Your article encapsulates my own views Gilbert.

"If either competition or co-operation is allowed to dominate, it will do so not only at the expense of the wealth generating capabilities of the other."

I think that is the key - the balancing of the two competing, principles in a society still bogged down in collectivist/free-market or Left/Right perspective rather than embracing the aspects that would work better for human beings at a community level. At the moment we are too focussed on the free market perspective while losing opportunities for shared assets. And we have seen the destructive pressures towards privatisation too many times.

There are people who believe that none of the productive aspects of society (even essential service based) should not be owned by the people and this is the dilemma. On one hand it will be a hard sell but there are positive signs that people are starting to think in this direction unfortunately it has not reached those who have the power to influence with any strength of purpose. My hope is that if we can encourage more independents and smaller parties into the political arena we might have a better chance at having some of those non-mainstream ideas surfacing.

The irony is that it is only with the swings and roundabouts of history that ideas become mainstream or not, and it is easy to be manipulated into thinking that the non-mainstream is the enemy.

Well said Gilbert. I've been struck by the parallels between the Tao and modern economies as complex systems. In nature cooperation is as pervasive as competition, which is what led the Taoists to their insights I guess.

You can see my thoughts on this (including a book) at
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/nature-of-the-beast/
and related posts, though the cooperation-competition part is not very explicit there.

You might also be interested in this note that Adam Smith may not even have been talking about markets:
http://rwer.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/the-metaphor-of-the-invisible-hand/

Production based on private property involves far far more co-operation than
a) competition, and
b) is involved in government.

As between the producers, the relation is one of competition, but one in which force and fraud are illegal. As between the far greater number of consumers and producers, the transaction can only take place if both parties regard it as beneficial: a win/win.

By contrast government, whether democratic or not, depends on a claim of a legal monopoly of the use of violence or threats of violence. In law, tax is explicitly *not* a payment for goods or services. It is a compulsory exaction.

We don’t pay taxes in exchange for infrastructure etc. We pay taxes in exchange for not being locked up. If it were true that you pay taxes willingly for the goods they pay for, then taxes could be abolished, couldn’t they, since you’d be willing to pay for the services without compulsion?

All of government’s revenue comes from this zero-sum process: the stronger takes from the weaker, and value is destroyed. It is intrinsically far more competitive and destructive of shared value than *any* market transaction.

Misleading and deceptive practices are illegal in trade or commerce, but not in government or politics where they are notorious, routine. That is why so much election campaigning consists of wondering, and scepticism, whether politicians will keep their promises - because they are not legally bound to!

So it is complete nonsense to identify production based on private property and individual liberty with value-destroying “competition”, and to identify government with sharing and net-beneficial “co-operation”.

There is a need to distinguish voluntary socialism – such as friends, families, clubs, monasteries and communes - from involuntary socialism, such as all government. We don’t call rape or robbery “sharing” or “co-operation”. It is moral nonsense to do the same with government.

If GH wants to promote localism by running a business at a profit or loss – go right ahead. But any policy measure is not a third way – it’s just more of the coercive sector exploiting the productive sector.

Adam Smith's 'invisible hand', as exemplified by the $20 cup, depends to a very large extent on reasonably equal power between the negotiating parties. This can be achieved by the potential buyers forming an association ( a UNION, like the AMA eg). The retail price of the cup can then be arrived at by genuine negotiation between 2 equal powers. In addition it is really true that 'No man is an island', so the cup seller needs to relate the financial position of his buyers in some way to the cup price – assuming that the people have to buy the cup. If you were interested in the effect of negotiations between entities with vastly differing power you might find Joe Bageant's book "Rainbow Pie", recently published, illuminating.

"Adam Smith's 'invisible hand', as exemplified by the $20 cup, depends to a very large extent on reasonably equal power between the negotiating parties."

No it doesn't. The benefit to both parties is precisely because of their inequality.

Thanks Gilbert for a succinct and stimulating article. I agree that there is much to be gained by trying to organise ourselves in such a way that we can capture the benefits of both competition and cooperation.

On the other hand I find myself really intrigued by the vehemence of those who liken any government involvement in the life of the community to violent coercion. For sure governments mess things up, and do many things with less elegance and economic efficiency that what private enterprise can deliver. But there are also examples of government intervention in the economy that I think work OK. The public health care system in Australia is far from perfect - but it works better than the US system in that it makes a basic level of health care available to a greater proportion of the population, including those who for a range of reasons wouldn't be able to afford the full cost of health care in a fully privatised model.

However I think there is also a false binary being set up here. I don't think the choice is only between a corporate-run economy on the one hand and a state-run economy on the other. There are all sorts of creative designs that do blend aspects of cooperative and competitive motivations and behaviours, such as cooperatively-owned enterprises, outsourcing by government to non-government providers, community participation in the design and delivery of state-run services etc.

To be honest, though, sometimes I think a bit of coercion in our own interest isn't always a bad thing. Traffic lights are a bit of a hassle, but I'd rather that than a free-for-all.

It has been truly said: ignore Adam’s invisible hand(s) and his invisible foot will kick you in the back side when you least expect it.

Sienna said
"government depends on a claim of a legal monopoly of the use of violence or threats of violence."

This is true but it is also true of private property rights. Private property is protected by the same legal monopoly on violence and threats of violence.

Without the current system of government protecting landowners, landlords, business owners, inventors etc with their trespass, patent, copyright and other property laws then no one would respect "property" and it would be a free for all.

What is to stop me squatting in any unused building or starting my own farm on a disused bit of land but for the(violent)sanction the owner could call down on me via the law and the government.

It is hypocrisy to be critisising the states "legal monopoly of the use of violence or threats of violence" while receiving and relying on the states(violent)protection for your property rights. You cant have it both ways.

"The benefit to both parties is precisely because of their inequality."

The benefit to the cup inventor is only possible because the "evil grasping state" makes it illegal for the customers to make their own cup by the(once again violent)enforcement of copyright and patent laws. Without this protection the cup maker would have made virtually nothing as people saw a good idea and with nothing to stop them copied it themselves.

Not to mention that according to your "win/win" standards that would be even better as now the people would have all the benefits of cups AND they still have their money and the cup maker will have to go on producing instead of being a parasite and living off the wealth he made exploiting his fellows just because he was the first to discover the concept of a cup.

Without a state "private property" is impossible.

Monopoly means there is only one firm supplying that good or service in the market. Thus a property-owner does not have a legal monopoly of the use of violence or threats.

The idea that society is something extruded out the back end of governmental processes is completely mistaken. Government gets all its revenue by confiscating property from its private owners. But just because government claims a monopoly of certain services does not mean that only government could supply them, nor that a government monopoly is better for the consumers.

"Property does not exist because there are laws, but laws exist because there is property."
~ Frédéric Bastiat

The two contrasting economic examples in this article could not make things clearer.

In the first by exploitation and exclusion one man becomes wealthy at everyone elses expense.

To equate this as some sort of "benefit" of competition is stretching the notion of "benefit" somewhat. Im sure the cup maker "benefited" but how did the customers "benefit" by buying such an overpriced product. They would have "benefited" more if the cup maker didnt/wasnt able to exploit them and charged them $3 from the start. Society can hardly be said to "benefit" when large shares of wealth become locked up in the hands of one/few and the rest of us are excluded from and denied valuable progress.

