How free are : Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » How free are » How free are

How free are

Page: 1 2 3

How free are

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 969

Posted 04/17/08 - 10:00 AM:	#26
Fried Egg wrote: Indeed, but these emperical facts do not help us to answer the question to which Keda refered. Namely, is the cause of the market failure the fact that the markets were interfered with or that they were not interfered with enough? In order to answer this question, we must consider the implications of a markets system with the previously stated conditions present (including the implications of their absense), as well as the implications of the various interventions into the market that the government makes. You might want to educate the others on the concept of "moral hazard": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2254

Posted 04/17/08 - 10:28 AM:	#27
Glypt wrote: I'll try and simplify my point, which was in response to your previous messages and, as such was my response...obviously. So, unless you are deliberately being obtuse, there is no reason for you to make accusations that I am attempting to speak for you. That does not follow. You may be simplifying your point, but your point was regarding my notion of "thinking for oneself". Obviously you are implying egoism and solipsism on my part. The point is that I'm revealing the necessary truth about individual thoughts. That they are contingent and by definition, require the juxtaposition of information in order to lead to their conclusions about the world. Thought cannot take place without the world and the language that it brings into being through human inter-action. Therefore to say that one can 'think for oneself' is by no means philosophically sensible. You cannot think in isolation, in a solipsistic state. And here you are doing it again. Nowhere did I say that "thinking for oneself" involves isolation, and the phrase usually means something completely different, more in line with what I wrote. You might but it is not essential in such an implicature. "That" indicates the beginning of a relative clause, but the relative clause is missing a predicate. Dig up any grammar book, and you'll see a clause must have predicate and subject. Its charitable enough given the sparse premises you offer. If my deduction does not suit your opinion thats fine. But if you would like to offer more than an opinion, then perhaps you can now explain how it might be possible for you 'to think for yourself' given that in order to think you must engage with the thoughts of others, require language developed through the interaction with others, and be inspired to think by the speech and text acts of others? It does seem rather strange to say that in order to think, one must engage with the thoughts of others. I do not need to engage with someone elses thought in order to think, nor do I require a language to formulate my thoughts in when I am not to communicate my thoughts. The word I use is all in lower case. Which by usual conventions indicates that the word is used in its generic sense ... as an indefinite. Government in that sense reverts to its authentic range of meaning that refer to general ideas of control or regulatory body. From personal ethics, to business ethics, to a host of formal or informal business standards, to an autopoeitic systemic control, etc etc. (Is English your first language? You don't have to answer of course. But if it isn't, then may be I owe you an apology.) I was not aware there was such a convention. No, English is not my first language. In any case, I essentially used the word in the same sense as Fried Egg did, so why are you using it in a different sense?
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2254

Posted 04/17/08 - 10:51 AM:	#28
Benkei wrote: Protection of property is regulation of the market because it requires a market that is consistent with a) the recognition of personal property and b) the recognition of "lawful" transfer of properties and, conversely, unlawful transfer. In a free market, unlawful actions are always external to the market, per definition. All transactions are lawful, as are any recognition of personal property, and it is the violation of the latter that is unlawful, but as a market cannot consist without such recognition, it cannot be said to be regulated when everything is allowed given that the market consists. The market is also obviously biased in favour of those people who have as opposed to have-nots, as it is infinitely easier for me to make more money with a lot of money than with little money, from the simple fact that 5% of 100.000 is a lot more than 5% from 10.000, which can be considered reasonable returns on investments. So if you own 99% of a corporation and I own 1%, we split the profits 50/50? You work hard and invest everything you have in building a house, but a brick is missing, and I come and say hey, let me help you, I have a brick here, can I move in after and have my own room?
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 79

