I don't know how well or how comfortable I feel articulating such an answer in grand detail. It seems as if it would require a lot of thought, "dehomogenization" of thought, and citations to put in a forum answer, and may drift from the topic at hand. Besides all that this is kind of newer spin I've been giving my "social perspective" - so this is kind of thinking is new to me.
If you want specific answers, or can narrow concerns down a bit PM me and we can continue the conversation.
Other than that here are some concerncs that I will address right now:
1) Austrolibertarians can not be addressed - as it is a political position. I simply am not very good at knowing what is meant by "exact" political positions, nor is it much of my concern
2) I don't want to speak for exact Keynesian refutations on LTV theorists, but I don't think anybody post Marginal Revolution (Menger / Jevons /Walras) agrees with LTV all too much. And Keynes the man was much more concerned with uncertainty than anything.. He was ultimately a responsable subjectivist. This type of Keynesianism may be contra to more "mainline" (e.g.Krugman) Keynesianism - but it is a legit facet of Keynesianism.
3) Property may or may not be absolute depending on the definition, and it will almost always deserve the answer from a social outlook of "that's ver interesting but so what?".
Property rights are simply reflective of whatever customs are in place at the time. I don't think Keynes would ever say "this is the solution that must always be done"...in fact I think, to his credit, he would shun such an outlook.
"When the facts change, I change my mind"
and
"In the long run we are all dead"
Are two good popular quotes by Keynes to think about when dealing in the world of real human action and perspectives.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
mustang1912:The right to defend your property to the fullest extent.
Okay, that's clearer. Let me present you with a few statements I agree with:
1. A person who shoots and kills someone for simply trespassing on his property has committed murder (i.e. unlawful/unjustified killing).
2. A baker who cuts off the hand of a bread thief has committed mayhem.
3. A miner who dumps slag on his neighbor's property without his neighbor's consent has committed trespassing, if not also property damage.
Based on the above, do you think I believe in an absolute right to property?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
The right to defend your property to the fullest extent. What did the other guy think I meant?
Well, if that's the case, then your post that I will requote now is a strawman:
The absolute right to property is a fundament of libertarianism. That the real world application of absolute rights over property would devolve into retardation necessitating a foregoing of that right in order to meaningfully interact doesn't detract from the flaws of having it as a keystone of the philosophy. To whit, even though the real world consequences, in libertopia, of shooting someone for stealing my bread would be that i would be shunned and probably murdered by my community, the community wouldn't be able to arrest me or posse up to hunt me (or the rights respecting equivalent) because the killing would be in self-defence (of the labour imbued in my bread). To disagree with this implies that it is acceptable to take some portion of my labour if it will save another person's life - in fact, it justifies taxation.
The absolute right to property is a fundament of libertarianism. That the real world application of absolute rights over property would devolve into retardation necessitating a foregoing of that right in order to meaningfully interact doesn't detract from the flaws of having it as a keystone of the philosophy. To whit, even though the real world consequences, in libertopia, of shooting someone for stealing my bread would be that i would be shunned and probably murdered by my community, the community wouldn't be able to arrest me or posse up to hunt me (or the rights respecting equivalent) because the killing would be in self-defence (of the labour imbued in my bread).
To disagree with this implies that it is acceptable to take some portion of my labour if it will save another person's life - in fact, it justifies taxation.
As I said, this is a strawman of the libertarian position on property rights. Especially considering that libertarians do not always agree.
A baker who cuts off the hand of a bread thief has committed mayhem.
Agree, this would be out of proportion.
3. A miner who dumps slag on his neighbor's property without his neighbor's consent has committed trespassing, if not alsoproperty damage.
That would manifest itself as a civil claim for the damages or incured labor. On a general note I agree. There are also other reasons why property can not be absolute and is actually relative to several condition. There is for instance modalities that can be in place. The property you may have in your home, differs from the property you may have in a field you use as grazing ground for your cattle. I would also say that property in an area land is different from property in a personal item.
I don't know how well or how comfortable I feel articulating such an answer in grand detail.
Well, I'm still not sure how LTV and Keynes disagree on how property works. But thanks for the explanation.
Nope, which is a good start and shows that you value human life above property protection.
So that's the "disagree" part.
Well, I'm still not sure how LTV and Keynes disagree on how property works.
