What does a Free Market mean to you?

[jgraham]

nothing about a free market need make pollution problems any worse, except that people would be free to pollute their own property in cases where it didn't affect anyone else's property.

See I really don't know what you are saying here.   If "pollution problems" don't get "any worse" why are you using "except".  Which causes the dependent clause to agree with the primary clause.  i.e. Saying "I never lie except on Sunday" means that I lie on Sunday.   So parsing your sentence that way means that pollution problems do get worse on private property.  Now perhaps you don't consider the pollution on private property to be a problem in which case I would have just said: "The free marked does not make the pollution problem worse. Pollution on private property is not a problem as long as it didn't affect anyone elses' property".  Which is better but I suspect it's begging the question.

You're asking me why I didn't make an additional claim that you don't think is true?

Not at all.   In fact the term "why" is nowhere in my text.  How it got in your head is a mystery to me.  

What I'm saying that your sentence doesn't make much of a point in the context of "A being no worse than B".  i.e. "I never lie except on Sundays" is fine as a descriptive statement but it can't be used - on it's own anyway - in support of "I never lie".  Similarly, your point appeared to be that the "Free market" does not increase the problem of pollution.   Your sentence can not be used to support that idea.  Is that somehow unclear?

So I took a stab at what you might of meant and yeah I don't think that what I came up with makes a very good argument either but it's at least more consistent and perhaps with some further commentary from you it might make more sense than it currently does.   The truth of the matter is if I actually knew what you were thinking I wouldn't have to ask.  I don't.  So I do.

What's so difficult about just repeatedly refining definitions until we agree on it's terms?  So far you seem pretty resistant to do so.

It's hard to figure out your point because you've concealed it behind a nitpick at my grammar.

That is not a nitpick on grammar - it's just leaves me at a loss as to what you're actually saying.  You can, at any time - instead of...for example complaining - reform your argument in a different and hopefully clearer way.  

I will agree with this though -- if you don't believe that a free market will add to prosperity, you should believe that a free market will probably make the pollution problem worse. If you believe a free market will add to prosperity, you should believe that a free market will probably make the pollution problem better.

Define "prosperity"...

Material wealth. Technological progress.

Is "material wealth" mean owning more things?  Are you saying that in a prosperous society people will generally own more things?  How would you measure material wealth?  i.e.  is a country with a higher GDP have more "material wealth" than a country with a lower one.

[JoelKatz]

What I'm saying that your sentence doesn't make much of a point in the context of "A being no worse than B".  i.e. "I never lie except on Sundays" is fine as a descriptive statement but it can't be used - on it's own anyway - in support of "I never lie".  Similarly, your point appeared to be that the "Free market" does not increase the problem of pollution.   Your sentence can not be used to support that idea.  Is that somehow unclear?

Yes, completely unclear and logically fallacious. If I said "I never lie unless my life is threatened", that is completely consistent with "I never lie". (Both because my life may never have been or may never be threatened and because lying when your life is threatened isn't 'really' lying because it doesn't cause the harm that lying normally causes.)

It's hard to figure out your point because you've concealed it behind a nitpick at my grammar.

That is not a nitpick on grammar - it's just leaves me at a loss as to what you're actually saying.  You can, at any time - instead of...for example complaining - reform your argument in a different and hopefully clearer way.

I don't know what's unclear. Nothing about a free market makes pollution worse with the exception of people being able to pollute their own property when that doesn't harm others. I submit that if this is unclear to you, it's because you are intentionally trying not to understand it.

If you know of some other way a free market might make pollution worse, do tell. If you want to talk about whether allowing people to pollute their own property when it doesn't harm anyone else is good or bad, we can do that. Otherwise, I don't know how I can be any clearer than I've been. Zero pollution is not the optimum level of pollution. Making some pollution worse is not a bad thing if the pollution level was below the optimum level previously.

I will agree with this though -- if you don't believe that a free market will add to prosperity, you should believe that a free market will probably make the pollution problem worse. If you believe a free market will add to prosperity, you should believe that a free market will probably make the pollution problem better.

Define "prosperity"...

Material wealth. Technological progress.

Is "material wealth" mean owning more things?  Are you saying that in a prosperous society people will generally own more things?  How would you measure material wealth?  i.e.  is a country with a higher GDP have more "material wealth" than a country with a lower one.

