A problem with the free-market?

Miscellaneous General
101

Nien, robots would have no regard for moral implications, & ultimatley view socialism as inept, since it’s primary motiviation is moral.

A quick example would be the Borg Collective: are they inherently socialist, if they allow what could be considered inequality, if it is mathematically advanteagoues?

Socialists would throw tomatoes en masse at the thought of a single ounce of inequality, whereas with robots would have no conception of inequality at all.

They would go with whatever would work mathematically, which may or may not include socialism in a given situation.

102

Except the capitalists, special interest groups and individuals who benefit from the state… which is where ethics & political philosophy come into play.

No, they support interventionism for their special area, but are nonetheless dependent and have their interests aligned with the market economy.

Interventionism - state subsidies, decrees, prohibitions, etc. are not socialism. They are a hampered market economy. In Mises’ terminology socialism is a totally different thing. Statism is not socialism. Only total state ownership of capital and originary factors of production can be considered socialism. The Soviet Union was not socialist.

103

It assumes robots hold the ability of subjective appraisal. The remarks between my co-worker and I were in humor. We didn’t give it much scrutinity and i certainly did not think of the borg! [:)]

104

I totally agree with you. I don’t think I’m playing down anyone’s arguments, I’m just pointing out that socialism is such a failure, both logically and empirically, it is an interesting quirk of human beings that it takes someone like Mises to show us the truth. Don’t you find this interesting?

105

The definitions of optimal, prosperity and peace are indeed subjective; ideally, you are to agree on these definitions prior to debate. How would you define optimal, prosperity and peace? I would say that, given how most people define these words, it is indeed true that anything but a free market is suboptimal, and it is only through voluntary trade that we prosper and can maintain a peaceful society.

106

Well, what do you mean by foolish? The socialist economists are anything but stupid. People tend to dismiss socialism as pure stupidity, but that’s only because they are ignorant of the opposing argument (or partially ignorant). Many socialists have put forth clover and seemingly plausible arguments in favor of interventionism (they’re still incorrect, but clever nonetheless). Stiglitz, for example, makes an argument where he attempts to show that high interest rates actually lead to malinvestments (moral hazard and adverse selection) as opposed to low interest rates.

Also, you have to realize that the counter-arguments were given to you. Brilliant men refuted socialist fallacies, and there is a historical record available to us. These arguments may seem obvious now, but they weren’t at first. Those “obvious” refutations were economic breakthroughs, revolutions. I think you’re taking too much for granted.

Nevertheless. Austria, in the 20s, faced extreme depression, mass inflation, the people were yearning for socialism, and they had a socialist political leader. Mises overcame all of this with pure logic, and appeals only to science.

Human Action, Morality, & Natural Law (Pt.II of A Problem w/ Free Market?)
107

I know that there have been many clever arguments in favor of socialism. But that’s all that they are and ever will be — clever arguments. I’m not saying anything too outragous here; just that people have an amazing tendancey to be taken in by clever arguments. I’m reminded of a Bertrand Russel quote:

“What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires – desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.”

108

does anyone here believe that the us has become more socialist???

if so, have things gotten worse??? have your incomes risen…have prices for many vital items gone down once adjusted for inflation???

do you find necesseties harder to come by???

has your lesiure life improved??? mp3 players that play for hours where an old portaqble cd player might not play an entire cd??? watching entire movies over a computer transmitted via wires.

have these things happend within ever increasing socialism???

109

Hey cret. Get a life.

110

“does anyone here believe that the us has become more socialist??? if so, have things gotten worse??? have your incomes risen…have prices for many vital items gone down once adjusted for inflation??? do you find necesseties harder to come by??? has your lesiure life improved??? mp3 players that play for hours where an old portaqble cd player might not play an entire cd??? watching entire movies over a computer transmitted via wires. have these things happend within ever increasing socialism???”

hmm

yes, yes, no, yes, somewhat, dont have an ipod, yes but they have happened in spite of the increasing socialism, not because of it.

111

cret is a spammer. don’t humor him.

112

I’d prefer to be a poor freeman, than a rich slave. Faith has nothing to do with it.

This elucidation may help in making my point. It kind of roughly eflects that of the movie Metropolis. There are two types of people (/general) in society, the thinkers (the only thing that matters is what they consider works, pragmatism etc.) and those with a heart (only thing that matters is what they consider is good, justice etc.).

There are three approachs that are possible:

  1. Focusing only on what “works” (eg. socialism cannot calculate)
  2. Focusing only on what is “good” (eg. slavery is bad)
  3. A combination of both.

Ron Paul advocates the latter and puts it into practice. There are those that appreciate his arguments, i.e the system is bankrupt it doesn’t work. And there are those that appreciate his, taxation is theft arguments. He garners a vast level of support by appealing to something everyone can agree with at the same time.

