Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Free Market

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

  • The Free Market

    So many an-caps and libertarians here! (and whatever rojo is?)

    So, I try and have this argument on ron paul forums, and it usually ends with me being banned.

    Philosophically, ethically whatever- I am a free market enthusiast. Voluntary exchange is the only real good social force that leads to innovation, inclusion, understanding, cultural fusion, etc etc. It breaks down barriers of ignorance and ethnic hostility. It frees people from subordinated drudgery.

    Buuuuut

    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.

    On a conceptual level and shit. Then they go and actually advocate deregulation, like once the State is out of the way, the market forces will just work toward human freedom.

    Buuuut- all of the land is already owned by the coercion profiteers. All of the means-of-production are in the hands of the powers behind the state.
    "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"

  • #2
    How are we going to argue about coercion and aggression as it relates to state-theft of property and then "defend private property" at the same time, when this private property is essentially the inherited accumulation of centuries of pillaging and theft and extortion?

    So much money and title in the economy is the direct result of war-profiteering, native-american genocide-contracting, nazi collaboration, the slave-trade, and of course, giant coffers passed down from obsolete european royal peerage. Fuck all that.


    So, before there can be a free market, doesn't there have to be some kind of Reset, where we, on a global scale, totally repudiate the holdings of this inheritance?
    "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


    • #3
      (I'm copying this from threads on other forums where I was not well received by "free market" types)

      the "free market" crowd is usually a jerkoff circle dedicated to identifying with imaginary rich people. They do not stop and ask these questions. If you believe in property rights, why should the corporations that currently own all the property keep anything?! All of it is just a dividend return on their investment in coercion collaboration. Therefore, no property as it exists was rightfully acquired.

      My grandparents couldn't move to certain neighborhoods, attend certain schools, own different forms of property, or enter into different professions because of arbitrary racial, economic, and religious oppression. Now here I am in the lowest rungs of the economy, having been railroaded down this path by coercion from a century ago. At the same time, there are people my age who INHERITED THE BENEFITS OF THIS COERCION! They have trust funds, family networks of professionals and shit, just because they are from families that were allowed to have those opportunities in 1930. Fuck them.
      "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


      • #4
        I think if you can use and protect property, you can claim it assuming no one is already on it and using it etc. 90% of the land in the US is undeveloped. I think there's plenty to go around. I don't think we need a total reset, we can pick up where we left off and discard the inhumane parts, like gangs and unprovoked violence. It's more complicated than I am making it sound but I'm in favor of homesteading. I Do not fear corporations. They are government entities and without the state and fiat currency, there is little to fear about free enterprise. The easy money supply is how things got so effed up.
        | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

        “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

        Comment


        • #5
          So what about the banks? They are sitting on deeds to most of the developed land. Or the communications companies? Govt subsidied and regulations and licensing have maneuvered so that only a very small number of them own all of the communications infrastructure on the planet.
          "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


          • #6
            I think if you already own land or other property, you should be able to keep it so long as you're not a hoarder and it sits there idle and dilapidated. You have to be able to maintain it. The government owns the most land in the country and that is what is up for grabs. I'm not concerned with land grabs. I think there's a limit to how much can be used and protected. Even the state struggles to maintain what it has with virtually all the money in the world and a printing press.

            The game changes when there isn't fiat currency in the equation. How many banks would there be? Not nearly as many large ones. They would be smaller and local, like the 1800s. Monopolies would be rare. Telecommunication companies have the government enabling their reign now, that luxury goes away.

            I wouldn't be sad if there wasn't a state tomorrow, but I think there's a transition period that we're slowly implementing now. it's not overnight unless there is a financial collapse or natural disaster. Be prepared either way.
            Last edited by j3nn; 09-16-2013, 02:17 PM.
            | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

            “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

            Comment


            • #7
              Perfidy is right because there is no property in the US today that was homesteaded into existence. all existing property is the result of violence and State fiat and drawing a line on a map and saying "this is mine now".

              There would have to be a reset, or at least mutualism to fix deprivation.
              Make America Great Again

              Comment


              • #8
                The idea of a "free market" is an academic fantasy that has never existed for any significant period of time, anywhere.....it is a construct of the academic elitism of the 1950's, Milton Friedman and the like, which has no practical application. The same is true for communism, socialism, or any other absolutist ideology. In all cases, whether the powers that be are pushing one ideology or another, it is a due to its leverage in producing changes for their essential backers....

                A great study in this is the book "The Dictator's Handbook". Not biased, fact-driven, and explains much about real politics.

                In the case of a communist government, as in the case of the former Soviet Union, the entrenched powers were mostly bureaucrats. For this reason, talk of "the collective" was useful to further their power....in the case of the current United States, true power rests solely in capital, thus high-minded talk of a "free market" is useful....in all cases, ideology is neither right or wrong....it is simply a list of definitions, given by those with actual power, to feed to those they require the acquiescence of an idea of common cause.

                It is all about 3 things: 1) who is in power? 2) What do they need to get more power or secure it? 3) What ideology furthers #2, and how can it be made palatable to the masses?

