Moneyweek- The Rise Of The Robots.

[Traktion]

They are a subset of threats of violence, however not all threats of violence are state regulations.

I agree. Removing the state doesn't mean there will necessarily be free markets; violence exists in many forms. Any organisation can be violent, from the state, to the mafia.

However, while the state is involved in a market, the market will not be free. The same goes if any other thieves and bandits are using violence to influence trades too.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Traktion

[wonderpup]

No, we have established that there is no 'rule' against violence in a market society.

A free market society is one where people don't use violence to get what they want. Why else do you think that free marketeers don't support threats from the state? If they were pro-violence, they would support the state, as they would any other violent organisation. It's why they also call themselves voluntarists.

The point is they get to choose non violence- this choice is not imposed on them by the state or other external powers.

You also don't need to use violence to apply rules. Ostracism works just fine without it. It also has the added bonus that each and every person can decide whether to apply it to a situation or not - it's a distributed punishment system.

Yes- and the point of this is to modify behaviour so that people freely choose non violent means.

In a coercive market, such as all statist systems or a violent state free system, violence is of course an option. However, as soon as you use violence to force a trade, it stops being a free trade. Unless you define a free market as one where people steal and murder, but that's not a definition I recognise, nor advocate.

No- in any free market society violence remains an option- because if you take away that choice you will need a state to do so. You still can't seem to grasp this simple truth- if you want people to be free then one of the things they will be free to do is behave badly- this is the price of freedom.

Certainly you can react to their violence in ways that might persuade them to stop doing it- but what you cannot say is that in a free market society violence is forbidden- because the moment you start forbidding certain behaviours you are a statist.

So it's simply not correct to claim that in a free market society violence would be forbidden- it would remain a choice precisely because freedom demands no less.

I take your point that negative feedback from others would often make this choice a very poor choice- but you cannot forbid it without becoming the very statist enforcer you claim to despise.

[LJAR]

A "free market" does not describe an environment in which people are completely free to do as they choose. It is not a state of "pure" or "complete freedom"

it describes a situation in which they are free to do as they like provided they do not infringe on those same rights to freedom that other people hold there is a requirement for some coercive power to exist. This is a pragmatic step rather than a philosophical one. Some people will not play by the rules that most people will freely agree to. On a practical level there needs to be a system that defends the interests of that majority against the small minority that are tempted to use force rather than persuasion to get what they want.

The counterbalance to that sanctioned coercive power existing and being placed in the hands of only one party is that the circumstances under which it can be used must be written down clearly ahead of time and applied equally to everybody that lives under the system. Hence you get courts, written laws, judges, the rule of law etc etc. Without that you have an anarchic system, which will devolve into a place where might makes right and most people will not live in a state of freedom.

The point here is that on a practical level just allowing people to do what they like will lead to the violent few ending up oppressing everyone else they can. In the economic sphere, if you only leave people the tools of persuasion to get things from others, the result is the fantastic economic growth of the last 200 years, which is historically unprecedented.

However we are now seeing the problem that the system set up to ensure that our freedoms are maintained as much as possible is itself becoming a threat to them. The monopoly on force is being used to expand the remit and scope of government to carry out more than the original defensive and adjudicating functions that were envisaged by classical liberals.

[Traktion]

The point is they get to choose non violence- this choice is not imposed on them by the state or other external powers.

Yes, that's pretty much the point of the non-aggression principle, as championed by voluntarists/free market anarchists.

Yes- and the point of this is to modify behaviour so that people freely choose non violent means.

Yes, I agree. If people don't want violence in their lives, they should reject people who try to use it on them or others.

No- in any free market society violence remains an option- because if you take away that choice you will need a state to do so. You still can't seem to grasp this simple truth- if you want people to be free then one of the things they will be free to do is behave badly- this is the price of freedom.

Violence is always an option, whether in a statist or a state-free society. However, as soon as people start using violence, you no longer have a free market society.

A free market is the goal - trades free of violent coercion. You can't enforce that using violence - as soon as you do, you are part of the problem. To reach a genuine free market, you have to seek alternatives to using violence to influence people, such as ostracism.

Certainly you can react to their violence in ways that might persuade them to stop doing it- but what you cannot say is that in a free market society violence is forbidden- because the moment you start forbidding certain behaviours you are a statist.

So it's simply not correct to claim that in a free market society violence would be forbidden- it would remain a choice precisely because freedom demands no less.

