Liberty

[libertango]

Through a complicated chain of links (beginning with an egoscan at this site, which is deceptively simple), I found myself at a blog post of esr's, because this passage was quoted:

"The free market is a wonderful thing. I was going to call it the most marvellous instrument ever devised for making people wealthy and free, but that would be wrong — the free market isn’t a ‘device’ any more than love or gravity or sunshine are devices, it’s what you have naturally when nobody is using force to fuck things up."

Short response: Oy. Longer response... well, we'll get there.

Through coincidence, I was later reading the new issue of Foreign Affairs, which has this quote by Isaiah Berlin:

"Liberty for wolves is death to the lambs."

Which captures exactly the problem with the "all government is coercive" sort of small-l libertarian. Free markets aren't natural (or else they would spontaneously appear a lot more frequently). They're highly artificial social constructs which require policing. Otherwise the wolves get a tasty lamb stew. And, of course, any form of policing that will deter the wolves necessarily involves "coercion".

Now, your typical teenager-of-all-ages small-l libertarian tends to think he's a bad ass wolf. But he also likes to think that he has some virtue in him, and would be easily persuaded to do "good". So he just doesn't think "coercion" is necessary.

But that, to paraphrase the character Jules from Pulp Fiction, ain't the truth. The truth is, your average small-l libertarian is a lamb. Who wouldn't last more than five minutes without protection from the tyranny of wolves, but refuses to admit it. Or, in an extreme case, really is a wolf, and refuses to see why the concerns of lambs matter.

A free market allows a wolf and a lamb to have a transaction with neither party feeling overly powerful, or overly weak. This is a great thing. And it wouldn't be possible if not for the hunter with the rifle watching over them both.

It's precisely because wolves are, well, wolves that they keep asking the hunter to bugger off, reduce "stifling regulation", and allow the wolves to get to the task of {denuding the environment} {ripping off the investors of every dime they have} {reneging on pension or other contractual committments} {pay sweatshop wages} eating a tasty lamb stew.

Me, I just want an honest and effective hunter. Because, yeah, even if I'm a wolf, he might constrain me from what I really want to do sometimes... But he also stops the lambs from forming a mob.

There's that darned Golden Rule again.

Comments

[merathena.livejournal.com]

Well I guess I want to be the hunter in this senario. The hunter answers to no one. The hunter is just a more evolved wolf really. The hunter ends up having lamb stew while wearing a nice fur coat.

Is that what you mean by Golden Rule?

Metaphors

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

First off, it's a metaphor. All metaphors break down when extended too far.

Secondly, I'm not so sure about "answerable to no one". That only works if you assume there are no laws, no institutions aside from these three parties, etc. In the United States, at least, the odd thing about the Hunter (to stick with the metaphor, and show how tortuous it can become), is that he's a strange hive animal, made up of all the potentially voting citizens (including you, if that applies to you). Parts of him slough away and dissolve every set number of years, and get re-constituted. And how he gets re-constituted very much depends on his performance -- which ain't the same as, "unanswerable".

You say in your post about this, "What amazes me is that somehow a person who is obviously a "sheep" can be talked into wishing for a *second* uber predator to prey on him." But there's always another predator in the food chain. One could just as easily say, for example, "Liberty to sheep is death to grass."

The point, again, is how to manage the situation, so that each party gets as much liberty as possible within the constraints of taking as little liberty away as possible from someone else.

And this is the point most small-l libertarians miss: That to overthrow or reform the current regime and supplant it with something they would consider "less coercive" would actually take considerably more coercion, and applied to considerably more of the population, than the current system.

Or, to take a point your friend tprjones raises: "Let the lambs learn to protect themselves." I would suggest that government is indeed the means invented by sheep to do just that. Now, perhaps it's somehow morally wrong for one group of people to protect themselves against others by pooling resources together, or to arbitrarily declare some behaviors verboten.

The problem is, in every time I'm aware where people have been given a realistic alternative of straight-up anarchy -- France in the 1790's, Russia in the late 1910's, China in the late 1940's, Lebanon in the 1970's and '80's, Somalia in the 1990's -- the population overwhelmingly rejects it. By its own logic, small-l libertarian anarchy has always lost out in the marketplace.

