What Individualism Is Not • Frank Chodorov

originally posted by: greencmp
You ask me for examples of free markets while erroneously presenting your town as one.

No, I asked for examples but didn't present my town as one.

I clearly said that those in the AC crowd claim that given the chance people will do the right thing and that that isn't always the case and presented the towns freedom to choose and the results as contrary to those claims.

You suggest that I am not communicating properly and feign misunderstanding of my multitudes of specific responses.

I understand you but you have nothing to back up what your saying except AC theory.

You then repeat the same thing you said before, that free markets are for dummies over and over. Am I missing something?

Yes, you still don't understand why they are for dummies.

Now what, am I answering your questions too well?

There is nothing that you can tell me about AC that I don't already know. I think much of it is wrong but I understand it.

All I asked is for real world examples. Particularly where free markets remain that way for a significant amount of time.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Bluesma

The free market would have helped your sister by making everything less expensive and wages relatively higher.

We've already seen that the freedom creates outsourcing, which brings down prices, and quality. It doesn't make for higher wages- it makes for more competition for less jobs. My sister is mentally retarded. She cannot compete.

Without collectivism, there would be more houses, hospitals, schools and products for sale. Everybody would have more stuff.

There is already an abundance of all that for sale. The choice in every area is abundant, and people have a lot of stuff. That is not a problem. The problems are in what kind of stuff they have- an iPhone, but cheap junk food for their kids. A house, a car, an education, lots of stuff, that is actually all belonging to a bank and they are slaves to debt.

For example, if milk is regulated to be sold at a certain low price, then some farmers may not be able to pay their costs. The result is less milk on the shelves. So the government regulates the suppliers of dairy farmers needs. Then the suppliers have cost shortages etc...

Uh, no.... when the regulated price of milk had not been raised in a while here and it became insufficient for the producers, they immediately began to speak up on it and they protested. They threatened to all go on strike. The price was raised.
The consumers were aware of the hike in price and effect on their pocketbooks, but everyone simply understood that it is important for their fellow countrymen to be able to make a living. I never heard anyone complain or buy less milk.
That happened last year.

originally posted by: greencmp


"The Third Way is the fastest way to the Third World" -Václav Klaus

The social market economy was designed to be a third way between laissez-faire economic liberalism and socialist economics

Some authors use the term social capitalism with roughly the same meaning as social market economy. It is also called Rhine capitalism, typically when contrasting it with the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism. Rather than see it as an antithesis, some authors describe Rhine capitalism as successful synthesis of the Anglo-American model with social democracy

Social market economies posit that a strong social support network for the less affluent enhances capital output. By decreasing poverty and broadening prosperity to a large middle class, capital market participation is enlarged.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Social Market model of the modern economy differs from the Liberal Market model in almost every respect of economic organization, in terms of both financial structures and social controls, making for a stable, yet dynamic (and remarkably enduring) system. Against the vagaries of possible socialist futures, the Social Market model is tried and tested by experience and not only works but works well,demonstrating levels of social (and environmental) justice and economic growth far superior to other models.

In general terms, the model extends from northern Europe to Switzerland, and including Japan.This model is indisputably capitalist in that it is organized around the market, private property and free enterprise.

www.academia.edu...

Something to consider in these times, as the clamor of for socialism rises:

One of the major factors for the emergence of the German model of capitalism was to ameliorate the conditions of workers under capitalism, and thus to stave off the threat of Marx's militant socialist movement.

....one of the main factors for the emergence of the European model of capitalism was to ameliorate the conditions of workers under capitalism and thus stave off the emergence of socialism or socialist revolution.

en.wikipedia.org...

It has worked before, in cutting off that threat.

But then, all this works and works well on a base of thought that money is the means to acquire goods, not goods the means to acquire money.

That quality is more desirable than quantity.

That is why my main focus is to stimulate reflection on our deepest values, before even considering political matters on the exterior. The conflicts and problems we search to find answers to might lie within us. Why would people pay less for something, when they know it was fabricated by children in another country working 16 hours a day at fifty cents an hour?

Is paying less more sacred than all other human concerns? (including employment in your own nation?)
Or are people so poor, they can no longer afford to take into consideration such things?

Either way, we have some food for thought.

One of the criticisms about such a system as the Social Market (despite it's obvious success) is that it doesn't propose a clear cut plan, on how to keep the sectors separated, exactly. There is a certain fluidity left in there which makes those attached to theory very nervous.

