A Resource Based Economy

[Rassah]

Of course there are free-ish markets.

I don't see how reality is anything near this black and white.
So what's your definition of free market anyway? What aspects do you consider coercive? Regulations? Laws?

There are free-ish markets in the same way there are prentant-ish women - you either are or you aren't. A free market is one where two entities trade freely, voluntarily, based on their best knowledge, and without coercion or force from any outside party. So, while they don't necessarily interfere, laws and regulations do coerce the trading parties into trading against their wishes, or prohibit them from trading entirely. One of the parties lying about the product, or holding a gun and saying "your money or your life," isn't a free market, either, since it is fraud/theft/crime, and the other party was coerced into trading something they normally wouldn't have. With those, we can discuss what kind of crime issues can arise, and how to deal with them, but not claim that "free markets don't work" because there are fraudulent exchanges, since, obviously, free, unregulated, unfettered trade happens all the time.

I have been arguing that when you start out with a free market that is not protected by some statist structure the assholes will win quicker. Assholes will be there, free market or not. It's just that a free market offers more opportunity to being played with. When the ante is small, that's ok. But when the ante is your livelyhood or your house, not so ok.

My concern is that when you start to protect people from assholes, you run into the issue of a nanny state having to rely on more and more restrictive protections, in order to deal with more and more clever thieves. And people assume that they are protected, so don't pay attention or do research, making it easier for thieves to get away with new ways of stealing from them. If people had to rely on their own research and knowledge before taking part in any trade, such assholery would be a lot harder to get away with. Plus assholes generally don't last in the market for very long, since, no one really buys stuff from assholes. They are assholes, after all (yes, I'm aware BFL somewhat flies in the face of this). Think of how many huge corps we have now who aren't assholes, like Apple, Google, Vanguard, Honda, and how many asshole companies have collapsed spectacularly once they were found out.

You will need some way to prevent monopolies without coercion. Monopolies completely destroy the idea of a free market. For a lot of things someone is going to be top dog because being a little better can get you all of the business. Not just because they are assholes, but because it is how the game of free markets is played. Monopolies give power and that will invariably get abused.

Here's a simple but interesting exercise. Can you name a monopoly, that isn't specifically a government agency, or is not something that is specifically mandated by government (like power companies in some places)?

[mobodick]

And lastly, I would like to hear an example of a company oppressing anyone.  Personally, I cannot think of one single example of a company oppressing anyone, ever.  So, names, dates, and what form of oppression, if anyone has any real facts to present to back up their claims that free-market capitalists oppress people.

What planet are you from?
Never heared of Nike? Or Apple? Or Shell? Or Microsoft?
Nike knowingly support(s/ed) child labour.
http://www1.american.edu/ted/nike.htm
Apple likewise, but  they sure are no exception.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/7330986/Apple-admits-using-child-labour.html
Shell oppressed people in africa that didn't like them poisoning their water.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2013/01/2013130214524796.html
Microsoft oprressed competitors and was convicted for abusing their monopoly on the browser market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case
All big tech companies use patents to oppress each other and the new guys. Absolutely massive waste of resources.

And those are just the obvious ones and not even really monopolies. If they had the freedom to become more monopolistic there would be worse examples of disgressions.
But companies misbehave all the time. On any levels. I could go on and on stating court cases where companies were acting oppressingly against persons or other companies.

What is needed , and this counts equally well for a free market as for a regulated market or even a government, is a way for society to control the future of any large accumulation of capital. If these large structures are left to themselfs they can become increasingly selfish.
 

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

And lastly, I would like to hear an example of a company oppressing anyone.  Personally, I cannot think of one single example of a company oppressing anyone, ever.  So, names, dates, and what form of oppression, if anyone has any real facts to present to back up their claims that free-market capitalists oppress people.

What planet are you from?
Never heared of Nike? Or Apple? Or Shell? Or Microsoft?
Nike knowingly support(s/ed) child labour.
http://www1.american.edu/ted/nike.htm
Apple likewise, but  they sure are no exception.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/7330986/Apple-admits-using-child-labour.html
Shell oppressed people in africa that didn't like them poisoning their water.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2013/01/2013130214524796.html
Microsoft oprressed competitors and was convicted for abusing their monopoly on the browser market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case
All big tech companies use patents to oppress each other and the new guys. Absolutely massive waste of resources.

And those are just the obvious ones and not even really monopolies. If they had the freedom to become more monopolistic there would be worse examples of disgressions.
But companies misbehave all the time. On any levels. I could go on and on stating court cases where companies were acting oppressingly against persons or other companies.

