So I linked this story to one of my favorite statists. http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/12/can-government-do-anything-well After the strawman and an ad hominem I got this response:
In highly technical or complex fields affecting the welfare of a society, the free market cannot be relied upon. A free market only operates efficiently if the consumer has a reasonable understanding of the product or service rendered. Absent this understanding, prices can be artificially inflated and manipulated within that sector of the economy. There are also aspects of infrastructure that are too important to become potentially monopolized by a single private company or an oligarchy. The "Darwinian" free market ultimately provides the illusion of freedom while ironically limiting the de facto options of citizens. Capitalism must operate within defined parameters, and while government does not do all things well, it preserves access to critical infrastructure. Would you prefer a sloppy system that all people can access, or a highly efficient one that excludes a wide segment of the population?
Here is my retort (sorry for the typos I am pressed for time this morning):
Who is going to determine what fields are too "highly technical or complex" for freemarkets to provide and how are such things going to be determined? Your second objection is based on asymetric information. You are saying that individuals are sometimes unable to make correct decisions beause they do not have access to all available information. If individuals cannot make correcct decisions how is that a group of individuals are suddenly able to overcome what one individual fails to do? Does it work like magic or what? If you ever bother to read Hayek you will find that one his great contributions to economics was his recognition that governments still face the same problem as the individual with regards to being unable to gather all relavant information. Your objection surrounding pricces shows you have no understanding of how prices are formed and what information they convey. A firm cannot simply manipulate prices and choose what their goods will sell for by fiat. Price is determined by the law of supply and demand in free markets, period end of story. In fact if you study history you wil find that in reality it has only been governments that have been able to engage in such things as price fixing. Again I will ask who determines which aspects of infrastructure are "too important" to let markets provide and how is this to be determined? Do you understand that it is not likely for a monopoly to form under open competition and it is impossible for one to last for long if one could be cobbled together? Agian I suggest you read some history so you can learn that no monopoly has ever existed without the aid of a government. Lastly, if monopolies in and of themselves are evil, then why do you reject free markets based on the possibility that a private monopoly could arise while at the same time you embrace government granted monopolies as good? There is nothing "Darwinian" about free markets. Competition among firms does not limit the available choices of the consumer, in fact it has the exact opposite effect. The more competition there is the better off the cinsumer becomes. Allowing people to be free to choose is a bad thing? Allowing firms to face competition and preventing them being able to lobby congress for favors and protection from competition is abad thing? In what universe is allowing unprofitable firms that are wasting scarce resources to survive, good for the beterment of all? For the third time, who gets to decide the parameters and how are they to be arrived at? And what about the parameters and regulation built into a capitalist system? The fact that you believe free markets need guidance shows that you have yet to fully grasp exactly what free markets are or how they work. You have all the leftist talking points down, but it is readily apparent that you have yet to read anything written by a pro market author. Here you are decrying capitalism because of asymetric information while you are basing your anti-market beliefs on incomplete information. I reject your notion that the choice is between a sloppy system with acces for all versus an efficient system with access for the few. Free markets make everyone better off, soialized markets make some better off at the expense of others. Your prefered system requires force and coercion. My preffered system is based entirely on freedom and liberty. Your system taken to its logical coinclusion leads to death and misery for the masses. My system leads to prosperity and freedom for all.
Did I miss anything? Did I make any mistakes? Anyone have some links handy that will back up my position?
I think you touched upon some great ideas, but they could be organized better.
In highly technical or complex fields affecting the welfare of a society, the free market cannot be relied upon. A free market only operates efficiently if the consumer has a reasonable understanding of the product or service rendered. Absent this understanding, prices can be artificially inflated and manipulated within that sector of the economy.
The underlined statement appears to be a conclusion, so do the other two sentences support it? Well, the bolded statement is an unsupported assertion, and not only is it unsuported, as you pointed out, it is actually false. He uses the word "efficiently". Who decides what is efficient? As you pointed out, there is the price system. Absent a price system, there is no way for people to know how goods should be allocated effectively. But not only does he say "efficiently", he claims that people need to make "informed" decisions in order for an economy to work "efficiently". This is also false. This is what prices do. They inform people. Does a CEO of a major corporation really know all the details of his company? Of course not. Did Steve Jobs need to know the price of gold before using it in electronics made by Apple? Of course not.
