In the 2nd and 3rd one I deal with the notion, that trade is peaceful (nope) and voluntary (nope) and that it raises humankind out of poverty (not necessarily). And that people like you explain Economy 101 much more than necessary, missing the real point.
Claiming to raise people out of dirt-dwelling poverty is like my current politicians claiming to protect us from the past Communistic regime. Being marginally better is not enough. They steal about 10 % of state budget and squander the rest, but their most pathetic argument is, "at least we're better than Communists!" Being better than nothing or marginally better is not good enough. But that's exactly what trade needs - an offer needs to be just better than circumstances, better than death, in order to be accepted. And if someone controls the circumstances, it's all a cheat. We today do control almost any circumstances on Earth, short of geo-engineering.
What do you think? Are we still these brave trailblazers with forests full of wolves just behind the tarpaulin? In reality, nature is this thin shell of biosphere on the surface, in constant danger of industry. Usable goods is the most relative and misused of market talk we see today. As long as people think they're usable, they are usable to move money around, that's the market delusion.
Trade being peaceful, voluntary, and that it raises humankind out of poverty is not a "notion". It is a fact. And a very simple one to grasp. I don't understand how you miss it.
The next part doesn't make a lick of sense to me, whatsoever. I can't even comprehend what you're trying to say. I'd love for you to make a numbered "cause and effect" list and show me exactly how freely exchanging things leads to violence.
As I said in #1, market is based on the idea, that we can first take from Earth for free and then sell to our fellow men. This is a common human practice, we need the motivation of ownership to work. That used to be all right. But today, in light of Resource-Based Economy, it becomes painfully obvious that nature is so easy to steal from wholesale, so easy to destroy, that we can't treat it as a part of the economy. We have to treat it as a real trade partner with full rights and trade partner deserves his value back plus interest or profit, in a way which nature can use. People can add to nature. Nature or environment is not our enemy or property, but an euphemism for "the things that keep us alive". Our goals are one and our origins as well, the matter of our bodies is made of natural resources. That is a fact. Ownership is a legal fiction. If it wasn't, nature would own us all.
Oh my, what a heap of nonsense this is. Here is why. . .
It is impossible to do anything for free except die. Movement itself requires energy; energy that must be acquired from somewhere else and then transformed. To extract raw materials from the earth takes quite a bit of energy whether you are doing it manually, or with large machines (the latter being far more efficient). When you are extracting manually, it requires time and calories. Time is what you bought by working earlier, calories are energy that you transformed from eating plants or other working animals. Nothing in life is free except death. There is no way around this, it is simply a fact of existence. Infants believe that things are free because all they see are their parents magically providing for all of their needs. Adults and bugs and birds and fish understand that if you need something, you have to expend labor to get it.
"Treat nature as part of the economy"....goodness. Human beings are a part of nature! "Economy" is a word to describe human interaction. That means "Economy" is used to describe how one part of nature interacts with itself. Now if you're talking about polluting and stripping resources bare, then you need look no further than governments. It makes no sense in a free market system to strip your owned resources bare. You want a constant renewable source of resources so you can maintain a constant flow of income. Only when governments move in do resources get stripped and pollution runs rampant.
You're talking like "Nature" is some type of personified thing. It is in no way a person. "Nature" is a word to describe "the universe", but in a more local sense. You say we come from nature and actually are nature, but then speak as if we're separate. If you think ownership doesn't exist in nature, go try and take a freshly killed gazelle from a lion. Or even a piece of steak from a hungry dog. Ownership absolutely exists, the difference being that humans have figured out how to maintain ownership peacefully.
"Our goals are one..." what does that even mean?
Nature doesn't own anything because "Nature" isn't a conscious being. It is a word used to describe our local environment in the universe.
No, it's not SM, it's some random unfortunate guy, threatened by circumstances, the environment, or by structural violence. Sometimes it's not people who threaten us, yet somehow, in Stefan's incomplete philosophy, only people count as threats that the system has to deal with, the environment within and without is ignored. If you were a sociologist, you'd know that the individualism (and interest in capitalism) of Max Weber was outweighed by collective effort of people like Durkheim, Elias and Marx. In other words, ancap is sociologically and technologically almost illiterate. It's better than the current system, but that is never enough!
Another point here is, actually solving the problem means destroying the market. The most profitable behavior is to sell the most superficial of solutions at the highest of prices. Then anyone who come next can offer just marginally cheaper solution and call it "market competition". If nobody else comes or cartel negotiations are successful, the price stays high and the trade remains a ransom.
Appeal to authority fallacy. Either you can explain your point or you can't. Here, you've shown that you cannot.
"The market" is a word we use to describe the concept of the play of voluntary human interaction. In other words, what people peaceably do is the market. The only way to destroy the market is to destroy all people. (which is what I would argue TVP wants to do anyway)
"The most profitable behavior is to sell the most superficial of solutions at the highest of prices." You simply have no idea what you're talking about. This is an emotional argument wrapped up in intellectual jargon. The most profitable behavior is WIN-WIN. What you described is WIN-LOSE and, therefore, unsustainable. Anyone who engages in WIN-LOSE interactions will be unable to maintain that behavior for very long because people will recognize that by engaging this person they can only lose. Therefore, they will find someone who engages in WIN-WIN interactions. (For instance, if FDR charged a fee to post on their message board, and then severely limited your daily posting count, that would be a WIN-LOSE situation. Why? Because posting is so incredibly cheap. FDR would make money at first, but then not enough people would post, which would discourage others from joining in. What's the point of paying a fee to have a conversation that is very limited? WIN-WIN is when it's free to sign up and post, and then those who find value donate to maintain the board.) This is a real world example of an instance of a free market interaction that is WIN-WIN.
