It's when you get to the market and get everything for free.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Printable View
It's when you get to the market and get everything for free.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Sorry for the long delay but thought there might be a few more opinions on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
A free market is just an open market where property rights are respected or protected but little regulation in regard to entry (competition among suppliers).
As it protects property rights, patents are a part of that. Now how much protection for how long is another matter. Patents shouldn’t be in perpetuity. They should be for a few years only and not decades upon decades. That in its self stifles innovation and invention.
Just an aside but many inventions seem to occur to multiple individuals at the same time. Sewing Machines, RADAR, and the Television are some of the examples. You could say they were ideas who's time had come.
To be fair though, the maintenance of intellectual property almost requires some form of third party regulation of the market. Goods or services could be said to protect themselves through quid pro quo dealings in the market. Yet if someone takes my idea (oh, say, by bribing one of my Austrian employees to give away the source codes for the wind turbine control system), it is difficult to redress that absent some form of third party. Ideas cannot be unlearned...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
No, Fisherking, I am not asserting that you are arguing for the textbook definition of a perfect free market -- I know you accept that some minimum of regulation is needful. Others in this thread, however, are arguing as though this pure form of free market were the alternative proffered.
So how then does one stop a free market from turning into a monopoly?
Take the high tech branches for example. Even if you remove all governmental hindrances to market entry, and leave aside that they would also have to license patents, I doubt your neighborhood mom&pop business could release a CPU tomorrow that competes with Intel and/or AMD. Perhaps some other super rich business can invest enough money to get R&D to a similar level, such as Apple or Samsung, but they're basically monopolists in some ways as well and focus on slightly different markets where they have less competition to keep their monopolies.
I don't see how the free market benefits the consumers any more.
You can even take food. The free market is based on the idea that consumers make an informed choice about which procuct best suits their needs. To make that choice, a consumer has to know exactly what their needs are and whether the product actually fulfills them. This is clearly not the case with food, whichever way you look at it. The result is that many consumers buy objectively bad food, sometimes because they can't even afford the good food, and you end up with a market that has no good choices for many people.
IMO, the more complicated the products get, the less likely a free market is to work as intended.
Because a free market assumes that the buyer and seller have the same information about the properties of the product being sold.
So, minarchism? Why couldn't you enforce your rights with hitmen, then? Fixers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
You say you wouldn't, or couldn't because restrained? Who would restrain you? Why wouldn't you pursue your interests however you can? Every individual or group that opts out would easily be overtaken by those that don't.
Logically, a corporate enterprise should have some security wing to enforce its rules against its members and keep its competitors in line.
Looks an awful lot like the State though...
Really different approaches. Where you would respect the bare minimum of intervention (which is actually what always obtains at any moment in real life), I would respect "salutary neglect" as a fixture.
One complication to be aware of is that differences between foods in "healthfulness" is not really clear-cut, or well-understood. Healthfulness in fact is not marketed or priced in tiers. All you can really say is that in our marketplace on average, the foods that are relatively unhealthy are by dint of their materials, processes, or regulations cheaper than foods that are relatively healthy - or can be made to be relatively healthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
If autonomists have any good arguments, then it's that technology allows fruits and vegetables to be primarily be grown and procured on a hyperlocal basis (the literal backyard) at the expense of the agribusiness model. Not because these homegrown or communally-grown items will be more healthful necessarily, but because it's more sustainable and empowering.
I could have been more clear, but that was implied with "consumers don't know what their needs are", as in we aren't even sure what our bodies need. There are some things we do know though, and also some very obvious marketing lies or outdated advice that not everyone is aware of. It all fails though, if people cannot afford the good food in the first place because then their hand is forced. Growing food in the backyard also requires quite some knowledge, plus an investment of time/money, unless by technology you mean fully automated greenhouses, where an AI takes care of all the plants automatically according to their needs. :sweatdrop: Then again these would be quite expensive as well I gather.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Time is probably a big factor why fast food is so popular, a manager who works 60 hours a week, has a family and would like to have certain hobbies, is unlikely to find the time to grow and cook his own veggies...even people who work only 40 hours a week will probably find this quite hard. We need the 30 hour work week, I think there was a study that said it leads to the same productivity because people who work 8 instead of 6 hours a day basically procrastinate for two hours...
People have cocaine, meth and opiates. I think the evidence is pretty strong that these kill - especially in the impure states they are sold. Alcohol? Cigarettes? I think we can say conclusively that people are not great at making good decisions.
~:smoking:
If you are talking about the more simplified automated farms for your back garden. Couple of thousand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
https://farm.bot
I don't mean in the sense of each individual taking up gardening for themselves. Most people can't and shouldn't be deeply involved in producing their own food supply.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
It would have to be a communitarian arrangement of some sort, reliant on advanced technology and democratic oversight. Probably part of the process of making urban agglomeration literally greener. You could think of proposals for tower rooftop gardens as a kind of pre-alpha demo or whatever for the concept.
http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/...n-urban-world/
https://www.treehugger.com/green-foo...otor-city.html
https://monthlyreview.org/2013/03/01...d-sovereignty/
http://legalterm.info/main/permacult...fficiency.html
Some people want to use disruptive technologies to 3D-print guns and menace the central government. Others just want to reliably feed the world.