Putting it a different way: If you really advocate anarchy -- as you appear to be writing -- how is it that your wish to impose some Hobbesian state of nature upon me is less odious than my wish to have a society which you may join, or not, as you choose?

Re: Metaphors

[merathena.livejournal.com]

I am not advocating anarchy rather what I'm trying to point out is that a free market left to itself is naturally correcting. Much like the naturalsituation with the sheep and the wolves. Wolves only pick off the weak and the sick, there by making the sheep stronger through natural selection. secondly if wolves have never decimated a population, unlike hunters. (for example what happend to nearly all the buffalo in North America)
You bring in a dictator (hunter) and now you have the healthiest sheep being killed, you have the wolves being destroyed (or domesticated). You no longer have a harmonious exsistence. You have a population in a constant state of crisis.

As for free markets naturally exsisting, I will point to you to the Native American population in North America. They lived in a very successful free market system for over 1,000 years. No Uber predator watched over their economy.

Re: Metaphors

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

"I'm trying to point out is that a free market left to itself is naturally correcting."

Oh? Then why is the average woman's dress size available for sale a 9, when the average US woman is a size 14? Why do real estate developers primarily produce suburbs, when the maximal returns per square foot of property are multi-use urban dowtowns? Why is one of the leading causes of tropical deforestation the market for disposable chopsticks, when more durable ones would require less capital investment, and be more efficient over their lifetime?

Or are you going to drop to the usual fallback position and say that since there aren't any genuinely free markets on the planet today, obvious stupidities like the ones above are all just coincidentally the result of not being left to themselves?

"As for free markets naturally exsisting, I will point to you to the Native American population in North America. They lived in a very successful free market system for over 1,000 years."

Not only unproven, but very probably unprovable.

First and most obviously, saying "Native American population in North America" is like saying, sub-Saharan Africa. You're talking about 100s of cultures and languages. There's no easy way to generalize.

Also, the Native American market was almost certainly barter only. While that can work in small local populations, it tends to break down on larger ones -- which is why money tends to get invented so often. Even from a libertarian point of view, while you could set up a quasi-monetized system of "obligations", rather than goods as such (like the system described in Eric Frank Russell's short story, "And Then There Were None"), you'll notice that I have to reach to fiction to give an example of such a system. (If you want a factual analysis of the problems of size in human institutions, I recommend Leopold Kohr's The Breakdown of Nations.)

But the bigger problem is, we have no real idea just how Native Americans were living in... Hm. When, exactly? Are you going back 1000 years from "conquest", say 700-800AD or so, or from Columbus, so circa 500AD? As may be, we can't get even get to an agreement as to what the population was in 1491AD (as in this somewhat famous article in The Atlantic. NB: That's a subscriber only article. That's the market for you.). Given that we have no real idea about the validity of such basic, tangible data as population, how on earth can we have any verifiable information on abstractions like economic systems?

There are papers on the topic, such as this one by Terry Anderson, who comes at it from a conservation point-of-view. But you'll notice he describes a mix of ownership styles, both communal and private -- far from what most people would regard as the libertarian ideal of exclusively private ownership.

There's the Encyclopedia of Native-American Economic History, but that's not universally regarded as a solid book (you can see a somewhat critical review here).

What are your sources for the view that Native Americans had what would be recognized today as a "free market"?

Re: Metaphors

[merathena.livejournal.com]

Cupcake, I am a Native American, who grew up on a reservation. I know my history better than any of the WHITE authors you quote. My people have been here for over 2,000 years. Also your little quip about 'small populations"---the day that rat bastard Columbus set foot on our land there were over 2 MILLION Native Americans living on this continent. We had a universal language (ever hear of sign language?) which pretty much covered the Northern and Southern continents. Some nations did have currency (ever hear of wampum?) other did use a bater system, but barter does no preclude free trade.

Don't try to sell me a bunch of crap that some white guys have made up about MY history. I suggest you get your butt down to a powwow and listen to a few of the story tellers if you want some immutable sources. I suggest you stop getting all of your info about Native Americans from white people...they really can't be trusted to speak the truth about us.

Also self correcting does not mean instantly correcting. I am quite certain there are numerous articles about up making larger sized clothing as the population grows. I am just to disgusted with your myopic view of Native America to continue trying to have a civil discussion.