In the real world(today)it would have been much worse as the cup maker "rented" his cups and patent laws etc prevented the nearby village from competing and driving down the price.
Or even worse he would have "hired" his fellows and made them walk to the river 100 times a day to use the cups to fill up his water tanks and then sell the water back to them for a large chunk of what he payed them in "wages". Backed by a state that said he owned all the cups and gave him rights over the river he could bleed his fellows dry and live the life of a king. Just like they do all around us everyday. How this can be "beneficial" to society or efficient and productive escapes me.

It is inherent in competition that there are always losers. To run a world that depends on a proportion of its citizens being losers is not my idea of a civilised world.

In the second example no one is exploited, resources are conserved and used efficiently, there is dignity in the real voluntary nature of the transaction(unlike the coercion,desperation and inequality of power that exemplifies many of todays contracts, particularly employment) and the participants are above all free from anyone standing over them and taking from them the fruits of their labours.

Cooperation always trumps competition for fairness, value, efficiency and benefits.

"Property does not exist because there are laws, but laws exist because there is property."
Without government(and their monopoly of force)laws could not exist.
Without laws there would be no property.
Therefore without government there could be no property.

"To make a thief, make an owner, to create crime, create laws"
U.K.LeGuinn.

I don't think there is or ever was a patent for a cup was there?

In any event you haven't established that there was any exploitation or over-pricing. If one person makes cups while another makes bread, and they swap because each, working in isolation, could not end up as well off, how is that exploitative?

And over-priced relative to what price? How did you arrive at the difference between the market price and the supposed fair price?

*If* the sharing transactions you are talking about are voluntary, there is no issue. But it is simple dishonesty to say that this describes taxation or anything based on it.

In fact there is nothing stopping producers from forming co-operatives. But they have never been able to withstand competition from businesses, because the co-operatives go broke. Why? Because they are *worse* for the consumers as judged by the consumers, in other words, the mass of the people including the workers.

Sienna

I agree, the most fundamental point the article misses is that competition and collaboration are not mutually exclusive. Every business is a voluntary association of individuals co-operating to mutual benefit. Every business relies on other businesses to operate. The moral basis of capitalism is not atomistic self-interest, but that it provides a framework for mutually beneficial interactions. Capitalism’s moral objection to communism is not co-operation, but coercion.

Communism does not presuppose free co-operation, it presupposes coercive central planning, a model that benefits from neither “invisible hand”.

mikk
"Without government(and their monopoly of force) laws could not exist."

Why not? Aren't you assuming that the production of law could not be anything other than a monopoly and a government monopoly at that?

http://mises.org/store/Enterprise-of-Law-The-Justice-without-the-State-P297.aspx

http://blog.mises.org/9178/does-law-require-legislation/

If property is theft, who is the owner thieving the property from? How could that person be in any better position?

I hope, for your sake and that of your about-to-expand family, Mr Holmes, that you never have to run a business more complex than a lemonade stand.

The impact of the intrusion of reality into your - let's be honest - fantasy world, would be too horrible to contemplate.

First of all, it has to be said that your summary of Adam Smith's contribution to economic theory is both intellectually barren, and plain wrong.

"Smith's invisible hand... is the single most important concept that has driven the laissez-faire agenda over the last few centuries, and which continues to drive laissez-faire economic's most recent manifestation, neo-liberalism."

Glib. Do you perhaps have some evidence of this? Or do you expect everyone to just nod, and say "ah yes, of course".

Have you actually read "The Theory of Moral Sentiment", which first referred to the invisible hand?

Do you happen to recall the first sentence of that book? It goes like this:

"How selfish soever a man be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, that interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it."

I'd be interested to hear how you manage to synthesize this clear, unequivocal opening salvo, with your assessment of his work as a primer for neo-liberalism.

I do suggest you read it, by the way. It does help to occasionally know a little of what you write about.

People - businesses, services - will cooperate when, and only when, it creates some form of mutual benefit.

As per your example of the wheelbarrow.

"...two backyard gardeners, instead of each owning a wheelbarrow independently, decide to share the use of a single wheelbarrow"

Ah yes, that wheelbarrow. Their decision to share the cost was made on the basis of... what, I wonder...

Golly-gosh - isn't that like, you know, that thing he was talking about, errr, what was it - oh yes, self-interest?

Self-interest=cooperation. QED.

[Burst of ballooon. Collapse of stout party.]

It might make a nice colouring-in book, though.

Jefferson
Thanks for the links.
I cannot for the life of me understand "private law". Who decides if you can be a judge or can anyone have a go? I presume in a market system good judges could command a higher price and so leave law and "good" judges only available to the wealthy. How does that serve the cause of justice? Do only the wealthy deserve the best judges and justice? That would just lead to the rich being able to commit crimes with impunity against poor people with the knowledge their victims cant afford to buy prosecution.
Private police forces fill me with dread as they would quickly begin to fight amongst themselves and the rest of us would be caught in the crossfire. They would condemn each other as gangsters and organised crime and they wouldnt be far off. It would be up to their own paid judges to adjudicate and we all know how that would work. It would be endless privitised war with nothing to stop them slaughtering us all and pleading(if anyone bothered to question it)that we were just sadly, collateral damage.

The example in your second link of privitised lighthouses leaves out one very important fact. The owners of the now privitised ocean where their lighthouse shines would also be able to exclude those they didnt like/want to compete/want to improve the navigation.
The essence of private property is exclusion and to say that building a lighthouse gives you the right to exclude any and all for any or no reason strikes me as the antithesis of freedom, efficiency, and benefit to as many as possible. The same goes for private roads, rivers, airwaves etc etc.

Without the coercive force of the state backing up the private theft of common resources no one would abide by arbitrary and unwanted intrusions on their freedom by those that "own" property. People would take and use what they need and would not be able to monopolise and exclude people to unfairly benefit themselves.

What I find amusing is the cheerful way that GH with an anecdote of farmers co operating with a wheel barrow equates the economics of competition with that of co operation.

A basic course on public economics will enlighten you on where the balance is required between government and private enterprise. The intervention of government is warranted where profit cannot necessarily be extracted by private companies.

For example education is a prime example. While there is a market for superior private education, there is no incentive to companies to provide free education to those who cannot afford it. However, the state has a longer term financial interest in decent education for all in that an educated workforce is more productive and pays more tax.

However, the "invisible right hand of competition" using economics of scale will forever out perform the small scale "local" producer, unless the local producer discounts the value of his time, and farms for pleasure rather than profit.

The sale of public production assets has almost without fail resulted in the increase in productivity and the reduction in the cost of production.

What about self-ownership? Is that "theft" of a "common resource"? Does the community own you? Do you own other people?

If a woman won’t agree to have sex with a man unless he spends scarce resources of time on her, does that mean she’s exploiting him because she’s excluding him? Her body should be owned by everyone in common?

What about the fruits of your labours? Does everyone else have more of a title to them than you do? How did they get it?

What about the things you get through voluntary exchanges of the fruits of your labour? Is that theft of common resources? How did the community get more of a title to them than you?

I think you’ve got things back-the-front.

So according to you, private property means exclusion which means exploitation. There should be no private property? But there should be no coercion either? So how would you like to see production working in the good society?

