Capitalism vs. Socialism

[WinePusher]

This thread is inspired by something Haven wrote in another thread:

I used to be a pretty staunch Marxist socialist, but I've been sort of drifting away from that viewpoint. My views on economics and politics are still evolving. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 3&start=20

I myself have recently become somewhat more sympathetic towards Marxist ideas. Marx predicted and wanted the end of Capitalism, and he wanted a Socialist society.

1) What is wrong with Capitalism?
2) What is wrong with Socialism?
3) Which system is better? Why?

[WinePusher]

Let's take a few steps further down the rabbit hole. The current digitizing of the "money supply" has made it even clearer what a sham it is. What the (private) Federal Reserve bank has attempted to do is to control the relative value of goods and services by manipulating the unit of measure. The actual supply of federal reserve notes has not changed to any significant degree in decades. The truth is that there is no such thing as a stable currency.

The federal reserve has not changed the amount of currency notes to any significant degree? Of course it has, the federal reserve injected tons of cash into the system in the early 2000's and is doing it right now to an infinite extent with it's unlimited QE policy. However, I think we both agree that this is the wrong course of action.

There can be a relatively stable economy, where the perceived value of commonly exchanged goods and services in relation to other goods and services remains basically the same or changes at a gradual and predictable rate. However, the only way a currency can effect that is if the general population accepts the illusion that the currency has an established value. In times past, that illusion was fostered by establishing that value in relation to a given commodity. However, individual commodities can go through times of greater and lesser demand.

Are you saying there is no direct relationship between the currency and prices? It's very rare to have stable prices, the general trend throughout history has been price inflation primarily as a result of economy growth. Economic growth is always coupled with higher aggregate demand, and business tend to react to the high demand by increasing prices. The reason why money is directly related to inflation is because the more money available the more people will spend. If you increase the quantity of money circulating throughout the economy the purchasing power of the money is reduced (aka: inflation).

The true controlling factor is the establishment of that value over a wide range of goods and services by force of law, ie MSRP, wage and price controls and transfer payments. Governments also use the fear of monopolistic "gouging" to limit the actions of certain areas of the economy. However, as the government enacts more laws and takes more actions to "stabilize" the economy, it moves close to being the monopoly and those invested in that government become the ones doing the "gouging".

I agree. It's very unlikely for a monopoly to spontaenously rise out of a free market and maintain itself over long periods of time without government protections. The problem isn't with monopolies, it's with oligopolies (or what Marxists call monopoly capital). You have a small number of gigantic firms that enjoy economies of scale and are therefore able to set prices above the market price, as opposed to taking the price already set by the market. The point is that 'gouging' can spontaenously rise out of a free market without the government.

Look at Walmart as an example. Whenever Walmart enters a small town all the small shops end up shutting down? Why? Because Walmart is able to sell their products at a cheaper price than the small town shops. Due to its enourmous size Walmart can easily set its prices below that of its marginal costs without suffering losses. If a small firm sets its prices below its marginal costs of production it would suffer losses because it doesn't enjoy economies of scale, while Walmart does enjoy economies of scale.

Ultimately, the economy can not be "controlled", it can only be manipulated for a short period, for the benefit of the manipulators. Any law enacted and enforced by a government or action taken by a governmental or private entity is eventually absorbed by the markets and the only effect is to create short term countervailing demand.

I absolutely agree but that wasn't my point. I wasn't talking about the economy, I was specifically talking about the money supply. You cannot have an unregulated supply of money, it has to be maintained somehow. My proposal would be to keep the federal reserve but strip it of it's ability to change the money supply through open market operations and impose on it a single mandate of price stability (low inflation) as opposed to its current dual mandate (low inflation and low unemployment).

Anyways, that's just my ranting, I doubt I actually addressed any of your concerns .

[bluethread]

Let's take a few steps further down the rabbit hole. The current digitizing of the "money supply" has made it even clearer what a sham it is. What the (private) Federal Reserve bank has attempted to do is to control the relative value of goods and services by manipulating the unit of measure. The actual supply of federal reserve notes has not changed to any significant degree in decades. The truth is that there is no such thing as a stable currency.

The federal reserve has not changed the amount of currency notes to any significant degree? Of course it has, the federal reserve injected tons of cash into the system in the early 2000's and is doing it right now to an infinite extent with it's unlimited QE policy. However, I think we both agree that this is the wrong course of action.