I may just not be understanding you. I am trying to illustrate Keynes as a subjectivist, where an LTV (or any OTV) is going to be inelastic and self defeating concerning property. Furthermore, I am also trying to make sure that we have an economic concept of property that is different than a legal concept of property rights. In the legal / political version, not much can be said.
If that isn't what you are trying to say can you restate please?
Also if you're interested in this type of thing, here is a much smarter article than my ramblings showing Keynes and Hayek as subjective theorists:
http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/keyneshayek.pdf
No. You said, and this is a direct quote:
The absolute right to property is a fundament of libertarianism.
Considering how you defined "absolute right to property", this statement is a straw man. It is not an accurate representation of the NAP or libertarian thought.
Well, besides what Gotlucky is discussing with me, I'd like to know how exactly LTV is meant as an objective theory of value. The way Marx is using "objective" isn't the same as your use. The "objective value" in LTV is simply the physical characteristics of the product- the nutrient count of a potato, the speed of a car. Subjective value depends on how these physical characteristics are actually judged useful.
You're right, I overgeneralized. Libertarians really are willing to trade some property protection for saving a person's life. At least the reasonable ones are.
It has nothing to do with trading property protection. Libertarians believe that people have property in themselves. That's why Rothbard talks about the bubblegum thief. Just because the bubblegum thief has stolen from the shop owner does not mean that the shop owner can now execute the bubblegum thief. The shop owner would have violated the rights of the bubblegum thief more than the bubblegum thief would have violated the rights of the shop owner.
The "objective value" in LTV is simply the physical characteristics of the product- the nutrient count of a potato, the speed of a car. Subjective value depends on how these physical characteristics are actually judged useful.
lol, still don't know if I am reading you correctly but I'll try to answer anyway*:
A preface, there are a lot of debates among Marxists as to "what Marx really meant", so there is only so much I can even allow myself to think or engage. Marx's becomes nearly impossible to seperate from alienation and exploitation, which are discredited concepts. The more these theories started to fail in mainstream econ (the 50's and 60's) the more economists started shifting towards "market failure" (or more recent "agent failure") models.
Also, to use the Bohm-Bawerkian critique on the Marxian LTV, which many Marxists agreed with (such as the emminate leading Marxist theorist Roudolf Hilferding): Das Kapital's 3rd volume on his theory of value contradict his first.
* I think what happened is I misread you to begin with, so now if you have a simple question, it doesn't matter as my entire brain is in a state of shock and recalibration
Well, that's a whole nother tangent. But alright, you don't like Marx.
And this comparison acknowledges that these rights conflict, and your opinion about the thief's rights overrides the shop owner's right to fully defend his property. Which is a necessary exception to property defense in order to prevent libertopia from descending into stupidity.
But alright, you don't like Marx.
Now you're misreading me.
You ar speaking of Marxist LTV and Marxism specifically and I am saying there is no coherent single answer, (as is the same with any school of thought). Furthrmore there seems to be at least a few recognized inconsistancies as to what marx meant by his LTV - both within and without of Marxist circles.
Furthermore you are trying to give me the properties of Marxism and it's relation to LTV - and I am saying so far as I know, it is intrinsically tied to exploitation and alienation as explaining the "physical characteristics" of things. In so much as he finds "alienation", etc a given fact - he is giving objective valuations / psychologisms. Austrian economics is anti psychologism / anti polylogism. This is a hallmark of it's views on subjectivism
I don't think it is too contraversial to think Marxist economic doctrine is widely discredited amongst mainstream sociologists, politicians, and economists - much less Austrians or librtarians.
It seems that you have a confused understanding of what rights are. Wikipedia has a pretty good definition of "rights" in its article:
Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.
In other words, "rights" have to do with who is in the right. Legal rights, just rights, and moral rights are all different categories, though they may overlap depending upon context. So, when we say that the bubblegum thief has violated the rights of the shopkeeper, we are saying that the bubblegum thief is acting in the wrong. The shopkeeper would be acting in the right if he reclaimed the bubblegum, but he needs to do it without violating the rights of the thief. Not all libertarians agree on how much force the shopkeeper is allowed to use. Some claim that the shopkeeper can shoot the bubblegum thief if he is running away, while others claim that the shopkeeper can only use lethal force when the bubblegum thief has escalated the situation to that level of violence.
Rothbard, and most libertarians for that matter, do not believe that it is just for the shopkeeper to shoot the bubblegum thief, unless the thief has escalated the conflict to deadly force. In other words, if the shopkeeper shoots the bubblegum thief, he is now acting in the wrong.