Good effort Gilbert;
But it is not really invisible hands at all, it is the Ideological spectrum perversion; Right wing is Socialism of the Right (Marx) towards the latter part and Socialism of the Left (Lenin).Then the mashing together of Ideologies to get the treasury; After the World Tyrants plan was Socialism ;or Fascism, on and on and on.

In General terms; Governments and their Minions are the manifestations of Socialism of the Right; and yes, it is not quite the description that is pounded into the peasants. Ought not be suprised.

The only economy that will survive is a free Market economy- Government and Minion should be abandoned yesterday.

Truth about the Ideological spectrum of Left and Right ; Murray Rothbard; http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/245/

Von Mises Institute

Thanks all for your comments, compliments and criticisms.

Pelican,

"a society still bogged down in collectivist/free-market or Left/Right perspective rather than embracing the aspects that would work better for human beings at a community level."

Being the optimist I like to think that the negative polarization between these extremes is currently melting into a better tomorrow, although looking at some of the other comments on the page, I guess that's debatable.

Thanks also Geoff Davies, I had a little look at your website and it looks really interesting. Good work!

..and MultiMick, nice comment. "I think there is also a false binary being set up here. I don't think the choice is only between a corporate-run economy on the one hand and a state-run economy on the other."

Couldn't agree more!

Sienna and Mick, My opinion is that the private and the communal have developed together.

Rhian, "..the most fundamental point the article misses is that competition and collaboration are not mutually exclusive."

from the article, "The invisible left and the invisible right hands exist together, with co-operation and competition therefore providing a dual driver behind the processes of economics." I believe that competition and collaboration work well together when they are in balance. When one dominates however, as with competition in capitalism and collaboration in communism, (in generalized terms), negativity results.

Pericles, I haven't yet had a look at the 'Theory of Moral Sentiments' though I have read a large part of 'The Wealth of Nations' and a number of commentaries on Smith's work.

You are of course referring to the problem called 'the Adam Smith problem', whereby Smith describes in one book his belief that human nature is driven by the desire to commune with our fellows and by moral virtue, and in his other book he describes competition between self-interested parties as the engine of a healthy economy. It's called the Adam Smith problem because generally speaking, people have failed to figure out his reasoning.

My personal belief is that people are paradoxically motivate by both self interest and benevolence, and that interactions between us occur in a framework that has both competitive and cooperative aspects. It is quite possible that we might engage in cooperation out of self interest, but it is also equally possible that we might engage in competition out of a concern for the whole (we might tell our friend to calm down if they step out of line for example).

Sienna
"Exploitation..... is a persistent social relationship in which certain persons are being mistreated or unfairly used for the benefit of others."
I think that sums up the monopolistic cup maker to a tee.

"If one person makes cups while another makes bread, and they swap"
But that is not what we are talking about is it. That is barter and far removed from the example of the cup maker given in the article.

"How did you arrive at the difference between the market price and the supposed fair price?"
I didnt. the original author did.
"Let's say that it costs me $1 for every cup that I sell, but that I sell them for $20 each"
"someone from the next village might see what I am doing and set up another cup selling business. This might mean that in order to gain customers, I have to drop the price of my cups to a measly $3."

If the cup maker was really interested in benefiting society he would have sold the cups for $1 or better still showed his fellows how to make them themselves. This provides by far the most overall benefit and must be seen as the most efficient way to act. The cup maker selling them for $20 is greedy and selfish and harmful to his fellows bank balances and thus to themselves. If economics is really the study of efficient allocation of resources then the above cooperative example I have given stands head and shoulders above the exploitative, selfish, greedy example in the original article.

Jefferson
"What about self-ownership? Is that "theft" of a "common resource"? Does the community own you? Do you own other people?"

Dont be ridiculous. We are talking about "property" and (I hope) we dont see people as property do we?

"What about the fruits of your labours? Does everyone else have more of a title to them than you do? How did they get it?"

Not everyone just bosses and capitalists and they take ALL of the "fruits of your labours" and then give you back what ever pittance they can get away with and keep the rest for themselves. They got it because we let them.

"So according to you, private property means exclusion which means exploitation. There should be no private property? But there should be no coercion either? So how would you like to see production working in the good society?"

There should be a distinction between property used by an individual to work for themselves/support themselves and their family and property that is used to exploit and swindle people who have no other choice but to be wage slaves. The difference between "possesion" and "property" should also be noted. "The watch on your arm belongs to you, the watch factory belongs to the people" states it nicely.

Production in a free and democratic society would be mutualism and solidarity and geared to helping and improving society as a whole not individual mega consumption and luxury goods before basic needs are met for all.

"If a woman won’t agree to have sex with a man unless he spends scarce resources of time on her, does that mean she’s exploiting him because she’s excluding him? Her body should be owned by everyone in common?"

As mikk said we are talking about shared assets - people despite modern tendencies to view humans merely as resources, are not property assets.

There is also some huge assumptions in that statement 1. That women will only have sex with a man if he spends money on her 2. That women will have sex with a man EVEN if he spends money on her 3. That men and women are not capable of making sexual arrangements with maturity.

Gilbert I tend to be equally as optimistic about the fusion of ideas that work equally well with innovation, production and community sharing of assets that are mutually beneficial.

History reveals extreme movements towards one end or the other of the ideological spectrum always end badly. Given the status quo, a shift away from purist free market ideology is the natural progression. But many will disagree. The effects of unfettered free market ideology have not been fully felt and unfortunatly like the GFC, human beings don't often sit up and take notice until disaster happens.

Maybe that is the only way societies will evolve morphing into something that is more for the betterment of the majority rather than smaller powerful groups.

Mikk,

"If the cup maker was really interested in benefiting society he would have sold the cups for $1 or better still showed his fellows how to make them themselves."

What makes you think that the cup seller was interested in benefiting society?

"Production in a free and democratic society would be mutualism and solidarity and geared to helping and improving society as a whole not individual mega consumption and luxury goods before basic needs are met for all."

It seems to me that you are assuming either that we are benevolent by nature or that it will be best if we are coerced into behaving in a way that we do not necessarily want to. Unfortunately, embodied in Marx's interpretation of history, 'dialectical materialism', which tells us that the way that we think is determined by the shape of our society, these two assumptions have led to the disastrous idea that has plagued efforts toward communism: 'as soon as we kill all the arse-holes then we can all move into mutually supportive communities together'.

I agree that the cup seller was a greedy person and would probably have ended up either paying off the cops or being run out of town, but this does not prove that all private interest is necessarily bad for the society.

Pelican, hopefully we can avoid disaster.

The dialectic (not Marx stupid version) looks at progression within nature swinging between archetypal polar extremes, and also sometimes finding balance. With the struggle between capitalism and communism cooling off, and with the emergence of feminism, environmentalism, modern physics, the influence of Eastern philosophy on the West, the increase of democracy within governance over recent centuries, etc, I think that we have good reason to hope that we are moving into a period of balance.

<<What makes you think that the cup seller was interested in benefiting society?>>

Isnt that the whole point of business/commerce?
Or is it really(as I think it is)just a sham based on greed and the powerful exploiting the weak?

If this cup seller example is a valid expression of "business" or "economics" then it should be able to show us common features that are directly relevant to all business. Isnt that why we are even talking about it?

