You know, the more I'm on this site the more I am coming to realise just how woefully ignorant you anarcho caps actually are about the very thing you profess to have competently refuted. Its actually come as quite a shock to me, I guess I expected more from a site that sets out to promote a particular world view through argumentation. Do you guys do any reading, any research, outside of the narrow horizons of such a worldview?
You need a nap robbo
A two-step ECP debunk: (1) Sheep don't calculate. Shepherds do. (2) Turn people into sheep. Q.E.D. After all, sheep have no use for money or markets, and yet -- through a carefully constructed set of interlocking components (mainly paddocks, doors, and fences) -- they still get whatever they want, whenever they want it. Lucky bastards.
A two-step ECP debunk:
(1) Sheep don't calculate. Shepherds do.
(2) Turn people into sheep.
Q.E.D.
After all, sheep have no use for money or markets, and yet -- through a carefully constructed set of interlocking components (mainly paddocks, doors, and fences) -- they still get whatever they want, whenever they want it. Lucky bastards.
You win the Ockham Award.
Again, like Picard said, "I think we can all exercise some self-control". Meaning, sorry, no authority, no one to hold your hand. Common, do you need your mum to call you up and tell you when to go to bed? No, you're an adult, you can take that responsibility yourself. That is what I mean with a maturing of our culture - that we must learn to act like adults and take responsibility. You don't eat a pound of fudge just before dinner without anyone telling you because you know it's not good for you, just like you don't steal from the honesty bar even when no one is looking because you consider it petty and wrong. In the same way, you don't decide you want 15 cars and a golden yacth in a anarcho-communist society.
I enjoyed reading your post, maybe 'cause I'm a bit buzzed too... in a way I hope this discussion dissolves into a drunken Picard vs. Kirk nerd-off :)
Regarding the point you make, it does not apply in an anarchist society. See me previous post about the rejection of Cartesian rationalism (and with it, central planning). This is exactly why, because there can never be an optimal solution. You always make some sacrifice.
The whole point of anarchism can be said to be that "decisions ought to be made by those affected by them". That is the answer to "And who is to say what the right thing to produce is?"
What you eat, what music player you listen to, etc, should be decided by you and you alone. Communal decisions, like "do we build a sports stadium or a hospital", things that effect an entire community, should be decided by everyone in that community.
Same goes for investments of resources into research and new inventions. Maybe we wouldn't have iPods, maybe we would. The point is that the decision to research a better music player would not be made by a corporation because they see a window for profit - it would be made by the people affected by that decision. So maybe you'd have a situation where you can't fit every song ever made into one mp3 player, but you'd have better medicine.
An anarcho-communist society would in essence be a "polis" as described by Aristotle (though he did not acknowledge the need for freedom, bear in mind!). The "best good", a bundle of all possible goods relevant to human happiness subject to human needs, as we understand them through science (psychology, neurology, anthropology, sociology, etc...) and philosophy; containing the fulfilment for all physical, mental, moral, personal, spiritual, etc. desires. There is room for individuals to choose differently; this reasoning fully supports pluralism, as it is perfectly possible to have different life plans, ways of life and cultures, that arrive at different bundles of goods, which are still coherent, admissible and admirable.
The price mechanism guides us - to more profit. That is the only thing it can do, the only information it carries. The price mechanism cannot help us make environmentally or ethically sound decisions, unless there are monetary consequences. As Mises himself admits:
"If... we are considering whether a hydraulic power-works would be profitable we cannot include in the computation the damage which will be done to the beauty of the waterfalls unless the fall in values due to fall in tourist traffic is taken into account."
That is why you wind up with a world with wanton ecological destruction; “If we know precisely how much we have to pay for beauty, health, honour, pride, and the like, nothing need hinder us from giving them due consideration." (Mises) Things only matter if they have a price tag. It may "pain" some "sensitive people" but hey, "it is in the nature of things.”
Furthermore, only the subjective opinions of those with purchasing power matter to the entrepreneur. This is why you wind up with a world with a kick-ass entertainment device like the Wii, and millions of people starving. Those people have no money, so their desire for food is nothing compared to my desire to play virtual bowling.
Robbo,
Let me make sure I understand you. This is what you think:
1. None of those four points solves the calculation problem. But the four of them put together will do the job. In this case, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
2. What you put together in your paper, about do we use 10 of M and 9 of N, or 9 of N and 10 of M, or maybe even 10 and 10, is the calculation problem.
.......
The answer to Mises' question "How should the director build his house?" is "Go through my 4 point checklist. Calculate in kind, self regulate your stocks, use the law of the minimum, and set up a heirarchy of production goals."
Do I have it right?
Sigh. No, you havent got it right and if you are determined to engage in silly caricaturisation you never will get it right. If you want to just piss around and play one upmanship with words thats fine by me. Ive got better things to do with my time. If you want to engage in serious exchange of ideas on the other hand then start behaving like you meant it. Ive tried to the best of my ability in the paper to talk the reader through the actual process by which the rational allocation of resources could be effected. I suggest you read it again if you seriously want the answers to the questions you have so obviously disingenuously raised.
What's an internet debate without someone poking their head in and making fun out of someone else without contributing anything, and interrupting the discussion in the process?
Ah, internet forums! Never change!
Apfelstrudel: ... just like you don't steal from the honesty bar even when no one is looking because you consider it petty and wrong.
... just like you don't steal from the honesty bar even when no one is looking because you consider it petty and wrong.
No "stealing". I'd be taking what I need, right?
In the same way, you don't decide you want 15 cars and a golden yacth in a anarcho-communist society.
Have you tried it? It's a lot of fun. I may still decide. Would I have a chance to go before the Proper Behavior Board and present my case?
Apfelstrudel, I am not sure quoting Picard is a good idea, he was a captain of a ship run along military lines, him having ultimate authority on all matters.
I think it's quite humorous that the communists constantly add additional requirements that must be met before we reach the Garden of Eden. Marx starts off by saying that communism is the inevitable event of human history. Then Lenin rejects that notion by saying that society needs a group of trained revolutionaries to throw off the yoke of capitalism. And now, apparently, a vague psychological transformation must happen in society where we have to suppress our natural urge to improve our lot in life before communism can be established. Just an observation.
Anyways. What if I want fifteen cars and a golden yacht? Are you going to stop me from doing so?
