You’re basically calling all AE and free market economics absurd. It is possible, but you have a long way to go to prove such an assertion.
Also, you should try to read my entire post, multiple times, and follow the hyperlinks.
This is incorrect. I said that all prices are formed voluntarily. Very different.
This is completely irrelevant. You’re not addressing that your system is irrational because it has no way of calculating prices. Those examples don’t prove that coercion is compatible with price formation, as those firms are not coercing people to provide security for them. And if they did, then there would not be a price, because …
Security may involve coercion, but coercion is not used to purchase security. You’re conflating two concepts. When I pay you to defend me, that’s a voluntary exchange. When you defend me, that’s not an exchange at all. It’s consumption.
You have indeed disputed that prices are voluntary, by arguing that coercion could be efficient.
Now that you have done an about-face on prices being formed voluntarily, you have undermined your own argument about coercion being necessary and proper for efficiency. Efficiency cannot be calculated without prices.
In other words, I don’t need to strawman you, since you just refuted yourself by agreeing with me. Thank you and good night.
Prices can only be formed voluntarily.–liberty student
of course all prices are voluntary. I never asserted otherwise.
however, what you and other pacifist ancaps fail to realize that many actors determine that the voluntary price of a valued resources is determined to be too high and this increases the profitability of using coercion to obtain the overpriced valued resource ---- If that resources is overpriced and under defended — the chances of coercion being used to obtain it increase and the chances of a peaceful exchange decrease.
hence, the pricing system is not undermined in determining whether to use coercion or peaceful means, indeed the pricing system is paramount to determining both the value of the resource and the most cost effective means used to obtain it.
so you see, your strawman does not rebut my assertions that coercion will be used when it is determined to be more profitable to obtain coveted resources than peaceful exchange.
I never claimed coercion is obselete. I said it is incompatible with price formation, and you have agreed with me.–liberty student
ridiculous and false.
i stated nothing of the sort.
indeed, the pricing system is critical in making the determination of whether an economically profit driven actor uses peaceful or coercive means to obtain a valued resource.
I never claimed coercion is obselete. I said it is incompatible with price formation, and you have agreed with me.–liberty student
how could I agree with your absurd angurse-like statement ?!
if coercion is NOT obsolete (by your definition) yet it is incompatible with price formation (by your definition) then…
what do profit driven actors do about something that has a real impact on their bottom line, yet is “incompatible” with their pricing decisions ???
do they ignore the costs of coercion on doing business and making a profit simply because pacifist ancaps claim that coercion “is incompatible with price formation”?
your statement is about as absurd as angurse’s statement that coercion is obsolete simply because the aggrieved party does not consent to it.
I have demonstrated repeatedly that you have. Now you have changed your mind. Thank you for that.
This has nothing to do with ancap. This is the Misesian argument. As someone who quotes Mises in his sig, you should be able to recognize it.
How can it be overpriced? We don’t have a price until there is an exchange. Stick with the script.
The overpriced part is incorrect as shown above, but yes, this could happen. It is called theft when people take things without voluntary exchange.
No, you just bypassed price formation again. Prices can only be formed under voluntary exchange, remember? Without a price, it is impossible to determine cost efficiency.
Stealing can be more profitable than trade, but it cannot be more efficient.
Re: strawman. I know this is a convenient claim for you to use as a deflection when your own arguments are starting to catch up to you, but anyone can see I am simply using those arguments of yours to make my point. In other words, there is no strawman. If you want to continue to claim there is, quote me strawmanning you or desist because false claims are counter-productive to a good discussion.
Ok, an insight of praxeology which you are overlooking is that every human actor is profit driven. Sorry to nit pick, but it is important to understand that both the thief and the victim in the Rettoperian system are both profit maximizing individuals. It’s not a thief only phenomenon.
What is the “something”?
As stated, I am representing the Misesian position. This has nothing to do with ethics (pacifism or ancap) and has to do with economics. I’m not making an ethical statement opposing coercion. I am making Mises value free argument that efficiency cannot be calculated without free exchange.
You haven’t demonstrated this yet. But you have asserted it several times. This is not my argument, I am simply repeating Mises argument as it relates to your system.
I have demonstrated repeatedly that you have. Now you have changed your mind. Thank you for that.-liberty student
this is an angurse-like diversion that has nothing to do with rebutting any of my assertions. Nonetheless I challenge you to produce the quote in which I said that the method for calculating prices was involuntary
How can it be overpriced? We don’t have a price until there is an exchange. Stick with the script.–ls
it is determined to be overpriced by those who decide to use coercion to take it.