Though I do agree that the account balances have increased, the actual number of reserve notes, has not changed. I was careful in my wording. That is part of the illusion. People rarely recognize that the pieces of cloth in their wallets are merely a small part of what is called the "money supply". However, those pieces of cloth do help to prop up the illusion of a stable currency.

There can be a relatively stable economy, where the perceived value of commonly exchanged goods and services in relation to other goods and services remains basically the same or changes at a gradual and predictable rate. However, the only way a currency can effect that is if the general population accepts the illusion that the currency has an established value. In times past, that illusion was fostered by establishing that value in relation to a given commodity. However, individual commodities can go through times of greater and lesser demand.

Are you saying there is no direct relationship between the currency and prices? It's very rare to have stable prices, the general trend throughout history has been price inflation primarily as a result of economy growth. Economic growth is always coupled with higher aggregate demand, and business tend to react to the high demand by increasing prices. The reason why money is directly related to inflation is because the more money available the more people will spend. If you increase the quantity of money circulating throughout the economy the purchasing power of the money is reduced (aka: inflation).

No, I am saying that prices do not exist without currency. There is fluctuating relative value, but no set price, or even price range, without a social standard, ie currency. Therefore, value inflation and deflation occur all over the economy constantly. We generally control this through laws against "hording" or "gouging". The exception is with regard to currency, because the Fed has control of the supply of that, under government supervision. If people lose trust, they will get rid of government currency and start "hording" and "gouging". However, that is only with regard to currency. The relationship between apples and oranges will remain the same. The latter, will be effected by decisions based on consumption or expected future sale. Currency consumption does not exist. Viewing currency as anything other than a means of exchange is an illusion. Yet, that illusion is held by many and is used by government and others as a means confiscation through currency manipulation. True value is determined based on comparing apples and oranges, if you will excuse the pun. Yes, apples and oranges are different, but making them the same through currency valuation is based on the relative composition of the market place, not the actual value to the consumer. That value is only in the mind of the consumer at the time of the exchange. Therefore, a free market place with bargaining provides a better gauge of value than a controlled market place with set prices.

The true controlling factor is the establishment of that value over a wide range of goods and services by force of law, ie MSRP, wage and price controls and transfer payments. Governments also use the fear of monopolistic "gouging" to limit the actions of certain areas of the economy. However, as the government enacts more laws and takes more actions to "stabilize" the economy, it moves close to being the monopoly and those invested in that government become the ones doing the "gouging".

I agree. It's very unlikely for a monopoly to spontaenously rise out of a free market and maintain itself over long periods of time without government protections. The problem isn't with monopolies, it's with oligopolies (or what Marxists call monopoly capital). You have a small number of gigantic firms that enjoy economies of scale and are therefore able to set prices above the market price, as opposed to taking the price already set by the market. The point is that 'gouging' can spontaenously rise out of a free market without the government.

However, government does not stop monopoly, or even oligopoly. It merely enters the market as a competing player, with the advantage of fine and imprisonment. Thus, 'gouging' not only can spontaneously rise, but does with or without government. The solution, is natural stabilization. Any attempt to stabilize prices by artificially injecting supply or demand is short lived at best.

Look at Walmart as an example. Whenever Walmart enters a small town all the small shops end up shutting down? Why? Because Walmart is able to sell their products at a cheaper price than the small town shops. Due to its enourmous size Walmart can easily set its prices below that of its marginal costs without suffering losses. If a small firm sets its prices below its marginal costs of production it would suffer losses because it doesn't enjoy economies of scale, while Walmart does enjoy economies of scale.

The small town citizen enjoy the savings and are able to use those resources elsewhere, then adapts to the Walmart and the prices stabilize.

Ultimately, the economy can not be "controlled", it can only be manipulated for a short period, for the benefit of the manipulators. Any law enacted and enforced by a government or action taken by a governmental or private entity is eventually absorbed by the markets and the only effect is to create short term countervailing demand.

I absolutely agree but that wasn't my point. I wasn't talking about the economy, I was specifically talking about the money supply. You cannot have an unregulated supply of money, it has to be maintained somehow. My proposal would be to keep the federal reserve but strip it of it's ability to change the money supply through open market operations and impose on it a single mandate of price stability (low inflation) as opposed to its current dual mandate (low inflation and low unemployment).

Anyways, that's just my ranting, I doubt I actually addressed any of your concerns .

