Are all transactions always mutual or are they not? Is there a grey, subjective area to transactions?
Coercive transactions are not, eg taxes. All voluntary transactions are, ie market transactions.
Peace
All voluntary transactions are inherently mutual, but in a sense that may end up being superficial in some contexts. If the systematic context in which it takes places greatly limits people's options or if disparities of power are used as leverage to milk people, a voluntary transaction can manifest as simple submission. In this way I think that the concept of "voluntary-ness" can be ambiguous. I can "voluntarily" submit to power because I have no other choice besides death or extreme misery, not necessarily because my values are being genuinely represented. The power dynamics of the particular situation is what determines whether the "mutual benefit" is meaningful.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Actually my argument is based on sympathy for the situation and values of a particular party (the party taken advantage of), not putting my preferences in their place. When the party sincerely thinks "I've been taken advantage of" and indeed they literally had no other option but to submit, the canard of 3rd person imposition of preference doesn't make sense. The facade of neutrality can only by maintained via the illusion of avoiding normatives. Of course, thinking in the terms I am requires us to not throw basic ethics out the window in the name of perpetually staying within the boundary lines of economic methodology, which is an unfortunate practise that economic reductionists have a knack for. But using economic subjective value theory as a political bludgeon to handwave away all normative judgements of economic activity is simply a categorical error to say the least.
Brainpolice,
Have you a simple example or few of such transactions? I'm pretty sure I disagree with you :) but I'd like to understand your point(s) before I dismiss.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
What can I say, "vulgar economics" finds your arbitrary and entirely subjective normative judgements to be completely incoherent. A voluntary and therefore mutually beneficial exchange cannot be exploitative, and you implicitly conflate persuasion and coercion (which are two different phenomena). It would be ridiculous to claim that Michelle's good looks coerced me into have sex with her, or that Mises' reasoning abilities coerced me into supporting Austrian economics.
weird no one is considering transactions that impact individuals not directly involved in the transaction (the buyer and the seller).
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
I know I'm repeating myself, but...
Student, have you a simple example or few of such transactions? I'm pretty sure I disagree with you :) but I'd like to understand your point(s) before I dismiss your argument.
say i own a paper company. i make and sell paper to companies that need it like say tropicana who uses it to make juice boxes. in this transaction i, the seller, and tropicana, the buyer, both benefit from the transaction. however, in the process of making the paper, my company releases various gases into the air that are not only unpleasent to locals living near the plant (they smell bad), but they may actually lead to more serious consequences (paper production releases ghgs into the atmosphere contributing to global warming). similarly, transporting the paper itself to complete the transaction has similar consequences (trucks emitting noise and harmgul ghgs).
this is the essense of the problem of negative externalities. there are people that are being harmed by the transaction that have no say in the matter.
It seems to me like a simple pullution problem..
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
They gave you title to money; you gave them title to paper. No harm came to anyone as a result of this transaction. Your production process, as you describe it, and the method used to take possession of the paper, have an effect on your neighbors. That is completely separate from the transaction. The noise and smell are not results of the transaction.
You, but certainly not Tropicana, may be held liable to your neighbors for your method of production. Either you or Topicana or both may be help liable for the delivery method. Negative externalities only exist as far as property rights are not recognized.
how exactly are you defining "the transaction"? the creation of the product isn't part of it and neither is the **physical exchange of that product**????
does your definition of "the transaction" extend only to the verbal agreement that a set of goods will exchanged? if so, I can only say that seems like an odd way to define the term. if i tell you i will give you my car for $20 bucks, but then never do, i would say a transaction never took place because the goods were never exchanged. but you would???? curiouser and curiouser, indeed.
anyways, i don't want to get into a semantic debate of how to define the term "transaction". it sounds like you get the gist of what i'm saying.
i would only note that illdefined property rights are not the only problem that give rise to negative externalities. transaction costs are also important. specifically, transaction costs must be low enough so that those impacted parties can coordinate. but that is not always the case.
What can I say, "vulgar economics" finds your arbitrary and entirely subjective normative judgements to be completely incoherent.
In this light, my point would be that (Austrian) economics alone can not give a full picture of such things by the very nature of what its methodology excludes: normatives + the (empirical) social context in which economic activity takes place. Suffice it to say that even if one fully agrees with (Austrian) economics, there is no good reason to limit the substance of one's socio-political positions to the confines of such an economic analysis (and thus make no normative judgements). Even from an ethical subjectivist perspective (which it is a categorical error to conflate economic subjective value theory with, hence my above comment), it can be warranted to make normative judgements of this sort.
