Rupert Murdoch: Don't Give Up on Open Markets

[tommydoing50]

This man is a cunt

[sooprfli]

Open markets benefit the rich and poor alike? Are you serious, Murdoch?  Monopolists say the darndest things!

[waterspindle]

rupert; an extraordinarily creepy misguided sadist of absolutely no value to the human race.

[kramdoogs]

Yes Rupert you have all the answers, to things that will make YOU money. Tell me the price of oil is today as you predicted it to be about $50 a barrel because of the Gulf war? It's all about Rupert and don't be fooled by his BS

[nowthatsinteresting1]

Whether free markets is your religion or not, Murdoch needs to be taken down. He has played an important part in subverting democracies across the planet, in forcing through a very limited idea of the free market (ie its free for massive corporations, everyone else can swivel) , he's taken journalism and made the profession even lower than politicans in the eyes of the public, its obvious he's been interferring in the Metropolitan police in London (ref the phone tapping scandal) - he's scum.

[Consumerofknowledge]

Is this guy jewish?

[Riddlerx333x]

@Consumerofknowledge obviously

[reodk]

@Consumerofknowledge Very.

[Rationalranter]

Murdoch day. that's the day that humanity will rejoice in the death of an evil media mogul. the Free market is nothing more than a complex series of postulations about human behaviour lumped in with bogus marketing and economic terminology and it benefits the rich by decreeing unto the masses that we should do nothing to protect ourselves and our interests which ironically contradicts the original theory it was built on, its a fucking paranoid nightmare rendered in calculus.

[pippenstein]

I will also add that anyone that thinks that there is no "motivation" in a society without profit/wealth, needs to get their heads out of their asses.

99% of human existence was lived in band societies where "profit" and "wealth" meant nada - they were non-existent. But we were motivated, otherwise none of us would be here. Survival, friendship, love, fear, hope, hunger, sadness, happines... In other words, the things that make us HUMAN motivated us.

Wealth/profit is for neanderthals. ;)

[MikeNobodyIsBack]

He sounds drunk.

[MihiLibertas]

Why Rupert..markets are all manipulated.

[loveforchina]

RIP Mr. Murdock

[Szkeptik]

Free markets are helping especially the poor?

That's the joke of the year.

Free markets do help the poor a bit, but they help the rich a lot more. The result is a widening gap between the poor and the rich with the middle class slowly but constantly disappearing. Some regulation is indeed needed if we don't want the future population to consist of 0.1% awesomely rich and 99.9% poor.

[Finn001abd]

You deleted my comment ?? Well, I'll just keep posting this until it stays:

It has helped the global elite to become immensely rich. While forcing workers to compete with each other for minimum wages and lower and lower working conditions.

[portantwas]

The only time I've agreed with Murdoch. The economic crisis, or whatever it is being called now, isn't about open markets but about a practice of consumerism fueled by unsustainable debt in the West. Protectionism by governments is the WRONG response. If the US starts doing it, everyone other country will, and inefficiences and corruption will follow.

OMG - could I be a closet right-winger after all !  8-0

[stuffisgd]

Fuck you Murdoch. Fuck you right in the ear!

[arequipa1]

why?

[arequipa1]

i get a thumbs down for asking why this dork says "fuck you" to murdoch? youtube is filled with idiots.

[eirefrance]

Thumbs down for whining.

[arequipa1]

thumbs down for a bad reason for giving a thumbs down.

[eirefrance]

thumbs up for beating me at my own game.  Well played, sir, well played.

[arequipa1]

thumbs  up for compliments!

[WarVideo]

Finally somebody major comes out and says something positive about markets.

[eirefrance]

"Wey must keep open mahkets". Because without them Murdoch wouldn't be richer than Midas and I might have a decent job that pays a living wage.

[truthadvocate]

Jealousy and envy never helped anyone. A free market is not a zero sum game. Murdoch's wealth has nothing to do with your salary. If we had free markets you would be making a better wage and your cost of living would be much lower. Protectionism destroys jobs. To slow job loss, the government prints money. As a result, your money is worth less. You cannot fight the laws of nature. Free market economics is one of those laws.

[Hopeful71]

I don't envy Murdoch's wealth, I despise his consolidation of power through media. He is not the only one but he is a celebrity figure head that represents that greed and lust for power. They are also not 100% to blame; people will take power if it is given & we have given them that power.

