14 ms·

Well, a truly unregulated market approximates a war. Just look at the early history of trader/pirates. This doesn't mean capitalism is unstable; it's lowest e

Well, a truly unregulated market approximates a war. Just look at the early history of trader/pirates. This doesn't mean capitalism is unstable; it's lowest energy state is the state of nature. Unrestricted warfare is bad for profits, as well as general wellbeing. The trick is to add regulation without adding unnecessary friction, and finding an approximate solution to the free rider problem.

jules 9y ago
An unregulated market doesn't mean that you can shoot people. Each transaction must be voluntary. Capitalism is not the same as anarchy.
- perfmode 9y ago
  Anarchy is not the same as chaos.
- thephyber 9y ago
  > An unregulated market has never existed in the history of modern civilization for more than 5 minutes. Ironically for your statement, the most unregulated markets are the most violent as they only occur after one government falls before institutions create themselves to deal with the chaotic state of unorganized and fearful humans. It will be interesting to see if the digital economy brings with it any self-created software companies (purely software companies created and administered by self-writing software) which tries to avoid any attempts to shut it down.
  - jules 9y ago
    You are mixing up capitalism with anarchy and chaos. Capitalism requires the rule of law and property rights. An unregulated market is one where any voluntary transaction can take place and no involuntary transaction takes place. It is not a voluntary transaction if I put a gun to your head and tell you to hand over your wallet, and a "market" in which that is allowed is not even a market. It is illegal for me to pay you to deliver a letter to another house. That's not a free market either, because the transaction was mutually voluntary but it is disallowed.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      Except that's not true in the least. You say "no involuntary transaction takes place" because in that system, if the transaction takes place, then by definition it must be "voluntary", despite the existence of any coercion that may have occurred. In your unregulated system, you could have me work 20 hours a day, and consider it "voluntary" as long as I did it, ignoring the fact that I and my family would be out on the street starving if I didn't, which would make that transaction far from voluntary.
      - jules 9y ago
        The transaction of you working for me is still voluntary. No person forced you to work for me. I did not cause you to starve. If I disappeared off the face of the planet you would still starve. That I offer you a job improves your options relative to what you would otherwise have had. I can only "force" you to work 20 hours a day if all your other options are even worse, and I am the one who improves your options the most. If however I put a gun to your head and tell you to work 20 hours a day I actively make your options worse by force. Capitalism is by no means a perfectly well defined system that you can deduce from a set of axioms. You can have a discussion about which property rights the government should enforce, such as whether it should enforce intellectual property. But certain systems are clearly fall outside of the bounds of what constitutes a free market, such as systems in which I am allowed to put a gun to your head to make you give me your wallet.
        s73ver_ 9y ago
        "The transaction of you working for me is still voluntary." Only in the most extreme interpretation of the word. "No person forced you to work for me. " Maybe not, but the idea that I will be fired if I don't do what you say means that it's not entirely voluntary. "I can only "force" you to work 20 hours a day if all your other options are even worse, and I am the one who improves your options the most." Again, that's not voluntary. That's exploitation. "If however I put a gun to your head and tell you to work 20 hours a day I actively make your options worse by force." Guns are not the only way to exercise force. Company towns were full of force. Just not physical. "such as systems in which I am allowed to put a gun to your head." Guns are not the only expression of force. Failure to see that is a huge fallacy.
- vkou 9y ago
