanks in advance.

I'm almost at a loss for words.

If your motive is profit, then I totally agree with your definition that monopolies increase price and decrease utility. But when the motive is something other, like public service for example, I don't believe that limited definition holds true.

Indeed, then it's just a matter of pure waste. And praying for some altruist to hold positions within the "public" monopolist firm. "Public service", talk about utopian! You know, just randomly referring to companies without giving full background details is not going to get you very far, because for all we know there are myriads of intricate details you may be failing to reference. This is commonly the case when leftists attack free markets. Belief that order cannot exist without active interference, now that sounds very "Christian" and utopian to me...

Ixtellor:

What is going to prevent a large and successful private defense agency, to deciding one day that they could be far wealthier and more powerful if they just took control.  Are there historical examples of large armies not either making themselves the government or coercing people to do their bidding?

Except they wouldn't be.  There's a long list of bankrupt and ultimately extinct empires that thought they could be far wealthier and more powerful if they just took capital instead of competed for it.  When the people stay put and the defense agencies come and go, things are real different.

Ixtellor:

liege:

Can you think of one example where an unregulated market failed and caused even a fraction of the human devastation that intervening governments have caused throughout history?

I think I inadvertantly feel into your unwinnable trap. At no time in recorded history was there a free market. Hence, it would be impossible to give an example, to which you would not reply - "HaHa, the government was a participant.!"

It was not my intention to trap you, nor can either of us prove that its unwinnable. Also, the statement 'at no time in history was there a free market' is an assumption. Although its impossible to prove this statement, I don't think its bad, and it certainly is illustrative of a world where intervention is and has been the norm.

Here's my point: Keynesians justify their market interventions on the supposed instability of markets. The implication here is that if markets are prone to implosion, then society will be hurt in some way when they implode, therefore, someone should intervene to prevent this. The problem Keynesians have is that they are unable to show at any place or time where an unregulated market was inherently unstable, and destroyed itself, and caused a large amount of collateral damage to society in the process. Without those three conditions satisfied, Keynesians have no real justification for intervention.

Any examples that Keynes' school has ever given regarding inherently unstable markets have not truly been free-market in nature, because, as you implied earlier, they don't tend to exist. If all markets are regulated to some extent, then it makes no sense for Keynesians to argue against free market stability, as they are arguing against something that might not have ever existed. What they are truly arguing for is that previously regulated markets are unstable and the only way to introduce more stability into them is to ratchet up the level of regulation. This says nothing of free markets.

Ixtellor:

 Since there seems to be no belief at all in intellectual property rights on the boards here, the excellent example of Microsoft and their internet browser, is also equally dismissed even though it is the government, that is desperatly trying to end any monopolistic powers MS possess.

The excellent example of Microsoft and their internet browser? I'm assuming you're talking about netscape complaining that Microsoft gives Internet explorer for free with Windows and that makes it harder for netscape to compete? Correct me if this isn't the argument you're referring to- but if it is, then its real good example of why the goverment SHOULDN'T get itself involved. Microsoft gives a free internet browser with its Operating system...what consumers are hurt by this? Netscape can still run on Windows no problem, and the popularity of other free internet browsers these days such as FireFox and Google's Chrome browser makes it even more obvious that Netscape's problem was that their browser was garbage and no one wanted to pay for it. So they decided to get the government to act and try to punish Microsoft for giving their customers both an O.S. that was user friendly and a free Internet browser along with it.

Why couldn't netscape just make their own operating system better than Microsoft's and include their browser in there? If they can't satisfy consumers like Microsoft does- then they deserve to go out of business.

Microsoft is hardly a company that  reaches any type of monopoly status anyway. There are many options to take besides Microsoft products.

This will be a multiquote thread with numerous responses.

Jon Irenicus:

You know, just randomly referring to companies without giving full background details is not going to get you very far, because for all we know there are myriads of intricate details you may be failing to reference. This is commonly the case when leftists attack free markets. Belief that order cannot exist without active interference, now that sounds very "Christian" and utopian to me...

