> As long as we delude ourselves into believing that the system can be made to work with just the right combination of rules and checks (in other words, as long as we delude ourselves into thinking that markets aren't dynamic and don't route around damage), nothing will change.
You could replace "markets" with "people pursuing their personal gain" there. Of course they will adapt to changes, much like a businessman will just leave the country if he gets tax-raped too hard.
We all pursue our personal gain all the time, and there's nothing wrong with that per se. That's just the way we're biologically programmed to operate.
But go back to what Rod said and take it to its logical conclusion: as long as there is political power, people with it will always be bribed.
But then again, that's pretty much the point of having political power. We're all pursuing our personal gain, and political power is just another means of doing that. The solution, then, is for no one to have political power to begin with.
You make a good point, but I think getting rid of political power is at least as difficult as changing the economic system to provide better incentives. It's like companies that claim to have flat corporate structures. There are bosses, they just aren't identified as such on the org chart.
To look at it another way, in a market economy (at least a capitalist one), the possession of money and property is a form of political power. "If you do what I say, I'll give you a bunch of money", the "Prank Monkey" episode of The Simpsons comes to mind, etc.
My ultimate point is that there are conflicts between the market economy and the democratic political structure. This is contrary to "conventional" wisdom, and I think it is important to start recognizing these conflicts openly (recognizing that they are fundamental) and coming up with some kind of solution (whatever it looks like).
Better incentives? An incentive is just something that drives you towards a certain course of action. How can one be better than another? Isn't the act what matters?
The choices we make can be moral, amoral, or immoral. Incentives aren't really relevant there.
For example, imagine you're walking out alone at night, and for some mysterious reason come across a little old lady on the street. She'll probably have a purse with her, and that's your incentive for robbing her.
But assuming you're not a psychopath, you won't even think of doing that. Even a psycho would be more likely to just mind his own business than rob her.
> the possession of money and property is a form of political power
Why would it be? Political authority is the perceived right to impose your will on others by force. Political power is the position to do that. Asking someone to do something in exchange for money is a potential trade.
There's nothing immoral about offering a woman $500k for a blowjob. She'll probably do it too. But it's her choice - she'll have to figure out if the $500k would be worth any loss of dignity she would experience as a result of selling you that blowjob. As long as it's voluntary, there's no problem. It's just a choice she'll make, and be responsible for.
> My ultimate point is that there are conflicts between the market economy and the democratic political structure.
I'm not sure what that means. But again, as long as there's political power, people with it will be bribed, regardless of what else happens in the economy. The solution is to abolish political power. You might note that coercion is immoral anyway, and perhaps start a line of questioning from that premise.
Yep, incentives that lead to better outcomes, from my perspective. For example, less incentive toward corruption. Chinese emperors supposedly used eunuchs as court officials so that they wouldn't be tempted to favor their children in official dealings. I don't know if that was such a great idea, but it certainly improved the incentives of the public officials from the point of view of the emperor (and possibly the people who had official dealings with the government).
> Political power is the position to do that.
Great wealth is functionally equivalent to political power.
> Asking someone to do something in exchange for money is [always] a potential trade.
I disagree vehemently with this statement. Asking someone who is dangling from a cliff for all their money in exchange for pulling them up, for example, is not a trade I am interested in promoting. Yet this is precisely the kind of trade upon which capitalism is built. It is clear to me that we will never agree, we have completely different moral codes and outlooks on the world.
> As long as it's voluntary...
This is the entire problem. Under capitalism, many / most exchanges are not voluntary. Check out the Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS) and the writings of Kevin Carson if you would like to learn more. Regardless, I never said anything about morality.
> But again, as long as there's political power, people with it will be bribed...
There is always power, regardless of whether you consider it strictly "political" (you can define away almost any problem if you try hard enough). If I'm rich and I hire a private army to coerce you into doing something, does it really make any difference whether I call myself a king? From your standpoint we haven't really "abolished" political power. In fact, the idea of abolishing (political) power is actually rather absurd to me, I would sooner expect us all to join hands and implement full communism...
> Great wealth is functionally equivalent to political power.
You're still behaving as if you didn't understand that it is very much possible to refrain from accepting trades, even if your counterparty is stinking rich. If you don't consider five million dollars worth the loss of dignity from a blowjob, then you won't do it. I can imagine someone choosing to not accept that trade. Maybe they're doing just fine and don't need the money that bad?
> Asking someone who is dangling from a cliff for all their money in exchange for pulling them up, for example, is not a trade I am interested in promoting.
Sure, that would be highly scumbaggy of you, but that's not the kind of deal I was suggesting either.
> Yet this is precisely the kind of trade upon which capitalism is built.
Now there's a claim that requires backing.
> Under capitalism, many / most exchanges are not voluntary.
Complete nonsense. We all go through voluntary exchanges every day, any time you go shopping for groceries for example.
> If I'm rich and I hire a private army to coerce you into doing something, does it really make any difference whether I call myself a king? From your standpoint we haven't really "abolished" political power.
Coercion is immoral, and what you'd be doing is irrelevant to capitalism. But yeah, political power is basically thuggery - it's just that people don't see that from underneath their brainwashing.
You could replace "markets" with "people pursuing their personal gain" there. Of course they will adapt to changes, much like a businessman will just leave the country if he gets tax-raped too hard.
We all pursue our personal gain all the time, and there's nothing wrong with that per se. That's just the way we're biologically programmed to operate.
But go back to what Rod said and take it to its logical conclusion: as long as there is political power, people with it will always be bribed.
But then again, that's pretty much the point of having political power. We're all pursuing our personal gain, and political power is just another means of doing that. The solution, then, is for no one to have political power to begin with.