Comments on: The Market Anarchy http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/the-market-anarchy.html Because everything has a reason! Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:15:52 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Unpretentious Diva http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/the-market-anarchy.html/comment-page-1#comment-2991 Unpretentious Diva Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:45:42 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=4065#comment-2991 <blockquote>But if you define ‘land reform’ as right to private property, then I do agree with you. </blockquote> No Objectivist can think or support for any other Definition of Land reform. Let me explain this clearly, we do not represent any collective group known as Indians or Bhartiya or whatever. We are Individual Objectivists, we talk of various issues in objective perspective with NO subjectivity about it. Land reform simply means the allocation of land (property rights over it) to the genuine owner and that means privatization of natural resources, including forests, rivers, canals and all possible natural resources basically usable as means of production, obviously Land Reform is strictly based on principle of Homestead. Thanks to John Locke!

But if you define ‘land reform’ as right to private property, then I do agree with you.

No Objectivist can think or support for any other Definition of Land reform.

Let me explain this clearly, we do not represent any collective group known as Indians or Bhartiya or whatever. We are Individual Objectivists, we talk of various issues in objective perspective with NO subjectivity about it. Land reform simply means the allocation of land (property rights over it) to the genuine owner and that means privatization of natural resources, including forests, rivers, canals and all possible natural resources basically usable as means of production, obviously Land Reform is strictly based on principle of Homestead. Thanks to John Locke!

]]> By: shyam http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/the-market-anarchy.html/comment-page-1#comment-2989 shyam Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:22:17 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=4065#comment-2989 @renegade division If you read my post, I did define 'land reform' (in quotes) as 'imposition of land ceilings'. IMHO, this is also the definition that most Indians understand because of the various land reform acts. But if you define 'land reform' as right to private property, then I do agree with you. However, as I stated, 'land reforms' in India have a particular meaning because of the land reform acts by central and state governments. Let me state the question in more obvious terms- Do you support or oppose ' agrarian land ceiling' in India? @diva I do not agree with your example at all. "Suppose that now, centuries later, Smith’s descendants (or, for that matter, other unrelated families) are now tilling the soil, while Jones’s descendants, or those who purchased their claims, still continue to exact tribute from the modern tillers." Smiths do not have to till the land at all. They are free to become software engineers or blacksmiths or acquire the land by paying a market price. And how do you know that Jones acquired the land centuries ago through coercion and not by paying a legitimate market price? Who will decide that? @shanu Please show me the overwhelming support for land ceilings by the various authors you cite. In India, 'land reforms' have always meant 'agrarian land ceilings'. .-= shyam´s last blog ..<a href="http://inflationresistant.blogspot.com/2009/10/peter-bernholz-has-us-reached.html" rel="nofollow">Peter Bernholz: Has the US Reached The Hyperinflation Tipping Point?</a> =-. @renegade division
If you read my post, I did define ‘land reform’ (in quotes) as ‘imposition of land ceilings’. IMHO, this is also the definition that most Indians understand because of the various land reform acts.

But if you define ‘land reform’ as right to private property, then I do agree with you. However, as I stated, ‘land reforms’ in India have a particular meaning because of the land reform acts by central and state governments.

Let me state the question in more obvious terms-
Do you support or oppose ’ agrarian land ceiling’ in India?

@diva
I do not agree with your example at all.
“Suppose that now, centuries later, Smith’s descendants (or, for that matter, other unrelated families) are now tilling the soil, while Jones’s descendants, or those who purchased their claims, still continue to exact tribute from the modern tillers.”

Smiths do not have to till the land at all. They are free to become software engineers or blacksmiths or acquire the land by paying a market price. And how do you know that Jones acquired the land centuries ago through coercion and not by paying a legitimate market price? Who will decide that?

@shanu
Please show me the overwhelming support for land ceilings by the various authors you cite. In India, ‘land reforms’ have always meant ‘agrarian land ceilings’.
shyam´s last blog ..Peter Bernholz: Has the US Reached The Hyperinflation Tipping Point? My ComLuv Profile

]]> By: Renegade Division http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/the-market-anarchy.html/comment-page-1#comment-2987 Renegade Division Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:00:52 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=4065#comment-2987 <strong>@Shyam said:</strong> <blockquote>No Austrian-minded person would ever support ‘land reforms’</blockquote> Actually no Austrian person would argue about 'land reforms' without defining land reforms first. If government is redistributing private land -> bad land reform. If private land is being returned to original owner which was redistributed by the govt -> good land reform. If govt land is being given away to private homesteaders like Dharavi given to the respective slum dwellers -> good land reform. and so on. @Shyam said:

No Austrian-minded person would ever support ‘land reforms’

Actually no Austrian person would argue about ‘land reforms’ without defining land reforms first.
If government is redistributing private land -> bad land reform.
If private land is being returned to original owner which was redistributed by the govt -> good land reform.
If govt land is being given away to private homesteaders like Dharavi given to the respective slum dwellers -> good land reform.
and so on.

]]> By: Unpretentious Diva http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/the-market-anarchy.html/comment-page-1#comment-2986 Unpretentious Diva Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:46:07 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=4065#comment-2986 <blockquote>No Austrian-minded person would ever support 'land reforms'.</blockquote> I am sorry to say but you are wrong. No Austrian economist oppose the idea of land reform. Although, they may differ at the process of land reform. Obviously, no one suppoorts the process which the current governments follows. Ludwig Von Misses states in “Economic Freedom And Interventionism : <blockquote>“Under the conditions of the capitalistic market society this program of land reform no longer makes any sense. In the market economy the consumers daily decide anew who should own the material factors of production and how much anybody should own. By their buying or abstention from buying the consumers allot control of the material factors of production to those who know how to use them in the best and cheapest way for the satisfaction of the most urgent wants of the consumers. Ownership of land means in the market economy the sovereignty of the consumers. The owners are mandatory of the consumers as it were, bound to employ their property as if it were entrusted to them by the people. When they fail in this regard, they suffer losses. Then they are forced to improve their management or, finally, they go bankrupt. Others who know better how to serve the consumers replace them.”</blockquote> That is, the free market itself is a natural way for land reforms (or any other sort of property dispute reforms). On the other hand, Rothbard writes in “Egalitarianism-As A Revolt Against Nature” that <blockquote>“It is not enough to call simply for defense of the “rights of private property”; there must be an adequate theory of justice in property rights, else any property that some State once decreed to be private” must now be defended by Libertarians, no matter how unjust the procedure or how mischievous its consequences.”</blockquote> Or of the man who might be the current possessor by purchasing the land from Henry Jones X? If Smith and his descendants are lost to antiquity, then title to the land properly and legitimately belongs to the current Jones (or the man who has purchased it from him), direct application of our theory of property titles.” “Suppose that centuries ago, Smith was tilling the soil and therefore legitimately owning the land; and then that Jones came along and settled down near Smith, claiming by use of coercion the title to Smith’s land, and extracting payment or “rent” from Smith for the privilege of continuing to till the soil. Suppose that now, centuries later, Smith’s descendants (or, for that matter, other unrelated families) are now tilling the soil, while Jones’s descendants, or those who purchased their claims, still continue to exact tribute from the modern tillers. Where is the true property right in such a case? It should be clear that here, just as in the case of slavery, we have a case of aggression against the true owners-the true possessors — of the land, the tillers, or peasants, by the illegitimate owner, the man whose original and continuing claim to the land and its fruits has come from coercion and violence. Just as the original Jones was a continuing aggressor against the original Smith, so the modern peasants are being aggressive against by the modern holder of the Jones-derived land title. In this case of what we might call “feudalism” or “land monopoly,” the feudal or monopolist landlords have no legitimate claim to the property. The current “tenants,” or peasants, should be the absolute owners of their property, and, as in the case of slavery, the land titles should be transferred to the peasants, without compensation to the monopoly. So you see the point?

No Austrian-minded person would ever support ‘land reforms’.

I am sorry to say but you are wrong. No Austrian economist oppose the idea of land reform. Although, they may differ at the process of land reform. Obviously, no one suppoorts the process which the current governments follows.
Ludwig Von Misses states in “Economic Freedom And Interventionism :

“Under the conditions of the capitalistic market society this program of land reform no longer makes any sense. In the market economy the consumers daily decide anew who should own the material factors of production and how much anybody should own. By their buying or abstention from buying the consumers allot control of the material factors of production to those who know how to use them in the best and cheapest way for the satisfaction of the most urgent wants of the consumers. Ownership of land means in the market economy the sovereignty of the consumers. The owners are mandatory of the consumers as it were, bound to employ their property as if it were entrusted to them by the people. When they fail in this regard, they suffer losses. Then they are forced to improve their management or, finally, they go bankrupt. Others who know better how to serve the consumers replace them.”