A voluntary and therefore mutually beneficial exchange cannot be exploitative, and you implicitly conflate persuasion and coercion (which are two different phenomena).
The issue at play is that there is vagueness surrounding the concept of "voluntary-ness" or that the systematic context in which these activities take place makes such "voluntary-ness" impossible. In particular, the range of choices that one has and the social/economic/political systems that function as a framework is a factor. It is thus either trivially true or false-in-some-contexts that a "voluntary" exchange is inherently "mutually beneficial" - or that it's "voluntary-ness" is all that substantive. Giving an extremely dehydrated person a bottle of water in exchange for a million dollars or lifetime enslavement is "voluntary" in a superficial sense and calling it "mutually beneficial" is trivially true to the point of it being a joke.
All that you have succeeded in doing is defining "exploitation" out of existence a priori in a way that begs all the questions. On the other hand, I'm more or less using the concept as it is fairly commonly understood, I.E. to use one's position of power as leverage to control others or to get people to make significant sacrifices that they wouldn't normally do because they have no other meaningful choice. Perhaps at some level the "exploited" party can be said to benefit, but the context of what is going on can not in good faith be considered a healthy recriprical relationship in which one is treated with respect. No, sometimes people are just being milked, and there's nothing inherent about (Austrian) economics that makes it so that this can not be aknowledged.
The problem that I have with the "always mutually beneficial" line is when it is used as a trump card to negate the application of just about any ethical standard and to grant any currently existing power arrangemenst a defacto status of innocence. In "the real world", economic activity is much more complicated than this line can account for, and there is a huge difference between "mutual benefit" in the more trivial sense of "psychic profit" and what actually benefits people in terms of survival and physical/mental health. At its worst, the "mutual benefit" line is just a particularly simplistic and crass form of psychological egoism (and theory that is untenable for a variety of reasons). At it's best, it's a truism which only applies if we already have a genuinely libertarian society, which isn't the case. Ideologues ignore this at their own peril.
Great post, BP.
The issue at play is that there is vagueness surrounding the concept of "voluntary-ness" or that the systematic context in which these activities take place makes such "voluntary-ness" impossible.
The following statements do not contradict.
Giving an extremely dehydrated person a bottle of water in exchange for a million dollars...
is mutually beneficial in a very real, non-trival way. The recipient of the million dollars most likely benefits. The recipient of the water obviously benefits, in a much more clearly identifiable manner.
The creation process certainly is not. I painted a picture and hung it on my wall. Is that a transaction? Of course not. Selling it, or giving it away, would be a transaction. As for delivery, you certainly could hand-delive the paper. You know, carry the bundles over. Or hire a fleet of bicyclists. The fact is, you use the dirty, smelly trucks because its the most cost-effective method for you. One of the many reasons it's so cost effective, as you pointed out, is that the government shields you from the liability for the damage your actions do to others. Higher transaction costs due to increased liability may indeed have a profound impact on certain property exchanges. This, in itself, is not a problem. Prices will adjust. Certain products will be too costly to produce. Again, this, in itself, is not really a problem. There are millions of potential products that are too costly to produce.
If I were to write you a check, or send you money through PayPal, would you need to actually hold the dollar bills for the exchange to take place, or would the banks simply need to make a few clerical changes? In your example, after you give me the $20, is the car then yours, or does it only become yours after you pick it up?
You are creating vagueness where there is none in order to make your argument, which is, again, incoherent. Your position requires you to conflate persuasion with coercion. Mine doesn't.
Giving an extremely dehydrated person a bottle of water in exchange for a million dollars or lifetime enslavement is "voluntary" in a superficial sense and calling it "mutually beneficial" is trivially true to the point of it being a joke.
Superficial according to you. If the individual, that is about to die of dehydration, is willing to pay 1 million dollars for the bottle of water, that is, if he values the existence of his life more than the million dollars that he must surrender for that bottle of water, then a mutually beneficial exchange will take place in the absence of any form of coercion. And this is anything but superficial to the man who now lives thanks to that bottle of water (though he may find the price objectionable after the fact). The man who owns the bottle is free to do whatever he wants with the bottle; it belongs to him. The man dying of dehydration is not dying because of the man with the bottle of water. Similarly, when given the choice, I would rather pay 25,000$ for a Ferrari than the 100,000$ asking price. The fact that the car salesman does not want to sell me that Ferrari for 25,000$ does not mean that I am somehow being exploited. Additionally, the fact that I have no car, and can't to get to work, is not the fault of the car salesman.