Re: Metaphors

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

By all means point to the written histories by First Nations authors that document the free markets of the pre-columbian Americas. In the meantime, oral tradition does not a history make, "cupcake". Nor do ad hominem accusations of racism based, apparently, purely on choice of sources that you disparage without directly addressing constitute proof, but mere posturing and hysteria.

Don't try to sell me a bunch of crap about how being Native means you know more about history by osmosis or magical thinking or whatever you mean to be claiming. That's the route that got bunches of American negros claiming to be directly related to the Pharaohs. Pure bushwah, in other words. Surely you're not dumb enough to believe that no one "White" (and do you actually know the ethnicity of the people you're bashing?) can say anything true and accurate about First Nations history? Surely you're not dumb enough to believe that no one "Native" could be wrong or underinformed? That's how you're coming off, "cupcake." As an ignorant bigot. Evidence and rational argument buy you a hearing. Claiming special knowledge by dint of having lived on the Res doesn't, unless the subject is living on the Res. Which you may have noticed, it isn't.

If you have evidence, by all means offer it. If all you have available to you is ad hominem attack and brute assertion, please stop embarrassing yourself in public.

Re: Metaphors

[merathena.livejournal.com]

Listen White Boy (yeah I checked) *you* were the first one to throw around the word racist here. I merely pointed out that his information entirely came from White sources (yeah I checked-- I been down this happy little white road before). It's our history and I learned it at the feet of my people. The whole white attittude that whites have a right to make up our history and put in a hard bound book is certainly alive and well in you.

Once again I lived on a 'rez, which besides at pow wows are they only place you're going to learn real Native American history. You can cling to your books all you want, but that's not where the history is. The history lives within us and the one thing we've learned after 6 million deaths at the hands of greedy white people is NOT TO SHARE SHIT WITH THEM.

So once again don't sail your lily white ass into the middle of Native business and start throwing white assertions around about how WE lived. You wanna know Native history? Ask a Native.

Re: Metaphors

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

Obviously, snookie-baby, you aren't very *good* at checking or you would have gotten my gender right. Let alone the sources libertango was using, which was rather more my point.

The fact that you didn't explicitly use the term racist doesn't change the fact that you were, and are, making tacit accusations of racism. While engaging in racism yourself, which is the really unattractive part. You see, when you engage in claiming that someone can't be truthful or can't know anything based strictly on race, that is racism. And you're up to your self-righteous eyebrows in it, sweetiekins.

You can cling to your magical thinking if you want, but the fact remains that oral histories are lossy in ways that make information impossible to verify and validate. Thus the value of print which is not dependent on human memory and can be referred to by multiple people with confidence that they are refering to exactly the same thing.

If it makes you happy to believe that you know because you know because you're "Native" that's fine for you. Feel free to sit in a corner and feel proud of yourself. If you want to have credibility in public discourse, you'll have to start offering evidence instead of just hollering about the race of the people who disagree with you. So don't sail your name-calling, bigotted, magical-thinking ass in to the middle of rational grownup business and start throwing woo-woo assertions about what other people can know without some actual facts at your disposal. Otherwise, as I say, you're just embarrassing yourself in public. Again.

Re: Metaphors

[merathena.livejournal.com]

So sorry about getting the gender wrong there honey, all you hate mongers look alike to me.

Re: Metaphors

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

Ah, and I see that you include intellectual coward among your other fine qualities. Thus deleting comments to you which you don't like. Boy, that's sure a great way to prove you're right, isn't it?

Re: Metaphors

[merathena.livejournal.com]

Rude, racist people get deleted and banned from my journal. Get some manners, learn to respect other races and you may be allowed back.

Re: Metaphors

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

"You wanna know Native history? Ask a Native."

We have. Twice now. Who would be, um... you.

Instead of answering the question forthrightly, you've answered emotionally, and basically ducked the content. For example, you have yet to tell us just what your tribe's traditions actually say that you believe them to describe a free market. You have yet to say what tribe you are a part of, or just which rez you grew up on.

Instead, you've been screaming, essentially saying, "All tribes are my tribe! All rezes are my rez! The stories I learned say what they say, and you don't get to hear them! And anyone who doesn't agree with me making assertions like this without evidence is myopic!"

Let me tell you a bit about where I'm coming from, because, listening to you, it seems I'm being made to answer for attitudes I don't have.