Here is another example of WIN-WIN. For $100/month I get to use a phone that can call any other phone in the United States at any time and talk for as long as I want. I also get to use this same phone to surf the web for as long as I want. A short way to say this is "I'm paying $100/month for phone service." A long way to say this is "I'm paying $100/month for my phone company to maintain a nationwide grid of cell phone towers, technicians, customer service reps, and freaking satellites they launched into orbit to make it all work." You know, $100/month ain't bad at all. They win because they get my money, I win because I get a phone. Not only that, but when I started my service I got my phone for free. And then after 2 years, I got a brand new phone for free. Those sons of bitches!!
Once, I ordered a pizza from Papa Johns. They took 2 hours to get to me. When the driver arrived my pizza was only a bit warm. If I had taken the pizza it would have been a WIN-LOSE. They would have still got my money, but my food would have been not good at all. But seeing that WIN-LOSE coming, I told the driver no thank you, I called the store and said I wanted a refund, and I got my refund. I rejected a WIN-LOSE and turned it into a WIN-WIN when I ordered from Domino's and got a piping hot pizza in 25 minutes.
My real world examples trump, nay, completely demolish your appeal to authority-ness, completely irrational, and meanderingly meaningless logic abortions.
Cartels can only exist through institutionalized violence (a.k.a. governments). In a free society, there are no cartels because there is always free competition. A cartel is only profitable with the protection of the state.
But we are CONSTANTLY threatened by coercive violence! Time, nature, our bodies, we are in their thrall and we have to do as they demand. People can pay really high prices when under coercion from their own body (i.e. hungry). A trade is always "good", meaning it is always "better than nothing". But that can be still quite a worsening to previous situation, as the drowning guy shows. "Better than nothing" is not good, not voluntary.
There is no such thing as a voluntary market. All market is involuntary, the only voluntary actions are taking and giving. Not exchanging. Exchanging has an element of giving up and regretting loses. This isn't obvious, but it plays a role in always striving to get the better end of the deal.
If trade was voluntary, first thing we'd try to do, would be to give our customer the best service possible for least money possible. Without the threat of competition, best service is the last thing that market subjects want to do. If it wasn't, people would provide quality service even in Communism. (which they didn't)
No we aren't!
Time, nature, and our bodies commit violence against us???
If I have ever heard someone so outrightly and with the loudest voice proclaim "I WAS ABUSED AS A CHILD!!", it's with this statement right here.
Time is abusive = parental neglect
Nature is abusive = unsafe environment at home. No privacy.
Bodies are abusive = you were physically abused (i.e. your body was used against you)
(I am so very sorry you experienced these things. I experienced them, too. Being neglected had the most negatively profound effect on me. If you would ever like to chat about what happened, pm me anytime.)
It is <<NOT THE NATURAL STATE OF A HUMAN BEING>> to feel abused by themselves and their environment! Why is this so important?? Because abused people who think they can save the world end up murdering millions! Save yourself! Leave the rest of us the hell alone!
Here is a contradiction you just made. In your first post, you said that extracting resources from Earth was free. But here you say that people can pay a high price when "under coercion" from hunger. As far as I know, extracting resources from the Earth makes a person VERY hungry! Therefore, by your own definition of violence, it is impossible to get anything for free.
Here you continue on with the win-lose hubbub. Again, this logic fail is not because you lack smarts. You're very intelligent. But if you think the whole world operates on WIN-LOSE interactions, you're still seeing the world through the eyes of your abused child self. Until you've decided to save yourself, it is almost impossible for you to see the world as it is, and not how it was for you when you were horribly mistreated.
Market has the right to deny people what they need, under the pretext that they don't have money. This is the "algorithm" of the market. This used to make sense, when people and money were involved in production, instead of automation and resources. The market system gives us products, but it takes away our time. We pay ransom for our own time! We can have a part of our time dead, or have it all dead. How is that different from taxes?
And what makes the resources so scarce? Isn't it making hundreds of different cell phone models? They all need rare earth metals, silicon and stuff. It is cheaper on resources to make everything in top quality (all can be easily downgraded with software, if wished), than to have a cell phone industry for making hundreds of various models.
In TVP, scientists deal with the shortage by researching a substitute material. Only they do it right away. If 100 million people really want a cell phone, we will ask them and we will know beforehand what we need to prevent theft and envy. Either way, people are not forced to go to work if they want a cell phone. They get to keep their free time to spend in any way they want. The cell phone is only something extra on top of free time, not something we sacrificed our workdays for. That certainly makes the demand a lower and the waiting easier. It's not perfect, just better than the current system and better than ancap.
You're right. TVP way is not perfect. But you're wrong in that it's better. What you've just described has been tried except without all the silliness of an "algorithm" to solve all our problems. An algorithm which does not exist, btw.
Let me tell you something I know for a 100% fact. As soon as someone comes along and says that they have figured out how to save me, that I just have to buy into their "plan", I know I've met a complete loony toon. There is absolutely NO WAY you know what's best for me. This is the FUNDAMENTAL difference between TVP and anarcho-capitalism. TVP pretends to be able to solve all of my material needs, but EVEN I DON'T KNOW what all of my material needs will be. Nor do I know how they will change.
TVP is no different than a government. We have the largest, wealthiest, most technologically advanced government in the history of the world and it can't even make a $600 million dollar website work properly.
If you really want to prove that TVP works, go set up somewhere and show us all that we're wrong. An-caps have example after example to show freedom works.
All of the "problems" you have with anarcho-capitalism are not inherent in the market and only exist through government. The fact that you haven't faced the abuse your parents so unjustly heaped upon you means that you are unlikely to see this, though. You have justified anger, but you're pointing it in the wrong direction.
Put down the philosophy of social organization before you hurt yourself and others.