Guest Post: Free Market Ecology

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics

Free Market Ecology

These gargantuan global conferences where the emissaries of governments meet in hallowed halls to thrash out a global planning agenda — dressed in the clothes of ecology, or sustainable development, or whatever the buzzword of the day — are a waste of time.

They are a waste of time for the taxpayer, who has to stump up to pay for such efforts. They are a waste of time for the protestors who swarm to such events holding placards and shouting slogans. They are a waste of time for the ecologists who — whether right or wrong — believe that the present shape of human civilisation is unsustainable. Possibly the only group that really benefits are the self-perpetuating bureaucratic classes, who often take home huge salaries they could never earn in the private sector.

And the Malthusian targets of the bureaucracy have a history of missing.

The Guardian notes:

Rio+20 was intended as a follow up on the 1992 Earth Summit, which put in place landmark conventions on climate change and biodiversity, as well as commitments on poverty eradication and social justice. Since then, however, global emissions have risen by 48%, 300m hectares of forest have been cleared and the population has increased by 1.6bn people. Despite a reduction in poverty, one in six people are malnourished.

If these bureaucratic classes knew the first thing about economics or markets, they would begin to question whether such conferences — and all the promises, intergovernmental commissions, and regulatory pledges they spawn — are necessary. The more I question, the more I come to believe that all that is needed to halt any man-made ecological crises are free markets and free speech.

The history of human civilisation has been one of triumph over the limits of nature. While we have had our ups and downs, recent projections of imminent ecological ruin — such as those in the 1970s produced by Ehrlich and Holdren and the Club of Rome, or earlier by Keynes, Malthus and Galton (etc) — have all failed to materialise. But the trend goes back much further, into the distant past. Throughout our history our species has done what has been necessary to survive. Humanity has lived on this planet for upwards of 500,000 years, and through that time, we have survived a myriad of climate changes — solar variation, atmospheric variation, cycles of glaciation, supervolcanoes, gamma ray bursts, and a host of other phenomena.

It will be no different this time. We are dependent on our environment for our life and for our future. That is widespread knowledge, and so as the capable and creative species that we are, we have already developed a wide array of technological solutions to potential future environmental problems. This is a natural impulse; humanity as individuals and as a species hungers for survival, for opportunities to pass on our genes.

As I wrote last month:

If we are emitting excessive quantities of CO2 we don’t have to resort to authoritarian centralist solutions. It’s far easier to develop and market technologies (that already exist today) like carbon scrubbing trees that can literally strip CO2 out of the air than it is to try and develop and enforce top-down controlling rules and regulations on individual carbon output. Or (even more simply), plant lots of trees and other such foliage (e.g. algae).

 

If the dangers of non-biodegradable plastic threaten our oceans, then develop and market processes (that already exist today) to clean up these plastics.

 

Worried about resource depletion? Asteroid mining can give us access to thousands of tonnes of metals, water, and even hydrocarbons (methane, etc). For more bountiful energy, synthetic oil technology exists today. And of course, more capturable solar energy hits the Earth in sunlight in a single day than we use in a year.

The only reason why these technologies are not widespread is that at present the older technologies are more economically viable. Is that market failure? Are markets failing to reflect our real needs and wants?

No; those who so quickly cry “market failure!” fail to grasp markets. Certainly, I think GDP is a bad measure of economic growth. But throwing out the concept of money altogether as a measure of society’s needs and wants is completely foolish. Markets are merely an aggregation of society’s preferences. Capital and labour is allocated as the market — in other words, as society — sees fit. As Hayek showed in the 1930s, the market gives society the ability to decide how a good or service should be distributed based on individuals willingness to give money for it. The market gives feedback to producers and consumers through the price mechanism about the allocation of resources and capital, which in turn allows on the basis of individual consensual decisions corrections that prevent shortages and surpluses. Under a planned system there is no such mechanism.