About the italicized sentence, so what? Some companies may charge higher prices, but when other companies see the profits to be made, those prices come down. Consider computers. Computers are priced very high, considering the price of the parts within them. Most people don't know much about computers, so they are willing to purchase a computer for several hundred dollars more than the parts are worth. But guess what? Companies such as Newegg exist to find low prices for parts for consumers. So, what's your friend's point here?
There are also aspects of infrastructure that are too important to become potentially monopolized by a single private company or an oligarchy.
First, there is a monopoly now. It is called the state. So, if he is satisfied with a monopoly now, what does it matter if a monopoly forms anyway? Second, monopolies exist because of government. There are a number of threads in the forums that discuss the details, but there have been no monopolies in the free market.
The "Darwinian" free market ultimately provides the illusion of freedom while ironically limiting the de facto options of citizens.
Unsubstantiated assertion. What options are limited? My choice of food? Has he ever been to a supermarket? Choice of internet provider? There are many. Clothes? Ha! Oh, does your friend mean electricity? Well, that is monopolized by government. Water? Monopolized by government. So, what options are limited?
Capitalism must operate within defined parameters, and while government does not do all things well, it preserves access to critical infrastructure.
What are these parameters that capitalism requires? What things does government do well? Stossel didn't really specify what government doesn't do well, as he was trying to speak generally instead of specifically. But if your friend would like to counter Stossel, the appropriate counter is to provide a counter example, not just make the opposite statement. What does the government preserve access to? Whatever that it preserves access to, why can't the market preserve access to it as well?
Would you prefer a sloppy system that all people can access, or a highly efficient one that excludes a wide segment of the population?
False dichotomy. The biggest flaw in his response to you is that he does not provide a coherent argument. His argument is full unsubstantiated and/or false assertions. If this is a debate you want to have with your friend, then I suggest pointing out these flaws. How else are you supposed to proceed if his argument is riddled with fallacies?
TANSTAAFL: Your system taken to its logical coinclusion leads to death and misery for the masses. My system leads to prosperity and freedom for all.
Your system taken to its logical coinclusion leads to death and misery for the masses. My system leads to prosperity and freedom for all.
Haha. Nice. If he complains about this, just say that it was in direct response to his own false dichotomy.
Too long, won't read.
TANSTAAFL:A free market only operates efficiently if the consumer has a reasonable understanding of the product or service rendered. Absent this understanding, prices can be artificially inflated and manipulated within that sector of the economy.
No problem, everyone just subscribes to a consumer advice agency that helps with these kinds of choices. There's no need to immediately jump to the conclusion that we need to nationalize the economy.
TANSTAAFL:There are also aspects of infrastructure that are too important to become potentially monopolized by a single private company or an oligarchy.
Ironically, it has been those segments of the economy that have been deemed "too important for the market" that had falling service quality and rising prices, e.g. defense, health care, education. While goods that were considered unessential enough to be left to the market have seen amazing improvements and falling prices in recent years, e.g. internet, cell phones, cars.
TANSTAAFL:Capitalism must operate within defined parameters, and while government does not do all things well, it preserves access to critical infrastructure.
The empirical evidence suggests that nationalization limits access to goods. You are aware of this because you see the evidence every day. Why then are you suggesting to limit access to critical infrastructure and leave less essential ones untethered? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
TANSTAAFL:Would you prefer a sloppy system that all people can access, or a highly efficient one that excludes a wide segment of the population?
How about you, would you prefer Chinese health care or American health care? Indian cars or German cars? Your choice in every case is the efficient market system, not the inefficient nationalized system. Why would you advocate a system that you decide against in every personal choice?
Besides, the government can't provide "access" to any scarce objects that wouldn't also be available in a market system. Thus the same number of people would necessarily be excluded by a non-monetary rationing system. There is no free lunch.
I like Emperor Nero's take better than mine.
+1
gotlucky:I like Emperor Nero's take better than mine. +1
Thanks.
+1 internets for you too.