Free market economy is not a law, it is a theory & a fundementally flawed one at that (and before you say; yes, socialism is also flawed).

[silversalvo]

Just a few technical points: The fed prints money , not the government . The fed being an entity outside the jurisdiction of the government , though not completely obfuscated from it.

Secondly: though Murdock's wealth has no direct relation to an other's , the totality does; A United nation report exposed that 10% of the global population owned 85% of all the global wealth.

Lastly ; Money does not have any intrinsic value to being with .

[silversalvo]

the last point should read :money does not have any value to begin with ***

[truthadvocate]

Interesting. Here's what I found out: The Federal Reserve System is an independent government institution that has private aspects. The seven-members on the Board of Governors are appointed by the President of the U.S. and confirmed by the Senate. The Fed (Chairman) is one of those members and thus also appointed by the President. The Fed is somewhat independent, but still a part of the government.

[truthadvocate]

10 people each have a seed. After a year, Bob has turned his seed into 5100 seeds. Every other person, turned their seed into 100 seeds. 10% of the people now own 85% of the wealth. So what? Nobody is any worse off. Everyone has improved their wealth. Now they can study what Bob did, and use what they learn in order to increase their seeds. They can develop ways to be more productive next year. How is this a problem? And do you have a right to steal Bob's seeds?

[silversalvo]

Does this hypothetical society use "Seeds" as part of its economic structure? As in a sort of currency , as a hierarchy status of some kind perhaps. Does this gathering of seeds translate into political power; Campaign contributions to candidates or influence over laws .

If its just producing seeds for the purpose of consuming , and if Bob's method isn't a privately owned intellectual property; Then nothing is wrong . If not , and Bobs ends up usurping decision making from the public, it is.

[theporksicle]

Absolutely, Milton Friedman noted that a free market means everybody can win. IE people receive services they want/need and people get credits (i.e money) for performing those services.

[eirefrance]

Good point. I mean, except for the hundreds of years of protectionist policies practiced by Europe that resulted in great wealth for the countries involved.  And the fact that 20 years of 'free trade' have lowered the real wages and raised the working hours of American workers. But yeah, in the textbooks of economists and free of any of that sticky reality, free trade is freakin awesome!!!!

[truthadvocate]

"20 years of free trade" ...when?

over 145,000 pages of federal regulations. 500 billion dollars spent each year to comply with the IRS. You call that free trade?

What reality do you live in?

[eirefrance]

I know, I know, theres never been free trade. You're perfect world where every human is equal parts a producing/selling/buying machine that follows the rational law of markets has never come to pass. I'm truly sorry for you. Meanwhile, the rest of us are having a real discussion about things like NAFTA and globalization.

[truthadvocate]

People exchange things for other things they value more. I guess that makes everyone selling/buying machines. But not all of us are producing machines. You certainly don't sound like one. If you produce a lower quality at a higher price, you want mommy government to punish your competitors. Were forced to buy your expensive crap. Other governments retaliate punishing the rest of us with trade wars. Everyone else suffers. Eventually you do too. Protectionism is selfish, foolish & destructive.

[Justprayfirst]

Quoted from Atlas Shrugged? Great comments.

Good book.

The wannabees have learned to use fear and distraction to get control. Cap and Trade tax is being passed in States and proposed at the Federal level, while the media obsesses about the healthcare bill.

[Rationalranter]

@truthadvocate products based on oil I presume captain narrow mind. and what happens when your economy has been paralysed by "free market" stock dealing and becomes a passive importer of goods with a populace that provides only endless service industry solutions whilst eating mass produced "free market" fodder growing ever more ignorant in front of the "free market" television that panders to the widest demographic? Everyone suffers. Eventually you do too.

[truthadvocate]

@Rationalranter,

Americans are ignorant primarily because of public school, not because of the free market. For the millionth time, we do not have a free market in this country.

[Rationalranter]

@truthadvocate nobody has a "free market" because it does not exist, its a carrot on a stick, it will never exist; so long as there exists money and time for it to accumulate in an individuals pocket. Good luck when McDonald's opens its first primary school, that will be nice to see, little kids drawing a picture of their favourite burger and French-fries all playing with Mr Coke a cola, it will be very economic since they wont need a secondary school to go to, as they won't live long enough.

[truthadvocate]

@Rationalranter,

Free markets involving money have existed in the past.

