Generally speaking, I think most of the libertarian folk around here would classify me as a statist, but I don't see any of those tariffs and trade restrictions as a positive or a desirable thing. I'm not one of those utopian thinkers who believe the market could solve any problem you throw at it, but trade is right up its wheelhouse. If you are running a business that can't deal with competition, you're in the wrong businesses and it's not the job of the consumer to pay for you to stay in business, it's as simple as that. So I absolutely understand why you would be infuriated by this sentiment especially keeping in mind that it seems that the honey coming from China is not itself rotten anyway.
I am :) Although I wouldn't classify it as utopian.
Do you have any 'problems' or 'issues' on the top of your head that would maybe change my mind on the matter? What problem(s) can't the free market fix that government can?
Since "the market" is just a term for voluntary trade, to say that some things shouldn't be left up to "the market" is literally to say that some things should be solved by violent aggression (since the only thing that is NOT "the market" is coercion).
You neglect private corruption, which greatly impacts markets. This is the justification for regulation, after all.
What we need to prevent corruption isn't government, but tort. By enabling just courts to impose penalties on entities that harm folks with contaminated, unlawfully produced (slave labor, etc...), or via collusion that creates price-fixing via tort actions, the collusion that so marks government regulatory bodies would be replaced with a vigorous market for watchdogs profiting from finding criminals abusing markets.
Crime exists without government too. Government is just the best way to commit crimes.
What do you mean no government but having courts. Courts are a type of government. For them to work you need legislation, you need a procedure to put magistrates in office and you need to fund them. That's not no government. That is government by every definition I'm aware of.
And why do you imagine this could happen. Who would have the market incentive to buy that service to make it more profitable than the abuse it's supposed to fight? Could fighting abuse be more profitable than profiting from abuse in any free market scenario? Thinking that this could work seem like nothing more than wishful thinking. Of course, I would love to be proven wrong with an explanation of how this could ever work in practice. If there is a practical way to do it, so the free market could fight abuse by just being free, I'm sure the steem blockchain could easily be the first place to put that mechanism to practice. If you can point me to such mechanism, I would gladly start promoting it with all my energy.
To me those are kind of empty platitudes... Any data to back those assertions up?
I wouldn't really call this a fair point. We can't live in a society around other people and always do only and exactly as you would please. There are always times when you will be forced to do something you don't want or not do something you want because it would infringe on other people's rights. I do think that a free market also coerces you into doing many things like somehow making a living. Having to share a society with others in a practical way is not "violent aggression" in my book and doing so requires some organization.
And there are many situations when you should be forced to do things even in a free market. If you and I sign a contract and you keep your part of the bargain, but I decided to bail on mine, shouldn't I be somehow coerced into delivering my part of the deal or providing some form of reparation from the damages you've suffered. "Voluntary trade" itself does not have the means to deal with this problem and despite the fact that I've discussed this with numerous people, I have never heard a convincing argument how it could or would do so. I'm always open to hear new ones of course.
I think the distinction between coerciveness (government) and contractual obligation(s) (voluntary association) is pretty muddy in your view.
The distinct difference comes down to voluntarily agreed upon, or not.
In the case of government, nothing is voluntarily agreed upon. You either obey, or get locked in a cage.
On the other hand, you and I, in a free market, have the ability to do business together if we so choose. If you or I end up not holding up our end of the bargain (the contract we both agreed to), the 'force' used to make the other whole is not immoral or un-just, but a last resort to rectify potential fraud.
You would have a much better chance at success living in the woods and not making a living in a free market society than one with a ruling class. Just go try and live in the woods and build a home, hunt, collect water, etc, without any permits or paying any taxes. I'll send you my # on discord so you can use me as your one call from jail ;)
And if we have just the market, who would exert that force regardless of its morality. How would the market stop me from not holding up my end of the deal? Let's talk about practicality and realistic feasibility. If you say what you are proposing is not an utopia, than you probably believe it's feasible. Why? How? Those are the questions I don't see answers to and because of those questions I remain unconvinced.