                In just so happens that in the US, out of WWII and its economic devastation to most all of our competitors, the idea of totally unregulated capitalism was most useful for the powerful....it gained itself many contemporaries, from Ayn Rand (who took gov assistance hand-over-fist when she got sick, was a morally repugnant person) to Friedman's Chicago School.

                There is no difference, at heart, between a given ideology in most countries that exist right now...there is only money, power, and how best to sell it to those you need to take it from. Read enough about the poweful throughout history, and that fact becomes undeniable.
                "The soul that does not attempt flight; does not notice its chains."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                  Perfidy is right because there is no property in the US today that was homesteaded into existence. all existing property is the result of violence and State fiat and drawing a line on a map and saying "this is mine now".

                  There would have to be a reset, or at least mutualism to fix deprivation.
                  So what about existing houses and commercial and agricultural property? Everyone has to give up theirs and start over?
                  | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

                  “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by j3nn View Post
                    So what about existing houses and commercial and agricultural property? Everyone has to give up theirs and start over?
                    Inhabit the land you're on.

                    Per Bylund outlined a concept that sort of dealt with the logistics of "use rights" which is sort of like property by string of easements; that is, you only "own" natural resources within the context of your use for them. It's not territorial control, it's the right to continue your usage unobstructed. This allows for a good deal of overlap in the utilization of resources, but is really quite consistent with anarchist ideals; the idea that one could have the right to the harvest of the apple orchard they planted but not to restrict others from taking a walk through it, so long as they didn't interfere with the orchard usage.

                    As for the home, it's obviously yours. This should prevent more state like monopolies of claiming tons of land by takeover.
                    Make America Great Again

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                      Inhabit the land you're on.

                      Per Bylund outlined a concept that sort of dealt with the logistics of "use rights" which is sort of like property by string of easements; that is, you only "own" natural resources within the context of your use for them. It's not territorial control, it's the right to continue your usage unobstructed. This allows for a good deal of overlap in the utilization of resources, but is really quite consistent with anarchist ideals; the idea that one could have the right to the harvest of the apple orchard they planted but not to restrict others from taking a walk through it, so long as they didn't interfere with the orchard usage.

                      As for the home, it's obviously yours. This should prevent more state like monopolies of claiming tons of land by takeover.
                      Yeahhhh, I'm not that AnCom. I can't stand the idea of random people walking through my property unannounced and eating my fruit trees that I planted. I believe there can be property rights if you can utilize the property and/or maintain it. I think contracts are an important part of civilization so long as they are entered into amicably.
                      | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

                      “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I think eating the apples would be obstructing, wouldn't it? Specifically if you plan to sell or use it for food. There are basic principles at play. It was more a metaphor that one cannot continuously plant seeds in plots of land to claim it for its use. I wouldn't see why someone wouldn't be allowed farm land and a home.
                        Make America Great Again

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I honestly have no idea how property rights could be enforced in a stateless society without the entire population being in agreement. At the same time, they can't say that someone doesn't have the rights to what they claim because who are you appealing to? Communities could reach unanimous decisions about where boundaries are drawn, who has claim to this and that. Small and local would be the key. Trespassers or aggressive people would be dealt with accordingly depending on how aggressive they are. Obviously there has to be widespread unlearning; the state and religious institutions have indoctrinated the masses so much so that people have this really skewed perception of civility. A police state is not civil and chaos in anarchy is not civil. It's somewhere in between and people need to learn the NAP before being able to have a functioning voluntary society. Is that likely? No. But I'm still hopeful that it will become a popular way of life on this poor planet afflicted with the human virus.
                          Last edited by j3nn; 09-16-2013, 03:04 PM.
                          | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

                          “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mr.Perfidy View Post
                            My grandparents couldn't move to certain neighborhoods, attend certain schools, own different forms of property, or enter into different professions because of arbitrary racial, economic, and religious oppression. Now here I am in the lowest rungs of the economy, having been railroaded down this path by coercion from a century ago. At the same time, there are people my age who INHERITED THE BENEFITS OF THIS COERCION! They have trust funds, family networks of professionals and shit, just because they are from families that were allowed to have those opportunities in 1930. Fuck them.
                            LJB's Howard University Commencement speech:

                            But freedom is not enough. You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.

                            You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.

                            Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates.

                            This is the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.

                            For the task is to give 20 million Negroes the same chance as every other American to learn and grow, to work and share in society, to develop their abilities--physical, mental and spiritual, and to pursue their individual happiness.

                            To this end equal opportunity is essential, but not enough, not enough. Men and women of all races are born with the same range of abilities. But ability is not just the product of birth. Ability is stretched or stunted by the family that you live with, and the neighborhood you live in--by the school you go to and the poverty or the richness of your surroundings. It is the product of a hundred unseen forces playing upon the little infant, the child, and finally the man.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by j3nn View Post
                              The government owns the most land in the country and that is what is up for grabs.
                              And most of it's not worth very much. What creates land value is partially site value and a big dollop of government spending on roads, bridges, water, sewage, police, fire and schools.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X