The shopkeeper would be in the right to defend his bubblegum from being stolen, but just because he would be in the right regarding the bubblegum does not mean he would be in the right for executing the bubblegum thief. It is not correct to say that their rights conflict, as that implies that the only way for the shopkeeper to maintain his rights over the bubblegum would be to violate the rights of the bubblegum thief. But this is not true. The shopkeeper can confront the thief about the stolen bubblegum. If the thief refuses to return the bubblegum, the shopkeeper can take it back by force, but he cannot use just any amount of force. Anyway, this is getting away from the main issue of rights.
To say that the shopkeeper has a right to fully defend his property is to miss the point entirely. According to Rothbard, the shopkeeper would be in the wrong to fully defend his property with lethal force if the situation hasn't called for it. So the shopkeeper cannot be said to have the right to "fully defend" his property in the situation of the bubblegum thief. According to Rothbard, the shopkeeper has the right to reclaim his property, by force if necessary, but he can only use the amount necessary to reclaim his property from the thief - he can't just use whatever amount of force he desires.
And most libertarian anarchists happen to agree with Rothbard on this issue. Not all do, but you won't find too many libertarians here who think it is necessarily just to escalate to deadly force in the defense of property. Most libertarians recognize that these issues are complex.
There's a few rather unique situations where one could reasonably use deadly force to maintain property, almost all dealing with cases where if you don't have the thing about to be stolen, your own imminent death is likely. I suppose if you were scuba diving, deep, and someone stole the regulator out of your mouth :P Or if you're in a survival situaiton and someone steals your insulin supply.
gotlucky: According to Rothbard, the shopkeeper would be in the wrong to fully defend his property with lethal force if the situation hasn't called for it.
According to Rothbard, the shopkeeper would be in the wrong to fully defend his property with lethal force if the situation hasn't called for it.
Sounds like those situations call for it.
It is not correct to say that their rights conflict, as that implies that the only way for the shopkeeper to maintain his rights over the bubblegum would be to violate the rights of the bubblegum thief. But this is not true.
But shooting the thief could permanently and easily solve the problem. The shopkeeper is sacrificing some of his own ability to defend his property to preserve the thief's life. In that sense, there's a conflict of rights.
No, he can't use whatever amount of force he desires. At least I hope he can't. In determining what the situation calls for, you've valued human life over the shopowner's property. This is the same ranking of values that can be used to justify taxation. You're just selectively applying your values to accord with libertarianism and haven't realized it yet.
Torsten:I guess you mean somebody just trespassing over the unfenced lawn. Not somebody trespassing into your bedroom at night. Given the murder crime scenes I've seen here in South Africa, I actually don't think shooting a "trespasser" isn't that unjustified. But I guess you had a more peaceful situation in mind.
Right. I guess I could've specified more, but I figured I'd wait to see what kind(s) of response I got.
Torsten:However I don't think that killing a trespasser is murder, it can be manslaughter, but murder would have to be planned to kill that specific person.
Here you're using a different definition of "murder" than the one I used in that post, which was "unlawful/unjustified killing". With that definition, there's no distinction between the typical modern-day statist definitions for "murder" and "manslaughter".
Torsten:That would manifest itself as a civil claim for the damages or incured labor.
It could also manifest itself as the miner either restoring his neighbor's property himself or hiring someone to do so. I guess that would qualify as injunctive relief.
Torsten:On a general note I agree. There are also other reasons why property can not be absolute and is actually relative to several condition. There is for instance modalities that can be in place. The property you may have in your home, differs from the property you may have in a field you use as grazing ground for your cattle. I would also say that property in an area land is different from property in a personal item.
Can you elaborate on this, please? I'm not quite sure what you mean.
The bolded and underlined is correct. But it is not a conflict of rights. It is only a conflict of rights if the shopkeeper cannot protect his property without violating the rights of the thief. But this is not the case. The shopkeeper can defend his property without violating the rights of the thief. So there is no conflict of rights.
The values of taxation are entirely different from the values of libertarianism. Taxation calls for aggression, which by definition cannot be reconciled with libertarianism. The only relevant value to justifying taxation is whether one believes that the use of aggression can be justified. It has nothing to do with valuing life over property or vice versa. Seeing as I do not believe aggression is ever justified, then I do not believe taxation can ever be justified. Nice try.
mustang1912:This is the same ranking of values that can be used to justify taxation.
