As of late, this guy's blog has been "plaguing" the anarchist sub-reddit, with (sadly) little to no refutation on his bold claims & his own ideological bias found in his posts (he appears to be a communist of some sort). It goes without saying that I think more of us here could really be useful on the front @ reddit in the libertarian & anarchist sub-reddits, both of which are risking lapsing into either minarchism or socialist-anarchism bias, respectively. I figured I'd also post this for some hanging fruit, but figured it would never hurt to link to yet another bold claim that the "free-market is useless" to keep everyone on their toes.
from: http://dbzer0.com/blog/why-the-free-markets-concept-is-useless Market Anarchists would have us believe that a free markets within a very particular society would work for the best result and thus, we as humans should aim for this particular society structure. But this is not proven. It is asserted. It starts from the premise that a Free Market works in a particular way and that is based on assumption of how reality and particularly human psychology works! So why is the concept of the Free Markets useless? If “Free Markets” is defined as being a utilitarian result, then anything that achieves this result is a “Free Market”, and to find that “anything” we’ll again need to use empirical evidence. If Free Market is logically concluded from a few premises to lead to a utilitarian result in a particular society, then unless these few premises are empirically proven, we cannot and should not trust the results, nor aim for that particular society. In the end, the Free Market concept is useless because it tries to prescribe reality independently of any empirical evidence. And like all other such independent concepts, like mathematics or language it can either tell us nothing, or lead us to the wrong path based on equivocations.
Market Anarchists would have us believe that a free markets within a very particular society would work for the best result and thus, we as humans should aim for this particular society structure. But this is not proven. It is asserted. It starts from the premise that a Free Market works in a particular way and that is based on assumption of how reality and particularly human psychology works!
So why is the concept of the Free Markets useless? If “Free Markets” is defined as being a utilitarian result, then anything that achieves this result is a “Free Market”, and to find that “anything” we’ll again need to use empirical evidence. If Free Market is logically concluded from a few premises to lead to a utilitarian result in a particular society, then unless these few premises are empirically proven, we cannot and should not trust the results, nor aim for that particular society.
In the end, the Free Market concept is useless because it tries to prescribe reality independently of any empirical evidence. And like all other such independent concepts, like mathematics or language it can either tell us nothing, or lead us to the wrong path based on equivocations.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Well part of the problem is that he didn't properly identify exactly what "the free market concept" is. So in order to meaningfully engage this, the degree of misunderstanding or misrepresentation about what's actually in question would need to be addressed.
How does one "empirically" prove such a thing from without the mind of the individuals involved in a transaction? Answer: they can't - except when they delude themselves into thinking they somehow know the preferences of individuals better than they do. Therefore, all that matters are their demonstrated preferences. If a party consents to a transaction it is becayse they perceive benefit in doing so, i.e. prefer this to abstaining from taking action. I say until he offers actual arguments we cannot and should not trust a single thing he says. Free markets are voluntary exchanges of private property. It has nothing to do with "utils" or any such nonsense. As for language or mathematics who knows what he is talking about...Sounds like an ignorant rant about a package deal concept.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Nitroadict:But this is not proven. It is asserted. It starts from the premise that a Free Market works in a particular way and that is based on assumption of how reality and particularly human psychology works!
It has been demonstrated though, and as such is more than an assertion. He can contend that the demonstration is not sufficient or that it is fallacious, but then he must support that.
Now, I don't really understand what he means by "based on an assumption of how reality...works", Misesian economics demonstrates that a free market brings about optimal results in the sense that everybody will be satisfying their wants that are ranked most highly, on the other hand, individuals are precluded from doing so as a result of state intervention. Likewise, as Ludwig von Mises demonstrated (and in his tradition so has Yeager) the free market allows for the most extensive and intensive division of labour and accumulation of capital and is therefore most conducive to the production of wealth. Moreover, any intervention on behalf of the state cannot rational allocate resources (neither intratemporally, nor intertemporally) in an attempt to satisfy the desires of consumers because by definition it circumvents the price system, to the extent that intervention takes place calculational chaos will follow, as will the business cycle is the interest rate in the market for loanable funds is distorted
This demonstrates does not "assume" anything more than that resources, both human and natural, are not evenly distributed.
Nitroadict:If “Free Markets” is defined as being a utilitarian result, then anything that achieves this result is a “Free Market”, and to find that “anything” we’ll again need to use empirical evidence.
