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

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2260

Posted 04/30/08 - 08:32 AM:	#51
Forget my previous post. I was a bit confused. Free market is possible with government enforcement of private property, given a specific condition, namely consensus government. This is not some utopia, but can easily be implemented, and since everyone agrees on the rules, there is no interference with the market.
_____________________ 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 - 08:33 AM:	#52
Glypt wrote: 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. Well, in reference to the recent credit crisis, one would have to look to the particular category of interference by inflation and credit expansion. More generally, I don't think you can count actions of market players themselves as interference in the market because, while the actions of individuals (and individual organisations) can possibly cause noticable changes to the structure of prices, they are actions that are freely chosen and transactions that are not coercively determined. Obviously, I mean coercion in the hard sense by the use or threat of violence. Not in the weak sense by cultural or psycological pressures.

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1665

Posted 05/04/08 - 11:11 AM:	#53
keda wrote: Forget my previous post. I was a bit confused. Free market is possible with government enforcement of private property, given a specific condition, namely consensus government. This is not some utopia, but can easily be implemented, and since everyone agrees on the rules, there is no interference with the market. But not everyone agrees to begin with. (I don't) And in any case, just because people agree on the limitations to be set up for the functioning of any system doesn't mean the authorities created to uphold that functioning is not in fact interfering. I assume that if everyone would agree to subsidise food for the poorest through taxation that you would still consider it interference.
_____________________ 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: 2260

Posted 05/04/08 - 12:00 PM:	#54
Benkei wrote: But not everyone agrees to begin with. (I don't) It doesn't matter. Everyone who agrees can set up a govenment, while the rest remains in the state of nature, until they want to join. And in any case, just because people agree on the limitations to be set up for the functioning of any system doesn't mean the authorities created to uphold that functioning is not in fact interfering. If the people are informed of the dangers and would not tolerate the slightest interference , the authorities would not dare to interfer. I assume that if everyone would agree to subsidise food for the poorest through taxation that you would still consider it interference. Not at all. It would then not be any different from charity.
_____________________ 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

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.