All that you have succeeded in doing is defining "exploitation" out of existence a priori in a way that begs all the questions.
No I haven't. If I grab Michelle, tie her up in my basement, and threaten to kill her if she refuses to have sex with me, then I'm clearly exploiting her. But saying that Michelle's good looks coerced me into having sex with her is, again, nonsensical.
The problem that I have with the "always mutually beneficial" line is when it is used as a trump card to negate the application of just about any ethical standard and to grant any currently existing power arrangemenst a defacto status of innocence.
The ethical standard that you are referring to is entirely your own, and it ignores the actual subjective valuations of the parties involved.
In "the real world", economic activity is much more complicated than this line can account for, and there is a huge difference between "mutual benefit" in the more trivial sense of "psychic profit" and what actually benefits people in terms of survival and physical/mental health.
The "real world" doesn't care about how things should be. It's why things are the way that they are (scarcity, insatiable human desires, etc).
Esuric and Brainpolice, I have a question for both of you.
Let's say that A is walking by a lake and sees that B is in the lake and drowning. If A does not help B, and B subsequently drowns, did A kill B?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Esuric and Brainpolice, I have a question for both of you. Let's say that A is walking by a lake and sees that B is in the lake and drowning. If A does not help B, and B subsequently drowns, did A kill B?
No.
he following statements do not contradict. Voluntary exchange is inherently mutually beneficial. All exchanges are not voluntary.
I don't see what you're trying to prove, since I didn't claim that those statements contradict. What I'm challenging is the absolute truth of statement 1 and I'm raising a related question about what constitutes something being voluntary. Statement 1 could be said to be absolutely true in a purely psychological context (I.E. in terms of what people like or think benefits them) but this is a far cry from "benefit" in a more serious sense (I.E. in terms of what is necessary for survival and flourishing as a human being in a society). In the 2nd sense, the premise is obviously not true (I can make tons of voluntary exchanges for tickle-me-elmos until I am dirt poor and can't afford food, ending in a net loss, not a benefit), and it even ceases to be true in the 1st sense as soon as someone's value scale shifts or if their satisfication ends.
As for what voluntary-ness is, I'm saying that "agreement" to do something can become superficial when one has no other practical choice or when it is done in the context of a threat of explusion. This means that either we must create the ambiguous category of "voluntary duress" or place such situations outside of the scope of what we consider to be voluntary. If we maintain that they are indeed voluntary, then I'd argue it follows that not everything that is voluntary is good or compatible with personal autonomy. If we maintain that they are not voluntary, then we have a more restricted standard of what counts as voluntary. My contention would therefore be that at least some people either have too broad of a conception of what is voluntary or they do not take into account the insufficiency of voluntary-ness.
The crucial point you're leaving out or missing is that the kind of person who would take advantage of the dehydrated person's position in such a way to make a million dollars or gain lifetime servitude is, by most ethical standards, unvirtuous (or, more bluntly, an asshole). Yes, the dehydrated party benefits by not dying of thirst, but not in a way that demonstrates any kind of empathy or respect. And in the case of lifetime servitude, the dehydrated party has lost their freedom, and to call this a "mutual benefit" at such a point seems ridiculous. The point is that the "mutual benefit" is ethically trivial because someone is using their position of power to gain as much as they can from someone else in a dire situation.
By most ethical standards, the virtuous thing to do is simply to give the guy a bottle of water out of baseline empathy. Unfortunately, this kind of consideration does not fit into ideological presuppositions of the exchange-based economic analysis some people insist on limiting everything to. Such an analysis can only think in terms of gaining something tangible from someone else, no matter how exhorbitant such a demand may be. Any question about norms (other than the implicit and unquestioned one of contractualism/voluntaryism) can be disregarded. In this way, it's an excellent rationalization for avoiding thinking ethically. I consider this an economics fetish taken to extremes.
No, A did not kill B. However, if A shouts down "give me your life savings and a blowjob and I'll save you from drowning", I'd consider them an asshole and at such a point they have willingly abstained from helping someone in a dire situation for bad reasons (I.E. simply because they couldn't make an exhorbitant gain from it).
No, A did not kill B. However, if A shouts down "give me your life savings and a blowjob and I'll save you from drowning"
lol
Esuric and Brainpolice, thank you both for answering my question.
I'm glad to see that you both agree that failing or refusing to help someone is not the same as hurting him. Whether the person does so for "bad reasons" is technically irrelevant here.
My point is that the Non-Aggression Principle does not address people acting like assholes. That's why I make a distinction between morality (which I take to address harms) and ethics (which I take to address things other than harms).
