5 ms·

It just seems that the people that are rational are marginalized in any other system. One might go as far to say that's just as unfair.

by boon 13y ago

dragontamer 13y ago
And selfishness and greed are not sins in a free market. Instead, they serve as the mechanism under which everyone works together. A selfless man who strives for compromise will be abused by selfish actors in a pure free market setting. All philosophies have their pros and cons. Learning to pick which philosophy is an art. Personally speaking, I keep Capitalist AND Communist arguments in my brain. I'm ready to use either philosophy to prove whatever point whenever I want. For example, if you were a Communist, I'd deride the "free market" by talking about Bourgeois and the working classes. (But that wouldn't work on you, because you'd instantly think that I'd be creating a "class war"). All of these philosophies are theoretical anyway. The real purpose of them is to give us the ability to understand what other people are talking about. Furthermore, it has been proven that ALL pure systems are imperfect. Free Markets have their market failures (Monopolies). Communists fail to allocate resources effectively. The solution therefore, is to pick and choose the philosophy that works in the right situation. Be a more educated man, and open to different ways of thought.
- boon 13y ago
  "Furthermore, it has been proven that ALL pure systems are imperfect." I'm really curious where and when this 100% free market system existed that was proven unworkable. Because from my understanding of history, we've only ever had government. ZERO monopolies have become what they are/were without help from the government.
  - dragontamer 13y ago
    Proven by thought experiment. If you don't like thought experiments, then pay me no mind. Perfectly theoretical free markets, with perfectly educated populations with 100% perfectly rational beings will be unable to solve the externality problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality It is known and proven. Do not give me a "Well, we'll figure it out later" bull... tell me how a free market is supposed to resolve an externality (which by its very definition is unresolvable by free markets). Perfectly rational and greedy actors will always offload their costs onto unwilling parties. It is the job of the government to ensure that costs align up with the actors who create those costs. If that is too theoretical for you, imagine two cities. "City Upstream" and "City Downstream" both are on the same river. City Upstream begins flushing their sewage into the river, and so City Downstream is no longer able to drink the water. Solve this issue using only rational actors in the free market. The "Government" solution, is to have the Federal Government create Water Treatment plants, and then force "City Upstream" to use them. Afterwards, you tax both cities to pay for the treatment plants. Your turn. Come up with a free market solution without the use of a central government or centralized 3rd party. Assume both cities are perfectly rational and perfectly selfish, as is common in these economic problems. Good luck coming up with a solution. But if you're like any other libertarian who I've issued this challenge to, you'll probably run away.
    - snitko 13y ago
      Great question. So, in this example, City Downstream is the one interested in clean water and City Upstream couldn't care less. What happens without a government? City Downstream chips in for a bunch of guys to go up there and beat the shit out of the owners of that factory. Let's assume a scenario in which all citizens of City Upstream work for that factory, so they all want to keep their jobs and so they all chip in for a bunch of guys to protect them (or a company hires those guys on their behalf). Now, those guys meet up. Are they going to fight? Highly unlikely, because it is in their personal self interest to resolve this conflict peacefully AND collect the money from the people who hired them. What are they gonna do? They're gonna compare the balance of power. If it's equal then they're gonna settle for the solution that satisfies both equally. If City Downstream, which obviously is concerned with its health more than City Upstream workers are concerned with keeping their job, hires more tough guys, the balance of power would be in its favor and thus you can expect more drastic measures to be agreed upon. Then remember, we talked about an edge case, when all citizens of City Upstream work at a factory. However, that is very unlikely. Thus it may turn out to be that one factory would be up against the whole city. Of course in reality, no one would actually hire tough guys, but rather such conflicts would be resolved through more civilized private protection agencies and courts. The central question is who outbids whom and to what degree. And the answer is that if the majority of people want something enough to pay for it, it will always outbid the minority, however rich this minority is. You don't need no government to solve externality problems. All you need is to stop thinking that some magical entity, simply because you can vote for it, is able to resolve issues that are truly complicated.
      - dragontamer 13y ago
        "Private Protection Agencies and Courts" are a government. The two cities have set up a court system and a standing police force to resolve the issue. Just because you're using Libertarian words to describe a government doesn't change the fact that a "Private Protection Agency" is a glorified police institution. FYI, a little global perspective. What happens in "the real world" is that your country loses its rivers and millions die to sewage born illnesses. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/dead-rivers-and-raw-sewage-choking-on-pollution-in-india-a-493033.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/dead-rivers-and-ra... Go fantasize about private protection agencies and courts that don't exist and preach it to the 3rd world. Neither exist in India and millions die to this very problem I've been describing. Perhaps if you stopped believing in pure theoretical fairy tales (wtf? Private Protection Agencies? They don't even exist.) and looked at real world problems, you'd know. The Ganges river has 2 Million people ritually bathing in it every day due to Hindu tradition. It has over 400 Million living by it as a potential source of drinking water... and it carries some 80% of the Indian untreated sewage. Tell me, how long will it take for a "Private Protection Agency" and "Court System" to stand up automatically in those Indian villages? People don't even understand the concept of pollution. The reality is, "City Downstream" may not even know that "City Upstream" is the cause of their problems. India's government isn't powerful enough to create a solution. The current situation, is as "free market" as it gets. Lets see how long before someone comes up with a solution, or for your fairy tail "private courts" to be set up. Yes, NGRBA was set up in 2009 to fix the problem. The "Free Market" had over 20 years to solve this pollution problem. Guess what? Externalities can't be solved by the free market. At very least, not before the 20+ years it takes to convince a government bureaucracy that there is a problem.