The fact that greener technologies have not yet been widely adopted by the market is merely a symptom of the fact that society itself is not yet ready to make a widespread transition. But the fact that research and development and investment continues to pour into green technologies shows that the market is developing toward such an end.

Solar consumption has gone parabolic:

And so it will continue; as society evolves and progresses, the free market — so long as there is a free market — will naturally reallocate resources and labour based on society’s preferences. Without a free market — and since 2008 when the banks were bailed out and markets became junkiefied intervention-loving zombies, it is highly dubious that there is such a thing as a free market in the West — planners will just end up guessing at how to allocate resources, labour and capital, and producing monstrous misallocations of capital.

The political nature of such reallocation is irrelevant; whether the centralists call themselves communists or socialists or environmentalists, their modus operandi is always the same: ignore society’s true economic preferences, and reallocate resources based on their own ideological imperatives (often for their own enrichment).

My view is that the greatest threat to the planet’s ecology is from the centralists who wish to remove or pervert the market mechanism in order to achieve ideological goals. It is not just true that removing the market mechanism retard society’s ability to evolve into new forms of production, resource-allocation, and capital-allocation based on society’s true preferences. The command economies of the 20th Century — particularly Maoist China and Soviet Russia — produced much greater pollution than the free markets. Under a free market, polluters who damage citizens or their property can be held to account in the market place, and through the court system.There is no such mechanism through the kind of command of economy that the centralists seem to wish to implement.

The answer is not central planning and government control. The answer is the free market.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Careless Whisper's picture

The Careless Whisper SUNDAY Reading/Viewing List & Threadjacking

Robert Shiller: Government Should Sieze Home Mortgages At Fair Market Value Using Eminent Domain

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/business/economy/real-estates-collective-action-problem.html?_r=1&ref=realestate

CFR Member: Sinaloa Cartel Has Merged With Sicilian Mafia

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/06/21/mexico-drug-cartels-supply-italian-mafia-with-cocaine-for-europe/

Planes Returned To Airport; TSA Was "Unplugged"

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/unplugged_tsa_airhead_triggers_jfk_kKxMANCPErCWn6KLfDbbVI

VIDEO: Denny's Commercial Celebrates 2nd Amendment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7wYm0cYEOI

NYSE Asks For Government Bailout; Only Has 24% Of Trading Volume

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/dark_side_rises_mnRpuDJOLUgFxUATZHMxmJ

Money Changes Everything; Cyndi Lauper (Live 1984) MUSIC VIDEO OF THE DAY; In Honor Of Lauper Chosen As Grand Marshall Of NYC Pride Parade Today

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=202o_JS7E04

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ahmeexnal's picture

Life imitates....Bollywood.

GMO grass mutates and produces cyanide gas.  Cattle drops dead....are humans next?

http://www.weareaustin.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_2393.shtml

The grass is a genetically modified form of Bermuda known as Tifton 85 which has been growing here for 15 years, feeding Abel's 18 head of Corriente cattle.  Corriente are used for team roping because of their small size and horns.

"When we opened that gate to that fresh grass, they were all very anxious to get to that," said Abel.

Three weeks ago, the cattle had just been turned out to enjoy the fresh grass, when something went terribly wrong.

"When our trainer first heard the bellowing, he thought our pregnant heifer may be having a calf or something," said Abel.  "But when he got down here, virtually all of the steers and heifers were on the ground.  Some were already dead, and the others were already in convulsions."

Within hours, 15 of the 18 cattle were dead.

"That was very traumatic to see, because there was nothing you could do, obviously, they were dying," said Abel.

Dr. Gary Warner, an Elgin veterinarian who specializes in cattle, conducted the 15 necropsy.  Preliminary tests revealed the Tifton 85 grass, which has been here for years, had suddenly started producing cyanide gas, poisoning the cattle.

M. Night Shyamalan (yet another globalist NWO pusher) directed "The Happening" in 2008. 

The plot of the movie? Vegetation producing deadly toxic gases decimate global human population.