That is, the free market itself is a natural way for land reforms (or any other sort of property dispute reforms).

On the other hand, Rothbard writes in “Egalitarianism-As A Revolt Against Nature” that

“It is not enough to call simply for defense of the “rights of private property”; there must be an adequate theory of justice in property rights, else any property that some State once decreed to be private” must now be defended by Libertarians, no matter how unjust the procedure or how mischievous its consequences.”

Or of the man who might be the current possessor by purchasing the land from Henry Jones X? If Smith and his descendants are lost to antiquity, then title to the land properly and legitimately belongs to the current Jones (or the man who has purchased it from him), direct application of our theory of property titles.” “Suppose that centuries ago, Smith was tilling the soil and therefore legitimately owning the land; and then that Jones came along and settled down near Smith, claiming by use of coercion the title to Smith’s land, and extracting payment or “rent” from Smith for the privilege of continuing to till the soil. Suppose that now, centuries later, Smith’s descendants (or, for that matter, other unrelated families) are now tilling the soil, while Jones’s descendants, or those who purchased their claims, still continue to exact tribute from the modern tillers. Where is the true property right in such a case? It should be clear that here, just as in the case of slavery, we have a case of aggression against the true owners-the true possessors — of the land, the tillers, or peasants, by the illegitimate owner, the man whose original and continuing claim to the land and its fruits has come from coercion and violence. Just as the original Jones was a continuing aggressor against the original Smith, so the modern peasants are being aggressive against by the modern holder of the Jones-derived land title. In this case of what we might call “feudalism” or “land monopoly,” the feudal or monopolist landlords have no legitimate claim to the property. The current “tenants,” or peasants, should be the absolute owners of their property, and, as in the case of slavery, the land titles should be transferred to the peasants, without compensation to the monopoly.

So you see the point?

]]> By: Shanu http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/the-market-anarchy.html/comment-page-1#comment-2984 Shanu Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:33:26 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=4065#comment-2984 Shyam, "No Austrian-minded person would ever support ‘land reforms’" Ever read the views of Rothbard, Hoppe or Block on this subject? Aren't they Austrians? Government is not necessary for Military or Justice. All these services could be provided by free individuals. Shyam,

“No Austrian-minded person would ever support ‘land reforms’”

Ever read the views of Rothbard, Hoppe or Block on this subject? Aren’t they Austrians?

Government is not necessary for Military or Justice. All these services could be provided by free individuals.

]]> By: shyam http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/the-market-anarchy.html/comment-page-1#comment-2981 shyam Sun, 29 Nov 2009 09:10:11 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=4065#comment-2981 @diva "Land reforms doesn’t need government, and most of libertarians support Land reforms. property rights are must for Land reforms, without property rights there can be no land reform." No Austrian-minded person would ever support 'land reforms'. Property rights, yes. Land ceilings, no. Vinoba Bhave's land reforms were evil and were a code word for 'land ceilings'. It has proved to be a hindrance for attaining economy of scale and deployment of modern technology. India has low farm productivity because of that. It also prevented migration of farmers to better paying jobs in industries. And now farmers are committing suicides because their small lands don't produce enough. @crusader The government's policy of license raj, land reforms, inflation and regulations is solely responsible for the endemic poverty and corruption in post-independence India. By preventing free markets from operating, it has caused more than half the population to live below poverty line. Is that freedom? Charity can only be given by producers and savers. The government does not produce anything. It merely takes from the productive and gives to the unproductive after taking it's cut in form of bribes and wages. While it pretends to help the poor, it creates inflation. Ultimately, it robs the poor and middle class much more through inflation than it helps them. (The government does have a role to play in military, foreign policy, justice etc but not in economics. Interventions only increase poverty and inequality.) .-= shyam´s last blog ..<a href="http://inflationresistant.blogspot.com/2009/10/peter-bernholz-has-us-reached.html" rel="nofollow">Peter Bernholz: Has the US Reached The Hyperinflation Tipping Point?</a> =-. @diva

“Land reforms doesn’t need government, and most of libertarians support Land reforms. property rights are must for Land reforms, without property rights there can be no land reform.”

No Austrian-minded person would ever support ‘land reforms’. Property rights, yes. Land ceilings, no. Vinoba Bhave’s land reforms were evil and were a code word for ‘land ceilings’. It has proved to be a hindrance for attaining economy of scale and deployment of modern technology. India has low farm productivity because of that. It also prevented migration of farmers to better paying jobs in industries. And now farmers are committing suicides because their small lands don’t produce enough.

@crusader
The government’s policy of license raj, land reforms, inflation and regulations is solely responsible for the endemic poverty and corruption in post-independence India. By preventing free markets from operating, it has caused more than half the population to live below poverty line. Is that freedom? Charity can only be given by producers and savers. The government does not produce anything. It merely takes from the productive and gives to the unproductive after taking it’s cut in form of bribes and wages. While it pretends to help the poor, it creates inflation. Ultimately, it robs the poor and middle class much more through inflation than it helps them. (The government does have a role to play in military, foreign policy, justice etc but not in economics. Interventions only increase poverty and inequality.)
shyam´s last blog ..Peter Bernholz: Has the US Reached The Hyperinflation Tipping Point? My ComLuv Profile

]]> By: ranjit http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/the-market-anarchy.html/comment-page-1#comment-2895 ranjit Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:25:48 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=4065#comment-2895 Crusader multi dimensional thinking lies in everyone looking after themselves...uni dimensional thinking lies in everyone thinking that government will look after them...what's the difference between a kid and an adult when adult when adult refuse to look after themselves and depend on government? i recommend you visit www.mises.org you can find loads of literature regarding philosophy, history and economics.please read them.for some Indian commentary you can visit http://sauvik-antidote.blogspot.com/. @Diva on a lighter note don't include people like crusader when you say "And we need to be free". they don't want to be free. beauty of anarchy is even these want to be slaves can get what they want. there will be service providers for who want to be slaves. alternative lifestyles Crusader
multi dimensional thinking lies in everyone looking after themselves…uni dimensional thinking lies in everyone thinking that government will look after them…what’s the difference between a kid and an adult when adult when adult refuse to look after themselves and depend on government?

i recommend you visit http://www.mises.org you can find loads of literature regarding philosophy, history and economics.please read them.for some Indian commentary you can visit http://sauvik-antidote.blogspot.com/.

@Diva
on a lighter note
don’t include people like crusader when you say “And we need to be free”. they don’t want to be free. beauty of anarchy is even these want to be slaves can get what they want. there will be service providers for who want to be slaves. alternative lifestyles

]]> By: Unpretentious Diva http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/the-market-anarchy.html/comment-page-1#comment-2894 Unpretentious Diva Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:36:09 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=4065#comment-2894 As a matter of fact, only you are unable to have a multidimensional thinking. Land reforms doesn't need government, and most of libertarians support Land reforms. property rights are must for Land reforms, without property rights there can be no land reform. As a matter of fact you are being fooled by government and the indoctrination you are suffering from. Why don't you try to look for what Land reform actually means by prominent economists like L.V Mises or Rothbard? Anyways, when you do not want to explore the truth, than suffer your fate. even after all those fake land reforms, farmers are committing suicide, aren't they? And the cause of their deep frustration is the same Government. They have no right on their property to make best use of it. Actually, your inability to have a multidimensional thinking is making you and them suffer. <strong>about your blame of MYTHS</strong>. Its you who is living in myths and illusions while ignoring the simple facts and truths. Myth cannot reside on reason, my arguments are based on reason, they aren't myth. They are not being applied yet because the MYTHS are still ruling over you and me and all others, we still are slaves and are being exploited, it doesn't matter whether exploiters are Britishers or Indian politicians, we still are slave, not free. And we need to be free. As a matter of fact, only you are unable to have a multidimensional thinking.

Land reforms doesn’t need government, and most of libertarians support Land reforms. property rights are must for Land reforms, without property rights there can be no land reform.

As a matter of fact you are being fooled by government and the indoctrination you are suffering from.

Why don’t you try to look for what Land reform actually means by prominent economists like L.V Mises or Rothbard?

Anyways, when you do not want to explore the truth, than suffer your fate.

even after all those fake land reforms, farmers are committing suicide, aren’t they? And the cause of their deep frustration is the same Government. They have no right on their property to make best use of it.

Actually, your inability to have a multidimensional thinking is making you and them suffer.

about your blame of MYTHS.

Its you who is living in myths and illusions while ignoring the simple facts and truths.

Myth cannot reside on reason, my arguments are based on reason, they aren’t myth. They are not being applied yet because the MYTHS are still ruling over you and me and all others, we still are slaves and are being exploited, it doesn’t matter whether exploiters are Britishers or Indian politicians, we still are slave, not free.
And we need to be free.

