::)I've only used the "Roll Eyes" smiley ONCE before in my 626 (now 627) posts; that should give you an idea as to how much I'm rolling my eyes at your gross misunderstanding of virtually every single point that I made in my previous posts.I'm sorry but it's incredibly aggravating attempting to debate the facts of an agorism based free marketplace when the person I'm conversing with has absolutely no grasp of agorism, no grasp of economic theory and not a notion of what a 'free market' is.Nevertheless, in the hope that you may yet learn something, I digress...Quote from: Lillyad on October 03, 2012, 08:23 amSo basically N1ghtmare says something like "The prices on SR are too fucking high -- way higher than the street price. I don't like it."To which you say "Prices are high cuz free market."It's not as if the fact that people can charge whatever they want is in dispute, it's whether the prices are fair. Excused me if I assumed that you were writing something that was relevant to the discussion. However, N1ghtmare clearly has no idea what a free market is...Don't be absurd.a) That's not what I said at all; please refer to my two previous posts in this thread and b) you can't condense everything that I did say into "Prices are high cuz free market." If I said something to that effect in response to N1ghtmare's statement, please do quote it. Note also that I would never say "cuz".However, if you wish to condense my previous two posts into the above, my broad response which explained WHY the prices are what they are had NOTHING to do with whether they are fair or not. It had EVERYTHING to do with explaining the reasons behind the high prices, namely the fact that Silk Road is an agorism based free market, which itself is based upon the (so far for you, incomprehensible) principle of supply and demand.Quote from: Lillyad on October 03, 2012, 08:23 amFree markets do not have an agreed-upon definition. To quote that most venerable encyclopedia, Wikipedia:"The meaning of "free market" has varied over time and between economists, the ambiguous term "free" facilitating a diversity of uses. To illustrate the ambiguity: classical economists such as Adam Smith believed that an economy should be free of monopoly rents, while proponents of laissez faire believe that people should be free to form monopolies. In this article "free market" is largely identified with laissez faire, and competitive markets, though alternative senses are discussed in this section and in criticism. The identification of the "free market" with "laissez faire" was notably used in the 1962 Capitalism and Freedom, by economist Milton Friedman, which is credited with popularizing this usage"Once again I appeal to you to end the absurdity of your statements, or at least research the points you are trying to make. I can say with absolute certainty that you understand very little of what you read in the above Wikipedia quote.'Free market' as defined by Collins Dictionary (http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/free-market):nounan economic system that allows supply and demand to regulate prices, wages, etc, rather than government policy(as modifier)  a free-market economyUsage example:"The idea was that increased competition would breed efficiency and create a natural free market incentive to keep prices down."OTTAWA SUN (2003)'Free market' as defined by dictionary.reference.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free+market):free marketnounan economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies.As you can see from the above dictionary definitions, 'free market' is very clearly defined indeed and there is no ambiguity which could lead one to become confused.Quote from: Lillyad on October 03, 2012, 08:23 amThere are common features to many definitions of a "free market", for instance the absence of coercion -- that every transaction is voluntary. But most definitions of a free market have a "transparency" assumption: That is, that you know what you're getting. But many more liberal definitions do not. SR is certainly not a transparent market, as it's often difficult or infeasible to test what you're getting. Another assumption common to many, but not all free market conceptions is the assumption of "low barriers to entry". This is also not a feature of SR.I think that this point is largely irrelevant. I just could not help but rebut what you said... The free market encompasses many undesirable scenarios, such as a monopoly. A competitive market would be great, but SR certainly isn't one.Seeing as your fond of Wikipedia, here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia page on market transparency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_(market)):Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_(market)In economics, a market is transparent if much is known by many about:What products, services or capital assets are available. [Applies to Silk Road? Yes.]What price. [Applies to Silk Road? Yes.]Where. [Applies to Silk Road? Yes.]There are two types of price transparency: 1) I know what price will be charged to me, and2) I know what price will be charged to you.The two types of price transparency have different implications for differential pricing.A high degree of market transparency can result in disintermediation due to the buyer's increased knowledge of supply pricing.Transparency is important since it is one of the theoretical conditions required for a free market to be efficient.Price transparency can, however, lead to higher prices, if it makes sellers reluctant to give steep discounts to certain buyers, or if it facilitates collusion.A transparent market has nothing to do with being able to "test what you're getting". It has everything to do with knowing what products are available, their price and where they are available from. All three of which apply to Silk Road.In order to know what you're getting, you read the reviews that others have left concerning the product you're interested in, thereby satisfying your own personal definition of transparency (which does not apply to transparency in an economic sense) - " That is, that you know what you're getting."On the issue of coercion: No vendor has been forced by Silk Road to hawk their wares here, ergo no coercion.Silk Road also has incredibly low "barriers to entry" for the type of marketplace it is - mainly a drug-centric marketplace. $150 USD - that is literally all it takes to become a vendor. If you were selling drugs and you considered that a high barrier to entry, then you would have be one of the most incompetent purveyor of narcotics that the world has ever seen. Using my own experience as a reference point, when I used to sell weed in the real world I averaged $500 a day profit. A once off barrier to entry cost of $150, being 30% of one single day's profit, is certainly a low barrier indeed. That, however, is subjective so I'll make it relative:Even if $150 were an entire week's profit, it would still an incredibly low barrier to entry to a free market such as this, as you would easily make your $150 back because you are globalising your customer base. Instead of selling to 5 people, you now have the opportunity to (safely) sell to 500,000 or perhaps eventually 5,000,000+ people. Who knows, maybe that will eventually turn into billions.Quite a low barrier of entry for such a market, no?The main reason that the $150 charge exists is in order to deter scammers, thereby simply making that barrier a natural cost of doing business - something which actually benefits all vendors as it keeps the scammers to a minimum, thus giving people more confidence in the marketplace as a whole.So there you have it - Silk Road IS a free market after all. Glad we've cleared that one up for you!Quote from: Lillyad on October 03, 2012, 08:23 am>"Whilst your example brings "moral justice" into the equation, which is not what I am talking about in the quote above, if I were starving I would place more value on that burger than I would the $1000, as the $1000 would be worth nothing to me were I to die from starvation. I may consider it 'morally unjust' for you to charge me so much for the burger, but morality is entirely subjective. You, being the seller of the burger, would obviously not be thinking it morally unjust if you were charging so much to a starving man.What I actually stated is that "prices are not 'unjustly high'" as "justice" does not come into the equation, moral or otherwise; the simple fact of the matter is that the prices are what they are because people pay them. It's the basic economic principle of supply and demand." See, that doesn't actually make any sense to me. You'll have to clarify how moral justice is irrelevant. The way I see it, the prices are what they are because there is very little competitive, and sellers charge whatever they can get people to pay. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be saying something like "Prices are not unjustly high. Moral justice is irrelevant because prices are high because people are willing to pay high prices." I really don't see any other interpretation.I didn't state that moral justice is irrelevant, I stated that it does not come into the equation where pricing is concerned. Please stop putting words in my mouth.As for "The way I see it, the prices are what they are because there is very little competitive [sic], and sellers charge whatever they can get people to pay" - YES!! THANK YOU!! You FINALLY seem to understand the concept of a free market and you also seem to grasp the reason that prices are high! Good job, Watson!Alas, I celebrate too soon! *sigh*I stated that prices are what they are because people pay them. Justice, moral or otherwise, does not come into the equation as the market is defined by the basic economic principle of supply and demand. The prices ARE higher than they would otherwise be (if there were more competition, for example) because there is a limited supply, due to few vendors supplying the product in question. The prices REMAIN high because buyers are willing to pay those prices. I literally cannot make it any more simple for you than that. If you still don't understand then re-read this post in its entirety, re-read my previous two posts in this thread in their entirety and then go read a book on economics. You need to have, at the very least, a basic understanding of something before you attempt to debate the finer points of it, let alone the basic foundations. I've explained the reasons that prices are what they are numerous times - if you still don't get it there is literally no more I can do to help you understand.Quote from: Lillyad on October 03, 2012, 08:23 amPricing in SR resembles monopoly pricing, not competitive pricing: Sellers charge what will maximize profit. Prices are high because sellers attempt to maximize profit. Is this what you're saying is just? Let's end this conversation. I don't think it's productive...Of course sellers charge what will maximise profit - it's a free market!!! They want to make money and they are free to do that in whatever way they wish. If their products are not selling (because of "too high" prices or an increase in supply / drop in the demand) then they will lower their prices. If it were a charity with no desire for a profit margin selling LSD here then I'm sure you would find the prices more to your liking.This conversation is actually entirely productive, contrary to your thought about it (though you're completely entitled to think otherwise, of course; that's freedom for you) - if you take the time to read the explanations I have provided you might actually learn something! :o You may even eventually come to understand how a free market works!Quote from: Lillyad on October 03, 2012, 08:23 amFrankly though, the thing that most gets under my skin is false advertising of dosage. I would not mind paying high prices if I actually knew what I was getting, but it doesn't seem to matter how much you pay, you'll get less than what is advertised... I'm banking on 3Jane though. 14th 9EDT everyone! Get ready!I cannot comment on 'false advertising' as anything I have ever ordered from Silk Road has been exactly as advertised. Perhaps you simply need to do your due diligence before you purchase your next item, and I mean that in the nicest way possible. Research your vendor thoroughly on the forums, check through their feedback on a number of different items, not just the one you're looking to purchase and only do business with established, reputable vendors.- grahamgreene