This is just hand-waving SmilingDave's argument. Calculation applies in an anarchist society. Opportunity cost, too, applies in an anarchist society. All the philosophizing in the world won't overcome the fact that it is impossible to gague scarcity and consumer demand without prices, or that it is incredibly inefficient and a waste of resources to use steel to make an iPod as opposed to a factory. This would be an unrealizable outcome in a capitalist society, as the price of steel would be so high that it would be eviscerate any profit made from producing the iPod. This is the situation that faced the Soviet Union, where people were starving to death because resources were being spent on capital accumulation as opposed to satisfying immediate consumer demands such as, say, eating and having clothes. Again, in a capitalist society the high demand for food would push up its price and make it more profitable to produce. This, in turn, would enable to producers of food to bid away resources from areas of production where their output is less highly-demanded.
Capitalism produces the goods and services that are demanded by consumers. Whether this is "right" is opinion.
You contradicted yourself in those two sentences. First, you say that individuals should be able to choose the goods and services that they desire. Good, I doubt you'll find anyone here who disagrees with you on that. But then you go on to say that an abstract entity called "the community" should decide what to produce when this producton effects "the community". As every unit of output involves some opportunity cost in the form of lost resources to society as a whole, then literally every decision on what to make will have to be decided by popular vote. To produce the songs I listen to land, labor, and capital are all spent. The same goes for any consumption good or production good.
Reduction ab absurdum, if I decide that I want toast for breakfast a communal vote will be necessary to decide if the lost resources of a slice of bread, butter, the dulling of my butter knife, etc, is too detrimental to the community as a whole.
I won't repeat what I and others have said on this thread about the rationing function of prices. I highly suggest you read through all the posts again pertaining to it, as you seem to fail to understand where exactly profit comes from and what even determines prices to begin with.
I will add, however, that mass production is for the masses. The reason capitalism does not produce goods and services just for the elite is because there is a much wider profit margin if they target society as a whole.
Apfel,
1. So maybe we can agree on something. Until the human race develops self control, we agree anarcho socialism won't work. And until then, a stop gap way of stopping the greedy from gobbling everything up is to make sure they only get something if they can pay for it, meaning they have worked and been productive enough to deserve what they want.
There is deep stuff hidden in here. Let us put aside the slur that all rich people have gotten that way by theft and extortion. I see no evidence for it. Now Marx claimed it must be the case, because that's where profits come from, exploitation of the workers. But he has been debunked, I hope we can agree.
So that if a person has money, there is a reason for it. He has been given that money voluntarily by someone. Why? Because he has satisfied that person's need or want. Robbo wants an Ipod. Smith gives him one. Out of gratitude, and not to feel like an exploiter of Smith's hard work, [which Marx would excoriate], he gives Smith money in return. That's what the free market is about. That's how people get rich. More on this later.
2. Just winging it as the occasion arises might be a good idea, and even praiseworthy as thinking outside of the box. I do not know. Mises argued that it is like rolling ten thousand dice and hoping they all come up ace. In other words, it's like Kirk using non rational thinking on that planet. What good does that do him? He still has no clue which way to turn.
3. Under capitalism [and without govt meddling, which we both hate], communal decisions ARE decided by the comunnity. Some entrepeneur sniffs around to see if people [= the comunnity] want a sports stadium badly enough to pay for it. If he thinks they do, he builds one, and charges admission to get in. If he sees he will make more money building a hospital, meaning people want the hospital with more intensity, so badly they will pay more for it, he will build that.
4. Now we come to the a very basic and important thing. You wrote: "...the decision to research a better music player would not be made by a corporation because they see a window for profit - it would be made by the people affected by that decision."
A "corporation seeing a window for profit" and "people affected by it making the decision" are two ways of saying the exact same thing. How does a corporation make profits? By selling something. That's the only way. And you can only sell something if people buy it. And people will only buy it if they want it. So "a corporation making a profit" means "giving people what they want". If there is no profit to be made, it means people don't want it.
People who scorn capitalism talk about the greed of the capitalist. But they forget that he has only one way to feed his greed: by making other people happy, the more the better [for him!]. So happy they will actually pay him for what he gives.
Paradoxically, a person who brags that he is not greedy is at the same time saying he is going to make no effort to help people. [Unless he works totally for free the same amount of time as a worker, which is rare indeed and an unreliable way to support a country. How long is he going to have food?]
5. As for the environment, and wanton ecological destruction, that is another problem altogether. It stems from the fact that some things are not private property, so nobody can sue to protect it. In the US, the situation is made worse because there are laws that even someone who owns private property cannot sue to prevent people ruining it.
I'm glad to see you quoted Mises in Socialism. What do you think of the book?
At any rate, what Mises meant was, even though we cannot put a price on beauty, we can put a put a price on how much you will have to pay to keep it. In other words, someone can buy out the power plant and keep the place beautiful. If many people want it, they can all chip in and buy it, and pay the higher price for electricity.
6. The reason we wind up with millions of people starving is not because other people have Wiis. I don't think Americans [in the past] and Asians [now] are so much smarter and better workers than people in the poorer countries. In a large pool of people, I am guessing that the talent will be the same, more or less. Certainly the difference will not be great enough to account for Wiis on one hand and starvation on the other.
The difference is the exact difference that we see between communist China and current day China, or East Germany and West Germany, or North and South Korea. In the poor starving countries, there is a govt that stops people from free market operations. In the rich countries, there is a free market. And there is a logical reason for a free market leading to wealth. Robbo claims Marx said the same thing [and he knows more about Marx than I], that capitalism leads to incredible productivity. Do you know of a counterexample?
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Esuric
First, Marx's explanation for the inevitable demise of capitalism revolves around his theory of accumulation, of which his so-called "law of the declining rate of profit" is merely one component (they key factor revolves around the so-called "organic composition of capital"). Marx's theory of accumulation predicts a slow and gradual decline towards the complete and systemic destruction of capitalism. In other words, his framework cannot explain the cyclical fluctuations that we perceive; it cannot account for the "boom" which always precedes the "bust."
You haven't shown any familiarity with Marx's actual economic framework. I'm convinced, therefore, that a serious and fruitful conversation with you is absolutely impossible. I will respond when/if you make a serious point.
Marx's theory entirely ignores relative disproportionalities; it is a theory of overproduction
Well thats a bit rich! You say I havent shown any familiarity with Marx 's actual economic framework and confidently assert that Marx.s theory entirely ignores relative disproportionalities. "it is theory of overproduction". Well, blow me over! Who would have thought of that.? Marxian crisis theory is a theory of overproduction. Wow. How profound!
