AncapFTW Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 One scenario I can think of where this doesn't apply is if there are slaves. Say every free person can trade for anything they want as long as they can reach an agreement with the person that is selling it too them, but 99% of people are slaves. In that situation, the people have almost no freedom, but the market is perfectly free. The two are definitely linked, and if everyone were free it would hold true, but in a situation where the people aren't free, the market's freedom doesn't effect much. What are your thoughts on this?
Anuojat Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 If people arent free its not a free market. Slavery is anti freedom (and immoral and irrational in its possible "justifications"). The market is not perfectly free if there are slaves. Same with people and governments PS. Also i am very curious why this interests you. 1
AncapFTW Posted September 4, 2015 Author Posted September 4, 2015 If people arent free its not a free market. Slavery is anti freedom (and immoral and irrational in its possible "justifications"). The market is not perfectly free if there are slaves. Same with people and governments PS. Also i am very curious why this interests you. free mar·ket noun noun: free market; plural noun: free markets; modifier noun: free-market an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses. I don't see how the relative freedom of people who don't participate can be considered when determining the relative freedom of a market. It's a different issue entirely. The reason I created the topic is twofold: 1) That statement has practically become an axiom for some Anarchists and Libertarians, and as such I think that making the market more free has lead to some ignoring or working against more personal freedom. 2) It is sometimes used as a question on political compass tests, and, because so many of the questions were false dichotomies, I wondered if this one was too.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 You just described a market that is extremely not free. That's a bit silly. 1
AncapFTW Posted September 4, 2015 Author Posted September 4, 2015 You just described a market that is extremely not free. That's a bit silly. I described a society that was extremely not free. The market in that society, however, was free because there was no government interference. The masters also didn't interfere in there slave's trade, so they can't be considered an interfering government either.
Guest Gee Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 The market is just people making choices to interact with one another for mutual benifit. The "more free the market" is then equivilent to "the more free people are to make choices to interact with one another for mutual benifit". People being more free to make choices to interact with one another for mutual benifit is a statement that the people are more free. So, the more free the market, the more free the people. *edit In OP senario the slaves are not participants, they are products.
LibertarianSocialist Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 The free market actually makes some important assumptions: Perfect market information No participant with market power to set prices Non intervention by governments No barriers to entry or exit Equal access to factors of production Profit maximization No externalities These are the assumptions of a perfect market NECESSARY for a truly free market. In this we can see that the free market is actually a very fragile thing. I think the confusion lies with the conflation of free markets with what I term the Darwinian market. Look at exchange. There exists many types of exchange not permitted on the free market, the production of bullets to kill off a competitors firm is an investment which yields a return, and is also an exchange. But we are told such actions are not acceptable components of a free market. Why? Because free markets actually have a huge amount of rules and assumptions surrounding them. We don't need an absence of rules, we need an absence of rules incongruous with the existence of a free market. So who are the offenders to the free market? Simply put, anyone who has an interest, which he can back with a superiority of might, in violating the principles of free market exchange for their own ends. 4
Guest Gee Posted September 5, 2015 Posted September 5, 2015 The free market actually makes some important assumptions: Perfect market information No participant with market power to set prices Non intervention by governments No barriers to entry or exit Equal access to factors of production Profit maximization No externalities These are the assumptions of a perfect market NECESSARY for a truly free market. Is this a response to anything in the thread or are you addressing yourself? I described a society that was extremely not free. The market in that society, however, was free because there was no government interference. The masters also didn't interfere in there slave's trade, so they can't be considered an interfering government either. The state is the monolopy initiation of violence, every action taken by the state is the initiation of violence against people. The masters are initiating violence, by enforcing slavery they are initiating violance against people. Therefore the masters violance and the state violance are equilivent, the 'free market' being free from 'state intervention' must then be free from state initiation of violence which can be simplified to free from the initiation of violence. As the masters are initiating violence the market is not free from the initiation of violence which is equivilent to the market being not being free from state intervation. Therefore your market is not free. 2
LibertarianSocialist Posted September 5, 2015 Posted September 5, 2015 Is this a response to anything in the thread or are you addressing yourself? I was making a point about the distinction between unregulated and free markets. Free markets are not simply unregulated markets, but rather a specific type of market, with a distinctive set of rules. Unregulated, or darwinian, markets can and often do violate these requisites. 1