That Peak Oil Guy's picture

John, you say the predictions made in Limits to Growth (Club of Rome) have so far failed to materialize.  This is expected, as their doomsday prediction didn't play out until about 2030 in the scenario they felt was most likely given business as usual.  This does not mean they will not materialize as predicted.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe centralism is the answer at all.  Inalienable rights are just that, inalienable. 

It is unlikely that there is any path that will not lead us to ruin; this is the tragedy of the commons.  But there are those who would seek to enrich their own power and better ensure their own survival at the expense of others, and these people are indeed the centralists.

geekgrrl's picture

Actually, I disagree with his claim entirely. People have been tracking the models in LtG, for example, A comparison to the limits of growth with thirty years of reality. This paper shows that trends are closely tracking what they called their "standard model." At the end of this paper there is a series of charts that compare the various models in LtG to the actual observed empirical data for the last 30 years, and it is clear that trends are close to the standard model.

While it's true the full measure of the claims awaits to be tested, that is not at all the same thing as being proven wrong. As you point out - the scenarios did not paint a picture of imminent doom, although the hysterical response from cornucopians that there any limits whatsoever would have us believe that. 

So when he says their predictions have failed to materialize, I wonder what evidence he might provide to substantiate that claim?

That Peak Oil Guy's picture

I feel that the predictions will end up being reasonably correct, but right now it appears the trends are following long-established trendlines.  It's kind of like being in a bus and headed for a cliff, but still 50 yards from it.  You know that if you keep on the road you are on you will reach the cliff.  But if the cliff did not exist ahead of the bus then no one would be surprised to see a bus cruising down the road.

The people who have revisited the data have merely shown that we continue down the road toward the cliff.  It is the existence of the cliff that is debated, and while you and I may see it clearly the fact is no one will know it is really a cliff (and just how far a drop it is) until we go over the edge and hit bottom.

Prior hints that the cliff is real are starting to emerge similar to the scenarios in Limits to Growth.  For instance, the food per capita trend is starting to hit a peak, it appears.  I don't know where one might find data on the industrial output per capita trend, but it also seems to be a developing problem.  When these trends dip convincingly into the negative territory for three or four years in a row then we may be able to see the cliff more clearly and know how much further we have to go before we hit the much more scary trend reversals such as death rate.

geekgrrl's picture

Good points and I have to agree based on most of the evidence to date. One area where I have some uncertainty is with a concern expressed by Dmitry Orlov. He argued, following Tainter,  that failures in complex systems generally don't follow gently declining trajectories, and that certainly matches my experience in analyzing failures in simpler systems. Once they reach a breaking point, all sorts of interdependencies that weren't obvious earlier become painfully clear, and in that kind of breakdown, why should there be the expectation of a slow descent?

Finance is much more susceptible to these sudden catastropic changes because the whole system is predicated on sentiment, and that can change in a heartbeat. Oil will continue being pumped, and food will continue to be grown, but finance is where the real timebomb lies. Hence the massive, unprecented PR campaign to only say good things about the economy. I think that effort is failing though, as the narratives continue to depart from reality and more and more people are developing acute cognitive dissonance.

One cliff indicator on my list is major power outages during heat waves, and the yearly total. Based on this ZH post, the trend indicates somewhere around 700 power outages in 2012, and it's looking exponential. This is more or less what Duncan predicted, if one assumes that we are at, or very close to the knee of the curve, AKA cliff.

AldousHuxley's picture

be careful what you westerners wish for.

 

free market = lower standard of living for most of you unless you have EXCEPTIONAL GLOBAL level skills like an olympic athelete. only the elite of the elite will benefit.

 

good luck trying to outcompete 2 billion slaves in India and China where 20,000,000 have IQ at genius level and sure are hungry for any hard work.

