I don’t think Harry is being malicious in his positions, I think he is genuinely trying to reconcile a lot of different positions on the fly.
But we are discussing if free-market capitalism existed in the US. You said it hasn’t, obviously black markets are an example of such markets.
Obviously it does make you less ‘unfree’ not being in a prison.
If I were to go into your office and smash your desk then pay you the price of the desk does that make it just? Of course not.
Being free to do something implys that one has a right to do it. You don’t have a right to steal, kill, rape so why do you infer that one is free to commit such an action?
No one has denied this.
The only mechanism to stop them in an “unfree society” is to make aggression institutional. So no, there is no mechanism to stop them under ANY system.
Again, there is no way to stop this. It is a consequence of a free or aggressive society. The only way to stop people from aggressing, is to be the only person. It’s just going in circles.
Thank you. I didn’t know where to begin with this.
@Utopianism in general Some claim that a free society is utopian, or people who hold anarchic ideals are utopian. When people push that strawman, my brain just shuts down. It’s disingenous to promote liberty with aggression (constitution, government) and then strawman free markets as utopian. You’re either for freedom, or you are not. If you are, then half-measure or second-best positions compromise that position. There are different ways to exercise, achieve, promote and defend liberty. But what liberty actually is (the absence of aggressive force) shouldn’t be a point of dispute.
Well I think the free market is everywhere and the State in varying degrees intervenes. The varying degrees of State intervention are anywhere from miniarchism to communism. Even the bread lines in the Soviet Union were free market orientated with supply and demand, but the State suppressed it so much it was barely able to survive and in North Korea with their periodic mass starvations the free market buckled completely. The free market is the driving action of all production. The State doesn’t produce anything and only parasitically feeds off of all free market productions.
A free society isn’t utopian and I gave a reason why. Anarchy isn’t utopian and I gave a reason why. And liberty shouldn’t be a point of dispute, I’ve agreed.
And your welcome on the estopped part…[:)]
A valid point but I tired at thinking about all sectors of the economy or corporation that engage in free-market practices until the state intervenes. I thought it best to focus on a sector that is completely free at all times.
Ok, I’m not debating what you said, more like shootin’ the breeze if you will.[:)]
I know. It wasn’t addressed specifically at you or your post.
I just didn’t want to make a new post to include that rant.
I figured that’s what you meant [:D] (in how you weren’t addressing me specifically), but I wanted to make sure you didn’t think I lost it and started gonin’ all utopian and such.[:P]
Funny, I was under the impression that for free market capitalism to actually exist it did not have govenrment involvement…
The government creates the customers for the black market, therefore there is government intervention in the market…
I disagree, when you live with the whim of the state deciding your life for you, you are not freer than being in prison…
Is justice served? Was that the decided restitution?
I should reword this, in light to seeing the how I failed to communicate my point…
Oh, and the reason I like to show that the free market is everywhere but the State to varying degrees is messing it up and intervening in it is because some people like to say the free market is a pipe-dream and will never happen. I right away rid that misconception and point out to them in varying degrees how the free market under increasing State intervention goes from bad to worse. The free market has always been here and it’s being robbed and murdered upon by the State and somehow the free market keeps going, which is testament to the human in being social and rational in our exchanges even under the duress of powerful coercive influences. Opponents of the free market can’t point out any alternatives - none whatsoever - other than the injustice path of statism. So from then on opponents can only point out varying degrees of stealing and murdering as their position, which they sadly try to justify for the most part. So I can show the free market is very real indeed and is not some kind of fantasy. The free market is sooo good to begin with that’s why the statist can’t keep their hands off of it. It makes the argument about a very real event.
Thanks.[:D]
Oh, and laughing man…
Read the article, I would like to reread it again if you do not mind, before I say anything about it…
It is a very compelling argument for policing, arbitration and legislation through free market means…
Thank you…
Free-Market Capitalism can be defined as an exchange of goods and services between two parties without third party regulation or interference. That is what black markets are.
That is a rather moronic statement. I seriously doubt you believe such a thing and if you truly do then I say to you go and live in prison. Actualize your argument.
