Political Theory

Re: Building the Ideal

Harry Felker — Sat, 30 May 2009 15:34:46 GMT

nick.ryan:

1. Confederations of states

2. By protecting sentient individuals against interference (though permitting some interference against children and certain sentient non-human animals)

OK, go back to the Articles of Confederation....

Can you explain point 2 for me please?

Re: Building the Ideal

Harry Felker — Sat, 30 May 2009 15:33:14 GMT

Truth and Liberty:

I highly recommend Murray Rothbard's For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. I think it is the book you need.

To understand how a free society might work in those industries more difficult to envision - defense, protection, law, etc - check out some of the articles collected in this book, many of which you can find online. Like Roderick Long's Defending A Free Nation.

Thank you for the reference materials, I will be sure to check them out....

Re: Building the Ideal

Harry Felker — Sat, 30 May 2009 15:28:13 GMT

liberty student:

Well, that's based upon a narrow definition of money. An ounce of gold today will be an ounce of gold tomorrow. What value that has in exchange is never fixed in a free market. But it is still an ounce of gold.

Of course buyer beware. We all have to be grownups if we want freedom. We have to be selective and intelligent, we can't just take things at face value of follow the crowd. People will have to become engaged with their lives again, instead of zoning out in front of a TV living vicariously through a reality show.

liberty student:
Right, but it is highly unlikely you would see that in a free market, because the incentive is to trade in something real, in a transparent manner, and there is no monopoly of a global reserve. The US dollar is going to bring down America because the government will not allow control of the money to return to the market.

That is a very convincing argument for free market currency, thank you

Re: Building the Ideal

nick.ryan — Sat, 30 May 2009 12:48:46 GMT

1. Confederations of states

2. By protecting sentient individuals against interference (though permitting some interference against children and certain sentient non-human animals)

Re: Building the Ideal

Graham Wright — Fri, 29 May 2009 22:43:05 GMT

Harry Felker:
How does the market solve the issues a community faces?

I highly recommend Murray Rothbard's For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. I think it is the book you need.

To understand how a free society might work in those industries more difficult to envision - defense, protection, law, etc - check out some of the articles collected in this book, many of which you can find online. Like Roderick Long's Defending A Free Nation.

Re: Building the Ideal

liberty student — Fri, 29 May 2009 21:19:46 GMT

Harry Felker:
Theoretically, how does the market deal with those trading in currency A if currency A goes away leaving certain people with useless currency?

They go bust.

Harry Felker:
The way I see it, and I could be wrong, it looks as if you are saying buyer beware, but with a market selected money, with no boundaries, you can really offer no guarantee to the trader that you are paying, that the medium of exchange, you use now, will be in existence in the near future...

Well, that's based upon a narrow definition of money. An ounce of gold today will be an ounce of gold tomorrow. What value that has in exchange is never fixed in a free market. But it is still an ounce of gold.

Of course buyer beware. We all have to be grownups if we want freedom. We have to be selective and intelligent, we can't just take things at face value of follow the crowd. People will have to become engaged with their lives again, instead of zoning out in front of a TV living vicariously through a reality show.

Harry Felker:
It is sort of like what we see going on with the US Dollar, the currency mandated is going down the toilet, and other communities(countries) are trying like hell to get out from under it, because these investments come under question if they will be honored if, or when, the dollar goes the way of the dodo.

Right, but it is highly unlikely you would see that in a free market, because the incentive is to trade in something real, in a transparent manner, and there is no monopoly of a global reserve. The US dollar is going to bring down America because the government will not allow control of the money to return to the market.

Re: Building the Ideal

Harry Felker — Fri, 29 May 2009 16:29:07 GMT

liberty student:
Money is just a means of exchange. Money doesn't dictate trade or curb trade per se. I mean, a faulty means of exchange could cause problems, but those problems are pretty much a non-issue with market selected money, because people will just shift to another medium.

Precisely what the potential for change is....

Theoretically, how does the market deal with those trading in currency A if currency A goes away leaving certain people with useless currency?

Again I am looking for opinions...

The way I see it, and I could be wrong, it looks as if you are saying buyer beware, but with a market selected money, with no boundaries, you can really offer no guarantee to the trader that you are paying, that the medium of exchange, you use now, will be in existence in the near future...

It is sort of like what we see going on with the US Dollar, the currency mandated is going down the toilet, and other communities(countries) are trying like hell to get out from under it, because these investments come under question if they will be honored if, or when, the dollar goes the way of the dodo.

I do agree that a commodity based currency is the only proper means of exchange, as it has a value that can be derived in real property, as opposed to a promisary note, which has no real backing...

Re: Building the Ideal

liberty student — Fri, 29 May 2009 08:03:19 GMT

Harry Felker:
I thought it was obvious, the consequences of curbing trade.....

My second paragraph addresses that to a degree.

If we understand that all voluntary exchange in a free market is subjective then more or less trade is largely an irrelevant concept. People will trade when they want/need to, and the price is right. If a particular trading partner fails to deliver a particular good, alternate sources or goods will move in and consumption patterns will shift.

Maybe say the Japanese have a defective currency no one will trade with, then the people of Libertia might request the Japanese get Swiss Francs and trade in those. Or that the Japanese deal in gold, or silver. The Austrian perspective is, in a free market for money, it is likely a commodity money will come out on top. The Free Bankers believe otherwise, but I don't agree.

Money is just a means of exchange. Money doesn't dictate trade or curb trade per se. I mean, a faulty means of exchange could cause problems, but those problems are pretty much a non-issue with market selected money, because people will just shift to another medium.

Re: Building the Ideal

Harry Felker — Fri, 29 May 2009 07:47:31 GMT

liberty student:
What consequences?

I thought it was obvious, the consequences of curbing trade.....

Re: Building the Ideal

liberty student — Thu, 28 May 2009 21:06:46 GMT

Harry Felker:
there is a risk that some may view as unreasonable and therefore there will be consequences....

What consequences?

If people view risk as unreasonable, then they will not take it. The determination of risk is subjective. It varies from party to party. Some people are viewed as "risk takers" but frequently, they are taking advantage of an opportunity they see as somewhat risky but with an upside in the favour. Those are the people who are capable of looking at what is seen, and what is unseen and making critical analysis based on that.

Re: Building the Ideal

Harry Felker — Thu, 28 May 2009 18:28:05 GMT

wilderness:
I forgot, unintentionally, that I asked you these questions. I'm glad you took the time to respond.

It is ok... I was offline for a couple days, I had to replace the floor in here....

Re: Building the Ideal

Harry Felker — Thu, 28 May 2009 18:17:06 GMT

liberty student:
I think this answers the potential for change question, at least partially.

Partially, for example: you use A as your choice currency, I use B....

A currency is stable, the comparative value is predominantly stable, B currency is not, it has highs and lows...

Let us say there are a few more currencies on our free market (irrelevant but there)...

Lets say there is an individual (J Ind) that like to do business with each of us from another community (from Japan), and you happen to by 5000A worth of goods from J Ind, now the J ind has 5000A and needs my products, but I do not accept the A, worse yet there was news that A was being misprinted and now is worth 1/10th of B and you do not either. Logically, If I do business with J Ind, he will be recieving by far fewer goods than he released for the 5000A, which may curb him from doing business with the community, this is the real potential for change question, with the absence of a standard currency with a stable value (like using gold as currency), there is a risk that some may view as unreasonable and therefore there will be consequences....

Is the free market answer the community must adapt or perish without a stable standard?

liberty student:
I have suggested many times (no one has contradicted me yet, but if I am wrong I hope someone would) that IF WE KNEW what the outcome would be, that is to say, how we would get there and what we will be doing, then it is an argument AGAINST Mises's theory about economic calculation.

Fortunately I am asking your opinions not for you to know....

liberty student:
In other words, I think if we're going to defeat statism we will need a damn good plan, and the damn good plan will come from competing plans, and one or some or none of them working.

Fair enough, I am game, I can play this one...

Competing plans to defeat statism....

liberty student:
If I have to provide an ideal society, it's one where Gabrielle Union and I find a coincidence of wants. Without aggression of course.

Nice choice....

Re: Building the Ideal

wilderness — Thu, 28 May 2009 18:01:57 GMT

Harry Felker:

wilderness:
How does the free market deal with non-coercion? Is that what you're asking? If so, then I'd say it would flourish.

OK....

wilderness:
Markets get bombed in conflicts and nobody has much time to tend the fields, which leads to hunger so applying creativity to a piece of wood for let's say, furniture, would probably be the last thing on anybody's mind.

This is understood...

Shall we talk about what your ideal society is like.... Following the primary post in the conversation...

I forgot, unintentionally, that I asked you these questions. I'm glad you took the time to respond.

I don't have an ideal outside of the NAP. I live an ideal now except for the State screwing things up and so the State increases the danger to what I already ideally live. I was just curious what you meant that's all. Thanks.

Re: Building the Ideal

liberty student — Thu, 28 May 2009 08:50:40 GMT

Harry Felker:
Maybe I am not understanding what you mean by how the people trade between the US and Japan...

Well the Japanese have Yen, and goods we want to buy, and we (assume I am an American for a moment) have dollars and goods we want to sell.

I buy Japanese goods with dollars, and they buy my goods with Yen, and then we swap currency back (clearing) so we both have our own domestic means of exchange. We don't HAVE to do it this way, but in complex examples you will want to, because the village will be trading with Japan, not one person, and the odds that what a person has to sell will be what the Japanese want in return for their goods is unlikely. It is called a coincidence of wants in a barter society.

That is why we use money. To avoid having to look for coincidences of wants. We can make half of the exchange in currency, then use that currency later to get the good we really want.

But I don't know that is exactly how that will happen, but it is a natural market solution from the past which is fundamentally sound, so it may be used again in the future under a completely free market scenario.

I think this answers the potential for change question, at least partially. Feel free to write back on money and markets. That's the stuff I really enjoy!

Harry Felker:
Well, I would like to go deeper than we have freedom through non aggression and ideal society just erupts...

It might not just erupt.

This is going to be an unsatisfying answer for you but it is an honest one. I don't know what the future will be, and I don't spend a lot of time thinking about it. Part of Austrian theory is that Mises exposed a flaw in socialism, namely that under central command, an economy cannot freely exchange, and thus cannot determine prices.

Without these rationally derived prices generated in the market, the central planners will be unable to determine what the optimimum wages, production capacities, goods etc are needed to keep the economy flowing smoothly. They can't allocate scarce resources, which will lead to malinvestment (waste and shortages).

These errors, like a cancer replicating, will lead to compound bigger errors based on lack of knowledge, and ultimately the economy will collapse. This is the theory behind the collapse of the Soviet Union, although Mises came up with it much much earlier.

Anyway, the idea of predicting the free market is sort of like the calculation problem. Without millions or billions of free people interacting, making choices, being creative, producing and consuming, there is no way to rationally determine with any real degree of precision, what a free market society will look like. Who will be in it, what their houses will be shaped like, or how many weeks vacation they take per year.

I have suggested many times (no one has contradicted me yet, but if I am wrong I hope someone would) that IF WE KNEW what the outcome would be, that is to say, how we would get there and what we will be doing, then it is an argument AGAINST Mises's theory about economic calculation.

In other words, if we can predict the future, then we can plan the future. And if we can plan the future, then why don't we just leave it to the central planners who are all seeing, all knowing and can predict the outcome of millions or billions of individual choices?

So generally, I try not to be a planner. Great to come up with ideas, but I am loathe to pretend I have a vision or a plan, or a working model, or necessary technologies or social structures. I don't and I can't. I am not God.

Hopefully that helps you understand better.

I know you want a plan, you want to act, we gotta work together, we need to stay focused etc.

I don't want to work together unless I can see a productive outcome that benefits me from doing so. In other words, I think if we're going to defeat statism we will need a damn good plan, and the damn good plan will come from competing plans, and one or some or none of them working.

If I have to provide an ideal society, it's one where Gabrielle Union and I find a coincidence of wants. Without aggression of course.

Re: Building the Ideal

Harry Felker — Thu, 28 May 2009 08:27:57 GMT

wilderness:
How does the free market deal with non-coercion? Is that what you're asking? If so, then I'd say it would flourish.

OK....

wilderness:
Markets get bombed in conflicts and nobody has much time to tend the fields, which leads to hunger so applying creativity to a piece of wood for let's say, furniture, would probably be the last thing on anybody's mind.

This is understood...

Shall we talk about what your ideal society is like.... Following the primary post in the conversation...