The point is.. if people aren’t forced to accept something and if they approve or disapprove, accept or reject things voluntarily and there is no authority that can make them do otherwise, then the free market hasn’t really failed.

In a sense we could already say that the society we have, even with government, is the fault of “The People”. Despite feeling certain restrictions or impositions, they concede to it and hence perpetuate it.

So there’s no way I or anyone else can change this until people are persuaded to stop believing in the necessity of the coercive monopoly and therefore stop conceding to it (not necessarily as in stop paying taxes, but stop thinking and believing that you pay them as a moral obligation and for some greater good – you don’t.).

This said, I am willing to reconsider and question my beliefs. It’s a constant journey and I know I can’t just stop somewhere and accept it as dogma. But right now, the beliefs I expressed above are actual and I’d act on them, just need to figure out the wisest way.

Still, I would like to add some final points:
There weren’t always governments. Assuming we got together a decent anarchy system that works in a way you’d approve of (which I, as you know, doubt), there would probably still be “VIPs”. Popstars and other idols as we know them today come naturally with modern media (which, I gather, you would have us keep in some form). They are, and, probably, would be (at least in part), be perceived, if ever so subconciously, as special. They are also a kind of authority, at least today. They could, I assume, evolve into a form of aristocracy in a way, into worldly leaders, like clan leaders did in prehistoric times (I’m guessing here, of course). This might, without mafia-like violence, produce, in some cities or regions, create loose, monarchies — like ancient Teuton monarchies perhaps ? And that could escalate…

Until now, Taco and I have been arguing that an anarchy as you describe it would result in violent chaos or something equally undesirable quickly. The point that I tried to make above is that we have no guarantee that anarchy as you’d like it to work might in the long term (think centuries) not be stable. There’s no need to discuss. If you believe that love for the status quo would definitely be preserved forever, so be it. We’re disagreeing anyway.

But you can’t say what is or isn’t in their self interest. It depends on what they at any given point in time believe would improve their life. That’s all that matters. And really, speaking of rational pursuit, I really mean any pursuit as long as it doesn’t result in initiating force or fraud – with hope that it is also a noble and effective strategy (but that much we don’t have to enforce, it’s up to the individual).

> Of course this is a ridiculously unrealistic situation, but I had to eliminate all the selfish motivations for selflessness to show there also is selflessness without a selfish motivation.

That IS extreme, alright. I suppose there is always an exception to the rule just as all fundamental (or so sounding) principles always seem to meet their opposite in some paradox. It could be argued that the choice not to kill myself would actually be a selfish choice – I would feel good knowing it is the right thing to do which may then and there be preferrable to a vision of life of guilt (for letting millions of people die for you).

However, since the result is termination of your life it is true that this cannot be considered an act meant to better your life, although even there it could be argued that you actually are bettering the moments of your life before you take it from yourself, by doing something that makes you feel right.

That said, for lack of realistic chance of it happening it might as well be categorized as speculative evidence against the still prevailing fact that exercising selflessness is in fact in many ways exercising selfishness and that this rule is worth considering when contemplating what kind of society we should pursue.

> The purpose of LL is to encourage business, by making sure that someone who starts a business won’t get into a never repayable debt if he fails.

Then it doesn’t seem like that purpose is always really followed through as such and the limited liability is extended to include protection from things you ought not to be protected from. I was also talking about corporations which are even worse when it comes to doing unjust business yet not making individuals doing it fully liable for it.

> Anyone doing business with a company that operates that way can decide for themselves if they are willing to take the extra risk.

Exactly, which adds to the cost of doing a business in such a manner. The businessmen must know that some people wont like the reduced liability. That said, a contract is consentual. As long as there is no coercion and fraud it means no harm. It’s still different from having limited liability institutionalized.

> anyone will prefer to do business with a full liability company so they can recover more in case of a failure. This then creates a strong market force against starting new companies.

Maybe so if a free market was built out of wimps who are too afraid to take risks on their own merit. You might have noticed that boosting personal responsibility is among the fundamental tenets of the view I adopted, not shielding people from their own mistakes.