Here is the response I got back, you guys are going to have a field day with this:
The law of supply and demand is irreparably compromised when the consumer cannot accurately value the goods or services being offered. Further, it is difficult for the consumer to be a rational actor when, as in the case of health care, the motivation is, effectively, "buy our product or you will die." You may believe that monopolies or oligarchies are "not likely" to form, but even a cursory examination of history exposes this as myth. The free market does not sort everything out. In fact, it has proven time and again quite effective in concentrating the means of production in the hands of a few at the expense of the many - unless, of course, there is some magical form of laissez-faire capitalism that has never been tried, and that is what you are advocating. Look, this discussion is bound to be fruitless. I believe that human beings have a responsibility to each other that is inherent in our very existence. You do not. So, you will follow your Ayn Rand brand of "only my own fulfillment matters," and I will follow the beliefs that arise from my faith. It is very difficult for me to see libertarianism in its extreme form as anything other than the rationalization of simple, unvarnished human selfishness. It is all vey nice to cloak it in a contrived philosophical costume. Now, perhaps you believe in your absolutist position, which is fine. You may even believe that such a system would be of greater benefit to people in the aggregate. However, do not make the sophomoric mistake of suggesting that because I reject a position I am ignorant of it. This may work with the majority of people (or they may simply give up under the dearth of your verbosity), but I assure you that I have considered the writings of Ludwig von Mises and others of the Austrian School, and I find the argument that economic systems cannot be analyzed on the basis of empirical observation (i.e., his specialized application of praxeology to individual economic action) difficult to support. Instead, Mises prefers to construct a 'logical' system wherein the observation of empirical fact is irrelevant. To me, this seems a bit like giving a weather report based on theory while refusing to look out the window. There is some merit to the notion that prediction of economic effects of human beings acting in complex situations in the aggregate is more difficult than predicting the actions of individuals in simple situations, but to utterly reject empirical observation is, in my opinion, a bridge too far. Let us not forget that the early proponents of the Austrian School were reacting specifically to Karl Marx at the end of the 19th century, and one might reasonably suggest that their positions were carved out with the desire to present a view antithetical to Marxism. It would not be the first instance of reactionary zeal compromising reason. It is also worth noting that the Austrian School is not exactly mainstream, though I will admit that it has had a bit of a resurgence of late. It should be no surprise, then, that my own outlook is essentially Keynesian. The Free Market is not always the most efficient system, nor does it guarantee the most good for the greatest number of people. Adam Smith notwithstanding, the private sector is more than simply the economic decisions of individuals multiplied. Were this true, there would be more merit in the argument of libertarians in general with respect to overall economic prosperity. But, in fact, it is not. Individuals may be manipulated - either by the private or the public sector - and this manipulation (which seems an unavoidable phenomenon) skews the dynamic that Smith suggests in The Wealth of Nations. It may be that you assume that all in government are fundamentally evil, willfully destructive, or wantonly parasitic. From my first-hand experience with those who work in the public sector, I must reject that assertion. The vast majority of those who work for the government do so because they believe what they do has value to the society. I am aware that the generic "government worker" is a favorite target of libertarians, but the ire is not, so far as I can tell, based on a pervasive rottenness that can be proven, but rather predicated on the need to make the targets fit the parameters of the ideology: if government is bad, then all who work for the government must also be bad. So, to counter your erroneous assumption that I have never read any writings of pro-market economists, I suggest you broaden your horizons a bit and read something a little closer to the center of modern economic thought.
I'll keep it simple:
The law of supply and demand is irreparably compromised when the consumer cannot accurately value the goods or services being offered. Further, it is difficult for the consumer to be a rational actor when, as in the case of health care, the motivation is, effectively, "buy our product or you will die."
About the bold: People demand and supply regardless of perfect information. People act on whatever information they have. What's his point?
About the underlined: False dichotomy. Different health care plans can specialize in various needs. It is not black and white.
You may believe that monopolies or oligarchies are "not likely" to form, but even a cursory examination of history exposes this as myth. The free market does not sort everything out. In fact, it has proven time and again quite effective in concentrating the means of production in the hands of a few at the expense of the many - unless, of course, there is some magical form of laissez-faire capitalism that has never been tried, and that is what you are advocating.