Of course, I do agree that someone offering a drowning man help only in exchange for his life savings and a blowjob is being a huge asshole, to say the least.
I agree as well (just for the record).
Esuric:I agree as well (just for the record).
I figured you would. :P
To go further with the example, would either of you say that A is in "a position of power" over B? Why or why not?
Yes. But technically speaking, any individual that possesses something of value (subjectively valued by someone else), either a good or a service, is in a "position of power" by some degree. But, as Hayek stated, "If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion." There's a lot packed into this very short quote.
Freedom = the right to be a dick.
I think that this entire line of thinking misses the forest from the trees.
Sure, the person drowning values rescue and thus the person capable of rescue has something of value to trade, but he is only going to trade that for something he values in return.
BP's issues with trade, are the same as many other LLs. They only approve of voluntarism which also conforms to their aesthetic, the aesthetic of the trade partners is irrelevant. It's trade by sanction from 3rd parties. It's intolerance and a denial of the balance struck by two parties at the time of exchange.
Hey, maybe there is someone out there who prefers to pay in oral sex. Maybe they enjoy it, maybe they are great at it (making it their more marketable skill), maybe they just don't have anything else to barter with at that moment. Taking the LL/BP position forward, they should either (1) refuse to trade oral sex for rescue, or (2) the rescuer should be asked to perform a service without adequate payment.
It's not a big leap to take this position even further, and see it is another justification for statism. A has rights which imposes positive obligations on B.
This sort of thinking is nothing new. It's the same old brother's keeper mantra.
Taking the LL/BP position forward, they should either (1) refuse to trade oral sex for rescue, or (2) the rescuer should be asked to perform a service without adequate payment.
You're being generous. I think a more accurate description would use the word force.
Which brings up an interesting irony, the arguement goes that person A is obligated to assist person B because person A is a position of power over person B. But if person B is able to force person A to do his will, that reverses the position of power and thus the obligation.
So I agree with Brainpolice, the drowning person has an obligation to (not coerce) person A.
Esuric:Yes. But technically speaking, any individual that possesses something of value (subjectively valued by someone else), either a good or a service, is in a "position of power" by some degree. But, as Hayek stated, "If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion." There's a lot packed into this very short quote. Freedom = the right to be a dick.
Interesting. While I agree that freedom means having the right to be a dick, I don't consider A to be in "a position of power" over B in the example that I gave. Maybe we define the phrase "position of power" differently. I typically equate "power" with "ability to coerce". How does A requesting certain things from B in exchange for rescuing B, and B subsequently accepting the offer, equate to coercion? I don't see how it does. B is not prima facie entitled to being rescued (assuming he started drowning on his own). Therefore, not rescuing B, or charging an exorbitant price for rescuing him, does not take anything away from him.
liberty student:I think that this entire line of thinking misses the forest from the trees.
Shhh, you're interrupting the Socratic Method. :P
liberty student:Sure, the person drowning values rescue and thus the person capable of rescue has something of value to trade, but he is only going to trade that for something he values in return. BP's issues with trade, are the same as many other LLs. They only approve of voluntarism which also conforms to their aesthetic, the aesthetic of the trade partners is irrelevant. It's trade by sanction from 3rd parties. It's intolerance and a denial of the balance struck by two parties at the time of exchange.
Good point. One must be careful to define "trade" such that it implies voluntarism/voluntariness. Otherwise, opponents could claim that all libertarians only approve of trades (here defined merely as "transactions") which also conform to their aesthetic.
liberty student:It's not a big leap to take this position even further, and see it is another justification for statism. A has rights which imposes positive obligations on B. This sort of thinking is nothing new. It's the same old brother's keeper mantra.
I think you mean B has rights which impose positive obligations on A.
JonBostwick:You're being generous. I think a more accurate description would use the word force. Which brings up an interesting irony, the arguement goes that person A is obligated to assist person B because person A is a position of power over person B. But if person B is able to force person A to do his will, that reverses the position of power and thus the obligation. So I agree with Brainpolice, the drowning person has an obligation to (not coerce) person A.
This is another reason why I reject the whole "position of power" stuff here. Of course, how can a drowning person actually coerce anyone?
It depends how one describes "position of power". I would agree, that A is in a position of power towards B who is drowning (assuming there is no one around). So A has a service (he can help B), but he decides to exploit it and deman oral sex, or something more vulgar or sick, just to illustrate my point. Then B has no other choice but to submit.
