From: Keith Elis ('Hagbard Celine') (hagbard@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Thu Sep 18 1997 - 19:41:45 MDT
The Low Golden Willow wrote:
>
> On Sep 19, 11:48pm, Joao Pedro wrote:
>
> } Eric Watt Forste wrote:
> } > I prefer
> } > voluntary solutions, perhaps as a matter of taste, and Coase has
> } Voluntary actions? You're talking of voluntary, unselfish actions from
> } the same species that constantly kills, destroys and robs other members
> } of the same species? I don't think that's possible in today's world,
>
> Constantly? No city could exist if people constantly did the things you
> say. Civilization is the great refutation of claims that the mass of
> humanity is irredeemably shortsightedly selfish and violent.
I have a growing suspicion that the free market is more in-line with my
views toward transhumanism than any other economic arrangment.
What is our greatest enemy at this point? I would argue it is entropy.
The free market is non-entropic in the sense that is a complex adpative
system. (Those of you with more background in systems theory may add or
correct at will...)
The free market can be said to adapt in the sense that it is capable of
maintaining a certain equilibrium of interests, and also changes over
time to deal with supply and demand issues, inefficency, and scarcity.
The existence of "price" tends to preserve transactional information.
Indeed, as free market economies grow and diversify (the result of the
impetus to innovate for increased efficency and sell such innovation for
increased resources), the system acquires more participants, more
relations between participants and more complex behavior of the
participants. This seems to be a spontaneous increase in complexity,
unplanned and unchecked. Non-entropic, indeed. The free market
self-organizes in accordance with the fluctuations that normally occur
due to outside environmental factors (resources, disasters, etc.) In
this sense, I would argue, the free market never reaches a complete
equilibrium. Indeed, it is this nonequilibrium that keeps it dissipative
and healthy. And finally, for the same reasons, the free market is
self-maintaining. It is shielded from utter annihilation by its ability
to fluctuate in accordance with otherwise destructive input.
This seems non-entropic given the greater possibilities of increases in
complexity and information. A regulation can arguably make things more
complex, but seems also to result in an information loss. Take, for
example, regulations on the emission of toxic gases. When an outsider
steps in and denotes X units to be the highest legal limit on the
emission of toxic gas Y, the non-complying actor must either arrest the
emission by cutting production or acquire a new means of production that
is in compliance. This increases complexity, but only because another
actor has entered the picture (the regulation). However, the information
concerning what is efficient, what is Y's impact upon the environment,
etc. is lost.
What do you think?
Out of time,
Keith/Hagbard
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:55 MST