It just seems that the people that are rational are marginalized in any other system. One might go as far to say that's just as unfair.

by boon 13y ago

It just seems that the people that are rational are marginalized in any other system. One might go as far to say that's just as unfair.

dragontamer 13y ago

And selfishness and greed are not sins in a free market. Instead, they serve as the mechanism under which everyone works together. A selfless man who strives for compromise will be abused by selfish actors in a pure free market setting. All philosophies have their pros and cons. Learning to pick which philosophy is an art. Personally speaking, I keep Capitalist AND Communist arguments in my brain. I'm ready to use either philosophy to prove whatever point whenever I want. For example, if you were a Communist, I'd deride the "free market" by talking about Bourgeois and the working classes. (But that wouldn't work on you, because you'd instantly think that I'd be creating a "class war"). All of these philosophies are theoretical anyway. The real purpose of them is to give us the ability to understand what other people are talking about. Furthermore, it has been proven that ALL pure systems are imperfect. Free Markets have their market failures (Monopolies). Communists fail to allocate resources effectively. The solution therefore, is to pick and choose the philosophy that works in the right situation. Be a more educated man, and open to different ways of thought.

boon 13y ago
"Furthermore, it has been proven that ALL pure systems are imperfect." I'm really curious where and when this 100% free market system existed that was proven unworkable. Because from my understanding of history, we've only ever had government. ZERO monopolies have become what they are/were without help from the government.
- dragontamer 13y ago
  Proven by thought experiment. If you don't like thought experiments, then pay me no mind. Perfectly theoretical free markets, with perfectly educated populations with 100% perfectly rational beings will be unable to solve the externality problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality It is known and proven. Do not give me a "Well, we'll figure it out later" bull... tell me how a free market is supposed to resolve an externality (which by its very definition is unresolvable by free markets). Perfectly rational and greedy actors will always offload their costs onto unwilling parties. It is the job of the government to ensure that costs align up with the actors who create those costs. If that is too theoretical for you, imagine two cities. "City Upstream" and "City Downstream" both are on the same river. City Upstream begins flushing their sewage into the river, and so City Downstream is no longer able to drink the water. Solve this issue using only rational actors in the free market. The "Government" solution, is to have the Federal Government create Water Treatment plants, and then force "City Upstream" to use them. Afterwards, you tax both cities to pay for the treatment plants. Your turn. Come up with a free market solution without the use of a central government or centralized 3rd party. Assume both cities are perfectly rational and perfectly selfish, as is common in these economic problems. Good luck coming up with a solution. But if you're like any other libertarian who I've issued this challenge to, you'll probably run away.
  - snitko 13y ago
    Great question. So, in this example, City Downstream is the one interested in clean water and City Upstream couldn't care less. What happens without a government? City Downstream chips in for a bunch of guys to go up there and beat the shit out of the owners of that factory. Let's assume a scenario in which all citizens of City Upstream work for that factory, so they all want to keep their jobs and so they all chip in for a bunch of guys to protect them (or a company hires those guys on their behalf). Now, those guys meet up. Are they going to fight? Highly unlikely, because it is in their personal self interest to resolve this conflict peacefully AND collect the money from the people who hired them. What are they gonna do? They're gonna compare the balance of power. If it's equal then they're gonna settle for the solution that satisfies both equally. If City Downstream, which obviously is concerned with its health more than City Upstream workers are concerned with keeping their job, hires more tough guys, the balance of power would be in its favor and thus you can expect more drastic measures to be agreed upon. Then remember, we talked about an edge case, when all citizens of City Upstream work at a factory. However, that is very unlikely. Thus it may turn out to be that one factory would be up against the whole city. Of course in reality, no one would actually hire tough guys, but rather such conflicts would be resolved through more civilized private protection agencies and courts. The central question is who outbids whom and to what degree. And the answer is that if the majority of people want something enough to pay for it, it will always outbid the minority, however rich this minority is. You don't need no government to solve externality problems. All you need is to stop thinking that some magical entity, simply because you can vote for it, is able to resolve issues that are truly complicated.
    - dragontamer 13y ago
      "Private Protection Agencies and Courts" are a government. The two cities have set up a court system and a standing police force to resolve the issue. Just because you're using Libertarian words to describe a government doesn't change the fact that a "Private Protection Agency" is a glorified police institution. FYI, a little global perspective. What happens in "the real world" is that your country loses its rivers and millions die to sewage born illnesses. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/dead-rivers-and-raw-sewage-choking-on-pollution-in-india-a-493033.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/dead-rivers-and-ra... Go fantasize about private protection agencies and courts that don't exist and preach it to the 3rd world. Neither exist in India and millions die to this very problem I've been describing. Perhaps if you stopped believing in pure theoretical fairy tales (wtf? Private Protection Agencies? They don't even exist.) and looked at real world problems, you'd know. The Ganges river has 2 Million people ritually bathing in it every day due to Hindu tradition. It has over 400 Million living by it as a potential source of drinking water... and it carries some 80% of the Indian untreated sewage. Tell me, how long will it take for a "Private Protection Agency" and "Court System" to stand up automatically in those Indian villages? People don't even understand the concept of pollution. The reality is, "City Downstream" may not even know that "City Upstream" is the cause of their problems. India's government isn't powerful enough to create a solution. The current situation, is as "free market" as it gets. Lets see how long before someone comes up with a solution, or for your fairy tail "private courts" to be set up. Yes, NGRBA was set up in 2009 to fix the problem. The "Free Market" had over 20 years to solve this pollution problem. Guess what? Externalities can't be solved by the free market. At very least, not before the 20+ years it takes to convince a government bureaucracy that there is a problem.