Why is that I get the distinct impression that you scrambled this hasty assessment of marxian economics from quick read of some third rate free market hack laying into Marx and marxism. We all know the type. Empty barrels that make the most noise
Actually if you consult your well thumbed copy of Capital vol 2 (hint - Im being ironic here) go to chapters 20 and 21 where Marx presents a simplified model of the economy consisting of DEPT I, producing means of production or “capital goods”, and DEPT II, producing means of consumption, or “consumer goods”. The point of the exercise was to demonstrate that for accumulation to proceed on a steady basis there would have to be balanced growth between these two departments, disproportiuonate growth would cause a rupture in the process of capital accumulation leading to overproduction in one department that would rebound against the other - and hence a crisis. Overproduction is certainly involved in the theory of Marxian crisis but the questiuon is how does it come about. That is where the disproportionality argument comes on
So Mr Clever Clogs who allegedly knows his Marx inside out, after you have carefully wiped all the egg from your face perhaps you go on to enlighten us all as to where "Marx's theory of accumulation predicts a slow and gradual decline towards the complete and systemic destruction of capitalism". Oh and while you're at it please explain you sentence immediately following that viz. "In other words, his framework cannot explain the cyclical fluctuations that we perceive". If Marx argued that the trade cycle is built into capitalism how can this be squared with your claim that he predicted a "slow and gradual decline towards the complete and systemic destruction of capitalism"?
A thing regarding the two communists, they both argue that wanting bling and yachts is a childish thing and that in their society all these things must be shared like adults would, or would magically disappear as human nature has transformed itself into only being poetry readers.
A childish thing to think is: "not fair, why should they have it", a mature mind will say: "well good for him", they will probably want to turn this into a personal attack and therefore invalidate as worthy to their high brow thinking, but honestly, until the day they can accept and tolerate the fact that some dumb football star will be wealthier and have a better life than they will ever have, despite all their superior dialectice, they are nothing but immature little children.
z1235,
I am calling you out.
I said very clearly: "no authority, no one to hold your hand" and "No force, no coercion" Now you mention a "Proper Behavior Board". It is very clear from what I wrote, and my allegiance to anarchism that I would oppose such an institution. Your post is therefore nothing but an attempt to ridicule me, and what's worse, do so without any basis.
And yes, I bet having 15 cars is great fun in a society where it is a sign of great wealth, and great wealth gives you respect, women and power. Having them makes you special, one of the few who can have it. It means you must be a movie- or rock star, or something.
The reason no one would think it's "fun" in a anarcho-communist society is that such an association would not exist. If potentially anyone could have 15 cars, then it doesn't say anything about you or make you special. The incentive to possess them disappears. A guy with 15 cars would be considered as weird as someone who fills giant containers with sand and keeps them in his apartment, and maybe a bit of a dick since he clearly took more than he needed.
ulrichPf,
Do not speak ill of Picard :)
I was not serious with that quote, off course. But it's from an episode where they find a group of people from our time frozen in space, who then are shocked to see a society without money. One of them uses the officer's channel of ship's intercom, whereupon Picard scolds him, for it is for important messages only. The guy then asks Picard why the channel isn't coded to prevent unauthorised access, whereupon Picard tells him "I believe we can all exercise some self-restraint."
The point being (Roddenberry was a Marxist BTW) that you do not need punishment or coercion; people can just take personal responsibility.
Sorry Apfelstrudel, until humans evolve into different beings, the guy who has 15 cars will not be the one seen as weird, it will always be the guys that think that all humans will somehow not want these things that will always be seen as weird.
Apfelstrudel: z1235, I am calling you out.
Please be gentler with those piercing repartes next time.
I said very clearly: "no authority, no one to hold your hand" and "No force, no coercion"
What about gravity? Or women with hairy legs? Would there be any of those?
Now you mention a "Proper Behavior Board". It is very clear from what I wrote, and my allegiance to anarchism that I would oppose such an institution. Your post is therefore nothing but an attempt to ridicule me, and what's worse, do so without any basis.
There's plenty of basis, believe me.
If potentially anyone could have 15 cars, then it doesn't say anything about you or make you special. The incentive to possess them disappears. A guy with 15 cars would be considered as weird as someone who fills giant containers with sand and keeps them in his apartment, and maybe a bit of a dick since he clearly took more than he needed.
I agree that sheep do not need capitalism, money, or markets. Your whole premise does seem to be the one I suggested in my Two-step ECP debunk: Nirvana ensues when humanity is magically transformed into a predictable, malleable, and homogenous blob (or a herd of sheep). Ask sheep if they felt coerced or forced and let me know their answer. This is how you guarantee the non-existence of violence and coercion in your grotesque construct.
Robbo, mind your manners.
Rcder, Yeah, different takes on a theory. Whoda thunk it? It's almost like there's several theories of capitalism, and several intepretations of those. We're also not discussing orthodox Marxism, but anarcho-communism, a different system. This has been pointed out. "Are you going to stop me from doing so?" No, just like no one stops you from going down to the beach and a ton of sand, or picking up a billion pinecones in the forrest. There's just no real reason for you to do so, no incentive. This has also been explained; anarcho-communism is big on freedom. "Getting rid" of something for us means overcoming the need for it. "Calculation applies in an anarchist society." Yes, but not the objection to central authority. "it is impossible to gague scarcity and consumer demand without prices" Scarcity can be gauged by measuring or estimating the avaliability of a resource. Same with demand; besides, consumers participate in decisions. von Mises himself admitted this would be possible, and that socialist calculation for consumer goods was possible. His beef was with production. "Capitalism produces the goods and services that are demanded by consumers." Exactly. Anarchism produces the goods and services that are demanded by the people. Not just those who have money. And every voice is equal; no one person gets a billion "votes" while billions have no say, Whether this is "right" is opinion. Yes, it is mainly an ethical concern. A person who is OK with exploitation would for instance have no trouble accepting the Labour Theory of Value and keep being a capitalist. By community I mean any group of people collectivley affected by a decision. Reduction ab absurdum, if I decide that I want toast for breakfast a communal vote will be necessary to decide if the lost resources of a slice of bread, butter, the dulling of my butter knife, etc, is too detrimental to the community as a whole. This is nonsense and in no way, shape or form follows from what I wrote. I suggest reading up a bit on anarchist theory; I fear I can't correct this statement in a paragraph or two. ...you seem to fail to understand where exactly profit comes from and what even determines prices to begin with. I understand, it comes from anticipating (guessing) desires of consumers, and providing them with what they demand. However, this means that investing resources in iPods when people are starving is perfectly rational, since the people who have money want iPods and those who starve do not. If the goal is profit, you'll wind up with profit. There's no magical way by which a system based on self-interest and greed, with profit as the only goal, will still lead to prosperity for all. The reason capitalism does not produce goods and services just for the elite is because there is a much wider profit margin if they target society as a whole. You mean the portion of society that has purchasing power.