1) Semantics. Use whatever languge you prefer, but there are 'companies' that provide services for reasons other than profit. I gave the example of water and electric companies. Either can be, and in many instance have, been funded with bonds (read NO TAXES), and upkeep is paid for by users. If you don't want electricty don't pay for it. There is no gov coersion forcing you to use it. There are many examples of said companies providing the services at nominal fees. I suspect, and shall research later, that many electric and water monopolies charge a lower rate per watt/acre foot than private enterprises.

Your argument is that it must be do to some other evil government coerice action. And you may be right. Perhaps, you can show me a successful privatized water or electric grid in the world that illustrates your viewpoint.

2) Logical Fallacy -argumentum ad hominem "Your a leftist therefore blah". So not only does it fail to prove anything by resorting to that kind of defense, you misstate my political and economic leanings.

3) Strawman - I never claimed that order cannot exist without active interference. Solve the problem of scarcity and I believe order would exist quite fine without interference.

Maybe you could give me real world examples instead of resorting to those tactics.

Nerditarian,

[/quote]It's not a straw man because all advertisements skew good information to their advantage. So do rhetorical statements. So do resumes. Spin is spin. Everyone spins.Flat-out lying is fraud an punishable as a rights-violation.

1) Who will punish the rights violation? My understanding of Austrain theory is that the people would stop purchasing products from a company that lied to them, thus they would go out of business. My question is: how would the people find out they were being lied to in a world class advertising campaigne constantly reminding them of how great company X is?

[quote user="Nerditarian"]Well, in the past people had no choice as to whom they should pay for defense

I agree. I take it further. At no point in human history have people had a choice in to whom they should pay for defense. With social contract Democracy being the closest to a mutual agreement or the most 'choice'.

Nerditarian:

if one group becomes too powerful and violent their costs will be too high. They will lose money compared to their competitors.

1) What about economies of scale and mass production? The larger a company gets the more efficient and cost affective it can become. Do you think you could successfully produce a pencil for less than 3cents? Or would you agree that the larger your pencil making business, the lower your production costs per unit. To my knowledge Austrians agree on economies of scale.

2) How do you lose money, if you just always take what you want by force? Did the United States lose money when it conquered indian lands? Did the United States lose money during the Mexican American war, and we took California and large portions of the southwest?

Nerditarian:

Also competitors would be able to stop one PDA

1) Wouldn't that depend on the size, cunning, and verocity of the 'rogue' PDA?

2) Under AnCap philophy is there some mechanism that prevents a PDA from growing to large? (Don't forget economies of scale and lowers unit costs)

 

Byzantine:

Except they wouldn't be.  There's a long list of bankrupt and ultimately extinct empires that thought they could be far wealthier and more powerful if they just took capital instead of competed for it.

1) Empires come and go. I don't see how thats relevant to my criticism that people with guns would still try and take over regardless of the historical precedence that all empires ultimatly come to an end. (China might be an exception, if you consider changing govs but consistant national sovereignty)

2) I still dont' see what mechanisms are going to prevent people with guns from deciding it is easier to take control by force rather than 'work hard'. Human history regardless of society or values, is rife with examples of people taking control by force for no other reason than they want to. I think this is consistant with praxology.

liege:

Here's my point: Keynesians justify their market interventions on the supposed instability of markets. The implication here is that if markets are prone to implosion, then society will be hurt in some way when they implode, therefore, someone should intervene to prevent this. The problem Keynesians have is that they are unable to show at any place or time where an unregulated market was inherently unstable, and destroyed itself, and caused a large amount of collateral damage to society in the process. Without those three conditions satisfied, Keynesians have no real justification for intervention.

Here is something you might think about. Keynesians might not, and some don't, care about what SHOULD happen. They are economic theorists.Societies and States have a problem - economic instability - because it disrupts their societies and can lead to their demise. (see Soviet Union)

So States are asking "How can we fix this" Keynesians, regardless of the morality or if we should or should not act, respond "If you have a recession do this"(tax cuts and gov spending to stimulate investment and consumer demand). Why don't Keynesians address the 100% free market scenario? Because it doesn't exist. Keynesians also don't create models to predict what happens when scarcity no longer exists.

There seems to be a common disbelief that lots of Keynesians have an idea about what society should look like. Where in fact, many are just people who like the puzzle of the economy and are attempting to do the math and 'science' to figure it out or tweak it.

liege:

If all markets are regulated to some extent, then it makes no sense for Keynesians to argue against free market stability, as they are arguing against something that might not have ever existed.

Well Keynsians like data. We have a lot of data about world and historical economies. The overarching goal of a Keynesian is to minimize the affects of a boom bust cycle, as per the request of the State. There is a lot of data that seems to support Keynesian economic theory in the USA, where there is a LOT of market freedom.

I am very short on time. If you could link %changes in GDP in nations you consider the most 'free market' that would be useful information.

Ixtellor

P.S. Apologies for the sudden exit in my responses.

 

 

Ixtellor:

I am very short on time. If you could link %changes in GDP in nations you consider the most 'free market' that would be useful information.

Ixtellor

 

I haven't been paying attention to the debate that much, but if you are asking what some of us may consider to be the most freemarket economies I guess it could be the list made by the Heritage Institute (found here: http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking.aspx ). As to there changes in GDP, you are going to have to wait for somebody with more time to answer that question.

Ixtellor:

Nerditarian,

Nerditarian:

It's not a straw man because all advertisements skew good information to their advantage. So do rhetorical statements. So do resumes. Spin is spin. Everyone spins.Flat-out lying is fraud an punishable as a rights-violation.

1) Who will punish the rights violation? My understanding of Austrain theory is that the people would stop purchasing products from a company that lied to them, thus they would go out of business. My question is: how would the people find out they were being lied to in a world class advertising campaigne constantly reminding them of how great company X is?

PDA's and arbiters will punish the rights violation.(Arbiters will decide if there was a rights violation, and then your PDA will enforce that decision). But I don't think you're talking about flat out fraud, you're talking about just general advertising(basically, the advertising that goes on today). How would people find out they were being lied to? Uhh...by purchasing the product, and finding that it doesn't meet their expectations. If the product is unsatisfactory, they will not purchase it again. You seem to be assuming that the only information you can get on a company is straight from that company, which is simply not true. Reliable Information is a good, and as such, there is a demand for reliable information. Due to the laws of economics, a supply will arise to meet this demand. Third parties will happily supply you with information about the products you are looking into purchasing. I'm sure you've seen those infomercials that are pretty much a bunch of crap. A quick google search will reveal as much. If you choose to believe what they are saying in the commercial(God knows why...), then you are being irresponsible with your money, and you being duped is entirely your fault.

Ixtellor:

Nerditarian:

Well, in the past people had no choice as to whom they should pay for defense

I agree. I take it further. At no point in human history have people had a choice in to whom they should pay for defense. With social contract Democracy being the closest to a mutual agreement or the most 'choice'.

Unless you're in the minority. Then you're fucked.

Ixtellor:

Nerditarian:

if one group becomes too powerful and violent their costs will be too high. They will lose money compared to their competitors.

1) What about economies of scale and mass production? The larger a company gets the more efficient and cost affective it can become. Do you think you could successfully produce a pencil for less than 3cents? Or would you agree that the larger your pencil making business, the lower your production costs per unit. To my knowledge Austrians agree on economies of scale.

2) How do you lose money, if you just always take what you want by force? Did the United States lose money when it conquered indian lands? Did the United States lose money during the Mexican American war, and we took California and large portions of the southwest?

It is very presumptory and arrogant to debate a subject which you clearly have not educated yourself on. Books upon books have been written about this, but you, of course, have not read them. But I'll answer the question anyways. As pointed out in The Market for Liberty, If a PDA begins aggressing against its customers, it is literally forcing its customers to go to its competitors. I also find it interesting that your default position is that there should be a violent monopoly on force, but your problem with Anarcho-Capitalism is that there MIGHT be a violent monopoly on force. What happens when your minarchist government devolves into a monstrous overbearing police state that steals half your income and has the largest army the world has every seen? Oh that's right...you debate with AnCaps about how your style of government is significantly better than their style of government(or lack thereof).

