A free market can only exist on the preconditions that certain lawful rules be upheld to avoid the exploitation of others if not outright swindling and theft. Otherwise it isn't really a free market but total anarchy.
-
-
Replying to @GolfNorman
It's not free because it isn't free of coercion. The third party judges coerce people to follow the rules (this has a cost.) Epstein made the point that this one of the only coercions whose cost is outweighed by the negative-sum transactions it eliminates.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @gtaogle @GolfNorman
(The way to think of this is that thievery and fraud generally do not add value to the whole network - they just transfer existing value - at the cost of the coercion used by the fraudsters/robbers)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @gtaogle
Well it's like having a Navy. Piracy is a zero-sum operation that is entropic: produces higher expenses for the total market than the value transferred to the pirates namely through sinking ships, losing some of the goods when robbing.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GolfNorman @gtaogle
The thing is that the Rule Enforcement might be coercive, but there is no coercion in accepting or rejecting a transaction between the two parties. You can't really say someone is being coerced to follow rules if someone with a gun is there...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GolfNorman @gtaogle
... specifically to stop them from using a gun to get the 2nd party to sell them goods at a lower price or give them to them for free.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GolfNorman @gtaogle
The enforcer is only engaging in coercion if they implement price controls or sales restrictions but in that case you no longer have a free market but a planned economy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GolfNorman
No, Epstein explicitly says that rule enforcement by the court is coercion, but justifies in saying that it makes the market work better. Any enforcement mechanism is coercion, possibly even the case where the parties are required to enforce for themselves.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gtaogle @GolfNorman
For example, for fraud provisions to work, I am coerced to write out the details of what the contract is for, because if I don't the other party could claim fraud and I would have no proof of what we agreed on; they might fabricate details... it goes on.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gtaogle
lol that ain't coercion buddy that's just common sense.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
It's not, there even today are tons of business deals that are just handshakes, I've seen them myself.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
