Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)

[xorbie]

(Too long, please read)

After getting off on the wrong foot about a dozen times or so, I figure the easiest way to achieve some sort of peaceful equilibrium is just to try to organize some of my thoughts here.

Rights:

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:

1. External force: I (or someone else) will physically prevent you from violating my rights, and will physically harm and/or detain you if you do violate them.

2. Internal force: By appealing to some ontological and/or moral system that resonates with you, I attempt to dissuade you from even wanting to violate my rights.

There is a clear gray area, because positing something like "God" or "karma" is a combination of both.

Of course, we can still talk about rights, but without one or both of the above, it's just vague lucubrations (a favorite phrase of mine, use it frequently to wow crowds at sporting events and in crowded bars).

This is one of the places where I disagree fundamentally with much of AC thought. If you believe what I've said above, a declaration of rights inherently comes with a declaration of implied force (to all those who disagree... those who agree already need not be convinced in the first place!). To speak of a society with rights which has no coercion is, in my opinion, a philosophical sleight of hand, and a cheap one at that.

This does not mean I'm against rights. It simply means I'm for necessary coercion. Yes, I get to define necessary. No, this isn't fair. No, I do not expect my definition to fit everyone else's. Yes, I am willing to compromise to some degree.

So what then do we do with rights? There are all sorts of rights. Generally when we refer plainly to "rights" we mean "human rights" which are essentially "rights to (access) basic provisions". Inclusion of the parenthesis varies from person to person. There are also property rights and consumer rights and all sorts of other rights. Like all rights, they are simply a category of legal constructs which detail what actions society will use force to prevent/allow.

One thing I generally agree with ACists on is that there is a very serious downfall to democracy, be it true or representative. This downfall is that we are subject to the (in our opinion) mistaken choices of others. We attempt to bind one another into contracts that protect at least some basic rights, but we are always subject to the idiocy of the masses.

The problem with this is two-fold:

1. People are idiots.

2. Not only are people idiots, but most people don't live under the circumstances or in the location I live in and so the things I need and want may not match up at all with what they need and want.

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).

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.

Obviously this is a somewhat crude sketch, but these are my main objections to AC/Free Market dogma.

Have at it.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
How does this relate to free market economics?

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't.

Markets are not winner take all. We don't get X number of votes and the "market" determines whether we'll all drink coke or whether we'll all drink pepsi.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

That counter doesn't make any sense, mostly because all of the things that you mentioned are ALREADY PROVIDED by markets - DESPITE government intervention in those markets.

[ QUOTE ]
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).

[/ QUOTE ]

In a market, other people buying X doesn't force you to buy X also. In a state, other people wanting X to be provided very well might force you to pay for X.

[ 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 ]

But nobody is forcing you to trade.

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously this is a somewhat crude sketch, but these are my main objections to AC/Free Market dogma.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't understand what your objection is. That you don't get free ponies, or ponies at whatever price you think you should pay for them?

[xorbie]

My objection is quite simple: prices determined on the "free market" are no more inherently good or fair or right than rights being determined in the "free market" of democracy.

It's not about free ponies, it's closer to not having ponies at the price I want, and closer yet to my possibly not having enough money to buy ponies even though I need them for my farm because people somewhere else in the world have a lot of money and like ponies and are willing to pay a lot for them.

And the end summary is that some measure of economic isolationism on a local scale can be beneficiary.

[natedogg]

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

[xorbie]

[ 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.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
My objection is quite simple: prices determined on the "free market" are no more inherently good or fair or right than rights being determined in the "free market" of democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they are.

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.

"rights" in this sense are the result of imposed, coercive transactions (for a significant number of people).

[ QUOTE ]
It's not about free ponies, it's closer to not having ponies at the price I want, and closer yet to my possibly not having enough money to buy ponies even though I need them for my farm because people somewhere else in the world have a lot of money and like ponies and are willing to pay a lot for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you entitled to ponies? At arbitrary price X?

If you are, then other people must be, too - unless you think you're in some morally superior pony-deserving class of people.

If everyone is then entitled to all the ponies they want at price X, what happens when the number of ponies demanded at that fixed price is more than the number of ponies available?

Ponies at the price you arbitrarily set as the price you "should" pay are great, until there aren't any.

Which is "more fair"?

A) Gas at $1/gallon (the price I want), with constant lines at gas stations, rationing, total unavailability for indefinite periods

B) Gas at $3/gallon, no lines, no shortages, no problems, in and out of the gas station in five minutes every time.

[ QUOTE ]
And the end summary is that some measure of economic isolationism on a local scale can be beneficiary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps. Feel free to "locally isolate" yourself as much as you like.

[vhawk01]

[ 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?

[Phil153]

[ 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.

Prices are often determined by the market, and others have no say in it. That's why the terms "price taker" and "price maker" exist in economics.

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.

[owsley]

So you are complaining about people losing voluntary choices, but don't think market intervention (which is always conducted by governments) has much to do with it?

[Vagos]

As pvn hinted at in his last post, the free market is absolutely necessary to allocate scarce resources. Of course everyone would love $1 ponies, but there simply aren't enough ponies in the world. Humans thus chose the free exchange of goods and services as a way to make up for the limited supply of resources.

[ 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 would make sense if there was only one master supermarket that everyone had to shop at it. It's really quite ironic that a statist would use this argument. As we know and fortunately for pvn, he has several supermarkets to choose from and he goes to the one he thinks has the best combination of quality products and cheap prices.