filc:In this case I don't have the option to reject the services that the state renders to me.
Seems like this is a question of justice (i.e. lack thereof) for you, then.
filc:So it's incomprehensible to say that the market is currently servicing me justice when in fact I've never been given the option to to decide for myself what types of services I desire.
...which you find to be completely unjust, I presume. The current market (hampered as it is) provides you very little justice. My question, which you keep avoiding, is: How do you know that this is not exactly the amount of justice you can afford? How do you know that you are entitled to more justice than you are enjoying right now?
filc:This mechanism that the state mandates participation from me is identicle to that concept of slavery, serfdom, so on and so forth. It is the very opposite concept of the types of markets that are expressed here on these forums.
Indeed. If the subjective preferences of the elite are coherent enough on the subject of legitimacy of slavery, then most profitable courts would produce laws supporting slavery and most enforcers would enforce them.
filc:I feel as if you are going back on a bent definition of what you think the market is.
A consensus was aready reached in the other thread that a market is a process of voluntary exchanges. The issue around this definition was, and continues to be, a red herring. The definition for market has no relevance for my point.
filc:It's not hard to understand why compulsion effects the market negatively. That is after all the very basis for every other critical analysis we give to government.
Feels like we're talking past each other. You can't voluntarily exchange/demand/supply something (justice) which itself determines what "voluntary" is. A free (aggression-less) market cannot provide something (justice) which itself defines what "aggression" is.
I think you are focusing too much on outcomes and semantics (whether outcomes are governments, states or not) and not enough on the source (persistent and signifficant existence of Organized Parasitic Human Action, within the realm of Human Action). Getting rid of the outcome does nothing whatsoever to the source.
The fallacy here is the continued conflation of aggression with coercion.
Not to be Captain Obvious but where does the term "aggression" or "coercion" appear in my post? In order for there to be some kind of conflation occurring on my part it seems like actually using the terms or concepts would be a requirement.
If a market is a process of voluntary exchange, And a market is comprised of individual actors with subjective values, And valuation is always directed at a good or service, And violence is a service, And the United States government is a violence service provider. Then It does not follow that a market is a process of voluntary exchange because services from the United States government is not always voluntary. It does follow that a market is a process of exchange.
If a market is a process of voluntary exchange,
And a market is comprised of individual actors with subjective values,
And valuation is always directed at a good or service,
And violence is a service,
And the United States government is a violence service provider.
Then It does not follow that a market is a process of voluntary exchange because services from the United States government is not always voluntary.
It does follow that a market is a process of exchange.
But just in case you want to change up and assert I conflated violence and coercion I will rebut in advance...
Also I am not interested in hiriing violence. I am interested in hiring property protection and arbitration services. The fallacy here is the continued conflation of aggression with coercion.
I will presume agreement of terms:
Conflation occurs when the identities of two or more individuals, concepts, or places, sharing some characteristics of one another, become confused until there seems to be only a single identity
Concept #1: violence is an act that has been performed
Concept #2: coercion is a threatened act of violence that has not been performed
Those are in fact two separate concepts. I seek to discern where any possible conflation could occur.
If this is true:
Live_Free_Or_Die:And the United States government is a violence service provider
And contradicts this:
Live_Free_Or_Die:If a market is a process of voluntary exchange,
Then the latter must be untrue. If I substitute coercion for violence a confation argument infers threats of violence are a market activity but acts of violence are not a market activity.
And coercion is a service,
And the United States government is a coercion service provider.
Then It does not follow that a market is a process of voluntary exchange because coercion (threats of violence ) from the United States government is not voluntary.
It does not follow individuals voluntarily agree and consent to be threatened.
Since the result is the same substituting coercion for violence this is simply false:
The fallacy I see is:
You argue it is perfectly ok to threaten violence so long as no one initates violence.
Do you seriously expect me to believe:
I am interested in hiring property protection and arbitration services. -> So long as the protection or arbitration contract states aggression may be threatended but not used <-
z1235:The free market cannot provide something (justice) without which it cannot even exist in the first place.
All this talk over providing something before it exists reminds me of this article by Art Carden, "Barbecue Defined In The Process of Its Emergence":
http://blog.mises.org/12444/barbecue-defined-in-the-process-of-its-emergence-2/
z1235:Tex, thanks for the link. I enjoyed reading the article. Anything in particular you'd like emphasize from it in relation to my posts in this thread?
