Free market efficiency and planned obsolescence

[AyeYo]

That's because you fail at understanding the system.  As simple as you want to make it, it's more complex than you can ever imagine.

It's complex by design, that way the gun in the room can remain hidden, hidden behind empty platitudes such as "consent of the governed" and 'rule of law".

Close, but not quite.  It's hiding behind empty platitudes like "freedom", "democracy", "free markets", "business friendly," "liberty", "patriotism", and "American dream".

If you think that regulation free Liberland is going to prevent that from developing again, rather than actually facilitating it's more rapid and far easier development, thus growing it more pervasive and sinister than it already is... well then you're quite delusional.  You cannot rein in the greedy and powerful by handing them the world on a silver platter.

[1713521347]

1713521347

[1713521347]

1713521347

[1713521347]

1713521347

[1713521347]

1713521347

[1713521347]

1713521347

[NghtRppr]

And a form of government is established to protect the weak from the strong, in an attempt to keep the tyrants out of power.

The only difference between voluntary organization and government is that the government uses coercion. Without it people would only do what they voluntarily wanted to do. It's hard to see how protecting the weak from the strong wouldn't be one of those things. If it isn't how could a government possibly accomplish that? It can't.

Thanks for the book recommendations, I'll check them out and see if they merit reading, but unless you can make a cogent argument in your own words then this isn't a debate.

You cannot rein in the greedy and powerful by handing them the world on a silver platter.

Concentrating power in the hands of a few politicians is handing them the world on a silver platter. Decentralizing power isn't. Rich people can organize and lobby more effectively than poor people. That's why any system based on swaying votes is going to necessarily favor the rich. Of course, it's easier for you to make baseless assertions, call people names, etc, than to actually address the arguments with some kind of evidenced based reasoning.

[billyjoeallen]

That's because you fail at understanding the system.  As simple as you want to make it, it's more complex than you can ever imagine.

It's complex by design, that way the gun in the room can remain hidden, hidden behind empty platitudes such as "consent of the governed" and 'rule of law".

Close, but not quite.  It's hiding behind empty platitudes like "freedom", "democracy", "free markets", "business friendly," "liberty", "patriotism", and "American dream".

If you think that regulation free Liberland is going to prevent that from developing again, rather than actually facilitating it's more rapid and far easier development, thus growing it more pervasive and sinister than it already is... well then you're quite delusional.  You cannot rein in the greedy and powerful by handing them the world on a silver platter.

You are delusional if you think that there are people who don't currently enjoy the world on a silver platter. You are delusional if you believe that any state in history was ever controlled by people who were not greedy and powerful.   You are delusional if you think a State could be controlled by anyone else for more than a moment.

[AyeYo]

And a form of government is established to protect the weak from the strong, in an attempt to keep the tyrants out of power.

The only difference between voluntary organization and government is that the government uses coercion. Without it people would only do what they voluntarily wanted to do. It's hard to see how protecting the weak from the strong wouldn't be one of those things. If it isn't how could a government possibly accomplish that? It can't.

That's because your definition of coercion is yours alone, and you use it arbitrarily with little to no consistency (something that has been demonstrated to you in this and other threads).

The word you're looking for is compromise, not coercion.  In the real world, you cannot please all the people all the time.  You're butt hurt because our current society isn't 100% the way you like it, so you call that coercion and a violation of your freedom.  I call it compromise.  The world is filled with billions of different people and thus billions of different belief sets.  Running the world 100% your way to stop your bitching and whining leaves about 5.9 billion other people unhappy and violated.  The sooner you realize this the sooner you understand what everyone arguing against you is saying.  In the real world, government and society must be constructed through compromise and concensus, and, no, you will not get your way 100% and you will be forced to obey rules you may not agree with.  Such is life.  It would be no different if you ran the world and were making billions of other people obey rules that they do not agree with.  Get over yourself.