]]> By: crusader http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/the-market-anarchy.html/comment-page-1#comment-2893 crusader Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:15:14 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=4065#comment-2893 I dnt want to argue with persons who dnt have a multi-dimensional thinking & divergent views. ITS TIME TO BRIDLE THE LEAPS OF TECHNOLOGY TO ETHICAL BOUNDARIES. kindly keep this in mind. Kindly note that the right to property was removed keeping in mind the land reforms.A person with his muscle & money occupied 1000 acres of land & another with his hard earned money can't claim even 100 yards even after working for his entire lifetime. (Remember blood & sweat can't claim crores)But appropriate justice is needed to be delivered. Till now the movies or books banned by the govt. are those which created controversies & seem to be national hazards. Ours is a value-based society. Dnt forget our tradition & culture.As intellectuals, u need to support & struggle for them, not fighting against them. Answer one simple straight question: can u show a porn movie to your kids instead of comics? If everything is made free & that available, we have to hung our head in shame.We cant even imagine the way society is functioning. Next, if every individual is blessed with a weapon, no one can sleep happily in that society.Y not think vice-versa? no one will be having any harmful items. Thats sounds fine...... Next reservation: Am not a beneficiary of those quotas. Am not in the reservation net. Yet I feel its okay to some extent. The reason is instilling confidence in those deprived sections who are kept away for generations.Thats a grave injustice done to them.Reservations in some way are making them come forward to be active in the civil society. To maintain a just order & peace + harmony in the society, once again I swear that an elder brother is needed to bless us & punish too when needed.As already said, there wl be idiots allover.We cant ignore that. THE GOVERNMENT IS THE LARGEST CIVIL & SOCIAL SERVICE ORGANISATION (if properly functioned with will & determination.)----this is a very dynamic sentence.Assimilate if u can. Lastly,Nature didnt bless any paricular individual to have uncountable money, access to all luxuries,access to all its natural resources etc etc. All are equal before nature(before law & before God too).Whenever someone tries to move against the principles of natural justice,it nullifies the effect in some way or the other.This has to be kept in mind of each & every individual. I dnt want to argue with persons who dnt have a multi-dimensional thinking & divergent views.
ITS TIME TO BRIDLE THE LEAPS OF TECHNOLOGY TO ETHICAL BOUNDARIES. kindly keep this in mind.

Kindly note that the right to property was removed keeping in mind the land reforms.A person with his muscle & money occupied 1000 acres of land & another with his hard earned money can’t claim even 100 yards even after working for his entire lifetime. (Remember blood & sweat can’t claim crores)But appropriate justice is needed to be delivered.

Till now the movies or books banned by the govt. are those which created controversies & seem to be national hazards. Ours is a value-based society. Dnt forget our tradition & culture.As intellectuals, u need to support & struggle for them, not fighting against them.
Answer one simple straight question: can u show a porn movie to your kids instead of comics? If everything is made free & that available, we have to hung our head in shame.We cant even imagine the way society is functioning.
Next, if every individual is blessed with a weapon, no one can sleep happily in that society.Y not think vice-versa? no one will be having any harmful items. Thats sounds fine……
Next reservation: Am not a beneficiary of those quotas. Am not in the reservation net. Yet I feel its okay to some extent. The reason is instilling confidence in those deprived sections who are kept away for generations.Thats a grave injustice done to them.Reservations in some way are making them come forward to be active in the civil society.

To maintain a just order & peace + harmony in the society, once again I swear that an elder brother is needed to bless us & punish too when needed.As already said, there wl be idiots allover.We cant ignore that.
THE GOVERNMENT IS THE LARGEST CIVIL & SOCIAL SERVICE ORGANISATION (if properly functioned with will & determination.) —  — this is a very dynamic sentence.Assimilate if u can.
Lastly,Nature didnt bless any paricular individual to have uncountable money, access to all luxuries,access to all its natural resources etc etc.
All are equal before nature(before law & before God too).Whenever someone tries to move against the principles of natural justice,it nullifies the effect in some way or the other.This has to be kept in mind of each & every individual.

]]> By: ranjit http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/the-market-anarchy.html/comment-page-1#comment-2887 ranjit Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:38:19 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=4065#comment-2887 crusader first of all you are emotional...thats what i find out from your post...i think you haven't read my reply to your previous post or simple ignore it coz you refuse to think... what makes you think people cant govern themselves?...take your own example...cant you make out what you want...cant you make out how to work and earn...how to interact with neighbors...how to help others?...don't you know how to save...how to spend...don't you know how to dream...how to defend...finally how to live?...even the least educated person and the poorest one also know these basics...why do we need a government for this?...why do you need your big brother to tell you how to live?... constitution guarantees individual liberty? fundamental rights and constitution?do you know that there used to be a fundamental right called right to property when the constitution was written?...and it was later removed from the list of fundamental rights...see your big brother can change the rights at his will...and you comfortable assume that hes your protector of your liberty...don't you come across movies been censored and many movies been forcibly scraped...isn't it against freedom of expression?right to equality..the same constitution discriminates people based on caste and religion..example reservation quotas...right against exploitation...what are taxes?... what else liberty you want?...thats what you have asked..right?...first of all government don't give you the fundamental rights it promises...now imagine you want to build a house...its your house and you can build it the way you want...but your government says the plans to be approved...an architect is needed for design...you have your capital and want to start a business...any business...you need to run around government buildings for approvals...its your capital your business but still approval is needed...you have money and want to import a car or some luxury good...you need government clearance...if you are a shopkeeper you cant be open after 11 pm...why cant you have weapon and need a permission for it...why do one need to go to jail for having drugs?...where are your liberties?...aren't these violations of liberty...i haven't even start talking about law and order... get out of the illusion of goverment crusader
first of all you are emotional…thats what i find out from your post…i think you haven’t read my reply to your previous post or simple ignore it coz you refuse to think…
what makes you think people cant govern themselves?…take your own example…cant you make out what you want…cant you make out how to work and earn…how to interact with neighbors…how to help others?…don’t you know how to save…how to spend…don’t you know how to dream…how to defend…finally how to live?…even the least educated person and the poorest one also know these basics…why do we need a government for this?…why do you need your big brother to tell you how to live?…
constitution guarantees individual liberty? fundamental rights and constitution?do you know that there used to be a fundamental right called right to property when the constitution was written?…and it was later removed from the list of fundamental rights…see your big brother can change the rights at his will…and you comfortable assume that hes your protector of your liberty…don’t you come across movies been censored and many movies been forcibly scraped…isn’t it against freedom of expression?right to equality..the same constitution discriminates people based on caste and religion..example reservation quotas…right against exploitation…what are taxes?…
what else liberty you want?…thats what you have asked..right?…first of all government don’t give you the fundamental rights it promises…now imagine you want to build a house…its your house and you can build it the way you want…but your government says the plans to be approved…an architect is needed for design…you have your capital and want to start a business…any business…you need to run around government buildings for approvals…its your capital your business but still approval is needed…you have money and want to import a car or some luxury good…you need government clearance…if you are a shopkeeper you cant be open after 11 pm…why cant you have weapon and need a permission for it…why do one need to go to jail for having drugs?…where are your liberties?…aren’t these violations of liberty…i haven’t even start talking about law and order…
get out of the illusion of goverment

]]> By: crusader http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/the-market-anarchy.html/comment-page-1#comment-2886 crusader Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:47:23 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=4065#comment-2886 diva,I definitely agree to everything u said. But see the reality. You are just focussing on myths(yet to become realities) atpresent. I still stand on my words in the earlier comment "The society u r talking is more of a possibility where in which population is very less(possibly in thousands only), everyone got good education,leading a happy & filled life( filled in the sense with material interests),no responsibilities or burdens lagging them,not even starved for a single day,those who know the value of money to invest but don’t know the value of a penny to save(for future needs)etc etc.They may be donating something to charity but that too only for tax concessions." Until & unless everyone there is totally aware of the thing happening around, ur idealogy can't become a reality.But many people (am concerned about INDIA) are still starving, still struggling to make their both ends meet, still dnt know that a person can have all these in his lifetime, still running for the day,still don't know wat & y they are working for. That's the pity state of the country today & HOW CAN U EXPECT THEM TO BE GOVERNED BY THIR OWN TERMS? Can u justify it? In these conditions, dnt we need an elder brother like government to take care of us? We keep on appreciating every social worker & every NGO organisation. But remember, THE GOVERNMENT IS THE LARGEST CIVIL & SOCIAL SERVICE ORGANISATION (if properly functioned with will & determination. Lets try for that, not blaming & moving away from it.Infact DEMOCRACY itself guarantees individual liberty (liberty in the sense THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS BESTOWED UPON BY OUR CONSTITUTION).I cant understand else what liberty u r talking about. Be optimistic yar. no one is tieing or beating u daily. We are living in the best of all possible worlds. never forget that simple fact. diva,I definitely agree to everything u said. But see the reality. You are just focussing on myths(yet to become realities) atpresent.
I still stand on my words in the earlier comment “The society u r talking is more of a possibility where in which population is very less(possibly in thousands only), everyone got good education,leading a happy & filled life( filled in the sense with material interests),no responsibilities or burdens lagging them,not even starved for a single day,those who know the value of money to invest but don’t know the value of a penny to save(for future needs)etc etc.They may be donating something to charity but that too only for tax concessions.”

