Truly Free Market Libertarians are either extremely naive utopians or (knowing, acknowledging, and endorsing the externalities) outright evil.
2 Likes
My own contributions would have been minimal, because I really donât know enough about Bitcoin or monetary policy to say anything that I could be sure wasnât staggeringly misinformed.
But BoingBoing commenters often do Know Stuff, and I was hoping to find out more. I donât know of any place to read commentary on Bitcoin that doesnât have an ideological bridge to sell me. So I was particularly dismayed to see the conversation degenerate so quickly.
The best way to look at Bitcoins is as rare collectables, like baseball cards or Beanie Babies. They have very little intrinsic value, but people are willing to pay money for them because theyâre in-demand and they expect to be able to sell them at a profit later on.
In addition to the primary market of converting them back and forth into real money, thereâs also a secondary market where you can exchange them for goods and services - imagine a flea market where you had the option of paying for stuff with baseball cards instead of money. It would be silly to go to the trouble of converting dollars to baseball cards just to shop at the market, but you might want to go there if you already happened to have some baseball cards lying around. (Or if money laundering were involved somehow.)
You can probably spot the problem: Because rare collectibles have little intrinsic value; the price fluctuates depending on how much people want them. When âMagic: The Gatheringâ cards came out, people lost interest in collecting baseball cards and the price crashed. Bitcoins will eventually crash the same way, but thereâs no way of predicting when that will happen.
The reason that the conversation degenerates is because Libertarian ideology insists that rare collectables (created by the private sector) are better than money (issued by the government), so discussions of Bitcoins always turn into an argument about that.
2 Likes
If you look up what economists say about the âfree marketâ you should know damn well that economists do not agree on what exactly constitutes a free market, and thatâs just within the mainstream schools. That said, most economists would tend to agree your definition is overly simplistic, because it defines something by the lack of something, rather than what itâs made of. To further your example, your definition of free markets is like saying a horse is not a cow. Iâm not setting a particularly high bar for a definition of free markets and thereâs certainly wiggle room, because your definition is both ludicrously narrow and completely uninformative about what a free market is.
Thatâs not at all what I said. I said your definition, which is a negative abstraction, doesnât exist, and that black markets donât even meet your criteria because they are a product of government interference of rather than the absence of it. And black markets are controlled by governments much like how they regulate legal businesses. Governments continually intervene in black markets through law enforcement, as well as broader policies which shape the contours of the black market. Changing the legal status of recreational drugs would have a massive impact on the black market. Black markets are the product of regulation, and if you think they are an actual example of a true free market, Iâve got a Mexican drug war to sell you.
Yes, and itâs funny that youâd say the use of government currency doesnât say anything about markets. Why the hell do libertarians praise bitcoin and deplore fiat money so much if it werenât for how government control of money shapes the market? If the government started printed money rapidly, you donât think this would interfere with the black market as much as the legal economy? And itâs not like a bitcoin based economy is going to be free of government interference, just look what happened to Silkroad, and if bitcoin continues to steadily grow, government interference is just going to increase.
Look, youâre not really disputing my points so much as repeating your original ones. If you think laissez-faire capitalism is great thatâs fine. I donât agree, but thatâs not really what weâre debating here. Weâre debating whether laissez-faire capitalism is the product of government interference or not. I maintain it is, just a different sort than a social democracy, and youâre really not going find real examples of stateless capitalism. But to be honest, unless youâre an anarcho-capitalist, the non existence of stateless capitalism doesnât exactly destroy libertarianism, it simply shows its tendency for ahistorical theory and semantics.
1 Like
Youâre still on this? Do you disagree with the definition? Do you have a link to a definition you agree with? Really, thatâs all you needed to do. No need for a wall of text.
They arenât regulated by governments. Thatâs enough. Governments exist thus black markets have to respond to them but so do migrating birds when a government agency empties a pond theyâve used. It doesnât mean government is regulating migration.
Hereâs the deal, just tell me what you think the definitions should be. Iâve done enough explaining about what I think they are. All youâre doing is arguing about them, youâre not shedding any light on the original discussion.