I was just throwing it out there because I think it is a great article for everyone to read, and it showed some examples of how private arbitration worked in the "Wild" West before the government stepped in. Just some more information to help or change some views in the discussion.
Eugene: Corruption is relatively minor, and it can decrease dramatically if only the supreme court will remain.
What is more likely to get corrupted, a monopoly with no incentives to offer customers what they want, or a system of agencies who are competing to offer fair and unbiased trials. Hint hint: One gives you the incentive to be honest, fair, and speedy in your rulings, the other doesn't.
creates a distinct local economic advantage.
It does not follow that we would have less interestate commerce in the absence of public roads. In fact interstate commerce exploded on it's own prior to public roads.
I fail to see what your comment has to do with the local economic advantages geographical organization offers.
If libertarians were to geographically organize successfully the fact is the cost of business in free county would be more accurrate. This is a distinct economic advantage.
Z1235:Seems like this is a question of justice (i.e. lack thereof) for you, then.
I guess I don't see the point beyond the circular reasoning you've created.
Z1235:How do you know that this is not exactly the amount of justice you can afford? How do you know that you are entitled to more justice than you are enjoying right now?
Why do you assume I am recieving any justice at all? Why do you assume I want any justice at all at this time? Without economic calculation no one can ever answer the question you present. Not even myself in deciding my own preferences. I cannot tell you what the economic cost of justice is. So the question is faulty. Furthermore this argument is justification for any state managed good or service, not just justice.
Z1235:Indeed. If the subjective preferences of the elite are coherent enough on the subject of legitimacy of slavery, then most profitable courts would produce laws supporting slavery and most enforcers would enforce them.
Your assumption of coarse is that the most profitable courts would be the ones that the rich pay off. You seem to ignore the fact that the most succesfull business's the world has ever seen pandered to the poor or the common man. Do you know who the top fortune 500 company was for 2010? Do you know who their audience is?
Furthermore the argument you present could be justification for any state good or service, not only justice.
Z1235:Feels like we're talking past each other. You can't voluntarily exchange/demand/supply something (justice) which itself determines what "voluntary" is. A free (aggression-less) market cannot provide something (justice) which itself defines what "aggression" is.
Can you re-phrase the last statement. It's confusing. Are you saying an aggression-less market cannot provide justice without aggression?(Therebye further conflating force and aggression?)
Many of your arguments are used to justify other state managed goods and services, not just policing and arbitration. Your starting to sound more like a state apologist here. I wonder if your position would change if the discussion were about welfare or taxation.
Z1235:I think you are focusing too much on outcomes and semantics (whether outcomes are governments, states or not) and not enough on the source (persistent and signifficant existence of Organized Parasitic Human Action, within the realm of Human Action). Getting rid of the outcome does nothing whatsoever to the source.
In that case I have to say that the issue at hand must be vague. What does it mean "on the source (persistent and signifficant existence of Organized Parasitic Human Action, within the realm of Human Action)". If this is your topic we are no longer talking about economics but moving over into the realm of phsycology. It is not the task of economic science to solve the problems of parasitic human action. Solutions can be offered to those willing on a free-market. They may work, they may not work.
I guess I don't know what your talking about any more then.
Tex2002ans:I was just throwing it out there because I think it is a great article for everyone to read, and it showed some examples of how private arbitration worked in the "Wild" West before the government stepped in. Just some more information to help or change some views in the discussion.
This is an interesting point. I wonder what the state apologists have to say about all of the historical examples of polycentric law.
Tex2002ans:All this talk over providing something before it exists reminds me of this article by Art Carden, "Barbecue Defined In The Process of Its Emergence"
Along the same lines, replace "justice" with prices. The market (and here we can actually using "market" correctly!) coordinates economic activity using prices, yet prices are formed through the market. So, z, how can markets work when they rely on prices, and those prices are themselves formed through the market process? Similarly, how can a medium of exchange emerge in the market, when the market needs a medium of exchange to function? The baby cannot provide its own mother!
Of course, when you drop this 'macro' view and start looking at it on the 'micro' level, analyzing the ends sought and means employed by individuals, you realize there is no contradiction, and that you were simply looking at the issue all wrong.
Live_Free_Or_Die:Those are in fact two separate concepts. I seek to discern where any possible conflation could occur.