I take your point that negative feedback from others would often make this choice a very poor choice- but you cannot forbid it without becoming the very statist enforcer you claim to despise.

I didn't claim that violence in a free market society would be forbidden. I claimed that it wouldn't be a free market society, if violence was used.

You can have a state-free society that isn't a free market society, just as statist societies aren't free market societies. When the violence starts, the free trades cease.

This is why I've asserted that you are talking about a market society - a state-free society - rather than a free market society when you talk about using violence. Somalia is state-free, but you wouldn't say that all trades were free, as there are factions who use violence to get what they want too.

I think that the above have probably allowed our minds to meet. I can see where you are coming from and I hope you can see where I am coming from.

The next question is: How can a free market society be achieved? Just removing the state over night and expecting there to be free trade would be naive. The question is, how can the systemic violence of the state be removed, without it becoming acceptable/possible for others to use violence instead?

[Traktion]

A "free market" does not describe an environment in which people are completely free to do as they choose. It is not a state of "pure" or "complete freedom"

it describes a situation in which they are free to do as they like provided they do not infringe on those same rights to freedom that other people hold...

I agree with that.

... there is a requirement for some coercive power to exist. This is a pragmatic step rather than a philosophical one. Some people will not play by the rules that most people will freely agree to. On a practical level there needs to be a system that defends the interests of that majority against the small minority that are tempted to use force rather than persuasion to get what they want.

I disagree with that.

To suggest that the only way to discourage violence, is to use violence, is a bit odd, no?

The question should be: How do we discourage violence, without using violence. In short, how do we discourage violence full stop.

The counterbalance to that sanctioned coercive power existing and being placed in the hands of only one party is that the circumstances under which it can be used must be written down clearly ahead of time and applied equally to everybody that lives under the system. Hence you get courts, written laws, judges, the rule of law etc etc. Without that you have an anarchic system, which will devolve into a place where might makes right and most people will not live in a state of freedom.

The point here is that on a practical level just allowing people to do what they like will lead to the violent few ending up oppressing everyone else they can. In the economic sphere, if you only leave people the tools of persuasion to get things from others, the result is the fantastic economic growth of the last 200 years, which is historically unprecedented.

I disagree with that too.

You don't need one set of rules, unless there is one enforcer of them.

Distributed punishment systems, such as ostracism, do not need a single enforcer. They are enforced by the collective actions of millions of free thinking people.

You may have arbiters/courts in a state-free society, but every individual gets to choose which of them they wish to trust. If they publish the results of the case and whether the offender completed their punishment (compensation, imprisonment etc), then every individual can make a decision over whether they wish to interact with said offender or not.

It may be that insurance companies turn their backs on individuals judged to have offended, by a number of recognised arbiters. Without insurance, these people may be unable to get work. They may invalidate the insurance on any business premises who attempt to employ them. It doesn't stop people disagreeing and employing them anyway, but there would be an immediate impact. Ofc, insurers who are too harsh, would also lose customers, helping to counter balance the process.

For me, this is where the interesting debate lies. Enforcement without violence is something which is needed for a free market society. Now that we are passed the definitions stage, it would be an interesting debate to continue with.

However we are now seeing the problem that the system set up to ensure that our freedoms are maintained as much as possible is itself becoming a threat to them. The monopoly on force is being used to expand the remit and scope of government to carry out more than the original defensive and adjudicating functions that were envisaged by classical liberals.

Violence is the problem. Attempting to cure violence, by using violence, was never going to work. We need to find a new way to deal with this, IMO.

[wonderpup]

I didn't claim that violence in a free market society would be forbidden. I claimed that it wouldn't be a free market society, if violence was used.

You contradict yourself here in a very basic way.

If violence is not forbidden in a free market society then violence is simply one mode of action in a free market society. In order to be free people must be free to choose- which means they might- on occasion- choose violence.

My point is that you cannot have a free market society unless people are free to choose violence- so the use of violence does not negate freedom of choice- it is the ultimate confirmation of freedom of choice.

If you are correct in your beliefs then violence will not be chosen by the majority because the free market will persuade them that violence is not the best solution.

But in order to make this choice they must be free to make it- which means that in a free market society the option to use violence is always there and cannot be eliminated.

So saying that the option of violence negates a free market is not correct- in a free market all modes of behaviour are possible- and the market then operates in such a way as to reward optimum behaviour and reject suboptimum behaviour.

