Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Free Market

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Rojo View Post
    You know what else didn't help those elephants? The actual profit-seeking poachers that killed them.
    Ever wonder why the profit margin on ivory is so high? A lot of African countries have banned its sale, which has created a black market for it and greatly increased its price. If people were free to own the elephants and sell the ivory, poaching wouldn't be profitable anymore. It's the same way with recreational drugs in this country. If they were legalized, all those drug cartels south of the border would lose their revenue, because private dispensaries could easily out-compete them.
    In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock.

    This message has been intercepted by the NSA, the only branch of government that listens.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Rojo View Post
      Westerners have always tried to check it too. The idea that we can create a workable society based on everyone pursuing their own self interest is a new thing.
      Not sure what you mean? What kind of checks had Westerners put in place in the 1800s or earlier? If they really did try, then there was less arrogance than I thought.

      If it wasn't arrogance, maybe it was ignorance. People at the time perhaps didn't realize the ramifications of slaughtering herds of bison or leveling whole forests.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jefferson1775 View Post
        You know, you're right. I've never thought about it that way. I should go home and tell my family that we need to go in the woods and shoot every last one of our good bucks, then cut down all of our trees and sell them for lumber, then offer to store the county's trash in our ponds for money, and then sell our entire herd of cattle for meat. I bet we'd make quite a bit of money. Oh wait, that'd be really stupid, because the property would lose almost all of its value, and in the long run, it's makes a lot more fiscal sense to maintain what we have. Sure, there are plenty of idiots out there that will destroy their property's long term value for a little bit of short term wealth, but they certainly aren't in the majority.
        You're small time, my friend. There are many people without the same morals as you, and you fail to recognize the importance of this. It does not take a majority to destroy a great deal of resources, especially with modern technology.

        Originally posted by Jefferson1775 View Post
        Alright, I must thank you for writing this. I've watched some Comedy Central and seen a few amusing things on Facebook today, but this is the funniest . You talk about eminent domain like it's some way for Our Dear Leaders to protect the land. It's mostly about city council members stealing land from poor people so that their developer buddies can build a new shopping mall. Malls are fine with me, but they need to obtain that land honestly.
        It's frequently used for roads too. I didn't say the implementation was perfect. I'm just saying that this exists in our rulebook for us to use and improve upon.

        Originally posted by Jefferson1775 View Post
        You probably are pretty good with the physical sciences (F=ma and everything derived from it), but your understanding of the social sciences is lacking. I can tell you're a statist, so type "Keynesian economics" in on Amazon and explore what's out there.
        Wouldn't Keynes be too statist for you?
        Keynesian economists often argue that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes which require active policy responses by the public sector, in particular, monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government, in order to stabilize output over the business cycle.[2] Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy predominantly private sector, but with a role for government intervention during recessions.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

        Comment


        • Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
          You're small time, my friend. There are many people without the same morals as you, and you fail to recognize the importance of this. It does not take a majority to destroy a great deal of resources, especially with modern technology.
          There are a lot of evil people in this world. The trick is figuring out how to keep them from causing harm. The vast majority of people are good, though. That's my opinion, anyway.


          Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
          It's frequently used for roads too. I didn't say the implementation was perfect. I'm just saying that this exists in our rulebook for us to use and improve upon.
          You're right about roads. I remember Rick Perry tried to steal a lot of land a few years ago for his Trans-Texas Corridor. Texans didn't take too kindly to that, and it thankfully never developed.

          Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
          Wouldn't Keynes be too statist for you?

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics
          Yeah, but he's perfect for you. If you ever decide to give freedom a chance, here's a few good books to get you started.

          Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt (the Broken Window Fallacy applied to many different parts of an economy)
          The Law by Frederic Bastiat (how the law becomes legalized plunder)
          The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul (the topics in this book are too numerous to count)
          In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock.

          This message has been intercepted by the NSA, the only branch of government that listens.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jefferson1775 View Post
            There are a lot of evil people in this world. The trick is figuring out how to keep them from causing harm. The vast majority of people are good, though. That's my opinion, anyway.
            There's a parable about sheep, sheepdogs, and wolves.

            Sheep are happy to eat grass. They see only sheep around them, so they assume that only sheep exist. They can hardly comprehend hurting someone on purpose (whether it they hurting another or another hurting them), so they are not really capable of violence. This makes them easy prey for wolves. This represents 99% of people.

            Then, there are wolves who will prey on these sheep for their own profit/benefit. It only takes a few wolves to terrorize a flock of sheep. They are capable of violence (literally or metaphorically), and they do not care about society.

            Then, there are sheepdogs. They are capable of violence as well, but they do care about society. In fact, they eventually *have* to act in violence (literally or metaphorically) because that the only way to defeat the wolves. Violence is a competitive advantage that sheepdogs must have too. To sheep, sheepdogs often look just like wolves. Some sheepdogs even turn into part wolves, possibly due to their ostracizing.