ulkrichPf
Oh for heavens sake, come off your high horse. No body is saying wanting to sail around in yacht is a bad thing. I'm not particularly fussed myself but i dont decry against those who wish to engage in the hobby. The example of the yacht came up initially in the context of the discussion about the priorities of production in a communist society. Its not that a communist society wont produce yachts; the point is rather that the production of yachts will - quite rightly and sensibly - most likely take second place to higher priority end uses in the allocation of resources or, at any rate, may have to turn to technological substitution as an alternative. We have no way of knowing in advance whether this might mean more or less or the same number of yachts being produced as today but whatever the case yachts will probably as I say be quite low down on the list of priorities. Anyone who thinks a yacht is more important than ensuring adequate housing or medical cover or a decent diet is an insensitive buffoon.
The other point about yachts is that you dont have to own a yacht in order to use it. I think thats pretty self evident and uncontroversial. The idiotic argument you come up with - that its "childish" to say "not fair why should they have it "and mature to say "good for him" really amounts to saying in other words that its perfectly acceptable , for example, that well over a billion people languish in absolute material poverty while a handful of billionaires own a huge chunk of the worlds assets. At least have the intellectual honesty to admit this. To be quite blunt , arguing then that anyone who feels uncomfortable with this state of affairs is somehow being "childish" is nothing short of disgusting in my view. But at least we know which side of the class war you are on, matey. Presumably you will defend to the death the right of billionaires to their absolute privilege while caring not a toss that others die becuase they own nothing . To care is after all according to the logic of you argument to be" childish " and "immature". Such is the gormless and deceitful logic by which a parasitic society seeks to justify its own naked class interests
1. Yes, mutualism would be a good start. Because, as I am sure you are aware, how much a person gets today is in no way proportional to how much they contribute.
I'm not making this into a discussion on the LTV, but if you truly believe that every rich person deserves their wealth you are living in a fantasy land. Hell yes most of it is ill-gotten gains. Who does the country (I assume you're American) you live in actually belong to?
2. Never said anything about "winging" it, just acknowledging the limits of practical rationality. The anarchist position of epistemology and rationality is actually similar to that of Hayek.
3. Too bad a lot of people have no money, and a few have lots. A system where a person has a billion votes, and billions have none, is not a democratic or just system. Above all, what is produced in a society with a system like that is not the wish of the "community", but of those with the most money.
4. "If there is no profit to be made, it means people don't want it."
Or that they can't afford it. You seem to take it as given that everyone has money. You do realise there's a shitload of poor people in the world, right?
And this is not even getting into how the aggregated subjective individual wants of people will not bearing about the same result as a collective democratic decision.
"But they forget that he has only one way to feed his greed: by making other people happy"
Are you high? How much denial of reality are you capable of? Sure, making people happy is one way. Stealing from them is another. Or did Imperalism not happen? Or maybe it just doesn't have far-reaching effects even today, that make it possible to exploit people in the third world, by for instance employing them in sweat-shops? Or is this not something that concerns you, because it is somehow wholly the governments fault, and in a free market system there would be no unequal power relations?
5. "It stems from the fact that some things are not private property, so nobody can sue to protect it."
And some things can never be, because there is no profit in owning them. Besides, the only incentive to protect something is still profit. If I make more money by dumping waste on a piece of my own property (or letting someone else do it for pay - consider how nuclear waste is sold to poor countries) I have no reason not to do it.
"What do you think of the book?"
He raised very important questions, his critique of the USSR is admirable, but he makes several baseless assumptions and fails to properly defend some positions (like the "it's in the nature of things" statement).
6. I did not say that was the reason. Though I wonder what you would say the reason is, since you seem to deny exploitation. Elaborate more, and bear in mind that the China of today still has a lot of starving people. And that even the USSR had some pretty impressive growth in its day.
What I said was that in our current system, investing resources in the construction of a Wii while human beings are dying, human beings that those resources could potentially save, is still a perfectly valid and rational decision. The price mechanism cannot take ethical questions into account, such information is not carried. All the entrepreneur sees is that there is a demand for Wiis, and responds.
So it has come down to, "Yes, capitalism provides the needs of those with purchasing power very effectively. And socialism, by trying to please everyone, can please no one but those who enjoy mass starvation and eternal poverty [=calculation problem]
"But what about those without purchasing power? Is it just or kind to ignore them as if they don't exist? Come to think of it, is it just that some people have more purchasing power than others?"
Deep question, that deserves deep answers.
In theory and in practice, it has been shown [and admitted by Marx, says Robbo], that capitalism improves the lot of the rich and the poor. The poor more than the rich. Because when you increase productivity, you lower prices, by the law of supply and demand. Meaning you give everyone more purchasing power.
Where does purchasing power come from in the first place? By working. Yes, rich people have to work too, to increase their purchasing power. Nothing comes for free [absent govt meddling]. By work, I mean giving other people what they want. So the question arises, why do some people have more purchasing power than others? Because they have more talent and work harder. In other words, becuse they are better at giving people what they want.
Is it unfair that some people are better at giving people what they want than others? I don't know. Send all complaints to the Good Lord, or to Nature, or to Blind Chance. But that's the way it is.
Should we try to change the balance of things, giving equal purchasing power to all? This would mean having someone work and then taking away by force the fruits of his labor. It's called slavery. Even Marx hated it. It seems to me that the ethical and moral justification for this scheme is not obvious in the least. In addition, it will reduce drastically incentives to work. it has been showm time and again that slave labor is never productive, and causes losses, not profits, for the slave owners.
Now Robbo's scheme of all work being voluntary is cool, with a minor emendation. One would have the choice of working for oneself or working for others, or both. This has been the way of the world for a long time. It's called charity. And I see no reason for Robbo to oppose it. If I can loll around all day and not work at all and Robbo thinks it's fine, why should he object to using my time usefully and working for myself? Why is this such a great sin?
Roddenberry was a Marxist BTW
This is not true
Smiling Dave
Robbo, since you insist so much in this quotation "would give according to their ability and take according to their needs", do you believe that an economy where there is such a dissociation between production and consumption as this setence implies could be prosperous?
And define "needs", please.
Dave,
You are quite sure that some people have more than others simply because they are more talented and work harder? Again, you live in a fantasy world. One I'd like to visit some day, since in it Adrian Belew would be a trillionare and there'd be no Lady Gaga; Paris Hilton would live in a cardboard box and my granddaddy’s 12 hours a day in a coal mine would've gotten him more than an early grave.
