Stop saying Free Market
Several years ago, I stopped using the term free market because it's devolved into a buzzword which means different things to different people. To some it means a market free of coercion and other human interference, and to others it means free-for-all. I can have a conversation with libertarians but others overhearing said conversation can leave with the notion that I support child slavery or some other distasteful position. For the record, I had switched to using internalized market which I thought was a better term for two reasons:
I think I'm going to stop using that term too because the concept of cost is a lot muddier than it first appears.
I still think the term free market pollutes conversation and should be avoided, but now I think so for a different reason: because it's an attempt to divide the market along the lines of a projected value. The market is driven by the values of individual actors, to be sure, but it has no values of its own; to ascribe values to it seems no different to me than saying "evolution wants X" or "nature wants Y."
- It more accurately conveyed what I meant and
- It allowed me to explain the concept of externalities to people who might not be familiar with it.
I think I'm going to stop using that term too because the concept of cost is a lot muddier than it first appears.
I still think the term free market pollutes conversation and should be avoided, but now I think so for a different reason: because it's an attempt to divide the market along the lines of a projected value. The market is driven by the values of individual actors, to be sure, but it has no values of its own; to ascribe values to it seems no different to me than saying "evolution wants X" or "nature wants Y."
Values aren't Off-Market Just Because You don't Like Them
The market doesn't have values of its own, and it doesn't judge values or intentions. If someone wants vanilla ice cream or blue jeans or a new brand of smart phone and others are willing to supply those things, and coordination is possible, then the phenomenon of the market will allow such demands to be met. If someone wants slavery, theft, taxes, regulation or assault and others are willing to supply those things, and coordination is possible, then the phenomenon of the market will allow such demands to be met. While someone can certainly say "I wish such and such were off limits" (which really means "I wish people didn't demand such and such or others wouldn't supply it"), no individual can make a truthful claim that such things are not part of the market - because they are.
Rights, Subsidies Everyone Demands
As I asserted in my previous essay, functionally, rights are something akin to respect. Other definitions are certainly possible, but they tend to fall flat when operating in the real world™. Respect has a cost for individuals to supply: if I respect your claim to property, then I have to find another way to obtain goods - that's a cost! If I demand that others supply respect without offering them anything in exchange, then I'm demanding a rights subsidy.
Luckily, most humans aren't jerks and will supply respect of another's body and time for free or cheap. Respect of external property tends to be costlier to supply, hence why things like the land question aren't settled yet among voluntaryists. Respect of positive demands tends to be costlier to supply, which is why positive rights have a lot more supply shortfalls than negative rights.
If you're trying to convince others to supply you with rights that's one thing. If you're claiming that someone owes you respect for free, you're probably wasting your time. This is one area where statists† have things figured out...
Luckily, most humans aren't jerks and will supply respect of another's body and time for free or cheap. Respect of external property tends to be costlier to supply, hence why things like the land question aren't settled yet among voluntaryists. Respect of positive demands tends to be costlier to supply, which is why positive rights have a lot more supply shortfalls than negative rights.
If you're trying to convince others to supply you with rights that's one thing. If you're claiming that someone owes you respect for free, you're probably wasting your time. This is one area where statists† have things figured out...
The Market is Constrained by Environment
If you want to live in a world without polio, you don't pray to god or make appeals to evolution about suffering. Polio is just another thing which the process of evolution produces and its "desires" are no less important from a non-existent "view from nowhere" than a human's. Evolution doesn't have a "human advocate" and neither does the market. If you want to live in a world without polio, you change the conditions in which evolution must operate so that polio is not one of the patterns which makes it through the selection filter. If you want to change what the market demands, you must change either the demands of individual actors or the willingness or opportunities of other actors to supply to those demands.
Institutions like the state do this by joining conditions to strong dispositions and aversions humans generally have through the vehicles of implied or overt violence. You don't have to like obeying a law, you might think your life is your own, but if you do it because you dislike obeying a law less than you like being imprisoned (weighted by perceived likelihood), that's all that the market "cares about" - what you do or express, not your unexpressed desires or intentions.
Many voluntaryists buy the "get out of violence" cards that the state is selling to live a more comfortable life. I see this every time a person complains that they have to pay income taxes which is a blatant lie. You may have to if you want to:
Other than that, you don't. You can work odd jobs under the table without giving the IRS one red cent, you can voluntarily make less than the amount which would require you to file and pay. If you don't want to do those things then you're buying an alternative product of "peace and comfort" for the tax dollars you declare and remit. You can say that others shouldn't put you in a situation where you feel compelled to choose such a product, and I agree in this case, but demanding that the situation doesn't exist is not an honest accounting of reality and it's often a way to avoid owning your values.
Institutions like the state do this by joining conditions to strong dispositions and aversions humans generally have through the vehicles of implied or overt violence. You don't have to like obeying a law, you might think your life is your own, but if you do it because you dislike obeying a law less than you like being imprisoned (weighted by perceived likelihood), that's all that the market "cares about" - what you do or express, not your unexpressed desires or intentions.
Many voluntaryists buy the "get out of violence" cards that the state is selling to live a more comfortable life. I see this every time a person complains that they have to pay income taxes which is a blatant lie. You may have to if you want to:
- Have good credit
- Own your own home
- Have a high-paying, "white-collar" job and
- Avoid the ire of the IRS††
Other than that, you don't. You can work odd jobs under the table without giving the IRS one red cent, you can voluntarily make less than the amount which would require you to file and pay. If you don't want to do those things then you're buying an alternative product of "peace and comfort" for the tax dollars you declare and remit. You can say that others shouldn't put you in a situation where you feel compelled to choose such a product, and I agree in this case, but demanding that the situation doesn't exist is not an honest accounting of reality and it's often a way to avoid owning your values.
Buy your Rights
So, do what the statists do - tie things which others like and hate to things which you like or hate... change the environment. If you need to sell a product called "I won't beat the shit out of you"††† that others can buy for the cost of leaving you alone and you can get them to believe that, then your demands for respect will be supplied by others on the market and, if rights are respect, you'll suddenly "have" rights in the you<->them context. But you might need to actually create that product to sell them, and that takes time and effort... and that's the point of this essay.
Rights aren't free to supply. If you're demanding that they're freely supplied then you're a fool. Make a product which people want to buy with respect and let the market work its magic.
Rights aren't free to supply. If you're demanding that they're freely supplied then you're a fool. Make a product which people want to buy with respect and let the market work its magic.
† Yes I'm collectivizing, sue me
†† You can't have the IRS without IRe.
††† Violence isn't the only answer, but was just used as an example. It's often a very effective answer, though.
†† You can't have the IRS without IRe.
††† Violence isn't the only answer, but was just used as an example. It's often a very effective answer, though.