            As for you Jefferson, you're projecting the sheep mentality, despite your recognition that wolves exist. The government has wolves in it for sure, but there are many more sheepdogs. Ignoring this battle as a fact of life is to, once again, project a sheep mentality on life.

            To summarize this all into a sentence: there is nothing wrong with authority. It is necessary, therefore it is not evil. In fact, it is good because it is necessary. It is also necessary to be careful with it.

            "Authority good" is not, in itself, a good argument for government. It's necessary to explain "why this authority" because you have to be careful with it. However, your argument along with many others with similar ideologies are not "why not this authority". Instead, it's more like "authority bad". I'm trying to come down to that level so that we're arguing over the same ethos instead of different ones, in which we'll simply be at two ends of a lever that we push in the same circular direction.

            Originally posted by Jefferson1775 View Post
            You're right about roads. I remember Rick Perry tried to steal a lot of land a few years ago for his Trans-Texas Corridor. Texans didn't take too kindly to that, and it thankfully never developed.
            Ya... I have no comment on that one. No idea if it was a good or bad idea.


            Originally posted by Jefferson1775 View Post
            Yeah, but he's perfect for you. If you ever decide to give freedom a chance, here's a few good books to get you started.

            Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt (the Broken Window Fallacy applied to many different parts of an economy)
            The Law by Frederic Bastiat (how the law becomes legalized plunder)
            The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul (the topics in this book are too numerous to count)
            I believe you've mistaken me for an opponent because I don't support your extremist views.
            Last edited by wiltondeportes; 10-01-2013, 06:49 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
              There's a parable about sheep, sheepdogs, and wolves.

              Sheep are happy to eat grass. They see only sheep around them, so they assume that only sheep exist. They can hardly comprehend hurting someone on purpose (whether it they hurting another or another hurting them), so they are not really capable of violence. This makes them easy prey for wolves. This represents 99% of people.

              Then, there are wolves who will prey on these sheep for their own profit/benefit. It only takes a few wolves to terrorize a flock of sheep. They are capable of violence (literally or metaphorically), and they do not care about society.

              Then, there are sheepdogs. They are capable of violence as well, but they do care about society. In fact, they eventually *have* to act in violence (literally or metaphorically) because that the only way to defeat the wolves. Violence is a competitive advantage that sheepdogs must have too. To sheep, sheepdogs often look just like wolves. Some sheepdogs even turn into part wolves, possibly due to their ostracizing.

              As for you Jefferson, you're projecting the sheep mentality, despite your recognition that wolves exist. The government has wolves in it for sure, but there are many more sheepdogs. Ignoring this battle as a fact of life is to, once again, project a sheep mentality on life.

              To summarize this all into a sentence: there is nothing wrong with authority. It is necessary, therefore it is not evil. In fact, it is good because it is necessary. It is also necessary to be careful with it.

              "Authority good" is not, in itself, a good argument for government. It's necessary to explain "why this authority" because you have to be careful with it. However, your argument along with many others with similar ideologies are not "why not this authority". Instead, it's more like "authority bad". I'm trying to come down to that level so that we're arguing over the same ethos instead of different ones, in which we'll simply be at two ends of a lever that we push in the same circular direction.


              Ya... I have no comment on that one. No idea if it was a good or bad idea.



              I believe you've mistaken me for an opponent because I don't support your extremist views.
              Lol, . An extremist...I like being called that. Good luck in your continuing quest for knowledge.
              In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock.

              This message has been intercepted by the NSA, the only branch of government that listens.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jefferson1775 View Post
                Lol, . An extremist...I like being called that. Good luck in your continuing quest for knowledge.
                ???

                Comment


                • Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                  As for you Jefferson, you're projecting the sheep mentality, despite your recognition that wolves exist. The government has wolves in it for sure, but there are many more sheepdogs. Ignoring this battle as a fact of life is to, once again, project a sheep mentality on life.
                  Oh, please. I don't really agree with you analogy--it grossly oversimplifies things. But, if we're going to use this grossly simplified analogy, then most people in the government are wolves. Sure, there may be a few good people there who are trying to do good, but the vast majority of politicians are vicious, drooling wolves. And, you, Wilton, is a sheep. You're a sheep because you believe that these wolves are there to help you. Instead, all they see when they look at you is dinner.

                  In this life, everyone has a choice. Either keep your head in the sand and baaaaah like a sheep, or open your eyes and see the world for what it is.

                  My journal

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jefferson1775 View Post
                    You know, you're right. I've never thought about it that way. I should go home and tell my family that we need to go in the woods and shoot every last one of our good bucks,
                    I guess you haven't read the whole thread. Lazarus related a story about his neighbor who did that very thing.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jefferson1775 View Post
                      Ever wonder why the profit margin on ivory is so high? A lot of African countries have banned its sale, which has created a black market for it and greatly increased its price. If people were free to own the elephants and sell the ivory, poaching wouldn't be profitable anymore. It's the same way with recreational drugs in this country. If they were legalized, all those drug cartels south of the border would lose their revenue, because private dispensaries could easily out-compete them.
                      Costs a lot to feed an elephant. I'm quite sure raising them for ivory wouldn't work. The have domesticated elephants in India, but those are for work, not ivory.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                        Not sure what you mean? What kind of checks had Westerners put in place in the 1800s or earlier? If they really did try, then there was less arrogance than I thought.
                        Everything from the Bill of Rights to local zoning laws.