Also: (panel 3 especially)
You make a lot of baseless assumptions made in your post. For instance you say that rich people work, which I guess is true if "work" is extended to include investing money. You assume, and I can understand how this makes sense, that if a person is more talented than another that naturally means that they should have more material goods and services.
You also seem to ignore what even you must consider grave injustices; that some people are so poor that they never get a chance to develop any talents, while others have such wealth that they cannot fail.
I'll expand more on this tomorrow. Now, sleeep...
Felipe,
It's 3 am here, sorry. I meant the show itself. The society presented is definitely socialist. Gene's personal political opions are unknown to me.
1. You wrote: I'm not making this into a discussion on the LTV, but if you truly believe that every rich person deserves their wealth you are living in a fantasy land. Hell yes most of it is ill-gotten gains. Who does the country (I assume you're American) you live in actually belong to?
Yes, I'm in America. And I doubt that most wealth is ill gotten. Ill gotten means taking something without giving something in return. And yet I see the incredible amounts of products around, I can but assume somebody must have produced them and gotten wealthy that way. Meaning his wealth is not ill gotten at all.
Now if the question is "What do we do about ill gotten gains?", it would be throwing away the baby with the bath to say "take everybody's money away forever, ill gotten or no." That would be grossly unjust. Also it is unproductive, because it would kill all incentive to work.
Don't you think cases of ill gotten gain should be treated on an individual basis? Do you think that all members of group X should be killed, if we grant some, or even most, of them are bad in some way? Say country X agresses against country Y. Should we just drop hydrogen bombs on country X to kill them to the last man? While we are at it, should we kill the whole human race because soem members of it are murderous psychopaths?
2. It is not democratic, but why is democracy good or just? As for why does one person have a billion votes, it is because he worked a billion hours. The ones who have no votes either did not work, or are living in a socialist society which has impoverished them.
3. You wrote:
There are poor people in the world, because they are living under oppresive [=socialist] govts. Giving them the money of the wealthy will not change their govt, will it? So you are attacking the symptom, not the cause.
I'm not sure what a collective democratic decision even is. Do you mean that the majority forces its will on the minority? I think that is a bad thing, not a good thing. Do you think a collective decision is not subjective? Do people suddenly change their inner beings and become other wordly angels when they vote?
4. You wrote: Are you high? How much denial of reality are you capable of? Sure, making people happy is one way. Stealing from them is another. Or did Imperalism not happen?
I didn't realize we were discussing fraud and theft. I thought we were discussing honest means of making a living, contrasting a free market with socialism. Both will be plagued by crooks and thieves that will have to be dealt with. And that theft can have far reaching effects is true. But so what? We are discussing capitalism and socialism, not theft. [Though from what I gather about socialism, it is sheer theft, until such time as mankind evolves to the superior being you were talking about earlier].
Or maybe it just doesn't have far-reaching effects even today, that make it possible to exploit people in the third world, by for instance employing them in sweat-shops?
You are making a big mistake about sweat shops. Those who work in so called sweat shops are there of their own free will, very happy to be there. When do gooders mistakenly pressure the shops to close down, the female workers then usually become prostitutes. Do some research. In any case, a thief is a thief whether he lives in a capitalist or socialist country. Not sure why you brought up the subject.
Or is this not something that concerns you, because it is somehow wholly the governments fault, and in a free market system there would be no unequal power relations?
What do you mean somehow? Look at who is running poor countries. Look at the laws in those countries.
In a free market system, absent govt meddling, the power would accrue, deservedly, to the one who pleased the most people, as I explained. When he stopped pleasing them, someone else would, and that new person would get the power.
6. You wrote: And some things can never be, because there is no profit in owning them.
I fail to understand you. Look around your room at the things you own. Do you make a profit from most of them? From your television, your furniture, your everything? The world is, fortunately, full of things called consumer goods. A rich man may very well buy a waterfall just for the pleasure of looking at it. It happens all the time.
Besides, the only incentive to protect something is still profit.
Not at all. It's because it is mine, and I don't want it ruined. Are you careless with your TV because it makes you no profit?
If I make more money by dumping waste on a piece of my own property (or letting someone else do it for pay - consider how nuclear waste is sold to poor countries) I have no reason not to do it.
That may be so, in your personal case. But then, if there were people who cared enough to buy you out, they would preserve the beauty.
As for nuclear waste sold to poor countries, there again we have govt meddling. I doubt the sellers of nuclear waste made the deal directly with the owner of the land. He would never agree. And if he did, that's his concern. Unless it damaged my property, too, in which case I should be able to sue him, or forbid him to do it in the first place.
7. The reason is that those countries without a free market and/or a tyrannical oppresive govt starve. [Am I repeating myself? Maybe some of the tyrants merely use socialism as an excuse to grab everything. But Hayek argued that socialism leads to tyranny. It's a chicken and egg thing, I guess]. As simple as that. Can you name me a country with a free market whose people are starving?
As for people poor in China, give them time to recover from Mao, and give them more freedom. Right now they have an aggressive central bank [=govt], a sure way to impoverish.
8. You wrote: What I said was that in our current system, investing resources in the construction of a Wii while human beings are dying, human beings that those resources could potentially save, is still a perfectly valid and rational decision.
I don't get this at all. In a free market, those people would be hired to work in the Wii factory and other places and have food.
The price mechanism cannot take ethical questions into account, such information is not carried. All the entrepreneur sees is that there is a demand for Wiis, and responds.
And that's all he needs. If there are starving people, some entrepeneur will get very rich feeding them, in a free market.
When there is a need for something, people can work enough to afford it [=create purchasing power for themselves], and thus create demand, and thus a businessman will meet that demand because he wants to make money. Especially the basic neccesities, which are fortunately so inexpensive.
Do you not think that absent govt interference, businesses would flock to poor starving countries to take advantage of the cheap labor, thus feeding them all? And thus making them progressively wealthier? People are already talking about it all the time.
There is no such for "enought wealth he/she cannot fail", i've seen dozens of people that once were quite wealthy and suffered huge losses.
My mother uses to say that money demands respect, if you don't respect it, it quickly runs away.
Vitor,
You have a cool mama.
This could just as well read "If Housepets Were Communists/Socialist", but then it would actually make sense. Except the third panel would read, "I know that there are stray cats going hungry, if only i had some way of using someone else's money and labor in order to feed them."