So what is it? Business and commerce for the benefit of society and humankind in general?
Or business for the greedy and unscrupulous giving them disproportionate control of resources and dominating and most likely exploiting other people.

<<you are assuming either that we are benevolent by nature>>

I think people are capable of all sorts of good AND evil. We are not born sinners and we are not born benevolent. We learn and we are shaped by our society. The only thing we are "by nature" is social. We NEED other people. We are above all social creatures.

Modern, capitalist society is systematically removing all of those institutions that support our need for other people and a sense of belonging. The results are becoming plain for all to see.
If your society treats you as a commodity who only works, consumes and breeds then is it any wonder we get stressed and prone to disease mental and physical. Is it any wonder we are alienated and lonely and antisocial behavior and crime is on the rise?

Capitalism has not cooled off it is ramping up every day. The wars, conflict, inequality, overwork, unemployment, economic crises, environmental crises, exhaustion and shortage of resources, massive waste and a concentration on consumer and luxury goods while people starve and freeze to death.

I dont want balance I want freedom. Freedom from governments. Freedom from bosses. Freedom from domination and hierarchy. Freedom from "the market". Freedom from god/s. Freedom from capitalists and their fouling of our nest. Freedom from the wealthy parasites that are sucking us dry.

You seem not to understand the concept Mikk; and things that are in relative perspective , are indeed Very simple concepts to understand, but have been perverted in words and definition of those words “Machiavellian” as to cloak and hide the actual intentions:

Fatalism is not a Natural Humane trait , in fact it is the opposite to every natural law known to man; and is why wars and Feudalism,Neo Barrens and self appointed Gods of their own Naivety expounded it , Naivety , Ignorance and belligerence remains rife today , splintered amongst what is known as Political oligarchy and their Minions .

The Simple law is, Collectivism is Totalitarianism, That is a fact, - and then applies this theory,
It is Not Yours to GIVE
It is not you’re to TAKE
But they do.

Let’s look at this first from the socialist/interventionist point of view, then from the libertarian POV.

The question is whether particular resources should be owned or controlled privately or publicly; where publicly means governmentally, and governmentally means based on law - threats of prison.

It is no use wishing that there were some other third way. While ever tax remains compulsory, all governmental ways boil down to force and threats, and hence are just more of the second way, not some imaginary third way. The fact that people pay it with as little resistance as they do, is not because they consent, but because they know that resistance is futile.

Mikk, can you see how it is not competent, if you are trying to prove that something is exploitative, to argue that it is “exploitative”? Though you constantly repeat this mantra, you have not established that business is, or that labour is not, exploitative in the first place. This primary-school level circularity underlies your entire argument.

When I ask how mikk knows the difference between the market price and the fair price, he answers, in effect, the difference between the market price and the cost to the producer.

According to this logic, no-one has a moral right to any more than their costs of doing something, because to take more would be “exploitative”. Anyone charging more than the costs of his production is exploiting his fellow-man and has no right to any surplus value.

But this would apply as much to a worker as to an entrepreneur: mikk hasn’t shown the distinction except by circular argument. It would also apply not only to entrepreneurs and workers, but even in the absence of any money transaction. Since profit - a benefit in excess of costs - is an immoral quantity, no-one would be entitled to a non-monetary benefit in excess of his non-monetary costs either.

The absurdity of this view should be obvious.

It would mean that no-one would be morally entitled to take any action, because the purpose of any human action is to produce an outcome that is better from the standpoint of the person taking the action.

But if the surplus value of our labour over and above our costs is “exploitative”, then obviously no-one has a right to the fruits of his labour.

When the problem of self-ownership is pointed out, mikk replies that he’s talking about property, not people. But according to his own theory, property assets are nothing but the embodiment of people’s labour. So mikk *is*, in his own terms, advocating treating people as property. Else how can we claim someone else’s involuntary labour, but deny that we are treating him as a chattel?

Pelican tries to get out of the problem by saying we are not talking about women providing sexual services, we are talking about “shared assets”. But if taxpayers’ involuntary services can be regarded as a “shared asset”, how do you distinguish a woman’s involuntary sexual services? If slavery was legal, would that make it okay? If a majority demanded she “share”, would that make it okay? Well morally how is taxation any different? The *type* of service is irrelevant.

Thus the socialist/interventionist POV flounders in its own self-contradictions and absurdities.

And this is on the heels of recent posts in which they have been completely unable to show how any alternative they stand for would be able to produce a net benefit compared to the status quo.

Now let’s look at it from the libertarian point of view.

The division of labour *is* the social principle. It is what causes people to form societies. At first the division of labour was confined to the smallest social units of family and village.

But once people started to recognize that labour in co-operation is more productive than labour in isolation, they increasingly gave up the old warrior ethos that plunder and enslavement are the way to wealth, realising that peaceful trade is more civil and productive as well as more ethical.

Modern liberalism, by increasing the division of labour to its highest level ever, has been responsible for the greatest levels of wealth, health, and freedom in the history of the world; while socialism, so-called, has opposed it at every step, retarding the division of labour, consuming capital, promoting big government and their wars, suppressing choice and freedom, fundamentally believing that coercion, monopoly, and involuntary servitude are the way to a better civil society.

Liberty and property are two sides of the same coin. You can’t have one without the other.

This is because property arises out of:
1. Self-ownership
2. The fruits of one’s labour from acquiring previously unowned resources, or from property that one has acquired without violating someone else’s right to self-ownership, and
3. Peaceful exchange of one’s property.

Ownership means the right to exclusive possession and control.

We must own ourselves, because no-one can even deny it without exercising exclusive possession and control of his own body to engage in the action of denying it. Thus even one who denies it engages in a self-contradiction of performance.

Thus self-ownership is axiomatic, since everyone must implicitly affirm it, whether they affirm or deny it. “Actions speak louder than words.”

By appropriating unowned nature to oneself, one rightly establishes ownership. By breathing in air, I establish a moral right to it. By eating an apple rightfully acquired, I incorporate it into my body and become its exclusive owner.

By actions not aggressing against others’ self-ownership, ie voluntary interactions, one can acquire morally valid property rights. But if not, how could the mythical mystical monopolistic aggressive decision-maker “the community” be in any better position?

All morality and property rights follow from the axiom of self-ownership, and the non-aggression principle.

In denying self-ownership, socialists are implicitly a) contradicting themselves and b) claiming a right to aggression against others, and then have the gall to pretend to a higher moral standard!

Thus capitalism is the only moral as well as the only practicable alternative to the slave philosophies of socialism and interventionism however called.

That is a furphy Sienna. We all know when we start employment that we pay tax to a common 'community fund' so that services like health, education etc are available to all and not only to those who own assets (making the assumption that one's labour is not normally seen as an asset by the true libertarians).

A woman's sexual services are not up for grabs by all and sundry and there is no expectation that we can just go around raping women at will. That is why civilised societies made laws and there is an evolved understanding about personal liberty.

If slavery were legal it would still be abhorrent - we have thankfully evolved out of that sort of society. It was a human condition that was seen for what it was, a denial of liberty and personal freedom.

Shared assets are about ensuring community services to the whole community than just for a few property owners. Taxes are not like those in the middle ages where the peasants were taxed by the wealthy landowners who lived off the sweat of the poor. Now the taxes go to provide services for everyone. It is not a perfect system in that we don't always agree on the carp that is sometimes spent using our hard earned dollars. And some of it is carp which is why only certain services should be paid for out of the public purse.

What you seem to be advocating is anarchy. I can't see that working any better than what we have now.

We already have in our social democratic system a type of Third Way t thinking, albeit the system is heavily geared to an unfettered free market at the moment.

There is a a big human survival aspect to shared assets which has proved more liberating than any solely self-interested model put forward by the anarchists and uber-libertarians.

For one person's liberty to come at a cost of another is a situation that we should avoid by well thought out checks and balances and this is afterall what we are talking about.

Anarchies by definition is described as; “When the State does not have Control”. Ok well yes the State is still in the hot seat, but by definition in relation to reality , It has not had control of anything for a long time; But the treasury. So yes it is Anarchism of a sort.

I suggest that we will house all Homeless people by compulsory acquiring Leftist Socialist and Right wing Socialists assets, I cannot see them volunteering to relinquish or share their Loot; so the state will decree that all Socialists will be held to account and along with their Ideology; their espoused Utopia will be divided amongst the Homeless and others; that be the other needy who were destroyed in the race for the Misery Industries The State had created ;
And just watch how many Dom-pereion peeing proletariat and Bollinger belching Bolsheviks jump the fence in Revolutionary style protest , That be the nature of any Ideological based Stupidity. The real exploiters.

Hate to break it to you but the state already acqires the revenue from socialists. The ATO does not discriminate on grounds of ideology and both socialists and facists are equally taxed unless I have missed some new reform out of the Henry Review.

Not sure about Right Wing socialists - are they even possible?

Pelican, you are only begging the question what should be decided by government, going round in circles like mikk.

What you seem to be suggesting is sexual anarchy - people should be free to do what they want so long as they are not using coercion against others?

And?

So?

What makes you think a big government department would do a better job of deciding?

Why shouldn't capitalist acts between consenting adults be legalised too?

And please don't lie about unfettered free markets. Give one example of a market that's not regulated by government. Unfettered big government, more like it, you liar.

Socialism was Originally Middle of the road Pelican, (Leftists) Historically Anti Monarch and anti Central State and Anti Imperialism, It was more about the rights of Individualism and Private property rights; maybe you are suppressed at this notion?
But a Historical fact none the less.
Marx stuffed up when he also lifted a French Academic paper written in the early 18 hundred, thus also included Businessmen in his hit list of hatred and on the Usurer and exploiter list causing massive contradictions and a Massive State control Autocracy; This is why there was not any investment of Capitol in Russia; so you can see why the whole system fell off the rails- So there was a radical shift to the Right. Lenin maintained their Lefties benchmark, Mussolini and the rest of the world maintained their position to the right.
Rightwing Socialism is Socialism with Central State control but with Private capital Investment, Collectivists also. Feudal Lords Imperialism , etc.
Do you realise why Germany was Awash with Capitol during WW2?
See if you can place this little statement;
Fascism is ; Private Prophets of Capitol are personal, and Private Losses of Capitol are Public, Ok; Sound familiar; State Monopoly Controlled capitol Mercantilism at Two levels; Central State and State Privileged, Not Capitalism and real business which is individual;
And did anyone mention State Monopoly Counterfeit?
And so Pelican that is what is governing the Western World now, and if it is not defeated, it will be a long haul back to civility once more.
So Technically, We are Industrial Revolutionary Leftists,(Libiterian) Juxtaposed to Libiralism , without the false Theory. Some nasty Ignoramuses call us Right wing- and that is a total fallacy.

All-
I am not advocating for a Marxist society you are the one going on about socialism I am talking about a mixture of ideas that best suit the needs of the communities and that requires IMO a combination of private and publicly owned assets.

Jardine K Jardine
When you start calling people a liar you only diminish your own viewpoint.

I am not advocating for unfettered governments either I am just not a fanatic of any variety including those in your camp that believe the private sector is the paragon of altruism and all will go well without any government involvement. If you have ever read any of my posts on OLO I have always maintained that governments are also imperfect which is why there should not be checks and balances to offset potential government corruption. Often government and corporate corruption are intertwined (think Iraq and those who profit from war).

However your anarchy version of utopia is highly flawed in my opinion but that does not make you a liar merely misinformed.

Pelican
Is that your idea of giving an example of a market that's not regulated by government?

Once again we see that the socialists just crumble into dishonesty once their fallacies are pointed out.

Sienna muddies the waters as is the way of those who ascribe to neocon economics.
She equates a workman using his own tool and making a chair, with a businessman who profits from getting others to use his tool and then keeping a share for himself. Hardly the same thing.
"The proprietor producing neither by his own labour nor by his implement, and receiving products in exchange for nothing, is either a parasite or a thief."
I dont object to people making a fair return on their own labours but what you are advocating is the excessive returns on other peoples labours by capitalists.

Sienna is not advocating Anarchy.
I am!
Anarchy means NO RULERS not no government.
From the greek An meaning no. Archy meaning ruler.
As in Monarchy. Mon=one. One ruler. The king.
Anarchy=No rulers of any kind.

Anarchists are foremost against heirachy. One person dominating over another. We believe it to be harmful, degrading and counterproductive for people to live their lives in submission to others. Whether it be the state or god or bosses or landlords or any other master. People are at their best when they are free and not forced to sell themselves into slavery on a daily basis to survive.

Property and the monopolisation of wealth, which is just another form of property, are what causes most of us to have to submit to the indignity of wage slavery and exploitation by those in positions of authority over us. No one works for a boss unless they have to. No one bows down to the state unless they have to.

Capitalism has set up an enormous edifice around itself that is based on numerous assumptions designed to keep the status quo and reinforce the current way of doing things. That their theories have no basis in reality nor do they reflect reality in any way bothers them not one wit but then reality never gets in the way of the greedy and their endless pursuit of their god money. Such is the way with all dogma.

<<Liberty and property are two sides of the same coin. You can’t have one without the other.>>

The majority of what we call "property" is all about depriving us of our liberty. Patent, copyright, trespass, licensing, crown lands, etc etc are all primarily about excluding people so they have no choice but to submit to those who would enslave them. To say that this is libertarian just beggars belief.
To say a few paragraphs later
<<Ownership means the right to EXCLUSIVE possession and CONTROL.>>
just proves your inconsistency and the falseness of your premise that private property equals liberty.
In your own words private property equals exclusion and control.

<<By appropriating unowned nature to oneself, one rightly establishes ownership.>>
In what way? Natural resources belong to everyone equally, including future generations. There can be no possible justification for someone claiming exclusive ownership of something created by nature.

<<By eating an apple rightfully acquired, I incorporate it into my body and become its exclusive owner.>>
Apples and BHP are hardly the same thing are they? Once again you conflate a humble apple used for personal sustenance with a giant multinational digging up minerals and treat them as if they are the same. I think most rational people can see that there is a big difference.

I dont deny self ownership. I deny private ownership of the means of life and ownership of that which is used to exploit others or profit from the labours of others.

Jardine K. Jardine said
"Why shouldn't capitalist acts between consenting adults be legalised too?"

In a free society who in their right mind would consent willingly to a capitalist "contract"? A contract that exposes a person to possible exploitation, a subsuming of their autonomy and judgment over anything they do at work and a humiliating and shameful abrogating of their free will and personality to their boss? Only the desperate, the starving and the optionless. Just like today.

