From: Max M (maxmcorp@worldonline.dk)
Date: Fri Nov 15 2002 - 04:44:11 MST
Reason wrote:
> http://www.mises.org
>
> Read the daily article for a few weeks; it should improve your
> understanding of non-State-centric economics no end.
My understanding of economics is not the problem here. And here you go
again doing exactly what I said was the problem. Economics is a
"science", but not a very exact one. It shares the same problems as
psychology with human nature.
The free market is ideologically inspired in large part by natural
selection. But that does not mean that natural selection is a natural law.
We as humans don't have to follow a system like that. Gene therapy ie.
is pretty Lamarchian to me! Nor does it mean that a free market as
policy is a natural law.
Nor does it mean that a real Libertarian society would be one people
would be happy to live in.
> trots out frosted Iceland c900-1200 again
> That looked pretty Libertarian to me. Three hundred years is a nice
> long stable society in my book.
I don't know the history of Iceland, but it could be argued that what
works in a small closed island society isn't exactly applicable to the
larger world. Besides, a sample of one isn't that much.
My fear is that a Libertarian society will turn out more like Somalia.
> The very fact that you speak of an "implementation" is a problem.
The fact that you think there can be an economy without an
implementation, without policy, is a problem.
> Economies are not implemented; or at least ones that succeed are not.
Not if you believe that there should be a completely free market no. But
you have yet to give any kind of proof that this is a good idea. Or even
that it can exist and be stable.
We are intelligent human beings. Why should we not be able to do better
than natural selection? Even in a completely free market there will be
concentrations of power that will take care of the implementation for
us. But then we won't have any say in the matter.
> They just happen; an economy is self-organization in planned action
> and distribution of resources. The most efficient economies are those
> that are left alone by the State.
Efficient by what meassure? The argument becomes circular right around
here. We should have a better economy for the economys sake.
I do believe that what we have that approaches a free market is a good
way of distributing resources fairly. And it's pretty good for the
economy. But the economy is only a mean to an end, not the end in itself.
A free market is not! a silver bullet that would solve every problem
the most efficient way if we just let it run it's course.
regards Max M Rasmussen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:08 MST