7 ms·

"Even in communist Russia there was a free market. It was just that the cost [...] was incredibly high (like death penalty)." According to your definition pris

by ckuehne 15y ago

"Even in communist Russia there was a free market. It was just that the cost [...] was incredibly high (like death penalty)." According to your definition prisoners are also free. It's just the cost of breaking out of prison are incredibly high (like death penalty).

Tichy 15y ago
They are free to roam inside their prison cell. Nobody is really free, just our average prison cell is bigger. Where does a real free market (as you might subconsciously imagine it) exist? It would have to be anarchy at least - why am I not "free" to take my neighbor's land to build a factory there? Only in anarchy I would be really free, I could shoot my neighbor and take his land. Unfortunately he could also shoot me first, but that is the price for the truly free market. Unless you want to propose anarchy, you have to propose some policies alongside your supposedly free market, such as property laws enforced by the state/military. There goes you free market down the drain. My point was that "let the free market sort it out" is not a strategy. It does not contain any actionable information, as you still have to define the actual rules of your "free" market. To make a better example than shooting my neighbor to take his land: why am I not free to dump my waste on his land? Would a free market (allowing me to dump my waste on his land) somehow sort out that I wouldn't dump my waste on his land?
- ckuehne 15y ago
  Most categories break down if you stretch them far enough. That does not mean that they are not useful. Fare from it. Usually, there is some common understanding what words mean. For example, if I say “forest” most people will know what I mean, without arguing that there are no real forests only single trees [1]. Just as most people will agree, that markets in the western world are free (or more free) when compared to markets in Soviet Russia (the term “black market” should have tipped you off). [1] In the same manner one could argue that fossil oils really are renewable resources if the time frame under consideration is chosen to be long enough.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    Yes, but I challenge you to come up with a proper definition, if you think the "free market" will save us. Those wishy washy discussions are what get us into trouble. And fossil fuels would be sustainable if their rate of production was greater than or equal to our rate of consumption.
    - Zakharov 15y ago
      There was a market, sure. A "free market" is a particular kind of market, one with greater freedoms than a typical market. The soviet market had considerably fewer freedoms.
    - ckuehne 15y ago
      "I challenge you to come up with a proper definition, if you think the 'free market' will save us" I will do no such thing because I have not argued that "a free market will save us". I solely wanted to note that arguing over definitions and making caricatures of commonly understood terms ("But what does it really mean to be free?") is pointless and does not add much to the discussion at hand. I agree, however, with the comment made by gaius: historically it is more probable that a free market produces innovation than a centrally planned economy. Not, IMHO, because the abstract entity “free market” somehow magically comes up with a solution. But rather because it allows individuals to tinker and to test their results w.r.t. the actual wants and needs of other people as opposed to assuming that the best solution can be planned and designed top down.
  - fexl 15y ago
    Yes, he stretched the term "free market" way too far. My definition of a free market is: any group of individuals who produce things and trade with each other on the basis of mutual consent, never initiating coercion against another. Clearly "the death penalty" or "incarceration in a Siberian work camp" for the "crime" of trading eggs on the street is an initiation of coercion, so the term "free market" does not apply. Also things like "shooting your neighbor and taking his land" are clearly beyond the pale. There is property after all, which I define as (1) anything you receive as a gift, such as your body and mind at birth, (2) anything you produce using the property already at your disposal, and (3) anything you obtain in a mutually consensual trade of your property for someone else's. Your neighbor's land does not meet any of those three criteria. Certainly there is nothing magic about a free market: after all, it's just a group of human beings. But there's nothing magic about coercive force either -- and I would go further and maintain that it's fundamentally destructive.

by ckuehne 15y ago

Tichy 15y ago

They are free to roam inside their prison cell. Nobody is really free, just our average prison cell is bigger. Where does a real free market (as you might subconsciously imagine it) exist? It would have to be anarchy at least - why am I not "free" to take my neighbor's land to build a factory there? Only in anarchy I would be really free, I could shoot my neighbor and take his land. Unfortunately he could also shoot me first, but that is the price for the truly free market. Unless you want to propose anarchy, you have to propose some policies alongside your supposedly free market, such as property laws enforced by the state/military. There goes you free market down the drain. My point was that "let the free market sort it out" is not a strategy. It does not contain any actionable information, as you still have to define the actual rules of your "free" market. To make a better example than shooting my neighbor to take his land: why am I not free to dump my waste on his land? Would a free market (allowing me to dump my waste on his land) somehow sort out that I wouldn't dump my waste on his land?

ckuehne 15y ago
Most categories break down if you stretch them far enough. That does not mean that they are not useful. Fare from it. Usually, there is some common understanding what words mean. For example, if I say “forest” most people will know what I mean, without arguing that there are no real forests only single trees [1]. Just as most people will agree, that markets in the western world are free (or more free) when compared to markets in Soviet Russia (the term “black market” should have tipped you off). [1] In the same manner one could argue that fossil oils really are renewable resources if the time frame under consideration is chosen to be long enough.
- Tichy 15y ago
  Yes, but I challenge you to come up with a proper definition, if you think the "free market" will save us. Those wishy washy discussions are what get us into trouble. And fossil fuels would be sustainable if their rate of production was greater than or equal to our rate of consumption.
  - Zakharov 15y ago
    There was a market, sure. A "free market" is a particular kind of market, one with greater freedoms than a typical market. The soviet market had considerably fewer freedoms.
  - ckuehne 15y ago
    "I challenge you to come up with a proper definition, if you think the 'free market' will save us" I will do no such thing because I have not argued that "a free market will save us". I solely wanted to note that arguing over definitions and making caricatures of commonly understood terms ("But what does it really mean to be free?") is pointless and does not add much to the discussion at hand. I agree, however, with the comment made by gaius: historically it is more probable that a free market produces innovation than a centrally planned economy. Not, IMHO, because the abstract entity “free market” somehow magically comes up with a solution. But rather because it allows individuals to tinker and to test their results w.r.t. the actual wants and needs of other people as opposed to assuming that the best solution can be planned and designed top down.
- fexl 15y ago
  Yes, he stretched the term "free market" way too far. My definition of a free market is: any group of individuals who produce things and trade with each other on the basis of mutual consent, never initiating coercion against another. Clearly "the death penalty" or "incarceration in a Siberian work camp" for the "crime" of trading eggs on the street is an initiation of coercion, so the term "free market" does not apply. Also things like "shooting your neighbor and taking his land" are clearly beyond the pale. There is property after all, which I define as (1) anything you receive as a gift, such as your body and mind at birth, (2) anything you produce using the property already at your disposal, and (3) anything you obtain in a mutually consensual trade of your property for someone else's. Your neighbor's land does not meet any of those three criteria. Certainly there is nothing magic about a free market: after all, it's just a group of human beings. But there's nothing magic about coercive force either -- and I would go further and maintain that it's fundamentally destructive.