Re: Libertarian Economics

Joao Pedro (
Sun, 21 Sep 1997 02:25:58 -0700


Thanks for all your replies,

The Low Golden Willow wrote:
> } Voluntary actions? You're talking of voluntary, unselfish actions from
> } the same species that constantly kills, destroys and robs other members
> } of the same species? I don't think that's possible in today's world,
> Constantly? No city could exist if people constantly did the things you
> say. Civilization is the great refutation of claims that the mass of
> humanity is irredeemably shortsightedly selfish and violent.

Why don't people kill each others? Because there is a law against it,
make murder legal and you will see people killing each others.
Why has civilization lasted? IMHO, because there are laws, there is a
judicial system to prevent anarchy, in anarchy everyone would do what
they want and that would surely mean the destruction of mankind.
Civilization doesn't exist because we are good but because institutions
and persons work very hard at controlling the masses.

Particullary men are violent, human beings are naturally selfish.
Education is, IMHO, what makes persons 'look better' than they are.

> } "united we stand,
> } divided we fall". If a corporation starts achieving a substantial
> } advantage towards everyone else, as it grows, it will eventually become
> } more efficient, more capable, will be able to have the most competitive
> Hardly necessarily. Alongside economies of scale are prices of scale.
> An insect can get its oxygen through simple diffusion. Big things like
> us need hearts and blood vessels to move oxygen and food around. A
> large corporation needs be more complex, and thus has slower response
> times, and administrative costs, etc. It works well for mass producing
> standard products, poorly for high quality specialty goods. Thus the
> failure of supermarkets to drive out all the small bread and cheese
> stores in a well-off city.
> "united we fall, when we make one dumb mistake which effects us all [see
> China]; divided we grow, as diversity explores many different ways of
> doing something, and keeps the effects of mistakes localized, and
> preserves healthy areas which can regenerate the loss."

What if some corporation doesn't make enough mistakes to fall, it will
eventualy take control of the market and then we will all suffer. In a
free-market, there will be the ones who are better than other at their
business, what if this persons are a lot better? They'll control
everything in their area.

> } Besides, many persons are also selfish and greedy. The consumer, the
> } common citizen doesn't know and doesn't care about environmental issues.
> Well, that explains why the Western world rose up and banned CFCs. Must
> have been those nasty Freon producing corporations who told their
> owned governments to...

DuPont, one, if not the, largest producer of CFCs had knowledge of the
destructive effects of CFCs on the ozone but prevented this from being
known. There are several sources claiming this. Obviously, if they knew,
others would too, they just weren't paid attention. Only when persons
started to die did the governments do something.
It remaind's me of the mad cow disease, with the information available
in the 80s it should had been taken measures to prevent people from
eating cows and yet it continued because economical pressures were more
important than the thousands that might (we don't know for sure) die
from the human form of the disease.
Governments are owned by corporations, of course that when people start
dyeing, action is taken or else no government or even corporation
resists .

> The free market of cities has done more, over time, to turn poor people
> into well-off middle class citizen than anything else. The Church did
> not raise the poor. Welfare has not raised the poor. Communism -- many
> attempts -- did not raise the poor. It was the burgs which created the
> bourgeois, who'd once been poor. All, of course, have had some sort of
> law-and-order government.

The free market of cities in America has also created many poor people.
Violence in America is the proof of this.

> } ask you something, do you think that the poorer classes generated by
> } free-markets will stand still? My bet is that they'll riot and that is
> Poverty has no causes! Only prosperity has causes. Poverty and
> ignorance are the natural state of humanity, which we work to rise
> above. The market does not generate poor people; it generates poor
> classes only insofar as it generates rich classes, creating a contrast
> with those who have not risen as far.

Then why shouldn't we build condition so that all can prosper and not
just a few. It's not a communist ideology, it's a matter of assuring
basic conditions to everyone, from that to be wealthy is up to them but
let's at least assure some basic conditions.

Eric Watt Forste wrote:
> I prefer to stay away from higgling and haggling over selfishness
> and altruism: you can come up with an altruistic rationalization
> for any course of action just as easily as you can come up with a
> selfish-sounding rationalization. (Well, I can, anyway, so
> worrying about whether I'm being selfish or altruistic does me
> no good whatsoever. The point is to do the right thing, not the
> selfish or altruistic thing.)