Jardine K
Are your derisory comments an example of reasoned debate.

Clearly the free trade arrangements are unregulated. A banana farmer in Australia has no control over the betrayal of his own government to allow cheap imports in which he cannot compete on cheap labour. If you think the current free trade arrangements are a level playing field you are dreamin'. There is no regulation and it greatly threatens not only the future of agriculture in this country but biosecurity.

Have you not read Mikk's well argued comments. Complete freedom under your uber-capitalist utopia only leads to greater exploitation of those who do not own the property or capital assets.

Tell me why a completely unregulated market will work better for human societies than one with a balance of regulation and freedoms.

would not think Mikk’s argument is reasonable at all Pelican; Again, You are talking about State Monopoly Capitol led Oligarchic Collectivist, and not Private enterprise; Worldly different, and applying abject evasion of that fact is ridicules and absurd.

It is Altruistic subjectivity devoid of anything relevant to economics or to do with social network. And archetypical of non arguments based on Marxian concepts of The; " Dialectical Materialism". Pure and simply Phantasmic Wobbly goo , or is that Guist? The Genesis of Absurdities

(Listen to it here) http://mises.org/media/5147
Actually Listen to the whole E book ,some may learn something new for a change ,and perhaps more congenial to facts and truth than what they are use to hearing. That will become Obvious.

Mikk

You still have not established that property rights are “exploitative”.

You can’t agree with self-ownership at the same time as you assert that all natural resources are owned in common, and deny a right of exclusion. This is because self-ownership must mean the right to the exclusive appropriation of natural resources: the physical standing space, the air we breathe, food and drink. Otherwise it would be meaningless. If oneself did not have a right to make these natural resources one’s own and thereby exclude others from using them, then what could self-ownership possibly mean? Others would have an equal or greater right to one’s physical body and the physical space one occupies.

Similarly, if self-ownership extended only to a right to get a benefit equal to one’s costs of an action, but no further, then self-ownership would be meangingless. One could not eat or drink because to do so would confer a benefit greater than the costs of one’s actions.

If self-ownership confers a right to a benefit only if one uses it oneself, for example from making a chair, but not to a benefit from an exchange, then no-one should be allowed to obtain a benefit from exchanging the fruits of one’s labour with someone else. Human society would therefore be fundamentally exploitative, and social co-operation immoral. Others would be justified in using force to appropriate any surplus of one’s labour over and above the costs. This is impossible to reconcile with an opposition to dominance or slavery.

Thus one cannot consistently admit of self-ownership but deny:
1. right to appropriate unowned natural resources
2. right to exclude
3. property rights in the fruits of one’s labour, and
4. property rights in net benefit of voluntary exchanges, a.k.a. profit.

Intellectual property rights, Crown lands, and corporations are indeed state-granted privileges. But that is not an argument against free trade; it’s an argument against state-granted privileges.

Thankyou for your thoughts Sienna

I dont say property rights are exploitative.
I say that capitalist property rights allow(and in most cases leads to)exploitation.
Exploitation of those who dont have property by those that do.

Your argument on self ownership is complete nonsense. It has absolutely nothing to do with capitalist private property rights.

<<This is because self-ownership must mean the right to the exclusive appropriation of natural resources: the physical standing space, the air we breathe, food and drink.>>

Fair enough on the space we occupy and air we breath, Nothing can change our size and biology. But your talking out your posterior with the food and drink. Since when do we have a right to food and drink? I cant remember the last time food just appeared in front of me. I usually have to pay or go hungry.

How does the right to breathe or indeed even physically exist equate to theft of natural resources like oil or minerals by giant multinational corporations?
I dont see the connection.

Just because I own myself doesnt mean I can claim ownership to anything else.
Do I really "own" the air I breathe? I dont use all of it and I exhale some. Where does my air go? Who owns it once I breathe it out?
How can I say I "own" the space I stand in? What happens when I move? Do I still own the space I was just standing in?
Did BHP(who isnt a person btw)walk all over their mining leases before they could claim ownership?
So how exactly does your "self ownership" extend to giant companies who arent even people and so have no "self" to own.

Admit it, your philosophy of self ownership has absolutely no bearing on capitalism and the property rights enshrined in that system. It is a complete dead end and propaganda in an attempt to misdirect and confuse.

continued

continued

<<If self-ownership confers a right to a benefit only if one uses it oneself, for example from making a chair, but not to a benefit from an exchange>>

I never said you cant benefit from exchange. Once again you are slipping and sliding in your muddy pool of neocon propaganda and conflating the personal with the commercial.
A person making a chair and selling/exchanging it is hardly the same as him being employed by a capitalist to make a chair which then gets sold/exchanged(by the capitalist)and some(not all)of the proceeds returned to the chair maker. He does the same work but the capitalist takes a share of the product. A product he did not work to produce. Like a thief.

<<Others would be justified in using force to appropriate any surplus of one’s labour over and above the costs.>>
What, like capitalists do?

<<Thus one cannot consistently admit of self-ownership but deny:
1. right to appropriate unowned natural resources>>
Its SELF-ownership we are talking about not outside ourself ownership. Natural resources like oil and coal can hardly be considered "self" can they? You still have no cogent argument how self-ownership leads to ownership of over half the worlds wealth by a small minority. It frankly beggars belief.

<<2. right to exclude>>
So according to you exclusion is a good thing? Excluding people invading your "self" is one thing but extending that to the necessities of life and resources provided by nature is impossible to categorize as fair or just or efficient or beneficial for humankind.

<<3. property rights in the fruits of one’s labour,>>
You should have the SOLE right to the fruits of your labours. Not your boss by dint of capitalist property rights giving you no choice but to submit to a his will or starve.

<<4. property rights in net benefit of voluntary exchanges, a.k.a. profit.>>
Profiting from ones own labours is fine it is profiting off the labours of others that is wrong. Exactly what capitalists do.

All-
I am not talking about Marxism. Go back and read my posts before you assume I am seeking some sort of Marxist utopia. I am talking about a mixed economy one that recognises the merits of private and public ownership that work to the best advantage for people. At the moment we are too geared into private asset thinking without recognising the benefits of the other.

I understand the intent of your meaning Pelican; In short, the System that you mentioned did exist in Australia up until some 40 odd years ago, Private and Public – Before the Ideological Paradigm set in.

It is not actually indicative of the Marxian Strand per say, but the inclusionement of various other Strands of Ideological inculcations over the past 150 years that had manifested in Europe and America.
Using Australia, as the best example, Young as a Nation, was self sufficient, reasonably intelligent and its people were very resourceful in solving difficulties that arose ;. Strongly independent and very industrious; Up until 40 years ago, our Public sector was the employment of the BEST of the best in any public or private institution you may choose to name;
And regardless of the pay scale , it was an Honour that was bestowed on the Individual to be recognised to such an appointment.

