From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Thu Jul 03 2003 - 02:32:19 MDT
Rafal Smigrodzki writes:
> Brett wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't see how the free market can be given unfettered free
> > range without destroying itself. Like a fire that doesn't stay
> > in the fireplace, but burns the house down.
>
> ### The free market has a tendency to mutate into a state, as
> soon as monopolies of land ownership and power emerge,
> this is correct.
Prap's were talking at cross purposes I am more interested in
the free market as a global phenomenon. Partly because I've read
some things which seem to me to make some plausible arguments
that we may be at a sort of local peak in the rolling out of free
markets. Ie. Going from *some* imperfect free market nation
states to a free market world economy faces some serious
challenges.
>But I wouldn't say that it destroys itself - it is
> poorly capable of defending itself against the greed, hatred,
> and short-sightedness of humans who initially make it work.
Fair point. So far the actually destruction of the free market is
hardly proven. But so too is the establishment of a global
free market of the form that I imagine that you and I would
approve. As is often the case in discussions with extropes
good points can be made for seemingly opposing viewpoints
but often it does turn out that the topic under discussion,
in this case the free market, has different meaning for
different folks.
> Also, there is the difficulty with the provision of certain
> goods, such as information.
Completely agreed.
>
> Long-range planning, the very long range enlightened
> self-interest, could perhaps allow the formation of a
> stable free market with minimal or none of the brutal
> monopolist practices typical of the state, with polycentric
> law, and yet providing the average humans with much
> more services than any other system.
Indeed it could. But will it? How do we (people concerned
with such things chart sensible paths from here to there
the desired destination). All to often it seems to me that
disagreements amoungst extropes about what to do next
as a practical step come down to triaging from our
different perspectives and circumstances.
> Presently most humans (including a fair number of capitalists)
> are incapable of such long-range planning, but this could
> happen yet, as life-spans lengthen and intelligence grows.
There are systems in place that actually work against long
range planning. One of which is the four year electral cycle.
A government can't implement policy unless it is elected
and this puts four year planning horizons on some of
the countries that have the greatest capacities to institute
reforms.
I think longer life spans will make an impact but longer or
alternatively arranged means of government better able
to concentrate on long term policy is probably just as
important.
Regards,
Brett Paatsch
(Perhaps I should have bundled these two responses)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 03 2003 - 02:39:16 MDT