It was I who took us further down the rabbit hole. My concerns are similar to yours. Government is not the solution. It is merely one player in this jumble we call the economy. It appears that you are saying that we should stop the shame that is the "Federal" Reserve and put the control of the currency squarely back into government hands, lock, stock and barrel. That made sense when currency could be controlled, ie precomputer age. Now, the only thing maintaining government control of "currency" is social acceptance and computer security. One no longer need plates and paper to counterfeit. All one needs is a computer, internet access and a creative mind. This is all too scary for most people to think about. However, even if there is no such wide spread panic, currency manipulation has always existed and now has moved into the ether.

[Darias]

I don't know what I take issue with more, the fact that WinePusher thinks corporations, as they exist now, are compatible with the free market, or that my argument is "inappropriate" because I wish to define a corporation for what it is.

I have read many writers that come out of the Free Market/Austrian tradition and no single writer I've come across claim that corporations are not compatible with the Free Market. No economist I've ever read has argued that corporations are somehow 'anti free market.'

It's not that I'm against big business, it's that a free market is one completely unregulated by the government -- in much the same way a free person isn't the least bit slave. That's how it's defined by anarcho-capitalists. Corporations are organizations with legal personhood that protects the business owner from paying for his businesses' mistakes. You can sue the company -- but the workers take the losses.

In a real free market, you might have businesses collaborating together, but without legal protections that benefit them from the risks of a real free market. In our current system corporations are not only benefited by the state for its purposes (bailouts and subsidies), but the politics are in turn influenced by those corporate dollars.

Now, I am not surprised when I hear socialists and statists blame the free market for problems perpetuated by the state and crony capitalism -- and I shouldn't be surprised to hear that the same person who thinks that the free market and government control of the money supply are compatible also thinks that corporations are as well.

I have argued here and elsewhere that I don't think the Federal Reserve should exist. But, unlike you I have thought out my position. If you abolish the Federal Reserve would you send the jurisdiction of the money supply back to Congress? How would you control the money supply?

I don't think we would be better off by intrusting that power to Congress; are you kidding?

I believe that the money supply shouldn't be controlled by any central agency. Let the market dictate the currencies and their value and how much are put into circulation.

http://mises.org/money/2s8.asp

And the fact of the matter is, what you said about corporations is bizarre. I've never heard anybody say that corporations anti free market, and that in a true free market corporations wouldn't exist.

Really? That's surprising actually.

http://c4ss.org/content/3794

http://mises.org/daily/3306

And Ron Paul: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul665.html

Even Friedman admits to this in a way, but he twisted the argument around to favor more government control over corporations, rather than acknowledge the heart of why corporations are the enemies of the free market -- because they have government protection and they want to use government force for their own gain in lieu of competing as the free market would have them. As long as the state exists, this will continue to be a problem:

[youtube][/youtube]

But you still think there's nothing wrong with corporations and corporatism? By the way you're objecting to my views, it's as if you think they're the champions of the free market or something.

You should know that corporations are state sanctioned organizations. They have legal personhood, and limited liability means that CEOs don't have to take much personal risk or responsibility for their actions -- and the taxpayer ends up footing the bill when man made corporate disasters happen. I think it's dishonest on your part WinePusher for not acknowledging this; I wouldn't expect anyone else here to know better, but you should.

Still don't see how any of this is relevant. Just because there are laws that oversee corporations (corporate law) it doesn't mean that corporations are anti free market. Using this extremist view, in order for a true free market to exist you would have to abolish all laws. There are laws that govern interstate commerce, and there are government laws that oversee business partnerships...are these things somehow anti free market?

I'm not sure what McCulloch was specifically referring to when he said you're 'redefining' things, but if he was referring to the term 'free market' than he would be right. You are redefining what a free market actually is. You think that a free market can only exist if there are absolutely no laws whatsoever, and that view is equivalent to anarchy. Free marketers like Friedman and Hayek never advocated anything of the sort. They believed government intervention should be rare, not non existent.

So your problem with the real definition of "free" has everything to do with the implications and nothing to do with its accuracy? Only a stateless society could insure a completely free market; any other system is socialistic.

By definition, any government intervention and control over the market is not free. This can mean anything from communism to just-shy of freedom, but it's not a free market when the government controls the money supply and when corporations use the state to cheat out their competition.

I'm still a minarchist for practicality's sake, but I find anarcho-capitalist arguments very compelling. I don't even think a return to limited government of any sort is even possible at this rate. I'm not for burning everything down and starting over; lasting change is gradual. This leviathan wasn't built in a day, and it will take time to reduce the power of the government.