Only, the market is not a result, it is a process. The "free" implies that it is not impaired by any other institution (such as the state).
I don't think this idiot knows the subject over which he feels compelled to talk. Perhaps he'd do well to read about Austrian welfare economics, or epistemology, before making empty statements about the free market.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Brainpolice: Well part of the problem is that he didn't properly identify exactly what "the free market concept" is. So in order to meaningfully engage this, the degree of misunderstanding or misrepresentation about what's actually in question would need to be addressed.
Exactly, most of his posts follow a similar pattern of decrying something, utilizing definitions & concepts for his argument, but convinently never actually getting down to defining his terms, concepts, etc. that would supposedly make the typical argument stronger. It's seems almost immune from intelligent analysis, methinks, without it falling apart.
Package deals/anti-concepts. Rand was dead on with regard to those and their function.
Jon Irenicus: Package deals/anti-concepts. Rand was dead on with regard to those and their function.
Interestingly, the only response (thus far) to the original post also mentioned Rand in it's objection:
from user: memefilter Well written, by you I assume. I don't have time to "debate" your thesis, but were I to my refutation would start here: In the end, the Free Market concept is useless because it tries to prescribe reality independently of any empirical evidence. And like all other such independent concepts, like mathematics or language it can either tell us nothing, or lead us to the wrong path based on equivocations. Axioms are not "independent" of reality in any sense except Wittgenstein's "language is intrinsically subjective" canard. He forgets that he's a monkey living in reality, and his words and concepts are manifestations of same reality. In that sense, to rail against the mathematics for its "inability to tell you anything" is to sit shiva under a tree and use no technology at all, because the math that "told" you how to build that CPU your using has "no empirical reality", no "utility", and is fundamentally akin to the dream you had last night. All languages are tools. That an adjustable wrench adjusts doesn't refute its existence in nature nor its utility in tightening nuts. The so-called "free market" as described by ANY capitalist rests on the fallacy of Property, which is in fact empirically a construction. However, non-coercive free exchange of goods is certainly not a constructed concept - it is an observable phenomenon in social groups. So, erecting the straw man (with the help of the gold bugs and minarchists, I admit) of the Free Market as an abstracted theoretical ideal and knocking that down is no major feat. It's as easy to do as refuting the perfect god or utopia. Refuting the empirical existence of the voluntary exchange of values is a lot harder, and if you want to start with "all voluntary exchange of goods is intrinsically useless" well... at least then you have a proper affirmative. As Rand correctly noted: "this is not a proof that the axioms are true, it is proof that they are axioms". She said this to put to bed the notions that either axioms don't exist, or that they have no bearing on reality. They do. Primacy of Consciousness in the Kantian sense is no different than Platonic Forms, and flawed for exactly the same reason: they both posit that consciousness exists beyond or outside reality. It doesn't.
Well written, by you I assume. I don't have time to "debate" your thesis, but were I to my refutation would start here:
Axioms are not "independent" of reality in any sense except Wittgenstein's "language is intrinsically subjective" canard. He forgets that he's a monkey living in reality, and his words and concepts are manifestations of same reality.
In that sense, to rail against the mathematics for its "inability to tell you anything" is to sit shiva under a tree and use no technology at all, because the math that "told" you how to build that CPU your using has "no empirical reality", no "utility", and is fundamentally akin to the dream you had last night.
All languages are tools. That an adjustable wrench adjusts doesn't refute its existence in nature nor its utility in tightening nuts. The so-called "free market" as described by ANY capitalist rests on the fallacy of Property, which is in fact empirically a construction. However, non-coercive free exchange of goods is certainly not a constructed concept - it is an observable phenomenon in social groups.
So, erecting the straw man (with the help of the gold bugs and minarchists, I admit) of the Free Market as an abstracted theoretical ideal and knocking that down is no major feat. It's as easy to do as refuting the perfect god or utopia. Refuting the empirical existence of the voluntary exchange of values is a lot harder, and if you want to start with "all voluntary exchange of goods is intrinsically useless" well... at least then you have a proper affirmative.
As Rand correctly noted: "this is not a proof that the axioms are true, it is proof that they are axioms". She said this to put to bed the notions that either axioms don't exist, or that they have no bearing on reality. They do.
Primacy of Consciousness in the Kantian sense is no different than Platonic Forms, and flawed for exactly the same reason: they both posit that consciousness exists beyond or outside reality. It doesn't.
