shipbuilder

.

Well if you wish to use that line of argument, the fact that they've also chosen neoliberalism (or whatever you wish to call the current orthodoxy) unfortunately seems to make your ideas rather redundant too....

If a system were reached that was voluntary and self-organising, the motivation and efforts involved to reach that point would mean that it would be unlikely that such a group would be allowed to subvert that system. I think people attempting to use violence to gain power in such a system would quickly find themselves out in the cold, with little support. Of course there would be nothing stopping such a group starting a 'competing' system. I know which system I believe would be successful and which would fail. Stopping such a system would indeed contradict the initial premise. My argument is that it would likely fail through lack of support - events past and present show that people seek freedom and non-violent interactions outnumber violent ones by millions to one, so it is clear how humans prefer to interact with each other. I'm sure someone will come along and claim that self-defence is coercion, or any kind of attempt to defend a voluntary system would be coercion. Such arguments are 'dancing on the head of a pin' and I can't really be bothered with them anymore, I think my points are explained well enough, as I said in my previous post.

I don't want to forbid anything, no matter how much you wish I would, or how many times you repeat it. Sorry, but this is simply a lame argument - just admit you don't use these 'strategies' because they don't work. Just like, for example, I won't threaten my neighbour into lending me his lawnmower, i'll maybe buy him a few beers instead. Because it is perfectly obvious to anyone which is the better option. To be honest there's only so many times I can repeat the points I have made here, so here it is in a nutshell - In the long term, I believe people voluntarily self-organising and interacting freely produces better results for more people than a involuntary coercive state, even when a minority of people attempt to use violence, cheating etc. Clearly you don't agree, so we'll leave it at that.

Bizarrely you now seem to want to define 'working' as enabling those in power to get what they want. You are conflating motivations of the state and individuals, but obviously they aren't the same. I meant 'working' as functioning for the good of society as a whole - the point of any system - which, if you remember, was your initial definition when you referred to the free market as not working. You're avoiding the question here and moving the goalposts. This is nothing to do with you being Prime Minister. Remember we were talking about the actions of individuals - of course you have the power to impose your will through threats - the reality is that you don't because it doesn't work - neither for you or others, because chances are, like most people, you're not a sociopath.

Actually I don't resent paying tax particularly - that's not my complaint against the state. I used to believe that the state could be reformed, however now I believe that the post-war golden couple of decades of prosperity and social progression, where with increasing equality of opportunity, universal healthcare etc., the future looked genuinely bright and 'the people' genuinely had the balance of power, was a blip due to historical circumstance. Since then we have see a slide into bureaucracy, power and rent seeking and corporatocracy. I no longer believe that the state, as a top-down, coercive organisation can be reformed and should eventually be replaced with bottom - up voluntary, decentralised organisations. I might well wish to defend myself or call on others to help, but that would be self-defence, not coercion. Societies where the state has collapsed are not a valid representation of a stateless society because the process has not been voluntary, nor has there been time to adapt. A stateless society would take a huge leap in responsibility for individuals - probably beyond what most people could handle in a short period of time. But I believe it would be worth it because I see most problems in society today originating from individuals or small groups hijacking power for their own ends and decentralising that power is the only way to combat that.

I assume you typed this before reading the rest of my post. Progress is provided by human innovation and the exchange of this through trade - the coercive state is generally a hinderance to this process, so therefore it does not 'work'. Err... if it worked, I clearly wouldn't see myself as disadvantaged by it.... This is a straw man - life continues in the main despite the coercive state and its corporate partners. I'm afraid I don't see the state as omnipresent and so it not 'working' does not equal a collapse of society. The fact that something exists does not mean it works. But let's get to the nub of the matter - - Do you personally use these strategies of violence and coercion? - Does anyone you personally know? - If not, why not? - If violence, cheating etc. worked, wouldn't most people use it?

No, I didn't mean that. Yes and this is something you've been told a number of times. Coercion and cheating will fail, proof of this is everywhere. The problem you have is that you don't believe coercion and cheating will fail - but this is your own personal issue. Coercion and cheating only work, as I have already pointed out, when protected by the state. Such strategies fail by themselves and as a result are invalid. Again, your problem is that you believe that violence and deception work, even though I would be pretty confident in guessing that you don't use these 'strategies' yourself. As I've already said, this cognitive dissonance is your personal issue. They don't work. I could ask you to provide examples of when such strategies work, but I can guarantee they will either be short term or enabled by the state and almost certainly miniscule in number in comparison to the billions of non-violent and mutually beneficial transactions that happen every day.