About the bold: The only monopolies that have existed have existed because of the government. If he is so sure of himself, he can provide evidence to back this baseless assertion.
About the underlined: Baseless assertion. If he wants you to take him seriously, which I doubt he cares, he should provide evidence to back his assertions. So far, there is no reason to believe what he is claiming.
Now, perhaps you believe in your absolutist position, which is fine. You may even believe that such a system would be of greater benefit to people in the aggregate. However, do not make the sophomoric mistake of suggesting that because I reject a position I am ignorant of it. This may work with the majority of people (or they may simply give up under the dearth of your verbosity), but I assure you that I have considered the writings of Ludwig von Mises and others of the Austrian School, and I find the argument that economic systems cannot be analyzed on the basis of empirical observation (i.e., his specialized application of praxeology to individual economic action) difficult to support. Instead, Mises prefers to construct a 'logical' system wherein the observation of empirical fact is irrelevant. To me, this seems a bit like giving a weather report based on theory while refusing to look out the window. There is some merit to the notion that prediction of economic effects of human beings acting in complex situations in the aggregate is more difficult than predicting the actions of individuals in simple situations, but to utterly reject empirical observation is, in my opinion, a bridge too far.
He has demonstrated that he has not read the work of Mises. Well, perhaps he has read some excerpts. But his summarization is greatly flawed. Your fried so far has demonstrated that he does not appreciate logic, what with his bare assertions and all. Deduction is simple. True premise(s) + valid argument = true conclusion(s). It is a simple task to refute deductive arguments. Just point out the flaw in the logic. Done. Mises also did not reject empirical observation. He valued it as a good historical tool. To Mises, the past was not a predictor of tomorrow. To take your friend's weather analogy: that it was raining all last week is no reason to argue that it will rain tomorrow.
Let us not forget that the early proponents of the Austrian School were reacting specifically to Karl Marx at the end of the 19th century, and one might reasonably suggest that their positions were carved out with the desire to present a view antithetical to Marxism. It would not be the first instance of reactionary zeal compromising reason. It is also worth noting that the Austrian School is not exactly mainstream, though I will admit that it has had a bit of a resurgence of late.
About the bold: I wouldn't know. From what I understand, this is not the case. Again, it is another baseless assertion. Plus, the Austrian school as evolved and grown over time.
About the underlined: Yes, when certain people (e.g. Ron Paul, Peter Schiff) can make predictions about the economy using Austrain economics, predictions that people in the mainstraim claimed were nuts, then most definitely will Austrian economics gain attention. Being right tends to do that.
It should be no surprise, then, that my own outlook is essentially Keynesian. The Free Market is not always the most efficient system, nor does it guarantee the most good for the greatest number of people. Adam Smith notwithstanding, the private sector is more than simply the economic decisions of individuals multiplied. Were this true, there would be more merit in the argument of libertarians in general with respect to overall economic prosperity. But, in fact, it is not. Individuals may be manipulated - either by the private or the public sector - and this manipulation (which seems an unavoidable phenomenon) skews the dynamic that Smith suggests in The Wealth of Nations.
About the bold: So, your friend predicted the dot com crash? the housing crash? Forgive me if I don't take him seriously. Also, there is no way to measure the greatest good for any amount of people objectively.
About the underlined: So, then, what else is there to the private sector, or the public sector, for that matter? People make decions. People make transactions. What else? Oh, people aren't perfect! So what? What does this prove? I have noticed a distinct lack of anything here.
It may be that you assume that all in government are fundamentally evil, willfully destructive, or wantonly parasitic. From my first-hand experience with those who work in the public sector, I must reject that assertion. The vast majority of those who work for the government do so because they believe what they do has value to the society. I am aware that the generic "government worker" is a favorite target of libertarians, but the ire is not, so far as I can tell, based on a pervasive rottenness that can be proven, but rather predicated on the need to make the targets fit the parameters of the ideology: if government is bad, then all who work for the government must also be bad.