I can't imagine why this matters to you. Are you honestly saying that you don't know what I mean by prosperity? You don't understand what wealth and progress are? Why these nitpicks? What possible relevance does it have? I don't understand why you want me to jump through all these odd hoops. Do you honestly not know what I mean? Or are you one of those people who insist that we can't talk about "intelligence" until we can precisely define it and come up with units for it?

[Murwa]

I can't imagine why this matters to you. Are you honestly saying that you don't know what I mean by prosperity? You don't understand what wealth and progress are? Why these nitpicks? What possible relevance does it have? I don't understand why you want me to jump through all these odd hoops. Do you honestly not know what I mean? Or are you one of those people who insist that we can't talk about "intelligence" until we can precisely define it and come up with units for it?

Of course it matters.

Do you consider the case in which as society we have a better cars to drive but more illnesses due to chronic stress a progress ?

[JoelKatz]

I can't imagine why this matters to you. Are you honestly saying that you don't know what I mean by prosperity? You don't understand what wealth and progress are? Why these nitpicks? What possible relevance does it have? I don't understand why you want me to jump through all these odd hoops. Do you honestly not know what I mean? Or are you one of those people who insist that we can't talk about "intelligence" until we can precisely define it and come up with units for it?

Of course it matters.

Do you consider the case in which as society we have a better cars to drive but more illnesses due to chronic stress a progress ?

We have to balance having better cars, which is a plus, against more illnesses, which is a minus. If, on net, the plus exceeds the minus, it's progress. If the minus exceeds the plus, it's not. If the pluses and minuses are incomparable or incommensurate then either we can't tell if it's progress or not or it's not progress.

But this is yet another nitpick that has nothing to do with the issue. You know what I mean by progress. Why do you pretend you don't? Why do you refuse to engage on the actual issues yet pretend you've found some refutation or weakness?

If you're trying to point out that my argument is circular, for example (that I've defined progress to mean less pollution unless that's balanced out by something better and therefore of course more progress means less pollution), why not just say that?

If that was your point, my response would be that while specific instances of progress may mean more pollution, overall continuous progress will lead to less pollution. Just as "pollution" once meant raw sewage in the streets that would kill people by the thousands (and still does in places that haven't made much technological and economic progress) but now means microscopic quantities that may take a year off your expected lifespan.

And, again, the ideal amount of pollution is not zero.

[Murwa]

We have to balance having better cars, which is a plus, against more illnesses, which is a minus. If, on net, the plus exceeds the minus, it's progress. If the minus exceeds the plus, it's not. If the pluses and minuses are incomparable or incommensurate then either we can't tell if it's progress or not or it's not progress.

But this is yet another nitpick that has nothing to do with the issue. You know what I mean by progress. Why do you pretend you don't? Why do you refuse to engage on the actual issues yet pretend you've found some refutation or weakness?

It it not nitpick. Progress means something totally different to you and to me. I would never trade better car ( no matter how fast ) for worse health ( no matter how small ) and call it progress.

If you're trying to point out that my argument is circular, for example (that I've defined progress to mean less pollution unless that's balanced out by something better and therefore of course more progress means less pollution), why not just say that?

Ok lets pretend for example that by progress we mean more and more shitty or less shitty gods that are cyclically consumed.
The world is in great progress in the last 200 years , and environment is in constant degradation that actually speeds up. Where is this causality between "progress" and less pollution ?

[jgraham]

What I'm saying that your sentence doesn't make much of a point in the context of "A being no worse than B".  i.e. "I never lie except on Sundays" is fine as a descriptive statement but it can't be used - on it's own anyway - in support of "I never lie".  Similarly, your point appeared to be that the "Free market" does not increase the problem of pollution.   Your sentence can not be used to support that idea.  Is that somehow unclear?

Yes, completely unclear and logically fallacious. If I said "I never lie unless my life is threatened", that is completely consistent with "I never lie". (Both because my life may never have been or may never be threatened and because lying when your life is threatened isn't 'really' lying because it doesn't cause the harm that lying normally causes.)

Not really.   The second case is clearly equivocation.  The first case is at best ignoratio elenchi.  Unless of course you are asserting that, in your world nobody would ever pollute their own property or allow their property to be polluted deliberately.   Which is why you had to rephrase my statement.   If that is what you are asserting then again.  An infinitely more clear way of stating it would be the way I just did.