The idea is that the exact definition of "Free markets" in this instance does not matter. I am trying to point out that any definition based on particular kind of assumptions is useless.
For more dialogue, please comment on my site itself, I'd be more than glad to explain and discuss, but I'd prefer it to be in a place where future visitors might see the antilogue.
Jeffrey linked to this guy on the Mises blog some time back when he attacked Rothbard IIRC.
Amateur socialist pundit.
I've seen nothing to dissuade me of that opinion.
Another aberration of the Web 2.0 commons.
llRC?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
If I Remember Correctly
A dastardly attempt to engage in Orwellian 'newspeak' no doubt.
My newspeak is necessary to create doublethink. You could say, it's double plus good.
See? This is what I'm talking about. A lot of dismissal and name-calling, not a lot of argumentation. This is simply groupthink.
I wasn't linked about my article on Rothbard btw, but rather about my refutation of Hoppe's refutarion of the exploitation theory.
Doesn't that equally apply to Mises.org?
Db0:Doesn't that equally apply to Mises.org?
No.
First, because it is my term.
Second, because it doesn't fit the criteria for my term. For example, Yahoo reports about 23,000 backlinks to your domain. They are almost all exclusively from the blogosphere. I would hazard a guess, that if we removed free blog hosts, and your own backlinks from comments, You probably have less than 1500 backlinks from sites where someone pays for the pleasure of being able to link to your work.
You've tried the groupthink out before IIRC on the Mises blog. Instead of complaining about groupthink, you have challenges and refutations in this thread. Answer them.
Web2.0 is your term?! Umm...yeah...ok.
But I find it amusing that the only legitimate links for you are those coming from commercial sites. It's telling really.
As for the challenges and refutations in this thread, this is what I said in my original post. There aren't any. And any such are much better posted in my blog in the first place.
Which is garbage. It gives you leeway to attack anything under the sun. And you didn't make your case anyway; you just posited a bunch of assertions, waffling about "empirical evidence."
If you want to keep your nonsense to your own site, be my guest. If you think there aren't any refutations here, and it is beneath you to address them, I will ban you to spare of you of the temptation of wasting time on this board with bantering. Got it?
Hah, is this how you deal with dissenting opinions little lover of freedom?
It's not that the refutation here are beneath me to address them, it's that I don't see a reason why I should come to your little hidden private corner to discuss under the threat of the banhammer, when you pharaohs can't drag your arse outside of your groupthink box.
Db0:it's that I don't see a reason why I should come to your little hidden private corner to discuss
Then fuck off.
GilesStratton:Then fuck off.
@Nitroaddict: I hope you now understand why there's no serious dialogue is possible. That would require a willingness to venture outside one's bubble (like you do incidentally) and an open mind that is able to see the other perspective.
To all the rest around here, who couldn't miss the opportunity to exrcise your peer-backed hostility, well, it's been fun and all, but I don't see a reason to stay around. If you want to discuss and even point out the errors of my analysis, you know where to find me. And if you think my own site is too biased, by all mean come over to neutral ground.
Ta
This topic is about how your blog is "plaguing" the anarchism subreddit, and now you're threatened with a ban "to spare of you of the temptation of wasting time on this board with bantering."If their actual purpose is to seek truth, then they should be overjoyed that the author is "more than glad to explain and discuss" his claims. However, you're immediately rewarded with more namecalling, like "amateur" and "aberration."I get the impression that your blog's purpose is to be "some hanging fruit" they can beat on like a piñata, to train their ideological muscles.(Ironically, the anarchism subreddit has always described itself as "Unremorsefully Anti-Capitalist and Anti-State". Capitalism is considered more of a "plague" on that subreddit. Yet, to my knowledge, anarcho-capitalists aren't banned, no matter how they flood their posts with mises.org links. And if some moderator does ban them, please tell me; my understanding is that'd be scandalous.)
Db0:See? This is what I'm talking about. A lot of dismissal and name-calling, not a lot of argumentation.
I am giving you the option of offering a substantial response, or being removed. The forum is private property and as an admin I am responsible for keeping it under control. This is your last warning: fail to offer any substantive response, and you're gone. There's no need for pointless banter on here.
If their actual purpose is to seek truth, then they should be overjoyed that the author is "more than glad to explain and discuss" his claims.
Except he has done neither here, and therefore will be excised until he changes his tone. The same goes for you. So don't even pretend that this is about suppressing the "truth", the latter a notion it seems db0 cannot countenance...
