I agree, but a voluntarily government would not be based only on free market. You are focusing on the economical aspect. What about the other ones?
You would so be surprised.
Lol, it is a necessary step for sure!
Exactly. So if I understand it well, only after the first step, the education, is Completely done, you forsee the birth of the voluntarily governed society…
One can seldom go against ones inner nature. Even when one knows that it is wrong. It would be a waste of time to lecture me on this one…
Economics is a social science. A voluntary government would have to be a product of a free market, or it would not be voluntary.
Not if the message is communicated the right way. If you only have a hammer as your tool, after awhile, everything starts to look like a nail.
Education and then action. But if people act without understanding rational economics, or have a cogent philosophy of liberty, then they aren’t going to construct anything enduring. Like I wrote up thread, many Constitutionalists are not aware of the division between federalists and anti-federalists. Or the european classic liberalism and greek philosophy many of the founding fathers were very knowledgable about.
It’s like getting into a car and driving it, without first understanding how an engine works. Sure it will take you from A to B, but if the car needs a mechanic, you are out of luck.
Now this is all strictly my opinion. There are loads of people on this forum I agree with, and could participate in a free society with, but I don’t think any two of us have the exact same ideas or perspective. And that’s healthy, as long as we can all fundamentally agree we are better off working together peacefully than trying to dominate one another.
I’m not trying to lecture you. It seems to me you don’t believe that you can exert control over yourself by rational means (the ability to change). If your nature is fixed, and it is fixed on destructive or counter-productive activity, then nature will take care of that and eliminate the strain.
To be honest, I don’t think you give yourself enough credit. You are intelligent. You can be whatever you want to be, nature notwithstanding.
We all make choices.
Yes, and so are psychology, sociology, communication, behaviour, etc…why aren’t they important for the voluntary government concept?
People…per se you are correct. It happens that we might be forced to accelerate the process…and then theory and education might have to go simultaneously with action. And also, as we are talking about decentralization, to each his field, according to his skills and/or his will. All people may not reach the ultimate understanding, but will voluntarily help building the concept.
Just like in your example with the car…I learned about engines and their mechanism before knowing how to drive a car…it didn’t really helped me learn faster how to drive it and quite frankly I wouldn’t be able to fix it if it breaks. But it is helping me get to point B, which is after all the purpose.
Yup, this is the reason why I think that the document they wrote together is a nice piece of work.
I know…this is what I am asking for. It is easier for me to directly talk with you than browsing the topics. That is if you don’t mind…
You have Power Company A, they just opened to compete with B, how do you get your power to customers? I am talking about utilities as an example of monopoly discussion, if I was unclear about that. To bring your product to the people it requires the entire community to be inconvenienced and since B is already in place it has the advantage of not disrupting the community, the inherent advantage of being first. If you want to go all out let us take water utility, where excavation have to happen all over a community to get water to customers. Lets say you live in a community and the community is serviced by 3 utilities of each variety, up until the equilibrium point is met, where the value of the utilities are based on the value of the service and the free market has done its job, it is hell on the community, with lines being run, expantion and contraction projects on behalf of the utilities…
So it is not truly a monopoly with the advent of the companies that provide the means to create your own power
Does it not make the originator a victim technically with the loss of potential revenue?
My point was the next quote you posted…[;)]
So, with the potential revenue “lost” there is a loss, the difference being that the loss of revenue to a power company is through active competition and the loss of revenue to an artist or writer through copying, because if you have an art with a value and someone copies it, now there are two instead of one, sharing the samer value, or in the case of an original discovery, the one who brings it to market first retains most if not all of the value…
Do you understand where I am coming from?
you dont have a right to ‘the value’ of your property, but to the property itself.
If house prices crash and its market value decreases you as a homeowner have not been stolen from, you still own the property itself, you simply would get less for it in one circumstance than the other. it is nonsense to talk of rights to ‘the value’ of things. if you have the right to value its only the right to receive whatever ‘value’ is negotiated with the buyer of your product.
you dont have the right to revenue lost, as a shoemaker, if another shoe maker opens across the street. artists arent more important than shoemakers, or special, or magic. I speak as a budding artist myself.
also, all this nonsense about citizens living in a hell on earth as utility companies try to install services is ludicrous. If there is violence, theft, or vandalism that is illegitimate, anything else is done voluntarily due to mutual benefit. There is a hellish outcome to state granted monopolies of local utilities due to loss of quality service and increased cost to the consumer. Its also illegitimate.
Then the benefit of discovery is not the incentive?
You are not talking about a property that loses potential value to copying, therefore apples and oranges
Who says a shoemaker is not an artist? If the said shoemaker discovers a process to improve his shoes, or make them more profitable, and is copied by the guy across the street, then yes he did lose revenue
I am not talking about violence… I am talking about general inconvenience, just being a little dramatic…
They are. However, voluntary government is based upon voluntary interaction (aka trade). Thus economics in my opinion has the most relevance.
I don’t see any compelling reason why we have to accelerate the process. If we get action before we have an understanding, the outcome might be an abject failure.
Sure, as we go along. But the initial institutions and collaborations should be somewhat understood going in. If the government disappeared tomorrow there would be chaos. That is a bad thing for liberty. We need time to establish money substitutes, security/legal substitutes, and so on.
