The “Other” Side Is Not Dumb
medium.com
medium.com
I am also open for inquiries from the other side. :)
How would you describe your views on competition in the market and whether monopolies are desirable or inevitable in today's market?
When combined with coercive forces of the government, the ineffective monopoly might stay on the market much longer than can be warranted by competency only. Therefore, revolving door-type monopolies are bad and ought to be disrupted, including by legal means.
How do you square a free market with a global economy where free markets are not the norm? How do you compete with state owned and operated business? Do you let these companies participate in your free market?
Are there any other instances you can imagine besides preventing revolving door monopolies where regulation might be appropriate?
*Your ideas don't sound very different from the form of capitalism practiced in America today which is a pretty far cry from the extreme ideas about free-market libertarian ideals I'm used to from fans of Ayn Rand. What are some principles you find appealing in her writing?
> Is it the responsibility of government to facilitate the opening of new markets, for instance?
Technically, yes. However (under the current concept of sovereignty), some things can be obligatory in home territory but only "nice to have" abroad. Therefore, globally, it is more right than obligation (subject to costs-benefits analysis).
> As with TTIP?
I do not have enough expertise in international law and trade agreements to judge TTIP in its entirety. So far, I know that there are some good things there (steps to establish global markets operating transparently), and not so good things (mostly related to intellectual property laws, which are messed up).
> How do you square a free market with a global economy where free markets are not the norm?
With diplomatic and cultural efforts. Often it is enough to somehow show people that free market alternative exists. E.g. USSR was strictly controlling who could see what beyond its borders, otherwise it wouldn't survive that long.
> How do you compete with state owned and operated business? Do you let these companies participate in your free market?
It depends. If they are willing to participate on the same set of rules as everyone, and the government itself is not known for some atrocities, then yes, it will be allowed. Government business usually is not that efficient, and there is no coercion power beyond government's own domain.
> Are there any other instances you can imagine besides preventing revolving door monopolies where regulation might be appropriate?
Some. Ayn Rand wanted to abolish FDA and all healthcare-related regulations; I am not so sure about that (though these should be rooted from up-level laws preventing fraud in general). Some military-related stuff (you don't export arms to state enemies), etc.
Incidentally, all of this is strangely similar to the current US economic and foreign policy. I have to think more about that. I am not even American.
Any absolute property rights granted in this space inherently justify feudalism, I believe, which violates concepts of fairness (I tend to be a Rawlsian, but I think feudalism violates almost any idea of fairness).
What responses do you have to such criticisms of property rights in land?
What do you find compelling in Rawls theory? He is considered the arch-villain in libertarian circles, but I can see some logic in his statements about inherent inequality. However, his solutions amount to lottery, and for me, lotteries are extremely unfair to begin with.
I think the Veil of Ignorance is extremely compelling, and I think leads inextricably to equal rights for natural resources, open borders, etc. A lot of his reasoning I don't agree with-- he thinks all actors behind the Veil would perform minimax analyses, which is unjustified. However, I think the overall thought experiment is very valid.
As for your disagreements with Rand-- is there anything you disagree with Georgism about?
Seems to apply to Trump.
Imagine how much power labour had when FDR was able to enact a tax rate 90% of top marginal income.
That force was destroyed, but just like a nuclear submarine lying idly by, just because the engine is switched off or silent doesn't mean it cannot do a lot of damage.
Right now a lot of people are quite enraged because they are empirically on the losing side of globalization. It would be a sad day if they hand their collective power over to Mr Trump - its a repetition of situations of the past where labour gave its power to other bigots or strongmens - rather than people like FDR or Lenin.
What people? Is this statement presented as fact?
Personally, I am fed up with there not being a strong man at the helm.