Great point here. The purpose of markets is to tease out the signal from the noise, not just in the economy.
As the saying goes, garbage in, garbage out. If we cannot ensure that the data going into the market is solid, the output of that market will be suboptimal.
I think you have inspired a new essay for Risk and Progress here.
What happens when your right to property over your apples extends to a monopoly on food production capacity and therefore interferes with my ability to exercise my right to life? Aren't we all constantly under the threat of force or starvation, and therefore unable to consent to the free exchange of our labor, since our alternative is death?
I agree that rights can be in conflict! But it's not clear that markets themselves are to blame for these conflicts. Ideally, a legal system gets designed to ensure free exchange and deal with problems like monopolies. If something goes wrong, it's probably not the act of exchange that's causing the issue, but that someone has figured out how to exploit the legal system and coerce people.
How do we design a legal system that supports exchange while avoiding conflicting rights? I'm not sure! But I have a few ideas that I'll write up eventually 🙃
> Aren't we all constantly under the threat of force or starvation, and therefore unable to consent to the free exchange of our labor, since our alternative is death?
I guess instead of "threat" I would use "risk" here. We risk starvation, but outside of extreme cases (e.g. a monopoly on water) no one person can threaten us with starvation, since we can always work for or sell to someone else. I don't think the existence of bad outcomes invalidates free choice or exchange in general.
I agree monopolies are a problem, I've got a post brewing on how to deal with them using taxes instead of relying on anti-trust law.
Great point here. The purpose of markets is to tease out the signal from the noise, not just in the economy.
As the saying goes, garbage in, garbage out. If we cannot ensure that the data going into the market is solid, the output of that market will be suboptimal.
I think you have inspired a new essay for Risk and Progress here.
Yeah that's a good way to think about it. For example, prices aren't going to be accurate if lots of extortion or theft is happening!
What happens when your right to property over your apples extends to a monopoly on food production capacity and therefore interferes with my ability to exercise my right to life? Aren't we all constantly under the threat of force or starvation, and therefore unable to consent to the free exchange of our labor, since our alternative is death?
I agree that rights can be in conflict! But it's not clear that markets themselves are to blame for these conflicts. Ideally, a legal system gets designed to ensure free exchange and deal with problems like monopolies. If something goes wrong, it's probably not the act of exchange that's causing the issue, but that someone has figured out how to exploit the legal system and coerce people.
How do we design a legal system that supports exchange while avoiding conflicting rights? I'm not sure! But I have a few ideas that I'll write up eventually 🙃
> Aren't we all constantly under the threat of force or starvation, and therefore unable to consent to the free exchange of our labor, since our alternative is death?
I guess instead of "threat" I would use "risk" here. We risk starvation, but outside of extreme cases (e.g. a monopoly on water) no one person can threaten us with starvation, since we can always work for or sell to someone else. I don't think the existence of bad outcomes invalidates free choice or exchange in general.
I agree monopolies are a problem, I've got a post brewing on how to deal with them using taxes instead of relying on anti-trust law.