Effiecent & effective - just look at his success (how Stephan Moleyenux can deny this is beyond me, even more amusing is the fact that many listeners of his - first came to an apprescetion of these ideas through Ron Paul). Anyway, that’s a digression - it’s clear what the best approach is when dealing with what Ron is doing, spreading the message.

When it comes to individual one-on-ones, I believe people tend to sway or lean towards either pole (for whatever reason). It would naturally be smart to tailor the message to that individual, as I believe has been pointed out. Would it not be best to start with the combined (3rd approach), then try go from there? If they are a “thinker”, you could focus on the economics side, what works, what wouldn’t or can’t… appeals to morality or ethics probably wouldn’t be as convincing to this person.

And the same goes for the individual with the “heart”, they believe ____ is “good” and they don’t care if the state is used to achieve it be it the draft, equality etc. In fact - there ARE things that can only “work” and are more “effienct” via the state, and what prey tell is the response then? Since what works (means to their end) - is statism. What then, eh?

They both guide & compliment eachother. Both elements of human action. Both scientific.

Look, if you don’t think your apt in one area or are far better at bringing it back to economics & convicing people that way - fine, I truely wish you a world of luck… just do us a favor & drop the delusional claim that political philosophy and essentially Libertarianism itself is a “vicious distraction”.

Now, if that isn’t what you meant by..: “Specious philosophical doctrines are nothing but a vicious distraction.” I apologise. But if it isn’t, then seriously what was the point of that? What philosophical doctrines are not specious then? Or are they all and that includes Libertarianism? So Hoppe, Rothbard, Block, Ron Paul… when they aren’t doing economics - they’re all wasting their time in a “vicious distraction”. No? How else am I meant to understand that?

113

“No”

Yes - they do benefit actually, as you concede with: “for their special area”. Yeah, obviously. It’s just that every capitalist tends to have their own “special area”.

Some of those “areas” also entail the stuff that has nothing to do with the market economy, i.e the ability to print money out of thin air.

“Interventionism - state subsidies, decrees, prohibitions, etc. are not socialism. They are a hampered market economy. In Mises’ terminology socialism is a totally different thing. Statism is not socialism. Only total state ownership of capital and originary factors of production can be considered socialism. The Soviet Union was not socialist.”

This is a red herring. What exactly is the point of needlessly interjecting with this? Well corporatism, soft fascism, I’ve have this discussion before. Nothing you just mentioned is enlightening at all. The point which kicked this off, is applicable to statism. There are numerous other forms of statism, why confine it to just one technical economic def. The point I made earlier still stands. Even in the Soviet Union; Rulers vs Ruled.

114

Sun. 10/04/25 13:49 EDT
.post #75

[url=A problem with the free-market? - #56 by JakobM]

Ultimately, I reject putting sugar in the gas tank because of arbitrary value judgements.[url=A problem with the free-market? - #68 by JakobM]

Socialism is the means, poverty and starvation is the end.
Socialism is the theory, poverty and starvation is the practice.
Socialism is the dream, poverty and starvation is the reality.

For some arbitrary reason, I value wealth and abundance more than poverty and starvation. Call me crazy!

[url=A problem with the free-market? - #98 by Nitroadict]

…but not, apparently, to enough people…yet.

History is a great teacher; unfortunately, many people are poor students.

Why do police agencies always have to put down peaceful protests?
115

ERO,

I don’t have time right now to formulate and execute on my own an essay evaluating Hoppe’s entire ArgEth theory. Like I told Conza, if you were to start a new thread with some concrete propositions that you think undermine my position, I would respond.

116

117

ERO,

Your analogy would only work if your lazy, “But what about Argumentation Ethics?” could even be considered a “swing”. It can’t.

Again, if you want something from me, give me something concrete to respond to that you think undermines my position, even if it’s only a single paragraph, and I’ll respond.

But I don’t write monographs on cue.

118

Thanks. You are pretending that you have it all figured out as if you were dealing with a small, well defined, physical problem. That clearly shows that

  1. you are a positivist and your ‘economics’ is just positivism.
  2. you are completly mischaracterizing the problem at hand.
119

The original premise holds true because Disneyland has outbid the competitor for the land use rights. When purchasing the land, Disneyland may have had a number of considerations such as; the future value of the land, plans for future expansion, income streams from rent or asa way to protect its brand. The fact they haven’t yet sold the land for capital gain does not mean that the land is not being used for its most valuable use. The value of the land is apparently higher for Disneyland thanit is for its competitor.

Disneyland have a use for the land in mind and were prepared to outbid competitors. Are the competitors seeking to locate near Disneyland to get a free ride from locating near this icon of theme park entertainment? If so, Disneyland is merely protecting its brand. Disneyland has not used coercion to stop the competitor, they have only valued the land more highly than the competitor.

Thus the current use remains the most valuable use. The competitor they may feel aggrieved they were unprepared to pay a higher price. What the competitor seeks is a cheap ride on the back of Disneyland.

120

Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone’s slave.—Karl Kraus.

i dunno if it does or not. can it also mean to be everyones master??