The Sanctuary
Carnality => Money Money Money... => Topic started by: Bart the General on October 01, 2014, 12:47:28 am
-
posting here instead of /r/economics because they're a bunch of neoliberal phaggots
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/09/hayek-and-libertarianism
AMONG the "manifestly silly and occasionally harmful positions" espoused by libertarians, "the idea of spontaneous order might be the silliest and most harmful of all", says Damon Linker in a much-read post at the Week.
This took me by surprise. It's true that Friedrich Hayek, whom Mr Linker shamelessly abuses, is the most prominent 20th-century intellectual behind the concept of spontaneous order—the theory that systems, such as markets, naturally correct, and function best without human meddling. It's true that Hayek is commonly lumped in with libertarians. It's true that spontaneous order is an idea libertarians tend to promote. Yet spontaneous order is not a libertarian idea. Crystals, the organisation of neurons in your brain, the ecosystem of the Amazon basin, and the English language are all examples of spontaneous order. According to most non-theological cosmologies, the universe itself is a spontaneous order. We should be careful not to give libertarians too much credit.
What it means to say that an order is spontaneous is simply to say its stable macro-level patterns—those things that make a complex system a system, an instance of order rather than disorder or randomness—do not come about through design, planning or imposition, but arise instead from the interaction of micro-level elements operating according to certain basic principles or rules. The order that arises spontaneously from markets, whereby prices are allowed to fluctuate freely with supply and demand, is a natural wonder admired by libertarians and non-libertarians alike. The idea that the world sometimes works this way is neither silly or harmful. It's just a fact.
So what's in Mr Linker's craw? He writes:
Simply stated, the idea [of a spontaneous order] holds that when groups of individuals are left alone, without government oversight or regulation, they will spontaneously form a social and economic order that is superior in organization, efficiency, and the conveyance of information than an order arranged from the top down through centralized planning.
I detect at least three problems here. First, Mr Linker has got the idea of spontaneous order somehow tangled up with the idea of utopian anarchism. Second, Mr Linker seems unclear about the distinction between the unplanned development of norms or rules and the unplanned higher-order patterns that rule-bound behaviour can generate. Third, he suggests a false dichotomy between utopian anarchy and central planning.
Libertarian theorists of spontaneous order, such as Hayek, certainly do argue that central planners cannot hope to impose an economic order more attractive and beneficial than the order known to arise spontaneously from a well-functioning market system. They happen to be right about this. They do not, however, argue that when groups of individuals are left alone, innocent of all government, that the Chicago Mercantile Exchange will somehow pop into existence like a mushroom under a damp elm.
According to Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek and everyone else who knows what he or she is talking about, well-functioning markets depend, inter alia, upon clear property rights and a judicial system that enforces agreements and resolve disputes. These institutions set the basic rules that govern the elements in the system (eg, you and me, in our capacity as buyers and sellers of goods, services, and labour) and account for its stable, higher-level emergent properties, such as allocative efficiency. The "rules of the game" determine the pattern or order that emerges when we, the players, play by those rules. The not-really-libertarian idea, if I may pursue the games metaphor, is that certain clear and simple rules can produce unpredictably complex and rewarding patterns of play. It's not that a bunch of random athletes dumped without instruction on a pitch will sooner or later spontaneously produce a gripping, well-ordered sporting spectacle. It's important not to confuse, as Mr Linker does, the process by which rules come about and the often surprising and complex patterns of activity those rules might bring about. So where do the micro-level rules that generate macro-level order originate?
Hayek argued that the rules that give rise to the higher-level order of the market are not the result of government planning—at least not initially. They emerge from a chancy process of socio-cultural evolution, and it's by no means bound to happen. Neither Adam Smith, he of "the invisible hand", nor Hayek believed that one can simply throw people together and the institutions of modern liberal capitalism will "spontaneously" appear. The puzzle of modern economic growth is a puzzle precisely because for millennia nothing like it ever got going and then suddenly it did get going with alarming and immensely beneficial consequences. Thinkers such as Smith and Hayek are so profoundly valuable because they have helped us to recognise the role these rules play, once chanced upon, in bringing about the wealth and well-being of the extended market order. Because these rules are of such enormous utility, Smith and Hayek implored governments to codify and enforce them. That is to say, they wanted government to oversee and regulate markets, as do libertarians who count on governments to enforce contracts and define, clarify and protect property rights.