That said, I’d argue that this circumstance would just make entrepreneurs more rational about their choices and their business (interestingly, the rationality is exactly what we were after so.. great!). I would also argue that whatever disincentive this rationality results from, it will not be any worse than the disincentive – heck even outright inability – of many people today to start businesses, due to governmental impositions and requirements.

Also speaking of insurance, they aren’t the ones taking those kinds of risks indeed. However, venture capitalists, angel and other investors ARE. You have a good idea? Too risky? Seek an investor who can bear the risk and amortize the costs of failure (by a contract of course).

—

I have a feeling that the fundamental point of disagreement that can be traced from various points of this discussion is that I believe humans can be better if given more freedom while you believe they cannot. At this point and after so many posts, I can barely imagine coming to agreement with you.

I am willing to agree on that disagreement. I think either of us can hardly be compellingly proven right or wrong on that particular issue anytime soon, so we might as well just pursue our beliefs and see what happens.

Cheers

You say “this is not in their self-interest” and then go on to pass judgement on their buying habits? Buying is, at it’s simplest form, exchanging on value for another. Perhaps this item on TV is a new video game and anyoen who doesn’t have it is a loser – you’d be exchanging coin for social standing. That social standing might not have ANY value to you but that doesn’t make the purchase irrational. This differences in value, and what values different things provide, is the reason the free market works. In your case you value frugality (getting the most practical functionality out of item X) so the cheapest screwdriver capable of removing a screw is the best. My wife, however, values pleasant sensory experience and might pay more money for an otherwise equally capable (at removing screws) screwdriver because it is purple and she likes the color.

>By the way, you have a really weird idea about limited liability there. The purpose of LL is to encourage business, by making sure that someone who starts a business won’t get into a never repayable debt if he fails.

It is impossible to create debt that is “never repayable”. In the case of LLC’s any debt that is taken by the LLC is “written off” by the government. That actions doesn’t MAGICALLY create new items of value to go back to the people willing to invest in the LLC. It is either not replaced or it IS replaced at the expense of those paying money to the government (people who had NO connection to the success or failure of the LLC). On the flip side, if lenders and investors actually had to evaluate the likelyhood of the business to succeed BEFORE giving the money, they might not be so willing to fund a venture that doesn’t generate sustainable value.

For an individual to follow those concepts, some level of rationality is required. As I said before, people buy stuff just because they see it on TV (probably even I do that), which is definitely not in their self interest because they would be better off buying a product of equal quality but lower price with no advertising to be paid for.

Also, I don’t think I agree with that base. People are NOT purely selfish, with selflessness as a weird expression of selfishness. I can probably prove that too:

If I would give you conclusive evidence there is no afterlife, and would give you this choice, what would you choose?: either you die, or a million people you don’t even know and who you and everyone you do know would never have met anyway die. The effect on the economy in any country you will ever visit will be zero. Also, nobody will ever find out you made this choice. You will be the only one in all time who has to make this choice, so there is no selfish reason to obey the golden rule.

If you were purely selfish, you would quickly make the following comparison, leading to an obvious conclusion:

you die – positive: nothing, not even an afterlife in heaven ; negative: YOU DIE!

a million people who are completely irrelevant to you die – positive: you get to live ; negative: there aren’t any negative consequences for you.

What would you do?

Of course this is a ridiculously unrealistic situation, but I had to eliminate all the selfish motivations for selflessness to show there also is selflessness without a selfish motivation.

By the way, you have a really weird idea about limited liability there. The purpose of LL is to encourage business, by making sure that someone who starts a business won’t get into a never repayable debt if he fails. However if the business fails because of criminal behavior, the business owner will be held liable anyway.

Note that limited liability is also possible in a no-government free market: one can state in all of ones contracts that there is a limit on ones liability. Anyone doing business with a company that operates that way can decide for themselves if they are willing to take the extra risk.

