4 ms·

The countervailing argument to "voluntary exchange" is that many trades are highly unequal, and in extreme cases, difficult to distinguish from choices made und

by lukifer 13y ago

The countervailing argument to "voluntary exchange" is that many trades are highly unequal, and in extreme cases, difficult to distinguish from choices made under duress (starvation vs. sweatshop, expensive medication vs. death, etc) On top of that, trades that involve large quantities of capital must still rely upon law and violence to guard ownership, and therefore at least somewhat subject to public jurisdiction. The idea that land, or mineral rights, or intellectual property belongs exclusively to either (a) an individual, (b) a corporation, (c) a state, or (d) everybody, are all legal fictions and voluntary illusions. Other than perhaps the clothes on one's back, property is not a natural right (in the sense of natural law). We made it up. For better or worse, we should take responsibility for the relationship between private capital and the social contract, even if it is for the purpose of maintaining private ownership. I can accept the argument that interfering with the quasi-evolutionary capitalist engine does more harm than good, and that capitalism is the worst system, except for all the others. But given the history of unearned legacy wealth, systemic ethnic and national oppression, and the state's role in maintaining disproportionate advantages for those with capital, calling the trades that occur between haves and have-nots "voluntary" seems a little disingenuous.

anoncowherd 13y ago
>> The countervailing argument to "voluntary exchange" is that many trades are highly unequal If an exchange is genuinely voluntary, it leaves both parties better off by definition. You value whatever you're giving up lower than what you're getting in exchange, because otherwise you just wouldn't go through the trade. >> On top of that, trades that involve large quantities of capital must still rely upon law and violence to guard ownership, and therefore at least somewhat subject to public jurisdiction Everyone naturally has the right to defend his property, through whatever means necessary. Not only that, but we all intuitively agree on what property is. An apple in your hand is automatically assumed to be your property, and so is the apartment you live in, or the factory everyone has always known you to own and run. If you see a car on the street, you don't assume it's no one's property even if there's no one in it. >> For better or worse, we should take responsibility for the relationship between private capital and the social contract, even if it is for the purpose of maintaining private ownership. I can't tell what that's supposed to mean. But again, your property is your property, and you have the right to defend it regardless of whether a State exists. >> capitalism is the worst system, except for all the others Capitalism is not a "system". It's not something that's imposed on anyone, but instead, it's just all the things people do in their pursuit of personal gain - exchanges, commerce, investments, and contracts etc. If you see problems with "Capitalism", they're actually problems with Crony-Capitalism, and caused by the State. Those evil corporations buy political power, and then use it to prevent competition, to rape nature, pass their losses on to us, and so on. All the nasty stuff.
- jaekwon 13y ago
  We should also be careful to distinguish an exchange in a positive-currency, vs one in a debt-currency, which by definition is a trade of indebtedness. Can you really have a "voluntary" exchange of indebtedness? No, no, no. We do not agree intuitively on what property is. What about a factory that you built with your own hands that becomes a utility for a community? At some point, your private property and private creations become integral to a community, and that's where things become muddy. I want to add, lastly, that if we have a true competition of non-debt currency, we may have part of a solution. I have some thoughts written on my blog post, but it's not well thought out and perhaps somebody can build upon it. http://jaekwon.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/the-supernova-theory-of-deflationary-currency/ http://jaekwon.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/the-supernova-theory...
  - lukifer 13y ago
    I agree with your core thesis about the role of alt-coins in a deflationary spiral. There's one thing I haven't drunk the kool-aid on, though, and I'd like you to tell me if you see a hole in my logic: I don't see how a deflationary spiral is a problem at all. It's true that if a currency appreciates in value, buyers are disincentivized to spend. However, sellers also have the same knowledge, that the currency will gain value over time. Wouldn't that incentivize them to lower their prices in order to acquire the currency-as-investment, until the two meet in the middle? (Many of the merchants who accept BitCoin offer a BTC discount for this very reason.) One practical way that we see this happen is in technology, where goods rapidly decrease in value. While a dollar might lose 5% of its value over the course of a year, that's nothing compared to buying a new computer. And so the onus is on computer makers to offer a compelling enough value and price to convince the user to upgrade, as opposed to living with an old machine, or waiting for a better one. At any given point in time, to buy a computer is micro-economically foolish, and yet transactions still manage to take place, because buyers and sellers eventually meet in the middle. The trick to this, of course, is that this model only works if the currency deflates at a stable rate. BitCoin still has yet to establish itself in this regard; time will tell.
    - jaekwon 13y ago