What is needed , and this counts equally well for a free market as for a regulated market or even a government, is a way for society to control the future of any large accumulation of capital. If these large structures are left to themselfs they can become increasingly selfish.
 

I don't see any coercion in any of those actions.  All employees were always free to leave. As far as Shell poisoning water is concerned, since when was Shell responsible for the water there?  The state is the entity in control of water quality there, and I'm sure that Shell didn't have the troops, not Shell, so once again, the state fails.
Microsoft coerces no-one to buy their products or work for them, same with Apple.
Microsoft included a browser in an OS, no issues there, either buy it or go with Linux of FreeBSD.
So far, you have only proven my point that the state is bad.

Have you never heard the saying "Caveat Emptor"?  You and your ilk want a state to protect you from your own folly.



OK, so, can you provide any real cases where a company, not a government, oppressed anyone?

[mobodick]

Plus assholes generally don't last in the market for very long, since, no one really buys stuff from assholes. They are assholes, after all (yes, I'm aware BFL somewhat flies in the face of this). Think of how many huge corps we have now who aren't assholes, like Apple, Google, Vanguard, Honda, and how many asshole companies have collapsed spectacularly once they were found out.

I realy need to sleep, but i couldn't resist.

You do know that assholes are usually only a part of some larger organism, right?
It can be very profitable for a relatively non-evil company to do relatively evil things if you can handle the PR. If the many multinationals didn't play it on the edge of morality they wouldn't get over the edge so often. In the end they expand the edges of morality to gain new territory for profit. And that is an erosive force to society.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Plus assholes generally don't last in the market for very long, since, no one really buys stuff from assholes. They are assholes, after all (yes, I'm aware BFL somewhat flies in the face of this). Think of how many huge corps we have now who aren't assholes, like Apple, Google, Vanguard, Honda, and how many asshole companies have collapsed spectacularly once they were found out.

I realy need to sleep, but i couldn't resist.

You do know that assholes are usually only a part of some larger organism, right?
It can be very profitable for a relatively non-evil company to do relatively evil things if you can handle the PR. If the many multinationals didn't play it on the edge of morality they wouldn't get over the edge so often. In the end they expand the edges of morality to gain new territory for profit. And that is an erosive force to society.

Thank god for the self-appointed protectors of the people against the erosive forces that threaten society!

[mobodick]

I don't see any coercion in any of those actions.  All employees were always free to leave.

Problem is it's an ecosystem supported top down by (for instance) Nike execs all the way down to the workers realistically will never be able to become a Nike exec. Nike parasites on the low position of these people and will work hard to keep the situation that way as long as possible. Nike fully knew these people were payed very very little and didn't make sure they were payed anything that we would consider reasonable. They tell excuses that these people get opportunities while they pay them salaries that would be completely unacceptable in the western world. They have the power to give those people more yet they choose to cultivate these environments of near slavery.

 As far as Shell poisoning water is concerned, since when was Shell responsible for the water there?  

They are always responsible, they just didn't take that responsibility and there was noone to force them to do so.
It is just an example of what big companies naturally do when left to themselfs. They don't give a shit about people or the earth or governments or whatnot if they don't have to.

The state is the entity in control of water quality there, and I'm sure that Shell didn't have the troops, not Shell, so once again, the state fails.

So the lesson here is that you need a force at least as big as the potential conglomerate you whish to run loose in your free economy to prevent things from going astray.

Microsoft coerces no-one to buy their products or work for them, same with Apple.
Microsoft included a browser in an OS, no issues there, either buy it or go with Linux of FreeBSD.

Microsoft had a near monopoly on operating systems and arranged for various vendor lock-in arrangements that basically slowly tricked society into getting hooked on microsoft products. They infiltrated some key structures and leveraged compatibility.
And coercion doesn't allways mean you push someone in a certain direction. It can also mean that you manipulate the choices people perceive to make them walk 'freely' in a direction you desire.
In that respect microsoft has been pretty abusive in the past, but more recently other companies like google and facebook really hit the nail when it comes to parasitic relations with their customers. No other companies have ever turned their customers into their product so successfully. A lot of psychology goes into those to make them seem 'non-evil' but that doesn't mean they aren't. At least their product base makes their lifes easier by providing detailed reports of their lifes. Broadcasting the message of 'we're not evil' becomes pretty simple if your receivers tell you how they want to hear it...

Have you never heard the saying "Caveat Emptor"?  You and your ilk want a state to protect you from your own folly.

Caveat emptor is quite a risk when your livelyhood depends on a deal. This is not a mechanism most people would want to prevail in society. People want more security. They don't want someone to sell a huge party of poisonous wine so that 10% of the population dies while he goes of to live on an island. They also don't want to check every bottle on the market for poison. So some rules are desirable.