Until & unless everyone there is totally aware of the thing happening around, ur idealogy can’t become a reality.But many people (am concerned about INDIA) are still starving, still struggling to make their both ends meet, still dnt know that a person can have all these in his lifetime, still running for the day,still don’t know wat & y they are working for. That’s the pity state of the country today & HOW CAN U EXPECT THEM TO BE GOVERNED BY THIR OWN TERMS? Can u justify it?

In these conditions, dnt we need an elder brother like government to take care of us? We keep on appreciating every social worker & every NGO organisation. But remember, THE GOVERNMENT IS THE LARGEST CIVIL & SOCIAL SERVICE ORGANISATION (if properly functioned with will & determination.
Lets try for that, not blaming & moving away from it.Infact DEMOCRACY itself guarantees individual liberty (liberty in the sense THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS BESTOWED UPON BY OUR CONSTITUTION).I cant understand else what liberty u r talking about. Be optimistic yar. no one is tieing or beating u daily.
We are living in the best of all possible worlds. never forget that simple fact.

]]> By: ranjit http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/the-market-anarchy.html/comment-page-1#comment-2880 ranjit Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:52:57 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=4065#comment-2880 Crusader, can you please explain what would be a best governement according to you will be like? and what does it take to have a best government?...just think over it yourself (pleae dont quote about famous philosophies, authors etc) and try to think out of box and avoid being emotional...just start the thinking process and you ll reach where libertarians and anarchists are now Anarchy doesnt insulate person from society, infact it encourage people to have more interaction...one may see market as place where people buy and sell...but many (non)thinkers fail to see they are interacting though the langauge and media are different...clamping over market itself is discouraging interaction and insulating the persons from society...the mature the market is the higher degree of division of labour and higher the interaction Crusader,
can you please explain what would be a best governement according to you will be like? and what does it take to have a best government?…just think over it yourself (pleae dont quote about famous philosophies, authors etc) and try to think out of box and avoid being emotional…just start the thinking process and you ll reach where libertarians and anarchists are now

Anarchy doesnt insulate person from society, infact it encourage people to have more interaction…one may see market as place where people buy and sell…but many (non)thinkers fail to see they are interacting though the langauge and media are different…clamping over market itself is discouraging interaction and insulating the persons from society…the mature the market is the higher degree of division of labour and higher the interaction

]]> By: Unpretentious Diva http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/the-market-anarchy.html/comment-page-1#comment-2861 Unpretentious Diva Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:19:48 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=4065#comment-2861 Well crusader, I am not lacking anything, rather you are the one who is lacking the proper idea. The kind of education you are talking about is absolutely redundant and wastage, sincerely nobody needs it, it is nothing but indoctrination by the state and you are also a sufferer of that. Education doesn’t confirm happiness, there’s a big lot of well-educated unemployed mass, and just some months ago a group of well-educated youth performed the massacre at Hotel Taj. So you see, it’s not the kind of education one needs to be happy. On the other hand, in a free-society, the individuals will get that rational knowledge and education which they really require to be happy, productive and prosperous by means of free education market and the division of labor. As explained earlier in this article and in the next one too, the collectivization of money always brings wastage, corruption and reduces the possibility of provision of services. The reason why in India people still are uneducated is the fact that Government intervenes in the Education Market. It is not as profitable as it should be, and that is the reason why it is not providing that much servi8ces which are required hence people are uneducated. You need to read articles about education here- <a href="http://www.reasonforliberty.com/education/education-for-all.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.reasonforliberty.com/education/education-for-all.html</a> Read this article too and the comments, because there also someone put up similar kind of irrational comments like you did here <a href="http://www.reasonforliberty.com/objectivism/failure-of-democracy.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.reasonforliberty.com/objectivism/failure-of-democracy.html</a> And this too- <a href="http://www.reasonforliberty.com/government/abolition-of-cost-is-cause-of-corruption.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.reasonforliberty.com/government/abolition-of-cost-is-cause-of-corruption.html</a> Now second thing is of Population, do you really believe Population is a problem? Now that is the consequence of bastardized education you are a victim of. Government always victimizes people with such propagandas. You need to read this article to actually understand what is the proper problem of population and how it can be solved, what is poverty and how the problem of poverty can be reduced. Please read this— <a href="http://www.reasonforliberty.com/economy/population-poverty-and-production.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.reasonforliberty.com/economy/population-poverty-and-production.html</a> If you will remain unbiased and will use free mind, you will realize that it is government and nothing else that is forcing poverty on the populace. In a free market on the other hand, poverty won’t remain to these extreme extent which we suffer under government. Now about who will punish the defaulters? The Market punishes the defaulters. A free society certainly provides its own functional judiciary and security services too, afterall, it is a function of service market. Government is never required for that. You need to read these articles- <a href="http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/the-prospects-of-private-judicial-system.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/the-prospects-of-private-judicial-system.html</a> and this <a href="http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/defending-anarchy.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/defending-anarchy.html</a> By the way whom do you want to punish? if a person fires his own house, it is his right to do so, he can do whatever he wishes to his property. On the other hand if he tries to sabotage or harm any other person's property, he will be punished, the owner of that property do have right to safeguard his property, he may punish him by himself, otherwise there are the private judiciary system and the private security and insurance firms too. Crusader, trust me, you need to learn a lot, right now, you are like a child who just came to know about alphabets and is not ready to accept that proper sentences can be made by those alphabets. Government niether is necessary, nor we can afford it. The reason for our poverty and the common ills of our society is ONLY GOVERNMENT, not the population, but the will of certain crooks to control and enslave the populace. Why do you like slavery this much that you even do not find it viable to be free? Its extreme sense of slavery that have been indoctrinated in you by the corrupt education of state. Anyways, I will suggest you keep reading as many articles here as you can. You will find that each article stands on undeniable reason. You cannot refute them. Well crusader, I am not lacking anything, rather you are the one who is lacking the proper idea.
The kind of education you are talking about is absolutely redundant and wastage, sincerely nobody needs it, it is nothing but indoctrination by the state and you are also a sufferer of that. Education doesn’t confirm happiness, there’s a big lot of well-educated unemployed mass, and just some months ago a group of well-educated youth performed the massacre at Hotel Taj. So you see, it’s not the kind of education one needs to be happy.
On the other hand, in a free-society, the individuals will get that rational knowledge and education which they really require to be happy, productive and prosperous by means of free education market and the division of labor. As explained earlier in this article and in the next one too, the collectivization of money always brings wastage, corruption and reduces the possibility of provision of services. The reason why in India people still are uneducated is the fact that Government intervenes in the Education Market. It is not as profitable as it should be, and that is the reason why it is not providing that much servi8ces which are required hence people are uneducated.
You need to read articles about education here- http://www.reasonforliberty.com/education/education-for-all.html
Read this article too and the comments, because there also someone put up similar kind of irrational comments like you did here http://www.reasonforliberty.com/objectivism/failure-of-democracy.html
And this too- http://www.reasonforliberty.com/government/abolition-of-cost-is-cause-of-corruption.html
Now second thing is of Population, do you really believe Population is a problem? Now that is the consequence of bastardized education you are a victim of. Government always victimizes people with such propagandas. You need to read this article to actually understand what is the proper problem of population and how it can be solved, what is poverty and how the problem of poverty can be reduced. Please read this— http://www.reasonforliberty.com/economy/population-poverty-and-production.html
If you will remain unbiased and will use free mind, you will realize that it is government and nothing else that is forcing poverty on the populace. In a free market on the other hand, poverty won’t remain to these extreme extent which we suffer under government.
Now about who will punish the defaulters? The Market punishes the defaulters. A free society certainly provides its own functional judiciary and security services too, afterall, it is a function of service market. Government is never required for that.
You need to read these articles- http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/the-prospects-of-private-judicial-system.html and this
http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/defending-anarchy.html
By the way whom do you want to punish?
if a person fires his own house, it is his right to do so, he can do whatever he wishes to his property. On the other hand if he tries to sabotage or harm any other person’s property, he will be punished, the owner of that property do have right to safeguard his property, he may punish him by himself, otherwise there are the private judiciary system and the private security and insurance firms too.