 

 

That Peak Oil Guy's picture

Fortunately, I do fit into that elite category in my chosen field.  And really, IQ only counts for so much, being a mark of potential which may never be tapped by a global society because those individuals do not grow up with the paradigm of the first world around them. 

Competition is good for us because what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

geekgrrl's picture

I'm not sure where you're getting that we're wishing for anything. I'm just trying to understand what's happening, not based on ideology or wishful thinking, but on actual evidence. I think That Peak Oil Guy is looking at things in a similar manner.

Good luck feeding those billions.

blunderdog's picture

If you're acquainted w/Myers-Briggs, a really big issue is that "judging" types don't tend to understand "perceiving" types at all.  You MUST be the enemy if you don't share their judgment.

geekgrrl's picture

I'm aware of MB, as well as Keirsey's "Please Understand Me" and you are absolutely correct. I've run into more problems with judgmental types than any other. It's frustrating because more than anything, I enjoy the process of discovery, and judgment typically ends discovery and critical thought. I do have my opinions, but I definitely lean towards keeping the door open for new information and ideas, and I have changed my mind from time to time based on new information. Thanks for pointing this out, because like most people, I fall into the trap of assuming everyone is more or less like me, and tend to neglect the fact that different folks have different temperaments. I should know better, being a type represented by only 1% of the population, and also because I know about MB and Keirsey's work, but it's an easy trap to fall into.

That Peak Oil Guy's picture

I like that, looking at aggregate power outages for signs of the complexity crash.

Marginal Call's picture

A rebuttal from another forum:

 

"Prussic Acid Poisoning of livestock is a well known phenomenon that has been killing herbivores in times of drought since there were grasses and herbivores.

http://pubstorage.sdstate.edu/AgBio_Publications/articles/ExEx4016.pdf

Tifton 85 bermuda grass is in no way a GMO.

Tifton 85 is an F1 hybrid (like a mule is a cross between a horse and a donkey) between PI 290884 and Tifton 68. It is a sterile pentaploid, therefore hybrid seed must be used to plant each new stand. The grass is a perenial though and can grow in perpetuity in the absence of hard freezes. Tifton 68 is a F1 hybrid between PI 255450 and PI 293606. All three accessions in this hybridization scheme are of African origin.

http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/acc/search.pl?accid=PI+290884

http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/acc/search.pl?accid=PI+255450

http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/acc/search.pl?accid=PI+293606

I swear, nothing makes my blood boil like misinformation.

Jason
Grass Biologist
Formerly USDA-ARS
Currently The University of Texas at Austin."

Dr. Sandi's picture

There's nothing like annoying facts to wreck a good story.

GeneMarchbanks's picture

The answer is not central planning and government control. The answer is the free market.

http://theorwellprize.co.uk/wp-content/files_mf/hajoonchang.pdf

AldousHuxley's picture

'free market" in an utopian ideal that will never exist. Humans are social animals with social contracts and social hierarchy for long term stability.

 

all the "free market" proponents are fake conservatives with government jobs in industries that are heavily subsidized: military industrial complex, banking, agriculture, educational industrial complex, energy industries.....

 

 

Shell Game's picture

 

all the "free market" proponents are fake conservatives with government jobs in industries that are heavily subsidized: military industrial complex, banking, agriculture, educational industrial complex, energy industries.....

 

Sure about that?  Or is wolf in sheeps clothing accurately called a sheep?  There are many who beckon the words 'liberty', 'freedom' and 'free markets' as shrouds for their underlying collectivism.  True market anarchy is indeed utiopian, but the only way out of this mess is for collapse of the current system into markets flavored with much more lawlessness.  In time, yes, human nature will corrupt again..

disabledvet's picture

Yeah, i'm sure. Glad it's still taking you this long to figure it out though. Oh, look! The Bailout Brigade has arrived...AGAIN!

Shell Game's picture

Is it Opposite Day?  Missed the memo..

AnAnonymous's picture

There are many who beckon the words 'liberty', 'freedom' and 'free markets' as shrouds for their underlying collectivism.