In trying to eliminate violence from your model you are in contradiction with your own belief that the market alone should be the arbiter of human affairs. In a free market the individual would be free to choose either violence or non violence-

To say that no free market can support violence is to deny this freedom of choice and thus to deny the free market.

[Lepista]

Yes, that's pretty much the point of the non-aggression principle, as championed by voluntarists/free market anarchists.

Yes, I agree. If people don't want violence in their lives, they should reject people who try to use it on them or others.

Violence is always an option, whether in a statist or a state-free society. However, as soon as people start using violence, you no longer have a free market society.

A free market is the goal - trades free of violent coercion. You can't enforce that using violence - as soon as you do, you are part of the problem. To reach a genuine free market, you have to seek alternatives to using violence to influence people, such as ostracism.

I didn't claim that violence in a free market society would be forbidden. I claimed that it wouldn't be a free market society, if violence was used.

You can have a state-free society that isn't a free market society, just as statist societies aren't free market societies. When the violence starts, the free trades cease.

This is why I've asserted that you are talking about a market society - a state-free society - rather than a free market society when you talk about using violence. Somalia is state-free, but you wouldn't say that all trades were free, as there are factions who use violence to get what they want too.

I think that the above have probably allowed our minds to meet. I can see where you are coming from and I hope you can see where I am coming from.

The next question is: How can a free market society be achieved? Just removing the state over night and expecting there to be free trade would be naive. The question is, how can the systemic violence of the state be removed, without it becoming acceptable/possible for others to use violence instead?

Traktion, can I assume you are making two different statements abbout a free market:

1. To totally define a free market, you only need to say "A free market is one where violence does not exist".

2. A free market is one that is operating at it's most efficient, and benefits both parties in a trade as best as possible

Otherwise, I fail to see what your definition of a free market achieves?

[Traktion]

Traktion, can I assume you are making two different statements abbout a free market:

1. To totally define a free market, you only need to say "A free market is one where violence does not exist".

2. A free market is one that is operating at it's most efficient, and benefits both parties in a trade as best as possible

Otherwise, I fail to see what your definition of a free market achieves?

1. Pretty much covers it (although I would say where 'violence is not used').

2. Is just an opinion of why we would want free markets. I would also change it to say that both parties gain.

[Traktion]

You contradict yourself here in a very basic way.

If violence is not forbidden in a free market society then violence is simply one mode of action in a free market society. In order to be free people must be free to choose- which means they might- on occasion- choose violence.

A free market society is one without violence. If you introduce violence, it is no longer a free market society. What part of this is a contradiction?

Choosing to use violence means that you no longer have a free market society - you have a coercive market society.

If people choose to use violence, they will be choosing not to make free trades. You nor I can prevent them from doing this, but we can all observe that free trades are no longer taking place.

My point is that you cannot have a free market society unless people are free to choose violence- so the use of violence does not negate freedom of choice- it is the ultimate confirmation of freedom of choice.

Anyone is free to choose violence. The moment they do, free trade is no longer taking place.

Free market does not equal violent/coercive market.

Free market is a subset of market.

Violent/coercive market is a subset of market.

Free market does not intersect with a violent/coercive market.

Market is a superset of both free market and violent/coercive market.

I don't know how many more different ways I can express this.

If you are correct in your beliefs then violence will not be chosen by the majority because the free market will persuade them that violence is not the best solution.

But in order to make this choice they must be free to make it- which means that in a free market society the option to use violence is always there and cannot be eliminated.

Free markets will only be achieved when people don't use violence. Up until that point, you have violent/coercive markets.

You can be free to choose violence, but that immediately invalidates the claim that you are operating in a free market.

So saying that the option of violence negates a free market is not correct- in a free market all modes of behaviour are possible- and the market then operates in such a way as to reward optimum behaviour and reject suboptimum behaviour.

In trying to eliminate violence from your model you are in contradiction with your own belief that the market alone should be the arbiter of human affairs. In a free market the individual would be free to choose either violence or non violence-

To say that no free market can support violence is to deny this freedom of choice and thus to deny the free market.

Free market != violent/coercive market.

You can be free to participate in a violent/coercive market, stealing and raping as you go along. It would be incorrect to call it a free market though.

Honestly, I thought we had already agreed this stuff and could move onto the next step of discussing how it could be achieved.

