Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About sj032

  • Rank
    HPC Newbie
  1. Hey bud, To be honest, I think when we need to turn to the government to define the change from adolescent to man, or boy to adolescent, than we really have lost our way a little; Surely we know this intuitively. I have two kids myself. If I follow the law as it stands, then I should go crazy if my kid ever thinks of having sex before 16, but after 16 am I to think its fine because it's legal?? In this instance, you can clearly see that law is one thing, but if i ever catch my kid doing the business defore 18 i'll kill him with my own bare hands, lol. It seems to me that alot of what we allow the law to define is just common sense, and we would be doing it anyway whether that specific law existed or not. I don't know injin too well, as Ive only seen one or two posts, but he sounds to me like a classic rothbardian. The logic of this goes that if governemnt is bad, then to leave even a government that protects property rights and the like is also bad. why?? Because even if you get a government down to the size of frameworking and protecting proprty rights, it would never stay there. It is in government's nature to grow and restrict freedom. If I'm honest, I think the logic of the above is a masterpiece. Each strand of thought brings you to this inevitable conclusion. Personally speaking however, I just cant imagine how this would work. I just can't see how we would function without any framework and property right laws. Saying that however, I have a suspicion the issue is with my lack of vision as oppose to the logic of the argument. To get back to your point however, I think the scenario your proposing is what would the free market anarchist system do if let's say a 30 year old had sex with a 14 year old or, to even make the whole thing even more messy, a 14 year old had sex with a 17 year old, and where the parents of the 14 year old did not approve and wanted retribution. Well, i can tell u for sure that regarding our fuzzy case the chances of any prosecution in England today would be almost non-existent, so i imagine under both systems the case would be the same, ie nothing would happen. In the case of a 30 year old with a 14 year old i imagince action would be taken in both instances. The one version works as we know it to, and from what I read of this superior world where freedom reigns sumpreme the following would happen. Again, not my own words, but those of its supporter, to which I have some sympathy with. In our new free world the education of the masses would be an enlightened ordeal where people are taught primarily of moral ethic, in fact moral ethic and logical thought would be at the centre of the private educaion system. Our case above would lead to somebody doing an immoral deed, to which they knew to be immoral. and therefore some from of justice would need to be served, and would be expected. Imagine a company called 'crimes r us'. It has been around for 50 years and has a reputation as an honest broker, indeed, it's business has been built on it. It works like this. You believe an offense has been done against you or one of your family, you employ the company. The company then goes out and finds 10 people from the street, and pays them for their time. These people have spent the whole education being taught morality, so they know a thing or two about right and wrong. Both prosecution and defence agree on these people. These people hear both sides of the story, decide guilt and decide punishment, no judge needed. As I said, im still a little luke warm on the whole idea of non-government too, but you have to admit, once you begin to look at the logic of the argument it doesn't seem as incredible as it first sounds. Almost any service which is now offered by the public, could in some form or another be offered privately. And if it couldn't be, the it probably shouldn't be. I hope i gave your question the thought it deserved bud, Take care, J
  2. Why are people so picky on this site?? Individual freedom, as defined by all the Greats, is freedom from government intervention. It is then freedom to not live in physical fear from anyone else. It is the freedom to spend your labour, your salary, your income, on whatever you want to. Read about freedom people, there are like a billion people who have written on it. If nothing else, read Jefferson and the politicians from old, they'll tell u all you need to know about it. Read first, then criticise. If you haven't read this stuff then u should and if you have read it and u still think what u said above, ie your own definition of what freedom is, then u didn't understand it, so read it again.