Coercion, the use of force is entirely appropriate in many circumstances. Aggression or more notably the initiation of force is where problems begin to occur. The initiation of force is what undermines the pricing mechanism it's the very reason a socialist society cannot calculate. In the taxonomy of libertarian thought understanding what "Aggression" is will be paramount before you can even begin to fathom any other concept which follows from it.
The fact that your trying to clarify what aggression and violence is here, so late in the game, is a teling story.
Coercion is used most often in defense among other things. Coercion and aggression are different.
Live_Free_Or_Die:If this is true: Live_Free_Or_Die:And the United States government is a violence service provider And contradicts this: Live_Free_Or_Die:If a market is a process of voluntary exchange,
And there in-lies the problem. The state is not a service provider. Your example is a complete non-sequitur as well. For example, providing evidence that theives(STates) exists does not some how magically refute the concept of a free-market economy where voluntary exchange prevails.
Proving that theives exist does not disprove the fact that the free-market is a series of voluntary exchanges. Your getting hung up on the word "markets".
I can tell you right now that a fascist market most definately does not conform to the "voluntary exchange" concept. When people here refer to "Markets" it shoudl be fairly obvious what type of market we are referring to. There is no need to spend hours contemplating this.
Anarcho-Capitalism is not utopian in the respect that it thinks it will eliminate evil men.
Live_Free_Or_Die:Those are in fact two separate concepts. I seek to discern where any possible conflation could occur. Coercion, the use of force is entirely appropriate in many circumstances. Aggression or more notably the initiation of force is where problems begin to occur. The initiation of force is what undermines the pricing mechanism it's the very reason a socialist society cannot calculate. In the taxonomy of libertarian thought understanding what "Aggression" is will be paramount before you can even begin to fathom any other concept which follows from it. The fact that your trying to clarify what aggression and violence is here, so late in the game, is a teling story. Coercion is used most often in defense among other things. Coercion and aggression are different. Live_Free_Or_Die:If this is true: Live_Free_Or_Die:And the United States government is a violence service provider And contradicts this: Live_Free_Or_Die:If a market is a process of voluntary exchange, And there in-lies the problem. The state is not a service provider. Your example is a complete non-sequitur as well. For example, providing evidence that theives(STates) exists does not some how magically refute the concept of a free-market economy where voluntary exchange prevails. Proving that theives exist does not disprove the fact that the free-market is a series of voluntary exchanges. Your getting hung up on the word "markets". I can tell you right now that a fascist market most definately does not conform to the "voluntary exchange" concept. When people here refer to "Markets" it shoudl be fairly obvious what type of market we are referring to. There is no need to spend hours contemplating this. Anarcho-Capitalism is not utopian in the respect that it thinks it will eliminate evil men.
I posted my argument where any terms can be substituted:
If a market is a process of voluntary exchange, And a market is comprised of inpidual actors with subjective values, And valuation is always directed at a good or service, And violence is a service, And the United States government is a violence service provider. Then It does not follow that a market is a process of voluntary exchange because services from the United States government is not always voluntary. It does follow that a market is a process of exchange.
And a market is comprised of inpidual actors with subjective values,
My argument is a non sequitur? Now you are being just plain offensive to logic. It's like saying:
1 is true
2 is true
but 1+2 does not equal 3
If you ever intend to argue any of these inpidually as true:
A market is a process of voluntary exchange, A market is comprised of inpidual actors with subjective values, Valuation is always directed at a good or service,
A market is a process of voluntary exchange,
A market is comprised of inpidual actors with subjective values,
Valuation is always directed at a good or service,
They better be able to add up and they presently do not. You offer no alternatives other than illogical claims of fallacy. Feel free to take the argument I laid out above and rephrase it to make it true illustrating the flaw.
providing evidence that theives(STates) exists does not some how magically refute the concept of a free-market economy where voluntary exchange prevails.
You have yet to explain why billions of inpidual actors in global markets prefer thieves/thugs to resolve disputes and protect property.
Proving that theives exist does not disprove the fact that the free-market is a series of voluntary exchanges.
I did not prove thieves merely exist. Of course thieves exist. That is a mischaracterization. I illustrated thieves up to this point have largely been preferred... which does refute some mystical notion a free market defined as voluntary exchange magically prevails in the world that we presently observe as human beings.