EDIT: To add, you can approach a free market society by having less violence/coercion. This is what the minarchists think is the best that can be achieved - a small amount of institutional violence.

(Also made added clarity to wording)

Edited October 4, 2012 by Traktion

[SLL]

Okay, so I think I've finally got your point...

By your definintion, a free market society is one in which people are free to choose to use violence/coercion (because there is no threat of violent enforcement of the rules), but unanimously choose not to.

Yet free market trades are motivated by people wanting to maximise their personal gain from any given market transaction - for example the trader who forces the man in the desert to sign away all his posessions for a glass of water, which we all fully acknowlegde is a "free market transaction", or the grain farmer who sells his grain for cattle feed because he makes more profit than selling it to starving children. (Note that both of these examples were accepted as perfectly valid and rational free market transactions earlier in this thread)

So in short, free markets are populated by selfish, greedy human beings who look after number 1. (You can argue that even if the majority of people in this free market society are Mother Theresa, even if it is only 1% of the population that is selfish and greedy, there are still some selfish and greedy people in the population).

And yet this definintion of a free market (see three paragraphs up) requires that none of these selfish, greedy human beings ever resorts to violence or coercion in order to further maximise their gain from a (admittedly no longer FREE) market transaction.

So as I see it, the only logical conclusion can be that...

Even within the right (absence of a) regulatory framework, free markets will never exist in the world until there is a complete change in human nature.

The very idea of a free market according to your definition is as much a myth as the idea of pure communism. Both sound okay in theory, neither will ever work in practice.

[Traktion]

Okay, so I think I've finally got your point...

By your definintion, a free market society is one in which people are free to choose to use violence/coercion (because there is no threat of violent enforcement of the rules), but unanimously choose not to.

Yet free market trades are motivated by people wanting to maximise their personal gain from any given market transaction - for example the trader who forces the man in the desert to sign away all his posessions for a glass of water, which we all fully acknowlegde is a "free market transaction", or the grain farmer who sells his grain for cattle feed because he makes more profit than selling it to starving children. (Note that both of these examples were accepted as perfectly valid and rational free market transactions earlier in this thread)

So in short, free markets are populated by selfish, greedy human beings who look after number 1. (You can argue that even if the majority of people in this free market society are Mother Theresa, even if it is only 1% of the population that is selfish and greedy, there are still some selfish and greedy people in the population).

And yet this definintion of a free market (see three paragraphs up) requires that none of these selfish, greedy human beings ever resorts to violence or coercion in order to further maximise their gain from a (admittedly no longer FREE) market transaction.

So as I see it, the only logical conclusion can be that...

Even within the right (absence of a) regulatory framework, free markets will never exist in the world until there is a complete change in human nature.

The very idea of a free market according to your definition is as much a myth as the idea of pure communism. Both sound okay in theory, neither will ever work in practice.

For a perfectly free market society, I agree with much of the above*. It is something to aspire to, much like world peace. If we get 99% of the way towards a free market society, then I would say there would be a great deal of progress from the violent theft fest that we call 'civilised' society today.

However, for free market trades to happen, you don't need everyone in society to not use violence - just those involved directly or indirectly in the trade. This is probably what most people consider when they are talking about free trades, but a free market society implies that everyone (or nearly everyone) adheres to the principles of free trade (i.e. uses no violence).

The definition for a free market society is an important one though. It defines an ideal, a target, an aspiration. If I were to suggest that a free market society had some violence in it, you would (rightly) immediately say that there must be trades taking place which aren't free, invalidating the claim that it is a free market society.

A free market anarchist/voluntarist is against all uses of violence to force trades. This includes the organisation called the state, Tesco, B&Q or whoever. While a state-free society may remove the most violent organisation (which steals over half of your income and threatens you with jail if you don't comply), it is erroneous to suggest that the removal of the state naturally results in free markets - other organisations can step in and use violence to coerce trades too.

The state is just an organisation like any other and we can't treat it any differently if we are going to be logical and even handed. To suggest that violence is fine, implies that the state violence is fine, which is clearly not what voluntarists are saying. All violent organisations need to rejected and none of them should be able to use violence with impunity. The only way that is going to happen, is for more and more of society to realise that free trades are preferable, thus abandoning violence as a solution.

EDIT: * The selfish, greedy part isn't a society I recognise though. There are selfish, greedy people out there, but most people are helpful and friendly in my experience - they're certainly not threatening to beat you up and take your wallet every time you meet them. If people were like that, society wouldn't function as we know it, either with or without a state.