I am very much a skeptic. About everything. I don't mean that in the popular sense, I mean as a point of view. For some people, their big question is, "Who are you?" or, "What do you want?" For me, it tends to be, "How do you know?" For me, one of my guiding principles is, "Everything is provisional, pending better data."

So, when I lay out the evidence I have available, it isn't because I think what I have is better. It's because I think it's as good as I have, at the time. If someone comes along with better evidence, I welcome it, I embrace it. In other words, my ego isn't tied up in being right or wrong right now. My ego is tied up in the search for truth, over the long haul. And, by the very nature of things, I don't think we ever actually get there -- we only get as close as fallible human beings can.

So, when I asked for your sources, it was of a genuine curiosity as to why you think as you do. I'm not challenging your ego, I'm not challenging your identity.

Here are some things, for example, I don't know: I have no idea whether the authors of what I cited are Native or white. I see their surnames, but I'm sure you know that anyone can have any given surname.

I'm not sure how being Native or white matters when one is doing 2+2=4. I'm fairly sure it wouldn't have mattered if it was someone Native who went up in the tower and dropped a pair of iron balls, rather than Galileo. Either the math works, or it doesn't. Either the experiment works, or it doesn't. This is, for me, the great thing about the scientific point of view -- the math doesn't care if you're of a particular race, or caste, or belief.

Take, for example, your statement that there were 2 million Natives in North America at the time of Columbus. Had you read the article I pointed to from The Atlantic, you'd see that's actually on the low end of current estimates. More recent thinking puts it in the range of 1.8 to 18 million. And the reason why there's an order of magnitude difference is, it all depends on how many people one believes died during the plagues that came with Europeans (and maybe Asians). The more deadly they were, the more people there were in North America to begin with.

Take what I said about "small populations". Let's assume the high end estimate of 18 million natives in 1491. Canada and the US combined (I'm assuming that's what you meant about "North America", because the Olmec, Toltec, Aztec, and Mayan cultures were all fairly statist) have 7.385 million square miles. That works out to an average of 2.43 people per square mile. I'd consider that light upon the ground, yes. Now, obviously there were clusters of population that were much higher than that. But the world population at the time is estimated to have been about 500 million people. So Natives would have been about 4% of that.

(continued next post)

Re: Metaphors

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

But here's another thing I don't know: When I ask a Native today about their history, I will readily grant that tells me what they think their history today is. But you mentioned "a 1000 years". Assuming you meant before Columbus, that would be 500AD. In 500AD, the Chinese cities of Luoyang and Nanjing had a population of 500,000 apiece. Europe was a pit. New Zealand was empty -- it didn't even have any mammals, those would come with the Maori, somewhere between 3 and 4 centuries later. Global population was about 200 million. Assuming Natives matched the trend of the rest of the world, that would mean a Native population of over 7 million, on the high end of estimates.

My point is, look at all the changes in the world that have happened since. Look how China is today, or New Zealand, or Natives themselves. Now imagine that the only evidence is oral tradition, spread over the 60 or 75 generations since 500AD. Further, imagine we somehow had a time machine, where we could go to, oh, 750AD or so, and ask the Natives what their history was of 500AD. To what degree do you think it would match the stories of today? I mean that as a straight-up question.

Maybe it's myopic to make that kind of comparison of China, New Zealand, Europe, and North America at the time. But I don't think so.

Your own original response to my post was, "Humans are so easy to manipulate!" To what degree could such a history be maniuplated over the course of 60-75 generations?

How do you know?

If you have better answers (and notice that I have relatively few answers at all, anyway) -- but if you do, tell me, don't just call me names. And tell me why you think they're better. Treat me as an adult, and let me make up my own mind, rather than make grand, vague, unspecific pronouncements.

A Note: I won't tolerate racist discourse in this journal. From anyone. Do it again, and the post will be deleted. Do it another time after that, and all your posts will be deleted, and you'll be banned. Our Constitution gives you the right to say such things in public. But this LJ is my "virtual home", if you will, and just as I'd kick out a white supremacist from my actual house, I will reluctantly take the measures above, if need be.

Re: Metaphors

[merathena.livejournal.com]

I think I made it clear before that I'm done talking. Your view if Native America, past and present, is so saturated by one single pov that it would take me hours and hours of typing to even make a dent.