Thanks for the book recommendations, I'll check them out and see if they merit reading, but unless you can make a cogent argument in your own words then this isn't a debate.

I can't make a solid argument against someone that's not up to par on their level of understanding.  I'm not your teacher, so I'm not going to waste page after page explaining history and how the world works.  That stuff is up to you to learn and then, when you understand it, we can have an intelligent debate.

You cannot rein in the greedy and powerful by handing them the world on a silver platter.

Concentrating power in the hands of a few politicians is handing them the world on a silver platter. Decentralizing power isn't. Rich people can organize and lobby more effectively than poor people. That's why any system based on swaying votes is going to necessarily favor the rich. Of course, it's easier for you to make baseless assertions, call people names, etc, than to actually address the arguments with some kind of evidenced based reasoning.

So you think rich people can lobby and organize more effectively than the poor only when government is around?  What happens when you take government away, rich people lose their ability to organize and control the masses?  HA!  With government gone they don't have to lobby.  They can control people directly and there isn't a damn thing standing in their way.

[NghtRppr]

That's because your definition of coercion is yours alone, and you use it arbitrarily with little to no consistency (something that has been demonstrated to you in this and other threads).

Here's my definition.

   co·er·cion

    noun /kōˈərZHən/  /-SHən/ 
    coercions, plural
        The practice of persuading someone to do something by using physical force or threats of violence other than in self-defense of person or property.

Show me where I've been inconsistent.

[AyeYo]

That's because your definition of coercion is yours alone, and you use it arbitrarily with little to no consistency (something that has been demonstrated to you in this and other threads).

Here's my definition.

   co·er·cion

    noun /kōˈərZHən/  /-SHən/ 
    coercions, plural
        The practice of persuading someone to do something by using physical force or threats of violence other than in self-defense of person or property.

Show me where I've been inconsistent.

Explanation is already right in front of your face:

The word you're looking for is compromise, not coercion.  In the real world, you cannot please all the people all the time.  You're butt hurt because our current society isn't 100% the way you like it, so you call that coercion and a violation of your freedom.  I call it compromise.  The world is filled with billions of different people and thus billions of different belief sets.  Running the world 100% your way to stop your bitching and whining leaves about 5.9 billion other people unhappy and violated.  The sooner you realize this the sooner you understand what everyone arguing against you is saying.  In the real world, government and society must be constructed through compromise and concensus, and, no, you will not get your way 100% and you will be forced to obey rules you may not agree with.  Such is life. It would be no different if you ran the world and were making billions of other people obey rules that they do not agree with.  Get over yourself.

When you do it, it's liberity.  When anyone else does it, it's coercion.


BTW, actual defintion of coercion per Mr. Webster (says nothing about defending property or not applying to libertarians in Liberland):


co·er·cion
 noun \-ˈər-zhən, -shən\

Definition of COERCION



 : the act, process, or power of coercing



co·erce
 verb \kō-ˈərs\
co·ercedco·erc·ing



Definition of COERCE


transitive verb


1

: to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious — W. R. Inge>


2

: to compel to an act or choice <was coerced into agreeing>


3

: to achieve by force or threat <coerce compliance>

[NghtRppr]

When you do it, it's liberity.  When anyone else does it, it's coercion.

No, remember, my definition is "persuading someone to do something by using physical force or threats of violence other than in self-defense of person or property". If I do that to anyone else then it's still coercion. You've utterly failed to show that I've been inconsistent in application of my definition.

[billyjoeallen]

That's because you fail at understanding the system.  As simple as you want to make it, it's more complex than you can ever imagine.

It's complex by design, that way the gun in the room can remain hidden, hidden behind empty platitudes such as "consent of the governed" and 'rule of law".

Close, but not quite.  It's hiding behind empty platitudes like "freedom", "democracy", "free markets", "business friendly," "liberty", "patriotism", and "American dream".

