Nir, the meteorological event is within the realm of the market, according to both definitions. It (1) doesn’t involve aggressive human action and (2) it is part of nature within which all human action takes place.
‘within the realm of’ is maybe a phrase that doesn’t help.
Indeed rabid dogs, and rabid criminals and thunderous clouds are ‘within the realm’ of the market, in the sense that they are ‘mere data’ for agents of the market to consider and contend with. Yet they are not ‘of the market’ in the same way as other NAP-respecting agents, and prices, and objects that are owned by NAP-respecting agents are distinctly ‘of the market’.
I Qouth:
<…> true liberals are opposed to all endeavors to substitute
government control for the operation of an unhampered market
economy. Laissez faire, laissez passer does not mean: let the evils
last. On the contrary, it means: do not interfere with the operation
of the market because such interference must necessarily restrict
output and make people poorer. It means furthermore: do not
abolish or cripple the capitalist system which, in spite of all ob-
stacles put in its way by governments and politicians, has raised the
standard of living of the masses in an unprecedented way.
So whats that? the market economy is hampered, things that would have been endogenous to it are determined exogenously by
state power and the surviving market makes the best of this bad situation. See there is such a thing as interventionism and shooing out the market from some corners whilst it persists in others.
not all acts of human agency are market acts.
Z,
We can go a bit further with this, but it is an issue of definition, which to be honest, all this time I thought you were just a bit of a crank on this topic, but now I see what the misunderstanding is. I’m not appealing to a majority, but the word has a specific meaning, nearly all of us are using, and have been using this meaning for some time, and your definition of the word is radically different.
I never said markets were equal to peace. I said that your statement was erroneous the same way it would be if we replaced market with the word peace.
You’re conflating two ideas here. Try dealing with one at a time.
See Nir’s response. You’re mixing ideas. This is common when people don’t use clear definitions, and expand the scope of an argument or idea beyond precise meaning.
All of them? Starting at what a market is and is not, and what aggression is and is not, you seem to have unique definitions no one else is using, and frankly, the way you use them in discussion with others, specifically to contest their different use of the word is an enormous waste of time for everyone.
It’s like arguing that blue is red, because you consider things which are blue to be red colored, and everyone else sees blue as blue and red as red.
Please sort yourself out with definitions, and I suspect you will have little choice but to use the language of economics, and specifically what Mises and Rothbard means when they say market, because otherwise, this conversation is just one huge non sequitur.
If, presumably, non-market (aggressive) human action always exists outside the market realm (of voluntary human action), doesn’t this imply that a “state” always exists? How is aggressive (parasitic) human action in a no-state society different from a “state”? In what way do we not live in anarchy right now?
Z.
A group of people advertising to the rest of the people in the region, that if they contribute towards their organisation they will get specific services and people who do not contribute within the region will also get those services. That could be an outcome of the market, but when you start forcing people to contribute then it is not an outcome of the market, then it becomes unlawful. Such charity based service schemes could be an outcome for the market, it is unlikely that people would contribute to such schemes though, because they would rather pay for themselves and charity would be a separate entity. But in theory a type of state could exist, but today’s state is a baphomet of a beast that would not be logical to conclude that today’s state is a result of the market.
Most provisions or conditions are usually subjected by an authoritarian state and if it was a market outcome then provisions would be clauses in a contract which is not the same as forcing someone to pay for or support centralised law and security.
K
Kind of funny since some of the “anarchist” market ideas like Murphys Chaos Theory is basically mini states/own laws for all property owners. There isnt a fundamentally clear difference between property and state, only technicalities, hence impossible to dichotomise them,
If, presumably, non-market (aggressive) human action always exists outside the market realm (of voluntary human action), doesn’t this imply that a
“state” always exists? How is aggressive (parasitic) human action in a no-state society different from a “state”? In what way do we not live in anarchy
right now?
no, it implies that anti-social elements almost always exist, that they should be organised into a formidable state and radically reduce the effective scope of the market is the whole point against which anarcho-capitalists advocate. The state as organised anti-social force should be disbanded allowing the market its maximum scope, fringe anti-social elements are just what remains to be dealt with after leviathon is destroyed.
LS,
Ok, let’s use the same definition. Pls correct me if this not the one you’re using: The market is the domain of voluntary, peaceful human action/exchanges. According to this definition, the state is the result of human action but it is not the result of the market (voluntary human action). So far so good?
Since it is obvious that non-market human action results in non-market entities (the “state”), by advocating a no-state outcome, aren’t you merely cheering (wishing) for the market (productive humanity) to eliminate (over-power) the non-market entities (parasitic humanity)? How do you know that the present is not exactly the outcome reflecting the balance between these two forces? How is the present not an outcome of anarchy?
Z.
A state is a political organization, not just a result of coercive individual action. Even if you were to call the result of aggressive human action a “state” (although I’m quite sure this aggressive action should be considered as part of the market, although violating its principle), numerous states would exist but they would only apply to people who are aggressed. So a state wouldn’t always exist, just temporarily and to certain people (like how two countries live under separate states.) Nevertheless, this is not how a state is typically defined. And we certainly don’t live in anarchy as a system of government because we have an established government founded on involuntary contracts.
Why should non-market (parasitic) agents be concerned with your subjective preferences regarding their mode of organization? That’s not how humans act, I’m afraid. State or no-state, the parasites will choose modes of organization (means) that offer best chances for achieving their ends. You (the market agent; the productive human) say they should choose otherwise. So what?
Z.
so when enough people agree with me then we’ll see, thats whats what.
Personally, I don’t think this goes far enough to avoid semantic confusion.
“market” as short for “free market”, “unhampered market”, etc… is fine as long as all parties fully understand and accept this. But we must remember that the hampered market is also a market. Interventionism still implies a market economy, albeit not a free one. It is the market that allows the State to build its warships and monuments.
Exactly my point. This whole battle is one about education and conviction; about uncovering parasitic human action; and about changing the agents’ subjective valuations/preferences. Barring that, societies would simply converge to outcomes similar to the present regardeless of the initial condition.
Z.
z1235, your logic has been carefully explored by George Stigler; when I injected his thoughts into the mix, we got a 24-page thread out of it!
No, thats not exactly your point, your point at the origin of the thread was that there is nothing to battle as the market is everything, and in your prior posting record I ‘your point’ has been that the market needs to be hampered in so far as security/justice services are concerned because the market is not the best provider of such peculiar goods.
StrangeLoop, yes, I remember that thread and participated in it along the same lines, IIRC. It was a good one. Though for some reason I thought this one could add a nuance or two of difference.
Z.
This has never been my point. Yes, the market may be reflecting current subjective valuations but that doesn’t mean that such valuations can not be affected through education and persuasion.
If prevalent subjective valuations were such that law/security could be provided by an unhampered market, then the very same market would demand almost none of them. As I wrote LS:
"This is circular. So the market only works in conditions (law and security) of which it is the best (most efficient) provider? "
Z.
we are not so utopian as to imagine a market unhampered by even individuals or small bands of anti-socials, we simply know enough about economics that the best protection against the aforementioned is to be found in the market and not in further hampering the market by the introduction of a Leviathion (Criminal Gang Writ Large)