Free access to goods is pointless, it serves no purpose. If a good is physically abundant then it will be cheap in capitalism and anyone can easily afford it. If a good is not abundant then it is unavailable to people regardless of our providing it "for free". Making stuff "free" does not in any way relieve scarcity. But socialism actually reduces productivity, so there would be less stuff to go around. The same goes for wage labor, if society is productive enough so peope only have to work for fun, then they can do so in capitalism. As such a socialist economy does not provide any benefits other than the contentment some might gain from abolishing exchange. The only purpose of promoting "free access" is the belief that this will create a free lunch, i.e. that the goods we currently can't afford in capitalism will appear out of thin air if we abolish the need to pay for them. Although they vehemently deny this, and might not be rationally aware of it, on an instinctive level all anticapitalists believe that socialism would create stuff out of thin air. They think goods would be just as available as they are in the capitalist economy while at the same time not being rationed through pricing. The choice of the term "access" illustrates this very well. They see goods not as scarce because they are physical objects who are limited, but because we have to pay for them. Obviously that is a contradiction, goods are available precisely because prices limit access to them. The fallacy is taking the availability of goods under capitalism for granted as if they are a fact of nature and thinking that the way we experience scarcity in capitalism is the cause of scarcity, through not being able to pay for stuff. So when you abolish the need to pay for stuff there would be a free lunch. When they attempt that in practice socialists quickly find out that without the rationing function of prices you no longer have the availability of goods that capitalism provided. Then people have "access" to stuff that isn't there. That's why store shelves were empty in the Soviet Union.
Also, a non-market economy will necessarily always be a government-run economy. If goods are to show up in stores, something has to allocate them. If markets do not do this, a government has to do it, there is no way around that. Socialists tend to imagine that everyone will happily get along in their utopia and therefore decisions of the central plan don't ever have to be enforced, that way they can pretend that there wouldn't be a state. But in practice there would be a state and it would be a centrally planned economy. For instance, who decides to which factory the tin that is used to produce tin cans should be delivered? Obviously a central planner. What if I want to make some changes to that delivery scheme or design one of my own? Could I do that? Of course not, there would be chaos. Somebody would stop me, by force if necessary, and tell me that I don't get to meddle with the central plan. Well how do we decide who gets to make the plan and tell everyone else not to meddle with it? A government. Even if it is democratic, it would be a state monopoly on the means of production. Democracy requires a state. Who tells the truck driver who delivers the tin where to go? It comes down to the question who's central plan will be followed. Obviously one plan has to be imposed, and unless all humans somehow agree to the same plan it would have to be imposed on society by a governmental elite. The government would in effect have a monopoly on the means of production. You can come up with all sorts of tricks to disguise that, for example by saying that organization would be 'self-regulating', and thus not centrally planned. But self-regulating system still has to be imposed by a state. And it could not be fully self-regulating, somebody would have to type numbers into a calculator and give orders to the economy. That would certainly be a government function. You can imagine that this system will employ some sort of fluffy, democratic decision-making process to guide the actions of the government. But that does not change the fact that it would be a government-run, centrally planned economy. And in practice this "local decision-making" would need appointed officials calling shots, including allegiances and special interests, and thus be mired in hierarchy with struggles over power and bureaucratic privilege. It would be an artificial and fragile democracy, dependent on the whims of people to keep it functioning. And if people are democratic-minded, they will be in capitalism too. So again, socialism offers no benefit, it is mostly an empty vessel that allows people to imagine all sorts of good stuff to manifest out of thin air.
I don't get where this notion comes from that abolishing exchange would bring about a "new socialist man" who would feel mutual obligations for his fellow man and be universally interdependent. If anything, abolishing exchange will get rid of mutual obligations and interdependency. We can expect people to become more selfish and seclusive, xenophobic and paranoid, if exchange does not make them interdependent. Essentially it would be like an entire society on welfare. Exchange is interdependency, so it just doesn't make sense that a socialist economy would breed a more social kind of human being, even if we assume that human nature is malleable in that way. The empirical data agrees with me, private philanthropy and mutual responsibility explodes when private property rights are secure and people engage in free exchange, while it clamps down in more welfarist, "free access" societies.
Apfel.
You wrote: You are quite sure that some people have more than others simply because they are more talented and work harder? Again, you live in a fantasy world. One I'd like to visit some day, since in it Adrian Belew would be a trillionare and there'd be no Lady Gaga; Paris Hilton would live in a cardboard box and my granddaddy’s 12 hours a day in a coal mine would've gotten him more than an early grave.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. By talent I mean "the ability to give people what they want". Adrian Belew had it to some extent, Lady Gaga seems to have it to a great extent. I did not mean musical or artistic talent per se.
Paris Hilton's papa had talent. That's how he got rich, giving people a nice place to stay away from home. I am sure he worked like a dog, too. Paris inherited his wealth. I don't see inheritance as unfair. It is what most to all people want to do with their money, leave it for their kids. It also provides great incentive for people to work, knowing it iwll go to their kids after them. In any case, SOMEBODy had to please a lot of people for Paris to have her money.
I don't know if your granddaddy lived in a country with a free market. In any case, I did not mean that hard work will automatically bring wealth. I meant that if A works one hour, and B works ten hours at the same thing, B will have more money.
As for the cartoon, yes some people are born into wealthy families, and benefit for free from their parents hard work. I already discussed this earlier, that it is not unfair or a great crime or a reasion to confiscate their money.
You wrote: For instance you say that rich people work, which I guess is true if "work" is extended to include investing money. Investing money involves work indeed. Both in the sense of taking a lot of time, and in the sense of giving people what they want. After all, someone is going to be using the money invested to produce more wealth. He wants that money badly, enough to pay for it.
You wrote: You also seem to ignore what even you must consider grave injustices; that some people are so poor that they never get a chance to develop any talents, while others have such wealth that they cannot fail.
In a free market, those with talent tend to rise to the top even from the basest poverty. Here they call it the American dream, because we had a pretty free market until about 1913 [when it started getting worse and worse]. And it still happens. Look at Cesar Milan, at the Beatles, and many many others.
Vitura answered your q about too big to fail. And even where it true, what is unjust about it? Somebody worked so hard and provided so much satisfaction to the world that from sheer gratitude they made him so wealthy he cannot possibly be poor. I think that's great. Brings a tear to the eye.
"You also seem to ignore what even you must consider grave injustices; that some people are so poor that they never get a chance to develop any talents, while others have such wealth that they cannot fail."
Answer this question-How is wealth created?