I am aware of few libertarians who claim that all government workers are bad people. Notice how your friend is generalizing in the same manner that he claims libertarians generalize? Anyway, most people in the government are not malicious. But your friend is naive to believe that those who direct the government (visible or invisible) sincerely cherish our wellbeing.
So, to counter your erroneous assumption that I have never read any writings of pro-market economists, I suggest you broaden your horizons a bit and read something a little closer to the center of modern economic thought.
Cute. Your friend is right about one thing: you are wasting your time with him. Your friend has demonstrated that he feels no need to back up his claims. If he is so sure about empiricism for economics, I'm sure he's just loaded with evidence for all his claims. No, clearly he is more comfortable with his Keynesian dogma, and he feels no need to research for himself.
If your goal is to persuade your friend, you are wasting your time. He does not want to learn. If your goal is to learn from debating him, then by all means continue!
TANSTAAFL's friend:The law of supply and demand is irreparably compromised when the consumer cannot accurately value the goods or services being offered.
Who can "accurately value" goods and services? Are goods and services valuable on their own (objectively) or only to the extent that someone (a subject) values them? Who can (must?) value goods and services in someone else's stead?
Further, it is difficult for the consumer to be a rational actor when, as in the case of health care, the motivation is, effectively, "buy our product or you will die."
You'll die sooner if you don't eat food. How, pray tell, do you manage to deal with the food producer's blackmail of similar existential proportions?
I believe that human beings have a responsibility to each other that is inherent in our very existence.
The "responsibility" to club each other into being charitable and caring? What part of the Bible did this come from?
You do not. So, you will follow your Ayn Rand brand of "only my own fulfillment matters," and I will follow the beliefs that arise from my faith.
My own fulfillment (which, btw, only matters) includes considering other people's fulfillment. If it weren't naturally so, then no law, constitution, regulation, and coercion would magically make it so. If voluntary cooperation had not evolved as the primary mode of human interaction there'd be no division of labor, no production, and no mankind to speak of. I don't need government to force me into prefering voluntary transactions over clubbing other people's heads -- the benefit of the former is just so much larger and more satisfying, or so my ancestors genes say. I don't need to be clubbed (or shot) into compliance, thank you very much.
It is very difficult for me to see libertarianism in its extreme form as anything other than the rationalization of simple, unvarnished human selfishness. It is all vey nice to cloak it in a contrived philosophical costume.
What exactly is selfish about limiting the realm of your interactions with others to being strictly voluntary? What exactly is charitable (and self-less) about coercing others into whatever mould of "perfectly selfless" behavior you have devised for yourself?
You have only read what others have regurgitated about Mises. You have not read him. You're missing out on the journey of your lifetime.
The law of supply and demand is irreparably compromised when the consumer cannot accurately value the goods or services being offered.
Can you substantiate this claim? How is a good valued with or without accuracy? Is it inaccurate of me to value my teddy bear more than a ferrari?
So all goods and services on the medicine market are only for a matter of life or death within a timeframe which does not allow for deliberation? Insurance doesn't cover this problem?
Unfortunately you repeat unsubstantiated assertions. Name one monopoly that has formed without a specific state privilege. You can't. Because one has not existed. Just as one has not existed neither was there a laissez-faire gilded age; an era which was defined by railroad subsidies, land grants, tariffs, patents, regulation at the state level, national banking, and the residual effects of war-contracting from the civil war.
Look, this discussion is bound to be fruitless. I believe that human beings have a responsibility to each other that is inherent in our very existence. You do not. So, you will follow your Ayn Rand brand of "only my own fulfillment matters," and I will follow the beliefs that arise from my faith. It is very difficult for me to see libertarianism in its extreme form as anything other than the rationalization of simple, unvarnished human selfishness. It is all vey nice to cloak it in a contrived philosophical costume.
Only inasmuch as you have already made up your mind. It seems you care not about the effects of ideologies but rather how they taste on your tongue. Also, what act is not the fulfillment of personal matters? Certainly not charity, as a charitable act relieves the discomfort a charitable man feels knowing the plight of some poor person. Would you take out your ear plugs now?