That is exactly the "human" part- meaning that is where the people come in. That is where their social responsibility and values step in.
Where speaking up, voting, protesting, being reasonable and comprehensive comes in. Where they cannot afford to ignore what is going in their country and sit and watch a reality tv show or play a video game, because it could all go south if they do that.
If they ignored, for example, the situation with the milk producers, and not follow on the arguments and reasonings... they'd just see a raise in prices one day, and say "that's screwed up! I'm not going to buy as much anymore" (or I'll buy it cheaper across the border in Spain, in Italy).
Instead people kept up on the facts and did what is "right" for their neighbor.

There is pressure between civilians to take an active part in all this. If I didn't vote Sunday, I know I'd get criticisms from everyone in my village (I've already been through that).
Such a system gives a margin of power to the people, and the responsibility that goes with it.

I understand the fear of giving the people such power and responsibility, and maybe we couldn't handle that right now- we'd all be revolting against the idea that we have any sort of obligation to our country- as if it is something separate from our self. Our well being doesn't depend upon the well being of our nation as a whole.
But it is simply mistaken to assume that all humans are so inclined to that attitude.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
I don't know if there ever was AC.

It is one of the claims often made by proponents of AC.

Even the OP said something to that effect here.

The economic forces of AC are always present. The forces are natural and part of the human mind. Humans choose. AC is the result of letting all humans choose what they think is best.

AC has possibly never been the whole of governance across the globe. Maybe there was an AC period just after the last glaciation. Maybe AC made the Agricultural Revolution. Maybe tribalism held sway until the first cities and kingdoms.
The official history indicates that tribalism was followed by civic government and then Statism. No AC there.

AC has existed on the fringes of civilization. Until the 19th or 20th century, there was always a border region to which citizens could flee if all else failed. That region is gone since WW1 and the mandatory passport document.

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Bluesma

The free market would have helped your sister by making everything less expensive and wages relatively higher.

We've already seen that the freedom creates outsourcing,

You could also say that air creates outsourcing. The cause of outsourcing is more specific. And more to the point, why is out sourcing bad? Everyone buying at the lowest price is a good thing.

The net effect of the outsourcing, i.e. low cost goods, would have happened whether our companies got in on it or not. The brand names would be different, but the goods would come from the same factories and have the same cost, tariff not included.

which brings down prices, and quality. It doesn't make for higher wages-

Only higher productivity makes for higher wages. Typically, capital goods enable a worker to make more stuff per hour and that is the reason for higher wages.

it makes for more competition for less jobs. My sister is mentally retarded. She cannot compete.

We would have something like 20 times more wealth in our possession without the collectivist apocalypse of the 20th Century.

There is already an abundance of all that for sale. The choice in every area is abundant, and people have a lot of stuff. That is not a problem. The problems are in what kind of stuff they have- an iPhone, but cheap junk food for their kids. A house, a car, an education, lots of stuff, that is actually all belonging to a bank and they are slaves to debt.

So they don't have stuff, the bank has it?

Uh, no.... when the regulated price of milk had not been raised in a while here and it became insufficient for the producers, they immediately began to speak up on it and they protested. They threatened to all go on strike. The price was raised.
The consumers were aware of the hike in price and effect on their pocketbooks, but everyone simply understood that it is important for their fellow countrymen to be able to make a living. I never heard anyone complain or buy less milk.
That happened last year.

Central planning at its best is just a mimic of the free market with an extra layer of government employees in between.

The milk producers should have raised their prices as needed. Any producer raising his price too high would have lost business to producers who kept their prices lower.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
You ask me for examples of free markets while erroneously presenting your town as one.

No, I asked for examples but didn't present my town as one.

I clearly said that those in the AC crowd claim that given the chance people will do the right thing and that that isn't always the case and presented the towns freedom to choose and the results as contrary to those claims.

You suggest that I am not communicating properly and feign misunderstanding of my multitudes of specific responses.

I understand you but you have nothing to back up what your saying except AC theory.

You then repeat the same thing you said before, that free markets are for dummies over and over. Am I missing something?

Yes, you still don't understand why they are for dummies.

Now what, am I answering your questions too well?

There is nothing that you can tell me about AC that I don't already know. I think much of it is wrong but I understand it.

All I asked is for real world examples. Particularly where free markets remain that way for a significant amount of time.

Nothing is perfect, AC included. Every person will be subject to short periods of unemployment from time to time. But how is your favorite system better?

AC has the fastest progress because no one has their initiative blocked by ignorant regulations.