OK, so, can you provide any real cases where a company, not a government, oppressed anyone?

Well, if you didn't think those were examples of oppression then you sure have a shallow definition of freedom.
If i candidly pump the water from under your land and you have no idea why your crop fails and i sell the water to you on a free market, is that coercion? And can you still call such a market free? And how will you prevent such a thing without rules or laws that can be enforced with violence?

[mobodick]

Plus assholes generally don't last in the market for very long, since, no one really buys stuff from assholes. They are assholes, after all (yes, I'm aware BFL somewhat flies in the face of this). Think of how many huge corps we have now who aren't assholes, like Apple, Google, Vanguard, Honda, and how many asshole companies have collapsed spectacularly once they were found out.

I realy need to sleep, but i couldn't resist.

You do know that assholes are usually only a part of some larger organism, right?
It can be very profitable for a relatively non-evil company to do relatively evil things if you can handle the PR. If the many multinationals didn't play it on the edge of morality they wouldn't get over the edge so often. In the end they expand the edges of morality to gain new territory for profit. And that is an erosive force to society.

Thank god for the self-appointed protectors of the people against the erosive forces that threaten society!

I'm not a protector. I'm just watching the show. It will all go to hell anyway.
I'm just pissed of at the fringe groups that try to change the script all the time.

[Rassah]

What happened to those exploited, underpaid children since then? And what were their options before?

Also, can you provide some examples of a monopoly?

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

I don't see any coercion in any of those actions.  All employees were always free to leave.

Problem is it's an ecosystem supported top down by (for instance) Nike execs all the way down to the workers realistically will never be able to become a Nike exec. Nike parasites on the low position of these people and will work hard to keep the situation that way as long as possible. Nike fully knew these people were payed very very little and didn't make sure they were payed anything that we would consider reasonable. They tell excuses that these people get opportunities while they pay them salaries that would be completely unacceptable in the western world. They have the power to give those people more yet they choose to cultivate these environments of near slavery.

 As far as Shell poisoning water is concerned, since when was Shell responsible for the water there?  

They are always responsible, they just didn't take that responsibility and there was noone to force them to do so.
It is just an example of what big companies naturally do when left to themselfs. They don't give a shit about people or the earth or governments or whatnot if they don't have to.

The state is the entity in control of water quality there, and I'm sure that Shell didn't have the troops, not Shell, so once again, the state fails.

So the lesson here is that you need a force at least as big as the potential conglomerate you whish to run loose in your free economy to prevent things from going astray.

Microsoft coerces no-one to buy their products or work for them, same with Apple.
Microsoft included a browser in an OS, no issues there, either buy it or go with Linux of FreeBSD.

Microsoft had a near monopoly on operating systems and arranged for various vendor lock-in arrangements that basically slowly tricked society into getting hooked on microsoft products. They infiltrated some key structures and leveraged compatibility.
And coercion doesn't allways mean you push someone in a certain direction. It can also mean that you manipulate the choices people perceive to make them walk 'freely' in a direction you desire.
In that respect microsoft has been pretty abusive in the past, but more recently other companies like google and facebook really hit the nail when it comes to parasitic relations with their customers. No other companies have ever turned their customers into their product so successfully. A lot of psychology goes into those to make them seem 'non-evil' but that doesn't mean they aren't. At least their product base makes their lifes easier by providing detailed reports of their lifes. Broadcasting the message of 'we're not evil' becomes pretty simple if your receivers tell you how they want to hear it...

Have you never heard the saying "Caveat Emptor"?  You and your ilk want a state to protect you from your own folly.

Caveat emptor is quite a risk when your livelyhood depends on a deal. This is not a mechanism most people would want to prevail in society. People want more security. They don't want someone to sell a huge party of poisonous wine so that 10% of the population dies while he goes of to live on an island. They also don't want to check every bottle on the market for poison. So some rules are desirable.

OK, so, can you provide any real cases where a company, not a government, oppressed anyone?

Well, if you didn't think those were examples of oppression then you sure have a shallow definition of freedom.
If i candidly pump the water from under your land and you have no idea why your crop fails and i sell the water to you on a free market, is that coercion? And can you still call such a market free? And how will you prevent such a thing without rules or laws that can be enforced with violence?

Again:

The state is the entity in control of water quality there, and I'm sure that Shell didn't have the troops, not Shell, so once again, the state fails.

So the lesson here is that you need a force at least as big as the potential conglomerate you whish to run loose in your free economy to prevent things from going astray.

So, the state failed, and you see that as a lesson that we need a bigger state.
Wow.