You've already shown your own ignorance better than I could have. Explain to me this: how is it appropriate to apply the method of natural sciences, wherein the control of all variables may be organized and repeatedly so, to human sciences, wherein no such variables can be organized and nothing can be repeated identically? It's pure pseudo-science and any 'conclusions' resulting from such an application are a mockery of the concept of science.
So have you read any of it? Or just the criticisms section on wikipedia? So it is not mainstream, thus it is incorrect? This is one of the most basic logical fallacies: appeal to popularity. The world was also thought to be flat, most people are religious, slavery existed until two hundred years ago, etc.
How can this be concluded when it hasn't been attempted yet? Could you elaborate on what you mean by 'manipulated'?
It may be that you assume that all in government are fundamentally evil, willfully destructive, or wantonly parasitic. From my first-hand experience with those who work in the public sector, I must reject that assertion. The vast majority of those who work for the government do so because they believe what they do has value to the society. I am aware that the generic "government worker" is a favorite target of libertarians, but the ire is not, so far as I can tell, based on a pervasive rottenness that can be proven, but rather predicated on the need to make the targets fit the parameters of the ideology: if government is bad, then all who work for the government must also be bad. So, to counter your erroneous assumption that I have never read any writings of pro-market economists, I suggest you broaden your horizons a bit and read something a little closer to the center of modern economic thought.
Which 'pro-market' economists? Economics does not make judgments on market phenomena, it only tells their effects. Again with the appeal to popularity. If Austrian Economics is so far misguided perhaps you can explain what seems to be so perfectly obvious about it that the 'center of modern economic thought' rejects it.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
TANSTAAFL:The law of supply and demand is irreparably compromised when the consumer cannot accurately value the goods or services being offered. Further, it is difficult for the consumer to be a rational actor when, as in the case of health care, the motivation is, effectively, "buy our product or you will die."
No problem, everyone just subscribes to a consumer advice agency that makes these kinds of decisions for you. Such a middle-man between the consumer and the products being offered does have the ability collect all the information to accurately value goods and services. I think in a libertarian future, being a consumer won't really mean buying stuff any more, but rather managing a subscription that does the buying for you. Problem solved. So when encountering a problem like 'too high cost to individually access all the information', all you have to do is ask yourself who could make money by solving that problem. Or you can jump to the conclusion that we need to nationalize that industry.
As for the "buy our product or you will die" argument, this is easily solved by various insurance schemes. Besides, wouldn't the same logic apply to buses in the free market? "You wanna get to that job interview in time? Ok, the fare is 50$." How about gas, groceries, clothing or internet? Whenever there are people needing stuff there will be some people who need it urgently enough to be potentially exploited. That's just in the nature of economic interdependence. Looking at the world around you, you can clearly conclude that people don't constantly get exploited because they need something urgently. There are various explanations for this, for example that it might not be the most long-term profitable strategy to piss your customers off like that and be seen as evil. But even if we are talking about health care, something people will buy no matter how much you jerk them around, the benefits of nationalization are not as great as you may imagine. This is because money is just an allocation mechanism, it is not the reason that health care is scarce. Paying more money for health care doesn't really make us less healthy in the aggregate, if one person can't afford a health care treatment that just means someone else can get it. Society is not less healthy because we raise the price of health care.
TANSTAAFL:Look, this discussion is bound to be fruitless. I believe that human beings have a responsibility to each other that is inherent in our very existence. You do not. So, you will follow your Ayn Rand brand of "only my own fulfillment matters," and I will follow the beliefs that arise from my faith. It is very difficult for me to see libertarianism in its extreme form as anything other than the rationalization of simple, unvarnished human selfishness. It is all vey nice to cloak it in a contrived philosophical costume.
I'm calling bullshit. If your political position is inspired by greater selflessness, how come your political affiliation is the least philanthropic of all political affiliations? Because that's what studies who measure this find every time. All political groups, even the population on average, donate more of their time and money to help others. So all you believers in "responsibility to each other that is inherent in our very existence" are actually a lot more selfish as measured by private philanthropy. Curious, eh? The difference is that you consider yourself philanthropic because you support the expropriation of others to make the state help the needy. For one this is evil because you support the continued existence of a expropriationary ruling elite (meaning you occupy the same position as 19th-century conservatives). But it's also not selfless because making others help the poor is not a personal sacrifice. You gain the feeling of being charitable without actually giving up any of your own consumption. At least those who admit that they are selfish have to live with eventual guilt, you get it both ways. And lastly, this position isn't quite as noble as you think because statists overestimate the positive effects of nationalized charity because of the free lunch fallacy.
