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.