This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at realfreemarket.org.



Your Ad Here

Sunday, June 29, 2008

The Market Anarchist Blog Carnival - June 2008 Edition

This is the June 2008 edition of the Market Anarchist Blog Carnival. There were three ways to qualify for inclusion in the Carnival. First, you could have used the submission form. Second, you could have E-Mailed me or left a comment. Third, I could have noticed an interesting and relevant post on one of the blogs I read.

Submitted Through the Carnival Form

Here are the entries submitted via the Carnival Form. These entries are sorted by (IMHO) relevance.

I'd like to see more articles on plans for free market businesses. Most of the submissions were saying "The State sucks!", which is something I already knew.

Submissions Worth Reading



Collin Williams presents Assumptions of Competence posted at RejectSociety.com.

Most people automatically assume that State employees have a magical competence that non-State employees lack. For example, parents can't be trusted to not abuse their children, but the State-appointed child protection services doesn't abuse children. The reality is that more children are abused while under State care than under parental care.

This post wasn't really about market anarchism.



Michael Wiebe presents Wage Injustice posted at True Libertarian.

The proper blame for wage injustice is the government. Government violence distorts the market, favoring employers at the expense of workers.

This post didn't write about anything I didn't already know. However, most of the other submissions were so dreadful that it made this one look pretty good.



Mike Gogulski presents The penalty is always death posted at nostate.com.

This post says that the penalty for refusing to obey they State's arbitrary laws is almost always death. He gives a story about someone refusing to obey a stupid law, and then is killed trying to defend himself against police.

There was one key point not mentioned in that post. Suppose that you are convicted of a crime and spend 20-30 years in jail. Wasting 20 years of your life in jail is the functional equivalent of killing someone. It's seen as not as serious, but stealing a huge chunk of someone's life is the same as killing them, especially when it's their most productive years. Suppose someone is in jail from the age of 25-55. Releasing them at age 55 means they have no savings and no job skills, and they're old to commit more crimes.

Requiring a child to be in school from ages 5-22 (including college) is a form of jail. (College isn't a legal requirement, but it's a practical requirement for most jobs.) Ages 13-22 are the most productive years of a persons' life. This is time that could instead be spent building a business, in a true free market.



Mike Gogulski presents What is murder? posted at nostate.com.

I thought there was a limit of one post per person? Anyway, both his submissions were above-average.

This post is about the contradiction of "Oppose the war, support the troops". You can oppose the war, but you should support each individual soldier.

There are some arguments in favor of "support the troops". Most soldiers are not consciously aware that they are participating in a massive crime. Most of them are poor, and they had no better career alternative than joining the military; this is known as "economic conscription". Most troops are trying to do the best they can, given the circumstances. Should there be a distinction between the generals who organize and profit from the war, and the individual troops on the front lines?

However, everyone is individually responsible for what they do. A soldier is as responsible for the war as the President who ordered them to do it. Perhaps the soldier is more responsible than the President, because if they didn't blindly obey orders, then war would be impossible.

According to the alien overseers, someone who blindly obeys an order to kill or kidnap someone else does not qualify as intelligent life. This applies to soldiers *AND* policemen.

The modern corporation is organized along military principles. If you don't have any personal stake in the outcome, then the best way to manage someone is military-style. Soliders and workers are trained to blindly obey orders, because that's the most efficient way to manage slaves.

Everyone is individually responsible for what they do. "I was following orders" is *NEVER* justification.



olly presents On Revolutionary Altruism posted at without hyphens.

This post is about free market charities.

In the present, the State makes it very difficult for free market charities. I pay 50%+ of my income to the State, leaving very little left over for private charities. Private charities functioned very well before the Federal Reserve and income tax. The welfare state didn't get big until the Great Depression, when the USA nearly completely abandoned free market principles.

Some free market activities are themselves charitable. As an example cited in that post, suppose I hire a poor person to paint my fence for $50. In the present, I am committing a crime if I don't report the labor to the State for taxation and regulation. By hiring a poor person to work for me, I get work done cheaply *AND* the poor person gets enough to eat and pay for a place to live. I'm not "exploiting" the poor person, because it's the State itself that created the conditions of poverty in the first place!

State charities are designed *TO KEEP PEOPLE HELPLESS AND DEPENDENT*. A good free market charity would give help and work, encouraging people to become self-reliant. In the present, the State confiscates so many resources and imposes so many regulations, that it's impractical to operate a free market charity.

Maybe a serious agorist should spend 10%-20% of his income on free market charities. That would lead to a better defense when the State tries to violently crack down on you. Of course, agorist economic activity is itself charitable, because it's "creating jobs". The State cannot "create jobs". The State can merely steal from one group and give to another, destroying wealth in the process.



Francois Tremblay presents An Open Letter to All Libertarians posted at Check Your Premises.

Pursuing political reform by voting is pointless. I already knew that.



Nice Try

These posts made a decent effort, but still fell short in quality.




The Whited Sepulchre presents Free Trade's Benefits Are Not A Paradox (Shhh...The children might be listening.) posted at The Whited Sepulchre.

This wasn't really about market anarchism. Also, it missed the biggest point about "free trade agreements". A correct "free trade agreement" is NULL. Most "free trade agreements" are really thinly disguised corporate welfare, if you read the fine print. They don't call them "big corporation subsidy agreements". They call them "free trade agreements".




The Whited Sepulchre presents Libertarians Will Not Work Hard For You. We Promise. posted at The Whited Sepulchre.

I thought there was a limit of one submission per blog? Complaining about the Libertarian Party and wasteful spending in the US Senate has nothing to do with market anarchism.




Dana presents Homeschooling without credentials leads to educational anarchy posted at Principled Discovery.

Several states have been cracking down on homeschooling. They are trying to regulate it enough so that it's illegal or impractical.

I'm offended by the concept that a bureaucrat can raise children better than the parents. Of course, a bureaucrat can *BRAINWASH* children better than the parents.

It wouldn't be possible for the State to brainwash children unless the parents were partially complicit. For example, if there's a dispute involving your child at school, parents will, by default, assume the teacher/school are correct. IMHO, that's the primary reason for tension between children and their parents. Children resent their parents for pro-State brainwashing them, but nobody can name the specific cause. (I don't bother trying to explain free market ideas to my parents.)

If this post were really about market anarchism, it would offer practical advice for homeschooling. It's one thing to say "WAAH! The State is making things hard for homeschoolers!" It's another thing to create viable alternatives.

For example, if you could offer free online resources for homeschoolers. If you're doing the work for your own children, you might as well share the results. As another example, you could offer advice for homeschooling groups. Most parents have to work, making homeschooling impractical. If one parent is homeschooling, they could probably offer to homeschool the children of 5-10 neighbors. That's a good agorist free market business opportunity. As long as the official excuse is "I was watching my neighbor's children", then you probably won't get busted for offering an "illegal" school or "illegal" daycare center.

Small daycare centers are facing increased State regulation. The primary effect of regulations restricting daycare providers is to drive small businesses out of the market.

A homeschool is an interesting free market business opportunity that you could run out of your house or apartment.



Praveen presents My Simple Trading System: Freedom vs. Equality posted at My Simple Trading System.

This really doesn't have much to do with market anarchism. I've seen other better articles on this subject.

You can maximize equality by minimizing freedom; everyone lives in total poverty.

In the present, people confuse inequality of opportunity with inequality of outcomes. For example, I'll probably never be the CEO of a mainstream media corporation. A handful of people have a State-granted monopoly to run their business. The State shields them from competition. I might be able to run a better business than them, but I'll never get a chance. Similarly, I'll probably never get the opportunity to be a hedge fund manager. You need a multi-million dollar net worth and the "right" connections to enter the industry.

In the present, most inequality is due to people lobbying the State for favors. This makes people (correctly) believe that the economic inequality is due to unfairness. Therefore, the State should have more power! In turn, this *INCREASES* the amount of economic inequality. As the State grows more powerful, the people who lobby for favors get greater advantages.

In a free market, how much economic inequality would there be? I suspect it would be far less than at present. Most workers will be paid an amount proportional to the true economic value of their work; this is the Labor Theory of Value. Suppose I am a business owner. I can hire a skilled worker, paying the fair free market rate. Alternatively, I can hire an unskilled worker and teach them. This would be cheaper; perhaps I should ask the worker for a 1 year employment contract, in exchange for the training. Are such contracts enforceable? They're a form of slavery contracts. If the timeframe is resonable, I'd rule they were enforceable; besides, competition among employers will keep the timeframes for "apprenticeships" reasonable.

However, not everyone will have equal ability. There will be some economic inequality, but it would be due to some workers being more productive than others. In the present, most economic inequality is due to some workers lobbying the State for favors better than others.



Francois Tremblay presents 10 facts about the Iraqi Genocide. « Check Your Premises posted at Check Your Premises.

I thought there was a limit to one submission per blogger? I've already discussed this post.

Market anarchists need to move past saying "The State is evil" and start working on "So what are you going to do about it?" I'd like to see less whining and more free market business plans. (I don't have any free market businesses myself yet, but I do have some plans that might work.)



Gavin R. Putland presents But why have taxes at all, dear Henry? posted at The Zero-Tax Blog.

I didn't get the point of this at all. Instead of having taxes, government should own property and fund its services via the revenue of that property.

In the present, the government has full allodial title to *ALL* property and *ALL* labor. Why voluntarily give up a perk like that?



Matthew Willis presents Obama: Apples If We're Lucky posted at MMW.

I don't get the point of this post. Microsoft and Apple have their profits backed, to a certain degree, by State violence. Microsoft's initial market position was a gift from IBM, another State-granted monopoly/oligopoly.

However, I may boycott Microsoft and Apple if I choose, using Linux instead.

It isn't clear if Microsoft and Apple are overall evil. They receive the same State subsidies that all large corporations receive. However, there are legitimate economies of scale that come with software. However, both of them rely on State-backed dirty tricks, making it difficult for competitors to make products that are 100% compatible.

I have *NO CHOICE* but to pay Obama's salary, whether I want to or not. Comparing OS choices to government is silly.

Agorism is, ideally, an "open source" method for organizing an economic system.



APH presents Landlord Finally Free to Live in His Own Home posted at Market Urbanism.

This doesn't have anything to do with market anarchism.

I've discussed rent control before. For a rent-controlled apartment, *NEITHER* the landlord nor tenant have a valid ownership claim. The landlord's property purchase was subsidized by the State, via negative real interest rates. The tenants don't have a valid claim, because State violence means they pay less than the fair free market rent.

This is an interesting loophole to the rent control laws. You can move into the apartment building, evicting tenants. In a few years, you may sell the building or move out. Then, you rent the apartments at the fair free market rent.

In a dispute between a landlord and rent-controlled tenants, *NEITHER* side can claim the moral high ground. They are both the receipients of a massive State subsidy.



Spam and pro-State Trolling

If it wasn't for spam and pro-State trolling, there would be hardly any submissions at all! I read this garbage so you won't have to!



Beno Varghese presents Barrack Obama wins the Democratic nomination posted at Beno Varghese dot-com.

If you say "Our problems will be solved if X is elected", you are pro-State trolling.

He writes "Ron Paul didn't get the Republican nomination, but Obama is almost as good." That's a very interesting fantasy. Ron Paul claimed he would abolish the Federal Reserve and the income tax, the State's two primary weapons against freedom. Is Obama going to do either of these things?

Voting is a waste of time!



Jimmy Sansi made three spam submissions on "How to promote your website". I'm not boosting his PageRank by giving his spam site a link.



Bill McIntosh made a spam submission on social networking websites. I'm not boosting his PageRank by giving his spam site a link.



Michael Snyder presents The Picture Of The Hindu God That Barack Obama Carries For Good Luck posted at Shattered Paradigm.

This doesn't have anything to do with market anarchism. Why should I care if Obama worships weird religious cults like the Federal Reserve and government?



Social D. made a spam submission on SEO and using social bookmarking websites to promote your website. I'm not boosting his PageRank by giving his spam site a link.



Holly Ord presents John McCain Doesn’t Support the Troops posted at Menstrual Poetry.

This has nothing to do with market anarchism.




Phil for Humanity presents A Plan to Destroy All Weapons of Mass Destruction posted at Phil for Humanity.


He gets off to a nice start. He says "Every government is too powerful. No people anywhere in the world are truly free." His conclusion: "Therefore, the UN should be given more power." The UN is controlled by the Supreme Leader of Humanity, the same as all world governments. That's not "market anarchism".

It's only "profitable" to build large-scale weapons when you can force other people to pay the cost via taxes. If you want to eliminate war, you have to eliminate government.



Phil for Humanity presents Why Demonstrations and Petitions Do Not Work <<> posted at Phil for Humanity.

He gets off to a nice start. He points out that voting and peaceful protests are pointless. His conclusion is
The best method of getting change is convincing people with money and power that there are better alternatives through an open discussion.

That has nothing to do with market anarchism. Let's all politely sit down with Ben Bernanke and convince him of the fundamental structural flaw in debt-based fiat money. I don't see him voluntarily relinquishing his power.



DWSUWF presents Through the looking glass with Obama, McCain, the Constitution, and FISA. posted at Divided We Stand United We Fall.

This doesn't have anything to do with market anarchism. A discussion of the 2008 Presidential election, the Constitution, and FISA isn't related to market anarchism at all.



Terry Dean made a submission on how to start a profitable business. It didn't have anything to do with market anarchism, and I categorized it as spam that didn't deserve a link.



Submitted by FSK

If I saw a post on a blog and thought it was relevant, I included it in the carnival, even if it wasn't "officially" submitted via the carnival form.



I liked this post on BradSpangler.com. When you say "Property is theft!", you're pro-State trolling. There's nothing inherently wrong with private property. It's much more accurate to say "In the present, almost all property is stolen property; people who purchase land receive massive State subsidies due to negative real interest rates on their mortgages."



I liked this post on no third solution about how the State restricts people from using their property. It's impossible to get full allodial title from your land. The State prevents people from using the homesteading principle, which means that people may claim ownership of neglected land by improving it.

David Z mentions that a friend has an abandoned house in bad shape next to his residence. He wants to buy the adjacent house and combine lots. The State might disallow this, because this lowers the property tax base. If you own a bigger lot with one house, you pay less in property taxes than two adjacent lots with houses.



I liked this article, referred by the Mental Militia. A farmer is making his own biodiesel. He bought a press and is using sunflower seeds and soybeans to make his own fuel. The press runs on biodiesel, and it takes less fuel to run the press than the fuel it generates.

The farmer determined that it was cheaper to make his own fuel, than to raise crops and sell them and buy fuel. If the farmer tried to buy fuel, he would have to use 500 acres to sell enough money to get fuel. If the farmer makes his own fuel, it only takes 100 acres. That makes sense, because the farmer is cutting out all the middlemen. In this example, the farmer had a 5x productivity gain from practicing agorism. Technically, this isn't agorism, because he's manufacturing for his own use only; proper agorism would be an off-the-books business selling biodiesel.

The farmer did make an investment in equipment. When he fully amortized the cost, the equipment cost is negligible. He probably made back his capital investment in a year or two.

If I were the farmer, I would extend the practice further. I'd sell the biodiesel to neighbors! It'd have to be fully off-the-books, because otherwise he'd be subject to taxes and regulations.

That's the first time I heard sunflowers and soybeans being used as biodiesel. I thought it was primarily corn/ethanol. That's an interesting experiment. What crop is most efficient for biodiesel? It probably varies based on the local climate.

I can't wait for this farmer's practice to be declared illegal!



I was busy with work, and didn't have much time to look for interesting things that weren't submitted via the Carnival form. Look at my "Reader Mail" posts for a collection of interesting things I see on the blogs I read.

Overall, I was disappointed with the quality of the submissions again. I'd like to see more articles on free market businesses. When you say "The State sucks!", you're just repeating stuff I already knew.

I'm interested in the next phase of market anarchism. I'm interested in stories of people developing actual free market businesses. I don't yet have a free market business myself. I plan to start one in the next few years.

4 comments:

Francois Tremblay said...

Well, blog carnivals are not a platform for you to try to change what people are writing about.

I have zero interest in writing about free market businesses, and I doubt there is much interest from anyone else on that topic. If that was your interest, you should encourage agorist blogs to post on the carnival.

Matt said...

Actually, you don't really have a choice about buying Windows. It's possible to get a machine that didn't come with a license, but those machines are functioning as subsidies toward the machines that do have the license and so they come at a premium.

I agree, I think an agorist business carnival may be in order. I'm looking forward to some ideas for software that will enable free market discovery and transactions.

Monkt said...

I actually have started to explain free market ideas to my parents and my dad at least is starting to agree with them.

barry b said...

FSK,

Been giving a lot of thought to your blog and plan on writing an article soon addressing a couple of your themes. Your "all taxes are immoral" argument and the agorist market interest me. Way I've been thinking this over I'm gonna end up coming down on what goals are actually achievable versus those hopes that exist in our minds (that may not be realistic). Anywho I'll shoot it over to you in a month or two. Like always enjoyed the read.

bb

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at realfreemarket.org.