It’s nice, although if you read the sources, there is a lot of nice stuff behind it. I fear too often people treat it like scripture, and not merely a step in the evolution of ideas.
Whatever makes you happy.
I believe that you can control your nature by transforming the negative energy into a positive one…I do not believe that you can change it. Nature is indeed taking care and eliminating what is negatively influencing/affecting you, but can not change your fondamental tendencies.
I agree, you can break your limits and go past regardless your nature…but that doesn’t mean you can change it…
I did. I am taking my impatience and make it a fuel. When it is becoming just fire then I deal with it. More or less…lolz…
Thank you for taking the time, LS…
If there were lots more copies of your house, its market price would decline, supply and demand and all that.
your shoemaker earned less revenue than he might have earned in a different world. the correct response to this ‘fact’ is ‘so what?’
I was making the point that it is nonsense to reject a free-market in local utilities on political grounds. Also, it is ridiculous on economic grounds. With all ‘inconveniencing’ being compensated for, all your claims to the contrary about competition in some markets being a ‘bad thing’ are just empty rhetoric.
I think you are taking the comparrison to utilities for IP discussion out of context…
I was making the point you cannot compare utilities to IP discussions becuse of external factors, regardless of the benefits…
A loss of potential is not a material loss.
Active competition does not create a loss of revenue. Inefficient competition creates a loss of revenue.
Value is subjective and determined only at the time of sale between the two parties making the exchange (all prices are past prices). Your art is only worth what someone is willing to give you for it. If it is a nickel, it is a nickel whether you worked on it for 1 month or 10 years.
There is one copy and one original. They are different goods.
Again, the value is subjective. They may not get the same price in trade. There may only be one person willing to pay $10 for one, and $8 for the other.
Sure, the one who brings it to market first. I think you’re still confusing the idea with the actual production of the good.
The idea behind a painting, the combination of brush strokes and the particular colours and shapes is not ownable, in that anyone can conceive of the same idea at no net loss to the first person with these ideas. The actual production of those ideas has value in trade, and does not constitute a zero sum game.
A really big stumbling block for people, is coming from a labour theory of value perspective to AE which is based on the subjective theory of value.
That is, value is determined subjectively in the market place. Not all paintings have value, all paintings are likely to have different values to the same people. So when people speak of “lost value”, that’s a non-concept in that value is measured by price (what will it take to buy it from you, how much will I pay for it - do i value it), and price is only determined at the moment of sale.
The seller does not dictate the price, because without a buyer willing to pay a price, no exchange is being made. I could value my hourly labour at $500 an hour, but if no one will employ me for more than $18 an hour, I am only an $18 an hour labourer, whether I think I am worth (value) $500 an hour or not. Likewise, creators of goods, art, services can price their side of exchange at any price, but it does not become a market exchange value until a buyer to sell can be found to match.
There is a HUGE difference between “Someone said they would pay me $200k for my home, so it is worth $200k” and “The guy is here and he has $200k to buy my home right now”.
Lol!
OK, let us say that we are talking about a product X, that has yet to be produced, and the inventor is looking for a producer, he goes through free market channels and has meetings with many people, and the first one rejects his invention. While meeting others the first business begins producing this product and brings said product to market before the inventor gets his produced, how is this dealt with so the inventor gets justice?
The patent function in the United States protects the inventor by registering the invention at a time so there is no way the business (unscrupulously) can produce a product from said invention without the inventor’s consent, for a limited period of time. This protection is purely legal indemnification for the inventor, and yes, I know it requires a state in order to have a point, but in dealing with the fact that we are a world of states, predominantly, as it stands currently I have to agree that the inventor should have such a protection…
I am investigating this, or I should say learning it now, this is one of the reasons I am here, to learn about the economics of the people that were mostly, if not, invariable correct in predicting economic conditions, what I know of it, it is sound, but I want to know more than what I know now…
I have done some homework…
Would it be correct for me to assume that when you say economics, you refer to a much broader field, including the psychological characteristics of the individuals?
There was no injustice. He exposed his idea freely. If he was smart, he would have had them sign a no-compete, NDA in advance. Contracts can be used to solve a lot of problems. But there was no injustice. He was taking a risk by exposing his idea, in order to gain a profit later. This is normal market behaviour.
Yes, it creates an artificial scarcity of ideas. It is a state fiction. Like a marriage license. You don’t need a license to get married, the state makes a law that says you do. There is no property per se in IP, so the state makes a law that says there is. Without a monopoly state that makes blanket laws everyone is forced to consent to, IP as you understand it is impossible. IP law differs already from country to country, and that is because it is all made up as it goes, like speed limits and ages of consent.
What you call unscrupulous can only be so if the business violates a contract, written or oral. The confusion is that the state created scarcity and thus the false empowerment of consent for the inventor.
I look at IP like I look at tariffs and slavery. Just bad constitutional law.
Well by that logic, since we live in a world of states predominantly, then you should agree with everything the state does. [;)]
The more I know, the less I know “for sure”.
I’m going to sugget you give this a read, and see what you think. It is a very important portion of AE.
I hope it will answer your above question better than I can.
So I am assuming correctly…
And the voluntary government would not be a “real” government, like having people payed to do… well, nothing, lol… it is just another way to say that the society would be regulated spontaneously by the course of the free market?
Bingo.