Devon Gibbons Posted September 5, 2015 Posted September 5, 2015 every action taken by the state is the initiation of violence against people No, that is not the case. Self-defence applies to individuals working as policemen. People do not lose their sovereignty and natural rights by joining a group in uniform. Policemen do carry out other tasks such as arrest, along with the FBI, of libertards who avoid taxes, but when a violent human being initiates force on a fellow human being in uniform, the cop is acting in self defence if he decides to engage in force with the other person since he's already been agressed against. It's important to identify that it's not always the government or cops who initiate all violence. 1 1
AncapFTW Posted September 5, 2015 Author Posted September 5, 2015 Is this a response to anything in the thread or are you addressing yourself? The state is the monolopy initiation of violence, every action taken by the state is the initiation of violence against people. The masters are initiating violence, by enforcing slavery they are initiating violance against people. Therefore the masters violance and the state violance are equilivent, the 'free market' being free from 'state intervention' must then be free from state initiation of violence which can be simplified to free from the initiation of violence. As the masters are initiating violence the market is not free from the initiation of violence which is equivilent to the market being not being free from state intervation. Therefore your market is not free. Ok, I wasn't thinking of the Masters as governments, but I guess they are all kings of tiny nations in a way. By restricting the ability of the people to produce products of services based on market demand, as well as preventing the people from gaining the resources needed to do this through trade, or even self ownership, they are essentially a government restricting the free market.
Guest Gee Posted September 5, 2015 Posted September 5, 2015 Ok, I wasn't thinking of the Masters as governments, but I guess they are all kings of tiny nations in a way. By restricting the ability of the people to produce products of services based on market demand, as well as preventing the people from gaining the resources needed to do this through trade, or even self ownership, they are essentially a government restricting the free market. For sure.
Guest Gee Posted September 5, 2015 Posted September 5, 2015 I was making a point about the distinction between unregulated and free markets. Free markets are not simply unregulated markets, but rather a specific type of market, with a distinctive set of rules. Unregulated, or darwinian, markets can and often do violate these requisites. I won't bite, but I will nibble. Perfect information: Either can't exists due to limits on information transmission (same reason god can not be all knowning), or is completly encapusulated in price, or price is a lie! aka fraud aka............ force. No participant with market power to set prices: Every participant has the power to set their price, but no power to make people take it unless........ force? Non intervention by governments: Non initiation of force by goverments, simplified to non inititation of force or is intervention by force of non goverments permitted? No barriers to entry or exit: Barriers to entery can only be errected by.......... force. Equal access to factors of production: Which can only be prevented by.......... force. Profit maximization: Markets are just people doing stuff, thus profit maximisation must be a universal profit maximisation. Either bullshit (people having children) or Praxeology is valid thus all trades are profit maximising trades in which case the only thing that can prevent mutually benifical trade is...... force. No externalities: Again either it is impossible to not have externalities, or Praxeology is valid in which case the negative externalities are simply a cost paid for the gain of production which is more valuable, or Praxeology is valid but the choice is coerced in which case the value is less than the cost which can only be done by.......... force. So for all the reasons above, it either does not exist in reality which is possible because modern economics is voodoo or it is defined by the absense of the initiation of force. I await your rebuttal with bated breath. 1
webdever Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 I won't bite, but I will nibble. Perfect information: Either can't exists due to limits on information transmission (same reason god can not be all knowning), or is completly encapusulated in price, or price is a lie! aka fraud aka............ force. No participant with market power to set prices: Every participant has the power to set their price, but no power to make people take it unless........ force? Non intervention by governments: Non initiation of force by goverments, simplified to not inititation of force or is intervention by force of non goverments permitted? No barriers to entry or exit: Barriers to entery can only be errected by.......... force. Equal access to factors of production: Which can only be prevented by.......... force. Profit maximization: Markets are just people doing stuff, thus profit maximisation must be a universal profit maximisation. Either bullshit (people having children) or Praxeology is valid thus all trades are profit maximising trades in which case the only thing that can prevent mutually benifical trade is...... force. No externalities Again either it is impossible to not have externalities, or Praxeology is valid in which case the negative externalities are simply a cost paid for the gain of production which is more valuable, or Praxeology is valid but the choice is coerced in which case the valud is less than the cost which can only be done by.......... force. So for all the reasons above, it either does not exist in reality which is possible because modern economics is voodoo or it is defined by the absense of the initiation of force. I await your rebuttal with baited breath. LibertarianSocialist is referring to the Perfect Competition model, an (off-topic), ill-defined, and useless model for describing anything that happens in reality or in a free market. The only thing required for a free market is that people don't violate the NAP. The market among people who are enslaved can't really be said to be a free market because by definition some behaviors or actions of the participants will invoke the use of force by their masters. Still, I think you will still see some aspects of free markets take place since the laws of praxeology still hold, just like some parts of the market still operate relatively freely under states in the modern world. Or even in a very restrictive environment like a prison you will still see some bartering and market principles operating.