If you think that regulation free Liberland is going to prevent that from developing again, rather than actually facilitating it's more rapid and far easier development, thus growing it more pervasive and sinister than it already is... well then you're quite delusional.  You cannot rein in the greedy and powerful by handing them the world on a silver platter.

It's erroneous to assume that something not regulated by the State is not regulated at all. It's fallacious to assert that we are against any and all regulation because we are opposed to State regulation. You should pay attention more. We do not condone democracy. We do not advocate patriotism as commonly understood. We think the American system sucks and that it is not even remotely free market. It's corporatist, which is a form of soft fascism.

[Mittlyle]

Thanks for the book recommendations [by AyeYo], I'll check them out and see if they merit reading, but unless you can make a cogent argument in your own words then this isn't a debate.

The first at least is an excellent book. Altough you should know that Naomi Klein is considered left-wing. So don't discard the book just becouse some of her premises you may not agree, the analysis is valid regardless. The main thesis in the book is that crisis of any sort provide temporary opportunity for policy changes that normally would be impossible and that indeed has been used in favor of big money and US foreign policy deliberately many times. Policies after 9/11 have been prime example of this 'method' to pass surveillance laws, tax cuts to wealthy etc. More common pattern in the world are financial crises in which IMF is used as a proxy to pass free-trade policies, that is privatize, deregulate, and liberalize (undergoing in Greece atm). Local government loses power significantly, US multinationals loot natural resources and speculators unstablize the market with hot money. Usually average Joe in that country ends up pretty bad while small elite enriches. Many times those debts causing problems have originated from economic hitman so these crises are completely artificial. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man Another great book) One of the arguments in the book (which seems true at least by increasing rate of busts) is that unregulated market is more prone to busts thus leading to vicious cycle where crises leads to deregulation which leads to more crises etc. And all this is profited by this so called shock-doctrine.

Essential reading to understand world politics. Neoliberalism and free trade is often defined and understood by these policies, so this book gives solid background to understand and argue people who so vigorously oppose free trade and deregulation.

Oh, you rest have proceeded to different matters, but I won't touch those this time.

[AyeYo]

When you do it, it's liberity.  When anyone else does it, it's coercion.

No, remember, my definition is "persuading someone to do something by using physical force or threats of violence other than in self-defense of person or property". If I do that to anyone else then it's still coercion. You've utterly failed to show that I've been inconsistent in application of my definition.

My defintion of murder is: sitting on the curb eating an ice cream cone.  Therefore, when I chop your head off and make sweet love to the hole in your next, that's not murder at all.

See how that works when you make your own defintions?

[AyeYo]

Thanks for the book recommendations [by AyeYo], I'll check them out and see if they merit reading, but unless you can make a cogent argument in your own words then this isn't a debate.

The first at least is an excellent book. Altough you should know that Naomi Klein is considered left-wing. So don't discard the book just becouse some of her premises you may not agree, the analysis is valid regardless. The main thesis in the book is that crisis of any sort provide temporary opportunity for policy changes that normally would be impossible and that indeed has been used in favor of big money and US foreign policy deliberately many times. Policies after 9/11 have been prime example of this 'method' to pass surveillance laws, tax cuts to wealthy etc. More common pattern in the world are financial crises in which IMF is used as a proxy to pass free-trade policies, that is privatize, deregulate, and liberalize (undergoing in Greece atm). Local government loses power significantly, US multinationals loot natural resources and speculators unstablize the market with hot money. Usually average Joe in that country ends up pretty bad while small elite enriches. Many times those debts causing problems have originated from economic hitman so these crises are completely artificial. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man Another great book) One of the arguments in the book (which seems true at least by increasing rate of busts) is that unregulated market is more prone to busts thus leading to vicious cycle where crises leads to deregulation which leads to more crises etc. And all this is profited by this so called shock-doctrine.

Essential reading to understand world politics. Neoliberalism and free trade is often defined and understood by these policies, so this book gives solid background to understand and argue people who so vigorously oppose free trade and deregulation.