  3. Wonderpup, I think our only sensible option here is to agree to disagree. We obviously are looking at the issue from different angles. The difference being of course, that my angle has been argued by some of the greatest philisophical thinkers for over the last 300 years, whereas yours has been argued by......, well, as I didn't really get the full understanding of your argument, ie whether you supposed capitalism or socialism or something in between to be the optimum method of organsing a society...... you. And one further note i'd like to make is that free markets deal with two or more consenting human beings giving up one thing for another, where each individual values the thing they are receiving more than the thing they are giving up; I think it's called something like reverse preference order. Slavery is forced work, ie. it is not free market action entered into voluntarily. Absorb this, please, cos what your saying with regards to many things, but especially this, is just not true man. It is correct that free market economics is now presented to us like some physical science; this plus this and you get that. But this masks a really deep philiosophical underpinning that the free market has to us as individuals. The work of Cantillon, Smith, Mill, Ricardo, mises, menger etc, etc, etc, shows us that morality really does exist in economic thought. You just need to put the time in to read this stuff. I enjoyed the challenge of exercising my brain on the subject a little. I'm new to this blogging thing. Some of the stuff i wrote I read it back to myself like 10 times, seeing if I had been too wordy or too vauge, a crime i committed too often I think, unfortunately. Anyway, I hope we may debate again in the future on issues that are not so....abstract, regards, J
  4. To the above poster. I desperately wish I had the time to write a meaningful reply to your above post, but unfortunately I am just too dam tired. But please keep an eye on here as I will get round to it in the next few days for sure. I think the meat of my argument will centre around a theme of nice words but where are you trying to go!!?? You write very eloquently, but that cannot and must not be enough. We seem to be on different pages to some degree. While I disuss the benefits of free market capitalism, rare as it is these days, you seem to think it sows the seeds of its own destruction. I disagree, or rather, we must not let it, as the other road is a much darker place. Anyway, nice finally to meet someone as mad as myself who is at least interested in having the discussion Speak soon, J
  5. I don't know the Rockefellar history as well as I should, but being a free marketeer does not totally lead me to be against all monopoly. A free market monopoly may arise for a number of reasons, primarily maybe due to some technological sophistiction or the like. Without government support however, it's unlikely, though i agree not impossible, that the monopoly could exist in any long run sense. Soon enough however, the likliehood is that someone would undercut them. It may take a few years, even decades, but it would happen. I would ask you to look at anti trust legislation again as you may find that in many respects it was more pro-trust than anti trust. And with regards to Rockefeller specifically more pro Morgan than anti Rockefeller. http://mises.org/books/historyofmoney.pdf page 183 to about 20
  6. What you allude to sir, ie larger companies buying out the competition to have full control of the market, is exactly the policies that the American Trust companies followed in the 1890's. It proved to be a complete Disaster - At one point I belive reading about trusts buying companies they had never even seen. People would buy an empty barn, put a corporate logo on the front and sell it for 10 times its worth. The process of buying every new producer that came onto the scene quickly led to financial ruin. Indeed, it was for this very reason that regulations were needed. The trust companies just couldn't control the market. Regulations, for the social good of course, were than enacted which has the 'unintended' consequence of closing the market down to new competitors. Again the answer lies in getting the government, ie regulation enacted by government, out of the market.
  7. No free market there i'm afraid. Monetary policy, including interest rate policy, has been under the control of government for a very long time. True that the market shows up on occasions and forces the governmnet to react, but the norm is total governmnet manipulation. Push money into the system, keep interest rates low and watch the malinvestment spike. Can't blame that one on the free market i'm afraid. Try the MPC and our friends in whitehall
  8. Marketing will only get you so far. Barriers to entry will finally come down to price and government regulation restricting entry. I will give you an example. I live in Athens and have for years been going to a super market called AB, like Sainbury's in the UK, I imagine. I bought all the usual commercial products. Pampers nappies for the kids, gillet razers, pamtan shampoo. A few months ago my shopping bill began to reach around 180 euros a week. Enough was enough, and of I went to lidl. Wow, I couldn't believe it. nappies at half the price, 20 razors for the price of 5 and enough shampoo to have a bath in. Excuse the poetic licence as I make the point. I have never looked back. I now don't give two hoots about advertising. My wallet has spoken. Price will always trump advertising in the long run. It's why china & india are growing at such amazing rates