But please, before you go on a rant about anarchy and dystopic wastelands of fiction -- do read up on anarcho capitalistic thinking; watch a few videos. You'll find that we aren't Molotov cocktail carrying vandals after all.

For example, I don't want a bloated welfare system like the one we currently have. But I also don't want no welfare system whatsoever. I want a basic governmental welfare system that takes care of the basic needs of truely disadvantaged people who actually need it and cant make it on their own. And if you disagree with this notion then you really need to take some time and rethink your position.

This is really a bully tactic no different than Ron Paul's opponents who asked him if we should just let people die because he opposed state-run healthcare. I don't want the elderly to shrivel up and die anymore than you do. I don't want people to drop dead like flies outside of private hospitals. And I don't want the Earth to turn into Venus. And I don't want people to starve -- but that doesn't mean I should therefore support government programs to solve those problems, less I be labeled heartless and cruel. Have you read Bastiat? I've quoted this a million times but it bears repeating:

[center][/center]


I know that there are disadvantaged people. People need an education and a job and a house and food -- and that's what charity is for. Charity is the true measure of morality. Do you honestly favor theft over voluntary generosity -- as if it were more efficient? Then by what measure do you think the market is better at doing anything if government does a great job with these things? I think the government is about as efficient at healthcare and social security as it is with grain distribution.

Corporations, as they exist now, cannot exist without a state. They wouldn't have legal personhood or limited liability or government subsidies or any of that.

Again, you're confused. Corporations are recognized as persons under the law so they can be sued and taxed. The government grants them the right to personhood for these purposes. That is not opposed to free market principles.

But I agree that subsidies and bailouts are against the free market and I would not support those policies.

Look, I'm just trying to say I ain't the only one making these arguments. If you haven't heard about voluntarists, you should learn more about them before writing arguments off.

And when a state grants legal protections and subsidies to big businesses, and when the state controls the money supply - there can be no free market.

How would you control the money supply? Even Ron Paul doesn't want to get rid of the Federal Reserve, only extreme libertarian figures do. The money supply needs to be controlled by something.

The use of the term "extreme" has no other purpose in this context but to denounce people who support ideas with which you and others are unfamiliar.

I hold that abolishment of the federal reserve is ideal. But we can't even get to a point where it's audited, so I think those who support the current system are more numerous and more of a problem than the likes of me. Small government Republicans, minarchist libertarians, and voluntarists should be in agreement on a lot of issues -- but as it stands now the idea of a small government, much less a minimal or nonexistant one are all equally out of sight. We live in a statist, socialist system with limited degrees of freedom, both in terms of economic and social issues.

As I alluded to earlier, I don't buy the argument that the money supply has to be controlled by the government or managed under a marriage of government and business. There needs to be numerous competing currencies backed by gold, silver, or something -- or at least unregulated by a government. I personally have high hopes for Bitcoin.

But the market should be left to determine the value and type of currency, as it's best at determining everything else. It's silly and arbitrary to welcome market solutions in most areas, but hold some roles and solutions in reserve for the government, just 'cuz.

[WinePusher]

It's not that I'm against big business, it's that a free market is one completely unregulated by the government -- in much the same way a free person isn't the least bit slave. That's how it's defined by anarcho-capitalists. Corporations are organizations with legal personhood that protects the business owner from paying for his businesses' mistakes. You can sue the company -- but the workers take the losses.

What? I don't know where you're getting these absurd ideas from. I suggest you stop deriving your knowledge about economics from youtube videos and internet sites and actually read a mainstream textbook.

Your idea about how a corporation operates is simply wrong. Corporate personhood does not protect 'the business owner from paying for his businesses' mistakes.'That is wrong. A corporation does not eliminate risk and loss, it merely spreads it out amoung multiple individuals and parties. If a sole propriertorship business suffers loss it only affects one single person because only one person owns the business, whereas if a corporation suffers loss it affects multiple people because the corporation is owned by multiple people (ie: shareholders). You sue the company and the shareholders and executives take the loss, not the workers.

In a real free market, you might have businesses collaborating together, but without legal protections that benefit them from the risks of a real free market. In our current system corporations are not only benefited by the state for its purposes (bailouts and subsidies), but the politics are in turn influenced by those corporate dollars.