The overpriced part is incorrect as shown above, but yes, this could happen. It is called theft when people take things without voluntary exchange.–ls
call it what you want – the fact is that coercion is used to obtain economic ends. moreover, if the owner of a resource cannot defend it from being taken then that owner has not provided an effective security regime. in this case, it is probable that that negligent owner did not utilize his valued resource to optimum economic ends hence his security was lacking and this shortcoming invited predation and loss.
in sum, the owner of a valued resource who uses this resource effectively economically will have a level of security commensurate to the value of the resource thereby insuring societal economic health and reduced violence
No, you just bypassed price formation again. Prices can only be formed under voluntary exchange, remember? Without a price, it is impossible to determine cost efficiency.–liberty student
I have stated repeatedly that if a profit driven actor determines that a valued resource is over priced and under defended – then that actor will consider the use of coercion to obtain that coveted resource. THe pricing system is used to determine the cost efffectiveness of the means to obtain the resource. your argument does nothing to rebut any assertion I have made since the actor using coercion does so by careful comparison of peaceful exchange and coercion. moreover, the economically motivated actor makes careful consideration of the costs associated with coercion (life insurance for employees, equipment loss, munitions, et al ) and compares these costs with the expected gain from acquiring the valued resource.
Stealing can be more profitable than trade, but it cannot be more efficient.–ls
by your definition — profitable is not equal to efficient ?!
moreover, if a valued resource is witheld from effective economic production by a negligent owner, then a profit driven actor who takes the resource by coercion when peaceful means were not available — and subsequently utilizes the resource more effectively from an economic standpoint – then indeed society has benefitted economically.
moreover, the more a valued resource’s owner is negligent in exploiting the economic utility of a valued resource, the less capital that owner will accumulate for defense, and the more likely he will invite predation of his resource.
Hence, in true maximal-capitalist societies – economically inefficient owners of valued resources will see their resources quickly removed from their possession depending on how negligent they are in managing these resources.
Ok, an insight of praxeology which you are overlooking is that every human actor is profit driven.–liberty student
your absolutely wrong if you equate “profit driven” with “economic profit driven”
every actor absolutely doesnt act in the interest of ECONOMIC profit in all transactions
however, I have stated repeatedly that the the actors within ancap society who act in the interest of economic gain or profit will have the most capital and therefore the most security, wealth, and power in the long term – since the means to obtain power, wealth, and security are economic and not aesthetic
What is the “something”?–ls
something is “coercion” – you stated that coercion results in incalcuable pricing system. I challenged that assertion by stating that it is calculable since well managed firms provide a level of security that reaches a profitable equilibrium between security, costs, and profits.
in sum, the effects of coercion can be economically calculated and the costs and benefits of varying levels of security can be calculated as well. hence, the effects of coercion DO NOT render the pricing system obsolete.
As stated, I am representing the Misesian position. This has nothing to do with ethics (pacifism or ancap) and has to do with economics. I’m not making an ethical statement opposing coercion. I am making Mises value free argument that efficiency cannot be calculated without free exchange.–ls
then your interpretation of misesian dogma is wrong or misesian dogma is wrong. individuals, firms, and societies calculate the economic costs and risks of coercion and theft all of the time with the same measure of accuracy as they calculate the costs of weather, human tastes, technological advances, et al.
coercion is simply another of the costs of doing business. only the intellectualyl rigid pacifist refuses to accept its utility and effect on the market.
You haven’t demonstrated this yet. But you have asserted it several times. This is not my argument, I am simply repeating Mises argument as it relates to your system.–liberty student
you might be mis-stating misesian dogma or you might be cherry-picking certain aspects of the dogma. However, I have read nothing within Mises’ arguments that reject the utility of coercion to attain economic ends. I have always stated that pportunity costs and transaction costs exist with the use of coercion – however, when a valued resource offers profitability that surmounts these costs, then coercion it is.
of course, as in today’s society, ancap society will not be in perpetual state of constant war among every citizen and his PDA of choice — however, ancap society will not be anything like the utopian paradise that many pacifists on this site envision since the utility of using coercion to obtain desired ends will not become obsolete simply because government is removed.
in sum, if you are a handwringing pacifist – then you better find another ideology to hang your hat on because this one aint it.
ancap society will be violent and economically efficient since the violence will result in the allocation of valued resources to their most economically effective use. — as opposed to marxism which uses violence to allocate resources to equal distribution.
the sad delusion is that both systems lead to the emergence of absolutism. as perhaps all systems do. the differences being the speed in which the descent occurs.
Ah, I get it now. Value and price are not the same thing. You mean overvalued, not overpriced. Prices are determined in voluntary exchange.
I agree with you, people may steal when they feel it is a better value than trading, but that doesn’t mean that theft is objectively more efficient.
This goes back to praxeology. Values are subjective preferences.
We could easily say a sexual predator values violent sex taken by force over dating, but we would not say that rape is more efficient than a healthy relationship.
Good, we sorted that one out.
What are economic ends? Also, it is important (as seen above) that we get our terms straight (value/price) so I want to be clear that what you’re talking about (taking things by force) is theft, and not exchange. It’s important to be accurate if we are to continue making headway in this discussion.
That seems obvious, but not relevant at all to my argument.
Ok, again, all actors are profit driven. Praxeology, remember?
Next, the resource can be over valued, but not over priced. And the use of coercion to obtain someone else’s property is called theft.
I have to keep on the proper use of terminology so we don’t backslide.