Oh, you rest have proceeded to different matters, but I won't touch those this time.

If you enjoyed Confessions, then you'll really like the other book I suggested.  It's an infinitely more in depth look at the same type of relationships presented in Confessions; it also goes back further in history to explain colonialism and examines in great detail the tremendous amount of debate and planning that went into the failed attempts to help the third-world rise from the ashes.

Just be warned, it's extremely detailed and a tough read.

[NghtRppr]

When you do it, it's liberity.  When anyone else does it, it's coercion.

No, remember, my definition is "persuading someone to do something by using physical force or threats of violence other than in self-defense of person or property". If I do that to anyone else then it's still coercion. You've utterly failed to show that I've been inconsistent in application of my definition.

My defintion of murder is: sitting on the curb eating an ice cream cone.  Therefore, when I chop your head off and make sweet love to the hole in your next, that's not murder at all.

See how that works when you make your own defintions?

Yes, I see how it works. However that doesn't explain how I'm being inconsistent. You might not agree with my definition of coercion but you're still wrong when you say that I'm applying it inconsistently. QED. Yet again you've been proven wrong.

Anyways, if you think the definition coercion still allows you to attack and rob people or that murder is eating ice cream then you'll need to come up with some kind of cogent argument for it. The accepted definition is that using threats of violence to get what you want is coercion. I'm sorry if you don't understand the difference between persuasion and coercion but there is a difference.

[AyeYo]

When you do it, it's liberity.  When anyone else does it, it's coercion.

No, remember, my definition is "persuading someone to do something by using physical force or threats of violence other than in self-defense of person or property". If I do that to anyone else then it's still coercion. You've utterly failed to show that I've been inconsistent in application of my definition.

My defintion of murder is: sitting on the curb eating an ice cream cone.  Therefore, when I chop your head off and make sweet love to the hole in your next, that's not murder at all.

See how that works when you make your own defintions?

Yes, I see how it works. However that doesn't explain how I'm being inconsistent. You might not agree with my definition of coercion but you're still wrong when you say that I'm applying it inconsistently. QED. Yet again you've been proven wrong.

Anyways, if you think the definition coercion still allows you to attack and rob people or that murder is eating ice cream then you'll need to come up with some kind of cogent argument for it. The accepted definition is that using threats of violence to get what you want is coercion. I'm sorry if you don't understand the difference between persuasion and coercion but there is a difference.

My point is that you CANNOT make up your own definitions to support your worldview.  Watch:

Murder is premeditated killing, unless it's bitcoin2cash that's being killed.

Now I can kill you and it's not murder.  Magical, but not logical.


Likewise, the little exception you tag on to the end of your coercion definition does NOT change the fact that your system is also coercive.

I'm just going to keep quoting this until you address the actual point being made:

The word you're looking for is compromise, not coercion.  In the real world, you cannot please all the people all the time.  You're butt hurt because our current society isn't 100% the way you like it, so you call that coercion and a violation of your freedom.  I call it compromise.  The world is filled with billions of different people and thus billions of different belief sets.  Running the world 100% your way to stop your bitching and whining leaves about 5.9 billion other people unhappy and violated.  The sooner you realize this the sooner you understand what everyone arguing against you is saying.  In the real world, government and society must be constructed through compromise and concensus, and, no, you will not get your way 100% and you will be forced to obey rules you may not agree with.  Such is life.  It would be no different if you ran the world and were making billions of other people obey rules that they do not agree with.  Get over yourself.

[NghtRppr]

My point is that you CANNOT make up your own definitions to support your worldview.

It's not my personal definition. It's a definition used by hundreds of thousands of Libertarians.