Again⌠yes markets respond to stimuli. Does the government do this to regulate the markets? No, so whatâs your point?
You canât currently because just about everything is controlled by governments.
All externalities are bad? That would be miraculous.
It seems you have very rose tinted glasses on your view of nature.
Is the alpha wolf eating its share first and having exclusive breeding rites to the pack until heâs violently overthrown sharing? What about walruses, seals and multiple species of monkeys (among many other species), that hold harems of females and battle fiercely not only to keep those rights, but to keep the females in line? What about the myriad of animals with territorial behavior that make damn well sure competing individuals donât take their resources?
If anything, nature is brutal and nature is selfish. Organisms will exploit their environment to the fullest extent that they are capable. Itâs all kept in check because everything is constantly competing.
Humans are the one animal thatâs capable of being something beyond the selfish struggle that is ânatureâ thanks to culture, civilization and sentience.
1 Like
If youâre not clear that I disagree with your non definition, Iâm unsure what good providing my own would do. You can skim the Wikipedia article on capitalism if you want an overview of what is generally meant by a free market, a term about which I have already said is of dubious semantic usefulness.
What part of you will be involuntarily committed to prison if caught participating in the black market is not a regulation? What is a regulation other than the threat of force to make you do or not do something? You defined it as such already. And if the black market as your example of a free market how is at all appealing when widespread fraud, adulteration, slavery and murder are a major part of it?
Your example of migrating birds makes no sense, because itâs not like the government isnât trying to control the black market.
Are you you being purposefully obtuse or are you an idiot? Why would the government control money if not to regulate the economy? For fun?
Thank you. Youâve finally admitted that capitalism doesnât exist without a state. Was that so hard?
1 Like
Wikipedia says
In economics, an externality is a cost or benefit which affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit.[1]
So, externalities which are costs are bad. externalities which are benefits are welcome, though they may be ephemeral. It might be wise to lay formal claim to them now, before the course of business dissipates them. From that point of view, externalities are best minimized.
Tribes and chiefs and hierarchies, those dreaded âpower structuresâ mentioned earlier. This is another example of libertarian notions falling apart. I think Rothbard liked to use Celtic tribes or some other such nonsense. Since Sumer and prehistory people have been creating civilizations and societies, choosing their leaders, or submitting to them. Somehow you guys think that youâll buck the entire span of known human historyâŚ
If youâre wondering why youâre completely and justifiably mockedâŚwellâŚyou deserve it. REALLY. Itâs embarrassing, and dumbâŚ
1 Like
The junk, faux-philosophy of âlibertarianismâ doesnât even deserve serious consideration. Itâs no different than giving Hallmark Holidays the same respect as any kind of actual political philosophy or study. Itâs garbage. Corny garbage.
2 Likes
Unlike those Russians a hundred years ago, youâll never be hungry enough to kill the Tsar.
Ah, willful ignorance.
Itâs the basic definition. If you think itâs not sufficient then feel free to expand.
I think youâre stretching to ridiculous levels. Government interference in black markets is similar to weather interfering in commodities markets, it is an uncontrollable event The interference is random and doesnât set rules for participants.
Huh? It is an example of a market without government regulation. what does the nature of some to the participantsâ behaviors have to do with the discussion?
Youâre acting like a child.
Uh, you really donât seem to want to reach any understanding. It is the limitless reach of government that libertarians and like minded people rail against it. Are you unable to even admit that theoretically capitalism can exist without out a state?
It doesnât specify which outcome is more likely. It certainly doesnât say benefits are ephemeral. Are you reading the same quote?
Well argued. Wait no that was nonsense, see everyone can play that game.
So apparently the human condition and politics have reach their peak. I guess⌠job well done?
And youâre proud of that argument? Yikes.
Dude, or dudette, maybe try to discuss what libertarian philosophy advocates, see where those ideas coincide with things you think are correct and possibly youâll find that you arenât so far off.
Throwing insults just makes me think youâre not willing to examine your own beliefs/thoughts.
Why so angry?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