The downside of doing limited liability the free market way is that the market force works against it: anyone will prefer to do business with a full liability company so they can recover more in case of a failure. This then creates a strong market force against starting new companies. And no, insurance companies can’t fix that because starters usually are high risk and low profit, meaning a starter most likely couldn’t afford the kind of insurance they need.

Anyway, I just wanted to add that this reminds me of how I sometimes feel about people presented in some movies and stories which were criminals. When you really go digging into their life, you actually start understanding the criminal, no matter how bad the crimes he committed are. These are the moments when I recognize that this criminal isn’t the way he is because he is somehow inherently born evil or because he wanted to do harm. He is a product of culture he is in.

And interestingly a common thread in all these stories seem to be that criminals started out by way of “rebellion”. They failed to find fulfillment in the social structure as it stands so they went “underground”, smoking some pot, taking a gun, joining a gang, now taking some stronger drugs, getting hooked and then robbing banks and killing people because that’s what makes him feel stronger (more balls) in his little new cult..

So again, put him in a better social structure, give him more freedom to start with and encourage him to follow his dreams. Government fails to do that. It sacrifices his freedom for the fiction of “common good”, taxes him on every success he has and encourages dependence. Suddenly, pursuing your dreams doesn’t seem all that it was cracked up to be, does it?

Well, you know, my anarcho-capitalist views, which were long coming and I feel totally a natural outcome of the views I’ve been developing, is MY way to rebell. I wont necessarily be engaging in outright tax evasion, taking a gun and joining some anti-government revolutionaries.

I am more developed than that. I will spread an idea instead while building my influence and capacity as legally as I can. I recognize that I can try to respect the law even as I spread the “dangerous idea” that can undermine its issuer. Governments therefore shouldn’t want me as their citizen, but hey.. tough luck – maybe they could do me a favor and deport me to New Hampshire.

Cheers

Actually it is just based on these two things.

1.) Every individual is interested in improving his or her life (we are all selfish, and even selflessness is just a subset of that).

2.) Following from the above, every individual needs freedom to pursue his or her interests fully.

By nature, we all have the former. However due to government established intervention we do not have enough of the latter to go with it, which creates a frustration. Majority of people, like you, would argue that the existing limits on this freedom are necessary for our protection, even though at the same time feeling the frustrations that come from these limits.

I think this frustration actually encourages irrational pursuits, because when you wish to accomplish something you so often start feeling the restraints as a continuous hindrance that you cannot get rid in any other way, but to essentially rebell. Regardless of whether you really do choose to rebell or just follow the rules imposed on you, the frustration will be there and it will fuel depression, corruption, violent behaviour etc. (all examples of irrational pursuits).

Interestingly, given these circumstances these “irrational” behaviours are in some sense actually rational. It is a natural consequence of the predicament we find ourselves in.

I think that if you just give man a chance, he will genuinely try to do good, but if you limit him, you limit his potential – but you cannot limit his desires and aspirations – hence putting him in this frustrating situation and directly inducing unbalanced behaviour. It’s like trying to cage a bird which just wants to fly away. She WILL bite and you can’t blame her!

I hope I managed to express this well, this is essentially where my belief that if given more freedom a human would actually be a better one, comes from.

> I am 100% convinced that without government, and with a population density similar or higher than the current, lynch mobs wouldn’t be uncommon at all, the culture of distrust inherent to a pure free market only makes it worse.

Think of the motives one would have to have in order to behave in a way that would make him a part of a lynch mob and then ask yourself whether there are any components of external reality (relative to that individual) which are inducing such motives. We are not islands. The way our society functions affects what we do and who we are. We can’t escape it.

What else is our social system than a set of interactions between people. When too many of those interactions leave any of those involved disatisfied and frustrated what kind of society do you think we’ll have?

I think Free Market is really the optimal way to ensure that most interactions leave those interacting with more value and satisfaction. And the reason should be obvious. The interaction in a free market depends solely on two or more individuals fully consenting. There is nobody to force anything more on top of that from the outside. If I agree with you on something that’s where, as far as that interaction goes, the story ends. We don’t need anyone else there.

