8 votes

Only alternative to a freemarket...

The alternative to a free market is a slave market; either everybody enslaved by everybody, everybody enslaved by a small group or everyone enslaved to a single person and all in between are variations of slavery. To argue against a free market is to ultimatly argue for some form of slavery.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Not really

We are all autonomous. We all make decisions that serve our best interest. We do this regardless of the circumstances surrounding us.

Sometimes there is threat of violence, sometimes there isn't. Nothing else matters.

Séamusín

Commerce will happen no matter what

Commerce will happen no matter what, I liked an article on the freemans perspective blog by joel rosenberg called just that, there will always be markets or trades even if they are not condoned by the state. You cannot stop them.

I hope that is what you meant by your comment.

I do agree that a free market exists anywhere a voluntary

Transaction occurs. By virtue of the fact that the trade is voluntary ie (there was no force (or coersion if you prefer)) it is traded in a free market. Since a market is simply an abstraction of the reality of a transaction, and to be free is to use one's own mind to make decisions without being forced.

True there has never been a macroscopic free market but there has always existed a free market anytime individuals agree to tradeing value for value.

Partial disagreement

The principled alternative to a free market is a just system since theoretically, one is free to injure another individual; ethical consequence is another matter however concerning civil standards

Voluntary is just

By definition a voluntary mutually beneficial trade is just, and that is what a totally free market consists of. The just system is a pipe dream, expecting state minions to be just or moral or virtuous is utopian dreaming.

>

1) "a voluntary mutually beneficial trade is just"

Partial disagreement: 2 individuals can agree to rob a 3rd and that is immoral

2) "..and that is what a totally free market consists of"

Partial disagreement and as mentioned prior, theoretically one is free to injure another individual, which again is unethical and should conscionably be addressed

3) "The just system is a pipe dream, expecting state minions to be just or moral or virtuous"

Partial disagreement in that I have made no case where individuals should be civilly represented by someone other than themselves and their own conscience.

In contrast, I propose dignifying the prerogative of individual choice concerning public domain (ex. endowing roads or museums) and the right to withdraw from abuse (inc. all taxation)

~ "Dignitarian" philosophy
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Michael-Galganski/595972723749410
http://www.facebook.com/FreeDominionPoliticalParty

clarification and extension reply

1)
2 individuals can agree to rob a 3rd and that is immoral
This is not by definition mutually beneficial trade
the two conspiricists are agressing against the third
2)
again free to injure another individual is NOT mutually beneficial and presumbably not voluntary by the victim
3) well pardon me, when I hear 'system' I presume you mean the state some outside agency which has a monopoly on violence.

4) since theoretically, one is free to injure another individual; ethical consequence is another matter however

Society which is not the government or the state has natural laws which one of them is that you are NOT free to injure or kill someone else, and before the state or any authoritarian state these crimes were handled by society not a state. (were gild, ostracism, outlawing)

This is a utilitarian argument, there is as you imply the ethical/moral NAP and private property argument.

>

1) "This is not by definition mutually beneficial trade.. the two conspiricists are agressing against the third"

False: the conspirators mutually/voluntarily agreed to each other for the benefits of their spoils; hence your absolutist position that ‘By definition a voluntary mutually beneficial trade is just’ is similarly incorrect

2) "when I hear 'system' I presume you mean the state"

To be specific, I define 'state' as one scope of authorship within the apparatus of public domain
ex. international / federal / state / county / township / estate / domicile / self
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.182761335197262.477...

3) "some outside agency which has a monopoly on violence"

False: individuals have volition to choose unethical violence outside of government also

4) "Society which is not the government or the state has natural laws which one of them is that you are NOT free to injure or kill someone else"

Incorrect: individuals are free to choose unethical conduct; the consequence of those actions however is another matter, which I believe is principally addressed by government

5) "before the state or any authoritarian state these crimes were handled by society not a state. (were gild, ostracism, outlawing)"

Partially incorrect: 'law' is a formal codification of ethical principle, which again is the proper function of government. Otherwise when individuals informally exercise conscionable judgment and virtual prerogative in a social setting, the function is the same

6) "the ethical/moral NAP"

Sorry, assuming 'non-aggression principle'?

Im not expecting a moral government.

Im simply pointing out the purpose of a government. A government's purpose morally speaking is to be the objective third party which prevents or punishes encroachments on rights. To the extent a "government" goes against its moral purpose it is on a path towards destruction of its own society and others potentially.

Where is your utopia where there is no entity with a monopoly on the use of force? How is it better for there to be competition on the use of force and no standards for how force can be used legally?

Prove that there is any chance of a morally just government

I reject your argument that there would be no standards and they would be provided by the participants or customers choice of an 'judge'. There would be laws but only malum in se, acts which in themselves violate the life liberty or property of a real person, and are not just prohibitions by some common delusion called government or the state which are really a means to take away the liberty of the subjects claimed by the the delusion.

The utopian delusion called the state needs to be proved to be a better solution than anything else, because so far the state is the largest violator of life liberty and property.

To govern is...

"to control, direct, or strongly influence the actions and conduct of b : to exert a determining or guiding influence in or over" http://i.word.com/idictionary/governing

Now tell me about a society or even an individual which existed without a governing faculty. The entity with the monopoly on the ability to govern is a region's government. Even a man alone must act as his own government if he wishes to exist.

Even a man alone must act as his own government

Even a man alone must act as his own government

that is the answer, and if he wishes to live within or interact with a society he must obey the consensus derived common law of that society

When one violate a malum in se law...

What entity in a stateless society justifies such a situation?