Crusader, trust me, you need to learn a lot, right now, you are like a child who just came to know about alphabets and is not ready to accept that proper sentences can be made by those alphabets.

Government niether is necessary, nor we can afford it. The reason for our poverty and the common ills of our society is ONLY GOVERNMENT, not the population, but the will of certain crooks to control and enslave the populace.

Why do you like slavery this much that you even do not find it viable to be free?

Its extreme sense of slavery that have been indoctrinated in you by the corrupt education of state.

Anyways, I will suggest you keep reading as many articles here as you can. You will find that each article stands on undeniable reason. You cannot refute them.

]]> By: crusader http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/the-market-anarchy.html/comment-page-1#comment-2859 crusader Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:03:30 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=4065#comment-2859 hi unpretentious diva, I want to bring to ur notice one very basic thing which u r lacking in.The society u r talking is more of a possibility where in which population is very less(possibly in thousands only), everyone got good education,leading a happy & filled life( filled in the sense with material interests),no responsibilities or burdens lagging them,not even starved for a single day,those who know the value of money to invest but don't know the value of a penny to save etc etc.They may be donating something to charity but that too only for tax concessions. What u r talking is just an illusion , nothing sort of a reality.Its sounds like an extremism.Everything people owning, evrythng people wl decide...... thats not possible dear. there wl be some idiots & stupids in every society which we cant ignore.Who wl punish them? who wl regulate the vested interests? who wl act like a guardian of citizen's rights? There is someone above everyone. That is the common need & point in setting up of govt's in any society. Whether they are malfunctioning or well functioning depends upon the mental state of people in that society.So kindly be optimistic & use ur ultimate knowledge( i came to know that u possess that) for the goodness of the society by setting up good, better & best govt's but not moving away from the govt's. Our sense of discrimination & wisdom must be useful to the society at a large but not INSULATE PEOPLE FROM THE SOCIETY (as u feel & write). regards CRUSADER hi unpretentious diva, I want to bring to ur notice one very basic thing which u r lacking in.The society u r talking is more of a possibility where in which population is very less(possibly in thousands only), everyone got good education,leading a happy & filled life( filled in the sense with material interests),no responsibilities or burdens lagging them,not even starved for a single day,those who know the value of money to invest but don’t know the value of a penny to save etc etc.They may be donating something to charity but that too only for tax concessions.
What u r talking is just an illusion , nothing sort of a reality.Its sounds like an extremism.Everything people owning, evrythng people wl decide…… thats not possible dear. there wl be some idiots & stupids in every society which we cant ignore.Who wl punish them? who wl regulate the vested interests? who wl act like a guardian of citizen’s rights? There is someone above everyone. That is the common need & point in setting up of govt’s in any society.
Whether they are malfunctioning or well functioning depends upon the mental state of people in that society.So kindly be optimistic & use ur ultimate knowledge( i came to know that u possess that) for the goodness of the society by setting up good, better & best govt’s but not moving away from the govt’s.
Our sense of discrimination & wisdom must be useful to the society at a large but not INSULATE PEOPLE FROM THE SOCIETY (as u feel & write).

regards
 CRUSADER

]]> By: Shanu http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/the-market-anarchy.html/comment-page-1#comment-2845 Shanu Sun, 01 Nov 2009 15:07:43 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=4065#comment-2845 Amol, 1) It is naive and childish to assume that a group of individuals can regulate something as complex as the economy. No sensible person can hold such a notion. 2) I don't know what you mean by deregulation. The deregulation many economists talk of is an entirely different type of deregulation-In comparison to what Free Market thinkers would have called deregulation. It is not deregulation to permit banks to take risks guaranteeing Government insurance. Deregulation in the right sense would mean the establishment of a free market economy. Nothing like that happened in the United States. The problem has more to do with Government manipulation of money and credit than regulation or deregulation. Amol,

1) It is naive and childish to assume that a group of individuals can regulate something as complex as the economy. No sensible person can hold such a notion.

2) I don’t know what you mean by deregulation. The deregulation many economists talk of is an entirely different type of deregulation-In comparison to what Free Market thinkers would have called deregulation. It is not deregulation to permit banks to take risks guaranteeing Government insurance. Deregulation in the right sense would mean the establishment of a free market economy. Nothing like that happened in the United States. The problem has more to do with Government manipulation of money and credit than regulation or deregulation.

]]> By: Unpretentious Diva http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/the-market-anarchy.html/comment-page-1#comment-2843 Unpretentious Diva Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:29:56 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=4065#comment-2843 <blockquote>Intelligence here, anybody? The 2008-09 financial crisis was caused by mainly banking de-regularization initialted by President Clinton in 2005</blockquote> Lol and who told you that? By the way what do you think of Dollar or FED? isn't it collectivist system? It is meant to perish and be corrupt, no matter government controlled deregulation or whatever. Furthermore, your knowledge of recession is extremely corrupt as it is based on the same corrupt idiots. About economic meltdown, the site is full of such articles explaining the real cause of meltdown (which obviously were the Government regulations) Enjoy increasing your knowledge http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/economic-meltdown-explained.html <strong>It was government regulations and interference in market that caused recession of 2008-2009 or any other recession in past.</strong> By the way there are atleast 20 articles on economic meltdown including discussion over every major nation (India, US, China, UK). By the way what causes Inflation? What causes deflation? What is Inflation? Now take my advice, before commenting anything further, try to read out previous articles. You even cannot say why the Gold Prices were and are reaching sky heights. http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/fiat-money-versus-gold-standard-privatization-of-currency.html Read that. Other articles you must read before saying anything about recession are a) http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/capitalist-asia-socialist-usa.html b) http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/falling-prices-is-the-cure-of-deflation.html c) http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/china-india-and-call-for-free-market.html d) http://www.reasonforliberty.com/economy/economic-crisis-and-fiscal-stimulus-by-government.html e) http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/satyam-scandal-the-mixed-economy-scam.html f) http://www.reasonforliberty.com/economy/the-dilemma-for-reserve-bank-of-india.html g) http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/governments-help-for-the-economic-crisis.html h) http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/an-enemy-of-capitalism.html i) http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/division-of-labor-productivity-prosperity.html j) http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/freedom-versus-egalitarianism.html k) http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/mixed-economy-or-interventionism.html l) http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/indian-health-care-an-overview.html And allot more. Why do you think you can comment on anything related to recession without actually knowing and checking on the base of rationality the real reason of recession? <strong>Recession is and was the direct result of government regulations and nothing else.</strong> ONE last thing for you Alok, Shumit never agreed with you, or better say you never agreed with Shumit, both of you are opposite to each other completely. What he was saying is, government may be necessary to confirm that market competition will remain intact, that the succesfull businessmen may not try to not to let new competitors to compete. On the other hand, you were saying that government should be there so that there may not be any competition, because according to you competition is wrong.

Intelligence here, anybody?

The 2008-09 financial crisis was caused by mainly banking de-regularization initialted by President Clinton in 2005

Lol and who told you that? By the way what do you think of Dollar or FED? isn’t it collectivist system? It is meant to perish and be corrupt, no matter government controlled deregulation or whatever. Furthermore, your knowledge of recession is extremely corrupt as it is based on the same corrupt idiots.

About economic meltdown, the site is full of such articles explaining the real cause of meltdown (which obviously were the Government regulations)

Enjoy increasing your knowledge
 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/economic-meltdown-explained.html

It was government regulations and interference in market that caused recession of 2008-2009 or any other recession in past.

By the way there are atleast 20 articles on economic meltdown including discussion over every major nation (India, US, China, UK).

By the way what causes Inflation? What causes deflation? What is Inflation?

Now take my advice, before commenting anything further, try to read out previous articles.
You even cannot say why the Gold Prices were and are reaching sky heights.

http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/fiat-money-versus-gold-standard-privatization-of-currency.html
Read that.

Other articles you must read before saying anything about recession are
a) http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/capitalist-asia-socialist-usa.html

b) http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/falling-prices-is-the-cure-of-deflation.html

c) http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/china-india-and-call-for-free-market.html

d) http://www.reasonforliberty.com/economy/economic-crisis-and-fiscal-stimulus-by-government.html

e) http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/satyam-scandal-the-mixed-economy-scam.html

f) http://www.reasonforliberty.com/economy/the-dilemma-for-reserve-bank-of-india.html

g) http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/governments-help-for-the-economic-crisis.html

h) http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/an-enemy-of-capitalism.html

i) http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/division-of-labor-productivity-prosperity.html

j) http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/freedom-versus-egalitarianism.html

k) http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/mixed-economy-or-interventionism.html

l) http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/indian-health-care-an-overview.html

And allot more.

Why do you think you can comment on anything related to recession without actually knowing and checking on the base of rationality the real reason of recession?

Recession is and was the direct result of government regulations and nothing else.