This is back to praxeology again. Profit is a psychological phenomenon. You’re mixing terms.
Again, all actors are profit driven. Praxeology, remember? Stating it each time is like saying water is wet.
Stealing is not exchange so it is impossible to calculate efficiency. You already have agreed with this. It is impossible for society to benefit economically from theft, because theft is not economic. The economic means are the market means of voluntary exchange.
He might make it up with another resource, or an inheritance, or the subsidy/goodwill of his neighbors. Your reasoning is only sound if people only own one resource and no one cooperates. Since individuals employ thousands of resources, material and immaterial, they are never in the condition of which you speak. I could make money singing, and use that money to defend a forest I own but [sic] underutilize.
You keep skipping that without prices, you can’t determine efficiency and without efficiency you can’t justify the reason for coercion. Also, coercion is the barrier to price creation, so again, we’re back at the start. What you call a maximal capitalist economy of theft and violence, is what most free market economists, and particularly Austrians, would call socialism or communism. The market means are economic. Violence is not compatible with markets, voluntary exchange (and therefor price formation) and thus not compatible with capitalism.
Certainly Mises and Ayn Rand, two of the most famous capitalists of all time would not agree with you that violence and theft can make a society maximally capitalist, but rather that respect for property and maximum free trade is what makes a society capitalist and free.
It did get simpler when I understood that you were using price and value interchangeably. Hopefully you understand now that they they are not the same.
You said you understood and agreed with praxeology, then you agree that all profit is a psychological phenomenon. Were you drawing another distinction between forms of profit?
Again, praxeology, all profit is aesthetic.
This is correct. I am repeating Mises argument.
Security purchased voluntarily is calculable. However, security obtained through coercion is not. You’re not seeing security as a good, or that when used it is consumed, not a trading of blows or bullets. Security in practice is not exchange.
You’re mixing concepts here. This is not the discussion.
Right, it is entrepreneurial and subject to the price discover process. No one is born with the ability to accurately predict the weather, it is a process of testing methods and means to find the best result. The only way to determine the worth of one result against another, is voluntary exchange.
Which brings us back, that you have shifted the argument again. We’re not discussing if coercion has a cost, but whether coercion can create efficiency, which was your earliest argument.
As far as Misesian dogma being wrong, you said you understood and agreed with what is basically the foundation of Austrian economics. If you agree with what you said you understood and agreed with, then you wouldn’t be unsure about what Misesian “dogma” was.
No one has disputed that coercion can be a cost, just as hordes of locust can be a cost, or an earthquake can be a cost. Earthquakes and coercive acts however cannot create prices.
Also, drop the bit about pacifists, as I have already advised you that this is a value free debate and I am making economic points. If you want to have a debate on ethics, find someone else to talk to.
What have you read from Mises?
I’d like to restate my argument so we remember where we stand.
You said you understand and support marginalism and praxeology. You also said you believe values are ordinal and subjective.
You have also claimed that values are prices (by claiming that costs can be determined without exchange). But you admit that prices can only be formed in exchange. So we have our first contradiction.
Our second contradiction, is that you believe that profit is either psychological or non-psychological despite claiming to support praxeology, where profit is exclusively a psychological (aesthetic) phenomenon.
There may be others, but I do have to finish up for now.
as usual, your diversions and strawman arguments are all over the map and generally incoherent and/or not remotely related to anything I have asserted.
as a result, I will have to keep this very simple and I will present my arguments one at a time and rebut your strawmen one at a time starting in no particular order:
for example, do you or do you not agree with my assertion that all other considerations being equal an actor motivated by economic profit/capital will accumulate more economic profit/capital than an actor motivated by some other non-economic consideration or aesthetic goal ?
please answer the specific question without diverging into some incoherent unrelated diatribe or find another thread.
note I am trying to assist you in understanding my arguments which you have continually misrepresented and misunderstood.
Ah, I get it now. Value and price are not the same thing. You mean overvalued, not overpriced. Prices are determined in voluntary exchange.
maybe there is a semantic issue here
I have never rejected that value and price are both arrived at subjectively. however, the stated price at any given moment is not subjective, it is factual. It is NOT subjective when I state that the price of gas on the corner station is $2.50 right now – that is a fact. however, it is obvious that $2.50 was determined by both quantitative and qualitative analysis of myriad considerations (means and goals) some economic, some aesthetic.
moreover, the opinion of consumers (or possible coercive actors) and vendors of whether this is a fair price is subjective – I have never stated otherwise.
also, i have never rejected the fact that when a voluntary peaceful exchange commences both actors consider the price acceptable/fair/profitable and both actors subjectively believe they profit or benefit from the transaction or the trade would not have been made.
likewise, these actors have stated or desired goals that they hope to attain by trading. actors that exchange for economic empowerment are more likely to attain that end than actors who trade for non-economic aesthetic motives.
however, none of this ECO 101 and AE 101 talk has anything to do with rebutting my argument that if an actor who covets a valued resource determines that he can obtain the valued resource by coercion resulting in a net profit when other means are not as cost effective or profitable – then coercion it is.