I admit to a strong knee jerk reaction to being told what MY history is. Natives have been so insulted by what white historians have written that we are sick of trying to explain. For example check out this thread:

http://www.livejournal.com/community/nativeamerican/536961.html



I will tell you one last thing. As much as you'd like to sub divide us Natives into different tribes/nations etc. We have a saying "what you do to one Native you do to all Natives." We have the same history because we are one people. I respect Dine elders just as much as I respect Tlingit elders. There is no difference.

Re: Metaphors

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

The place I went to high school contains a major Chumash archeological site, by coincidence. (Although inland, not coastal.)

The story overall doesn't surprise me much, and seems very plausible -- part of why New Zealand was as empty for as long as it was is because of the distances involved, and that's before we get to Easter Island.

Also, I point out my mention above of possible Asian contact with North America, pre-Columbus. That's mostly based on 1421, by Gavin Menzies.

The only thing I'd mention is that the article is using other evidence in addition to oral histories, and that's where it's gaining credibility. I mean, even in a legal case, where you're talking about an accident that happened last week, if you have 5 witnesses, you'll get 5 different stories. And maybe it's because I've had to sift through information like that (I've been on 2 juries) that I regard oral testimony when unsupported by other facts to be less credible than oral testimony that is supported. I don't see that as a Native vs. white issue, I see it as a characteristic of fallible human beings. "Trust, but verify," that sort of thing.

"We have a saying "what you do to one Native you do to all Natives.""

It's a shame the Duwamish don't get more help on the tribe recognition issue, then.

[shadis.livejournal.com]

Hmmm....lots of different points to make here. Where to start?

Ok, first of all, the reason that anarchy doesn't ever take hold is that anarchy cannot exist in a natural state. There will ALWAYS be some force set in motion to control the population, whether you're talking about alpha males in the animal kingdom, or government in the human population.

But anarchy is not what libertarianism is about. Neither, though, is coersion. The root of small-l libertarianism is having the right amount of government to enforce each person's natural rights from those who would violate those rights, without having so much government that it infringes upon liberty. Let me pull a quote out of your article as an example:

"The point, again, is how to manage the situation, so that each party gets as much liberty as possible within the constraints of taking as little liberty away as possible from someone else."

As soon as you start "managing" liberty, you start taking it away. The purpose of government is not to restrict anyone's liberty. It's to make sure that when one person perceives "liberty" as meaning "I can do whatever I want", that someone is there to say "no, having your own liberty means not infringing someone else's".

As for free markets not existing naturally, I disagree. In fact, we can pick apart the quote that you used as the basis for this post, and see that both are untrue. "Liberty for wolves is death to the lambs." Let's take this literally, rather than as a metaphor. What happens if wolves are free to feast on lambs as often as they want? Well, obviously the lambs die out. But then what happens? Suddenly, lamb (and obviously we have to include any type of prey here) becomes very scarce. Some wolves go without food and die. Others fight each other over the remaining lambs and kill each other off. The wolves begin to become scarce. Pretty soon winter comes around, and the wolves don't have enough body fat to live through it, where as any remaining lambs have a nice thick wool coat and can survive. You can take this in all sorts of directions, but to simply look at the immediate effect of "free wolves = dead lambs" is very myopic and doesn't consider the full weight of the market forces at work on the situation.

Aside, though, from the nitpicky points that I'm making, the gist of your post is correct. There needs to be some form of government, some form of coersive consequence, to keep people from overstepping the bounds of liberty. But then, that's the essence of libertarianism, and the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist.

Terms

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

"As soon as you start "managing" liberty, you start taking it away. The purpose of government is not to restrict anyone's liberty. It's to make sure that when one person perceives "liberty" as meaning "I can do whatever I want", that someone is there to say "no, having your own liberty means not infringing someone else's".

Do you really not see the contradiction here? Because your last statement is a way of "managing" your next-to-last. Further, to a person who believes liberty does mean, "I can do whatever I want," then "liberty means not infringing someone else's," is a restriction, one which could only be enforced coercively.

"As for free markets not existing naturally, I disagree."

Fine. Cite three examples, please. Preferably examples where you yourself wouldn't mind living.