ONE last thing for you Alok,
Shumit never agreed with you, or better say you never agreed with Shumit, both of you are opposite to each other completely.

What he was saying is, government may be necessary to confirm that market competition will remain intact, that the succesfull businessmen may not try to not to let new competitors to compete.

On the other hand, you were saying that government should be there so that there may not be any competition, because according to you competition is wrong.

]]> By: Unpretentious Diva http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/the-market-anarchy.html/comment-page-1#comment-2842 Unpretentious Diva Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:19:13 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=4065#comment-2842 <blockquote>So, a simple trade based on give-and-take relationship with marginal profit decided by the market anarchy is NOT a collectivism at local level?</blockquote> Do you really know what you are talking about? You are talking of free trade, where no body is forcing you to do anything, and you are free to take your own action. How can it be loot? Who is looting you? you yourself? And if you are looting yourself, should anybody stop you? On the other hand, collectivism means that you are not free, no matter what you want, but you are forced to do only that which the collective allows you to do. That is why collectivism is always corrupt, and free trade can never be corrupt, because in free trade, nobody is actually looting you, onemay cheat you in any case, but than, he will be punished in free trade individualistic system, on the other hand, in collectivist system, the cheater can never be punished, as the cheater decides the law. My comments are not biased, they hold objective truth at all level all situations all time.

So, a simple trade based on give-and-take relationship with marginal profit decided by the market anarchy is NOT a collectivism at local level?

Do you really know what you are talking about?

You are talking of free trade, where no body is forcing you to do anything, and you are free to take your own action. How can it be loot? Who is looting you? you yourself?
And if you are looting yourself, should anybody stop you?
On the other hand, collectivism means that you are not free, no matter what you want, but you are forced to do only that which the collective allows you to do.

That is why collectivism is always corrupt, and free trade can never be corrupt, because in free trade, nobody is actually looting you, onemay cheat you in any case, but than, he will be punished in free trade individualistic system, on the other hand, in collectivist system, the cheater can never be punished, as the cheater decides the law.

My comments are not biased, they hold objective truth at all level all situations all time.

]]> By: Amol Naik http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/the-market-anarchy.html/comment-page-1#comment-2840 Amol Naik Sun, 01 Nov 2009 08:44:00 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=4065#comment-2840 <blockquote>collectivism can never be clean, it is forgery and loot in any circumstance.</blockquote> So, a simple trade based on give-and-take relationship with marginal profit decided by the market anarchy is NOT a collectivism at local level? Is that also a forgery and loot. You see, your argument is biased because of what you've seen so far on global/macro level. At micro, it is still feasible to build a governance that is abided to ensure security/guardianship in all forms. Taxes, sur-charges, can that be not seen as payment of the survices the government provides you? Consider the utopic sitation, same as you! <blockquote> The more free an economy goes, the rich it gets, US economy is richer than Chinese or Indian economy cos it is more free, the total free-market is hard to see any sort of poverty and scarcity. </blockquote> Intelligence here, anybody? The 2008-09 financial crisis was caused by mainly banking de-regularization initialted by President Clinton in 2005. Compared to that Indian and Chinese banking sectors, and in turn econmies were much more stabilized because security blanckets provided by respective government and not by markets. If you think that Americans are thriving on free-market philosophy, then why are they now relying on partialy nationalized banks, and "conservative" economies? Why did they NOT liberalized policies any more? .-= Amol Naik´s last blog ..<a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/dynamic22/~3/ci3ygQAkA9U/" rel="nofollow">Media Fetishes</a> =-.

collectivism can never be clean, it is forgery and loot in any circumstance.

So, a simple trade based on give-and-take relationship with marginal profit decided by the market anarchy is NOT a collectivism at local level? Is that also a forgery and loot. You see, your argument is biased because of what you’ve seen so far on global/macro level. At micro, it is still feasible to build a governance that is abided to ensure security/guardianship in all forms. Taxes, sur-charges, can that be not seen as payment of the survices the government provides you? Consider the utopic sitation, same as you!

The more free an economy goes, the rich it gets, US economy is richer than Chinese or Indian economy cos it is more free, the total free-market is hard to see any sort of poverty and scarcity.

Intelligence here, anybody?

The 2008-09 financial crisis was caused by mainly banking de-regularization initialted by President Clinton in 2005. Compared to that Indian and Chinese banking sectors, and in turn econmies were much more stabilized because security blanckets provided by respective government and not by markets. If you think that Americans are thriving on free-market philosophy, then why are they now relying on partialy nationalized banks, and “conservative” economies? Why did they NOT liberalized policies any more?

Amol Naik´s last blog ..Media Fetishes My ComLuv Profile

]]> By: Unpretentious Diva http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/the-market-anarchy.html/comment-page-1#comment-2839 Unpretentious Diva Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:15:38 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=4065#comment-2839 <blockquote>Now, in a product when innovation is both horizontal and vertical, it’s survival would not only depend on its own capacity to innovate, but also on the its vendors. Arguably, if one or more vendor fells to do so, it can bring down the entire value chain. How justifiable is that?</blockquote> Lol, lets say for the new car of Ford, there are some 10,000 dealers in India, and say 100 dealers fails to provide an impetus to the sales of new car, and 9.000 other dealers gets average success, while 900 dealers gets extreme success. What way you think the profits of FOrd car will go? And anyways, the producer is obviously responsible for his options to choose the correct vendors, it is fully justified, afterall he checks the potential of vendors than only employs them. About your other erroneous issue, Necessity is the mother innovation. And government doesn't provide a comfortable zone for innovation, as a matter of fact, it restrricts innovation. On the other hand free-market competition provides the necessary comfortable zone for innovations. What more comfort can be there other than the success itself? A successful venture is at comforts, and that is why he can innovate further, if he fails, he is responsible for losses, and the other innovator entrepreneur will take the share of profits, that is how capital moves in free market, it remains in those hands only that can use it best to maximize the production and profits, because only than the society may remain free of scarcity and poverty. If Indians are poor, it is because there is government. The more free an economy goes, the rich it gets, US economy is richer than Chinese or Indian economy cos it is more free, the total free-market is hard to see any sort of poverty and scarcity.

Now, in a product when innovation is both horizontal and vertical, it’s survival would not only depend on its own capacity to innovate, but also on the its vendors. Arguably, if one or more vendor fells to do so, it can bring down the entire value chain. How justifiable is that?

Lol, lets say for the new car of Ford, there are some 10,000 dealers in India, and say 100 dealers fails to provide an impetus to the sales of new car, and 9.000 other dealers gets average success, while 900 dealers gets extreme success.
What way you think the profits of FOrd car will go?

And anyways, the producer is obviously responsible for his options to choose the correct vendors, it is fully justified, afterall he checks the potential of vendors than only employs them.
About your other erroneous issue,
Necessity is the mother innovation. And government doesn’t provide a comfortable zone for innovation, as a matter of fact, it restrricts innovation. On the other hand free-market competition provides the necessary comfortable zone for innovations. What more comfort can be there other than the success itself? A successful venture is at comforts, and that is why he can innovate further, if he fails, he is responsible for losses, and the other innovator entrepreneur will take the share of profits, that is how capital moves in free market, it remains in those hands only that can use it best to maximize the production and profits, because only than the society may remain free of scarcity and poverty.
If Indians are poor, it is because there is government. The more free an economy goes, the rich it gets, US economy is richer than Chinese or Indian economy cos it is more free, the total free-market is hard to see any sort of poverty and scarcity.