Certainly there are ways for one to justify taxation - and anything else. However, that doesn't mean anyone else has to accept those justifications.
Mustang said "But shooting the thief could permanently and easily solve the problem."
Yes, do it. Why am I concerned about the rights of a theif? Defense of their "rights" seems to me like defense of aggression.
ACFT, did the thief deprive his victim of all of his rights? If not, then why does the thief nevertheless deserve to be deprived of all of his rights in response (by killing him)?
It is only a conflict of rights if the shopkeeper cannot protect his property without violating the rights of the thief.
Not necessarily. Violent self-defense might be the most reliable, or even the only effective, option for ensuring the thief gets caught.
The values of taxation are entirely different from the values of libertarianism.
Not entirely- you've arbitrarily valued the thief's life over the shopkeeper's property, for one thing. Which one thing the "values of taxation", whatever that means, can accord with.
Sure. But violent self-defense is not the same as violating the thief's rights. Maybe you will find this helpful/interesting:
PUNISHMENT AND PROPORTIONALITY: THE ESTOPPEL APPROACH by Stephen Kinsella
No, I have not arbitrarily valued the thief's life over the shopkeeper's property. My beliefs stem from the golden rule/NAP. How I view the situation has to do with the NAP. Perhaps the case could be made that I arbitrarily value the golden rule/NAP, but this is not the same as saying I arbitrarily value the thief's life over the shopkeeper's property.
Apparently got banned for a third time, so another alt.
I'm not going to split hairs here. Certainly hitting someone with a big enough stick blurs the distinction between violence and attempting to kill them.
Perhaps the case could be made that I arbitrarily value the golden rule/NAP, but this is not the same as saying I arbitrarily value the thief's life over the shopkeeper's property.
Okay, if we go with that semantics, in order to decide what a proportionate response is you have to make value judgements. One of them is that a person's life is more highly valued than property. Or at least some property. That allows you to say murder is a disproportionate response to theft.
Well, isn't that the question? What exactly are someone's rights regarding the defense of their property? Violence per se does not violate anyone's rights. Call it splitting hairs if you want, but that doesn't change anything. Anyway, the typical libertarian viewpoint is that coercive self-defense must be limited by the principle of proportionality. Anything that violates this principle would then constitute aggression itself, and therefore the original victim is now behaving criminally.
I don't recall making a judgement that any particular person's life is necessarily more highly valued than property. Property rights are created and assigned through the process of law. The only reason anyone goes to court is because they prefer it over the other possibilites. Yes, this is the case even today in a statutory system. Most people who are arrested don't have shoot outs to the death with the police. They prefer to take their chances in court or go to prison and serve their time to the alternative of fighting it out. Anyway, the system of law is how property rights (which are the only way rights are defined) are assigned. As I said, the reason people take part in the process of law is because they prefer it to the alternative. The alternative to partaking in the process of law is to not be a part of the process of law, and this is known as outlawry.
So you can see here, that pretty much anybody who partakes in the process of law makes the value judgement that life is the most important right (or certainly that their own life is the most important right to them). After all, this is why people take part in the system of law. They value resolving disputes and conflicts that would otherwise turn to violence, and this violence could very well end their life.
I will repeat, anybody who partakes in a system of law necessarily values their own life more than any other property. This is not at all similar to values regarding taxation.
With some mod constantly banning me, this'll probably be my last post for a while. Taxation doesn't require anyone to value someone else's property over one's own life by any means. What do you think of the Heinz Dilemma (should I steal medicine if I need it to save my life)? Is any life-preserving person in this situation unable to "partake in a system of law?" Never mind. Don't answer that. Just think about it.
@mustang
Let's compare the two cases (bubblegum thief and taxation). For the sake of my point, I will consider the bubblegum thief a bread thief.
Bread Thief:
1- The shopkeeper own the bread, it is his rightful property
2- The thief stole the bread, the shopkeeper now had his property violated
3- The shopkeeper is in his right, as gotlucky explained, to use proportional force to retrieve his property.
Taxation:
1- Each person have some property, some have more, some have less.
2- The state (or thief, if you will) stole some of their property; their property now was violated
3- The state has the power to create laws and enforce them, so anyone who tries to retrieve his property with proportional force will be shot down, and they will call it a day.