The word you're looking for is compromise, not coercion.  In the real world, you cannot please all the people all the time.  You're butt hurt because our current society isn't 100% the way you like it, so you call that coercion and a violation of your freedom.  I call it compromise.  The world is filled with billions of different people and thus billions of different belief sets.  Running the world 100% your way to stop your bitching and whining leaves about 5.9 billion other people unhappy and violated.  The sooner you realize this the sooner you understand what everyone arguing against you is saying.  In the real world, government and society must be constructed through compromise and concensus, and, no, you will not get your way 100% and you will be forced to obey rules you may not agree with.  Such is life.  It would be no different if you ran the world and were making billions of other people obey rules that they do not agree with.  Get over yourself.

I'm sorry that you think morality is a popularity contest but even if 5.9 billion people think rape and murder are part of a fun Friday night I really don't care. We can argue about whether or not you should be allowed to rape and murder but as soon as you attempt to do it, you're going to have a few extra holes in your body.

[AyeYo]

My point is that you CANNOT make up your own definitions to support your worldview.

It's not my personal definition. It's a definition used by hundreds of thousands of Libertarians.

Which doesn't make a damn bit of difference.  When I say "you", I mean all of you.

The word you're looking for is compromise, not coercion.  In the real world, you cannot please all the people all the time.  You're butt hurt because our current society isn't 100% the way you like it, so you call that coercion and a violation of your freedom.  I call it compromise.  The world is filled with billions of different people and thus billions of different belief sets.  Running the world 100% your way to stop your bitching and whining leaves about 5.9 billion other people unhappy and violated.  The sooner you realize this the sooner you understand what everyone arguing against you is saying.  In the real world, government and society must be constructed through compromise and concensus, and, no, you will not get your way 100% and you will be forced to obey rules you may not agree with.  Such is life.  It would be no different if you ran the world and were making billions of other people obey rules that they do not agree with.  Get over yourself.

I'm sorry that you think morality is a popularity contest but even if 5.9 billion people think rape and murder are part of a fun Friday night I really don't care. We can argue about whether or not you should be allowed to rape and murder but as soon as you attempt to do it, you're going to have a few extra holes in your body.

So what you're saying is that morality is what YOU say it is, even if everyone else in the population disagress with you, and if everyone else doesn't do things YOUR way, you're going to kill them.

Where have I heard that before?  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyranny

Yup, Liberland, a beautiful utopia... if you're a libertarian.

That's all I've wanted you admit all along.  I'm not going to sit here and knock your beliefs (ok maybe a little, after all you do knock mine), because the only thing that really gets me is you selling them for something they're not.  Honesty is the best policy.  You simply want to replace our current coercive system with a coercive system more to your liking.  You want to be rid of our current tyranny and replace it with your own brand of tyranny.  Just come out and say it and stop hiding behind BS rhetoric and buzzwords.  A system of absolutely no coercion (your excessively broad use, not mine) CANNOT EXIST because EVERYONE HAS DIFFERENT BELIEFS AND OPINIONS.  There will ALWAYS be compromise.  There will ALWAYS been people unhappy about SOMETHING.  You cannot live like you're the only person in the universe BECAUSE YOU AREN'T THE ONLY PERSON IN THE UNIVERSE.

[NghtRppr]

So what you're saying is that morality is what YOU say it is, even if everyone else in the population disagress with you, and if everyone else doesn't do things YOUR way, you're going to kill them.

My way being not attacking me or my property. So, yes, if people attack me or my property I will defend myself. If you want to be a murderer or a rapist then I'll shed a single tear for you and pour out some beer for you in your memory after you're dead. Congratulations, you got me to confess that I will kill murderers and rapists if they attack me. I hope my reputation can survive this shocking revelation!

[AyeYo]

So what you're saying is that morality is what YOU say it is, even if everyone else in the population disagress with you, and if everyone else doesn't do things YOUR way, you're going to kill them.