]]> By: Unpretentious Diva http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/the-market-anarchy.html/comment-page-1#comment-2838 Unpretentious Diva Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:10:52 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=4065#comment-2838 Amol Said, <blockquote>it is hard to imagine if under-invested sector would thrive again according to the cycle you have explained. In that case, not only that the workers/labourer involved with the sector would extinct, but chain-effect could pose a vicious cycle running backwards.</blockquote> In case of regular commodities and their demand/supply dependence, it is simply inevitable that the underinvested sectors would thrive again. They need to thrive again because due to high demand and less supply, prices will go higher (it is as true as sun rises from east) and with increase in selling prices, profit rates will increase, and hence investors will tend to invest again in that sector to gain higher profits. (It is as true as Sun if a ball of Hydrogen gas constantly turning to Helium). Nothing can contradict it. But yes, in some cases, the under-invested sector may never get a redumption and it may reach extinction, just like horse trading was a major business venture before petroleum and automobiles were invented and developed. Every person used horses to travel hence there was high demand in horse trading. Once people started using motor bikes, cars, scooteys, trains, ships and aeroplanes, thre horse trading business started depleting and it is now on the verge of extinction. Nothing can help the business of horse trading, it cannot get investors, it is not profitable because there is no demand of horses. Would you like to buy a horse? for what? Now when you do not want a horse, why will anybody invest in horses? Obviously, the workers, trainers and businessmen involved in horse trading will need to innovate their talent to find out new streams of work, they may become automobile producer, mechanics, car dealers, spare parts dealer and so many other jobs. THat is, although because of Development, a business sector reached extinction, the development created many times more opportunities for the workers to produce. Now if you want government just to help horose trainers so that they may not feel the need to use their talent in some other works and keep living on the alms and begging which government provides on behalf of the taxes it loots from common citizen, than you are wrong, because that will cause destruction of human resource and wealth. <blockquote>A “clean” government, hence, must streameline the process of investements, regularize profit sharing mechanisms</blockquote> That was the most idiotic statement, i didn't expect that much foolishness here. ZFirst of all, government can NEVER BE CLEAN. Not because politicians are deemed to be corrupt, but because the nature of government is collective, and collectivism can never be clean, it is forgery and loot in any circumstance. Now see, the sector of pot-making is at depletion, nobody uses earthern pots and vessels now, people use stainless steel, they use refrigerators and water coolers. WHy do you want government to force investor to waste their money in earthern vessel making? They will never invest in that, if government forces them, either they will try to evade government or they will bribe it, that is, any force on beahlf of government will give rise to corruption. There is no other way in a government system to live clean ,but to bribe the government. If you want progress in mixed economy, bribe government and government officials, because bribing decreases poverty of poor masses. Amol Said,

it is hard to imagine if under-invested sector would thrive again according to the cycle you have explained.
In that case, not only that the workers/labourer involved with the sector would extinct, but chain-effect could pose a vicious cycle running backwards.

In case of regular commodities and their demand/supply dependence, it is simply inevitable that the underinvested sectors would thrive again.
They need to thrive again because due to high demand and less supply, prices will go higher (it is as true as sun rises from east) and with increase in selling prices, profit rates will increase, and hence investors will tend to invest again in that sector to gain higher profits. (It is as true as Sun if a ball of Hydrogen gas constantly turning to Helium). Nothing can contradict it.

But yes, in some cases, the under-invested sector may never get a redumption and it may reach extinction, just like horse trading was a major business venture before petroleum and automobiles were invented and developed. Every person used horses to travel hence there was high demand in horse trading. Once people started using motor bikes, cars, scooteys, trains, ships and aeroplanes, thre horse trading business started depleting and it is now on the verge of extinction.

Nothing can help the business of horse trading, it cannot get investors, it is not profitable because there is no demand of horses. Would you like to buy a horse? for what? Now when you do not want a horse, why will anybody invest in horses?
Obviously, the workers, trainers and businessmen involved in horse trading will need to innovate their talent to find out new streams of work, they may become automobile producer, mechanics, car dealers, spare parts dealer and so many other jobs. THat is, although because of Development, a business sector reached extinction, the development created many times more opportunities for the workers to produce.

Now if you want government just to help horose trainers so that they may not feel the need to use their talent in some other works and keep living on the alms and begging which government provides on behalf of the taxes it loots from common citizen, than you are wrong, because that will cause destruction of human resource and wealth.

A “clean” government, hence, must streameline the process of investements, regularize profit sharing mechanisms

That was the most idiotic statement, i didn’t expect that much foolishness here.

ZFirst of all, government can NEVER BE CLEAN. Not because politicians are deemed to be corrupt, but because the nature of government is collective, and collectivism can never be clean, it is forgery and loot in any circumstance.

Now see, the sector of pot-making is at depletion, nobody uses earthern pots and vessels now, people use stainless steel, they use refrigerators and water coolers.

WHy do you want government to force investor to waste their money in earthern vessel making?
They will never invest in that, if government forces them, either they will try to evade government or they will bribe it, that is, any force on beahlf of government will give rise to corruption. There is no other way in a government system to live clean ,but to bribe the government.

If you want progress in mixed economy, bribe government and government officials, because bribing decreases poverty of poor masses.

]]> By: Amol Naik http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/the-market-anarchy.html/comment-page-1#comment-2837 Amol Naik Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:46:59 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=4065#comment-2837 Another point that I would like to raise here: As you've rightly said: <blockquote> As a matter of fact, in a free market, there is no other way but to keep innovating ways to satisfy consumers and provide them better services, why do you think Ford is still surviving the extreme competition of automobiles? </blockquote> The fundamental idea that would govern the ideal market anarchy is "innovate or perish." However ruthless it may sound, it would be the only chance of business/ventures to survive, forget gowing. Now, in a product when innovation is both horizontal and vertical, it's survival would not only depend on its own capacity to innovate, but also on the its vendors. Arguably, if one or more vendor fells to do so, it can bring down the entire value chain. How justifiable is that? Innovation can be done in two ways, either in necessary and urgent way, comfortable and luxurious way. Think of how APPLE does it, when its survival does not depend on it, and compare it with any other computer manufacturer... .-= Amol Naik´s last blog ..<a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/dynamic22/~3/ci3ygQAkA9U/" rel="nofollow">Media Fetishes</a> =-. Another point that I would like to raise here:

As you’ve rightly said:

As a matter of fact, in a free market, there is no other way but to keep innovating ways to satisfy consumers and provide them better services, why do you think Ford is still surviving the extreme competition of automobiles?

The fundamental idea that would govern the ideal market anarchy is “innovate or perish.”
However ruthless it may sound, it would be the only chance of business/ventures to survive, forget gowing. Now, in a product when innovation is both horizontal and vertical, it’s survival would not only depend on its own capacity to innovate, but also on the its vendors. Arguably, if one or more vendor fells to do so, it can bring down the entire value chain. How justifiable is that?

Innovation can be done in two ways, either in necessary and urgent way, comfortable and luxurious way. Think of how APPLE does it, when its survival does not depend on it, and compare it with any other computer manufacturer…
Amol Naik´s last blog ..Media Fetishes My ComLuv Profile

]]> By: Amol Naik http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/the-market-anarchy.html/comment-page-1#comment-2836 Amol Naik Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:33:53 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=4065#comment-2836 <blockquote> This rolling up and down of investments in various production sectors tends to bring equilibrium where the rates of profit in various production sectors tends to be uniform. </blockquote> I partly agree to what Shumit has said in his first comment. Although, I can accept that free market to total liberalization would guarantee profit eqality and market equilibrium, it is hard to imagine if under-invested sector would thrive again according to the cycle you have explained. In that case, not only that the workers/labourer involved with the sector would extinct, but chain-effect could pose a vicious cycle running backwards. A "clean" government, hence, must streameline the process of investements, regularize profit sharing mechanisms, and provide attention to under-investement sectors. Of course, you may argue that this distupts the market equilibrium, but I suspect that the anarchy you've spoken would ensure it either. The liberalization is process. So, one may argue by formulating the so-called investment up and down as phase, but at the macro level it is exactly what is happening with the efficient/non-efficient hierarchical goverments. As an example, if the automated goods are coming at cheaper price tag now, they were expensive earlier. The hand-made goods are expensive now, but they were much cheaper when there no machines, with or without market anarchy. .-= Amol Naik´s last blog ..<a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/dynamic22/~3/ci3ygQAkA9U/" rel="nofollow">Media Fetishes</a> =-.

This rolling up and down of investments in various production sectors tends to bring equilibrium where the rates of profit in various production sectors tends to be uniform.

I partly agree to what Shumit has said in his first comment. Although, I can accept that free market to total liberalization would guarantee profit eqality and market equilibrium, it is hard to imagine if under-invested sector would thrive again according to the cycle you have explained.

In that case, not only that the workers/labourer involved with the sector would extinct, but chain-effect could pose a vicious cycle running backwards. A “clean” government, hence, must streameline the process of investements, regularize profit sharing mechanisms, and provide attention to under-investement sectors. Of course, you may argue that this distupts the market equilibrium, but I suspect that the anarchy you’ve spoken would ensure it either.

The liberalization is process. So, one may argue by formulating the so-called investment up and down as phase, but at the macro level it is exactly what is happening with the efficient/non-efficient hierarchical goverments. As an example, if the automated goods are coming at cheaper price tag now, they were expensive earlier. The hand-made goods are expensive now, but they were much cheaper when there no machines, with or without market anarchy.
Amol Naik´s last blog ..Media Fetishes My ComLuv Profile

]]> By: Unpretentious Diva http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/the-market-anarchy.html/comment-page-1#comment-2835 Unpretentious Diva Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:43:17 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=4065#comment-2835 <blockquote>I'm still not convinced that government always protects the corrupt and criminals, but that is indeed the way that most of the world works today. So, you're right for that matter.</blockquote> True, you don't need to be convinced, in fact, government laws are meant to protect all, but then, government system is monopolistic, it doesn't provide a rescue for the consumer if he is being cheated. On the other hand, in a free market, there is no monopoly, even the consumer being cheated has total power to oppose the cheater and actually punish him. Free market provides him choices further than the choices available in best form of government that is democracy. In free market also, free market is supposed to protect all but the base is only one, the protection should be objectively based, otherwise, the protecting entity looses market and hence suffers losses and that results in its end. While in government system, no matters how corrupt the government goes, it cannot end, it is monopoly. As a matter of fact, if there is a system of two-or-poly-political-parties system, the current government of political party working on corrupt ways may get evaded and defeated by the other party coalition in next elections (that is after five years) but even then, the new government gets a limit to atleast get as much corrupt as the previous one was, and even then the new government may cry that it is better and is more justified. In essence no government is actually never justified, they always are relatively justified. On the other hand, in free market, every consumer keeps voting at every instance, but his votes are not the mandate papers, his votes are his owned pennies, every penny is a vote, and if a company looses the democratic free choice competition, it either changes its ways and become honest or it stops existing (as there is no other way). Thus, free market ends monopoly, monopoly is impossible in free market hence corruption cannot retain for long. While in government regulated system, monopoly can never end. The point is, human nature or human beings aren't irrational, but the concept of government monopoly, or any other form of monopoly is irrational as it ends all choices.<strong> So do you realize that it is not the human beings or Human nature that is irrational but the system of monopoly (government monopoly in this case) that makes every thing seemingly irrational because of its own inherent irrationality? </strong> As Free Market avoids development of any sort of monopoly, it actually reduces (to the extents of ending) the chances of irrationalities, although I do not claim that there can never be any chance of irrationality in free market, but such instances doesn't stand for long in free market as it is self-correcting. <blockquote>Wars and conflicts will also arise from this</blockquote> On the other hand, I feel conflicts will never reach to that extent to be termed as devilish wars of destruction in a free society, because each group/individual would be actually based on mutually beneficial agreement base. As wars never provide any benefit to anyone in any circumstance an each party looses, the conflicts would naturally be solved on mutual agreement base again without actually going towards violent wars in a free market. But see the contrast in government system, aren't we always face either a war or a potential danger of wars between the various governments because of their monopoly? Examples are, WW1, WW2,Gulf War, Persian war, Vietnam War, Palestine conflict, Kashmir Conflict, Indo-pak war1, 2 and 3, Indo_china war and many many more?

I’m still not convinced that government always protects the corrupt and criminals, but that is indeed the way that most of the world works today. So, you’re right for that matter.

True, you don’t need to be convinced, in fact, government laws are meant to protect all, but then, government system is monopolistic, it doesn’t provide a rescue for the consumer if he is being cheated.
On the other hand, in a free market, there is no monopoly, even the consumer being cheated has total power to oppose the cheater and actually punish him. Free market provides him choices further than the choices available in best form of government that is democracy.

In free market also, free market is supposed to protect all but the base is only one, the protection should be objectively based, otherwise, the protecting entity looses market and hence suffers losses and that results in its end.
While in government system, no matters how corrupt the government goes, it cannot end, it is monopoly.
As a matter of fact, if there is a system of two-or-poly-political-parties system, the current government of political party working on corrupt ways may get evaded and defeated by the other party coalition in next elections (that is after five years) but even then, the new government gets a limit to atleast get as much corrupt as the previous one was, and even then the new government may cry that it is better and is more justified. In essence no government is actually never justified, they always are relatively justified.
On the other hand, in free market, every consumer keeps voting at every instance, but his votes are not the mandate papers, his votes are his owned pennies, every penny is a vote, and if a company looses the democratic free choice competition, it either changes its ways and become honest or it stops existing (as there is no other way).
Thus, free market ends monopoly, monopoly is impossible in free market hence corruption cannot retain for long. While in government regulated system, monopoly can never end. The point is, human nature or human beings aren’t irrational, but the concept of government monopoly, or any other form of monopoly is irrational as it ends all choices.
So do you realize that it is not the human beings or Human nature that is irrational but the system of monopoly (government monopoly in this case) that makes every thing seemingly irrational because of its own inherent irrationality?
As Free Market avoids development of any sort of monopoly, it actually reduces (to the extents of ending) the chances of irrationalities, although I do not claim that there can never be any chance of irrationality in free market, but such instances doesn’t stand for long in free market as it is self-correcting.

Wars and conflicts will also arise from this

On the other hand, I feel conflicts will never reach to that extent to be termed as devilish wars of destruction in a free society, because each group/individual would be actually based on mutually beneficial agreement base. As wars never provide any benefit to anyone in any circumstance an each party looses, the conflicts would naturally be solved on mutual agreement base again without actually going towards violent wars in a free market.
But see the contrast in government system, aren’t we always face either a war or a potential danger of wars between the various governments because of their monopoly?

Examples are, WW1, WW2,Gulf War, Persian war, Vietnam War, Palestine conflict, Kashmir Conflict, Indo-pak war1, 2 and 3, Indo_china war and many many more?

]]> By: shumit http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/the-market-anarchy.html/comment-page-1#comment-2834 shumit Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:39:29 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=4065#comment-2834 OK, I'm still not convinced that government always protects the corrupt and criminals, but that is indeed the way that most of the world works today. So, you're right for that matter. I suppose what you're saying is that natural objective laws always exert themselves in the absence of formal government as people themselves choose to self-determine the way they lead their lives. This natural law will indeed give rise to power bases, which will ultimately change hands once the general populace decides that it is too big, powerful, etc. Wars and conflicts will also arise from this, but again the process itself will remain fair, as there are no limiting factors or protection for mediocre producers/dictators/powers which will ultimately fail and be replaced by more successful ones. This is natural consequence and is fair to all. So I understand where you're coming from. Your point about Oil and commodities barons is correct too. It is Government ruling that stops individuals from simply going to dig their own wells in the absence of fair trade from OPEC and other producers. The international Governments are only too pleased to accept kickbacks from this and other groups and give them their stranglehold on the market in return. You're quite right. Government and it's laws (or indeed any ruling group and it's laws) tend to try to protect all parties regardless of whether they deserve that protection and often they practice bribery and breaking the laws they themselves impose on others. This is not natural or fair and is therefore doomed to failure. OK, I’m still not convinced that government always protects the corrupt and criminals, but that is indeed the way that most of the world works today. So, you’re right for that matter.

I suppose what you’re saying is that natural objective laws always exert themselves in the absence of formal government as people themselves choose to self-determine the way they lead their lives. This natural law will indeed give rise to power bases, which will ultimately change hands once the general populace decides that it is too big, powerful, etc. Wars and conflicts will also arise from this, but again the process itself will remain fair, as there are no limiting factors or protection for mediocre producers/dictators/powers which will ultimately fail and be replaced by more successful ones.

This is natural consequence and is fair to all. So I understand where you’re coming from. Your point about Oil and commodities barons is correct too. It is Government ruling that stops individuals from simply going to dig their own wells in the absence of fair trade from OPEC and other producers. The international Governments are only too pleased to accept kickbacks from this and other groups and give them their stranglehold on the market in return. You’re quite right.

Government and it’s laws (or indeed any ruling group and it’s laws) tend to try to protect all parties regardless of whether they deserve that protection and often they practice bribery and breaking the laws they themselves impose on others.

This is not natural or fair and is therefore doomed to failure.

]]> By: Unpretentious Diva http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/the-market-anarchy.html/comment-page-1#comment-2831 Unpretentious Diva Sat, 31 Oct 2009 02:43:35 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=4065#comment-2831 Shumit said <blockquote>Sometimes the existence of rules and the threat of punishment for breaking them is sufficient to deter an act from occurring. You cannot deny that as being a positive effect at least in some cases.</blockquote> Lol. trust me, I never meant that. What I mean is under government, natural, objective, rational laws cannot exist, under government the real culprit can never be punished, government is to safeguard the corrupt and criminals. In absence of government, not only the rational, natural objective laws survives and sustain themselves, the criminals, cheaters and corrupts are punished well too because that is the nature of Freedom, only the hardworking can survive and gain success. The mediocre/looter/robber/beggar/cheater may survive in hidden ways, he cannot gain success. Shumit said

Sometimes the existence of rules and the threat of punishment for breaking them is sufficient to deter an act from occurring. You cannot deny that as being a positive effect at least in some cases.

Lol. trust me, I never meant that. What I mean is under government, natural, objective, rational laws cannot exist, under government the real culprit can never be punished, government is to safeguard the corrupt and criminals.

In absence of government, not only the rational, natural objective laws survives and sustain themselves, the criminals, cheaters and corrupts are punished well too because that is the nature of Freedom, only the hardworking can survive and gain success. The mediocre/looter/robber/beggar/cheater may survive in hidden ways, he cannot gain success.

]]>