It's hard to figure out your point because you've concealed it behind a nitpick at my grammar.

That is not a nitpick on grammar - it's just leaves me at a loss as to what you're actually saying.  You can, at any time - instead of...for example complaining - reform your argument in a different and hopefully clearer way.

I don't know what's unclear.

The statement we are discussing.  Are you not sure what statement I was referring to? You sure seem to know what statement I'm talking about.  Are you completely incapable of restating it in another way?   If not, doesn't that make you wonder if your ideas are really so well thought out?

Nothing about a free market makes pollution worse with the exception of people being able to pollute their own property when that doesn't harm others.  I submit that if this is unclear to you, it's because you are intentionally trying not to understand it.

Because it's entirely unlikely that you repeating the same words over and over without explication isn't helpful.  Right?  Sheesh.   Perhaps this process seems normal to me because where I work it's important that things are clear and you're often dealing with people who look at things in different ways.

If you know of some other way a free market might make pollution worse, do tell.

And if I did have some other reason X.  What's wrong with you saying: "Nothing about a free market makes pollution worse with the exception of people being able to pollute their own property when that doesn't harm others and X"?

Perhaps you answering that will illuminate things somewhat.

Otherwise, I don't know how I can be any clearer than I've been. Zero pollution is not the optimum level of pollution. Making some pollution worse is not a bad thing if the pollution level was below the optimum level previously.

Hey, look at that you actually *DO* know how to make statements other than repeating the same thing over and over again...(sadly this makes you're assertion about 'trying to not understand' false - too bad for you!).  So what are you saying then? That the "free market" (whatever that means) is guaranteed to have less pollution than whatever pollution people put on their own property?

I will agree with this though -- if you don't believe that a free market will add to prosperity, you should believe that a free market will probably make the pollution problem worse. If you believe a free market will add to prosperity, you should believe that a free market will probably make the pollution problem better.

Define "prosperity"...

Material wealth. Technological progress.

Is "material wealth" mean owning more things?  Are you saying that in a prosperous society people will generally own more things?  How would you measure material wealth?  i.e.  is a country with a higher GDP have more "material wealth" than a country with a lower one.

I can't imagine why this matters to you. Are you honestly saying that you don't know what I mean by prosperity? You don't understand what wealth and progress are?

Lulz.  Isn't that the very thing those kinds of questions would help me find out.  I mean that is before the question gestapo came out and said "No questions allowed in the Libertarian paradise!!"    Crazy.

I don't understand why you want me to jump through all these odd hoops.

Why do you get to call them odd?  They seem pretty straight forward questions if you've thought about your concept much.

Do you honestly not know what I mean?

How do I know what you mean without asking questions about what you mean?

Or are you one of those people who insist that we can't talk about "intelligence" until we can precisely define it and come up with units for it?

I don't know who "those" people are but ones definition of something is what limits what kind of discussion can be had on the subject.   For example if "intelligence" can only be agreed as a categorical then you are severely limited to the kinds of comparisons one can make as opposed to say if it can be defined as an ordinal.  However an ordinal is still more limited than a ratio.   So I scale the kind of discussion that can be had on the basis of the kinds of definitions we are working with.

Perhaps my requests for more concrete things to attach to your definitions is because I deal with a more varied selection of people than you do and because of which I don't take much for granted.

[JoelKatz]

After your last response, I have no idea what we disagree over, if anything.

So what are you saying then? That the "free market" (whatever that means) is guaranteed to have less pollution than whatever pollution people put on their own property?

I'm not sure I follow what you're asking. I'm saying that other than people polluting their own property, there is no reason to expect a free market to produce worse pollution than a regulated market. A free market does not mean freedom to pollute other people's property. People will tend to pollute their own property only when it is efficient for them to do so, and if not, who cares? Why should I care if you screw up something that's yours in a way that doesn't harm anyone else?

I would never trade better car ( no matter how fast ) for worse health ( no matter how small ) and call it progress.

So I presume you never ever exceed the speed limit? In fact, I presume you never drive at all, after all, there's a risk of an accident. You ignore the fact that everything is a tradeoff.