Re: Terms

[shadis.livejournal.com]

I was describing liberty from a libertarian standpoint. That of the "my liberty ends where yours begins" variety. Which requires some sort of oversight, or government, to help in matters where we're not sure where our mutual liberties overlap. When you talk about the sort of liberty where you can do whatever you want, then you're describing anarchy. And as I said, anarchy in its natural state will almost always degrade into some form of government, even if it is just a defacto "I won't kill you if you promise not to kill me" sort of mutual non-aggression pact. That's the key difference between libertarians and anarchists. Anarchists believe that people should be free to do whatever they want, with no government intervention. Little-l libertarians believe that there are natural limits to liberty and that some disinterested third party should be available to monitor and resolve disputes when conflicts of liberty occur.

As for free markets that exist naturally, I already gave one very crude example with the wolves and sheep. Even though there is no direct exchange of goods or services, the forces that act upon the wolves as the sheep become scarce is an example of a free market. But if you want real human examples that free markets can occur naturally, just take a look at the middle east. Even in countries where certain goods are restricted on penalty of death, there are people who work to bring those goods to their people. Their markets are never truly free, but the forces of the free market are at work there, even in a situation where it's potentially lethal. Why? Because whenever someone wants something but can't acquire it easily, there will be someone trying to provide that for them. Free markets are about scarcity of supply and abundance of demand, and wherever those two exist, a market will attempt to form. Just because people try to regulate those markets so that they're no longer free does not mean that a free market can't exist in nature.

In fact, alot of the market regulations in this country are PART of the market. The politicians sell their services as lawmakers to those industries that help them maintain their positions. A scarcity of regulation is created when several competitors feel that they would be benefitted by having regulations that help them out. The competitor that is able to procure the most litigation or congressional support obtains the regulations that benefit them financially. So, the buying and selling of political support is yet another example of a free market popping up spontaneously where a demand and a supply are unbalanced.

And if you still need another example, take a look at any kid's corner lemondate stand. Just the idea that "hey, there are thirsty people. I bet they'd like to buy some lemonade" is a free market that pops up on thousands of street corners every summer.

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

You seem to miss two facts, one crucial, the other minor. The crucial one is that natural selection is not a market. Treating the two as if they are identical in making the case of the wolves and lambs literal undermines any explanatory power the metaphor had. The minor fact is that anarchists are not different from, but rather a species of, libertarians. Some libertarians are minarchists (the species you appear to adhere to) some are anarchists. In fact, when I started reading libertarian theoretical works it seemed to me that anarchism is the only really consistent sort of libertarianism, it just doesn't happen to work. But then, as it turns out, neither does minarchism, for much the same sorts of reason: the dogma doesn't fit the facts on the ground, or the way human beings actually behave.

(And yes, I do recognize that anarchists can also have other political suasions, but it remains true that claiming that anarchists are necessarily different from libertarians is a category error.)

[shadis.livejournal.com]

While natural selection is not a market in itself, the forces of natural selection and the forces of a true free market overlap quite a bit. Especially in the area of resource scarcity, which is what I was describing. When a resource is scarce, it creates more demand, which creates competition. Which is what happens when the sheep population declines to the degree that wolves fight each other over kills.

And while anarchy and libertarianism are somewhat related, they're related in the same way that vegans and vegetarians are related. They both have similar ideals and overlapping philosophies, but there is an important difference at their core that provides friction between them. In the case of libertarian vs. anarchist, the important difference is the libertarian acceptance (and even insistence on) a limited form of government held to the same "your liberty ends where mine begins" standard that individuals should adhere to.

Hope that clears up what I was saying.

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

Perfectly clear, just mistaken. You seem to be confusing "minarchist libertarian" with "libertarian". Not all libertarians are in fact minarchists. Some of them are anarchists. I gather that you haven't read enough theory to be aware that this is the case. But really, as libertango observed to me in another forum, an anarchist is just a libertarian who has thought through his principles.

Likewise, it is not the case that scarcity increases demand. The two are independent variables. Sometimes scarcity increases but demand remains constant, causing cost to rise. Sometimes scarcity increases, but due to other market changes, demand decreases. Consider for instance the scarcity arc of out-dated technologies.

[shadis.livejournal.com]

Ok, let me rephrase more precisely then. Instead of "when a recource is scarce, it creates more demand, which creates competition" I should've more preciesly stated that "when the scarcity of a resource outpaces demand for that resource, it creates competition for that resource".