You are quite right about neoliberals because they argue for a 'free' market in the context of protection by the state of the interests of 'superior' 'wealth producers'. Of course state protection means no free market - when such people use the term in this context it is a lie, so you are correct in attacking this false representation of a free market. Regarding the second aspect of the free market that you attack, that individuals pursuing self-interest will lead to a positive outcome for all, your interpretation of the theory of this is false. The theory is not that greed or other negative behaviours would not exist, but that greed of individuals cancels each other out - obviously where the greed of some is protected by the state (as pointed out above), this would not work. But actually even this theory is not a definition of the free market, merely an interpretation of how it would work and not one I personally agree with. Clearly a free market is just what it says it is - where market interactions are free. Talk of corporations and how they would function in a free market is a straw man because in such a scenario they would not exist. Also, there's no point in attacking this simple definition with the argument that it is held up as a social regulator or perfect system, because it isn't.

So why focus on just cutting benefits?

If it isn't, there isn't much of a basis for a valid argument. I'd rather not have the state, hence my point in asking why someone not in favour of the state would argue for getting rid of one part of it and not another, particularly something as fundamental as the freedom to seek to live independently of the support of others.

If you favour cutting benefits while advocating that the state enforce property laws in their current form and use 'theft' to fund this enforcement, then that would be a reasonable conclusion to reach. So are you happy with property laws as they are?

It is quite right considering that the state claims to act on behalf of the people. In the absence of the state, some form of compensation would have to happen because it would be the only practical way of making a free market work. If arguments for benefits being cut are made without a supporting argument that people should have the ability to provide for themselves, it seems reasonable to come to the quoted conclusion. If someone wishes to get rid of or reduce the state in the name of liberty, then it would be surprising that they would argue in favour of making it more authoritarian and one-sided as a step toward that.

It is quite right that people be compensated for being prevented to use what is the gift of nature to sustain themselves and live independently of others. Since the state is the enforcer of this situation (indeed this has always been the state's main function) then it should pay the compensation, by taxing those who wish to have the state perform such functions. The other argument, which I tend towards, is that we are better off without the state because this current situation is involuntary and therefore the most basic infringement of liberty. Anyone who supports the state performing this enforcement function without compensation is an authoritarian and if at the same time they call themselves a 'libertarian', then they are a hypocrite as well.

It seems to me that the arguments in all of these threads can be summed up as 'automation is obviously good thing but causes a problem for our current economic system'. See my quote from Bertrand Russell below.

The problem with arguments about how much income tax various groups are paying is that they are, to use a well worn analogy, talking about locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. The root cause of inequalities of opportunity and thus exaggerated inequalities of income are well summed up in (Blizzard)'s post.

In other words EU subsidies are allowing supermarkets etc. to keep prices screwed down, profits up and the farmers shafted in the long term.

'Stateless' corporations still only exist because of the rules enforced by states. The image of globalisation currently peddled is a lie. It is nothing like 'Wealth of Nations' - style mutually beneficial trading, but a situation where corporations now rank above states and make their governments dance to their tune, with governments pimping out their citizens for cheap labour while working to preserve the assets of the elite. As has been constantly pointed out here in a number different ways, the situation is completely unsustainable as any sort of 'world economy'. Arguments as to whether this situation is the fault of evil governments while 'wealth creating' corps can do no wrong, or the other way round, are missing the point as clearly the situation only exists with the agreement of both.

Wasn't Renegade Economist Fred Harrison's website?

Great post. At first glance I agreed with Lady Mar, not for the reasons she is claiming, but because while I agree that with subsidies both to European farmers and elsewhere mean that we can't know the real cost of food, I suspect that it would be higher than it currently is if we let the market set prices (and so did other countries). This would be a good thing in my opinion.

I've two pairs of Grenson boots , one pair about 18 years old and worn occasionally, another about 10, worn about once a week, both hugely comfortable and in near perfect condition. Laces and polish the only expenses.

I don't think that's anything to do with it, to be honest.

It's all the same techniques and same moral level as advertising and marketing. Not as obvious as authoritarianism but probably more effective.

He's a good read, added to my bookmarks, thanks.

Why are so many people incapable of thinking for themselves? Why are so many obsessed with being on a 'team'? Left vs Right, Keynesians vs Austrians - apart from the fact they are false opposites, how can any one of them possibly be 100% correct? Such a load of s**t.