I can understand in theory what happens in a closed microeconomy. But now that we have the internet, globalism is gonna pick up steam and i don't know what to think of that..... Economics and politics are intertwined in ways i do not understand. Also not everyone plays by the same rules cuz we rightfully do not have a global government law enforcement. And yet i could form economic pacts with a group in india while on a laptop in africa .... How does law even work that way? Suggestions?
It doesn't really, unless the two separate governments where the two business entities live have some sort of economic/legal agreements. There are plenty of people convicted of crimes in another country, but since they are not in custody of that country - nothing is happening to them. I personally welcome a true free market society, where I can buy/sell without government intervention - nor be forced to pay extortion "taxes".
I don't think we need a bureaucrats permission to do what people have been doing since one person had a coconut and another a fish
@vptran31 According to Adam Smith, you need a government to ensure that either of you actually do “have” those things (fish and coconut) and that your right to have and trade them is protected, even when one trader is much stronger, with a bigger machete, and could just take the other’s stuff.
It costs money to protect property rights, and adjudicate disagreements over them, but the otherwise free market depends on a neutral party serving this function.
There is also the issue of “covenants”. Rather than spot exchanges, covenants involve payment now for a product or service to be delivered later. For those to consistently work, most free marketeers think you need a state with punitive power, which costs money to maintain. Even the most libertarian moral and political philosopher I know struggled with how to do that without a government.
Using the tools of both argumentation and game theory, he never got around it to his full satisfaction the whole time I knew him, and he’d been at it for years.
Democratically - I like something then I engage in a trade. If I don't like something after the trade then I tell you what I don't like. You make it right or tell us that you don't think you are responsible for making it right. The next person reads the reviews and decides if that will please them. If so they engage in a trade and it continues. No government required. Of course dishonest reviews will cause dissatisfaction but that dissatisfaction will devalue everything in that market. So it is in the longterm interest of that market to police the reviews.