If someone convinced you that communism with unlimited resources for everybody and unlimited freedom with everybody where everybody does exactly as they please voluntarily and where everybody is happy would be moral, would that make it feasible? No, it's still an utopia. You could say it would be moral by definition, but the fact that one has defined it as moral does not make it possible.
If you want to defend the point that the free market can provide everything, explain the mechanisms that would enable it to do so, not why it would be morally superior. I'm not saying it wouldn't be preferable if it were possible. I'm saying it can't work. Remember, you asked me what problems the market can't fix. That's a practical thing, not a thing about morality.
Would you really? In a 100% free society what would stop me from coming to the woods and killing you and taking everything you've built to myself? The market? How?
Before we go down the road of how will this and that work absent govt, let's both conclude that we own ourselves. Can we do that? Let's assume we can...
Imagine all the ways we handle these types of scenarios now, but instead of them being run by gov't funded through taxation, you get to decide what company you do business with should something like this ever happen to you.
For example, I want to sell a parcel of land, and you want to buy it. We agree on a price and agree on Tom's Mediation Services to settle any disputes should we have any. Tom's Mediation Services employs John's Security Outfit, which goes after people who reneg on contracts.
Should either of us default, these two companies would be in charge of settling the matter.
2 things would stop you from doing these things.
#1, similar to why (I assume) you're not one of those Steemians replying incessantly with follow4follow, or upvote me pls, or any spam comment in general, is because you have your reputation to uphold. You wouldn't be at a 56 if you did those things. Your rep here tells me that you have provided other Steemians with valuable content. Same goes in the real world, being a dick and an asshole doesn't get you very far...such as coming into my home and trying to kill me and take all my things. How many people would be willing to do business with you in the future?
#2 If I am going to give any credit to the "founding fathers", it's that they knew the people should be armed. With our current govt, or absent one, you must have some big cajones to assume that when you come onto MY property intending to kill me, that I won't pump your ass full of lead. Merry Christmas ya filthy animal.
Now, assuming you don't care about your rep and you have nothing to live for, with gov or not, that really doesn't make a difference then, does it?
Do some research on Dispute Resolution Organizations. Lots of good theories about how they would more effectively and efficiently protect us from everything from things like breach of contract and theft to assault and murder. The incentives for these relationships to work well would be strong in a free market scenario. These incentives are all but nonexistent in the current system. Best of all is that if the one you go with fails to live up to your expectations you could fire them and get a different DRO to represent your interests.
I have read about those ideas, but so far I have not been convinced that the incentives are actually there. If you can tell me something more specific, I might be swayed, but just like that all I can do is reject your assertion and share the fact that I'm currently convinced you are incorrect.
Well, that came out a little snarkier than it sounded in my head when I wrote it. I was hoping it will quickly and efficiently describe my position in a whimsical way. Now that I'm rereading it, it sounds a bit douchy. My apologies about that.
Now to the issue. It's not surprising that you wouldn't see it as utopian if you see it as the correct model to be striving towards. I personally think the free market has a lot of power and that's what an economy should be built on. But in my opinion there are many things that a free market does not have the means to handle efficiently, effectively or sometimes at all and that's why some level of social organization is the only practical or realistic way to handle them that I can think of. Not saying governments are perfect or inherently good or anything like that, but that they serve some crucial functions even while being flawed.
Let me give a few examples of issues the market can't handle in my opinion:
How would the free market provide those better than a mediocre corrupt government? I live in a country that isn't or wasn't doing well on many of those issues and I'd still prefer that imperfect government over no government at all because I'm convinced things would devolve even more without it.
Part of my thinking also includes this - if the free market (that we arguably have at least to an extent in many places around the world) could provide everything, why hasn't it done so already?