[mobodick]

Again:

The state is the entity in control of water quality there, and I'm sure that Shell didn't have the troops, not Shell, so once again, the state fails.

So the lesson here is that you need a force at least as big as the potential conglomerate you whish to run loose in your free economy to prevent things from going astray.

So, the state failed, and you see that as a lesson that we need a bigger state.
Wow.

The state in that country was almost nonexistent. Shell had free reign and there was noone to stop them. If Shell would have tried this in europe or the US the state would have stopped them. The protection agains selfish companies is one of the tasks people expect the state to do.

So yes, in that case a bigger state would have helped.

But don't get me wrong, i wouldn't want the state to control everything and i would not want to hand over all control to the state.
The state, in exactly the same way as companies, can grow selfish and corrupt.
The core of the problem is about keeping large organisations in check. They tend to become entities on their own and without firm internal of external guidence they will become spoilt brats that are perfectly capable of destroying themselfs and/or their environment.
The other side of the same problem is that we need these large organisations to have this level of civilization.
What seems to be the best compromise is some form of people controlled structure that makes a set of rules and makes sure everyone keeps themselfs to it. Of course to be able to keep these rules you will need to be able to mobilize a larger enough force...

Another problem is the financial world.
It has given the world a much more complex financial dynamic with derivatives and other risk management toys.
What this has done is push politics into finance, at the same time making it harder for the politic to manage their budgets and putting politicians further away from the people they serve. In the end people get less representation and that is why democracy is failing.
I see this more as a problem with the incentives and reward systems in a capitalistic state than a problem with states themselfs.

[LightRider]

If you don't think that the oil companies are destroying the environment here in the US, then you haven't been paying attention.

[Anenome5]

You deal with assholes in a free society via access control and performance bonds.

In a statist society such as we have now, most of the society is public access due to the government owning streets.

In a free society, you're always on private property, either your own or someone else's, and thus access control is far, far easier.

Most roads and commercial space will be for-profit ventures and allow people on quite readily, but will ask you to abide by certain common-sense rules and laws--a usage agreement of sorts. You may also be asked to post a performance bond which is forfeit if you break those rules.

Thus, people who cannot control themselves will become bad performance-bond risks, and bond-issuers will not take a chance on them, relegating them to the company of people so like-minded.

Criminals, thieves, those whom like to fight, will find themselves excluded from polite society because they either can't rent performance bonds necessary to get into such places, or because they are refused entry at the door due to being blacklisted because of past behavior.

We live in a society that is culturally going downhill, that has been glorifying low-class behavior and mannerisms. I think in a free society this trend would reverse and people would once again aspire to truly fine behavior, manners, and beauty both in action, form, and thought; in short a cultural renaissance.

[LightRider]

In a free society, you're always on private property

This is probably one of the most oxymoronic and absurd things I've read.

[notme]

In a free society, you're always on private property

This is probably one of the most oxymoronic and absurd things I've read.

Don't you know about the Native Americans?

They were slaves until the Europeans came and introduced them to private property.

Oh wait, I think I got that backwards.

[mobodick]

You deal with assholes in a free society via access control and performance bonds.

In a statist society such as we have now, most of the society is public access due to the government owning streets.

In a free society, you're always on private property, either your own or someone else's, and thus access control is far, far easier.

Most roads and commercial space will be for-profit ventures and allow people on quite readily, but will ask you to abide by certain common-sense rules and laws--a usage agreement of sorts. You may also be asked to post a performance bond which is forfeit if you break those rules.

Thus, people who cannot control themselves will become bad performance-bond risks, and bond-issuers will not take a chance on them, relegating them to the company of people so like-minded.

Criminals, thieves, those whom like to fight, will find themselves excluded from polite society because they either can't rent performance bonds necessary to get into such places, or because they are refused entry at the door due to being blacklisted because of past behavior.

We live in a society that is culturally going downhill, that has been glorifying low-class behavior and mannerisms. I think in a free society this trend would reverse and people would once again aspire to truly fine behavior, manners, and beauty both in action, form, and thought; in short a cultural renaissance.

Yeah, but all you'll be doing is giving incentive for the excluded people to organize and break the system that excluded them.
You will have reached nothing because the smaller cell-like society will have no large organisation to operate off of because all the rules/laws the cells created are different. The cells would require some streamlining of their laws and that stuff takes ages. Meanwhile the angry excluded mob will come for your head, one cell at a time.
It would be a mess..

I mean, how the hell can you honestly think that if you put some people outside of society that that will be the end of your problems? I'd say you're clueless as to what a human actually is.


Usually

[Rassah]

In a free society, you're always on private property

This is probably one of the most oxymoronic and absurd things I've read.