Your characterization of free market education was hilarious. If such a school existed, the great thing about free markets is that you have many other choices to choose from. With the current system, most people have one choice, public school. And studies have actually shown that the meat provided in public school is 10 times more likely to contain harmful bacteria than the meat provided by Jack in the Box.

[Andybaby]

Yea right, this is like the Queen coming out in favour of the Monarchy.

[arequipa1]

and what are you in favor of? communism?

[silversalvo]

talk about the mother of all non sequitur .

[arequipa1]

wrong. those who writhe with displeasure at the idea of open markets tend to be the type who are in favor of redistribution of wealth and all that marxist jazz. so no, you're quite incorrect, my little friend.

[silversalvo]

Yikes.

Anyone who shows independent thought , critical thinking or alternative views is the enemy , yes? And "my" way is the best way , the only way , the ideologically pure way . "You're either with us or against us" , "Good versus Evil" and all that rhetorical obtuseness.

Let me ask you a question: How does it feel to be completely paranoid and brainwashed ? Is it an intellectual spasm of some sort perhaps? Or do you simply black out /miss time when the trigger work is spoken?

[arequipa1]

ignoring the fact that your response is downright disrespectful, i'll comment back. aren't you leftists a little tired of assuming that people who disagree with you don't have independent thought, don't think critically, and are brainwashed? as a matter of fact i'm highly educated and i'm in favor of markets. i think people who are NOT in favor of markets are WRONG. that's all there is to it. take your tripe about paranoia and spasms and open your own freaking mind, smartass.

[silversalvo]

This is what i find amusing about free markets and its proponents:

Its the idea that what ever it may be , "leave it to the market to decide". Well ironies of ironies ; Even the market rejected its own merit. It collapsed ; greed and self interest lead to its inevitable conclusion ,which is to self destruct.

Banks, the pillar of the system, extorted the people with a financial gun to the head.

And now you need to borrow YOUR own money , at interest , to by crap you don't need, "Or else!".

[silversalvo]

And somehow ; I should be more open minded?

[arequipa1]

and since you think markets are the root of all evil, or whatever you lefties think, i'd love to hear your blueprint for a global economic system. no, really, let's hear it, and i'll tell you why it's rubbish.

[silversalvo]

In less than 500 words, this maybe hard .

" A Non-profit society " : Non-profit organizations would be the model template ; Essentially , workers are rewarded in respect to the same credentials as today, Ei: Education , patents , experience. Administrative costs are added up , budgets are set accordingly. Any surplus is purge as opposed to capitalized upon.

Its a economic theory centered around : Cost , the limit of price.

Instead of : Cost = the price + Interests+ Speculations+profits+...

[fatmanprime]

In practice, that's working for free. There would be absolutely no motivation to run buisness.

[silversalvo]

Actually its "work" for any sort of accepted currency.

Its an economic concept rather similar to what we have at the moment ; without profits , speculations, over compensation, interests et cetera . And it make sense , why would you have more than you deserve ? Nevertheless you still end up with "motivations" to work : To survive , to gather wealth , career improvements and so on and so forth . Case and point , Non profit organization exists right now, and are motivated to do so.

[fatmanprime]

How do you gather wealth with no profit? And then what is the motivation?

[silversalvo]

"How do you gather wealth with no profits?"

Through labor ; One would receive income that is proportional to the work exerted. Any form of compensation that is more or less is unethical .Consequently one would trade goods at a price that is no more than the cost to himself of acquiring those goods.

In other words; You gather wealth , by working for it and savings.

Profits are not labor; They're charges you make in excess of the cost it took to produce: Rents , interests , investments etc.

[silversalvo]

As for your other question , i'm afraid i don't understand it.

[pippenstein]

Silver: You're wrong.

In traditional economic theory, the value of a commodity is based on 1. labor, 2. rent, 3. maintenence of equipment, 4. cost of new equipment. (I might be missing something else, but this is very close.)

Add up all 4 items, divide it by the number of commodities produced, and that is the "value" of each commodity.

Of the 4 items, however, Labor is the most slippery. Cost of living? Transportation to/from work? etc.

(cont. on next post)

[pippenstein]

The reason why the cost of Labor is so slippery is that there are so many variables in the lives of each individual worker. Plus, what qualifies as work? How much should the employer be responsible for the health of his employees (insurance, medical care, etc.)?