Smith and Hayek resorted to the idea of a spontaneous order not to argue against the necessity of government, but to argue against mercantilism and the micromanagement of the economy, and to remind us that the patterns of behaviour that arise from the rules we impose through legislation often fail to match our best-laid plans. Smith's fat volumes on jurisprudence are not the work of man who believes public policy to be pointless, or that government rules are not necessary for prosperity. Hayek's magnum opus, "The Constitution of Liberty", is a work in favour of, among other things, a constitution. Reading Mr Linker, however, one gets the idea that the entire classical liberal tradition is an enterprise in state-smashing utopianism. You probably already know, as Mr Linker should know, that it's not.
State-smashing libertarians may be silly and they may be harmful. Some of them are enamoured with the idea of spontaneous order, it's true. But that's not an argument against spontaneous order any more than Hitler's vegetarianism is an argument against kale.
Basically, an excellent nonpartisan article by the economist explaining how people confuse free market capitalism with libertarian neckbeardedness. Governments acting as non interventionalist (for the most part) overseers and how regulation is entirely possible in this day and age
inb40replies
-
0 replies
all 11 views are me furiously pressing f5
fuck this gayass forum of retarded victims and faggots
I'm the smartest and best looking person here and that's really a shame
-
0 replies
all 11 views are me furiously pressing f5
fuck this gayass forum of retarded victims and faggots
I'm the smartest and best looking person here and that's really a shame
I read it, the whole post, but economics is not my thing and I probably cannot give you the intelligent discussion that you require.
-
0 replies
all 11 views are me furiously pressing f5
fuck this gayass forum of retarded victims and faggots
I'm the smartest and best looking person here and that's really a shame
I read it, the whole post, but economics is not my thing and I probably cannot give you the intelligent discussion that you require.
Good, I'm glad someone read it, you are truly based
It's not so much about promoting intellectual discussion as it is about redefining what it means to be "libertarian" and "free market" and it just goes over how these things have become misconstrued by phaggots over the years.
-
It's not so much about promoting intellectual discussion as it is about redefining what it means to be "libertarian" and "free market" and it just goes over how these things have become misconstrued by phaggots over the years.
You can probably predict what my opinion on this would be, seeing as how I am far to the right of timothy mcveigh politically, I am almost on the edge of being an anarchist I am so right wing.
I am not sure of the reasoning, and maybe I can hash it out in this thread, but I believe in absolutely no market intervention, period. If someone buys snake oil, and they don't fucking like it, maybe next time they will be discriminating in their purchases.
If a company lies about their product ingredients, and people find out, people might not buy it. I believe, in my uneducated way, that 'markets' tend to themselves.
I will be back later or tomorrow to post about this further, if there are replies.
-
Perhaps I am one of those liberterian neckbeards you speak of, but I see no reason why not to believe in the idea of spontaneous order. Everywhere I've been shows me that the freer the market - the faster the economic growth. At the same time, it also means a fairly free people. Paradoxically compare healthcare in Europe and in the US - the US healthcare system is far from being a free market, even when compared to the systems in Europe and who could've guessed - it's a fucking joke. However, on the flipside, look at the job markets in the US vs in Europe - Europe has much stronger labor laws so hiring and firing people is much harder whereas most places in the US have the whole at-will work thing, which means if you're not performing - you're out. I've been able to achieve much more whilst living in the US than I would have been able to do in Europe because of this.
While your post is Hayek in a nutshell, I recommend "The Road to Surfdom" as a better introduction to Hayek as well as a surprisingly up to date warning on what's happening. The book was initially written as a warning against socialism during WW2, but god damn it, I think it applies even more nowadays.
Good post, OP.
-
posting here instead of /r/economics because they're a bunch of neoliberal phaggots
What did you expect? Everyone is a Keynesian, state worshipping faggot.
I'm a voluntaryist, anarcho-capitalist.
-
It is definitely an interesting read, and I'll admit.. I haven't made it completely through your post yet before I had a thought I wanted to convey. While I agree that sufficient economic systems can develop without government oversight (and I in no way am trying to kiss the governments ass here), but where does security from theft and and intimidation fall in within this thesis? Is it intended that the government still serve it's purpose as enforcers or with this economic freedom is it simply up to merchants and the like to make sure they don't get robbed, scammed, or otherwise duped by fraudulent means? I'm definitely going to read over this some more.. one of the better reads I've come across in a while.
-
is it simply up to merchants and the like to make sure they don't get robbed, scammed, or otherwise duped by fraudulent means?
Yes.
-
is it simply up to merchants and the like to make sure they don't get robbed, scammed, or otherwise duped by fraudulent means?
Yes.
