5 ms·

"Free market" is defined as environment of voluntary transactions. Slavery is not voluntary, so it has nothing to do with free market. The same applies to assas

by jsn 15y ago

"Free market" is defined as environment of voluntary transactions. Slavery is not voluntary, so it has nothing to do with free market. The same applies to assassinations (unless the victim voluntary agrees to be assassinated). As for your argument wrt gold, it's inconclusive to say the least. Specifically, PIIGS has failed not because they can't expand their money supply at will now, but because they could (and very much did) extend their money supply before (using ECB as a source of cheap money, which would be impossible on gold standard). But that's a century old debate, Austrian school has made their very convincing case about fiat money w/ goverment controlled supply causing business cycles in, what, 1912? Something like that.

barrkel 15y ago
Why do you think slavery isn't voluntary? Why can't you sell yourself? Do you not own yourself? Why can't you enter into a contract to sell yourself for a particular period of time, or to a binding set of responsibilities, etc.? Many (I've read some accounts that say most) slaves in history were willing slaves, in that they faced destitution and starvation outside slavery. Part of the implied contract of becoming a slave would be that your owner would look after you. And he would have every incentive to, of course - he doesn't want his investment damaged. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery etc. I'm not familiar with the situation in all PIIGS, mostly just Ireland (I'm Irish). The money came from British, German, French banks, over the course of a decade. ECB was the source of emergency financing when the bubble collapsed; i.e. you have your order of events backwards.
- jsn 15y ago
  For as long as they are willing to stay slaves, I see nothing wrong with trading them. Outside of that situation, though, the right to body is unalienable (according to many rights theories). The money came from British (banks, sponsored by artificially expanded money supply of BoE), German, French banks (sponsored by artificially expanded money supply of ECB), etc. I've got my order exactly correct. Then, when the crisis hit, more money come from ECB. It's a little surprise that the problem caused by excess money is not exactly fixed (in PIIGS) by more excess money. Seriously, it's ABCT 101.
  - barrkel 15y ago
    See, I do see something wrong with trading in slaves; but not because it's contrary to free markets. Re your selective fitting of crisis to monetary theory, I'm not going to comment; there are too many factors at work to be reductive about it.

by jsn 15y ago

barrkel 15y ago

Why do you think slavery isn't voluntary? Why can't you sell yourself? Do you not own yourself? Why can't you enter into a contract to sell yourself for a particular period of time, or to a binding set of responsibilities, etc.? Many (I've read some accounts that say most) slaves in history were willing slaves, in that they faced destitution and starvation outside slavery. Part of the implied contract of becoming a slave would be that your owner would look after you. And he would have every incentive to, of course - he doesn't want his investment damaged. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery etc. I'm not familiar with the situation in all PIIGS, mostly just Ireland (I'm Irish). The money came from British, German, French banks, over the course of a decade. ECB was the source of emergency financing when the bubble collapsed; i.e. you have your order of events backwards.

jsn 15y ago
For as long as they are willing to stay slaves, I see nothing wrong with trading them. Outside of that situation, though, the right to body is unalienable (according to many rights theories). The money came from British (banks, sponsored by artificially expanded money supply of BoE), German, French banks (sponsored by artificially expanded money supply of ECB), etc. I've got my order exactly correct. Then, when the crisis hit, more money come from ECB. It's a little surprise that the problem caused by excess money is not exactly fixed (in PIIGS) by more excess money. Seriously, it's ABCT 101.
- barrkel 15y ago
  See, I do see something wrong with trading in slaves; but not because it's contrary to free markets. Re your selective fitting of crisis to monetary theory, I'm not going to comment; there are too many factors at work to be reductive about it.