That's an interesting point, it remaind's me of an article in my site
called "The Selfish Genius", the conclusions are roughly the same.

> > I'll be honest, I don't know what negative feedback is and I know
> > nothing of basic economics but I always knew that "united we stand,
> > divided we fall". If a corporation starts achieving a substantial
> > advantage towards everyone else, as it grows, it will eventually
> > become more efficient, more capable, will be able to have the most
> > competitive prices and therefore, will achieve a monopoly status.
> > Right?
> No. Economies of scale don't automatically apply in every
> industry, and there is usually a "diminishing returns" effect.
> Monopolies are almost invariably the result of regulators
> imposing barriers to entry in the market upon potential new
> competitors. Sometimes this is done explicitly, as with the
> PTTs and many country's power industries, sometimes it is done
> in a more hidden manner, as with the banking industries, etc.
> A market in which the two or three leaders have 60% to 80%
> market share is not a monopoly. A PTT, on the other hand, is a
> real monopoly, with all the insidious effects thereof.

If a corporation reaches monopoly in a no-rules world, it won't lose
easily and we will all suffer. A corporation with a monopoly status will
have the better research facilities, the better marketing experts, it
will even have the best criminals to take care of their opposition! It
will become unstopable.

> > (I see that in Portugal every time, small shops complaining about
> > big commercial centers and supermarkets)
> Yes, but which do the customers complain about? Businesses
> exist to serve consumers, not the other way around.

But if small shops go broke, the supermarkets will be able to put the
prices they want and therefore harming everybody.

> > Since unselfish reasons rarely incentives anyone to do anything,
> > let me ask you something, do you think that the poorer classes
> > generated by free-markets will stand still? My bet is that they'll
> > riot and that is what I fear.
> The poorer clases are not generated by free markets, the poorer
> classes are generated by oppressive taxation and regulation
> which hinders the market from providing them with goods, jobs,
> and services.

The rules and regulations prevent the market from employing people? I
can't believe that.

Michael Lorrey wrote:
> Its funny, people from other countries are dumbfounded when they hear
> that US citizens are the most generous of their time and money of
> anybody in the world. THis is because when an individual pays less of
> their income to government theives, they tend to see charity as an
> individual responsibility that comes with greater economic freedom.

US citizens are the most generous of their time? I'm sorry to be
skeptical but can you prove it?

> So it was the threat to their very lives? I dunno, we in the US have
> done some pretty good positive environmental things via market pressure.
> EXAMPLES: Recycling, Dolphin Safe Tuna, BGH free milk (which is opposed
> by big argri-corps and governments).

Market pressure or public relations. A corporation makes a positive
environmental thing, gives it a lot of publicity and then goes on
destroying the environment but since it did a good thing, it can argue
with that to continue the destruction of the environment.
That's not market preassure, that's cheating on the citizens (I'm
generally speaking).

> > You talk about how the market will control big corporations and the
> > millions of consumers will lead the market into the best path, let me
> > ask you something, why is government so corrupt? People theoretically
> > control government (by voting) and still government is corrupt, why is
> > that? What makes you think that indirect control of economy by persons
> > is going to improve anything?
> Because government concentrates power in the hands of the few,
> corrupting the powerful rapidly, while indirect control dilutes power
> into digestible, uncorruptible bite sizes for everyone.

Indirect control dilutes the power? Indirect control will make the most
welthy persons have all the power and do what they want for the harm of
consummers and general population.

> > I read books, I find it, however, much less boring and time consuming to
> > ask other persons. Or do you read a book every time you have a doubt or
> > a question?
> Yes I do, usually 3-6 books a week.

6 books a week? Can you give me an autograph or let me take a picture
with you? Pretty amazing.

One last thing, extropy is the opposite of entropy. Our goal is to fight
entropy or disorder and yet you defend complete disorder in the economy.

         Hasta la vista...

"Life's too short to cry, long enough to try." - Kai Hansen Visit my site at: