Comment: Peter scarces me! :D

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Voluntarism is an impossible (see in situ)

Peter scarces me! :D

"Voluntarism is an impossible notion so long as there is scarcity"

How does scarcity make volunteerism an impossibility?
And by the way, "scarcity" is relative and subjective. It also begs context. Scarcity of gummi bears might have a slightly different impact than scarcity of water or air. Joseph seems obsessed with scarcity. He is unbelievable and therefore untrustworthy to follow into his future concept of general abundance when he generally implies all current resources to be scarce. That's absurd. Even while finding scarcity beneath every stone, he deems the stones scarce and remains oblivious to his ultimate implication that even scarcity is scarce. Yes I absurdly digress, but he expresses no working grasp of the terms [scarcity and abundance]. He injects the terms lazily and whimsically or worse rhetorically, one to induce fear, the other to seduce. He also ludicrously claims that free markets cause scarcity. Not even a hardcore [well educated] communist would back him up on that one. He'd do better to stick with concepts of allocation and avoid reference to "scarcity" altogether.

"Realize that fully ubiquitous voluntary free trade is nearly impossible given human psychological propensity to envy, greed or even survive"

Say what you like regarding "human psychological propensity to envy, greed or even survive", but these propensities issue equal potential as motivators toward both voluntary and involuntary transaction, both trade and theft, both love and rape.

an example... Think of a plantation owner and his slaves, it's technically free market"

I don't get it. I'm missing something. What does a plantation owner and his slaves have to do with a free market? What's your point there? It seems an example of nothing, nothing contextual anyway, but perhaps slavery, which is a very odd thing to confuse with a free market.

"This is no different [than] government because banks can now buy whole countries which allows those banks to set the rules to benefit them."

You DO have context! It IS an example of something! This is a great analogy you've made. It also happens to match Stefan Molyneux's continuous assertion toward Peter Joseph.

"The fundamental base problem is money and all schools of thought that comes with money based market forces."

I've heard nothing from Molyneux to think that he would disagree with you there. You did however begin your comment with "Peter is right that the base problem stems from scarcity". I sort of follow you there, but to make sense of your terms one must infer that you [at least initially] don't see scarcity as a problem.

"So Stephens ideological purist market with voluntary trade is a pipe dream currently. That said, so is Peter's idea that centralized planners will have the people's best interests at heart is also flawed.."

You have that exactly backward. It is Peter's idea that is the pipe dream. It is Stefan's market that is flawed. Stefan's market has existed as long as humans have existed. It has been flawed as long as there have been grandiose visionaries like Peter.

"Basically peter Josephs idea of the "central planner" is like Wikipedia. Masses of people all contributing to the programming of the system to benefit humanity best."

That's a brilliant analogy... in describing a free market! :D