And this from someone who has gone out of his way to demonstrate that that is something he conspicuously lacks. Same goes for some of your other contributors, mind , with a few honorable exceptions. I think the tone of the debate was set right from the start before I even joined this community with the obnoxious ad hominens coming in thick and fast. Dont be surprised if I bite back
Dont worry, you dont bite.
As always Esuric dominates the debate with sharp logic and economic knowledge, kudos to you sir.
I wish I could get into the debate a little more but medical school consumes almost all my time.
The Picard reference is funny because the Federation in Star Trek is a depiction of Gene Roddenberry's post-scarcity communist system. The first Star Trek with anything like money and trade was deep space nine, started 2 years after his death.
No kidding, Caley, I remember cringing on a couple of episodes because of their derogatory references to 'money', among other things.
It's a communist society, but oddly without starvation or prison camps. That's why it's fiction.
Robbo.
This is to your first reply.
“On scarcity - if people bothered to read with more care and attention they would perhaps appreciate the point that when I dismiss the "bourgeois myth of scarcity"…”
-Thanks?
“Point is that, like it or not, you have to some way of prioritising production goals that is socially consistent in order to decide how to allocate a particular factor under conditions of competing end uses - scarcity. “
-Thank You
“ I am not particularly fussed about the order of these end uses or how these priorities are agreed upon –“
-Too many people are.
“whether by communities democratically deciding on it or by simply leaving it up to the good judgement of production units supplying these input factors. And as I explained that does not mean low priority end uses will be ignored of which I suppose the production of yachts would be an example. It simply means these will be further back in the queue for particular resources and may require recourse to procedures such as technological substitution to met demand . That is eminently sensible as an arragement and I defy anyone to demonstrate how it could not be.”
-Forgive me if I am demonstrating my sensible ignorance, but somehow “by simply leaving it up to the good judgement of production units supplying these input factors”sounds like god.
And “communities democratically deciding” doesn’t really mean much to me. For instance, let’s say that at any level of the proposed polycentralized decision making, the democratic vote comes so close that the last vote casted is the deciding vote. Does this mean that 49.9999999999999%, have to deal with what the majority decide. Or does the majority decide what the winning vote ratio will be? Is it ironic that this situation could boil down to an individual’s subjective decision.
“I believe, of the world's most expensive private home being built to overlook the slums of New Delhi or whereever it is. Thats perfectly acceptable if you are the wealthy capitalist who happens to live in this edifice but certainly not if you are a slum dweller living in its shadow.”
Are you the slum dweller? Or are you a wealth leecher? If not the former, shame on you for the insult. If the later, it figures.
“Not only that, most of the paid work that is done in capitalism is actuallytotally socially useless from the standpoint of meeting human needs; indeed capitalism has become the most grotesquely inefficientt and wasteful form of economic organisation ever devised - by comparison with the productive potential it has, ironically, created.
Don’t mean to nitpick, but you do mean state interventionism right? Surely you don’t believe capitalism was devised by some central planner, excuse me I mean “democratically communal decision.”
That I think is the fundamental reason why I cannot get on board with your idea. To me capitalism, is what naturally occurs. I am convinced that humans act, from my own observation.
Which really means that even if you had figured out the ECP, and it could work [which I admit, I cannot fathom] people would have to undergo a major change in mentality to be ok with it.
Think about it, people want what they want, and you are trying to prove to us that if we didn’t want these things we would all be better off. The fact is, we want what we want and we do what we can to get it. As far as I am concerned, you can’t change that.
Even if the state disappeared overnight (fiat and everything), capitalism would naturally come back as people’s wants are satisfied subjectively through barter until money develops.
It’s funny how capitalism is observable and communism is like religion. I know I know robbo, we need to change right?
The anarcho-capitalism standpoint is obviously full of rampant greed. What about the anarcho-communistic approach prevents that? How does it curtail greed? As a starting point, how am I getting the things I need? Is there a place I go?
OK, guys, this will have to be my last post here. Its been fun while it lasted but really it was never my intent to engage in some long winded cut and thrust with ideological opponents who, for the most part, seem far too fixed in their ways to seriously consider anything that falls outside the narrow horizons of their own worldview. I can't help noticing the overpowering pull that the core ideological dogmas of anarcho capitalism exercise on the minds of its adherents. It confirms my belief that, actually , the proponents of the Misesian calculation argument require the strawman claim that any attempt to break with logic of the market implies some centrally planned governmen-inspired alternative. They are drawn to this position much like flies are to shit. But actually this only serves to highlight the utter fragility of the anarcho capitalist argument - its weak underbelly. So intent and fixed was Mises (and those who think like him) upon attacking a crude caricature of "socialism" in which some mythical "director" was presumed to centrally plan production, that this left him totally unprepared and completely vulnerable to assault from quite another and unexpected direction - anarcho communism
Anarcho communism is your worst nightmare, folks. It is the thing that kills stone dead all the preposterous claims of the anarcho capitalists. Its the self-regulating self-ordering nature of anarcho communism which really holds the key to the complete and utter demolition of the entire econominc calculation argument. We have seen on this forum the frankly desparate and semi comical attempts of the free marketeers to equivocate and insult their way out of a sticky situatuon with the liberal use of ad hominens, non sequiturs and downright misrepresentations. Nice try but it wont work and in your heart of hearts you must know this. Most of you - with a few honourable exceptions - clearly have had no intention of seriously engaging with the argument presented in the paper posted by the OP
So anyway it comes down to this. Much as Ive enjoyed my time here I really do not have the time to continue. Ive debated with anarcho capitalists more times than some people have had hot dinners, to coin a phrase, but it always seems to come down to trench warfare in the end with snipers taking pot shots at each other. In any case Ive got a lot of other more pressing things to do - both personally and on the political front.
So I will have to bid farewell but before doing so may I make a couple of recommendations.
For those of you who want to get more clued up about the anarcho communist alternative to capitalism here are a few links to explore
http://andycox1953.webs.com/ - An excellent site run by my own brother! With a substantial and growing database to boot
http://www.worldincommon.org/ - Check out the theory links. Some good stuff there
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/ - A vast library of articles, pamphlets and educational materials on just about anything you want to search for
http://non-market-calculation.wikispaces.com/
http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI1
And for those of you brave enough to enter the lions den and continue the debate try http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/ but I dont rate your chances of survival :-)
Cheerio
R
Time to give Robin some homework..