  9. Regarding your first paragraph. 'nobody really wants a free market' Nonsense. Every consumer who is interested in buying goods at the cheapest possible price has a stake in free markets. Consumers wish to maximise their welfare, to buy as many goods as possible. Free markets allow this welfare maximisation to occur. As consumers make up the majority of every nation, it is only logical therefore to believe that the majority of people in every country have a clear stake in seeing free markets flourish. I want free markets. I want to buy i-phones, milk, bread, mp3 players, cars for as cheap as humanly possible. Your next paragraph . 'Free markets left to themselves will always self destruct.' On the contrary, free markets left to themselves will create prosperity for all, 200 years of literature on the subject agree. Capitalism creates the largest output of goods at the lowest price possible. You may dispute this as a goal to strive for, welfare, but this fact is there, indisputable. In addition, it is my opinion that markets left alone will flourish and grow, not self destruct. Indeed, it is usually only when the market is manipulated by participants that it begins to wilt, but then it is hardly a left alone market any more. The choice, from my perspective at least, really is socialism or capitalism. It is not that we will ever have one system or the other in the whole, possibly, i dont know, but we need to emphasize which direction we want to travel towards, statism or freedom. I belive that freedom does not need statism to survive, capitalism does not need socialism. One may be indoctrinated by a life time of BBC rhetoric stating that markets and government intervention create the 'opptimum' solution, but I do not agree. Indeed, it is the 'referee' which you refer to that is the beginning of the problem; government makes subjective arguments against the market causing resources to be allocated away from their most efficient use. I agree however, that capitalists are generally not to any degree free marketeers. Capitalists will play the market as best they can, manipulating it to there advantage as they go. Surely then it is the free marketeers' goal to elect a government who will create a framework to make this as difficult as possible. To use your analogy, the Referee has now taken a side and is playing for the other team. The government is interveing when its true aim should be to create a framework for fair play. Being indifferent towards these two very different social systems, admitting defeat because greedy capitalsts have already fixed the system is an easy road to walk down. To fight for our rights, our freedoms and our property maybe a tougher road, but it is the right path for all who believe the the power of the free market and personal freedom to be on a higher moral plain than government statism.
  10. Early 19th Century England saw one of the greatest economic boom times that England has ever seen, displaying growth rates that present governments would give their right arm for; It saw the first reform acts go through parliament giving, not all, but certainly more people the right to representation. You quote Dickens sir and, being a huge fan of his myself, I can only say this. For all his great writings, Dickens was no economist. If you wish to get a feel for the economic reality of the era and understand the radical improvements which were occuring in England at the time, I would direct to the work of John Stuat Mill that can be found at the liberty library web site. It's 33 volumes long so do bring a snack No one ever said capitalism is utopia, im just saying that it's the best we've got.
  11. I agree on the whole. I would like to make a few points though. To a very large degree I think you are correct when you say that power elites will attack the system from the inside to maintain their situation once attained. Indeed, I think the massive amounts or regulation we have presently are in one form or another protecting certain firms and industries from further comprtition. But this darwinistic thread of human nature should not make us believe that capitalism is the wrong answer. I few years ago I read an economist called Hayek and he puts it something along the line of: At least with capitalism we get to choose. Many will be poor, a few rich, but the biggest player in the room is chance, the Dice. A few will make the leap from poor to rich, a few from rich to poor, but the system decides, not man. This is not so in socialism. In socialism, you may want to be a nurse, but if the nurse quota is full you will be a teacher. End of conversation. The politically connected will reap the rewards of the system. Government has ousted the dice, neccesity ousted individual ambition. He makes a very good argument for capitalism i believe. The book is called road to serfdom by Hayek. I recommend it To get back to your point though, even with these evils, I think capitalism is something to strive for. I very much doubt we will ever get all the way, but as Rothbard puts it, all of history may be viewed as a struggle between government statism and individual freedom.
  12. I simply cannot agree and see nothing 'funny' in the comparison. Looking through history, I can clearly draw your attention to a number of periods or societies where capitalism was allowed more leeway than it is today. Generally capitalist economies usually also bring a heavy dose of personal freedom too. During these periods prosperity has increased to the benefit of peoples and governments alike. I ask you sir to consider if such examples exist regarding socialism. Socialism is the road to serfdom sir, and if you belive that you can reasonably agrue a case for such evils I wish you the greatest luck
  13. You're right, of course. But as is usually the case with taxation, what starts out as 5% has a way of steadily rising. I believe at some point even the top income tax rate was 10%. Imagine that eh I think it's the point which i am trying to get across. The point is that im paying a tax on energy with no real scientific support backing it up. The larger point then of course is should it be in a government's remit to do this?? Me thinks not
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.