However, simply put, an equitable distribution would be to pay off equipment maintentence, pay off rent (if necessary), pay off cost of resources/new equipment, and whatever is left divide EQUALLY amongst ALL (including employer).

[pippenstein]

(Part 3)

HOWEVER, what everyone is paid, including the employer, will be the same for everyone and will be just enough to cover cost of living.

This prevents "ripping off" the consumer.

Yet, NO PROFIT = NO WEALTH. (Except if you define wealth by just happiness, and not by accumulation of "things" and money). For there to be a "profit", something of the 4 items must be cut back, or the consumer must be ripped off.

Or, as in capitalism, the workers get ripped off, and the boss profits.

[silversalvo]

Maybe you've misunderstood me , or perhaps i've misunderstood you; where was i wrong ?

I agree with this part , "Or as in capitalism, the worker get ripped off and the boss profits". In fact my main arguments points to this conclusion. I disagree with profits/greed in all forms : Rents, Interests and other types of dividends.

Has for "how do we judge the merit of work?" Many ways: Trade Unions , Social study indexes , Private Contracts , Min/Max labor value laws ... Just to name a few.

[pippenstein]

Quote: "You gather wealth , by working for it and savings."

That's what I meant by, "you're wrong". Bosses do not work for wealth, yet they acquire it, through profit. Profit and wealth go hand in hand. In a truly equitable society, wealth will be non-existent, because being wealthy is only intelligible in contrast to "non-wealthy".

For there to be wealth, there must be people being exploited. Profit, violence, theft - these are ways in which wealth is acquired. Not through "hard work".

[pippenstein]

Also, after a certain point, the "many ways" you fel we can judge the merit of work blurs the line between the reality of the situation and the ILLUSION.

All of those things, even trade unions, make no real difference. The numbers are still made up however the profitting bodies want them to be. Payoffs, payoffs, payoffs, spin, spin, spin.

No, until capitalism is abolished, the way we determine value is the struggle between the owning class and the working class. Everything else is B.S.

[silversalvo]

I think you may have misinterpreted what i was saying.

The quoted part was in response to someone else questioning "wealth" in my "theoretical" (non capitalist) economic frame work where: profits , rents , financial dividends etc ... would be eliminated. Assuming such a scenario , one would have to work to gather wealth.

I'd suggest you you reread what i said, we seem to be in agreement on many points.

[pippenstein]

Silversalvo: I don't think I misinterpreted what you were saying, but it's possible.

I wasn't saying we're on different sides. What I was saying was that I think you may have missed the point that in a socialist world, "wealth" would become meaningless and, most importantly, nonexistent.

One can not gather that which does not exist! In a theoretical, non-capitalist society, the moment "wealth" emerges and is gathered, something has gone wrong!

But, hell, we're on the same side, right?

[silversalvo]

Well thanks for clearing things up ;)

I guess i misunderstood you, its much clearer now . On the "picking sides" thing: I don't like to think of it that way; It sounds dogmatic and confrontational , lets just say we probably share lots of similar views.

[arequipa1]

wrong. the market corrected. there are big ups and big downs to go with the little ups and little downs. learn, please.

[silversalvo]

So the hundreds of billions in bailout , and the hundred more to come given to "Car makers" "insurers" ,"National builders" , "Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac " and a copious others , was what? For giggles mainly ?

And all the top economists , left and right, talking about : "A second great depression" , "Economic crisis" , "Global down turn". They're all wrong , and you... you encompass all in 2 phrases: " its just a correction , A big down to a big up".

United States of amnesia indeed.

[arequipa1]

is it possible for you to reply in a way that isn't rude or insulting, or is that beyond your capabilities? you'll get attitude right back. TRUE free market enterprise would dictate that we let those private companies fail. but the fed govt jumped in and decided to buy up a bunch of stock and loan money to them in the name of the economy. this is unrelated to free market economics. as to your point about depressions and global downturns, i've already told you.....

[silversalvo]

Actually its the "fed" that orchestrated the first (and a small fraction of the second ) bailout , (Not government interference ) on the premise that : "Hands in the air, look down, now give me the authorization (not that it matters cause ill do it anyway) to print money , or else!"

Funny thing , the "Fed" is the end result of wealthy industrialist/bankers acting on "free market ideologies" in what was called the "Free bank era" which , some believe , cause the great depression.

Enjoy.