I assume in your anarcho communist society, you will be planning to have a modern industrial society. I also assume, you are still going to be using machines and things like farm tractors and buildings constructed with iron girders, and automobiles (or atleast some form of transportation) and you'll need things like construction machinery and mining equipment. To build all these things you will need steel and iron, which in turn means you'll need steel mills and mines to get all your raw materials from. How are your anarchy based communities going to acquire the steel without the use of money?
@ Apfel and Robo,
Question about Ancom: The brick making factory is able to produce this year enough bricks for one house. Now there are 10 people who want to have them to build a house this year. Who gets them? How is it decided?
Looking at this thread with fresh eyes I notice two things:
1) The discussion has moved away from the ECP to anarchist (and Marxist) things in general. I'd like to steer us back, and I think an excellent way would be for one of the ancap people to give a concise explanation as to why Robs, AnarchistFAQ's or this http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6285761/Concerning_the_Economic_Calculation_Problem rebuttal is inadequate.
2) There is a rampant denial of reality going on. Statement claiming that most wealth has been gained fair and square, and that people get rich only through hard work and by making others happy, are demonstrably wrong and show an almost laughable navitety. And it's anarcho-communists that are accused of being Utopians?
1. And I doubt that most wealth is ill gotten.
You are living on a continent that was stolen, and on which slavery was practised for 400 years. The very foundation of your nation is one of theft and oppression; history is filled with examples of people taking without giving anything (or maybe the beads given for Manhattan count as "something" in an ancap world?) and gaining great wealth doing so. And yet you deny reality and insist that most wealth in the world has been fairly gained, and that those who possess it deserve it.
That money is an incentive to work is an old myth, and scientific studies performed by the IMF of all things have showed it to be false. This video has an amusing summary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
And like I said, it's not a childish idea like "money bad, get rid of money and problem solved!". It's a matter of re-designing and changing society do that money is no longer needed. It being anarchism, no one would forbid it or ban it; you could still use it if you really felt like it. There'd just be no incentive.
"Don't you think cases of ill gotten gain should be treated on an individual basis? Bombs, etc."
No, and this in no way follows from anything I've said, or anything any anarchist has ever said. Reductio ad ridiculum. Anarchism is very clear on the point that the problems in society need to be dealt with systematically, through changing society.
2. At least you admit it. If you are OK with a non-democratic system, then we really have nothing to discuss here. Like I said, deep down it boills down to an ethical question.
And what you say about "working a billion hours" is demonstrably false and is a display of sickening ignorance. I truly thought that libertarians and anarcho-capitalists believeing that the rich deserved to be rich and the poor deserved to be poor, and all that comes with it, was a myth coined by your opponents. That no sane person could seriously believe that. Seems I was wrong...
3. If poverty derives from socialism, why are there poor people in the U.S.? Why where there poor people in Chile after Alliende got booted, and fans of the free market took over, gaining some theoretical assistance from Friedman? Why where there poor people during Thatcher's reign?
Nor am I saying we should redistribute wealth - I am an anarchist and not a leftist liberal. This is either a straw-man or a confusion of your part regarding whom you are arguing with.
Nor am I talking about voting. Much has been written about the deliberative process, and I suggest you read up on it.
A market is the sum of individual's subjective choices, and will not result in the same outcome as when people get together and make an objective judgement with the collective good in mind. It is not a matter of becoming angels, it is a matter of a group engaged in democratic deliberation is capable of considering things that an individual cannot, and is motivated by other incentives.
4. I was discussing the contradiction that a system built on greed will, despite giving people a clear incentive to do so, be one without any theft or fraud. That without a government around to punish people who misbehave, everyone will suddenly stop misbehaving and that such enlightenment will accompany our self-interest that everyone will be honest.
This is a true Utopia for me. I am a realist myself; I think that if you want people to be honest you need to change society so that they have no reason to be dishonest, no gain by it.
Stockbrokers determine a stock's value by combining it's risk and it's payoff – a 50% chance to get $100 and the same chance to get nothing puts it's value to 0.5x100 + 0.5x0 = $50. Same thing can be done with any risk really, you just weight the payoff with the risk (and consequences). If the dishonest way pays of more, it is rational to choose it. Sure there are moral issues and jaba, jaba, jaba, but those are included in the consequences. Point is that if the potential gain is big enough and/or the risk small enough, people will break the rules! To suggest that this will happe less without a pesky government is insane.
"Those who work in so called sweat shops are there of their own free will, very happy to be there. "
Yup, you are clearly insane. They are there because they have two choices; work there or die of starvation. They are not "happy" by any sane definition. And their "free will" to be there is so strong that many of these shops have guards, often with Uzis, actively beating and threatening people in order to force them to work. You know why that happens? It's not the government. It's because it makes sense economically; there is a profit in it.
Again, you are mistaking me for a liberal. The solution to the sweat-shop problem is not to force them shut, that is to treat the symptom. The solution is to treat the disease, i.e. remove the reason for them existing in the first place.
6. Or one may buy a piece of land just so that one can dump chemicals on it. If the price of the land is less that the cost of the process of taking care of those chemicals, it makes economic sense. And it being his profit, who can stop him?
Or, again, one can pay other people to dump chemicals on their property. If those people are desperate enough, they will agree, just like such people agree to work in sweatshops. You clearly have no ethical problem with this, but in this case it does not matter. Ecological destruction occurs, and everyone involved has agreed to it of their free will.
But then, if there were people who cared enough to buy you out, they would preserve the beauty.
The voice of those with no money does not matter. Nor that of animals or plants. Nor does the voice of those future generations not yet born matter. They are those who will inherit our problems, but there is no way for them to "buy someone out".
And again, you show the same problematic attitude von Mises had: if people aren't willing to pay for a clear environment, then they must not want it, and then who cares?
And if he did, that's his concern.
No, it is the concern of everyone who lives in that community, and everyone who will live there for the next few hounded thousand years.
7. The United States of America. Sweden. Canada. Germany. Every country in the world. Not everyone is starving, some are very well of. But there are hungry people in all these countries.
OK I get it. When people are prosperous then this is because of the free enterprise system and only the free enterprise system. When people starve and die this is because of governments, and only because of governments. Any evidence for this? Any argument for this?
8. Wow. I got stupider from reading that. How in the world can he "get very rich feeding them" when they have no god damn money. None. Zip. Nada. What is he going to get rich on, their gratitude? It seems to me an anarcho-capitalist is incapable of registering poverty or understanding to concept of being poor. It means you don't have anything.
Business is already flocking to those countries. But guess what? They had this idea that instead of "making them progressively wealthier", and thus lose their source of cheap labour, they'd just keep them poor and miserable.
haedros,
Correct. Good thing I'm not a Communist!