I think a couple of things should be said here in closing. First, Dan, who’s been a very good sport throughout, should be thanked for taking the time to respond in kind. Second, I think I should be thanked, just because.

I’ll admit to finding some difficulty in keeping the dialogue alive, though, Dan, since I am having a hard time figuring out what this extended syllogism means: “Cheating and non-material non-moral drives exist; all “models” [this is where you lose me; I don't know what you mean by "models] must account for these non-economic drives; Capitalism does not only not heroically eliminate these storied human characteristics, it does not even account for their existence; therefore capitalism is an incomplete system.” If I’ve misstated your contentions, then simply shoot me where I stand but that’s how I read them.

One at a time.

“Cheating”, “power”, misanthropic wielding of power manifested in denial of satisfaction to others, etc. are most properly addressed in a theory of property rights and justice, depending on whether they simply involve property rights, or violations of them. Laissez-faire economics deals purposely with the unhampered market only and how it always, and necessarily so, provides the most optimum quantity and quality of goods and services in an economy given an intertemporal allocation of existing capital goods. The main contention that you’re fielding here is that there is no logical reason that many of us believe the provision of the everyday goods you see produced every passing day with stunning efficiency should be different than the provision of justice, protection, or fire protection, as there is no consistent logical way to distinguish these goods from other ones.

If you’re looking for more references, try Hans Hoppe’s “The Economics and Ethics of Private Property”, Chapter 1. It’s out of print so you’ll probably have to go to the library but it’s well worth it.

The “models” premise. I truly don’t understand this. Do you demand this of all economic systems or just unhampered capitalism? I’ve already said how I believe this is irrelevant to the study of economics proper and the free market. A theory of economics, that is, the study of acting man and his bid to alleviate scarcity of material goods, requires a sound theory of justice, indeed, and one of property rights as well, of course. And if you’re interested in those theories, maybe someone less lazy than me will give you links throughout this site for this material. But you’re already here, so, click on the “Study Guide” and have a look.

#3. If capitalism is an incomplete so-called model of economics, of providing in the most efficient way for the alleviation of the scarcity of goods, because of this, then necessarily so thus are all other theories as well. The division of intellectual labor mandates that this is the case and I don’t feel that I’ve been given a cheapened view of the world through liberty by noticing this.

See yas,

What can I say, Dan? I’m a vicious logician. Just something that I enjoy, really. I mean, I’m one of those weirdo kids that took out books from the public library about Logic when I was in high school…

And, honestly, I was where you are now a matter of months ago. Now, while I didn’t believe that the government was needed for roads and other public goods like that, I had a hard time seeing that an anarcocapitalist society could maintain order, given the fact that man isn’t an angel, and doesn’t always look at long-term consequences.

Then, I read Democracy: the God that Failed. Now, even though I don’t totally buy the natural law argument (I won’t go into that right now), Hoppe presented me with a very practical way that an anarchocapitalist society could provide for law and order. Dan D’Amico has a good paper that he’s working on on the same issue (specifically, dealing with prisons)… I’ll see if I can get him to post it as a working paper.

Of course, even given that there is a practical way to provide for a stable anarchocapitalist society, we have a very long road ahead of us. Specifically, the amount of sheer education that needs to be done is immense. (So we can convince people to start demanding their freedom back, instead of asking permission to give more and more of it up.) Mises.org is a part of that.

But, I’m convinced that, in the end, it will all be worth it. Of course, I do kind of just like being right… After all, who ever accused an armchair logician (like me) of being pragmatic?

Oh, and thanks to Adam, just because.

Francisco:
I am unclear at this point whether the government protects cartels or tolerates them. Given the existence of deBeers, the absence of the Russion government to protect the Russian diamond miners would likely have resulted in deBeers swallowing them with the rest. The deBeers cartel is really talented at that sort of thing.

However, it is not clear whether deBeers could have formed in the absence of the governments that were present at the time. I believe it could, and would have, but obviously there are people here who disagree with me.