7 ms·

> the economy should strive to give people credit for what they choose to do The economy is an inanimate abstract. It does not strive for anything. It is not i

by ancap 12y ago

> the economy should strive to give people credit for what they choose to do The economy is an inanimate abstract. It does not strive for anything. It is not interested in anyone's perception of what is fair any more than my phone is interested in vulgar language. The economy consists of billions of individuals getting together and saying "I have x to offer, I want y". To try to force some idea of justice, morality, fairness, equality, etc. into this equation is to say individuals do not have the right of free association; that they, the simpletons they surely are, are not smart enough to choose for themselves and judgement must be deferred to some all-knowing third-party. Please, just don't.

rayiner 12y ago
> The economy consists of billions of individuals getting together and saying "I have x to offer, I want y". No. It consists of that against the background understanding that parties cannot say " well I don't want to pay y, so I will kill you and take x." And in every extant example of a sophisticated economy, that understanding is enforced by a government that has guns. One can imagine scenarios in which that "all-knowing third party" does not exist, but I imagine if it were such a good idea it'd exist somewhere. Once the people come together to create that third party that has the guns that creates the background understandings that allow economies to exist, then they are entitled to say: "well what else do we want?"
- ancap 12y ago
  > the people come together to create that third party that has the guns Can you cite me one example of this happening?
- mattchew 12y ago
  That understanding doesn't come from the people with guns. Else the US would not need to spend $billions on guns to fight the drug trade. I don't say the folks with guns can't do constructive things to improve trade. They can. But they don't create that understanding you're talking about.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    It absolutely does. Just look anywhere in the world where there isn't a government (or "dominant gang" if you want to call it that). Trade totally breaks down. In a world where there is no entity with guns to punish use of violence, its the game theoretic advantageous behavior. Not everyone will engage in it, and most won't, but enough will to cause the framework of trade to break down.
    - ancap 12y ago
      Underground black markets such as the Silk Road prove otherwise.
      - rayiner 12y ago
        You mean that network where the operator tried to call in an hit on people? Look at how many Bitcoin networks have been hacked (the digital equivalent of using violence). And in real world black markets, (think mafia), violence is rife (even in areas where the underlying transactions aren't illegal).
        ancap 12y ago
        That's beside the point. You stated without government the "framework of trade [will] break down". On the contrary, even after scandals and shutdown markets, new markets pop up and, incredibly, people continue to use them. As for Bitcoin networks being hacked that is a red herring as we often hear of non-black market sites being hacked--even with the all mighty government protection.
        rayiner 12y ago
        Even with the black market, government provides a backdrop of expectations. Murderers are still prosecuted even if the murder happened in a black market trade. I'm talking about a situation where there is no disincentive to use force, e.g. a place like Somalia or rural Pakistan.
    - 12y ago
briandear 12y ago
If I could upvote twice, I would. The idea that the economy is a "being" is communist rot. The idea that we can (or should) control the economy is nonsense. Attempting to control the economy is like trying to control the weather. Certainly we can work harder to mitigate the effects of the weather, but a bunch of smart people thinking hard enough can't stop a hurricane, no matter how socially desirable that might be.

by ancap 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago

> The economy consists of billions of individuals getting together and saying "I have x to offer, I want y". No. It consists of that against the background understanding that parties cannot say " well I don't want to pay y, so I will kill you and take x." And in every extant example of a sophisticated economy, that understanding is enforced by a government that has guns. One can imagine scenarios in which that "all-knowing third party" does not exist, but I imagine if it were such a good idea it'd exist somewhere. Once the people come together to create that third party that has the guns that creates the background understandings that allow economies to exist, then they are entitled to say: "well what else do we want?"

ancap 12y ago
> the people come together to create that third party that has the guns Can you cite me one example of this happening?
mattchew 12y ago
That understanding doesn't come from the people with guns. Else the US would not need to spend $billions on guns to fight the drug trade. I don't say the folks with guns can't do constructive things to improve trade. They can. But they don't create that understanding you're talking about.
- rayiner 12y ago
  It absolutely does. Just look anywhere in the world where there isn't a government (or "dominant gang" if you want to call it that). Trade totally breaks down. In a world where there is no entity with guns to punish use of violence, its the game theoretic advantageous behavior. Not everyone will engage in it, and most won't, but enough will to cause the framework of trade to break down.
  - ancap 12y ago
    Underground black markets such as the Silk Road prove otherwise.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      You mean that network where the operator tried to call in an hit on people? Look at how many Bitcoin networks have been hacked (the digital equivalent of using violence). And in real world black markets, (think mafia), violence is rife (even in areas where the underlying transactions aren't illegal).
      - ancap 12y ago
        That's beside the point. You stated without government the "framework of trade [will] break down". On the contrary, even after scandals and shutdown markets, new markets pop up and, incredibly, people continue to use them. As for Bitcoin networks being hacked that is a red herring as we often hear of non-black market sites being hacked--even with the all mighty government protection.
        rayiner 12y ago
        Even with the black market, government provides a backdrop of expectations. Murderers are still prosecuted even if the murder happened in a black market trade. I'm talking about a situation where there is no disincentive to use force, e.g. a place like Somalia or rural Pakistan.
  - 12y ago

briandear 12y ago

If I could upvote twice, I would. The idea that the economy is a "being" is communist rot. The idea that we can (or should) control the economy is nonsense. Attempting to control the economy is like trying to control the weather. Certainly we can work harder to mitigate the effects of the weather, but a bunch of smart people thinking hard enough can't stop a hurricane, no matter how socially desirable that might be.