Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Prices are NOT "determined" by the market. They're determined by two people who want to trade. Nobody is REQUIRED to trade with you only at "the market price" - otherwise there would never be any change in prices!

[/ QUOTE ]
pvn,

Do me a favor for a day. Next time you go to the supermarket, offer to pay less than the prices charged. Let me know what happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

THis is what happens:



[ QUOTE ]
The reality of life is that when significant numbers of people start living and trading together, a great deal of voluntary choice ceases to exist in practical terms. Very little of that has to do with the government IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

The old "work or die" strawman in sheep's clothing.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Prices are NOT "determined" by the market. They're determined by two people who want to trade. Nobody is REQUIRED to trade with you only at "the market price" - otherwise there would never be any change in prices!

[/ QUOTE ]
pvn,

Do me a favor for a day. Next time you go to the supermarket, offer to pay less than the prices charged.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny that you think of "the market" as something that can be represented by one single store.

Change it to a collection of stores, and as long as a competitor is offering an item at a lower price, you probably WILL be able to negotiate down to that price! But people don't sell you things just because you tell them to. They have to decide it's fair for them too. Otherwise there would be no market, we'd live a lot like apes, and the conversation would be moot.

It's posts like these that make me wonder about you, Phil.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It sounds like you're just saying "I'd rather be subject to a bunch of idiots collectively voting on how to oppress me with their monopoly on force rather than be subject to the external results of a bunch of idiots spending their money stupidly." And it's certainly your right to have that preference. I'm not sure I was convinced that either one is a clear winner/loser.

BTW: free market/AC are two very different things, although AC necessarily includes a free market, a free market system does not require an AC system.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm aware of the last part, and believe that the rest, while a somewhat crude representation of my views, is somewhat accurate. Except that I'd probably leave an area if I felt my freedoms were being collectively [censored] on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldnt it be cool if you didnt have to leave the "area" though?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't it be cool if there was some area to leave to? [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
I always thought the term "natural rights" was an oxymoron. In nature, you declare "property rights" with urine, and they are defended with tooth and claw. I entirely reject the notion of rights as something inherent, because without any sort of force to back them up, they are simply meaningless gestures. Humans defend or enforce rights in two ways:


[/ QUOTE ]

The term natural rights does not come from god or a supernatural being, but from basic observations about the world we live in. Quick and dirty is that humans are individuals, actions are causes which have effects : individuals are responsible for their actions, both in positive and negative outcomes.

[ QUOTE ]

Of course, we can still talk about rights, but without one or both of the above, it's just vague lucubrations

[/ QUOTE ]

I read this three times before I realized you hadn't written "vague lubrications".

[ QUOTE ]

This is the problem with democracy. I don't think you will all disagree. My solution is to go to great lengths to localize the focal points of government and democracy to the point where we better know our leaders, can better control the money we give in the form of taxes and our needs and wants are more in line with those of others who make decisions that affect us (and our voice is a larger percentage of the mob).

[/ QUOTE ]

Its funny that you come this far and stop. If you want decentralization then why not go down to the individual? That would be the most accountability, the most control over the purse strings, and the largest that each voice gets to be in the mob.

[ QUOTE ]

What I'm about to do is commit a philosophical sleight of hand myself, but beware... it may just blow your mind!

Consider true democracy "free market politics". Instead of each person having money and the free market determining prices, each person gets one vote and the "market" determines our rights! Kinda sucks huh?

How does this relate to free market economics? Well, allow me to restate my #1 thesis: People are idiots. ACists primary belief is generally that if there is a desire for something like police/security/food safety/courts/marijuana that there will be someone who will provide that service. My counter is that people are idiots. Just as in the political arena, where I don't much like being subject to something simply because 51% of people are willing to live with it, I don't much like being subject to having to pay $X for Y just because 51% of the money is willing to live with it (so to speak, obviously the math is a lot more complex here).

Under a free market, and particularly a more globalized free market, prices are no longer really affected by what I need or want. Prices are affected by what people worldwide, or nationwide, want or need.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of the many things you are missing the most important is probably that in a democracy you don't get to say no. Its quite simple a free market if you don't want to pay $1200 for a 42" plasma TV you can just not buy it. If in a democracy 51% of people vote that I must buy that TV for $1200 then I must even though I'm in the dissenting half. The ability to say no makes the market vastly superior to a "free market of politics".