[arequipa1]

.... markets do not always go "up." there are not always times of prosperity. it's just a fact of life and of econ 101.

i didn't hear any lefties hollering that "markets don't work" BEFORE the recession, when the "working man" (or whatever) was gainfully employed and bringing home the bacon.

[silversalvo]

Actually many did say such things.

But its human nature to wait until its too late before acting. Its a lot easier stay in your routine and ignore the dissenter ("he's just a crazy commie" and such ) Its easier to believe that you'll be able to buy anything , with imaginary money you don't have ,at interest , for ever. Until the bottoms drop and now , all a sudden , that crazy commie isn't so crazy after all.

(Not that i'm a commie , but its a stereotype: Brought to you by, Wage Slavery.)

[truthadvocate]

@silversalvo,

The banks are only able to rob us blind because of government backing, government imposed fiat currency laws, forced government taxation, fractional reserve banking which is only possible because government bails them out when they can't pay back customers.

It's very common to hear people blame the free market for problems caused entirely by government.

[silversalvo]

@truthadvocate

Just out of curiosity , what would it take to convince you that "free market capitalism" is rubbish ?

[truthadvocate]

@silversalvo,

"Capitalism" has been given an undeserved bad reputation. Free market capitalism is simply a respect for legitimate private property, voluntary exchange, & the non-aggression principal. A respect for private property is absolutely essential for human survival. Without it, there is very little incentive to be productive. Voluntary exchange just means freedom. The non-aggression principal encourages peace and cooperation. What aspect of these three principals is rubbish?

[silversalvo]

@truthadvocate

You didn't answer my question. What would it take to convince you that Free market capitalism is rubbish ?

[truthadvocate]

@silversalvo,

I did in a way. If you point out, using air tight logic, how any of the three principals are "rubbish" (whatever that means), I will then have to assume that free market capitalism is "rubbish" as well.

But to be honest, I don't even know what you mean by the word "rubbish." Do you mean it's impractical? unfair? immoral? an illusion? Impossible? What do you mean by "rubbish?"

[silversalvo]

@truthadvocate

Rubbish , as in : Its nonsense.

As for you 3 principles : 1) In order to "respect" property , one has to abide by rules laid down by a legal system. Organization invested in jurisprudence must necessarily be impartial and distinct from properties .Moreover ,rightful ownership must be enforced through authoritative measures. Ergo ,respect for property can only be ensured by a body politic exercising control over its subjects , IE States. Respect is only possible under government

[silversalvo]

@truthadvocate

2) As with point 1, Voluntary exchanges necessitate governmental forms of controls to avoid fraud , extortion , or simply to formalize exchanges of any sort.

Moreover, external cost of trades (Externalities) affecting third parties inevitably make some , if not all ,exchanges involuntary . Similarly the rights to intellectual proprieties ( intangible goods ) force members of society into contracts in which they have no control over.

Ergo, not all exchanges are voluntary.

[silversalvo]

@truthadvocate

3) Non aggression makes little sense if a clear declaration of hostility and intent isn't made. Secondly, NAP. fails to introduce the scope of violence allowed in self defence in response to said hostilities . By consequence ,the nature of non aggression is vague and inconsistent.

Insofar as it would apply to the real world , it would still need observation, legislation and enforcement of verdicts made by an impartial 3rd party not bound by the principle of non-aggression

[silversalvo]

@truthadvocate This is as air tight as you'll get on YT.

By the simple introduction of the principles you espouse , we see that these ideas are self refuting and contrary to Free market capitalism ; As they necessitate or derive conflicting notions from their theoretical forms to their applicable mechanism.

This shouldn't come as any surprise since the underlying condition of Free market capitalism is one of perfect markets. Needless to say that nothing is perfect. This is why its rubbish.

[truthadvocate]

@silversalvo,

Wow, I appreciate the valiant effort! But each point you made demonstrates that we define these principals very differently and you are unaware that simple solutions to the problems you point out have already been developed and practiced. There is such a thing as a free market legal system in which competing systems of law & justice are naturally selected by consumers. Such a system is not perfect, but more likely to administer real justice than our current coercive monopoly.

[silversalvo]

@truthadvocate

-There is such a thing as a free market legal system in which competing systems of law & justice are naturally selected by consumers.