Guest Gee Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 No, that is not the case. Self-defence applies to individuals working as policemen. People do not lose their sovereignty and natural rights by joining a group in uniform. Policemen do carry out other tasks such as arrest, along with the FBI, of libertards who avoid taxes, but when a violent human being initiates force on a fellow human being in uniform, the cop is acting in self defence if he decides to engage in force with the other person since he's already been agressed against. It's important to identify that it's not always the government or cops who initiate all violence. But self defense is a reaction, not an action and moreover, the policeman may not exist without first violence being initiated so as to provide for his existance.
Frosty Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 A market with slaves is not a free market because slaves are people who are not free to negotiate their own terms, this breaks your definition of market freedom. The only possible way you could argue this wasn't the case is if you defined slaves as property to be sold and traded rather than human beings who are protected by the non aggression principle. 1
J-William Posted September 7, 2015 Posted September 7, 2015 What are your thoughts on this? Are you fishing for intellectuals? I can't think of any other reason to worry about such a scenario. 1
LibertarianSocialist Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 I won't bite, but I will nibble. Perfect information: Either can't exists due to limits on information transmission (same reason god can not be all knowning), or is completly encapusulated in price, or price is a lie! aka fraud aka............ force. No participant with market power to set prices: Every participant has the power to set their price, but no power to make people take it unless........ force? Non intervention by governments: Non initiation of force by goverments, simplified to non inititation of force or is intervention by force of non goverments permitted? No barriers to entry or exit: Barriers to entery can only be errected by.......... force. Equal access to factors of production: Which can only be prevented by.......... force. Profit maximization: Markets are just people doing stuff, thus profit maximisation must be a universal profit maximisation. Either bullshit (people having children) or Praxeology is valid thus all trades are profit maximising trades in which case the only thing that can prevent mutually benifical trade is...... force. No externalities: Again either it is impossible to not have externalities, or Praxeology is valid in which case the negative externalities are simply a cost paid for the gain of production which is more valuable, or Praxeology is valid but the choice is coerced in which case the value is less than the cost which can only be done by.......... force. So for all the reasons above, it either does not exist in reality which is possible because modern economics is voodoo or it is defined by the absense of the initiation of force. I await your rebuttal with bated breath. I agree with you. Free markets are impossible. Freer markets are possible though. Look at it like a spectrum, less free, more distortions. This is why we must reject those claims made by free marketers which rest on the assumptions of perfect markets. We must acknowledge that all market equilibriums must be somewhat distorted, that unjust profit can be derived from this, and that proactive steps must be taken to remedy these injustices. I am not a market advocate, I am above all an anarcho-communist. I simply believe under certain contexts and situations, markets may be the best choice.
Waffles Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 The people are only as free as the information is. Say someone has the choice to take trade option a or b or none or whatever. This great, right, but useless if that person doesn't have the knowledge/information to make the best decision (assuming there is a best).
David Ottinger Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 The market, regardless if it's free or not, will always reflect the moral theories held by the people.
dsayers Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 The "market" is comprised of people, people's labor, people's goods... If the people aren't free, then the market isn't free.
Recommended Posts