__________________

Those many are US citizens and such is their nature.

akak's picture

There are many, many more who beckon with the words "jobs", "security" and "dictatorship of the proletariat" as shrouds for their underlying and bigoted, xenophobic collectivism.

Those many are roadside-shitting Chinese citizens, and such is their doglike nature.

Marginal Call's picture

But we're *greener* than command economies.  (*please ignore that we exported the means of production to our Asian labor colonies so that we can all mow each others lawns and make home made porn-we are green and like it)

CH1's picture

'free market" in an utopian ideal that will never exist.

You are channeling MDB, I presume?

"Free markets" are simply what people do when they are not forced to do otherwise.

fiddy pence haff pound's picture

I tend to agree with the stuff Aldous writes.

All of a sudden, old-fashioned slash and burn manufacturing capitalism has been made the 'God of old' and thus perfect.

 

" Under a free market, polluters who damage citizens or their property can be held to account in the market place, and through the court system.There is no such mechanism through the kind of command of economy that the centralists seem to wish to implement."

I don't f%&*king think so, Aziz. Back in the old, simple days (pre the fascist oligarchy) when I was complaining about pifling things like governments turning a 'blind eye' to corporation pollution, I saw there

the roots of what we have now. Full-on the-rich-fuck-everything political economy. The environment never stands a chance without good government oversight. Otherwise rich folks will always gain while the rest of us lose do to worsening health and higher likelihood of losing our home to flooding, for example.

 

Remember Greenpeace?

Voluntary Exchange's picture

@AldousHuxley:

 

'free market" in an utopian ideal that will never exist. 

 

Nonsense! Overall on the individual level, a free market exchange is more common than cooertion, but  to have it you need voluntary exchanges without theft, fraud, or initiation of force, not just upon the contracting parties but also upon any other non-contracting 3rd parties that are not agreed to or not compensated, (those are called "negative externalities").

 

A Negative externality invalidates an otherwise valid contract, in other words hiring a hit man, or buying something from a polluting factory without all injured party's consent/compensation is not a true "free market" transaction as someone's life, liberty or property has been violated without their consent. The externality issue is also why forced taxation by political decree to provide "services" is subobtimal to a free market for those services; often, what a statist claims is a "positive externality", (an uncompensated benefit to non-participants of a contract), will turn out to actually be a negative externality from the perspective of many outside parties. Very sub-optimal solutions start occurring when some "authority"  tries to decree that for example: some uncompensated pollution is permissible for the "greater good", we must give up some liberty for "security", or that some "vital" firm/institution is "too big to fail",  or that "limited liability" results in net "social benefits", or that fiat money/fractional reserve banking/legal tender "laws" are needed for a modern society, and on and on it goes. 

A truly free market solution will consistently provide something better and cheaper from a global (human) perspective than the statist non-voluntary solution. And that especially applies to those areas where statist attempt to argue that certain key services will become impossible due to the "free rider" problem, (a tern for uncompensated "positive externalities"), such as policing, fire abatement, primary "education", environmental protection, conflict resolution, enforcement, defense, adjudication, "law", or "justice".

 

Regarding Authoritarian/statist thinking and whether it can ever be overcome and allow us greater free market freedoms: it is a form of mental disorder strongly correlated to physical abuse in childhood. Violence such as spanking, when used in child rearing causes neurological and personality damages that tend toward impairment of  cognitive ability, actual lowering of IQ scores, much higher criminal activity, sociopathic and psychopathic tendencies, and either dependence toward or aspiration to becoming an authority figure or political leader. Please study child development research to verify this.  Stephen Molyneux's Freedomain Radio site: http://www.freedomainradio.com/  is a particularly good resource for this type of information. 