Posted 04/17/08 - 12:29 PM:	#29
keda wrote: Nowhere did I say that "thinking for oneself" involves isolation, and the phrase usually means something completely different, more in line with what I wrote. Keda, it is not for you to tell me what I mean. What you appear to misunderstand is that the point of philosophy is to explore and examine meaning. I'm examining the logical entailment of concepts and the meaning of words that underlie such concepts. I have no interest in your opinion per se but I'm interested in examining the implication of certain phrases that doesn't necessarily entail that our project is about common usage. Of course in everyday language we use throw away remarks like "thinking for myself" my exploration is intended to point how that is a strange phrase given that once we unpack its implications it becomes meaningless even absurd. For all the reasons I've pointed out. Now just because it threatens your belief system does not mean that you have a legitimate counter argument unless you can improve your responses to the points I've posted. But it makes no difference to me one way or another if you fail to understand. keda wrote: "That" indicates the beginning of a relative clause, but the relative clause is missing a predicate. Dig up any grammar book, and you'll see a clause must have predicate and subject. I don't know what else to say to you on this, either you do not know what constitutes a predicate or clause. Or you are making a mistake and are too embarrassed to admit it. Or you are just being silly. keda wrote: It does seem rather strange to say that in order to think, one must engage with the thoughts of others. I do not need to engage with someone elses thought in order to think, nor do I require a language to formulate my thoughts in when I am not to communicate my thoughts.. No, if you actually stop and think it is the counterfactual notion that would be strange. keda wrote: I was not aware there was such a convention. No, English is not my first language. In any case, I essentially used the word in the same sense as Fried Egg did, so why are you using it in a different sense? Because I wasn't arguing with Fried Egg, in fact initially I wasn't arguing with you. I'm trying to dig deeper into the issue. I find it strange that you couldn't merely perceive the meaning that was intended from the modality of the discourse. Having said that, there was a message of yours that talked about cows that I just couldn't understand so I guess we're both in the same boat.

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 79

Posted 04/17/08 - 12:45 PM:	#30
Fried Egg wrote: Glypt Indeed, but these emperical facts do not help us to answer the question to which Keda refered. Namely, is the cause of the market failure the fact that the markets were interfered with or that they were not interfered with enough? In order to answer this question, we must consider the implications of a markets system with the previously stated conditions present (including the implications of their absense), as well as the implications of the various interventions into the market that the government makes. Fried Egg, Just for clarity sake, can you be clear once more what YOU mean by 'interferences' and 'interventions'. I think we may be at cross-purposes here. Also having had a chat with Keda I'm wondering if we are talking about the same meanings of 'government'. I'd appreciate your response because I find your line quite interesting.

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1662

Posted 04/17/08 - 02:03 PM:	#31
I don't see why. It does not require rules in place for the government not to own the means of production. It does not require laws that force the division of labour. These happen quite naturally so long as condition four is met. There is nothing natural about condition four hence people adhering to rules is not so natural as expected. The structuring of the free market does not magically appear when people are left to their own devices. In fact, leave corporations to their own devices and you have a lot more problems in your hand than when a democratically chosen government regulates the market in a reasonable and intelligent way; e.g. to begin with the necessity to be seperated from special interests, which ultimately is what I consider the problem in the US. Free market capitalism simply does not work when the market players are not on equal footing. It therefore has bearing on your argument that a free market fails to reach "fair" results when we admit powerful players like corporations on it. What is a consumer's buying power when faced with Microsoft Windows? 90% of regular people don't have a clue about Linux and the only Apple they heard of is an Ipod. All computershops in the Netherlands deliver the computer with Windows pre-installed. There is no choice, there is no competition, there is no free market because there is no transparency. People cannot compare and choose. Considering the sheer amount of products people in a consumer society think they need, they cannot be expected to make informed decisions to spent their money wisely. Especially if we are not to force companies to disclose information that allows comparing products. So, there's a rule to begin with. Then there are environmental, health and safety issues. We all know how well Vietnamese people in Nike shoefactories are doing. More regulation. There is nothing inherently unlawful about it because they did sign a contract and nothing in the laws of Vietnam forbids this gross exploitation. Or guarantee periods on products, which are enforced by law. Taxes (VAT or income, it makes no difference) are an indirect market intervention influencing prices but taxes are certainly necessary. Free markets are an illusion as there are always differences in power and they corrupt the fair trade that could exist between two man of equal stature each having to offer something the other may need. Free market capitalism as barter works; not when we are dealing with non-natural persons. A government therefore has to continually intervene in order to protect weaker parties. I can understand (although not agree) why you might want to exempt things like utilities and health care from free market forces but not food, which seems to be working quite well (where it is allowed to operate). As to food: they do have foodstamps in the US don't they? In the Netherlands we have the "Food Bank" that provides food to families that cannot afford it, paid with taxes. I think that constitutes subsidies and they are proper in my opinion as they save lives. And I do not exempt utilities and health care from the free market but the infrastructure necessary for the utilities and the insurance. I think there is a very, very significant difference. Another issue I'm thinking of that should be free from free market capitalism is education. But this all boils down again to the notion that I believe positive freedom to be necessary as well.
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1662

