[EastCoastAmerican]

I found an interesting video by Learn Liberty, a Libertarian media site.

The person in the video is making the argument that a free market system is self-sustainable due to reputation and social cooperation. If someone steals from a store, doesn't pay his bills, etc., then the seller will alert other companies to the individual's untrustworthy nature. These businesses do this of their own accord despite being in competition, and they are not forced to do so as the result of government intervention. Basically, the point is that groups of businesses pool their information together for mutual benefits; if they did everything on their own and didn't share information, then thieves can get away with stealing more stuff before getting caught.

This argument is in favor of laissez-faire capitalism, but it's also arguing in favor of collectivism (in regards to the market, and not government). It encourages social cooperation among competing companies to guard against untrustworthy buyers.

What do you think? Does this argument sound collectivist? Can a free market system be voluntarily collectivist?

[Phred]

This argument is in favor of laissez-faire capitalism, but it's also arguing in favor of collectivism (in regards to the market, and not government).

You misuse the term "Collectivism". Collectivism, in the political sense, is defined as a socio-political system in which the "rights" of the tribe, the group, the horde, "society", whatever, trump the rights of individuals.

Voluntary information-sharing between individuals or groups is not a case of elevating the "rights" of the collective over those of the individual, it is a clear-cut example of voluntary co-operation.


Phred

[Daktoria]

It sounds conservative. Communication is the glue which bonds communities together, not production. Unfortunately, libertarians tend to mess this up by tolerating multiculturalism and letting discourse ethics go right out the window.

You can call that collectivist if you want, but it still depends on voluntary exchanges. You don't share information with untrustworthy people.

Even among businesses, you're liable to disclose trade secrets to thieves if you do.

[Soixante-Retard]

Right said Phred...

[youtube]39YUXIKrOFk[/youtube]

[EastCoastAmerican]

You misuse the term "Collectivism". Collectivism, in the political sense, is defined as a socio-political system in which the "rights" of the tribe, the group, the horde, "society", whatever, trump the rights of individuals.

Voluntary information-sharing between individuals or groups is not a case of elevating the "rights" of the collective over those of the individual, it is a clear-cut example of voluntary co-operation.


Phred

Collectivism argues in favor of societal interdependence. In the Learn Liberty example, the businesses are choosing to depend upon each other to supply information about the reliability and trustworthiness of buyers.

[Daktoria]

I have a better challenge for Phred - how can reputations be sustained if people aren't publicly educated about proper communication?

Libertarianism doesn't stand up for family values, so I'm not sure how the responsibility to educate people about communication is upheld.

[Phred]

Collectivism argues in favor of societal interdependence.

No, it does far more than that. It elevates the pseudo-"rights" of The Collective above the actual rights of the individuals making up The Collective. The compulsory military draft is a prime example of Collectivist policy in action.

In the Learn Liberty example, the businesses are choosing to depend upon each other to supply information about the reliability and trustworthiness of buyers.

Exactly. They are choosing to do this. Under Collectivism, choice is not an option.

The problem with your argument is that you are misusing the word Collectivism. Collectivism as a term for a socio-political system has a very clear and non-ambiguous definition. You don't get to use it as you see fit, you must use it as it is defined. The phenomenon described in that video is not Collectivism. What those businesses are engaged in might be called Cooperatism or something similar, but it cannot rightfully be called Collectivism.


Phred

[EastCoastAmerican]

My definition of collectivism was probably too broad. Companies are still looking out for their own best interests, and sharing information can help minimize profits from attempted theft. And many stores will not tank or go under from shoplifting alone, so they're not really dependent upon this sharing of information. In this case, the cooperation of companies is not collectivist in the sense of societal organization.

I can see your point by what you mean, Phred, but I still think that collectivist organizations can be a voluntary affair, such as the option to leave a group or join one for benefits.

[Eran]

Libertarians have no problem with cooperation. Thus collectivism in the sense of deep collaboration between members of society is not only compatible with the free market, it is essential for the very notion of "market".

The only thing libertarians will insist on is that the collaboration is voluntary.

I have a better challenge for Phred - how can reputations be sustained if people aren't publicly educated about proper communication?

Reputations have not only been an important aspect of human societies since well before public education, they are even an important aspect of Chimp societies.

Clearly, public education is not necessary for people to understand and use the concept of reputation.

To function in a modern technological society, people do need education. They also need food. If we agree that needing food being essential is not a reason to insist on "public food", why would education, which is less urgent, have to be provided publicly?

[mikema63]

Yes in the non-political sense all systems of economic activity are collective and collectivism, in an absolute free market syndicates, unions, co-ops, and many other "left-wing" or "collectivist" organizations are still perfectly acceptable.

A free market is also the greatest system for social collaboration since its focus is on voluntary acts and only bans involuntary coercion. As I see it an absolutely free market sans government is completely compatible with any collectivist system of organization, even anarcho-communism, as long as it does not force that system on unwilling participants.

[Nunt]

I have a better challenge for Phred - how can reputations be sustained if people aren't publicly educated about proper communication?

You don't need public education to recognize a crook from an honest trader.

[SolarCross]

I have a better challenge for Phred - how can reputations be sustained if people aren't publicly educated about proper communication?

Libertarianism doesn't stand up for family values, so I'm not sure how the responsibility to educate people about communication is upheld.

Libertarians don't need to stand up for family values, family values are intrinsic and biological, by standing against coercive institutions like the state they are doing all that needs to be done in defence of family values; because the attack on family values comes from the monopolists through the agency of the state. Absent the state, family values will recover all by themselves.

[Eran]

Indeed.

The same sentiments can be extended to other kinds of values, like nationalistic, compassion for the destitute, environmental, animal rights or support for research or the arts. In each case, libertarianism calls for the elimination of both barriers and artificial subsidies.

Once those are eliminated, members of society are welcome to express their sentiments directly, internalising their costs, and thus genuinely reflecting the strength of their feelings and the depths of their commitments.