by lukifer 13y ago

anoncowherd 13y ago

>> The countervailing argument to "voluntary exchange" is that many trades are highly unequal If an exchange is genuinely voluntary, it leaves both parties better off by definition. You value whatever you're giving up lower than what you're getting in exchange, because otherwise you just wouldn't go through the trade. >> On top of that, trades that involve large quantities of capital must still rely upon law and violence to guard ownership, and therefore at least somewhat subject to public jurisdiction Everyone naturally has the right to defend his property, through whatever means necessary. Not only that, but we all intuitively agree on what property is. An apple in your hand is automatically assumed to be your property, and so is the apartment you live in, or the factory everyone has always known you to own and run. If you see a car on the street, you don't assume it's no one's property even if there's no one in it. >> For better or worse, we should take responsibility for the relationship between private capital and the social contract, even if it is for the purpose of maintaining private ownership. I can't tell what that's supposed to mean. But again, your property is your property, and you have the right to defend it regardless of whether a State exists. >> capitalism is the worst system, except for all the others Capitalism is not a "system". It's not something that's imposed on anyone, but instead, it's just all the things people do in their pursuit of personal gain - exchanges, commerce, investments, and contracts etc. If you see problems with "Capitalism", they're actually problems with Crony-Capitalism, and caused by the State. Those evil corporations buy political power, and then use it to prevent competition, to rape nature, pass their losses on to us, and so on. All the nasty stuff.

jaekwon 13y ago
We should also be careful to distinguish an exchange in a positive-currency, vs one in a debt-currency, which by definition is a trade of indebtedness. Can you really have a "voluntary" exchange of indebtedness? No, no, no. We do not agree intuitively on what property is. What about a factory that you built with your own hands that becomes a utility for a community? At some point, your private property and private creations become integral to a community, and that's where things become muddy. I want to add, lastly, that if we have a true competition of non-debt currency, we may have part of a solution. I have some thoughts written on my blog post, but it's not well thought out and perhaps somebody can build upon it. http://jaekwon.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/the-supernova-theory-of-deflationary-currency/ http://jaekwon.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/the-supernova-theory...
- lukifer 13y ago
  I agree with your core thesis about the role of alt-coins in a deflationary spiral. There's one thing I haven't drunk the kool-aid on, though, and I'd like you to tell me if you see a hole in my logic: I don't see how a deflationary spiral is a problem at all. It's true that if a currency appreciates in value, buyers are disincentivized to spend. However, sellers also have the same knowledge, that the currency will gain value over time. Wouldn't that incentivize them to lower their prices in order to acquire the currency-as-investment, until the two meet in the middle? (Many of the merchants who accept BitCoin offer a BTC discount for this very reason.) One practical way that we see this happen is in technology, where goods rapidly decrease in value. While a dollar might lose 5% of its value over the course of a year, that's nothing compared to buying a new computer. And so the onus is on computer makers to offer a compelling enough value and price to convince the user to upgrade, as opposed to living with an old machine, or waiting for a better one. At any given point in time, to buy a computer is micro-economically foolish, and yet transactions still manage to take place, because buyers and sellers eventually meet in the middle. The trick to this, of course, is that this model only works if the currency deflates at a stable rate. BitCoin still has yet to establish itself in this regard; time will tell.
  - jaekwon 13y ago