The Libertarian Society of TSR.

Logic. It is the methodology of praxeology.

Suppose there is a plot of land. A populus gets its food from this land. It farms the land and it produces X food. X food can support of population of Y people. So the system regulates itself and only Y people exist.

There will not be more than Y people to a significant extent because if there was some people would be unable to feed themselves and reproduce. Thus the populus tends towards Y. That is demand would outstrip supply. Prices of food would rise and some people would be unable to pay for children they may consider concieving

Naturally as new capital and knowledge is found the ability of the plot of land to produce food will increase. And thus the population can increase.

The problem of draughts and crop failures can be solved through the price mechanism and international trade. If a crop fails then the populus can import food. It will be willing to pay more for imported food than countries without crop failures. And thus the price of food will rise to the point at which enough food is reallocted from the prior importers to the country with crop failure.

The rise in price will also incentivise more producers to enter the food market. This is the price signalling mechanism again. The new producers see the potential for profit and enter the market. As food has very flexible supply, anybody could become a farmer if they have land, this system works very well. The increase in supply is allocated towards the country with crop failure.

It is of interest to note that this phenomina could be seen as benevolance. When in reality the new producers are being guided by abstract signals of price and profit to tell them what their fellow mans needs. The new producer need not know of the famine to serve the starving. All he needs to do is be guided by self interest.




Here is a great video explaining this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E74itK6yLJY

F.A.Hayek


Gov. interference such as regulations on farming, subsidies, aid, tariffs all corrupt this mechanism and cause a malallocation of resources.

I noticed, I'm referring to before you knew that. You made those two accusations "rich ones just hate the poor, the poor ones are hypocrites" before he that mentioned he wasn't a free-market libertarian.

So your arguments boil down to
(a) an abstracted ahistorical fantasy
and
(b) an argument from authority


FAIL

Forgoing empircal evidence, of which supports my position, you do agree with the line of logic?

I'm working-class.

No. Your starting point is a completely ahistorical one. It is nonsense.

But logic does not need a historical context. Economic analysis can be solely conceptual.

And if you argue that because I do not use historical evidence my argument is fallacy means I can never be right. Because the free market has never existed.

And you still have not answered the question because you have not justified why my logic is wrong. You have just said that without historical evidence you will not buy it. You have not undermined my theoretical reasoning.

Your logic is based on particular assumptions. How did these people get this land? Who farms it? Who owns it? What are the relations of production in this society? How did they get to be that way? What other tensions exist? You talk about the "price mechanism". This only exists under certain social conditions. As E P Thompson shows in "The Making of the English Working Class", the price someone charged for some work before the industrial revolution (iirc he uses the example of a wheelwright), depended on many factors, such as social status of each party and had nothing to do with supply and demand.

You talk about the "price mechanism". This only exists under certain social conditions. As E P Thompson shows in "The Making of the English Working Class", the price someone charged for some work before the industrial revolution (iirc he uses the example of a wheelwright), depended on many factors, such as social status of each party and had nothing to do with supply and demand.

Yes, I stand by that.

All the arguments on this thread about "freedom" have basically come down to "poverty is not unfreedom". I've shown what a load of specious crap that is. Engage with that or stfu.

As E P Thompson shows in "The Making of the English Working Class", the price someone charged for some work before the industrial revolution (iirc he uses the example of a wheelwright), depended on many factors, such as social status of each party and had nothing to do with supply and demand.

You are right that before the industrial revolution we did not really have the price mechanism.

Your logic is based on particular assumptions. How did these people get this land? Who farms it? Who owns it? What are the relations of production in this society? How did they get to be that way? What other tensions exist? You talk about the "price mechanism". This only exists under certain social conditions. As E P Thompson shows in "The Making of the English Working Class", the price someone charged for some work before the industrial revolution (iirc he uses the example of a wheelwright), depended on many factors, such as social status of each party and had nothing to do with supply and demand.