Big difference in today’s language ; Public appointments are By Agitprop – Mates – Political Apparatchiks and ridicules Buaerocrats in their hundreds of thousands;

Already the public sector is so much of a dysfunctional Mental Assylum , it is difficult to tell who are the inpatient’s or who is running the place; No pun intended , that part is so true;

Secondly ; all the public assets have been surreptitiously on sold to The States Monopoly granted privilage Mercantile Interests ,other words, Beaurocrat Industries – Airports – Roads- even down to Red Light and speed cameras etc, etc,etc; To the absurd and Criminal Ideology to charges in the PUBLIC UTILLITIES sector , so it to be out of near everyone’s price range , Already owned by Tax payers; Well until your public rights to ownership are relinquished at least ; That sounds democratic in a Totalitarian Autocracy , so do you now understand what I am saying Pelican.

I do not disagree with your Idea Pelican , It did exist before in Australia , I disagree wholly that with an Institution run by Pathological Liars and self serving Thief’s and Exploiters , Even Robber Barons ;- are what you call Government and its band of Autocratic parasites ;

I would gradually add the charge of the obvious ; They will not be helping you in your plight.

They Ought to be put on trial for Treason and Grand Theft , for such on a scale never could have been imagined in the entire history of Mankind.
Without writing at book length

Mikk
>"Do I really "own" the air I breathe?”
Yes. Ownership means a right to exclusive possession and control. You own it because you ‘homestead’ it – you appropriated it from nature where it was unowned. How could it possibly be otherwise?

Similarly with food. You don’t have a right to other people’s efforts. But if you homestead unowned food, or if you acquire food legitimately from someone who does own it, then you have an ownership right in it, which means a right to use it yourself, and to exclude other people from using it. How could it possibly be otherwise?

But if you deny, or do not admit, that people have a right to breathe in, or to eat, then obviously:
a) no worker could have more of a right, namely, to the fruits of his labour, and
b) there’s no point in my proving further property rights in answer to your questions. You’ve lost because you don’t acknowledge, or you blow hot and cold on, whether people have a right to be alive.

Pelican
Do you know what ‘begging the question’ means? That’s what you’re doing.

Just because you want something, doesn’t mean it’s okay to use threats or force to get it. It’s no answer to say you just want “balance” or some greater good, because you haven’t established that there’s anything “balanced” or better about using threats or force in the first place. That’s why you can’t distinguish force you approve of, from force you don’t approve of, other than by repeating that you stand for “balance” which proves nothing. What if the people whose property rights you want to violate don’t think it’s balanced?

You say that you don’t stand for totalitarian government. But the only reason we do not have a totalitarian government is because people have successfully defended the principles of individual liberty and private property. On the other hand, you have not shown any principle on which government interventions in the economy would be limited, other than your own arbitrary opinion that there’s not nearly enough government interference going on.

So you haven’t begun to join issue. You’re just on the sidelines shouting “It is, because it is, because it is. I’m right, because I’m right.” It’s not an answer to say that a particular use of force would be “ridiculous”; you are only raising the question why your own preferred use of force is not ridiculous.

This is the problem with the whole so-called ‘third way’. It’s never about defending liberty or property. It always just a name for more arbitrary expansion of government intervention.

You said that there’s a trend to unfettered free markets, but government has never been bigger, you are completely unable to name any market that is not regulated by government, and the examples you gave are *government regulated arrangements*. So you either don’t understand what you’re talking about, or you’re being dishonest.

Ultimately all socialist argumentation boils down to absurdity or dishonesty.

bollocks Sienna
I dont "own" the air I breathe. I "use" the air that I breathe.
Use rights and ownership rights are very different.

"Capitalism, even though claiming formal self-ownership, in fact not only restricts the self-determination of working class people, it also makes them a resource for others. Those who enter the market after others have appropriated all the available property are limited to charity or working for others". Hardly "self ownership" is it? Your ideology has so many flaws and gaping holes it could only be followed by those who refuse to think for themselves.

Read this to find out why your "self ownership" is a spurious load of rubbish designed to justify the current situation of a few having power(to exploit)over the many.
http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionB3

Obviously people use air. The question is whether they have a right to.

You have reached the stage of arguing that people do not have a right to breathe and therefore you have lost the argument.

There is no need for me to waste time demonstrating the absurdity of an argument that simultaneously asserts that no-one has a right to property, *and* that property is theft.

But perhaps if you do a bit more circular argument, appeal to absent authority, personal argument, and running inconsistent arguments on other threads, it will satisfy your intellectual standards?

So ultimately, what are we left with?
- Gilbert asserting that government represents "co-operation" while ignoring that it is a zero-sum game based on aggresion, and there is no evidence that government is more representative of people, than people;
- Pelican asserting that there is a bias toward unfettered free markets but being completely able to name one; laughably naming government-controlled markets as her example; and endlessly setting up her own arbitrary opinion as the test of whether her coercion is "balanced"
- Gorofus failing to understand that it is the inequality between parties that causes transactions to take place
- mikk's confused denial of the right to breathe; of the right to engage in social co-operation; his appeal to absent authority for a non-existent system based neither on private nor on governmental ownership; claiming to oppose government while simultaneously cheerleading for it on other threads; and channelling economically illiterate Marxist drivel refuted a thousand times.

The one common value you all share is hostility to other people's peaceable freedoms - oh, and fake moral superiority about your authoritarian tendencies.

Is that honestly the best you can do?

The so-called "balance" you argue for amounts to nothing more than constant cheerleading for ever more governmental interventions overriding private transactions, while *not one* of you has been able to show how government could provide a net benefit in any given action.

It gets to the stage where the only possible explanation for your consistent bias against human freedom is ignorance, or dishonesty.

Which is it?

Since you obviously didnt bother with the link I posted heres a bit I think concisely states the case better than I can. Ill be interested to see how you get out of it. Given your hatred of the state.

"Private property is the state writ small, with the property owner acting as the "sovereign lord" over their property, and so the absolute king of those who use it. As in any monarchy, the worker is the subject of the capitalist, having to follow their orders, laws and decisions while on their property. This, obviously, is the total denial of liberty (and dignity, we may note, as it is degrading to have to follow orders). And so private property (capitalism) necessarily excludes participation, influence, and control by those who use, but do not own, the means of life.

It is, of course, true that private property provides a sphere of decision-making free from outside interference -- but only for the property's owners. But for those who are not property owners the situation if radically different. In a system of exclusively private property does not guarantee them any such sphere of freedom. They have only the freedom to sell their liberty to those who do own private property. If I am evicted from one piece of private property, where can I go? Nowhere, unless another owner agrees to allow me access to their piece of private property. This means that everywhere I can stand is a place where I have no right to stand without permission and, as a consequence, I exist only by the sufferance of the property owning elite.

This means that far from providing a sphere of independence, a society in which all property is private thus renders the property-less completely dependent on those who own property. This ensures that the exploitation of another's labour occurs and that some are subjected to the will of others, in direct contradiction to what the defenders of property promise."

All that we can do Mikk is study your Thymological status, Ether you have been exposed to some of the worst Education that is typical of ; “ The State” had all the Collectivist propaganda and toxins rammed into you that much it is almost in definition and Ideological Madras’s. “Intended description.”
Such a virile and pathological hatred of such the magnitude of a subject matter that clearly you have not grasped , I do not intend this to be insulting Mikk , just an astute observation of what it is that you have been exposed to.

Try and approach it from a praxialogical perspective with a view to a Theory of History, and Not a Philosophical fictional writings of History.
There is a vast and expansive chasm between falsehoods and truth. Use your individual mind and not someone elses propagandisement of Dogma

mikk
Without any theory of people having a right to use resources, you haven’t got to square one and have lost, in fact never really joined, the argument.

