The free market is limited to the market. There are many non-market events, like falling in love, an act of charity, a crime or natural disasters. What market and non-market events share is they must be voluntary to be legitimate, where possible.
Building a house is a market event. A house burning down is not. Buying and selling insurance is a market event.
Fraud and force are not market events, since all market events must be voluntary to be so defined. To be robbed is not a market event. When the robber is known, and no one will trade with the robber, so he must either make restitution or starve slowly to death in the wilderness, this is not a market event, but it is a legal system.
When one person lies dead and another standing over him with a gun says "he was robbing me..." neither is a market event. The degree to which people will work with the person who is living is not a market event, it is a legal event in anarchy. One acts voluntarily.
If I pay for the education of a poor child, the provision of the service of education and my payment thereof is a market event, but the act is charitable.
So no, the market, free or otherwise, does not provide for all things for all people. Some events, like marriage, are religious, not market. The market is a system of exchange of goods and services. It works best free.
If you notice, there is no room for the force and fraud of the State, but there are rules, spontaneous out of anarchy. But the rules and participation are voluntary, like membership in the Catholic Church.
***the people who run them out of business expect their 30 year vacation in the form of a pension to be paid by the people they ran out of business. The contradiction will be intense.***
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
Building a house is a market event. A house burning down is not. Buying and selling insurance is a market event.
Fraud and force are not market events, since all market events must be voluntary to be so defined. To be robbed is not a market event. When the robber is known, and no one will trade with the robber, so he must either make restitution or starve slowly to death in the wilderness, this is not a market event, but it is a legal system.
When one person lies dead and another standing over him with a gun says "he was robbing me..." neither is a market event. The degree to which people will work with the person who is living is not a market event, it is a legal event in anarchy. One acts voluntarily.
If I pay for the education of a poor child, the provision of the service of education and my payment thereof is a market event, but the act is charitable.
So no, the market, free or otherwise, does not provide for all things for all people. Some events, like marriage, are religious, not market. The market is a system of exchange of goods and services. It works best free.
If you notice, there is no room for the force and fraud of the State, but there are rules, spontaneous out of anarchy. But the rules and participation are voluntary, like membership in the Catholic Church.
On Dec 16, 2013, at 8:38 AM, A.M. Awrote:
I don't like the idea of any priesthood determining the allocation on any goods based on some voodoo control criteria and yet I am also very suspicious of free market mechanisms allocating this resource in a just and equitable manner.
***Activity outside of the free markets is a non-market event, the law.***
*** Their hopes are possible only through state action. No state, no hope for them.***There are say six major world water corporations angling to control ALL world water resources. Every time I hear news stories of them being stymied in their plans I go "right on!"
****What about that non-market provision of law? In anarchy, there is no state to give these people leave to steal the water. With anarchy, if and when they try to steal water, common law inhibits their attempts, and shunning is pitch perfect sanction for their attempts.***I tend to trust the chaos of the market much more than I do the robbery of the priesthood.
There is a street corner about " ten paces " from my digs. I've seen five businesses go bust there in five years. Small time operations. Brutal.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
1 comments:
The problem with the anarchy view: aren't you assuming that people will decide not to take advantage of each other? How do you stop people from cheating and taking advantage of someone? Humans need rules for society to function properly.How do you keep the strong from taking advantage of the weak? I understand that government has its problems too, but I think that the anarchic view is Utopian, too idealistic, and is unlikely to be achieved in reality. I think there will always be people who will band together to pursue their common interests, and compete with other groups of people.
Post a Comment