Thieves/Thugs are more effecient at stealing and aggression.
Why do inpidual market actors demand people who are effecient at stealing and aggression?
Coercion, the use of force is entirely appropriate in many circumstances
LFOD, you seriously need to step back and think about what you're arguing because not only can you not present it in any coherent form, after reading your posts 3 times, I am not even sure you know exactly what it is you're saying.
Quote bombing (selective quoting) is useful if you don't break everything into a million pieces, and then continue shattering them in every subsequent post. Since it seems you're not very familiar with the existing logical sequences underpinning ancap, perhaps some time to step back and reflect, and come back with one very true statement would be useful.
Live_Free_Or_Die: My argument is a non sequitur? Now you are being just plain offensive to logic. It's like saying: 1 is true 2 is true but 1+2 does not equal 3 If you ever intend to argue any of these individually as true:
First off I don't mean to offend you. I am not here to anger you and my intent is not to play the "troll". So please calm down.
Your using the actions of the state to define what a market is simply because the majority supports it. Stating that XYZ is the case because the majority rules does not mean it's a product of the market. Remember that "Majority Rules" is not a market mechanicism(As argued by us here).
Your essentially trying to bridge political philosophy with economics. It is a non-sequitur. State's are not necessarily products of the market. To claim so would require a re-definition of the term "market" which in actually you seem detirmined to accomplish.
The irony in all of this is your avatar name here given your position in this debate.
Live_Free_Or_Die: I illustrated thieves up to this point have largely been preferred... which does refute some mystical notion a free market defined as voluntary exchange magically prevails in the world that we presently observe as human beings.
No it doesn't. This is the same non-sequitur. All you can argue in this case is an alleged lack of ideological support for markets(I would argue lack of education). Nothing more. You didn't prove that markets can't be predominantly voluntary.
Are you familiar with Whig theory?
[edit] To re-iterate you didn't actually prove anything about markets. You didn't prove that markets aren't voluntarily as that would require a redefinition of terms. All you proved is not all activity is market activity. You also may argue that ideological support is not in favor of markets. Socialists for example do not ideologicaly support markets.
Voluntary markets do not provide involuntary services.
Live_Free_Or_Die: Voluntary markets do not provide involuntary services.
Sorry to be dense but the term "involuntary service" makes no sense. It's not a service if I didn't want it. The concept of service implies something I voluntarily wanted. You are either a service to me or you are not a service to me. You cannot involuntarily be a service to me.
Are you trying to say markets cannot provide justice and arbitration because those two things are somehow involuntary?(Therebye continuing the conflation between coercion(Self Defense, Protection Ect...) and aggression)?
Or are you trying to get me to commit on a strawman claiming. Trying to get me to claim that counter-market(Aggressive or "involuntary") activities cannot be vended on the market.
Premise: Voluntary is a concept defined as the consent of all parties.
Premise: Free markets are defined as a process of voluntary exchange.
Premise: Human beings demand disputes to be resolved using force if necessary, without consent.
Conclusion: A voluntary free market can not satisfy the demands of human beings.
Besides being a fallacy of composition;
Live_Free_Or_Die:Premise: Voluntary is a concept defined as obtaining the consent of all parties.
Agreed.
Live_Free_Or_Die:Premise: Free markets are defined as a process of voluntary exchange.
Live_Free_Or_Die:Premise: Human beings demand disputes to be resolved using violence without consent.
Assertion.
Live_Free_Or_Die:Conclusion: A voluntary free market can not satisfy the demands of human beings.
When you come to a conclusion that contradicts one of your premises, that's when you stop and go back to check your work.
Keep at it. Logic is tough to nail down if you're not used to thinking that way.
What evidence do you offer to dispute a historical record replete with exampls of human beings demanding disputes be resolved using force, if necessary, without consent to back up such an absurd claim?
Live_Free_Or_Die:Assertion. What evidence do you offer to dispute a historical record replete with exampls of human beings demanding disputes be resolved using force, if necessary, without consent to back up such an absurd claim?
Appeals to history are logical fallacies bro.
Your claim is false because I am a human being, and I do not demand disputes be resolved by using force.
@Live Free Or Die
The thing about this is that you are the one making the assertion... so you need to be the one giving proof that your assertion is true
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
My premise is not false for this reason because I did not state ALL human beings. In order for my premise to be true I only need one human being who demands one dispute be resolved using force. This is why your claim is absurd.