Also, everyone has their own opinion on what is right and wrong. People frequently make sacrifices which result in less material gain for themselves. You could argue that they are still being selfish, that they want to feel good about themselves by helping others, but they are certainly sharing their material wealth here.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Traktion

[wonderpup]

A free market society is one without violence. If you introduce violence, it is no longer a free market society. What part of this is a contradiction?

If the basis of a free market society is freedom of choice then one must-by definition- be free to choose violence. How else could a free market operate?

Choosing to use violence means that you no longer have a free market society - you have a coercive market society.

No- the opposite is true. A coercive society is one where individual choices are dictated by the state- so a law against violence would be created and enforced- this is what you say you don't want.

A free market society would rely on the power of the market itself to make violence a non profitable option that most people would avoid. This is what you say you do want.

So in a free market violence would be possible- but might not be worth doing if the social cost were too high. Is this not exactly what you are saying?

If people choose to use violence, they will be choosing not to make free trades. You nor I can prevent them from doing this, but we can all observe that free trades are no longer taking place.

You are failing to understand that in a society based on free market principles the choice to use violence or not is itself a free trade. And that like any other free trade people must be free to choose. And that means that violence will always be a possibility in a free market society.

You cannot have a truly free society unless you accept that freedom is a double edged blade- and if you want people to be free to choose non violence then they must also be free to choose violence.

So you cannot somehow magic violence away- you have to trust the free market to provide the solution- which- strangely- you seem unwilling to do.

Anyone is free to choose violence. The moment they do, free trade is no longer taking place.

In a society in which free choice is the highest principle the choice between violence and non violence it itself free trade- the market alone will decide if this choice is wise or unwise- not some arbitrary rule that you seem to have made up.

Free market does not equal violent/coercive market.

Free market is a subset of market.

Violent/coercive market is a subset of market.

Free market does not intersect with a violent/coercive market.

Market is a superset of both free market and violent/coercive market.

I don't know how many more different ways I can express this.

These are mere assertions- I am presenting detailed arguments based on your own ideas. Surely it's obvious that if you want the free market to be the defining principle you must apply this principle to the issue of violent verses non violent behavior?

How can the free market regulate violence if violence is not part of the free market?

Free markets will only be achieved when people don't use violence. Up until that point, you have violent/coercive markets.

No- Free markets of the sort you imagine will only be achieved when violence is controlled by market forces- instead of state enforcement of non violence which you say is wrong.

So a free market society cannot be free of violence- all it can do is trust that market forces makes violence an poor choice.

You can be free to choose violence, but that immediately invalidates the claim that you are operating in a free market.

Again- the exact opposite is the case. The fact that you are free to choose violence is why the market is free- it respects all choices made- and then provides the feedback that those choices are either good or bad.

The whole point of markets is that they allow free choice that is only modified by the market's response to those choices- so in a free market society all choices are available- but not all are optimal.

Is this not exactly the freedom you are arguing for?

You can be free to participate in a violent/coercive market, stealing and raping as you go along. It would be incorrect to call it a free market though.

No- it's exactly a free market- because the only reason not to steal and rape is that this would be punished by the market- is this not the very core of your own argument- that the free market alone would provide the controls currently supplied by the state?

You keep stopping short of accepting the true freedom implied by your own ideas.

Honestly, I thought we had already agreed this stuff and could move onto the next step of discussing how it could be achieved.

The problem is that you want to somehow magic violence away instead to trusting the free market to deal with it.

If you are serious in your belief that the only form of social control that humans require is the free market principle- then why do you run away from the reality that this principle must embrace violence as a possible free choice?

Isn't the whole point of your argument that violence will be rejected freely on the basis that it's a poor strategy? But if I am to be free to reject violence I must also be free to embrace it- that is the nature of free choice.

EDIT: To add, you can approach a free market society by having less violence/coercion. This is what the minarchists think is the best that can be achieved - a small amount of institutional violence.

A free market society cannot suppress violence without becoming a state- the best a free market society can do is let the market do it's job and lead it's members to adopt non violent means as the optimal strategy.

Edited October 6, 2012 by wonderpup

[Traktion]

If the basis of a free market society is freedom of choice then one must-by definition- be free to choose violence. How else could a free market operate?

No- the opposite is true. A coercive society is one where individual choices are dictated by the state- so a law against violence would be created and enforced- this is what you say you don't want.