Posted 04/17/08 - 02:16 PM:	#32
keda wrote: In a free market, unlawful actions are always external to the market, per definition. All transactions are lawful, as are any recognition of personal property, and it is the violation of the latter that is unlawful, but as a market cannot consist without such recognition, it cannot be said to be regulated when everything is allowed given that the market consists. To define the unlawful act of a person part of transaction outside of the market does not make sense to me. It is unlawful because he is expected to conform to the rules of the market and does not, within the context of being a market actor. It is all part of the market. So if you own 99% of a corporation and I own 1%, we split the profits 50/50? You work hard and invest everything you have in building a house, but a brick is missing, and I come and say hey, let me help you, I have a brick here, can I move in after and have my own room? Where did I even begin to suggest that that is an equitable solution? A silly straw man. Fried Egg stated he saw no problem because the loss and profit would be proportional. This is true if we compare money to be invested. However, as pointed out poor people need to spent relatively a lot on primary goods (food, housing, electricity etc.) and therefore have relatively less to invest. Then there is something I only know in Dutch, which is called "grens-nut effect". I'll try to describe it but it is a common issue in economics. When I have 20.000 EUR and invest 10.000 EUR and I'll lose it I won't be eating any less sandwiches and can still afford a new TV when it breaks down and a small car. When I have 11.000 EUR and invest 10.000 EUR and I lose it I'm basically fucked. Ok, so don't invest, because it would be unwise but it is exactly in this way that the market is biased against the poor. Their money has a higher value to them because they have less of it and do not have the possibilities available to them that the rich do. The rich therefore will get richer and the poor, well, with luck won't become poorer. But since the saps can't afford investing in anything (including an education) escaping their predicament is nearly impossible. Free market capitalism is at odds with reality because it solely focuses on economic reality, which is an impoverished view of people, society and life in general.
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2254

Posted 04/17/08 - 09:34 PM:	#33
Benkei wrote: To define the unlawful act of a person part of transaction outside of the market does not make sense to me. I am not defining unlawful, but free market, as a market where no transaction is unlawful. The rich therefore will get richer and the poor, well, with luck won't become poorer. But since the saps can't afford investing in anything (including an education) escaping their predicament is nearly impossible. Free market capitalism is at odds with reality because it solely focuses on economic reality, which is an impoverished view of people, society and life in general. I don't see how it makes free market capitalism at odds with reality. The free market does not guarantee equality, but the reality is that there has never been equality in nature; poor and weak animals die off, while strong ones survive. Imposing a system that favours parasites can only be detrimental to life, and is at odds with reality, as it is unstable.
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1662

Posted 04/18/08 - 12:03 AM:	#34
Strenght, even in modern day society, is not solely economic power; it is that view that I find impoverished. It is also morally reprehensible that you equate people who are less well off with being parasites if society as a whole considers supporting them is the right thing to do. I get so tired of this capitalist notion that if you work hard you can obtain anything and that if you can't it's ok to live below "human" standards. It is at odds with reality because economics sometimes has to make way for other considerations tha market efficiency and that is exactly where and when a government has to intervene; in order to safeguard the fabric of society in accordance with the will of the people while respecting cultural rights of groups and individual rights. And on the threshold between those competing interests the political discussion is continually had and ultimately affects how free the market is allowed to be. There cannot be a free market in societies as large as nations that also allow non-natural persons to trade. In any case, borrowing from Cortes, thank God life is so unfair that people like you can't get your way.
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2254