  There is no such thing as a market with no involuntary transactions, as all externalities are involuntary transactions. When your factory is producing noise pollution around it, is that a volutary transaction you have entered into with your neighbours? What about when it pollutes the air, or the water? What about transactions where both sides don't have perfect information? How can you voluntarily agree to a transaction in which you don't know what you're getting, but your counterparty does? What about the fact that most revealed preferences are largely fiction? Voluntary transactions are pure fiction. Nothing actually operates on that principle. You can't construct a functioning society from them, without requiring an orgy of arbitrary logical and ethical gymnastics.
  - jules 9y ago
    Strictly speaking there is indeed no such thing as a completely voluntary transaction, as every transaction affects a third party, even if in a minuscule way. Similar criticisms can be made of any system, or any word (such as "voluntary") for that matter. The original point of discussion was whether "unregulated market" includes shooting people. As I said above: > Capitalism is by no means a perfectly well defined system that you can deduce from a set of axioms. You can have a discussion about which property rights the government should enforce, such as whether it should enforce intellectual property. But certain systems are clearly fall outside of the bounds of what constitutes a free market, such as systems in which I am allowed to put a gun to your head to make you give me your wallet. In order for language to be useful we have to assign a reasonable range of meaning to a word. The word "voluntary" becomes completely useless with the meaning you describe. You can do the same to any word, even words such as "apple". If you let an apple rot it eventually becomes compost. Somewhere in between it stops being an apple. By the same type of reasoning you can conclude that "apples are pure fiction". These kind of language games are not very useful.
    - jahaja 9y ago
      > In order for language to be useful we have to assign a reasonable range of meaning to a word. It's just too convenient to define the range to what amounts to a modern version of the divine rights of kings. Where certain meanings - voluntary and property rights in particular - become some sorts of theological constants in which the privileges of the king (or property owner in the libertarian case), which have no bearing in justice, are explained. It's basically ad-hoc law in benefit of the privileged. Bottom-up resistance is violence. Top-down violence/exploitation is a voluntary exchange.
- krapp 9y ago
  >Each transaction must be voluntary. That's a regulation, and for that to be binding, it needs to be backed up by coercion and violence. In an unregulated market, whether or not one can shoot people, or whether or not transactions should be voluntary, would be decided like everything else by success or failure through competition in the marketplace. You can't have free market except for this one little rule... that's just a very weakly regulated market.
  - jules 9y ago
    You absolutely need government force to enforce the rule that you can't use a gun to make somebody give you their wallet. That is not what I disagree with. Calling this a market regulation is what I disagree with. > You can't have free market except for this one little rule... that's just a very weakly regulated market. In what sense is that a market at all? Market implies that the transactions are voluntary. Unregulated market implies that all voluntary transactions are legal. A regulated market is a market in which some transactions are disallowed even if they are voluntary. Minimum wage, for example, makes it illegal for you to offer your services for $5 per hour.
    - krapp 9y ago
      > Market implies that the transactions are voluntary. That doesn't have to be true for all parties. Referring to your earlier comment, that "an unregulated market doesn't mean that you can shoot people," I would claim that, yes it does - all that's needed is for someone to pay you to shoot people. Murder for hire, extortion, blackmail, piracy and slavery are all examples of valid markets with non-voluntary participation. Morally reprehensible, but still valid.
      - jules 9y ago
        There is nothing involuntary about the _transaction_ when you hire a hitman. The involuntary bit is when the victim receives the bullet.