AC generates the most wealth because the least amount of money possible is wasted on taxes and "omnipotent government" mistakes.

AC has no World Wars or world wide depressions.

AC returns an increase on all saved money through deflation.

The current system rewards obedience above all. It cannot continue forever.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The economic forces of AC are always present. The forces are natural and part of the human mind. Humans choose. AC is the result of letting all humans choose what they think is best.

They don't belong to AC. AC just advocates for them and they are always present in some way, like the OP's example of kids on a playground but that isn't the context in which AC, or any other socio-political theory uses them.

AC has possibly never been the whole of governance across the globe. Maybe there was an AC period just after the last glaciation. Maybe AC made the Agricultural Revolution. Maybe tribalism held sway until the first cities and kingdoms.
The official history indicates that tribalism was followed by civic government and then Statism. No AC there.

Tell that to the AC-ers.

AC has existed on the fringes of civilization. Until the 19th or 20th century, there was always a border region to which citizens could flee if all else failed. That region is gone since WW1 and the mandatory passport document.

Here is where I disagree. Just because some place doesn't have an "official" government doesn't mean that there isn't some kind of governance.

It might seem like a "duh" observence but anarchy is anarchy and anything else is not anarchy. So, even if the prison example given by the OP seems like anarchy to him, if there is some sort of power structure then it, by definition, isn't a free market.

a reply to: Bluesma

The social market economy was designed

How do you know it was a good design? The Soviet Union had the smartest people alive and they couldn't make their system work.

the Social Market model is tried and tested by experience and not only works but works well, demonstrating levels of social (and environmental) justice and economic growth far superior to other models.

A car will coast down hill. We have been rolling down hill since 1900.

The Social Market Model has used the surplus from the Industrial Revolution to buy votes and support. That is how it works.

The Soviet system worked until it didn't.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
You ask me for examples of free markets while erroneously presenting your town as one.

No, I asked for examples but didn't present my town as one.

I clearly said that those in the AC crowd claim that given the chance people will do the right thing and that that isn't always the case and presented the towns freedom to choose and the results as contrary to those claims.

You suggest that I am not communicating properly and feign misunderstanding of my multitudes of specific responses.

I understand you but you have nothing to back up what your saying except AC theory.

You then repeat the same thing you said before, that free markets are for dummies over and over. Am I missing something?

Yes, you still don't understand why they are for dummies.

Now what, am I answering your questions too well?

There is nothing that you can tell me about AC that I don't already know. I think much of it is wrong but I understand it.

All I asked is for real world examples. Particularly where free markets remain that way for a significant amount of time.

I am not as fully versed on socialism as I should be and I cannot claim to know everything about it.

What I do know is that it has been tried many times at great cost to human life and property and it has never worked. Socialism light (aka interventionism) is producing the concentration of wealth that egalitarians find so repugnant and will inevitably lead to the call for more social intervention which will create more suffering and hardship.

How can we both be right?

originally posted by: daskakik

It might seem like a "duh" observence but anarchy is anarchy and anything else is not anarchy. So, even if the prison example given by the OP seems like anarchy to him, if there is some sort of power structure then it, by definition, isn't a free market.

Well, I should say that I do not expect to achieve AC, it is just the logical argument to make.

In the compromise that is presumed to result from an understanding between us, the closer to that the better but, we do have a constitutional republic that we were perfectly happy with until progressives ran us into the ground.

I would settle for that.

originally posted by: greencmp
I am not as fully versed on socialism as I should be and I cannot claim to know everything about it.

What I do know is that it has been tried many times at great cost to human life and property and it has never worked. Socialism light (aka interventionism) is producing the concentration of wealth that egalitarians find so repugnant and will inevitably lead to the call for more social intervention which will create more suffering and hardship.

How can we both be right?

Who said the S word? I sure didn't.

a reply to: daskakik

Interventionism is 'socio-economic' engineering by its nature, its definition and its stated intent.

Regulations are interventions, what you advocate is partially realized socialism which retains some private ownership in the means but not in the direction of production.

[post]originally posted by: daskakik

The economic forces of AC are always present. The forces are natural and part of the human mind. Humans choose. AC is the result of letting all humans choose what they think is best.

They don't belong to AC. AC just advocates for them and they are always present in some way, like the OP's example of kids on a playground but that isn't the context in which AC, or any other socio-political theory uses them.

Ownership of human nature is not possible. AC is cause and effect. The playground is one example of voluntary cooperation spontaneously created by human nature.