A free market society would rely on the power of the market itself to make violence a non profitable option that most people would avoid. This is what you say you do want.

So in a free market violence would be possible- but might not be worth doing if the social cost were too high. Is this not exactly what you are saying?

You are failing to understand that in a society based on free market principles the choice to use violence or not is itself a free trade. And that like any other free trade people must be free to choose. And that means that violence will always be a possibility in a free market society.

You cannot have a truly free society unless you accept that freedom is a double edged blade- and if you want people to be free to choose non violence then they must also be free to choose violence.

So you cannot somehow magic violence away- you have to trust the free market to provide the solution- which- strangely- you seem unwilling to do.

In a society in which free choice is the highest principle the choice between violence and non violence it itself free trade- the market alone will decide if this choice is wise or unwise- not some arbitrary rule that you seem to have made up.

These are mere assertions- I am presenting detailed arguments based on your own ideas. Surely it's obvious that if you want the free market to be the defining principle you must apply this principle to the issue of violent verses non violent behavior?

How can the free market regulate violence if violence is not part of the free market?

No- Free markets of the sort you imagine will only be achieved when violence is controlled by market forces- instead of state enforcement of non violence which you say is wrong.

So a free market society cannot be free of violence- all it can do is trust that market forces makes violence an poor choice.

Again- the exact opposite is the case. The fact that you are free to choose violence is why the market is free- it respects all choices made- and then provides the feedback that those choices are either good or bad.

The whole point of markets is that they allow free choice that is only modified by the market's response to those choices- so in a free market society all choices are available- but not all are optimal.

Is this not exactly the freedom you are arguing for?

No- it's exactly a free market- because the only reason not to steal and rape is that this would be punished by the market- is this not the very core of your own argument- that the free market alone would provide the controls currently supplied by the state?

You keep stopping short of accepting the true freedom implied by your own ideas.

The problem is that you want to somehow magic violence away instead to trusting the free market to deal with it.

If you are serious in your belief that the only form of social control that humans require is the free market principle- then why do you run away from the reality that this principle must embrace violence as a possible free choice?

Isn't the whole point of your argument that violence will be rejected freely on the basis that it's a poor strategy? But if I am to be free to reject violence I must also be free to embrace it- that is the nature of free choice.

A free market society cannot suppress violence without becoming a state- the best a free market society can do is let the market do it's job and lead it's members to adopt non violent means as the optimal strategy.

Free market is a specific thing - a market without violence. It isn't a free for all.

You can have a free for all without a state, but that doesn't make it a free market. I've explained this several times in several ways.

How you end up with a free market, without a state is a separate question from what the definition of a free market is.

[wonderpup]

Free market is a specific thing - a market without violence. It isn't a free for all.

You can have a free for all without a state, but that doesn't make it a free market. I've explained this several times in several ways.

How you end up with a free market, without a state is a separate question from what the definition of a free market is.

No- a free market is not without violence- it is one in which violence is subject to the free market. So in a free market I am free to be violent and you are free to act toward me accordingly- and this is something you have already agreed to many times.

What you are resisting here is the reality that being free to act must include the freedom to act violently- if not then you are not free to act.

So at heart you are a statist in that you do not trust people to regulate themselves- you want to say 'no one can be violent' rather than trusting the free market to solve the problem on it's own.

In a genuine free market society everyone would be free to act violently and everyone else would be free to respond accordingly- but I guess that this degree of freedom is bit too free for your taste- so you would-in some unexplained way- forbid that violence in the first place.

How exactly would you deal with violence if you won't allow the free market to deal with it?

[Traktion]

No- a free market is not without violence- it is one in which violence is subject to the free market. So in a free market I am free to be violent and you are free to act toward me accordingly- and this is something you have already agreed to many times.

Nope - you just haven't understood the argument being made, unfortunately.

What you are resisting here is the reality that being free to act must include the freedom to act violently- if not then you are not free to act.

So at heart you are a statist in that you do not trust people to regulate themselves- you want to say 'no one can be violent' rather than trusting the free market to solve the problem on it's own.

In a genuine free market society everyone would be free to act violently and everyone else would be free to respond accordingly- but I guess that this degree of freedom is bit too free for your taste- so you would-in some unexplained way- forbid that violence in the first place.

How exactly would you deal with violence if you won't allow the free market to deal with it?