No, in a real free market you don't have businesses collaborating together . That is nonsense. In a perfectly competitive markets businesses do not collude and collaborate with one another. In imperfect markets like oligopolies businesses do tend to collude.

I believe that the money supply shouldn't be controlled by any central agency. Let the market dictate the currencies and their value and how much are put into circulation.

http://mises.org/money/2s8.asp

You are merely spewing Austrian dogma without actually understanding it. When we talk about money we're not just talking about money, we're also talking about the banking system. Money is a part of the banking system and the banking system is part of the monetary system. How would you handle check clearance without a central bank? How would banks be able to loan out money if there was more than one uniform currency? How would the CPI measure inflation if there was more than one currency? Would we have multiple CPI index's for every single currency that pops up? I doubt you have any real answers to these problems.

But please, before you go on a rant about anarchy and dystopic wastelands of fiction -- do read up on anarcho capitalistic thinking; watch a few videos. You'll find that we aren't Molotov cocktail carrying vandals after all.

First of all, I've been arguing for free market libertarian ideas way before you came along. Second of all, I'm not going to get my knowledge from youtube videos. There are other economic traditions and schools out there, Austrian economics is not the only one. I've come into the Austrian tradition having read and studied other economic schools of thought which is why I don't buy into your extremist nonsensical ideas about corporations or monetary policy.

For example, I don't want a bloated welfare system like the one we currently have. But I also don't want no welfare system whatsoever. I want a basic governmental welfare system that takes care of the basic needs of truely disadvantaged people who actually need it and cant make it on their own. And if you disagree with this notion then you really need to take some time and rethink your position.

This is really a bully tactic no different than Ron Paul's opponents who asked him if we should just let people die because he opposed state-run healthcare. I don't want the elderly to shrivel up and die anymore than you do. I don't want people to drop dead like flies outside of private hospitals. And I don't want the Earth to turn into Venus. And I don't want people to starve -- but that doesn't mean I should therefore support government programs to solve those problems, less I be labeled heartless and cruel. Have you read Bastiat? I've quoted this a million times but it bears repeating:

I read Bastiat way before you did, and the fact that you quote him right here shows that you really don't understand him. Bastiat's work dealt with free international trade, not welfare economics which is the topic I brought up. Answer my question, would you abolish the government social safety net totally and completely. Would you abolish universal education totally and completely.

[WinePusher]

Look at Walmart as an example. Whenever Walmart enters a small town all the small shops end up shutting down? Why? Because Walmart is able to sell their products at a cheaper price than the small town shops. Due to its enourmous size Walmart can easily set its prices below that of its marginal costs without suffering losses. If a small firm sets its prices below its marginal costs of production it would suffer losses because it doesn't enjoy economies of scale, while Walmart does enjoy economies of scale.

The small town citizen enjoy the savings and are able to use those resources elsewhere, then adapts to the Walmart and the prices stabilize.

That's a great point! I never thought of it in these terms before.

Other than that, I really don't disagree with anything you've written. You seem to be concerned with the digitization of our currency if I'm corrent? I honestly don't know to much about that subject.

[Darias]

It's not that I'm against big business, it's that a free market is one completely unregulated by the government -- in much the same way a free person isn't the least bit slave. That's how it's defined by anarcho-capitalists. Corporations are organizations with legal personhood that protects the business owner from paying for his businesses' mistakes. You can sue the company -- but the workers take the losses.

What? I don't know where you're getting these absurd ideas from. I suggest you stop deriving your knowledge about economics from youtube videos and internet sites and actually read a mainstream textbook.

Your idea about how a corporation operates is simply wrong. Corporate personhood does not protect 'the business owner from paying for his businesses' mistakes.'That is wrong. A corporation does not eliminate risk and loss, it merely spreads it out amoung multiple individuals and parties. If a sole propriertorship business suffers loss it only affects one single person because only one person owns the business, whereas if a corporation suffers loss it affects multiple people because the corporation is owned by multiple people (ie: shareholders). You sue the company and the shareholders and executives take the loss, not the workers.

1.) First of all, I'm not getting my views from neckbeards on the internet. It is a bit dishonest to pass off my sources as "sites" as if the Ludwig von Mises Institute was merely a random blog or a webpage on Yahoo! Answers. This site has a lot of materials and even a store with books for sale for those of you who prefer paper over pixels. I will be the first to admit that I am indeed a layman and I did not major in economics at university, but that doesn't mean I get my information from dubious sources, or that I am some sort of extremist just because I find Austrian economics of the Rothbardian sort more convincing.