Posted 04/18/08 - 12:58 AM:	#35
Benkei wrote: Strenght, even in modern day society, is not solely economic power; it is that view that I find impoverished. What has that to do with your claim that free market capitalism is at odds with reality? It is also morally reprehensible that you equate people who are less well off with being parasites if society as a whole considers supporting them is the right thing to do. That's a strawman. I get so tired of this capitalist notion that if you work hard you can obtain anything and that if you can't it's ok to live below "human" standards. That is not really a capitalist notion. It is at odds with reality because economics sometimes has to make way for other considerations tha market efficiency and that is exactly where and when a government has to intervene; in order to safeguard the fabric of society in accordance with the will of the people while respecting cultural rights of groups and individual rights. I don't think everyone agrees with interventionism. It is certainly not in accordance with my will. Certainly the government could not logically intervene if there was not a disagreement between it and the those who wish to trade, so I don't understand why you say that it is "in accordance with the will of the people". And on the threshold between those competing interests the political discussion is continually had and ultimately affects how free the market is allowed to be. There cannot be a free market in societies as large as nations that also allow non-natural persons to trade. I don't see how you come to that conclusion.
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 2661

Posted 04/18/08 - 01:06 AM:	#36
Glypt Fried Egg, Just for clarity sake, can you be clear once more what YOU mean by 'interferences' and 'interventions'. I think we may be at cross-purposes here. Also having had a chat with Keda I'm wondering if we are talking about the same meanings of 'government'. I'd appreciate your response because I find your line quite interesting. I could do worse than pointing you in the direction of Interventionism: An economic analysis. Broadly, Mises defines the following categories of institutional interference: INTERFERENCE BY RESTRICTION INTERFERENCE BY PRICE CONTROL INFLATION AND CREDIT EXPANSION CONFISCATION AND SUBSIDIES Here Mises looks at the consequences of interventionism: THE ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF INTERVENTIONISM

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1662

Posted 04/18/08 - 01:25 AM:	#37
What has that to do with your claim that free market capitalism is at odds with reality? The market cannot be seen separate from the rest of society and as a functioning part in a greater whole it is necessarily restricted to serve other aspects of society. Free market capitalism as solely focusing on economic reality is by necessity at odds with reality, because it is larger than economic reality. All this was in a previous post actually. I don't think everyone agrees with interventionism. It is certainly not in accordance with my will. Certainly the government could not logically intervene if there was not a disagreement between it and the those who wish to trade, so I don't understand why you say that it is "in accordance with the will of the people". Progressive taxation is already interference. Just like duties and taxes. Intervention is necessary to support basic government functions beyond those functions necessary to regulate the market. People disagree about the level of intervention and type of intervention and this has everything to do with the conflicting interests of the collective and the individual. Extreme individualist are usually proponents of free market capitalism in extreme forms. They are both interesting ways of describing human behaviour but they fall hopelessly short as ideologies. Like every ideology they pick one thing, raise it up as the most important issue and pursue it relentlessly at the cost of all else. It's rational and build upon logically but is ultimately flawed because any assumption about reality is limited. That's why the political discourse in which such conflicting views are expounded and contest with each other is necessary. If only if it were to confront you individualists with facts beyond the economy.
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 79

Posted 04/18/08 - 01:52 AM:	#38
Thanks for these links Fried Egg,if I get time I'll take a look, but I was really trying to clarify what 'YOU' mean within the context of your previous messages. Inverventions and interferences can stem from both external or internal to the market, depending on how YOU define the scope of the market and depending on how YOU define internal and external in relation to YOUR definition of a market. For example my previous points assume the governing controls of the market to be variously/multipli-situated as formal, informal, internal, external, and autopoeitic. Given that various types of institutions obtain, some of which feel the impact of markets but do not trade directly in them and there are others who are directly active players in the markets. There are other juridical institutions that monitor the behaviour of the market players... There is little space to go on but you must get my drift. In the light of the above I think this discussion would benefit from being clear on what YOU mean regarding what you recognise as intervening/governing forces and interfering forces.