Live_Free_Or_Die:My premise is not false for this reason because I did not state ALL human beings. In order for my premise to be true I only need one human being who demands one dispute be resolved using force.
But that's not a proof because it is not always true. If 2+2 = 4 and 2+2 = 5, then you can't say that 2+2 = 4. As I said, logic isn't easy until you can train your mind to reject contradictions. It takes time.
Live_Free_Or_Die:This is why your claim is absurd.
You can keep saying that my claims you have made logical errors are absurd, but they aren't. Your appeal to history, and your now selective proofs are basic logical fallacies.
Conclusion: A voluntary free market can not satisfy the demands of human beings who demand disputes be resolved using force, without consent.
But that's not a proof because it is not always true.
lol, now you are cracking me up. first you assert my claim is false because you do not demand force. how can you make that claim if it might not always be true.
so let me get this straight. my premise is a so called assertion because you say you do not demand force, but there is no guarantee you will not demand force in the future....
but if someone does demand force it does not prove human beings demand force because they might not demand force in the future?
And I am the one who needs a logic class?
Live_Free_Or_Die: Premise: Voluntary is a concept defined as the consent of all parties. Premise: Free markets are defined as a process of voluntary exchange. Premise: Human beings demand disputes to be resolved using force if necessary, without consent. Conclusion: A voluntary free market can not satisfy the demands of human beings who demand disputes be resolved using force, without consent.
That's better. It's still a little loose, because when you say "human beings" it's going to be assumed you mean all. You clarify that in the conclusion though when you say "who demand" indicating there is a distinction amongst human beings.
I don't think anyone here will argue with that conclusion. Some humans want to use force without consent, and that is not market compatible behavior.
Live_Free_Or_Die:lol, now you are cracking me up. first you assert my claim is false because you do not demand force. how can you make that claim if it might not always be true.
I didn't assert anything. I proved your claim was wrong.
Live_Free_Or_Die:so let me get this straight. my premise is a so called assertion because you say you do not demand force, but there is no guarantee you will not demand force in the future....
It doesn't matter if I demand it in the future. I don't demand it now. Therefor, the statement doesn't apply as a blanket on all humans. And that's consistent with Ancap, because we aren't trying to promote a Utopia.
Live_Free_Or_Die:but if someone does demand force it does not prove human beings demand force because they might not demand force in the future?
Don't understand this. You're back to getting the discussion turned inside out. Stick to simple logical progressions.
Live_Free_Or_Die:And I am the one who needs a logic class?
Absolutely. What you've posted here is a bit terrifying to be honest. It shouldn't be this hard to understand how to eliminate contradictions.
Today 1% of the richest people in the United States own about 1/3 of the money in the country. Now I assume that in anarchy courts and protection firms would receive 1/3 of their income from this 1%. Now it does seem likely that the courts and protection firms will try to appease the rich more than the poor. Therefore you could expect that in a conflict between a poor and a rich person the court would more likely favor the rich, and the police firm will have more motivation to persecute the rich rather than the poor. Do you see a problem with this?
Without even going into it, if the top 1% have 1/3 of the money, that implies that the bottom 99% have 2/3 of the money. 2/3 > 1/3, so by your argument the courts should always find against the rich people. :)
Honestly, if no will was written, all property should go directly to the government. If you don't believe in a direct government as I'm sure many here don't. (Minarchist doesn't mean anarchist, but some might want a "private government".) Then I would imagine the most egalitarian and liberal form of wealth allocation would be roullete. And I mean that completely seriously. Since juries, governments, and people are bias, and obviously the man who preceeded to die didn't bother to write out a will, gambling who gets what seems like the only fair option. In the most objective way it can be defined as "fair". IE: "No human meddling".
"Honestly, if no will was written, all property should go directly to the government."\
Good joke there buddy....
"Then I would imagine the most egalitarian and liberal form of wealth allocation would be roullete."
you are at the wrong forum to be bringing up egalitarianism...
Jim Profit:Then I would imagine the most egalitarian and liberal form of wealth allocation would be roullete.
I hope you're joking.
Honestly, if no will was written, all property should go directly to the government.
According to Rothbards ethics, property goes to first one to homestead it. In practice things would go as is written in laws of property owner/guy who died.