As for the videos, Stefan Molyneux holds a masters in history and he makes hundreds of podcasts and has written books, and is well known on the Mises forums. He's not some pothead; he's an eloquent guy and his arguments are logical and consistent with Austrian thinking. I linked his videos here because of his succinct and well spoken arguments addressing a lot of the criticisms against the free market and against anarcho-capitalists positions. It's ideal for a forum format such as this -- rather than recommending everyone in this thread read several books before participating in debate.



2.) Secondly, that's exactly what corporate personhood does. People sue the corporation instead of the owner. Small business owners just get sued, and it comes out of their pocket. CEOs don't have to worry. To make up for any profits lost on account of the suit, workers are laid off before shareholders take the hit. And while a corporation might have legal personhood, you cant imprison corporations for unlawful behavior of CEOs. Corporate personhood gives an advantage to big business, leaving small businesses owners unable to compete. The same thing applies to minimum wage laws.

I'm not going to insult your intelligence by telling you why corporatism and state interference creates unnatural advantages and disadvantages in the market, you should already know that. This is precisely why it's not completely free. There is no completely free market today.

I believe that the money supply shouldn't be controlled by any central agency. Let the market dictate the currencies and their value and how much are put into circulation.

http://mises.org/money/2s8.asp

You are merely spewing Austrian dogma without actually understanding it. When we talk about money we're not just talking about money, we're also talking about the banking system. Money is a part of the banking system and the banking system is part of the monetary system. How would you handle check clearance without a central bank? How would banks be able to loan out money if there was more than one uniform currency? How would the CPI measure inflation if there was more than one currency? Would we have multiple CPI index's for every single currency that pops up? I doubt you have any real answers to these problems.

This question sounds to me like "how can you make a pencil without central planning?" I'm not going to pretend to know everything, but I don't think government control of the money supply is an answer, much less the only way for something to work. Obviously you don't need a central bank for private currencies to work because Bitcoin is doing pretty well.

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]

But please, before you go on a rant about anarchy and dystopic wastelands of fiction -- do read up on anarcho capitalistic thinking; watch a few videos. You'll find that we aren't Molotov cocktail carrying vandals after all.

First of all, I've been arguing for free market libertarian ideas way before you came along. Second of all, I'm not going to get my knowledge from youtube videos. There are other economic traditions and schools out there, Austrian economics is not the only one. I've come into the Austrian tradition having read and studied other economic schools of thought which is why I don't buy into your extremist nonsensical ideas about corporations or monetary policy.

Your frequent use of the word "extremist" doesn't really mean much if your uninformed about voluntarist ideas; if I'm the first person you've heard of to argue voluntarist positions, then that tells me you don't know enough about it to disparage it. I can't believe that you've never heard of these arguments before if you are indeed familiar with Rothbard.

If you pass off an idea just because you have quaint affinity for the United States government, then maybe that's the problem. I personally think nationalism is not good if it inhibits rational discourse on economics. I'm still a minarchist, but that's not because I love my country; honestly, I don't see how anyone can given what it has done around the world. But I do love the principles it was supposedly founded on -- the principles of limited government, and personal liberties. If those principles are indeed the spirit of America, then you could call me a patriot, but if they aren't, then I'll have no part in apologizing for it.

For example, I don't want a bloated welfare system like the one we currently have. But I also don't want no welfare system whatsoever. I want a basic governmental welfare system that takes care of the basic needs of truely disadvantaged people who actually need it and cant make it on their own. And if you disagree with this notion then you really need to take some time and rethink your position.

This is really a bully tactic no different than Ron Paul's opponents who asked him if we should just let people die because he opposed state-run healthcare. I don't want the elderly to shrivel up and die anymore than you do. I don't want people to drop dead like flies outside of private hospitals. And I don't want the Earth to turn into Venus. And I don't want people to starve -- but that doesn't mean I should therefore support government programs to solve those problems, less I be labeled heartless and cruel. Have you read Bastiat? I've quoted this a million times but it bears repeating:

I read Bastiat way before you did, and the fact that you quote him right here shows that you really don't understand him. Bastiat's work dealt with free international trade, not welfare economics which is the topic I brought up. Answer my question, would you abolish the government social safety net totally and completely. Would you abolish universal education totally and completely.