So yeah, I think I'd consider it "position of power" too. And it is very important criticism to all voluntaryists/propertarians out there. To answer the topic, not all voluntary (voluntary?) transactions are mutual. Not all voluntary transactions are just or ethical.
MaikU:It depends how one describes "position of power". I would agree, that A is in a position of power towards B who is drowning (assuming there is no one around). So A has a service (he can help B), but he decides to exploit it and deman oral sex, or something more vulgar or sick, just to illustrate my point. Then B has no other choice but to submit.
How does B have no other choice but to submit? B could choose to reject A's offer and drown.
I'm not sure how you're defining "position of power". Can you please explain?
MaikU:So yeah, I think I'd consider it "position of power" too. And it is very important criticism to all voluntaryists/propertarians out there. To answer the topic, not all voluntary (voluntary?) transactions are mutual. Not all voluntary transactions are just or ethical.
While I agree that I would not find all voluntary transactions to be ethical, "ethics" to me does not cover harm/aggression. "Morality" does. So, for example, I would consider A to be within his moral rights to not rescue B, who is drowning, but I'd consider A to be extremely unethical in that decision.
MaikU:To answer the topic, not all voluntary (voluntary?) transactions are mutual.
If they are voluntary, they have to be mutual.
That's what I am talking about. Death is not an option. :) it is not a choice, unless it is voluntary suicide. In this case only lunatic would say that drowning person commited suicide because he didn't want to suck A's dick.
Being forced to choose between two extremes is never a mutual choice. It can be "voluntary" and even moral according to NAP, but not mutual or ethical. Do you think a woman has a "choice" when rapist asks her "you want oral or anal sex"? No.
I agree with that.
Thanks for the clarification. In your post to which I replied, your argument seemed to me to be essentially, because many transactions are not completely voluntary, all voluntary transactions are not mutually beneficial. I guess I got that from, "The issue at play is that there is vagueness surrounding the concept of 'voluntary-ness' or that the systematic context in which these activities take place makes such ''voluntary-ness' impossible." When trying to refute Statement 1, this arument is meaningless. I'm glad I misunderstood you.
The crucial point you're leaving out or missing is that the kind of person who would take advantage of the dehydrated person's position in such a way to make a million dollars or gain lifetime servitude is, by most ethical standards, unvirtuous (or, more bluntly, an asshole).
So we have a billionaire in the in the dessert, accompanied by a poor local lad making a few extra bucks as a tour guide. The billionaire is careless with water he's brought along, washing his sore feet, pouring it over his head, spilling as he drinks, etc. The local lad, on the other hand, is more conservative with the water he's brought along. After a day of being utterly lost (I gues the lad is not much of a tour guide), they determine that they are a several hours away from their water-plentiful destination. The billionaire is weak and severely dehydrated, and most likely will not make the journey without more water. The lad is well hydrated and even has a full bottle left. The billionaire makes the offer: A million dollars for the bottle of water. For the lad, this is a life-changing amount of money, for him and his family. For the billionaire, it is a trifle sum. On the other hand, the lad knows how difficult it would be to make the rest of the journey without drinking any more water. There's a good chance he won't make it. He also knows that the billionaire will barely make it with all of the water that's left.
The lad has a very dificult choice: Risk the very real possibility of death from dehydration in order to gain undreampt wealth and also to save this man's life, or leave him to die and make it home safely to a life of poverty.
For the billionaire, this is a no-brainer - a small portion of his wealth to keep on living.
Who is taking advantage of whom?
In this case only lunatic would say that drowning person commited suicide because he didn't want to suck A's dick.
From his actions, the drowning man clearly valued his mouth virginity more than his own life,
His last words may in fact have been, "I'd rather die than suck your dick!"
If lady required all his money, then that would be "taking advantage". In this case, the pure human compassion should be enough to help the dying billionaire. Any requirement of money is unethical. Unless billionaire himself offers her a million.
JackCuyler: In this case only lunatic would say that drowning person commited suicide because he didn't want to suck A's dick. From his actions, the drowning man clearly valued his mouth virginity more than his own life, His last words may in fact have been, "I'd rather die than suck your dick!"
That wasn't my point. Take for example a rapist and a victim. Rapist demands "either you submit or I will kill you". Can this "voluntary exchange" be called mutually beneficial?
Similary with drowning man, even though, A didn't use coercion.
That's the reason I don't believe in democracy even though, statist can say, that if I vote for this guy I can mutually benefit or that it is somehow voluntary decision that people make. It's not. Sure, you can sit at home and do not vote, but that won't stop politicians from making laws that you do not agree with.