AC has possibly never been the whole of governance across the globe. Maybe there was an AC period just after the last glaciation. Maybe AC made the Agricultural Revolution. Maybe tribalism held sway until the first cities and kingdoms.
The official history indicates that tribalism was followed by civic government and then Statism. No AC there.

Tell that to the AC-ers.

The official history might be incomplete. History only goes back as far as writing anyway. AC might have been world wide in the archeological period.

AC has existed on the fringes of civilization. Until the 19th or 20th century, there was always a border region to which citizens could flee if all else failed. That region is gone since WW1 and the mandatory passport document.

Here is where I disagree. Just because some place doesn't have an "official" government doesn't mean that there isn't some kind of governance.

Governance is not government. Anarchy means no government. Governance, at minimum a legal system, is what is left after government is gone.

Governance refers to "all processes of governing, whether undertaken by a government, market or network, whether over a family, tribe, formal or informal organization or territory and whether through laws, norms, power or language."[1] It relates to "the processes of interaction and decision-making among the actors involved in a collective problem that lead to the creation, reinforcement, or reproduction of social norms and institutions."[2]
en.wikipedia.org...

Anarchy means no pronouncements from rulers. Anarchy does not, as a category, mean no laws.

It might seem like a "duh" observence but anarchy is anarchy and anything else is not anarchy. So, even if the prison example given by the OP seems like anarchy to him, if there is some sort of power structure then it, by definition, isn't a free market.

The OP's examples are applicable in the way that a gas and a liquid can both be considered fluids. The prison example is another illustration of human nature forming a free market, (voluntary exchange) in order to solve a problem.

originally posted by: greencmp
In the compromise that is presumed to result from an understanding between us, the closer to that the better but, we do have a constitutional republic that we were perfectly happy with until progressives ran us into the ground.

Hope you don't really swallow that bunch of malarkey.

In 1794 George Washington used 13,000 milita troops in order to enforce a tax on whiskey. When exactly was this free market america going on?

originally posted by: greencmp
Regulations are interventions, what you advocate is partially realized socialism which retains some private ownership in the means but not in the direction of production.

I'm not advocating anything. Thought we were clear on that.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
In the compromise that is presumed to result from an understanding between us, the closer to that the better but, we do have a constitutional republic that we were perfectly happy with until progressives ran us into the ground.

Hope you don't really swallow that bunch of malarkey.

In 1794 George Washington used 13,000 milita troops in order to enforce a tax on whiskey. When exactly was this free market america going on?

So you don't believe in the constitution of the united states?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
Regulations are interventions, what you advocate is partially realized socialism which retains some private ownership in the means but not in the direction of production.

I'm not advocating anything. Thought we were clear on that.

Not at all, you were declaring free markets to be bunk and I assumed that meant that you were for planned (socialist) or regulated (interventionist) production/markets.

If you are simply making the nihilist oblivion inevitability argument, I hadn't seen that coming but you are in good company.

"in the long run we are all dead."

-John Maynard Keynes

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Ownership of human nature is not possible. AC is cause and effect. The playground is one example of voluntary cooperation spontaneously created by human nature.

No AC is a political theory which advocates Laissez-faire economics.

The official history might be incomplete. History only goes back as far as writing anyway. AC might have been world wide in the archeological period.

So, no proof either way.

Governance is not government. Anarchy means no government. Governance, at minimum a legal system, is what is left after government is gone.

I bet that differs depending on which anarchist you ask.

The OP's examples are applicable in the way that a gas and a liquid can both be considered fluids. The prison example is another illustration of human nature forming a free market, (voluntary exchange) in order to solve a problem.

That's some shoehorning if I ever saw it.

ETA: How is it free, if it isn't free? Do you think that you can just get sent to prison and end up someplace and start wheeling and dealing without "filing the proper paperwork".

originally posted by: greencmp
Not at all, you were declaring free markets to be bunk and I assumed that meant that you were for planned (socialist) or regulated (interventionist) production/markets.

They are bunk in the sense that they just don't happen in larger social groups. At least not in the socio-political context.

So you don't believe in the constitution of the united states?

Why would I?

a reply to: daskakik

No AC is a political theory which advocates Laissez-faire economics.

Politics uses the government. Depending on how you define politics, AC is outside of politics, because there is no government.

So, no proof either way.

No proof that AC has never worked either. I have heard that AC failed, a lot.

I bet that differs dpending on which anarchist you ask.

Communist and criminal anarchists are not Anarcho-Capitalists.

That's some shoehorning if I ever saw it.

Some truth in it then.