No justice is not served. The psychic value of that desk can never be actualized therefore restitution is but a pitence. You fail to see the immorality in the act. Merely because a criminal paid for their destruction does not make the act of smashing the desk a moral action.
And the government does not regulate the products on the black market by branding them illegal? The government does not create false scarcity, driving the prices up?
I do know the government is just as criminal as I was, but I did not consider them part of my or my customer’s party, therefore a third, where am I wrong (I am seriously curious, not being a sarcastic a**)?
I will teach you a little about me, been there…
Despite what scared straight tells kids, it is not all that bad Joke alert the sex sucks, besides that it is not all that different… (hahaha)
Of course I see the immorality of the act, that is why there is restitution, if you did not freely choose to commit the immoral act I would have my desk and you would not be made to pay restitution (in any various form).
Of course it does not, now you are assuming…
Paying for the destruction is the only moral(ish) action, I do not even think that is actually because the fact is you will probably have to be aggressed to do such, therefore it is not moral (I believe voluntary action is the only way to morality, not all voluntary action is moral, but all moral action is voluntary IMHO, of course). But that being said, I believe the immoral action is disregarding property rights, not smashing a desk, the desk is irrelevant, the immorality stems from the fact that you place your desire for destruction over my right to property…
What the government does is irrelevant to a black market. That is the point of having a black market, to escape government regulation.
I highly doubt that.
The desk is the actualization of property rights. Through its smashing you are disregarding the property rights of an individual. You stated that it is immoral to disrespect the property rights of an individual, the smashing of that desk is such an action. Therefore you are committing an immoral action through the smashing of the desk, something you claim is irrelevant. On the grounds of restitution, you make no allowance for psychic-value on the object which is a silly monetarist position. The idea that the desk is worth the price at which is was broken without any allowance for psychic value is idiocy and a failure to understand subjective price setting.
Government regulation creates it, without such regulation the Black Market does not exist…
What?
No, you made no allowance for it, I asked if that was the decided restitution, you could have said the price plus X for the psychic value, which could include the subjective value of my desk and the price of inconvenience in bringing my office back to the way it was originally. If I am going to be a voluntary subject to a court, and go to them for a decision, well, when they come to a decision that I may not agree with, they will no longer be my court provider, but I will have to abide by the decision that made me leave their service for another…
Yes, that list did come in useful, and I thank you again for the link, it is a reasonable eye opener…
As for the immorality, I was simply stating the desk was the effect, not the cause of the immorality, the lack of respect for property rights has to be present before the choice to smash or not smash my desk comes into play, for that matter, (and I am asking), could it not be thought that the choice to smash the desk, coming in after the immorality of disregarding property rights, merely relays the point that it is no longer a choice between smash and not smash, but rather a choice of what to smash, which would be noted by the level of disregard to property?
Wrong. If the government didn’t exist then it would just be a regular market. If the government does exist then it is merely a black market.
I highly doubt prison isn’t as bad as living outside of prison.
The point being that the only knower of psyhic value is the owner himself. So could there ever be a ‘decided’ mutual agreement on price? A desk that only costed 100 dollars could be worth10 times that because it was the owner’s father’s desk. The trangressor would probably only seek to cover the lowest cost.
Rephrase this because the wording makes no sense.
I really think that’s what Harry meant, but I don’t want to put words in his mouth.
But the government does exist and lets work from there…
If the government lifted all the drug laws, lets say…
Then all those illegal drugs would fall under pharmaceutical legislation, therefore not capitalism, there is a third party…
Furthermore, seeing as the government is increasing scarcity and applying risk to dealing in the market, would that not be third party influence?
Read the sentence after what you quoted from me, since we are (in the desk scenario) dealing with a free society, I presume, I am using the system proposed by the article you sent me…
I was noting that I think immoral act comes from immoral principle, not the other way around, the immorality is witnessed in the destruction of the desk, but it could have been as easily witnessed in breaking a window, hitting me, etc., hence why it is irrelevant in my opinion…
Once you freely make the choice to be immoral and disregard my property rights you are no longer freely choosing the smash my desk or not, but rather choosing what to smash, or what other way to actuate your immoral decision in regard to my property rights