jules 9y ago

An unregulated market doesn't mean that you can shoot people. Each transaction must be voluntary. Capitalism is not the same as anarchy.

perfmode 9y ago
Anarchy is not the same as chaos.
thephyber 9y ago
> An unregulated market has never existed in the history of modern civilization for more than 5 minutes. Ironically for your statement, the most unregulated markets are the most violent as they only occur after one government falls before institutions create themselves to deal with the chaotic state of unorganized and fearful humans. It will be interesting to see if the digital economy brings with it any self-created software companies (purely software companies created and administered by self-writing software) which tries to avoid any attempts to shut it down.
- jules 9y ago
  You are mixing up capitalism with anarchy and chaos. Capitalism requires the rule of law and property rights. An unregulated market is one where any voluntary transaction can take place and no involuntary transaction takes place. It is not a voluntary transaction if I put a gun to your head and tell you to hand over your wallet, and a "market" in which that is allowed is not even a market. It is illegal for me to pay you to deliver a letter to another house. That's not a free market either, because the transaction was mutually voluntary but it is disallowed.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    Except that's not true in the least. You say "no involuntary transaction takes place" because in that system, if the transaction takes place, then by definition it must be "voluntary", despite the existence of any coercion that may have occurred. In your unregulated system, you could have me work 20 hours a day, and consider it "voluntary" as long as I did it, ignoring the fact that I and my family would be out on the street starving if I didn't, which would make that transaction far from voluntary.
    - jules 9y ago
      The transaction of you working for me is still voluntary. No person forced you to work for me. I did not cause you to starve. If I disappeared off the face of the planet you would still starve. That I offer you a job improves your options relative to what you would otherwise have had. I can only "force" you to work 20 hours a day if all your other options are even worse, and I am the one who improves your options the most. If however I put a gun to your head and tell you to work 20 hours a day I actively make your options worse by force. Capitalism is by no means a perfectly well defined system that you can deduce from a set of axioms. You can have a discussion about which property rights the government should enforce, such as whether it should enforce intellectual property. But certain systems are clearly fall outside of the bounds of what constitutes a free market, such as systems in which I am allowed to put a gun to your head to make you give me your wallet.
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        "The transaction of you working for me is still voluntary." Only in the most extreme interpretation of the word. "No person forced you to work for me. " Maybe not, but the idea that I will be fired if I don't do what you say means that it's not entirely voluntary. "I can only "force" you to work 20 hours a day if all your other options are even worse, and I am the one who improves your options the most." Again, that's not voluntary. That's exploitation. "If however I put a gun to your head and tell you to work 20 hours a day I actively make your options worse by force." Guns are not the only way to exercise force. Company towns were full of force. Just not physical. "such as systems in which I am allowed to put a gun to your head." Guns are not the only expression of force. Failure to see that is a huge fallacy.
vkou 9y ago
There is no such thing as a market with no involuntary transactions, as all externalities are involuntary transactions. When your factory is producing noise pollution around it, is that a volutary transaction you have entered into with your neighbours? What about when it pollutes the air, or the water? What about transactions where both sides don't have perfect information? How can you voluntarily agree to a transaction in which you don't know what you're getting, but your counterparty does? What about the fact that most revealed preferences are largely fiction? Voluntary transactions are pure fiction. Nothing actually operates on that principle. You can't construct a functioning society from them, without requiring an orgy of arbitrary logical and ethical gymnastics.
- jules 9y ago
  Strictly speaking there is indeed no such thing as a completely voluntary transaction, as every transaction affects a third party, even if in a minuscule way. Similar criticisms can be made of any system, or any word (such as "voluntary") for that matter. The original point of discussion was whether "unregulated market" includes shooting people. As I said above: > Capitalism is by no means a perfectly well defined system that you can deduce from a set of axioms. You can have a discussion about which property rights the government should enforce, such as whether it should enforce intellectual property. But certain systems are clearly fall outside of the bounds of what constitutes a free market, such as systems in which I am allowed to put a gun to your head to make you give me your wallet. In order for language to be useful we have to assign a reasonable range of meaning to a word. The word "voluntary" becomes completely useless with the meaning you describe. You can do the same to any word, even words such as "apple". If you let an apple rot it eventually becomes compost. Somewhere in between it stops being an apple. By the same type of reasoning you can conclude that "apples are pure fiction". These kind of language games are not very useful.
  - jahaja 9y ago
    > In order for language to be useful we have to assign a reasonable range of meaning to a word. It's just too convenient to define the range to what amounts to a modern version of the divine rights of kings. Where certain meanings - voluntary and property rights in particular - become some sorts of theological constants in which the privileges of the king (or property owner in the libertarian case), which have no bearing in justice, are explained. It's basically ad-hoc law in benefit of the privileged. Bottom-up resistance is violence. Top-down violence/exploitation is a voluntary exchange.
krapp 9y ago
>Each transaction must be voluntary. That's a regulation, and for that to be binding, it needs to be backed up by coercion and violence. In an unregulated market, whether or not one can shoot people, or whether or not transactions should be voluntary, would be decided like everything else by success or failure through competition in the marketplace. You can't have free market except for this one little rule... that's just a very weakly regulated market.
- jules 9y ago
  You absolutely need government force to enforce the rule that you can't use a gun to make somebody give you their wallet. That is not what I disagree with. Calling this a market regulation is what I disagree with. > You can't have free market except for this one little rule... that's just a very weakly regulated market. In what sense is that a market at all? Market implies that the transactions are voluntary. Unregulated market implies that all voluntary transactions are legal. A regulated market is a market in which some transactions are disallowed even if they are voluntary. Minimum wage, for example, makes it illegal for you to offer your services for $5 per hour.
  - krapp 9y ago
    > Market implies that the transactions are voluntary. That doesn't have to be true for all parties. Referring to your earlier comment, that "an unregulated market doesn't mean that you can shoot people," I would claim that, yes it does - all that's needed is for someone to pay you to shoot people. Murder for hire, extortion, blackmail, piracy and slavery are all examples of valid markets with non-voluntary participation. Morally reprehensible, but still valid.
    - jules 9y ago
      There is nothing involuntary about the _transaction_ when you hire a hitman. The involuntary bit is when the victim receives the bullet.