So is this relating to a complete absence of government in general and its effects on a possible self governed economic system? Because if there was still a government entity, I'm not sure how it would be expected to deal with people exacting their revenge for being screw over.. With all this in mind, if this is all based on the hypothetical ideal of having no government entity whatsoever, then whats to stop another organized government/country from coming in with their army and making everyone their bitch again? Considering the government does oversee national/public defense.. or is this also an expectation for common people to figure out and organize on their own as well?
-
is it simply up to merchants and the like to make sure they don't get robbed, scammed, or otherwise duped by fraudulent means?
Yes.
So is this relating to a complete absence of government in general and its effects on a possible self governed economic system? Because if there was still a government entity, I'm not sure how it would be expected to deal with people exacting their revenge for being screw over.. With all this in mind, if this is all based on the hypothetical ideal of having no government entity whatsoever, then whats to stop another organized government/country from coming in with their army and making everyone their bitch again? Considering the government does oversee national/public defense.. or is this also an expectation for common people to figure out and organize on their own as well?
yes
-
So... We can have economic freedom from blatant taxation, seizure, control, and regulation.. But in the long run we'll be sucking communist schlomg or have our asses buried in the ground? Sounds pretty shitty either way..
-
So... We can have economic freedom from blatant taxation, seizure, control, and regulation.. But in the long run we'll be sucking communist schlomg or have our asses buried in the ground? Sounds pretty shitty either way..
you assume too much....the soviets did the same in afghanistan
plus we already won one war pretty much using irregulars
-
I suppose it's because I live out in the country and make most of my money getting paid in cash. In fact, finding a regular stable job is about impossible or will only drive you deeper in debt.. It's much easier to get that under the table mullah... I prefer it that way. It's a small isolated independent economic system unique to the small community in which I live, yet not large enough to directly call upon any unnecessary and unwanted attention.. Most of it is labo intensive in nature.. Unregulated farmers market, shade tree mechanics, splitting/selling firewood, harvesting ginseng and other coveted botanicals, etc.. It's a lifestyle that has faded from American culture, but it does still exist.. I'm just thankful I was fortunate enough to be born in a rural underdeveloped region over say... the suburbs.. And no disrespect to those folks, but you just don't have the same opportunities elsewhere..
-
I suppose it's because I live out in the country and make most of my money getting paid in cash. In fact, finding a regular stable job is about impossible or will only drive you deeper in debt.. It's much easier to get that under the table mullah... I prefer it that way. It's a small isolated independent economic system unique to the small community in which I live, yet not large enough to directly call upon any unnecessary and unwanted attention.. Most of it is labo intensive in nature.. Unregulated farmers market, shade tree mechanics, splitting/selling firewood, harvesting ginseng and other coveted botanicals, etc.. It's a lifestyle that has faded from American culture, but it does still exist.. I'm just thankful I was fortunate enough to be born in a rural underdeveloped region over say... the suburbs.. And no disrespect to those folks, but you just don't have the same opportunities elsewhere..
Out where you are talking about, there isn't a cop on every corner having to keep everyone in line. People just live their lives, and by doing so, everything sort of falls into place. Sure there are people who do fucked up things, but that happens in america today, even with all our laws and regulations. its not like it prevents anything, matter of fact in some cases (the drug war) it exacerbates the problems. Even in places with very little in the way of laws and rules, i.e. parts of the old west, it really wasn't anarchy and riots.
Most people want to be productive, and want to do the right thing. And the ones that don't, won't let any laws stop them, they will do it regardless. I imagine a place where, if someone hurts your family, you and the neighbors get together and take care of the problem. Where if the roads are rutted or potholed, the locals fix the problem, without needing outside help. Where if a factory is dumping toxins into the water, the area residents burn the fucking place to the ground.
One may imagine all sorts of violent situations arising from such a system, but you know what? That shit happens anyway, with the systems we have in place. Nothing 'prevents' it. It happens, and is happening, right fucking now. What is the old saying, 'we traded freedom for a the illusion of security'? We here in America are so 'domesticated' (enslaved) that we forgot what it is like to be free.
-
Damn right man, damn right! It's hard for me to sometimes not be at least a little disillusioned because of my particular situation.. But I agree with you entirely, that's the world I want to see. And as you mentioned with a community taking care of a factory diliberately and consciously polluting the water table.. How fucked up is it that we as a society accept that these malevolent corporations are protected by pre-established regulations.. Hell, some of them aren't even pre-established.. They are constantly lawyering up and protecting their asses with.. What, some words on paper? I see the illusion you speak of.. Fear of repucushions reinforced with planned acts of violence to instill obedience throughout the masses..