Db0:Web2.0 is your term?! Umm...yeah...ok.
Web 2.0 commons (as a pejorative)
Db0:But I find it amusing that the only legitimate links for you are those coming from commercial sites. It's telling really.
I do SEO for a living. I know the difference between a quality backlink and crap. It's the difference between getting paid or not. People pay for things they value, they causally toss around things that have no cost (backlinks from parasite blogs).
Db0:As for the challenges and refutations in this thread, this is what I said in my original post. There aren't any.
There are. Go to the first 5 posts.
Db0:And any such are much better posted in my blog in the first place.
Your blog is rubbish. We discuss here. If you want to defend yourself, post here. If not, begone. No one cares about your blog, and they barely care about your half-baked posts.
Tayssir: This topic is about how your blog is "plaguing" the anarchism subreddit, and now you're threatened with a ban "to spare of you of the temptation of wasting time on this board with bantering."If their actual purpose is to seek truth, then they should be overjoyed that the author is "more than glad to explain and discuss" his claims. However, you're immediately rewarded with more namecalling, like "amateur" and "aberration."I get the impression that your blog's purpose is to be "some hanging fruit" they can beat on like a piñata, to train their ideological muscles.(Ironically, the anarchism subreddit has always described itself as "Unremorsefully Anti-Capitalist and Anti-State". Capitalism is considered more of a "plague" on that subreddit. Yet, to my knowledge, anarcho-capitalists aren't banned, no matter how they flood their posts with mises.org links. And if some moderator does ban them, please tell me; my understanding is that'd be scandalous.)
Nitroadict:I don't think anyone can say nobody tried, at least.
That depends on what you think he was "trying". Honest discussion? Not a chance.
GilesStratton: Nitroadict:I don't think anyone can say nobody tried, at least. That depends on what you think he was "trying". Honest discussion? Not a chance.
Yea, I didn't think so either. I am disappointed he didn't stick around long enough to actually define the terms & definitions of his arguments, which was entirely the point of this thread. Even more annoying is that digging through his blog, I have yet to come across a single page where he explicitly defines his arguments, & tells the world of what "assumptions" the free-market is based upon :\
I don't really understand how a definition can be based on an assumption, as he seems to think the free market is.
Nitroadict:I am disappointed he didn't stick around long enough to actually define the terms & definitions of his arguments, which was entirely the point of this thread.
He only stopped by to successfully drop two more links. There are lots of bloggers who do this. Guys like you and I are too busy with here and other projects to work on our blogs like that, lol
Nitroadict:Even more annoying is that digging through his blog, I have yet to come across a single page where he explicitly defines his arguments, & tells the world of what "assumptions" the free-market is based upon
He's a troll
http://dbzer0.com/blog/it-seems-that-i-have-made-some-waves
Oh yeah, notice he threatens his first commenter with a ban for trolling (aka pointing out his hypocrisy).
liberty student: Nitroadict:I am disappointed he didn't stick around long enough to actually define the terms & definitions of his arguments, which was entirely the point of this thread. He only stopped by to successfully drop two more links. There are lots of bloggers who do this. Guys like you and I are too busy with here and other projects to work on our blogs like that, lol Nitroadict:Even more annoying is that digging through his blog, I have yet to come across a single page where he explicitly defines his arguments, & tells the world of what "assumptions" the free-market is based upon He's a troll http://dbzer0.com/blog/it-seems-that-i-have-made-some-waves Oh yeah, notice he threatens his first commenter with a ban for trolling (aka pointing out his hypocrisy).
What's funny is, when someone confronts him with trolling here, he complains on Reddit. When he does it on his blog, he's somehow justified.
Another hypocrite.
"Market Anarchists would have us believe that a free markets within a very particular society would work for the best result and thus, we as humans should aim for this particular society structure. "
This is entirely false.
While Market Anarchists do believe that free markets within a very particular society would work for the best result, that is not why they believe we as humans should aim for this particular society structure. They believe it because it's the only morally consistent society.
Libertarianism is the belief that the means justify the ends. What the ends are is entirely irrelevant.
liberty student: What's funny is, when someone confronts him with trolling here, he complains on Reddit. When he does it on his blog, he's somehow justified. Another hypocrite.
But it's his property!
Errr, oh yeah. communist and all. d'oh. That's a tough pill to swallow.
============================
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."