And maybe I haven't read alot of "theory" on libertarianism, but I know enough that the term libertarian was created preciesly to mean something different than arachy. And that the original "libertarian" grew out of the anarchist movement, when ararchy was made illegal. So that the term "libertarian" specifically relates to something other than anarchy. So there's no contradiction in my calling them different.

"an anarchist is just a libertarian who has thought through his principles"

In my case, quite the opposite is true. I had for a brief time considered myself an anarchist until I realized that anarchy is an impossible state in nature. Because once you have 2 or 3 people getting together and making even informal agreements to not overstep certain bounds, you have the seed of government. If I am free to walk into your house and take your favorite CD just because I want it, then you're free to come into my house and take two of mine. But once we agree that my stuff is mine and yours is yours, and not to take each others belongings without permission, we have created a contract between us. And if we go so far as to ask a 3rd party to make sure that the two of us maintain our bargain, we've created a government of the most basic design. A sort of nucleus of government, if you will.

So yes, I've thought through my principles quite well and I believe that I should be free to do as I wish, so long as I don't infringe upon your freedom to do as you wish. And that there needs to be someone upholden to the same standards of conduct to whom we can go when we have a grievance between us, who can arbitrate over who's rights were violated and what is a fair compensation. The key point being that government is necessary, but needs to be limited in powers to that of any other individual or entity.

[shadis.livejournal.com]

hehe. I have to laugh at my own inability to spell anarchy. My fingers have apparently had too much to drink today. I wish I could say the same for the rest of me. :D

Scarcity

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

"when the scarcity of a resource outpaces demand for that resource, it creates competition for that resource"

I think the problem here is that "scarcity" is a function of both supply and demand. Quick examples: If I have one of something (say, a painting I've done) it may be incredibly rare, but not very scarce if there's no demand for it. If I have 30 million iPods, but 40 million people want them, they're "scarce" even though they're numerous.

"...the term libertarian was created preciesly to mean something different than arachy. And that the original "libertarian" grew out of the anarchist movement, when ararchy was made illegal."

Not exactly. First, anarchism has never been explicitly illegal in the United States. Rather, the restrictions you're talking about took place in France. Secondly, "libertarianism" didn't mean something different at the time -- rather, it was a code word, because "anarchism" had been made illegal as a word. (To use a more modern metaphor, the users of the word routed around the damage by inventing a new word.) See this article in The Encyclopedia of Political Information for more.

Interestingly, they go on to say that "libertarians" in the US are "classical liberals", but if you go to their article on "classical liberals", you get this quote:

"Two groups, Neo-Liberal and Libertarians, claim the ideological inheritance of Classical Liberalism. However, both these political philosophies display unrestrained support for the free market, a tenet which conflicts with Classical Liberal ideas: even Adam Smith recognised the limitations of the free market as a sole means of social organization."

Oh, and if you want to read something that may spin your head around both the concepts of price and value, and supply and demand, check out this article in Slate by Steven E. Landsburg about the economics of marriage and divorce.

Re: Scarcity

[shadis.livejournal.com]

I'm aware that scarcity is a function of supply and demand. When scarcity increases, the demand relative to the supply has increased or the supply relative to the demand has decreased. Either way, my point was that more competition is generally generated when demand is increasing, and supply is either falling or remaining steady. In other words, as scarcity is increasing at a faster rate than demand is increasing. If demand is decreasing, even if supply is decreasing at a greater rate, the effect on competition is minimal. My initial point, though, that the forces that exist in a free market also exist in nature, is still valid despite semantical issues in my specific example.

"First, anarchism has never been explicitly illegal in the United States. Rather, the restrictions you're talking about took place in France."

Yes, I'm aware of that. I figured you were well versed in the history of the term and skipped alot of stuff, including the difference between the original French term "libertaire" and the English counterpart "libertarian". Again, my original point is still that liberty has natural delineations that require some form of 3rd party arbitration to uphold. And that the 3rd party needs to be held to the same standards, and shouldn't be able to infringe on my liberty any more than I can infringe upon yours. And I still stand by that, labels notwithstanding.

Re: Scarcity

[shadis.livejournal.com]

Oh, and as for that Slate article, I'll just quote Akirlu from up a few potsts. "natural selection is not a market". The reasons for marriage and divorce have alot more to do with human stupidity emotional response than they do with economics.