Let's get this straight, while you don't want a huge government monopoly on welfare that's big enough to be somewhat effective, you do want a small and ineffective one that doesn't take in enough stolen revenue to function. But god forbid we have multiple private insurance companies? And I'm the one who wants people to starve in their old age?

If a federal social safety net is too small to be effective, then there's no point in having it. Does that mean I want the elderly to starve and die? No.

Asking me if I would abolish universal education or universal healthcare or universal social security today, I would say no -- in the same sense that I would not kick the government issued crutch out from under a person who was treated at a state hospital.

As it stands now, society is wholly and completely dependent on government for everything. My main point is that government should not monopolize everything. And once private alternatives are in place... offering cheaper services with quality, then small government agencies will become too irrelevant to continue to fund.

If most of the roads in the United States were privately owned and completely constructed for private purposes, then we wouldn't need to continue to fund the federal highway administration.

If all we had were charities and private healthcare -- without monopolistic corporate insurance agencies -- then it would be affordable... and charity would provide for the rest. No government required.

The system we now have involves theft. You know taxation is theft, so I don't understand why you think I'm not being charitable by advocating for more moral alternatives... or why you think I'm for burning everything down. Abolishing the state without private alternatives that can quickly fill the roles once monopolized by the state is a bad idea.

And of course, I'm fine with government programs that are funded by voluntary taxation, but in any case I prefer private alternatives.

[Darias]

Going back to the issue of definitions...

One reason why I personally use the term voluntarism in place of anarcho-capitalism, is because of the negative baggage associated with both terms (although it is worth noting that voluntarists and anarcho-capitalists aren't exactly the same thing but typically used interchangeably). Anarchism is commonly viewed as mob-run vandalism, involving violent revolution and survival of the fittest subsistence, and capitalism is commonly associated with cronyism and corporatism. Capitalism is also used synonymously with the label "free market."

In reality, anarchy simply means without rulers, in much the same way atheism means lack of belief in gods -- everything else associated with the word is simply negatively perceived implications, i.e. anarchy leads to chaos, or atheism leads to fascism, and other such nonsensical leaps in logic.

I've been listening to an interview with Sheldon Richman, yet another famous free market libertarian, and I think he makes a great point about the label of capitalism.

Perhaps capitalism isn't the best term to associate with the free market. Certainly systems more or less freer than socialistic ones have existed, including the mixed economy in existence in the US today, but most people will admit, if they're being honest, that a truly free, laissez-faire system has never been tried.

The criticisms many people have against "capitalism" are valid, but their beef isn't with the free market.

I highly recommend you guys take a listen to this interview if you're interested in better understanding the viewpoints I've been arguing here.

[bluethread]

Look at Walmart as an example. Whenever Walmart enters a small town all the small shops end up shutting down? Why? Because Walmart is able to sell their products at a cheaper price than the small town shops. Due to its enourmous size Walmart can easily set its prices below that of its marginal costs without suffering losses. If a small firm sets its prices below its marginal costs of production it would suffer losses because it doesn't enjoy economies of scale, while Walmart does enjoy economies of scale.

The small town citizen enjoy the savings and are able to use those resources elsewhere, then adapts to the Walmart and the prices stabilize.

That's a great point! I never thought of it in these terms before.

Other than that, I really don't disagree with anything you've written. You seem to be concerned with the digitization of our currency if I'm corrent? I honestly don't know to much about that subject.

Well, my point is that digitization is undermining the perception that currency is a stable commodity. The reason the general public has this perception is that everything is priced based on the currency. This causes people think the price of the goods is changing, even when there is relatively no difference in the value of a good as compared to another good. Therefore, when there is "quantitative easing", people think that the value things is going up, when it is really the value of the currency that is going down.

During previous crises this perception has been used to minimize the risk of alternative currencies and hide the theft of private savings. The digitization of currency, makes it even easier to create "quantitative easing". Actions can be taken digitally, without proper audit trails, much easier than similar paper or commodity transactions. The only defense against future "quantitative easing" and digital fraud is an awareness of the market conditions. Before, if one was in cash, one felt one could feel one is "out of the market" and take a break. However, it is becoming more obvious, with the digitization of currency, that one is never "out of the market". Thus, "Sell in May and walk away." does not apply. Though the markets usually decline in May, the currency market can decline at a moments notice at any time. This may be a good thing, because the illusion of currency stability may be evaporating. However, the threat of increased currency manipulation can result in attempts to bypass currency by trading commodity to commodity. I am not sure what will be the result of this, but it will definitely make things much more complicated.

