Silk Road forums

anyone reading the second section?  I just finished the part about "Why the State is Different".  I thought the comparison between how the private sector and the state handle email spam was great, especially how he described a private company taking the exact same actions a state would.

Now keep in mind I have not read ANY thing by Rothbard  (recommendations? Man, Economy & the State?) or The New Libertarian Manifesto

Man, Economy & State is his best, most illuminating book, but it is a 1000 page economics text, so unless you want the knowledge bad, it's a beast of a read.  "Anatomy of the State" is a bit more manageable and a good starting point.

Is this agorism? or because I do not commit to it 100% of the time it is some sort of pseudo-agorism?

It's easier if you judge actions instead of people.  Getting paid in unreported cash (or bitcoin) is an agorist action, while getting a paycheck with taxes deducted is not.  Anything you do that is outside the control of the state is agorist, so in some sense we are all agorists whether we know it or not.  Some people just take those actions because of the personal gain they can obtain, which is perfectly fine, but some do it as a conscientious objection and act of rebellion against the state as well.

I'm out to turn unconscious agorists in to conscious active ones

Thanks for finding these Pine.  Rothbard and Konkin were the two main inspirations for creating Silk Road, so it is interesting to see that they disagreed on some things.  They both have the same ends: abolition of the state.  However, they disagree on what the best path to get there is, and what the world will look like if  we do.  Regarding how labor will organize absent government controls, as I've mentioned in other posts, no one really knows, but I tend to side with Rothbard on this one, that organizations of different sizes would be optimal and have their place along side sole-proprietorships.  Konkin cedes this point as unimportant in his reply anyway.

The main difference I see in these essays is the means that should be pursued to bring about a free society.  Konkin advocates agorism, while Rothbard advocates political action.  In this case, I think Rothbard is out of touch with business, markets and the messy power struggle of the real world.  He's an amazing economist, political scientist, and historian, but he's not a businessman or entrepreneur.  Konkin is no where near the academic that Rothbard is, but his genius lies in his simple insights he called agorism and counter-economics.  He saw that society is simply the aggregate of the billions of human to human interactions that go on daily and that the power of the state is derived from their control of those interactions.  The more they control, the more powerful they are, the less they control, the less powerful they are and the more freedom individuals have.  Simple.  So, if you want to be free and remove your support from the state, stop engaging in interactions that they control as much as possible.

Honestly I see no major problem with either approach that would make it unworthy of pursuit.  Electing officials that will take steps to dismantle the state apparatus and give people more freedom is great.  Break up and weaken that monopoly from the inside.  At the same time, actively creating alternatives to it in the free market and making it easier for people to withdraw their support is also great, weaken it from the outside.

Both have their pitfalls and drawbacks, and liberty is still only a dream we can work toward but may never obtain, but I hope that if these men were still alive and saw Silk Road, they would have hope for the future and agree that their views are compatible.

Yep he's got you there!
Anyway;