TANSTAAFL:Now, perhaps you believe in your absolutist position, which is fine. You may even believe that such a system would be of greater benefit to people in the aggregate. However, do not make the sophomoric mistake of suggesting that because I reject a position I am ignorant of it.
It is easy to portray yourself as the moderate in this debate, and libertarians as absolutists. But keep in mind that moderation isn't really a good thing if it's moderation between being wrong and being right. Is it better to moderately believe in alchemy or to absolutely accept modern chemistry? Is it better to be a moderate about medieval physics, or to absolutely believe in modern physics? I say no, and the absolutist free market position has been winning arguments for centuries, while the moderates keep conceding points. As late as the 40's, you would have been considered a free market lunatic. Back then it was widely believed that price and rent controls were necessary because markets couldn't conceivably sort out things like prices and wages, and notions like the government allocating jobs were widely discussed as reasonable. "The law of supply and demand is irreparably compromised", they said. At the turn of the century notions like subjective value was a position held by a few fringe free market economists, and nobody really suggested unregulated markets as a means to get millions of people food, and humanity was gearing up to centrally plan entire countries based on objective value economics. And a century and a half before that nobody really believed in spontaneous order at all, and people were surprised at the very notion of an 'invisible hand'. So the moderate position constantly moves towards the absolutist liberal position, in fact slowly accepting our position bit by bit. You could say that we already won the debate 80% of the way, considering the starting point. Give it another 50 years, and I bet all of this we're talking about now will have been conceded by moderates, and they will have moved no to a new position where they are absolutely sure they identified how "the law of supply and demand is irreparably compromised". That is because the law of supply and demand is always irreparably compromised when it comes to market mechanisms you can't imagine yet. Every time there's a potential problem in the market, the moderates go "the law of supply and demand is irreparably compromised, get in the planners", then there's a few years of intellectual battle and the moderates concede our point and move on to the next one. Repeat process.
You could say there are three types of economists. First, extreme statists, who are fixed in their position because they just don't give a shit that their position was been debunked by economic science, as for example the labor theory of value. Secondly, moderates who slowly move from statism towards liberalism because they only accept market solutions when it has been made painfully obvious to them that they work. And thirdly, liberals, who remain fixed at the other end of the spectrum because they solved the problem in the abstract and therefore understand that markets will be able to fix every problem somehow. They don't really need to look at the individual case any more, and that's why they might seem dogmatic and anti-empirical.
TANSTAAFL:This may work with the majority of people (or they may simply give up under the dearth of your verbosity), but I assure you that I have considered the writings of Ludwig von Mises and others of the Austrian School, and I find the argument that economic systems cannot be analyzed on the basis of empirical observation (i.e., his specialized application of praxeology to individual economic action) difficult to support. Instead, Mises prefers to construct a 'logical' system wherein the observation of empirical fact is irrelevant. To me, this seems a bit like giving a weather report based on theory while refusing to look out the window. There is some merit to the notion that prediction of economic effects of human beings acting in complex situations in the aggregate is more difficult than predicting the actions of individuals in simple situations, but to utterly reject empirical observation is, in my opinion, a bridge too far.
You read some Mises, that is nice. And you even have some talking points. But you have to start way earlier that that. I can tell from your arguments that you don't really have a basic grasp of elementary supply and demand economics; the basic function of money, the difference between cost and price, the ultimate scarcity of goods. That stuff is really required for any of that higher economics to make sense to you, and in a way Mises implies it. As long as you still believe in a free lunch, you won't understand Mises either. Once you do, all that wacky libertarian stuff will make sense too. I know because I used to be at that point one as well, we all were. I suggest reading Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics, it's not really a free market propaganda piece and he's not even an Austrian.
TANSTAAFL, could you post the above answer to your favorite statist? I'd be interested in his responses.