Subject:
|
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:04:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1204 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Preface: Plowed ground alert. I probably shouldn't have posted a flurry of
> responses, just summarised and let it go. This has been discussed before at
> length. That said, onward.
I think you simply couldn't resist an opportunity to invoke Dave!
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
>
> > How so? Do you mean we're not free to form a new nation, or that we're
> > not free to move from one to the next?
> > In some cases, the latter is certainly true, but that's just the market in
> > action; different types of product are available, with different
> > requirements and benefits. I want to buy a car in a fictitious free market,
> > but I only want to spend $1000. Does the fact that I can't buy a
> > top-of-the-line luxury car for that amount mean that the market is not free?
>
> Not in and of itself. But if you had a grand scheme for a $1000 car that you
> wanted to try out but the other car companies used armed force to stop you,
> that would mean it wasn't.
>
> High barriers to entry (that are put in place by force or collusion, not
> just because, for example, it costs money to build car plants) mean markets
> aren't free. What are the barriers to entry to forming a new society, here
> and now?
I may be misunderstanding the question, but let me try with a hypothetical
stab at it.
Suppose you and a group of like-minded individuals locate and claim a
previously un-owned but inhabitable island in international waters. You
(collectively) form a new society there, adhering to the free market in all
things. What would be the problem? If you were invaded, then the privately
owned army would repel the invaders. If you had extra resources, you could
sell or donate them as you saw fit. If your island were slammed by a
tsunami, you would petition other nations for aid.
I'm not sure I accept the prohibitions of force or collusion; is there
some collusive force actively preventing the formation of new nations? Or,
by "force," do you mean the force exerted by nations to prevent portions of
their property from being annexed by other entities? And I'd say collusion
is absolutely an element of the free market. When convenient and
profitable, two agencies are almost certain to combine their efforts to work
against an exploitable third party, especially after the initial two
agencies have secured their corner of the market.
For clarification, by "free market" you mean a market operating without
the intervention of an overarching body, don't you? What's to prevent a
number of companies from combining their efforts to squeeze the rest of the
market? To me, this seems not just possible but inevitable!
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
164 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