That's because you are only looking at it from the point if view of the person being denied access. Look at it from the point of view of the person who actually owns something. He is free to decide who is allowed on their property and what rules they should follow. As someone who has a house or an apartment, would you be OK with random strangers coming into your room, and setting up a heroin den or something there? If not, then you have freedom to decide what to do with your place of residence. If some other entity decides that heroin addicts should use your place to hang out and do drugs despite your objections to such, then you're not free.

[Rassah]

Yeah, but all you'll be doing is giving incentive for the excluded people to organize and break the system that excluded them.

You can change incentives to make it easier or more worthwhile for them to repair their reputation. For instance by buying reparations. If the reparation fee it too high, those people will organize and break the rules, making things for costly for those charging those fees. So the fees will come down until they are sufficiently punitive, but not so much that they lead to roving gangs of bandits. I.e. let the market decide

You will have reached nothing because the smaller cell-like society will have no large organisation to operate off of because all the rules/laws the cells created are different.

What? Why? Things like don't kill, don't steal, and don't commit fraud are pretty universal. As for the more detailed stuff, yeah, it would have been a problem if we were starting out from scratch, but there is already a vast amount of legal precedent to base things on. Heck, we even have a body of international law to use, which is currently being developed more and more thanks to globalization and International trade. Plus just because societies are broken into cells, doesn't mean the services they use are. There could be a large security company that many cells subscribe to that can easily overpower the few marauding outlaw cells.

I mean, how the hell can you honestly think that if you put some people outside of society that that will be the end of your problems?

When was the last time Australia decided to invade someone?

[Impaler]

You can change incentives to make it easier or more worthwhile for them to repair their reputation. For instance by buying reparations. If the reparation fee it too high, those people will organize and break the rules, making things for costly for those charging those fees. So the fees will come down until they are sufficiently punitive, but not so much that they lead to roving gangs of bandits. I.e. let the market decide

Did you just inadvertently invent welfare as a band-aid to the horrible dysfunctionality of your hyper-libertarian fantasy state?  Talk about coming full circle.

What? Why? Things like don't kill, don't steal, and don't commit fraud are pretty universal. As for the more detailed stuff, yeah, it would have been a problem if we were starting out from scratch, but there is already a vast amount of legal precedent to base things on. Heck, we even have a body of international law to use, which is currently being developed more and more thanks to globalization and International trade. Plus just because societies are broken into cells, doesn't mean the services they use are. There could be a large security company that many cells subscribe to that can easily overpower the few marauding outlaw cells.

The excluded can't be expected to abide by the rules of their excluders, their is no legitimacy without reciprocity.  In contrast the international laws you speak of DO actually try to include everyone under some umbrella of rights even if it more rhetoric then reality right now, oh and guess what they frown on mercenaries.

When was the last time Australia decided to invade someone?

A better example would be Haiti, that's what happens when you try to exclude 90% of people from society and treat them only as economic instruments, they will tear the system down even if they are going to be no better off afterwards.

[Rassah]

You can change incentives to make it easier or more worthwhile for them to repair their reputation. For instance by buying reparations. If the reparation fee it too high, those people will organize and break the rules, making things for costly for those charging those fees. So the fees will come down until they are sufficiently punitive, but not so much that they lead to roving gangs of bandits. I.e. let the market decide

Did you just inadvertently invent welfare as a band-aid to the horrible dysfunctionality of your hyper-libertarian fantasy state?  Talk about coming full circle.

Welfare, as I understand it, is someone receiving money for no work. What I am talking about is someone working, and paying that money to someone else. Rather the opposite of welfare.

The excluded can't be expected to abide by the rules of their excluders, their is no legitimacy without reciprocity.  In contrast the international laws you speak of DO actually try to include everyone under some umbrella of rights even if it more rhetoric then reality right now, oh and guess what they frown on mercenaries.

At least until the more recent perversion of them, laws were not about giving people rights. It wasn't like, "Well, here's this new thing, let's pass a law allowing people to use it." People had rights by default, and laws were only passed to restrict certain activities. So no one would be excluded. The only things international law cover is how to settle disputes, and which activities are generally frowned upon.

When was the last time Australia decided to invade someone?

A better example would be Haiti, that's what happens when you try to exclude 90% of people from society and treat them only as economic instruments, they will tear the system down even if they are going to be no better off afterwards.

[/quote]

Who excluded Haiti from society, and how? I'm not too familiar with it, aside from that it exists next to a country that is open to business and tourism, and is much more affluent because of it.

[LightRider]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hgA9j-4dB0

http://youtu.be/3nsoN-LS8RQ