And a lot of people are awake to this.. Some, like me.. Don't vocalize it often simply because our specific situation isn't as dire or seemingly oppressive as others.. Another thing to consider is, how far is just too far? When do the masses fight back and reclaim their freedom? Surely, without a damn good incident to stir the pot, the powers that be will methodically continue to siphon freedom while successfully portraying freedom fighters as the enemy of the state.. The ignorant masses eat it up and condemn them as we'll.. Why? Because blind patriotism is fashionable.. Gah, I don't even know.. I think to think on this some more.
-
the 'powers that be' have perfected 'human farming' to such a degree, that most people will never 'wake up'.
-
Here's the thing.. These conversations that we familiarize around here, while enlightening to some or just the passer byers.. Is all well and good. How do we achieve change? The masses aren't awake or.. Simply aren't interested. Some would go as far to say that their life as a slave to the system is adversely better than if they weren't living in an oppressed society. And.. For some, that may actually be right. We have to be careful not to mistake the strive for freedom with any sort of angst for those rightfully price lager through genuine hard work.. In my opinion, it seems that the only efficient way to tear down the machine is from th inside.. How do you get good people on the inside? Is it even possible to do so without thinking they themselves have crossed over? Our paranoia becomes us.. There has to be some relatively intelligent ideas out there on this subject.. I can think of many, but then I pick them a part. I'm not sure you can reall succeed without having to sacrifice at least some part of the integrity of the original goal? Without purity, it's all for nothing..
-
Here's the thing.. These conversations that we familiarize around here, while enlightening to some or just the passer byers.. Is all well and good. How do we achieve change? The masses aren't awake or.. Simply aren't interested. Some would go as far to say that their life as a slave to the system is adversely better than if they weren't living in an oppressed society. And.. For some, that may actually be right. We have to be careful not to mistake the strive for freedom with any sort of angst for those rightfully price lager through genuine hard work.. In my opinion, it seems that the only efficient way to tear down the machine is from th inside.. How do you get good people on the inside? Is it even possible to do so without thinking they themselves have crossed over? Our paranoia becomes us.. There has to be some relatively intelligent ideas out there on this subject.. I can think of many, but then I pick them a part. I'm not sure you can reall succeed without having to sacrifice at least some part of the integrity of the original goal? Without purity, it's all for nothing..
hell, I don't know
-
Here's the thing.. These conversations that we familiarize around here, while enlightening to some or just the passer byers.. Is all well and good. How do we achieve change? The masses aren't awake or.. Simply aren't interested. Some would go as far to say that their life as a slave to the system is adversely better than if they weren't living in an oppressed society. And.. For some, that may actually be right. We have to be careful not to mistake the strive for freedom with any sort of angst for those rightfully price lager through genuine hard work.. In my opinion, it seems that the only efficient way to tear down the machine is from th inside.. How do you get good people on the inside? Is it even possible to do so without thinking they themselves have crossed over? Our paranoia becomes us.. There has to be some relatively intelligent ideas out there on this subject.. I can think of many, but then I pick them a part. I'm not sure you can reall succeed without having to sacrifice at least some part of the integrity of the original goal? Without purity, it's all for nothing..
hell, I don't know
It's all psychological warfare.
-
Here's the thing.. These conversations that we familiarize around here, while enlightening to some or just the passer byers.. Is all well and good. How do we achieve change? The masses aren't awake or.. Simply aren't interested. Some would go as far to say that their life as a slave to the system is adversely better than if they weren't living in an oppressed society. And.. For some, that may actually be right. We have to be careful not to mistake the strive for freedom with any sort of angst for those rightfully price lager through genuine hard work.. In my opinion, it seems that the only efficient way to tear down the machine is from th inside.. How do you get good people on the inside? Is it even possible to do so without thinking they themselves have crossed over? Our paranoia becomes us.. There has to be some relatively intelligent ideas out there on this subject.. I can think of many, but then I pick them a part. I'm not sure you can reall succeed without having to sacrifice at least some part of the integrity of the original goal? Without purity, it's all for nothing..
hell, I don't know
It's all psychological warfare.
Damn, I was writing that on mobile and there were quite a few sentences that just didnt translate into what they were supposed to. Eh, well.. Again, I see the point of the problems with the system.. but no one has an answer on how to fix, combat, or transcend these problems. It'd almost be easier to play the system for whats its worth (which is what most people do anyways), and then get out by setting yourself up to be unreliant.. which is somewhat my goal with my self sufficient farm (well, it's getting there).. At this point in time, it's the best solution I can think of.. And perhaps, if everyone else was trying to do it, then it really would take away the control the government has... hmm.. now that I think of it, if we could inspire a nation of peoples to strive for self sufficiency.. it really would put a boot in the governments ass.. except maybe then they would tax you on the sun for your solar energy, or develop advance diseases to ruin sharecropper farms.. Blah.. all this talk is getting boring..