But how would these laws make any sense ? They wouldn't be written in a unified context and would be issued and consumed in a completely arbitrarily fashion. I could , for example, produce (And consume) a law that makes it legal to shoot you in the face. What would select the laws wouldn't be the markets, but who can enforce their own violently.

[truthadvocate]

@silversalvo

...continued. You don't understand NAP. The non-aggression principal does not oppose all coercion. Using a reasonable amount of force to defend oneself & one's property is entirely justified. The non-aggression principal is specifically opposed to the "initiation" of coercion. Once again free market law can provide disincentives & punishment for fraud, extortion & property damage caused by externalities. No declaration of hostility is necessary to prove property damage has occurred.

[silversalvo]

@truthadvocate

-Using a reasonable amount of force to defend ...

But what defines reasonable? Maybe shooting you in the face was reasonable, from my point of view, plus the law allows it ( The law i bought) . And again , how do we know who initiated it? The documents I bought shows that you're up to something, it was either you or me , it was self defence on my part.

And again its not the market that provides grounds for rights and wrongs, its the enforcement and legislation through force

[truthadvocate]

@silversalvo,

...continued. "an impartial 3rd party not bound by the principle of non-aggression" Some disputes require a 3rd, 4th or 5th party which can be provided by a free market. But, when you give any party the right to violate the non-aggression principal, you destroy the possibility of justice. That is the problem with our current system.

The claim that free market capitalism requires perfect markets is a common strawman. No system is perfect.

[silversalvo]

@truthadvocate -when you give any party the right to violate the non-aggression principal, you destroy the possibility of justice. Exactly. And if we're all trading in and abiding to different laws and different types of interpretations bought on the markets , then all party would claim self defence. Any enforcement of a ruling would ,by default ,violate NAP . For a ruling to have any legitimacy, it must be imposed which contradicts the essence of NAP. A 3rd party must therefore be unbound

[truthadvocate]

@silversalvo,

Prison is not necessary. It does not reform criminals. Putting criminals together encourages them to learn criminal ways from each other. It punishes innocent people by forcing them to pay living expenses for criminals. Ostracism is a much better punishment. If a criminal is not willing to respect court rulings he can be added to a list so people can voluntarily refuse to trade with him. It costs very little, is not an initiation of force & is a proven & effective punishment.

[silversalvo]

@truthadvocate

Who said anything about prison ? And how would ostracism work with multiple courts issuing multiple ruling realting to a myriad of disparate laws ? Let alone the problem of Crime syndicate: Mafia , Street gangs or Cartels making their own laws. Not to mention the criminal insane or violent offenders.They're not interest in trading with you . How would ostracism work against that?

You'd be going back a thousand years were pirates & barbarians pillaged what ever they pleased.

[truthadvocate]

@silversalvo,

1 You said a ruling must be imposed. The main way that is done today is by prison or the threat of imprisonment. That's why I addressed prison.

You don't have to go back a thousand years to find pirates. They exist today because Governments prohibit large ships from carrying fire power with which to defend themselves.

You mention crime syndicate. Yet the largest most dangerous crime syndicate is the government. It murders more people & steals more wealth than any gang in history.

[silversalvo]

@truthadvocate

You didn't answer my question: How would Ostracism work against Criminal organizations? Is your only answer : Get more guns ? Because that would simply mean that ostracism can't work.

A court ruling simply imposes a form of repayment. Prison is in no way the primary method of repayment , in fact most involves monetary repayment or community service. But that's beside the point ; How could anyone make sense of a court system based on disparate laws, rulings and repayments?

[truthadvocate]

@silversalvo

2 ...continued. You underestimate ostracism. The vast majority of people need to trade to survive. Imagine a criminal rapes & murders several children & ignores all respectable court rulings against him. The court submits his name & a way of accurately identifying him to a blacklist distributed worldwide via the Internet. Now imagine if people stop supplying him with food, clean water, shelter, healthcare & legal protection. It would be virtually impossible for him to survive.

[silversalvo]

@truthadvocate

What do you mean "The" court? If laws and judgements are part of the market , then there must be competition , we wouldn't want a monopoly or anything. So you'd have MANY courts , offering many verdicts and many repayment methods based on many more laws. None of which could ever produce a clear cut ruling.

Furthermore ,Ostracism could be avoided by changing ones identity. Since there is no centralized census to keep track of birth and Population, one could do so at a whim.

[silversalvo]

@truthadvocate

-You assume free market law will be plagued with contradictory laws & rulings.