[jgraham]

We have to balance having better cars, which is a plus, against more illnesses, which is a minus. If, on net, the plus exceeds the minus, it's progress. If the minus exceeds the plus, it's not. If the pluses and minuses are incomparable or incommensurate then either we can't tell if it's progress or not or it's not progress.

But this is yet another nitpick that has nothing to do with the issue. You know what I mean by progress. Why do you pretend you don't? Why do you refuse to engage on the actual issues yet pretend you've found some refutation or weakness?

It it not nitpick. Progress means something totally different to you and to me. I would never trade better car ( no matter how fast ) for worse health ( no matter how small ) and call it progress.

Good point.  Metrics like this are weird.  There's certainly some problem with the fact that we all value things differently.  Not to mention that with people even terms like "better cars" appear to be something of an oversimplification.  Worst of all, and this wasn't my main point but "progress" as Joel has defined it is what I'm going to call a "metric of things".   Meaning that it's attempting to measure the values (relative or absolute) of all classes of object.   My reservation with such a thing is one question: "How many things are there?"

I would assert two things that the purpose of metrics is for comparison and by virtue of that and the inability to determine how many things we are comparing: such a metric would always be utterly meaningless.  Because if you don't know your population, you can't bound your error if you can't bound your error you can...*ahem*...never compare two values.   

Which is why I kind of ask about peoples definitions and try to tie them to other metrics I have in my head.  If Joel and I agreed on what are the hallmarks of a progressive society then such a comparison would be useful.

[kjj]

Reminds me of listening to Noam Chomsky.  Noam is the living master of sophistry, but jgraham is pretty good.

For everyone else, I'll let you in on a little secret.  If someone starts pretending that they needed more precise definitions for common words that everyone understands and uses every day, sit up and pay attention, because a sohpist is probably about to snare you up in his tar pit.  The same goes if they start to feign bafflement at a language construction that wouldn't confuse a three year old child.

While there is some wiggle room around "prosperity", this discussion sure as hell does not hinge upon any of the reasonable variations.  Also, everyone knew exactly what Joel meant about pollution, except those that put a lot of their brainpower into avoiding the clear meaning.

[JoelKatz]

I would assert two things that the purpose of metrics is for comparison and by virtue of that and the inability to determine how many things we are comparing: such a metric would always be utterly meaningless.  Because if you don't know your population, you can't bound your error if you can't bound your error you can...*ahem*...never compare two values.

No offense intended, but I consider this idiotic "how do I know I exist" navel gazing.

[jgraham]

After your last response, I have no idea what we disagree over, if anything.

How about this...

On one level you appear to be saying that pollution levels are independent of the presence or absence of a "free market".   Is that correct?

[jgraham]

I would assert two things that the purpose of metrics is for comparison and by virtue of that and the inability to determine how many things we are comparing: such a metric would always be utterly meaningless.  Because if you don't know your population, you can't bound your error if you can't bound your error you can...*ahem*...never compare two values.

No offense intended, but I consider this idiotic "how do I know I exist" navel gazing.

Not offended but where I come from it's called "statistics".

Edit: I admit in retrospect that I find it completely mysterious that Joel hasn't the foggiest idea about error calculations and what makes error absolutely paramount in interpreting figures.  Question: Do some Libertarians act stupid in order to make the public education system look bad?

[JoelKatz]

On one level you appear to be saying that pollution levels are independent of the presence or absence of a "free market".   Is that correct?

No. And that wouldn't necessarily be a good thing anyway since it's possible that the pollution level is below the ideal level. In fact, for people polluting their own property in ways that don't harm others, I suspect our society has pushed the pollution level well below the optimum level. I would expect a free market to fix that. Also, I would expect the reduction in public property leading to more land being polluted at a more optimal level (whether more or less). I also expect a free market to lead to improved technological and economic progress which will lead to reductions in the level of the really bad kind of pollution (negative externalities).

[jgraham]

On one level you appear to be saying that pollution levels are independent of the presence or absence of a "free market".   Is that correct?

No. And that wouldn't necessarily be a good thing anyway since it's possible that the pollution level is below the ideal level. In fact, for people polluting their own property in ways that don't harm others, I suspect our society has pushed the pollution level well below the optimum level.

Optimum level for what?

