You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Honey Nazis
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.