As you can see, in both cases property was stolen. I would argue that the second scenario is much worse, because people aren't even aLAWed (damn, that was bad...) to try and retrieve their property. Sure, the bread thief may be trying to feed a starving kid, and the state is trying to feed lots of starving kids (very ineffectively). That doesn't change the fact that both thieves are in their wrong, as gotlucky explained, according to libertarian law. In fact, according to any law today. Well, except that the state arbitrarily retains ultimate thieving power. Why only the state have the right to play Robin Hood? Why can't I break into Obama's house, steal his property and give it too the poor? Talking about arbitrariety...
I, too, am worried about people's lives and starving people, lets just not go ahead and say that the only way to feed the poor is tru taxation. Today, my friend impressed me, he simply bought a $4 dollar (8 brazilian reais) sweetroll to a homeless guy that was hungry. He let the guy choose... Imagine if the state didn't steal our property.
Taxation doesn't require anyone to value someone else's property over one's own life by any means.
I don't recall stating otherwise. Taxation requires valuing aggression as a means to an end. That I do recall saying. Many times.
What do you think of theHeinz Dilemma (should I steal medicine if I need it to save my life)? Is any life-preserving person in this situation unable to "partake in a system of law?"
You seem to not understand what outlawry is, so this leads me to assume that you didn't bother reading the link. Outlaws are by definition criminal, but not all criminals are outlaws. Just because someone has stolen medicine does not make them "unable to partake in a system of law". The only way for this person to be an outlaw would be for him to steal the medicine and then evade the court system once caught. That or have the court system declare him an outlaw.
Furthermore, this kind of dilemma is outside the scope of libertarianism. As Walter Block has pointed out before, the NAP is a matter of law, not morality. All I can say is that if the man steals the medicine, he owes the pharmacist the value of the medicine. This would make him in debt to the pharmacist until the debt is paid off.
Never mind. Don't answer that. Just think about it.
You should probably follow your own advice. You have a pattern of not reading or even attempting to understand the literature that we provide for you. It would probably be for the best if you took the time to "just think about it".
@Michel
Well put, and that Bob Murphy article was great. Concise.
I see that, I and I know that you think Food Stamps and subsidized school lunches starve children. I disagree, but if you want to read up on these programs effects on fighting child hunger (or Fome Zero and Bolsa Familias in Brazil) that's up to you.
My point is that these proportionate repayment legal systems we're discussing place life as too important to take as a punishment for theft. Life (or whatever other term you want to use for it) is more important than property in this particular instance.
No, I don't think that's necessary if you're saying what I think you are. You're able to consider that the Heinz dilemma "theft" can be legally wrong but morally right. Indeed, individuals can keep stealing and returning property back and forth with no net consequence. I understand your position a bit better now. Still strange to me, but it works.
The theft is certainly morally wrong. But that doesn't mean that the husband is going to care at the time. What I'm saying is that if the husband steals the medicine, he owes the pharmacist the value of the medicine at the very least. Don't forget damages to the store from breaking and entering. And then what happens if the pharmacist is present at the time of the theft? Well, the husband now has to threaten and maybe assault the pharmacist in order to steal the medicine. None of these actions are moral actions.
But, which situation would the husband prefer? A dead wife but he acted morally, or a living wife but he is now indebted to the pharmicist for his various crimes?
The key to this unfortunate situation is to realize that the husband is liable for his actions should he resort to aggression. To go ahead and say that he is not liable for his crimes because of his sick wife is a terrible answer.
Regarding the idea of "no net consequence", this is simply not true. At the very least, criminals are liable for the damage they did. See Punishment and Proportionality by Rothbard for more. I can't say that I agree with everything that Rothbard says, but I know that I certainly agree with principle of the matter, and I know I agree with most of it.
That distinction between "murder" and "manslaughter" definetly preceeds the modern state in fact it is old beyond measure for certain culture. The Germanic wergeld could pay you out of a man slaughter, it wouldn't help you with murder. To qualify as murder the deed had to be dishonorable i.e. by hiding the fact of killing someone: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html
Even so, 1) the typical modern-day (Western) state makes that same distinction, and 2) it's not the same as the definition for "murder" that I explicitly used in my post. Surely you can see that.
The theft is certainly morally wrong.
Alright. So I think I've established some of your positions here.
1. Killing a thief for stealing property, even possibly a great amount of property up to the point where you deem execution proportionate to the theft, is wrong.