How could it not be contradictory if anyone could purchase the laws or ruling they feel is legitimate? Obviously I'll buy which ever law and ruling that gives me a legal precedent for shooting you in the face. Moreover I can make my own , which would emphatically contradict yours. There would would be no moral grounds to justify one ruling over an other, since the firms merit is marketability.

[truthadvocate]

@silversalvo,

"Obviously I'll buy which ever law and ruling that gives me a legal precedent for shooting you in the face." Really? In a free society, it will be much more difficult to shoot people in the face without receiving a mortal wound in return, because without a central coercive government, individuals are actually free to defend themselves. Thus there is no incentive to go around shooting people in the face unless you're suicidal. Are you? I hope not.

[silversalvo]

@truthadvocate

-Thus there is no incentive to go around shooting people in the face unless you're suicidal.

The incentive is to take from you what I want. The means to my actions and The legitimacy of my actions is provided by the markets, who are more than willing to provide a solution to my needs. Whether you can defend yourself or not is only a matter of a weapons race. I could always poison you or virtually destroy you.

But what if I was suicidal, or part of a suicidal religion or cult?

[truthadvocate]

@silversalvo,

1. How will you benefit from theft if you're dead?

2. Shooting me in the face is not a need. When I say markets find solutions to needs, I'm talking about common needs, not the desires of a fictional character invented by silversalvo in a vacume as if no societal consequences exist.

3. If you poison me, you will be punished.

5. It's not just a weapons race. It's free people reacting to crimes against humanity. In a free society nobody is immune to the consequences of their actions.

[silversalvo]

@truthadvocate

.How will you benefit from theft ...? We're talking about incentives :The motivation to do something. Actual benefits are irrelevant.

2.Shooting me in the face is not a need.

Killing you might. Murder is a common occurrence. You blame the government for this too ?

3.If you poison me, you will be punished.

We've been through this before. How? Your market legislation makes no sense.

4. You skipped 4.

5. In a free society nobody is...

Yet you've provided nothing to back this up.

[truthadvocate]

@silversalvo, Our conversation is suffering because we're trying to ask & answer several questions in each response. Focusing on 1 for the moment. Your claim that actual benefits are irrelevant to incentives. If the consequence is a surprise, you are correct. But in the example we are discussing the consequence is not a surprise. In a free society you will be well aware that attempting to shoot me in the face will likely result in your death, just as you are aware of any obvious danger.

[silversalvo]

@truthadvocate

Attributing to "free society" a mutually ensured self destruction quality needs to be backed by some rational development. As it stands, "Free society" and "Free markets" are nothing more than Deus ex machina

Just to make sure I'm clear : The criminal act i introduce was an example. To quote myself: "I could , for example, produce (And consume) a law that makes it legal to shoot you in the face."

Arguing the technical nature of this is essentially a False attribution fallacy.

[silversalvo]

@truthadvocate

I'm actually not longer interested in continuing this discussion. I'm under them impression that you have a near religious belief in "Free markets & Society", and it would be utterly futile to continue this discussion any longer. I'll leave you with this quote:

"Every tax, however, is to the person who pays it a badge, not of slavery but of liberty."

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government."

-Adam Smith

[truthadvocate]

@silversalvo,

The state is a "deus ex machina" that has failed for thousands of years. But feel free to repeat mistakes & cling to the status quo.

Religion relies on faith. To understand basic economics, you don't need faith. You need logic & contrary to your assumptions, there are real life examples that demonstrate effective free market legal alternatives. It is statists that have faith in a primitive system that fails predictably.

Adam Smith is a dinosaur. Appeals to authority are worthless

[n8iveidiot13]

lol im not really sure but i feel like your comment says that both rightists and leftists are wrong in a way... im not saying its true its just how it come out of your words and into my head

[arequipa1]

nah, that's all right. basically it just vexes me that there are so many lefties out there now who are screaming that "markets don't work" when this recession is just part of what happens from time to time in market based economies. just this time, it's impacting most of the world.

markets DO work, capitalism DOES work, and when the market corrects itself and the economy turns around, the lefties will be proven wrong again. they're just looking for an axe to grind.

[arequipa1]

and i didn't hear any lefties hollering that "markets don't work" BEFORE the recession, when the "working man" (or whatever) was gainfully employed and bringing home the bacon.

[Rationalranter]

@Andybaby Bingo.