I see your failure of logic over and over again when debating so called "libertarians". You lot never learn.

Finally something of content.

Land is aquired just like any other scarce commodity, in the market. Land is farmed by anyone willing to do it. Whether it be a franchise, private firm, family or individual. There is no particular constraint in the free market.

The land could be used for alternative uses such as homes, roads and what not. However with price mechanism the different uses for land are coordinated so not too much or too little of scarce resources is devoted to one type of production.

This is because if a good is not produced enough it will be profitable to start using land for that type of output, trading off another output. And if something is overproduced it will be unprofitable to produce more of it.

The price mechansim does not exist under social conditions, it is not a social phenomina. It occurs under certain economic conditions. That is the division of labour, a media of exchange (money) and private property.

The price mechanism is an impersonal system. It does not care for social status. The price mechansim only deals with what people want and what people can produce. It does not care about the man, it cares about what he can do for others. (The notion of a mechanism caring is ridiculous but you get my point)

You are right that before the industrial revolution we did not really have the price mechanism. I am convinced the reason man improved his condition during the industrial revolution was because the price mechanism was used to guide resources. Rather than elitist lords, monarchs, bishops guiding resouces.

You note the creation of the 'working class'. This class was previously essentially peasants who had no control over their own lives. As you point out. It was only when they were given more economic freedom and were guided by prices (as apposed to command) that the lower classes improved their lot. They were still still comparatively poor but capitalism gave them independence and their own property.

It was only once classical liberalism (now libertarianism) that poor people were given more economic rights and freedom. Thus were able to improve their condition in the impersonal unjudgemental market place.

I'm engaging with a separate argument. My argument is not whether libertarianism leads to bad results or not, it's over whether people can support it without being wicked people.

My reasoning is that just because X supports system Y with bad results, does not mean X is wicked. They instead might be mistaken over the outcome of system of Y.

I mentioned that it works both ways. With many capitalists assuming that because they think statist systems lead to bad results, people who support them must have bad intentions. I think both sides do this erroneously.

I'm slightly suspicious of this. Since Adam Smith, who mostly founded the idea, was around before the industrial revolution. I found the PDF of the E P Thompson book here. Quoted below:

[INDENT]The wages of the skilled craftsman at the beginning of the
1 9th century were often determined less by "supply and
demand" in the labour market than by notions of social prestige,
or "custom". [/INDENT]

Notice right off that the historian uses the word "often" rather then "always". Admitting at least a portion of the goods were in fact mostly determined by supply and demand. He also uses "determined less by", admitting that even his examples had some element of supply and demand.

Contrast that with |Kibalchich|'s summary of this historian:

[INDENT]had nothing to do with supply and demand.[/INDENT]

Which I think misrepresents Thompson's message a bit.

To |turn and fall|'s credit, he used "did not really have the price mechanism." rather then "did not have a price mechanism". Implying that the price mechanism has existed in different degrees rather then being absolute.

Since when was feudal Britain an example of laissez-faire? .... Do you understand feudalism? How did the land-owning classes establish that elite status? Could it have been because of government grants? Is that Capitalism? Christ!

But then again you think S&P is an example laissez-faire !!

It is certainly my experience that "libertarians" tend to be middle class kids. It is also the logical outcome of "libetarianism" that it would allow poor people to starve. Its been argued on this thread ffs. Engage with that or stfu.

I don't think that's true. Even if there was absolutely no government welfare (and plenty of classical liberal/libertarian types think there should be some kind of minimal welfare system) it doesn't stand to reason that libertarians would allow poor people to starve. The government now doesn't fund lifeboats. That doesn't mean it's allowing to people to drown.

Just think how much better the RNLI could be if it received proper funding.

Anyhow, that's not really my point. So called "libertarians" talk about freedom - yet that freedom only pertains to people with property. That's a funny sort of freedom.

Freedom of suppression. We've been through this...