-
where does security from theft and and intimidation fall in within this thesis?
private security companies with AK's to body anyone using coercion?
nah, seriously, as much as I don't think that's really an issue (as long as it doesn't result in monopolies that can't fall which doesn't really make sense since without regulation and complete control of all factors of production, the monopoly will be forced to rely on other companies who could in theory collude to enforce price discrimination on the monopoly and as a result create competition again) the yakuza literally become shareholders and lock the doors at meetings and tell people what the company is going to do. That's the main source of income for one of the biggest gangs in the world in the most keynesian country in the world.
Basically, "intimidation" is fucking rampart now in the form of "I take yo house, I take yo car, I take yo resources I take yo country" if you're talking about coercion through physical intimdation then basically who gives a fuck? How the fuck is that a real problem and how can it get worse by allowing a spontaneous order based on mutual self interest any more than it already is?
Read the article he says "no one is saying the New York Stock Exchange would have popped up overnight on its own" or something to that effect, basically, the climate/order necessitates things like this and it's in the motual interests of nearly everyone to have these things so they happen.
-
It'd almost be easier to play the system for whats its worth (which is what most people do anyways), and then get out by setting yourself up to be unreliant
this
-
Basically, "intimidation" is fucking rampart now in the form of "I take yo house, I take yo car, I take yo resources I take yo country" if you're talking about coercion through physical intimdation then basically who gives a fuck? How the fuck is that a real problem and how can it get worse by allowing a spontaneous order based on mutual self interest any more than it already is?
Aaannnnnd this X 1,0000,000
-
Perhaps I am one of those liberterian neckbeards you speak of, but I see no reason why not to believe in the idea of spontaneous order. Everywhere I've been shows me that the freer the market - the faster the economic growth. At the same time, it also means a fairly free people. Paradoxically compare healthcare in Europe and in the US - the US healthcare system is far from being a free market, even when compared to the systems in Europe and who could've guessed - it's a fucking joke. However, on the flipside, look at the job markets in the US vs in Europe - Europe has much stronger labor laws so hiring and firing people is much harder whereas most places in the US have the whole at-will work thing, which means if you're not performing - you're out. I've been able to achieve much more whilst living in the US than I would have been able to do in Europe because of this.
While your post is Hayek in a nutshell, I recommend "The Road to Surfdom" as a better introduction to Hayek as well as a surprisingly up to date warning on what's happening. The book was initially written as a warning against socialism during WW2, but god damn it, I think it applies even more nowadays.
Good post, OP.
People really don't understand how financing health care works, I don't pretend to but Tommy Douglas did. He created the universal standard for free health care and tbh the Canadian system seems pretty sweet. I don't think there's anything wrong with incentivizing donations. Big hospitals put on auctions/fundraisers and shit every year to bring in more money.
I think a quantitative approach to regulation in order to combat any negative effects from growth is the best approach to regulation. The problem is, quants work for 5 years on a math problem that is enacted once to make a company 8 billion dollars then get paid to never talk about it again. In a way its "le invisible hand made uninvisble then invisible shhhhh" but it's really just massive human capital wasted because regulation.
Fucking Islamic economics and the concept of a 2.5% zhakat to go to social programs (health care education, etc) is actually a decent approach and basically what Thomas Piketty just spent over 9000 pages explaining in a different way with a lot of stupid tangents. The European welfare state emphasizes human capital while the US's emphasis on human capital through post secondary is met with failures to keep jobs in those sectors and contraction. There are good and bad about both, really. Germany seems to have their shit together (as usual) but France is a fucking piece of shit. Fucking backing financial transactions with property seems a pretty obvious way to prevent inflation, I bet if it didn't have the Sharia aspect it'd be a good system for risk averse investment. The smartest economists agree it'd be a better system than a debt one based on fucking nothing.
I think the OP was more an explanation of "free market =/= anarchy" which is an important distinction to make. The Road to Serfdom basically got Hayek blacklisted from the economic community then was later hailed as one of the greatest economic works of the 20th century. This is how you know you're ahead of the curve and it's debatable as to whether it's even being heralded now. Quantitative taxation that's used to incentivize investment is something that needs to be done in my opinion. I just need to smoke more weed so I get autistic wit my derivatives and start getting this done