I’m arguing that the state is just one manifestation of OPHA, and that eliminating the state will not automaticallt get rid of OPHA.
I dont’ want anything. I am merely a curious observer and an eager student of all things human.
Z.
The state is a market outcome. This thread is awesome it is like watching statists tip toe around justifying violence, except Austrians are doing it justifying some notion of a free market that does not exist.
One can only marvel at the wonderful free market system we live in where people demand goods, services, and information exchanged using force.
Although I do part ways with Z on strategic grounds when it comes to a conclusion of education. The only peaceful tool free people have ever had is discrimination and if you are unwilling to discriminate against individual actors who demand coercion I do not believe you should expect or deserve any other market outcome.
P.S. regarding the I love the Constitution because "I will stick with the definitions of people who are dead " argument… my rebuttal is “I will stick with the defintions of the living, such as myself”
Then people really need to make a clear distinction between “free markets” and “capitalism”. Because honestly, you can’t expect a state to not exist under the market as we see it today. Government exists for protectionism, and to benefit those who can lobby the best. Government is like one big legal auction between corporations, and just another means for them to secure their wealth and compete with each other via special laws that cater to them somehow… Be they envrionmental laws, taxations, grants, doesn’t matter. Government benefits business whether or not the more radical right chooses to admit it.
So if free markets is about cooperation, mutual benefit, and equality in the social sense of “your skill, labor, and ideas are as valid and welcome as mine”, then there needs to be much more effort to seperate the two. It would probably help if so many “free market” enthusiasts weren’t so quick to judge “the left”. Especially when they come out against big business that isn’t helping create innovation and competition by securing their own profits. While I know free markets don’t like taxation, government oversight, regulation, etc. If your intention is to distinguish yourself, sometimes you just have to suck it up. Because either way, enemies you don’t like are benefitting. So it may as well be the one that can help others see that you are different from the other guy. That your a free market advocate, not a capitalist advocate. Because real capitlaists, like government. They may not always agree with government, but ultimately them and government are two peas in a pod. It’s unfortunate that unless you’re big, like REALLY big… like Microsoft or Federal Reserve big, the government is only using you. It’s like a relationship with some floozy. Oh sure, it SOUNDS exciting, but she’s going to turn on you very quickly, so who’s really exploiting who here? Government, or should I say “politicians”, will go where the money is. And sign shit for whoever is willing to stuff more money into their pockets. Unless ofcourse they’re ideological. But those types don’t tend to last very long. And in some ways that’s for the better. Lots of bad things tend to happen when ideologues gain full control. To avoid Godwin’s Law, I’ll just say the USSR. So “corruption” vs “mania” isn’t exactly a real option in my opinion.
“It would probably help if so many “free market” enthusiasts weren’t so quick to judge “the left”.”
the left as in who??? like democrats? if that is the case, we judge republicans just as harshly… or the left as in left libertarians? or left as in marxists??
“Especially when they come out against big business that isn’t helping create innovation and competition by securing their own profits”
Example please?
“Because real capitlaists, like government.”
What? capitalism means that the means of production are privately owned, involving a government is contradicting that… a government influenced by capitalism is advocating mixed market economics…
“While I know free markets don’t like taxation, government oversight, regulation, etc. If your intention is to distinguish yourself, sometimes you just have to suck it up.”
What?
Jim, in Misesian terminology, capitalism means market economy. Welcome to Mises.org. Happy reading.
For argument sake I am going to accept the definition of free markets defined as voluntary. I am bringing this argument over to this thread where it belongs so I can build on it in this thread:
Premise: Voluntary is a concept defined as the consent of all parties.
Premise: Free markets are defined as a process of voluntary exchange.
Premise: Human beings demand disputes to be resolved using force if necessary, without consent.
Conclusion: A voluntary free market can not satisfy the demands of human beings who demand disputes be resolved using force, without consent.
Is this supposed to be a shortcoming?
- ostracization
- People who subscribe to a protection contract may have to agree to a set of rules and may agree to yield a level of force against them should they break those rules. They consented to this prior. They may also decide to leave that contract.
- Philosophical: People who initiate violence do not necessarily at a later date withdraw the consent of that violence. If you initiate violence against me I can use force (Self-defense) to expel you. It’s not clear that I cannot use force at a later date as well to seek restitution. Since you have already consented to the violent engagement and did not make clear what the duration of that engagement was. The arbitration service will decide to what legal extent that violent engagement lasts. Keep in mind that while this may be force it is not the initiation of force. The market is not incompatible with force. The market breaks down apon the initiation of force. Please keep the two seperate concepts in mind.
All other market solutions that we haven’t even thought of which has yet to be revealed by entrepreneurs simply because such a market does not exist.
The whole point of markets is one of discovery. Simply because we have not yet discovered the means to a problem isn’t an excuse not to use the market. Since the very solution will never be discovered if not on the market anyways.
Welcome to Austro-Libertarianism.
Conclusion: A voluntary free market cannot satisfy the demands of human beings who demand disputes be resolved using aggressive force, without consent. However, a voluntary free market can satisfy the demands of human beings who demand disputes be resolved using non-aggressive force.
Free Markets are not devoid of non-aggressive force which makes them free, only aggressive force which would render them unfree or “managed.”