[WinePusher]

Your frequent use of the word "extremist" doesn't really mean much if your uninformed about voluntarist ideas; if I'm the first person you've heard of to argue voluntarist positions, then that tells me you don't know enough about it to disparage it. I can't believe that you've never heard of these arguments before if you are indeed familiar with Rothbard.

Your ideas are not simply about voluntarism. The basic idea behind voluntarism is that any transaction that takes place within the market should be free and voluntary. This is an idea I support.

However, in this thread you've been arguing for extremist and nonsensical ideas. You want multiple currencies, you want to completely get rid of the federal reserve and you think that corporations are corrupt organizations. I've already pointed out the flaws in these positions, and I've already pointed out that Rothbard is himself an extremist. Free Marketers like Friedman and Hayek are taken seriously by the economics community, on the otherhand nobody in the economics community takes Rothbard seriously.

I have been a supporter of free markets and libertarianism since day one and I agree with alot of what you've said. However, the difference between you and I is that you take these ideas to the extreme while I don't.

[Darias]

Your frequent use of the word "extremist" doesn't really mean much if your uninformed about voluntarist ideas; if I'm the first person you've heard of to argue voluntarist positions, then that tells me you don't know enough about it to disparage it. I can't believe that you've never heard of these arguments before if you are indeed familiar with Rothbard.

Your ideas are not simply about voluntarism. The basic idea behind voluntarism is that any transaction that takes place within the market should be free and voluntary. This is an idea I support.

By "free," do you acknowledge what this means? When an economy is voluntary, it is free from coercion. When an economy is free, it is free from government interference and control. And despite the fact our economy is not free by this definition, you support the status quo and insist on labeling it as "free." This is your free market at work Winepusher:

[center][/center]

However, in this thread you've been arguing for extremist and nonsensical ideas. You want multiple currencies, you want to completely get rid of the federal reserve and you think that corporations are corrupt organizations. I've already pointed out the flaws in these positions,

It's not that I think corporations are evil, it's just that corporations are legal entities that stifle competition; corporations cannot exist without the state, and they would not exist in a free market. You would have big business and small, but if your business did something wrong, you'd have to pay for it, just like the small business down the street.

And setting that aside, I can't believe you don't see a problem with crony capitalism and corporatism. You honestly can't see how certain mega corporations have close relationships with the state, in that they benefit each other for profit? Can't you see how politicians are more interested in corporate money than the petitions of voters? Progressives have a point here, but they blame corporations for the problem instead of the state.

I think that currencies like Bitcoin that cannot be controlled by governments is a good thing. But it's hard to convince you of that if you don't even want the federal reserve audited. It's like trying to tell Stalin that individual rights are great, when he can't even get past the notions of "greater good."

...and I've already pointed out that Rothbard is himself an extremist. Free Marketers like Friedman and Hayek are taken seriously by the economics community, on the otherhand nobody in the economics community takes Rothbard seriously.

Your repeated insistence of using labels is growing tiresome. Yes, you have made claims that Rothbard is an "extremist" but have not explained in detail why you think that is the case. And appealing to the majority to dismiss an idea is a fallacy.

You've got to understand that you can only use the term extremist in reference to something. You would be an extremist in the eyes of Lenin. So what?

No one took Austrian economists' warnings seriously before the Great Depression occurred, and no one took Ron Paul's prediction of the Housing crisis seriously until after it happened. The world didn't take Galileo seriously when he was alive, but that really has no bearing at all on whether or not the person is correct.

If your only objection to Rothbard's stance on economics is what the implications are, then that is also a fallacy. Your quaint affection for Uncle Sam doesn't mean anything to me, and it has no bearing on whether or not Rothbard is right.

I have been a supporter of free markets and libertarianism since day one and I agree with alot of what you've said. However, the difference between you and I is that you take these ideas to the extreme while I don't.

The difference between you and I is that I have taken free market economics to its logical conclusion without holding back for an irrational admiration of the state. I don't buy the lies of "good" government or "accountable" government or that government is necessary for society to survive and thrive. But I can't even persuade you to adopt a minarchist position, given everything you support now.

I mean you're literally pursuing Marxist ideas; so your claims of being "true" libertarian and that I'm an "extremist" don't mean much at all to me, comrade.



It might be useful to get your insight on anarcho-capitalism. If you could maybe list some actual criticisms, I might be able to get back to you with some serious answers, as long as your list isn't too long.