2. The husband with an ill wife is also wrong if he steals to save her life.
So we have the thief alive, and the innocent wife dead.
blablanine: I see that, I and I know that you think Food Stamps and subsidized school lunches starve children. I disagree, but if you want to read up on these programs effects on fighting child hunger (or Fome Zero and Bolsa Familias in Brazil) that's up to you. My point is that these proportionate repayment legal systems we're discussing place life as too important to take as a punishment for theft. Life (or whatever other term you want to use for it) is more important than property in this particular instance. You should probably follow your own advice. You have a pattern of not reading or even attempting to understand the literature that we provide for you. It would probably be for the best if you took the time to "just think about it". No, I don't think that's necessary if you're saying what I think you are. You're able to consider that the Heinz dilemma "theft" can be legally wrong but morally right. Indeed, individuals can keep stealing and returning property back and forth with no net consequence. I understand your position a bit better now. Still strange to me, but it works. You know, Fome Zero and Bolsa Familia look a lot more vote-buy programs than anything else. You can say whatever you want, like "they give a little money to people, but it's better than nothing, and it keeps them from dying", but it is very easy to be president and create this program, since you pay for them with tax money, and if tax money is not enough, the central bank prints the difference (that's pretty much it). There is a lot of truth in the saying "don't give the man a fish, teach him how to fish instead". There are parents in Brazil that openly say in public schools, when the teacher tell them that their kids don't know how to read (in 4th grade), "well, they don't have to know how to read, they just have to be in school for me to receive a minimum wage from the government" (I know that because I know a teacher who went throught that; anedoctal, still...). Is that how you think things should be handled? In which stone is written that the only way to help poor people is throught taxation? There are PLENTY of articles in this site describing how the private iniciative handled welfare before the government put its hands on it. If you want good answers, ask the right questions. | Post Points: 20
In which stone is written that the only way to help poor people is throught taxation? There are PLENTY of articles in this site describing how the private iniciative handled welfare before the government put its hands on it.
blablanine: Alright. So I think I've established some of your positions here. 1. Killing a thief for stealing property, even possibly a great amount of property up to the point where you deem execution proportionate to the theft, is wrong. 2. The husband with an ill wife is also wrong if he steals to save her life. So we have the thief alive, and the innocent wife dead.
Law care not about consequences, people do. There is no way to know every possible consequence of an action. What if taxation kills people, for it stops them from buying food that otherwise they could if it weren't more expensive? What if the man in this case could buy the medicine if it weren't taxed?
Was poverty and hunger lower under these initiatives? Not saying that private charity is bad, far from it, but I don't think it's always enough.
I don't have statistics of hunger of that time, but, according to this article on mutual-aid (a kind of private welfare), "By the 1920s, at least one out of every three males was a member of a mutual-aid society.[in the US]".
I assume that by "enough" in mean ZERO hunger and ZERO poverty. Does the state acomplish that?
Regarding the Heinz Dilemma:
Stealing the medicine would certainly be morally wrong, as that is a gross property violation.
But people find it difficult to blame such a person whom steals something just to live, as life is among the highest of values generally. But it's still morally wrong to steal. Stealing bread or water when dying of hunger or thirst is still an act of aggression under the NAP.
If everyone simply stole every new medicine that came out, there would be greatly reduced or zero incentive to create new medicines and we'd all suffere thereby.
Keynes did not need the facts to change at all when he simply ignored the commonly know ideas spelled out in the "Broken Window Fallacy", Say's Law and in the description of the "Socialist Calculation Problem".
Auto said :
"ACFT, did the thief deprive his victim of all of his rights? If not, then why does the thief nevertheless deserve to be deprived of all of his rights in response (by killing him)?"
Because he initiated aggression. For the sake of looking at the principle of aggression, and whether or not one should tolerate it, let us assume the other two big crimes are taking place.
I would say that the big three crimes are theft, murder and rape. In my experience, these are usually agreed upon as being "real" crimes.
In a rape situation, does it matter if a rapist fully penetrates the victim or only sticks the tip in? At what point, while the victim is pinned, are they allowed to pull a derringer and shoot? Does a rape victim have to wait until their clothes are pulled off to stop an act of aggression? Do they have to wait for the assailant to disrobe?
Assault and murder
In the case of assault, and murder how many times does someone have to be shot to count as a situation where they can shoot the aggressor? Or what if they have a knife instead of a gun? Can I shoot someone with a knife who has tried to stab me outside of his range?