In any event, as the general issue is free versus regulated trade, you are off-topic in asserting the possibility of a society that relies neither on private property nor government. Therefore all you have said is irrelevant to the topic.

In your ideal society of people producing solely for their own use, how will the wealth necessary for modern civilisation be produced. Don't tell me, lemme guess: everyone will hold hands and sing Kumbaya, right?

Until that day comes, you can continue falsely pretending to be an anarchist while consistently leading the cheer-squad for bigger taxes, bigger government, and less individual freedom.

Okay Sienna, JardineK and All-
In your idea of utopia - a system that would operate without any form of government regulation or complete freedom to run business without uniform conditions; how would you ensure that life does not become complete chaos and that those who own the assets don't take control of the what is basically the wellbeing and quality of life of ordinary people.

Jardine K
It is easy to reduce your posts to insults but what is different about my offering my opinions and yourself? We are both shouting at the sidelines saying "my way is better". Unlike you I never think my view is necessarily RIGHT per se, I just think that it is better than what you are arguing and even my version needs a bit of tinkering with.

The perfect system is not achievable we can try to get as close to it as possible. We can talk about semantics all you like but back to the topic - the bottom line is your unfettered view of life is what existed in the feudal system to a large extent and that worked only for benefit of the landowners.

And using negative rhetoric like "force" or "totalitarian" is disingenuous. Appropriate regulation can be done within a democratic framework in considering the rights of owners, buyers and labour. What is the difference between a government using "force" or a private entitity.

Sienna I believe strongly that Free Trade Agreements, as a big part of the unfettered market, where foreign powers can dicated to other nations what they should and should not import regardless of how these decisions affect other variables such as anti-smoking advertising, effects of agricultural business, biosecurity, food labelling etc.

Ownership in itself does not give someone the right to exploit others and whether we like it or not sometimes regulation (in consultation with all key stakeholders) is the only way to ensure a fairer outcome. This is different to recognising the right to property ownership and personal liberty etc.

It cannot be all one or all the other IMO it just doesn't work.

All-
You sound like you have had your share of government bungling and corruption. I have too in ways you could not imagine, but despite this the faults are in the lack of checks and balances and in some cases impartial authorities.

I still believe that a democratic system with some government regulation (for and of the people) with better consultation with 'the people' via referenda and other avenues is a lesser evil than a completely free market as per my above comments.

> What is different about my offering my opinions and yourself?

The difference is your argument is circular, mine is not.

>Unlike you I never think my view is necessarily RIGHT per se

Yes you do. The topic here is whether trade should be further restricted so as to achieve Gilbert’s idea of protecting local trade. You are in favour of restrictions backed up by police and prisons. So you do think your is necessarily right; so much so that you think yourself justified in aggressing against others who, left to themselves, are not aggressing against anyone.

In any event, you are obviously are not open to the arguments in favour of a free society, while ever you fall for the fallacies that
a) one person’s profit is another’s loss
b) exchange or employment are intrinsically exploitative
c) there is an irreconcilable conflict between individuals in society
d) transactions which benefit both parties, and which both parties agree to, are “exploitative” for no other reason than that you are intolerant of other people’s freedoms
e) we can create net benefits out of nothing by forced redistributions
f) government-regulated arrangements are “unfettered free trade”
g) balance and fairness and justice are whatever you say they are
h) democratic government means that force isn’t force
i) etc. etc. etc.

Thus there’s no point in my explaining what a free society would look like while you think that there is no truth or reason but only mere *belief* in which any proposition, no matter how illogical or factually false, has an equal claim to be true.

You deny that you are a totalitarian, but at every step you assume that any given problem can be fixed by more government and propose no principle to limit it. So your denial does not stand to reason.

If you are inflexibly fixed in your own opinion, there’s no point in asking me, because you will only respond with more fallacies. But if you are interested in considering why your socialist beliefs might be wrong, you could do worse than start here: http://mises.org/daily/4672

Not by 'more' government JardineK but better government which can also mean removing some of the more restrictive regulation particularly for small business.

How is a totalitarian private sector better than your perception of a totalitarian government (one that uses some regulation by your definition). The private sector cannot be voted out. Self-interested groups can easily form to push out competition and fix prices in your unfettered world. Admittedley governments aren't doing much on the competition front either but it is a lesser of two evils.

Perhaps if you keep repeating your fallacies they'll become true eventually?

Obviously if you don't care whether what you're saying is illogical or not, there's no point discussing it.

Well JardineK
I see no answer to my questions above.

Perhaps if you keep repeating your fallacies they'll become true eventually?

Obviously if you don't care whether what you're saying is illogical or not, there's no point discussing it.

The simplest way to explain it in terms everyone ought to understand; “That Ideas must yield to Fact” And the Collectivist creed in today’s language is No Idea leads to Power and Riches and command the peasantry.
You have been inexplicably locked into the notion Government is here to help?
Simply remove the unproductive and exorbitant expense from society That is Government and its Battalions of Parasitic vanguards ; They serve no purpose other than their own self interests, at all productive peoples expense and their freedom.

The larger corporations of today Pelican are just as much beuarocratic incompetent as their parasitic counterpart, Government. There are good reasons for that notion; Juxtaposed to private Enterprise; Small- Medium Business to a greater point are and have been systematically made by Decree in a language not spoken , but by autocratic action; are redundant in effect; or well in advance of being inevitably made redundant.
So the State Monopoly again Rules.

If the state pays out One dollar , as a Tax payer in turn ,, It costs you 18 dollars for that one dollar to be dispersed to fund the Upper class Welfare of the State Minions; And that is our greatest inflationary and the biggest consumer of Ideas and Wealth Not to forget the consumer of our Rights and freedom.
People by nature are generous and very well intentioned Pelican, Not the State; they must rob you of everything you have and eventually they will, just so it can exist.
And are doing so

Your question assumes a "totalitarian private sector", whatever that means.

(What does it mean? Mikk uses it to mean a situation where those without property are at the mercy of those with. But this does not describe the Australian workers, who have lots of property - houses, cars, caravans, boats, horses, horse-trailers, bikes, TVs, and disposable income which they spend on x-boxes and chocolate biscuits. Many of them could start their own business but don't want to because of the increased risk and frightful regulations. It is simple gibberish to portray this as a class at the extremes of starvation and therefore requiring government interventions.)

So I don't know where you're getting this "totalitarian private sector" idea from. Force and fraud are illegal in the private sector which does not claim nor exercise any monopoly - except those granted by government - and comprises innumerable parties each of which checks and balances the other - which you are in favour of - by being in competition with each other - which you are against.

On other other hand, the government "sector" comprises only one party, and that a monopollist, and that based on coercion. So you haven't established how it's any kind of balance in the first place.

All trade restrictions (some of which you are in favour of) make the masses poorer (which you are against) so you are merely displaying the ethical confusion and economic illiteracy that is characteristic of the left wing.

Sorry for missing all the fun everyone. Been moving house and have had the internet down. You're doing a great job Pelican! Free market economics is based on a set of assumptions just as what you advocate is. Personally I think that your assumptions are much more logical, reasonable and responsible.

End the free trade madness!