[JoelKatz]

On one level you appear to be saying that pollution levels are independent of the presence or absence of a "free market".   Is that correct?

No. And that wouldn't necessarily be a good thing anyway since it's possible that the pollution level is below the ideal level. In fact, for people polluting their own property in ways that don't harm others, I suspect our society has pushed the pollution level well below the optimum level.

Optimum level for what?

I'm not sure I understand completely what you're asking, so I'll try to answer a few of the possible things you could mean.

First, I hope we agree that the optimum level of pollution isn't none at all. No pollution would mean we couldn't even breathe, lest the carbon dioxide we exhale worsen global warming. We couldn't even use fire to cook our food. And of course, the optimum level of pollution isn't as much as we can possibly create. There are all sorts of things we could do that, but for the pollution they'd produce, might be great ideas but when you factor in the pollution, are clear losers.

Now, it doesn't immediately follow that there is some perfect mathematically optimum level of pollution. Presumably, for any precisely defined X, there's a level that maximizes X, but we get a circularity when we try to figure out what the X should be. So, by optimum level of pollution, I mean the level of pollution that maximizes X, for the optimum value of X. I don't know precisely what X is, but I do know approximately. Health is good. Wealth is good. Disease is bad. And so on, but there is no universal metric.

One of the reasons we need a free market is because without one, we don't have any ability to compare things. If there were no exchanges, how many dollars is one bitcoin worth? Nobody could ever even have any clue. I mean optimum in the mix of everyone's weighted rational preferences.

Technology tends to reduce the optimum level of pollution. Once the optimum level of pollution included dumping sewage in the streets. Thanks to modern sanitation, that is now sub-optimum.

Yes, that's not precise. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

[tsvekric]

So, I would consider myself to hold a sort of libertarian, free market type of ideology for the most part.  In 2007 I helped out with Ron Paul's campaign (quite a lot actually, in fact a large percentage of his supporters found out about him initially from a story that I sort of created - it took off and became his first big 'break' on the mainstream media).  I also am a strong believer in property rights and individual freedom.


However, recently I've been realizing more and more that most hardcore free market/capitalist supporters seem to take this base belief and use it to justify any situation.  There is always a workaround to make close-to-free markets seem just, fair, and in everybody's interest.  Even though I often agree, it is starting to look really silly to me.

This view of humans living in some personal little bubble doing whatever the fuck they want and ignoring society as a whole seems totally fucked to me.  Humans are a social animal and cooperation is just as important to our survival and development as a species as individual freedoms are.  It also seems incredibly impractical and downright immoral even given our current living conditions and the state of the world (population, pollution, 'protection' of intellectual property by laws, etc).

Instead of going on some rant I am going to just throw this out there:

In the US, unemployment is very high.  If you went by old conventions of defining unemployment (as the government likes to redefine what 'unemployed' means) we would be sitting around 22% or so now.  That's more than 1 in 5 people in the US without work. 
We are living in a world of automation and manual labor is becoming increasingly less necessary.  In some industries 1 person can do the work that used to take hundreds of people - think of how many people work in agriculture now as a percentage of the population. 
If technology X replaces 10 working jobs and creates 2 new jobs on average (skilled workers, engineers, repairmen, management, etc) where do those 8 people go?  If this happens on a massive scale constantly, where do people get jobs?  If there are no jobs for people to take, where do they get money?

Hypothetically, imagine an economy that requires about 1/10th of the amount of labor we have require currently.  We get a point where working for a sustaining life is not feasible.  Most people who are alive cannot work - so where do they money? 

I believe we are already past the tipping point of the ratio of technology replacing jobs/creating jobs in many industries.  I see no reason why unemployment would EVER reach its 'natural' level in our economy again by purely market means.  Sure regulation and things like minimum wage are part of the problem to an extent - but I don't believe any market system can sustain our population.  Working for money in a market just doesn't cut it now.  So what do we do?  Do we let the population remain in poverty and starve because it is 'fair'?  I believe in large cuts in Federal programs, but Jesus, imagine what that would do to our population.
We live in luxurious times where every American working full time is way beyond what is required to sustain our economy and is no longer demanded.

[JoelKatz]

This view of humans living in some personal little bubble doing whatever the fuck they want and ignoring society as a whole seems totally fucked to me.  Humans are a social animal and cooperation is just as important to our survival and development as a species as individual freedoms are.  It also seems incredibly impractical and downright immoral even given our current living conditions and the state of the world (population, pollution, 'protection' of intellectual property by laws, etc).