 

So when you refer to "social hierarchy" as some kind of universal human nature, you are actually mislabeling a human developmental disorder that is highly correlated to early physical child abuse. Authoritarian parenting techniques are usually paired with such physical abuse. It is a tragedy that so many people in so many societies still practice this physical and mental child abuse. Truly violence begets violence. And contrary to the example of bad parenting, might does NOT make right. Hierarchical/authoritarian/statist thinking is usually either from ignorance, personality disorder and/or a feature of impaired cognitive ability strongly correlated to mental and violent child abuse. It is not normal "human nature".  

 

But overall, the majority  of normal human ecconomic conduct is of a "free market"  form, otherwise humans would not be so successful.  

Woodyg's picture

No such thing as a Free Market - getbrid of the guv and it allows corporate monopolies to use their huge size and financial power to overwhelm the average citizen.

So a corporation pollutes and an average citizen has to sue in court?

They'll be overwhelmed by the giant Corp in court.

And the wealthy give to elect their judges and their politicians with their cash - aka free speech -

So a free market soon Turns into a guv controlled by the richest who use their cash to buy off and manipulate the guv and courts into doing their bidding.

Which the predator corps use to erect barriers to entry and other onerous regs that affect the little people - aka the muppets - only.

Sean7k's picture

Without a government there is no one to coerce society to use the products of the corporation. There are no guranteed contracts. There is no socialization of costs that the coporation would pay to get its' goods to market. 

There is true competition, that allows new products to enter the market unhindered. 

Corporations can own a police force, but it has no legitimacy. Therefore a community can defend itself without government to stop it. Courts that are privately funded must please the consumers or they won't be used. Corporations couldn't buy courts. 

The giant corporation would have to cater to consumer needs or die. Which is as it should be. 

The rich depend on the State to provide protection for their actions. Once that is removed, the corporation is nothing but another market entrant. 

Go back to your centrally planned cubicle and find a better troll line.

Matt's picture

"Without a government there is no one to coerce society to use the products of the corporation. There are no guranteed contracts. There is no socialization of costs that the coporation would pay to get its' goods to market.

There is true competition, that allows new products to enter the market unhindered. "

Because without Government, General Motors wouldn't have bought up and bankrupted the Red Car Line? Because drug dealers embrace free competition, and like having other people selling competing products in their area? Neither coerces others into using their product over another? I don't think you understand human nature at all.


Woodyg's picture

Power abhors a vacuum and where the guv cedes power corporations will swoop in to gather more......

It's a cycle that needs to be constantly fought - the 4th turning as the book says.....

I'd also mention that the very same people who hate the guv also hate unions But mega corps engaging in monopolistic behavior is seen as alright and 'in a free market' would be lessened?

Faulty analysis.

And every revolution becomes the guv power to protect their revolution leading to guv empowering itself over us muppits.

Hence the best and only laws by guvs should be those that limits IT'S power And the Corporate power to influence at the same time.

The problem is that the people behind the corps who control the guv are certifiable sociopaths and Will Not change without major bloodshed.
During the us revolution we tarred and feathered them.....the ruskies lined them up against a wall and shot them ...... The French invented a nifty little toy called the guillotine and the aloes forces hung them from the nearest lamppost.

FDR and Eisenhower lessened their power by taxing them at 93% on incomes over 3 million in today's $.

The choice is theirs - id bet they won't pick the Eisenhower way and hence will push the people too far and a nice mob will enforce one of the other choices.

Hope I'm wrong but these are sociopaths we're talking about.

Sean7k's picture

Without government, corporations cannot exist. 

I am not a corporation, but I hate the unions as well. They have been co-opted by government and now function to control labor- keeping it from organizing in a way that will yield real results. Perhaps if you READ the history of unions you would realize this.

Monopolistic behavior is not the problem, monopolistic behavior backed by government power is. That is what we have without a free market. It is protected markets by government for corporations that is the problem. Your inability to differentiate between the two just puts your ignorance on display.

If every revolution creates the same government, why is not government the problem? 

