Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Free market question

bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 11:59:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If the majority of a population did something like support slavery, what would stop it? Since the majority of consumers would support businesses that use slaves, how would those that don't survive?

Wouldn't something have to be in place to defend NAP from the consumers?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 12:26:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That's an argument against democracy, not free markets, since free markets require people to own their own bodies, thus contradicting slavery.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 12:41:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 11:59:59 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
If the majority of a population did something like support slavery, what would stop it?

Free markets necessarily involve the principles of self-ownership and the NAP. Property rights and human liberty follow from the principle of self-ownership. If you own your life, your liberty, and your property; then, you necessarily own/have the right to defend these from acts of aggression (e.g. theft, assault, slavery).

Since the majority of consumers would support businesses that use slaves, how would those that don't survive?

If it were true that the majority of consumers would support slave-labor businesses, then your previous question would follow. However, it is not true. Slavery is bad business: slaves have no incentive to work harder, but they have the disincentive of whipping (fear, punishment) to keep them from not working, so the result is that they work as inefficiently as possible while avoiding whipping/rape. If you pay your workers, motivate them, and give them the proper requirements to self-actualize, they work much harder. Side point: that's why the laffer curve demonstrates that a tax rate of 28% is the optimal level for the government to extort money from the population.

Wouldn't something have to be in place to defend NAP from the consumers?

Since consumers prefer businesses with cheaper costs (employ ceteris paribus assumptions), and non-slave-labor businesses are more productive, efficient, and have lower costs, consumers prefer non-slave-labor businesses.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 12:51:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ok, thank you.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 1:31:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
State or no state social norms are going to define society. If everyone is in favour of slavery (except, presumably, the slaves), then there's going to be slavery. I don't really see the point of this thought experiment. Is this a trick question or something?
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 5:30:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 12:26:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
That's an argument against democracy, not free markets, since free markets require people to own their own bodies, thus contradicting slavery.

This
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 6:06:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 12:26:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
That's an argument against democracy, not free markets, since free markets require people to own their own bodies, thus contradicting slavery.

You and your fellow "libertarians" inhabit an insular and blissful universe of thoroughly airbrushed theory. (In this regard, see my recent posts in my thread on the concept of earning and the Lord Haw-Haws of capitalism)
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 10:54:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 6:06:49 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/1/2013 12:26:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
That's an argument against democracy, not free markets, since free markets require people to own their own bodies, thus contradicting slavery.

You and your fellow "libertarians" inhabit an insular and blissful universe of thoroughly airbrushed theory. (In this regard, see my recent posts in my thread on the concept of earning and the Lord Haw-Haws of capitalism)

You and your fellow "collectivists" or "socialists" (or whatever) inhabit an insular and blissful universe of worn out mantras and economic fallacies.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 1:10:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 10:54:03 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:06:49 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/1/2013 12:26:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
That's an argument against democracy, not free markets, since free markets require people to own their own bodies, thus contradicting slavery.

You and your fellow "libertarians" inhabit an insular and blissful universe of thoroughly airbrushed theory. (In this regard, see my recent posts in my thread on the concept of earning and the Lord Haw-Haws of capitalism)


You and your fellow "collectivists" or "socialists" (or whatever) inhabit an insular and blissful universe of worn out mantras and economic fallacies.

Tit for tat is the lowest form of riposte.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 1:17:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2013 1:10:12 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/2/2013 10:54:03 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:06:49 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/1/2013 12:26:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
That's an argument against democracy, not free markets, since free markets require people to own their own bodies, thus contradicting slavery.

You and your fellow "libertarians" inhabit an insular and blissful universe of thoroughly airbrushed theory. (In this regard, see my recent posts in my thread on the concept of earning and the Lord Haw-Haws of capitalism)


You and your fellow "collectivists" or "socialists" (or whatever) inhabit an insular and blissful universe of worn out mantras and economic fallacies.

Tit for tat is the lowest form of riposte.

Perhaps, but the tat begets the tit.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 1:43:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Nothing. If society supports slavery, it is going to be reflected in it's structure. This goes for a free market, democracy or anything else. The best we can do is attack it from a cultural perspective.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 2:22:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2013 1:43:33 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Nothing. If society supports slavery, it is going to be reflected in it's structure. This goes for a free market, democracy or anything else. The best we can do is attack it from a cultural perspective.

Nope, we need to attack societies ills and injustices in a multi-prong approach, that includes, yes, a cultural revolution, so to speak, but that also includes focusing activism at changing economico-political structures as well. Well, why confine ourselves to a single-prong approach to conquering complex evils?!
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 2:57:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
But just to be clear, the injustices you're talking about aren't the fact that the state is a criminal organization which robs everyone blind and will throw you in jail or murder you if you do not give in to their extortion, but rather the fact that individuals are making mutually beneficial trades, right?
Jake-migkillertwo
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 10:28:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 11:59:59 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
If the majority of a population did something like support slavery, what would stop it? Since the majority of consumers would support businesses that use slaves, how would those that don't survive?

Wouldn't something have to be in place to defend NAP from the consumers?

It depends on how intensive human capital is to the production of most goods and services. The free market will never completely eliminate slavery. However, it can be immensely unprofitable as many goods and services sold in the United States today are extremely human-capital intensive, that is the ratio of human capital to other factors needed to produce some goods (like an ipod) is very high. Slavery has a huge negative effect on human capital. There's literally no incentive to invest in your own human capital if you are a slave.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 11:13:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 6:06:49 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/1/2013 12:26:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
That's an argument against democracy, not free markets, since free markets require people to own their own bodies, thus contradicting slavery.

You and your fellow "communist" inhabit an insular and blissful universe of thoroughly airbrushed theory.

Fixed. You must wonder, if you can critique your words merely by switching communism and libertarian around, what value does your critique have.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 2:16:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 12:41:26 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 3/1/2013 11:59:59 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
If the majority of a population did something like support slavery, what would stop it?

Free markets necessarily involve the principles of self-ownership and the NAP. Property rights and human liberty follow from the principle of self-ownership. If you own your life, your liberty, and your property; then, you necessarily own/have the right to defend these from acts of aggression (e.g. theft, assault, slavery).

Free market necessarily involve the principle of nothing being owned until an exchange is made.

What are you willing to exchange for your life and your liberty?

Since the majority of consumers would support businesses that use slaves, how would those that don't survive?

If it were true that the majority of consumers would support slave-labor businesses, then your previous question would follow. However, it is not true. Slavery is bad business: slaves have no incentive to work harder, but they have the disincentive of whipping (fear, punishment) to keep them from not working, so the result is that they work as inefficiently as possible while avoiding whipping/rape. If you pay your workers, motivate them, and give them the proper requirements to self-actualize, they work much harder. Side point: that's why the laffer curve demonstrates that a tax rate of 28% is the optimal level for the government to extort money from the population.

De facto slave labor, which is what work for a wage that doesn't provide for a life above poverty is, is no different. In that case, the disincentive is not losing the job which doesn't provide enough for basic needs, but provides more than nothing.

Getting whipped...starving...one brings with it a more acute, momentarily intense pain, but both bring a pain which one wishes to avoid.

Wouldn't something have to be in place to defend NAP from the consumers?

Since consumers prefer businesses with cheaper costs (employ ceteris paribus assumptions), and non-slave-labor businesses are more productive, efficient, and have lower costs, consumers prefer non-slave-labor businesses.

Consumers only prefer non-slave businesses because the cost of keeping a slave (housing, medical, etc, since one naturally cares for their property more than for something which they do not own) is more, on a marginal cost of labor basis, than paying insufficient wages to labor not owned by the business.

Thus, it lowers price.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...