Competition is a form of cooperation. Personal freedoms don't interfere with cooperation. If you're not free not to cooperate, it's not cooperation, it's predation. (Of course, there do have to be enforced rules. Your freedom stops at me.)

Hypothetically, imagine an economy that requires about 1/10th of the amount of labor we have require currently.  We get a point where working for a sustaining life is not feasible.  Most people who are alive cannot work - so where do they money?

I honestly can't see how that could happen. If we have all these people whose needs are unsatisfied, how can there also be nothing to do?

I believe we are already past the tipping point of the ratio of technology replacing jobs/creating jobs in many industries.  I see no reason why unemployment would EVER reach its 'natural' level in our economy again by purely market means.  Sure regulation and things like minimum wage are part of the problem to an extent - but I don't believe any market system can sustain our population.  Working for money in a market just doesn't cut it now.  So what do we do?  Do we let the population remain in poverty and starve because it is 'fair'?  I believe in large cuts in Federal programs, but Jesus, imagine what that would do to our population.
We live in luxurious times where every American working full time is way beyond what is required to sustain our economy and is no longer demanded.

The current unemployment is not caused by technology providing everything everyone could ever want without anyone needing to exercise any effort. If we ever had that 'problem' the solution would be simple -- you could live like a king on charity.

The unemployment we have now was caused by an atypical crisis. (And yes, even a perfect libertarian utopia could have such crises. Free markets don't make everything magically perfect.)

[Murwa]

So I presume you never ever exceed the speed limit? In fact, I presume you never drive at all, after all, there's a risk of an accident. You ignore the fact that everything is a tradeoff.

Whatever i drive or not is irrelevant but nice try.

Can you answer my how did you get idea - better prosperity = less pollution , since world increases its prosperity in the last 200 years and we are on the bring of ecological disaster ?

Do you feel suicidal ? Every species on earth that over expands ,eventually experience sudden huge drop in population with possible extinction event.
Nature is a dictatorship

[JoelKatz]

Can you answer my how did you get idea - better prosperity = less pollution , since world increases its prosperity in the last 200 years and we are on the bring of ecological disaster ?

Take a look at any long-term charts for air pollution, water pollution, and so on. The optimum level of pollution goes down as technology goes up because the cost of remitting pollution goes down while the benefits do not.

The "brink of disaster" argument has been made for decades, it's nonsense. It's like screaming at the top of your lungs that a car is going to crash every time it approaches a curve. The driver sees the curve just like you do. He's going to turn whether or not you scream in panic. The system is stable because it can and will change, not because it can continue indefinitely in the same direction.

Do you feel suicidal ? Every species on earth that over expands ,eventually experience sudden huge drop in population with possible extinction event.
Nature is a dictatorship

I see the curve just like you do. I'll turn whether or not you yell at me to. I'm not a fan of dying. Our cognitive and technological capabilities make us unique as a species.

If you're concerned about species extinction, you want technology to advance as quickly as possible. An asteroid or other cosmic event is just a matter of when, not if. We had better be able to leave this planet when it happens or it's all over.

[Murwa]

Take a look at any long-term charts for air pollution, water pollution, and so on. The optimum level of pollution goes down as technology goes up because the cost of remitting pollution goes down while the benefits do not.

Environment is a much more complicated system than just simple air, pollution level , and no pollution does not go down by the invisible hand of free market ( you are trying accredit it too ) but that of socialist and their regulations.

The "brink of disaster" argument has been made for decades, it's nonsense. It's like screaming at the top of your lungs that a car is going to crash every time it approaches a curve. The driver sees the curve just like you do. He's going to turn whether or not you scream in panic. The system is stable because it can and will change, not because it can continue indefinitely in the same direction.

I dont know if you noticed but world gravitates towards socialism , it is your driver that choses this direction yet it is you who is screaming

If you're concerned about species extinction, you want technology to advance as quickly as possible. An asteroid or other cosmic event is just a matter of when, not if. We had better be able to leave this planet when it happens or it's all over.

There is no profit in leaving the planet. At least it wont be until it is totally devastated or we run out of resources.