litkey
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 718

Posted 04/18/08 - 02:21 AM:	#39
FriedEgg, Fried Egg wrote: Thieves, murderes, fraudsters, gangsters, etc. People who are violating property rights. You are 'basically' saying- "those that break the law." (should be punished) Someone kills someone. Someone steals some bread. Some referred to as: "Gangster" - Very Suspect. So, there will be a system of law, other than the Primacy of - "violating property rights." More anon. No, not necessarilly. It could be anybody. It's not only the poor that commit crimes you know. Ok, so two things - you accept there will be crime committed within society, and you accept there will be poor people. I ask again (mainly so you can think about it) WHO are the one's going to commit the crimes? what crime? You say: "murderers" and "thieves" etc., but that doesn't tell us anything much, does it? Is it stealing to raise the price on goods that one group of people can't afford the good? Is it murder to bomb a country for its oil? Nah...course not! No, most definitely not. I've already explained this to you elsewhere and I don't intend to go into that again herer. Sorry. I want clarity on this- what makes up your so-called power? What is this government? You want your cake, you want your candles, and you want a doggy bag - agfter the eating! The last thread dried up simply because you did not know what constituted the government. You said that the primacy of Government (if i'm right) was to be seperate from the market, it should not intervene in any manner - except to convict fraudsters/gangsters- and the market will be determined by the private interactions of businessmen/individuals/companies etc., My disagreement was that I felt you were drawing up an Idealistic Platonian Republic -where the politicians are honest, Just, and where they only have one goal- that of protecting society/the economy (PRights) from fraud: that simply would not fly; it is idealism, without substance; not to attack idealism (per se), but the logic is simply screw ball - as wealth always seeks to protect itself, and wealth means power - and the rich and powerful will never be convicted by your laws, (how could they?) so the real gangsters i- would be either the government...or ii- the "private Individuals." Capitalism knows no morality = profit is the single morality. "Back to the drawing board." Remember? Edited by litkey on 04/18/08 - 04:29 AM
_____________________ Develop an interest in life as you see it; the people, things, literature, music - the world is so rich, simply throbbing with rich treasures, beautiful souls and interesting people. Forget yourself. - The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2254

Posted 04/18/08 - 02:37 AM:	#40
Progressive taxation is already interference. Just like duties and taxes. Intervention is necessary to support basic government functions beyond those functions necessary to regulate the market. Taxes are not necessarily interference. In a free market, the government has no other function than to protect your property rights, which is a necessary requirement for the market in the first place. Thus taxes which serve to uphold those requirements cannot be said to be interfering with it, but on the contrary uplhold it.
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2254

Posted 04/18/08 - 02:47 AM:	#41
Given that, that which uphold the market is not interference with the market, the argument then is bogus, that reality is at odds with it, because it focuses only on a smaller reality, since the market must in order to exist also serve the interest of its coexistence with that reality.
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1662

Posted 04/18/08 - 03:23 AM:	#42
Taxes are not necessarily interference. In a free market, the government has no other function than to protect your property rights, which is a necessary requirement for the market in the first place. Thus taxes which serve to uphold those requirements cannot be said to be interfering with it, but on the contrary uplhold it. That's arbitrarily accepting certain interventions simply because they serve your purposes. Taxes for pensions are "obvious" interventions but regardless of the purpose of the taxes, they artificially influence the buying power of market actors or artifially drive up prices. Free market capitalism is just another utopia. Let it go, you'll be happier.
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2254

Posted 04/18/08 - 03:31 AM:	#43
Benkei wrote: That's arbitrarily accepting certain interventions simply because they serve your purposes. It may intervene with your purposes, but it is certainly not intervening in the market. The intentions of Thieves, murderers, and fraudsters must be intervened with to protect the people.
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 2661

Posted 04/18/08 - 04:20 AM:	#44
Benkei There is nothing natural about condition four hence people adhering to rules is not so natural as expected. The structuring of the free market does not magically appear when people are left to their own devices. Actually, free markets did start to arise naturally once governments started recognising and enforcing private property rights. Since then, they have tried to take over certain bits of it and tried to interfere and tinker with others. But the division of labour, markets and mediums of exchange (money) did arise naturally in societies that developed an institutional framework of property rights. Free market capitalism simply does not work when the market players are not on equal footing. It therefore has bearing on your argument that a free market fails to reach "fair" results when we admit powerful players like corporations on it. What is a consumer's buying power when faced with Microsoft Windows? 90% of regular people don't have a clue about Linux and the only Apple they heard of is an Ipod. All computershops in the Netherlands deliver the computer with Windows pre-installed. There is no choice, there is no competition, there is no free market because there is no transparency. People cannot compare and choose. There is plenty of choice. I think you will find (as I did) when you look online there are plenty of places you can buy pre-built pcs without windows. In any case, it is irrelevent. The choice is there because you can download Linux for free and easilly install it along side or instead of windows. There are numerous, idiot proof guides on how to do this if you care to look. The fact that many people do not choose to do this is a matter of personal preference, lazyness or ignorance. Whatever the reasons, it matters not. The choice is there and the market is free in that regard. Although it is worth pointing out that one must guard against pointing at problems in our current market system and assuming they would apply in a free market system. There are many market interventions that actually make monopolies more likely and serve to limit the choice of the consumer. Also, innappropriate defining of property rights has lead to much reduction of consumer choice. Patents are a pertinent example. Considering the sheer amount of products people in a consumer society think they need, they cannot be expected to make informed decisions to spent their money wisely. Especially if we are not to force companies to disclose information that allows comparing products. So, there's a rule to begin with. First you complain about too little choice. Now there is too much. Obviously, the more choice there is, the more difficult it is to make decisions. But there are numerous consumer guides and reviews available if one cares to look. Consumers are not forced to buy products who's vendors do not disclose required information. Information disclosure is itself a factor that can (and should) be driven by free market forces and not something that should be dictated by the authorities (that often require companies to go to the expense of disclosing information that most consumers don't even want). As to food: they do have foodstamps in the US don't they? In the Netherlands we have the "Food Bank" that provides food to families that cannot afford it, paid with taxes. I think that constitutes subsidies and they are proper in my opinion as they save lives. I don't know about the US as I'm British. As far as I know, food isn't subsidised. There is a welfare system of course, but the prices of food aren't interfered with. Although of course we're all (in the EU) subject to CAP but I definitely think that should be abolished.

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1662

Posted 04/18/08 - 04:50 AM:	#45
Fried Egg Actually, free markets did start to arise naturally once governments started recognising and enforcing private property rights. Exactly, once governments started to enforce them, which is artificial. When people are left to their own devices I mean in a situation where there is no government or any other authority to prod them into social behaviour where and when needed. First you complain about too little choice. Now there is too much. Obviously, the more choice there is, the more difficult it is to make decisions. But there are numerous consumer guides and reviews available if one cares to look. Consumers are not forced to buy products who's vendors do not disclose required information. Information disclosure is itself a factor that can (and should) be driven by free market forces and not something that should be dictated by the authorities (that often require companies to go to the expense of disclosing information that most consumers don't even want). Too little choice in case of market dominance or a monopoly for a specific product - two things corporations tend to work towards. Too much choice on which products to buy. And the argument that people choose not to look, doesn't fly because we do not have unlimited time in which we can research every product in depth. Furthermore, many people are not aware of the choices thanks to market dominance or "good" advertisement. Even if we are aware of all possible suppliers of products and services, do you know how to choose the best attorney, best health insurance, best mortgage, best doctor, best mechanic available for the money you're willing to pay? Are you saying you have experience with and knowledge of all types of diseases, possible court actions, mortgage structures, personal qualifications of doctors, mechanics and attorneys and know exactly what you need? I don't and don't have the time even if these are very important decisions. Banks and other corporations are of course naturally forthcoming about the actual risks. They never advertise their products in such a way that they seem to be better than they actually are and they are particulary honest about investment risks. And once things go wrong they have very fair liability clauses. Of course, those clauses are negotiable. I negotiated the general terms and conditions to my credit card and mortgage as well. Especially since the terms and conditions from Bank A and Bank B through Z are so widely different and offer me such wonderful choices. Please note the sarcasm and divine the implications for a free market from these facts. Keda It may intervene with your purposes, but it is certainly not intervening in the market. The intentions of Thieves, murderers, and fraudsters must be intervened with to protect the people. If it would be the market regulating recognition and enforcement of personal property, people would be contracting protection of their property from thugs and mercenaries. Again, you are arbitrarily choosing forms of taxes as intervening with the market and others not to do so, simply because you like the purpose of the taxes. In any case, don't get me wrong in thinking that I do not believe that certain interference is harmful to a healthy market but regulations with regard to obligations for information particular in the area of environmental, health and safety issues, limitation of power of corporations and extra protection for consumers (mandatory guarantee periods for instance) to offset the differences in buying and selling power etc. Plenty of regulations that interfere with the market but ultimately make it work better (for starter's because it avoids litigation, which greatly diminishes macro-economic costs of the total process, not just the transaction). I would be much more in favour of a free market closer to what you (Keda and Fried Egg) propose if there were no corporations to begin with. But corporate capitalism and classical capitalism are two wildly different things.
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2254

Posted 04/18/08 - 06:04 AM:	#46
Benkei wrote: If it would be the market regulating recognition and enforcement of personal property, people would be contracting protection of their property from thugs and mercenaries. Again, you are arbitrarily choosing forms of taxes as intervening with the market and others not to do so, simply because you like the purpose of the taxes That is a non sequitur. If property was not protected, there would be no market, wherefore it would not constitute intervention with the market. I would be much more in favour of a free market closer to what you (Keda and Fried Egg) propose if there were no corporations to begin with. But corporate capitalism and classical capitalism are two wildly different things. I don't see what problem you have with corporations.
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

litkey
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 718

Posted 04/18/08 - 06:29 AM:	#47
There isn't anything inherently wrong with a corporation, it could be that a corporation is working for the good of society; however, people tend to associate greed, brain washing, and corruption of the soul with corporations. It's perspectival.
_____________________ Develop an interest in life as you see it; the people, things, literature, music - the world is so rich, simply throbbing with rich treasures, beautiful souls and interesting people. Forget yourself. - The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1662

Posted 04/18/08 - 06:51 AM:	#48
That is a non sequitur. If property was not protected, there would be no market, wherefore it would not constitute intervention with the market. I think you need to look up the definition of non sequitur but ok. You arbitrarily choose to take the enforcement of personal property away from market regulation, whereas it is not impossible to have such a service contracted out and therefore the necessity to exclude it from the market is not proven but an assumption. A regulated market is still a market. Where market is simply an abstraction of a place where people exchange goods and services. The protection of personal property is not necessary for the existence of a market. It's not my problem that you consider anything other than a free market to be no market.
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2254

Posted 04/19/08 - 03:05 AM:	#49
Benkei: I must concede I made an error. The free market is not free if the government enforces property rights, and thus it is an Utopia as you have claimed. I don't think that, giving it up as you suggested, would be justified even if it would make me happier hower. Even if we cannot live in a free market, we can at least try to free it as much as possible. The question is, can the monopoly of force that the government holds be split up?
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 2661

Posted 04/30/08 - 08:22 AM:	#50
Benkei Exactly, once governments started to enforce them, which is artificial. When people are left to their own devices I mean in a situation where there is no government or any other authority to prod them into social behaviour where and when needed. I really don't know why you seem to be equating free markets with anarchy. A free market, as many free market advocates have defined it, and as I have defined it (above) require a government enforced system of property rights. I don't know what you mean by that being artificial or what that has to do with it not being free. Enforced property rights are not a restriction on an otherwise free market. They are a necessary pre-requisite for it being free. Too little choice in case of market dominance or a monopoly for a specific product - two things corporations tend to work towards. Too much choice on which products to buy. And the argument that people choose not to look, doesn't fly because we do not have unlimited time in which we can research every product in depth. Furthermore, many people are not aware of the choices thanks to market dominance or "good" advertisement. Even if we are aware of all possible suppliers of products and services, do you know how to choose the best attorney, best health insurance, best mortgage, best doctor, best mechanic available for the money you're willing to pay? Are you saying you have experience with and knowledge of all types of diseases, possible court actions, mortgage structures, personal qualifications of doctors, mechanics and attorneys and know exactly what you need? I don't and don't have the time even if these are very important decisions. In a market economy in which we have a division of labour, it is no more necessary that one person should be able to produce/provide every single product/service he consumes than it is for one person to be an expert in all fields of knowledge. If I go to a town looking for a hotel to stay in, it is not necessary that I aquaint myself with the full inns and outs of each and every hotel before making my decision where to stay. I simply look in one (or more) guides produced by people who have done this rigourous appraisal so that everyone else doesn't have to. Ultimately, responsibility must lie with the consumer in the choices he makes.

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.