If By justify you mean resolve the conflict

If by justify you mean resolve the conflict, the individual defends himself or delegates someone else to defend himself.
I am sure you can think of several of the steps that you would go through to resolve the conflict.

And can you not see the great potential for continuous conflict?

With everyone deciding for themselves what is a good retaliation for an encroachment what would stop the cycle of mercenaries killing as a response to theft, then another mercenary group killing the one who hired the others to murder the theif and so on? The benefit of an agreed upon and moral government is that the government is given the monopoly on legal use of force in defense of liberty. This means the government is the agreed upon final arbiter of disputes.

You forget that no man is an island

You forget that no man is an island, he lives within a society and that society by consensus of its members will determine what is a reasonable and proportional response to a conflict.

that is the government that is needed.

As far as taking drastic action , as an example see the Declaration of Independence , the list of the reasons for separation as a public pronoucement of the proposed actions to society to rectify the conflict.

You are a smart person you can figure out other responses short of all out war and hiring mercenaries (expensive).

So far you have not proved how having a state is better than any other alternative. By all the evidence that we have no one would agree that a state is a real protector of life liberty and property, the state is the most dangerous delusion to hold, see Larken Rose for more on the religion of statism.

I havent forgotten that i simply am willing to call

The deciding factor of society government. You seem to want the functions of a moral government so long as nobody calls the governing force government. You are likely in favor of prisons, police, military and court systems yet you want those without having to identify them as they are: government.

We have a problem of definitions

Government is not the state. I hate the state, because it is an excuse for 'legal' plunder, as Bastiat said there are two means of providing for yourself you can produce goods or services or you can steal them, you can be a common theif or you can use the political means, the state to take from the producers and give the ill gotten gains to others or yourself.

Do not conflate society and government and the state they are distinct.

Thomas Paine 1776 Common Sense
quote>
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.

Key word in here is necessary.

I clearly understand the difference between society and government as you have pointed out from the quote, yet can you elaborate on the difference between a state and a government for me?

The quote emphasizes the moral justification of a government. It explains at the end also that it is a necessary "evil." some obvious questions are: necessary for what and to whom?
Government is necessary as a negative against vices such as theft, murder and fraud. To whom is it necessary? Society. Society is the result of individuals joining together to make existence easier. Individuals cannot always come to agreement and this is why government is necessary for society.

I agree that there is no moral government of a state and has never been, but I won't argue that society (or a mind) is sustainable without some governing factors, which for lack of a better term one could call government.

State-"a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory ; especially : one that is sovereign b : the political organization of such a body of people c : a government or politically organized society having a particular character " http://i.word.com/idictionary/state

So a state is a society which has an established government.

contiuation

Society will provide its own voluntary governance as it has in the past through common law and market based agents that individuals can hire or fire will implement the resolution of conflicts.

Prisons, no I do not want them, I would want restitution not punishment.
Police, I pay for a service and I can fire the service. Private security guards.
Military, How about a voluntary militia in the original sense. Military as in a standing army is just a reason to use it in imperial ambition or conquest. So no Military as we have it now.
Courts I want to hire an arbiter or judge and be able to fire them.

All of these are not the same things in existence today but completely voluntary and market based.

Response to continuation:

Do you deny the existence of evil orientated people, or believe that you can convince them to repay the damAges or that people should make their own judgements as to the punishment that an offender is due?
I havent Argued for standing armies, i will argue that a government serves the purpose of protecting a society's soveriegnty.

The moral justification of a government is to protect rights.

THe right of an individual to act freely goes up until the point of innitiating force against another individual. A free market is helped greatly by a morally just government, as fraud, theft and blatant force would be punished by an objective third party.

And where is the 'morally just' government

There is no regulation that is not anti freedom. There are no states whose minions are virtuous. Talk about a utopian dream

>

1) "And where is the 'morally just' government"

If the function of government is to distill conscience, there are equivalent examples of both good (ex. US States Constitution 4th Amendment: no Warrants shall be issued without probable cause) and bad (mandated insurance) policy

2) "There is no regulation that is not anti freedom"

Partial disagreement in that there are numerous laws which specify conditional mediation (ex. you are free to hate but once committing the violation of individual agency [ex. robbery], one should be entitled to a just trial in a civil society)

3) "There are no states whose minions are virtuous"

Partial disagreement in that IMO all individuals have dark/light within and possess the facultu of choice. Subsequently a higher order of governance can be recognized when authenticating virtual principle as a means of ethical conscience

>

1) "THe right of an individual to act freely goes up until the point of innitiating force"

Partial disagreement since I make the clarification between
force as neutrally compacted energy
(ex. pinning someone on the ground when deflecting assault)
and
coercion as malevolently compacted energy
(ex. throwing a punch with the intent to injure the innocent)

2) "A free market is helped greatly by a morally just government"

Agreed

Innitiating force, is utilizing force prior to being provoked.

So i fail to see the distinction clearly. It is the act of forcing someone to act against their own judgement which is forbidden fundamentally in a moral society.

>

"the act of forcing someone to act against their own judgement"

What if their judgment is incorrect and they intend to violate your agency? You then have the right to self-defense and hence, we are back IMO to the meaningful distinction between force (ie. physically opening a door) and coercion (ie. unjust imposition)

If they intend to violate you they are innitiating force and you

Are responding with force you did not innitiate the conflict, you simply preserved that which is most valuable to yourself which is your self, and that is perfectly moral

Give me an example of innitiation of force against someone...

That is morally just and I will conceed the point.

>

Let's say for example a stranger trespasses on your property and you request that they leave. They subsequently refuse your request, and you have not laid a finger on their personhood. Concerned about your physical safety, you then decide to call the police who exercise force to remove the individual from your property