                        Comment


                        • Wilton can you tell us about your relationship with your mother? In all friendliness, you sound real childish and "resource-hoarder-appeasing/but I'm! a good boy mommy" to me. I remember making your arguments and feeling like you do now when I was a teenager, and have since realized that it was a means of defending my mother's own ludicrous faith in the system and desire that her children enter it with some prestige in her honor like.
                          "Ah, those endless forests, and their horror-haunted gloom! For what eternities have I wandered through them, a timid, hunted creature, starting at the least sound, frightened of my own shadow, keyed-up, ever alert and vigilant, ready on the instant to dash away in mad flight for my life. For I was the prey of all manner of fierce life that dwelt in the forest, and it was in ecstasies of fear that I fled before the hunting monsters."

                          Jack london, "Before Adam"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Rojo View Post
                            I guess you haven't read the whole thread. Lazarus related a story about his neighbor who did that very thing.
                            I remember that post. Lazarus's neighbor sounds like a very stupid (for mismanaging his deer) and inconsiderate (for intruding on Lazarus's property without permission) individual.
                            In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock.

                            This message has been intercepted by the NSA, the only branch of government that listens.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mr.Perfidy View Post

                              the present "free market people" (the ron paul people, the libertarians, to a much lesser and more bastardized extent, the right-wing conservatives) are always talking about how regulations negatively affect free economic development.

                              True.
                              True??? Is it? I should think that, rather, an appropriate legal framework -- "regulations" -- is actually a necessity for the proper functioning of any productive economic order. The economic power of early modern England -- and, indeed, the Industrial Revolution -- would not have been possible apart from the Common Law, which provided the background that made it possible. Here's a major historian of the Industrial Revolution:

                              Alan Macfarlane King's College Cambridge history anthropology

                              I'd suggest a lo-o-o-o-ng time poking around there, and reading the articles on the site.

                              To take the matter to extremes, imagine a society in which nobody honoured contracts and no-one could do anything about that. How could economic life possibly flourish? Then again, imagine a situation in which people settle their disputes by deadly force, don't respect the courts, and don't look to solutions arrived at through arbitration and legal means. Again, economic life must stagnate.




                              A bigger problem: I think your formulation is abstract and over-"theoretical".




                              A small point: I can't imagine where you get the idea that "right-wing conservatives" were particularly in favour of free market economics. Rather the reverse, I should say. Carlyle? De Maistre? ... and so on, and so forth.

                              Actually, the "free market", as you correctly observed elsewhere in that post, is based around a notion of "[v]oluntary exchange". One might also call it "economic exchange by consent". This is at bottom a moral idea and the specific morality in question is a "liberal" -- or (soft) left one -- that's to say, a post-Enlightenment and individualistic one. The Right never worried its head that much about consent of all things.

                              (For the sake of interest, compare the notion of sexual relations "by consent" -- i.e. where the principle of consent, sensibly or not, is recognised as the only one relevant. That's characteristic of liberal thinking.)

                              But, anyway, what's seen as important depends on how narrow the terms of reference are drawn. Market economies -- the real entities, not something existing on paper in the minds of "deregulation" fanatics -- i.e. not something that's not appropriately regulated -- are, so far as economic efficiency goes the only game in town. The Eastern Bloc ran into the ground -- and poisoned the earth even worse than the West.

                              You'd have to go to Hayek to discover why that is. (Basically, it's down to this: price is a "signalling mechanism". If you don't allow prices to be arrived by mutual agreement -- through supply and demand -- then how precisely do you know where fix them? The truth is no-one knows. It's a problem in knowledge. This is probably why "command economies" fail.)

                              But ... as I said, the question is "how narrow [are] the terms of reference are drawn". It's perfectly in order for a government to override whatever solution would answer as the most efficient in economic terms, because economic terms are not the be-all and end-all. To put it another way, political and social life does not reduce to economics.
                              Last edited by Lewis; 10-02-2013, 12:22 PM.

                              Comment


                              • also in an actual free society, Lazarus and his neighbors could just forge an agreement whereby they murder that neighbor and cannibalize his holdings. This behavior would be risky to even propose in the absence of conduct that was very clearly an eggregious threat to everyone around, and therefore is unlikely to be abused.
                                "Ah, those endless forests, and their horror-haunted gloom! For what eternities have I wandered through them, a timid, hunted creature, starting at the least sound, frightened of my own shadow, keyed-up, ever alert and vigilant, ready on the instant to dash away in mad flight for my life. For I was the prey of all manner of fierce life that dwelt in the forest, and it was in ecstasies of fear that I fled before the hunting monsters."

                                Jack london, "Before Adam"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X