Will such an interaction be in service of fraud? Why? Why if you can achieve more by providing true value instead, value that is inside of who you are (because, left to his own freedom of pursuit an individual in a free market is more likely to find himself and pursue what really makes him happy).

> Or is one side handing out more bribes than the other?

If that side wants to be the majority they would have to pay a whole lot more if they are earning it with bribes. You can argue again about huge corporations with botomless pockets and whatever. I already explained that such conentration of wealth and power would be restrained by the banishing of corporations and other limited liability (read: “I-can-do-bad-business-and-get-away-with-it Inc. LLC, LTD etc.) firms. What would essentially be left are sole proprietorships and contracts which make a given property shared as part of a “company”.

All this makes fraud quite expensive so the question is worth asking, why bother? Maybe it could pay more if you just did honest business instead. Besides, nobody is taxing you, nobody is restricting you – your arms are not tied. Why go against the system when the system is actually all about you – the individual making his dreams come true?

> How does a free market boost IQ?

I think you can conclude yourself from the above that it has nothing to do with IQ. It all really comes down to action and reaction. Government sucks so people whom it leads suck too (and sucky as they are they even help perpetuate the suckiness of it all, until someone convinces them that there actually IS a better way). If you want people to be better, let them have a society in which they CAN be better, where they CAN achieve their full potential without someone constantly standing on their tired backs.

Another thing: all this free market thinking seems based on the idea that people will make rational decisions. But people aren’t rational. If people were rational, they would strictly obey the law, and if they didn’t like the law they would start a procedure to change it. If people were rational, they wouldn’t buy stuff just because they saw it on TV.

I am 100% convinced that without government, and with a population density similar or higher than the current, lynch mobs wouldn’t be uncommon at all, the culture of distrust inherent to a pure free market only makes it worse.

Contrary to what you think, there have been times and places without government, where indeed gold was the currency. There were lynch mobs, and the results weren’t pretty for the native americans either.

A system of justice based on repaying damages has also been tried before. If I’m not mistaken, people also burned “witches” at the stake in the very same places and times.

> Ever heard of the saying “if you’re innocent you have nothing to be afraid of”.

Yes, and you know just as well as I do that it’s bullshit. Compare it to the similar statement about cryptography “if you have nothing to hide, you don’t need to hide it”.

> It’s not like we’d have a single or merely few media companies, especially in this digital age. Indeed we today find individual bloggers to have quite a bit of influence – this would be even more so in a Free Market. As one initiates in corruption and other one reports lies about it, another would report on both of them doing exactly what they are doing.

Which helps how? What do we have to prove that the third one is honest rather than trying to get rid of a competitor and the competitor of a friend at the same time?

Sure there might be a majority reporting one thing, and a minority reporting the other, but does that mean anything? Or are they just copying the juicier story? Or is one side handing out more bribes than the other?

Again, what makes you think that without government, people will magically become intelligent, rational and honest? Honest is the rational thing to be, and rational is the intelligent thing to be, so I guess I can shorten the question: How does a free market boost IQ?

Just as Taco you’re basically assuming corruption would go rampant, as if it isn’t already. I in turn find that a Free Market would discourage such behaviour and encourage excellence in providing the service, whatever it may be, including the service of justice. The reasoning is based on the fact that a Free Market, when there is no government interruption, consists of people who are more responsible and less ignorant – hence making it harder on anyone to fool fraud them and making it not just dishonest, but *expensive* to risk buying injustice).

> but in a humane system somehow a *final* and above all *neutral* solution has to be found. If either side decides who settles the dispute, there’s a good chance of bias (not good).

As if government sanctioned courts are always “neutral” and can’t be corrupted..

I didn’t say that the court has to be chosen by a single party in a dispute. It would have to be agreed upon by both parties. The details depend case by case because no case is absolutely the same. This is another reason why free market works better. No single set of laws can perfectly apply to each case. Market is flexible that way, government never is.

Cheers