My thoughts on slavery are that if you sell your self into slavery you are not a slave; you have merely entered into a rather onerous employment contract. You cannot include your future offspring in the deal as children are not property.
Enslaving by force I would have thought is not permitted even by the most extravagant libertarian.
       I have continued reading this book ( skipping over his constant crude mischaracterisations of socialism) with interest. I must admit to difficulty in understanding why the author is so idealogically committed to the market as the absolute and only judge of human endevour. To me, the market is a natural force; an extremely complex system of counterbalancing forces that has a tendency to self regulate. But to claim that it always creates the best outcome for society seems willfully ignorant.
     An analogy: the human body is a similarly complex network of systems that constantly feedback into each other. By and large it regulates itself and maintains equilibrium.
        But when the human body succumbs to disease we don't stand back and declare that 'the body knows best' We intervene when it becomes obvious that the body is failing to address a problem.
        The market was made for man. It should not be master.
        Several of you have said in this debate, with reference to child labour regulations, that " if a child wants to work it should be free to". But we are not talking about teenagers earning spending money here. Child labour regulations were brought in after the industrial revolution, when unbridled capitalism amongst the factories and mills of northern England had driven wages for the "hands" below subsistence level. The children of these working families "wanted" the "freedom" to work, as the alternative was hunger. This to me seems a poor kind of freedom.
         You all seem to agree that to force a child to work against his will was wrong. But what if the economic system you have established leaves a child with this kind of choice? Where is the freedom for this child? Work or starve?
        Sadly there are many children in the world today faced with this choice. But god forbid we should interfere with the sacred motions of the market.
         I feel about the market a similar way that I feel about government: when it ceases to serve our purpose we may freely discard it in favor of a better system.
         The author has many valid criticisms of large government.
However, am I alone in noticing a tendency amongst company's to join together in ever larger multinational corporations. In many industries there are 3-4 main  players offering roughly the same range of products for the same price, and this tends to lessen the benefits of competition for the consumer. And even when the customer benefits, the suppliers don't.
       Large companies suffer many of the same faults as large governments: a tendency to seek nothing but a continuation of their own power. We would be in danger of replacing one leviathan with several smaller beasts.
      Lastly, DPR, you say that you would trust a private security force, whose wages you pay, to defend your interests better than a state run police force. With all due respect, that's kind of the problem with private police forces! I have difficulty seeing how such a system could work peacefully to resolve disputes.
       If I assault my neighbor, who's police force deals with the complaint? His or mine? Or do we both have the same one, being neighbors.
       If I am paying a private force, do they take my side automatically. Or do they arrest me if I do something wrong?
       I'm genuinely interested in how it is proposed this will work.
       Ninthly and finally, none of this free marketry addresses the problem of how all the economies of the world are going to continue growing indefinitely on a planet of finite resources.  This is something that noone really wants to deal with, and the free market is supremely unfitted to face.
       

Some good points ghost, and thanks for not taking offense when the author criticizes your views.

An analogy: the human body is a similarly complex network of systems that constantly feedback into each other. By and large it regulates itself and maintains equilibrium.
        But when the human body succumbs to disease we don't stand back and declare that 'the body knows best' We intervene when it becomes obvious that the body is failing to address a problem.

This gave me pause, because I can see your point.  I think I see where your analogy breaks down though.  There are no competing interests within your self.  You are a unit, an indivisible will or being.  The choices you make to achieve your ends are yours alone.  If your body is ailing and you take medicine, the outcome is your responsibility.  Human civilization on the other hand is made up of many beings, each with their own interests.  What one perceives as good, another may perceive as bad. 

The market was made for man. It should not be master.

As described in section 2 of the reading, the market is not yet another policy prescription enforced by government, it is the absence of such force.  It is the absence of one party imposing their view of good and bad on another.  So, the market is not made, it emerges from the multitude of voluntary interactions between individuals.

Several of you have said in this debate, with reference to child labour regulations, that " if a child wants to work it should be free to". But we are not talking about teenagers earning spending money here. Child labour regulations were brought in after the industrial revolution, when unbridled capitalism amongst the factories and mills of northern England had driven wages for the "hands" below subsistence level. The children of these working families "wanted" the "freedom" to work, as the alternative was hunger. This to me seems a poor kind of freedom.
         You all seem to agree that to force a child to work against his will was wrong. But what if the economic system you have established leaves a child with this kind of choice? Where is the freedom for this child? Work or starve?
        Sadly there are many children in the world today faced with this choice. But god forbid we should interfere with the sacred motions of the market.

I'm not sure how we disagree here.  If the options available to a person are work or starve, why would you take away the work option?  If people are voluntarily choosing to work in a factory under terrible conditions, it means the alternatives available to them are even worse.  That work is an opportunity for them to better themselves.  Child labour regulations only hampered the development and expansion of the industries that were providing these opportunities.

Had they been allowed to develop freely, only under the constrains of supply, demand and property rights, they would have had to provide a safe work environment for their employees, if that's what the employees wanted.  Let me give you a quick example.  Nike and Reebok both have shoe factories in the same city.  All of their resources and external conditions are effectively identical.  The only thing they can vary is the quality of the work environment for their employees.  Nike chooses to spend $1 per man-hour maintaining an improved work environment for its employees, while Reebok keeps that dollar as profit.  Reebok will quickly find itself unable to attract the employee base it needs to produce its shoes as Nike takes its employees and market share.  So, Reebok, instead of improving the work conditions, simply passes the extra $1 per hour on to their employees.  Now we are seeing the market at work.  Employees are now faced with the option of a safe work environment, or an extra dollar per hour.  Some will choose safety while others will choose the extra pay.

And this is exactly what has happened eventually, where now employers do all they can to attract good employees away from their competitors.

         The author has many valid criticisms of large government.
However, am I alone in noticing a tendency amongst company's to join together in ever larger multinational corporations. In many industries there are 3-4 main  players offering roughly the same range of products for the same price, and this tends to lessen the benefits of competition for the consumer. And even when the customer benefits, the suppliers don't.
       Large companies suffer many of the same faults as large governments: a tendency to seek nothing but a continuation of their own power. We would be in danger of replacing one leviathan with several smaller beasts.

I have also noticed this tendency.  The people who run corporations, heads of state, the person selling you food, you, me and every human being are all fallible and capable of using power to dominate other people.  Liberty is not a pill that makes men angels.  What it does do is limit the extent to which evil can be expressed in the world.  Right now, in any given geographic area, we have a monopoly on many of the most vital social institutions that is maintained through violence.  If voluntary organizations consolidate their power and turn on their customers and start stealing from them, putting them in cages, killing them, spying on them and telling them what they can and can't do, well then we're back to where we started, the present day state.  But, if I am correct, and the pressure for those firms to compete with one another for our favor leads them to serve us, then we can have freedom and prosperity the likes of which the world has never known.

      Lastly, DPR, you say that you would trust a private security force, whose wages you pay, to defend your interests better than a state run police force. With all due respect, that's kind of the problem with private police forces! I have difficulty seeing how such a system could work peacefully to resolve disputes.
       If I assault my neighbor, who's police force deals with the complaint? His or mine? Or do we both have the same one, being neighbors.
       If I am paying a private force, do they take my side automatically. Or do they arrest me if I do something wrong?
       I'm genuinely interested in how it is proposed this will work.

Maybe we can read this essay next, but check out Chaos Theory by Robert Murphy.  He speculates how a free market in security services might organize itself, but his most important point is that no one knows ahead of time how an industry will organize.  The security industry has been insulated from market conditions for so long and is so out of touch with the needs of its customers, that I suspect it would be unrecognizable after a transition to its optimal form.  There are ten thousand questions that we could muse about similar to the one you posed, but the point is that, if we do our best to adhere to the non-aggression principle, then we can quickly move in the right direction without having to know ahead of time exactly how the final form of such an institution would look.

       Ninthly and finally, none of this free marketry addresses the problem of how all the economies of the world are going to continue growing indefinitely on a planet of finite resources.  This is something that noone really wants to deal with, and the free market is supremely unfitted to face.

This is where the institution of private property and markets really shine.  Markets curb unsustainable growth through the price mechanism.  As a needed resource is depleted, its supply drops and, assuming constant or rising demand, its price will rise.  Rising prices force people to consume LESS of the resource and save more of it.  Private property also incentivizes people to maximize the value of it.  People tend to preserve and improve their land and capital.  Free enterprise and private property, when honored, are an environmentalists dream.  These institutions maximize the efficiency with which scarce resources are used to satisfy people's desires, and have natural rationing mechanisms built in to keep people from over consuming.  If we ever get into some economic theory in this club, we can talk about the concept of the evenly rotating economy, which really drives the point home how only a free society can ever have a hope at sustainability.

to claim that it always creates the best outcome for society seems willfully ignorant.

I can assure you that I am not willfully ignorant.  I have a very open mind and if an argument that can stand up to reason and be shown to accurately describe reality is presented to me, then I would gladly change my mind. My views have been forged by a search for the truth that has lasted my entire adult life and continues to this day.  I started this club because I think the pursuit of truth is one of the most noble human endeavors.  Debating these issues is critical for us to construct a world-view that is grounded in reason and can guide us forward.  Assuming great success for Silk Road, how easily could it become another blood thirsty cartel seeking profit at all costs?  We must maintain our integrity and be true to our principles, the opportunity to make a lasting difference is too great not to.

Just finished the first assignment.  The author doesn't mince words and is quite confrontational in his tone.  Hopefully this doesn't scare too many of you off or polarize the debate too much. My favorite quote from this week is

The only thing a government does well: nothing at all.

I hope you all enjoy reading this as much as I enjoyed writing it.  Thank you to divinechemicals for engaging in the debate

But see, that post represents the problem of libertarianism to me. You seem to assume that the market on its own will regulate itself in a way that is fair to all. Yet there has not once been a successful libertarian government. That's not for want of trying: Somalia is a good example of that today, and even the United States in the mid- to late 1800s. Child labor was a problem, pollution and environmental issues was a huge problem, worker abuse was a problem, etc. It took a central government to step in and set up these regulations. There's a reason the minimum wage exists: As it is, someone making just minimum wage most likely sits below the poverty line, despite the fact that they're doing work which is actually really important. You might not think of the guy that makes your McDonalds hamburger as important, but he is contributing to society. If suddenly every fast food worker stopped working, you would see an instant change. If your office or school's custodians simultaneously quit to become entrepreneurs, the building would become a mess. So libertarianism naturally contradicts with how the world works: Libertarians say that anyone can make it, and that therefore the market should be left free. But of course not everyone can make it. We know this to be impossible. You need people at the bottom too, and even though they won't be living lavish lifestyles, they at least need government protection, because otherwise the people at the top have no reason to help them.

In some ways, I find libertarianism to be an arrogant philosophy, although I'll preface that with the disclaimer that people from all over the political spectrum can be arrogant. I just mean the very philosophy behind libertarianism is inherently arrogant. Its the mindset of, "I know what's best for me, and you know what's best for you, so we don't need government help." But again, if you look at reality, that's just not how the world works. Everyone wants different things. It takes people coming together to agree on how those things should happen. That's how you end up with most modern conveniences, such as roads. It wasn't one business in the free market deciding they were going to make transportation easier, it was a group of people in a government realizing that it benefited all. Honestly private business relies on the government. They use their roads, they use their electricity, etc. So it seems silly to think that the free market could just take care of itself with no regulation. It's never been done. So for you to espouse that theory, you have to explain how it will be done now. And I just don't think you can. Many libertarians are very intelligent people. If everyone was really intelligent, maybe it would work as a practical philosophy. But that's not how things are. And we in fact need stupid or physically disabled people to do jobs that we don't want to even think about doing. Libertarianism exists in a utopia, which I already explained at length in my previous post. It's a great idea, but it's not a great practical system. I mean everything logically works out, but it quickly falls apart when enabled. Human nature prevents libertarianism from ever being successful.

Also remember that we're trying to create an efficient society. Look no further than socialist governments if you want an example of efficiency. In countries where health care is nationalized, they're able to run it at half the cost of the USA. Of course you could privatize everything, even roads if you wanted to. But the government is the entity that can run such conveniences with the greatest efficiency. I have a feeling that most libertarians are fine with a government-run police force. That's not to say that you agree with everything the police does (obviously not, or what would you be doing here?), but I doubt any of you would feel comfortable with privatized crime-fighting forces. That would scare the hell out of me. So you're fine with the government hiring police forces that fight crime related to you, but when it comes to regulatory agencies which do exactly the same thing but at the corporate level, it's suddenly government intrusion. Isn't this a contradiction as well? There are certainly times in your life where you agree that the government is best for that system, so where do you draw the line? Where does the government suddenly become too intrusive and why? If I am mugged in an alley and all my money is stolen, the average libertarian will agree that I should expect government-run police protection. Yet if the CEO of a company makes a stupid financial decision and his company goes under, leaving me unemployed, they won't agree that I should expect government-run financial protection, such as social welfare. Why? Either way it's out of my control, and in both cases the government regulation is meant to help me get back what I lost to a reasonable degree.

You seem to assume that the market on its own will regulate itself in a way that is fair to all.

I said nothing about fairness.  If I did have to say something about fairness, I'd say it is unfair to force someone to do anything they do not want to or prevent them from acting if they are not harming another.  Didn't your mama ever tell you that life isn't fair?

Yet there has not once been a successful libertarian government. That's not for want of trying: Somalia is a good example of that today,

We're getting away from the material, but since there aren't any other posts today, I'll go with it.  What exactly is your problem with Somalia?  It is hard to debate if you aren't specific

the United States in the mid- to late 1800s. Child labor was a problem, pollution and environmental issues was a huge problem, worker abuse was a problem, etc. It took a central government to step in and set up these regulations.

If a child wants to work, he or she should be allowed.  Preventing a child from working and thereby forcing them into a lower standard of living is abusive.  If they are forced to work, then that is slavery and obviously not libertarian.  Pollution is equivalent to damaging a neighbor's property.  If property rights are upheld, then that neighbor would have a right to restitution.  Polluters in the late 1800s were actually protected from lawsuits by the government courts.  If they had been forced to compensate those they hurt, their actions would have been uneconomical and they would have had to find non-polluting ways to produce their goods.  Same argument for child labor goes for worker abuse.

There's a reason the minimum wage exists: As it is, someone making just minimum wage most likely sits below the poverty line

How about someone who's labor is worth less than minimum wage?  These people are not allowed to work even if they are willing and able.  They wind up homeless or in govt programs where they get no productive skills.  They don't benefit, and the rest of us don't benefit.  If they were allowed to work, they could gain productive skills and work their way up above the "poverty line", enriching themselves and others.  Give them a chance.

Everyone wants different things. It takes people coming together to agree on how those things should happen.

We couldn't agree more   The real question is, are those people going to come together voluntarily and on mutually agreeable terms, or are the going to come together, arm themselves, and then force anyone who disagrees to do what they've decided is best.  Cooperation and coordination are some of a human being's greatest assets, but if you have to resort to force to get people's support, then maybe your ideas aren't so great after all?  If a single government monopoly is so great, wouldn't we gladly give up our money for their services?  Why do they have to hold a gun in one hand as they reach into our earnings to tax them with the other?

So it seems silly to think that the free market could just take care of itself with no regulation. It's never been done. So for you to espouse that theory, you have to explain how it will be done now. And I just don't think you can. Many libertarians are very intelligent people. If everyone was really intelligent, maybe it would work as a practical philosophy. But that's not how things are. And we in fact need stupid or physically disabled people to do jobs that we don't want to even think about doing. Libertarianism exists in a utopia, which I already explained at length in my previous post. It's a great idea, but it's not a great practical system. I mean everything logically works out, but it quickly falls apart when enabled. Human nature prevents libertarianism from ever being successful.

Silk Road was founded on libertarian principles and continues to be operated on them.  It is a great idea and a great practical system.  Not everyone here is intelligent.  It is not a utopia.  It is regulated by market forces, not a central power (even I am subject to market forces by my competition.  No one is forced to be here).  The same principles that have allowed Silk Road to flourish can and do work anywhere human beings come together.  The only difference is that the State is unable to get its thieving murderous mits on it.

Also remember that we're trying to create an efficient society. Look no further than socialist governments if you want an example of efficiency. In countries where health care is nationalized, they're able to run it at half the cost of the USA. Of course you could privatize everything, even roads if you wanted to. But the government is the entity that can run such conveniences with the greatest efficiency.

Efficiency is the booby prize of a free society, and most definitely not a hallmark of central planning.  The real prize is freedom itself.  Slavery actually was more efficient for tobacco farmers in colonial America, for example.  It was efficient in reaching the goals of the tobacco farmers, but not the goals of the slaves.  In the same way, a socialist planner might get what he and his constituents want efficiently through the mechanisms of the state, but the people forced to produce what they want are not getting what they want.  If they did want the same thing, they would gladly pay for it.  As it is they must be taxed.

I have a feeling that most libertarians are fine with a government-run police force.

False.  State police scare the hell out of me.  Who would you trust more, someone who you paid to protect you and who's livelihood depends on your continuing to pay them, or someone who steals from you (taxes), buys guns with the money (FBI, DEA, ATF, Military, local and state police, etc.), and then forces you to do things against your will when you are not hurting anyone else?

Where does the government suddenly become too intrusive and why?

As soon as it initiates force (taxation, regulation, wars of agression, etc.), because bullies are bad and should be spanked

If I am mugged in an alley and all my money is stolen, the average libertarian will agree that I should expect government-run police protection. Yet if the CEO of a company makes a stupid financial decision and his company goes under, leaving me unemployed, they won't agree that I should expect government-run financial protection, such as social welfare. Why?

Because your body and wallet are your property while a job is not, that belongs to your employer.  Go get another job or make your own.

how does it look now?

This topic has been moved to Product offers (https://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion.to/index.php?board=5.0).

https://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion.to/index.php?topic=46843.0