Again, if you oppose "the market" handling those things, then you necessarily advocate violent coercion and extortion of the state handling them. (And since "government" is always the biggest VIOLATOR of individual rights, #3 is kind of amazing.) Break it down to basics: which do you think would result in you getting better "service": an organization that YOU get to choose whether to hire or not, or an organization that FORCES you to buy its services. The former is "the market." The latter is "government." To expect the latter to do a better job is kind of ridiculous, even without all of the historical examples of how it doesn't. (By the way, regarding your first comment, using force against people who have committed fraud or aggression is DEFENSIVE force, which is inherently moral, and doesn't require "government" or any special "authority.")
Again, I obviously disagree with this assertion.
Let's imagine a free market for the services I've mentioned. If the service is contract enforcement, I will choose the service that would allow me to violate the contract that says I have to pay you for services and goods you've delivered to me. If the service is law enforcement, I will chose the service that would allow me to take your stuff without punishment. If it's safety, I would choose the service that would keep me safe even after I've killed you so you don't talk about the injustices you've suffered at my hands. I suspect those services would be pretty popular to the people who could afford them. If there is just the free market, what do you think could protect you from my abuse in that situation if you can't afford the services I'm using? Would you not be coerced into things you are unhappy with in that situation? Would you not be subjected to violence?
Where are the historical examples of markets doing all of that on their own?
First of all, morality is subjective, so the distinction you are offering has no practical merit I can see. And you did not answer the question I posed for you there. How would the market protect you in that situation. Who is going to exert that "defensive force" and how will you make sure that doesn't get abused and so on and so on. Tell me how you untangle that mess without letting in some authority or allowing for people to just use violence on each other until market equilibrium or something. This is why I call the idea that the market on its own can provide everything utopian - I don't think it has any real chance of working in practice. It's just like communism. It sounds appealing to some if it could work perfectly, but it never could. If you think it can work, please tell me how, not why you think it would be just if it could. Of course it would be preferable if it could work. If I thought it could work, I would support it too.
To your first comment, what would happen if you refused to pay for the government service? How is that result not coercive?
It is coercive, sure, and so is receiving punishment for a crime. If any form of coercion is unacceptable, so is punishing people for crimes.
Force when used in self-defense is not an immoral act. If by crime you mean that someone has been victimized by the criminal (aka the criminal initiated force) and by punishment you mean bringing some sort of justice to bear against the perpetrator, then it is acceptable to act with force against that person. It is the defense of another, a form of self defense, not the initiation of force against the criminal.
Now in the US and all other places in the world there are many laws against acts that have no identifiable victims. Punishing people for these "crimes" is indeed coercive and immoral. It is the initiation of force against someone. So is forcing someone to pay for such nonsense.
You are telling me what you think is moral. To put it simply you are saying it's OK to punish people for crimes with victims. My objections have nothing to do with that. They are on the basis that your proposed system has no way to ensure those outcomes.
The fact that something sounds moral to you (especially keeping in mind that morality is subjective) does not mean that it will work out in practice. If the world was perfect and all people were nice, good and non-abusive, both anarchism and communism would be great to live in. But the world is not like that and perfect outcomes are impossible. That's why I call them utopias.
I guess instead of typing it all over again, I should just post this link here:
https://steemit.com/government/@larkenrose/can-we-trust-the-market
I read your post and while it's vaguely on-point, it in no way demonstrates or explains that what you are advocating is not utopian. You try to explain why you think it's moral. The question I asked you is why you think it's feasible in the way you describe it. And as you said, we did make it personal, I gave you some very specific examples and I haven't gotten a convincing answer yet.
Let me answer the questions paragraph of your post here:
Contracts, not infringing on other people's rights, rule of law, punishment for crimes and the taxes necessary to make that happen. Of course the word force is overly-emotional in this case.
In the cases when you want to spend it to illegally harm others. Like a business venture that would pollute everybody's water, you hiring an assassin to kill me, or knowingly buying a stolen item to name a few.
The above. Or fraudulent ones where you want to defraud other people.
In none.
You keep bringing up examples of things that harm people, and talk about using force to stop that. "Government" is NEVER limited to such defensive force. It ALWAYS uses immoral aggression, in the name of "taxation" and "legislation" and "regulation." When someone commits force or fraud, ANYONE has the right to do what it takes to stop that. It doesn't take politician scribbles ("laws") or special "authority" to make it justified. If you really meant your final answer to that final question, you are ALREADY a voluntaryist, and don't know it.
What is the difference between the government claiming to use defensive force and actually using excessive force and individuals or private organizations doing that under free market anarchy?
I keep bringing examples and you keep deciding on not addressing them.
And what happens? Everybody would agree on what was right and wrong? Rightful violence between people until market equilibrium? I keep asking how do you solve that practically and you keep telling me that ANYONE has the right to solve that problem. I find zero practicality in your answer. That's why I remain convinced that your position is utopian. I don't find it immoral, I find it *unfeasible.
The difference--the ONLY difference--THE difference--that makes ALL the difference ... is that "government" is imagined to have rights that you and I do NOT. It is imagined to have the moral right to INITIATE VIOLENCE in situations where normal people have no such right. In short, the belief in "government" and political "authority" is the belief that some people should be ALLOWED to do what would be universally recognized as IMMORAL if anyone else did it.
Now try to explain to me how any of the scenarios you brought up would be improved by giving some people societal permission to use immoral violence.
I apologize for the hugely belated reply, but I decided to finally come back to this discussion.
As I said before, the idea that humans could coexists with no organization, no violence at all and no coercion is utopian. It can be morally superior on every single level, but if it is impossibe to implement, it remains an non-viable idea. That's what makes it an utopia in my book. It simply cannot work like that as just a few bad actors can get it out of whack.
Having government is not perfect, but I do think it's moral to have them as they provide a better state of being with lower amounts of violence and harm than anarchy would. My assertion here is that if there is no legal system, there would be more violence. The Wild West had less government and it was more violent.
The thing with government is that it shouldn't be just any government, it should be a democracy with proper laws.
"What is the difference between the government claiming to use defensive force and actually using excessive force and individuals or private organizations doing that under free market anarchy?"
The difference is that the concepts of government and authority try to justify these acts of aggression by calling them "law".
Is there not one solution you can think of, of how this could work without government?
Yes, I don't see a better solution than government that can be expected to be stable. What I usually hear as suggestions are unstable systems that could only work if everybody participating agreed not to abuse them. But this is standard for utopias. Communism would work perfectly if everybody agreed with it and was willing to participate.
rocking-dave, problems will always exist in any society. It doesn't mean we should force others to solve them for us. If you believe in the concept of government and authority, you believe politicians have the right to coerce others using threats of force if they don't comply with the politicians' laws.
None of this is what I'm saying.
When did I say a society without problems is possible? What I'm saying is that even mediocre democratic government provides more solutions to problems than anarchy.
I love it when somebody else tells me what I believe ;) But nope.
I understand why people find voluntarism morally desirable. What I don't understand is why they think it's feasible or why would you expect to have more real freedom under that than under contemporary democracy. I mentioned at least crucial benefits that having some form of organization allows. I keep asking how those would emerge from a free market, but my questions keep falling on deaf ears.
Instead I get explanations how one of its basic principles is supposedly moral. That by no means demonstrates that the idea is not utopian. To show that something is not utopian you need to somehow demonstrate or at least hint at a mechanism that could make it happen well in practice. That's the piece of the puzzle that has me unconvinced.
This is patently false: "even mediocre democratic government provides more solutions to problems than anarchy." Democratic governments--in fact, democratically-elected constitutional republics--commit more oppression, robbery and murder than any other institution in the history of the world. Right NOW you are robbed far more by the state than by anyone else. You have been taught to believe that "government" keeps people civilized, but that is absolutely 100% bullshit. The ONLY thing the belief in "authority" adds to society is more IMMORAL violence, and the legitimization of that violence.
I hope you didn't really mean that literally. I'm sure feudal societies offered so much more freedom to peasants than today's world. Or societies where most people were slaves. Or the human-sacrificing crazy religious ones. Or North Korea. How can you even say that?
The assertion that taxation is violence is almost as large of an exaggeration as what you wrote above.