Markets (was Re: Hayek was right. Twice.)

[Gabriel Rocha]

		On Thu, Jul 04, at 01:26AM, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
| >I can't see a market defined as anything else than "private property and
| >voluntary exchange".
| 
| Then you really must be blind. Markets not based on private property or
| volition abound. The political process is one of them. Social control is
| another. Gift economies, like Open Source, are a third. One might claim
| most markets are based on something other than the above mentioned
| combination.

Property does not always consist of physical goods. Case in point would
be the encrypted bits. To use some of your examples, the polical process
involves votes, which are the property of the person casting the
ballots, likewise, at least in this country, ballots are cast
voluntarily. "Gift economics." Who coined that phrase? Don't take credit
for it, it is a stupid term. Time and effort are both considered
"property" to be used as deemed fit by the person possessing, in this
case, the skills to use them on an Open Source (the volunteer kind,
since you can't seem to grasp that there are Open Source projects that
make money.) 

| It does indeed. But unlike movies, Linux is a modular project. The kernel
| would exist in the absence of the GNU toolset, and vice versa. X would
| exist in the absence of UNIX, too. Each of the common desktop applications
| could very well have been coded on top of something else than Linux.

You're too ignorant to be replied to, I wish I hadn't wasted the time,
but I digress. I can't think many things more modular than movies,
except perhaps theatre, but movies have even more latitude. Actors can't
be switched? Sets can't be constructed out of "nothing" on a computer
screen? Movies can't be made with virtually no budget? Get a clue.

| Why is it that there's no Buzz for Linux? No decent installer? (Not one of
| them survives my hardware...) No workable Unicode support? A stable 64-bit
| filesystem? Why is nobody willing to guarantee kernel stability, even when
| paid big bucks? 'Cause the project is a gift, and only caters to a single
| kind of need: something an individual developer/company really needs and
| can afford to develop for him/itself, then losing little by exposing the
| code to others. Usefulness thinly spread over a considerable user
| community is completely forgotten.

As someone who actually helps people with unix problems and who is a
unix user, I want to let you know that you fall into the "stupid user"
category if you can't get a linux distro to install on your computer.
Linux is a new breed of project, if you want it and it really matters to
you, the argument goes that you would either do it, (if you're capable,
but you clearly aren't) or you pay someone else to do it. (this falls
into the heading of "put your money where your mouth is.") Throw in the
fact that "usefulness" is an entirely relative term, and you have a
really poor argument. 

| Well, what stupid people they are. I wouldn't go anywhere as far as
| gettimg myself killed for the common good. Even paying for software I can
| just copy is a stretch. What makes you think most people care enough to Do
| the Right Thing? What makes you think relying on Doing the Right Thing is
| a good idea? I mean, it's been tried before, and the consequences aren't
| worth a second look.

Well, here you show your ignorance of economics again. ( on this one
point, don't feel too bad, though you are ignorant, you're in a league
that is very well populated ) First off, not everyone is motivated by
financial gain. "profit" is not necessarily a financial thing, when
someone stops and helps you out when you have a flat, the odds are that
they are not expecting you to pay them for their help. When someone
helps you install linux on your computer, they aren't likely to expect
financial remuneration, specially if you go to one of the great many
Linux User Groups throughout this country and many others. Often the
economic argument made is that people do what is in their best interest.
The problem that arises is when people who aren't very bright (hint,
hint) assume that that means financial reward of some kind. People are
complex creatures, to presume that financial gain is the only motivation
for people is a tad naive.

| Indeed they are. So are ones assuming that anything not profitable to a
| single person couldn't be to a larger number of individuals. Like most
| things, private property rights and economic theory based solely on
| bilateral trade are a matter of continuous dispute. It's not that I don't
| consider them useful (I do; nowadays you could call me, too, a
| libertarian), but taking them as granted isn't the way to go, either.

Well, libertarians usually, though not always, go along with free
markets, which is not what you're advocating. Usually, any economic
theory that assumes that anything could have no value to anyone is
wrong. Basic relativity (in the subjective sense) states otherwise.
Bilateral trade is the only kind of exchange in a free market
enviroment. As long as the exchange is made freely and willingly
(government regulation produces a bias, always.) it is always bilateral.

--Gabe