My way being not attacking me or my property. So, yes, if people attack me or my property I will defend myself. If you want to be a murderer then I'll shed a single tear for you and pour out some beer for you in your memory after you're dead. Congratulations, you got me to confess that I will kill murderers if they attack me. I hope my reputation can survive this shocking revelation!

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_oversimp.htm

Like I said, it's best to come out and admit it.  I'm not trying to rain on your deregulation parade, just trying to give you a little perspective on your beliefs.

[NghtRppr]

So what you're saying is that morality is what YOU say it is, even if everyone else in the population disagress with you, and if everyone else doesn't do things YOUR way, you're going to kill them.

My way being not attacking me or my property. So, yes, if people attack me or my property I will defend myself. If you want to be a murderer then I'll shed a single tear for you and pour out some beer for you in your memory after you're dead. Congratulations, you got me to confess that I will kill murderers if they attack me. I hope my reputation can survive this shocking revelation!

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_oversimp.htm

Like I said, it's best to come out and admit it.  I'm not trying to rain on your deregulation parade, just trying to give you a little perspective on your beliefs.

No, I get what you're saying. You're saying that even though I don't want people to rob me, other people want to rob me so I should compromise and let them rob me some of the time or only let them take half of my stuff because that way I'm not forcing my beliefs on others. I see where you're coming from but at the same time, I don't give a shit. Rob me at your own peril, thief.

Thanks for trying to reach out to me though. Maybe someday I'll be as sophisticated and egalitarian as you and think we should comprise on murder, rape and theft. Until then, wear bullet resistant armor.

[blogospheroid]

Free market is advocated as efficient system as resources are allocated by the 'invisible hand' of the markets. I, however find the efficiency claims quite unfounded as direct consequence of maximizing profits is phenomenon know as planned obsolescence. That is, products are made inferior than need be just to be able to resell updated version as soon as possible. Also resources are recycled only when its profitable comparing to new materials, meaning its very rarely going to happen voluntarily. These two factors make free market extremele wasteful when considering resources. My claim is that by limited central control you could have hands down more efficient outcomes than in pure laissez-faire. By effieciency I'm speaking about use of commodities of real economy. I'm not impressed by abstract numbers representing speculation.
(Oh, btw, I'm really advocate of free market provided there is sufficient regulation for enviromental matters.)

One of the aspects that i think will happen in a deflationary economy, where everything is deflating, is the much lower consumption of resources in general.  This is unlike today's economy where only a sector like electronics is deflating.

We don't know what percentage of today's demand for saving is being met by shares of various corporations and investment in various commodities. In the bitcoin powered deflationary future, a huge percentage of this demand will be diverted into bitcoin itself, since it will be expected to maintain its value into the future. Saving money is something everyone understands without being told explicitly. That will lead to fewer copper, silver and gold mines.

Planned obsolescence will be in vogue only for products that are extremely new and whose eventual standards are not codified yet. We see a shadow of that even today.
"Products" with a long history - houses, utensils, etc are the longest lasting.
Products that have a short history, but are still being innovated on - cars, scooters - are intermediately lasting
Products that have a long history, but are subject to fashion or lifestyle change are intermediate lasting - clothes and furniture
Products on the cutting edge of innovation - electronics  - last very less.

Besides for anyone who believes that there is an excess amount of planned obsolescence going on, there is a simple perosonal solution - lease your product instead of buying the same. The company takes back what they gave to you.


Recycling is useful where human time doesn't have value. For eg. in India, I regualrly give out my news paper for recycling, but that is because peoiple are coming and collecting it form my doorstep and that is because people in India re so poor that their individual time does not have that much value. I don't think the same will hold true when India becomes richer.

[MoonShadow]

Likewise, the little exception you tag on to the end of your coercion definition does NOT change the fact that your system is also coercive.

In what way is the libertarian concept of "coercion" different than the general definition?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coercion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion

Money quote:
"Coercion (pronounced /koʊˈɜrʃən/) is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, rewards, or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. In law, coercion is codified as the duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced."