Bryce

I'm a salesman; I present my product to a prospective buyer in a way that agrees with his whims. If I qualify him well enough I'm able to bait him along until he buys. But that teaches my buyer that what he wants is what's important in the sale and that he's the authority who makes the sale. This sales process was taught to me and reconfirmed by every sales manager and sales trainer I've had, and it makes sales. Unfortunately, the inference the process makes is also what consumers, and therefore the market(s), have come to expect, which is absolute control over the sale.

There's one overreaching problem with the market that I can't identify. But when I try I usually use the phrase, "customer service". A better description lies in the ways in which businesses are asked by the market to be subservient to consumers. And then in how businesses have become servants to the market. And antitrust laws are largely responsible for keeping businesses in a state of servitude. But the worst part is that the salesmen pitching a free market system have no idea what a free market should look like and that they would reel in terror if they knew what they were advocating (which is selfishness, the requisite capitalism).

I keep rewriting this but I've stopped because I can't condense or explain everything in such short order. But know that this is not a question on the future of capitalism, it's a question on the future of this market. And what's driving this market doesn't have capitalism in it's plans.

Regarding antitrust laws, I don't see businesses as innocent, ignorant victims here. They often lobby and even champion for their use.

That's fair but it wasn't where I was going (actually I was aiming for the detrimental impact that businessmen have allowed consumers to make, namely in how consumers are allowed to run markets).

While going through some old computer files earlier today, I happened across some notes I took many years ago about Joseph A. Schumpeter's classic book, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (3rd ed., 1950).

Schumpeter was very pessimistic about the future of capitalism. These notes, though sketchy and incomplete, indicate why, and they might provoke an interesting discussion.

...

But such grievances, whether real or imagined, are not adequate to sustain an active hostility to capitalism. This requires the existence of “groups to whose interest it is to work up and organize resentment, to nurse it, to voice it, and to lead it” (p. 145).

There's one overreaching problem with the market that I can't identify. But when I try I usually use the phrase, "customer service". A better description lies in the ways in which businesses are asked by the market to be subservient to consumers. And then in how businesses have become servants to the market. And antitrust laws are largely responsible for keeping businesses in a state of servitude. But the worst part is that the salesmen pitching a free market system have no idea what a free market should look like and that they would reel in terror if they knew what they were advocating (which is selfishness, the requisite capitalism).

I keep rewriting this but I've stopped because I can't condense or explain everything in such short order. But know that this is not a question on the future of capitalism, it's a question on the future of this market. And what's driving this market doesn't have capitalism in it's plans.

It's about absolutes. By taking your form of reasoning you're not arguing that some extreme forms of weaponization are dangerous, you're arguing that (all) men are incapable of wielding weapons. There is no distinction.

Bryce,

That's easy to turn around. If you believe that this is my "form of reasoning," then your "form of reasoning" would make it OK for any person to buy a tank.

Even a raving lunatic.

Sorry. I don't agree with that and I am all in favor of prohibiting it.

And I don't agree with applying absolutes to issues where they don't fit, either.

I derive my principles from reality. I do not try to make reality fit a principle, and simply ignore what doesn't fit it.

The only real absolutes I have found are fundamental axioms. All other knowledge is contextual. Especially inductive things like principles.

(And even the fundamental axioms are contextual in that they need a mind to think them. But presupposing normal healthy minds, I am convinced they are absolute.)

That's my "form of reasoning."

Michael

My life is exclusively my prerogative. No one will stand between me and my business, even if it is to buy a tank. And if I become aware of a lunatic who threatens my life, I won't wait to take care of him myself. ...But that's not reality. And I certainly didn't derive those beliefs from reality. Reality is where laws are made by men unwilling to take their lives into their own hands, where others have made my life and my business their prerogative. You may only be interested in heavy ordinance, but this principle that you believe in is based upon whatever false premise is behind every act and regulation like it, including rules as simple as disallowing metal spoons in school cafeterias.

... all regulation is blind.

Bryce,

I disagree with this. I am more in line with someone like Stossel, who says he doesn't think heavy ordinance like tanks should be sold to civilians. He would feel very uncomfortable living next door to a person who bought a fully functioning tank and kept it in his backyard.

There are rational standards that can be used for regulating really dangerous things.

Michael

That reminds me of the up-armored bulldozer that a man drove through the town of Granby several years ago. Or the stolen tank that drove through San Diego:

But those incidents are exceptions. The motives of someone who would want a fully functioning tank could range from that of a hobbyist to self defense. And if he had the private wherewithal to buy and maintain such a machine, what incentive would he have to go on a public rampage? What worries me are the people who don't want anyone to own weapons (of any grade). It's about absolutes. By taking your form of reasoning you're not arguing that some extreme forms of weaponization are dangerous, you're arguing that (all) men are incapable of wielding weapons. There is no distinction. At some point a gun, for example, does not become magically safer or less dangerous than a tank. So the problem is that we divest most of our personal safety to the government who, in turn, passes arbitrary and sweeping regulation to try to protect us. If I didn't have an authority to appeal to, I would be able to immediately and preemptively defend myself against my neighbor if I knew that his owning a tank was bad for my health. And so would everybody else.

Blind regulation is never the answer. This afternoon, Judge Napolitano explained how federal regulation pushed the limits of offshore drilling out far enough so that BP had to drill in 5,000 ft of water as opposed to 500 ft. And neither BP nor the federal government know how to contain a spill at that depth. But the government won't be held liable for contributing to the disaster, just for muscling the big corporation to "pay" for it's transgresses. Once this disaster is passed, the company, it's industry, and people will be in for some (more) regulatory punishment. But in the hope of this never happening again, it's justified... right?

I believe you're mostly right here, but I don't think this is good regulation vs. bad or blind regulation -- as if there were a such thing as good regulation.

I realize now what I did. I didn't mean to imply that there was a distinction: all regulation is blind.

Anarcho-capitalists or market anarchists are hardly the only non-collectivist anarchists...

I just did a quick scan through Wikipedia and I can't come up with any (albeit some are close). What others exist?

Add to this, he uses other broad categories, especially "revolutionaries" that don't necessarily identify or overlap with the others. Yes, I know, amongst his audience, these words will have a certain resonance; they'll likely associate "anarchists" and "revolutionaries" with bad and dangerous people. Don't you agree that "revolutionaries" is too broad a category to have much meaning? But why use such a generic term here when other terms are available?

All Beck is trying to do is move people in his direction. He can't do that by laying out concrete details of his philosophy because his audience will not understand. I mean most of them (including Beck, in some cases) are on the drug of collectivism, so they're neither interested in nor capable of understanding the concretes of capitalism or reason or individualism, or most of what Beck wants them to understand. His audience is just learning about remainders. Eventually they'll learn about decimals.

And for whom he's attacking he's right to do so. Those are not anarcho-capitalists he's referring to but all the rest, which are all decidedly collectivist.

The goal is to help create an expectation in society that the rich should give away their wealth... said Melinda Gates, Mr. Gates's wife and co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

She's late (or oblivious) to the game.

Blind regulation is never the answer. This afternoon, Judge Napolitano explained how federal regulation pushed the limits of offshore drilling out far enough so that BP had to drill in 5,000 ft of water as opposed to 500 ft. And neither BP nor the federal government know how to contain a spill at that depth. But the government won't be held liable for contributing to the disaster, just for muscling the big corporation to "pay" for it's transgresses. Once this disaster is passed, the company, it's industry, and people will be in for some (more) regulatory punishment. But in the hope of this never happening again, it's justified... right?

Did you just watch it?

I remember that Oliver Stone depicts greed in Wall Street without exaggeration. He sums his socialist virtues in the end but doesn't lie or imply falsehoods about capitalism to present his view. Stone honestly hates capitalism. I believe that many fans of Gekko don't understand that message (and probably feel good about the ending) or that Michael Douglas believes in the message, too. But Gekko carries himself so well and unapologetically that he's almost heroic. And for that, I like the movie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7upG01-XWbY

Duplicate.

You're jumping the gun. Read Rand's works, first, like Atlas Shrugged and The Virtue of Selfishness.

For three of the last four years I was a car salesman. I sold at a dealership that carried six brands of vehicles and held a used car lot. I learned early that prospective customers whom didn't know or vaguely knew what they were shopping for and whom I failed to qualify - who I let browse indiscriminately - not only were unable to decide what to buy, but felt a need to continue their browsing elsewhere. A customer like this will look forlornly until a vehicle finally "jumps out", as one customer put it, at him to buy. So, my initial reaction to this speaker was that he needs a salesman. I understand that some of you won't understand the concept, but he proved so in his points about the doctor-patient interaction and jean shopping. Nearly all of my prospects who bought, after experiencing a handful of vehicles that I selected for them, were properly questioned about their wants and needs by me.

The inverse are prospects who have established their wants and needs prior to shopping and are convinced that viewing all possible options before buying is not only necessary, but is educated (and in that order). They might say that they're looking for the best product for their needs but subconsciously they're looking for what might be described as a perfect product. What they eventually buy certainly isn't perfect, it may not even be the best, but it's either what feels right or at least doesn't feel so bad to buy. That's why buyers who shop several dealerships in a day, with rare exception, don't buy from the best of the four but buy at the last. And the order doesn't matter: Whoever is last gets the business, regardless of if it's four brands being shopped at four dealerships or one brand being shopped at four dealerships.

So the speaker is superficially right, that consumers are unable to buy when presented with more options than less. If that were untrue, I would be out of a job. His conclusions and some of his assertions, though, are idiotic. In order for him to form his opinion he's got to believe that this mixed-economy is capitalism and that capitalism has failed. Only in a reality in which capitalism could exist would men make their own decisions.

--Brant

Bryce: you can't get there from here, regardless

What do you mean?

And you saw where that led, I assume.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yes. Once again, that was a political paramilitary and not private. You're confusing (or aligning) the two.

I do not mean to come across as being facetious to your statement but would point out that there are numerous examples of government protecting a person's individual rights. In Arizona there are no state restrictions on to sale, purchase or possession of firearms. This has been strengthened here recently. A law was just enacted where an Arizona resident no longer has to have a permit in order to carry a gun in a concealed manner.

On the federal level you see examples of courts striking down actions by legislative or executive branches such as the SCOTUS's overruling the Bush Administration on his ability to declare who is and is not a terrorist and if they can be prosecuted by military tribunals or in federal courts.

Also, don't forget the firearms case where the SCOTUS struck down DC's gun ban.

The courts, executive branches and legislative bodies don't do this consistently but I don't think it's that bad to where it has lead to a full consolidation of all three.

Our government does not and will never protect individual rights. Governments are formed and supported by collectives, and collectives do not protect individuals. So I oppose the view because no government (collective) should wield a military. If, in a less irrational world, a private military existed and was needed to fight despotism, I might support it.

Those examples are of the government preventing itself from being restrictive. What good would I do if I appointed you to protect my right to free speech by virtue of you telling yourself that you will not violate my right to free speech?

The (corrupt) nature of man is the premise of all arguments used against anarcho-capitalism and it is the same premise that collectivists use to esteem the virtues of socialism. Man possesses an immoral or dangerous condition that necessitates controls or restrictions on his life. The premise would be absent from Objectivism except for Objectivist morality and a belief in very minimalist government. And it's the premise used against me, in this thread, by asserting that government is necessary. Really, a man who yearns for government protection should ask himself why he or privatized arbitration would be less effective at protecting his own life than the state.

Our government does not and will never protect individual rights. Governments are formed and supported by collectives, and collectives do not protect individuals. So I oppose the view because no government (collective) should wield a military. If, in a less irrational world, a private military existed and was needed to fight despotism, I might support it.

So what will protect rights? Vigilante groups formed ad hoc? And how long before they turn into gangs? A private military. That has been tried. The frei-korps in Germany between the Great War and WW2. These private military or militia became the S.A. which an unemployed paper hanger later use for his own nefarious purposes. If you want to see a place where there is effectively no government, then gaze upon Somalia, the Pirate capital of the world.

Ba'al Chatzaf

A man could protect his own life. If he's confronted by too strong a force, he would likely not be alone and would have allies. But if they lack size, strength, or ability, and if the ways of the world make private military's necessary, they may keep one on retainer for such an occasion. A vigilante group would never be formed. And no, a private military hasn't been tried: The Freikorps were backed by the German government. And the last of their members quit to join the political paramilitary of your unemployed paper hanger.

Our government does not and will never protect individual rights. Governments are formed and supported by collectives, and collectives do not protect individuals. So I oppose the view because no government (collective) should wield a military. If, in a less irrational world, a private military existed and was needed to fight despotism, I might support it.

I believe that people are outraged. But my inclination, contrary to yours, is that their outrage is misplaced. Most people - especially those you describe as producers - see themselves as producers but those they buy from as expropriators. And while they may claim that they want freedom, their words and actions do not corroborate it. Consider the recent buzz words, "Wall Street and Main Street". Though government is always in the spotlight, it's scrutinized for it's failure to remedy economic woes (seemingly caused by big Wall Street businesses) through regulation much more than for subjugating business. And consider that companies now advertise their advocacy for their consumers and social responsibility (and probably believe in it). So for now, everyone's living in denial. Most need to admit to being socialists and most of the rest need to admit to wanting parts of socialism.

I like this because I see businesses in a free market selling similarly. Retail pricing is fixed and labeled, with only sporadic change. And though that ticker above the bar doesn't eliminate price-labeling, prices change more immediately to reflect demand.

And, on the topic of regulating food, I read recently that the calories of some food items are to be posted in restaurants.

http://www.foxsmallbusinesscenter.com/humanresources/2010/03/29/new-york-bar-set-menu-prices-like-stocks/

What's the value of a pint of beer? Let the market decide, says a new restaurant in Manhattan where prices for food and beverages will fluctuate like stock prices in increments according to demand.

The Exchange Bar & Grill, set amid the bustling shops and pubs of the Grammercy Park neighborhood, is replete with a ticker tape flashing menu prices in red lettering as demand forces them to fluctuate.

Customers can move prices for all beverages and bar snacks such as hot wings ($7 for 6 pieces) or fried calamari ($9). The prices will fluctuate in $.25 cent increments, but will most likely plateau at a $2 change in either direction.

A glass of Guinness starts at $6 but could be pushed to a high of $8 or a low of $4, depending on popularity.

So if one drink is in heavy demand, its price will rise, causing the cost of other equivalent drinks to drop. A rush on a particular beer would increase its price, and cause other beers to drop.

You're right, I shouldn't have questioned you on Objectivism.

Online eyeglasses

Here is a wonderful idea for saving a truckload of money on eyeglasses. You can order them online if you know what you are doing, and it is very easy to learn what you are doing.

Here is where it all started: Eyeglasses Stores are for Suckers. This has now expanded to here: Glassy Eyes.

The idea is that you can buy a pair of $300 eyeglasses for $50 or so, depending on your choices. So instead of having just one pair of glasses, why not have several in different colors and styles and still come out cheaper?

I learned about this here from a very happy blogger, who also gives good advice on getting measurements right: Adventures in $40 eyeglasses.

Apparently this field has one of the highest mark-up rates in the entire manufacturing economy. Here is a quote from a message sent to Glassy Eyes:

"As a retired Minneapolis optician I can tell you first hand that we bought our lenses in bulk and most single vision lenses cost less than $2.00 a pair, Bifocals and progressives cost us as much as $6.00 a pair. Frames ..Name brand, up to $10.00, same quality generics cost us much less. Online is the way I buy all of my eyewear, New glasses in under two weeks!"

"A pair of SV (single vision) stock poly Alize cost me $34, and carry a 2 year warranty. We sell 'em all day long for $199/pair, for a profit of $165/pair. Our capture rate for AR (anti-reflective coating) is about 90%. Also stock poly non coated, cost $6/pair and sell for $109...

Now show me the math where you can beat the $165 profit on a pair of SV (single vision) lenses. If you can, I'll still love you in the morning."

Here's the tip. Look around online, then head to the mall and compare.

Capitalism in practice, folks: high quality, better selection, excellent service, MUCH better price.

Good for capitalism!

Michael

Thanks for the information! But you're using a retail store to see, touch, and try on the product that you intend to buy from that stores' online competitor (a condition that would not exist in a free market). And after you admonished general semanticist, do you understand Objectivism? "I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."