And who determines what these "best" laws are? Have you been paying attention? Government is run by a minority that empowers itself to transfer the wealth of the subjects. They write the laws. They judge the laws. We give the laws legitimacy by our votes.

FDR was the first president to create the foundation for the fascism we live in today. Tax rates had plenty of loopholes that allowed people to escape the tax rates. Please study tax rates over historical periods. Then pluck your head out of your ass and realize, NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO PAY TAXES. 

It is the structure of government that promotes and protects sociopaths. Power that resides within the community is not a vacuum, it is a strong defense against the wolves that will always howl outside our doors.

AldousHuxley's picture

government has shown to be effective in the early and late cycle of innovation:

protected infant industries and nationalizing near monopoly industries to promote competition elsewhere.

 

but we are entering age of state sponsored capitalism. US cannot sit on a high horse of free trade when 3rd world countries are practicing state sponsored capitalism protecting their interests first and the engaging in creating trade deficits for the other party.

 

government certainly has a role in society as competition at a huge scale is too costly (you can't create more then one rail road path)

 

Sean7k's picture

Only because we haven't tried using similiar "innovations" without government. These innovations were merchantilist inspired methods of guaranteeing trade. Government has nothing to do with it. 

We are in the age of fascism as a means of social control and debt slavery from state induced debt and entitlements. There is nothing beneficial about the tyranny of the police state.

Why can't you create more than one railroad path? If it wasn't competitive, it wouldn't be done. The argument for government monopoly and regulation is a loser. Utilitiy companies are white elephants without the means to modernize nor direct energy and water where they need to go.

Sean7k's picture

Because someone else would have been free to produce a red car line. Without a local government to buy off and create local ordinances to protect them from new competition. How can drug dealers embrace free competition when government intervention creates a restricted market.  I don't think you understand markets. You ignore the influence of government at all levels. 

I've read your comments, you can do better.

mjk0259's picture

That didn't happen in the days of the company town. Piss the company off and you get kicked out of town. Want to buy something - have to buy it from the company store. Want to drink? Not if the company boss doesn't like it - home subject to inspection. That was in the free USA.

 

Privately funded courts would not favor the rich who fund them? Not that that doesn't happen already but only 99% of the time...

The rich would have a private army before the state collapsed.

Sean7k's picture

People were free to choose where they could work. If they chose the company town, that was their free choice. They owned nothingf and sold their labor. Piss off the company and go somewhere else, many people did. That was the reality of life at the time- under a constitution that provided freedom and opportunity, but life doesn't gurantee prosperity- you have to work for it.

If the court favored the wealthy, who would use them? You would find new courts, that competed for your business on a fair judgement. When you lose government, you lose the one set of courts option. Not that they have NOT favored the wealthy as it is.

The US military was incapable of controlling three Iraqi cities, you think a private army could defend itself against whole communities? Is that chance not better than the goosestepping military we face today or the insufferable police?

A Nanny Moose's picture

Without government, there is no Corporation.

CH1's picture

Holy shit - where did all the insane comments come from today?

(Not yours Nanny Mouse)

A Nanny Moose's picture

You (We) have entered the twilight zone

Beyond this world strange things are know...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D3YydqWFmI

OneTinSoldier66's picture

Well said Sean7k and Nanny Moose.

 

The only monopoly is a Government created one.

bank guy in Brussels's picture

Indeed, exactly - the key flaw in the above 'free market' hype, and the whole libertarian view.

The 'courts' and 'justice' - on which any system depends - are, in the majority of societies, generally bought and purchased and controlled by the dominant powers ... the bigger the cult of law and lawyers and paper 'constitutions', the greater the legal oppression. This happened in the USA, where people are terrorised by courts and lawyers and there is no justice (except in Hollywood movies).

There is no substitute - None! - for people power, people in the streets ready to go on general strike and close down the government, tomorrow.

Unless the courts fear populist power, they will be agents of the bankster - gangsters or similar oligarchs.

That is why - for all of Europe's failings - for all the fact that Europeans have only around 100 million private civilian guns vs the 300 million privately owned guns in the US -

That is why Europe is still a much better place to live today, with much less oppression by government, by law or  lawyers, by police or prisons. (Very few people here in jail in Europe compared to the US, which has 7x as many per population.)

The reason it is still semi-paradise here in Western Continental Europe, is that governments here, still fear people in the streets, ready to close down the government, and even burn it down if they get angry enough.

But that ability of common people to strike fear into the government's heart, has been long gone in the USA.

Freewheelin Franklin's picture

"There is no substitute - None!"

 

It depends on the type of legal system that is in place. What do you think is more corruptible? A "top-down" monopolistic legal system based on statutory law, or a "bottom-up" Polycentric legal system based on Customary Law?

Tom Bell and David Friedman have done much work on how a Polycentric legal system might function in today's society.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmXDrm5Q-eQ

A Nanny Moose's picture

^^ This is why I keep coming back ^^

Thanks for the link.

AnAnonymous's picture

But in the end, it does not compare to a monoextrememum illegal system based of the unicity of law.

As it does not exist, it can be told to be immune to corruption.

akak's picture

 

But in the end, it does not compare to a monoextrememum illegal system based of the unicity of law.

And THIS is why I keep coming back --- for the laughs!

Ghordius's picture

"What do you think is more corruptible?..." Sorry, here I have to agree with BGFB and disagree with you. The "top-down" statutory laws we have here are made and changed in the context of coalitions of parties that can be shut off from power (and know it) in representational-system democratically elected Parliaments.

You are defending Customary Law, also called English Law - fine, it's more robust as a system, at least in theory, and it appeals to your views and customs (good) but in the US case it's failing, miserably. I'm not saying that the one or the other is better!

Nevertheless, please have a look at the US prison population - we have not changed much our prison population percentages vs population since Napoleon (the last big "top-down" legislator - your system is reverting to the UK levels of very, very old times that, among other things, shipped huge populations of convicts to Australia.

Both systems need hard work, in our european case up to the willingness to bring dissent or even revolution on the street. That's one of our way to fight corruption. What is your way? Except - and please pardon and don't take personally my sarcastic approach - dreaming up how your system would work if this and that would be changed?

You have a nice system - clean up the high levels of corruption in it, instead of claiming that it is superior.

Sean7k's picture

Terrible argument in favor of government. You merely reinforce my point.

Europe a utopia? Guess all those police in jackboots with rifles with an unarmed population means it is all rainbows and lollipops.

Semi- paradise? Provided by debt, that now it is being withdrawn, life is getting a little tough. Watch the collapse become an avalanche of misery from austerity and German clawbacks. Or were you excluding Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy from Europe? 

Get off the jingoistic jukebox. 

A Nanny Moose's picture

"getbrid of the guv and it allows corporate monopolies to use their huge size and financial power to overwhelm the average citizen."

Ummm....The Corporation = legal fiction created by government. So...if corporations only exist because of government, then how would corporations monopolize, and gain leverage over the average citizen in the Free Market?

That which you ascribe to the Free Market, is what we have now, with the largest, most instrusive government humanity has ever known.

FrankDrakman's picture

So a corporation pollutes and an average citizen has to sue in court?

They'll be overwhelmed by the giant Corp in court.

Yup, and that's why Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, and other 'giant' corporations have NEVER lost a lawsuit, and never PAID a penny in damager. Owens-Corning's Pink Panther ads still grace the airwaves, and Erin Brockovich is only famous for fellating every one in the jury.

Honestly, why do you trolls come here with such patent nonsense that can be refuted by anyone with a decent memory, let alone access to Google?

Since I'm more than a little familiar with the 'capture' theory of regulation, I'd rather take my chances with wilder and freer markets backed up by robust courts than with a cosy government regulator, bought and paid for by the industry s/he 'regulates'.