[ QUOTE ]

Under a free market, and particularly a more globalized free market, prices are no longer really affected by what I need or want. Prices are affected by what people worldwide, or nationwide, want or need.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true because you can say no to prices you don't want. If you decide product X isn't worth the price you can go and look at their competitors, look for substitutes, wait for prices to come down, or never buy at all. This is not possible once Z% of people have voted against you in democracy. The degree to which you are subjected to "idiots'" whims is far decreased under a market relative to a political system.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

Its funny that you come this far and stop. If you want decentralization then why not go down to the individual? That would be the most accountability, the most control over the purse strings, and the largest that each voice gets to be in the mob.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite simply because there is nothing about humanity or the environment that makes living as an individual "best" in basically any sense.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

Of the many things you are missing the most important is probably that in a democracy you don't get to say no. Its quite simple a free market if you don't want to pay $1200 for a 42" plasma TV you can just not buy it. If in a democracy 51% of people vote that I must buy that TV for $1200 then I must even though I'm in the dissenting half. The ability to say no makes the market vastly superior to a "free market of politics".


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. It's clear that freedom both in the market and in politics is a spectrum, and I'm not trying to say that there is no benefit to freeing up a market. I'm just saying that at a fundamental level, the market has the same problem that any sort of democracy will. That the problem isn't as pronounced in the market as it is in politics simply means we must be more vigilant in the political arena (which is, sadly enough, where we are LEAST vigilant in the USA).

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Of the many things you are missing the most important is probably that in a democracy you don't get to say no. Its quite simple a free market if you don't want to pay $1200 for a 42" plasma TV you can just not buy it. If in a democracy 51% of people vote that I must buy that TV for $1200 then I must even though I'm in the dissenting half. The ability to say no makes the market vastly superior to a "free market of politics".


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. It's clear that freedom both in the market and in politics is a spectrum, and I'm not trying to say that there is no benefit to freeing up a market. I'm just saying that at a fundamental level, the market has the same problem that any sort of democracy will. That the problem isn't as pronounced in the market as it is in politics simply means we must be more vigilant in the political arena (which is, sadly enough, where we are LEAST vigilant in the USA).

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, this sounds to me like you are admitting the market is better than the government, and yet you want us to choose government why?

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Its funny that you come this far and stop. If you want decentralization then why not go down to the individual? That would be the most accountability, the most control over the purse strings, and the largest that each voice gets to be in the mob.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite simply because there is nothing about humanity or the environment that makes living as an individual "best" in basically any sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no one right answer to that question.

[Copernicus]

You start out on the right path, but don't express it quite plainly enough. There is no such thing as "natural rights", including no natural rights of "self ownership".

ALL rights are social constructs and nothing more. The most uccessful societies are those that grant rights in a manner that spurs cooperation and innovation, and allow for enforcement of rights.

Your problems with democracy are well founded, but not solved by your approach. Imo, a representative republic is as close as you can get to a perfect system. The hope is that the non-idiots that vote outnumber the idiots that vote in sufficent quantities to elect representative that are less idiotic than the public as a whole. While you are still surrendering to the will of the majority, hopefully it is a better informed majority than "one man one vote" on every individual issue.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Prices are NOT "determined" by the market. They're determined by two people who want to trade. Nobody is REQUIRED to trade with you only at "the market price" - otherwise there would never be any change in prices!

[/ QUOTE ]
pvn,

Do me a favor for a day. Next time you go to the supermarket, offer to pay less than the prices charged.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny that you think of "the market" as something that can be represented by one single store.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's funny that most ACers on this board choose to be condescending instead of actually addressing the points.

The point I'm making is that pvn's assertion that the market is pure voluntary interaction between two people who want to trade is often not the case in practice. He's using it to highlight the difference between that an government in a dishonest way.

[ QUOTE ]
Change it to a collection of stores, and as long as a competitor is offering an item at a lower price, you probably WILL be able to negotiate down to that price! But people don't sell you things just because you tell them to. They have to decide it's fair for them too. Otherwise there would be no market, we'd live a lot like apes, and the conversation would be moot.

[/ QUOTE ]
pvn's initial point was that the market is free and morally superior because it is simply voluntary interactions between two people.

In reality, the preferences, whims and opportunism of others determine the price of goods that we can obtain and even the system of property rights we live under. Much of what we must accept is the system, which is determined by others. Which in many ways is no different to what happens with government, in terms of the freedom of an individual.

Here is what pvn initially said:


[ QUOTE ]
Prices are NOT "determined" by the market. They're determined by two people who want to trade. Nobody is REQUIRED to trade with you only at "the market price" - otherwise there would never be any change in prices!

Prices are the result of voluntary transactions.

When "rights" are "determined" in a democracy, that's it. They're laid out and if you don't like it, tough. you have no negotiation power.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, you do have negotiation power. It's called a vote, getting involved in politics, influencing others, giving money to a candidate you agree with. In a large population this has about as much power and influence as whether you shop at Walmart or Big W IMO.

pvn: Prices are the result of voluntary transactions
Me: Laws are the result of voluntary transactions

pvn is inherently against the idea of the people delegating others to manage the common affairs of society. Which seems bizarre given that pretty much every single effective organization in the free market and almost every effective structure is biology uses command and control + delegation to get things done.