Ixtellor:

Nerditarian:

Also competitors would be able to stop one PDA

1) Wouldn't that depend on the size, cunning, and verocity of the 'rogue' PDA?

2) Under AnCap philophy is there some mechanism that prevents a PDA from growing to large? (Don't forget economies of scale and lowers unit costs)

The same thing that stops all companies from growing "too" large. Competition.

Ixtellor:

Byzantine:

Except they wouldn't be.  There's a long list of bankrupt and ultimately extinct empires that thought they could be far wealthier and more powerful if they just took capital instead of competed for it.

1) Empires come and go. I don't see how thats relevant to my criticism that people with guns would still try and take over regardless of the historical precedence that all empires ultimatly come to an end. (China might be an exception, if you consider changing govs but consistant national sovereignty)

2) I still dont' see what mechanisms are going to prevent people with guns from deciding it is easier to take control by force rather than 'work hard'. Human history regardless of society or values, is rife with examples of people taking control by force for no other reason than they want to. I think this is consistant with praxology.

Again, your argument against no government is that it will devolve into government. Seems more like a condemnation of government than of no government. Furthermore, your "economies of scale" argument doesn't apply, because they're not producing a physical good. The way to get the most market share in a service industry such as this is to charge a lesser price, and to pay/give your employees more(lest you lose them to your competitors). Additionally, a PDA that is attempting to "conquer the world" or whatever would be HEMMORAGHING money. Violence is expensive. Why would your employees not leave for a competitor if you're constantly forcing them to get into shootouts. The PDA's that will be the most successful will be the ones who avoid violence as much as possible. Using it only when necessary.

Ixtellor:

liege:

Here's my point: Keynesians justify their market interventions on the supposed instability of markets. The implication here is that if markets are prone to implosion, then society will be hurt in some way when they implode, therefore, someone should intervene to prevent this. The problem Keynesians have is that they are unable to show at any place or time where an unregulated market was inherently unstable, and destroyed itself, and caused a large amount of collateral damage to society in the process. Without those three conditions satisfied, Keynesians have no real justification for intervention.

Here is something you might think about. Keynesians might not, and some don't, care about what SHOULD happen. They are economic theorists.Societies and States have a problem - economic instability - because it disrupts their societies and can lead to their demise. (see Soviet Union)

So States are asking "How can we fix this" Keynesians, regardless of the morality or if we should or should not act, respond "If you have a recession do this"(tax cuts and gov spending to stimulate investment and consumer demand). Why don't Keynesians address the 100% free market scenario? Because it doesn't exist. Keynesians also don't create models to predict what happens when scarcity no longer exists.

There seems to be a common disbelief that lots of Keynesians have an idea about what society should look like. Where in fact, many are just people who like the puzzle of the economy and are attempting to do the math and 'science' to figure it out or tweak it.

Luckily, we've had the mighty Keynesians to give us the business cycle. Yay!

Ixtellor:

liege:

If all markets are regulated to some extent, then it makes no sense for Keynesians to argue against free market stability, as they are arguing against something that might not have ever existed.

Well Keynsians like data. We have a lot of data about world and historical economies. The overarching goal of a Keynesian is to minimize the affects of a boom bust cycle, as per the request of the State. There is a lot of data that seems to support Keynesian economic theory in the USA, where there is a LOT of market freedom.

I am very short on time. If you could link %changes in GDP in nations you consider the most 'free market' that would be useful information.

Ixtellor

P.S. Apologies for the sudden exit in my responses.

Empirical evidence is largely useless in the social sciences, which is why Austrian economics is an a priori theory based upon logic and reason. How 'bout we just eliminate the boom/bust cycle? That's what Austrians propose(in spite of Keynesians always trying to stop us). GDP is also a very poor metric for economic prosperity. ESPECIALLY when comparing freer markets to markets with large states, because state spending is factored into the GDP, even though it does nothing but stifle economic prosperity.

But if you want, check out Hong Kong.