A free market is a market without violence (state initiated or otherwise). You're confusing a free society with a free market society.

You can have a free society, with people using violence to get what they want, but it won't be a free market society until they stop using violence.

I also accept that people may use violence in a free society. I have said numerous times that I accept that. However, when they use violence to get what they want, it is no longer a free market, but a violent/coerced market.

You can't have a free market society with violence*, but you can have a free society with violence.

Ofc, I would allow the market - individuals in society - to deal with violence, btw. If they are successful, free market trades would replace the theft/violent market trades.

EDIT: *Approaching no violence is probably close enough.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Traktion

[200p]

Warren Buffet - Own a business which is like a castle with a moat around it.

I would take this as close to the literal meaning as possible.

---

Applies to every aspect of one's life - just in case there is violence.

[Traktion]

No- a free market is not without violence- it is one in which violence is subject to the free market.

This point is super daft btw. If it were true, state taxation and spending would be free market transactions, which is clearly nonsense.

edit: typo

Edited October 7, 2012 by Traktion

[wonderpup]

Nope - you just haven't understood the argument being made, unfortunately.

I understand it very well- I just don't think you have fully grasped the implications of your own position.

A free market is a market without violence (state initiated or otherwise). You're confusing a free society with a free market society.

So in a free market society people are not free to act in a violent way? Says who- you? How will you enforce this rule against violence- will you create a police force?

You can have a free society, with people using violence to get what they want, but it won't be a free market society until they stop using violence.

Again how will you enforce this rule against violence?

I also accept that people may use violence in a free society. I have said numerous times that I accept that. However, when they use violence to get what they want, it is no longer a free market, but a violent/coerced market.

Again how is this rule against violence to be enforced?

You can't have a free market society with violence*, but you can have a free society with violence.

And how will this rule against violence be enforced?

Ofc, I would allow the market - individuals in society - to deal with violence, btw. If they are successful, free market trades would replace the theft/violent market trades.

I will ask again the question that you seem to have no answer to:

How exactly would you deal with violence if you won't allow the free market to deal with it?

Because the free market solution would not be to ban violence- it would be for the market to lead people into non violent methods.

In a free market non violence would be a choice- not something that is coerced- as you want to do.

Edited October 8, 2012 by wonderpup

[Traktion]

But this is what you yourself have told me many times- that in a free market society violence would be controlled not by a state backed police force but by the market itself.

You have consistently agreed- even on this very thread- that violent behaviour would not be banned it would be dealt with by people reacting to it in a negative way- a free market solution.

What you seem to have missed is that if violent behaviour is to be subject to the operation of the free market then it must be part of that free market- in other words violence must be one possible mode of action in a society based on free market principles.

If violence were part of the free market, you could call state taxation (ie. theft) a free market transaction. It isn't, ofc.

And I will ask again the question you carefully avoided answering in my previous post;

How exactly would you deal with violence if you won't allow the free market to deal with it?

I already answered that in a previous post:

I would allow the market - individuals in society - to deal with violence, btw. If they are successful, free market trades would replace the theft/violent market trades.

[wonderpup]

If violence were part of the free market, you could call state taxation (ie. theft) a free market transaction. It isn't, ofc.

There would be no state in a free market society- so why keep saying this?

I already answered that in a previous post:

No you did not. You keep repeating that your free market society will be violence free but cannot explain how this comes about.

You previously claimed that the free market itself would make violence a choice that almost no one would select- but this means that a free market would have to incorporate violence as a possibility- which you seem to deny.

So can you explain how your free market society would control violence if it will not allow the free market to operate in this area?

It seems to me that your either have to let the free market deal with violence or you have to enforce a rule against violence- which of the two do you feel is the correct solution?

[Traktion]

There would be no state in a free market society- so why keep saying this?

According to you, we already have a free market society, with a state. Nuts, I know.

No you did not. You keep repeating that your free market society will be violence free but cannot explain how this comes about.

You previously claimed that the free market itself would make violence a choice that almost no one would select- but this means that a free market would have to incorporate violence as a possibility- which you seem to deny.

So can you explain how your free market society would control violence if it will not allow the free market to operate in this area?

It seems to me that your either have to let the free market deal with violence or you have to enforce a rule against violence- which of the two do you feel is the correct solution?

Nope, you have reading comprehension problems. Try reading the last few pages and try again.

A free market is a market without violence.

[SLL]

Okay, we've got two conflicting definitions of a free market:

(1) Wonderpup's definition of a "free-to-do-whatever-you-want" market which includes violence as a possibility, and so would rapidly have to evolve a set of rules and policy enforcers (or end up as complete anarchy).

(2) Traktion's definition of a "non-violent" market in which violence is never chosen as an option (and those that do chose violence are threatened with "we won't want to play with you anymore, and please don't come back and steal our stuff again tomorrow"), but it's okay to coerce a man dying of thirst into handing over his entire net worth for a glass of water.

Rather than arguing any further over semantics, my question is:

Why on earth whould I consider either of them as something to be held up as a model of how we should want things to be?

[wonderpup]

According to you, we already have a free market society, with a state. Nuts, I know.

No- at present violence is controlled by the existence of a state backed police force- you claim this is not required because the free market would do the job instead.

But if violence is to be influenced by market forces then it's clear that violence must exist in that free market.

A free market is based on free choice- so the right to choose between violence and non violence is what makes the market work. If you try to remove that choice you no longer have a free market- you have a coerced market where violence is suppressed by force- exactly the thing you claim to oppose.

Nope, you have reading comprehension problems. Try reading the last few pages and try again.

A free market is a market without violence.

Yes but how?- that is my question. You don't want a state to control violence and you don't want the free market to control violence- what then do you want?

Simply parroting 'A free market is a market without violence' does not mean anything unless you can explain how it works- can you do that?

How is violence controlled in your proposed free market based society- by wishful thinking?

[wonderpup]

Okay, we've got two conflicting definitions of a free market:

(1) Wonderpup's definition of a "free-to-do-whatever-you-want" market which includes violence as a possibility, and so would rapidly have to evolve a set of rules and policy enforcers (or end up as complete anarchy).

(2) Traktion's definition of a "non-violent" market in which violence is never chosen as an option (and those that do chose violence are threatened with "we won't want to play with you anymore, and please don't come back and steal our stuff again tomorrow"), but it's okay to coerce a man dying of thirst into handing over his entire net worth for a glass of water.

Rather than arguing any further over semantics, my question is:

Why on earth whould I consider either of them as something to be held up as a model of how we should want things to be?

The issue is not semantics- it's logic. What Traktion wants is a society based on the principle that people are free to choose-BUT he does not want them to be free to choose violence!

This is a basic logical contradiction that cuts to the heart of his model of the ideal society.

What he will not (perhaps can not) accept is that if you wish people to be free they must be free to do things that you might not like. He does not like violence so he does not want people to be free.

The argument that-given free choice- people would always choose non violence is-I think debatable- but what can not be in doubt is that in order to be free to choose non violence I must also be free to choose violence- this is simple logic. For a free choice to exist alternatives must exist.

So any society that was based on free market principles would not seek to suppress violence- it would trust in the free market to make violence unattractive as a choice. Tracktion does not- it seems- trust the free market- which is kind of ironic given how much time he spends defending it on this forum.

[SLL]

The issue is not semantics- it's logic. What Traktion wants is a society based on the principle that people are free to choose-BUT he does not want them to be free to choose violence!

This is a basic logical contradiction that cuts to the heart of his model of the ideal society.

What he will not (perhaps can not) accept is that if you wish people to be free they must be free to do things that you might not like. He does not like violence so he does not want people to be free.

The argument that-given free choice- people would always choose non violence is-I think debatable- but what can not be in doubt is that in order to be free to choose non violence I must also be free to choose violence- this is simple logic. For a free choice to exist alternatives must exist.

So any society that was based on free market principles would not seek to suppress violence- it would trust in the free market to make violence unattractive as a choice. Tracktion does not- it seems- trust the free market- which is kind of ironic given how much time he spends defending it on this forum.

I entirely agree with the logic of your point. I think Traktion is claiming that people are free to choose violence, but that (in order for his kind of free market to exist) no-one does choose violence because of the immense power of ostracism and how it would be really-really mean of them to be violent to people.

So in short his idea of a free market is just a fairy story that can never actually exist in the real world (at least not until he comes up with some viable non-violent mechanism for persuading greedy selfish human beings not to resort to violence). I think Traktion sort of accepts this.

Yet what I really struggle to grasp is why he holds up this fantasy never-going-to-actually-work-in-the-real-world economic model (a model which will quite happily let African children starve because grain farmers can make more profit by selling their grain as cattle feed) as something we should aspire to?